Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Re: James Bond trailer released
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #271332] Di, 23 Mai 2006 02:54
Tom Zielinski  
"freemont" <yabba [at] dabba.doo> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.21.19.59.43.816068 [at] dabba.doo...
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 18:27:49 +0000, Al Smith wrote:
>
>>> At the last night's screening of "The Da Vinci Code," the preview
>>> included the new James Bond teaser. I have to tell you, I'm excited
>>> about this one.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alric Knebel
>>
>> I watched the first half hour of "The World Is Not Enough" last night.
>> The
>> opening song was terrible. On the other hand, Pierce Brosnan was terrific
>> as Bond, I mean really good. I haven't been much of a Bond fan for the
>> past few films, but Brosnan was right for the part.
>
> He's the best since Connery. You should watch that movie, it's really very
> good. Has a funny last line too.
>
> I hope Craig and the movie do well.


Pierce Brosnan was excellent in the role of James Bond. He was the best
thing about the four 007 films he was in and I'd easily agree, the best Bond
since Connery. In fact, had Brosnan done one more (his fifth) and turned in
as good a performance as his four prior films, he just might have surpassed
Connery in my mind. Brosnan is widely under-rated as an actor. I also
think that the last two films, "Die Another Day" and "The World Is Not
Enough" are the best of the series since 1969.

I was truly disappointed Brosnan was not brought back for a fifth film and
still don't quite understand why he was not. That said, I think Daniel
Craig's casting and the new direction of the series are inspired decisions.

Here's prognosticating that "Casino Royale" will be a kick-ass film and
hugely successful at the box-office.




Tom Zielinski
Her Majesty's Secret Servant
www.hmss.com
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274561 ] Di, 23 Mai 2006 06:55
ants.bull  
While I respect your views, I much prefer GE and TND to his last two.
I think GE was brilliant, and had all the ingredients - exotic locales,
great villian (Sean Bean was superb), great girls, good story, stunts,
and a very cool bad guy fortress. To me it is the best Bond since
FYEO, which I similarly love watching.

I like TND for its tech-plot/elements, the places it is filmed in and
predominantly because of the fact that Pierce Brosnan was clearly
having an amazing amount of fun filming it. That really shines through
in his performance. The rest of it isn't that great however.

My main issue with DAD is the computer graphics for everything, which
makes everything look fake. Additionally, I thought the first half of
the film was excellent, but the second half was a bit of a let down. I
quite like TWINE, especially Sophie Marceau, but the ending and Robert
Carlysle's bad guy were not Bond quality.

I too have similar views on CR and Craig. It seems everyone who is
being negative about it is basing their viewpoints purely on the fact
that he doesn't look like the other bond actors and that he doesn't
look like Bond should - in their opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, what the actor playing Bond looks like has
NEVER had anything to do with me liking Bond movies - the first
paragraph of this post lists all the ingredients I need in a Bond film.
I think its going to be superb.
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274572 ] Di, 23 Mai 2006 16:01
WQ  
ants.bull [at] paradise.net.nz wrote:
> While I respect your views, I much prefer GE and TND to his last two.
> I think GE was brilliant, and had all the ingredients - exotic locales,
> great villian (Sean Bean was superb), great girls, good story, stunts,
> and a very cool bad guy fortress. To me it is the best Bond since
> FYEO, which I similarly love watching.

--- GE was certainly the least offensive of the Brosnan lot and with
some minor snipping here and there to get rid of the dumb bits the film
would've been better still. But TWINE had potential. Sophie Marceau
has to be one of my fave leading Bond babes. Problem with the film is
that it kept sidetracking itself into stupid stunts. The PCS ended up
being something like 15 minutes when it should've probably ended at the
point when Bond escaped from the banker's office, making it more neat
and compact and down-to-earth. But no, rather than lead into the theme
song at that point, they just had to drag it out into the explosion at
HQ and the follow-up tedious boat chase down the Thames. By the time
that whole overdrawn sequence was done with, I almost didn't care to
watch the rest of the film. After that, however, the film was pretty
good, up until the point after Bond meets Dr. Christmas Jones and finds
Renard in the mountain cave. I still think that was too easy of him to
come across him so quickly. From there, the film stumbled more often
than it should've because it had a decent story to work with but as is
usal with the current EON team, they just never feel confident enough
with their stories and always find a need to forcibly inject ludicrous
hyperintensive action scenes. Too bad, because otherwise I would've
liked TWINE much better if it stuck to what it had started off with.

> I like TND for its tech-plot/elements, the places it is filmed in and
> predominantly because of the fact that Pierce Brosnan was clearly
> having an amazing amount of fun filming it. That really shines through
> in his performance. The rest of it isn't that great however.

--- Sorry, but TND ranks as one of the low points in the series for me.
More than anything else, I just didn't buy that Carver villain as a
villain - the least convincing of them all. And when Bond doesn't have
a credible villain, then there's just no Bond.

> My main issue with DAD is the computer graphics for everything, which
> makes everything look fake. Additionally, I thought the first half of
> the film was excellent, but the second half was a bit of a let down. I
> quite like TWINE, especially Sophie Marceau, but the ending and Robert
> Carlysle's bad guy were not Bond quality.

