24 replies to this topic

[00 Brosnan]

Wanted to update people who were interested in the sequel to The Thomas Crown Affair. As you know the film project has been in development for several years. I'm surprised that one of Brosnan's most successful non-Bond projects has had so much trouble in developing and releasing a sequel. From what I can gather there have been a few key problems:

1. Numerous script changes: Not a rare thing in Hollywood and probably a little extra difficult here considering they are using a Thomas Crown-free work and adapting it to fit the character in and work in the same tone and structure as The Thomas Crown Affair. I do applaud Brosnan and the people working behind the scenes for not just releasing a half-baked film and really trying to come up with a surprising and compelling script.

2. Director changes: Apparently, the latest director left the project when it was decided the latest script wouldn't be used and MGM started its restructuring.

3. MGM restructuring and financial issues: Not much to say here that isn't well known around here. MGM was always supposed to co-produce with Brosnan's Irish Dreamtime production company.

Brosnan on the project in February 2010: “We’ve got the fourth script in and this is the closest we’ve gotten in structure to making sense. It’s very very hard. Now we have the character, it’s not really fleshed out, so we have to work on him, Mr. Crown, and her, Miss Moore, another affair, more art, but it has to be an unexpected surprise.”

At this point it seems as though it is anybody's guess as to whether or not the film will eventually be made or not. Hopefully once The Hobbit and Bond 23 are released MGM will have a solid footing again and this film can be made. Though, I'm not quite sure why Irish Dreamtime can't just look for someone else to co-produce, I suspect MGM has some sort or rights/deal issue at work here.

Here's the article I found the latest (2010) update (it expands on upon what I said here): Is Thomas Crown 2 dead?

[Righty007]

This isn't an "update" at all. It's just a rehash of outdated information that anybody that has been following this project already knows. Thomas Crown 2 is in development hell and it probably isn't likely to be made, especially considering Brosnan will be turning 60 years old in 2013.

[00 Brosnan]

This isn't an "update" at all. It's just a rehash of outdated information that anybody that has been following this project already knows. Thomas Crown 2 is in development hell and it probably isn't likely to be made, especially considering Brosnan will be turning 60 years old in 2013.

It's the latest news on the project I could find. Most of the stuff on Google is from 2007 and longer ago...this is from 2009 and 2010. It's not recent, but it's the latest as far as I can tell.

Also, this was made for people who haven't been following the project...obviously not for you.

[jrcjohnny99]

This isn't an "update" at all. It's just a rehash of outdated information that anybody that has been following this project already knows. Thomas Crown 2 is in development hell and it probably isn't likely to be made, especially considering Brosnan will be turning 60 years old in 2013.

It's the latest news on the project I could find. Most of the stuff on Google is from 2007 and longer ago...this is from 2009 and 2010. It's not recent, but it's the latest as far as I can tell.

Also, this was made for people who haven't been following the project...obviously not for you.

I asked Pierce about this at a "Ghost Writer" screening at the DGA at the end of last year; he seemed committed to the project and said he was confident it would go ahead once the MGM situation had been finally resolved.

[blueman]

I've a nice bridge for sale, pm me for the very reasonable price.

[jamie00007]

Good luck to him, thats all I can say. Not many movie studios would be too interested in a sequel to a 12 year old movie with a fairly average critical reception that only made $20 million more than its budget in its domestic run. Particularly now that it doesnt have a current Bond actor to give it more buzz.

[00 Brosnan]

especially considering Brosnan will be turning 60 years old in 2013.

Not a problem really, a little hair-dye and he could easily pass for 45. This photo was posted March 1, 2011 of him and his wife shopping on Melrose Avenue:

I asked Pierce about this at a "Ghost Writer" screening at the DGA at the end of last year; he seemed committed to the project and said he was confident it would go ahead once the MGM situation had been finally resolved.

Thank you for sharing that information. I had a feeling the MGM situation was partly to blame for further delay and as a fan of the The Thomas Crown Affair am glad Brosnan is still committed to the project.

Good luck to him, thats all I can say. Not many movie studios would be too interested in a sequel to a 12 year old movie with a fairly average critical reception that only made $20 million more than its budget in its domestic run. Particularly now that it doesnt have a current Bond actor to give it more buzz.

Movie studios have made plenty of worse decisions when it comes to green-lighting sequels...much worse. According to IMDb, the film cost an estimated 48 million to make and made over 124 million worldwide, that's not bad considering 48 million is a relatively low budget for a Hollywood project. From what I've seen, the reviews were more positive than negative and I think if they keep the budget low for a sequel, there really isn't much risk involved.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 09 May 2011 - 09:00 AM.

[Shrublands]

Those sex scenes are going to set the screen on fire...

[Bucky]

I am surprised that they have not decided to reboot this franchise yet.

[jaguar007]

Not a problem really, a little hair-dye and he could easily pass for 45.

No doubt Pierce is still a good looking guy, but c'mon, if you think he could pass for 45, you have a skewed vision of shat a 45 year old looks like. I guess as someone turning 43 next month, I take a bit of offense.

[DamnCoffee]

I honestly couldn't care less about this sequel. I lost interest so long ago.

[Mr. Blofeld]

"He is too old... hmmmph, yes; too old... to begin the shooting."

