DVD Talk
Pierce Brosnan won't be back as James Bond [Archive] - Page 2 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Pierce Brosnan won't be back as James Bond


Pages : 1 [2]

Michael Corvin
10-06-05, 10:49 PM
Well, if Brosnan is out, then I'd also go with Worthington. Craig and Visnjic look like they should be playing villains and Cavill looks like Bond's son.

Craig definitely looks like a villain. I like Visnjic, but I bet he is disregarded because they want someone bankable. Someone with an easy to pronounce and spell name.

Worthington looks the best to me as well.

RocShemp
10-09-05, 10:03 PM
Well, if Brosnan is out, then I'd also go with Worthington. Craig and Visnjic look like they should be playing villains and Cavill looks like Bond's son.
Lookswise I agree (although I think Craig would be a nice departure from the norm) but I'd rather actually see Worthington in something (never heard of him before this thread) before I actually consider him a worthy candidate for Bond. And, as others have mentioned, equal (if not more) attention should be placed on the script itself and not just the actor who will portray Bond.

duff beer
12-30-13, 04:42 PM
To get back to this little topic, i still find that Brosnan could have just continued onward.

islandclaws
12-30-13, 04:50 PM
rotfl at people suggesting Worthington would've been a good fit for the role.

Why So Blu?
12-30-13, 05:21 PM
To get back to this little topic, i still find that Brosnan could have just continued onward.

He could have but all of his Bond's were atrocious aside from Goldeneye.

Guru Askew
12-30-13, 05:31 PM
I've seen atrocious movies. TND and TWINE aren't atrocious movies. I don't know if I could sincerely say DAD was atrocious either.

And Brosnan was never bad in any of them. Lumping the Bond films together by actor is easy and obvious but the idea falls apart if you pay any attention. Look at how different From Russia with Love, Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice are. Or Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only for that matter. Roger Moore isn't the one saying "we gotta reign this in after Moonraker!" and similarly I can assure you Brosnan wasn't behind all the "atrocious" things in Bonds 17-20.

I'm a big fan of the three Daniel Craig Bonds so I have no complaints but I believe Brosnan was up to the task of playing Bond in a well-written, well-directed film.

Why So Blu?
12-30-13, 05:38 PM
I've seen atrocious movies. TND and TWINE aren't atrocious movies. I don't know if I could sincerely say DAD was atrocious either.

And Brosnan was never bad in any of them. Lumping the Bond films together by actor is easy and obvious but the idea falls apart if you pay any attention. Look at how different From Russia with Love, Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice are. Or Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only for that matter. Roger Moore isn't the one saying "we gotta reign this in after Moonraker!" and similarly I can assure you Brosnan wasn't behind all the "atrocious" things I'm Bonds 17-20.

I'm a big fan of the three Daniel Craig Bonds so I have no complaints but I believe Brosnan was up to the task of playing Bond in a well-written, well-directed film.


I'll take Moore's "worst" over Brosnan's non-Godeneye features anyday.

Decker
12-30-13, 11:26 PM
I'll take Moore's "worst" over Brosnan's non-Godeneye features anyday.

I think Moore's work in A View To A Kill is the worst Bond performance in any official Bond title -- so lazy and lethargic. They didn't even use a stuntman with the same color hair - in scenes where Bond was just driving a car arounnd.

Honestly, Octopussy isn't much better. At least Brosnan was trying.

O/T but it's impossible to convince your daughter that Brosnan was once the pinnacle of cool once she's seen him wail like a dying cat during musical numbers in Mamma Mia.

Groucho
12-30-13, 11:27 PM
Never heard of that Cavill guy, but he looks more like Superman than James Bond to me. :shrug:Whoa.

Decker
12-30-13, 11:28 PM
You might have been onto something there Groucho!

Chadm
12-30-13, 11:31 PM
*closes eyes tightly* Jennifer Lawrence looks more like my sex slave than Katniss Everdeen to me.:shrug:

Why So Blu?
12-30-13, 11:31 PM
That was awesome Groucho.


BTW, to all the naysayers that couldn't believe Craig would get the role all you had to do was watch Layer Cake to see that he would be the clear winner.

Decker
12-30-13, 11:38 PM
We've been Grouchoed! That last post was his only one in this thread.

Well played, sir.

