143 replies to this topic

[Tim007]

With Lucas, the working titles of the Bond movies wouldn't be "Bond 19", "Bond 20", "Bond 21" anymore, but "Moonraker 9", "Moonraker 10", "Moonraker 11"

[Bondian]

With Lucas, the working titles of the Bond movies wouldn't be "Bond 19", "Bond 20", "Bond 21" anymore, but "Moonraker 9", "Moonraker 10", "Moonraker 11"

Ha-ha, good one Tim!.

[kevrichardson]

This has been a very interesting tread . But the time has come to move on.

[Bon-san]

I want to apologize for my comments earlier in this thread. I am sorry for injecting negativity into the discussion, and for casting a bad light on the CBn staff. In particular, I offer humble apologies to Tim, as his article did not deserve the criticisms I lodged. I think he is a fine writer and, like all CBn staff, a person of integrity.

The verbal jousting on this board can be fun. But occasionally, lines are crossed, and I for one do not appreciate when that happens. So I must own up to my own indiscretions.

Now, on with the show....

[Seannery]

Still not seeing this "news" on major entertainment outlets on TV so for me I definitely need more verification. I'll just wait and see and come to no conclusions yet.

[TheCheat]

its music to my ears

Edited by TheCheat, 16 October 2004 - 02:08 AM.

[hrabb04]

Well, now you can have Phil Donahue as James Bond, and you'll be happy again!

[Qwerty]

[quote name='Athena007' date='14 October 2004 - 18:31'][quote name='Alex Zamudio' date='14 October 2004 - 15:27']p.s. Hey were is Qwerty?[/quote]
He

[LordAsriel]

Now, Dalton was actually fired. He was given the boot, pure and simple, but was permitted to tell the world that he was walking away from Bond of his own free will. And the fact that Brosnan was revealed as his replacement less than two months after Dalton announced his "retirement" from the Bond role gives the lie to Eon's claim that "We have never thought of anyone but Timothy as the star of the seventeenth James Bond film".

I think on the contrary that what's happening today with Brosnan's departure confirm that dalton was not fired. And the fact that Brosnan was revealed as his replacement less than two months after Dalton announcement is certainly not a proof of Eon's lie. Indeed, you forget that Eon had to financially compensate the producers of "The lawnmower man 2" for which Brosnan has just signed to star in before being cast as 007. That's shows clearly that Dalton's departure was unexpected. And if Dalton had really been fired, he would have admitted it some years later.
Anyway, I think too that for now an official statement by Eon on Brosnan's departure would be welcome to clarify the situation, something like "Over the past nine years we have enjoyed a very happy professional relationship with Pierce. But we know feel it's time to move on with a younger james Bond. We look forward to announcing our plans for the 21st Bond film in the near future."

[Loomis]

I think on the contrary that what's happening today with Brosnan's departure confirm that dalton was not fired.

I disagree. Different people react to things differently. If one person is fired, or not asked back, he may react in a very different way to another guy in the same position. One man may take it very personally and feel hurt, and feel compelled to talk about his situation in public; another man may not get so cut up about it and decide to remain silent and just get on with his career, feeling that there's nothing really to be gained by speaking out.

So I don't think the current Broz situation confirms that Dalton was not fired.

For the record, here's where I got the information that Dalton got the boot - a post by Simon on 2 October 2001 (http://debrief.comma...1561):

Dalton was fired, or "let go". I was offering competition prize Garth Pearce written books on the Making of GE while I was working for a TV station. He came in to sign the books and he said that he was the first person Dalton called to say that while the official version was that he stepped down, he was asked to leave.

And the fact that Brosnan was revealed as his replacement less than two months after Dalton announcement is certainly not a proof of Eon's lie.

You're right. It's not proof of a lie. It is a bit suspect, though, no? Are we really to believe that Eon was all set to go with Dalton but was able to find and sign a new Bond actor within the space of a few short weeks?

