|
Post by respectanimals on Oct 15, 2005 13:36:13 GMT -5
I think it does come down to EON being bored with success, with the same old same old. They were too scared to do something different with Pierce (Tarantino and CR) but wanted something different with a new guy. O.K. That makes sense. Not. Maybe they felt with Pierce's popularity as Bond it didn't matter what they did because the films would still be successful, so they wanted to try to stroke their egos with something new. Ace I agree Ace. Seems to me that they got way too impatient about making Bond younger and way too hung up on Casino Royale being the next film. What they should have done was given Pierce a chance to do the grittier "different" film without the gadgets and silliness that he had always wanted to do, for his final Bond film and THEN with the next film tried their new younger James Bond out. I think they owed it to Pierce to let HIM be the one to try something different with the films. For years he was the perfect person to be responsible for selling their Bond image, both on film and off, as he was always polite, friendly, charming and just totally cool when representing them. He was largely responsible for getting the Bond films back on track as well. He did right by them and they should have done right by him in return. They should be ashamed of themselves. That said however, something tells me that once Pierce gets past the hurt and anger of all this, he'll have no problems putting this into perspective and moving on to much better acting projects. He seems pretty resilient, given the pain he's had to go through in his personal life. He's made lots of money and become an international star due to Bond and he has 5 beautiful kids and a loving wife for a support system. What more can a person really ask for out of life. Right now though, as a fan, it does sort of feel like a favorite film character of mine has just died and I will miss him. No offense meant to Daniel Craig. I wish him luck.
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Oct 15, 2005 15:23:31 GMT -5
Craig said he talked with Pierce who encouraged him and told him to go for it. Maybe they talked at the GQ Awards. But all that says is that Pierce has class and we already knew that. But it was nice of Craig to graciously mention Pierce, especially since he's the only one who did or has over the last year plus. Thanks for this piece of info. It wasn't mentioned in any report that I read or saw. It's certainly to Craig's credit that he said that. He's not as bad as the Borgias, then. Too bad film is also a visual medium. LOL As so often, you're hitting the nail on the head. I persist in thinking that a Bond actor has to wear a suit/tuxedo/dinner jacket as if he were born in it. I just can't see DC that way. That said however, something tells me that once Pierce gets past the hurt and anger of all this, he'll have no problems putting this into perspective and moving on to much better acting projects. He seems pretty resilient, given the pain he's had to go through in his personal life. He's made lots of money and become an international star due to Bond and he has 5 beautiful kids and a loving wife for a support system. What more can a person really ask for out of life. My thoughts exactly. I often thought during all of this mess and seeing the way Pierce seemed to get through it all with so much grace that he has had much worse things happen to him.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 15, 2005 15:47:33 GMT -5
Yes, when it comes down to it, it's a disapointment but it's far far from a tragedy. Really, that's showbiz, it's a ruthless business (no matter how some producers bang on about it being a "family") and he knows that and he has other roles to play and films to produce. I think he had let it go last year but when the rumblings with Sony wanting him still and EON maybe changing their mind with the deadline looming he gave it his last shot last weekend. It didn't work out and he'll move on again. I'm probably more dissapointed for me than him. I wanted to see him do a CR with Tarantino but would have settled for one written by Haggis and directed by Campbell. I'm a hugely dissappointed Bond fan. So, it's all about me me me!
|
|
|
Post by curious george on Oct 15, 2005 16:24:18 GMT -5
From our cj (so all you blondes out there can blame her -- or better yet the political cartoonist. ) Wow! I've been promoted from a monkey to an Emmy-winning prime time character. cj, formerly known as cg
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 15, 2005 16:34:03 GMT -5
LOL! One typo and I owe you an Emmy? Expensive aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by curious george on Oct 15, 2005 16:40:35 GMT -5
High maintenance, as they say in When Harry Met Sally. Hey, I can't help what your typo renamed me. I'm sure it could have been a lot worse. cg (with no Emmy...sigh)
|
|
|
Post by IcyCalm on Oct 15, 2005 19:23:00 GMT -5
This Pascal character: gets things wrong occassionally, does she? One thing I do agree with her on, however, is Daniel Craig looking like I spy. He does. Consider his strong resemblance to one Vladimir Putin, who before becoming the president of Russia, was the HEAD OF THE KGB.