Abob Teff
12-31-13, 01:07 AM
That is ... scary. Very scary.

wearetheborg
12-31-13, 05:29 AM
Damn, Groucho!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael Corvin
12-31-13, 07:00 AM
I've only seen Casino Royale thus far and based on that, I'd still rather have Brosnan in the suit.

mattysemo247
12-31-13, 08:05 AM
I've only seen Casino Royale thus far and based on that, I'd still rather have Brosnan in the suit.

You need to watch Skyfall ASAP

Drexl
12-31-13, 08:05 AM
rotfl at people suggesting Worthington would've been a good fit for the role.

Yeah, I was backtracking through the thread a bit, saw the mentions of "Worthington" and was curious about the first name. I figured it couldn't possibly be Sam.

He wasn't really known at the time, although maybe that help explains why he was suggested.

RichC2
12-31-13, 09:06 AM
Worthington would be the most forgettable Bond ever.

Solid Snake
12-31-13, 09:41 AM
If it wasn't for Skyfall stamping that Bond has a history, I'd still argue that Idris Elba would be awesome.

Brack
12-31-13, 10:20 AM
You need to watch Skyfall ASAP

Skyfall is great, but Casino Royale still holds up well and is just as good. I guess I didn't think Javier Bardem was that great of a Bond villain.

Solid Snake
12-31-13, 10:37 AM
My main issue with casino Royale is that it could have been condensed a bit more. Either way I love it.

Hokeyboy
12-31-13, 10:41 AM
If it wasn't for Skyfall stamping that Bond has a history, I'd still argue that Idris Elba would be awesome.
Yeah but there's no continuity between the different Bonds (or sometimes, amid Bond movies of the same Bond actor) so it doesn't really matter.

hanshotfirst1138
12-31-13, 10:46 AM
Trying to figure out the continuity even between individual movies is usually a futile exercise. CR and QOS lead directly into one another, but trying to figure out the timeline is usually just going to drive you nuts.

Hokeyboy
12-31-13, 11:18 AM
To wit: Bond & Blofeld come face-to-face in "You Only Live Twice". In the next movie ("On Her Majesty's Secret Service"), Bond goes undercover at Blofeld's secret lab/base/whatever, and Blofeld doesn't recognize him.

There's really no continuity. Despite the pleas of many to the contrary...

Guru Askew
12-31-13, 12:14 PM
To wit: Bond & Blofeld come face-to-face in "You Only Live Twice". In the next movie ("On Her Majesty's Secret Service"), Bond goes undercover at Blofeld's secret lab/base/whatever, and Blofeld doesn't recognize him.

There's really no continuity. Despite the pleas of many to the contrary...

I'd chalk that one up to the fact that they were written by different screenwriters. Richard Maibaum presents the meeting between the two as it is in the book, apparently unaware of the fact that Roald Dahl had them meeting in his screenplay from the previous film. It's easy to assume he had a copy of the script or even a copy of the film itself to research while writing his adaptation but there are plenty of examples of different writers messing stuff up in sequels back before the home video era. I feel this was a problem on the Planet of the Apes films as well where a lot of stuff was fudged, especially the 5th film when new writers were brought on. I believe they're quoted in an Apes book as having the option of viewing the previous films at the Fox screening room and they simply weren't interested. I could easily see a writer seeing such a thing as unnecessary on something like a Bond film.

But in any case I don't feel that Maibaum's failure to account for a script he didn't write means they were altogether unconcerned with continuity in a film that has three blatant attempts at establishing continuity: the return casting of M/Moneypenny/Q, the footage from the Connery films in the opening credits and the scene where Lazenby goes through his desk full of Connery-film gadgets.

The fact of the matter is, between all the return casting, the constant references to Tracy that pop up in films featuring Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan and the easter egg gadget stuff in OHMSS and DAD there is an undeniable continuity that runs through the pre-Craig films even if every one was designed to serve as a standalone adventure film, and the Blofeld meeting thing is nothing more than an interesting footnote. If you're the kind to get upset at a mistake and you're looking for an "a wizard did it!" in-story justification of it you can attribute it to the fact that both characters have altered their appearances at that point in the story.

To use nerdy comic terms: Bond '62-'02 is pre-Crisis Bond and Bond '06-present is post-Crisis Bond.

