85 replies to this topic

[B5Erik2]

How do you go from a 60 year old bond to, say, a 38 year old Bond? I know that "continuity" means practically nothing in the Bond series anymore, but still - it doesn't make sense to do it.

And like I said, NO secret service is going to have an assassin over the age of 45. Hell, there might not be any over the age of 40. It's not supposed to be a suicide job. Just the opposite - they DON'T want the agent to get caught (that would get very messy politically).

A 50 year old - no matter how much he keeps in shape - cannot keep up with 20-25 year olds. It's ridiculous to have a movie where a 55 year old Bond is able to outrun or outfight guys half his age. Stupid, really.

Sometimes you just have to let go. Hell, FIVE Bond films should be enough for anyone - it SHOULD have been enough for Connery, but he agreed to embarass himself in DAF. Moore embarassed himself in OP and AVTAK (even though I like those movies, Moore looked like Grampa in the role, and was literally unbelievable in the role by that point).

It won't help the series to have "Gramps" Bond as the action hero.

Like I said, I love Brosnan as Bond, but five is enough. A 3 year gap between movies will allow the next guy to make the part his own.

(The other thing, and I remember this well, the public DID have a hard time letting go of Roger Moore as Bond. Many moviegoers didn't want to accept anyone else as Bond, and Dalton did get some of that, "If it's not Moore it's not Bond," public reaction. Not from everyone, but from a significant number of people. I had a hard time with Dalton at first myself - and I wansn't totally sold on him until LTK.)

A 56 year old Bond is just ridiculous, and that's what we'll get if Brosnan does Bond 22.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by B5Erik2
NO secret service is going to have an assassin over the age of 45.  Hell, there might not be any over the age of 40.

You're on very thin ice if you start saying such-and-such would unbelievable, since this is the James Bond series we're talking about. I can't be bothered to check dates on the IMDB, but I imagine quite a few Bond films have featured an actor over 45 as 007.

You bring up the point that the public had a hard time letting go of Moore as Bond. If that's true, then it's surely all the more reason to squeeze every last drop of blood out of a popular Bond as long as you've got him. Brosnan already has the cosy familiarity of an established Bond, and it'll be just as hard to market a replacement if Brosnan does just one more Bond film than it will be if he does two or three more.

I'm not saying that it's desirable for the cinematic Bond to always be pushing 60. I quite agree that Bond should be in his 30s or 40s. At least 90% of the time, anyway.

What I am saying is that an actor pushing 60 can play Bond. Bond himself won't be 60 (the character's age is never mentioned in any of the films).

Brosnan is ageing much, much better than Moore was at his age, and better than Dalton, too. He'll be just about the best-looking 60-year-old in the world by the time he gets there. Factor in makeup and the right kind of lighting, and you're guaranteed to get a 60-year-old Brosnan looking EXACTLY like he does at the moment. Put a 60-year-old Brosnan onscreen as 007, and you'll have no trouble believing that the character is in his late 40s or early 50s.

However, the material must be right. Go down the NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN route and throw a couple of sly references into the script about Bond still being in pretty good shape, keep the action within the bounds of plausibility in the manner of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, and you're laughing. Follow the OCTOPUSSY/A VIEW TO A KILL path and have Bond doing silly stunts and tromboning video camera zoom lenses into the cleavages of women 30 years younger, and you're guaranteed a stinker.

As for going "from a 60 year old bond to, say, a 38 year old Bond", don't forget that there's a whopping age difference of nearly 30 years between Bond as seen in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and Bond as seen in A VIEW TO A KILL.

[Jriv71]

If everyone is afraid of Brosnan looking too old at the end, that will HELP the next guy. I loved Roger Moore as a kid, but I knew he was too old, so I embraced Dalton. It helped that I also started reading Fleming at that time. And of course we embraced Brosnan after Dalton, because we'd waited 6 years. I think you'd all have embraced me, and I'm a skinny Puerto-Rican with a New York accent.
Let's just hope that it comes down to 'when the time is right', not a money squabble. Brosnan will continue to work, post-Bond, so I believe he'll just go when he feels it's time to go. Unless the studio gets stingy with money, the decision will be his. He seems smart enough to know when to walk away.
But if that doesn't work out, I'm still available...'Jo, my name ees Bong-Jems Bong...'
Seriously, I just hope he knows that he's only got about two good ones left...then it's Hugh Jackman-time!!!!!
(And I don't really have an accent.)

[B5Erik2]

Brosnan doing Bond at 59? Bring on the stunt double....

