Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Reconception for JAMES BOND... Using Wong Kar Wai and Clive Owen

I agree. by Darth Pixel	May 30th, 2001 04:24:31 PM
But, I am easy on Brosnan. Look at the shoes he has to fill. In my opinion, no one could fill those shoes... easily. He hasn't tried hard enough. and, the idea of "Americanizing" Bond is wrong. Don't fuck this up any more than they already have, please. Give us the old Bond. And, better villains.
1? by scanlon	May 30th, 2001 04:24:43 PM

FIRST to say---Right F***king On Harry!... by Randfilms	May 30th, 2001 04:26:58 PM
I can't believe the answer is right here on my computer. I watch the BMWFILMS.COM films all the time. Over and over. (like Frankenheimer's and Wai's the best so far). Clive Owen was superb in CRUPPIER (sp?) and to have him be James Bond with a Director with a sole directing (Harry's said nominations are excellent)-- would be... Well, too much to hope for. Amorres Perros, Any Wong Kar-Wai film and both Guy Ritchie films are so cool that to do that to Bond would be-- well, wishful thinking. But I sure wish so... -Randfilms
Better yet... by Darth Pixel	May 30th, 2001 04:27:43 PM
a Bond musical. Could you see it? Old Jimbo' doing a song and dance number, "Putting on the Ritz". And, slap Kate Capshaw in there, too. Anything goes! Then, BOOM! Big explosion. I would pay to see that.
amazing idea, harry! by Giant Fish	May 30th, 2001 04:29:41 PM
I may be one of the very few people in the world whose first exposure to Bond was Fleming's novels. And the man in those books was never the same as the man on the silver screen. For the true Bond aficionado, the direction you're describing sounds like a dream. Unfortunately, it'll never happen. For forty years now, Bond has been a product rather than a character. The Bond of the movies will stay as hollow as he has always been.
me too!!! by Jackalo	May 30th, 2001 04:38:50 PM
Didn't read it but i agree. Let's do lunch Harry.
Give em hell, Harry!!! by Doctor Gonzo	May 30th, 2001 04:39:34 PM
Maybe MGM will finally wake up!!!!
not gonna happen by scanlon	May 30th, 2001 04:46:12 PM
sorry about that useless 1st thing. just had to do it once... anyway, i agree with harry and i think anyone whose seen these bmw films has probably been thinking the same thing. and WKW's new one The Follow is a knock out. the best yet i think for these really interesting shorts. BUT mgm would never go for harry's idea. Never!!! the word in the wind is brett ratner up for director. i think his camp has lobbied hard for him to do it. and i doubt the broccoli family would go for it but it shows where MGM is thinking. mgm is NEVER going to fuck with a formula for their ONLY cash cow. we the readers of this site think its a great idea. we would love to see that movie. we know how good it would be. but a lot of people have not been exposed to that and wouldn't expect or want it from a bond movie. im not sure of all that goes on at MGM. they appear to be giving woo's Windtalkers a hard time and they just don't make a lot of successful movies except for hannibal (yuch!) or risky ones. Heartbreakers, anyone? bless ya, harry for the daydream wishes. it would be a dream come true to have WKW direct a movie for james bond but i dont think he would. I heard a rumour that cruise chased WKW for MI2 and he turned it down. the best we can hope for is clive owen. i think hes got a shot at being bond.
Agree! by SamWave	May 30th, 2001 04:55:00 PM
The Fleming Bond novels are less about violence, and more about plot development. Bond always seemed to have his problems. Drinking was a big one, I think. He felt worn out sometimes, not always ready to jump thirty feet out of a boat onto a rising hot air baloon, and rarely did anything like that anyway. He was an average guy who happened to work for the government as a spy. Well, sort of.
Ewan McGregor should be Bond. by JFSebastian	May 30th, 2001 04:56:07 PM
Do like a James Bond early years type of movie. Set before the Connery ones.
Back before Goldeneye... by Darth Pixel	May 30th, 2001 05:00:08 PM
I had heard a rumor about an upcoming James Bond film. A friend of mine had told me that James Bond was making a comeback. Keep in mind that this was before Goldeneye. If I am not mistaken, the name was "Here Today, Gone Tomorrow". Or "Gone Today, Here Tomorrow". Was this a working title for Goldeneye? It seems to fit. 006, supposedly dead, yet he comes back and becomes the villian. I don't remember much of what it was about, but Goldeneye didn't ring any bells when I watched it. I mean, it didn't sound like what my buddy told me. Anyone know if this was Goldeneye? Or, was it a whole other film that never got made?
Yeah, but... by LiquidNitrate	May 30th, 2001 05:07:04 PM
MGM has a big dumb successful corporate franchise going with 007. Mediocre, but it's their life-preserver. If they don't think it's broken, why are they going to go `small and smart and classy' in an era of big-dumb? The BRETT RATNER idea -- as hideous as it is -- makes sense when you consider the money-demographic MGM is aiming at... BOYS. Nintendo-Playstation-playing hip-hop-thrash-listening WWF-watching Ritalin-addicted multicultural suburban boys with too much allowance overflowing their chain-linked board-short-bulging wallets. That's where synergy enables MGM to cash in. Hence the temptation of the Brett Ratner urban "aesthetic." All those modern Bond product tie-ins for the GQ/Esquire crowd, all the marketing hype advertising terrible Bond movies like WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH... they draw the old macho crowd for nostalgia (hoping not to get disappointed again), and the young boys for the videogame action (and Denise Richards). Even though the Brosnan 007 movies are mediocre and barely satisfy, they keep MGM afloat. TRUE, MGM is spending hundreds of millions in excess to barely break even on Bond (esp. when all their other product sucks red ink) but for now they know the franchise works well enough. That's all that matters to them. You're asking for serious huevos to rock the boat. I don't think anybody at MGM has the guts to risk what you're suggesting. And neither does Barbara BROCCOLI - she's stuck with Brosnan even while he spouts silly ideas like doing a Bond version of each genre, i.e. 007 into a horror-slasher story. (Ugh) And as for the idea you suggest about telling stories in the 60's and 70's era, WHY? Why can't Bond deal with semi-serious current-events issues? At least that way each movie seems somewhat relevant to the era in which it was created. I agree with you that the series could be improved, and I agree that Brosnan's 007 ouvre has been weak, but so far the BEST I've seen was the first 30 minutes of GOLDENEYE, wherein Martin Campbell, Eric Serra, Michael France & co. delivered the most stylish, sophisticated, and energetic glimpses we've ever had of Bond. That first half-hour of Goldeneye rocked. Since then we've experienced some pretty cinematography (TOMORROW NEVER DIES) and much mediocrity including the worst Bond theme songs in memory (Sheryl Crow and Garbage via David Arnold)... I wish every Bond could be as fun as DR. NO, THUNDERBALL, Spy Who Loved Me etc., and I wish every Bond theme song could be as cool as Duran Duran's VIEW TO A KILL, but I expect Broccoli to continue delivering lukewarm crap of the Michael Apted variety.
It's not Brosnan's fault by Hardyboy	May 30th, 2001 05:08:56 PM
Harry, Harry, Harry. . .you like Brosnan, other critics and audiences like Brosnan, and you think that if he leaves the Bond series the films will become better? Isn't it more the case that Brosnan needs better writers and directors to support his otherwise good interpretation of the character? I have to disagree with you about a LOT of things here, dude. For one thing, the cinematic Bond became a "superhero" AT LEAST as early as Thunderball and possibly even in Goldfinger. Like it or not, the movie Bond has pretty much ALWAYS been more outsized and outlandish than the Fleming character. . .if Brosnan were to humanize him more, audiences may be able to accept it; but if a NEW actor came in with a radically different portrayal of the character, audiences are likely to feel alienated (see Dalton, T.: Licence to Kill). I also don't get why you want the Bond series to become more like Hong Kong action films. They did that in Tomorrow Never Dies, which was by far the weakest of Brosnan's three films--Michelle Yeoh's performance aside. I want to see the films return to the more cerebral, mysterious tone they had in the 60s. . .I don't want to see action followed by more action followed by even more action. Finally. . .John Frankenheimer?? His best film was The Manchurian Candidate, which he made nearly FORTY years ago! Sheesh, at least suggest someone more cutting edge.
Well, duh by epitone	May 30th, 2001 05:12:33 PM
No doubt about it, Clive Owen is Bond. He even looks like the pictures they drew on the book covers before anyone knew the name Sean Connery. And, oh yeah--fun fact: when Tomorrow Never Dies came out, Harry said it was the best Bond film since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Guess things change.
I Would Hesitate To Characterize the Brosnan Films As Awful! by RightWing Dude	May 30th, 2001 05:21:27 PM
With The Exception of TOMMOROW NEVER DIES, I Have Liked The Brosnan Movies but Harry did make some good points! The problem with them (unfortunately) is that most audiences would refuse to accept Bond as anything other than a superhero & that has been reflected in box-office returns (ON HER MAJESTIES SECRET SERVICE, LICENCE TO KILL). I too would like to see Bond the way Fleming envisioned him but the franchise has evolved to the point where such a portrayal would be impossible. Harry is way out of league saying that Brosnan's Bonds have been the worst of the series especially in comparision to THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN & MOONRAKER (the latter which you listed as better than Brosnan's films-what are you on Harry?)
I he wasn't flamingly gay I'd cast Rupert Everett as bond. by Batutta	May 30th, 2001 05:25:48 PM
I really don't think there's any way to revive this franchise...Let's just move on, get some new characters, some new ideas for God's sake.
