40 replies to this topic

[[dark]]

Reading the latest Brozzie interview to address this topic, something occured to me.

Much of our fan speculation is vis-

[Loomis]

,25 April 2004 - 10:42] From the latest Brozzie interview:

If ``Laws of Attraction'' does its work, Brosnan won't have to worry about his status as 007. He had expected to be preparing for nine months of filming for his fifth turn as the world's most famous secret agent. Instead, he's heading to Mexico City to work with Greg Kinnear and Hope Davis (``American Splendor'') on an edgy, low-budget comedy for DreamTime.

    ``All I know is before I went on the last promotion for the `Bond: Die Another Day,' I'd done my contract, my four movies,'' he said. ``They said they wanted to do a fifth, and we started negotiations, and those negotiations have now ceased. Where does that leave me? How do I answer this question?''

    If this looks like some kind of a publicity ploy, Brosnan makes it clear that's hardly the case. He is clearly upset.

    ``All I know is we're in negotiations but were at an impasse because Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson don't know how to proceed. They don't know what kind of movie. It's as bleak as that.''

    According to Brosnan, there is no script, no director, no sense even of what kind of Bond movie should be made next. Then there is always the nagging feeling that because he's completed the contractual quartet he signed up for, Brosnan could be replaced by a new model.

    ``It would be nice to have the respect for the people you have worked hard for to give an honest answer,'' he said. ``It would be nice to have it on level ground. But nobody knows. I wish I could be more specific and say, `No, they're going to look for somebody else. My time is up; they've found somebody else.' I can't say that, and at the same time I can't say, `Well, we're going ahead,' because they said, `We don't have the script. We don't know what to do.' ''

    Rumors always have been part and parcel of the 007 franchise. As Brosnan notes, a spinoff film with Halle Berry's Jinx was going to be made.

    ``That went pfft! To look for the truth, you have to go to MGM. Good luck! You have to go to the Broccolis. Even greater luck,'' he said.

    As to the present impasse, Brosnan said, ``You try to answer as specifically and as honestly as possible because I don't have anything to hide. But I don't know what's going on, except they don't know how to deal with it.''

If Brosnan is angry (and it very much seems to be the case that he is), it would be natural for him to exaggerate somewhat the extent of the "paralysis" at MGM/Eon. Let's not forget that, only a few days ago, MGM's Chris McGurk confirmed that BOND 21 was still on target for a November 2005 release. Now, it's unlikely that The Powers That Be have told Brosnan everything - and if Brosnan is indeed out of the picture as James Bond 007, it's probable that they're telling him nothing at all. My guess is that Brosnan is in the dark, [dark], (ho ho).... because he won't be returning to the role and has consequently been frozen out.

My take: it's still looking good for BOND 21 next year, but Brosnan won't be coming back.

[[dark]]

If Brosnan is angry (and it very much seems to be the case that he is), it would be natural for him to exaggerate somewhat the extent of the "paralysis" at MGM/Eon.

Good point. I'd say the paralysis certainly exaggerated. After all, there must be some direction: Purvis and Wade are working on a script.

Let's not forget that, only a few days ago, MGM's Chris McGurk confirmed that BOND 21 was still on target for a November 2005 release.

Perhaps. Would Eon have been given a deadline by MGM to deliver a film by November 2005, though? I'm not yet sure how these things work.

Now, it's unlikely that The Powers That Be have told Brosnan everything - and if Brosnan is indeed out of the picture as James Bond 007, it's probable that they're telling him nothing at all. My guess is that Brosnan is in the dark, [dark], (ho ho).... because he won't be returning to the role and has consequently been frozen out.

That worries me. The reason he doesn't know anything about the current situation is because it's none of his business: he isn't in the film.

My take: it's still looking good for BOND 21 next year, but Brosnan won't be coming back.

As one of Brosnan's biggest supporters, I must agree. It's looking less and less like he'll be returning to the role. I just hope Eon/MGM think long and hard before dumping him. [Assuming it's the $ thing,] would it be worth spending an extra $10 million on Brosnan if he's guaranteed to bring in another χ more dollars than a new guy? Here's hoping for an eleventh-hour decision, in true Roger Moore style.

[Moomoo]

Look, I think we are making too much out of this. Think about human nature and you find the answer.

Imagine you are Pierce Brosnan and you want to do a fifth film. Would you speak out in way that could be construed as disrespectful? I very much doubt it.

