109 replies to this topic

[kevrichardson]

This should piss off some Connery fans:

What do Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan have in common?

Both of them were replaced by Australians some people in certain circles had never heard of before.

What's wrong with replacing Brosnan now . He had a great run as Bond . Let him leave while he is on top . Remember Roger Moore in AVTAK . Hugh Jackman will make a great Bond.

[Agent 76]

Another Aussie as James Bond?...hummm Good Luck Mate! Surprise us all , and give a nice performance as OO7!

[Moomoo]

HUGH JACKMAN IS BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONDDDDDDDDDDD!

ARGHHHHHHH or HOOORAYYYYYYYYYY??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH MY - THE NEXT FEW MONTHS ARE GOING TO BE INTERESTING!!

OHHHH BOND IS BACK AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Moomoo (just to get you in the mood)

[Dmitri Mishkin]

It seems the voices in your head are becoming louder, Moomoo.

[Qwerty]

HUGH JACKMAN IS BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONDDDDDDDDDDD!

ARGHHHHHHH or HOOORAYYYYYYYYYY??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH MY - THE NEXT FEW MONTHS ARE GOING TO BE INTERESTING!!

OHHHH BOND IS BACK AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Moomoo (just to get you in the mood)

Wow.

You clearly have a fan appeal for Jackman.

[Genrewriter]

Well yeah, but he hides it well.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

I agree with Moomoo.

Jackman is BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNDDDDDDD!

THHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTT'SSSSSSS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(that last part is That's it!)

[Qwerty]

Well yeah, but he hides it well.

No! Could've fooled me, Genrewriter!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Pop...fizz....pour...mmm...mmm this Bollinger is delicious!

[Bon-san]

I'm afraid it's naive to think Brosnan would say the franchise is in paralysis out of genuine concern. It was resentment at being denied his large fee that fuelled his comments. You only have to have a limited understanding of human nature to figure that out.

I have a more-than-limited understanding of Pierce Brosnan, and the motivations you ascribe to him are completely out of line with everything he's ever done or said in his career. Say what one will about his abilities as an actor, the man has a demonstrated history of ethical, moral, classy behavior. And whatever his vices may be, vengeance and greed they are not.

This is why I find your arguments unconvincing. Furthermore, your incessant proclamations are desperate, contrived attempts to portray Brosnan in a most unflattering light. I know not what your motives are in doing so. But the molehill of "evidence" you cite--an array of comments by Brosnan re the current state of production on Bond 21--amounts in reality to the most banal pile of trivial, off-the-cuff statements which are in no way sensational.

I'm not attempting to cheerlead for Brosnan. If another actor is hired to portray 007 in Bond 21, I'll gladly welcome him to the franchise. But I can't sit idly for the character assassination of a man who's done nothing to deserve it.

[daman3755]

Agreed. I admire Brosnan for sticking it out this long. Honestly, he's had the chance for nine years now to come out with guns blazing and decry the direction of the Bond franchise. Now he's got the fortitude to do it and isn't afraid to do so. He wants nothing but the best for the franchise and I stand behind him 100%. It isn't about action pieces (which "Die Another Day" banked on far too often) - it's about plot, character, a SOUL if you will. I'm probably alone on this but I feel like "Goldeneye" was very well done in all aspects - character, plot (though a bit out there), action, romance. And the price tags on the newer flicks, sheesh! "Dawn of the Dead" was made for only $26 million dollars and look how nicer it looked than DAD! (The CGI was awesome and at times barely noticeable - MGM, take note.) Whatever happens, I'll always be a Bond fan and will never denounce the series...

...unless this Young James Bond thing tanks, then I'll decry that.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

I'm afraid it's naive to think Brosnan would say the franchise is in paralysis out of genuine concern. It was resentment at being denied his large fee that fuelled his comments. You only have to have a limited understanding of human nature to figure that out.

I have a more-than-limited understanding of Pierce Brosnan, and the motivations you ascribe to him are completely out of line with everything he's ever done or said in his career. Say what one will about his abilities as an actor, the man has a demonstrated history of ethical, moral, classy behavior. And whatever his vices may be, vengeance and greed they are not.

