97 replies to this topic

[Robinson]

Bourne Supremecy...goodbye Mr. Bond.

Ah, yes, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY. Every cloud....

I wonder what the budget for SUPREMACY is given the penchant for studio execs to go "bigger, bolder and louder" for most sequels.

Hmmm, John Powell to score BOND 21. That's a couple of million saved right there.

[Loomis]

You need help my friend.

And I'd thought that help would arrive in the not too distant future, in the shape of a JINX film, produced by Broccoli and Wilson, written by Purvis and Wade, directed by Stephen Frears and starring Halle Berry.... but it was not to be.

[DLibrasnow]

A paralysis has set in??? I smell the end of the James Bond movie franchise - particularly now that Dana Broccoli has passed away!

[Moomoo]

According to that interview, Brosnan described the producers as being too scared:

Brosnan
"But they broke out of it too soon into the formulaic, safe side. They're too scared."

I sense a bitter man who knows he's lost out. I suggest he keeps silent from now on. The guy is showing zero respect for the producers and the franchise.

Very sad.

Moomoo

[SeaNNy-T.]

how do you get that from that?

they did switch back to the formula too quick and made it super flashy which does make them seem like they afraid to mess with new grounds.

[Tarl_Cabot]

You need help my friend.

And I'd thought that help would arrive in the not too distant future, in the shape of a JINX film, produced by Broccoli and Wilson, written by Purvis and Wade, directed by Stephen Frears and starring Halle Berry.... but it was not to be.

I predict Catwomen will win a Razzie in 2005 as worst film of 2004.

[Agent 76]

I suggest he keeps silent from now on. The guy is showing zero respect for the producers and the franchise.

I agreed!

[Simon]

Brosnan
"But they broke out of it too soon into the formulaic, safe side. They're too scared."

But he ain't wrong.

[Sensualist]

Moomoo, make that all one post in future. What you've done constitutes as spamming. Dont' do it again.

Sensualist was the first to point out that this pathetic little moo-ing calf's ONLY intention is to get his thread and post count up. And the only was to do it is to make Pierce look greedy and to spread basless, factless rumours.'

Edited by Sensualist, 22 March 2004 - 11:46 PM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Sensualist...no need for such hostility...this is a fun place, not a traffic jam...road rage not neccessary here!

[Sensualist]

Pierce: Well, the dance...we seem to have taken a break at the moment. The producers have reached an impasse, as far as I can tell. They don't know what to do. They don't know how to move on. A sense of paralysis has set in. So, for me it's business as usual. I shall just carry on with creating work for myself. I certainly would love to do a fifth Bond and then bow out, but if this last one is to be the last one, then so be it.

Hey, Sensualist, any comment on this? Doesn't exactly look good, does it? Are you still convinced that you'll be sitting down to BOND 21 in November next year?

If the administrators would allow an indulgence:

The gauntlet was thrown. You refused to bet, Loomis. You refused to put your money where your (and that moo-ing little calf's) mouth is. You can talk ALL you want. But do you have the guts to lay it on the line?

Sensualist will stand by the bet. Want to lose some money?

[Tarl_Cabot]

I expect Bond 21 in November,2005. It may not be any good but it will be here...I'd love to see Pierce get replaced for new blood. maybe that's why the producers aren't sure what to do...maybe they were hoping he would retire as he promised,after 4 films.

[Moomoo]

Has anyone wondered why Sensualist often refers to himself in the third person?

Odd guy.

Sensualist, you are gonna have to eat a fair portion of humble pie when Brosnan is gone. I believe that day will come so keep on that diet!

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 23 March 2004 - 12:02 AM.

[SeanValen00V]

The reason why Pierce (and any actors in the business) would say that 'the latest film is the best yet!' is because they're being paid for it.

Example:

Pierce is at the DAD premiere in London. Someone is interviewing him.

INTERVIEWER: So, Pierce, what do you think of the finished product?

PIERCE: I personally think it's crap, there's not much character realisation, and the director's choice of editor was a very bad no-no.

This would never happen. If it did, the film production companies (MGM and Eon in this case) would kick the actor out of their sight for negative publicity.

