Listen here, you...
That cofee made you hyper.
I'm not going to say more - though, by Jove, I'm very tempted to - but take care not to step over the line next time.
If your brain cannot fathom the meaning - and reasons - for my post, you're the only one to blame.

In any case, I demand an apology.

The problem is, money don't tell the entire story. I think that the public goes to these movies because they're established a reflex to follow Bond's adventures... however, people are becoming more discriminating. An example: while the stunts were real, you had these to marvel at, even if the story was silly. Going into CGI territory has stripped away this fascination. And there is a very narrow step to be taken before audiences say, "meh, this is becoming as tedious as the 10th season of 'Dallas'".

Also, with more and more *loud* and *explosive* movies coming out, the market is becoming over-saturated. For as long as Bond was keeping the standards up, and providing more than your average summer flick, it was the "king of the hill"... Nowadays, it has to fight Jason Bourne, Spiderman and a plethora of other comic-book inspired characters, the Matrix and so on, which all offer more than Bond films, in terms of action, plot twists, special efects, gorgeous girls, and so on. Bond has become a parody of itself, and the last film shows it in spades. Where can it go from here? It could have continued on the path opened by "License to Kill", but the producers don't seem interested in doing that.

Thus, my suggestion to lay Bond to rest. He's been at it for 40 years... milking things dry won't improve the situation, regardles of how much money the studios will be able to make by product placement, tie-ins and advertising campaigns.

Besides which, none of the actors mentioned so far (Hugh Grant? Colin Firth? Jude Law?) seem to be fit for the role... the only one I haven't seen in a film before is Clive Owen, so maybe he's an exception.

no, no, I was joking. That was a quote from Billy Madison. Note the grouch smile

Playitagainsam, you know I was kidding right? That was a quote from Billy Madison

So you demand an apology ah? How's this. I'm sorry and I love you. Give me a hug....and some coffee

Awwww.... now I demand a hug!

Maybe you'll get one if you demand it in the Feedback and Support Forum.

Look Here

Apology accepted. Let's leave it at that. For the record, I have no idea that was a quote. Taken at face value, it looked just an insult.

*edited for clarity*

Now let's all have some coffee...

Yeah riiight they said the same thing about Sean Connery and look at how well his career thrived after Bond and don't get me started with his best supporting actor Oscar either for the Untouchables.

Um, Sir Sean WAS tainted. Very much so.

Bond years:



Years after Bond:

Apparently the front runner according to AICN (so take it with a grain of salt; although they are citing three different "reliable sources") is Eric Bana.

I personally think Clive is the best (all you have to do is watch the BMW Films series; they're basically Bond mini-movies) and you know he was born to play the part. Apparently he was approached a long time ago and declined; I think now that his star status has risen maybe he'll change his mind?

No official word yet from MGM, so let's wait. Although I do think Bana is a interesting choice. This has also been reported on other movie sites.

Has Bana showed any life after Chopper other than his Finding Nemo voice work? The man seems to be sleepwalking on film.

Gerald Butler...

"The problem is, money don't tell the entire story."

Try THAT line in Hollywood!

Well, Bana was probably the one of the better moments if not the highlight of Troy. I think he could pull off Bond, although I still think Clive Owen is the best choice in terms of the look and coolness of Bond.

According to AICN (who cites three credible sources) and other news sites Bana is now the frontrunner. Let's wait for official word still.

First of all let me address this Orlando Bloom thing . . . yes, he was great in LOTR, but the man CANNOT ACT! End of argument.

OK, now I prepare to take my bashing . . . Colin Ferrel. He is still a little young, but so are all of the actors I've seen mentioned here. Try to forget the dreck that he has done lately and look at the movies in which he really acts . . .

I have not read any of the new Bond novels. Could anybody comment on whether these new stories would be a better direction for the franchise?

Oh I don't disagree about Brosnan being a movie star now and a fine actor. I'm just suggesting without Bond he may have never been anybody, and probably would not have even gotten offered The Thomas Crown Affair.

He did have a successful TV show, but that puts him in the wonderous company of such stars as Jaleel White and Dave Coulier. It certainly wasn't earning Pierce any big movies (nor do most TV stars).

I'm just saying that anyone who thinks the role of Bond was in anyway bad for Brosnan is kidding themselves.

Here's the problem with your argument though. Movies aren't made for internet movie whores like ourselves. Otherwise it's doubtful Halle Berry would ever get a job again if the majority here had their way. Movies are made by corporations, and corporations are in the sole business of making money. Furthermore, Bond movies make money. Shitloads of money. The quality of the movies may be debateable, but it does not matter.

Yes, movies today provide much more competition to Bond. And eventually I suspect the naysyers will be right and Bond will succumb to the competition. But that day isn't here yet, and doesn't appear to be imminent either.

As long as these films continue to make money, they will continue to be made. I don't know what school of business you're coming from, but stopping a successful franchise because of speculative arguments on casting and storylines? Where's the logic in that? There's plenty of money to be made from this franchise, and believe me the studio will be ready and willing to milk it for all its worth.

Now artistically it may not be anything of note. And that may not be an exciting prospect for an action fan. But it the movies bother you so much, may I suggest not going? Your personal opinion of the movies is valid, but wanting to deprive millions of others the joy of watching a Bond film simply because you don't like them or think the movies have anywhere to go seems quite ludicrous.

Man this sucks... I wish he would have stuck around long enough to match Connery or even Moore in the number of Bond films. The problem is there is so much time in between. It used to be that they would pump our a new Bond every 2 years or less.

Lies, lies and more lies...

Speaking in May 2003, Brosnan said:
"I think we're good for a fifth. Barbara and Michael [producers] say they're happy to have me on board until I say no."

"It's like asking a bride as she's going up the aisle who her next husband is going to be," producer Barbara Broccoli said answering rumours of who will play Bond in early 2003, "I mean, he is James Bond. He's our guy. And until he's no longer James Bond, we ain't looking anywhere."

"My name is Bond, James Bond."

fixed

sex, lies and videotape.

Yahoo has a headline of Bana as Bond.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...estyle_britain

The Yahoo story is speculation as well.