59 replies to this topic

[rogermoore007]

Then there's no other reason to replace him now is there

[Mister Asterix]

Then there's no other reason to replace him now is there 

Sure there is. I can think of forty something million reasons, plus a few more.

[rogermoore007]

I guess I can't argue with numbers like that, huh

but maybe I can: I can think of 52 million reasons why Pierce should be back, maybe they will help, hah, now top that...

...sorry, that was quite childish

[Seannery]

With Roger he looked good enough to handle Octopussy with ease at age 56 and even with AVTAK he did okay at 58.

[Pal]

With Bond, It's not how old the actor is, it's how old the actor looks.

[Skudor]

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

No one.

[XXX]

Yes, I agree.
Roger Moore for Bond #6 !

[Lady Templar]

Well said

[Forever007]

Lets be realistic. Show me ANY 50+ year old who can ski, jump, sprint and fight like James Bond? The role becomes more believable with someone who can perform the necessary physical parts, but obviously act as well. Brosnan is simply too old for Bond and has nothing to do with how great he looks for his age. He's 54 (IMDB.com) and that's too old for Bond, plain and simple. We need a new actor in his 30s that is experienced enough to be a 00 but not to the point he looks out of place. (Connery 32 in Dr. No.) Especially considering the 3 year gap between films EON needs a younger Bond to make a long run. Bond doesn't have to be beautiful but more of a commanding presence that not only looks the part, but be the appropriate age to actually live it. EON should find themselves a solid actor in his 30s willing to commit to a multi picture deal and go with it. Pierce Brosnan's time is passed and it's time to have a more believable Bond, not a 54 year old.

Edited by Forever007, 16 May 2005 - 11:46 PM.

[rogermoore007]

Lets be realistic.  Show me ANY 50+ year old who can ski, jump, sprint and fight like James Bond?  The role becomes more believable with someone who can perform the necessary physical parts, but obviously act as well.  Brosnan is simply too old for Bond and has nothing to do with how great he looks for his age.  He's 54 (IMDB.com) and that's too old for Bond, plain and simple.  We need a new actor in his 30s that is experienced enough to be a 00 but not to the point he looks out of place.  (Connery 32 in Dr. No.)  Especially considering the 3 year gap between films EON needs a younger Bond to make a long run.  Bond doesn't have to be beautiful but more of a commanding presence that not only looks the part, but be the appropriate age to actually live it.  EON should find themselves a solid actor in his 30s willing to commit to a multi picture deal and go with it.  Pierce Brosnan's time is passed and it's time to have a more believable Bond, not a 54 year old.

Pierce is 52 and still quite believable and also commanding. If he is too old now, then was Roger Moore too old in TSWLM (widely viewed as one of the best films ever) and all his following bond films? How can you say that he looks "out of place"?

[Stephenson]

Lets be realistic.  Show me ANY 50+ year old who can ski, jump, sprint and fight like James Bond?  The role becomes more believable with someone who can perform the necessary physical parts, but obviously act as well.  Brosnan is simply too old for Bond and has nothing to do with how great he looks for his age.  He's 54 (IMDB.com) and that's too old for Bond, plain and simple.  We need a new actor in his 30s that is experienced enough to be a 00 but not to the point he looks out of place.  (Connery 32 in Dr. No.)  Especially considering the 3 year gap between films EON needs a younger Bond to make a long run.  Bond doesn't have to be beautiful but more of a commanding presence that not only looks the part, but be the appropriate age to actually live it.  EON should find themselves a solid actor in his 30s willing to commit to a multi picture deal and go with it.  Pierce Brosnan's time is passed and it's time to have a more believable Bond, not a 54 year old.

Well, I don't think I need to say that I agree.

[Bondian]

We must not forget that movie making is an art forum, and the better the company can bluff, the more you're going to believe it's real.

I can remember Roger Moore being interviewed on television many years ago. When the interviewer mentioned that are we to believe what Rogers doing as Bond, like running fighting big tough men, or making love to total strangers he said to Terry Wogan "you believe what you see don't you?". Wogan said "yes", Roger responded "well, you believe it then!".

Although the actor who's playing James Bond HAS to be pretty physical fit to do the hours, they do not have to have the special skills that are done by stunt men etc.

