|
Post by sparklingblue on Oct 5, 2005 15:36:03 GMT -5
I'll be kinder than any of the veggies or their posse deserve and censor my comment to this:
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 6, 2005 11:57:29 GMT -5
From
Screen International: Bond looks outside UK for Casino Royale shoot
Wendy Mitchell in London 06 October 2005 04:00
Very little of the forthcoming James Bond feature Casino Royale is to shoot at the 007 franchise’s traditional home, the UK’s Pinewood Studios, according to the film’s director Martin Campbell.
The film’s production location has been heavily speculated in recent months, ever since Screen International reported in May that the Czech Republic’s Barrandov Studios was in talks with Bond producers Eon to host the shoot.
In an interview with ScreenDaily.com yesterday, Campbell revealed: “We’ll be shooting a little bit at Pinewood but not much. We’re going to be in Prague, maybe Italy, Bahamas and places like that. Like everybody, we’re heading off to wherever we can get a good exchange rate.”
Whispers about who will play the next James Bond may also have reached deafening levels in the press, but Campbell insists that there aren’t even any clear frontrunners to play 007 in the 21st Bond film, Casino Royale.
“Believe it or not, to be honest there are no front-runners at the moment,” Campbell said. “We’ve tested people and will look at those tests and see if there is anybody. It’s a tricky process.” He added that he hoped the team could announce a new Bond “as soon as possible” because the film is still slated to start shooting at the end of January. But he wants to choose the new 007 carefully, because, as he says, “they’ll hang us like dogs from the lampposts if we get it wrong.
The New Zealand-born, Los Angeles-based Campbell is director of films including The Mask of Zorro, Vertical Limit, and Pierce Brosnan’s first Bond film, GoldenEye (1995).
He said he is particularly excited to tackle the first Bond book, 1953’s Casino Royale, which had only previously been directed as an unofficial satire in 1967 starring David Niven and Peter Sellers.
Campbell says the Bond of Casino Royale is around age 28 or 30, which might rule out potential suspects such as British actor Daniel Craig, 37. “I suppose you could certainly do that [go for an older actor] and adapt it slightly,” Campbell said. However, making major adjustments to the story might be difficult with a shoot starting in less than four months.
It was reported last week that the four Bond frontrunners were Craig, 22-year-old Brit Henry Cavill, Croatian-born Goran Visnjic (33), and Aussie Sam Worthington, (29). There were also rumours that Brosnan could come back for one more (although at 52 he’s past the age of young Bond). Previous names mentioned to tackle Bond included Clive Owen, Ewan McGregor, Eric Bana, and Hugh Jackman – although it may be hard for producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson at Eon Productions to land such a known A-lister because they are said not to offer actors a more lucrative percentage of the film’s grosses.
“It’s difficult to find the man that every woman wants to go to bed with and every man wants to be,” Campbell continued. “It’s a tough call. And also whoever plays Bond has to do it for three movies because they are contracted for three. That’s a big commitment for actors.”
Campbell says he’s taking a “dispassionate” approach to try to find the best candidate simply by looking at screen tests in a projection room. And he’s certainly trying not to pay much heed to media speculations. “They’ll say one day it’s Clive Owen and one day it’s what’s his name Cray -- Daniel Craig -- and then they’ll say Jude Law, and then suddenly there might be photographs of these people holding a gun in some awful composite photo,” he says with a laugh. “You’ve got to put all of that out of your head, it’s got to be the best man for the job.”
Campbell faced some similar pressures when he directed GoldenEye, with Brosnan’s debut as Bond. But he noted that it’s slightly different because GoldenEye followed franchise letdown Licence to Kill, while Casino Royale is following on four successful films. Sony plans a 2006 worldwide release for Casino Royale.
Campbell said he was particularly interested in doing Casino Royale because it will show a new side of 007. “Because it’s the first book, it actually has a much younger Bond, and really he’s just earned his double-O stripes and he doesn’t really become the Bond we know and love until the end of the movie.” The script is written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, with Paul Haggis brought in recently for a polish.
