Brosnan sacked for new 007

[AlecWest]

Everyone who thought Brosnan would do one more Bond film will be disappointed:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-10/12/content_484287.htm

...also here...

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-10-12-new-bond_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA

Oh, well.

[bazooka]

The 007 movies have gotten more cheesy over time. They should have stopped years ago. They jumped the shark with the invisible car.

[doppletwo]

The 007 movies have gotten more cheesy over time. They should have stopped years ago. They jumped the shark with the invisible car.

Isn't that like saying that water has been getting wetter?

[SquirrelDip]

The 007 movies have gotten more cheesy over time. They should have stopped years ago. They jumped the shark with the invisible car.

Isn't that like saying that water has been getting wetter?

Good point...

I think it's just that you've gotten older and are noticing how cheesy they are.

[AlecWest]

I think it's just that you've gotten older and are noticing how cheesy they are.

In part, I think that the world's just gotten older. The Bond films released during the Cold War between the US/Soviets have a different "edge" than the post-Cold War films. In an effort to widen the audience, the films have toned down Bond's out-and-out playboy image. And in the new film, they're going one step further toward political correctness. The film producers said, in one breath, that they were going to try to bring Bond back to his "roots" (ie., as Ian Fleming wrote him) ... and in the next breath said that Bond, a 2-1/2 pack-a-day smoker in the Fleming novels, would not smoke in future films.

Here's Sony's official press-release page:

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/pr/2005-10-14.html

But, I hear what you're saying about "cheesy." This might not just be Craig's first Bond film, it might also be his last. Then again, it's all about money. As long as there's a loyal following willing to pay out the money, Hollywood will crank out film after film in any series ... cheesy or not.

[yoda313]

A little aside here but whats this about Sony??? Did they buy MGM a few years ago or something???

[lordsmurf]

Brosnan sucked.

I would have preferred Clive Owen.
He was excellent as "The Driver" from BMW Films.
He was also in Sin City.

He's got a character to him that I think would be great for the Bond stories. Rather than shape him into Bond, shape Bond into him. Like they used to do in movies in the old days. Back when actors were allowed to breathe life in the characters as they saw fit.


edited for spelling

[adam]

A little aside here but whats this about Sony??? Did they buy MGM a few years ago or something???

Not a few years ago, this year. Sony and Comcast bought MGM Studio's for just under $5 billion in early April.

As for Bond...at this point I'd rather see another Austin Powers movie instead. The premise is so wide open (spy saves day) that there's no reason they couldn't make a good movie but the last half dozen or so just haven't done anything for me. Looking at Brosnan, he looks and sounds exactly like Bond should...he seems perfect but he just doesn't work for some reason. I guess he's just not a very good actor.

[NiteLite]

Brosnan worked as far as box office with the highest box office takes.
He was the best for the modern films. If Sony let him go due to age and his 20 million salary they were the biggest fool. Watch Casino Royal tank. The new guy will be another Timothy Dalton. Who you may say? Exactly.
Clive Owen would have been a good selection but the people that be didnt like his looks.
Anyway the Bond franchise is over...

Bronsan worked and there's something about "if it aint broke..."

NL

[Cole]

Brosnan worked as far as box office with the highest box office takes.
He was the best for the modern films. If Sony let him go due to age and his 20 million salary they were the biggest fool. Watch Casino Royal tank. The new guy will be another Timothy Dalton. Who you may say? Exactly.
Clive Owen would have been a good selection but the people that be didnt like his looks.

There is nothing like writing something off before its even made let alone before you have even seen it :P Surely, opinions can only be formed once the performance has been seen.

Selecting a new James Bond is exactly like the selection of a new Doctor Who: if one doesn't like the actor who gets the part "it's going to be sh*t!"

Daniel Craig is fairly well known in the UK as a rather good character actor (and there aren't many of those these days); something Brosnan never was. Having said that, I liked Brosnan and was disappointed when he was sacked.

But Daniel Craig's interpretation is not obvious: I don't know what he is going to be like, which I find quite refreshing. I have read other forums where people who don't usually watch Bond movies are going to go to the next one because they have a great respect for Daniel Craig's work.