Yes, Roger Moore, Sean Connery or Timothy Dalton could play James Bond, but they'd have to use CGI to remove their middle-age spreads. LOL

[rogermoore007]

I just don't understand the argument that Pierce is not "believable" because of his age. It's silly to say when many good bond films have been quite believable with actors in their 40s and 50s
That's why hollywood employs stuntmen--nobody does their own stuff no matter how fit

Edited by rogermoore007, 16 May 2005 - 11:59 PM.

[Mr. Somerset]

I always felt Moore looked great in OP, but older in AVTAK. He still looked great though, and most casual fans I've spoken to thru the years never really were bothered by the actors age.
In fact, most people I speak to about the new Bond are surprised there's even talk of PB leaving so soon

[rogermoore007]

4 films is too soon, he needs to do 2 more and he's definitely good enough to do so. Plus, to most casual moviegoers, Pierce IS James Bond and that is what they expect to see come 2006. If Roger Moore's films are any indication: like a good wine, Bond just gets better with age

[Stephenson]

I think today's audience is far more sophisticated when it comes to the actor doing their own stunts: aside from some of the riskier stunts, actors like Cruise, Reeves, Pitt, Damon, Viggo Mortenson (sp?), Bloom, Jackman, and Brosnan have all taken credit for doing their own stuntwork to one degree or another. Obviously, CGI has virtually eliminated the need (and/or the risk) for some stunts, but all the actors above have stated that the audience is becoming more aware of when a double is doing the work, and the need for an "action" actor to get dirty himself. It's an important factor IMO.

[Pussycat]

Here's a natural for Bond! This photo was taken 2 weeks ago.  sydney_con_black_t__thoughtful.jpg   33.11KB   67 downloads

[Taro Todoroki]

I wonder how many fans who say Pierce is not too old remember Sean was 41 in DAF. George was 29 in OHMSS and Tim was 43 in LTK. Only Roger has been older in a Bond film. Having seen all of the actors who have played Bond in their prime, I think there was some credibilty lost when AVTAK came out. I was a bit surprised Roger was cast. I remember the reaction to Tim's performance in Daylights coming after Roger's in AVTAK. There was no way some of the stunts would have been the same with someone much older. There was a collective "whoa" from the audience after the pretitles sequence. I know, we are talking Bond films, where everything is fantasy, but I think a Bond film begs of someone younger.

[Bondian]

Pierce Brosnan is not too old to play Bond again, period.

I haven't seen 'After The Sunset'. But I have seen some photo's that Athena kindly posted, and I must say that he looked better than in any Bond film. He looked hansom, charismatic and had a certain expression on his face that gave a confident look, a learned man not just a boyish charm that he displays in the Bonds.

OK, I'm afraid that I'm not a 100% supporter of the Brosnan Bond, but I feel he's the last 'traditional' actor that we'll ever see. Don't get me wrong, all Bond actor's should have some sort of characteristics inherited from their peers, but sometimes Brosnan goes OTT and it's gets irritating.

I see threads every day saying Casino Royale needs a serious actor because of how serious this book is, or we need a younger Bond because Martin Campbell has mentioned how HE'D like it to be. I don't even think Micheal and Barbara know exactly yet what is going to be in the plot, and the two screen writers are probably writing all sorts of stuff and it's just being put into a file for consideration.

I say, if there's absolutely no actor out there that can top what Brosnan can bring to the table, ( which I admit is rather insipid ) stick with the devil you know, negotiate a reasonable fee with him ( I'd bet he's do it for free with a couple of those expensive burgers throw in ) or just can the damn thing, and sell the franchise to Wal*Mart to sell between the meat and vegetable counter.

If we get a 17 year old, I'm shaving my legs, trapping my gonads in a door and becomming a Nun.

Cheers,


Ian

[Stephenson]

Before you break out the razor and the habit, consider a couple of things:

1. The devil we know isn't the only option out there; Eon is likely considering tons of candidates that we haven't even thought of. Even some of the candidates we have discussed would be good IMO (I hesitate to say great): Butler, Owen, Paul. Even Craig is growing a fan base. While there is little chance that everyone is going to agree on one, I believe that each of these "candidates" would bring something interesting and entertaining to their portrayal.

