|
Post by Barbara on Feb 4, 2005 13:13:46 GMT -5
www.commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/2656-1.shtmlI don't know what to make out of this one...they talk about Campbell directing the "newest Bond" which I guess we are supposed to take to mean that it ain't Pierce.... And yet, no one has been named, and I haven't heard from my source that negotiations have ended. And just because the film is called "Casino Royale" don't think it will be based on the novel. A View to a Kill was a completely different story from the movie we know, and the movie FYEO was a combination of the short story and something else, so we will see. -- Barbara
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Feb 4, 2005 16:47:49 GMT -5
Though, IMO, PB’s performance got even better with every film, what surrounded him was variable, so that, despite peaks of excellence, (I’m thinking right now of the first half of DAD) I can't help but feel he’s the most ill-used of the lot. His portrayal deserved a director with the polished style and consistent vision to make a modern Bond classic; he deserved writers capable, on more than one occasion, of genuine sophistication and wit. (I don’t expect Tom Stoppard but can’t they at least afford a script polisher?) Exactly my thoughts. I remember going to see DAD, and that during the first half I kept thinking 'Wow, at last he got some good stuff to work with, he can show what he can do, like he always wanted'. And then came the scene with Jinx and all that corny talk about predators, and it was all going downhill with too much CGI and too little substance. I was genuinely disappointed when I left the cinema, and that rarely ever happens to me with a PB film. Come to think of it, I don't think it ever happened. I really blame the writers for the so-called faults in PB's four films. I mean, we saw in Entangled that his performance can even improve a otherwise pretty crappy movie, but he can't do it all. I think what this franchise really needs is new people in charge. With PB they had the Bond to make a classic film.
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Feb 8, 2005 20:42:18 GMT -5
I think the quote may be "The trouble always is...not how to get caviar, but how to get enough toast with it." The conventional wisdom about Owen since Croupier is that it’s a dress rehearsal for Bond, especially a tuxedo-ed Bond who gambles, so Eon’s Casino Royale should be right up his street. To which proposition one is tempted to say, “fine as far as it goes, but not so fast…”
Mike Hodges, the director of Croupier, specializes in films that show the underbelly of the crime world, its hardened professionals, and the outsiders who play around its edges. It’s a much seedier den of chancers than in CR; most of its denizens couldn’t get past the door in yer average Fleming novel. I’d say it owes more to film noir – a genre where underdogs roam free and losing is as romantic as winning, maybe moreso. Not to say elements of that couldn’t work in a Bond film, but they don’t ultimately have the same aim. It fits Owen just fine, but it’s the wrong sort of glamour for Bond. Too sordid, too affectless, too murky, too anti-heroic.
It’s true that the Bond of Casino Royale is closer to this breed of cat than he is in the later novels – somewhat monosyllabic, more sardonic than humorous, etc. and certainly he experiences real pain and loss. Part of the fascination lies in seeing Bond brought low like an ordinary man, but he’s not ordinary, he’s still Bond, playing for high stakes, and in exotic settings / situations. From what I’ve seen of him, Owen convinces, charms (and certainly woos) best as a sharp working class bloke (see Gosford Park). The films nowadays have leant heavily on Brosnan for style points and Bondian savoir-faire. I fear Clive Owen won’t get, or give, much of an assist in that department. Not to say I don’t like him as an actor and he can't bring other Croupier-like assets to the table – a coolness, a detachment, a sense that underneath, there’s some intriguing mystery at his core, which is not a bad thing for Bond.
The Bonds have been famously unconcerned with chronology, as Ace and other aficionados on this board can attest, filming the novels and stories out of sequence, just taking bits, mixing and matching, so that anomalies like Bond meeting Blofeld for the “first time” in OHMSS after he battled him in that hollowed-out volcano in YOLT are part of series folklore. Who knows what the script of CR will include? Other bits of unused Fleming? Or just CR’s Vesper, the villain, and a game of baccarat? Bond young or older? That infamous final line, the even more infamous carpet beater? Royale-Les-Eaux in northern France, or might it be Las Vegas? Or maybe a game of 21 for Bond 21?
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 8, 2005 23:47:11 GMT -5
I haven't seen him in Croupier (1997) but just that photo of him leaning over the table is wrong. He looks, pardon my frankness, like he's been hit in the face with a bag of pennies. Tux be damned, he doesn't look glamorous or attractive in it and yet it's always the one Owen fans inevitavbly trot out to show his Bond-ness. As for Gosford Park, I thought he was a dreary bore in it, but then I thought much of the film was a bore. Jeremy Northam was pretty much the only one bringing any charm to that film.