Good thing Valentine Zukovsky bought it back in TWINE.
-IcyCalm Hey Ace: maybe we should start a new thread, as we're now past the Bond "rumour" stage.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 15, 2005 20:01:02 GMT -5
It's all part of the "update" part though. I'd much rather keep it all in one place and the topic will eventually peter out soon as there really isn't much more to say in the subject. Unless maybe the "media" like Contact Music and The Sun pick through Pierce's interviews and make up headlines and re-phrase quotes to stir up some contraversy. Not that they'd ever do anything like that, no. Ace
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Oct 16, 2005 15:48:22 GMT -5
Ace has encapsulated what the gamut of feelings are about all things Bond on this board better than I ever could, including most of mine. It reminds me of the caption of a favorite Thurber cartoon. "Well I'm disenchanted, too. We're all disenchanted." True, JT was talking about life in suburbia, but it still fits.
There are several long-time Bond -- and not just Pierce -- fans here. Ace and Barbara are real aficionados. I've grown up with the films since the sixties and still remember the anticipation of standing in a line that ran down the block to see Sean Connery in Thunderball. (Yes, I was only eight, but watching Sean made me grow up fast.) In any case, we've expressed our thoughts on Craig, as we're entitled to, and in my view, gone out of our way to give him his due as an actor. It may well turn out that there are elements of Bond that Daniel Craig is able to capture more strikingly than Pierce. That doesn't mean, IMO, that he has the complete package and it's the elements I believe he lacks (the unforced elegance, the sophistication, the carnality, the sensuousness, the good looks) when combined with the ruthlessness that set Bond apart as a fictional character. This all fuels my greatest worry, that in fitting it to Craig they may press to materially change the character, more drastically and with a narrower focus than has ever been done. Bond should never be sold short, downscaled, or deglamorized. I suspect, too, that they are making this shift not only to play to their actor's strengths but out of a desire to emulate whatever is the passing fancy -- Layer Cake gangster-chic, The Bournes, etc. (The producers have confimed as much with the Bournes at the press conference.) Not that those films might not have fresh ideas and approaches to consider but one thing history has taught us with the Borgia family (including daddy dearest) is their tendency to take entirely the wrong lessons from trends.
Whether or not Eon can deliver anything close to a classic in CR, who knows, but what rankles is that so much of what Pierce wanted and pushed for during his Bond tenure has been summarily denied him -- and they are things which would have fit him well: a long desired Fleming property, a character-driven script by an A-list screenwriter (who also can write with humour and wit) a more realistic, less cartoonish direction for the films. Of course Eon always talks a good game and ends up with half measures so Casino Royale could be the usual mish-mash, but more effort is there to support the film and the Bond actor (in just the hiring of Paul Haggis) than I ever saw with Pierce, the most disadvantaged Bond overall in term of the product that surrounded him.
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Oct 18, 2005 14:20:18 GMT -5
I've been away for a week, but I can't resist a few belated comments. First of all, Lauryn, your Campbell dialogue a few pages back was a much-needed hoot. Second, the life jacket was a particularly nice touch; made me cringe more than a love scene from a Bourne movie - and that says something. I wonder what Craig thinks about all the media and fan backslash. Sure, the part was impossible to resist, but... I won't comment on the resemblance between Craig and Putin; I don't think so, but then, I'm still trying to figure out whether the tight-outfitted Angelina Jolie movie I have recently caught on TV was Tomb Rider or something else - it started with her getting out some bloke from some prison. Anyone can help? Depending on the answer, I either have never seen Craig or have no recollection of him. I know I have none from Road to Perdition. But back on topic - saying that Craig looked like a spy reminds of a book written by a Russian spy - the guy said that during the training they were strictly forbidden to do three things - wear dark glasses, put their hands in their coat pockets, and raise their collars - because any of those strongly associated with the image of a spy. Spies, like heffalumps, do come in every shape and size. Bonds, unfortunately, don't. Oh well, they do now.
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Oct 19, 2005 0:19:34 GMT -5
Just a few thoughts from the looney bin...
