125 replies to this topic

[Mr. Somerset]

I am relieved that Michael G. cleared up the 2007 confusion. I am glad it starts in January. It's only May, so there is still plenty of time for Bond to be cast(although knowing now would be nice!).
The locations sound exciting to me, and things are looking up.
Of course, if PB is in fact in negotiations, the Wilson-Man probably is sworn to secrecy until something finalizes. Either way, Casino Royale is still at the top of my must see in 2006 list!

[Stephenson]

[quote name='Seannery' date='18 May 2005 - 11:12']I'll say nothing younger than Gerald Butler--what's he 34 or so?

Edited by Mister Asterix, 18 May 2005 - 06:13 PM.

[tdalton]

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?

Here's my take on this, and I don't care if Moore'sBadFacelift decides to berate me for saying this, as this could be construed by him as "baseless negativity":

If they go that route, and have it so that James Bond 007 is a title given to a new agent every few years, then my time with the James Bond series is over. I'll watch the previous 20 and not give another thought to the new films.

[Seannery]

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.

Dench coming back isn't irrelevant it indicates a continuity as regards to Bond being on somewhat the same level as the previous 4 Bond films. That doesn't jibe with a young Bond. I know you advocate and think a young Bond is coming--I believe you are wrong. I'm content to wait and see--no need to continue an old debate we have had to a degree. As you say(and I agree) we should find out soon enough anyway.

[Forever007]

Tdalton I agree with you 100% If that is the case then Bond will be tailored after XXX. Absolutely the worst idea to date.

[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? 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?

Here's my take on this, and I don't care if Moore'sBadFacelift decides to berate me for saying this, as this could be construed by him as "baseless negativity":

If they go that route, and have it so that James Bond 007 is a title given to a new agent every few years, then my time with the James Bond series is over. I'll watch the previous 20 and not give another thought to the new films.

Even though the "give a new agent the 007 number" idea is totally lame, if they ultimately used it, you don't need to bail out on the series. Hang in there dude!

Not trying to bash, tdalton. Just encouraging!

But they won't do it anyway, so no worries.

[tdalton]

Tdalton I agree with you 100%  If that is the case then Bond will be tailored after XXX.  Absolutely the worst idea to date.

You're right. I'd never even thought of the fact that this idea would make it more or less identical to the xXx movies. First of all, why would EON want to go that route when those films have failed miserably at the box office. Second of all, if they turned Bond into completely brainless action movies like xXx, then even those were actually willing to believe in the idea of having a new James Bond 007 ever few films wouldn't be willing to go along with that, and the series would enter into a fatal decline.

[Stephenson]

Sorry if I set of this little fire of "codename: Bond". Really was not my intention. I was trying to say that Brosnan's Bond had so little history with the series as a whole, compared to the other Bonds, that he basically seemed to be a brand new character. It seems to me that Eon has no problems playing fast and loose with the history of the character and will change it if they think it will work for the next film. which is why they will hve no trouble bringing back Dench to play M to a younger Bond.

[Forever007]

Seannery I did not advocate at all a younger Bond was on the way. I merely stated that who plays M is irrelevent to who plays Bond. Bernard Lee spanned 3 Bonds, Robert Brown 2 Bonds and it looks like Judi Dench 2 Bonds as well. Young or old it means nothing to the casting of Bond at all. It does give a familiar face for continuity which is smart instead of changing the cast too much. They can change Monneypenny and even Q if they wanted to (big mistake Cleese is perfect), but having a set M does make sense I agree.

[Bon-san]

Sorry if I set of this little fire of "codename: Bond". Really was not my intention. I was trying to say that Brosnan's Bond had so little history with the series as a whole, compared to the other Bonds, that he basically seemed to be a brand new character. It seems to me that Eon has no problems playing fast and loose with the history of the character and will change it if they think it will work for the next film. which is why they will hve no trouble bringing back Dench to play M to a younger Bond.

For what it's worth, I knew where you were going with that notion earlier, and I didn't even think about the Tamahori thing when I read your post.

But Turn brought it up later, and I answered because I really despise Tamahori's little pet idea.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Stephenson (canoe2)' date='18 May 2005 - 18:36'][quote name='Seannery' date='18 May 2005 - 11:12']I'll say nothing younger than Gerald Butler--what's he 34 or so?

[tdalton]

Seannery I did not advocate at all a younger Bond was on the way.  I merely stated that who plays M is irrelevent to who plays Bond.  Bernard Lee spanned 3 Bonds, Robert Brown 2 Bonds and it looks like Judi Dench 2 Bonds as well.  Young or old it means nothing to the casting of Bond at all.  It does give a familiar face for continuity which is smart instead of changing the cast too much.  They can change Monneypenny and even Q if they wanted to (big mistake Cleese is perfect), but having a set M does make sense I agree.

It's kind of funny. Up until today, I had wanted to see Dench's M return, but the more I think about it, it really is time for a new M to be introduced. Her M was tailored specifically for Brosnan's Bond, and I don't think that she would work very well with whoever is brought on to play the next Bond.