This is why I find your arguments unconvincing. Furthermore, your incessant proclamations are desperate, contrived attempts to portray Brosnan in a most unflattering light. I know not what your motives are in doing so. But the molehill of "evidence" you cite--an array of comments by Brosnan re the current state of production on Bond 21--amounts in reality to the most banal pile of trivial, off-the-cuff statements which are in no way sensational.

I'm not attempting to cheerlead for Brosnan. If another actor is hired to portray 007 in Bond 21, I'll gladly welcome him to the franchise. But I can't sit idly for the character assassination of a man who's done nothing to deserve it.

Here here, Bon-san. In much agreement. Let's not engage in any more sensationalism, shall we.

[Loomis]

Seems to me that Brosnan fans are simply in a stubborn state of denial. How could Moomoo possibly have orchestrated all the things that happened after he started posting which chime with what he's claimed all along (such as Madsen's remarks that Broz has been replaced by an Aussie)?

Doesn't mean Moomoo's 100% correct, of course, but it does suggest that he's not, as some would have it, simply a troll who's been making everything up.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Seems to me that Brosnan fans are simply in a stubborn state of denial. How could Moomoo possibly have orchestrated all the things that happened after he started posting which chime with what he's claimed all along (such as Madsen's remarks that Broz has been replaced by an Aussie)?

Doesn't mean Moomoo's 100% correct, of course, but it does suggest that he's not, as some would have it, simply a troll who's been making everything up.

With respect to your opinion Loomis, the points "predicted" by Moomoo were not necessarily unpredictable. By that I mean the rumours of Jackman's candidacy for the role existed long before. I would concede that there is a slight coincidence in the MGM marketing director having moved to another job, where the argument seemed to be he was "fired" for "leaking" this information. But that link is tenuous at best. We simply don't know, and generally speaking, the predictions made were not necessarily those of soothsayer variety, simply those banking on good odds to begin with.

[Moomoo]

Seems to me that Brosnan fans are simply in a stubborn state of denial. How could Moomoo possibly have orchestrated all the things that happened after he started posting which chime with what he's claimed all along (such as Madsen's remarks that Broz has been replaced by an Aussie)?

Doesn't mean Moomoo's 100% correct, of course, but it does suggest that he's not, as some would have it, simply a troll who's been making everything up.

Thank you, Loomis. One thing I am not and this is a troll. If I was making up my claims I would have everything to lose and nothing to gain if I was wrong. Why would I want to be ridiculed if it turns out Brosnan is back in Bond 21 out in Nov 2005?

Bond-san, you wrote:

This is why I find your arguments unconvincing. Furthermore, your incessant proclamations are desperate, contrived attempts to portray Brosnan in a most unflattering light. I know not what your motives are in doing so. But the molehill of "evidence" you cite--an array of comments by Brosnan re the current state of production on Bond 21--amounts in reality to the most banal pile of trivial, off-the-cuff statements which are in no way sensational.

Please explain why my arguments are unconvincing. I can't see any evidence of that. Michael Madsen has just confirmed what I posted three months back - Brosnan is out. Madsen has no axe to grind with MGM/Eon.

Now you may want to believe Brosnan is out because Eon deemed him to be too old, but I very much doubt that. Brosnan is out because he asked for too much money. If you think Brosnan is prepared to be paid the same amount for Bond 21 as he was for DAD then you're mistaken. According to one MGM insider, Brosnan wants $20 million plus percentage of gross. If this is true, and I believe it is, why should we pretend Brosnan's latest comments about the state of the franchise are sincere?

Look, I'd rather know Brosnan is bitter at being described as too old than kid myself he's concerned about the franchise and will do Bond 21 if Eon contacts him. I'm sorry but that is not true.

