The name's Brosnan...just...Pierce Brosnan.

[MacDawg]

Well, they already did the search for:

The next action hero
The next supermodel

So why wouldn't they consider Bond or Bond girls??

I hope not! Gee, some things should be sacred.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Well, they already did the search for:

The next action hero
The next supermodel

So why wouldn't they consider Bond or Bond girls??

I hope not! Gee, some things should be sacred.

I said TV execs would consider the idea. But like you, I hope not . . .

 

[MacDawg]

Colin Farrell nixes the idea...

CNN Entertainment: Reuters article

 

[aricher]

Originally posted by stevehaslip: how can you call pierce brosnan an elderly man? even by comparison!? he was 49 when the crap that was die another day was released.

Ok - maybe that was a bit of a harsh comparison but when you look at the math it's still a bit creepy...

View to a Kill:
Roger Moore - born 1927 (58 in 1985)
Tanya Robers - born 1955 (30 in 1985)
28 years age difference! 😱

Die Another Day
Pierce Brosnan - born 1953 (49 in 2002)
Halle Berry - born 1966 (36 in 2002)
13 years age difference! 😱

I shouldn't have asserted that anyone in their 50s is even close to being elderly - far from it in fact. I just find that pursuing women 13-28 years younger than you is a bit leacherous - especially someone 28 years younger than you. "The name's Bond... Grampa Bond, are you my daughter?"

 

[Mr_Ed]

..
I just find that pursuing women 13-28 years younger than you is a bit leacherous - especially someone 28 years younger than you. "The name's Bond... Grampa Bond, are you my daughter?"

Hey, I liked 30 year old women when I was 22. I liked 30 year old women when I was 30. I still like 30 year old women. Get the picture? 😀

 

[MacDawg]

Older man, younger woman...
Its a common theme, not just in Bond movies
And is arguably a common fantasy of older men!
(and maybe some young women too)

Bottom line, would you want to see Bond hitting on an old(er) woman? Probably not. The answer could be younger Bonds, but the maturity and experience of Bond is also a trademark of his.

 

[aricher]

Granted that the older man/younger woman thing is a theme in a ton of movies and yes, Bond is supposed to have maturity and experience - but 28 years younger - creepy. Then again, it would be even creepier to see Bond with an older woman...

 

[Mr_Ed]

LMFAO! 😀 Love the pictures!

 

[MacDawg]

Granted that the older man/younger woman thing is a theme in a ton of movies and yes, Bond is supposed to have maturity and experience - but 28 years younger - creepy. Then again, it would be even creepier to see Bond with an older woman...

My point exactly!
I rest my case!

Nor would you want to see a Doogie Howser for a Bond!
We don't need a whiz kid secret agent that's in his twenties just so he can be closer to the age of the hot girls... that would be bizarre too.

 

[aricher]

Don't rest your case so quickly - here's a little bond history for you:

In Moonraker Ian Fleming mentions Bond's age as 37 years old. Moonraker was Fleming's 3rd bond book and the only book in which he ever mentions age and Fleming went out of his way to ever specify dates in later books that might age Bond further. So Fleming's Bond is permanantly set at 37. John Gardner's later Bond books put Bond at roughly 43 - a few years older than Fleming's Bond.

In the movie The Living Daylights when Bond flashes his passport it shows his birth year as 1948 - this would mean Bond would have been 39 yrs. old in that movie.

So, given these facts Bond should perpetually be between 37 and 43 - not 58 like Moore or 49 like Brosnan.

Granted, Brosnan can pull off looking a bit younger than his age. Connery however always seemed a bit older than he was in the Bond films - he was only 32 when Dr. No was released!

 

[MacDawg]

Don't rest your case so quickly - here's a little bond history for you:

In Moonraker Ian Fleming mentions Bond's age as 37 years old. Moonraker was Fleming's 3rd bond book and the only book in which he ever mentions age and Fleming went out of his way to ever specify dates in later books that might age Bond further. So Fleming's Bond is permanantly set at 37. John Gardner's later Bond books put Bond at roughly 43 - a few years older than Fleming's Bond.

