220 replies to this topic

[Spoon]

Pierce and his old pals at MGM are working on a sequel to The Thomas Crown Affair.

Variety reports that the follow-up is titled The Topkapi Affair and will draw on material from 1964's Topkapi, an MGM film, and the Eric Ambler novel which it was based on, called "The Light of the Day."

Brosnan's producing partner Beau St. Clair says Crown will have a "post-Sept. 11" sensibility. "New York during The Crown Affair was thriving. Now his values, all the things he does, have been affected (by Sept. 11). We want to take the character further, crack him open, put him in an international backdrop."

Not sure what that last bit really means -- I guess Pierce is going to try to get the character development with Crown that he always wanted to have with Bond but was never delivered? In any event, surely a film to be excited about.

One wonders, though, whether it reflects at all on Pierce's status with respect to Bond? (No timeframe for the film was given in the article I read.)

Edited by Spoon, 10 November 2004 - 09:41 AM.

[Loomis]

Brosnan's producing partner Beau St. Clair says Crown will have a "post-Sept. 11" sensibility. "New York during The Crown Affair was thriving. Now his values, all the things he does, have been affected (by Sept. 11)."

Well, that sounds like a barrel of laughs.

What are the scriptwriters going to do? Use the horror of 9/11 to explain the absence of Rene Russo (who's almost 50 and too long in the tooth to be a female lead - Hollywood's view, not mine; expect someone like Catherine Zeta-Jones to star alongside Brosnan if this film ends up getting made)?

THE TOPKAPI AFFAIR? "How original."

[Seannery]

Brosnan's producing partner Beau St. Clair says Crown will have a "post-Sept. 11" sensibility. "New York during The Crown Affair was thriving. Now his values, all the things he does, have been affected (by Sept. 11)."

Well, that sounds like a barrel of laughs.

What are the scriptwriters going to do? Use the horror of 9/11 to explain the absence of Rene Russo (who's almost 50 and too long in the tooth to be a female lead - Hollywood's view, not mine; expect someone like Catherine Zeta-Jones to star alongside Brosnan if this film ends up getting made)?

THE TOPKAPI AFFAIR? "How original."

Loomis every once in a while we agree BUT not this time. Hmmmmmmm......sequels and remakes? I seem to remember the Bond series doing that to often great effect. This looks good, I can always use another cool caper flick. As long as sequels and remakes are done with fresh energy and smarts, they can be fine. James Bond has proven that over and over.

Edited by Seannery, 10 November 2004 - 05:55 PM.

[Loomis]

I can always use another cool caper flick. 

Same here, but why the need for this "post-9/11 sensibility" guff? Sounds like they're trying to talk up this moneygrubbing sequel nonsense as something "important".

[Turn]

"We want to take the character further, crack him open..."

Where have I heard this before about a Brosnan character?

Am I the only one who wasn't very impressed by The Thomas Crown Affair?

[Loomis]

Am I the only one who wasn't very impressed by The Thomas Crown Affair?

No.

[Turn]

Am I the only one who wasn't very impressed by The Thomas Crown Affair?

No.

I'm surprised as I was under the impression you liked the film, Loomis. A number of people here have talked about how it seems like more of a Bond film than anything EON has produced with Brosnan.

[Loomis]

It's okay. It's not a rotten film by any means, but it's really no great shakes either. Brosnan is fine in it, Rene Russo does good work, and director John McTiernan gives us some nice visuals, but there's nothing to get especially excited about, and I don't see that there's any need for a sequel.

[Qwerty]

I enjoyed the first one considerably. I'll be interested to learn more about this one here.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Loomis' date='10 November 2004 - 21:03'][quote name='Seannery' date='10 November 2004 - 17:54']I can always use another cool caper flick.

[Turn]

It's okay. It's not a rotten film by any means, but it's really no great shakes either. Brosnan is fine in it, Rene Russo does good work, and director John McTiernan gives us some nice visuals, but there's nothing to get especially excited about, and I don't see that there's any need for a sequel.