So we have to ask ourselves the recurring question -

Why has Brosnan come out with these comments?

And there is only one answer. He knows he's out so he can speak freely. He knows Hugh Jackman is signed or the first candidate for the role. There is no other conclusion you can come to. Brosnan knows he out but he won't admit it to the public. Why? Because he knows he's priced himself out of the role and doesn't want to reveal that. The best he can do is come out with this 'paralysis' excuse.

I'm afraid to say the next few months could bring the Bond series into total disrepute. If Brosnan doesn't come out and say he's given up the role, then it could turn nasty. Eon will have to say they got rid of him because he was seen as too old. Yep, it sure could turn nasty...

Moomoo

[Loomis]

Good point. I'd say the paralysis certainly exaggerated. After all, there must be some direction: Purvis and Wade are working on a script.

I believe McGurk said something to the effect that an announcement will be made over the next few months as to who will direct BOND 21, and who will play James Bond.

And who will play James Bond. That at least implies that Brosnan's return to the role is not a certainty, and that other people are under consideration. So much for "the Bond of record", the Billion Dollar Bond, Pierce Brosnan IS James Bond.... Now, I'm aware that Brosnan's three-picture deal lapsed with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, and that he was subsequently signed to play Bond on a per-film basis, but think back to the pre-production of BOND 20 (DIE ANOTHER DAY): was there all this kerfuffle about whether or not Brosnan would return? No way. Everyone simply assumed he'd be coming back. Brosnan didn't mouth off, either.

If it seemed likely - or, heck, even possible - that Brosnan was going to do BOND 21, don't you think McGurk would have made a more positive statement, such as:

"We hope Pierce Brosnan will be playing James Bond again";

or:

"We're looking forward to working with Pierce Brosnan again";

or:

"It is expected that Pierce Brosnan will be coming back to play James Bond"

?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Powers That Be are not exactly bending over backwards to leave open the possibility that Brosnan will star in BOND 21.

I mean, if you were dating someone and you thought you were in a steady relationship that was working out well, wouldn't you or your friends be a little, well, worried, to overhear your partner saying:

"I don't know who I'll be sleeping with on Friday night"

?

Would Eon have been given a deadline by MGM to deliver a film by November 2005, though?

Oh, I'm sure of it (although I'm not in the film biz and am not an expert in these matters). I would imagine that a release date would be set as soon as a film is greenlit. Otherwise, well, everyone would be totally in the dark as to how much time they had to make the movie! Schedules have to be set, and actors and crew members must work around other commitments. The only way all that could work would be by establishing a target release date.

[Agent 76]

I'm tired of all this discussions of Pierce's opinions...
I say DUMP him , and move on! it's not the end of the world , if he's out , James Bond franchise will not end , it's not a drama!


Chose another actor and make a damn good Bond 21 !

[Loomis]

I say DUMP him , and move on! it's not the end of the world , if he's out , James Bond franchise will not end , it's not a drama!


Chose another actor and make a damn good Bond 21 !

Couldn't agree more.

[karri]

My take: it's still looking good for BOND 21 next year, but Brosnan won't be coming back.

Brosnan said in one interview late 2002 that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli had PROMISED for Brosnan that he will play Bond just as long as he wants to. If Brosnan's out... damn you, Wilson and Broccoli! You miserable liars!

Edited by karri, 25 April 2004 - 12:15 PM.

[Moomoo]

Brosnan said in one interview late 2002 that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli had PROMISED for Brosnan that he will play Bond just as long as he wants to. If Brosnan's out... damn you, Wilson and Broccoli! You miserable liars!

LOL! Hey, karri, watch out - do the laws of libel extend to the net? Eek.

Must admit I just read the latest stuff from Brosnan, and boy, does he repeat himself. He's stuck in repeat-mode! To be honest, I am well and truly bored with him. He should shut up now. We know, Pierce, you are annoyed. That is coming through loud and clear.

In the last few months Pierce Brosnan has ruined his reputation. The last nine years undone by his moaning. Bit sad. Harsh as this sounds, I am glad he is gone. Least that way we don't have to listen to his moaning, bitchy comments. GOOD RIDDANCE TO PIERCE!!!

Hee hee.

Moomoo - harsh but nice

[zencat]

Another great find [dark]. I made this, combinded with what Johnboy007 heard on Fox News last night, a main page article.

[Qwerty]

I'm tired of all this discussions of Pierce's opinions...
I say DUMP him , and move on! it's not the end of the world , if he's out , James Bond franchise will not end , it's not a drama!


