1519 replies to this topic

[Forever007]

Purefoy is a a lot better than any of the final four but he's tied to HBO's Rome which will make it difficult for EON to cast him. Remember Cubby's words " my man can only be Bond" with the Brosnan NBC contract issue. Plus Purefoy looks very old and average at best. Hell adrian Paul looks better than Purefoy.

[randyh]

Hello all. There can be no doubt that Pierce Brosnon as 007 has been a tremendous success and I don't understand why he is being dropped. The public (young and old; male and female) accept him as Bond. Each movie he did did better domestically (US) than the movie before it.

Case in point:

GoldenEye- $106.4 m
Tomorrow- $125.3 m
TWINE- $12.9 m.
Die Another Day- $160.9

DAD is the 113 top box office movie of all time. A hint to Eon, a younger Bond doesn't necessarily mean a better Bond or a more popular Bond even with younger people. Wise up.

R.

[bryonalston]

But the point is that DAD seemed to be focused strictly on financial gain than ensuring a quality Bond picture. CR might not do as well as DAD did (even though it probably will) but I doubt EoN will take an opportunity like CR and flush it down the toilet. (And BTW, the only reason DAD made more money that the other Bond films is because ticket sale prices have been going up tremendously. If you inflate all of the Bond proceeds, DAD ranks at #11, meaning that it was the least successful Brosnan film in terms of ticket sales.)

[Seannery]

[quote name='Forever007' date='1 August 2005 - 20:42']Purefoy is a a lot better than any of the final four but he's tied to HBO's Rome which will make it difficult for EON to cast him.

[Seannery]

Hello all.  There can be no doubt that Pierce Brosnon as 007 has been a tremendous success and I don't understand why he is being dropped.  The public (young and old; male and female) accept him as Bond.  Each movie he did did better domestically (US) than the movie before it.

Case in point:

GoldenEye- $106.4 m
Tomorrow- $125.3 m
TWINE- $12.9 m.
Die Another Day- $160.9

DAD is the 113 top box office movie of all time.  A hint to Eon, a younger Bond doesn't necessarily mean a better Bond or a more popular Bond even with younger people.  Wise up.

R.

Welcome. Box office stats can be twisted to make either side look good BUT really it's obvious you are correct that Pierce is a popular Bond and clearly established as Bond in the public eye.

[YOLT]

Hello all.  There can be no doubt that Pierce Brosnon as 007 has been a tremendous success and I don't understand why he is being dropped.  The public (young and old; male and female) accept him as Bond.  Each movie he did did better domestically (US) than the movie before it.

Case in point:

GoldenEye- $106.4 m
Tomorrow- $125.3 m
TWINE- $12.9 m.
Die Another Day- $160.9

DAD is the 113 top box office movie of all time.  A hint to Eon, a younger Bond doesn't necessarily mean a better Bond or a more popular Bond even with younger people.  Wise up.

R.

What about the profits? If I spend 140m$ to a film I gurantee you it will make atleast 300m$. While DAD had 3 times revenues of its cost DR.No had 50 times.

[Forever007]

No doubt Brosnan was tremendously successful and he was James Bond decisively during his tenure. His films however are something less than previous EON films. I can watch all the Bond films from LTK back to Dr. NO over and over agian, but cannot watch the Brosnan movies repeatedly. There was something special about the older Bond films that's lacking today. Perhaps all the political correctness has clouded EON's judgement in Brosnan's "PC" Bond, which became quite boring. EON needs to go back to the roots of the character and find a Bond that is as Fleming created him. Until then the films will be flat and boring and the next James Bond will suffer what Brosnan suffered, a boring character. I've always liked Brosnan and wanted him to be James Bond from the early days of Remington Steele. It's a shame EON wasted him on such poor films with a total lack of character depth.

Edited by Forever007, 02 August 2005 - 12:13 PM.

[Loeffelholz]

Time for something new. But are they going to go mid-30s 'new' or early-20s 'infant'?