The problem is Michael G. Wilson... by Uncapie	May 30th, 2001 05:27:11 PM
...it HAS to be his idea or it won't be a good Bond film. It HAS to come from him. I already went this route with my own Bond script(And yes, Clive Owen would make a perfect Bond!) with my agent and Danjaq trying to get them to listen to an infusion of new ideas and new blood, but they wouldn't listen. He's killed the franchise. The fans want a new Bond and a new adventure they can sink their teeth into and all we get is the same old shit. Bond could hump the Queen Mother while the Elephant Man watches and I still wouldn't go see it.
John Gardner & Jonny Lee Miller by LiquidNitrate	May 30th, 2001 05:28:10 PM
Has anybody here read the last few John Gardner 007 novels? How do they compare with Fleming's style, as far as dealing with traditional Bond espionage mystery in contemporary settings? Any of them strong enough to base new movies on? Any of them deal with legit emotion and character relationships (i.e. genuine drama?) This type of material is the stuff that World is Not Enough was SUPPOSED to deal with, but obviously didn't. If any of the more recent Gardner 007 novels deal with good Bond stories, I wouldn't mind seeing Luc Besson direct one, or perhaps someone from the new generation of stylish directors like John Mattson / Joseph Kahn. As for casting, while Clive Owen is classic, MGM/Broccoli should also consider M's real-life grandson Jonny Lee Miller, who co-starred in Trainspotting and Mansfield Park. He's never done anything big-budget before, but since his mate Ewan MacGregor "sold out" to join the Star Wars universe, maybe Miller would do likewise for this one expception. That way his career could afford to continue exploring low-budget fare since his name would bring enhanced marquee value.
Goldeneye by Jack Action	May 30th, 2001 05:28:18 PM
Goldeneye is by far the best of the Brosnan Bond films. Other than the ending where 006 is not dead from the fall, Martin Campbell did a wonderful job of creating a brilliant Bond film. Goldeneye has all the elements of a great Bond film and is one of my personal favorites alongside Spy who Loved Me and Goldfinger. All Brosnan needs is a script that is solid and a director more interested in telling a good story and not product placement (like Tomorrow Never Dies is just a commercial for BMW) and that will save the setting. Brosnan also had the best idea which is to stop the PG13 Bond and bring about the era of the R rated Bond.
Not a chance, Harry . . . by mascan	May 30th, 2001 05:36:45 PM
The Bond films will NEVER attract big-name directors. Why? Because they know they will NEVER get creative control over the finished product. Why? Because the Broccolis and Eon Productions are CONTROL FREAKS, protecting their precious Bond Formula with their lives. A period Bond film might be an interesting idea, but it would probably have only limited box-office success - the only thing that Eon cares about. Whatever happened to Sony's fight to remake "Casino Royale" with Quentin Tarantino directing? Now that would have been an EXTREMELY interesting idea. The point is, while hiring some REAL writing and directing talent would definitely save the series and make for some great films, this will NEVER happen while Eon owns the sole rights to Bond.
Within the first 5 minutes of Croupier, I knew Clive Owen WAS Ja by PKD	May 30th, 2001 05:47:01 PM
It is the perfect match - and we don't have any pre-conceived notion of thekind of Bond to expect him to be as we did with Remington Brosnan.
Speaking of the Fleming Novels... by Zubalove	May 30th, 2001 05:49:46 PM
Does anyone remember a rumor from a few years ago about Quentin Tarantino wanting direct a "Casino Royale" that was as gritty as the novel? I remember hearing this and thinking a Bond movie like "The French Conection" or something more moody and dark is needed. But then again, what do I know? My favorite Bond flick was Living Daylights so my opinion isn't worth a damn...
but....um..... by WFCall	May 30th, 2001 05:50:49 PM
I personally have hated every Bond since Goldeneye. But the fact of the matter is they have all been huge hits for MGM, and as such they have no reason to monkey with the formula. This is Hollywood and money is still king there...not art. I like your ideas Harry, but I thay have as much a chance of happening as that lame-brained idea from a few years back to have a FEMALE Bond and to let Sharon Stone play the role.
Panama? by Josh897	May 30th, 2001 05:53:31 PM
Whatever made you think the tailor of Panama was the best bond-like character Pierce Brosnan ever portrayed? First of all, his character in Panama is evil, unlike James Bond, and defies and steals from the british gov't, unlike Bond who works for them. I have been one of the few who have seen Panama and generally liked it and his character but dont compare him to Bond, and lay off the Opium
First "The Pirates of the Caribbean..." by zacdilone	May 30th, 2001 05:58:36 PM
...now this. It used to be that the N in AICN stood for "news," now it stands for "non-story editorials." I mean, reading Harry's advice to the film industry is mildly entertaining, but I see these story titles and think they're news, or a scoop, or even a rumor...only to find out they're just Harry's mind farts. Don't get me wrong, I read them and sometimes find them worthy of reflection, but couldn't they go in an "Editorials" section or something...or at least label it as an "Editorial?" No offense, Harry, it just hurts to get my hopes up about Clive Owen only to read paragraph after paragraph of how you know exactly how to fix James Bond.
bond me up, bond me down by aeonflux	May 30th, 2001 06:01:12 PM
Harry, you read my mind. I watched the first two films and had the same immediate conclusion: "I must buy a bmw right now! " Oops, wait, how did that thought get there? Really though, Clive IS Bond. Pierce is a silly goose in comparison.
Rupert Everett IS the best choice! by BigTuna	May 30th, 2001 06:20:01 PM
He's the right age, he's British and a very good actor, also he has the look of a Bond. It's ashame that because he's gay, a lot of people automatically knock him off the list, that has nothing to do with it! He's the best man for the job.
HARRY THOUGHT TND WAS THE BEST BROSNAN BOND fer chrissakes! by Wesley Snipes	May 30th, 2001 06:26:09 PM
Harry complains about the lack of character and realism, yet his fave Brosnan Bond film is Tomorrow Never Dies - By far the most artless and 'mindless action fest'-style Bond so far. I'll tell you the problem with Harry's idea: They turn Bond into a "classy" series of small $30 million dollar films and they'll get a series of critically-praised films grossing only $30-$50 million. Bond films are about ACTION. A huge part of the Bond audience these days is from teens and young adults. They want BIG ACTION. You can't do big action on $30 million anymore (unless they went to Asia/Eastern Europe, hired all foreign crew - That could actually be cool, but I digress). Ronin was cool. It was an intelligent spy thriller with an amazing cast. But it didn't make all that much money and I know quite a few people who think it sucks or is merely a boring film strung together by amazing chases. Who's going to give up a series of guaranteed $100 million+ grossing movies for a series of $50 million grossing ones with slightly more critical praise? Also, two more things: 1) Owen is awesome, but he's not the kind of guy who makes women swoon. Doesn't that mean he's missing one of the basic requirements of Bond? Audiences don't like things to change too much. 2) It's obvious Eon & MGM & Brosnan are already trying to make Bond a bit deeper and more weighty than before, but within the context of the huge action blockbuster (you have to take care of business). He was more human and vulnerable in World is Not Enough than most other films - Hey, wait a minute! Didn't Harry whine that Bond wasn't enough of a unfeeling bad-ass in TWINE? Wouldn't that make him more like the cartoon you're complaining about? *** Bottomline, leave the Bond formula the same. It does not mean you cannot tell a good, entertaining story. If you really want to make a smaller hardcore spy series, then do that! Just don't erase Bond in order to do that. Make a separate series.
Here's an idea... by vanexel711	May 30th, 2001 06:26:59 PM
Let Brosnan have his wish and kill Bond in the next film. This could give all future Bond films a chance for total rebirth; breaking away from the cliches and faded ideologies that Bond has been carrying with him since his character image began to fade.
Ummmm....Yes by Max Fisher Playr	May 30th, 2001 06:38:43 PM
Damn, Harry is on his shit today. That's a great big right on from my side of the street. There hasn't been a good Bond since Connery, and I even grew up loving Roger Moore. The bad thing is that the people at MGM are far too fucking stupid to take head of the fact that they need to scale back and make a movie, not a blockbuster. As Harry pointed out, they still think they are one of the big 4 studios, when they are not competing with anyone. I think that their stock has even fallen below that of Miramax, Artisan, and FineLine who consistently produce quality films. These cats at MGM are just going to keep pumping money into worthless scripts, with second-hand talent until they finally go broke. And while it'll be sad to see the lion go, no one to blame but themselves.
One More Thing by Max Fisher Playr	May 30th, 2001 06:41:56 PM
My vot is Vinnie Jones for Bond. It's about time James put his little .22 away and kicked a little ass, eh?
All I have to say about the BMW film series is..... by J Nasty	May 30th, 2001 06:45:10 PM
The Follow by Wong Kar-Wai is the best thing I've seen this year. What a film. I'm not sure Clive Owen is the man for Bond, but his acting in the follow is amazing. That bar scene in the airport is amazing!
The next Bond should be . . . . . by Mr. Garrison	May 30th, 2001 07:09:42 PM
Spike himself, James Marsters. He has the looks, the charisma, and the sex appeal to pull it off.
Goldeneye was tight! by Bizcotti	May 30th, 2001 07:20:47 PM
I agree the Bond franchise has gone in the crapper. The last few films could not suck more and i could not become excited or feel the material was fresh in any way. Goldeneye was terrific and easily one of my favorite Bonds of all time. It had a great villian ( finally seeing another 00 agent and evil at that), hot women, great action scenes, effective use of humour ( nerdy computer geek getting frozen was priceless). I had high hopes for future Bonds, but have been sorely disappointed.