2. I am a Brosnan fan: he did a lot for the franchise and IMO was a great Bond. But (to dig up this old chestnut) he was underserviced by the product in many cases, so that while I find myself truly enjoying some of his moments as Bond, I rarely enjoying the entire film. But, after four films, I really can't think of anything new he would bring to the role. Aside from all questions of age and appearance, I feel like I would simply find another Brosnan Bond film boring. The writing may not improve, but at least with a new guy in CR there would be a sense of excitement: what will he be like? Can he pull it off? How different/alike will he be compared to X?

3. The franchise is in a great position to take a risk and try something new. The franchise is coming off a huge hit but, and it is only my opinion, but I don't think too many people are eager to see DAD II, for whatever reasons. So far, the talk from P&W has been about a darker or "grittier" Bond. There's the novel as source material, which adds some weight to the enterprise. Eon is financially secure with backing from Sony. The media is running with the "new Bond" story (however long this is staying on average movie-goers radar is debatable, but it is out there).

So the whole thing could blow up in everyone's face if they take a risk, tamper with the formula a bit and go with a new guy. So what? It's not my money, and if they take some risks we just get an amazing Bond movie rather than what we've been seeing for the last 9 years: good, but seldom great.

[Taro Todoroki]

[quote name='Stephenson (canoe2)' date='16 May 2005 - 22:02']
Before you break out the razor and the habit, consider a couple of things:

1. The devil we know isn't the only option out there; Eon is likely considering tons of candidates that we haven't even thought of. Even some of the candidates we have discussed would be good IMO (I hesitate to say great): Butler, Owen, Paul. Even Craig is growing a fan base. While there is little chance that everyone is going to agree on one, I believe that each of these "candidates" would bring something interesting and entertaining to their portrayal.

2. I am a Brosnan fan: he did a lot for the franchise and IMO was a great Bond. But (to dig up this old chestnut) he was underserviced by the product in many cases, so that while I find myself truly enjoying some of his moments as Bond, I rarely enjoying the entire film. But, after four films, I really can't think of anything new he would bring to the role. Aside from all questions of age and appearance, I feel like I would simply find another Brosnan Bond film boring. The writing may not improve, but at least with a new guy in CR there would be a sense of excitement: what will he be like? Can he pull it off? How different/alike will he be compared to X?

3. The franchise is in a great position to take a risk and try something new. The franchise is coming off a huge hit but, and it is only my opinion, but I don't think too many people are eager to see DAD II, for whatever reasons. So far, the talk from P&W has been about a darker or "grittier" Bond. There's the novel as source material, which adds some weight to the enterprise. Eon is financially secure with backing from Sony. The media is running with the "new Bond" story (however long this is staying on average movie-goers radar is debatable, but it is out there).

So the whole thing could blow up in everyone's face if they take a risk, tamper with the formula a bit and go with a new guy. So what? It's not my money, and if they take so

[Bondian]

Before you break out the razor and the habit, consider a couple of things:

Ha-ha. I mention the door because my razor is blunt.

1. The devil we know isn't the only option out there; Eon is likely considering tons of candidates that we haven't even thought of. Even some of the candidates we have discussed would be good IMO (I hesitate to say great): Butler, Owen, Paul. Even Craig is growing a fan base. While there is little chance that everyone is going to agree on one, I believe that each of these "candidates" would bring something interesting and entertaining to their portrayal.

Oh, I agree my friend. But Brosnan has experience behind him even if there were just suppositories.

But I think we've all been comparing all the obvious candidates on previous actors, and there's no one there that's fresh.

2. I am a Brosnan fan: he did a lot for the franchise and IMO was a great Bond. But (to dig up this old chestnut) he was underserviced by the product in many cases, so that while I find myself truly enjoying some of his moments as Bond, I rarely enjoying the entire film. But, after four films, I really can't think of anything new he would bring to the role. Aside from all questions of age and appearance, I feel like I would simply find another Brosnan Bond film boring. The writing may not improve, but at least with a new guy in CR there would be a sense of excitement: what will he be like? Can he pull it off? How different/alike will he be compared to X?

Well. We can only blame EON for not giving Pierce a chance. What makes us believe that Casino Royale wiill be better than the last four especially if they make a wrong choice in casting Bond 006?.