I liked Owen in Second Sight though as the going blind cop. But there was nothing in that performance to suggest Bond. He's as usual very monotone, dark, grim, weary, and not so vaguely bludgeoned by life. Those who like to point to Bond being described as a "blunt instrument" civil servant I guess could see that as a strength but that's just one facet of the literary Bond and a very small one of the film Bond. One review for King Arthur said he delivered his speeches like a foot policeman grudgingly giving testimony in the dock. And that's what he always sounds like!
They could as said easily mix and match with Casino Royale, but Owen at 40 plus is a little old to be the young fresh Bond before all his adventures. And even thogh Bond's age is fluid, seeing a rawer inexperienced Bond I don't think would work. There's a reason Cubby nixed all ideas of starting Bond over as young, he's suppossed to be a fully competent man and agent. Not green. It's why Lazenby just doesn't work, he comes off green and not like Bond. He doesn't seem as if he could be the Bond who was in Goldfinger or TB.
And how they'll deal with some of the elements of the book like the famous torture and the betrayal of a woman he cared for after the last 2 films just effectively covered those areas makes me wonder. And the book itself is very slight, so they'll have to add to it, not to mention as written in 1953 it's rather dated. But then they've done that with Fleming's books and short stories before. Now, a great or even good scriptwriter and inventive talented director could expand and make it work. But how much will these same writers and producers and a journeyman director be able to resist tossing in another 5 explosions and 4 huge action set pieces?
Ace
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Feb 9, 2005 9:39:20 GMT -5
Allow me a brief summary. Casino Royale: a former SMERSH agent in despearte need for money to repay what he had lost, a double agent forced to work for the other side, and a slightly green Bond, sent to beat the SMERSH agent in Baccarat, thus forcing SMERSH to get rid of him. In process, Bond is tortured and falls for a wrong girl. A broken heart and broken trust makes him a new man, tougher, stronger, and determined to fight the enemy. As was pointed out, the following is either outdated or has been tried in the last two movies (makin git too soon to repeat just now): - SMERSH. I suppose it can be just another a terrorist, but we know Bond villain should be out to destroy the world; even Carver wasn't big enough, so what about some small-time embezzler. If you don't agree with small-time, just think how much one can win in a casino without being discretely kicked out. A modest billion? Not even that. - The entire set-up, as I just pointed our above. - Double agent. - Torture - Falling for a girl. - Falling for a wrong girl. - Wrong girl's death. - The death of a woman Bond falls for. - Making Bond a new man, tougher, stronger, and determined to fight the enemy. What do we have left? Great title. As for chronology - maybe I haven't studied the movies enough. They weren't concerned with the chronology of Fleming's novels (or with keeping close to those novels, for that matter) but the movies themselves, with maybe a few glitches that are bound to occur in a 20-film franchise, keep track of the events rather well, IMO. They don't go back in time as seriously as to suggest Bond suddenly sheds all his experience. Bond's age, while undermined, stays a relative constant, too; he's Wolf-Goodwin kind of character - goes through generations without aging, always set in the present no matter how old the series are. If you don't agree with my summary, jus tdismiss it (or take it apart, I don't mind.) All I'm saying - the best they can hope to salvage from Casino Royale the novel is the title and a few plot miniscules. On the other hand, here's an idea - maybe they want to start over every 20 movies, just like Phoenix. But then, from what I heard, Owen is a little old for the part. I can't judge his acting abilities since I've never seen him.
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Feb 10, 2005 9:39:30 GMT -5
Nothing new, except for the source. www.calendarlive.com/cl-et-bond4feb04,0,4301689.story Seeking a newer model 007By Robert W. Welkos, Times Staff Writer Help wanted: Secret agent with youthful appearance. Must have a taste for dry martinis, voluptuous women, and look dashing in a tux. Martial arts knowledge, ability to operate lethal gadgets a plus. Contact MGM. The worldwide search for an actor to play Agent 007 is about to get underway now that MGM has signed Martin Campbell to direct "Casino Royale," the 21st film in the Bond franchise. The New Zealand-born Campbell directed the hit 1995 Bond film "GoldenEye" starring Pierce Brosnan, which grossed $106 million in North America alone. Campbell's other films include "Vertical Limit" and "The Mask of Zorro"; he is currently wrapping up a sequel, "Legend of Zorro." MGM has slated "Casino Royale" for release in 2006. With Campbell on board, sources said a "comprehensive" search will now begin for a new Bond. There will be no preconceived ideas on who that might be, sources said, but one reason Brosnan was not considered is because the new role will more closely resemble a younger Bond, like the one Fleming introduced in his novel "Casino Royale." For months, Hollywood has been rife with speculation on who might be tapped to replace Brosnan, 51, in the role of Agent 007. Rumors have surfaced that actor Colin Farrell, who recently starred in Oliver Stone's sword-and-sandal epic, "Alexander," might be the next Bond, but Farrell reportedly expressed no interest in the role. Others whose names have surfaced included "Star Wars" actor Ewan McGregor and Australian star Hugh Jackman as well as Jude Law, Eric Bana and Clive Owen. Over the years, Bond has been played by some of the world's most debonair actors: Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Brosnan. The proposed production budget of the new Bond film will be in the neighborhood of $130 million, sources say, on par with the last Bond film, "Die Another Day." MGM said Campbell will begin developing the "Casino Royale" script with Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who wrote the last two Bond screenplays.
