143 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

[quote]I would just as soon see Brosnan do one more, but at this point I don

[Max Zorin]

I mean, it's been like "Have they managed to kill Michael Myers this time, or will he get up again and go on another rampage?" over these past few months.

Interesting analogy.

[Mister Asterix]

[quote name='Loomis' date='14 October 2004 - 09:07'][quote]I would just as soon see Brosnan do one more, but at this point I don

[Tim007]

Sorry, but I'm not anti-Brosnan nor anything else. When I wrote the article this morning, I took a lot of quotes from the Sun Media Article and tried not to be subjective at all. The headline is just a paraphrase of Brosnan's own statement. It's not bloodthirsty and I'm not going to apologize for it, because I don't see any reason for apologizing.

Plus I second what Mr* has said. This is another confirmation that we were right in February, when nearly everyone jumped on us and said that we were lying and that we were wrong etc.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='14 October 2004 - 14:24'][quote name='Loomis' date='14 October 2004 - 09:07'][quote]I would just as soon see Brosnan do one more, but at this point I don

[LordAsriel]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='14 October 2004 - 14:24'][quote name='Loomis' date='14 October 2004 - 09:07'][quote]I would just as soon see Brosnan do one more, but at this point I don

[Tim007]

To answer all these questions.

We are talking Hollywood, we are talking film biz. As Brosnan put it, "It's very hard to find the truth in that town (Hollywood) or in this business at times."

Back in February, our long time sources, old and new ones (and there are sources that already covered Die Another Day for us, and you know that they did a damn good job!) all reported within a week to us, that the Broccolis don't want Brosnan back. Additionally, the Daily Mail article appeared. So we decided to publish LICENSE REVOKED. We trusted our sources because we didn't have a reason not to do so.

Please remember that a spokeperson for Eon Productions admitted only 3 weeks later that they were not having any actor under contract as James Bond. Pierce then started to pop up and tell the press that a paralysis had set in. This paralysis, to put it in my own words, was that they didn't show any interest in negotiations with Brosnan for a return. As said earlier on these boards, Barbara Broccoli is not a friend of Brosnan, although they would embrace and kiss each other in front of the press.

It went on and it went on and Brosnan tried to put the producers under pressure, repeating his "opaque" statements on a frequent basis. Also remember, it suddenly stopped. This was when he finally realized that Eon wouldn't contact him.

Now they have contacted him. And told him that it was out and over. Now it is official what had been semi-official for nearly a year now (Our sources reported that everything started in December last year). And that's about it.

I just don't get why people always get on us. We only report what we read or what we are told by our sources. And for heaven's sake, we cannot announce who our sources are. They're not too keen on losing their jobs. IMHO we should concentrate on the content of the reports and not on the How's and Why's.

[Loomis]

I just don't get why people always get on us. We only report what we read or what we are told by our sources. And for heaven's sake, we cannot announce who our sources are. They're not too keen on losing their jobs. IMHO we should concentrate on the content of the reports and not on the How's and Why's.

I don't think I'm attacking anyone at CBn. CBn has by far the most careful reporting on Bond to be found anywhere. When I want reliable Bond news, do I turn to The Sun, the IMDb, AICN, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC, etc. etc.? Nope, I turn to CBn. Because, unlike all the other sources of "news", CBn actually cares about Bond and wants to get it right.

But apologies if I do come across as critical/hostile. Just asking a few questions, that's all. Not asking for sources to be revealed, either, but just a few things (detailed in my previous posts on this thread) cause me to wonder whether - even now - we can say for certain that Brosnan won't be playing Bond again.

[Tim007]

Sorry if I over-interpreted you, Loomis.

It's just that as a Team member at one time you get tired, because all you want to do is to be good at reporting news. You know that you are a Staff member of one of the biggest platforms for Bond fans on the net. And there was a lot of harsh critizism regarding the Team here lately. And in my eyes, a lot of this critizism was unfair and unjustified.

I really appreciate it when people ask questions. But as said, you get tired if you have to answer the same questions for over six months. Especially when a lot of questions indirectly tell you to piss off because the one who asked the question doesn't want to realize that Brosnan is gone or that Bond 21 is delayed etc.

And then there are/were users who called me a "hypocritical wanker" for justifying myself. This is why I am sometimes quite harsh in replying. Apologies for that, I don't mean to personally attack anyone or to implay anything to anyone. Sorry if this sometimes seems to be the case.

[LordAsriel]

Sorry if I over-interpreted you, Loomis.

It's just that as a Team member at one time you get tired, because all you want to do is to be good at reporting news. You know that you are a Staff member of one of the biggest platforms for Bond fans on the net. And there was a lot of harsh critizism regarding the Team here lately. And in my eyes, a lot of this critizism was unfair and unjustified.

I really appreciate it when people ask questions. But as said, you get tired if you have to answer the same questions for over six months. Especially when a lot of questions indirectly tell you to piss off because the one who asked the question doesn't want to realize that Brosnan is gone or that Bond 21 is delayed etc.

And then there are/were users who called me a "hypocritical wanker" for justifying myself. This is why I am sometimes quite harsh in replying. Apologies for that, I don't mean to personally attack anyone or to implay anything to anyone. Sorry if this sometimes seems to be the case.

I think we're all just simply tired with this "Brosnan in-Brosnan out" story, and if someone is to be attacked it's Eon's staff for not making a clear and official statement that brosnan is out.

[Loomis]

Well, let me say that I have never thought CBn staff have ever misled or would ever mislead people. I believe that every single article that's been put up on the CBn main page was written in good faith.

All I'm saying (and I freely admit that I have no contacts or insider info) is that I still don't think we can necessarily state with absolute certainty that Brosnan won't be returning for BOND 21. I have no axe to grind here - heaven knows I don't want him back!

But in the absence of an official statement from Eon, a farewell message on Broz's official site, etc. (or unless these new remarks reported by Swedish journalists are followed up by appearances by Broz on chatshows in which he swears blind that what he's said to have said is true and that he really and truly is finished with Bond), we probably won't have that absolute certainty until we read about BOND 21 starting filming with someone else as 007.

My hunch is that, yes, Brosnan is out - but then we've known for a long time that he was never contracted to do BOND 21 and thus was never actually "in". It seems to be the case that MGM and Eon have been looking at and are looking at various names to play 007 in the next film. Is Brosnan one of those names? Possibly. Is he likely to star in BOND 21? Probably not. Should we rule him out altogether, then? Well, like I say, we've had false alarms before.

Even if Brosnan did indeed say the words that have been attributed to him, who's to say that he won't at some point resume negotiations with Eon? Didn't Moore sign for OCTOPUSSY a week before the start of shooting, or something like that, with James Brolin all set to replace him? Wasn't Brosnan going to play Bond in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS just days before the cameras rolled? Didn't Connery return for DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER after saying "Never again" (ho ho) until he was blue in the face? Let's wait and see what happens.

[Athena007]

I think what's been misunderstood here on and off is that the CBn staff want Brosnan out. That just isn't true. Well, Jim may want him out ...but we all feel differently. I do want Brosnan back, I adore him... but sadly from the news we're getting (publically and from our sources) I do very much believe that Brosnan is indeed out -- continuing news reports just confirm this. My hope of him returning is dieing -- this current news article is only another bullet to that hope. But fact is: CBn is here to give you 007 news... good or bad.

[Atticus17F]

I think we're all just simply tired with this "Brosnan in-Brosnan out" story, and if someone is to be attacked it's Eon's staff for not making a clear and official statement that brosnan is out.

Since when has statement-on-demand been part of the bargain? I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to hear something from them but if that isn't forthcoming, then so what? I don't think they deserve to be 'attacked' for it.

Personally, I'm a lot more appreciative of Eon's dignified silence than I am of Brosnan and his incessant whining.

[Loomis]

Personally, I'm a lot more appreciative of Eon's dignified silence than I am of Brosnan and his incessant whining.

It shouldn't be a case of these two extremes: dignified silence (if you want to call it that) on the one hand, and incessant whining (if you want to call it that) on the other.

The ideal, surely, would be a joint statement from Brosnan and Eon announcing Brosnan's departure from the role of Bond, with both parties thanking each other, and thanking fans for their support, and Eon expressing regret for Brosnan's decision to move on but paying tribute to his great work as 007, and Brosnan wishing the best of luck to whoever will replace him as Bond.

(Of course, Brosnan may not have decided to move on - he may have been pushed away. And Broccoli and Wilson may think his work as 007 sucks, and Brosnan may wish for the total failure of BOND 21. But that's not the point, obviously - the point is basic, common sense PR.)

Now, why haven't we had such a statement? Why is Eon apparently happy to let Brosnan do all the talking (complaining)? Why are MGM and Eon apparently going to great lengths to deny that Brosnan is necessarily out of the picture, stating that he hasn't been ruled out for BOND 21? If Brosnan isn't coming back, why no joint statement to put a lid on things in a way causing neither Brosnan nor the filmmakers to lose face? I know fans have been asking these questions for a long time, but these things simply don't add up, and they lead me to feel that Brosnan's Bond may not necessarily be "history", that there is the possibility of further negotiations between Broz and Eon.

[Tim007]

'Red Grant' over at IanFleming.Org just posted another bit from the article, which seems to have appeared in the print edition of the Canadian newspaper, but not in the online edition. Some interesting points here.

STAR PICKS NEW BOND With the next James Bond movie postponed for at least another year before it even gets filmed, the franchise producers have plenty of time to find their new 007. And Pierce Brosnan will be watching the process closely. "Oh yeah," Brosnan says of having an emotional stake in the awkward decision. "There will be a few hurdles to go through here, of letting go, and seeing the next guy do the piece, and who is it going to be?" The target list -- it's all speculation -- includes Britons Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Gerard Butler, Jude Law, Dougray Scott and Ewan McGregor, and Australians Hugh Jackman, Heath Ledger and Eric Bana. "I was on that list years ago and I was on it with a lot of other great actors," says Brosnan. "So I'm looking at the list and going: 'Hmmmm, he's interesting, no, he's interesting, no, no, no ... But there is one guy and it was 'Wow!'" Unfortunately, Brosnan won't reveal who he's talking about but he saw him in a recent movie and was impressed. "He had a presence: Face, body, voice, the eyes. He would make a good one. But we'll see, we'll see."

[mkkbb]

Well said Loomis, I won't believe too much inthis story until Eon release a press release stating a new actor or Pierce's departure.

[Athena007]

'Red Grant' over at IanFleming.Org just posted another bit from the article, which seems to have appeared in the print edition of the Canadian newspaper, but not in the online edition. Some interesting points here.

AWESOME snippet, Tim! That was quite an enjoyable read despite the news.

[stromberg]

.....

Now, why haven't we had such a statement? Why is Eon apparently happy to let Brosnan do all the talking (complaining)? Why are MGM and Eon apparently going to great lengths to deny that Brosnan is necessarily out of the picture, stating that he hasn't been ruled out for BOND 21? If Brosnan isn't coming back, why no joint statement to put a lid on things in a way causing neither Brosnan nor the filmmakers to lose face? I know fans have been asking these questions for a long time, but these things simply don't add up, and they lead me to feel that Brosnan's Bond may not necessarily be "history", that there is the possibility of further negotiations between Broz and Eon.

I think that an official statement will be made when the separate EON-Sony deal is done. Eon (or Danjaq, if you prefer) won't say anything official until then, just to keep every possible back door open. If a decision pro Brosnan would raise their possible earnings for, say, $ 50 million, that would be a valid reason to bring him back and even paying him his rumoured $25 million paycheck (but honestly, I don't think this'll happen). I guess there's an agreement between EON and Broz that no official announcment is made until then. (And in the very unlikely case that Brosnan willl be back, he can still use an old quote by former German chancelor Konrad Adenauer: "I don't care for my yesterday's babbling.")

[Jim]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='14 October 2004 - 14:04'][quote name='Bon-san' date='14 October 2004 - 06:55']I think it is pretty clear that a healthy portion of CBn's staff have been eagerly awaiting the day they could write that headline.

[Oetzi]

It's not a question over whos right or whos wrong. I personally think that CBn jumped the gun on the article earlier this year (which featured a TCA MGM picture...), spouting that unnamed sources had informed you that Brosnan was out of the loop. You ran the article as a headline, without clearly stating that all information was conjecture, and that - in essence - it was just an unconfirmed roumer.

This was misleading.

Another article, written by an unnamed editor, who scoured the information off another so-called source - who too, was unnamed - claimed that the Bond 21 release had been pushed back to Easter 2006. While there are somewhat credible accounts that the film has indeed been pushed back [into 2006], CBn went further and practically set a date within a [realistically] 3 week margin.

So,

Let me ask you this, did anyone check the 2006 calandar for Sony? Afterall, they have now inherited the 2006 MGM calendar too. Sony cant cater for it. The sums don't add up. I personally think that you're looking at a 12 month delay. (November 2006).

The fact CBn stated it was 'Easter' made it sound reliable, when in reality, it was nothing more than a gloryfied roumer. Which again, was not clearly stated.

And now today. I'm not disputing if hes left or not, but again, the title of the article is factually incorrect. Brosnan has never said hes been fired, nor has he been. You can only be fired, should you have an existing contract [to be 'fired' from] - which he doesn't.

I'm not here to cause arguments. But I think that romours should be noted, so that fans - like myself - can judge on how credible the information is ourselves.

[stromberg]

....
I'm not here to cause arguments.  But I think that romours should be noted, so that fans - like myself - can judge on how credible the information is ourselves.

Where do you think you are? Everyone on this board is a fan! You don't seem to understand that this isn't an official site. Have you heard any "official" anouncments on B21 recently? No one around here has. At this point anything is speculation and rumours, some of which are based on sources (who usually prefer to remain unnamed). It would be helpful to read more than just headlines (just for the record: the "Easter release" article's headline even had a big question mark). And it would also be helpful to read the discussions following those articles. You want information that is 100% credible and official? Go to jamesbond.com and see what you can find there...

Oh, and I don't think that CBn jumped the gun back in February. Au contraire, the recent development seems to show that they were absolutely right (but this is still speculation, as Brosnan's demise has yet to be officially confirmed ).

[Loomis]

Have you heard any "official" anouncments on B21 recently? No one around here has. At this point anything is speculation and rumours

That's the point I was trying to make, without any agenda to attack CBn. This new information is not "100% credible and official".

[Seannery]

Well this all seems credible but I don't believe we have certainty yet. Lets see this splashed over the big media sites online and on TV and let me see the official announcement. Lets not have another EW situation where Pierce said he was misunderstood. Or if things shift where he can easily say that oh well forget what I said Eon and I reconciled. I tend to believe this but I am not totally there yet. MORE PROOF PLEASE.

[TheBritishEnd]

Personally, I think they should've gone ahead with a fifth Brosnan in `05, and then a new 007 in `007.

I just hope the franchise doesn't start churning out a different Bond after every 2 or 3 sporadic films. No one goes to these films to see great acting, they go to see a familiar face in a familiar role. Besides, the character carries so much history, that an actor really needs one or two tries under his belt before he can make the role his own.

[Loomis]

Lets see this splashed over the big media sites online and on TV and let me see the official announcement.  Lets not have another EW situation where Pierce said he was misunderstood.  Or if things shift where he can easily say that oh well forget what I said Eon and I reconciled.  I tend to believe this but I am not totally there yet.  MORE PROOF PLEASE.

Right, right, my thoughts exactly.

[Jim]

It's not a question over whos right or whos wrong.  I personally think that CBn jumped the gun on the article earlier this year (which featured a TCA MGM picture...), spouting that unnamed sources had informed you that Brosnan was out of the loop.  You ran the article as a headline, without clearly stating that all information was conjecture, and that - in essence - it was just an unconfirmed roumer.

This was misleading.

Then you accept that there was a gun to be jumped. Thanks.

Not revealing sources is commonplace. We could call the combination of sources something utterly transparent like, oh I dunno, "Cindy Macdonald", but that would be facile. My suggestion was "Ecstasy LaBootstrap". Oddly, not taken up.

On the basis that you don't accept much of what was reported, how can you complain about being misled? If you weren't led anywhere, there was nowhere and no way in which to mislead you.

This is not an official site. Live with the territory. You flatter us by seeing us as an authoritative mouthpiece. That's quite gratifying, really. Thanks for the compliment.

[Atticus17F]

The ideal, surely, would be a joint statement from Brosnan and Eon announcing Brosnan's departure from the role of Bond, with both parties thanking each other, and thanking fans for their support, and Eon expressing regret for Brosnan's decision to move on but paying tribute to his great work as 007, and Brosnan wishing the best of luck to whoever will replace him as Bond.

(Of course, Brosnan may not have decided to move on - he may have been pushed away. And Broccoli and Wilson may think his work as 007 sucks, and Brosnan may wish for the total failure of BOND 21. But that's not the point, obviously - the point is basic, common sense PR.)

What would be the point when everyone knows it's a load of cobblers? You don't really think they should do it to keep up appearances, do you? Does Eon even have a public image to worry about? Besides, the split with Connery was pretty acrimonious - and very public - but that didn't hurt the series. Why should it be all air-kisses and backslapping with Brosnan if that isn't how they feel?

Now, why haven't we had such a statement? Why is Eon apparently happy to let Brosnan do all the talking (complaining)? Why are MGM and Eon apparently going to great lengths to deny that Brosnan is necessarily out of the picture, stating that he hasn't been ruled out for BOND 21? If Brosnan isn't coming back, why no joint statement to put a lid on things in a way causing neither Brosnan nor the filmmakers to lose face?

I can think of two possible reasons for Eon keeping quiet;

1) There's nothing to report.
2) It's nobody else's business.

Either sounds fair enough to me. There's no way they're going to lose face just by keeping their own counsel, though. If anyone's going to come out of this looking stupid, it's Brosnan. And all because he didn't know when to keep his trap shut.

Let's say Eon never issue a statement concerning their relationship with Brosnan, ever again, for as long as they live. What's the worst that can happen? Will their employees down tools in disgust? Will they alienate the entire cinemagoing public? Nope. The worst they can expect is a handful of letters from some slightly miffed Brosnan fans. And they know it.

[Jim]

Let's say Eon never issue a statement concerning their relationship with Brosnan, ever again, for as long as they live. What's the worst that can happen? Will their employees down tools in disgust? Will they alienate the entire cinemagoing public? Nope. The worst they can expect is a handful of letters from some slightly miffed Brosnan fans. And they know it.

Quite. And there's only so many times a "Miffed Brosnan Fan" (or MFB) can put up with receiving no response before it gives up.

[Loomis]

What would be the point when everyone knows it's a load of cobblers?

Well, no one knows anything (outside the Brosnan/MGM/Eon inner circle, that is). All we have are rumours, half-truths, innuendo and speculation. If Broccoli and Wilson don't want to put out an "official version" to counter all that, well, that, of course, is up to them.

You don't really think they should do it to keep up appearances, do you? Does Eon even have a public image to worry about?

Yes, I do think they should do it to keep up appearances - should have done it, at least (probably too late now). I've heard people who don't follow the Bond series or even pay much attention to film news saying: "I gather the Bond producers don't know what they're doing. They don't know how to continue the series." And they probably won't be too enthusiastic about the prospect of BOND 21.

Besides, what are prospective Bond actors thinking? "Perhaps I shouldn't touch Bond with a bargepole, since Eon'll just boot me out without a word once I've outlived my usefulness."

Why should it be all air-kisses and backslapping with Brosnan if that isn't how they feel?

For PR reasons. Allow enough Connery-style acrimonious partings to happen and they'll get a bad reputation. Filmgoers won't care, but potential Bonds and other potential employees may, as may prospective business partners.

I can think of two possible reasons for Eon keeping quiet;

1) There's nothing to report.
2) It's nobody else's business.

Either sounds fair enough to me.

Anyone would think that expecting Eon to issue a statement re: these past few months of endless "Is Brosnan in our out?" gossip was tantamount to asking highly personal questions.

There's no way they're going to lose face just by keeping their own counsel, though. If anyone's going to come out of this looking stupid, it's Brosnan.

Agreed. I still maintain, though, that a lovey-dovey joint PR announcement would have been preferable for all concerned.

[Bondian]

I think we're looking at a typical "let's see if there's a better actor for Bond, or we'll give it Pierce" scenario.

A lot of members here and at other sites mention that this happened to Connery, Moore and now it's happening to Brosnan.

I think EON are looking at all sides of the coin until they've made their final choice. Brosnan's out of contract, and if he was to make another one, wouldn't he classed as a "guest" Bond, and not given anymore than a 1 picture deal?.

If anyone remembers my 'dissing' of the CBn article in February this year, I would like to say that they were right. I was doubting CBn's so called "insider" but I should of listened.

Keep up the good work my friends,

All the best,

Cheers,


Ian