Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) (2 Viewers)

[Paul_Scott]

most of the books were adapted in name only.
they could pretty much go back to the source material and star doing straight adaptations now and just slap it with an new title.


yeah. God Forbid they make an action/thriller that adults might actually go ape-s#it over, and want to see multiple times.

oh well.
i'm cautiously optimistic about the Bourne sequel.
i enjoyed BI more than the last 4 Bonds put together.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

As did I. I thought it was a great film.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Paul_Scott]

groan

 

[James T]

Clive Owens was Pierce's choice as his replacement, but Clvie doesn't want to do it becaues the character is too boring for him. I think he's thinking of doing something similar to Bond, but with more of an edge.

 

[Ray H]

He had a British accent in Empire of the Sun!

Clive Owen might be good, but he doesn't really strike me as Bond. He seems to be a more serious kind of persona as opposed to suave with a sense of humor.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

Too bad, that's exactly what the Bond series needs.

 

[Andy Sheets]

What's crazy to me is that I assumed they already had that younger audience, especially since they're always crowing about how the movies are making more now than they ever have. Goldeneye really did a lot to bring Bond to a lot of people who had never paid much attention to the series. Hell, some of the younger ones had never even heard of James Bond. I remember my nephew being so surprised when I told him that there was this entire series of movies starring the character, and that Bond didn't actually begin in a Nintendo 64 game

 

[ThomasC]

Yeah, I didn't really know much about James Bond until GoldenEye, but I did watch the James Bond Jr. TV show sometimes when it ran from 1991-92.

 

[Grant H]

"Pierce felt Roger Moore did one too many Bond movies"

I feel Pierce has done four too many Bond movies.

Sorry; he never was Bond to me, but he was much better in DAD. If that had been his first attempt maybe I'd have had high hopes for future films. PB may not be that old, but he looked too old in the first one. Just didn't hold up. He's never been phsysical enough. He looks like he'd break if you hit him once. So puny. He may be fairly tall, but he's physiqueless. I never found him believable for action, nor as a womanizer. He should have been dead in Goldeneye when Fammke had her legs wrapped around him.

Jackman is a good choice. For years I've also suggested:

Cary Elwes as a more Moore-ish Bond.

Adrian Paul as a more Connery-ish Bond.

I like Ewan McGregor a lot, but I don't think he's quite 6 feet tall even. Sorry. Same with Colin Farrel. He's a bit of a shrimp. Bond is supposed to be 6'2" I think. (and in the neighborhood of 42 y.o.)

My other more off-the-wall suggestion is Dolph Lundgren. He's a bit bigger, but I really think he could do it, fake accent and all. Has the right sense of humor. Too bad he's retired.

I like Christian Bale too, but he'd have to lighten up a little for Bond.

 

[James Phillips]

Well, it looks like it's time to say "Goodbye, Meester Bond!"

 

[TheBat]

what if the audience rejects the new james bond?

JACOB

 

[Justin Bauer]

I enjoyed Brosnan as Bond. I thought he was right up there with Connery and Moore. I really enjoyed Goldeneye and it is a shame that his first movie as Bond was the best, it went down hill from there.

I remember leaving the theater after Die Another Day in complete silence...I really thought they were going to turn things around...I was soo disappointed...especially after the first 10 mins were very promising. I was baffled that the sold out audience LOVED the movie and cheered like wildmen at the end of it. I felt sorry for the kid sitting next to me, he was about 10, it was his first Bond and his dad was telling him all about Bond trying to get him to like it. I wanted to tell his dad to take him home and get the Connery and Moore DVDs to start him off with something good.

My choice would be Hugh Jackman, he is the only one who I think could fill the shoes very well.

 

[ZacharyTait]

I'm in the camp that thinks Clive Owen is the one and only choice to replace Pierce as Bond, James Bond.

After seeing him in Croupier and the BMW series, there is no alternative.

I know Clive is against doing Bond because he thinks that the character is boring, but I bet if they wrote a Bond movie that was darker and edgier, he would do it.

Chuck, when did you change your sig and why? Just curious. I was so used to seeing your Matrix one, I was surprised to see it changed to the LOTR one.

 

[Craig: Mclaren]

Pierce Brosnan deserves one more Bond film. Goldeneye was a fantastic debut but the other three haven't been in the same ballpark (though still very entertaining.)