Campbell says that he won’t try to reinvent Bond as a sort of Bourne Indentity-inspired character. “It’s easy to fall into the trap of making Bond more of a Jason Bourne, but I think that’s wrong,” he said, although he noted that he’s a huge fan of both Bourne films. “I think there’s a lot of qualities in Bond – his suaveness, his attitude towards women, his drinking, his great stylishness and sexiness. You’ve got to have all that. The thing about Jason Bourne is that he’s not sexy in that sense. He’s a driven man haunted by a past, whereas Bond is a different character entirely.”
Campbell is also in London (where he previously worked in the TV industry for years) to promote Columbia Pictures and Spyglass Entertainment’s The Legend of Zorro, his sequel to 1998 smash The Mask of Zorro, which hits theatres on October 28.
===============================================================
You know these reports from the front are getting funnier and funnier. The Director seems like he's never read Casino Royale since he keeps insisting that Bond is just starting out in it and is 28. He's not starting out you idiot, he's fully formed it's just his first book! He's taking pot shots at Craig who he's rumored not to like by pretending to not even know his name. Cray -- Craig? LOL!
In one sentence he says the age is important and can't be adjusted and in another he says it can. He says the decision is forthcoming in 3 weeks and now says there is no front runner and they're still waiting for someone after 18 months to jump out at them. The film has gadgets in one interview and none in the next. Interviews that were done within a day or two of each other.
Then we have the second M and second Q, not actors mind you, but CHARACTERS who came into to Bond's life mid career suddenly showing up at the start of his very green before he was really Bond career.
Oh and Cambell that thing about hanging like dogs from lamposts if you get it wrong -- you better hope not because you already are wrong -- so so wrong.
This part is particularly amusing
Campbell faced some similar pressures when he directed GoldenEye, with Brosnan’s debut as Bond. But he noted that it’s slightly different because GoldenEye followed franchise letdown Licence to Kill, while Casino Royale is following on four successful films. Sony plans a 2006 worldwide release for Casino Royale.
Slightly different? You had a Bond actor in GE that was a clear frontrunner following one that was a general fan and box office dissapointment. Now you're following up an immensely successful actor, who the public didn't want to leave with some guy you'll choose out of a screentest but who hasn't jumped out at you yet as a frontrunner.
Priceless. Sony must be so thrilled.
Ace
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 7, 2005 21:36:46 GMT -5
And the beat goes on. Can't see it happening though unless Sony lowers the hammer on EON. Though with the way the casting has been going they might. San Francisoco: Battle RoyaleAs James Bond producers struggle with casting troubles, ousted Brosnan offers a solution: himself G. Allen Johnson, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, October 7, 2005 “Casino Royale,” the new James Bond film, is three months away from commencing filming, and after months of wrangling, producers still haven’t found an actor to slip into 007’s shoulder holster. But the man who was fired from the role, Pierce Brosnan, said Friday that producers could solve their $150 million problem simply by picking up the phone. “They know where to find me,” Brosnan said. “Would I go back if they asked me back? Sure I’d go back.” In an exclusive interview with The Chronicle, Brosnan, who has made no secret of the anger he felt at producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli for being dumped after starring in four successful films that revitalized the Bond franchise, now says he is ready to put bad feelings aside to go on one more mission. “No question; it’s unfinished business,” said Brosnan, who was in Mill Valley to introduce “The Matador,” which opened the Mill Valley Film Festival. “It feels that way.” The 52-year-old Brosnan, who assumed the role in 1995’s “GoldenEye,” the first Bond film after a six-year hiatus, and appeared in the last entry, “Die Another Day” (2002), was dropped from the role in the summer of 2004 by Wilson and Broccoli, who reportedly wanted to attract a younger audience with a more youthful Bond. “They just changed their minds; they had a different take on it one day,” Brosnan said. “I was invited back to do the fifth and I was very happy. … And the phone just (rang) one day and negotiations stopped. To this day I’m not sure why. “I was terribly upset. It was a real body blow. I thought I’d made some good inroads with the character and felt a sense of ownership after having played him four