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Feb 10, 2005 11:56:41 GMT -5
I saw Croupier at a tiny art house theater when it first crossed over from the UK. It had been summarily shrugged off on home ground as “nothing new under the sun” and had little hype attached to it. Some US critics liked the “newcomer” Owen and played the usual word association game (tux/Bond/casino) but it wasn’t a consensus, just the usual skin deep observations. It’s funny in a way because Croupier is trying so strenuously to be the obverse of Bond, taking all the usual myths apart from the inside out. Of course, that has its own glamour, of the down-at-heel sort which befits Owen, bag of pennies and all. I’m afraid I’m making the movie sound more original than it is. It’s almost all atmos, with the style working better than the substance. If you don’t have a weakness for that kind of thing you might wonder what the fuss is about.
JN wipes the floor with all of them, except the epigrammatic Maggie Smith. I liked Owen reasonably well in Gosford Park, though, not so glum, and showing a bit more cheek (or did I imagine it? LOL!) Of course, there’s a reason they put his character below stairs. I wonder if he has it in him to sound more posh? If so, he’s kept it under wraps, even as King of all the Britons, as Ace’s review quote attests (err, maybe it’s wacky revisionism, like the Irish accents in Alexander).
Could be that Owen may just have a one-track voice, which is an odd thing to say about an RADA grad.
Essentially, I agree with Ace. Owen’s good at the sort of thing he’s good at, but Bond should be an alpha male (not a scruff) with all that implies about primacy and sexuality. C.O. has too monochrome a palette for Bond even as a “one-off” or a “two-fer” like Dalton. Maybe his performance in Closer is the exception to that rule, though it doesn't exactly sound like a charm fest. I haven’t seen it.
I have my doubts, as others do, about an adaption of Casino Royale in light of the strong similarities in the last two Bond films. They’d really be out on a limb anyway with a faithful adaptation, testicle torture and suicidal Bond girls and such. Not much that’s fun for the whole family. All’s not well that ends not well. The most pliable elements would be the casino bits and the villain (Le Chiffre could just be funneling funds to terrorists). Then you could throw in a car chase, some assassins, other obligatory action sequences, the more the merrier, for those who can’t spell baccarat.
As for 007, I say ix-nay along with Cubby and Ace on the advent of James Bond, the Younger. I would guess most of the audience would, too. It smacks of desperation just for novelty’s sake, the kind of risk you wouldn’t take unless the well had run dry or the string was played out. (Sounds awfully like the new idea for the Predator sequel, LOL! Nearly all bad sequels, actually.) Anyhow, too much of a disconnect there, as Ace noted, with what’s gone before. Even if that idea doesn’t happen, innovation appears to be thin on the ground (quelle surprise!) as they haven’t exactly gone out of their way to sign new talent at this juncture, the Bond actor, one presumes, will be the exception.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 4, 2005 1:19:36 GMT -5
More grist for the rumor mill, as usual I advise to take it all with a huge bucket of salt. From Dark Horizons Old & New Potentials For "Casino" Posted: Monday April 4th, 2005 1:44pm Source: Dark Horizons Author: Garth Franklin With all the speculation about "Casino Royale" and the next James Bond not over but coming towards a close sometime soon, along came this report over the weekend from an apparent MGM insider named 'Artists United' which offers a potential other possibility which many may have dismissed. Like all Bond talk, take this with a grain of salt: "So - the next Bond. The buzz is that, ultimately, the filmmakers would like Pierce Brosnan back. All the stuff we heard about Brosnan being out is just a ploy from both camps. The negotiations between Brosnan and Eon came to an end because, in the last year, things were up in the air, thanks to all the organizational changes taking place. Many things have been affected by the Sony takeover, and I must say that there are days when it feels like doom and gloom as I walk along the hallowed halls of MGM - there are all sorts of reorganizations in the works and, well, the bleakness of uncertainty surrounding our jobs. Moreover, with the delay of the Bond film and many organizational matters still being worked out, there wasn't really any reason for Eon to continue with the negotiations. And with Eon still immersed in some business matters with Sony, as well as lacking a director (at that time) and a solid script, and an initial salary request from Brosnan that they balked at, it was suddenly premature to proceed with the