Clive Owen, on the other hand, usually plays parts fairly similar to the Bond characteristics: "The Chancer", "Sharman"... but he probably looks like the excepted image of James Bond more.

I too would have also liked to see Clive Owen in the part, but am also comfortable with Daniel Craig and quite looking forward to his version.

Anyway the Bond franchise is over...

Many, many people said that after "Die Another Day" came out.

At least give Craig the benefit of the doubt; you most probably will be disappointed (as may I) as you expect to be, but you may be quite surprised.

The 007 movies have gotten more cheesy over time.

"Moonraker" was the most cheesy of the lot and that was twenty six years ago!

[yoda313]

Not a few years ago, this year. Sony and Comcast bought MGM Studio's for just under $5 billion in early April.

Ah thanks adam. Yeah too many corporate merges to pay attention to them all

I think that might be the biggest problem for hollywood. If you get the execs out of the movie making business and into the people who actually WATCH the movies we'll have a better product out there. It's time for hollywood to be BROKEN UP and put back into their smaller companies and bring out real competiton. When you only have a handful of corporate giants cranking out movies they don't have to think very hard. But if your a fraction of their size you have to make every movie count.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I've never heard of this Craig fellow before but I will spend $4 to rent it,I've seen every Bond film and I enjoy(most of) them.
I also enjoy the Bourne films but since Robert Ludlum passed away in 2001 I doubt there will be more.

[lordsmurf]

is exactly like the selection of a new Doctor Who: if one doesn't like the actor who gets the part "it's going to be sh*t!"

Funny you mention that. I was honestly thinking the same thing.

Doctor Who was the most stale and boring crap show I had ever seen. It was one of many British shows that was dry (not dry humor, just dry) and had no life. Watching an episode was a chore. The overall plot was great, but the execution from episode to episode just killed it for me.

But the new 2005 series I very much liked. It had a life to it thanks to the main actor and actresses (Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper). It's sad that they were so short-lived. I doubt the energy of the first season can be repeated with a new cast. They should have gone at least 2-3 years before fearing "typecast", which is bullcrap anyway (a good actor/actress never has to worry about this, only the shoddy ones).

[ZAPPER]

Eehh, big deal. Bond has always kind of been about the hype and the hoax. It is like if you want to be entertained then let yourself be entertained.

It ain't like I could make a better picture, but I do agree that the spy saves the day storyline has gotten old, we know what is going to happen in the end. The trick now is to make the journey worth watching. If it is going to be an action flick then the makers owe it to make it the best action flick to date (someone will out do it in the future, but that is expected) If it is meant to be an emotional rollercoaster then it needs more chactor background or depth.

Personally I would like to see a deeper Bond with issues, struggleling on a couple of fronts to keep his shit together and fighting the system just to do his job (kind of like real life huh?) (oops maybe that sounds like a Die Hard flick)

At any rate, don't be upset with the makers because you won't let yourself be entertained and on the other hand don't reward them with your money if they make something that can't be entertaining to anyone. Hell, I can't edit my family videos into a decent home movie, can you imagine how hard it is to make a Hollywood block buster?

[yoda313]

How come nobody seems to remember the depature that DAD made with the BOND movies???? In the opening BOND actually gets CAPTURED!!! How many bond movies have that happen????? That took guts to do in a franchise like this one

[AlecWest]

I don't think the next Bond film will "tank" at the box office. The Bond franchise is kind of like the novels written by Stephen King. As soon as King says, "I've got another novel coming out," a line of regulars begins to form in front of bookstores (online & off) to pre-order it. It could be the worst piece of crap King ever wrote ... it just wouldn't matter. The money would already be in the bank before the public knew it was a stinker.

The "feeling" behind the new Bond film is troublesome. They picked a dated Bond novel, an unlikely actor, and are sanitizing the role to be politically correct. This could be a "planned" failure ... not financially for the film, but for the franchise. It could be the Broccoli's (et al) just want to put out "something" to cash in on the popularity of the franchise one last time ... and then, just call it quits.

In the opening BOND actually gets CAPTURED!!! How many bond movies have that happen?????