That's pretty much how I felt about it. I saw this on my anniversary and was very excited about it. Then just didn't seem to go anywhere. Rich people doing exotic things about put me to sleep at one point. The ending was also something more out of a Lifetime movie than from a cool caper film.

[Tarl_Cabot]

No '9-11' baggage neccessary...but I'm looking forward to it. I don't care about his 'inner demons' though. TCA 1999 is my favorite Brosnan film...that's not saying much but I do enjoy it.

I want a fun,glamorously escapist piece of fluff...like the first(1968) film, which was a truimph of style over substance.

[Janus Assassin]

TCA is my favorite PB movie outside of Bond. I'll end up seeing the sequel... whenever it comes out.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

...Crown will have a "post-Sept. 11" sensibility...

Uh? That makes no sense whatsoever. He's a blimmin' art thief, not John McClane. What's that got to do with anything regarding Thomas Crown?

I wonder when Pierce is going to tire of playing professional thieves.

[[dark]]

Can't wait for this.

As it happens, The Thomas Crown Affair is my favourite movie [a superb slick action/romance]. I've got faith in those behind it to create another quality film here. As it is, the basis for the film sounds interesting enough [Empire gives a better overview].

I was content to have After The Sunset be the unofficial sequel to The Thomas Crown Affair, but this is even better.

Oh, and I hope that title sticks. I like!

[Jim]

Brosnan's producing partner Beau St. Clair says Crown will have a "post-Sept. 11" sensibility. "New York during The Crown Affair was thriving. Now his values, all the things he does, have been affected (by Sept. 11)."

Oh good grief.

Isn't that a little, well, vulgar? Insensitive? The murder of 3,000 plus used to give "instant depth" to a character in a presumably lighthearted two hour film about jewel thievery and assorted japery?

Blimey.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Brosnan's producing partner Beau St. Clair says Crown will have a "post-Sept. 11" sensibility. "New York during The Crown Affair was thriving. Now his values, all the things he does, have been affected (by Sept. 11)."

Oh good grief.

Isn't that a little, well, vulgar? Insensitive? The murder of 3,000 plus used to give "instant depth" to a character in a presumably lighthearted two hour film about jewel thievery and assorted japery?

Blimey.

Yes, I miss the Hollywood of 2001-2002 that did not recognize 9-11 as part of any film's universe. So, Tommy feels like a arrrse for stealing paintings while the "world changed"...just let him stay retired or have him steal again,for kicks, but I hope they don't turn him into some altruistic do-gooder now. Yawn.

[Loomis]

Isn't that a little, well, vulgar? Insensitive? The murder of 3,000 plus used to give "instant depth" to a character in a presumably lighthearted two hour film about jewel thievery and assorted japery?

Well, in 2002 it was alluded to in order to give "instant depth" to characters* (M and Bond, one supposes) in a presumably lighthearted two-hour film about glamorous secret agents, face-swapping, invisible cars and assorted japery.

M: While you were away the world changed.

BOND: Not for me.

*At least, I imagine it was alluded to for that purpose; I can't think of any other reason for an utterly gratuituous reference to 9/11 in DIE ANOTHER DAY. (And if the world changed while 007 was in prison, does that mean that the world's intelligence agencies are busy hunting down those responsible for 9/11 and trying to prevent further attacks? In that case, why is Bond being asked by M to waste time on the Graves affair? Wouldn't it be viewed as a sideshow, a trifling, small-time assignment? Why doesn't she send her best agent after Osama and co.? Or are we to take it that all the other Double-Os are on that one? Nope, dragging 9/11 into DAD doesn't work at all.)

[Jim]

True, and equally vulgar and jarring then. How splendidly the Broccolis traded on disaster to line their pockets, to add depth and meaning to their shabby, flaccid and entirely trivial enterprises.

[Bon-san]

True, and equally vulgar and jarring then. How splendidly the Broccolis traded on disaster to line their pockets, to add depth and meaning to their shabby, flaccid and entirely trivial enterprises.

All respect, but I find that to be a bit over the top.

[Loomis]

True, and equally vulgar and jarring then. How splendidly the Broccolis traded on disaster to line their pockets, to add depth and meaning to their shabby, flaccid and entirely trivial enterprises.

