You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, view attachments, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. Forgotten your password? Click here!
NOTE: Once you register and are logged in this welcome section will no longer be visible.
Apparently, Brosnan wanted more money, Brbara Broccoli/EON are on the puts with him over it, and the scriptwriters want a younger actor. Unless there's a reconciliation and an agreement over salary, Brosnan is out.
That's too bad, I like Brosnan in the role a helluva lot and would have loved seeing a fifth film. Otoh, with DAD, they were already pushing it agewise.
The screenwriters are saying they want to lose some of the fx and gadgetry and have a Bond more in the mold of the earlier 007, which would be moving things in the right direction. I thought the balance was good with the first three Brosnans, but DAD was beginning to push the gadgets again.
Location: I live in my own little world, but it's OK, they know me there.
Posts: 3,193
Bond
Brosnan is my fav after Connery. However, I look forward to the franchise reinventing itself yet again. The last Bond film left much to be desired IMHO.
I heard this swap talk before, but I do agree with the gadgets going wild. A car with a cloaking device? That's sci-fi, not action. If it did exist it would be double secret, and they wouldn't put it on some agents car.
The screenwriters are saying they want to lose some of the fx and gadgetry and have a Bond more in the mold of the earlier 007, which would be moving things in the right direction.
I'd be delighted if that happened, but I'd be happier if it happened with Brosnan in the role. He's a great Bond, but I feel he's been overshadowed in his films by the overabundance of gunfights, action and effects. I'd love to see him AS Bond, not just as the guy running around shooting things.
I also dislike the idea of casting a younger actor. I think a "master spy" should be a guy who has been around long enough to have learned all the tricks of the trade. A young twenty-something actor would not be credible in that role. Brosnan is the right age: experienced yet able to handle himself in physically damanding situations.
Location: Orlando FL (formerly from England but my accent probably gave that away, didn't it?)
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer
The screenwriters are saying they want to lose some of the fx and gadgetry and have a Bond more in the mold of the earlier 007, which would be moving things in the right direction.
They tried this before (and with some success I might add) in "For Your Eyes Only." More action, less gadgetry. Blowing up the Lotus at the start of the film and having Bond being chased while driving a Citreon CV was definitely a step in the right direction. If only Roger Moore could have carried the film.
Adrian Paul (of Highlander fame) has previously expressed an interest in the role. I think that he would be a good choice. It would be like going back to the earlier Connery-type Bond films.
I always thought that For Your Eyes Only was one of the superior Moor efforts, with Spy Who Loved Me being the best. Monraker was the worst.
I think casting a younger actor in the role would be a monumental mistake. Bond is an elite agent and has achieved that status through years of experience. I have no interest in seeing "the early years."
Am I alone in thinking that Timothy Dalton was a terrific Bond? Since this thread came up, I thought I'd ask. I always thought he achieved that delicate balance between toughness and aristocracy rather well. I was never convinced that Roger Moore could do any serious butt-kicking.
Timothy Dalton was cursed by the productions still being done 'roger moore style'. I liked him as Bond. If I remember right, the author liked him best too.
I loved Dalton in the role,but (as has been said) his first film was written for Moore; his second was apparently written for Bruce Willis . He'd have been a good, strong Bond if he been allowed to do a classic Bond script written just for him.
Eyes Only is my favorite Moore Bond. Real espionage, few gadgets. More believable that a bunch of real people were doing these things, rather than CG movie characters. Moore was just a tad too old-looking to believe 20-something Melina as a love interest, though. The Topol/Julain Glover subplot - old enemies finally facing each other with Bond only being incidental to their rivalry - was wonderful.
Orlando Bloom?!?! !
I might be able to take Huge Actman in the role; I like him and he's certainly capable. As long as Q (R?) doesn't fit him with retractable claws as a gag.
I always thought that For Your Eyes Only was one of the superior Moor efforts, with Spy Who Loved Me being the best. Monraker was the worst.
The only thing I disagree w/his that Moonraker was his worst. I thought it was a fun film and liked that there was that element of SF thrown in w/the space shuttle and laser weapons. I mean, how many times did we see similar stuff in the Connery flix?
Having said that, I rather like the idea of less SF-type gadgetry involved in Bond flix. A little in each movie is kinda kewel or one movie w/a major gadget or two is also kinda kewel. "Moonraker", tho, was admittedly a bit over the top - upon a bit more reflection. Fun, but over the top.
Quote:
I think casting a younger actor in the role would be a monumental mistake. Bond is an elite agent and has achieved that status through years of experience. I have no interest in seeing "the early years."
"90210 In Her Majesty's Secret Service"...?
Quote:
Am I alone in thinking that Timothy Dalton was a terrific Bond? Since this thread came up, I thought I'd ask. I always thought he achieved that delicate balance between toughness and aristocracy rather well.
I thought Dalton was great as Bond! Especially in "License to Kill". He was Bond Unleashed & Without Sanction. Using his wits alone and whatever weapons he could pick up along the way and kick backside every step he took. I was actually somewhat disappointed when Q should up and gave him some gadgets, as I'd have loved to see how resourceful Bond - and the writers! - could have really been.
Quote:
I was never convinced that Roger Moore could do any serious butt-kicking.
Yeah. Much as I enjoyed Moore when I was growing up, I always felt he was too much the "wuss" to really be dangerous. Not that I feel he was a horrid Bond, just not a dangerous individual. Especially not in hand-to-hand. He sort of looked like he was afraid he'd break a nail or something....
The one thing that irritates me most, starting with Diamonds Are Forever, is that everybody knows who Bond is. Like he's a celebrity. "Wow! You're James Bond!"
Am I the only one one liked Lazenby? I'll go back in my corner now.
Timothy Dalton was cursed by the productions still being done 'roger moore style'. I liked him as Bond. If I remember right, the author liked him best too.
Ian Fleming (1909-1964) .... when was the seance held?
I honestly can't see UGLY Bloom being cast.
Clive Owen isn't that top flight handsome all the other Bonds been either.
Jackman & Jude Law are much more successful bigscreen actors than any of the other Bonds before they were invited to the big show.
AICN says Eric Bana.
I'm not a Bond fan tho' I've seen most of 'em.
I've got nothing against Brosnan but in "Goldeneye" and "TND", he runs like a girl.
Last edited by chiangkaishecky; 07-28-2004 at 12:56 PM..
. He'd have been a good, strong Bond if he been allowed to do a classic Bond script written just for him.
!