[randyh]

No doubt Brosnan was tremendously successful and he was James Bond decisively during his tenure.  His films however are something less than previous EON films.  I can watch all the Bond films from LTK back to Dr. NO over and over agian, but cannot watch the Brosnan movies repeatedly.  There was something special about the older Bond films that's lacking today.  Perhaps all the political correctness has clouded EON's judgement in Brosnan's "PC" Bond, which became quite boring.  EON needs to go back to the roots of the character and find a Bond that is as Fleming created him.  Until then the films will be flat and boring and the next James Bond will suffer what Brosnan suffered, a boring character.  I've always liked Brosnan and wanted him to be James Bond from the early days of Remington Steele.  It's a shame EON wasted him on such poor films with a total lack of character depth.

I don't think the things you mention (and I agree that the last several bond pictures have lacked that "something special"), but I don't think it's Broson's fault. It started to lose the magic around Licence To Kill. The pictures lost those really unique action scenes (falling from plane w/o parachut, hanging by a thread out the back of a C130 with a bomb about to blow, top of the Golden Gate Bridge, on and on...). We've lacked the really special scenes. Maybe its because Albert Broccoli is gone. No, I think we have a good 007 in Brosnon, it's the story detail that's gotten weaker.

[Forever007]

That's exactly what I said. Eon wasted him with bad scripts. Brosnan could have been a great James Bond but ended up as a good one.

[Monsieur B]

Eon wasted him with bad scripts.

My thoughts exactly. I don't think that P&W have been at the top of their game for the past few films, the script results (I think) have been quite sub-par. Casino Royale is basically what will make or break them for me, it's their last chance to redeem themselves, if they don't live up to expectations then I suggest that new screenwriters are needed. Perhaps then they should give Bruce Feirstein a go at the script and see what comes out of it.

[Leon]

I think if you check out Vanity Fair just out less than a year ago you'll see Purefoy looking good and younger than his years.  I really think the clips of the Rome series just put him in a bad light.  Also recent photos of Purefoy show him in good stead.  BUT i'm not sure of his status legally with the Rome series and how much filming it does.  It maybe only filming a couple months a year like is often the case with HBO.  I'd have to look into that further--I don't have hard facts and details on that.

That's right, some people I have seen judge him by Resident Evil alone! That was just a poor, friday night popcorn action flick and just the part he was given. Fils such as Vanity Fair show alot more of his real acting talent as a classically trained actor, he's done work with the RSC, not dissimilar from Daltons early career.

I should be very concerned if Cavill and a Croatian actually are held above this guy (as well as some others!)



I'd be very worried indeed.

[Forever007]

Purefoy is not James Bond and never will be. He's a good actor and has presence but does not have the look for the part. Even Daniel Craig is better looking.

[jguion]

Got to agree that it is time for a new fresh faced younger Bond.

Back to basics with a bit more subterfuge and spy work.

Purefoy could be a good bet. Younger ma be better though.

Look forward to hearing more soon.

[Loeffelholz]

Young is fine...TOO young---i.e., under 30---would be a mistake.

[Leon]

[quote name='Forever007' date='2 August 2005 - 21:27']Purefoy is not James Bond and never will be.

Edited by Leon, 03 August 2005 - 03:37 PM.

[Pussfeller]

Neither of them look particularly Bondian to me, although Purefoy is obviously more Bondian than Craig, who looks like a grizzled Norwegian fisherman.

[Leon]

Purefoy reminds me heavily of Timothy Dalton, and he was a superb Bond. Same goes for his acting style and quality, although he tends to be a little more "romantically dark" than cold and harsh.

There are only 3 actors who are, IMO, at all good for the role of 007:

Gerard Butler
James Purefoy
Clive Owen

Hugh Jackman is another fave of mine, but more like a sub. In any case I feel 007's character will have to be dragged back down to the dust in this film, meaning darker, grittier, harder and more romatic than cheesy and slimey. Campbell says he wants to move back away from the big effects action vehicles and have a darker, more back to basics film, so he needs to get an actor who can pull that, as well as doing it well. An actor who can carry the audience not only in the action scenes but sitting at the Baccarat table (hopefully lighting at least a couple of 3 gold banded Moreland Specials), and maybe checking his hotel room for signs of entry, marking his winnings down in the book and stripping and checking his Walther.

I want an actor who can portray heavy, repressed emotions well with just subtle facial expressions, maybe when M. is briefing him or when Le Chiffre is dualing with him in the casino.

