59 replies to this topic

[luciusgore]

Pierce Brosnan turned 52 and he looks great. Do people realize that Roger Moore was actually 50 in 1977 -- when Spy Who Loved Me was released? Or he was 52 when Moonraker came out. And 54 when For Your Eyes Only came out? And 56 when Octopussy came out? And a whopping 58 when View to a Kill was released? He's turning 80 in a couple years.

It seems quite a bit premature for Brosnan to be leaving the series now, at just 52.

[Athena007]

Oh it's definitly premature. And if it were up to Pierce I'm sure he'd still be doing Bond. Unfortunately... some people want to go for a younger inexperienced Bond for a crazy whacked out on some illegal substance reason.

Bond needs to be mature and experienced, damn it (Brosnan is perfect)... I

[luciusgore]

It is possible that Eon is self destructing. Goldeneye's success may have a lot to do with Jon Calley. They went downhill from there. DAD was a mild uptick from TWINE, but not much better. I suspect they will select McMahon and destroy the franchise for CASINO ROYALE. Total annihilation.

[Seannery]

Pierce Brosnan turned 52 and he looks great. Do people realize that Roger Moore was actually 50 in 1977 -- when Spy Who Loved Me was released? Or he was 52 when Moonraker came out. And 54 when For Your Eyes Only came out? And 56 when Octopussy came out? And a whopping 58 when View to a Kill was released? He's turning 80 in a couple years.

It seems quite a bit premature for Brosnan to be leaving the series now, at just 52.

I'm with you there luciusgore. I'm not hung up on Bond's age at all--if you get the right actor Bond could work from age 28 to 58.


And actually according to a number of sources including some almanacs which I hear tend to be MORE accurate Pierce is not 52 BUT actually 54 born in 1951--either way he looks good enough to easily pull off another Bond and the general audiences would go to see this popular Bond since a 40 to 50 something Bond is expected and accepted. It's been that way from the early 70's the the early 00's.

[tdalton]

I don't think that age is the real reason that people want to see Brosnan leave. Instead it's the reason that a lot of people use to justify their desire to the rest of the Bond fans to see Pierce leave the role because they didn't like his interpretation of the character. I'll say that I'm guilty of that as well. I don't want Pierce to come back for CR because I'm not that big of a fan of his Bond movies (except TWINE), so often times when speaking to Brosnan fans, I'll bring up the age issue.

[Seannery]

I don't think that age is the real reason that people want to see Brosnan leave.  Instead it's the reason that a lot of people use to justify their desire to the rest of the Bond fans to see Pierce leave the role because they didn't like his interpretation of the character.  I'll say that I'm guilty of that as well.  I don't want Pierce to come back for CR because I'm not that big of a fan of his Bond movies (except TWINE), so often times when speaking to Brosnan fans, I'll bring up the age issue.

Yes tdalton i've intuited that also--it's rather clear. With Pierce it comes down if you like his Bond or not--all other points are window dressing.

[K1Bond007]

Another reason perhaps is to avoid "The Bond series is going to die without ____". How many times have I read this statement with Brosnan mentioned and how many times do I recall seeing the statement with Connery and Moore. Totally preposterous given Bond's track record. It surived Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and its going to survive Brosnan, however, the "death of Bond" is always mentioned.

This is I suppose perhaps more of a "point" rather than a reason. I'd love to see Brosnan do another, but I'm not upset by the move. Would have been nice to have been prepared and kicked out a 5th in 2004. Still could have been on track for a new Bond and new film in 06, but they squandered that opportunity. Hell even 2005 with a new Bond in 2007 would have been good perhaps even better.

[Skudor]

Moore didn't really look out of place until Octopussy (to some extent) and AVTAK. Brosnan could definitely do one, or even two, more Bond films - and who knows, maybe he will!

[[dark]]

I'm just re-treading old ground here, but I've no problem with an ageing Bond. In fact, I'd take a 57-year-old Moore over a 20-something youngster, any day of the week.

Brosnan, I would argue, definitely had two more in him. Ideally, in 2005 and 2007.

Who knows, maybe we'll see him back for Casino Royale. Sure, it's doubtful, but I, for one, would breathe a sigh of relief if he returns.