Ash Ketchum
12-31-13, 12:51 PM
I'd chalk that one up to the fact that they were written by different screenwriters. Richard Maibaum presents the meeting between the two as it is in the book, apparently unaware of the fact that Roald Dahl had them meeting in his screenplay from the previous film. It's easy to assume he had a copy of the script or even a copy of the film itself to research while writing his adaptation but there are plenty of examples of different writers messing stuff up in sequels back before the home video era. I feel this was a problem on the Planet of the Apes films as well where a lot of stuff was fudged, especially the 5th film when new writers were brought on. I believe they're quoted in an Apes book as having the option of viewing the previous films at the Fox screening room and they simply weren't interested. I could easily see a writer seeing such a thing as unnecessary on something like a Bond film.

But in any case I don't feel that Maibaum's failure to account for a script he didn't write means they were altogether unconcerned with continuity in a film that has three blatant attempts at establishing continuity: the return casting of M/Moneypenny/Q, the footage from the Connery films in the opening credits and the scene where Lazenby goes through his desk full of Connery-film gadgets.

The fact of the matter is, between all the return casting, the constant references to Tracy that pop up in films featuring Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan and the easter egg gadget stuff in OHMSS and DAD there is an undeniable continuity that runs through the pre-Craig films even if every one was designed to serve as a standalone adventure film, and the Blofeld meeting thing is nothing more than an interesting footnote. If you're the kind to get upset at a mistake and you're looking for an "a wizard did it!" in-story justification of it you can attribute it to the fact that both characters have altered their appearances at that point in the story.

To use nerdy comic terms: Bond '62-'02 is pre-Crisis Bond and Bond '06-present is post-Crisis Bond.

They were played by different actors so they didn't recognize each other.
"That's not Sean Connery, so he can't be Bond."
"That's not Donald Pleasence...that's Telly Savalas! So it can't be Blofeld. Must be Kojak."

Groucho
12-31-13, 01:12 PM
There are references to the events in OHMSS in both Diamonds are Forever and For Your Eyes Only. And The World is Not Enough has references to all the former films. But yeah...for the most part continuity is non-existent until Casino Royale.

DJariya
12-31-13, 01:15 PM
To get back to this little topic, i still find that Brosnan could have just continued onward.

Brosnan's age was a huge factor. He was 49 when Die Another Day came out in theaters. I could have seen him maybe do 1 more movie at most, but that's it. Also, it didn't help that MGM had major financial troubles.

Brosnan could have had a longer run in the franchise had his stupid NBC contract with Remington Steele not forced him to pull out of The Living Daylights back in 1987.

Hokeyboy
01-01-14, 09:12 AM
Brosnan's age was a huge factor. He was 49 when Die Another Day came out in theaters. I could have seen him maybe do 1 more movie at most, but that's it. Also, it didn't help that MGM had major financial troubles.

Brosnan could have had a longer run in the franchise had his stupid NBC contract with Remington Steele not forced him to pull out of The Living Daylights back in 1987.
Brosnan was healthier and more fit at 49 than most. He still looks great for his age. He could have done another 3 easy.

Hokeyboy
01-01-14, 09:14 AM
Yeah, there's no "real" continuity. Just relax, go with it, lie back and enjoy, don't resist and don't tense up, go in dry and don't forget your goat legggings

DaveyJoe
01-01-14, 12:41 PM
But I must know if the Bond who tragically lost his love in Casino Royale is the same Bond who made Yaphet Kotto pop like a balloon. :mad:

DJariya
01-01-14, 12:47 PM
Brosnan was healthier and more fit at 49 than most. He still looks great for his age. He could have done another 3 easy.

I agree he looks great for his age. But, I still think age was the ultimate factor along with too much time passing between movies. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson ultimately decided to develop Casino Royale as the next Bond movie after Die Another Day and as I heard them say in several interviews Brosnan wouldn't have worked as Bond in that movie because the story was about a younger Bond. If they decided to have Purvis and Wade write an original screenplay keeping the same veteran Bond, then maybe Brosnan could have continued.

Artman
01-01-14, 12:53 PM
Hilarious looking back at this thread. I think the big difference was that the producers purposefully made a big shift in tone, and the kind of movie Casino Royale (and the subsequent installments) would be. Pierce (for better or worse depending on your pov) would've carried over the previous entries and undermined that...the same with recasting Superman for Man of Steel.