BAD idea.

Brosnan doing Bond at 56 is a bad idea..... (My name is Bond, "Gramps" Bond...)

[B5Erik2]

Beyond everything else in this discussion, Bond films are about suspension of disbelief, and a 56 year old doing all those things - beating the hell out of guys half his age - it would be a shattering slap to the face that breaks that suspension of disbelief.

You know, when you see something on screen and you mutter out loud, "Oh COME ON, that guy would KILL him..."

It would be to the detriment of Bond 22 to include Brosnan, and that is just one reason....

[Loomis]

Originally posted by B5Erik2
Bond films are about suspension of disbelief, and a 56 year old doing all those things - beating the hell out of guys half his age - it would be a shattering slap to the face that breaks that suspension of disbelief.

Personally, I'd find it hard to swallow the idea of anyone at any age doing all the things that Bond does. A 25-year-old or a 35-year-old catching a plane or surfing a glacier wouldn't really seem any more believable than a 50-something doing it.

The Bond films have always been arrant nonsense. In for a penny, in a for a pound. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

MGM and Eon, squeeze Brosnan until the pips squeak. Keep him in the tuxedo at least until he's equalled Moore's tally of Bond films. Brosnan, keep taking the money and jacking up your price until the game's up - no one's ever going to pay you remotely as well for anything else.

If keeping Brosnan onboard until he's so old and frail he has to be manipulated by Frank Oz results in another A VIEW TO A KILL a few years down the line, so be it. That'll make it easier to bring fresh air to the series with a younger replacement.

[Simon]

It'd be nice for Brosnan to equal the tallies of Connery and Moore, but as he has so often said, he will carry on playing the role physically and "getting in the mix" until such time as it becomes impractical.

I don't think he is saying this in the same way Moore said this film would always be his last, to up the salary for the next outing. If Brosnan does carry on towards Moore's age, he would attract all the ridicule that Moore received after the fact and that the journos will no doubt already be sharpening their pencils for for the next outing - never mind two or three outings down the line. He would also be reminded of his "physicality comments."

I believe he will do a couple more and call it a day - he has been through enough of "lifes big experiences" to ensure he has a firm grip on gravity and reality, and he will probably be asked to stay on by the studio etc, but I reckon it will be him calling the shots.

Look at the way he has demanded this and that with the producers and writers - he has had a pretty good run of success in that department.

He certainly won't be clinging to the role like a limpet - he has more kudos and class than that.

[Xenobia]

First off, I just want to assert that while I am aware of MBE's tone in this thread, my remarks were meant to pull the plug on calling anyone, including her, a stalker.

Second....If Pierce is does 007 in 2007, he will be 54 years old. That will be his sixth Bond film and I believe he has said he will not do seven.

So folks...forget the math. Brosnan will stop before he makes a fool out of himself and the series. He knows better.

-- Xenobia

[Contessa]

Public opinion is a funny thing, often based less on honest appraisal than on prejudices and expectations. When Dalton got Bond, friends of mine were so annoyed Brosnan hadn't been cast it discouraged me from seeing any of Dalton's movies (a situation which I have happily rectified). Now that Brosnan is comfortable in the role, everyone seems focused on how ancient he is and who the next Bond should be. Personally, I think he looked younger in DAD than TWINE, though I think his performance is stronger in TWINE than in DAD--contrary to most critics' opinions. ( I just couldn't get around the fact that I left DAD feeling the way I felt after seeing the CGI-fest "The Mummy" *shudder*).

My view is that Brosnan should leave Bond after the next film, regardless of his performance or his age. Or his need for cash. After DAD, I'm starting to think the movies are doing a disservice to his career.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

well as far as age is concerned brosnans age does not matter, if he plays bond at say age 57 that does not mean that bond is 57 and to try and tie them together is crazy >i can over look the age thing because i choose not to be anal and nitpick and if brosnan does somthing as bond that is wayover the top at 57 so what? and as for moore when i saw avtak the first time his age did not even factor in to it, because when i saw him i saw james bond pure and simple and stunt doubles? they dont bother me its all james bond.

[kevrichardson]

Brosnan will be 57 years old that is too old too play a Secret Agent . It will just look silly . go watch NSNA or AVTAK , it's painful. We are back too the problem the producers faced with Moore , not when but who. So they keep asking the guy to continue . when in fact he should just "retire".

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i do think when brozzie gets to 57 he will look 50, he aint roger moore so i dont think we have anything to worry about

he is aging at a good pace

[11 11]

I do not understand the arguments about Brosnan's being too old how it is so unbeliavalbe like with Moore the fighting people half his age and all that?