I don't care if this makes me unpopular, but I will not defend Brosnan when I know his comments are at best disingenuous, or at worst blatant lies. The idea he is waiting for Eon/MGM to pick up the phone and tell him to sign up is utterly ridiculous. Let's stop thinking Pierce plays Bond out of love of the character and let's start accepting the reality of the situation. Brosnan knows Jackman is signed. He knows his wage demand was not accepted. He feels let down by Eon/MGM. He wants to get back at them so he's used every opportunity to criticise them. Brosnan has been promoting two of his films, Laws of Attraction and The Matador, and yet still has time to come out with words like 'paralysis', 'confusion' and 'malaise'. These are not the words of a contented man. If anyone is being shown in a unflattering light it's Brosnan. I'm not showing him in an unflattering light - he's doing fine by himself.

This assertion I am performing character assassination on Brosnan is bogus. The guy has brought it on himself with his excessive wage demands and inflammatory language. That has nothing to do with his past history of moral, ethical behaviour. Even if you are the biggest Brosnan fan, I'm afraid you are going to have to accept that sooner or later.

With respect to your opinion Loomis, the points "predicted" by Moomoo were not necessarily unpredictable. By that I mean the rumours of Jackman's candidacy for the role existed long before. I would concede that there is a slight coincidence in the MGM marketing director having moved to another job, where the argument seemed to be he was "fired" for "leaking" this information. But that link is tenuous at best. We simply don't know, and generally speaking, the predictions made were not necessarily those of soothsayer variety, simply those banking on good odds to begin with.

Dimitri, I am the only person to claim Bond 21 is scheduled for summer 2006. I was the only person to name the source. I was the only person to state in January that Jackman was signed. I stress the word 'was'. No one else has stated that. So my comments were hardly based on good odds.

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 07 April 2004 - 10:01 AM.

[1q2w3e4r]

Moo.... I hope your right. Simply because not only did you state your opinion, but your stuck to it no matter what was said, about the opinion or the somewhat uncalled for attacks on you personally.

So I hope your right on two counts, the first because I think Bond should be in his late thirties to early forties and the second because I think your owed an opology by the doubters and attackers of u.

[Moomoo]

1q2w3e4r

Thanks for your reply. I know I've made a few comments which suggest I dislike Brosnan but I don't - honest. I can just separate my admiration from him as a Bond actor and see that he might have brought this all on himself.

In a strange way I wish more people were like me and a little angry with Pierce. Maybe then he would have compromised. People saying MGM should pay him what he asks isn't really a sensible, practical way forward. Sure, he is entitled to be well-paid, but why ask for so much that it would appear he's priced himself out of the role? It seems such an unfortunate way to leave the series. Rather self-destructive. I'd have liked Brosnan to have made one more Bond film, but if MGM cannot or will not pay him what he asks they will let him go. It's a business decision and we have to accept that.

If Jackman does become the new Bond I think people's perception of Brosnan will change given the passage of time. I'm not sure how history will regard Pierce. History may accord him the dubious honour of being the man who thought he was bigger than Bond but wasn't.

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 07 April 2004 - 11:07 AM.

[level007]

I am so tired about this.....

it's strange but in the interview i remenber correctly, madsen said that Brsonan is going to be replaced by an unknown australian actor. Is Jackman unknown ? i doubt.

And about jackman, isn't he a busy man actually ?
Does he don't have a contract to be Wolverine again ? And what about van Helsing ? There is a possibility that this is going to be the first one in a franchise it works. No ?

Can people tell me that it's is credible that Jackman is the next bond ?
I think not because he is too known and he will want a too big fee.
I am sure EON still wants someone unknown.


Only time will tell.... if i was you i wouldn't so sure.....


Level

[Loomis]

Seems to me that Brosnan fans are simply in a stubborn state of denial. How could Moomoo possibly have orchestrated all the things that happened after he started posting which chime with what he's claimed all along (such as Madsen's remarks that Broz has been replaced by an Aussie)?

Doesn't mean Moomoo's 100% correct, of course, but it does suggest that he's not, as some would have it, simply a troll who's been making everything up.