--- You're right about Carlysle. He was greatly miscast in the role,
which again is too bad because the idea of a villain who has a bullet
lodged in his brain, making him impervious to pain but also marking him
for eventual death, is one of the more interesting ones. But they just
blew it with the wrong actor and completely mishandled the idea. The
climax was also terrible, one of the most anti-climactic worst.

> I too have similar views on CR and Craig. It seems everyone who is
> being negative about it is basing their viewpoints purely on the fact
> that he doesn't look like the other bond actors and that he doesn't
> look like Bond should - in their opinion.

--- Well, everyone but me. I've already reviewed the finished draft of
the script and expressed my pros and cons about it. If you haven't
read it and you're curious, then just dig back a little for the thread
"Latest Casino Royale Script Review." No real spoilers in it other
than the main ones already discussed by other viewers if you've read
other reviews of the script. The problem with Craig in CR is that it
goes way beyond just Craig's looks, but that's already all been
discussed here a couple of months back in good old-fashioned heated
manner. I'm not about to stir things up again.

> As far as I'm concerned, what the actor playing Bond looks like has
> NEVER had anything to do with me liking Bond movies - the first
> paragraph of this post lists all the ingredients I need in a Bond film.
> I think its going to be superb.

--- According to my review of the script, yes and no. There are a few
major weaknesses in it that I hope they'll be addressing and resolving.
It was a completed draft of the script about a month and a half before
they went into production and they hadn't yet selected who Vesper and
Le Chiffre would be. I can only hope that Le Chiffre's role will be
greatly improved and I fear that they may adversely tamper with
Vesper's role, which would be too bad because at least when she first
appears she comes on pretty strong. If all goes well, the best you'll
get out of CR is something more along the likes of GE, TLD and FYEO,
but don't look for a FRWL update.
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274573 ] Di, 23 Mai 2006 16:12
Will Traynor  
"Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d7mdnTVdYopawO_Z4p2dnA [at] comcast.com...
>
> "freemont" <yabba [at] dabba.doo> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.05.21.19.59.43.816068 [at] dabba.doo...
>> On Sun, 21 May 2006 18:27:49 +0000, Al Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> At the last night's screening of "The Da Vinci Code," the preview
>>>> included the new James Bond teaser. I have to tell you, I'm excited
>>>> about this one.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alric Knebel
>>>
>>> I watched the first half hour of "The World Is Not Enough" last night.
>>> The
>>> opening song was terrible. On the other hand, Pierce Brosnan was
>>> terrific
>>> as Bond, I mean really good. I haven't been much of a Bond fan for the
>>> past few films, but Brosnan was right for the part.
>>
>> He's the best since Connery. You should watch that movie, it's really
>> very
>> good. Has a funny last line too.
>>
>> I hope Craig and the movie do well.
>
>
> Pierce Brosnan was excellent in the role of James Bond. He was the best
> thing about the four 007 films he was in and I'd easily agree, the best
> Bond since Connery. In fact, had Brosnan done one more (his fifth) and
> turned in as good a performance as his four prior films, he just might
> have surpassed Connery in my mind. Brosnan is widely under-rated as an
> actor. I also think that the last two films, "Die Another Day" and "The
> World Is Not Enough" are the best of the series since 1969.
>

While I agree PB was good in the role, a fifth film would not have brought
him anywhere near the status of SC as Bond. Box office receipts aside, he
always seemed to be "acting" as Bond, whereas SC was a more natural fit.
Physically, PB was a bit too thin and lanky for my taste, whereas SC moved
better and appeared to be more of a brute, which I prefer as a secret agent.
And there are several other reasons why I think there is very little
comparison between the two. But everyone has their own opinion. As for the
last two films, Tom and I disagree once again. I'm not going to beat a dead
horse, but DAD was not one of the better Bond films, IMHO. There are several
reasons for this, which I've explained time and time again, and Tom has
explained why he liked it. And I respect that. TWINE is a good film,
however, but it also has its problems. There are a few Bond films after 1969
that I would place ahead of those two, TLD, TSWLM and GE off the top of my
head.


> I was truly disappointed Brosnan was not brought back for a fifth film and
> still don't quite understand why he was not. That said, I think Daniel
> Craig's casting and the new direction of the series are inspired
> decisions.
>

Personally, I wasn't very upset to see PB leave. Overall, his tenure as Bond
can be summed up as "Missed Opportunities." I think the producers had a good
actor to portray the character, but the individual parts of the films turned
out to be greater than the whole, especially with TND and TWINE. I didn't
like the direction of the films, overall, so I wasn't disappointed to see PB
leave.

> Here's prognosticating that "Casino Royale" will be a kick-ass film and
> hugely successful at the box-office.
>
>

I like what I see thus far. Craig appears as though he will be one tough
cookie, and that's something we haven't seen since the 60s or early 70s. I'm
looking forward to it !!!

