I wonder if they'll be cheeky enough to make it more like a James Bond film than the first one.
I believe this is Brosnan's last chance to prove to Eon that he still can do Bond-like work in film. I think he will go all out to prove this in TTA.
What do you expect? EON to dump Craig and suddenly go "Oh Brosnan, what were we thinking? Let's bring you back!"?
No, but human nature dictates he wants a bit of solace in knowing he could have done more Bond type films, and successfully.
He's had four Bond films and that was six years ago, I would expect that he would want to move on as an actor instead of aping his past. He probably could have done one more in 2004 but that's his fault for trying to bait EON for a raise by pulling the "Oh I'm not sure, I don't think I'll do a fifth" card, expecting EON to kiss his ass but instead they say "Well your contract is expired, so we'll just move on."
It was an ego thing, but I would hope that he put that behind him because it's been quite a long time. I wouldn't want him to be a sore loser about his past but instead look forward to his future.
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
I wonder if they'll be cheeky enough to make it more like a James Bond film than the first one.
I believe this is Brosnan's last chance to prove to Eon that he still can do Bond-like work in film. I think he will go all out to prove this in TTA.
Why does he have to prove this to EON now? What would he gain by it? Besides, I thought he had moved on now from Bond, choosing more varied roles...
He would gain satisfaction in being successful in a non-Bond film that shows he could still handle the role.
This is all matter of opinion. Age is the deciding factor here. No matter how many times Brozza is seen from now on wearing a tuxedo, or that his ageing looks may appear more refined than Craig's from certain angles or from a certain light, or if he acts super smooth for the camera, his age unfortunately cannot be cheated.
Therefore, even if all the above is shown in Brozza's next film, I personally don't think he can still handle the role now as Bond - and I doubt he really does either.
I think Brosnan could easily be James Bond again now. But there are many better alternatives.
Sir Roger made a great Bond (I think) when he made his last few films in his seventies. I think Roger had an advantage in that he was Bond and Eon felt Bond would struggle without him.
But as we know now, you can pluck any old man from the street and make him a successful Bond.
stockslivevan wrote:He's had four Bond films and that was six years ago, I would expect that he would want to move on as an actor instead of aping his past. He probably could have done one more in 2004 but that's his fault for trying to bait EON for a raise by pulling the "Oh I'm not sure, I don't think I'll do a fifth" card, expecting EON to kiss his ass but instead they say "Well your contract is expired, so we'll just move on."
It was an ego thing, but I would hope that he put that behind him because it's been quite a long time. I wouldn't want him to be a sore loser about his past but instead look forward to his future.
That's EON's account of events, but have we heard Brosnan's? I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between the two.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
stockslivevan wrote:He's had four Bond films and that was six years ago, I would expect that he would want to move on as an actor instead of aping his past. He probably could have done one more in 2004 but that's his fault for trying to bait EON for a raise by pulling the "Oh I'm not sure, I don't think I'll do a fifth" card, expecting EON to kiss his ass but instead they say "Well your contract is expired, so we'll just move on."
It was an ego thing, but I would hope that he put that behind him because it's been quite a long time. I wouldn't want him to be a sore loser about his past but instead look forward to his future.
That's EON's account of events, but have we heard Brosnan's? I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between the two.
Actually that's from both. Brosnan on many accounts said "I'm done, I'm finished. Bond is all behind me now and I'm just moving forward" in 2004, even friends Michael Madsen confirmed that. Then EON says "We're looking for a new guy" Brosnan goes on a rant "F*** them for firing me, how dare they do that."
Even then I knew it was clear Brosnan was fishing for something but it didn't come to his favor. If he didn't want a raise and was just looking forward to making another film, we might have gotten one in either 2004 or 2005 without all the speculation on whether he's returning or not.
Had Brosnan truly said "I'm done with Bond" right after DAD in late 2002 instead of giving them a hard time and wasting four years, EON could have prepared themselves with a new actor and manage to make a new film under two years like they did with all the other actors in the past (with the exception of Dalton to Brosnan).
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
carl stromberg wrote: I think Brosnan could easily be James Bond again now. But there are many better alternatives.