It's a very strange day when my brother and I can have extended conversation on ANY topic that does not quickly digress into X-rated double entendres. So it is continually shocking that my brother and I have been able to talk about CR without discussing the scars from our childhood when we watched our mom watch Pierce. But digress...
Both my brother and I are looking to this film as another On Her Majesty's Secret Service. That is, the film itself will be fantastic, closely following the novel from which it comes, with more character development and less gadgets. Also, the supporting cast may very well be great, but the key player -- the Bond -- will ruin it all. Had either Sean Connery or Roger Moore played bond in OHMSS, we may have seen a Bond nominated as Best Actor. Instead we had George Lazenby.
In Casino Royale's case, if Wilson can now step in and clean up the obvious errors in the script (and trust me gang, he has done that before), we may have a fine script. What are the obvious mistakes, you ask? such as the fact that
1) Dench CAN'T be M because this is the beginning of Bond's career, and GE makes it clear, that Bond has had another boss before her.
2) That Vesper for many reasons is one of the weaker Bond girls, and therefore can not be his equal.
3) Bond drove his personal car, an antique Bentley, in the novel.
If Wilson does not do that, then we have a problem because the hard core fans will know the mistakes are there, and be annoyed at the sloppy work.
Other key roles, including Felix Leiter and Mathis, must be cast with great care. These gentlemen, particularly the one playing Mathis, must give the impression of being great friends with Bond.
Had the ending of CR been changed, that is Vesper lives, and perhaps was a bit stronger in mentality, Pierce's Bond could have left as a married man, or at least one giving up the service for love. But then again, lots of things about the film would have had to have been changed for an older Bond to work in that film.
As a fan of the book to script process, I am curious to see how it goes. As a fan of the Bond series, I am dreading this more and more.
-- Barbara
|
|
|
Post by Myrtle Groggins on Oct 19, 2005 2:08:37 GMT -5
Wow! That's all I can say. You guys make this situation seem so interesting. All I can say is that I think this is a fine kettle of fish (or should I say 'fission'?) these Bond folks have gotten themselves into. I think if I ever do see Casino Royale with this Craig guy, it'll be on TV -- for free, or as free as TV can get............ Here's something I found on the web, and the girl in the photo isn't carrying PB out, holding him between his legs as some other women have done. public.fotki.com/cybertoad/travels/international_travel/london03/tussauds03/dscn0659.html
|
|
|
Post by Myrtle Groggins on Oct 19, 2005 2:13:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 19, 2005 2:23:44 GMT -5
I wonder if this one got removed (and groped) as well. I've seen other photos of the one in HK and for some reason it's doesnt look as much like him as the one from Tussauds.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 19, 2005 3:06:10 GMT -5
You know just when I think I can just laugh it off and let it go I see another article that ticks me off. It's like they're deliberately baiting me. BBC: Bond composer stands up for CraigJames Bond composer David Arnold has stood by Daniel Craig following criticism of the choice of the new 007. Arnold, who has written the soundtracks to the last three Bond films, says he is "very excited" to be working with Craig on new film Casino Royale. Arnold dismissed critics who attacked Craig after his unveiling last week. "It would be a very foolish person who made any kind of judgment from how he answered tabloid questions at a press conference," said Arnold. Craig was labeled "James Bland" by one newspaper, which was among those to criticize him for giving short answers to reporters. Fresh approach Composer Arnold, whose soundtrack credits include Independence Day, said audiences would be "very surprised" by Craig's Bond performance. "People should be very excited about what's going to happen," Arnold told the BBC News website. "It's going to be very different. "Everyone is bound to be nervous because Pierce Brosnan was so good and unquestionably James Bond. "You could see James Bond when Pierce was Remington Steele. You can't see the James Bond that Daniel is going to be in the stuff he has done before. "We went as far we could go with what we did in Die Another Day. "This is going to set out a whole new bunch of formulas and values." Arnold said he had been involved in the screen testing of the hopefuls who auditioned for the Bond role. "Watching Daniel in his screen test, it is going to demand a different approach." UK composer Arnold's other movie credits include Shaft, Zoolander, 2 Fast 2 Furious and Godzilla. He