> Tom Zielinski
> Her Majesty's Secret Servant
> www.hmss.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274587 ] Mi, 24 Mai 2006 13:55
Brodieman  
Tom Zielinski wrote:
>
>
> Pierce Brosnan was excellent in the role of James Bond. He was the best
> thing about the four 007 films he was in and I'd easily agree, the best Bond
> since Connery. In fact, had Brosnan done one more (his fifth) and turned in
> as good a performance as his four prior films, he just might have surpassed
> Connery in my mind. Brosnan is widely under-rated as an actor. I also
> think that the last two films, "Die Another Day" and "The World Is Not
> Enough" are the best of the series since 1969.
>

Could not possibly disagree more. DAD was an appalling film, worse than
even Never Say Never Again. Brosnan has absolutely none of Connery's
presence and grace, and the Bond scripts since Goldeneye have been
abysmal. DAD was a lifeless, humourless parody of the golden age of
007. Even the music was awful.
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274600 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 02:35
akaiser77  
Couldn't agree more, Brodieman. But I must say that TND ranks below
DAD on my list. The writing since 1997 has been so bad that they
almost aren't Bond films in my estimation. More like video games.

AK
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274602 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 13:06
booby  
"While I agree PB was good in the role, a fifth film would not have
brought
him anywhere near the status of SC as Bond. Box office receipts aside,
he
always seemed to be "acting" as Bond, whereas SC was a more natural
fit. "

__________________

Brilliant post, Will, and Pierce actually sort of confirmed that in one
of his post-DAD interviews where he said he never got a complete handle
on the character. This is what Pierce said:

"Brosnan: All the movies made money. Creatively, maybe, they could have
been stronger, but they were Bond movies, and they advanced a certain
degree out of the dolddrums where they had been. They were tricky to
do. I never really felt as as though I nailed it. As soon as they put
me into a suit and tie and gave me those lines of dialogue, I felt
restricted. It was like the same old same old. I was doing Roger Moore
doing Sean Connery doing George Lazenby. I felt as if I were doing a
period piece dusted off. They never really took the risks they should
have. [...] It would have been great to light up and smoke cigarettes,
for instance. It would have been great to have the killing a little
more real and not wussed down. My boys watch the movies on DVD, so I
see them from time to time. I see myself with nowhere to go, and it's
all rather bland. "

>From his last Playboy interview.


I actually think George Lazenby's one Bond performance was closer to
the essence of Bond than Pierce Brosnan's - Pierce's Bond was a little
too mawkish to be considered the definitive version of Bond - but that
is probably more to do with the screenplays than his acting. If you
could imagine Pierce Brosnan's Remington Steele mixed up with his cruel
performance in The Fourth Protocol - that could have been the way to
have played Bond. I always thought PB was closer to Roger Moore -
certainly if you watch the old Remington Steele show but his Bond
wasn't quite that arrogant or over the top.

The definitive Bond would probably be Connery's because of the alpha
male, one dimensional quality he brought to the role. When Bond becomes
a bit too human or too vulnerable you can lose a bit of the sexist
alpha male quality which Broccoli/Saltzman intended when they created
the franchise, although I did think Lazenby managed to remain tough and
human, as did Dalton. Arguably, the definitive blueprint movie Bond is
Goldfinger's pre-credit scene. I would say that is the definitive way
to play the movie Bond. Roger Moore's scene where he meets that woman
in Spy Who Loved Me and then kills Sandor - "what a helpful chap" -
would come a close second. Both sequences show the definitive movie
Bond.

Bond is fairly one dimensional - that's the key. Barbara Broccoli seems
a little obsessed with breaking down Bond's one dimensional character
in order to flesh out the character but I think Bond works best as
aloof, not too vulnerable or complex. Human, certainly, but not
vulnerable, There is a big difference between the two.

If Craig isn't too vulnerable he could turn out okay, I guess. Perhaps.
But I don't think most people want him as Bond so I don't think he'll
make more than this one Bond film. Craig doesn't excite most people,
that's the thing. Oh well.

MMS
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274604 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 14:56
Tom Zielinski  
"Brodieman" <stephenduffield [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148471715.106257.37570 [at] y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
>>
>>
>> Pierce Brosnan was excellent in the role of James Bond. He was the best
>> thing about the four 007 films he was in and I'd easily agree, the best
>> Bond
>> since Connery. In fact, had Brosnan done one more (his fifth) and turned
>> in
>> as good a performance as his four prior films, he just might have
>> surpassed
>> Connery in my mind. Brosnan is widely under-rated as an actor. I also
>> think that the last two films, "Die Another Day" and "The World Is Not
>> Enough" are the best of the series since 1969.
>>
>
> Could not possibly disagree more. DAD was an appalling film, worse than
> even Never Say Never Again. Brosnan has absolutely none of Connery's
> presence and grace, and the Bond scripts since Goldeneye have been
> abysmal. DAD was a lifeless, humourless parody of the golden age of
> 007. Even the music was awful.


Well...it did have an invisible car...



Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that the first half of the film or so is as good as anything in the
series..."
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274605 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 15:02
jeremiebanks  
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "Brodieman" <stephenduffield [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148471715.106257.37570 [at] y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tom Zielinski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Pierce Brosnan was excellent in the role of James Bond. He was the best
> >> thing about the four 007 films he was in and I'd easily agree, the best
> >> Bond
> >> since Connery. In fact, had Brosnan done one more (his fifth) and turned
> >> in
> >> as good a performance as his four prior films, he just might have
> >> surpassed
> >> Connery in my mind. Brosnan is widely under-rated as an actor. I also
> >> think that the last two films, "Die Another Day" and "The World Is Not
> >> Enough" are the best of the series since 1969.
> >>
> >
> > Could not possibly disagree more. DAD was an appalling film, worse than
> > even Never Say Never Again. Brosnan has absolutely none of Connery's
> > presence and grace, and the Bond scripts since Goldeneye have been
> > abysmal. DAD was a lifeless, humourless parody of the golden age of
> > 007. Even the music was awful.
>
>
> Well...it did have an invisible car...