Doh! by Penny Dreadful	May 30th, 2001 07:30:18 PM
Clive Owen would be a SPECTACULAR choice, no bones about it. He is amazing--and so HOT!! I realize that you fanboys aren't going to say that Bond needs to be good looking (or maybe someone did but I skim), so here I am to say that Owen is perfect, cause he's got that hot, rugged thing down. The accent, the physique, everything. In fact, he seems almost too cool, you know? Jonny Lee Miller, while incredibly hot, would look too babyish, like Bond Jr. I read somewhere that they were considering Catherine Zeta Jones as the next Bond. That would be a welcome change, as well. They do need to overhaul everything, the villains, the plot--bring back Michelle Yeoh!!
Have you people even seen Bond movie? by smokinyoda	May 30th, 2001 07:30:56 PM
First of all, Bond is a super-hero. He always has been. Bond has always had to save the world, and he has always been larger than life, and that is the way we like him. I mean Bond has never been about the story. It's about a simple save-the-world-plot where you can add in scenic locations, hot women, cool cars, bad puns, and sick gadgets that make the Sharper Image look lame. Now honestly, I don't know who this Clive guy is, and he may be a great Bond, so go ahead and sign him. What you never want to do though is make the Bond movies some artsy fartsy crap. It's like TBS's movies for guys who like movies. There is a place for a beautiful character driven story where you really care who the charactrs are, then there is the place where you have a giant with metal teeth knawing at a cable and a woman with the name Pussy Galore. For the love of god, fanboys, don't cheapen the glory of Bond.
Here's the real way to revive Bond by ErikDean	May 30th, 2001 07:34:05 PM
How about casting Sean Connery as the ultimate Bond bad guy? Give him whatever insane amount of money he wants, let him kill Brosnan's Bond. Whatcha think?
bonded by jeff bailey	May 30th, 2001 07:35:29 PM
First off the Follow is a mini masterpiece. But I would expect no less from someone I consider one of the 5 greatest directors in the world. And Clive Owen is not a bad choice for Bond, especially after Brosnan. Though he is a bit humorless. He was fantastic in Croupier (a great film) and is good in the BMW films. I think Harry is a bit hard on Bros who I have been a fan of since I was a kid. I agree the movies havent been perfect but I thought Goldeneye was a great return to form and The World is not Enough had that one dark moment and a great Sophie Marceau performance (Carlyle was wasted). At least Micheal Apted was a solid if not inspired choice. Ratner is an awful choice especially if you want a really smart new Bond. I think a period Bond is a really interesting idea. And of course WKW can do the 60's well. Though I doubt most people would dig his voiceover, handheld camera, and intersecting stories. I heard he was thrown out as a choice for MI 2 and I had a blast imagining how THAT would have been done: Tom Cruise in a crowded HK street, dreaming of the girl from his last mission, suddenly he sees himself(!). Is it an imposter? He's too love sick to care. Maybe McTiernan could do a cool job. Frankly I doubt the Brocolli's are going to fuck with the formula much anyway. Just keep Rat away.
I still favor Jason Issacs for 007 by superninja	May 30th, 2001 07:37:22 PM
But overall, I agree with Harry with one exception: don't bring on some "hot" director. Bring on someone proven who knows how to tell a classic story. I like Guy Ritchie, but I don't think I'd want to see him direct Bond. I've had about all I can take of explosions and set pieces.
What about Rupert Everett? by fantasticx	May 30th, 2001 07:44:31 PM
I think he would make a great Bond. I can't remember what magazine it was (maybe Talk?) that had him do a Bond-like photoshoot, except instead of Bond women, he had Bond men (he's gay for those of you who don't know). Now I don't know if I want to see THAT, but he's just dripping with that suave British style that Bond needs.
Is there a reason why Harry is numero uno nerd around here? yea by Triumph^	May 30th, 2001 07:46:49 PM
here i am the past few days watching Chosen, Ambush, and Follow thinking...wow....here are three glorified bimmer commercials....yet also happen to be directed and cut by world class directors. great use of just about every film technique i can think of, plus the sweet ass sound of a perky high-revving bimmer V-12 or V-8 coming across in digital happiness...very cool. to which is then added the fact that Clive Owen is indeed a classy looking sort of stand-offish rogue of a cool dude...and these 6 minute flicks can move you. so im sitting around thinking about how cool Owen is and how damn smart bwm with this whole short film thingy...and harry comes on and is all about "cast Owen as the next bond". damn the head geek can hit the nail on the head at times....what a great talkback...for me to poop on!!!
TWINE character development by lil' bastard	May 30th, 2001 07:49:29 PM
TWINE had plenty of character development! We saw Bond injured, MI6 HQ blown up from the inside, M captured, the preminiscient departure of Q, Bond kill Electra at point blank range and the death of that Russian mafia guy - cant remember his name(unnecessarily killed I thought - the fact that he had a nephew and cared about him and genuinely wanted to help Bond made him an interesting character/adversary). On the downside, we had Denise Richards as Christmas Jones. She simply could not act at all. She looked stunning, but was worse than Tarntino. I dug the fact that she was a nuclear physicist, but only if she could act a bit bette - or at all. robert Carlyle's character was wasted. OK, so he can feel no pain and has incredible stamina (as stated early on) - so show us already (apart from the hot rocks and glass in the hand). Make him virtually unstoppable. However, he should have been a more physically imposing actor too - a #1 and a scar don't make you a Big Bad. I would also have liked to have seen more of Vulcan's character (he played Electra's bodyguard, Aussies will know who he is). Overall, it wasn;t too bad in terms of character development for Bond, much darker than previous. I really would have liked to have seen Bond go beserk though and just lose it for a second. Maybe next time.
Of course it would work... by superninja	May 30th, 2001 07:51:06 PM
If it said Bond and it was gasp actually a good, solid film, the audience would love it. Of course they could stray from "formula". Broccoli's probably have a checklist of things that must be in the script (no less than 15 explosions, 3 sex scenes and 12 ad placements) Let someone with some sense write and direct these things! Think about it. Bond isn't even clever anymore. He's a robot that goes through the same motions in every film. Brosnan has never had the charisma to pull off this character, only the look. Neither did Timothy Dalton, which is why everyone was incredibly bored by his films. I recently watch the director's commentary on For Your Eyes Only, and Cubby made every Bond film a party, because he believed that if the crew were having fun, so would the audience. Does Brosnan look like he's having any kind of fun to you?
And I still say For Your Eyes Only is the best Bond film. by superninja	May 30th, 2001 08:00:09 PM
A solid action film all on its own. Even Goldfinger, while nostalgic, has its slow moments.
shaken...not stirred by SaintX99	May 30th, 2001 08:04:37 PM
do this, MGM. break the mold, and beat the shit outta the broccolis for creating the crap we've seen thus far. FIRST, gain new insight, develop a darker script that maybe only takes place in one location. Secondly, hire better talent for the supervillan. I personally want to see Nic Cage or Sam Jackson, or !!Sean Connery!! do a Bond Villian. Last, the girl he meets along the way shouldn't be kidnapped, be evil or immediately fall in love with Bond. And please, no more denise richards types. Get someone who can handle the action, and take an active role, maybe a female 00 agent ??(but she cannot be named felicity shagwell)
decadentdave by SaintX99	May 30th, 2001 08:21:16 PM
Lazenby never should have been bond. dalton sucked, too
Why do I even bother? by Hardyboy	May 30th, 2001 08:44:39 PM
Sigh. . .it seems any time the words "James Bond" appear on AICN, out come the Bond-haters and the whackos with weird ideas about who should be Bond. I'll tell ya right now, I am an unadulterated, unabashed, and unashamed James Bond fanboy, and I have been since the late '70s. I go to every film on opening day, I devoured the Fleming novels (gave up on Gardner several years back, and Raymond Benson's books are decent but often shockingly revisionist in his take on the character), and I've read pretty well every book written on the films and the novels. Why? Because I am a James Bond freak. I nearly jumped with joy in 1994 when I learned work was finally being done on a new film, and I want the series to continue. God, it depresses me when I read people bitch about how much they've hated every Bond film since Moore left or since Dalton left (then why watch the damn things?); and how the producers should wise up and listen to their own personal takes on how the films should be made or who should direct them. Whatever the next film is like--no matter who's in it--I'll go see it. If I like it, great. If not, I'll be disappointed but I'll hope the next one will be better. Viva Bond!
FIRST to say---Right Fucking On Harry!... by 0007	May 30th, 2001 08:45:37 PM
Without the stars that is!...
I thought Dalton was underrated. by Wino-Forever	May 30th, 2001 08:47:46 PM
His Bond was darker, more misogynistic, and just a hell of a lot more real than Brosnan's polished, wisecracking prettyboy. Connery, of course, was the king. And say what you will about the Mission:Impossible movies, but at least they've had the balls to go with the director's showcase approach. Thus far.