negotiations. Brosnan's apparent bitterness in some of the interviews (according to our sources at the publicity side) is essentially the reaction of an actor who was chumped from the first stirrings of a good deal in the making: last year, things began to look hopeful, not just in terms of salary, but in the area of story development and an agreement to move away from an excessive action-oriented/special effects kind of Bond film. So where does this leave us? Well, what we're sensing is that the Brosnan/Eon camps are still goin through the motions of bluffing each other: an echo of the old poker game that Cubby Broccoli went through with Roger Moore. Moore frequently announced that he wouldn't be back. (Geez, if he had a web site back then, he'd be plastering it with farewell messages.) It's a typical tactic of PR handlers--make your star seem aloof and distant to make the filmmakers worry and chase him--and it worked for Moore. In fact, during the days of "For Your Eyes Only," Moore wasn't even signed until about a month before shooting began. It took Cubby Broccoli's personal intervention along with top studio brass to secure a deal with Moore. Whether it will work for Brosnan remains to be seen, but the mood around here (at least for now) is that he'll be back. Hence, the reluctance of the filmmakers to come right out and announce that they have parted ways with Brosnan. If anything, they've kept the door open by not making any casting announcements in the recent press release. So much money is at stake and the word is, SONY are not in a gambling mood. They could lose more with an unknown actor, or with an experienced but unpopular actor. They're well aware that you just can't place any actor in this role; and with Brosnan's star power and successful track record ($1 billion from four films), he's currently the strong money-maker for the Bond films. The phrase we've started to hear recently is "The Dalton Problem." Although a fine actor, Timothy Dalton just didn't appeal to the public. One co-worker pointed to an analysis by Steven Jay Rubin (author of "The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia" and "The James Bond Films") in the Dec. 1995 issue of Cinefantastique Magazine, which supports the mentality of the filmmakers. In this article, Rubin states the dilemma that haunts an actor who doesn't have the "big screen" persona required for the Bond role: Dalton, he states, "lent no star-power to the character. This became increasingly difficult for the studio marketing department, because they realized that people weren't flocking to see a Timothy Dalton movie; they were going to see a Bond movie with what's-his-name" (19).They are keen to avoid the same happening with Owen and the other 'candidates' who are supposedly on a short list for the role. So, providing Brosnan and Sony/Eon can iron out various political and financial issues - our money's on Brosnan coming back for Casino Royale and possibly even Bond 22!" A few hours after this arrived, FerryAve reported that Gavin Carlys has been announced as the man to play James Bond in the upcoming thriller "Casino Royale". The actor himself seemed to be convinced he landed the part too - "I'm a big fan of Clive's work, especially his portrayal of Dwight McCarthy in Sin City. [I've loved] the comic series forever. He's a truly talented man. But, I suppose, I just got lucky". Thanks again to 'Trevor' & 'Artists United'.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 6, 2005 0:09:37 GMT -5
And it hits the mainstream press:
The Toronto Sun has a good roundup of rumors as they stand and a couple of more unnamed sources chiming in but still no facts:
Pierce Brosnan may be back as 007: 'New' Bond may be same as old Bond
By BRUCE KIRKLAND - Toronto Sun
Never say never again -- Pierce Brosnan is rumoured to be back in the picture as James Bond. Internet sites are abuzz this week with reports that Sony Pictures, which just bought the rival MGM studio that had distributed 007 movies for decades, has given the Irishman a renewed chance to return.
Brosnan told the Sun last October that he had been fired as Bond.
The current project is the planned re-make of Casino Royale, which is supposed to start shooting in December or January under GoldenEye director Martin Campbell and is due in theatres Nov. 17, 2006. It would be Brosnan's fifth appearance as 007.
An anonymous source (nicknamed Artists United and hyped as a high level official at the faltering MGM studio) reportedly told the website darkhorizons.com:
"All the stuff we heard about Brosnan being out is just a ploy from both camps." The source was referring to Brosnan's team and that of Eon Productions, which is run by longtime Bond producers Barbara Broccoli (daughter of original Bond co-producer, the late Cubby Broccoli) and Michael Wilson. Insiders say their alternative choice would be Clive Owen.
