85 replies to this topic

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Freemo, thanks from the report back from the real word courtesy of your Mom, otherwise all us people who just live in this forum might not know what's really going on. I'm sure someone will pass the info on to Mr Brosnan and he'll adjust his career plans accordingly and hang on like Moore until someone beats him off with a stick.

[11 11]

No, Roger Moore quit the role and they wanted him to make TLD so how is this so confusing?

Doesn't anyone know what the word quit means?

Anyway, I am not at all sure what MBE is talking about several posts that just rambled on that had nothing at all to do witht he topic of this thread.

It seems that some people here have missed the point of this thread which is that..

Pierce Brosnan would have to be retarded to turn down that kind of money.

And regardless of what some people may think on this thread and arguments to such, Brosnan knows damn well where his money will come from. This guy is no dummy, so the idea that he will not hang onto the role as long as he can is just downright stupid.

If you had that kind of money being thrown in your face you would take it in a second, and I think Brosnan should take it.

I think it is just foolish and stupid to think that he is there for Bond or for creative reasons such as acting depth? Please that is so naive, it is called money, and that is why he is there. It is his job. Why do any of us work? For the hell of it? Because we want to?

No, because that is how we get paid.

That was the whole point of this thread, and apparently some people can not even grasp a simple notion as that. Odd.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Speaking of rambling.... grasp this.... Brosnan has said he will not play Bond when he believes he can no longer be physically believable in the role. He said it might be hard for the ego to accept when it's time to let go but he hopes he has the grace and the intelligence to do so. He doesn't want to do one Bond too many. (or rather what he considers one too many, doubtless some believe he's already done several too many)

He actually thinks he has a career outside of Bond, shocking to some but there it is, and while he might not make as much money as he would with Bond he'd make enough. Stupid or not it's what he's said he's going to do. Odd how some can't understand that.

[11 11]

MBE did you get the private message I sent you?

[freemo]

Freemo, thanks from the report back from the real word courtesy of your Mom, otherwise all us people who just live in this forum might not know what's really going on. I'm sure someone will pass the info on to Mr Brosnan and he'll adjust his career plans accordingly and hang on like Moore until someone beats him off with a stick.

I merely suggested that....

- Broz may not be quite as popular as some people think he is. I gave one example that I'd encountered. Better to give one example than to give none. By "real word" I meant "general public", outside broz fans, "read word" was a bad choice of words, my bad there.
- Broz may very well cling to the Bond role merely to enhance his NonBond carrer. (He has mentioned instances of how being Bond has helped him with other projects). I didn't say that he wasn't within his rights to do so, merely that if it meant making the gap between Bond films 3 years instead of 2 then perhaps I'd rather have someone else play Bond. I like Broz as Bond, but I don't quite consider the extra year worth the wait merely for his presense.
- Maybe I'd prefer to see Broz retire sooner rather than later.

apparently some people can not even grasp a simple notion as that. Odd.

Odd how some can't understand that.

These statements were so intelligent and insightful I thought them worth quoting.

[003]

Good point - some of my friends seemed suprised by the sacrificial goat -

[Jim]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
...until someone beats him off with a stick.

Fnarr

The older the Bond gets, the more juvenile the films become.

We have seen it before
We are seeing it again

Tend to side with Freemers on this one; folks I know (widish girth of circle) don't really care very much who is James Bond and I dare say some of them couldn't name a Bond beyond Sean Connery.

Good luck to Mr Brosnan in his career outside James Bond.

[Blue Eyes]

Surely even Brosnan fans would rather see him go out as his best than cling on for whatever other reason?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes


If he is, I'll scream. The character of Bond is anywhere from 30 through to about 45, 60 is just pushing it.

I'd be perfectly happy to see a 60-year-old Brosnan play Bond.

In the overwhelming majority of the novels and films, 007 is, as you point out, anywhere from 30 through to about 45. However, since we're all well used to different faces as Bond, and adventures taking place at any point from the 1950s to the 21st century, I don't believe that OCCASIONAL portrayals of the character in his late 50s or older could do any harm.