A quick flight plan to fix the Bond series by KingKrypton	May 30th, 2001 08:51:12 PM
I think a lot of people seem to be missing the boat when they say that the James Bond films need to be rated R in order to be better films. What good would excessive gore, nudity, and profanity do the films? There's no need for the Bond films to be rated R: you can tell a gutsy, ballsy, suspenseful story within the confines of a PG/PG-13 rating. Nicholas Meyer's best known films (TIME AFTER TIME, STAR TREKs II & VI) are proof of this. The real problem with the series is that the scripts stink and the characters have eroded. Every film is almost exactly the same now. That's what's wrong. What needs to be done is a total refocusing on the series. Instead of letting the Broccolis dictate every story idea, shunt them aside and bring in fresh writers who'll give us new perspectives on Bond. Go not only for screenwriters who would be new to the series, but also for writers from other fields. Have novelists, comic book writers (don't laugh, Dark Horse Comics has done Bond books from time to time), TV scribes, and playwrights throw their hats in the ring and experiment with Bond, seeing if they can bring new depth to the character. (Imagine Michael Crichton, Aaron Sorkin, Alan Ball, Clive Cussler, Jeph Loeb, Paul Haggis, Greg Rucka, John McNamara, Raymond Benson, and Peter David--among many others to numerous to name--taking a crack at Bond. We might actually get something worthy of the character from these guys.) Let's actually see some real dramatic interaction between Bond and the MI6 gang instead of the old, tired sniping remarks. Let's break the rigid "weapons/resources stolen" formula and give Bond truly fresh, challenging missions with real-world relevance. (After all, isn't one of the big complaints that the series has been needlessly dated?) Also, said new writers should go out of their way to give Bond proper villains; tycoons and mad military men are as tired as it gets. I'd love to see Bond face off against ballsy, theatrical villains again; right now the villains he's facing couldn't be more boring and un-threatening. Additionally, let's get some real action directors behind the camera. John McTiernan, Martin Scorcese, Steven Spielberg, and John Woo have been well-documented in their desire to take a stab at Bond. Let's get these guys (among many talented others too numerous to name) in there and see where it takes us. Also, I think it might actually help if a few years were knocked off Bond's age. I think a 30-something Bond would be a lot easier to swallow than a guy pushing 50 running around and pulling the stuff he does. Also, lose the bad puns. The Bond films, and Bond himself, to be certain, need a dark, subtle, sophisticated, "wink of an eye" sense of humor. Not dumb plays on words like "I thought Christmas only came once a year." And finally, cast someone as Bond who can actually convey the proper mixture of sex appeal, menace, charm, sophistication, and weakness to human vice. Connery had it, Dalton had it to some extent, but none of the others really did. Brosnan especially, he's too urbane and laidback in the role. It's really simple stuff, but if MGM did this, they could energize the franchise big-time.
The Trouble With Bond by 16mmbadass	May 30th, 2001 09:01:28 PM
Let's talk frankly. What made Bond a franchise was the fantasy. The super-spy was every cubicle-jockey's dream. Bond was the thing to aspire to. He wore the finest clothes, he had a stunning intellect, spoke many languages, knew the exact serving temperature for his drinks, could be at home with poker with the boy's and a mint julep in a sportcoat, or smirk to the waitgirl in his tux playing baccaurat in Monte Carlo. Oh, yeah, and he WASN'T politically correct! He smoked, he screwed, he gambled, he boasted, he made office place suggestions that would make Clarence Thomas blush, and didn't give a damn who didn't like it. It was joe-sixpack's glimpse into the life of a Polo ad. Yes, we need the John McClaine's to remind us of our true Everyman grit, but Bond showed us what COULD be...no timeclocks in the Rivera, and a briefcase full of Stoly and fish eggs, and leaving yet another beautiful woman sleeping while we lit up and headed to the tailor. It was the action and adventure, but it was also the class and sofistication that our srubby-whiney hollywood kids can't quite seem to muster...Long gone are the Cary Grants, the Clark Gables and the Ratpack...sharp dressing men of power who know both how to fight, AND how to open the wine. Now we move Bond into the present, we take away his smokes, make him have a "healthy respect" for the weaker sex, rely on more gadgets and less cumberbun, more ammo and less quail's eggs and caviar and we wonder why it's "not clicking." Bond used to go only to the most exotic locales and seduce only the most exotic women. The bond interests were the most beautiful and SOFISTICATED women of the era; they exuded both sensuality AND elegance and breeding. Connery had Andress. We get Richards? Cute chick...perfect to take to the ball game, but not to sip sangrea on the sun-painted coast of the Mediterranean. Don't blame Bros...Is Bond held captive by the PC wing of N.O.W.? Or did Sean just leave us all behind to drink in Monaco and catch the eye of a femme fatal? The new Bond may be safe, but Ian would be sick.
Hmmm........I Smell Crap by BritCam	May 30th, 2001 09:09:43 PM
Though I love the site I rarely agree with Harry, and Harry's comments about the Bond are no exception to this sentiment! Let me just say at this point that I am not a Bond 'fan' (I hate that word!) but DO enjoy the movies and have seen EVERY single one. The choice of Directors is quite odd and NOT at all appropriate for Bond. Guy Ritchie - the British Tarantino in my estimation, and trust me, that is no compliment!! - his movies are all very slick and cool, but have as much depth as a pool of piss. John Frankenheimer was a good choice - 30 YEARS AGO! And as for the rest of the Directorial choices, Harry, do actually WATCH movies??? About Pierce Brosnan, when I 1st heard he was going to be Bond thought: oh no! not the Remington Steele guy!! - but I was UTTERLY wrong, dare I say it, but I actually believe he is better than Sean Connery!! - who I always thought was more like some kind of elegant thug. Brosnan is a very fine actor who I believe to be in a class of his own. On the subject of the original novels and any comparisons therein: forget it! the written word and film are very DIFFERENT mediums and therefore not really open to comparisons. As for you guys going on and on about Clive Owen for Bond - what the hell is the matter with you people!!!! - yeah sure Owen is a good actor, but please excuse me when I say that James Bond also requires another little something else and it's called CHARISMA! - Me thinks you have only seen him 'Croupier' and yes he is good, but he's been around here in England for years and has done loads of TV work - God! I even worked with him a couple of times when I was an extra - believe me the man IS NOT Bond. The only sensible comment I've read here is John McTiernan as a possible Bond Director - a superb choice. Directors like Martin Campbell and Roger Spottiswoode were actually good choices 'coz they had the right sort directorial flair and panache (unlike Michael Apted) required by the Bond genre - they were let down by poor scripts. For me ALL Bond movies have always had really FLABBY middle sections and way too much in the way of subplot, they always seem to meander - they need to flow, to move and the only way to do that is to pare 'em down - contempary action movies do this so well. That's all. Peace.
WHAT DO YOU THINK BOND IS? by GFK	May 30th, 2001 09:20:37 PM
James Bond, a superhero? of course! he's always been that way! able to acomplish unacomplishable acts, he is a superhero. you want a self made hero? get john mcclaine. interesting idea though harry.
Mascan has it right, unfortuneately. by Sith Lord Jesus	May 30th, 2001 09:31:13 PM
Eon and the Broccolis just don't want to screw with their precious forumla--if it ain't broke, then why try to fix it, after all? Nothing will change until the Bond flicks start losing money at the box office, but then I'm afraid that Eon might do something stupid to bring back viewers like making Bond an alien transvestite robot or something. As I 've said before, Bond 20 needs to be special, an all-out, balls to the wall ass-kicking epic love letter to the whole spy genre in general and the James Bond character in particular. The Broccolis need to NOT just crank out yet another sausage link, they need to get take the time, spend the money and hire the talent to make us a Bond flick no one will ever forget. Brosnan is not the problem--I LOVED GOLDENEYE and TOMORROW NEVER DIES--it's the unwillinglness to take chances.
Whaddya know, I actually agree. by Lizzybeth	May 30th, 2001 09:45:31 PM
Brosnan is really a fine man for the role, but the series needs to be taken in a new direction. Clive Owen would be a good man for the job. The key word here is SPY. Not politician, not commando. Spy. And for goodness sake, get a decent theme song this time around. Get Portishead to do the score, if they're still around, or someone who's heard their music and can do something approximate. Now, is a "young James Bond" tack, going back to a younger Bond, a terrible idea or a good one? I can't decide. Something should be done, though, the last few films sort of blandify into a blob of mediocrity until you can't distinguish between them.
Hey, King Krypton. . . by Hardyboy	May 30th, 2001 09:49:42 PM
I don't understand either why so many people think that making Bond R-rated will somehow make the series better. Has anyone out there actually read Raymond Benson's Bond novels? He throws the word "fuck" around all the time and his sex is far more graphic than what Fleming portrayed, making his books as R-rated as prose fiction gets. These qualities make Benson's books seem. . .well, AMERICAN. Fleming's Bond has an air of old-world sophistication that makes them appealing in ways that Benson's novels never can be (plus Benson shamelessly rips off the plots of the films); and I can't help but feel that if those who want an R-rated Bond get their wish, we'll just have another Schwarzeneggerish, Willisish shoot-'em-up, blow-'em-up, tell-'em-to-fuck-themselves U.S. of A. extranaganza. Cripes, let Bond be a smooth, sophisticated Brit. And, no, I don't think that image is dated--hell, it could still be an image to aspire to! Viva Bond (again)!
Real Bond news just in! by Hardyboy	May 30th, 2001 09:56:48 PM
Hey, true believers, I just hopped over to Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (www.ianfleming.org) and read that John Cleese has said that his character will be called Q in the next film. He wasn't supposed to be Q, but apparently Desmond Llewelyn's death left the character's name (number?) open.
Clive Owen as Bond by The Ferenc	May 30th, 2001 10:17:15 PM
Clive Owen, why not get Jimmy Nail from Spender... Also will he be flying the same ships as he did in Privateer 2 :) I think James Hong is long overdue for this role.