"The mood around Sony," the MGM source said, "is that Brosnan will be back. Hence, the reluctance of the filmmakers to come right out and announce that they have parted ways with Brosnan. So much money is at stake, and the word is, Sony (executives) are not in a gambling mood.
"They could lose more with an unknown actor, or with an experienced but unpopular actor. They're well aware that you just can't place any actor in this role and, with Brosnan's star power and successful track record, he's currently the strong money-maker for the Bond films."
The darkhorizons report has spread like a virus around the world and is now crossing over into the mainstream media.
But Brosnan, who launched his Bond career with GoldenEye in 1995 and wrapped it up with Die Another Day in 2002, kissed the franchise goodbye last October, telling the Sun that: "It's over, it's over, it's absolutely over."
He also groused that he did not want to quit, that he was fired by the producers because they wanted fresh blood and perhaps someone younger. Brosnan will turn 52 on May 16.
Variety later reported that Brosnan, who reportedly earned $16.5 million US for Die Another Day, had priced himself out of the next James Bond movie by demanding a combined salary and cut of profits that could earn him $40 million US, although that figure has been disputed.
"Then again," an industry source told the Sun yesterday, "Sony's cheap and it may come down to that -- a matter of money. It is always about money." The same source said that the Bond franchise has already been handed over from MGM to Sony (which runs Columbia Pictures) because the Bond producers did not want to wait for the protracted negotiations for MGM to stall their plans for Casino Royale.
The new movie, the 21st official Bond, is planned as a serious and gritty remake of the original 1967 film, which was a goofy satire starring David Niven.
"It's plausible," another studio source told the Sun yesterday about the Sony interest in Brosnan. "They (Sony executives) may also want to get a fresh face. But, if it is Brosnan, that could bode well for down the line with more than one movie planned. There may be some fire in the pot."
Meanwhile, in stark contrast to the Brosnan rumours, the British tabloids The Sunday Express and The Sunday Star both claim that Owen, one of the stars of the hit Sin City, would be announced as the new Bond this week. He has been rumoured to be on the list for the role for at least two years and has often scoffed at the idea. According to the tabs, things have changed and a deal finalized
A look at possible Bond candidates
All bets are back on. It looks as if Pierce Brosnan may be in the race to play James Bond in Casino Royale, which is scheduled to begin shooting this fall. If he does throw his hat back in the ring, he'd be the top contender.
MGM, which owns the Bond franchise, has been sold to Sony and the logic at the Sony camp seems to be that it's safer to go with a proven winner even if he is an old war horse. Negotiations broke down last year between Brosnan and the Broccoli family who produce the films for MGM. The Broccolis claim Brosnan out-priced himself demanding as much as $45 million US in salary and profit points in ticket sales, merchandising and DVD. Brosnan insists he asked "for a good honest fee in the realm of how much they make and how much blood, sweat and tears I put into the role. What I asked for was fair and it never included percentage points."
Brosnan's last Bond film Die Another Day grossed $450 million worldwide at the box-office before heading for DVD. As soon as Brosnan announced he had severed ties with the Broccoli family the race began to fill his vacancy.
When Clive Owen received his Oscar nomination and a Golden Globe for his performance in Closer, fan sites named him the man most likely to receive the licence to play Bond. While promoting Sin City last month Owen insisted "there is nothing whatsoever to the Bond rumours ... I have not been contacted. I have not received an offer."
Brosnan, 51, has also suggested he was being let go in favour of a much younger man. Orlando Bloom has admitted he has been in talks to star in a film about James Bond as he leaves school in Eton and is recruited by the British Secret Service.
PIERCE BROSNAN
LOOKS: We've grown accustomed to his face and it hasn't aged all that drastically since 1995's Golden Eye.
EXPERIENCE: He's made four Bond flicks and was hoping to make two more thus matching Sean Connery.
STYLE: He looks as if he wears a suit to bed and often does in his romantic comedies. Suave is second nature to him.
SEX APPEAL: He was hailed as People magazine's Sexiest Man Alive in 2001.
ACTING CHOPS: In 2001, the British press included him in their list of the best British film actors ever. In 2003 he was given an honorary Order of the British Empire for his contribution to the industry.
ODDS: 2 to 1
CLIVE OWEN
LOOKS: Dark, swarthy and macho he made a convincing barbarian ruler last summer in King Arthur. He looks mature enough to be Bond.
EXPERIENCE: An accomplished stage actor turned film star, he's played everything including the casino dealer in Croupier.
STYLE: His BMW commercials had most people convinced they were his audition piece for Bond.
SEX APPEAL: For him the sexiest part of the human body are the eyes because "they help us connect as human beings."