Chose another actor and make a damn good Bond 21 !

Agreed, except that I hope Brosnan returns for one more Bond film, if not, move onto the next actor and get the ball moving.

[zencat]

I do think this is all about $$$. I think MGM cut Eon's budget on Bond 21, then Pierce asked for a huge payday. It's impossible to make a DAD-scale Bond AND pay Pierce, so Eon has a problem. This is what's behind Pierce's "let's do a FRWL style Bond". This is his way of suggesting a solution to the problem...cheap film, expensive actor. I think Eon and MGM looked at it another way -- expensive film with a cheap actor, and I think they've warmed to the idea and may even be down the road on it. A script is being written and Chris McGurk has said they will make a decision in a few months as to who will play Bond. Doesn't sound like the producers are in "paralysis" to me.

I think Pierce still has a shot at being Bond in 21 if he stops the PR war and goes back with hat in hand and takes the salary that is budgeted. If the offer is still on the table, that is.

[Loomis]

I think Eon and MGM looked at it another way -- expensive film with a cheap actor, and I think they've warmed to the idea and may even be down the road on it. A script is being written and Chris McGurk has said they will make a decision in a few months as to who will play Bond. Doesn't sound like the producers are in "paralysis" to me.

Yes, and it sounds like they're doing what Qwerty suggests, i.e. moving on to the next actor and getting the ball rolling.

God bless 'em and all who sail in 'em.

Expect an announcement of the new Bond actor.... well, in a couple of months, I suppose. Broz was announced as 007 in the summer of 1994, I seem to recall. The new guy should be revealed any time now, so not long to wait at all. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the announcement of the new Bond were to precede by a month or two the announcement of the BOND 21 director.

[zencat]

Anything can happen. It's all about how badly MGM and Eon want Pierce (and this is the X factor that I don't know). Remember, John Gavin was signed for DAF, but then, at the last minute, the studio caved and paid Connery his $1 million salary (and then they had to pay off Gavin as well). Of course, the circumstances back then were very different. I don't think the studio and the producers are as nervous about an audience not accepting a new Bond. Like Sherlock Holmes, the character has become greater than any one actor. Unlike the days of Connery and Moore, the reigning Bond actor just doesn't have that fear factor leverage anymore.

[Loomis]

Unlike the days of Connery and Moore, the reigning Bond actor just doesn't have that fear factor leverage anymore.

Precisely. Which is why Brosnan doesn't really have a leg to stand on.... well, IMHO of course. Why should MGM/Eon pay Brosnan Lord-knows-how-much yet be able to deliver only a bargain basement Bond flick, when they could get a cheaper (and younger, and therefore more durable) Bond actor instead and make another epic with plenty of bang for the buck? I'm sure they'd far sooner make another GOLDENEYE than another A VIEW TO A KILL or LICENCE TO KILL.

[Johnboy007]

Another great find [dark]. I made this, combinded with what Johnboy007 heard on Fox News last night, a main page article.

It was the local Philadelphia Fox station, but probably got they probably got it from the overal Fox news source.

Good find there [dark], you've been on the ball a lot lately.

This whole thing looks gloomier every day.

[Loomis]

This whole thing looks gloomier every day.

Does it?

[Johnboy007]

Haha.

To a fan that grew up watching Pierce, yes.

[Qwerty]

To a fan that grew up watching Pierce, yes.

Yes, even if you didn't grow up with Pierce, he played a very good James Bond, I wouldn't want to see him leave yet.

[Loomis]

Yes, well, I'm already getting in the party food.

Come on, folks, we've already lost Connery - the worst thing that could possibly have happened to the Bond series has already been and gone. Losing Broz ought to be water off a duck's back.

Loomis

(who "grew up" *ahem* with Connery, Moore and Dalton)

[Johnboy007]

(who "grew up" *ahem* with Connery, Moore and Dalton)

Geezer...

[Triton]

But look at this way, Eon Productions or MGM/UA have not committed themselves by making an announcement or statement about Pierce Brosnan's future as James Bond or his comments to the press. If you read Pierce's comments, he is upset about the fact that Eon Productions cannot give him a definite commitment at this time and the reason for this lack of commitment is that they don't know where to go after Die Another Day.

If you interpret what Chris McGurk, Chief Operating Officer of MGM/UA, said that Bond XXI is on target for a November 2005 release and that decisions about a director, and the actor who will play James Bond, will be made "in the next few months."

McGurk added "Like any good production relationship between top-tier producers and a studio, you're always going to have disagreements."

This leads me to believe that Eon Productions and MGM/UA are currently having creative differences over Bond XXI.

Has any one considered that Eon Productions wants Pierce Brosnan back for a fifth time and that MGM/UA is objecting to this casting decision and wants to go with a younger James Bond?

If MGM/UA and Eon Productions are currently having creative differences, it could explain Pierce's use of the term "paralysis". It certainly would prevent the producers from moving forward.

If it was just a dispute over salary, I believe that Pierce's comments would be different. Something like he is having difficulties making an "arrangement" with the producers for a fifth appearance or something like that. Not comments about creative "paralysis".

If Heath Ledger or Hugh Jackman have indeed signed to appear in Bond XXI, you would think at this point Eon Productions or MGM/UA would make an announcement as damage control because Pierce's comments imply that the Bond series is in trouble. This announcement would of course let out some of the wind from their sails in the traditional production kick-off press conference. But you would presume that Eon Productions would be professional enough to inform Pierce about the status of the role if a decision had been made.

In the meantime, Pierce has made it clear that he will not refuse other offers of workl while Eon Productions and MGM/UA decide about Bond XXI. So the decision of whether to cast Pierce Brosnan or another actor in the role may be made for them due to circumstance.

[Moomoo]

The announcement will be after Van Helsing opens and Jackman has finished promoting it across the world.

Repeat after me...

HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND

Moomoo

[Loomis]

Sorry, what was that?

[Qwerty]

The announcement will be after Van Helsing opens and Jackman has finished promoting it across the world.

Repeat after me...

HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND
HUGH JACKMAN IS SIGNED AS BOND

Moomoo

Aiyahaiyah.

Proof please?

[Triton]

I'll believe that Hugh Jackman is James Bond if and when he appears before the cameras in January 2005. Until then, it's possible that some arrangement can be made for Pierce Brosnan to come back for the role.

[Triton]

I would also think that if Hugh Jackman, or Heath Ledger for that matter, was indeed signed to play James Bond, that Michael Madsen would have recalled his name instead of some Australian actor.

Plus I am skepitical that MGM/UA and Eon Productions would cast Hugh Jackman because he is already appearing in the X-Men series and Universal wants to establish him as Van Helsing in a series of films.

What if MGM/UA is considering the relatively unknown Australian actor Eric Bana for the role?

In any case, no decision is really final until the cameras roll and the film is in the can.

[Alex Zamudio]

My take: nothing is still certain, at this time we still don't know, and we can speculate a lot, Brosnan may or not work in Bond 21, it hasn't really been defined, that is why not MGM or EON have stated anything definitive, they are still in conflict as what directiont to take, will they sign Brosnan or bring a new kid? they will anounce their plans in a few months, only then we will really know, I believe it could still be Brosnan, and that's why even Pierce hasn't totally writen off this posibility in his interviews.
About the Hugh Jackman rumours, I don't believe them, recent interviews in Entertaintment Weekly Magazine (US) in in other sources about Van Helsing, have stated that he hasn't been aproched at all.. I believe that Moomoo who I respect because of his logical, well writen and witty posts, has exagerated a little bit and he is just hoping all his dreams and speculations come true, in a way I hope so too, but after Pierce Brosnan's swan song in Bond 21.

Regards.

[level007]

I am sor bored with all of theses threads aout brosnan being replaced.
From my point of view, Until official annoucment, Borsnan is still James bond. I don' t understand how people can said that Jackman without any proof (no one is targeted...), and knowing that jackman told that it was him who launched the rumor and said that he was never approched.

Another point that is killin me. If Bond 21 introduced us a new actor, Sure the studio will have to paid a lot for advertising so that people unlike us (which represent around 80%) know that there is a new james bond around. So to said that MGM want to make a lower budget film is not credible.

Anyway, only time will tell. until the contrary, Pierce Brosnan is Bond and i can't wait to see him in a good bond movie.


Level

[luciusgore]

I believe Brosnan is out because he got ticked off when the producers opted to reject Quentin Tarantino's offer to direct the next Bond film. Brosnan and Michael Madsen are friends, and it follows that Brosnan would therefore know Tarantino.

Please sign the petition to have Tarantino direct, and as a result Brosnan star, in the next Bond film. It has less than 500 names which isn't too impressive at this stage:

http://www.petitiono...8/petition.html