|
Post by Yuliya on Aug 17, 2004 9:09:17 GMT -5
It's a great closing line, indeed, but what bothers me most about this article is that it's written by the author of two of the most recent "Making of..." Bond books. Is it the beginning of an official Bond-shopping spree or his own initiative?
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Aug 17, 2004 11:04:34 GMT -5
Although I got used to this kind of rumours and although it is not the first time I read that Pierce might not do another Bond, I feel sad and angry all over again that he has to go like this.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Aug 17, 2004 11:20:11 GMT -5
Well Garth Pearce didn't do the latest Making of Book and after that last line it doesn't look like he'll be doing the next one! ;D So no I don't think this official or from EON, but he's reporting what he's heard and he might have an inside track to some informtaion.
And that line about never even being invited to dinner, would suggest Babs and Michael certainly aren't their father Cubby, who no matter how much he played financial hardball still ran Bond as one extended family. For example, Pierce and Cassie went to his place for dinner when they came to L.A. in 1981 (when he got RS), and Cassie has just had a very small role in the previous film FYEO. Then again Sean Connery wasn't too enamored of Cubby either.
But then this is all rumor. Barbara and Michael both showed up for his London Evelyn premier last year and Michael Wilson was even at his NFT appearance that week (he jokes about his "boss" being in the audience")
Ace
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Aug 18, 2004 11:29:34 GMT -5
and Michael Wilson was even at his NFT appearance that week (he jokes about his "boss" being in the audience") ;D;D;D
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Sept 11, 2004 17:19:42 GMT -5
Pierce states in the Fall issue of LA Confidential that he has made no official announcement that he has stopped playing Bond. "There was no announcement. I think the reporter heard it wrong. I think what I said was, “I’ve had my fill of talking about Bond.” Ace
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Sept 12, 2004 15:50:11 GMT -5
Aha! I better not talk about hopes, I don't want to jinx it (no pun intended ).
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Sept 15, 2004 10:32:51 GMT -5
Mi6.com: Pierce Brosnan back in talks with Eon for James Bond 21 according to latest rumoursSept 15-04 There might be a sliver of light at the end of the Pierce Brosnan "will he, won't he?" Bond 21 saga today. Last week Brosnan left the door open for a return as he denied he ever officially stepped down from his role as 007, slamming the Entertainment Weekly "announcement" a mis-quote. Now with the news that MGM have accepted the buyout proposal from Sony - a deal worth $2.85 billion cash - the Bond 21 hiatus might be over. The latest rumours from the inner circle claim that Brosnan is back in talks with Eon Productions to come back for a fifth outing as 007. Brosnan has said on numerous occasions that he wanted a fifth and final film. His original contract for "three films and an option for a fourth" expired with 2002's "Die Another Day". Earlier this year a media frenzy falsely claimed Brosnan had been "fired" from his role for being too old - despite not having a contract to be sacked from. As revealed by MI6 yesterday, the Sony buyout might take up to six months to complete due to complicated legal processes. Up until that time, Sony and MGM may have to operate independently. The deal calls for the James Bond franchise to be dealt with specially, and Sony are said to be in discussions with Eon Productions to iron out a road map for future 007 productions. Concerns that Brosnan's pay request for donning the tuxedo a fifth time was too high for Eon and MGM may now be past history with Sony controlling the purse strings for Bond 21. Thanks to `Cindy` for the alert. ============================= The same rumor was being given by the AJB Board's "insider", as of yesterday. Ace
|
|
|
Post by Viktoria on Oct 6, 2004 8:57:41 GMT -5
Irish Examiner 2004/10/06
Brosnan denies wanting to leave Bond role
So what's all this talk about Pierce Brosnan departing the 007 films?
And what's all this talk about every wannabe actor ready to don the James Bond tux?
Brosnan says nobody has spoken to him about not continuing as the super agent and that he hasn't said 'No!' to retaining the role, in which he revived a jaded long-running series.