There is no evidence to suggest Bond doesn't appeal to younger audiences. I'm only 21 myself and have all 20 films on DVD. I grew up with Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton as Bond but in 1995 I too thought "Wow, Pierce Brosnan is cool as Bond". I worked in a cinema during the release of "Die Another Day" and 60% of the audience for most shows were between the ages of 12-25. How much younger do the producers want? Brosnan should do one more film and then they should look at Christian Bale or Clive Owen. Keep the character british. Thats what Cubby Broccoli always wanted. Hugh Jackman is NOT James Bond. Orlando Bloom is a joke. Jude Law is overrated. Colin Farrell is great but hes not James Bond. As for Ewan McGregor... Don't make me laugh, hes ginger!

PS- The character of James Bond is supposed to be Scottish not English. His dad was scottish and his mother swedish. Thats another one the limeys have stole off us!

 

[Kevin Grey]

This is why I'm so shocked that its the producers doing this. Even if the next film doesn't outgross DaD, it's a surefire hit with Brosnan there. Replacing him is risking another Dalton (I think he was a good Bond but he was box office poison). Why not wait until Brosnan actually requests to leave the series?

As for making it darker and edgier, as much as I would like to see that I don't think that's where the producers want to go. They are looking to make more money than the previous entries. A darker film with more emphasis on the character and less on outrageous stunts is likely to please critics and fans but limit its mass appeal. Still a decent hit, to be sure, but doubtful such a film will outgross DaD's $160 million.

 

[Craig: Mclaren]

Timothy Dalton box office poison eh? You actually check the worldwide grosses for "The living Daylights"? One of the best takes of all the films. Licence to Kill was opened at the wrong time. Nothing to do with Dalton.

 

[Kevin Grey]

I'm not sure about the worldwide gross, but the domestic for Living Daylights was only $50 million. Considering the gross for the previous, and one of the worst, Bond film, A View to a Kill, was also $50 million that's not too impressive considering Living Daylights garnered a lot of initial interest for having a new Bond.

I tend to agree that License to Kill opened at the wrong time. The summer of '89 was packed with high profile movies. Still, the current Bond movies open during the lucrative Christmas season and don't have to dodge the other competition. For better or worse, with Goldenye, the Broccolis did a good job at reigniting public interest in a series that had grown stale to many.

Remember I'm not talking quality of the movies. I enjoyed both Dalton films and think License to Kill is the closest to the darker, edgier Bond that so many seem to want. This discussion is from the perspective of the producers deciding they can bring in more money by casting a different Bond than Brosnan, not necessarily improving the quality of the films. Unfortunately I think they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Craig: Mclaren]

The US box office takes for Bond films have always been up and down though since Dr No in 1962. Worldwide however they always do very well. The Living Daylights broke house records in many parts of the world and took over $191 million dollars in 1987. It is also a big seller on home video and DVD and is one of the more popular films when it is shown here on UK TV. Clearly a big success in everyway. Licence To Kill took $156 million worldwide in 1989. Had it been opened with a better advertising campaign in the US it would most likely have taken a lot more. The critics liked it and it has since became a very popular film among DVD and TV audiences. Timothy Dalton was a big success as James Bond. The public liked him, the producers liked him and the critics liked him. The legal problem that stopped a Bond film being made for 5 years was one of the biggest upsets in the series history. Dalton was ready to take Bond into the 1990's and Cubby was very happy to let him continue. It would have been great had Dalton made a Bond film in 1991 and 1993 and then Brosnan take over. Its a damn shame the series was put on hold because of the legal troubles. Who knows how good further Dalton Bond flicks could have been? Oh well...

PS- Yes I am a Timothy Dalton fan!

 

[Malcolm R]

Me too. He was the best portrayal of Bond by far. His are the only Bond films I've bothered to purchase on DVD. It's a shame he was never allowed to make more films.

 

[JonZ]

"He's never been phsysical enough. He looks like he'd break if you hit him once. So puny. He may be fairly tall, but he's physiqueless."

Connery,Moore and Dalton - none were physically imposing.I always saw Moore as the most physically pathetic.

"I never found him believable for action, nor as a womanizer"

Im sure any woman would say Brosnan is great looking and women would probally throw themselves at him.