Are saying that in TND in the booth where Brosnan a 6-1 170 pound man beats up 5 or 6 6-5 300 plus pound men that this is believable?

Honestly when I look at the Bond actors I honestly feel I could kick the **** out of all of them except Lazenby.

Lazenby is the only one I would call believable in his fight scenes. Although I think Connery was certainly a large man even he is not believable in his fight scenes.

And with lazenby some fans argue well he was too big, too muscular, too tough, too strong etc. to be Bond.

So there is just no pleasing people on those issues. Brosnan has never looked remotely believable in the fight scenes, so I don't see how age matters.

Was Moore any more believable in his fight scenes in LALD than he was in AVTAK? I do not think so at all.

I am only 19 as an example and other than Lazenby in OHMSS I look at all the Bonds in all their movies and basically know I could kick their ***. So to me I do not really associate Bond's age as mattering in that.

It is like BONDFINESSE 007 said, nothing Bond does is realistic so just go with it. And yes when I watch AVTAK I just see Bond, I do not see an old man, but Bond. I really do not understand that being a big deal.

I mean in real life the Bond actors would be killed if they were in those fights. Like I said Lazenby was the only Bond who actually was in real life bigger and stronger and a better fighter than the people in his fight scenes, and that is only one bond movie.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Simon
He certainly won't be clinging to the role like a limpet - he has more kudos and class than that.  

I'll take that back. I really have no evidence to suggest that Brosnan will cling to the role of Bond like a child in a tantrum who refuses to be parted with a toy. The limpet analogy is silly.

However, I still stand by my other points. I do not see anything wrong with a 60-year-old actor playing Bond as long as:

- he has firmly established his popularity in the role (no sense in getting someone to play Bond for the first time at 60);

- he still looks in good enough shape to play a few years younger than his real age (something actors do regularly, after all);

- the material acknowledges the fact that this time round Bond is getting on a little (none of the emphasis on juvenile slapstick, over-the-top stunts and chasing girls barely out of their teens that was characteristic of late-period Moore, and no jokes about being "too old for this ****") but is nonetheless still in pretty good shape.

The physicality thing is a bit of a red herring, IMHO. Brosnan isn't Jackie Chan, and while he may have to do the occasional spot of running and jumping as Bond, that's hardly the same as having to stretch himself to perform amazing acrobatics and stunts.

[JimmyBond]

I know it's in bad form to bump threads that are so many years old. And in this case nearly a decade old.

However I found it interesting how off we all were about Brosnan and how many films he'd end up doing. In fact it appears that everyone in this thread had believed he would have done at least one more (myself included).

[Binyamin]

Also ironic that the reason in the original post -- "his salary has been going up and up so he'll get the $20 million he asks for" is exactly the REASON he was released. He kept pushing his salary limit and EON said "Adios."

Yes, I know they also wanted to go in a new direction -- but the salary demands didn't help.

[DaveBond21]

I still always think of CBn as having a high opinion of Brosnan, because I remember coming here in late 2002 and seeing all the Broz-Love and DAD fans.

And for this reason, it still comes as s surprise to see people criticising those movies, because I remember how popular they were on here, as well as with the general public.


-

[jaguar007]

I really have no evidence to suggest that Brosnan will cling to the role of Bond like a child in a tantrum who refuses to be parted with a toy.

Seeing how things turned out, this one really cracked me up

[David Schofield]

I know it's in bad form to bump threads that are so many years old. And in this case nearly a decade old.

However I found it interesting how off we all were about Brosnan and how many films he'd end up doing. In fact it appears that everyone in this thread had believed he would have done at least one more (myself included).

I still always think of CBn as having a high opinion of Brosnan, because I remember coming here in late 2002 and seeing all the Broz-Love and DAD fans.

And for this reason, it still comes as s surprise to see people criticising those movies, because I remember how popular they were on here, as well as with the general public.


-

Wait until Craig is replaced by tall, dark and handsome smoothy-chops Bond #7.

You won't believe the anti-Craig revisionism we're gonna get on CBN. Too short, too rough, too ugly, too serious, too pompous, etc, etc.

[Miles Miservy]

the thing i never heard of is "eon say they will do a bond movie in 2007"
Can anyone confirm ?

I was actually hoping for a 2007 release for QOS. The marketing aspect of it alone would've been very cool - "007 is back in the year '007" ...something like that. Nothing like that has affected a movie's premiere since TSWLM (Release Date - 7/7/77)

Edited by Miles Miservy, 07 September 2011 - 02:06 PM.