Edited by Leon, 03 August 2005 - 05:32 PM.

[Forever007]

OK neither Craig or Purefoy look very Bond at all. Dalton is far superior to Purefoy who is in no way any comparison to Dalton. EON can do much better than Purefoy who is too old at 43 already. He's tied up long term on HBO's ROME series and will not be 007. For that I am very grateful.

[Forever007]

Gerard Butler would be a much better choice than Purefoy.

[Pussfeller]

Hello all.  There can be no doubt that Pierce Brosnon as 007 has been a tremendous success and I don't understand why he is being dropped.  The public (young and old; male and female) accept him as Bond.  Each movie he did did better domestically (US) than the movie before it.

Case in point:

GoldenEye- $106.4 m
Tomorrow- $125.3 m
TWINE- $12.9 m.
Die Another Day- $160.9

DAD is the 113 top box office movie of all time.  A hint to Eon, a younger Bond doesn't necessarily mean a better Bond or a more popular Bond even with younger people.  Wise up.

R.

What about the profits? If I spend 140m$ to a film I gurantee you it will make atleast 300m$. While DAD had 3 times revenues of its cost DR.No had 50 times.

Bingo. Precisely. Brosnan's films aren't nearly as profitable as his supporters claim. Certainly, their profits are bigger than those of previous eras, in terms of sheer amount of money earned, but when adjusted for inflation and compared to the cost of production, they aren't particularly impressive. The profits of Bond films will always go up, no matter who's wearing the tux.

[aadoga007]

first time posting and what better thread to make my first post.

this message is in regards to forever007's comment

i cannot agree more with the fact that a more character driven bond is necessary.

i know campbell is going to be adding a more action oriented, edge of your seat feel to the film than what is portrayed in the novel, however the entire basis to the success of casino royale, the novel, was do to the creation of a real, raw character with suave charcateristics and in your face mannerisms

the film casino royale will need that same great character from past movies, however with a definite face lift in the character section - aka - the bond we know but with more emothion and character depth. yet im afraid that wont hold well with todays moviegoing society due to the fact that it has gotten used to a paper thin bond (figurative) floating high on big explosions and steamy sex scenes. dont get me wrong, to a certain extent, thats necessary, but with brosnan films, that great character edge is missing. in the older movies, there was a character depicted, a character whom each individual actor gave something new to. with each actor (con,moore,dalton) we saw a somewhat different bond. brosnan, to a certain extent, seemed to play a con,moore,dalton bond rather than the character bond. i thought him to be the ultimate epitome of bond, but that perfection lacked his own personal take the character that is james bond.

but who knows, maybe, after four actors, brosnan had no other characteristics of his own to bring out. anyways, back to the case and point...

i dont think anyone will buy a toned down bond that thrives on character and monologues consisting of more depth than the one liners that overplague the more recent bonds and that moviegoers have now become accostumed to.

in short, i truly hope that our first look at amatuer bond will be one experience we will never forget

[k13oharts]

Good opinion there, aadoga007, and welcome to CBN.

[Forever007]

Very well said aadoga007, very well said.

[tdalton]

Good points, aadoga007, and welcome to the forums.

I think that now is the time for 007 to become a more complex character, rather than the paper-thin character that Brosnan did in all four of his films, and Moore occasionally did during his tenure. I'm not saying that EON should try to explore his emotional depths like they attempted to do in TWINE and to a lesser extent in DAD, but that they shouldn't just have him being a one-dimensional guy who shows up on the scene and says "Bond. James Bond."

Also, I'm willing to trade in a little on the looks department to get an actor who will portray Bond as more than a card-board cut-out. I would love to see Daniel Craig as Bond, even though I think that he is more "Bond looking" than most people give him credit for, and a little time getting his hair done the way that it needs to be for Bond, then I think that that would erase a good portion of the concerns out there. I mean, there are pictures of Dalton out there walking around with curly hair sticking out in all directions, but when he showed up to the DAD premiere, he looked very much like he did when he was playing Bond, except of course showing some age. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it doesn't matter what the actor looks like outside of the role, but it matters what he looks like when he's dressed up to look like James Bond.

