88 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

[quote name='zencat' date='7 September 2005 - 19:28'][quote name='luciusgore' date='7 September 2005 - 14:02'][quote name='DLibrasnow' date='7 September 2005 - 19:00']I just find this whole thread bizarre. I don't see why Amy Pascal should get any of the credit or blame for Casino Royale

[luciusgore]

A couple of bad films? She has a slew of bad films on her resume. If you like chick flicks, you might like Amy Pascal. But there isn't one "man" movie she's done that is any good. She can't take credit for "Spider-Man 2." She can take credit for "Stealth." Hopefully she will defer all of her decision-making about Bond to some executives who appreciate and have passion for the franchise, and then of course Eon, who tragically haven't been making good decisions lately.

[Bon-san]

A couple of bad films? She has a slew of bad films on her resume. If you like chick flicks, you might like Amy Pascal. But there isn't one "man" movie she's done that is any good. She can't take credit for "Spider-Man 2." She can take credit for "Stealth." Hopefully she will defer all of her decision-making about Bond to some executives who appreciate and have passion for the franchise, and then of course Eon, who tragically haven't been making good decisions lately.

She won't be making many (if any) creative decisions on CR. The story is set and we all know Eon maintains firm control of the creative process. She may get some input into casting.

Her involvement troubles me not at all, esp. in light of zencat's comments.

[luciusgore]

I personally wish Eon and Sony did more to reach out to fans. Bryan Singer just visited ComiCon to chat about "Superman Returns" and allay fans' fears the film could suck. The same thing happened with "Batman Begins." But with James Bond, they just kind of ignore Bond fans, throwing in invisible cars, not paying Clive Owen, doing a "first mission" storyline, etc.

[return of the saint]

very very true.

[DLibrasnow]

I personally wish Eon and Sony did more to reach out to fans. Bryan Singer just visited ComiCon to chat about "Superman Returns" and allay fans' fears the film could suck. The same thing happened with "Batman Begins." But with James Bond, they just kind of ignore Bond fans, throwing in invisible cars, not paying Clive Owen, doing a "first mission" storyline, etc.

Yeah...they made Jaws a good guy in Moonraker because the fans wanted it...clearly the fans know best...NOT!

[return of the saint]

I don't think its about giving the fans what they want - Its about keeping them 'in the loop' as it were.

Not letting them get to the stage where they are so disheartened that they begining to bad mouth the production company, every prospective Bond actor, the out-going actor, the concept of 're-booting' and the concept of keeping things as they are - etc.

At the moment Bond-fandom seems split apart, angry, confused and ignored. This is the communication age - they need to start communicating - and a little appriciation wouldn't be a bad thing either.

If we only had some grain of truth to unite around. Something hopeful.

[luciusgore]

I personally wish Eon and Sony did more to reach out to fans. Bryan Singer just visited ComiCon to chat about "Superman Returns" and allay fans' fears the film could suck. The same thing happened with "Batman Begins." But with James Bond, they just kind of ignore Bond fans, throwing in invisible cars, not paying Clive Owen, doing a "first mission" storyline, etc.

Yeah...they made Jaws a good guy in Moonraker because the fans wanted it...clearly the fans know best...NOT!

Well I don't know about that. Most true Bond fans did NOT want Jaws in a second movie. They started listening to fans when they made FYEO, and were on the record saying they brought Bond back to Earth because of the negative feedback of fans to MR. MR, of course, was a huge huge hit. So FYEO was a risk they took for the fans' sake. Had they listened to fans, there would have been no invisible car in DAD.

[JackLordIsFelix]

Who's up for a seance to get Cubby's opinion on all these CR shenanigans?

Make it so, CBN

[JackLordIsFelix]

"I seem to recall that Cubby has DAF, TMWTGG, MR, & AVTAK, so I'm not too worried about Pascal's involvement with xXx: State of the Union or Stealth."

Difference being that Cubby never made a truly wretched film. This chickie -- hmm....

[luciusgore]

I agree. There has never been a wretched Bond movie. Check out the reviews on RottenTomatoes.com for The World Is Not Enough, worst of the Brosnan Bonds:
http://www.rottentom..._is_not_enough/

Then look at the reviews for Stealth:
http://www.rottentom....com/m/stealth/

And then XXX State of the Union:
http://www.rottentom...e_of_the_union/

Pascal's action movies are WRETCHED.