ACTING CHOPS: He may have lost this year's best supporting actor Oscar to Morgan Freeman but he won the Golden Globe and British version of the Oscar for his role in Closer.
ODDS: 5 to 1
JUDE LAW
LOOKS: Given that he can play unsavoury characters, Law could bring a bit of danger and ambiguity to 007.
EXPERIENCE: He released six films in 2004 which actually works against him.
STYLE: His role as the womanizing bachelor last year in Alfie proves he could make Bond's charisma with women believable and exciting.
SEX APPEAL: He was one of People magazine's 50 most beautiful people in 2000. Named its Sexiest Man last year.
ACTING CHOPS: Was nominated for a best actor Tony Award for his Broadway debut in Indiscretions and received Oscar nominations for his roles in The Talented Mr. Ripley and Cold Mountain.
ODDS: 50 to 1
HUGH JACKMAN
LOOKS: He's got a rugged, sexy look that makes him an ideal action hero, but he can also woo the ladies in romantic flicks.
EXPERIENCE: He began his career in Australia and Britain as a musical theatre star but slipped easily into X-Men.
STYLE: He may have the body and charisma to play Bond but he already has a franchise in the X-Men films. Audiences might keep expecting his 007 to morph into Wolverine.
SEX APPEAL: When he made his London debut in Oklahoma! critics said he was the sexiest musical theatre star in decades.
ACTING CHOPS: His countrymen named him the Australian Star of the Year in 1999 and he won a Tony Award in 2004 for his musical theatre turn in The Boy From Oz.
ODDS: 100 to 1
JULIAN McMAHON
LOOKS: He's an Aussie with swagger to spare, but he's reminiscent of George Lazenby, who flopped as Bond in 1969.
EXPERIENCE: He began his career in two Australian soaps. When he moved to the U.S. his first job was on Another World.
STYLE: As the seductive plastic surgeon on TV's Nip/Tuck, he proves he can set women's hearts aflutter in and out of suits.
SEX APPEAL: After appearing in sexy Aussie jean ads, he was besieged with offers to star in TV shows.
ACTING CHOPS: He was named best soap opera actor in Australia in 1988 for his role on the TV soap Home and Away. He received a Golden Globe nomination for best actor in a TV drama for Nip/Tuck.
ODDS: 500 to 1
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 7, 2005 11:03:37 GMT -5
I don't have access to the full variet article that came out yesterday but here EW quotes/references it:
Entertainment Weekly: Bond Speculators
Will Pierce Brosnan return as 007? After all the denials, he may return for two more films by Michael Slezak
April 7, 2005
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN PARACHUTE Brosnan may reap more rewards before retiring his gun
Would all the nice young British actors please put down those martini glasses and step away from the Aston Martin? According to a report in Variety magazine, rumors that Pierce Brosnan's reign as 007 has come to an end may have been premature.
Speculation about who'll play the title role in the next James Bond film has been simmering for months, reaching a fever pitch in the last few days as Sony completes its deal to acquire MGM, the studio behind the Bond franchise. While British tabloids this week reported little-known Daniel Craig (Enduring Love) was about to ink a deal to play the dashing British agent, Variety quoted U.S. sources as saying he was no more a frontrunner than previously mentioned hopefuls Clive Owen, Dominic West, Gerard Butler, and Julian McMahon.
Furthermore, the entertainment trade publication reported on other sources as saying Brosnan — who has played Bond in the series' last four films — was back in the picture, working on a $40 million deal with the Broccoli family (who control the franchise) to return to the coveted role for two more pictures. Other rumors had Brosnan returning for only one film, which would be followed in quick succession by a second flick introducing a new 007.
MGM denied any decision had been made, while Brosnan's reps denied the actor was in negotiations to die another day.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 7, 2005 14:42:45 GMT -5
It's not news or rumor, it's a tad irreverent and it made me laugh so here goes:
Posted on Thu, Apr. 07, 2005
Bad LANGuage: AP's pop culture blog
DERRIK J. LANG
Associated Press
Rarely does Bad LANGuage come up with a good idea, but we think this just might work. When the crafty cardinals convene in Vatican City to decide upon a new pope, BL recommends the conclave should just go ahead and pick a new James Bond. We trust 'em. Let's kill, er, choose two birds with one conclave.
Since the pope's passing, those talking heads on CNNMSNBCSPAN (it's all the same to us) keep yakking about everyone's special bond with the pope. And they continually speculate on whether the next pope will be from Italy, Nigeria, Germany or Tatooine. While they're are at, they should turn their funny hats toward Ireland (home of naughty Colin Farrell), Scotland (hottie Ewan McGregor) and England (haughty Clive Owen). Makes sense to us.