times, it was a sense of ease and confidence. I was looking forward to making it edgier and grittier — and for all of that to go down in one phone call was highly disappointing.” But as the months progressed, two things happened. First, Clive Owen, thought to be the first choice to succeed Brosnan, flatly turned down the role. Currently, “Layer Cake” star Daniel Craig and “Fantastic Four” villain Julian McMahon are currently thought to be the frontrunners; many others have tested. Second, MGM has been taken over by Sony. Amy Pascal, chair of Sony Pictures, has convened two “007 summits,” according to the British newspaper Sunday Times. The Bond franchise is the studio’s most profitable commodity, and at a time of corporate and box-office uncertainty, rumors persist that the studio would prefer a proven winner in the role. Brosnan’s four films have grossed a combined $1.45 billion worldwide. Brosnan thinks the producers and Sony might have painted themselves into a corner. But after his very public sacking, how could he go back? The answer, it seems, is a friendship that goes back a quarter of a century. Brosnan first met the Broccoli family in 1980, when his first wife, the late Cassandra Harris, was a Bond girl in “For Your Eyes Only.” He was thought to be the heir apparent to Roger Moore in the late ’80s, but his NBC contract with the series “Remington Steele” precluded the move; Timothy Dalton assumed the role for two financially disappointing films before the series took a hiatus. When MGM and original Bond producer Albert R. Broccoli restarted the series in 1995, Brosnan was ready. Broccoli died in 1996, and his stepson, Wilson, and daughter Barbara assumed stewardship of the series. “Michael and Barbara, our families have known each other for many, many years — it’s very hard to talk about their feelings or why they had a crisis of confidence in doing a fifth,” Brosnan said. “There have been preposterous ideas that I was asking for $40 million and $30 million, which is not true. There was certainly a salary there that was not out of the ballpark, that other men and women have received for the same (type of film).” Brosnan begins shooting “Seraphim Falls,” a Civil War film with co-star Liam Neeson, next week, and has a full slate scheduled for 2006, including a sequel to his most successful non-Bond film, “The Thomas Crown Affair.” However, Brosnan said he’d clear his schedule for “Casino Royale,” in which he would be reunited with “GoldenEye” director Martin Campbell. “Everything’s movable and doable,” Brosnan said. “Nothing’s set in stone.”
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Oct 7, 2005 22:09:41 GMT -5
I wonder how fast they can rewrite the script for older, more experienced Bond. Maybe they should consider relisting Le Carre. Or maybe they already have a backup script up their sleeve, just in case they'll be unable to find a new Bond. Or maybe these are just last speculations before the announcement. I think I'll sit flat on my butt for another 6 weeks and worry about something else in the interim. Back to the previous interview... “It’s easy to fall into the trap of making Bond more of a Jason Bourne, but I think that’s wrong,” he said, although he noted that he’s a huge fan of both Bourne films.Ahem... I realize somebody must like those movies, but to hear it from a director of a Bond movie... What did I miss? Except the second Bourne movie; I did miss that but my husband highlighted the downlights, so to speak - I didn't miss much. Maybe it's of some interest to a professional...
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 7, 2005 22:25:18 GMT -5
Considering that Purvis and Wade last year said they were writing the script with Pierce in mind as Bond it's not as if they don't have a version of that script already. They have 3-4 months before they start shooting so they have more than enough time to change the script. Heck they wrote TND while they were making the film and they started that film 3 months late.
It all comes down to if they want to re-write the script for Pierce. And who has the last word. EON or Sony. Campbell seems set on a young Bond even though he's already said this week they could rework the script for someone like craggy ancient looking Daniel Craig, who in no one's world looks "young". If they could do it for Craig they could do it for Pierce. And while Campbell has his say his is far from the last word. The Bond-Begins idea is idicotic anyway and makes particularly no sense when keeping Dench and Cleese.
But it might all come down to a power struggle with EON and Sony, and EON is still angry that MGM (rightfully and smartly) nixed their Jinx project (a project they WASTED a year doing when they could have had a Bond film out this year instead) so they're no doubt not as willing to knuckle under so soon or easily again.
