143 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Perhaps Barbara and Michael ought to consider taking turns at producing ... 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.

Maybe they're doing that already. GOLDENEYE is a "personal", would-be "dark" Bond outing. TOMORROW NEVER DIES is relatively "blokey and fun". THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH sees 007 at his most "politically correct, sensitive and caring" (and boring). DIE ANOTHER DAY is by and large unpretentious entertainment.

That's not to say that those films aren't all over the place, of course (for instance, TWINE's gritty good intentions are undercut at every turn by dreadful so-called comic relief), but it's easy to believe that GOLDENEYE and TWINE are "mostly Broccoli", while TND and DAD are "mostly Wilson".

[Qwerty]

I see Tomorrow Never Dies as that Brosnan film with a little bit of both sides. It's a great choice to look for the formula of future Bond films.

[Atticus17F]

Perhaps Barbara and Michael ought to consider taking turns at producing ... 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.

Maybe they're doing that already. GOLDENEYE is a "personal", would-be "dark" Bond outing. TOMORROW NEVER DIES is relatively "blokey and fun". THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH sees 007 at his most "politically correct, sensitive and caring" (and boring). DIE ANOTHER DAY is by and large unpretentious entertainment.

'Fraid I can't tell them apart, so I'll have to take your word for it.

[Loomis]

didn't (Barbara Broccoli) once have a pop at (Michael G. Wilson) for sacrificing 'character' over car chases and helicopters and stuff?

It's in the "From Script to Screen" documentary on the DIE ANOTHER DAY DVD. A very painful moment for those of us who think the likes of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and MOONRAKER are wonderful James Bond films, and that outings such as FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH are horrifyingly boring, charmless affairs.

[Turn]

didn't (Barbara Broccoli) once have a pop at (Michael G. Wilson) for sacrificing 'character' over car chases and helicopters and stuff?

It's in the "From Script to Screen" documentary on the DIE ANOTHER DAY DVD. A very painful moment for those of us who think the likes of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and MOONRAKER are wonderful James Bond films, and that outings such as FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH are horrifyingly boring, charmless affairs.

Count me in that camp, Loomis.

[Alex Zamudio]

A very painful moment for those of us who think the likes of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and MOONRAKER are wonderful James Bond films, and that outings such as FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH are horrifyingly boring, charmless affairs.

I comes to show that there are all kinds of Bond fans out there, as I respect and enjoy all the films for there merits and coolness, I find TMWTGG one of my "lesser liked" and FYEO one of my "Moore liked" Bond films!

Cheers!

Edited by Alex Zamudio, 25 October 2004 - 10:02 PM.

[kevrichardson]

There is a interesting piece on the mi6 website . www.mi6.co.uk in which Brosnan gives his take on what happened . Interesting read , still the more this goes on . The more it comes off as just a lot of whining . Connery, Moore , Dalton where very classy when the time to leave Bond came . Brosnan comes off as a P****

[Agent Provocateur]

There is a interesting piece on the mi6 website . www.mi6.co.uk in which Brosnan gives his take on what happened . Interesting read , still the more this goes on . The more it comes off as just a lot of whining . Connery, Moore , Dalton where very classy when the time to leave Bond came . Brosnan comes off as a P****

How does Brosnan explaining what happened (from his point of view) make him come off as a p****? The way I see it, Bond fans want to know what's going on. With EON continuing to remain silent, it's only natural for the media to ask Brosnan for his take on the situation. I just perceived the article as an interviewer simply asking him questions about his role in Bond 21 (or lack there of) with Brosnan explaining how things have unfolded thus far. As for being classy about leaving the role of Bond... would it be better for Pierce Brosnan to lie about how he lost the role or, worse yet, leave us in the dark as EON is doing by refusing to answer any questions having to do with Bond?

[kevrichardson]

Each week there is a new "way of explaining " what happened . I do agree with you regard how EON has left the fans in the dark . Still Brosnan has not helped matters . Remember most of 2004 has been rather hard on the Broccoli's . Especially with the death of Dana Broccoli . Brosnan constant crying to the press regarding Bond 21 , and the Producers search for a new direction . Was not gentlemanly .

[Loomis]

There is a interesting piece on the mi6 website . www.mi6.co.uk in which Brosnan gives his take on what happened . Interesting read , still the more this goes on . The more it comes off as just a lot of whining . Connery, Moore , Dalton where very classy when the time to leave Bond came . Brosnan comes off as a P****

How does Brosnan explaining what happened (from his point of view) make him come off as a p****? The way I see it, Bond fans want to know what's going on. With EON continuing to remain silent, it's only natural for the media to ask Brosnan for his take on the situation. I just perceived the article as an interviewer simply asking him questions about his role in Bond 21 (or lack there of) with Brosnan explaining how things have unfolded thus far. As for being classy about leaving the role of Bond... would it be better for Pierce Brosnan to lie about how he lost the role or, worse yet, leave us in the dark as EON is doing by refusing to answer any questions having to do with Bond?