With respect to your opinion Loomis, the points "predicted" by Moomoo were not necessarily unpredictable. By that I mean the rumours of Jackman's candidacy for the role existed long before. I would concede that there is a slight coincidence in the MGM marketing director having moved to another job, where the argument seemed to be he was "fired" for "leaking" this information. But that link is tenuous at best. We simply don't know, and generally speaking, the predictions made were not necessarily those of soothsayer variety, simply those banking on good odds to begin with.

Well, if Moomoo had simply been playing the odds, he'd surely have claimed that Jackman would replace Brosnan after BOND 21, not for BOND 21. In the months before the "Brosnan out" stories started to surface, we were all convinced that [A] Brosnan would do BOND 21, and [B] Jackman was the frontrunner, but would make his debut with BOND 22.

And all this has now become much more than a storm in a teacup among hardcore Bond fans. This morning I overheard two 20-something colleagues (who are not Bond geeks or movie geeks, and whom I very much doubt post on or read internet discussion fora) talking about the Bonds (totally unprompted by yours truly). One remarked: "I hear the next one's in trouble. Apparently the script is terrible and they don't know where to go. They don't care about good stories any more, all they want are special effects." The other replied: "I don't like the recent Bond films anyway. I only like Connery and Moore." When I joined in the conversation with "I've read that Pierce Brosnan won't be coming back", they both rolled their eyes and said: "Who cares?"

So it seems that Brosnan's little outbursts are having a detrimental effect. Sure, many of us can't bring ourselves to believe that he's gone, and are gagging for him to return, but then again a far greater number of "normal", "regular" folks don't give a stuff about whether he'll come back or not. Enter Hugh.

[Moomoo]

Can people tell me that it's is credible that Jackman is the next bond ?
I think not because he is too known and he will want a too big fee.
I am sure EON still wants someone unknown.

Level007,

MGM know Jackman's fee will shoot up if Helsing is a big hit. That's why they signed him last year. They got in early with a sweet deal. Getting an unknown to star in a $100 million dollar Bond film is a very risky investment. It was done with Lazenby but I doubt MGM would risk it in 2004. Too much at stake. Getting a higher profile actor makes more sense.

If you check out IMDB (Internet Movie Database), Hugh Jackman has no films in production:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0413168/

Kind of odd? Nope. X-Men 3 has no definite start-date and this leaves Jackman clear to start shooting Bond 21 next summer.

Compare Jackman's schedule to Brosnan's:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000112/

Excluding Bond 21, Brosnan has three films in pre-production. So how is he going to fit in time for Bond 21? It looks like he's very busy.

I accept that IMDB may be inaccurate but it does suggest Jackman has the schedule to play Bond.

Loomis, I agree with your comment about the negative outbursts from Brosnan. Brosnan should not have said the things he said in the way he said them. Very damaging indeed.

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 07 April 2004 - 12:03 PM.

[level007]

MGM know Jackman's fee will shoot up if Helsing is a big hit. That's why they signed him last year. They got in early with a sweet deal.

this is pure speculation.
Where did you find this ? Do you really think about it seriously ?
Nothing can prove it.


it make me thing about the TND trailer where the voice off say:

"In a world where Mass media control everything......"

level

[[dark]]

I really don't know what Madsen's on about when he talks about this Australian fellow.

He claims not to know what he looks like, what his name is, and that he hasn't seen anything he's starred in.

Would the producers have the balls - as Judi Dench's M would say - to hire an unknown? An Australian unknown?

[ChandlerBing]

After reading these posts about the Australian no one has heard of, I almost fell out of my chair as I realized:


OH MY GOD, THEY HIRED GEORGE LAZENBY BACK AS BOND!!!!

[Bon-san]

Seems to me that Brosnan fans are simply in a stubborn state of denial. How could Moomoo possibly have orchestrated all the things that happened after he started posting which chime with what he's claimed all along (such as Madsen's remarks that Broz has been replaced by an Aussie)?

Doesn't mean Moomoo's 100% correct, of course, but it does suggest that he's not, as some would have it, simply a troll who's been making everything up.

I am a Bond fan, not a Brosnan fan. I will, however, not suffer the unfounded character assassination of the most recent (or current, we shall see) actor to play 007.