In the movie The Living Daylights when Bond flashes his passport it shows his birth year as 1948 - this would mean Bond would have been 39 yrs. old in that movie.

So, given these facts Bond should perpetually be between 37 and 43 - not 58 like Moore or 49 like Brosnan.

Granted, Brosnan can pull off looking a bit younger than his age. Connery however always seemed a bit older than he was in the Bond films - he was only 32 when Dr. No was released!

I wouldn't argue that he needed to be in his 50's, but I would certainly argue that he not be in his 20's. Later 30's early 40's is fine, and I would not object to the Bond girls being in the late 20's to early 30's either.

 

[aricher]

Works for me. Looking back on this thread... man, could we be any geekier?

 

[MacDawg]

Works for me. Looking back on this thread... man, could we be any geekier?

Probably, but it would take some work! 😛

 

[aloofman]

I mostly agree, but I think both Moore and Lazenby were victims of factors outside their control, namely those inevitable late 70s and early 80s influences creeping into the films (synthesizers in the soundtrack, pimps, rednecks, lasers, bad clothes, etc.), and some bad scripts. Fortunately we never had to see James disco dancing, but it was possible. I thought Lazenby was better than he gets credit for, they really screwed him by making him such a puffer. It's funny, Moore was in both some of the best and undoubtedly the worst Bond films of the entire series. Some of that was due to him, some not. Those two Bonds also were hampered from the start by having to fill the boots of Sean Connery and the difficult job of maintaining interest and originality in a series growing stale simply from being around for a half-dozen films. I tell you one thing: I don't envy the job of the producers to keep Bond fresh after all these years. It can't be easy, on the one hand you must depend on the formula for success, on the other hand if you don't take any chances, people get bored. Sticking too much to the formula guarantees a flat film where everything has been seen before, but departing too much from it risks losing the essence of Bond, which is I think what happened with Dalton when they overcompensated (although I did enjoy The Living Daylights). Then they pitted him against a drug lord with pet sharks, that was simply too much. When Brosnan stepped in there was a brief flash of perfect convergence of lead, story, and action in Goldeneye before things slowly decayed to where they are now.

I agree that Roger Moore gets a little too much blame for his movies. I mean, except for the young Jane Seymour looking super hot, was there anything redeeming about Live and Let Die? (OK, maybe the song.) And Moonraker has got to be the worst Bond movie ever. But Spy Who Loved Me was pretty good. And just the presence of Christopher Lee in The Man With The Golden Gun makes it worthwhile.

BTW, I've seen a couple of episodes of "The Saint" on BBC America and I can see why they would pick Moore to succeed Connery at the time. But it has a really outdated spy show feel to it watching it now. Maybe the next Bond could be captured and subjected to mindgames by Patrick McGoohan! 😛

Speaking of which, how's this for an idea: what if they bring Sean Connery in to play a Bond villain? I think it would be fun.

 

[MacDawg]

Speaking of which, how's this for an idea: what if they bring Sean Connery in to play a Bond villain? I think it would be fun.

Hey... you might be on to something!
That would be pretty cool to have Connery come back in that role. But he couldn't be some campy villian, he would have to be some really cool bad guy. And he would have to get away in the end.

I think that would be really awesome...

 

[edesignuk]

I can think of NOTHING worse than bringing back ANY former Bond to play a bad guy. It would make it appear that the film is so bad that they're having to dig up former Bonds just to get the crowds in, which is not the image you want to put out releasing a film.

 

[mpw]

Are all the front runners that have been listed for the next Bond in line for Tarantino's film or another? Any word on who Tarantino wants?

Brosnan was quoted on BBC Radio1 today saying he's in talks with TQ on an unofficial Bond project.

As for who should be the next Bond I for one hope both Bale and Owen avoid the role. Both are great actors and need a showcase film to boost their profile, I don't see Bond as cutting edge enough.(hopefully the new Batman movie will save the franchise and highlight Bales talent for dark roles)

The Bond movies of late are so littered with product placement it's ruined them as 'proper' movies.

 

[MacDawg]

I can think of NOTHING worse than bringing back ANY former Bond to play a bad guy. It would make it appear that the film is so bad that they're having to dig up former Bonds just to get the crowds in, which is not the image you want to put out releasing a film.