Exactly! That makes up one of the twenty reasons not to watch it.
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274612 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 19:36
Al Smith  
> "While I agree PB was good in the role, a fifth film would not have
> brought
> him anywhere near the status of SC as Bond. Box office receipts aside,
> he
> always seemed to be "acting" as Bond, whereas SC was a more natural
> fit. "
>
> __________________
>
> Brilliant post, Will, and Pierce actually sort of confirmed that in one
> of his post-DAD interviews where he said he never got a complete handle
> on the character. This is what Pierce said:
>
> "Brosnan: All the movies made money. Creatively, maybe, they could have
> been stronger, but they were Bond movies, and they advanced a certain
> degree out of the dolddrums where they had been. They were tricky to
> do. I never really felt as as though I nailed it. As soon as they put
> me into a suit and tie and gave me those lines of dialogue, I felt
> restricted. It was like the same old same old. I was doing Roger Moore
> doing Sean Connery doing George Lazenby. I felt as if I were doing a
> period piece dusted off. They never really took the risks they should
> have. [...] It would have been great to light up and smoke cigarettes,
> for instance. It would have been great to have the killing a little
> more real and not wussed down. My boys watch the movies on DVD, so I
> see them from time to time. I see myself with nowhere to go, and it's
> all rather bland. "
>
>>From his last Playboy interview.

Interesting comment from Brosnan. It must have been given at a
time when he was disillusioned with the whole Bond process. I
guess everyone gets burned out on things they do long enough.
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274614 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 22:17
Will Traynor  
"Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
news:WWldg.326$Kg7.93 [at] edtnps82...
>> "While I agree PB was good in the role, a fifth film would not have
>> brought
>> him anywhere near the status of SC as Bond. Box office receipts aside,
>> he
>> always seemed to be "acting" as Bond, whereas SC was a more natural
>> fit. "
>>
>> __________________
>>
>> Brilliant post, Will, and Pierce actually sort of confirmed that in one
>> of his post-DAD interviews where he said he never got a complete handle
>> on the character. This is what Pierce said:
>>
>> "Brosnan: All the movies made money. Creatively, maybe, they could have
>> been stronger, but they were Bond movies, and they advanced a certain
>> degree out of the dolddrums where they had been. They were tricky to
>> do. I never really felt as as though I nailed it. As soon as they put
>> me into a suit and tie and gave me those lines of dialogue, I felt
>> restricted. It was like the same old same old. I was doing Roger Moore
>> doing Sean Connery doing George Lazenby. I felt as if I were doing a
>> period piece dusted off. They never really took the risks they should
>> have. [...] It would have been great to light up and smoke cigarettes,
>> for instance. It would have been great to have the killing a little
>> more real and not wussed down. My boys watch the movies on DVD, so I
>> see them from time to time. I see myself with nowhere to go, and it's
>> all rather bland. "
>>
>>>From his last Playboy interview.
>
> Interesting comment from Brosnan. It must have been given at a time when
> he was disillusioned with the whole Bond process. I guess everyone gets
> burned out on things they do long enough.

That is an interesting interview, by the sounds of it. I've never read it,
but it does confirm a bit of what I said about PB. I've always believed that
PB was better than the material given to him.
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274619 ] Fr, 26 Mai 2006 04:48
Eric Grayson  
In article <d7mdnTVdYopawO_Z4p2dnA [at] comcast.com>, Tom Zielinski
<rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Pierce Brosnan was excellent in the role of James Bond. He was the best
> thing about the four 007 films he was in and I'd easily agree, the best Bond
> since Connery. In fact, had Brosnan done one more (his fifth) and turned in
> as good a performance as his four prior films, he just might have surpassed
> Connery in my mind. Brosnan is widely under-rated as an actor. I also
> think that the last two films, "Die Another Day" and "The World Is Not
> Enough" are the best of the series since 1969.

Wow, a real mixed bag of things there. Die Another Day (in at least
the post-Cuba scenes) doesn't really meet the qualification of being a
new Bond film because by definition and intent it was simply cobbled
together from bits of old films.

TWINE I only saw once, but it had some moments.

The problem I consistently have with the Brosnan films is that there is
no characterization in them at all. Someone else here carped that
Carver in TND isn't a believable villain. Well, he's not. And it's
not that he couldn't have been, but he's given no screen time to
develop his character. Jonathan Pryce is one of the best living screen
actors IMHO and if he couldn't force a great Bond villain out of that
screenplay, it wasn't his fault.

Brosnan never got a chance to do a real Bond film. All his films were
rebound-investment films from the 80s. I've said this before, but it's
being nailed home even more of late (given other threads): the 80s
Bonds got cheaper and cheaper to match their diminishing returns. MGM
had a lot staked on Goldeneye. It got them solvent again and it made
them an attractive takeover target for Columbia. The went from being a
studio with almost nothing (no physical studios, no big properties,
only Bond and a backlog of films in their library) to a place where
fairly innovative creative stuff started happening in the late 90s.