[JimmyBond]

I still always think of CBn as having a high opinion of Brosnan, because I remember coming here in late 2002 and seeing all the Broz-Love and DAD fans.



-

I know I've been hard on his films as of late, but I never hated him. Aside from TWINE (which for a long time I actually loved), I enjoy his films. It is true that back in 2002 the majority of the board loved Brosnan. But you also have to remember that when Brosnan left the series, a lot of those Brosnan Bond fans (or just Brosnan fans in general) left the board as well.

[AMC Hornet]

I for one never changed my opinion. I liked DAD when it came out and I haven't let the subsequent vitriol against it sway me.

I was glad Broz got his chance, after all the hype in 1986 (even MTM productions supported his being cast, and moved the final season of Remington Steele to England so he could commute to Pinewood) and his being passed over at the last minute.

Some have described him as a 'drama queen' in TWINE and DAD. If there had been more character development and genuine acting moments in the earlier films, Connery might not have gotten bored and quit so early on.

God love ya, Pierce. It's almost too bad McClory's property now belongs to EON - who better to challenge Daniel Craig in another 1983-styled 'Battle of the Bonds'?

[DaveBond21]

I still always think of CBn as having a high opinion of Brosnan, because I remember coming here in late 2002 and seeing all the Broz-Love and DAD fans.



-

I know I've been hard on his films as of late, but I never hated him. Aside from TWINE (which for a long time I actually loved), I enjoy his films. It is true that back in 2002 the majority of the board loved Brosnan. But you also have to remember that when Brosnan left the series, a lot of those Brosnan Bond fans (or just Brosnan fans in general) left the board as well.

Yes, true.

Also it true that there will be some Daniel Craig haters in 2020, when Henry Cavill is playing 007.

[Aris007]

Brosnan couldn't stay for more. Things were getting out of hand with the classic recipe of everything exploding, chicks with bigger breasts than minds and outrageously gadget-ed cars.
Bond needed a change. Sooner or later people even Bond-lovers would understand that movies were cheesy just-for-crisps. Bourne trilogy had already began putting a new standard in spy films. Bond should follow or the franchise would be burried forever.

That's the reason why Brosnan didn't stay as long as Moore did.

And because of Brosnan's attitude, but that's a different story.

[JimmyBond]

Bourne trilogy had already began putting a new standard in spy films. Bond should follow or the franchise would be burried forever.

That's the reason why Brosnan didn't stay as long as Moore did.

If that was the only reason, I doubt they would have jettisoned Brosnan. Look at FYEO, it's a complete change in tone and Moore stayed on as Bond. They conceivably could have put out a movie closer in tone to the eventual CR we got and still have retained Brosnan. Casual audiences would have still flocked to the theaters with Brosnan headlining a more grounded film after DAD.

With that said, I'm pretty sure that was EON's direction for a while, at least until Brosnan started getting impatient and spouting off to the press.

[David Schofield]

Bourne trilogy had already began putting a new standard in spy films. Bond should follow or the franchise would be burried forever.

That's the reason why Brosnan didn't stay as long as Moore did.

If that was the only reason, I doubt they would have jettisoned Brosnan. Look at FYEO, it's a complete change in tone and Moore stayed on as Bond. They conceivably could have put out a movie closer in tone to the eventual CR we got and still have retained Brosnan. Casual audiences would have still flocked to the theaters with Brosnan headlining a more grounded film after DAD.

With that said, I'm pretty sure that was EON's direction for a while, at least until Brosnan started getting impatient and spouting off to the press.

I would also suggest that the creative juices flowing at EON in recent years has far outsripped those of the 80's.

Lets be honest, Cubby was just cruising along with Bond and was quite happy to even put up with Rog's demands for the sake of an easy life. Hell, in 1981 - after Rog started to be a financially demanding prima-dona pain on MOONRAKER - Cubby had enough Fleming material left and Richard Maibaum still in his camp to have adiosed Rog and brought in a new, gritty Bond for the 1980s. Yet he persevered with Rog until even Cubby had to admit Rog was, erm, becoming difficult to photograph sensitively.

He took the soft option and stuck with Rog. However, Babs and MGW did excatly the opposite when "new" Fleming, CASINO ROYALE, fell in to theire hands. New direction, new Bond.

If Cubby was still running EON, I venture Broz would still have been Bond now, and DC merely an actor in "unusual" indie Brit flics...