[bondphan]

I still would like to see Gerard Butler as Bond. IMO

[H.M.Servant]

first time posting and what better thread to make my first post.

this message is in regards to forever007's comment

i cannot agree more with the fact that a more character driven bond is necessary.

i know campbell is going to be adding a more action oriented, edge of your seat feel to the film than what is portrayed in the novel, however the entire basis to the success of casino royale, the novel, was do to the creation of a real, raw character with suave charcateristics and in your face mannerisms

the film casino royale will need that same great character from past movies, however with a definite face lift in the character section - aka - the bond we know but with more emothion and character depth. yet im afraid that wont hold well with todays moviegoing society due to the fact that it has gotten used to a paper thin bond (figurative) floating high on big explosions and steamy sex scenes. dont get me wrong, to a certain extent, thats necessary, but with brosnan films, that great character edge is missing. in the older movies, there was a character depicted, a character whom each individual actor gave something new to. with each actor (con,moore,dalton) we saw a somewhat different bond. brosnan, to a certain extent, seemed to play a con,moore,dalton bond rather than the character bond. i thought him to be the ultimate epitome of bond, but that perfection lacked his own personal take the character that is james bond.

but who knows, maybe, after four actors, brosnan had no other characteristics of his own to bring out. anyways, back to the case and point...

i dont think anyone will buy a toned down bond that thrives on character and monologues consisting of more depth than the one liners that overplague the more recent bonds and that moviegoers have now become accostumed to.

in short, i truly hope that our first look at amatuer bond will be one experience we will never forget

I agree with part of that, apart from the fact that Brosnan didn't have his "own" Bond. But a lot of times it did get snowed under in the action and the one liners. I think in parts of TND you see "Brosnan's Bond"

But I agree with you on the fact that the next movie needs some more (Bond)character orientated parts in the film, without it turning into 'drama'.

[Loomis]

brosnan, to a certain extent, seemed to play a con,moore,dalton bond rather than the character bond. i thought him to be the ultimate epitome of bond, but that perfection lacked his own personal take the character that is james bond.

Agreed. Brosnan's Bond seems off-the-peg rather than tailored. Like tdalton, "I'm willing to trade in a little on the looks department to get an actor who will portray Bond as more than a card-board cut-out", and I think Craig would do a superb job of making the role his own, while still delivering most of the elements Audiences Expect™ from the character (just check out his performance in LAYER CAKE).

This making-the-role-your-own business is the chief reason I like Dalton. In many ways his Bond didn't really "work", particularly in terms of mass appeal (and, as has been pointed out by some, wasn't even "the Bond of the Fleming novels" anyway). But his take on 007 was undeniably his own - no one looks back on the Dalton era and says "He was just a blend of his three predecessors", or "He tried to be a Connery clone".

I don't believe Dalton ever gave the best performance as Bond (although he came close to doing so in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS). He was no Connery, and I'd rank him below Moore, too. However, of all the Bond actors, Dalton's work was arguably the most interesting.

[aadoga007]

"I agree with part of that, apart from the fact that Brosnan didn't have his "own" Bond. But a lot of times it did get snowed under in the action and the one liners. I think in parts of TND you see "Brosnan's Bond""

very good point. perhaps my post didnt quite get every opinion i have of each actor across, but i suppose i do need to say that i absolutely adore brosnan. he was the second bond i ever watched on screen, and the first whose character i fell in love with. Having said that i agree with the fact that brosnan's own character maybe far more subtle than previous actors, and it would seem moreso likely because of all the big bang effects and action sequences taking place.

DAD is a great movie, however the surfing with the parachute scene just makes me cringe. not only is the idea a little preposterous (somewhere in the vein of missles swallowing ships), the green screening and cgi iceburgs and waves look pretty bad. there were a lot of crazy stunts in bond movies (tmwtgg and the barrel rolling car launch comes to mind) where my eyes just went "wow" but this really is just preposterous. who knows, i maybe too attracted to the old-fashioned, personal feel of the older movies and their stunts to make well-rounded opinions of the now but i know what i like and what i like is realism.

[Forever007]

Here's a collage of James Purefoy. I must admit that he does have a Bondian look about him, but I think he might be too old for Casino Royale.