~~ PAL ~~
01-01-14, 04:07 PM
To wit: Bond & Blofeld come face-to-face in "You Only Live Twice". In the next movie ("On Her Majesty's Secret Service"), Bond goes undercover at Blofeld's secret lab/base/whatever, and Blofeld doesn't recognize him.

There's really no continuity. Despite the pleas of many to the contrary...

This is true for most Bond movies. However, the example cited was actually due to the order in the original Ian Fleming novels. These were the last of the Fleming stories, and it was the events in On Her Majesty's Secret Service that led to You only Live Twice. So, the story only makes sense if you watch OHMSS first... :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories

Super X
01-01-14, 04:33 PM
To wit: Bond & Blofeld come face-to-face in "You Only Live Twice". In the next movie ("On Her Majesty's Secret Service"), Bond goes undercover at Blofeld's secret lab/base/whatever, and Blofeld doesn't recognize him.

There's really no continuity. Despite the pleas of many to the contrary...

I do remember reading that an early script for the movie had Bond receiving plastic surgery, but that was jettisoned. Regardless, though, you're right, continuity has been about as strong in the Bond films as its been on Fox's X-Men films (i.e. pretty damned weak).

Hokeyboy
01-01-14, 04:39 PM
This is true for most Bond movies. However, the example cited was actually due to the order in the original Ian Fleming novels. These were the last of the Fleming stories, and it was the events in On Her Majesty's Secret Service that led to You only Live Twice. So, the story only makes sense if you watch OHMSS first... :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories
If were to go by the Fleming novels, Live & Let Die would have been the 2nd Bond movie and Felix Lieter would have been half-devoured by a shark for the remainder of the series :) Thus they remain two separate entities entirely...

~~ PAL ~~
01-01-14, 09:18 PM
Totally agree with that. It is probably best to treat them separately because the filmmakers of the Bond series threw out the story continuity from the get go.

The Fleming novels had the continuity intact, and did keep track of the events prior and how they move the story of the current novel along. I was only saying that for the specific example of the 5th (You Only Live Twice) and 6th Bond movie (On Her Majesty's Secret Service), watching 6th first would have made sense of things better instead of some of the conversations/behaviors and character motivations seem totally illogical or out of place.

I watched Bond movies first, and had the same issue with how some stuff made no sense from movie to movie. It wasn't until I started reading the Fleming books that events start to to tie up better cause I knew what the proper order of events are supposed to be from the source material.

hanshotfirst1138
01-02-14, 10:14 AM
The only big exception is QOS, which picks up right after CR left off.

Groucho
01-02-14, 10:17 AM
Interestingly enough, even the comedic Casino Royale makes a half-hearted attempt at continuity with the Broccoli films, explaining that the Sean Connery Bond is just an imposter.

And as long as we're talking continuity, what's the "canon" explanation for the "this never happened to the other fellow" line in OHMSS? ;)

Mitra
01-02-14, 05:37 PM
"I'm bleeding chips..."

UAIOE
01-03-14, 10:17 PM
And as long as we're talking continuity, what's the "canon" explanation for the "this never happened to the other fellow" line in OHMSS? ;)

He's talking about 006. :D

Supermallet
01-03-14, 10:21 PM
Interestingly enough, even the comedic Casino Royale makes a half-hearted attempt at continuity with the Broccoli films, explaining that the Sean Connery Bond is just an imposter.

And as long as we're talking continuity, what's the "canon" explanation for the "this never happened to the other fellow" line in OHMSS? ;)

Clearly a reference to Harry Palmer.

Josh-da-man
01-03-14, 10:31 PM
And as long as we're talking continuity, what's the "canon" explanation for the "this never happened to the other fellow" line in OHMSS? ;)

"James Bond" isn't a real person; it's an identity taken on by certain agents.

And there's an island out there somewhere, run by Patrick McGoohan, that has Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan trying to escape every week.

hanshotfirst1138
01-03-14, 10:39 PM
Can't be. No man is just a number, and they're all 007.

Supermallet
01-03-14, 10:43 PM
"James Bond" isn't a real person; it's an identity taken on by certain agents.

I've heard this theory before, and I would buy it if they didn't refer to the death of Tracy throughout the whole series.