We've already had elderly Bonds, thanks to Connery in NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and Moore in A VIEW TO A KILL. Personally, I thought Connery was excellent in NSNA, looking much fitter and coming across as far more charismatic than he did in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.

Look it at this way, Blue Eyes: by the time we next see Brosnan as Bond he'll be coming up to his mid-50s, and it seems quite possible that he will be tempted back to the franchise for BOND 22 after that. What's another handful of years? At 60, Brosnan won't look SIGNIFICANTLY older than he does now, and, after all, this is the movies, where actors regularly play much younger - look at a mid-30s Russell Crowe passed off as a graduate student in A BEAUTIFUL MIND, for instance.

With the right makeup and lighting, Brosnan at 60 could be made to look exactly like he does now.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
Speaking of rambling.... grasp this.... Brosnan has said he will not play Bond when he believes he can no longer be physically believable in the role.

I'm not sure that he was all that physically believable in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, and certainly not in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

I tend to agree with 11 11 that Brosnan may well stay in the role of Bond as long as possible. Nothing will pay him remotely as well, or give him such golden opportunities to develop other projects.

A Bond pushing 60 would only look ridiculous if he was doing truly silly stunts (plane-catching and glacier-surfing) and chasing 20-year-olds. No wonder Moore looked daft in A VIEW TO A KILL. They made him do all manner of things ludicrous for a man of his years.

But a Bond of that age could work in a more "down to earth" film along the lines of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS or LICENCE TO KILL. Raise the age of the Bond girl (who says women over 35 can't be sexy? Well, Hollywood execs do, but they're wrong) and cast someone like Rene Russo or Kim Basinger alongside a 60-year-old Brosnan. Write a script with more of an emphasis on suspense and character development than all-out action.

And there you have a fantastic opportunity to do something a little different with a Bond movie and make Brosnan's last appearance as 007 something memorable.

[JimmyBond]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
Surely even Brosnan fans would rather see him go out as his best than cling on for whatever other reason?

Speaking as a big Brosnan fan, yes, I would like him to go out on top. After this next film probably, unless they start making Bond films every 2 years, then I can see him doing six films total.

[Loomis]

Brosnan will cling on like Saddam Hussein. MGM and Eon will be happy to let him, because of his perceived pulling power at the box office, and because of the fact that no ideal replacement seems to be waiting in the wings in the way that Dalton and Brosnan appeared to be on standby during the Moore years.

That said, Blue Eyes, I think you're being narrow and ageist.

Sure, an elderly Moore was an embarrassment in A VIEW TO A KILL, but personally I think he had started to look well past it around the time of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Leaving aside my above point about sympathetic lighting and makeup, and the fact that a 60-year-old Brosnan doing Bond would be playing only a couple of years younger than his real age, I'd say that there's such a thing as growing old gracefully. Just check out NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.

NSNA's script did make reference to Bond's advancing years, but not in a Danny Glover "I'm-too-old-for-this-****" way. Instead, it scored major points (IMHO) by portraying Bond as an old school spy who's still, as he himself points out, "in pretty good shape". This is really no different to the way that GOLDENEYE had Bond accused of being a "dinosaur, a relic of the cold war".

Moreover, the script did not require Bond to perform outrageous stunts or superhuman physical feats (by the standards of the series, at any rate). We were able to believe that a Bond nearing 60 was just as tough and assured a character as he'd been in his early 30s.

We'd followed this Bond on many earlier adventures, knew what he could do and what he'd been through. Connery's age made the character seem all the more a wily survivor, almost indestructible (surely the single most important characteristic of the cinematic 007). This Bond was more confident than he'd ever been, with a worldliness, a seen-it-all charisma. The NSNA Bond's irresistibility to women was far more plausible than that of the DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER Bond.

On the other hand, OCTOPUSSY and AVTAK gave us a Bond whom the screenwriters seemed to think was still in his 30s. With women, Moore came across like a leering old man in a raincoat, and as for the derring-do we were expected to believe this Bond was capable of, well, it was all jungle vines and Tarzan yells, gorilla costumes and clown suits, and skiing to the strains of "California Girls". No wonder Bond became a joke.