All respect, but I find that to be a bit over the top.

Okay, then, Bon-san, how would you account for the clunking 9/11 reference in DAD? What do you think they were trying to achieve by chucking it into the film?

[Bon-san]

True, and equally vulgar and jarring then. How splendidly the Broccolis traded on disaster to line their pockets, to add depth and meaning to their shabby, flaccid and entirely trivial enterprises.

All respect, but I find that to be a bit over the top.

Okay, then, Bon-san, how would you account for the clunking 9/11 reference in DAD? What do you think they were trying to achieve by chucking it into the film?

Oh, I quite agree that it was rather clumsy. When the Bond films insert "topical" stuff into the storyline, it is usually lame, and ultimately dates these films (which normally resist dating quite well).

I just thought Jim's comment went a bit into the realm of hyperbole. I truly appreciate Jim's gift for analysis and wit, and no offense meant.

If it had been up to me, I would not have included even oblique references to 9/11. As to what they were trying to accomplish with it, my sense is it was an attempt by Purvis and Wade to craft a more serious Bond. Yes,ugh.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Bon-san' date='11 November 2004 - 15:49']If it had been up to me, I would not have included even oblique references to 9/11.

[Jim]

I just thought Jim's comment went a bit into the realm of hyperbole.

Lack of subtlety guaranteed

Bit like shoehorning references to real-life tragedies into an artistic tragedy, I s'pose.

[Bondian]

Isn't there a real life 'reference' in every Bond film?.

Some can be as lame as casting that dreadful "wheel clamp" geezer in The World is not Enough (who gets rightfully drenched).

Funny though, when I hear that infernal line in Try Another Day, I take it that M's trying to make a point to James Bond about how he's not the flavour of the month, and how MI6 hate hedgehog flavoured crisps.

Back to the original topic of Thomas Crown Affair sequel, again, I'll wait until it comes out on DVD, because most fims that are make these days are so deadfully and explicitly overrated like that 'cold' uninteresting The Day After Tomorrow.

Should THEY of made this movie so close to 7/11...er...9/11?.

[[dark]]

The IMDb has a page for this up now, with a 2006 release date attached. Brozzie's official site also mentions the film. Can't wait!

[Bond is back]

I am worried this film will even get made. Brosnan's last two films failed to make any money so it's somewhat surprising to read about a new Thomas Crown movie in the pipeline. Also, MGM won't be making it as Sony now owns MGM. So if Sony think Brosnan is not a bankable actor (and based on his last two films he isn't), I can't see Sony bankrolling TC2.

Sorry to sound negative but I just can't see Sony making this film. Perhaps some other studio will help Irish Dreamtime get it off the ground?

[Loomis]

Perhaps some other studio will help Irish Dreamtime get it off the ground?

Perhaps Irish Dreamtime won't be allowed to shop it around to other studios? Stallone was reportedly trying to get MGM to finance ROCKY VI a while back (prior to the sale to Sony), but MGM basically said: "Sorry, Sly, you're no longer remotely bankable, and we won't even give you $10 million to make another Rocky film, since we doubt that many people would want to see one." Whereupon Stallone said he'd be taking his ROCKY VI script to other studios, and MGM said: "Oh no you don't, we have the rights to the Rocky series. Either ROCKY VI will be an MGM film, or it won't get made at all, and, frankly, what's going to happen is, it won't get made at all."

Granted, Irish Dreamtime may have a freer hand when it comes to the Thomas Crown "property", but, still, I don't see why a studio would want to make a sequel to THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR. The original wasn't that big a hit. Also, it's going to look like a real gamble after the disappointing performance of AFTER THE SUNSET, which I understand is THOMAS CROWN 2 in all but name. I mean, it's as though Stallone had starred in a box office flop about a washed-up boxer just before asking for the cash to make ROCKY VI.

[hrabb04]

If this gets made, it could go directly to video or cable.

[CommanderBond]

Pierce needs to pick different character types. Hes stuck in the suave or dashing robber bit and its starting to get old .