Sir Roger made a great Bond (I think) when he made his last few films in his seventies. I think Roger had an advantage in that he was Bond and Eon felt Bond would struggle without him.
Don't agree. Moonraker was the last film Moore played where he still looked ok as Bond. By FYEO he was too old.
carl stromberg wrote:
But as we know now, you can pluck any old man from the street and make him a successful Bond.
From what I could gather, Brosnan got the arse because he had been asked back for a fifth film and Eon pulled the plug during negotiations. It may have been a question of money (although I suspect Babs would bankrupt herself to keep craggy Craig) or a change of direction but it was badly handled. I wish they had fired him in 2002 because we wouldn't have Craig now, given that Layer Cake was apparently the film that got him the job.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/12/31/ ... nuary-3rd/ OK, time to start the debate on Eon and Forster's concept of where Bond 22 WILL go, and I for one, think it further distances Bond from his allure and even more so makes Bond 22 the Bourne Mimicry. Out of Forster's own mouth:"The only interesting trip remains the journey inwards, deep into the psyche";"Audiences should be prepared for a few surprises in this outing". If there was any proof needed that Eon will continue on with their re-creation of the Bond franchise, these statements speak volumes. I can only wonder what 'surprises' team Forster/Haggis has cooked up for Bond this time. Is the exploration of what makes Bond's mind tick what you desire to see in a Sigmund Freudian view? Is this the Bond we all grew to know, yet no longer recognize? How can anyone not see the "mimicry" of this storyline to the Bourne trilogy? Brosnan is gone, and so might be Bond at this rate. The Topkapi Affair may truly be more interestingly Bondesque than this pile of nonsense Forster is going to direct.
How is treating James Bond like a real character suppose to make him more Bourne-like? Should James Bond remain as the walking superhuman cliche that never acts like a character but does what the plot requires him to? I'm curious about what you think of Timothy Dalton's interpretation of Bond.
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
bjmdds wrote:http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/12/31/ ... nuary-3rd/ OK, time to start the debate on Eon and Forster's concept of where Bond 22 WILL go, and I for one, think it further distances Bond from his allure and even more so makes Bond 22 the Bourne Mimicry. Out of Forster's own mouth:"The only interesting trip remains the journey inwards, deep into the psyche";"Audiences should be prepared for a few surprises in this outing". If there was any proof needed that Eon will continue on with their re-creation of the Bond franchise, these statements speak volumes. I can only wonder what 'surprises' team Forster/Haggis has cooked up for Bond this time. Is the exploration of what makes Bond's mind tick what you desire to see in a Sigmund Freudian view? Is this the Bond we all grew to know, yet no longer recognize? How can anyone not see the "mimicry" of this storyline to the Bourne trilogy? Brosnan is gone, and so might be Bond at this rate. The Topkapi Affair may truly be more interestingly Bondesque than this pile of nonsense Forster is going to direct.
I for one thought the action shown in the Bourne films were far closer to Fleming than anything seen during the Brosnan years.
So if Bond 22 is a Bourne copy, then I am happy. Bring on TBM....
bjmdds wrote:Out of Forster's own mouth:"The only interesting trip remains the journey inwards, deep into the psyche";"Audiences should be prepared for a few surprises in this outing". If there was any proof needed that Eon will continue on with their re-creation of the Bond franchise, these statements speak volumes.
Actually, they're fairly standard stuff for a blockbuster film's pre-publicity. When was the last time you heard the director of a major franchise movie say "it's going to be exactly the same as all the previous entries in the series and will have absolutely no plot or character depth whatsoever"?
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
stockslivevan wrote:How is treating James Bond like a real character suppose to make him more Bourne-like? Should James Bond remain as the walking superhuman cliche that never acts like a character but does what the plot requires him to? I'm curious about what you think of Timothy Dalton's interpretation of Bond.