Ace
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Oct 7, 2005 22:43:22 GMT -5
I still can't believe they seriously considered doing a Jinx spin-off. Yes, of course, the script is not a problem and Campbell calls the shots no more than any other Bond director before him; it all just boils down to the struggle between EON and Sony. I wonder why Broccolis decided to "change direction" in the first place - is it just the money? I guess we'll never know.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 7, 2005 22:56:27 GMT -5
I still can't believe they seriously considered doing a Jinx spin-off. Yes, of course, the script is not a problem and Campbell calls the shots no more than any other Bond director before him; it all just boils down to the struggle between EON and Sony. I wonder why Broccolis decided to "change direction" in the first place - is it just the money? I guess we'll never know. I think it may all be ego. Or maybe they just really wanted to make a different kind of Bond with a very young Bond. Wilson wanted to do that with TLD and Cubby told him no, and with their mother passing away in early 2004 maybe Wilson thought he could do it his way this time. Dana Broccoli was far more powerful than most gave her credit for. And yes, they seriously were doing a Jinx project, Purvis & Wade spent a year writing the script and EON had even hired Stephen Frears to direct it. Then all those other female driven action flicks came out and bombed, or at least didn't make enough money to justify a $100m budget. I think the inability to create something new with Jinx might have led to their wanting to try something radical with Bond and psuh the issue with Sony. Ace
|
|
|
Post by respectanimals on Oct 8, 2005 9:35:12 GMT -5
The San Francisco Chronicle has a nice article about the possibility of Pierce playing Bond, which includes two photos from the Mill Valley Festival. Here is the link and below is the story: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/07/DDbondjamesbond07.DTLBATTLE ROYALE As James Bond producers struggle with casting troubles, ousted Brosnan offers a solution: himself G. Allen Johnson, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, October 7, 2005 “Casino Royale,” the new James Bond film, is three months away from commencing filming, and after months of wrangling, producers still haven’t found an actor to slip into 007’s shoulder holster. But the man who was fired from the role, Pierce Brosnan, said Friday that producers could solve their $150 million problem simply by picking up the phone. “They know where to find me,” Brosnan said. “Would I go back if they asked me back? Sure I’d go back.” In an exclusive interview with The Chronicle, Brosnan, who has made no secret of the anger he felt at producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli for being dumped after starring in four successful films that revitalized the Bond franchise, now says he is ready to put bad feelings aside to go on one more mission. “No question; it’s unfinished business,” said Brosnan, who was in Mill Valley to introduce “The Matador,” which opened the Mill Valley Film Festival. “It feels that way.” The 52-year-old Brosnan, who assumed the role in 1995’s “GoldenEye,” the first Bond film after a six-year hiatus, and appeared in the last entry, “Die Another Day” (2002), was dropped from the role in the summer of 2004 by Wilson and Broccoli, who reportedly wanted to attract a younger audience with a more youthful Bond. “They just changed their minds; they had a different take on it one day,” Brosnan said. “I was invited back to do the fifth and I was very happy. … And the phone just (rang) one day and negotiations stopped. To this day I’m not sure why. “I was terribly upset. It was a real body blow. I thought I’d made some good inroads with the character and felt a sense of ownership after having played him four times, it was a sense of ease and confidence. I was looking forward to making it edgier and grittier — and for all of that to go down in one phone call was highly disappointing.” But as the months progressed, two things happened. First, Clive Owen, thought to be the first choice to succeed Brosnan, flatly turned down the role. Currently, “Layer Cake” star Daniel Craig and “Fantastic Four” villain Julian McMahon are currently thought to be the frontrunners; many others have tested. Second, MGM has been taken over by Sony. Amy Pascal, chair of Sony Pictures, has convened two “007 summits,” according to the British newspaper Sunday Times. The Bond franchise is the studio’s most profitable commodity, and at a time of corporate and box-office uncertainty, rumors persist that the studio would prefer a proven winner in the role. Brosnan’s four films have grossed a combined $1.45 billion worldwide. Brosnan thinks the producers and Sony might have painted themselves into a corner. But after his very public sacking, how could he go back? The answer, it seems, is a friendship that goes back a quarter of a century. Brosnan first met the Broccoli family in 1980, when his first wife, the late Cassandra Harris, was a Bond girl in “For Your Eyes Only.” He was thought to be the heir apparent to Roger Moore in the late ’80s, but his NBC contract with the series “Remington Steele” precluded the move; Timothy Dalton assumed the role for two financially disappointing films before the series took a hiatus. When MGM and original Bond producer Albert R. Broccoli restarted the series in 1995, Brosnan was ready. Broccoli died in 1996, and his stepson, Wilson, and daughter Barbara assumed stewardship of the series. “Michael and Barbara, our families have known each other for many, many years — it’s very hard to talk about their feelings or why they had a crisis of confidence in doing a fifth,” Brosnan said. “There have been preposterous ideas that I was asking for $40 million and $30 million, which is not true. There was certainly a salary there that was not out of the ballpark, that other men and women have received for the same (type of film).” Brosnan begins shooting “Seraphim Falls,” a Civil War film with co-star Liam Neeson, next week, and has a full slate scheduled for 2006, including a sequel to his most successful non-Bond film, “The Thomas Crown Affair.” However, Brosnan said he’d clear his schedule for “Casino Royale,” in which he would be reunited with “GoldenEye” director Martin Campbell. “Everything’s movable and doable,” Brosnan said. “Nothing’s set in stone.”