has also recently completed the incidental music to be used in Little Britain's live tour, having created the music for all three TV series. ========================= You know it's great and good Arnold is standing up for the new guy and it's obvious they've all heard the flack from the media and fans because they're all making these kind of statements now. But just as Wilson and then Campbell did in recent interviews, he's suggesting that going as far as they did in DAD, as OTT as they went is somehow tied to Pierce as Bond. That they need something" fresh" and that means a new Bond actor. Funny they still kept Moore for FYEO after Moonraker. At least Arnold unlike Wilson and Campbell actually managed to say something complementary about Pierce , so he's not the worse offender, just the latest. But the party line seems to be that the excesses of DAD were Pierce's fault, or melded with and to his portrayal of Bond. As if he wasn't the one decrying them and asking for more character driven pieces, more quiet moments, more edge and less flashy excess all along -- and being mostly ignored. So they fire Pierce (or take back their offer, whatever) but they keep the same producers, same writers, an old PB director (who's interview with Latino Review is the one that really ticked me off actually), and the same composer! The only one they jettisoned for this new "fresh" approach is Pierce and he was the best damn thing in the films, and held DAD together and grounded, keeping it from going completely over the top and off the rails. So Pierce was "was so good and unquestionably James Bond" but he wasn't worthy or capable of this "fresh" treatment. OK FEH
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Oct 19, 2005 12:45:43 GMT -5
Arnold's defense of Craig reminds me of a Robin Williams joke he told on the Leno show a couple of years back. Robin pretended to be an airline employee anouncing random security checks.
"I am very sorry for the inconvience, and please keep in mind these are completely random names we have picked out: Mr. Mohammed Mohammed. Islam Bin Hussein. Anwar Mahouty, Ben Quadaffli. Oh, and Tina Brown."
"And you know the Latinos and African Americans on the flight, are jumping out of their seats, 'YES! Hallejuah! It's not us!'"
I share this joke because Arnold is probably dancing around, just THRILLED that he is not the one getting picked on in the build up to the new flick -- it's Daniel Craig. So why not stick up for the guy taking the heat off of him?
Besides, he probably got orders from on high to come out and stick up for Daniel Craig. Pity he listened.
I can see why Cambell's interview bothered you, Ace. I just read it, and the man hasn't got a clue -- not about Zorro, and not about Bond. Heaven help us all.
-- Barbara
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Oct 19, 2005 14:53:00 GMT -5
I have also read a couple of articles attributing all the tacky one-liners, unnecessary special effects, abundance of explosions and lack of plot to Pierce. Some "insider" must either leak these theories to the press, or they read them in the press and believe them, and then they decide they have to "freshen up" the franchise. It's all part of the general rampant moronic-ness there at EON and Co. I shouldn't be reading this stuff either, but, as Ace said, sometimes you just can't help it.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 19, 2005 19:24:23 GMT -5
OK, time to laugh again. Earlier this week this guy's photo was on the net with a carboard sign offering up his services as a discount on the sidewalk (it was a joke evidently) LA Times: He's Lyons, David LyonsJoel Stein Entertainment jobs are inherently unstable. A part is cut from a script, and an actor is out of a job by lunch. You fall a few days behind on plot outlines for the network, and the next morning Steven Bochco is suddenly in charge of the female-president show you created. Your stockholders revolt over your autocratic management style and — boom — you're losing your Disney CEO job in 10 short years. But rarely is there no hope for recovery. There are new parts, new pilots, new stories about summer camp to share with the world. On Friday, however, when Daniel Craig was named the sixth James Bond, it dealt a potentially fatal blow to the career of David Lyons, professional Pierce Brosnan impersonator. Lyons has played Brosnan for the last 10 years. He says he's made $500 per hour as Bond, scaling buildings at corporate events, rappelling from helicopters at official movie studio functions and chatting up old ladies at private parties, where he has to tell them that, no, sadly, Q doesn't give him those kinds of gadgets. When "Die Another Day" was released in 2002, Lyons was flown to Panama, Cyprus, Switzerland, Germany and France. The gigs helped him buy a BMW 645Ci convertible and a $1.2-million penthouse in Orlando, which, given the price of property in western Florida, must sit atop Cinderella's castle. But Lyons, 43, isn't thinking about selling the place. Despite the picture he posed for on Friday, sitting at a bus stop wearing a tux and holding a cardboard sign reading "Need new job!!! 