I am in denial about many things: the state of my car's wheel rims, the condition of my cigarette-ravaged lungs, etc. I am not, however, in any denial in regards to Pierce Brosnan playing Bond in the future. Quite simply, I don't know whether it will be Pierce or someone else packing the Walther. When the marketing campaign begins for the next Bond film, and I see the first on-set PR shots, then I'll "know" who's playing Bond. Until then, I'll just be waiting to see. And Frankly, I don't really care if it's Pierce or someone else.

Moomoo has clearly not "orchestrated" anything, nor have I read where anyone has made claims to such.

In another thread, I read a nice bit by a CBN'er who was as exasperated as I am by the "picking and choosing" by the doomsayers and Brosnan-bashers; i.e., Madsen says he's out and that's gospel. But when someone else says he's in, that's just "unsupported rubbish" or something to that effect.

Troll is your word, not mine. I just can't endure an agenda to smear Brosnan's name, without lodging some kind of rebuttal.

[B5Erik]

Michael Madsen doesn't strike me as the most reliable source in the world. He may be right for all I know, but if it was just his word I definitely wouldn't believe it.

I just remember how Roger Moore was done with Bond each time a new movie came into pre-production, and how each time at the last minute after testing new actors as Bond that Eon and Moore came to an agreement for Roger to come back "one last time."

Eon even signed an actor (John Gavin??) to a contract to play Bond in Diamonds are Forever, but UA insisted on getting Connery back at any cost.

I can't imagine that Eon and MGM would be so willing to let Brosnan go after the most successful Bond film since Moonraker (adjusted for inflation). I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it just seems so unlikely.

Then again, maybe Jackman IS signed to play Bond in 2 or 3 movies, who knows? Jackman would make a great Bond - provided he can get the accent right. He has a real Connery-esque presence, and I would love to see him as 007 - in Bond 22!

If Jackman does Bond 21 I'll still be optimistic that the movie will be good. If Purvis & Wade write it, and Lee Tamahori directs it then I'll be worried.

The next couple of months are going to be really interesting.

[Janus Assassin]

I'm Tired of this crap. Ill believe that Pierce is gone when he himself comes out and says it or EON/MGM says it. No more of this neighbor/newspaper rumor stuff anymore. Pierce said that he wants to be back for Bond 21 and i'll believe when I hear it and until then, I think Pierce will be back.

[Bond Bug]

You may wish to ignore the following, but trust me, it is true - Brosnan would not make these comments if he'd just signed up for Bond 21. That is the truth whether you want to believe it or not. So his comments are designed for another purpose, and that purpose is to discredit the franchise. I know people will chose to ignore this fact, but it's the truth. If you think there is great loyalty in the movie business you are mistaken. It's dog eat dog.

Moomoo

I see where you are coming from Moomoo, but personally I doubt Brosnan would say these things just to stick the knife in. My feeling is that he still wants the role but has set out some tough terms and Eon aren't playing and he's furious, but ready to come back if they agree to his demands. Even so, my view is that Brosnan probably won't be back.

[MrDraco]

This is interesting time to be a Bond Fan my friends, were all nervious and 'ansy' and getting weird about it, personally i'm freaking out and have a doctors apointment this afternoon to get Prozac until this thing blows over... I mean if its going to be Opaque, why not be Prozac, anyways i got to thinking...

IF WE DOG EON ENOUGH, OR MGM THEY'LL HAVE TO GIVE AN OFFICAL STATEMENT we should have people email them all the time and ask qustions about the situation, etc etc... just mess with them about it...

[hartley_bond]

I meant Bruce Wayne is no longer American. (Now THERE'S a movie I'm worried about majorly.)

Ummmmm, no. You're wrong there. The actor playing Bruce is Welsh (Chris Bale) but the character of Bruce Wayne / Batman, is still American. The article that said that the characters were turning English were from trashy tabloid gossip papers and based on the number of Brittish thesps (Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson, Christian Bale, Michael Caine) in Batman Begins.

[Agent 76]

could this guy be the aussie actor they are talking about?




born in Melbourne , 37 years old.