Hell, even Gigli, which was critically panned to death with a real frying pan, had Affleck and JLo claiming that it's a good film.

They are not lying. They're using the powers of persuasion.

Take this example:

PIERCE: Die Another Day is probably the best Bond film yet. It's modern, stylish, and brings Bond into the 21st century in style. You haven't seen Bond like this ever.

This is modern PR guff. Mere marketing for a movie has the actors tell the fans (because they listen to STARS, not bearded men who live behind cameras, unless your name ends in 'berg') that they should watch the film, to be that part of the next generation, to be stylish, etc.

And it works.

MGM is telling it's stars that they need to raise the profile of the movie. Why do you think that even if the film is terrible, the stars never say that?

Another example:

STAR: It's an exceptional piece of filmmaking.
MAN: Dreadful. Reminded me of pørn.

Pierce is breaking away from the Hollywood system. He is allowing himself to be interviewed freely about what and how he feels. The studio regulates star's publicity lifestyle (or at least they did in the 1930s and 40s, probably still do it now to a certain extent) to allow for non-negative publicity to leak.

Bad publicity on actor / film = bad box office takings.

By the sound of that interview, Pierce seems unhappy with the Bond franchise. I loved GoldenEye myself, TWINE was good, TND and DAD were letdowns.
I appreciate that he wants a real espionage thriller in the vein of FRWL, but we all want that.

So why won't it be made?

Because that is so slow. My little brother and I used to watch Brosnan's Bond films. We sat there and enjoyed them. Then, one day I put on FRWL. He claimed that it was boring and slow, and that there wasn't enough action.

The next generation of Bond is here: and sadly, I don't see anything good on the horizon.

Also, I believe that MGM have seen this article. If Brosnan was on board for one more Bond, I doubt that he is any more.

MGM wants publicity for Brosnan's films. If Brosnan says they're crap, then who will want to watch them?

Either you have guts, Mr Brosnan, or you didn't want the job anyway...

No matter. It's great to see a film actor actually criticising his work. Don't see that everyday thanks to the PR.

Brosnan for Bond 21!
FRWL-style plot for Bond 21!
No MTV-style stuff for Bond 21!

Soul Edge!

I don't think Bond 21 has to be paced like FRWL, doesn't need to be slow, look at Thomas Crown Affair, just add more character and plot between big action, and you already have a improvement, it would of made TND a classic, because Brosnan was very cool in the scenes like drinking Vodka alone, killing the assassain in cold blood, they were not slow, they held the screen together before the next action stuff came, but it wasn't enough of cource, but they can work on it, and it will cost less then Die Another Day.

[Sensualist]

I think MGM has told Eon they have to make Bond 21 for under 100 mil....

Wow, would that even be possible? I mean, the second Lara Croft flick cost $90 million, according to the IMDb.

Not sure they'd even be able to recreate LICENCE TO KILL, exactly as it was, for under $100 million today.

If MGM is looking to do it for under 100 million, they clearly lack an understanding of inflation and production costs. At this point, I honestly don't think that's possible, not even taking into account actor salaries.

This is just speculation on my part, mind you. I don't know what number MGM has given Eon, but all I'm saying is I think it's MUCH lower than it was for DAD. Maybe it's impossible to make a Bond film for under $100 mil. But GoldenEye was made for under $100 mil. Still...

Sensualist has mentioned several times that, if production does not move out of England, and if the budget (adjusted for inflation) for Bond 21 remained around the same as Die Another Day (100 million Pounds Stirling), then this movie could be as expensive as US$ 190 million because of the decline in the US Dollar vis-a-vis Stirling over the past three years.

$100 million is TOO LOW a number given that Bond 20 cost US$ 142 million.

If anything, MGM/UA and Eon would like to make this movie for under $150 million. In reality, they could get away with $125-135 million by moving production outside England, reducing pyrotechnics, having one less big "set piece", and back-loading Pierce's compensation by having escelators/bonuses beyond a certain world-wide gross (say, north of $400 million.) Either back-loading PB's comp. or hiring Hugh Jackman.