'Old' James Bond. For sale: tux and spy stuff," he's already booked for the next few months and thinks the money will continue to come in. "I see Sean Connerys all the time," he says. In fact, Lyons thought so little of Craig that he kept mistakenly calling him Craig Daly. "If a company wants to hire a James Bond impersonator, the women decide who to hire. I don't think they'll be rushing out to look for a Craig Daly look-alike. If they were giving out awards for the not-so-good-looking, he would win that for sure." Bonds can be so catty. I was a little freaked out, in fact, at how fully Lyons believed in Brosnan's awesomeness. As much as I tried to steer the conversation toward Lyons' financial situation and how he could no longer score women by lying about being Brosnan, he kept talking about how much better the unduly fired Brosnan is than "Craig Daly." He quoted box-office grosses and threw out insults like "disappointing," "shocking" and "Timothy Dalton." It's as if by being an impersonator, he had completely associated himself with the role he was playing. Though I guess we all feel a little defensive about the people we look like. I feel pretty sure that the kid who plays Harry Potter is going to be huge. As a professionally trained journalist, I knew I had to run these slights by a Daniel Craig impersonator. Because there are none, I decided to call an impartial observer: John Allen, a Sean Connery look-alike who for the last two years has won the Cloney as the country's top celebrity impersonator. Though to me the person best at impersonating a celebrity the last two years has been Nicole Richie. Allen has worked with Lyons several times, including a stint in which they threw a fake terrorist riddled with fake bullet holes into Donald Trump's swimming pool at a party in Mar-a-Largo thrown by the producers of "Flipper." As we learned from the Enron case, rich-people parties don't make any sense. Lyons, he says, can continue to get work, but not, of course, the kind of work a Sean Connery can get at sales events, inducting corporate presidents into Your Majesty's Secret Service. "I work with Roger Moores and Pierce Brosnans — they all get work," Allen says. "But they love Sean because he's so elegant and sophisticated. And that's what the corporations want to be." Somewhere, on Friday morning, an underemployed 37-year-old blond guy with less-than-perfect skin and deep-set eyes looked in the mirror and said "I think Daniel Craig is going to make the best Bond ever." And by this afternoon, I'm sure he's standing outside Mann's Chinese Theatre saying, "Well, did you see 'Layer Cake?' "
|
|
|
Post by respectanimals on Nov 6, 2005 9:21:07 GMT -5
This article is really about Ricardo Montalban and the subject of what is debonair, but it talks about the casting of Bond and mentions that the list of debonair actors seems to dwindle to nothing by the '80s and '90s—Brosnan being the exception. Anyway, I thought it was kind of an interesting read, so I thought I would share it with y'all. -------------------------------------------------------------------- A Gentleman, Naturally Dan Neil It took the producers of the james bond movies two years to decide who would be the next 007. Then, in mid-October, white smoke rose over MI6. Daniel Craig, a stylishly scruffy British actor, would pick up the Walther PPK put down by Pierce Brosnan. The blogs erupted. Bond fanatics wailed that Craig was not nearly handsome enough to play the male Mata Hari and—sputter!—he's blond! Are they afraid he'll lock his keys in the Aston Martin? I propose their mourning is misplaced. The casting of Bond has always been something of a cultural bellwether, and maybe Craig—with his vulpine energy and lower-caste edge—is actually the perfect Bond for our times. It's the death of debonair the fans are grieving. And I with them. In the 1950s, there was no higher praise for a man than debonair. It denoted a courtly male élan, an incollapsible grace, a cool, seductive energy. But in the age of irony—postmodern and post-feminist—debonair seems like an accusation. To be debonair would seem to require observing a rigid code of appearances, that you can never laugh too loud, get a pimple or fail to execute the tango perfectly. To be debonair is to be a metrosexual with delusions of grandeur. And yet the programming to be debonair runs deep. Sooner or later, all men try it on for size—after all, what is prom night but a tentative effort to climb into Bond's tuxedo? Is debonair even possible in 2005? I thought I would consult the one undisputed living authority on the subject: Ricardo Montalban. If you think of