The point I'm trying to make is that a Bond pushing 60 doesn't automatically mean a Bond looking like a doddering old fool. It's all in the writing and performance.

[11 11]

What really cracks me up is how people like MBE get so pissed off and so offended when the name Brosnan comes up and the words is god do not follow after it.

It was discussed above that Brosnan may not be as popular as he is said to be on this forum by freemo and MBE went nuts and insulted him, belittled him etc, she also seemed pissed at me for no apparent reason.

Anyway, look MBE try not to be a homer on this forum ok. It is not very civil and certainly unbecoming.

And no one I know likes Brosnan even in the slightest way as Bond. I am the only person among my freinds or family who thinks anything of him, the rest all think he sucks as Bond.

So MBE can we not go crazy here on this forum just because someone mentions something like Bros may not be the most beloved man on earth etc.?

Freemo, don't worry about it I think she is problably just in love with Bros and stalking him or something to be that much of a homer.

[Xenobia]

I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I do think MBE needs some defense.

MBE is a very loyal Pierce Brosnan fan, but she is by no means a stalker. If anything, she has been stalked by PB stalkers, because MBE is very good at shutting those kinds of people down.

In the real world Brosnan is popular, but unfortunately a lot of that popularlity comes from how he handled himself with his late wife, and not because of the fine quality of work he has done over the years.

-- Xenobia

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i hope he stays till hes 60 it not like there is anything out there that could do better. when i go to see a bond film i see bond not the actor that plays him, age is just a number and if the guys that plays bond is 58 or 55 or whatever i ignore it it does not matter

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i dont let anything get in the way of my enjoyment of james bond not even some ones age

[freemo]

Age is just a number, yes, but unfortunatly the number represents the amount of years since ones birth.

I think Broz is believeable as Bond now, and Bond 21 he'll be able to pull it off. But not at 60. I think he's aged quite a bit since his tenure started, not that it's made him look worse or less believeable in the role yet. But eventually it will, and I think it will be sooner rather than later.

A few years can sometimes make more of a difference than you think, can also make less of a difference too, best we wait and see I think.

[11 11]

Xenobia MBE started an argument for no reason. Now, I am sorry but no reasonable person could have read through this thread and not see that she was basically telling me and Freemo to go **** ourselves.

All because I said that Brosnan makes too much money to quit as Bond and because Freemo said he may not be quite as popular as the media blitz claims he is etc.

So just exactly how are you "defending" her?

You know this forum could get quite nasty if every member responded in such a immature manner as that.

[Adam]

Originally posted by 11 11
You know this forum could get quite nasty if every member responded in such a immature manner as that.

Aww but that's what makes it so entertaining! If it was JUST tame discussion all the time, it would get dreadfully boring

[11 11]

But what I am asking Xenobia a staff member is how is she defending MBE for acting that way?

[Adam]

Originally posted by 11 11
But what I am asking Xenobia a staff member is how is she defending MBE for acting that way?

Does it really matter?

[BONDFINESSE 007]

11 11 is getting a bad wrap here, he made a good point and he gets crushed for it. there is no need to get nasty no matter how loyal some may be to brosnan

[11 11]

Thank you BONDFINESSE

Yes I am just totally wondering why people got so pissed off for just what I actually said was I thought Brosnan deserves to stay on and should stay on.

Then I got all this bull for no reason just because it didn't jive with certain peoples personal crushes.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

unfortunately 11 11 there are some fanatics.......extreme wayout fantics that go crazy when one makes even a small comment about the one who they go ape **** for , so you can never win. just keep doing what you do and dont even worry about them, u had a very good point and to me thats all that matters

[Blue Eyes]

But what I am asking Xenobia a staff member is how is she defending MBE for acting that way?

Perhaps because you called her a stalker, as she states in her post. That's a really serious allegation considering we've had a person around here who was suspected to be 'on the edge'.

[B5Erik2]

Time to go.

Pierce should do one more Bond film, and then turn the tux over to the next 007.