Eon are probably still debating "caper size", locations and "tone". That is HEALTHY.

(Btw, this rumour of Orlando Bloom is baseless. Why?

Because, as Cubby duly noted, audiences (who have certain built-in expectations when they buy a ticket to see a James Bond movie) WANT to see a "seasoned professional" who can defeat the greatest villians. Not a younger, less-experienced amateur just starting out. (This is the reason why he nixed the idea of making a 'young' James Bond movie when Maibaum and Wilson were toying with just such an idea at the end of the Moore era.))

Edited by Sensualist, 23 March 2004 - 12:26 AM.

[Agent 76]

This is the reason why he nixed the idea of making a 'young' James Bond movie when Maibaum and Wilson were toying with just such an idea at the end of the Moore era.))

thank God!

[Sensualist]

Sensualist, you are gonna have to eat a fair portion of humble pie when Brosnan is gone. I believe that day will come so keep on that diet!

Moomoo

That day will most certainly come. It has come for four others before him. Sensualist believes it OUGHT to come. He was starting to look 'too' old in some (SOME, not most) bits and pieces of Die Another Day.

You, little cutlet-to-be, however have not given the "time" of PB's departure.

Even if he DOES depart this year (a possibility but not necessarily so), Bond 21 will still be in theatres on Friday, November 18th, 2005.

Sensualist shall be dining on filet mignon from your mommy's hinde quarters and will be finishing off with creme brule' made from the cream of your little sister's milk on that day because you (as the ridiculous and spaming "AgentBond" before you) will have long vanished out of sheer embarrasment!

Edited by Sensualist, 23 March 2004 - 12:35 AM.

[zencat]

I don't know why everyone is so certain of their positions here. I seems to me things are in flux and can fall either way. I think Pierce said it best: "I don't know what's going to happen. I have no idea." I think you people who seem to know exactly what's going to happen should give Pierce a call -- and maybe Michael and Barbara as well.

[Xenobia]

We now interrupt this post for a rant from Barbara K. Emanuele, proud Scilian American.

There was something Pierce said in this interview that hit me very personally, and it has nothing to do with his criticism of DAD. It's when he mentioned the ethnicity of the Broccoli family and the fact that they own a Franchise and folks in Hollywood don't know what to do about that. I'LL SAY! When was the last time Hollywood, mainstream Hollywood, made a film about a healthy Italian family that did not involve the Mafia? I honestly think those clowns believe that if you are Italian, you are either a member of the mob, married to it, or Casanostra (connected). So what is Hollywood to do when you have a successful Scilian American man, who is not a ganster, not a gumba, but certainly can get the job done? You (you=MGM) presume after 40 years these Gumbas don't know what they are doing, and you start to dictate to them that their Bond has to be Americanized. That they need to appeal to a younger crowd. That their star is old and fat. You put a salary cap on them that you know will make the star walk away. In other words, you break them. Just to prove that little independant firms can only exist when the big studios say so. Just so you can reduce Italians to the level you are comfortable with. I am reacting like this because as an Irish Catholic, Pierce knows what ethnic prejudice is, and how ugly it can get. He wouldn't mention them being Italian, and being in control, unless he suspects that someone is now messing with EoN because Cubby and Dana are gone. The sad thing is, Hollywood can't see that Cubby never lived the ganster life, and never would condone it. Most Italians don't. But then again, when all you know is what Coppola and Scorsace tell you, I can't blame Hollywood for having this perception. -- Barbara

We now return you to your regular discussion.

[Triton]

I would think that if the current "paralysis" is related to Pierce's fee or the film's budget that Eon Productions would actively recruit additional companies to partificipate in product placement and joint marketing.

Heck, why not have commercial messages inside Danny Kleinman's pre-title sequence.

I don't understand why Eon Productions can't get supplementary finance if MGM/UA isn't willing to spend more. Plus, did Eon Productions spend all its profits and are unable to invest their own money in a new Bond picture for some reason?

From what I infer from Pierce's interviews on this subject, I think that MGM/UA and Eon Productions are having creative differences over the elements, tone, story, or target age group of Bond XXI. If Eon Productions had creative freedom, you would presume that they would have an idea of what they wanted for Bond XXI.