He was captured by Dr. No, he was captured in Goldfinger, etc. But, in Die Another Day, he didn't escape by means of his own ingenuity ... which made it unique.

[yoda313]

He was captured by Dr. No, he was captured in Goldfinger, etc. But, in Die Another Day, he didn't escape by means of his own ingenuity ... which made it unique.

Yeah well that was the angle I was looking for. He was held for a year AND he was TRULY tortured. In all the other movies he's just held by gorgeous models that make love to him This time he got dunked in ice water and stabbed by scorpions

[pyrate83]

You guys might have already known this if you checked out The Q Lab once in awhile.

[MackemX]

You guys might have already known this if you checked out The Q Lab once in awhile.

Hi mate, long time no see

cool forum by the way, not a member but I often pop by to keep up on the JB gossip 8). I'm only 3 movies into watching my collection I just got recently

[pyrate83]

You guys might have already known this if you checked out The Q Lab once in awhile.

Hi mate, long time no see

cool forum by the way, not a member but I often pop by to keep up on the JB gossip 8). I'm only 3 movies into watching my collection I just got recently

Ahh, very good I'm glad you appreciate it . I still have yet to purchase the collection but I have seen them so many times it's not even funny. :P

[MackemX]

You guys might have already known this if you checked out The Q Lab once in awhile.

Hi mate, long time no see

cool forum by the way, not a member but I often pop by to keep up on the JB gossip 8). I'm only 3 movies into watching my collection I just got recently

Ahh, very good I'm glad you appreciate it . I still have yet to purchase the collection but I have seen them so many times it's not even funny. :P

you haven't got the collection . Have you got any of them?

[Cole]

is exactly like the selection of a new Doctor Who: if one doesn't like the actor who gets the part "it's going to be sh*t!"

Funny you mention that. I was honestly thinking the same thing.

Doctor Who was the most stale and boring crap show I had ever seen. It was one of many British shows that was dry (not dry humor, just dry) and had no life. Watching an episode was a chore. The overall plot was great, but the execution from episode to episode just killed it for me.

But the new 2005 series I very much liked. It had a life to it thanks to the main actor and actresses (Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper). It's sad that they were so short-lived. I doubt the energy of the first season can be repeated with a new cast. They should have gone at least 2-3 years before fearing "typecast", which is bullcrap anyway (a good actor/actress never has to worry about this, only the shoddy ones).

I don't want to hi-jack this away from JB but you are right - from about 1985 onwards, Doctor Who did go very much downhill (and most fans would admit this) which is also recognised why this programme was dropped in 1989. It was at it's best IMHO during the mid-70s, when Doctor Who was quite a gothic, dark and fairly violent affair. Nearly all the horror and violence was pulled out (by order of BBC Management) around 1978, and yes, this is when it did start to get a very dry.

However, the stuff about Christopher Eccleston not wanting to be type-cast was a mis-quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4410943.stm

Writing in a magazine, Russell T Davis (the man responsible at the helm of the new series), said that he hoped that they could keep the fact that CE had said he didn't want to carry on, a secret and surprise the audience with a regeneration scene at the end of the series (alternative endings were even filmed for the last episode apparently). However, the secret was blown by the BBC press office, which made the BBC hurredly announce the departure (hence the apology to CE himself).

It is thought that CE was brought on board originally to give the new series a higher profile, and stay for the one series only, as he isn't usually associated with 'popular' acting (gone in 60 seconds aside), more the high brow stuff, or as he himself put it "comfort food for liberals".

But I disagree about a second series keeping the energy going. With every new Doctor comes a new energy (well, usually!) and David Tennant is the first actor to take the part who is a Doctor Who fan and has come accross as having boundless enthusiasm. The next episode in the UK goes out during the Christmas holidays so there isn't too long to wait, and I think that Tennant is going to be an excellent Doctor. Very much looking forward to that

Now, back to James Bond, someone else who keeps regenerating... :P

Hang on - a James Bond/Doctor Who connection. The Doctor meets James Bond:



("Our Friends in the North" BBC 1996)

[pyrate83]

You guys might have already known this if you checked out The Q Lab once in awhile.