Y' See, This Is Why I Read A Lot More Often Than I See Movies. A by Buzz Maverik	May 30th, 2001 10:17:24 PM
Or that guy who was going play Wolverine but got fired: Dougray Scott. But Jackman, when he's not Wolverine, has the look and the style. Last summer I read all of the Bond novels except DR. NO, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (all of which I've since found in my favorite used book store and will read probably a few years from now). I'll never enjoy another movie Bond. Bond, for me, is a metaphor for a British World War II survivor. They suffered badly in that war and from its' effects long afterwards. Hell, the only time an American city was ever bomb from the air was when the F.B.I. bombed a peaceful African American separtist group called MOVE in Philadelphia in the late 70s (I call upon the Hughes Brothers to make that movie and upon some studio to have the balls to do it!). Anyway, Bond went through great hardships in the War and the booze, hotels, gambling and women were luxury for a man who had suffered great deprivation. Also, the whole Bond girl thing: in the books James usually had sex with one girl and genuinely cared about her. Between adventures, he'd have affairs with two or three married women going simultaneously. It was simply 20th Century sexuality which M, a very Victorian man, diapproved. Bond often swam long distances to carry out his mission and since JFK was a Bond fan and a friend of Fleming's, the Navy SEAL inspiration is my little pet theory. Fleming's Bond seldom escaped torture. He usually had to endure. Also, Bond was turned into a bit of a MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE assasain by the Russians after losing his memory in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. He showed up in beginning of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN programmed to kill M. His career was ruined and M. sent him up against Scaramanga because it seemed like an honorable death for him, except Bond got lucky and won.
bond is good as dead, so let's start looking for another hero by tommy5tone	May 30th, 2001 10:23:57 PM
here's the deal re. 007: MGM and the bond powerbrokers aren't gonna change the formula none. they'll keep brosnan until he drops, hire capable, journeyman directors with no identifiable style or flair, get a "groovy" musician to sing the lame theme tune, have plenty of big explosions and saucy double entendres but never show or do anything that might jeopardise the precious PG-13. like it or not, kids, bond is a franchise, just like mcdonald's or starbucks. 'TWINE' made $33 million in its first weekend - you think the number crunchers are going to fuck with that kind of return? at the same time, it was a competent enough actioner (admit it, the opening scene kicked) but nothing special. is there any bond movie in recent memory that can contend with the best action movies of the last decade or so? nope. but the masses like it - it's user-friendly stuff that keeps 'em entertained and lets 'em walk out thinking they got value for their bucks. look, if we want a return to the glory days of bond, just produce your own damn movie in your head and cast, shoot, edit and score it at your leisure. (five-tone's 007 blockbuster is directed by john mctiernan, stars hugh jackman as bond, viggo mortensen as his adversary and carrie-anne moss as the love interest.) that, or just disregard the MGM 007 movies and keep your eyes open for bona fide kickass international espionage adventures. you never know, 'the bourne identity' just might work. apart from all that: 'bond 20' - brosnan as bond, alec baldwin as rogue US agent nemesis, bring back michelle yeoh as wai lin and pit her against brigitte lin or maggie cheung. ringo lam directs. theme song by destiny's child (kidding! kidding!). five-tone out.
ROBERT DOWNEY, JR. AS BOND! by Uncapie	May 30th, 2001 10:31:12 PM
He takes amphetamines before a mission, gets captured, but never lands in jail, always escapes, not responsible for his actions(Sort of a license to kill.), has Q Branch hire a sharp thinking attorney to get him out of situations, did have a gun in his truck when first busted and heroin; for the off mission days, has emaciated beautiful women around him(Calista Flockhart), exotic women(Lucy Liu), villians trying to kill him(Drug dealers and his druggie friends.). Would work for scale! Paging Barbara Broccoli!
John Woo should have NEVER done MI:2 - he should have done a Jam by Smugbug	May 30th, 2001 10:58:32 PM
MI:2 will be John Woo's BEEG mistake on his resume. What he was trying to do was a americanized version of James Bond, forgetting that MI was and should be a TEAM effort. I love John Woo, well, I love John Woo's Hong Kong flicks, but the dude has stumbled here in the states. Anyways, now that I know who this Clive Owen is - yes, he'd be perfect! Very suave, very dashing - all the while he's slitting your throat. Hmmmmm, yessssss, perfect. I also think that if they'd just have gotten the right director for Mr. Brosnan, the Bond flicks would have been better. At least they did one other right thing (besides finally getting Brosnan), and got Michelle Yeoh in one........
James Bond by Dorian Gray	May 30th, 2001 11:22:30 PM
the next man for Bond has to be the Ioan Gruffudd, or Jeremy Northam, or even Dougray Scott, and if not why not re do Harry Palmer and have Scott or Sean Bean in the role.
Why "People's" and the rest of you are wrong. by smokinyoda	May 30th, 2001 11:28:29 PM
After reading most of these Talkbacks, I finally realized where all you fanboys are going wrong. You can't seem to seperate the "book Bond" with the "movie Bond." It's 2 completely different characters. Now if you want to say that the movies need to go back to how they were in the books, you guys are about 19 movies too late. The Bond films have created a hero seperate from the cold killing machine in the books. "People's" brings up a good point in that in Her Majesty's Secret Service, the Bond is much more like the one in the books, but guess what? Thats not a very good Bond movie. Don't get me wrong. If you stand it alone, it is a pretty good movie, but it is probably the worst Bond movie, and I'm not alone on this opinion. We don't go to see Bond movies to see a normal guy who just happens to be a good spy. If you want that....you have the Jack Ryan movies. We go to see Bond to see the pimpest mofo in the world. 007 is that guy that we all wish we can be. He's not a guy that anyone could be if they just worked for the government. I'm sorry. Anyone that says Goldeneye sucked has become too jaded for the Bond series. I mean that move had everything. Hell, we even got to go after the Russians again. Oh yeah, and to you dumbasses that disagreed with Denise Richards being a Bond girl.......just cut off your nuts and drop them in the garbage because you won't be needing them anymore. I mean for God's sake, she's not there to act. She's there to be a babe. Do you know how may Bond-girl performances won an oscar?? Zero. Do you know why? Because they are just there to look sexy and Denise is definitly quite a little hottie. Now to conclude this minor rant, I'm going to drop a bombshell on all you stupid, stuckup fanboys......NOT ALL FILM IS ART. Oh my God! Did I just say that? Yes I did. Movies like Bond are just supposed to be a good time. I mean with that simple attitude of taking movies for what they are worth, you will have a much better time everysingle time you go see a movie. Hell, with that attitude I even enjoyed Bio-Dome. Of course the movie sucked, but it was fun in it's lameness. You all have to understand that not every movie is a Saving Private Ryan. Some movies are just for "shits and giggles." With that, have a nice day, and is there anybody out there that feels me on this? Anybody smell what I'm steppin' in? Probably not on this web site. Thanks for reading.
ADRIAN PAUL! by thevision	May 31st, 2001 12:30:21 AM
This is the billioneth time on AICN I've suggested Adrian Paul! Let me Repeat: He reminds me of the young Sean Connery; he's got the build; he's got the martial arts moves, no wires for this guy. Plus the poor dude needs to be saved from Direct-to-Video Hell. Clive Owen is OK, but Bond needs to be athletic and physically intimidating like Connery and the underrated Timothy Dalton. Owen is too skinny. As for the director howzabout Robert Rodriguez?
No! Bruce Campbell! by Pips Orcille	May 31st, 2001 12:32:44 AM
I just had to say it. lol
Guy Ritchie? Clive Owen? by Pupkin	May 31st, 2001 12:38:06 AM
Speaking as an Englishman myself, it is safe to say British fans would not stand for this. There is no way either of these people will get near Bond. Clive Owen is only famous for TV drama over here, 'Croupier' is fairly unheard of in this country, and no way would the Bond Fanbase stand for Cockneyising the public school hero as Ritchie would inevitably do, he is totally unsuited to the present format, and the one Harry likes. With Brosnan on-board and the familiar format, all 3 movies have made over 350 million, and only about a 3rd of that comes from the States. Obviously they are not of the same standard that Connery enjoyed, but they make a fortune, and no studio is going to mess too much with that format.
What a silly view, common sense anyone? by carterburke	May 31st, 2001 12:45:01 AM
When did James Bond stop being a spy and became a 'superhero'? Goldfinger; the 1964 template for all Bond's that followed is the answer. Why do knowledgable people play ignorant on this point? From Goldfinger on the series had a template; It achieved some cool results when steering away from it but not real financial success. Sheesh, we've heard the death knell on Bond a dozen times over the past 40 years, give it a rest. You Only Live Twice was supposed to be the end, Lazenby was supposed to be the end, Roger Moore was supposed to be the end, Dalton was supposed to be the end... Now Brosnan is the END unless they fire him and hire the correct actor? What a silly article Harry has written. Why not complain about Godzilla, Frankenstein and Dracula...
Clive Owen??!?!?! by Celtican	May 31st, 2001 12:51:10 AM
The same Clive Owen from that dreadful British soap??? Is this a joke? THE GUY CANT ACT!!!! Whether that doesn't matter in Hollywood or not, you may as well cast a tree as Bond!
Why Kar Wai? by gilbertson	May 31st, 2001 01:08:25 AM
Wong Kar Wai?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Heck, how about Peter Greenaway, Lars Von Trier or Chen Kaige, or if those guys are busy, why not try Jim Jarmusch, Alain Resnais or Oshima Nagisa? While we're about it, what about Murakami Haruki, Hanif Kureishi or Michel Houllebecq to write the script, and Brian Eno, PJ Harvey or The Aphex Twin for the score? And why would the budget need to be as much as $35 million? That's more than the total cost of all Derek Jarman's films! What would be wrong with doing the next Bond on 16mm and blowing it up, or shooting it Dogme-style on video?