3. The franchise is in a great position to take a risk and try something new. The franchise is coming off a huge hit but, and it is only my opinion, but I don't think too many people are eager to see DAD II, for whatever reasons. So far, the talk from P&W has been about a darker or "grittier" Bond. There's the novel as source material, which adds some weight to the enterprise. Eon is financially secure with backing from Sony. The media is running with the "new Bond" story (however long this is staying on average movie-goers radar is debatable, but it is out there).

Oh, yes. They're pretty healthy financially, but if Sony are not guaranteed a hansom profit on return it could end the series.

We had the 'grittier' aspect back in 1989, but in 1995 it was back to basics again.

So the whole thing could blow up in everyone's face if they take a risk, tamper with the formula a bit and go with a new guy. So what? It's not my money, and if they take some risks we just get an amazing Bond movie rather than what we've been seeing for the last 9 years: good, but seldom great.

I agree, and this film particularly EON are going to be at their most vulnerable.

A new Studio, 44 years of a tried and tested formulae, a new Bond, a new 'young' fan base, escalating production costs. I'd say EON are going to be treading very carefully because this one could really be "Everything or Nothing"!.

Cheers,


Ian

[MrDraco]

They havent given us a bond yet... and they've rolled broz out let us hope they've only put they're foot in their mouths....and we see Brosnan lined up for Royale cuz frankly that would trip balls...

[Bondian]

cuz frankly that would trip balls...

...and that's only the women.

[Tarl_Cabot]

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 disagree. Just because Roger played Bond well into his 50's doesn't mean it was a good idea. I like James Bond to be seasoned but not old. Bond was in his prime under Connery(62-67)Lazenby, Moore(73-79) Dalton and Brosnan(95-2002). I think Brosnan is too old now to play James Bond. He looked ok in DAD but it's best to leave before people can say he's over the hill.

[Bond Bug]

Roger looked too old in AVTAK only because the stunts were ridiculous, like hanging off a ladder like Buster Keaton as the fire engine raced through the streets.

There's no reason why Bond couldn't have been late 50s, and Roger Moore still had the looks and was wonderfully English uppercrust taking us to another world of luxury and class most of us never see, but the script should have been adapted, for example, Bond should have got out of breath when giving chase, his stunts should at least have had a basis in logic, and Bond using his brains in a fight before using his fists.

Edited by Bond Bug, 17 May 2005 - 09:54 AM.

[Bondian]

Roger looked too old in AVTAK only because the stunts were ridiculous, like hanging off a ladder like Buster Keaton as the fire engine raced through the streets.

There's no reason why Bond couldn't have been late 50s, and Roger Moore still had the looks and was wonderfully English uppercrust taking us to another world of luxury and class most of us never see, but the script should have been adapted, for example, Bond should have got out of breath when giving chase, his stunts should at least have had a basis in logic, and Bond using his brains in a fight before using his fists.

Good post Bond Bug.

[rogermoore007]

Roger looked too old in AVTAK only because the stunts were ridiculous, like hanging off a ladder like Buster Keaton as the fire engine raced through the streets.

There's no reason why Bond couldn't have been late 50s, and Roger Moore still had the looks and was wonderfully English uppercrust taking us to another world of luxury and class most of us never see, but the script should have been adapted, for example, Bond should have got out of breath when giving chase, his stunts should at least have had a basis in logic, and Bond using his brains in a fight before using his fists.

Excellent point, Bond Bug. That is why I think Pierce can do another film or two= he still looks good and capable enough to do much more than Roger looked like he could in AVTAK. Tailoring the script to a 52 year old Brosnan would be much easier and safer for EON because it would be an almost definite blockbuster as Pierce's previous films (especially DAD) were

[luciusgore]

If you ask me, Brosnan looks like he's about 41. He sure looks a hell of a lot better than me and I'm 37. He could easily play a 40-year-old and be believable. If anything, he wouldn't be believable playing a 52-year-old.

[Bond Bug]

The thing about Brosnan's age is that there is a big time lapse between Bond 20 and Bond 21, so that is the best time to relaunch the series with an overhaul, give the series a fresh look, and Brosnan is too old to do that and keep going.

Brosnan's time as Bond has gone. The Bond movies need to attract new audiences and compete with commercially more successful franchises like Spiderman or Mission Impossible.

This leaves two best options in my view: to cast a young and upcoming actor who would be the equivalent of Toby Mcquire, perhaps Orlando Bloom. Or to cast an actor who could be the next Tom Cruise, perhaps Hugh Jackman.