Seems the dashing Irishman wants to continue in the role.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 13, 2004 11:42:25 GMT -5
From MSNBCJeannette Walls Delivers the Scoop Mondays through Thursdays on MSNBC.com Pierce Brosnan seems to be recovering from being fired as James Bond. “From the beginning, I had a contract for four Bond films,” the actor told the Swedish paper Aftonbladet, according to our translator. “I did them and told them that I’d like to continue. But suddenly, in the middle of negotiations, they changed their minds. They said that they weren’t interested any more. I was shocked, perplexed. I loved Bond. He’s given me so much, mostly a face out in the international market. Afterwards, I was happy. Now it feels like a relief.” . . . ================================= Aftonbladet had a recent interview with PB in it online conducted from the Bahamas press junket. (I'd have posted it earlier, but Swedish translators are horrendous and it was basically jibberish. ) Ace
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jan 6, 2005 12:47:21 GMT -5
My advice, don't get your hopes up but the rumor is spreading after being printed in the JBIFC newsletter so I'm putting it up:
===========================
BOND'S BACK January 6, 2005 6:36am Europe Intelligence Wire
ACTOR Pierce Brosnan could take on the James Bond role for one last time.
The star was keen to make Bond 21 before handing the reins of Ian Fleming's suave spy to a younger man.
But at the end of last year Brosnan ruled himself out, saying producers were looking for a new star and had not contacted him.
However, negotiations between the 51-year-old and the production team are believed to have taken place, which could lead to him playing Bond for the fifth time.
Chairman of the James Bond International Fan Club David Black has hinted that Brosnan's reign as Bond is not yet over.
In the club's newsletter he said: "Although the media reports that Pierce has had enough of the ongoing Bond debate and ruled himself out - I've heard rumours that further talks may have taken place and he may be back for the new film due for release next year. Don't rule him out just yet."
The Navan-born star has moved on since Bond and will resurrect the lead character from The Thomas Crown Affair in 1999 for The Topkapi Affair due to be released next year.
But in the past he has expressed an interest in coming back if the next film was less of an action movie and more of a gritty intelligent thriller.
Current co-star Colin Salmon, who played M's Chief of Staff Charles Robinson in the last three Bond films, was the last name put forward for the role.
But Colin Farrell, Aussie actor Hugh Jackman, Scottish star Dougray Scott, and English actors Jude Law and Clive Owen have all been tipped to become the new 007.
Copyright © 2005 . MGN Ltd.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 3, 2005 14:28:04 GMT -5
James Bond 21 Is Casino Royale 3rd February 2005 MI6 can confirm that the 21st James Bond film will be titled "Casino Royale" and will be directed by Martin Campbell. Eon Productions officially announced the news in a press release today. Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, producers of the James Bond films, and MGM announced today that Martin Campbell will direct CASINO ROYALE, the 21st film in the 007 franchise. This is Campbell’s second time as helmer of a James Bond film. In 1995 he directed the hit GOLDENEYE which introduced Pierce Brosnan to the role of 007 with great success. Wilson and Broccoli said: “We are thrilled that Martin has accepted our offer to direct CASINO ROYALE. He is an extremely talented director and we believe he will help take our films in a new and exciting direction. He is currently finishing filming ‘Legend Of Zorro’, the sequel to ‘The Mask Of Zorro’, and will be joining EON Productions shortly to work on the development of the script with our writers, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.” MGM Vice Chairman and COO Chris McGurk said: “Martin is an incredibly exciting filmmaker. GOLDENEYE was a wonderful movie and helped reinvigorate the Bond franchise. We’re thrilled to have him back to direct the newest Bond.” Born in New Zealand, Campbell moved to England in 1966 and made his directorial debut on the popular TV series’ ‘The Professionals’ and ‘Minder’. He moved to America in 1986 to direct ‘Criminal Law’ and ‘Defenceless’. Following GOLDENEYE, he went on to direct ‘The Mask Of Zorro’, ‘Vertical Limit’ and ‘Beyond Borders’ and is currently directing ‘Legend Of Zorro’. CASINO ROYALE will be released in 2006 and distributed world-wide by MGM. No decision has yet been made regarding casting for the role of ‘James Bond’. ============== Isn't that nice. Babs and Mike are making the film PB begged them to make, but with another actor. And look finally a statement from them... and ooh look still no mention of PB leaving the series. In fact no mnetion of him at all. Campbell helped re-invigorate the series with Goldeneye eh, evidently all by himself. Such class. Another nice little kick in the teeth. They won't be getting my money. Ace
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Feb 3, 2005 15:47:39 GMT -5