I mean really, they can spare no expense hiring creative talent from anywhere in the world.

As for Pierce, I would think that he would be more of a team player at this point. He is pretty much attacking Michael G. Wilson as a creative wimp. However true this may be, why is Pierce intentionally lowering the likelihood of his being re-hired for Bond XXI by bad mouthing Wilson?

I will be interesting to see how all this plays out in the next couple of months.

[brendan007]

I don't know why everyone is so certain of their positions here.

I know everyone would be sick of me beating to death the same point over and over again, but it was the staff members who were first guilty of this, without any proof (again, sorry for bringing that up again).
As for all this fear about Bond 21, I just dont get it. We have a member who usually contributes extremely intellegent posts (Loomis) carrying on like the people who believe those 'Britany as Bond girl, Mariah Carey doing latest theme song' rumours.
It's obvious McGWilson and B Broccoli havent decided which way to go with Bond 21 yet. They could try and top DAD, or they could go the FYEO way. I see nothing to suggest that the end of the series is near, and that they've given up. NO EVIDENCE at all.
Brosnan's interview just shows that they arent keeping him informed of what their thoughts are. Just because their not telling him just yet, doesnt mean they arent making plans etc.

[zencat]

We now interrupt this post for a rant from Barbara K. Emanuele, proud Scilian American.

There was something Pierce said in this interview that hit me very personally, and it has nothing to do with his criticism of DAD. It's when he mentioned the ethnicity of the Broccoli family and the fact that they own a Franchise and folks in Hollywood don't know what to do about that. I'LL SAY! When was the last time Hollywood, mainstream Hollywood, made a film about a healthy Italian family that did not involve the Mafia?  I honestly think those clowns believe that if you are Italian, you are either a member of the mob, married to it, or Casanostra (connected).    So what is Hollywood to do when you have a successful Scilian American man, who is not a ganster, not a gumba, but certainly can get the job done?  You (you=MGM) presume after 40 years these Gumbas don't know what they are doing, and you start to dictate to them that their Bond has to be Americanized.  That they need to appeal to a younger crowd.  That their star is old and fat.  You put a salary cap on them that you know will make the star walk away.  In other words, you break them.  Just to prove that little independant firms can only exist when the big studios say so.  Just so you can reduce Italians to the level you are comfortable with. I am reacting like this because as an Irish Catholic, Pierce knows what ethnic prejudice is, and how ugly it can get.  He wouldn't mention them being Italian, and being in control, unless he suspects that someone is now messing with EoN because Cubby and Dana are gone.  The sad thing is, Hollywood can't see that Cubby never lived the ganster life, and never would condone it.  Most Italians don't.  But then again, when all you know is what Coppola and Scorsace tell you, I can't blame Hollywood for having this perception. -- Barbara

We now return you to your regular discussion.

Moonstruck. MGM.

Back on topic...

[Genrewriter]

I'm not certain of anything right now. We'll just have to stick around, wait and see what happens.

[SnakeEyes]

Lol, I dunno where that racism angle came from. Feeling hard done by are we? Have they oppressed you, your people?

They oppress everyone because they think they can. I don't how they are singling out the Italians...

Speaking of making things person, I see Sensualist has been calling moomoo names again. Someone put his dummy back in and change his nappy will you?

This is a shock to me more than you, but i'm finding Brosnan is saying alot of the things i'm thinking. It's true he comes out with complete bollocks, like the Casino Royale comment, but at least he is feeling the 'crappy' factor of the generic action weed that so-called 'Bond' is becoming.

Whatever happens come '21 i'm sure i'll be a sucker and see it at the cinema anyway.

[James Boldman]

[quote name='Tim007' date='22 March 2004 - 19:15'] [quote name='zencat' date='22 March 2004 - 18:58'] Who would have ever though Licence To Kill would become the model for future Bonds?

[Loomis]

The gauntlet was thrown. You refused to bet, Loomis. You refused to put your money where your (and that moo-ing little calf's) mouth is. You can talk ALL you want. But do you have the guts to lay it on the line?

