125 replies to this topic

[Turn]

Yes, so, in other words, welcome back, Pierce - feels like you never left.

Thats hardly true. remember Brosnan priced himself out of the role.

I don't think the fact they haven't cast anyone yet is a biggie. Remember in BACK TO THE FUTURE they replaced the lead actor while the movie was shooting. (i'm sure there are a gazillion other examples but thats the one that comes to mind right away).

Yeah. Why is it some people in this thread are suddenly assuming Brosnan is coming back, especially on the flimsy excuse that Dench is coming back?

[Skudor]

Not really the right thread for this, but MGW also said this:

"Fine, but I wasn't sure that explained Bond's invisible car from "Die Another Day."

Wilson said the U.S. Army has a rough version of the technology as a cloaking device for tanks, then admitted: "I think we went a little far afield with that one."

I'm glad that he was able to admit it...

[Seannery]

Yes, so, in other words, welcome back, Pierce - feels like you never left.

Thats hardly true. remember Brosnan priced himself out of the role.

I don't think the fact they haven't cast anyone yet is a biggie. Remember in BACK TO THE FUTURE they replaced the lead actor while the movie was shooting. (i'm sure there are a gazillion other examples but thats the one that comes to mind right away).

Yeah. Why is it some people in this thread are suddenly assuming Brosnan is coming back, especially on the flimsy excuse that Dench is coming back?

Expect the typical late 30 something or 40 something Bond with Dench if it's not Pierce.

[DLibrasnow]

Yes, so, in other words, welcome back, Pierce - feels like you never left.

Thats hardly true. remember Brosnan priced himself out of the role.

Yeah. Why is it some people in this thread are suddenly assuming Brosnan is coming back, especially on the flimsy excuse that Dench is coming back?

These would be the same people who believe that Bernard Lee was only M to Sean Connery's 007 and Robert Brown was M to only Roger Moore's 007.

I wonder who they believe was M to George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton?

[cvheady007]

Yes, so, in other words, welcome back, Pierce - feels like you never left.

Thats hardly true. remember Brosnan priced himself out of the role.

I don't think the fact they haven't cast anyone yet is a biggie. Remember in BACK TO THE FUTURE they replaced the lead actor while the movie was shooting. (i'm sure there are a gazillion other examples but thats the one that comes to mind right away).

Stoltz was replaced in Back to the Future only because Fox became available - they assumed he wouldn't be due to "Family Ties", but he squeezed it into his schedule by working around the clock. With Dench in the picture, I see all signs pointing to a Brosnan return...OR another older actor (which is better than most of the alternatives).

[cvheady007]

Yes, so, in other words, welcome back, Pierce - feels like you never left.

Thats hardly true. remember Brosnan priced himself out of the role.

Yeah. Why is it some people in this thread are suddenly assuming Brosnan is coming back, especially on the flimsy excuse that Dench is coming back?

These would be the same people who believe that Bernard Lee was only M to Sean Connery's 007 and Robert Brown was M to only Roger Moore's 007.

I wonder who they believe was M to George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton?

Sure, that's a pithy statement, but the fact is that Brosnan's (meaning the older, seasoned version of Bond's) M shouldn't be helming his "first mission" as a 00-agent. Hey, we're all die-hard Bond fans, here - I see a seasoned actor for a seasoned character. Whether it is now or later, Pierce will be succeeded - I am not oblivious to that.

Edited by cvheady007, 18 May 2005 - 04:30 PM.

[Stephenson]

Yes, so, in other words, welcome back, Pierce - feels like you never left.

Thats hardly true. remember Brosnan priced himself out of the role.

I don't think the fact they haven't cast anyone yet is a biggie. Remember in BACK TO THE FUTURE they replaced the lead actor while the movie was shooting. (i'm sure there are a gazillion other examples but thats the one that comes to mind right away).

Yeah. Why is it some people in this thread are suddenly assuming Brosnan is coming back, especially on the flimsy excuse that Dench is coming back?

Expect the typical late 30 something or 40 something Bond with Dench if it's not Pierce.

Why? No one had any problems when a 42 year old dalton replaced a 58 year old Moore and Brown was still M. Why should this be any different?

Personally, I'm wondering if CR might be designed to be about Brosnan's Bond's backstory (not saying Brosnan will be coming back!). I know it was a throw away, gimmick scene, but in DAD when he's rummaging around "the old relics" he wasn't acting like a man who had personally encountered those objects before, thereby creating a pretty distinct break between himself and the previous Bonds in terms of history. Maybe this is about how the Bond that Brosnan played comes to the MI:6, his first mission and meeting Dench (no one has said she is playing M; maybe in this earlier incarnation she hasn't got the job yet but is still necessary to the plot, just as Hopkins went back to play a younger Lector in Red Dragon). Then again maybe they'll just ignore the continuity like they have a hundred times before.

[cvheady007]

Then again maybe they'll just ignore the continuity like they have a hundred times before.

My money's on that!

[Stephenson]

Then again maybe they'll just ignore the continuity like they have a hundred times before.

My money's on that!