Might also be a reason for PB's new welcome message on his site, don't you think? He's made his statement, everyone can look it up, he can say 'leave me alone'. And yes, the producers' lack of class and decency is beyond comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Feb 3, 2005 16:01:45 GMT -5
Maybe they think if Campbell made one new Bond actor into a BO star, he can make another one. I wonder how he accepted the offer not knowing whom he's going to direct, though; does he not care? Oh well, maybe he has a list of candidates. SparklingBlue, you have a new avatar again.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 3, 2005 16:09:57 GMT -5
Casmpbell was actually hired on GE before PB, so it's not the first time he didn't know who he was directing. Rumors are Campbell will reunite with his "Beyond Borders" star Clive Owen. I hope they create the same kind of "magic" for Bond 21. Ace
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Feb 3, 2005 16:38:12 GMT -5
Indeed. Am I the only one who thinks Clive Owen bears striking resemblance to George Lazenby? At least on his IMDB photo. Maybe it's not a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 3, 2005 17:46:21 GMT -5
Actually you're not though to be fair Owen is far more talented (though often dreadfully monotone and charisma challenged) and Lazenby is better looking. (not that that's too hard)
Ace
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Feb 3, 2005 22:10:13 GMT -5
So, things come to an untidy end. I once had a small but vain hope that the heirs to Cubby’s legacy would follow the example he set during his (far more) volatile association with Connery. Ergo, keep their proven Bond actor in the fold, because, no matter what their differences, it was the right business decision. This news hints, and likely not to the producers’ credit, at something more personal in the mix. We’ve known for some time that PB wanted to do Casino Royale, even before Tarantino’s name came up, and it’s been apparently denied him. If they went with a younger Bond for CR, they could justify it viz the source material since it’s the first of the novels and Bond is, indeed, less hardened and experienced, but if they’re set on contenders like Owen, who’s past forty, they might as well have Brosnan. But that would mean they were using their heads, LOL!
I can hardly bring myself to think about Bond, it’s so dispiriting these days. Never mind the saddest part of the whole business – that during his toil in the vineyard Brosnan was never given the Bond he deserved -- his own “Goldfinger, “FRWL” or “OHMSS”. Yet, he was expected to remain enamoured of the status quo.
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?)
It’s a bit hilarious, actually, to hear Bond fans and movie critics who pride themselves on their cynicism about the current series, practically holding hands and singing kum-baya over Clive Owen (or anyone, for that matter) as the Great Bond Hope. This before a frame of film has been shot, as if the same failings that compromised the Brosnan Bonds won’t continue to plague the series. Owen, whom I find quite good in the right vehicle (he’s wrong vocally and a bit too downmarket and de-glamorized for Bond) doesn’t really strike me as the sort of thesp who elevates sub-standard material through sheer will or screen presence. The acid test of that quality was in King Arthur, where he foundered, by most accounts.
All this blather about going in a new and exciting direction for Bond, well they had better up their game stratospherically then – and for the long haul. I can believe Owen, or someone of similar type, for a “one-off” more “realistic”, less fantastical spy thriller (whatever those parameters will really mean in Bond terms) but I don’t see how that style (especially in the writing, where it counts) can be sustained for several films, or even just for CR actually, with the team they’ve got in place now, but never mind. And an Owen-ish actor will need that authenticity. And it's hard to take that as a given. The films’ pattern has been to run the tables in terms of tone, heavier or lighter, with each film and within each film, something that Brosnan could do quite nicely, even when things are all over the map from one scene to the next. How awkward some of those transitions would be without him.
I’m amusing myself just now imagining Oscar bait Clive Owen dodging yet another gratuitous explosion and while his feet are still smoking, eyeing a lovely and trying on an especially mangy pick-up line … Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Feb 3, 2005 22:20:40 GMT -5
A rather ungracious omission, to say the least, but it won't wash. Hard as Eon tried to make everyone forget Lazenby, he only starred in one film and not four. Unless they get hold of one of those neuralyzer gadgets from Men in Black and zap everyone who's seen Brosnan play Bond over ten years, I think the fix is off.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 4, 2005 9:19:59 GMT -5
Lauryn what is there to say except I couldn't agree more and I'm a very bitter angry Brosnan and Bond fan right now. Grrrrr....