That was brought in on Bond's back. EON played it safe and gave the
audience what it wanted. Again, I've said this before: if you always
give the audience what it wants, the audience will outgrow what you
thought it wanted. If you work for art's sake, you may not give the
audience anything resembling what it wants.

Brosnan was great as a performer, but never got a chance to stretch. I
still place him a peg below Dalton. Brosnan is very underrated as an
actor, much more of a versatile actor than Connery, but no one but
Connery has ever been able to pull off the smartass charm of Bond
without making him into a joke. Just the opening few minutes of a
sub-par Connery (DAF) has more little subtle acting things going on in
it than most Moore films combined. On the other hand, Connery won the
Oscar for one of his worst performances (in The Untouchables, where he
proved he can't do an Irish accent, something that Brosnan can do with
no problem.) [Connery deserved the Oscar for the film he'd done the
previous year, The Name of the Rose, but that's another story.]

It's pretty clear that Casino Royale is going to be a BIG departure
from the series. EON isn't in a make-or-break position with Sony right
now (they're solvent), so they can afford to take a risk.

As much as some will defend him, Craig looks nothing like a traditional
Bond. He's got that going against him no matter what. Can it be
overcome? Sure, if he's a great actor he can pull it off. Anthony
Hopkins is a short, balding, somewhat heavy-ish, British guy and he
played an extremely credible Zorro. If you'd told me that Hopkins
would be a great Zorro before I saw the film I'd have laughed in your
face. As it stands, I think he was better than Antonio Banderas.

Will the audience be getting what it wants? I don't know. Audiences
are fickle. I think part of the problem with Dalton's Bond is that the
audience really was jazzed to see Brosnan in the role and was
disappointed to see Dalton get the part. That wasn't Dalton's fault;
it's just something he had to live with. I see Craig with the same
problem. Due to some clever use of the press, I see that a lot of
people are disappointed that Brosnan didn't return to the role.

Is this a problem? I dunno. It might be. It might not be.

As it stands, EON is taking a risk with:
a) A new Bond
b) A more serious direction for the series.
c) Dropping some old series continuity.

If this pays off, it will pay off big and Brosnan will be forgotten in
2 years. If it doesn't, you can bet your sweet bippy that
Sony/Columbia will be calling Pierce "I told you I'd do one more"
Brosnan for any price in about a year.

It remains to be seen. Personally, I wish they'd dropped Moore earlier
than they did. FYEO would have been a good one to go out on; Octopussy
was fun, but AVTAK was imbecilic. I wish Dalton and Lazenby had done a
couple more each. I wish Brosnan had done at least one more.

Craig? I have no idea. I haven't seen him in the part, so I don't
know what he can do with it.

Eric (still rambling but a little less feverish and probably going away
again for a while soon...)





> I was truly disappointed Brosnan was not brought back for a fifth film and
> still don't quite understand why he was not. That said, I think Daniel
> Craig's casting and the new direction of the series are inspired decisions.
>
> Here's prognosticating that "Casino Royale" will be a kick-ass film and
> hugely successful at the box-office.
>
>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> Her Majesty's Secret Servant
> www.hmss.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274623 ] Fr, 26 Mai 2006 22:37
Jabei  
Eric - I have to disagree with your assesment of Brosnan's acting ability.
His 'serious' acting movies - Grey Owl & Evelyn are not really anywhere near
the calibre of, say, The Hill & The Offence. It;s true that Connery got a
bit lazy towards the end of his career but since Bond he has done many &
varied roles...some just getting by on his charisma (I agree with you about
Untouchables) but others with very strong performances. I think Brosnan's
career is some serious trouble...Virtually every film he has made outside of
Bond has flopped....Unless he does something that people actually want to
see, I think he may disappear just as the other Bonds have.