Any true Bond aficianado knows that the BOND character and tradi by Charles Grady	May 31st, 2001 01:36:41 AM
I can't believe my fellow Bond fans, clammoring for "real" directors to infuse a series that, while not what it once was, is still running strong. These comments by so-called fans appear constantly and always irk me. If you own and watch the DVDs of the Bond films, or know anything about their proud history, you know that the Bond films are a collaborative work made by dozens of regular participants who genuinely love the Bond mythos and return to the series film after film. This extends not only from the Broccoli/Wilson/Maibaum crew at the top you've all so mercilessly bashed, but down to all levels of the technical crew, many of whom have worked on these films for years. Bond is THEIR baby. Why should they relinquish control of something they dearly love and have worked on for 40 years so some fanboys can revel in their fantasy of a Luc Besson, John McTiernan, John Woo, or Wong Kar Wai helming a Bond? And better yet, why would a true Bond fan want to disrupt the stylistic and ideological continuity of a beloved series for a quick-fix infusion of auteurship??? If Besson or Scorsese or Spielberg or David Lynch or WHOEVER grabbed the reins on the next film, it wouldn't even be a BOND MOVIE....It would be a Scorsese or Spielberg or Lynch movie! Have you no affection for the idea of a series remaining true to its own vision and style? One of the pleasures of a SERIES is the continuity, the SIMILARITY from one film to the next. Part of the delight in watching a Bond movie is the returning elements we've followed for decades. We don't go to STAR TREK movies to see pratfalls and farting jokes...we wouldn't want STAR WARS to include graphic violence and sex...those new elements would throw the balance of the series off. How would you feel if a studio suit decided to give Oliver Stone a shot at EPISODE 3 just to shake things up????? Or brought in Gregg Araki to add a little edge to the STAR TREK series??? Or Schumacher to add a little S and M to the BATMAN series? Oops, they already did that. I know most of you aren't calling for such a radical departure....you merely ask for slicker, hipper filmmakers behind the scene...but don't you want a unified series? Hell, John Woo could probably helm a great Bond flick, but it wouldn't be Bond. It would be John Woo's Bond. Maybe I'm just a completist, and no one shares my view, but I like consistency in film series' like Bond. I like the idea that the same feisty old timers hold on to this series, that each film retains the same style and feel as the others before it. Sure, there are derivations, but it's a little late to take the series to a different artistic level. It's fundamentally a pulp adventure series -- and anyway, why would you WANT to see such esteemed directors bringing their vision to a Bond movie? I mean, I love Bond movies more than I can express, but it's one instance where I'm happy with their film-by-committee approach. Directors like Spottiswoode, Apted, Guy Hamilton, John Glen, Lewis Gilber, and Terence Young are and were competent professionals who knew how to stay out of the way of a winning formula. If a distinctive "auteur" brought his bag of tricks to Bond, not only would it upset the series, but it would inherently water down that director's artistry. I mean, would you really want, say, Kubrick to have spent a few years of his life on a STAR TREK movie? Hell, I'm disappointed Aronofsky is doing a BATMAN. I love BATMAN, but I want to see another wrenching story from Aronofsky's mind, not his take on an established franchise. Anyway, I hope I'm not alone in this view. It saddens me that a smart bunch that seems so knowledgable about Bond also seems to have such little regard for the group of people who've spent their lives bringing him to you.
Hey, I posted when this TalkBack was half a day old and it ended by Charles Grady	May 31st, 2001 01:49:14 AM
And by the way, I'm sure Harry would also like the next Charlie's Angels to be porno, but it ain't gonna happen either, so let's not get too worked up over the revamping Bond debate. As someone else said, this is just a tirade that popped into Harry's head, not a news story of any sort, despite its prominent billing on the Cool News page.
Defense by breadfan87	May 31st, 2001 02:04:26 AM
I definitely agree that "americanizing" Bond is the LAST thing they should do, but I really think Brosnan is one of the better Bonds. I love Bond movies, and apart from Tomorrow Never Dies, I think his are great. About Dalton, The Living Daylights was good, but Licence To Kill is the second or third worst one in the series. Its not even a Bond movie. I mean, he gets in a bar fight! That isn't Bond! It is like watching a Lethal Weapon/Die Hard spinoff that sucks. Anyway, Clive Owen would be the PERFECT replacement once Brosnan is done, without a doubt. Although, I still think Hugh Jackman would kick ass too.
Hell Yeah by thimsj	May 31st, 2001 03:05:11 AM
Why doesn't anybody put you in charge of a studio Harry? Your a freakin genius!
Open your eyes... by Inigo Montoya	May 31st, 2001 03:09:47 AM
Clive Owen a, quote: 'new discovery'? Okay, so he hit your radar with Croupier but he's verging on household name status already over here in England and has been known since the early 90s in films such as Close My eyes and TV programmes such as Chancer and more recently Second Sight. And this hasn't been the first time he's been touted for Bond by fans of both the franchise and the actor himself. So, yes, Harry, I absolutely agree with your choice... even though it has been pushed around the table for a while now. (PS. I want my father back you sonofabitch)
Just once I wish they'd get it right. by Zachsmind	May 31st, 2001 03:17:18 AM
Take Casino Royale. Not the Woody Allen fiasco. I mean the book. Actually read the book. Base the screenplay off that. What Ian Fleming actually wrote, and not what Hollywood's turned James Bond into. Put the story in the context of the 1950s. Don't modernize James Bond. He doesn't belong in the 21st century. Let's face it, after the Berlin Wall fell, Bond was out of a job. Do it with nostalgia and atmosphere. Make it more violent and bloody. Keep the stakes high. Give Clive Owen the job and make his Bond the most ruthless ever. Cut back on the toys. Focus on plot and suspense, and less on character development. Give Owen some meat, with lines and actions that could only come from Bond. I mean heck, if Harry can dream, so can I.
Right on Harry. by Vicconius	May 31st, 2001 03:27:14 AM
I was thinking that Russell Crowe would be the best next Bond, but after watching the BMWFilms, Clive Owen jumped to the head of the line. I agree too that a director like Ang Lee should direct. I also like the idea of setting Bond back in the 60's, not campy nor nostalgic, but rather a realistic 60's. Where I depart from you is a good old fashioned world domination plot. The Brosnan flicks are to generic in this way. I don't want skyscapers or French villa's. I WANT a hollowed out volcano, or something to that effect (mountaintop fortress, or an island, anything). The last real evil lair I can think of off hand is The Spy Who Loved Me. I'd bring back SPECTRE under new leadership. Surely there can be someone else besides Bloefeld that can match Bond. Largo would have been a good replacement. Surely some upstart could take over. And just because you keep the spy element doesn't mean you can't have a good story. And no more friggin BMW's. Bond drives British cars. Give him an Aston Martin or a Lotus. Heck, even a new Jaguar would be appropreite.
TWINE did NOT suck by acamp	May 31st, 2001 03:47:44 AM
Someone has to say it. Damn fan boys don't know what the hell they want. TWINE had its weak points, sure... too much Denise Richards, too little Robert Carlysle, and uninspired staging. But you'd have to reach waaaayyyyyy back to find a Bond movie wasn't a cocktail of cool and crap. TWINE had an interesting story, a great femme foil, and humanity. I'll you what sucked: Moonraker. Jesus God, did that stink. And A View to a Kill. License to Kill was an intriguing experiment, but... nahhh, didn't do it for me. Just give us a little more class, more beautiful women - sexy, but not stupid, and an edgier Bond, and I think they'll have it nailed.
You are having a laugh by Tippex	May 31st, 2001 04:16:27 AM
Surely you must be. Why do americans hold poor british actors and directors in such high esteem. Croupier was at best a tv movie, obvious and insultingly bad, with Clive Owen's usual wooden performance. If he can carry off James Bond then I'm the new Clooney (who is the only choice for the role by the way). And Guy Ritchie to direct!! Come on! Which films will he steal all his scenes from this time, as he's never directed an original idea yet. I think you're losing the plot on this one.....
What are you all on !!! by Smyth	May 31st, 2001 04:50:58 AM
I always find that the people of the great US of A are soooooo insular..... You just dont get it do you. Ask yourself this question, which is the most popular longest running series of films ever? I am sure if you had your way you would put Ben Afleck in the lead role with a bunch of American ham to keep the patriots happy, Q's name would change to Chip or something equally shite and his favoured drink would be Dr Pepper, shaken, not stirred of course. All these suggestions come from a Nation of people who think the British are either cockney or live in a 16th century mansion, drink 50,000 cups of tea a day, London is always foggy, we all say "what what" after every sentance and of course we all drive around in Mini's or morris Minors with flat caps and tweed jackets. Come on!!! wake up America...there is actually life outside that great country of yours.
This is why I love this site. by Frank Black	May 31st, 2001 04:56:53 AM
All of the time I read people's attacks on Harry for "selling out", and for being a geek or whatever, but I come to this site every single day, because Harry is pretty much saying what I am thinking, and for that matter, what most of us are thinking. American mainstream movies are too watered down and too dumbed down and most of us are tired of it. The "Jonny Quest" cartoons from the 60's have more of the flavor of adventure than a Bond movie has had since, well since the 60's, and I have seen every single one of them a hundred times. I bought the VHS boxed sets and I now own them on DVD, but they could be so much better. MGM does not want to take risks with it's big franchise and it probably never will, but the Bond movies could be great again, and it would take have the money they have been spending. Here's what I think would make a great Bond. Clive Owen as Bond. He is so good in "Croupier" it hurts. Rate it "R", and add some sex, nudity violence and grit. Theme song by Portishead or The Cardigans. It has to be "loungeish" Wesley Snipes as a Felix Leitner type CIA agent, MGM could build Wesley his own Bond type franchise that he has been talking about and the two movies could converge plots and characters. Smaller stories. Villans not "super villans", played by Terrence Stamp, Edward Norton, Morgan Freeman, Mickey Rourke, Sean Penn, Raquel Welch, Antonio Banderas, Ed Harris, Chow Yun Fat, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks or George Clooney as Bond's sexy counter agent. These are random choices, but anyone could be a good villain if they are good actors. Minimal gadgets, smaller locations, better scripts, real directors like the one's Harry mentioned or David Fincher, or even fucking Tarrantino if he could be troubled to direct a movie instead of going to Hollywood parties and hanging out in Soho. Finally, the last key element MGM needs to return to are beautifully painted movie posters like the ones by Frazetta or Robert McGinnis. Everyone who is interested in cool 60's and 70's memorabilla should check out the new paperback book, The Paperback Covers of Robert McGinnis, it is the coolest way to spend $30.00. One last thing. Despite my unhappiness with the Bond series, I give MGM a lot of credit for the beauitfully packaged DVD's. The movies may be weak as of late, but the studio gave us a lot of cool extras. Anyway, I just realized what a nerd I am, so I better go to work where I do this all day long. Oh, for some dignity. Thanks Harry, for such a great place for geeks to gather.