[Stephenson]

Allrighty the age guidelines are fine by me--it could easily end up a draw here.  Bragging rights are a good enough wager for me.  With regards to our favorites, them winning would be more than enough award.  I'd be very happy if Butler or Jackman got it also.  I think we should find out soon with no more delays.  Good luck BUT not too much!

IT'S ON!

This is so exciting!

Well ... so ... umm ... I guess we just sit here and wait, huh?

[Tarl_Cabot]

I was kinda hopin' Bond would be a summer event again.


They have to have a Bond film in 2007 one way or another!

[tdalton]

They have to have a Bond film in 2007 one way or another!

I wouldn't be surprised if they re-released a couple of the classic Bond films during 2007 (maybe as part of a package deal with the CR DVD release).

This is just speculation on my part, so don't everyone go around parading this information as fact.

[Seannery]

Seannery I did not advocate at all a younger Bond was on the way.  I merely stated that who plays M is irrelevent to who plays Bond.  Bernard Lee spanned 3 Bonds, Robert Brown 2 Bonds and it looks like Judi Dench 2 Bonds as well.  Young or old it means nothing to the casting of Bond at all.  It does give a familiar face for continuity which is smart instead of changing the cast too much.  They can change Monneypenny and even Q if they wanted to (big mistake Cleese is perfect), but having a set M does make sense I agree.

I agree of course that M is used as stability across Bonds--i'm just saying they won't have a jarring change in Bond age or experience wise with the same M. I really believe we won't get the early young Bond with an even older now Dench. Hey if i'm wrong we shall see soon enough--I don't think I am.



Stephenson I have to disagree with the notion Pierce's Bond seem like a new character with little in common with the rest--don't see that at all and in fact he's a rather traditional looking and talking Bond. And they often put Pierce through typical Bond situations--skiing, Naval uniform, in DAD looking old Bond gadgets and so on. So Pierce's Bond character is a plus for continuity not a negative.

[YOLT]

I was kinda hopin' Bond would be a summer event again.


They have to have a Bond film in 2007 one way or another!

Dont worry we will be watching 2 films in 2-007

[Stephenson]

This was my point earlier Seannery: Brosnan's Bond is the same Bond as the other Bonds, he just has a different past, and if that doesn't make sense, Eon doesn't care. I really couldn't think of another word to use except "character" without repeating myself, but I was only saying that in reference to his history. He walks like Bond, talks like Bond and looks like Bond, but: instead of knowing Leiter, he knows Wade, he has never smoked, he refers to equipment from what should have been some of his most dangerous and memorable missions as "the old relics" and acts like he has never seen some of it before, he wears Italian suits, he wears a different watch (which has been in use for at least six years to judge by Trevalyan's reaction), etc, etc. Just seems to me that Brosnan's Bond, while still being Bond, exists in some type of bubble which isolates him and his films from the rest of the series. I don't think Eon will have any trouble isolating him again, this time from Brosnan's Bond.

[DLibrasnow]

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).

Not strictly true BTTF. Zemeckis has said in the past that it became obvious that Stoltz was all wrong for the part and he had to make the difficult decision to recast even though several scenes were already in the can.
I don't see Dench's age as an issue. They didn't replace M when they made Bond dramatically younger between YOLT and OHMSS or when the same thing happened again between AVTAK and TLD.

[Seannery]

This was my point earlier Seannery: Brosnan's Bond is the same Bond as the other Bonds, he just has a different past, and if that doesn't make sense, Eon doesn't care. I really couldn't think of another word to use except "character" without repeating myself, but I was only saying that in reference to his history. He walks like Bond, talks like Bond and looks like Bond, but: instead of knowing Leiter, he knows Wade, he has never smoked, he refers to equipment from what should have been some of his most dangerous and memorable missions as "the old relics" and acts like he has never seen some of it before, he wears Italian suits, he wears a different watch (which has been in use for at least six years to judge by Trevalyan's reaction), etc, etc. Just seems to me that Brosnan's Bond, while still being Bond, exists in some type of bubble which isolates him and his films from the rest of the series. I don't think Eon will have any trouble isolating him again, this time from Brosnan's Bond.

I see what you are saying though I think the essence of Bond is there--the basic age,look, manner while changing bits of history there still is the basic Bond with M, Q, Moneypenny, Mi6, gambling, the women, shaken not stirred, etc.

[Stephenson]

What I'm saying (and thank you for using this word, it's what I should have used instead of "character") is that the "essence" of Bond is the only thing that matters to the modern Eon (post Cubby), with very few exceptions. The rest of it can be changed on a whim and often is.

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree with Darren. While having Dench as M to a new (and presumedly younger) Bond will be confusing to some people - I don't think Dench's staying with the role of M means Brosnan is in the picture or that it will be weird to have a "young" Bond and "old" M.

M is the senior member of the service, Bond is a veteran, but by no means in the senior levels of the organization.