[Spoon]

Yeah, only the thing is that, after days and days of this and 70 posts, you've offered absolutely no insight into what exactly you are concerned about. Do you think she's going to insist on Reese Witherspoon playing Bond? What, specifically, is going to happen?

[Lazenby880]

Yeah, only the thing is that, after days and days of this and 70 posts, you've offered absolutely no insight into what exactly you are concerned about.  Do you think she's going to insist on Reese Witherspoon playing Bond?  What, specifically, is going to happen?

Agreed. Although my knowledge of this is perhaps comparatively limited; you do seem to be, in a rather bizarre manner, massively overestimating Mrs Pascal's influence on the development of Casino Royale.

To simply look at this Stealth thing and the second xXx picture (again without even knowing how much input this woman had) and then forecast disaster for the new Bond film is a pretty rudimentary analysis, in my opinion.

[cvheady007]

[quote name='tdalton' date='8 September 2005 - 09:49'][quote name='zencat' date='7 September 2005 - 19:28'][quote name='luciusgore' date='7 September 2005 - 14:02'][quote name='DLibrasnow' date='7 September 2005 - 19:00']I just find this whole thread bizarre. I don't see why Amy Pascal should get any of the credit or blame for Casino Royale

[tdalton]

[quote name='cvheady007' date='9 September 2005 - 22:45']STALE???

[cvheady007]

[quote name='tdalton' date='10 September 2005 - 00:14'][quote name='cvheady007' date='9 September 2005 - 22:45']STALE???

[tdalton]

OK - I liked the way you approached that.  Still, I don't overly mind DAD and I do enjoy TND.  Still - yes, they could have been better.  We still agree to disagree on a lot of points, but I always enjoy reading your posts.

YES - that is meant to be a compliment.

I don't mind watching the first half of Die Another Day when it looked like the film was headed towards being a serious entry into the series, one along the lines of FYEO, or something like that. My main problem with the Brosnan films is that there was just so much lost potential there. I think that Brosnan could have played Bond much better than he ever did. He had the potential to be great and, IMO, he came up a bit short. The same can be said for the scripts and movie concepts. TND had a very good idea behind it, but it was just carried out poorly. TWINE (which has dropped on my list recently, if anyone was wondering) was Brosnan's best, IMO, and was the closest that we got to a good Brosnan Bond film, but still, there was too much wasted potential with that film as well, most of which can be chalked up to a poor script with too many cheesy one-liners, as well as an uninspiring outing by Brosnan (although he did give his best performance).

I would have liked to have seen what Brosnan could have done with a Connery/Lazenby/Dalton style of Bond film, but it will never happen. And, if there weren't a lot of good candidates to replace him (Daniel Craig, Clive Owen, Gerard Butler, etc.), then I wouldn't mind seeing him take a try at Casino Royale, but there are many actors who could do it better than Brosnan, so I say that EON should go and get one of those actors to play Bond in CR. But, to clear the record, I'm not going to blindly go forward criticizing Brosnan. Yes, he had a few good moments as Bond, just as everyone else did during their tenures in the role. And, common sense would tell me that Brosnan would make a better Bond at this moment than any one of those supposed "final three" that we were all hyped up about the last month or so. I may go further out on a limb to support more radical choices for Bond actors instead of wanting to see Brosnan reprise the role, but there's even a point at which even I would say that EON should bring back Brosnan, and that point was reached when the "final three" were announced (thankfully, that report turned out to be false as far as them being the "final three" choices).

Sorry for a rambling response to your post, but that's my philosophy of the Brosnan Bond films in a couple of paragraphs, and I think you're right, we agree to disagree on a lot of points. But, I think that that's what makes the Bond franchise so great, that fans can have different tastes in films and still enjoy the same franchise and find something in one franchise that fits just about everyone's film style preference.

[cvheady007]

Agreed - and yet I disagree again on a few :-)

Tdalton - you are always a marvel - I enjoy reading your posts, but I disagree more with some of them than I do with any other! What am I to do with you!

I am glad to hear you say that Brosnan had some good moments...etc. Whatever. Here are the facts:

Pierce Brosnan stepped into the role as a natural successor to Timothy Dalton. Personally, I would love to see EITHER of them return for Casino Royale. The problem is that, most likely, neither one of them will.