But it's nice to know that some of the press are as confised/
From Empire:
Drum Roll Please, Mr. Bond
And the title of Bond 21 is…? 04 February 2005
Casino Royale. Yes, that’s right – the title of next official James Bond picture, thus far snazzily entitled Bond 21, has been announced by Bond producers EON and MGM, and it’s going to be Casino Royale, a new version of the very first Bond book, which became an (unofficial) Bond movie starring David Niven. And frankly, we’re very confused.
Why so? Because Pierce Brosnan had been campaigning for some time to make a new version of Casino Royale, with Quentin Tarantino more than interested in directing a darker, harder-edged Bond that would, according to Brosnan, have dipped into the Ian Fleming wellspring to revitalise the character. And we all know how that campaign ultimately ended up for Brosnan, who picked up his 007 P45 last year.
But now Bond producers Martin G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli – with whom it was rumoured that Brosnan had clashed repeatedly over the direction the character and franchise were taking – have announced that Casino Royale will be next, after all. Fans will be pleased, presumably, at their intentions to revamp the character, but the Brosnan-QT Casino Royale with cheese combo won’t be present – instead, the director is Martin Campbell, the man who revamped the 007 franchise in the mid-90s with Goldeneye. And now he’s got to do it all over again.
Campbell’s been attached to Bond 21 for a few months now, but with the announcement of a title and a 2006 release date, it’s the first genuine propulsion on the property for a while. "We are thrilled that Martin has accepted our offer to direct Casino Royale,” said Wilson and Broccoli in a statement. “He is an extremely talented director and we believe he will help take our films in a new and exciting direction.”
The key phrase there being ‘new and exciting’. Die Another Day may have been the highest-grossing Bond yet, but there was a general perception from audiences (and, indeed, Brosnan) that the movies had become too formulaic, too staid, too moribund. And certainly with the emergence of rival franchises such as the Bourne series, Bond needed a facelift. It now seems that Wilson and Broccoli have acknowledged that the long-term future of the movies’ most enduring spy needs some insurance.
A return to Casino Royale should do the trick (although please Martin, don’t get Eric Serra to do the music – the Bond theme should never be played on drums). The very first Ian Fleming story, Casino Royale - in which Bond targets a Russian spy at a casino, only to have his attraction to a deadly female scupper the whole thing - has the distinction of being both the first Bond radio play (starring Bob ‘Blockbusters’ Holness as Bond; don’t make jokes about ‘can I have an M and a Q please, Bob?’ because they were old back in 1991), and the first Bond movie. But the less said about John Huston’s laborious and messy all-star spoof, in which the likes of Peter Sellers, David Niven and Woody Allen all get a shot at playing Bond, the better.
Now all we need is the announcement of a new James Bond himself. There has been some slight speculation recently that Brosnan may return to the fold for his fifth and last Bond after all, and the news that EON and MGM (note: not Sony, not yet anyway) are making the film he lobbied so hard for will further fan the flames. However, the smart money is still on Clive Owen, who is the clear favourite with a number of bookmakers following his Oscar nod. Watch this space is all we can say, readers. James Bond will return, and that right soon…
================================
I repeat.... grrrrrr!!
Ace
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Feb 4, 2005 10:32:52 GMT -5
A few logs to the fire. First of all, who said PB won't be in the next Bond? Himself? Who else? It has been done before. I'm not saying he'll be back, but it's still not completely out of the question, not until the next Bond actir is officially name by the family. Second, if Lauryn's right about Clive Owen's abilities to look glamourous, CR is not for him. I can't think of a more glamourous Bond story than that - the darn thing is set in a casino! "The important thing is that there is enough caviar" - I can't quote verbatim but this line has been laughing stock for spies all over the world. Third, so far, Bond movies didn't start anew - Bond isn't an amnesiac, he has a history, friends and enemies reappear, Moore's Bond visits the grave of Lazenby's wife, etc. CR can't be repeated as is, it's perfectly fine for a younger Bond, it's what builds the person he becomes in later books. But it can't be done with the Bond who has 20 movies behind the belt. Besides, this particular Bond fell in love with a wrong woman and lost her (OK, killed her, but as Valentine would say, who's counting?) just two movies ago - won't an encore now be too soon? And four (to counter my own two and three, I guess) - who says Casino Royale the movie will have more in common with Casino Royale the book than Octopussy? I'm still set to wait and see how it all turns out instead of agonizing over every article, for as far as I'm concerned, the Broccolis won't pay for my nervous breakdowns. Not that I don't read those articles anyway and then spit and scream after that.
|
|