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Oct 8, 2005 17:23:37 GMT -5
You could be right. Maybe Dana's passing and having the Jinx project summarily dismissed set them off and they felt they had to assert themselves with the studio and break out of Cubby's shadow by going forward with the "Bond as a young whelp" concept that their elders had always nixed. Things took a turn at some point. After all, they had invited Pierce back after DAD and were in negotiations at one point so the concept for Casino Royale might once have been applied to a more seasoned Bond. We all know that Bond is not inexperienced in the novel and all the doubts he expresses about "playing red Indians" have resonance for a Bond who is a bit of a burnt-out case.
Even though the producers seem bent on this young Bond business, as others here have noted, plenty of the rumours don't add up. Why consider Daniel Craig, an older-looking actor whose aura on screen, and much of his appeal, is that of a veteran? Craig is said to be Babs' favorite, though certainly not Martin Campbell's, LOL! (Daniel Cray?)
The character arc of Eon's version of CR, supposedly, is of a Bond with the arrogance and blindness of youth who undergoes a journey and betrayal that hardens him in the end and so forth. As they've apparently made his youth the underpining of the story a revamp would be more complicated than in previous lead actor script hand-overs where the veteran quality of Bond was still a constant. Not to say a re-write couldn't be done for Brosnan in CR if there was the will to do it. Even Campbell did suggest it could happen for an older candidate, even though he seems terribly enamoured of molding a brave new young one -- or at least getting as much credit for breathing life into the clay as possible. (One of the amusing things about this saga -- where not much has been amusing -- has been the spectacle of a lifetime second ranker like Martin Campbell coming on like a star-makin' mogul discovering a sweater-girl at Schwabs.)
Taking a hard look at things I grow doubtful that Sony would install Brosnan over Eon's head. It would be the equivalent of a coup d'etat and they do have to consider their working relationship with the producers over the long term, not just this film. Also, they might reasonably fear that Brosnan's re-instatement after his fall from the producers' favor would become the focus of every press junket and news article, overshadowing the film even more than this mess has already. They're well into pre-production, they don't want young Bond to end up on the scrap heap like Jinx. So much has been invested in the concept and the new Bond search, it's become rather like Eon and Sony's Iraq War -- a grand adventure gone bad -- but the exit strategy (Brosnan) has a great political cost.
I don't envy Sony their lot since they and Bond have become joined at the hip. Barbara and Michael seem to be riding a wave of hubris, good sense be damned. It's as if cutting Brosnan loose has got bound up in their own sense of independence, and by that act, magically they transform themselves into revolutionaries and risk-takers and artists in their own right and not in their father's. A tremendous irony, from where we all sit, as they were responsible for Pierce's movies and were then quite happy to coast on his appeal and play a risk averse game that rarely swung for the fences.
Pierce never got his classic film, which is why he wants the Fleming-based CR so badly and is willing to turn the other cheek, clear his schedule, etc. If it were his, I don't think he'd care a damn about the past or what the producers or anyone in their corner thought of him, he'd make it count as his finest Bond performance.
I'm not half as certain how the film will turn out, but at least they've hired a character-driven writer with bona-fides in Paul Haggis to do a polish. Maybe Bond's dialogue will actually have wit, if Haggis' work on the series "Due South" is any indication. (If so, it would be a crime that calls to heaven for vengeance to do CR without Pierce, after so many years in the one-liner wilderness.)
|
|
|
Post by respectanimals on Oct 9, 2005 16:21:32 GMT -5
Laughing, Brosnan said his mother-in-law had confided her florid rule of five to him earlier in the day. He's still clueless about why he lost the gig. "They said I wanted too much money, which is nonsense." A more likely explanation is his attempt to give the movies an edge. "I really wanted Quentin Tarantino to direct the next one, and Quentin wanted to do it. I think that scared the producers." Unless Pierce is asked back to do Casino Royale, I doubt I'll even bother going to see it, but unlike Pierce, I'd prefer that the director NOT be Quinton. I just haven't been able to understand the appeal of Quentin Tarantino's movies. I couldn't even finish Reservoir Dogs and I wasn't all that impressed with Sin City, Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction. Personally I think Quentin's movies are unnecessarily violent, with an overuse of incredibly foul language. My husband seems to really enjoy Quinton's films though, so maybe it's just a male thing. LOL! I do hope that they return to something more along the lines of the first two James Bond films with Casino Royale, getting rid of the silly gadgets and the over-the-top action scenes. (Although I do have to admit however to really enjoying the motorcycle scene in Tomorrow Never Dies. That was fun to watch, especially with her going from the back to the front like that and them disagreeing on who gets to drive!) I also agree with what Pierce said in another interview about spicing up the love scenes. The love scene in Die Another Day, (the one just after she comes out of the water, not the diamonds one at the end) was my favorite of all the love scenes, in all the Bond movies. It was a lot more passionate! When it comes to nudity and things getting explicit, I personally like leaving things to the imagination of the viewer, but I also like things to be heated up a bit too, with a lot of passion! As far as making things edgier, I thought they did a great job with the torture sequence in Die Another Day (although the hair style they chose was a bit distracting), so I hope they follow it with something along those lines, only with a real scene, not just thrown in with the opening titles. I don't know if you can tell, but my favorite of Pierce's JB movies is Die Another Day (minus three of the most incredibly silly things we've seen yet - the opening surfing scene, the Windsurfing on the ice wave and the invisible car). I thought Halle Berry and Pierce made a great onscreen couple! I was just wondering what all of your favorite film, love scene and action scene were of Pierce's JB movies?
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 9, 2005 16:44:08 GMT -5
I think Tarantino would have been great for Casino Royale. His films yes tend toward the violent but I also think he does wonderful things with character, humor, suspense and dialogue. He said he'd have been true to the book and the character so I don't think there would have been that level of graphic violence in his Casino Royale. A discussion on what are one's favorite Bond films/action scenes/love scenes sounds like a a great topic for a fuller discussion so I'm going to start one and you can repost your preferences again there if you'd like. Ace
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 12, 2005 20:58:16 GMT -5
Supposedly Sony has announced that an official announcement will be made Oct 14th. Since Craig has been leaked all week and they haven't said shot it to down to make room for their announcement of someone else it's probably him. Even though every poll on the net now is about 70-75% Thumbs down.
*Blech*
I wonder how Campbell is taking the news of his new "young Bond".
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Oct 12, 2005 23:36:27 GMT -5
Supposedly Sony has announced that an official announcement will be made Oct 14th. Since Craig has been leaked all week and they haven't said shot it to down to make room for their announcement of someone else it's probably him. Even though every poll on the net now is about 70-75% Thumbs down. *Blech* I wonder how Campbell is taking the news of his new "young Bond". MC: [grabs a wardrobe mistress] We've got to go younger, younger! Get me some schoolboy togs from Eton: Arundel collar, tailcoat, pinstripe trousers -- Wardrobe: But the new Bond's on the dark side of thirty seven, sir. MC: Think I don't know my own bloody business? Wardrobe: I wouldn't presume - MC: Right. [storms off] I didn't approve this! [looking at storyboards] I love "North by Northwest" but we can't copy the Mount Rushmore sequence! They'd hang us like dogs from a lamp post! Art Director: [coughs discreetly] It's the actor's face, sir. MC: [squints at the craggy expanse] Bugger. [muses] Maybe I can get that Italian shooter, "Dante" what's-his-name? He can make anyone look good. Even this Daniel Crayfish bastard. AD: Spinotti? He's in Bulgaria, sir. MC: [looks at the crag face again] That distance should be just about right. Don't want to scare small dogs and children.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 12, 2005 23:46:19 GMT -5
Bwahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks I needed that laugh.
Daniel Craig is Tootsie!
Director: I'd like to make [him] look a little more attractive, how far can you pull back? Cameraman: How do you feel about Cleveland?
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Oct 13, 2005 0:32:36 GMT -5
I don't suppose anyone knows where Pierce is these days?
Maybe the big annoucement from Sony will be, "Eon has lost their minds, we are cutting them loose, have a nice day."
Maybe I just need to put the kool aid down. :-D
I take comfort in a remark an old friend said to me earlier this evening, "Maybe they will bring Brosnan back for the remake of 'Diamonds Are Forever.'
I'd keep an eye on Pierce's board circa midnight tomorrow to see what happens.
Love...B
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 13, 2005 1:03:18 GMT -5
Barb if it was Pierce they wouldn't set a date for an announcement, they'd just announce it. He wouldn't get a press conference. He was actually scheduled to make a trip for the London Film Festival/NFT around the 25th but that's been postoned/cancelled. He starts filming Seraphim Falls in New Mexico on the 17th.
And ack, I do not want to see Pierce in a version of DAF. He has much better things to do with his time and talent. The only Bond film I'd want him back for is Casino Royale, and only if it's done the right way. Frankly with discussions of Texas Hold'em Poker and filming everywhere but the French Riviera, and Campell and Haggis referring to it as "Bond Begins" what's the point?
Ace
|
|
|
Post by Myrtle Groggins on Oct 13, 2005 2:47:43 GMT -5
Who the heck is this Daniel Craig character? Never heard of him. He doesn't look familiar and he sure as heck doesn't look like MY opinion of Bond. I like my Bonds to have dark hair. How old is the geezer, anyway? Thirty-seven? Yeah, and I'm 25! I thought they were looking for a younger chap? The idiots. CBS-TV says the Craig guy is the one.
|
|
|
Post by Myrtle Groggins on Oct 13, 2005 2:52:39 GMT -5
The star wattage dims in an endless James Bond bake-off that should finally conclude after screen tests are completed this week. Latest front-burner names are oft-rumored Daniel Craig, Henry Cavill (a contender in the "Superman" sweepstakes), Sam Worthington and Goran Visnjic. Good grief, I've never heard of any of these creatures. At this point, I'd welcome George Lazenby with open arms. Looks like I've seen my last Bond movie.
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Oct 13, 2005 4:36:03 GMT -5
The director conversations really cracked me up! ;D ;D ;D The idea that DC might actually really get the role makes me sick. I know Goran Visnjic from ER. I can't say that he does a lot for me, but at least he has dark hair. Still, the idea that any of these guys are taking over from Pierce is inconceiveable.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 13, 2005 11:05:52 GMT -5
Polls that went up yesterday: AOL: Would Daniel Craig make a good James Bond?No 79% Yes 21% Total Votes: 32,188 From This Is London: Will Daniel Craig make a good James Bond? 71% No 29% Yes From the paper that broke the news in the UK (poll is linked from their article) Daily Mail: Will Daniel Craig be a success as the new James Bond?1 Yes, he'll bring some much needed edge to the character: 32% 2 No, his face just doesn't fit: 68% ============================ The Sony marketing dept must be thrilled with these numbers. The question isn't even would you like someone else better as Bond, it's do you think this guy would be good-- period, and he can't scrounge up a 1/3 of the people to say yes. They must be praying his next two films to be released before he starts on Bond blow up his popularity by leaps and bounds. Most people don't even know who the heck he is and when they see his face they don't want him. To say the reaction is mixed on most Bond boards is putting it optimistically for Craig and EON. He's even getting excoriated on general movie boards where people have actually seen his films and know who he is. I've seen his work, he's a good actor (though horridly bland in Tomb Raider - which he said he hated doing because he hates those kind of action films!) but he's not Bond any more than Edward G Robinson was Bond. Ace
|
|