I think it would depend on how it was orchestrated, plot, marketing, casting for other characters, etc. I see your point, and would agree on any other Bond but Connery. However, Connery has gone on to so many other things after Bond, and has built a whole new personna with his age. In fact, my wife thinks he is still HOT today.

I think it could work.
Doubt we would ever see it, but it could work.

 

[aricher]

I can almost hear the Hollywood pitch to bring Connery in..."We bring back Bond's first foe - but this time he has a talking CGI pal... it's kinda like Cats & Dogs meets Doctor No with a bit of Pretty Woman thrown in for sex appeal - maybe we'll get Julia Roberts to play Moneypenny."

 

[MacDawg]

Since most all of us agree that the later Bond films have been "out there", I would see a Connery/Villian movie bringing the movies to a new level of something more "believable"... a true spy thriller, with real plot and intrigue, not just another installment of the franchise.

 

[aloofman]

Brosnan was quoted on BBC Radio1 today saying he's in talks with TQ on an unofficial Bond project.

As for who should be the next Bond I for one hope both Bale and Owen avoid the role. Both are great actors and need a showcase film to boost their profile, I don't see Bond as cutting edge enough.(hopefully the new Batman movie will save the franchise and highlight Bales talent for dark roles)

Uh, you mean there's a franchise left to save? The only Batman movie worth watching was the first one, and Jack Nicholson saved that one by himself. Since then, well, it almost makes you yearn to see Adam West in tights again. 😱

 

[aloofman]

I think it would depend on how it was orchestrated, plot, marketing, casting for other characters, etc. I see your point, and would agree on any other Bond but Connery. However, Connery has gone on to so many other things after Bond, and has built a whole new personna with his age. In fact, my wife thinks he is still HOT today.

I think it could work.
Doubt we would ever see it, but it could work.

Yeah, I think it could be done, but I doubt it will happen. It couldn't be a cheesy character, as you say. But if he were a mean guy who makes very dry references to the Bond character? I think that would be fun.

 

[MacDawg]

Yeah, I think it could be done, but I doubt it will happen. It couldn't be a cheesy character, as you say. But if he were a mean guy who makes very dry references to the Bond character? I think that would be fun.

Right. He could always seem to know just what Bond is going to do, or say. He would know Bond better than Bond knows himself and make him ever so slightly begin to doubt himself. He would exploit all of Bond's idiosyncracies, and anticipate his every move. A worthy adversary he would be!

 

[aricher]

Originally posted by Aloofman:

Yeah, I think it could be done, but I doubt it will happen. It couldn't be a cheesy character, as you say. But if he were a mean guy who makes very dry references to the Bond character? I think that would be fun.

The writing in the new films is so sub par though that any dry references would just come off as hokey. Someone would have to come in and be trusted enough to gut rehab the whole franchise. Let's all face it - sad as can be but the Bond franchise is nothing but a huge commercial for watches, cars, soft drinks, booze, etc. Craptacular commercialism. If they don’t change if from a vehicle for pimping products it doesn't matter who Bond or the villain are - might as well be Corey Feldman as Bond vs. the Snuggles Fabric Softener Bear. Plot, dialogue and even the action itself have all become secondary to the commercial product placement and now that Cubby Broccoli is dead there is no one to save even a shred of dignity for this beleaguered series.

 

[hob]

OK, ok... I'd like one of two things...

1. The James Bond franchise to step back a little bit - Goldeneye was great, Brosnan is my fave Bond (please don't kill me) - but y'know, he's the Bond of my generation! After Goldeneye... I dunno, the rest had increasingly less appeal... as a casual viewer AND a film critic (in training)! So, kinda Goldeneyesque films, with Brosnan, who is great!!

OR

2. Quentin Tarantino and Clive Owen doing an old school Casino Royale - especially WITHOUT the Brocolli's!! I don't think they're doing the franchise any good! If anyone doubt Clive Owen, just watch Croupier - and imagine it set in the mid-50's... or, indeed, not set in the mid-50's! (dunno how faithful QT would wanna be to the book)

My thoughts, anyway

Hob