Bollocks! by Jack Daniels	May 31st, 2001 05:07:41 AM
Sorry, Harry but that's bollocks. Speaking from the UK Brosnan's movies have been cool. Except Tomorrow never dies, but hey Roger Spottiswoode! What do you expect, and that's the one you liked! I think Christian Bale IS the next Bond. He's younger, changing things alittle but not too much. And the idea of John Frankenheimer directing, why? When you've got Michael Apted. And if Guy Ritchie gets to direct It would be full of bullshit East end stereotypes called "Jam jar" and "mad Billy"- don't you realise he's a one trick pony!
I've never dissed harry, but SHUT THE FUCK UP! by Wee Willie	May 31st, 2001 05:14:40 AM
You obviously don't understand the appeal of the Bond films. By the way, the Brosnan series have been the most profitable for MGM and the producers. DON'T CHANGE BOND.
Licence to Kill by The Flash UK	May 31st, 2001 05:17:24 AM
The Dalton Bond Film, Licence To Kill made the character more realistic and was still great entertainment. Unfortunately I seem to be the only person who liked it! I am so glad studios still make movies especially for me, it is appreciated.
Dear Goddess by Anton_Sirius	May 31st, 2001 05:41:37 AM
That piece of shite Martin Lawrence film was based on a WESTLAKE novel???!!!!!??? And to think somebody had a chance to run Mah-in over when he collapsed in the street... what a watsed opportunity.
Pierce Bronson: the effeminate David Copperfield/Bob Goen Bond.. by Brodiebruce	May 31st, 2001 05:48:26 AM
He rips off Sean Connery like Lazenby did before him. Pierce Bronsan is a SUPPORTING actor not a leading man. He is a hack piece of shit who's one emotion is to squint. He looks like he's smelling someones farts. He's the most boring Bond ever and a block of wood. Hey Barbara Brocolli get someone new already like Hugh Jackman or Jude Law and let a real director direct one of these things. Stop getting all these average directors,get some balls and take some chances. Stop with all this generic action crap with no story! Get off your lazy complacent ass and call Spielberg.
Bond schmond by Hud	May 31st, 2001 05:58:19 AM
You mopes. Bring back Derrick Flint!
Jude Law is the way forward!! by shamharga	May 31st, 2001 06:01:45 AM
I cannot see how no-one has thought of Jude Law to be the next James Bond. He is without doubt one of the finest actors around, and the coolest guy on screen bar non.
Bond... by Nastywhacks	May 31st, 2001 06:37:46 AM
Been reading all this crap about reinventing Bond and I feel the extreme need to clear up some BULLSHIT being spouted about... just for clarification, I do have more than a little professional background in film including the Bond series but do not need the flames, so at least my information is from a KNOWLEDGEABLE source! The list: The Bond films reinvented film editing, merchandising, musical style, film-making style and much more in the early 1960's. Peter Hunt's editing, which we all take for granted now, REVOLUTIONIZED action films and all films in its cut-to-the-chase immediacy. John Barry INVENTED the musical style of all action thrillers, especially the spy film with his orchestration of the (originally weak) theme written by Monty Norman. There could be a book and a class about all of the aspects the Bond films influenced (Thunderball-when inflation is taken into account-outgrosses EVERY FILM except the top five listed, showing you how huge a phenomena the Bond films were and how much they inspired TV and culture). So to hear about Goldeneye being the best film, Eric Serra being a good composer (SHIT.....) all tends to make one's blood boil... YES, the Brosnans have been weak, and he is only somewhat believeable as Bond. Dalton was closest to the literary Bond-ruthless and focused, who I believed could and would use his license to kill. Lazenby was great for a model turned actor and his film is one of the all-time best (most Bond aficianados agree on that, it's the general public with little background in the novels who expect superheroism who disagree). Moore was very successful but unfortunately turned the series into (bad) comic book camp.. and Connery was the best. Bar none. He was the perfect FILM version of Bond.. tough, believeable for the gents and the dangerous, dark guy for the ladies... so to the current topic? Clive Owen would be good.. Russell Crowe would be great (please, forget all the bullshit about accents, etc. Bond will be played by an ACTOR. That ACTOR should be able to do a fucking accent. The thing that cannot be faked is physicality which Connery pegged it best by portraying Bond as a "predatory tiger.. always on the prowl..") hence, Crowe as my pick. Directors? Here's the biggest bit of INFORMATION for you all... MGM DOES NOT OWN THE BOND FRANCHISE. The Broccolis do. Lock Stock and Barrel... they get financing from MGM but they control it.. and they've done an incredible job so far. Christsakes... how many other film series lasted 40 years and over 19 films? Raked in how many BILLIONS in revenue (yes, film is a BUSINESS as well as art)... also... SPECTRE is NOT OWNED by the Bond franchise, due to the litigation from Thunderball... so forget about SPECTRE coming back unless you have the millions needed to buy the rights... So Harry, I liked your thoughts but before bashing certain things (or for other posters to do so.. ) some background may be in order. The endless speculation over who replaces Brosnan is all over the alt-fan.jamesbond group and every avenue has been thrown about. The facts are, it'll be at least 3 years before any real action in that direction will occur. So relax, enjoy what comes and hope for the best. Eon productions is trying to fulfill the expectations of all fans, not just the die-hards and fanboys. Go out and do a poll of everyone at the multiplex and see what they want and you will be saddened to no end cause THAT'S where the blame lies. That's why Brosnan (who female fans, by the way, like him mostly because of his SMILE and HAIR... sad, isn't it?) is the most successful Bond (without inflation) so far... the audience expects the basics. I would be happy if the films could maintain at least the veneer of style and sophistication they were always known for... mayeb some more intelligent and realistic suggestions would be greeted with more enthusiasm by EON and MGM... what the hell, it might work more than wild-ass suggestions and recriminations when THEY have the numbers to back themselves up. Why do you think Lucas has made lame kiddie flicks out of the STAR WARS series? Money, money, money....
People, Rupert Everitt is an ACTOR (!) by vondoom	May 31st, 2001 06:37:58 AM
The opinion of most posters here seems to be that he would be perfect 'if only he wasn't gay.' If the masses only KNEW how many gay actors were playing heteros in the movies today they would freak out. He is an actor....he can 'play' straight! Jeez!
If not Clive Owen... by Max Quordlepleen	May 31st, 2001 06:43:59 AM
...what about Christian Bale?
Excellent piece, but I think they need to break the ratings barr by BigW	May 31st, 2001 06:56:45 AM
Although I do think that putting Bond back in the Cold War would be awesome, I think that Brosnan's main problem with Bond is that they feel they have to maintain the caricatures and the cliches, because they know that would sell, and to really do Bond in a modern, realistic manner they will need to break the ratings barrier and make an R-rate Bond film. I think would rock, and I'll bet most posters here would think would rock, but would constitute a risk on MGMs part. I guess, from the money grubbing weasel point of view, they're right: I'm going to see every Bond movie that comes out, the week it comes out, with my father, like we've done for the past 20 years. Now, how about an R-rated Bond piece set in the Cold War era? Now that would really rock!
Guy Richie is the man for the job... by Halloween68	May 31st, 2001 07:11:24 AM
Come on now. Would that not be the best damn James Bond flick ever? Get Big Chris to play James Bond, and have him kick the ever loving bejesus out every freakin' halfwit that even thinks about crossin his path. Have him slam them bitches with the umph! that makes you stand up and say, "OY! Now that bloke can kick some boots!" Have an ass-slamming rock n' roll soundtrack with Iggy Pop as the bad guy. Through that damn ppk away and have James packing some 44 automatic fire power. Hell this is James Bond; put a silencer on it. We don't have to hear the commi scum getting wacked with 3 inch diameter hole in their braincase. Now that's a movie I'd go see. Bond would shove those girly-man gadgets straight up your hindquarts and jump out ya' with grenade launchers for teeth. Akkkk! Why not? Harry you're a genius. Richie rules. (I can overlook the madonna thing as an excessive brain fart that won't be released until she's whored herself out to everyone in britain. Kidding, Guy. 'Must see something in her. As long as it keeps you happy and making great films.)
Ralph Fiennes as "Bond" by Uncle Jay	May 31st, 2001 07:20:26 AM
I've been a Bond fan for years. Nobody tops Connery, even though I've grown up in '70's with Moore. Brosnan is a great Bond, I've liked him since McTiernan's "Nomads", TV's "Remington Steele" and even more so as 007. If he really is tired of Bond, Ralph Fiennes is your man!! He's an amazing actor and I think his artsy-fartsy, period films are getting a little tiresome and extremely over-the-top. I'm still to this day surprised and very very impressed that he did "Strange Days", a film that I adore. So, I think Fiennes would make an ideal James Bond. To add flavor, make Sean Connery a villan and get Guy Ritchie to direct. Then my dear friends, you will see a REAL BOND FLICK!!!