"Eric Grayson" <filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:250520062241354872%filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net...
> In article <d7mdnTVdYopawO_Z4p2dnA [at] comcast.com>, Tom Zielinski
> <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Pierce Brosnan was excellent in the role of James Bond. He was the best
>> thing about the four 007 films he was in and I'd easily agree, the best
>> Bond
>> since Connery. In fact, had Brosnan done one more (his fifth) and turned
>> in
>> as good a performance as his four prior films, he just might have
>> surpassed
>> Connery in my mind. Brosnan is widely under-rated as an actor. I also
>> think that the last two films, "Die Another Day" and "The World Is Not
>> Enough" are the best of the series since 1969.
>
> Wow, a real mixed bag of things there. Die Another Day (in at least
> the post-Cuba scenes) doesn't really meet the qualification of being a
> new Bond film because by definition and intent it was simply cobbled
> together from bits of old films.
>
> TWINE I only saw once, but it had some moments.
>
> The problem I consistently have with the Brosnan films is that there is
> no characterization in them at all. Someone else here carped that
> Carver in TND isn't a believable villain. Well, he's not. And it's
> not that he couldn't have been, but he's given no screen time to
> develop his character. Jonathan Pryce is one of the best living screen
> actors IMHO and if he couldn't force a great Bond villain out of that
> screenplay, it wasn't his fault.
>
> Brosnan never got a chance to do a real Bond film. All his films were
> rebound-investment films from the 80s. I've said this before, but it's
> being nailed home even more of late (given other threads): the 80s
> Bonds got cheaper and cheaper to match their diminishing returns. MGM
> had a lot staked on Goldeneye. It got them solvent again and it made
> them an attractive takeover target for Columbia. The went from being a
> studio with almost nothing (no physical studios, no big properties,
> only Bond and a backlog of films in their library) to a place where
> fairly innovative creative stuff started happening in the late 90s.
>
> That was brought in on Bond's back. EON played it safe and gave the
> audience what it wanted. Again, I've said this before: if you always
> give the audience what it wants, the audience will outgrow what you
> thought it wanted. If you work for art's sake, you may not give the
> audience anything resembling what it wants.
>
> Brosnan was great as a performer, but never got a chance to stretch. I
> still place him a peg below Dalton. Brosnan is very underrated as an
> actor, much more of a versatile actor than Connery, but no one but
> Connery has ever been able to pull off the smartass charm of Bond
> without making him into a joke. Just the opening few minutes of a
> sub-par Connery (DAF) has more little subtle acting things going on in
> it than most Moore films combined. On the other hand, Connery won the
> Oscar for one of his worst performances (in The Untouchables, where he
> proved he can't do an Irish accent, something that Brosnan can do with
> no problem.) [Connery deserved the Oscar for the film he'd done the
> previous year, The Name of the Rose, but that's another story.]
>
> It's pretty clear that Casino Royale is going to be a BIG departure
> from the series. EON isn't in a make-or-break position with Sony right
> now (they're solvent), so they can afford to take a risk.
>
> As much as some will defend him, Craig looks nothing like a traditional
> Bond. He's got that going against him no matter what. Can it be
> overcome? Sure, if he's a great actor he can pull it off. Anthony
> Hopkins is a short, balding, somewhat heavy-ish, British guy and he
> played an extremely credible Zorro. If you'd told me that Hopkins
> would be a great Zorro before I saw the film I'd have laughed in your
> face. As it stands, I think he was better than Antonio Banderas.
>
> Will the audience be getting what it wants? I don't know. Audiences
> are fickle. I think part of the problem with Dalton's Bond is that the
> audience really was jazzed to see Brosnan in the role and was
> disappointed to see Dalton get the part. That wasn't Dalton's fault;
> it's just something he had to live with. I see Craig with the same
> problem. Due to some clever use of the press, I see that a lot of
> people are disappointed that Brosnan didn't return to the role.
>
> Is this a problem? I dunno. It might be. It might not be.
>
> As it stands, EON is taking a risk with:
> a) A new Bond
> b) A more serious direction for the series.
> c) Dropping some old series continuity.
>
> If this pays off, it will pay off big and Brosnan will be forgotten in
> 2 years. If it doesn't, you can bet your sweet bippy that
> Sony/Columbia will be calling Pierce "I told you I'd do one more"
> Brosnan for any price in about a year.
>
> It remains to be seen. Personally, I wish they'd dropped Moore earlier
> than they did. FYEO would have been a good one to go out on; Octopussy
> was fun, but AVTAK was imbecilic. I wish Dalton and Lazenby had done a
> couple more each. I wish Brosnan had done at least one more.
>
> Craig? I have no idea. I haven't seen him in the part, so I don't
> know what he can do with it.
>
> Eric (still rambling but a little less feverish and probably going away
> again for a while soon...)
>
>
>
>
>
>> I was truly disappointed Brosnan was not brought back for a fifth film
>> and
>> still don't quite understand why he was not. That said, I think Daniel
>> Craig's casting and the new direction of the series are inspired
>> decisions.
>>
>> Here's prognosticating that "Casino Royale" will be a kick-ass film and
>> hugely successful at the box-office.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Zielinski
>> Her Majesty's Secret Servant
>> www.hmss.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274629 ] Sa, 27 Mai 2006 04:11
freemont  
On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:37:23 +0100, Jabei wrote:

> Eric - I have to disagree with your assesment of Brosnan's acting ability.
> His 'serious' acting movies - Grey Owl & Evelyn are not really anywhere
> near the calibre of, say, The Hill & The Offence. It;s true that Connery
> got a bit lazy towards the end of his career but since Bond he has done
> many & varied roles...some just getting by on his charisma (I agree with
> you about Untouchables) but others with very strong performances. I think
> Brosnan's career is some serious trouble...Virtually every film he has
> made outside of Bond has flopped....Unless he does something that people
> actually want to see, I think he may disappear just as the other Bonds
> have.