[Gri007]

Roger Moore seemed to me me to have aged more when he did Octopussy and AVTAK. Looking back on those two films did Roger ever have an haircut. it looked like he had amop on his head. But Brosnan looks fairly fit at the age he his. It might have been a TWINE or DAD publicity photo, but I could see what they call crow feet around the eyes.

[marktmurphy]

Roger's post-pussy facelift makes AVTAK a joy to watch. Where's the mole gone? Presumably it had to go because it had moved across his face!

[Hitch]

Pierce Brosnan could certainly do another Bond film, but it could be another twelve months (at least) by the time shooting wraps on Casino Royale. Die Another Day was two and a half years ago and, at Mr Brosnan's time in life, things start to sag and wrinkle. I'll wait a moment while you try to get that image out of your mind. He still looks terrific, but I'd be worried that Brosnan would make the same mistake Roger Moore did in A View to a Kill - or A Film Too Far, as it's known in the Hitch household.

I like my Bond to be an experienced spy who's been around the block a few times - but I also like my Bond to look as though he could run round that block, dodge a bullet or two, roll and fire without having to call a chiropractor. Sean Connery appealed as Bond because, even when flabby in Diamonds Are Forever, he looked as though he could still win (and relish) a nasty fight. I'm not so sure if Brosnan, a man of much lighter build, would be quite so convincing now that the years are starting to roll by.

Before I get pummelled, I should add that I like Brosnan as Bond and would enjoy seeing him in the role once more. And yes, I'm no oil painting.

[Lady Templar]

It's fashionable to say Roger Moore was too old when playing in AVTAK. By the way, he never had a facelift but just his mole removed from his face. I don't know why Brosnan couldn't go for another film? If the actor looks good and sexy enough to play Bond, why should he stop? Life and talent are more than your date of birth.

Funnily enough, in "Shout At The Devil" Roger Moore was considered as the young lad although he was only 3 years older than Lee Marvin. All in in the mind!

[SeanValen00V]

Everyone ages differently, Brosnan looks great for his age, and if EON can't find a bond they like, keep Brosnan for one or two more.

[Skudor]

Everyone ages differently, Brosnan looks great for his age, and if EON can't find a bond they like, keep Brosnan for one or two more.

I'm sure he's their backup plan

[rogermoore007]

If Roger Moore did fine at 58 what the hell is wrong with a 52 year old Brosnan who looks 32? I just don't get the whole "young and inexperienced Bond" bit.

[Mister Asterix]

...what the hell is wrong with a 52 year old Brosnan who looks 32?

Nothing is wrong with that. Unfortunately, one of those does not exist.

[rogermoore007]

Very funny Mr *

I still think he looks 32 though....call me crazy....

[007 Agent]

If Roger Moore did fine at 58 what the hell is wrong with a 52 year old Brosnan who looks 32

With all due respect yadda yadda yadda , there is no way Pierce Brosnan looks 32! Here is the proof:




No offence meant, but the guy has serious sun spots - sun spots he never had in Die Another Day.

And here is Pierce back when he was closer to 32:



A bit younger there.

[rogermoore007]

I was exaggerating, OK...geez

...but I do think he looks a lot younger than he is (add movie makeup and he looks pretty darn good for 52)

[Seannery]

Of course Pierce doesn't look 32--it's an irrelevant point anyway. The fact is he looks good enough to still do Bond--as I mentioned before from the early 70's to the early 00's popular culture and general audiences expect and accept Bond as a seasoned 40 to 50 something. The age and looks argument against Pierce doesn't work--BUT if you think him a poor Bond well that is a different though debatable matter.

[rogermoore007]

Thank you Seannery, I agree. I was exaggerating by saying he looks 32 but the age and looks argument definitely doesn't work.

[Mister Asterix]

Very funny Mr * 

I still think he looks 32 though....call me crazy....

Or perhaps blind.

[007 Agent]

Of course Pierce doesn't look 32--it's an irrelevant point anyway. The fact is he looks good enough to still do Bond--as I mentioned before from the early 70's to the early 00's popular culture and general audiences expect and accept Bond as a seasoned 40 to 50 something. The age and looks argument against Pierce doesn't work--BUT if you think him a poor Bond well that is a different though debatable matter.