Apart from the implausibility of that, you'd have thought that if Dalton had quit suddenly, the filmmakers would have spent quite a bit of time rethinking the direction of the series and deciding what kind of Bond actor to replace Dalton with. It's not as though the series wasn't in the middle of a long delay anyway. What would another six months or so have been?

Indeed, you forget that Eon had to financially compensate the producers of "The lawnmower man 2" for which Brosnan has just signed to star in before being cast as 007. That's shows clearly that Dalton's departure was unexpected.

I don't think it shows that Dalton's departure was unexpected, merely that Brosnan had signed to do LAWNMOWER MAN 2. Perhaps it's true that Brosnan was approached for Bond at short notice, but that doesn't mean that Dalton's departure was a sudden shock. Maybe Brosnan wasn't Eon's first choice, or maybe MGM wanted someone other than Broz, but the other guy or guys fell through and only then was Broz offered the role.

And if Dalton had really been fired, he would have admitted it some years later.

Erm, no, not necessarily. As mentioned above, different people deal with things differently. Perhaps Dalton didn't - and doesn't - bear anyone any ill will (he still seems to be very friendly with Barbara Broccoli; by contrast, Babs and Broz are said to have disliked one another intensely for a very long time). Perhaps, while he was fired, he also didn't want to do any more Bonds. And saying "I left of my own accord" is more face-saving than saying "I was sacked", no?

[Bondian]

I agree Loomis and this business is a cold hearted affair!. OK, I was very small fry, but it's a dreadful business with little compensation even though you can make loads of money.

If Brosnan knows for sure that he will not be making any more Bond movies, he shouldn't show discontent, he should retire gracefully. Even if he's been instructed by EON to "blood up the water" to keep the Bond fandom occupied, he still shouldn't cry like a child.

Holy jockstraps Batman, phrases from Brosnan like "it's over" and such, sounds either like he cannot pay his electricity bill, or his quotes have been cooked up by someone else.

Mr Brosnan is worth more than fattening up the starving people in Africa.

Come on Pierce, how much do you need to be satisfied?.

[LordAsriel]

I think on the contrary that what's happening today with Brosnan's departure confirm that dalton was not fired.

I disagree. Different people react to things differently. If one person is fired, or not asked back, he may react in a very different way to another guy in the same position. One man may take it very personally and feel hurt, and feel compelled to talk about his situation in public; another man may not get so cut up about it and decide to remain silent and just get on with his career, feeling that there's nothing really to be gained by speaking out.

So I don't think the current Broz situation confirms that Dalton was not fired.

For the record, here's where I got the information that Dalton got the boot - a post by Simon on 2 October 2001 (http://debrief.comma...1561):

Dalton was fired, or "let go". I was offering competition prize Garth Pearce written books on the Making of GE while I was working for a TV station. He came in to sign the books and he said that he was the first person Dalton called to say that while the official version was that he stepped down, he was asked to leave.

And the fact that Brosnan was revealed as his replacement less than two months after Dalton announcement is certainly not a proof of Eon's lie.

You're right. It's not proof of a lie. It is a bit suspect, though, no? Are we really to believe that Eon was all set to go with Dalton but was able to find and sign a new Bond actor within the space of a few short weeks?

Apart from the implausibility of that, you'd have thought that if Dalton had quit suddenly, the filmmakers would have spent quite a bit of time rethinking the direction of the series and deciding what kind of Bond actor to replace Dalton with. It's not as though the series wasn't in the middle of a long delay anyway. What would another six months or so have been?

Indeed, you forget that Eon had to financially compensate the producers of "The lawnmower man 2" for which Brosnan has just signed to star in before being cast as 007. That's shows clearly that Dalton's departure was unexpected.