He'll be, what? 53 when Bond 21 opens? That's really pushing it. I thought that in the close-ups in DAD he was really starting (just starting) to look his age. More of the fine lines around his eyes that just scream middle age. They'll be deeper and more noticeable next time.

Didn't he get hurt during the filming of DAD? I thought I read that somewhere - maybe, maybe not. But if he did, it just shows that he's getting too old for the part.

Don't get me wrong, I think that most of you know that I love Pierce as Bond, but I wouldn't even want a 53 year old Timothy Dalton playing Bond, and Dalton's my favorite 007 actor.

James Bond is in his late 30's or early 40's. For GE and TND Brosnan was perfect. In TWINE he was looking a tad older, but still really good. In DAD I really noticed how much he had aged (that grey hair didn't help).

Regardless of your opinion on Brosnan's appearance, here's the main reason he SHOULD leave after Bond 21:

The next guy is dead meat if Brosnan goes to Bond 22 or beyond. It will kill (or badly hurt) the franchise if Brosnan & EON pull a Roger Moore. The general public will then have a VERY hard time accepting ANYONE else as Bond. EON made a huge mistake not getting Dalton for Octopussy (Moore was too old, and the movie had to incorporate more slapstick than necessary to get past that). The public loved Moore, and never really accepted Dalton partly (partly) because he was "the new guy."

That will happen again - if Brosnan does Bond 22 and (heaven forbid) Bond 23.

Not only will he be too old to be believable in the part (come on, secret agents - the kind that do the dirty work like Bond does - don't go out in the field much past age 40 - it requires too much physical work where you have to be in absolute top condition) - but once Brosnan's done 6 or 7 Bond films they won't give "the new guy" much of a chance.

Connery's time came and went (hell, he shouldn't have done DAF - he looked horrible), Moore's time came and went (and he still did 2 more Bond movies), Dalton's time came and went.

Brosnan can't be Bond forever. To have him do it so far past his prime is just silly - and for the reasons I've listed above, bad for the Bond series in general.

One more and let him go.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by B5Erik2
Time to go.  

Pierce should do one more Bond film, and then turn the tux over to the next 007.

He'll be, what?  53 when Bond 21 opens?  That's really pushing it.  I thought that in the close-ups in DAD he was really starting (just starting) to look his age.  More of the fine lines around his eyes that just scream middle age.  They'll be deeper and more noticeable next time.  

Didn't he get hurt during the filming of DAD?  I thought I read that somewhere - maybe, maybe not.  But if he did, it just shows that he's getting too old for the part.

Don't get me wrong, I think that most of you know that I love Pierce as Bond, but I wouldn't even want a 53 year old Timothy Dalton playing Bond, and  Dalton's my favorite 007 actor.

James Bond is in his late 30's or early 40's.  For GE and TND Brosnan was perfect.  In TWINE he was looking a tad older, but still really good.  In DAD I really noticed how much he had aged (that grey hair didn't help).

Regardless of your opinion on Brosnan's appearance, here's the main reason he SHOULD leave after Bond 21:

The next guy is dead meat if Brosnan goes to Bond 22 or beyond.  It will kill (or badly hurt) the franchise if Brosnan & EON pull a Roger Moore.  The general public will then have a VERY hard time accepting ANYONE else as Bond.  EON made a huge mistake not getting Dalton for Octopussy (Moore was too old, and the movie had to incorporate more slapstick than necessary to get past that).  The public loved Moore, and never really accepted Dalton partly (partly) because he was "the new guy."

That will happen again - if Brosnan does Bond 22 and (heaven forbid) Bond 23.

Not only will he be too old to be believable in the part (come on, secret agents - the kind that do the dirty work like Bond does - don't go out in the field much past age 40 - it requires too much physical work where you have to be in absolute top condition) - but once Brosnan's done 6 or 7 Bond films they won't give "the new guy" much of a chance.

Connery's time came and went (hell, he shouldn't have done DAF - he looked horrible), Moore's time came and went (and he still did 2 more Bond movies), Dalton's time came and went.

Brosnan can't be Bond forever.  To have him do it so far past his prime is just silly - and for the reasons I've listed above, bad for the Bond series in general.