Montalban as the light comic actor of his later years, playing the Continental, lubricious Mr. Roarke on "Fantasy Island," you might assume his suavity is an act, like Billy Crystal's riff on Fernando Lamas on "Saturday Night Live." It isn't. I met Montalban in a small room in his big Spanish-style house in the Hollywood Hills. He turns 85 this month, and though he is now confined to a wheelchair, he still looks very much like himself, and is only one makeup session away from reprising the wrathful Khan. His hand is strong and warm. I thank him for seeing me. "Of course, it's my pleasure," he says in that lush, familiar, from-everywhere-and-nowhere accent. I have just touched debonair. He is wearing gray sweat pants, a white cotton V-neck and a black-and-white paisley scarf—his one sartorial concession to debonair. If I wore that outfit, people would want to shovel dirt on me. On Montalban, it's a fashion statement. I ask him what he thinks debonair means. "To me it means love of neighbor," he says after a moment of deliberation that flatters the question. "To always be considerate of others' feelings, to practice good manners." Well, that's kind of unexpected. I have always thought of debonair as poise with purpose, and that purpose, ultimately, is seduction. Such a thought apparently never crosses Montalban's mind. "Of course, you must know how to treat women," he says. It turns out that Montalban—a devout Catholic who has been married to the same woman for 60 years—equates debonair with an even rarer quantity, agape, the brotherly love of the Latin church. When I ask about how to dress debonair, he again frames it in terms of others' comfort: "A gentleman must not dress up too much or too little," he says. "He should try to make everyone around him feel comfortable. Just modest." On his left arm is a cheap old wristwatch. "It's Chinese, I think," he says. "It cost $19. I like the simplicity of it." This seems significant. To the extent that anyone trades in debonair anymore, it's usually only to sell you something. Bond himself is often no more than a mannequin in a cinematic window, with a Stoli martini in hand and an Omega watch on the wrist. "No, no, you cannot buy debonair," says Montalban. "It has nothing to do with possessions." Together we try to compile a list of suave and debonair actors. Claude Rains, James Mason, Cary Grant, Sean Connery. It does help to have an accent, Montalban agrees. I assert that one must be thin to be suave. He says, "Orson Welles," and, of course, he's got me. The list seems to dwindle to nothing by the time we reach the '80s and '90s—Brosnan being the exception. I mention a recent study that suggests Americans are getting ruder, and perhaps that's why suave and debonair—which are exalted forms of ordinary courtesy—now seem so incongruous. "It's true that manners have lessened, and that's too bad," he says. "Debonair has not changed, but the times have." John F. Kennedy was debonair, he agrees, but George W. Bush is not. "Debonair connotes a man of the world, a sophisticated person," says Montalban. "Bush is one of the guys." Montalban understands that he is debonair but seems a little mystified by it. "Whatever it is, it has to be completely natural," he says. "You cannot be aware of it or else it disappears. I never tried to be debonair. I am who I am." And if Daniel Craig washes out? Says Montalban: "I'm available." www.latimes.com/travel/destinations/pacific/la-tm-neil45nov06,0,5504192.story?coll=la-home-magazine ------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought it was really cool that when Montalban is asked what debonair means to him he responds, "To me it means love of neighbor," he says after a moment of deliberation that flatters the question. "To always be considerate of others' feelings, to practice good manners." The dictionary defines debonair as Gentle, Courteous, Suave, Urbane, Lighthearted, Nonchalant. I can't picture Daniel Craig playing debonair, no matter what your definition is, but time will tell I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 6, 2005 14:21:33 GMT -5
Thnks for the interesting article from the LA Times. It's great to see the lovely Mr. Montalban interviewed; the man has such inate class and elegance.
There has been a death of debonair.
"Debonair connotes a man of the world, a sophisticated person," says Montalban. "Bush is one of the guys."
This is such an on point line and it's the problem with the new Bond casting. Bond is never suppossed to be "one of the guys", he's supposed to be a sophisticated man of the world. The problem isn't just in casting but highlighted by the fact that Texas Hold'em Poker is now replacing Baccarat as Bond's game of choice in Casino Royale. For all the talk about going back to Bond's roots the entire concept of the film seems to make Bond less of what he is and more like everyone else. Blech.
|
|