Hi mate, long time no see

cool forum by the way, not a member but I often pop by to keep up on the JB gossip 8). I'm only 3 movies into watching my collection I just got recently

Ahh, very good I'm glad you appreciate it . I still have yet to purchase the collection but I have seen them so many times it's not even funny. :P

you haven't got the collection . Have you got any of them?

Oh yeah I have a handful but I really need the collection b/c it has some of my true favorites in it.

[NiteLite]

Brosnan worked as far as box office with the highest box office takes.
He was the best for the modern films. If Sony let him go due to age and his 20 million salary they were the biggest fool. Watch Casino Royal tank. The new guy will be another Timothy Dalton. Who you may say? Exactly.
Clive Owen would have been a good selection but the people that be didnt like his looks.

There is nothing like writing something off before its even made let alone before you have even seen it :P Surely, opinions can only be formed once the performance has been seen.

Selecting a new James Bond is exactly like the selection of a new Doctor Who: if one doesn't like the actor who gets the part "it's going to be sh*t!"

Daniel Craig is fairly well known in the UK as a rather good character actor (and there aren't many of those these days); something Brosnan never was. Having said that, I liked Brosnan and was disappointed when he was sacked.

But Daniel Craig's interpretation is not obvious: I don't know what he is going to be like, which I find quite refreshing. I have read other forums where people who don't usually watch Bond movies are going to go to the next one because they have a great respect for Daniel Craig's work.

Clive Owen, on the other hand, usually plays parts fairly similar to the Bond characteristics: "The Chancer", "Sharman"... but he probably looks like the excepted image of James Bond more.

I too would have also liked to see Clive Owen in the part, but am also comfortable with Daniel Craig and quite looking forward to his version.

Anyway the Bond franchise is over...

Many, many people said that after "Die Another Day" came out.

At least give Craig the benefit of the doubt; you most probably will be disappointed (as may I) as you expect to be, but you may be quite surprised.

Sorry mate...I was reacting more to losing Pierce than to gaining Craig. I actually enjoyed Craig in Layercake (I think it was I watch so many)...I like the guy but I just didnt think he would quite fit the role after Pierce.. After all Bond has a following due to Pierce's look with women and Craig might not quite be there world wide.
Also the "franchise being over" was a hasty comment. I was thinking of how Tim Dalton almost bankrupted it with terible box office versus costs.
Anyway just wish Craig the best and hopefully he will get a script to fit his personality and continue the series.
NL....(eyes are dilated...excuse errors. Thx)
Still pissed Pierce was dropped.

[Cole]

Please don't think I was having a go at you, NiteLite; I was disapointed when Pierce was sacked too, but I still want Daniel Craig to be good as well.

With any film or television series, I will always try to give it the benefit of the doubt (unless it is something that would have no interest to me at all). If it is good, then I will stay with it; if not, I will walk away.

The same applies to a new James Bond. I always want the new boy to be good and I REALLY want Daniel Craig to be good.

I grew up during Roger Moore's tenure, taken to see Live and Let Die, on a cold and foggy London night (cliche alert) when I was seven (I think). My Dad and I stayed with the releases until The Spy Who Loved Me, but missed out on the cinema releases of Moonraker to Octopussy for some reason. I was tempted back to JB when A View to a Kill came out. I thought it was awful: not for the film as such, but they had let Moore stay on when he was clearly too old.

I did have at the back of my mind, when Die Another Day came out, how long has Pierce got before he reaches that stage? It is all academic now anyway.

P.S. It was Craig in Layercake.

[MackemX]

Daniel Craig might be good and I won't write him off but I just can't visualise him as JB

I remember that Robbie Williams had odds offered for him to be JB ages ago

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/1292242.stm

[Cole]

The stories are that Craig did something very right during his screen test.

[MackemX]

The stories are that Craig did something very right during his screen test.

I heard he was good on the casting couch

[Cole]

Daniel Craig might be good and I won't write him off but I just can't visualise him as JB

[MackemX]

Daniel Craig might be good and I won't write him off but I just can't visualise him as JB