Sorry, Agent Provocateur, but I still feel very much in the dark. I don't think us fans have anything to thank Brosnan for with regard to his handling of this issue. Ordinarily, I'd take such statements as the ones he's just issued as pretty clear proof that we wouldn't be seeing an actor as Bond again, but the trouble is that Brosnan is beginning to come across as the boy who cried wolf. As kevrichardson points out: "Each week there is a new "way of explaining" what happened." First he's out, then he's in, then he's put Bond behind him, then he says he wants to return for BOND 21, then he says he's finished with the role, then he says he isn't fed up with Bond but was misquoted and is actually fed up with talking about Bond, and then he talks about Bond some more and tells us that he's out.

Or is he?

Here's the latest: "But it's over for now and, when they get the next guy, I'll fade quietly into my career as an actor."

It's over for now? And he'll fade quietly into his career as an actor when they get the next guy? Does that mean that Brosnan will keep on jabbering away about Bond until the next Bond actor is announced?

Crikey, it was so much simpler in 1994. A polite, concise and very final statement from Dalton, with no ifs or buts, followed by an Eon press release expressing regret, thanking Dalton and announcing an intention to recast the role and move on.

And don't tell me that Dalton had it easier than Brosnan, because Dalton was fired (as well?).

If Brosnan is going, then he's sure as heck not going gracefully. Certainly, it seems overwhelmingly likely that he WON'T be back for BOND 21, but then again, after all this humming and hawing, I don't believe I'll believe he's out of the picture until I read an official statement about another actor being cast as Bond.

I don't say that the people at Eon have helped matters, and I'm not trying to paint Brosnan as the bad guy and Broccoli and Wilson as the good guys. This whole business has been a fiasco.

Neither am I saying that Brosnan and/or Eon must release official statements just to please us info-hungry fans. However, us fans have the right to be.... unimpressed by the situation that has been unfolding embarrassingly and inconclusively since February.

[JimmyBond]

I agree with you there Loomis. This whole thing has pretty much unimpressed me, and I was someone looking forward to a new guy! Now I really don't care what happens, I just know we'll see a Bond film some day, and that's enough for me.

[Arrant]

The BIG problem here (IMHO) is more EON than Brosnan. If EON were to give Brosnan his marching orders and say " We are looking for a new, younger Bond and taking the series in a whole new direction....thank you, but goodbye !" I think Brosnan would be the first person to tell the press "it's been fun, but it's over!"

The problem appears to be that EON have NOT ruled out a final Brosnan Bond, but are looking at alternatives.

There appears to be no committed vision at EON on which direction to take Bond and the situation can't have been helped by the Sony takeover.They appear to be trying to keep all their options open. Which makes good business sense, but can't be easy on the creative people involved.

I'm sure Brosnan would like to make a final Bond movie but he is in the unenviable position of constantly being asked about it by the press and having to try to " save face" whilst being as ignorant as to what's happening as the rest of us.

His mood swings on returning as Bond seem positively restrained, IMHO considering the lack of decision by EON.

Brosnan has a life and a successful career to pursue, with or without Bond. Ms Broccoli and Mr Wilson have Bond. I know who is having the more sleepless nights, and it's NOT Peirce.

[Loomis]

The problem appears to be that EON have NOT ruled out a final Brosnan Bond, but are looking at alternatives.

You may well be right. My guess is that Eon never intended to rule Brosnan out for BOND 21, but wanted to look at alternatives while keeping Brosnan as an option.

And after starring in four successful Bond films, Brosnan was - understandably, perhaps - extremely miffed to find that he wasn't necessarily going to have first refusal on BOND 21, but was merely one option among several.

However, I don't think Brosnan ought to have sounded off about "paralysis" and Bond being behind him, even if he honestly believed he was telling the truth at the time. He should have buttoned his lip until the official statement from Eon that we're all waiting for. He'd have won a lot more sympathy by waiting until the announcement of a new Bond actor before speaking out.* With the way he's handled the situation, he's almost certainly ruled out any chance of being seriously considered (by Eon, at least) for BOND 21, and has opened himself up to accusations of sour grapes.

When asked about BOND 21 by journalists, all he needed to say was "Yes, I hope I'll be back as Bond in the near future", or "Nothing to say about BOND 21 for the moment, wait and see what happens", or something like that.

*Not suggesting, of course, that he should have started speaking out on the same day as the announcement of the new guy - that would have been an even worse course of action that the one he chose. Wait a good few weeks after the announcement of the new guy and then "go public".

[Agent Provocateur]

I agree with you wholeheartedly Loomis. Brosnan would've been better off had he kept quiet and just waited to see how things panned out.

As they say, there are three sides to every story. In this case, there is:

1. Brosnan's side
2. EON's side
3. and somewhere in between the two, there's the truth

The one catch is we have no clue as to what EON's side is. Maybe one day we'll know.

[zencat]

Sorry...I've been moving and I haven't really kept up with the latest in the Pierce saga. Apologies if someone has already mentioned this, but I just re-read Tim's terrific main page story and noticed that Pierce says he got the word from Mickey and Babs while he was shooting After the Sunset. That means all this went down a while ago. Does anyone know exactly when this film was shooting in the Bahamas?

My bet it was around Feb '04, exactly when CBn ran its (highly controversial at the time) LICENCE REVOKED story. Sorry to gloat, but I think long-term CBners will recall for 6 months we were called flithy rumor mongers and worse. Athough I am sorry to see this story turned out to be 100% true. I wanted Pierce back for one more film and I think the general public did as well.

[Loomis]

I wanted Pierce back for one more film and I think the general public did as well.

Getting rid of him certainly seems a bold move and a major gamble on Eon's part. One wonders what amazing plans for BOND 21 they have up their sleeve that would make them feel confident enough to chuck a popular Bond actor with plenty of mileage left in him.

[zencat]

I wanted Pierce back for one more film and I think the general public did as well.

Getting rid of him certainly seems a bold move and a major gamble on Eon's part. One wonders what amazing plans for BOND 21 they have up their sleeve that would make them feel confident enough to chuck a popular Bond actor with plenty of mileage left in him.

I keep coming back to the idea that Bond 21 must be an origin story, because then much of what has happened makes sense. But every time I run this idea past someone "in the know" they say..."no."

I don't know what Eon has up its sleeve.

[Athena007]

I don't know what Eon has up its sleeve.

I'm starting to believe that just want to screw with our minds *silly*

[Loomis]

I keep coming back to the idea that Bond 21 must be an origin story, because then much of what has happened makes sense. But every time I run this idea past someone "in the know" they say..."no."

Exactly. Otherwise, why ditch Broz? Why all these rumours of an actor between the ages of 28 and 32? (Lee Tamahori weighs in on the speculation that 007 will be a considerably younger guy the next time we see him - http://debrief.comma...showtopic=19422.) Makes sense, no? A BATMAN BEGINS-style "first mission" Bond flick. But Dench says she's returning as M (although there's a question mark over Q, oddly enough), so that alone would appear to nix an origin story.

Weird. Why, then, a babyfaced Bond? Have MGM execs decided that a very young star is the only way to draw audiences to Bond flicks? But didn't the Brosnan films do well at the box office? Where's the evidence that young Bond = big bucks? We've seen only one 20-something 007: Lazenby - say no more.

The only explanation I can think of (interpreting posts by Athena) is that Barbara Broccoli hates Brosnan so much that she simply isn't prepared to work with him any more. According to Athena, the Babs/Broz relationship broke down around the time of TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

But that begs the question: why was Broz hired for DIE ANOTHER DAY after his original three-picture contract had expired?

Opaque, eh?

[LordAsriel]

I wanted Pierce back for one more film and I think the general public did as well.

Getting rid of him certainly seems a bold move and a major gamble on Eon's part. One wonders what amazing plans for BOND 21 they have up their sleeve that would make them feel confident enough to chuck a popular Bond actor with plenty of mileage left in him.

I keep coming back to the idea that Bond 21 must be an origin story, because then much of what has happened makes sense. But every time I run this idea past someone "in the know" they say..."no."

I don't know what Eon has up its sleeve.

I don't think that Bond21 being an origin story makes more sense to what happened. Indeed if the producers really want to do such a move why not wait until Brosnan really wants to leave the series. Especially when such a wait would have make it possible to deliver this origin story in 2 007. So, I still don't see any logical explanation to Brosnan's departure.

[Turn]

The thing that would bother me about doing an origin story is, as has been the custom in recent years, the Bond films are continuing to be followers rather than leaders.

Tom Mankiewicz once called the series the "Rolls Royce of action films." These days, it seems they are just another factory product off the assembly line.

[Simon]

So, I still don't see any logical explanation to Brosnan's departure.

Good point. You're right, with the info we know right now, there is no logical explanation.

Maybe, as per the Ross interview related in the MKKBB site, there is a political situation going on between the studios. It'd be a bit of a knee jerk reaction to say Bourne has done a couple of good films - that's the future. Especially since other Young "insert hero name here" films have tanked left and right.

[Loomis]

So, I still don't see any logical explanation to Brosnan's departure.

Good point. You're right, with the info we know right now, there is no logical explanation.

Odd, innit? Should we, in fact, be calling it "Brosnan's sacking" rather than "Brosnan's departure"? (The mystery, after all, lies in his being given the boot.)

Slightly OT, I suppose, but I found myself thinking: would making BOND 21 the final 007 outing make sense from a DVD marketing POV? In other words, you'd have three box sets of seven films:

- BOX SET 1: all the Connerys and OHMSS

- BOX SET 2: the complete Moore

- BOX SET 3: Dalton, Brosnan and the next (final) guy

Just a thought. Carry on.

[LordAsriel]

Loomis Posted Yesterday, 06:16 PM
  Odd, innit? Should we, in fact, be calling it "Brosnan's sacking" rather than "Brosnan's departure"? (The mystery, after all, lies in his being given the boot.)

But was Brosnan really sacked? After all we only have his word on that, and "Brosnan's sacking" is not confirmed by Eon. Maybe Pierce prefers tell the press that he was fired rather than he decided to quit because Eon refused to give him more money as he doesn't want to appear venal. This raise the question did Pierce ever enjoy playing James Bond or was he doing it only for money?