One more and let him go.

but if pierce wants to do say bond22 and 23 and eon tells him he can then thats is what will happen and to heck with the other guy who comes next> thats his tough stuff

[B5Erik2]

Well, actually it will end up being "tough" for Bond fans when MGM indefinitely pulls the funding for further Bond films if the next guy bombs.

I'm not so short sighted (as EON and MGM may or may not be) to say, "Let Pierce do as many as he wants to." He may know when to bow out, or he may not. Pride and ego are funny things.

The best thing for the series would be for Brosnan to do just one more Bond film, and then turn the series over to the next guy.

That may not make Brosnan's fans happy (and I'm one of them), but that's what is in the best interest of the series if it is to continue long term.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by B5Erik2
The next guy is dead meat if Brosnan goes to Bond 22 or beyond.  It will kill (or badly hurt) the franchise if Brosnan & EON pull a Roger Moore.  The general public will then have a VERY hard time accepting ANYONE else as Bond.  EON made a huge mistake not getting Dalton for Octopussy (Moore was too old, and the movie had to incorporate more slapstick than necessary to get past that).  The public loved Moore, and never really accepted Dalton partly (partly) because he was "the new guy."

That will happen again - if Brosnan does Bond 22 and (heaven forbid) Bond 23.

Not only will he be too old to be believable in the part (come on, secret agents - the kind that do the dirty work like Bond does - don't go out in the field much past age 40 - it requires too much physical work where you have to be in absolute top condition) - but once Brosnan's done 6 or 7 Bond films they won't give "the new guy" much of a chance.

Brosnan will cling to the role of Bond like a limpet, while MGM and Eon will be only too eager to squeeze every last drop of mileage out of him.

However, I strongly disagree that this will hurt the franchise or make it difficult to market another actor as Bond when Brosnan's time eventually comes to an end.

On the contrary, I believe that it will help both the series and the next James Bond if Brosnan remains in the role as long as possible. If anything, an actor must slightly outstay his welcome as Bond in order to create public appetite for a new guy. Regardless of whether Dalton was widely accepted when he took the role, it's undeniable that by that point in the franchise's history the moviegoing masses knew that it was time for Moore to move on and weren't sorry to see him go.

Brosnan is at his peak now. If a new Bond came in for the next film (and I know that you're not calling for that, Erik), all he'd get would be comparisons to Brosnan and people lamenting Brosnan's departure. And it takes time to groom a replacement in the press and persuade audiences that so-and-so would be an ideal choice and is waiting in the wings to take over.

I disagree with your assertion that if someone stays on too long as Bond "The general public will then have a VERY hard time accepting ANYONE else as Bond". The Bond series belongs to no one actor, not Brosnan, not Moore, not even Connery. But it surely makes sense to exploit an actor's popularity to the full while he's hot.

As for the age thing, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were all over 40 when they started as Bond. Believability? Since when has that mattered in the James Bond films?

The whole point about Bond is that he's the toughest and coolest man in the world at any age.

As for OCTOPUSSY having "to incorporate more slapstick than necessary to get past" Moore's age, I would agree that that was a wrong move, but that NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN proved that there was an alternative path the series could have followed once Moore started knocking on a bit.

A 60-year-old actor as Bond is fine, as long as the material takes into account the fact that he is no spring chicken.

[JimmyBond]

Thats the best argument I've heard for keeping Brosnan around. Surely he hasnt worn out his welcome yet (despite a vocal minority). Even after Octopussy people wanted more Moore, it wasnt until AVTAK that people were looking for a new guy.

Now I'm not saying Brosnan's last film needs to be a stinker, but its just Brosnan hasnt had time to overstay his welcome yet, I imagine he'll do six for sure, then he might decide he's game for one more. After that, well, its up to him.

Another good point you brought up, Bond does not belong to one actor, although it took Moore and a few films to get the public to see this, its very true, the series will go on well after Brosnan's last film is made, and hell, all of us who love Brosnan may say the next guy is even better. Hey, thats just the nauture of the beast