He won't "disappear", as long as he takes good roles, as he has.

box_offife != acting_ability

--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`ˇ.¸¸.ˇ´¯`ˇ-> freemontŠ <-ˇ´¯`ˇ.¸¸.ˇ´¯
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274630 ] Sa, 27 Mai 2006 04:13
freemont  
On Fri, 26 May 2006 22:11:34 -0400, freemont wrote:

> On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:37:23 +0100, Jabei wrote:
>
>> Eric - I have to disagree with your assesment of Brosnan's acting
>> ability. His 'serious' acting movies - Grey Owl & Evelyn are not really
>> anywhere near the calibre of, say, The Hill & The Offence. It;s true
>> that Connery got a bit lazy towards the end of his career but since Bond
>> he has done many & varied roles...some just getting by on his charisma
>> (I agree with you about Untouchables) but others with very strong
>> performances. I think Brosnan's career is some serious
>> trouble...Virtually every film he has made outside of Bond has
>> flopped....Unless he does something that people actually want to see, I
>> think he may disappear just as the other Bonds have.
>
> He won't "disappear", as long as he takes good roles, as he has.
>
> box_offife != acting_ability

rather
box_office != acting_ability

damn_beer()

--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`ˇ.¸¸.ˇ´¯`ˇ-> freemontŠ <-ˇ´¯`ˇ.¸¸.ˇ´¯
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274639 ] Sa, 27 Mai 2006 13:29
Jabei  
You have to have a hit every now & then to get people to still hire you.


"freemont" <yabba [at] dabba.doo> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.27.02.13.43.854755 [at] dabba.doo...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 22:11:34 -0400, freemont wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:37:23 +0100, Jabei wrote:
>>
>>> Eric - I have to disagree with your assesment of Brosnan's acting
>>> ability. His 'serious' acting movies - Grey Owl & Evelyn are not really
>>> anywhere near the calibre of, say, The Hill & The Offence. It;s true
>>> that Connery got a bit lazy towards the end of his career but since Bond
>>> he has done many & varied roles...some just getting by on his charisma
>>> (I agree with you about Untouchables) but others with very strong
>>> performances. I think Brosnan's career is some serious
>>> trouble...Virtually every film he has made outside of Bond has
>>> flopped....Unless he does something that people actually want to see, I
>>> think he may disappear just as the other Bonds have.
>>
>> He won't "disappear", as long as he takes good roles, as he has.
>>
>> box_offife != acting_ability
>
> rather
> box_office != acting_ability
>
> damn_beer()
>
> --
> "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
> ¯`ˇ.¸¸.ˇ´¯`ˇ-> freemontŠ <-ˇ´¯`ˇ.¸¸.ˇ´¯
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274640 ] Sa, 27 Mai 2006 13:38
Mac  
Jabei wrote:

> You have to have a hit every now & then to get people to still hire
> you.

You know, there's a story going around Hollywood at the moment that
Gene Hackman isn't being offered work. Hackman apparently said as
much on a recent chat show. GENE HACKMAN? One of the finest screen
actors on the planet?

Astonishing....
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of a Dutch side of nearly-men at the World Cup."
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274644 ] Sa, 27 Mai 2006 18:06
Eric Grayson  
In article <4dqs2tF1ant5nU1 [at] individual.net>, Mac
<see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote:

> Jabei wrote:
>
> > You have to have a hit every now & then to get people to still hire
> > you.
>
> You know, there's a story going around Hollywood at the moment that
> Gene Hackman isn't being offered work. Hackman apparently said as
> much on a recent chat show. GENE HACKMAN? One of the finest screen
> actors on the planet?

Gene Hackman truly is one of the finest screen actors on the planet.
If they cast him as Bond, he'd find a way to pull it off. I find him
endlessly enjoyable to watch.

Eric (running a special show of Hoosiers next week)
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274646 ] Sa, 27 Mai 2006 19:15
Rich Handley  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> said:
>GENE HACKMAN? One of the finest screen actors on the planet?

Were you actually channeling Hackman as Lex Luthor just now -- "Lex Luthor?
Extinguish one of the finest criminal minds of our age?" -- or is that just
a cool coincidence? :)
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274649 ] Sa, 27 Mai 2006 20:48
Mac  
Rich Handley wrote:

> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> said:
>> GENE HACKMAN? One of the finest screen actors on the planet?
>
> Were you actually channeling Hackman as Lex Luthor just now -- "Lex
> Luthor? Extinguish one of the finest criminal minds of our age?" --
> or is that just a cool coincidence? :)

LMAO!
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of a Kelly Clarkson U-turn."
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274651 ] So, 28 Mai 2006 01:45
The Shadow  
Rich Handley wrote:
> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> said:
>> GENE HACKMAN? One of the finest screen actors on the planet?
>
> Were you actually channeling Hackman as Lex Luthor just now -- "Lex Luthor?
> Extinguish one of the finest criminal minds of our age?" -- or is that just
> a cool coincidence? :)
>




I think I'll go with Kevin Spacey on this one...


http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2495.html
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274658 ] So, 28 Mai 2006 03:17
Rich Handley  
The Shadow <miehls [at] bright.net> said:
>I think I'll go with Kevin Spacey on this one...
>http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2495.html

Wow, this looks REALLY good!
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274683 ] Mo, 29 Mai 2006 05:21
Absorb  
Rich Handley wrote:
> The Shadow <miehls [at] bright.net> said:
>> I think I'll go with Kevin Spacey on this one...
>> http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2495.html
>
> Wow, this looks REALLY good!

"But you're going to kill millions of people."
"Billions!"

Dude, even if I thought Superman Returns was going to suck, (which I
don't), I'd see it because of those two lines.