Sensualist will stand by the bet. Want to lose some money?

No. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't bet. I may state a position without having to put money on the line, may I not? CBn is a place where opinions should be exchanged, not cash. Thank you.

[marktmurphy]

I don't know why everyone is so certain of their positions here. I seems to me things are in flux and can fall either way. I think Pierce said it best: "I don't know what's going to happen. I have no idea." I think you people who seem to know exactly what's going to happen should give Pierce a call -- and maybe Michael and Barbara as well.

Sorry Zencat, but I couldn't let that slide. Go and have at look at the 'Pierce is out forever, never to return' article on the news which you defended and say that again without crossing your fingers behind your back!

I agree with your sentiment voiced above- things are still in flux (that much was clear when CBn broke their 'news') and it's hard to say what's happening.

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. Maybe there won't be any more Bond. I'm not sure I care.

[Loomis]

You know what, folks? Things change. "Dead cert"s and "sure thing"s sometimes don't end up happening, for a multitude of reasons. Look at INDIANA JONES 4, for instance. An INDY flick's about as much of a guaranteed cash cow as anything in Hollywood, and so is a STAR WARS or Bond picture. But while it looked only recently as though INDY 4 was finally ready to go (with a summer 2005 release date announced by Paramount), reports started coming in that George Lucas was unhappy with Frank Darabont's script and that the release had been put back to 2006. Today, it looks very much like INDY 4 has been scrapped altogether, with Spielberg deciding to reunite with Tom Cruise for THE WAR OF THE WORLDS once production of Spielberg's next film, THE TERMINAL, is over. Things change.

[Moomoo]

Rumour has it Mission: Impossible 3 is out in 2005, so that would be in direct competition with Bond 21. MI3 is scheduled for summer and Bond the winter, but even so, that might be another reason to delay Bond till 2006.

Do we want to see two similar sort of action-spy movies out in 2005? I reckon MGM would prefer Bond to be the only one out. As Loomis says, "things change."

Moomoo

[Donovan]

It is a good interview and it demonstrates (to me, anyway) that Brosnan has a no-nonsense realistic view of the situation. What is surprising (read: unprecedented) in the series' history is the climate of "paralysis" on the heals of their most financially successful film. Usually this kind of serious reorganization occurs after a film has done particularly poorly ("Golden Gun" and "Licence To Kill"). Even "Moonraker," which did extremely well financially, was met with very vocal protests from many fans and critics for the slap-stick humor. This was a significant factor for the more serious tone of "For Your Eyes Only."

But for the most part, and I mean with very few exceptions, "Die Another Day" was well-received critically, financially, and in just about every other important area. So why this need to re-tune the series?

Personally, and I am just speculating idly (as Goldfinger would say), I would not be surprised/shocked to read that Eon sells the entire Bond franchise. There are certain little signs that point to this being a real possibility. I would hate to see this happen, as I believe Wilson and Broccoli provide a quality product without caving in to the Hollywood ingredients of a hit (nudity, gore, language). But with the passing of Mrs. Dana Broccoli, they may be taking stock in where they are, and where they want to go. Is there anything left to prove? Are the headaches worth it? Do they need the money? If so, wouldn't the payday be substantially (and immediately) more rewarding with a lock-stock-and-gunbarrel sale? With the DAD worldwide gross alone, Bond's stock is huge. The only established filmmaker in the world I can't see being interested is George Lucas. Everyone else (filmmakers and studios) would be extremely interested. The bidding war would be as impressive as it would be unprecedented. But again, I hope it doesn't happen.

Side note: There was the time Bond was supposedly up for sale in the early 90s. As reported in Variety, aspects of the properties included film rights to the novels, the characters and the rights to remake the existing films. This was going on during the MGM fiasco. Who knows what kind of offers were fielded? Perhaps the sale was a ploy to establish (or fortify) the franchise's perception of worth (which may have been needed as evidence in some of the litigation going on at the time). One big difference is that on the heals of "Licence To Kill" and the lateness of a new film, it is doubtful that Bond was considered as valuable as he would be today.