Here is the thing: Pierce should be in Casino Royale. Let him be what you felt he could be - let him shine in those moments when he didn't, like you alluded to. He would be a winner for all ages. If not? Sure - yeah, let's bring back Timothy Dalton. In all honesty, I am HARDLY the average filmgoer, but I would prefer Dalton to ANYONE who could play Bond in Casino (ONLY because Connery is too old), but since that is not going to happen, I want to get Brosnan while we can. Naysayers give him one more flick...well...ok...Give him one more flick! There is no reason not to - Brosnan may be early-50's, but, who really cares? I would watch his Bond movie, and I would watch it 2-3 times. I don't want to see a gremlin like Daniel Craig, I don't want to see the "Final Four", I don't want to see an unknown.

Pierce, Hugh, Clive. That's it. Otherwise, go ahead and do "Young Bond" and forget about Casino Royale.

[tdalton]

Agreed - and yet I disagree again on a few :-)

Tdalton - you are always a marvel - I enjoy reading your posts, but I disagree more with some of them than I do with any other!  What am I to do with you!

I am glad to hear you say that Brosnan had some good moments...etc.  Whatever.  Here are the facts:

Pierce Brosnan stepped into the role as a natural successor to Timothy Dalton.  Personally, I would love to see EITHER of them return for Casino Royale.  The problem is that, most likely, neither one of them will.

Here is the thing: Pierce should be in Casino Royale.  Let him be what you felt he could be - let him shine in those moments when he didn't, like you alluded to.  He would be a winner for all ages.  If not?  Sure - yeah, let's bring back Timothy Dalton.  In all honesty, I am HARDLY the average filmgoer, but I would prefer Dalton to ANYONE who could play Bond in Casino (ONLY because Connery is too old), but since that is not going to happen, I want to get Brosnan while we can.  Naysayers give him one more flick...well...ok...Give him one more flick!  There is no reason not to - Brosnan may be early-50's, but, who really cares?  I would watch his Bond movie, and I would watch it 2-3 times.  I don't want to see a gremlin like Daniel Craig, I don't want to see the "Final Four", I don't want to see an unknown.

Pierce, Hugh, Clive.  That's it.  Otherwise, go ahead and do "Young Bond" and forget about Casino Royale.

Good post.

I agree with a lot that you said, although I think that my main point of diagreement is about Daniel Craig's Bond potential, but honestly, I can see where a lot of people wouldn't want him as Bond.

I certainly agree about the "final four". Henry Cavill would be great in about 10-15 years, but right now, he's just too young. And the other three are just wrong for the role.

[cvheady007]

[quote name='tdalton' date='10 September 2005 - 00:51'][quote name='cvheady007' date='10 September 2005 - 01:46']Agreed - and yet I disagree again on a few :-)

Tdalton - you are always a marvel - I enjoy reading your posts, but I disagree more with some of them than I do with any other!

[MrDraco]

lol could it be that the Bond fans poltically have turned in the Dems here in America, constantly struggling to heard until the relase date of the new bond movie, or the next election to yell i told you so? until then will continue to build the base...lol sorry, just in one of those moods

[cvheady007]

I am as Republican as it gets...so if you want to get in THAT conversation, go for it!

I say Rudy Guiliani in 2008 and Brosnan for Bond in 2006.

[luciusgore]

This 28-year-old "Bond Begins" nuttiness with Judi Dench still cast as M has all the fingerprints of Amy Pascal. This Bond is gonna bomb!

[Qwerty]

With all we've heard so far, this is going to be a very interesting Bond film for the series. (If not, the most interesting thus far.)

[luciusgore]

Well today's news item on the homepage about what card game they'll be playing in the movie makes me wonder if Pascal's influence isn't already being felt.

[triviachamp]

Wouldn't she also be behind Brosnan's supposed return?

Edited by triviachamp, 27 September 2005 - 02:58 AM.

[tdalton]

Well today's news item on the homepage about what card game they'll be playing in the movie makes me wonder if Pascal's influence isn't already being felt.

If she is indeed behind the news that we're seeing on the main page, then I would say that she's already failed Bond.

[The Silver Beast]

I hear Amy Pascal's future at Columbia may be tied to the performance of the new Jim Carrey movie. Apparently the budget has soared out of sight, and after Stealth, this is her last chance. (Can't image the performance of Zorro helped her much either.)

[Harmsway]

STEALTH was more entertaining than GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES, or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. There, I said it.