Sadly, mine as well. New Bond = retrograde amnesia (with a few winks and nods thrown in now and again, ie Tracy). It is completely possible to beleive that Brosnan's Bond was never married, never skied off cliff and parachuted to safety, never fought Blofeld, never knew Felix Leiter. Eon will have a new, younger Bond working with M without blinking an eye: "Continuity problem? What continuity problem?"

[Mister Asterix]

Look at the secret code Mickey G left for us:

I don't know which actor; Jan. 17; Oct. 19, 2006; Aston Martin; "Casino Royale'; Martin Campbell; Prague and South Africa; yes, Judi Dench will be back; and no, Halle Berry won't reprise, but I'd love to make another film with her.

[mra]Obviously he is trying to tell us Pierce is back and he can

[Bon-san]

Oooohhhh, I'm excited! So good to have some concrete Bond 21 news, and straight from the mouth of Michael Wilson! The wheels are starting to turn, baby!

It definitely feels like the "first mission / reboot" thingy has been pretty much junked. Unlike some CBn'ers, I thought that had sounded quite intriguing. But at this point I'm ready for just about anything. I'm such a shameless sucker for just about anything Bond. I still have the notion that they are going to shoot for "Goldeneye"-meets-"The-Bourne-Identity". And that would work for me.

Wonder when they're announcing who will play Bond? Just for yucks I'm going to pick a date: August 25, 2005.

[Seannery]

Yes, so, in other words, welcome back, Pierce - feels like you never left.

Thats hardly true. remember Brosnan priced himself out of the role.

I don't think the fact they haven't cast anyone yet is a biggie. Remember in BACK TO THE FUTURE they replaced the lead actor while the movie was shooting. (i'm sure there are a gazillion other examples but thats the one that comes to mind right away).

Yeah. Why is it some people in this thread are suddenly assuming Brosnan is coming back, especially on the flimsy excuse that Dench is coming back?

Expect the typical late 30 something or 40 something Bond with Dench if it's not Pierce.

Why? No one had any problems when a 42 year old dalton replaced a 58 year old Moore and Brown was still M. Why should this be any different?

Personally, I'm wondering if CR might be designed to be about Brosnan's Bond's backstory (not saying Brosnan will be coming back!). I know it was a throw away, gimmick scene, but in DAD when he's rummaging around "the old relics" he wasn't acting like a man who had personally encountered those objects before, thereby creating a pretty distinct break between himself and the previous Bonds in terms of history. Maybe this is about how the Bond that Brosnan played comes to the MI:6, his first mission and meeting Dench (no one has said she is playing M; maybe in this earlier incarnation she hasn't got the job yet but is still necessary to the plot, just as Hopkins went back to play a younger Lector in Red Dragon). Then again maybe they'll just ignore the continuity like they have a hundred times before.

My money's on the regular mature Bond. Dench has been the boss for 4 movies of a 40 something and older Bond. They'll go younger than Pierce's 52 BUT won't go way down to late 20's, early 30's--that's much too jarring. At best someone in their mid 30's probably older. And they couldn't have Dench as pre-M she's definitely older now. Bragging rights on who is correct.

[zencat]

*choke* *gasp* *gulp*

The second day in a row I log on and there's a great big juicy CR story on CBn. Woo hoo!

I had to read it a few times before I realized all that is really new here is South Africa...but that is sweet!

James Bond is headed to South Africa. Me likely! ("I always fancied a trip to South Africa." - DAF).

Could Oct 19 (of this year) be the date they will announce the next Bond?

Thank you Mickey G! This will hold me for a whlie.

[Turn]

So are some of you floating that theory Tamahori was so hot on -- that 007 is a code name and given to a different guy every few years? That's an awful way of looking at the Bond legacy.

If a guy can actually ski off a cliff and dive out of a plane without a parachute and all that in the context of the film, why is it so hard to accept it's basically the same guy?

[Bon-san]

So are some of you floating that theory Tamahori was so hot on -- that 007 is a code name and given to a different guy every few years?

Not this kid. to that notion.

[Atticus17F]

The Young Bond thing could still work. Martin Campbell did say that we see Bond growing in to the mature, seasoned pro (or something like that) by the end of the film.

My money's on a bijou adventurette with Young Bond for the pretitles, then business as usual with Dench and Older Bond after the credits.

[Seannery]

*choke* *gasp* *gulp*

The second day in a row I log on and there's a great big juicy CR story on CBn. Woo hoo!

I had to read it a few times before I realized all that is really new here is South Africa...but that is sweet!

James Bond is headed to South Africa. Me likely! ("I always fancied a trip to South Africa." - DAF).

Could Oct 19 (of this year) be the date they will announce the next Bond?

Thank you Mickey G! This will hold me for a whlie.

At least we found out not too believe that Variety(or any other source for that matter) is always correct or written correctly.

[K1Bond007]

Thank God for 2006 That's all I gotta to say.

October 19th can't be end of shooting. Filming doesn't take that long. That might be the planned release date. Right?