This week, the U.K. tabloids - probably bored with the low star wattage at Popefest 2005 - have gone back and forth over whether doughty Brit Daniel Craig is indeed Bond, James Bond. But that looks untrue, and the indecision continues.
Ah, hell. If the United States of America can't choose a president (source: Michael Moore), then the conclave probably can't do double casting duty. Eon Productions, the company that controls the Bondverse, should just give Pierce Brosnan more cash to come back as 007. He did a great job as the tuxedoed one - and, come to think of it, he's not dead.
|
|
|
Post by curious george on Apr 7, 2005 15:40:06 GMT -5
:: whoops with laughter :: Oh, excuse me! Yes, that's definitely irreverent. :: tries to stop snickering :: This really is a very serious time, and I, for one, have grave concerns (no pun intended) about who the conclave will pick. As Pope. But perhaps if they had a practice run first... cg
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 7, 2005 16:56:41 GMT -5
The Variety article: April 7, 2005 4:10pm Daily Variety As MGM heads into its final hours as an independent studio, the question of who'll be the next James Bond has exploded. Earlier this week, word circulated that the Bond franchise-controlling Broccoli clan had patched things up with former 007 Pierce Brosnan and were negotiating a two-picture $40 million deal for him to reprise his role as the dapper spy. Yet another rumor had Brosnan making a single film while Sony --- which is set to acquire the MGM studio this week --- and the Broccolis groomed a new agent for a film to come out shortly after. On Wednesday, the U.K. press gave its vote to British heartthrob Daniel Craig, reporting that Craig had been offered a three-pic deal by the Broccoli clan. Stateside sources say he's no more of a certainty than other candidates that include previously rumored Clive Owen and Dominic West. Though unknown to most American auds, Craig has a Beatles-like following abroad and most recently appeared in the Brit pics "Layer Cake" and "Enduring Love." Despite the vacillation, each rumor has made a degree of sense. Sony, which will run the franchise once the MGM sale is completed, could do worse than keep on Brosnan, who took over the 007 role at a time when the franchise was on life support. Brosnan averaged $350 million in worldwide gross and set a franchise record in his last film, "Die Another Day," with $425 million worldwide. The Craig rumor seems plausible, given that "Die Another Day" scribes Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are using Ian Fleming's early Bond novel "Casino Royale" as the basis for a film to be directed by Martin Campbell. That novel, which was turned into a Bond spoof film starring David Niven, would lend itself to a secret agent in his formative years. And landing a young actor like Craig is possible because the actor wouldn't cost much (such a strategy was employed to relaunch the "Superman" franchise with Brandon Routh). The Broccolis have been notoriously tightfisted with their stars. Though Brosnan brought the franchise to unparalleled heights, he never received a gross percentage, nor has any actor who played the Bond role before him. So while Brosnan's last Bond payday exceeded $20 million when bonuses were factored in, that was a fraction of the money Tom Cruise earned for the "Mission: Impossible" franchise or what Keanu Reeves got for "The Matrix" films. (That's why early speculation over actors like Hugh Jackman, Jude Law and Colin Farrell seemed absurd.) Brosnan's reps have denied that any talks are taking place. Brosnan and Craig aren't the only actors making Web and press reports. This month's Angeleno mag has its money on "Nip/Tuck's" Julian McMahon, splashing the tuxedoed Aussie on its cover along with the headline "Meet the Next James Bond." Another name that has been floated in recent weeks is Gerard Butler ("Phantom of the Opera"). All the possible Bonds named, however, are in line with the Broccoli's tradition of casting aristocratic types --- men whose idea of roughing it is settling for 200-thread-count sheets. Considering how the franchise has aged and the competition Bond now faces from more modern celluloid spies (think Jason Bourne), it would be wise for MGM --- and now Sony --- to consider more diverse possibilities. MGM has denied that any Bond has been chosen. No announcement is likely to be made until the franchise is controlled by Sony, which has long wanted to be in the Bond biz. In fact, that desire caused a huge lawsuit between the studios years ago, when John Calley left UA to become Sony head and then tried to use "Thunderball"--- the only book not completely locked down by the Broccolis at the time --- as the basis for a rival Bond picture. MGM won that suit and the movie never happened, but Sony will have its own Bond picture in production this year, with somebody filling the tux. ====================================== Daniel Craig is a heartthrob? The man looks twenty years older than his age, at least, and to put it kindly is no oil paiting. He makes Owen look classically handsome in comparison. And lord, I am so tired of them bring up Bourne as competition or a reason to change, the last one made about $150m less worlswide than DAD. It's no competition (not any more than XXX) nd casting Bond as a blue color American/ woman/ baddass /thug/ midget etc isn't going to "improve" Bond. Ace
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Apr 7, 2005 17:16:38 GMT -5
It's not news or rumor, it's a tad irreverent and it made me laugh so here goes: Posted on Thu, Apr. 07, 2005 Bad LANGuage: AP's pop culture blog
DERRIK J. LANG
Associated PressRarely does Bad LANGuage come up with a good idea, but we think this just might work. When the crafty cardinals convene in Vatican City to decide upon a new pope, BL recommends the conclave should just go ahead and pick a new James Bond. We trust 'em. Let's kill, er, choose two birds with one conclave. And why not? LOL! Hey, it would be the first time having smoke blown in our faces as regards the next Bond could be a good thing! Come to think of it, Bond has been to confession. That is, Roger Moore's Bond has Bond: Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. Q (as priest): That's putting it mildly, 007! Stands to reason though. He has the most sins to confess. How many our fathers and hail Mary's for that Tarzan yell?