Dalton wasn't as serious as he wanted his films to be, given his cello ski scene;however, I am not a big fan of Dalton either, but he comes off more Bond-like than the current fellow. Do you want to see Bond cry over his kills or torment himself over why he is a spy, or lament on his parent's tragedy,etc? Forster's interpretation may be so radical even Nash may not like it on MI6.
bjmdds wrote:http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/12/31/ ... nuary-3rd/ OK, time to start the debate on Eon and Forster's concept of where Bond 22 WILL go, and I for one, think it further distances Bond from his allure and even more so makes Bond 22 the Bourne Mimicry. Out of Forster's own mouth:"The only interesting trip remains the journey inwards, deep into the psyche";"Audiences should be prepared for a few surprises in this outing". If there was any proof needed that Eon will continue on with their re-creation of the Bond franchise, these statements speak volumes. I can only wonder what 'surprises' team Forster/Haggis has cooked up for Bond this time. Is the exploration of what makes Bond's mind tick what you desire to see in a Sigmund Freudian view? Is this the Bond we all grew to know, yet no longer recognize? How can anyone not see the "mimicry" of this storyline to the Bourne trilogy? Brosnan is gone, and so might be Bond at this rate. The Topkapi Affair may truly be more interestingly Bondesque than this pile of nonsense Forster is going to direct.
I for one thought the action shown in the Bourne films were far closer to Fleming than anything seen during the Brosnan years.
So if Bond 22 is a Bourne copy, then I am happy. Bring on TBM....
You are in the extreme minority then Sweeney at the MI6 site, as the menagerie there would vehemently deny that Eon was indeed producing The Bourne Mimicry. I give you credit for admitting this. It does not speak highly of Eon's individuality or creativity though, does it?
bjmdds wrote:Out of Forster's own mouth:"The only interesting trip remains the journey inwards, deep into the psyche";"Audiences should be prepared for a few surprises in this outing". If there was any proof needed that Eon will continue on with their re-creation of the Bond franchise, these statements speak volumes.
Actually, they're fairly standard stuff for a blockbuster film's pre-publicity. When was the last time you heard the director of a major franchise movie say "it's going to be exactly the same as all the previous entries in the series and will have absolutely no plot or character depth whatsoever"?
What surprises do you anticipate, or want Kris? Will it involve suicidal thoughts by Bond, bi-sexuality, drug addictions, an Oedipus complex with M, or some other fringe subject of Bond's psyche?
bjmdds wrote:What surprises do you anticipate, or want Kris? Will it involve suicidal thoughts by Bond, bi-sexuality, drug addictions, an Oedipus complex with M, or some other fringe subject of Bond's psyche?
I don't know what surprises Forster is talking about. It sounds like standard pre-movie puffery to me. You mention drug addiction, though - showing Bond taking Benzedrine as he did in the novel of LALD would be very surprising. I can't imagine EON having the nerve, though, since it would mean an instant 18 certificate in the UK. Don't know what the MPAA guidelines are on drugs, but the BBFC states:
Any misuse of drugs must be infrequent and should not be glamorised or instructional.
at the 12A category and
Drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug misuse.
at the 15 category. I'd have thought that showing Bond taking drugs to enhance his job performance would certainly "encourage and glamorise" drug uge.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
carl stromberg wrote:I've heard there is a twenty-five minute scene in the next film where Craig eats a Pot Noodle and watches Eastenders. I for one can't wait!
Does he get to wobble that Pot Noodle in front of a mirror?
carl stromberg wrote:I've heard there is a twenty-five minute scene in the next film where Craig eats a Pot Noodle and watches Eastenders. I for one can't wait!
Does he get to wobble that Pot Noodle in front of a mirror?
I think Forster confirmed that in a recent interview.
carl stromberg wrote:I've heard there is a twenty-five minute scene in the next film where Craig eats a Pot Noodle and watches Eastenders. I for one can't wait!
Does he get to wobble that Pot Noodle in front of a mirror?
No, he'll wobble it in front of the TV that he's watching Eastenders on.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
carl stromberg wrote:I've heard there is a twenty-five minute scene in the next film where Craig eats a Pot Noodle and watches Eastenders. I for one can't wait!
Does he get to wobble that Pot Noodle in front of a mirror?
No, he'll wobble it in front of the TV that he's watching Eastenders on.
Now you live in the US, Kristatos, do you have to import Pot Noodles, or do they have them there?
Last edited by carl stromberg on Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Should James Bond remain as the walking superhuman cliche that never acts like a character but does what the plot requires him to? I'm curious about what you think of Timothy Dalton's interpretation of Bond.