[Seannery]

The Young Bond thing could still work. Martin Campbell did say that we see Bond growing in to the mature, seasoned pro (or something like that) by the end of the film.

My money's on a bijou adventurette with Young Bond for the pretitles, then business as usual with Dench and Older Bond after the credits.

That's a way around it. Possible I guess.

[TheBritishEnd]

[quote name='Stephenson (canoe2)' date='18 May 2005 - 15:42'][quote name='TheBritishEnd' date='18 May 2005 - 09:38'] For all we know, the release could still be set for November, and October is just when they are finally going to announce the actor!

[H.M.Servant]

Surprised M. Wilson talked about Bond. Though he didn't exactly say that much. But you know what they say 'no news is good news'...

From what I've heard filming will start in January. (or a new Bond will be announced?) And oct.19 2006 will be the release date? (could be the end date for filming. and early summer 2007 for a release date?)
But who knows.....

One piece of good news though. the Aston will be back.
take a look at the new 2007 Aston

2007 Vantage

[Stephenson]

My money's on the regular mature Bond.  Dench has been the boss for 4 movies of a 40 something and older Bond.  They'll go younger than Pierce's 52 BUT won't go way down to late 20's, early 30's--that's much too jarring.  At best someone in their mid 30's probably older.  And they couldn't have Dench as pre-M she's definitely older now.  Bragging rights on who is correct.

Bragging rights on what? I've already conceded that Eon will most likely not make any attempt to logically explain the continuation of Dench as M, just like the never have before. As for Dench pre-M, they did it with Hannibal Lector, and remember, this movie is being made by the director that thought a 60 + year old Anthony Hopkins could pass as a 40 something Zorro! (Needless to say, my Guatemalan friends had a good laugh not only at the age factor, but the fact (to refer to another thread here) that it was okay for a short, pudgy British actor to play a Latin American icon). So are betting on younger Bond (30 to 35) or middle age Bond (40 to 45)?

[Bondian]

Wilson's going to get a real slap around the head when Barbara hears about this!!!.

Doesn't Barbara wear the pants these days?.

[Stephenson]

So are some of you floating that theory Tamahori was so hot on -- that 007 is a code name and given to a different guy every few years?

Not this kid. to that notion.

Not floating that idea at all. Brosnan's Bond is the same Bond as the one from the 16 other movies, he just has a different past. Don't worry if you can't make sense of that, Eon doesn't care either.

[zencat]

*choke* *gasp* *gulp*

The second day in a row I log on and there's a great big juicy CR story on CBn. Woo hoo!

I had to read it a few times before I realized all that is really new here is South Africa...but that is sweet!

James Bond is headed to South Africa. Me likely! ("I always fancied a trip to South Africa." - DAF).

Could Oct 19 (of this year) be the date they will announce the next Bond?

Thank you Mickey G! This will hold me for a whlie.

At least we found out not too believe that Variety(or any other source for that matter) is always correct or written correctly.

Yeah, dang Variety. I want my yesterday back.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Stephenson (canoe2)' date='18 May 2005 - 18:07'][quote name='Seannery' date='18 May 2005 - 10:52']My money's on the regular mature Bond.

[Bondian]

ROFLMAO Excellent Evan!.

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='18 May 2005 - 17:47']Look at the secret code Mickey G left for us:

I don't know which actor; Jan. 17; Oct. 19, 2006; Aston Martin; "Casino Royale'; Martin Campbell; Prague and South Africa; yes, Judi Dench will be back; and no, Halle Berry won't reprise, but I'd love to make another film with her.

[mra]Obviously he is trying to tell us Pierce is back and he can

[007_Stef]

I JUS AM SO HAPPY that theyre shooting in South Africa...i hope i can see it sometime since i live there......and i did mention in another thread that this very prestigious 5 star golf estate that i live on would the perfect location for Casino Royale or anyhting else. I LOVE THIS

[Stephenson]

[quote name='TheBritishEnd' date='18 May 2005 - 11:04'][quote name='Stephenson (canoe2)' date='18 May 2005 - 15:42'][quote name='TheBritishEnd' date='18 May 2005 - 09:38'] For all we know, the release could still be set for November, and October is just when they are finally going to announce the actor!

[Forever007]

The who plays "M" issue is completely irrelevent as the role has been a fixture that does not need to change with the change of 007. This is fairly obvious for anyone who has watched the Bond films and is not even worth discussing.

Lets focus on the positives here. January 17, 2006 shooting starts! Sounds like Bond will be announced in June like many have predicted in these forums, based on EON's history of casting. Did we really expect Wilson to let the world know who the next Bond will be at an event like that? Ofcourse he knows who Bond will be and will reveal it in a mega press conference, not at a low key event. There is no way they could be set with all the pieces in place and not know who their Bond will be. Also why is a six month shoot rushed? Casino Royale will no doubt have fewer locations and over the top stunt sequences than all the previous films to date. With Bond being brought down to earth a six month shoot seems right in line. I'm excited that soon we'll be getting more information from EON as we inch closer to January 17th.

Edited by Forever007, 18 May 2005 - 05:32 PM.