Let's look at the different ages between Bond & M when actors have changed:

Dr No

[Agent Provocateur]

This was my point earlier Seannery: Brosnan's Bond is the same Bond as the other Bonds, he just has a different past, and if that doesn't make sense, Eon doesn't care. I really couldn't think of another word to use except "character" without repeating myself, but I was only saying that in reference to his history. He walks like Bond, talks like Bond and looks like Bond, but: instead of knowing Leiter, he knows Wade, he has never smoked, he refers to equipment from what should have been some of his most dangerous and memorable missions as "the old relics" and acts like he has never seen some of it before, he wears Italian suits, he wears a different watch (which has been in use for at least six years to judge by Trevalyan's reaction), etc, etc. Just seems to me that Brosnan's Bond, while still being Bond, exists in some type of bubble which isolates him and his films from the rest of the series. I don't think Eon will have any trouble isolating him again, this time from Brosnan's Bond.

Dude, you're overanalyzing the whole thing. You should just go with the flow and accept the fact that it's the same character. In order to enjoy any movie, not just a James Bond movie, there has to be a suspension of disbelief. If the filmmakers were to have the stringent continuity you insist on, Bond would either still be in the '60s/'70s or Sean Connery would still be playing Bond. Either way, it wouldn't be pretty.

...or could it be you have a major axe to grind when it comes to anything Brosnan?

[Bond_Bishop]

I hope this will get good. What has Prague and South Africa to do with Casino Royale, really. EON can't just ruin my third favourite Fleming book. They have to get the best in and not ruin the thing. Well let's see how it turns out.

[Stephenson]

Dude, you're overanalyzing the whole thing.  You should just go with the flow and accept the fact that it's the same character.  In order to enjoy any movie, not just a James Bond movie, there has to be a suspension of disbelief.  If the filmmakers were to have the stringent continuity you insist on, Bond would either still be in the '60s/'70s or Sean Connery would still be playing Bond.  Either way, it wouldn't be pretty. 

...or could it be you have a major axe to grind when it comes to anything Brosnan?

Where the hell did that come from?
Try saying with a smile next time, or stop assuming you understand my opinion based on a couple of my posts.

As for "going with the flow, dude" that is exactly what I am advocating, if you would bother to read what I wrote before: Eon doesn't care about continuity, so why should we? Next time I want a lecture I'll ask for it.

[tdalton]

Where the hell did that come from? 
Try saying with a smile next time, or stop assuming you understand my opinion based on a couple of my posts.

As for "going with the flow, dude" that is exactly what I am advocating, if you would bother to read what I wrote before: Eon doesn't care about continuity, so why should we? Next time I want a lecture I'll ask for it.

I wouldn't worry about it. I was attacked last night for criticizing (what was thought to be true at the time) the supposed delay in filming and the possible 2007 release. I was told that my being upset with that was "baseless negativity" or something like that.

I understand the point that you were trying to make, though, about continuity in the Bond films. I, personally, would like to see a little more continuity, but I understand that sometimes the producers may not feel that it is possible to do that, so I just suspend my belief for certain aspects (especially the change of Bond and his relation to a holdover M).

[Turn]

The thing for me about the current MI6 crew (Dench and Samantha Bond, and to a lesser extent, John Cleese) is they just don't do much for me. Seeing the old crew, Bernard Lee or even Robert Brown and Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewelyn, were as familiar and welcome as the gunbarrel opening, teaser stunt, Binder credits, etc.

I felt like despite some of the tension that the other Bonds actually had a father-figure type of relationship and mutual respect with their Ms (maybe less so Robert Brown and Moore because they were so close in age). And the good-natured ribbing with Q and Moneypenny. That's missing now.

Judi Dench's M is just like she's described in the books, a cold bean counter who values a Bond less. It worked in GE because it was fresh. Now it's terribly old. Moneypenny used to have a fun flirtation thing with Bond, but now her role has been reduced to basically bad jokes and feminism slants. Now it appears we won't even have a Q in the next movie, and maybe that's not so bad.

It seems like the only character who really has any warm ties with Bond is Robinson. He's the only one I actually like in the Brosnan era.

[DLibrasnow]

The thing for me about the current MI6 crew (Dench and Samantha Bond, and to a lesser extent, John Cleese) is they just don't do much for me. Seeing the old crew, Bernard Lee or even Robert Brown and Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewelyn, were as familiar and welcome as the gunbarrel opening, teaser stunt, Binder credits, etc.

I actually much prefer the NSNA crew to the Brosnan ones.

[Mr. Somerset]

The thing for me about the current MI6 crew (Dench and Samantha Bond, and to a lesser extent, John Cleese) is they just don't do much for me. Seeing the old crew, Bernard Lee or even Robert Brown and Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewelyn, were as familiar and welcome as the gunbarrel opening, teaser stunt, Binder credits, etc.

I actually much prefer the NSNA crew to the Brosnan ones.

You're not alone on that!

[Mister Asterix]

I actually much prefer the NSNA crew to the Brosnan ones.

[mra]Hmm... Well, I