Absorb
----------------------------------
gives X3 two stars
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #274688 ] Mo, 29 Mai 2006 15:03
Rich Handley  
Absorb <rubylustre [at] yahoo.com> said:
>Rich Handley wrote:
>> The Shadow <miehls [at] bright.net> said:
>>> I think I'll go with Kevin Spacey on this one...
>>> http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2495.html
>> Wow, this looks REALLY good!
>"But you're going to kill millions of people."
>"Billions!"
>Dude, even if I thought Superman Returns was going to suck, (which I
>don't), I'd see it because of those two lines.

Agreed! I always had high hopes for this one, and it was Spacey as Luthor
that made me the most excited.
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #283640 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 15:39
phil.gerrard1  
Eric Grayson wrote:

> If this pays off, it will pay off big and Brosnan will be forgotten in
> 2 years. If it doesn't, you can bet your sweet bippy that
> Sony/Columbia will be calling Pierce "I told you I'd do one more"
> Brosnan for any price in about a year.

Well, this certainly appears to be the favoured outcome for some in the
anti-Craig camp, and to be honest the prospect terrifies me. I liked
Brosnan a lot, and would have been happy to see him do one, maybe even
two more before stepping down from the role - which would most likely
have happened in either 2006 or 2007. However, the idea of Brosnan
returning in 2008, most likely in a film which would be tailored to
restore the outlandishness which CR is trying to avoid, doesn't bear
thinking about.

Being realistic, CR probably won't do as well at the box-office as DAD
- after a mega-hit like that, sometimes the only way is down. I just
hope that the powers that be don't flinch as a result, and that as long
as the film turns a healthy enough profit, they'll stick to their guns.
We've been here a few times before, we've seen what happens when the
Bond series attempts to backtrack after negative reactions to bold
choices, and we've seen how the films turn out when a formerly popular
Bond is tempted back to the role for the promise of one last fat
paycheque. The results have been pretty unpleasant on every occasion,
and in one case led the series into creative doldrums from which it
took years to recover.

I'm not saying that I think CR will be another OHMSS, but I strongly
suspect that a Brosnan-led Bond 22 would be a spiritual heir to DAF,
and that's the last thing the Bond series needs IMHO.

Best

Phil
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #283647 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 17:43
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> You know, there's a story going around Hollywood at the moment that
> Gene Hackman isn't being offered work. Hackman apparently said as
> much on a recent chat show. GENE HACKMAN? One of the finest screen
> actors on the planet?
>
> Astonishing....

A quick peek at IMDB reveals that he hasn't done anything since
'Welcome to Mooseport' ('04) and that his only upcoming project is a
voice-over for the 'Dirty Harry' video game, playing Harry's boss
Bressler. The guy who played Popeye Doyle reduced to the role of a
long-suffering functionary - astonishing and depressing indeed.

Best

Phil

Catching up slow again...
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #283651 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 21:39
Roderick Stewart  
In article <1149694997.651326.67960 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
> > You know, there's a story going around Hollywood at the moment that
> > Gene Hackman isn't being offered work. Hackman apparently said as
> > much on a recent chat show. GENE HACKMAN? One of the finest screen
> > actors on the planet?
> >
> > Astonishing....
>
> A quick peek at IMDB reveals that he hasn't done anything since
> 'Welcome to Mooseport' ('04) and that his only upcoming project is a
> voice-over for the 'Dirty Harry' video game, playing Harry's boss
> Bressler. The guy who played Popeye Doyle reduced to the role of a
> long-suffering functionary - astonishing and depressing indeed.

It also says he's 76 years old. Perhaps he just wants some peace and
quiet, as most of us would do at that age. What's the point od spendig a
lifetime as a movie superstar earning all that money if you can't sit
back and enjoy it?

Rod.
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #283663 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 03:36
phil.gerrard1  
Roderick wrote re Hackman:

> It also says he's 76 years old. Perhaps he just wants some peace and
> quiet, as most of us would do at that age. What's the point od spendig a
> lifetime as a movie superstar earning all that money if you can't sit
> back and enjoy it?

Of course, if that's what Hackman really does want, then why not?
However, I was picking up on Mac's point that the man himself had
reportedly said on a chat show that he wasn't getting jobs offered to
him, which would suggest to me that he doesn't want to retire just yet.

Best

Phil
Re: James Bond trailer released [message #283666 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 04:11
Al Smith  
>>It also says he's 76 years old. Perhaps he just wants some peace and
>>> quiet, as most of us would do at that age. What's the point od spendig a
>>> lifetime as a movie superstar earning all that money if you can't sit
>>> back and enjoy it?
>
>
> Of course, if that's what Hackman really does want, then why not?
> However, I was picking up on Mac's point that the man himself had
> reportedly said on a chat show that he wasn't getting jobs offered to
> him, which would suggest to me that he doesn't want to retire just yet.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>

Once an actor passes a certain point, he's not considered as a
leading man any longer. He's an old man, and he'd better be able
to do character parts or he's out of work. I would think Hackman
would get parts because he's one of America's greatest actors, and
he can lose himself in a role.
Vorheriges Thema:Belated reaction to the trailer / poster / clips / photos / script reviews / recent news
Nächstes Thema:Phil?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 08:11:04 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05254 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered