366 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

I, along with many others I would think, agree.

[Agent 76]

Ioan Gruffudd's reaction when he knew he was a candidate for Bond :

[Qwerty]

Now that's an interesting outfit...not to mention expression.

[Lady M]

Thank you Seannery....your post was very interesting and I appreciate all the work you put into writing it.

I'm not sure if Pierce Brosnan wants to stay forever in Bond but, it would seem more likely to me that he is approaching that time in his life where if he wants to change and do something else he is probably wise to do so now. While he still has the fame of Bond, but is still young enough to go for something else.

Just a thought.

Edited by Lady M, 06 July 2004 - 03:17 AM.

[Seannery]

The choice of the next Bond reminds me of the VP choice in the USA. This was brought home to me by Kerry picking Edwards today. Before he was picked, he and all the other serious VP finalists either said they were not interested and/or not contacted while they obviously were.

Does this remind you of anyone? Say Jackman, Gruffudd, Owens and others! In both cases it doesn't pay for the picker or pickee to be honest because of potential embarassment if there is rejection from either side. So deny, deny, deny! And wait for the official announcement. So I don't buy anyone's public statements and will only trust the final announcement.

By the way, you are welcome Lady M.

[Loomis]

Hmmm.... yes, but actors aren't politicians, and I think we can now count Owen out (unfortunately ). He's just given an interview (posted on Dark Horizons, I think, although I'm unable to access that site right now) to promote KING ARTHUR in which he basically bends over backwards to state that he's absolutely, positively, definitely not interested in the role of James Bond.

Now, if Brosnan isn't returning for BOND 21, the new guy must have been signed by now, or will at the very least be in the final stage of negotiations. If Owen's that guy, why on earth would he be so vehemently denying interest in a role he'd in the very near future be revealed as having signed up for? He could simply say "No comment", or, "Look, I want to focus on KING ARTHUR here".

I don't recall Dalton or Brosnan, just before they were announced as new Bonds, emphatically denying they'd been approached by Eon, insisting they weren't interested in playing 007, that they didn't consider the role a worthwhile challenge, etc. Owen's out, I'm afraid. I guess he was seriously considered, but at the end of the day MGM and/or Eon just didn't want to go with someone who'd be too "dark", too "difficult", too "literary Bond", too "Daltonesque", and insufficiently pretty and "audience-pleasing".

[Seannery]

You have a point Loomis that Owen saying this at this late date could mean he is finally out of it. But I don't totally count him out yet. A decision can always be explained away and old statements can be finessed even if they seemingly seem airtight. Actors are almost as slick as politicians--they can parse words with stiletto precision.

Also I saw that article in Dark Horizons and though he is fairly strong in saying not interested--it is not that extreme. I see solid wriggle room in it. Check out the exact wording he uses when you can.

Edited by Seannery, 06 July 2004 - 01:25 PM.

[Agent 76]

Now, if Brosnan isn't returning for BOND 21, the new guy must have been signed by now, or will at the very least be in the final stage of negotiations.

do you really believe that's happening?

[Loomis]

Now, if Brosnan isn't returning for BOND 21, the new guy must have been signed by now, or will at the very least be in the final stage of negotiations.

do you really believe that's happening?

BOND 21 is scheduled for a November 2005 release. That means that they must be getting into pre-production right about now (expect a director to be announced in the very, very near future). Obviously, that also means that they must get a Bond actor lined up.

Now, either Brosnan's returning or he isn't. We don't know yet. But if he isn't, you can bet that a contract for a new guy has either been signed or will be signed very shortly. Unless they're going to use old outtakes or a CGI Bond.

And Seannery, points taken, but I just don't buy it. If Owen's the new 007, you can bet that he wouldn't be slating the role, however mildly, and denying interest. Why should he even be creating anything at all to explain away and wriggle out of? Many ways in which he could have deflected the interviewer's questions on Bond. There was no need for him to say what he said. The only conclusion to draw is that he won't be Bond.

[Agent 76]

Now, if Brosnan isn't returning for BOND 21, the new guy must have been signed by now, or will at the very least be in the final stage of negotiations.

do you really believe that's happening?

BOND 21 is scheduled for a November 2005 release. That means that they must be getting into pre-production right about now (expect a director to be announced in the very, very near future). Obviously, that also means that they must get a Bond actor lined up.

Now, either Brosnan's returning or he isn't. We don't know yet. But if he isn't, you can bet that a contract for a new guy has either been signed or will be signed very shortly. Unless they're going to use old outtakes or a CGI Bond.

And Seannery, points taken, but I just don't buy it. If Owen's the new 007, you can bet that he wouldn't be slating the role, however mildly, and denying interest. Why should he even be creating anything at all to explain away and wriggle out of? Many ways in which he could have deflected the interviewer's questions on Bond. There was no need for him to say what he said. The only conclusion to draw is that he won't be Bond.

ok.
CGI Bond would be cool , for a mini-films series in the internet!

[Loomis]

On the assumption that a star for BOND 21 has already been decided on and signed, my current thinking is that Brosnan will return. If a new guy had been hired, or was even in negotiations, I'm sure that there would have been a leak by now. I'm equally sure that Brosnan would have stated very clearly and finally that he was done with Bond (notice that he stopped taking potshots at the series and the producers a while back).

If Brosnan's coming back, that would explain why there's been no fanfare from Eon on the star of BOND 21. It would be a huge news event this summer if they'd hired a new Bond actor, but if Brosnan's coming back for a fifth, well, just wait until the start-of-shooting press conference much later this year to talk about that (gives 'em more time to work on ways to downplay the "paralysis" comments and the controversy that started in February this year).

I'm sure that financial negotiations with Broz went on for a long time and became very intense and difficult, but I reckon a deal's been reached. MGM/Eon don't want to lose their Billion Dollar Bond just yet, and Brosnan will still get the biggest payday of his life for BOND 21, even if he won't be getting quite as much as he wanted (no other role will ever pay him what Bond pays him).

Also, Brosnan's schedule is free. Once he finishes shooting MEXICALI later this year, he'll be able to start work on BOND 21 in January, as per the usual Bond schedule.

[Seannery]

Loomis I do agree you are most likely correct on Owen since he was rather final at this late date. But what I am saying is I don't TOTALLY discount him yet. but he probably is out.

With regards to Pierce it does seem a consensus seems to be forming he will be back. May be. There is still time to pick and announce a new guy. They can do that some months down the road yet. If they are totally set on Pierce there is nothing stopping them from saying so right now. I'll wait for the official announcement--then I will believe.

[[dark]]

Hmmm.... yes, but actors aren't politicians, and I think we can now count Owen out (unfortunately ). He's just given an interview (posted on Dark Horizons, I think, although I'm unable to access that site right now) to promote KING ARTHUR in which he basically bends over backwards to state that he's absolutely, positively, definitely not interested in the role of James Bond.

I have to agree, Loomis.

Owen's comments on the Bond role are becoming more and more curt. Sounds like he's already sick of discussing the character. Here's another excerpt from an interview, this one with the Chicago Sun-Times...

And there are still those nagging rumors he will be the new James Bond. "It's all rumors!" he says. "It's never been substantiated in any way whatsoever." Any rivalry with current Bond Pierce Brosnan? "I think he's been a great Bond. I think that he's reinvigorated that whole franchise," Owen says. "He's made a ton of money for that company. He's doing another one and they should just back him."

Now, I'm sure Owen's no authority, and his sentences are very short. Did he really mean, "he's doing another one", or was it just said in a bout of short, tiresome sentences. Could the producers have said, "Sorry, Clive, but we've reached an agreement with Pierce. We'll talk when Bond 22 starts development"?

No idea, myself. Just musing aloud.

[Daltonfan]

A lot of UK sites are reporting on a poll at skymovies.com. More interesting is the general assumption that Brosnan will be back for Bond 21 and that shooting is scheduled to start in January. Here's a link to a report at The Scotsman.

I'm sure you'll all be thrilled that Orlando Bloom came very close to winning the poll for the next Bond

The South Wales Echo has a quote from their local boy who got 4% of the vote:

Welsh star Ioan Gruffudd also said he would like a crack at the role: "If they want to make Bond younger I would dearly love to play the part," he said.

[Seannery]

I don't think anyone knows for sure if Pierce will be back yet. Nothing substantial has been reported except for innuendoes.

[Moomoo]

Loomis:

If a new guy had been hired, or was even in negotiations, I'm sure that there would have been a leak by now.

Er, I leaked it in February! Hugh Jackman signed, remember?

Moomoo

[Agent 76]

Loomis:

If a new guy had been hired, or was even in negotiations, I'm sure that there would have been a leak by now.

Er, I leaked it in February! Hugh Jackman signed, remember?

Moomoo

oh god , here we go again...

*whistles*

[M_Balje]

How much must i say it ...

BROSNAN IS 007 IN BOND 21 !!!
And it is not Casino Royale and the movie is not directed bye that stupid guy of Tarantino.

[Loomis]

Loomis:

If a new guy had been hired, or was even in negotiations, I'm sure that there would have been a leak by now.

Er, I leaked it in February! Hugh Jackman signed, remember?

Moomoo

Well, I hope you're right. But one would have thought that others would have leaked, too, and that there would by now be a bigger buzz about Jackman as Bond, especially as BOND 21 is about to go into pre-production for a November 2005 release.

With respect, Moomoo, if I were a betting man I'd put my money on Brosnan, not Jackman, as the star of BOND 21. Sure, Broz may have been out of the picture in February, but you know what Bond actors are like: they never say never again. Especially when tempted by vast sums of money!

But as I say, I hope you're right.

[WhiteKnight2000]

Brosnan is Bond for 21. Why else do you think he's kept his mouth shut over the last month.

[Loomis]

Quite.

Just going back to Owen for a moment, here's an interesting statement from the review* of KING ARTHUR to be found on the BBC News site (in the entertainment section):

"And while British actor Clive Owen makes a commanding hero, the near-total lack of humour or emotion in his performance makes him hard to root for."

No wonder he wasn't hired for Bond. He'd have been Dalton II, which I personally would love but most people would hate.

*A negative review, BTW.... but positively glowing compared to the merciless roasting the film gets on AICN.

[Seannery]

More and more speculation runs toward Pierce, but it is just speculation as of now. There is still time to pick and announce another Bond. And if Pierce had it totally in the bag there would already be an announcement.

Remember CBn itself reported in the near past that Pierce was out from sources they believed and trusted.

By the way Loomis did you see the latest denial by Owen--it was much softer and more positive towards Bond. So don't totally discount him or others for that matter yet. Though I think he would be a solid Bond I am in the camp that says he is too Daltonesque and lacks buoyancy.

Edited by Seannery, 07 July 2004 - 03:51 PM.

[Daltonfan]

There's lots of King Arthur reviews at rottentomatoes. Almost as bad as for Van Helsing and similarly the blame's being directed towards the director rather than the lead actor. Ioan Gruffudd doesn't get off as easily and several of the reviewers think that Keira Knightley is the best thing about the film. It sounds like it will have a tough time at the Box Office against Spiderman 2 and the rest.

No idea if this makes any difference to who plays Bond. Is it better to play safe with Brosnan or to put off Bond 21 until they find a good alternative*?

*Assumes Jackman not available, Owen not box office worthy, Gruffudd disappointing and the others not serious contenders.

[Agent 76]

*Assumes Jackman not available, Owen not box office worthy, Gruffudd disappointing and the others not serious contenders.

then....go for Pierce , or chose Ewan McGregor.

[Qwerty]

No idea if this makes any difference to who plays Bond. Is it better to play safe with Brosnan or to put off Bond 21 until they find a good alternative*?

*Assumes Jackman not available, Owen not box office worthy, Gruffudd disappointing and the others not serious contenders.

In that case then, I'd say the best bet would be going with Brosnan.

(Plus I want him in Bond 21 anyways also.)

[Moomoo]

Well, I hope you're right. But one would have thought that others would have leaked, too, and that there would by now be a bigger buzz about Jackman as Bond, especially as BOND 21 is about to go into pre-production for a November 2005 release.

Bond 21 is not going to be released in November 2005, but summer 2006. The screenplay won't be ready by January 2005. Apart from Jackman, no cast is attached. Nothing is ready. MGM's potential buy-out notwithstanding, that's why there is zero news coming from EON.

Moomoo

[Loomis]

Bond 21 is not going to be released in November 2005, but summer 2006.

You know what'll lend an awful lot of weight to that claim? The next few weeks passing without the announcement of a director for BOND 21.

AICN announced Tamahori as the director of BOND 20 on 30 July 2001. The same site revealed Apted as the director of BOND 19 on 5 August 1998. (Of course, Harry Knowles and co. got the news from Variety on both occasions.)

So, if BOND 21 is going to be released in November 2005, expect the announcement of a director either later this month or early next month. If August comes and goes without a director for BOND 21 being announced, we'll know for certain that there will be no BOND 21 next year and that what you, Moomoo, were told is true. It's as simple as that.

BOND 21 in 2005 or 2006? We'll know very soon.

[Agent 76]

Summer 2006?? damn...

[Prav_007]

no doubt, atleast we will cash in more if in the summer. Harry potter won't steal our Box-office sum.

[Qwerty]

So, if BOND 21 is going to be released in November 2005, expect the announcement of a director either later this month or early next month. If August comes and goes without a director for BOND 21 being announced, we'll know for certain that there will be no BOND 21 next year and that what you, Moomoo, were told is true. It's as simple as that.

I don't think it's a clear cut as that Loomis. As release information about Bond films can change slightly, while it would make sense to announce if the 2005 date is true, I don't think it would rule it out if not.