Yeah but as I say, he has age/sun spots. That is from skin damage and general ageing. Don't get me wrong, I am not criticising him for ageing, I know I look a fair bit older than when Goldeneye came out nearly ten years ago.

I wouldn't mind Brosnan back for one more mission but looking at the bigger picture - and this seems to be the main issue behind all this casting business we have to endure - is the need to find a younger Bond#6. We need someone younger sooner rather than later. One rumour and I am sure it's not mere rumour but a genuine concern is the fact a mid 50s Brosnan won't look so good with a 20 something Bond girl - the age gap could be seen as too great. So this limits the casting potential.

Perhaps Eon and Sony want to cast a much younger actress in Casino Royale and they don't want their Bond actor to be over 20 years older. I'm sure this has crossed their minds. We can all debate Brosnan's age, his looks, should he return, but ultimately, when push comes to hefty shove, Eon and Sony have to find a replacement. Now or in three years time. But it's going to have to happen. If Brosnan is to return it's only because the current candidates are so poor or mediocre they've failed to impress Eon. I'm certain had Eon found a guy similar to Brosnan or the other Bonds, Brosnan would not be mentioned. People would be upset about his departure but fans would welcome a younger Bond#6. It's because many fans are unsure who should replace him that we mention Brosnan's age and appearance and seek to justify it.

[rogermoore007]

thanks again Mr *


...where is Athena when you need her to defend Brosnan?

[Seannery]

Of course Pierce doesn't look 32--it's an irrelevant point anyway. The fact is he looks good enough to still do Bond--as I mentioned before from the early 70's to the early 00's popular culture and general audiences expect and accept Bond as a seasoned 40 to 50 something. The age and looks argument against Pierce doesn't work--BUT if you think him a poor Bond well that is a different though debatable matter.

Yeah but as I say, he has age/sun spots. That is from skin damage and general ageing. Don't get me wrong, I am not criticising him for ageing, I know I look a fair bit older than when Goldeneye came out nearly ten years ago.

I wouldn't mind Brosnan back for one more mission but looking at the bigger picture - and this seems to be the main issue behind all this casting business we have to endure - is the need to find a younger Bond#6. We need someone younger sooner rather than later. One rumour and I am sure it's not mere rumour but a genuine concern is the fact a mid 50s Brosnan won't look so good with a 20 something Bond girl - the age gap could be seen as too great. So this limits the casting potential.

Perhaps Eon and Sony want to cast a much younger actress in Casino Royale and they don't want their Bond actor to be over 20 years older. I'm sure this has crossed their minds. We can all debate Brosnan's age, his looks, should he return, but ultimately, when push comes to hefty shove, Eon and Sony have to find a replacement. Now or in three years time. But it's going to have to happen. If Brosnan is to return it's only because the current candidates are so poor or mediocre they've failed to impress Eon. I'm certain had Eon found a guy similar to Brosnan or the other Bonds, Brosnan would not be mentioned. People would be upset about his departure but fans would welcome a younger Bond#6. It's because many fans are unsure who should replace him that we mention Brosnan's age and appearance and seek to justify it.

Hey i'm not opposed to replacing Pierce--i'm just saying even with more weathered skin he still has the dash and good looks to be convincing for one, even two films. I could still see him pulling off a late 20's early 30's Bond babe. If Eon finds a good candidate now, i'd be fine with that BUT I won't complain at all with Pierce back either.

[rogermoore007]

As far as the looks and convincingness (definitely not a word) of Pierce, there is not dire need for a replacement: if he wants the part, it should be his.

[Bondian]

Roger Moore went on to play 007 well into his late 50's because EON couldn't find a suitable replacement. Roger had to suffer knowing that EON were continuously screen testing other actors whilst he was playing the part.

The way I feel, there's absolutely nobody who can replace Brosnan, who's the last Roger Moore/Sean Connery type. Therefore EON could possibly ask him back because they've exhausted any chance of finding someone else.

Remember EON is a business and just as cut-throat as any other.

Who have we got who's a 100% natural choice for Bond?.

[rogermoore007]

No one at all

bring Pierce back

Edited by rogermoore007, 16 May 2005 - 03:04 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

thanks again Mr * 


...where is Athena when you need her to defend Brosnan? 

[mra]Nothing needed to defend. I don