I don't think it shows that Dalton's departure was unexpected, merely that Brosnan had signed to do LAWNMOWER MAN 2. Perhaps it's true that Brosnan was approached for Bond at short notice, but that doesn't mean that Dalton's departure was a sudden shock. Maybe Brosnan wasn't Eon's first choice, or maybe MGM wanted someone other than Broz, but the other guy or guys fell through and only then was Broz offered the role.

And if Dalton had really been fired, he would have admitted it some years later.

Erm, no, not necessarily. As mentioned above, different people deal with things differently. Perhaps Dalton didn't - and doesn't - bear anyone any ill will (he still seems to be very friendly with Barbara Broccoli; by contrast, Babs and Broz are said to have disliked one another intensely for a very long time). Perhaps, while he was fired, he also didn't want to do any more Bonds. And saying "I left of my own accord" is more face-saving than saying "I was sacked", no?

Well, first the fact that Eon chose Brosnan so quicly after Dalton's departure is not that suspect, as Brosnan was a so obvious choice after what happened in 1986. So that's not a valid argument. But, in a way I agree with the idea that Dalton was "let go". Indeed from what Tim said more recently, the reason why he didn't play in "Goldeneye" is because the producers wanted an actor who signed for 3 films to relaunch the franchise after such a long gap, and Tim only wanted to sign for one last Bond. For that matter, the delay of Bond21 certainly indicates that Brosnan has no more chance to be called back by Eon.

[Simon]

Whatever the merits for his sacking and subsequent talking, it would seem a pity for this sacking.

He has been campaigning for a gritty, hard Bond film for his entire duration, and for it to actually happen, he has to be sacked! I am not a Brosnan fanatic either way, but he has had to endure some right crap material and to see his wish coming true, but in the guise of another actor, must really bite.

Feel for him.

[Loomis]

Brosnan was a so obvious choice after what happened in 1986.

I gather that MGM executives were initially reluctant to go with Brosnan in 1994, even though he'd been hired in 1986. They felt he didn't have a good track record as a big screen star (and he didn't). There were those who wanted a bigger name as Bond. Still, it's easy to believe that Brosnan was Eon's first choice.

Wasn't it revealed a while back (in another article by Garth Pearce, I believe) that Brosnan still had to undergo interviews and auditions for the Bond role in '94, shoot new screentests and so on?

[Loomis]

If Brosnan knows for sure that he will not be making any more Bond movies, he shouldn't show discontent, he should retire gracefully. Even if he's been instructed by EON to "blood up the water" to keep the Bond fandom occupied, he still shouldn't cry like a child.

Surprisingly enough, that's the first time since February that I've read of the theory that Eon has been asking (paying) Brosnan to create a little drama re: his exit in order to keep Bond in the headlines. Could there be a backhander behind every mention of "paralysis" and opaque situations? Anything's possible, I suppose.

[Loomis]

He has been campaigning for a gritty, hard Bond film for his entire duration, and for it to actually happen, he has to be sacked! I am not a Brosnan fanatic either way, but he has had to endure some right crap material and to see his wish coming true, but in the guise of another actor, must really bite.

Well, obviously, it remains to be seen whether BOND 21 will be "a gritty, hard Bond film" and the realisation of Brosnan's wishes. I agree that he was given some very poor material during his tenure, though.

Thing is, though, I think Broz is actually a lot better at Moore-style "fun-for-all-the-family" Bondage than at "grittiness". For me, his best performance is in the "silly" (but, IMO, fun) DIE ANOTHER DAY, in which he's sufficiently relaxed to let his charisma shine through.

And weren't GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH attempts (albeit failed ones) at gritty, hard Bond films? Why did they fail? Because they didn't have the courage of their supposed convictions, and were stuffed with so-called comic relief (Q, jokes about "cunning linguists", etc.) in order to be "audience-pleasing". Also, they came across as simultaneously beating their chests and being "serious", and as apologising for being Bond films - an uneasy mixture.

[Daltonfan]

Thing is, though, I think Broz is actually a lot better at Moore-style "fun-for-all-the-family" Bondage than at "grittiness". For me, his best performance is in the "silly" (but, IMO, fun) DIE ANOTHER DAY, in which he's sufficiently relaxed to let his charisma shine through.

I think that's a good point. Although he might have wanted to be more gritty it might not have played to his strengths. I didn't like his performance in the early parts of DAD but once he was back as the urbane Mr Bond I was a lot happier. The more realistic, gritty approach just doesn't fit in with my image of Pierce Brosnan.

[Turn]

He has been campaigning for a gritty, hard Bond film for his entire duration, and for it to actually happen, he has to be sacked! I am not a Brosnan fanatic either way, but he has had to endure some right crap material and to see his wish coming true, but in the guise of another actor, must really bite.

Well, obviously, it remains to be seen whether BOND 21 will be "a gritty, hard Bond film" and the realisation of Brosnan's wishes. I agree that he was given some very poor material during his tenure, though.

Thing is, though, I think Broz is actually a lot better at Moore-style "fun-for-all-the-family" Bondage than at "grittiness". For me, his best performance is in the "silly" (but, IMO, fun) DIE ANOTHER DAY, in which he's sufficiently relaxed to let his charisma shine through.

And weren't GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH attempts (albeit failed ones) at gritty, hard Bond films? Why did they fail? Because they didn't have the courage of their supposed convictions, and were stuffed with so-called comic relief (Q, jokes about "cunning linguists", etc.) in order to be "audience-pleasing". Also, they came across as simultaneously beating their chests and being "serious", and as apologising for being Bond films - an uneasy mixture.

Good observations. How many times did we hear in the last decade the Bond we wanted was back? As if they wanted to apologize for the previous two decades or something. The balance did seem uneasy when you have Bond supposedly falling for a psycho woman in TWINE while also pulling Denise Richards, sliding across lines on docks and Robbie Coletrane is falling into vats of caviar.

If anything, it seems the success of the Jason Bourne movies may have an impact on the movement back to "gritty." But what's a little sad about that is Bond is again becoming a follower rather than a leader.

[LordAsriel]

He has been campaigning for a gritty, hard Bond film for his entire duration, and for it to actually happen, he has to be sacked! I am not a Brosnan fanatic either way, but he has had to endure some right crap material and to see his wish coming true, but in the guise of another actor, must really bite.

Well, obviously, it remains to be seen whether BOND 21 will be "a gritty, hard Bond film" and the realisation of Brosnan's wishes. I agree that he was given some very poor material during his tenure, though.

Thing is, though, I think Broz is actually a lot better at Moore-style "fun-for-all-the-family" Bondage than at "grittiness". For me, his best performance is in the "silly" (but, IMO, fun) DIE ANOTHER DAY, in which he's sufficiently relaxed to let his charisma shine through.

And weren't GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH attempts (albeit failed ones) at gritty, hard Bond films? Why did they fail? Because they didn't have the courage of their supposed convictions, and were stuffed with so-called comic relief (Q, jokes about "cunning linguists", etc.) in order to be "audience-pleasing". Also, they came across as simultaneously beating their chests and being "serious", and as apologising for being Bond films - an uneasy mixture.

While I totally agree on Brosnan-Bond movies being an uneasy mixture, I think also that Pierce is not responsible for that, and I think he could have been a greater Bond without those crap material. And in a way he showed us how great he could have been in his "Tailor of Panama" performance.

[Loomis]

He has been campaigning for a gritty, hard Bond film for his entire duration, and for it to actually happen, he has to be sacked! I am not a Brosnan fanatic either way, but he has had to endure some right crap material and to see his wish coming true, but in the guise of another actor, must really bite.

Well, obviously, it remains to be seen whether BOND 21 will be "a gritty, hard Bond film" and the realisation of Brosnan's wishes. I agree that he was given some very poor material during his tenure, though.

Thing is, though, I think Broz is actually a lot better at Moore-style "fun-for-all-the-family" Bondage than at "grittiness". For me, his best performance is in the "silly" (but, IMO, fun) DIE ANOTHER DAY, in which he's sufficiently relaxed to let his charisma shine through.

And weren't GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH attempts (albeit failed ones) at gritty, hard Bond films? Why did they fail? Because they didn't have the courage of their supposed convictions, and were stuffed with so-called comic relief (Q, jokes about "cunning linguists", etc.) in order to be "audience-pleasing". Also, they came across as simultaneously beating their chests and being "serious", and as apologising for being Bond films - an uneasy mixture.

Good observations. How many times did we hear in the last decade the Bond we wanted was back? As if they wanted to apologize for the previous two decades or something. The balance did seem uneasy when you have Bond supposedly falling for a psycho woman in TWINE while also pulling Denise Richards, sliding across lines on docks and Robbie Coletrane is falling into vats of caviar.

If anything, it seems the success of the Jason Bourne movies may have an impact on the movement back to "gritty." But what's a little sad about that is Bond is again becoming a follower rather than a leader.

Here are some great words from Jaelle (http://debrief.comma...27):

The thing with Roger is that he simply refused to take his films and himself seriously. All he intended for his audience was this: "Look, you and I know that the idea of a celebrity spy is ridiculous, we can't take this seriously, so just come along with me and let's have some fun with great music, great locations, wild stunts and characters and gorgeous women." Roger *never claimed to be the authentic James Bond.* He only claimed to play an entertaining version of himself playing Bond. There is absolutely NO pretention in Roger's entire attitude as Bond. And for the most part he delivers what he promises. And he also surprises you with occasional moments of understated yet effective seriousness and emotion. It is far easier to forgive someone if they never intended anything more than simple, unpretentious fun.

Brosnan for me is more difficult to overlook precisely because he and the people around his Bond films *do* promise and intentionally plan to "go deeper" and "explore Bond's angst" or whatever. And fail. His films consciously promise to please everyone, to cover all bases in interpreting Bond---fun yet serious, suave yet vulnerable. His films are, imo, very pretentious. His Bond is pretentious. I can count only a handful of authentic moments in his films. His films (as is common with most films today) and his Bond reek of knowingness, far too much self-awareness. They promise you just simple escapist fun yet also promise scripts with social or political relevance. The result is schizophrenic and superficial films. Only in GE do I have some semblance of an understanding of the point of the film. I like some of TND but those last three films are generally a confusing, incoherent, schizo, pretentious mess.

--------

Yes, the Brosnan Bond films are, on the whole, pretentious. As for Bourne influencing future 007 outings, I think IDENTITY/SUPREMACY may - unfortunately - influence the Eon films only on a visual level (handheld cameras bobbing up and down during action scenes, shots of Bond striding through dark, gloomy and inhospitable European locations rather than doing his thing in exotic places like the Caribbean - the Bond people seem good at nicking the superficial trappings of popular movies, just look at all those MATRIX-esque bits in DIE ANOTHER DAY). I can't think of a single one-liner in either of the Bourne flicks, but, as we all know, quips and Q scenes in the Bonds seem as essential and non-negotiable as the gunbarrel opening; and given that that was true even back in the golden days of films like GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL, I don't think there's any hope whatsoever for a Bond flick as genuinely gritty as the Bournes.

[Loomis]

I think also that Pierce is not responsible for that (uneasy mixture), and I think he could have been a greater Bond without those crap material.

Agreed.

[Loomis]

How many times did we hear in the last decade the Bond we wanted was back? As if they wanted to apologize for the previous two decades or something.

Here's the (sad) thing: I wouldn't be surprised if they had felt it necessary to apologise for the previous two decades. Obviously, I don't know what Barbara Broccoli likes and dislikes in terms of Bond, but it wouldn't surprise me if she looked at films such as THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, MOONRAKER and even an acknowledged classic like THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, and thought: "Oh, this is just so dated and embarrassing. Britt Ekland in a bikini is so incredibly offensive. The women are all airheads who need rescuing by Bond all the time - there aren't any strong, independent, sassy female characters who are capable of putting 007 in his place and shooting baddies and blowing things up by themselves. And then there are so many awful racial stereotypes." It wouldn't surprise me if she considered Moore's Bond too cartoonish and the scripts insufficiently intelligent, the "themes" insufficiently important. It wouldn't surprise me if she failed to see the greatness (as pointed out by Jaelle) of the Moore outings.

All of which said, though, I view DIE ANOTHER DAY as a welcome return - for the most part, anyway - to "fun" (read: "unpretentious") James Bond.

[Simon]

Well, obviously, it remains to be seen whether BOND 21 will be "a gritty, hard Bond film" and the realisation of Brosnan's wishes. I agree that he was given some very poor material during his tenure, though.

And weren't GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH attempts (albeit failed ones) at gritty, hard Bond films? Why did they fail? Because they didn't have the courage of their supposed convictions, and were stuffed with so-called comic relief (Q, jokes about "cunning linguists", etc.) in order to be "audience-pleasing". Also, they came across as simultaneously beating their chests and being "serious", and as apologising for being Bond films - an uneasy mixture.

Yeah, I was thinking of Tailor of Panama when I was writing that which shows he can portray the thorough bar steward. If the material is right etc.

And certainly he can't be blamed for the lack of convictions in the producers for silly jokes along side serious stuff........which brings me back to the crap material.

[Simon]

The thing with Roger is that he simply refused to take his films and himself seriously. All he intended for his audience was this: "Look, you and I know that the idea of a celebrity spy is ridiculous, we can't take this seriously, so just come along with me and let's have some fun with great music, great locations, wild stunts and characters and gorgeous women."

Surely. With Roger I think they admirably fulfilled his potential. All the elements were there and in the right setting.

With Brosnan, I fear he has had possibly the greater, (or more correct) potential, and it has been woefully unfulfilled.

If the Bonds turn around because of Bourne, then so be it and hopefully it is for the better, or more appropriate. But yes, I agree that Bond is now a follower and not a leader.

But then when was the last time the Bonds lead? I am thinking around the time of Spy!!?

[Atticus17F]

Perhaps Barbara and Michael ought to consider taking turns at producing, like Broccoli and Saltzman did in the late '60s. I can't see them having a happy working relationship when they both have such vastly differing views on what the series is about (didn't she once have a pop at him for sacrificing 'character' over car chases and helicopters and stuff?).

I reckon Wilson could produce films that are a bit more blokey and fun, and Barbara can then do her politically correct, sensitive and caring pieces when it's her turn. Problem solved. No more identity crises within each film.

[zencat]

Perhaps Barbara and Michael ought to consider taking turns at producing, like Broccoli and Saltzman did in the late '60s. I can't see them having a happy working relationship when they both have such vastly differing views on what the series is about (didn't she once have a pop at him for sacrificing 'character' over car chases and helicopters and stuff?).

I reckon Wilson could produce films that are a bit more blokey and fun, and Barbara can then do her politically correct, sensitive and caring pieces when it's her turn. Problem solved. No more identity crises within each film.

That's not a bad suggestion at all Atticus.

I'm late to this discussion, but I think I've said it all before during the LICENCE REVOKED days (when I first adjusted to this news). I believe the way Pierce went out will cast a bit of a dark shadow over Bond 21 and the next Bond actor. He's still Bond to the general public, and all I get out there when the subject of Bond comes up is, "Why'd they get rid of Pierce?" I never have a satisfactory answer and the topic of Bond ends on a frown and sour note. I think Bond 21 will be dogged by the question and unless the new Bond is someone VERY exciting (and familiar) he will suffer. Ironically, it could be Dalton all over again. A great actor for the part, but one the public and press never embrace, and one who's looked at as "taking" the job away from Pierce Brosnan.

[Loomis]

Ironically, it could be Dalton all over again. A great actor for the part, but one the public and press never embrace, and one who's looked at as "taking" the job away from Pierce Brosnan.

True. Dalton is seen by some as having "stolen" Bond from Broz (even though that's an absolutely ludicrous and ridiculously unfair charge), and if Owen (I assume you're referring to Owen when you mention "a great actor for the part, but one the public and press never embrace") were to replace Brosnan it could well be the exact same LIVING DAYLIGHTS/LICENCE TO KILL scenario, 20 years on.

Of course, I'd love that.

[Simon]

Ironically, it could be Dalton all over again.

And Lazenby all over again - the alternating pattern is there for all to see.

Indeed I think this is a stronger pattern than that of the "third film is the best" palava.

[Seannery]

Perhaps Barbara and Michael ought to consider taking turns at producing, like Broccoli and Saltzman did in the late '60s. I can't see them having a happy working relationship when they both have such vastly differing views on what the series is about (didn't she once have a pop at him for sacrificing 'character' over car chases and helicopters and stuff?).

I reckon Wilson could produce films that are a bit more blokey and fun, and Barbara can then do her politically correct, sensitive and caring pieces when it's her turn. Problem solved. No more identity crises within each film.

That's not a bad suggestion at all Atticus.

I'm late to this discussion, but I think I've said it all before during the LICENCE REVOKED days (when I first adjusted to this news). I believe the way Pierce went out will cast a bit of a dark shadow over Bond 21 and the next Bond actor. He's still Bond to the general public, and all I get out there when the subject of Bond comes up is, "Why'd they get rid of Pierce?" I never have a satisfactory answer and the topic of Bond ends on a frown and sour note. I think Bond 21 will be dogged by the question and unless the new Bond is someone VERY exciting (and familiar) he will suffer. Ironically, it could be Dalton all over again. A great actor for the part, but one the public and press never embrace, and one who's looked at as "taking" the job away from Pierce Brosnan.

This brings up what I have said elsewhere concerning speculation the producers having a dilemna of replacing Pierce--a popular Bond. If the producers really go for it and they pick a big name and he fails they are in a bind. If they shoot their big load and misfire it could be hard to straighten out the series since you really went for it and it would be hard to make a second big splash.

Instead go for a lesser name and if it works then great. If it fails then you have a way to go up and then choose a big name. In this way they have two shots at getting it right before panic time comes and likely two shots if not one will do it.

[Seannery]

How many times did we hear in the last decade the Bond we wanted was back? As if they wanted to apologize for the previous two decades or something.

Here's the (sad) thing: I wouldn't be surprised if they had felt it necessary to apologise for the previous two decades. Obviously, I don't know what Barbara Broccoli likes and dislikes in terms of Bond, but it wouldn't surprise me if she looked at films such as THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, MOONRAKER and even an acknowledged classic like THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, and thought: "Oh, this is just so dated and embarrassing. Britt Ekland in a bikini is so incredibly offensive. The women are all airheads who need rescuing by Bond all the time - there aren't any strong, independent, sassy female characters who are capable of putting 007 in his place and shooting baddies and blowing things up by themselves. And then there are so many awful racial stereotypes." It wouldn't surprise me if she considered Moore's Bond too cartoonish and the scripts insufficiently intelligent, the "themes" insufficiently important. It wouldn't surprise me if she failed to see the greatness (as pointed out by Jaelle) of the Moore outings.

All of which said, though, I view DIE ANOTHER DAY as a welcome return - for the most part, anyway - to "fun" (read: "unpretentious") James Bond.

Agreed on the fun and charm of the Moore films and hopefully we can recapture More(Moore!) of that. And yes i'm with you Loomis on DAD despite the derision of it in some quarters. I would also add Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist! in TWINE was a fun throwback also.