[DamnCoffee]

Shouldn't that be...

"Begin the shooting, too old he is?"

[dinovelvet]

I am surprised that they have not decided to reboot this franchise yet.

One film does not a "franchise" make.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Shouldn't that be...

"Begin the shooting, too old he is?"

Nooo... because then that negates the purpose of the quote; I only changed one word in it, not the whole order.

[The Shark]

I am surprised that they have not decided to reboot this franchise yet.

One film does not a "franchise" make.

Tell that to Hollywood exces.

[George88]

A project deader than Bin Laden, one suspects.

[00 Brosnan]

Not a problem really, a little hair-dye and he could easily pass for 45.

No doubt Pierce is still a good looking guy, but c'mon, if you think he could pass for 45, you have a skewed vision of shat a 45 year old looks like. I guess as someone turning 43 next month, I take a bit of offense.

Okay maybe not 45, but definitely 50 w/ a little hair-dye. Not everyone ages the same and Brosnan has aged very well.

[scissorpuppy007]

While I agree, I don't know how well a Thomas Crowne follow up would do 13 years after the original. I don't think Brosnan nearing 60 is a problem. Thomas Crowne isn't James Bond, he doesn't run around firing a gun and taking out bad guys, age won't be an issue. If the storyline is right, an aging character might be interesting. I think Brosnan aged better from 50-60 than he did from 40-50. It's crazy when you look at how much he aged between Goldeneye and DAD, hell Between Goldeneye and TWINE he looks 10 years older. Today,Other than some lighter hair and a few wrinkles, I think he looks almost the same as he did in 2002 for DAD. He could pull it off.

[Loomis]

This photo was posted March 1, 2011 of him and his wife shopping on Melrose Avenue:

Sixty is still spring chicken for male Hollywood stars. Not sure he'd even require hair dye to reprise the role of Thomas Crown. Leastways, I wouldn't require him to have any.

Movie studios have made plenty of worse decisions when it comes to green-lighting sequels...much worse. According to IMDb, the film cost an estimated 48 million to make and made over 124 million worldwide, that's not bad considering 48 million is a relatively low budget for a Hollywood project. From what I've seen, the reviews were more positive than negative and I think if they keep the budget low for a sequel, there really isn't much risk involved.

Agreed. Also, it seems to be the rule of thumb in Hollywood that any film that can possibly get a sequel/prequel/reboot/remake does get a sequel/prequel/reboot/remake. And if Brosnan doesn't end up making THOMAS CROWN 2, I'm sure that a few years from now we'll see a second remake of THE THOMAS CROWW AFFAIR, starring Bradley Cooper or someone like that.

Four years or so ago, there was talk that Paul Verhoeven would direct Brosnan's THOMAS CROWN 2, which would have been interesting.

[Aris007]

Not a problem really, a little hair-dye and he could easily pass for 45. This photo was posted March 1, 2011 of him and his wife shopping on Melrose Avenue:

Brosnan can easily impersonate a pensioner with dyed hair rahter than a successful bussinesman-playboy!

[SecretAgentFan]

I love Brosnan, I loved TCA, I would have loved to see a Part 2... but that ship has sailed, guys. Too late, nobody will be interested anymore - and Brosnan has already gone to character actor roles. No studio would bankroll a film that he has to carry alone anymore.

[dinovelvet]

I love Brosnan, I loved TCA, I would have loved to see a Part 2... but that ship has sailed, guys. Too late, nobody will be interested anymore - and Brosnan has already gone to character actor roles. No studio would bankroll a film that he has to carry alone anymore.

That's true - he hasn't been first-billed in a studio film since After the Sunset. And let's face it, the only reason there was ever any mention of a Thomas Crown 2 in the first place was because the first one was a modest success (its not really accurate to call a film that made $69 mil in the US a "hit), for cash-strapped MGM, so anything they had that even smelled vaguely like a winner they'd try to turn into a, ugh, "franchise".
Having said that, I actually read the/a screenplay for it (dated 2007). While the cover was a cause for concern, with five writers credited on it, it was perfectly alright, but it was also basically a rehash of the first film only this time in Istanbul. (*there was no 'Miss Moore' in what I read, so I don't know what's changed since then).

[RivenWinner]

Honestly, by this point in time, they could just scrap the whole Thomas Crown angle to this project. After all, they're basically shoehorning Thomas Crown into a film that is a remake of "Topkapi" (which has nothing to do with Crown). As some of you may know, I'm very against remakes, especially films that I see no point in remaking. I don't see any reason, for example, why a film such as "Topkapi" needs a remake, but it's all the rage these days in Tinseltown....That being said, I may technically be wrong about it being a true remake, as I recall hearing that it was simply being "inspired" by the original film, so I don't know.

If Thomas Crown was an actual brand, then I could see them wanting to continue on with this project, but let's face it, Thomas Crown is not a brand. And please don't call it a franchise, because it's not. All it is a film from the 1960s that was remade in the 90s. Considering it's been so long since Brosnan's version came out, I really don't see the point in making this project into a Thomas Crown film. Just scrap the idea, and start afresh with Brosnan playing a new character.

[Bucky]

I am surprised that they have not decided to reboot this franchise yet.

One film does not a "franchise" make.

Tell that to Hollywood exces.

exactly my point