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 7, 2005 17:17:26 GMT -5
7 April 2005 Bond Bosses' Secrecy Over Daniel Craig Announcement
Producers of the forthcoming James Bond sequel have refused to comment on reports British star Daniel Craig has won the coveted superspy role. Craig, 37, was in competition with Closer star Clive Owen for the part of the spy, after Pierce Brosnan was ditched for demanding a staggering $42 million for his next Bond film. But Owen has since decided the role would limit his acting career and a leak from movie giant Eon Productions suggests producer Barbara Broccoli has offered the Layer Cake star a contract for the next three films. An insider explains, "Everybody who works at Eon Productions, which makes the Bond movies, has been told Daniel is the new 007."
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 7, 2005 17:20:54 GMT -5
Craig has already denied, as of yesterday, the reports of his hiring through his agent.
Ace
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 7, 2005 17:24:32 GMT -5
And why not? LOL! Hey, it would be the first time having smoke blown in our faces as regards the next Bond could be a good thing! Come to think of it, Bond has been to confession. That is, Roger Moore's Bond has Bond: Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. Q (as priest): That's putting it mildly, 007! Stands to reason though. He has the most sins to confess. How many our fathers and hail Mary's for that Tarzan yell? ;D ;D ;D ;D Ace
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Apr 7, 2005 19:06:20 GMT -5
Craig has already denied, as of yesterday, the reports of his hiring through his agent. Ace I shouldn't bother to comment because the Craig rumour is surely nonsense but when his name does surface it's always as "Barbara Broccoli's choice." It reminds me of the rumours during Goldeneye that she wanted Sean Bean for Bond, another actor with the wrong look and sound, over Pierce. Maybe the woman likes a bit of rough, but let's keep it to ourselves, shall we? The only thing I've ever seen Daniel Craig in was "Road to Perdition." He was quite convincing as Irish mobster Paul Newman's cold- eyed sociopathic son. This choice might excite the Brit gangsta / Layer Cake trend hoppers and the hard cores in Bond fandom whose mission in life is to reduce Bond to thug status, but how dead boring! Yet another loutish ugly mug screen hero who's hard as coffin nails. Next! (To whom it may concern: "sophistication" has a lot of letters but it isn't a dirty word.) Not to say Craig might not have acting range to spare but I suspect even he knows he's the wrong fit for this role. One thing Cubby (and his generation) knew more often than not was how to cast to type -- which is what a classic role requires. Well, that, plus talent. And a new suit now and again. Poor Mikey and Babs. Such possibilities are, indeed, quite thin on the ground these days. That is unless Sony is willing to play "let's make a deal" with Bond no. five, LOL! My gut feeling is that PB has moved on, but as William Goldman famously said about Hollywood, "Nobody knows anything." And neither do I.
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Apr 7, 2005 20:39:36 GMT -5
In fairness, I should note that Craig, though he was brought up in Liverpool, can do a posh accent, by all accounts, when it's called for -- which puts him a rung above Clive Owen on the Bond ladder. DC does a decent Irish / American accent in "Perdition", too. Still doesn't change the fact that he looks like a bruiser, (or a KGB agent -- not his opposite number) is a character actor, not an iconic leading man, and appears to be ageing at a rather brisk pace.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 7, 2005 21:01:59 GMT -5
Babs also wanted Dalton (but then she had him in more ways than one ) I like Sean Bean alot, and he's far better looking than Craig or Owen but yeah he wasn't suited for the role of Bond either, though he'd have made a better one than Owen or Craig. Ace
|
|