Why not cast Connery as the villain? by Hagrid1	May 31st, 2001 07:37:19 AM
I commend Harry on his foresight with Clive Owen. This is not a butt kissing comment, but the sign of a great idea is that when you first hear of it, you think to yourself - "Of course!" I agree with Harry on Brosnan, although GOLDENEYE is still a great Bond film in my opinion. If Clive Owen gets the nod, no matter how perfect he is, no one will go see it based on his being cast. They need to be lured into the theater. And I say the best way to do it is to get Sean Connery to play the villain. Everyone rightly says Connery was the best Bond, and I think the attempt at having be the villain in the most godawful film ever made, The Avengers, was a missed oppurtunity. There's a tonnage of material available to MGM should they cast Connery. Plenty of side jokes, plenty of juice for the audience, and just think of the trailers you'd see! Personally, I wouldn't be able to wait. Just a thought... Hagrid
Michael G Wilson by Antifanboy	May 31st, 2001 07:44:03 AM
You need only listen to this guy talk about the films to realise he is to Bond what Rick Berman is to Star Trek. Because of their narrow-minded, can't-see-the-wood-for-the-tre es attitudes, they are killing their respective franchises. Wilson goes on and on about the existing formula, and nobody wanting a diversion, and people enjoying familiar ground. Bullshit. Who wants to pay to watch the same movie over and over? Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies and especially TWINE are utter crap compared to everything Connery did, everything Moore did (except for Moonraker, which was even worse than Brosnan's efforts) and everything Dalton did. Hell, I'll even go as far as saying George Lazenby's sole outing was better, if only because of that great downer ending. Brosnan's Bond is just too vicious and sadistic. I end up supporting the bad guy. Whatever happened to Connery, cool and suave, despatching a bad guy with a quick hand chop? Now Brosnan has to ram some drill into them again and again. Why doesn't he just swing them over a railing and rape them to death? You don't HAVE to break from the familiar elements to inject some life into this now flaccid, impotent franchise. Reversing the elements work very well. Case in point: Licence To Kill, where Bond goes out for revenge.
Mr. Colin Firth, here is your license to kill. by Andy Dufresne	May 31st, 2001 07:45:39 AM
Clive Owen Harry? Sure I can see it, but I am not excited by it. Look no further than Colin Firth. As an Englishman I can think of no better man who can fill the intensity for the role, and still carry the Bond charm. Colin Firth is a perfect choice.
Frank Miller should write about Bond's first mission by Hagrid1	May 31st, 2001 07:46:41 AM
In addition to my Connery idea, an entirely new way to go would be to do to Bond what they are doing with Jack Ryan and the new Star Trek series, and reinvent him like Harry said (like they did with Superman). And after recently re-reading that classic piece of work, The Dark Knight Returns, it struck me that Frank Miller should take a crack at the script. This could be a Bond less refined than he has been. In a way, it's similar to La Femme Nikita - take Bond through his training years, how he forms his style, and his first mission where everything comes together. He could even meet up with a younger Blofeld, I don't know. But this would be a cool way to bring back the sixties and seventies production design, but with a modern twist. And Frank Miller has enough darkness and enough edge to make this a less polished Bond, a less outrageous Bond, and build a great foundation for future ideas. Question is, if this is the way to go, who would play Bond at age 25? Hagrid
It's nice to not feel alone. by kdraines	May 31st, 2001 08:37:51 AM
Dead on. The Brosnan films have one big snore. Why? Too much action and not enough drama. I think it's time they got personal with Bond. Get into his personal pain. Even Brosnan said he wanted to find out what made Bond tick. But the films have gotten so far away from that. It's like watching Con Air over and over and over again. One of the best plot devices ever was the death of Teresa Bond, and with the exception of one or two references in The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only, that human element of Bond has been lost. Brosnan's Bond is so boring precisely because he is so untouchable. When there's no sense of danger, there's no drama and no thrill. **************************** ************************** ******Personally, I'd like to see Connery come back and play Bond as M in a spin off film.
P.S. Tailor of Panama. by kdraines	May 31st, 2001 08:40:12 AM
Right on about this film. A great performance by Brosnan. It's totally what I imagine Bond would be like when the cameras are off.
Bond Casting by Jim Lad	May 31st, 2001 08:47:00 AM
The Bond Franchise has had that stale odour lingering around it for years and years. Watching a Bond film is a depressing experience. If they've got to keep spewing these movies out though I'm with Uncle Jay on Ralph Fiennes as the next Bond.
I saw Tailor of Panama by Klam Bake	May 31st, 2001 09:06:50 AM
If that's what people want from a James Bond movie, I'll pass. Is anyone else getting tired of British actors playing Mexicans or is it just me.
I'm with ya Klam Bake. by kdraines	May 31st, 2001 09:16:56 AM
Though I loved The Mask of Zorro immensely and I thought Antonia Banderas was fantastic, I couldn't help but be disappointed by the fact the three main supporting characters were played by two Welsh actors and an American. Where was Jimmy Smits? Where was Edward James Olmos? Where was Andy Garcia? Where was Maria Conchita Alonso or Elizabeth Pena? Just one question, though. Which Mexican in The Tailor of Panama was portrayed by a British actor?
decadentdave & Tommy_Gay_Jones by SaintX99	May 31st, 2001 09:19:21 AM
decadent-tommy's right....Dalton had no soul....he was horrible. "the bond machine" Brosnan is perfect for the role. Connery, you can't fuck with, he's the best, but I think Brosnan is a close second in the way he plays the character. The scripts are iffy recently, but it's because the broccolis won't seek outside help for script development. the series suffers because of the broccoli's incestual dealings with the character. they should develop a script with Kevin Smith, who might really be able to nail some double entendre dialogue, and look to Du Lu Wang,Hui-Ling Wang, James Schamus, and Kuo Jung Tsai to script some action, and a story worth telling. Then We get someone like John Woo or richard donner to direct, we hire three academy award nominees/winners to be villains, annd ...bingo, we have the perfect bond!
I agree, Clive Owen would work SO well! by RoystonLodge	May 31st, 2001 09:20:04 AM
In full agreement with Clive Owen as Bond in the 60s. Great great idea. With all this talk of The Tailor of Panama, I think the best Brosnan spy flick is being forgotten. The Fourth Protocol is one of my all-time favourite spy flicks. John Mackenzie would make a great Bond director.
Talk to the man.....Kevin McClory by JDOlaf	May 31st, 2001 09:37:19 AM
Hey PEOPLE! Most of you need to go back to the formula and see what you are pining for! Check out this guy: Kevin McClory. He wrote the formula (and co-wrote Thunderball) on James Bond. I know him. He knows what makes a good Bond. Look him up. See what he says. He ruined my idea of Pearse Brosnan when he posed the question - "Do you think Pearse could feasibly shake off 4 attacking guys at a time?" He wanted to see Liam Neeson as Bond at one time. I will paraphrase what makes Bond: The greater and more credible a foe, the better the light it shows Bond. (He invented SPECTRE to replace the book's Cold War.) Use an exotic holiday destination as a backdrop. Show a ruthless side to Bond. Have the ultimate in peril - i.e Nuclear Bomb as the chief threat. Lets get back to basics here!
Oh, dear sweet lord, NOT John Woo. by kdraines	May 31st, 2001 09:45:05 AM
While I found the action sequences in Mission: Impossible 2 to be the best he's ever done (faint praise considering I think he's one of the worst action directors around) the movie itself was utterly laughable. Martin Campbell did the best job with the action. However, I think we need someone along the lines of Jonathan Mostow, Philip Noyce, Michael Mann or Ridley Scott. Someone who can do more than direct an action sequence. Someone who can direct actors and understands pacing and drama. At one time that would have been Andrew Davis or John McTiernan, but I feel (based on their last few efforts) that their work has gone a bit flaccid. More importantly though, we need someone who knows how to write a decent script!!!
Ooooh....Collin Firth. Nice suggestion. by superninja	May 31st, 2001 09:45:11 AM
He reminds me of Sir Lawrence. Don't know if he has enough humor in him, though. He'd be great at the Bond suggested in the books.
Btw, I don't care if Bond is black, white, asian or indian... by superninja	May 31st, 2001 09:50:00 AM
Just so long as he's suave and has a British accent. He is British -- bottom line. Anyone who can meet those standards works for me, any race or color.
Firmly agree on the future of 007 by BoondockFilmBoy	May 31st, 2001 10:02:24 AM
I can tell you how truly refreshing it was to read your comments on MGM and the Bond franchise. After the last 007 fiasco, I really was ready for Brosnan to cash it in...then I saw The Tailor Of Panama and saw what direction the Bond films could potentially direct themselves toward. MGM is sitting on a bigger goldmine than they already have with these films, and considering all of the recent espionage trials of late, public interest towards bare-bones spy tactics is going to be on a major upshoot; the likes we haven't seen since the cold war---more precisely the Connery era Bond films. I think if they opened their eyes to the world around them, Bond could definitely re-invent himself; without dying on screen. -J
Hydra by superninja	May 31st, 2001 10:05:01 AM
Why not bring this concept back as a major terrorist organization and an ongoing threat? Hydra re-emerges? And whatever happened to Bond using sex as an interrogation device? Ah...we're too PC for that now.
Errr...I mean SPECTRE not Hydra by superninja	May 31st, 2001 10:09:21 AM
Getting my Bond and comic lines crossed there...How does everyone feel about giving Steven Soderberg a shot at Bond?
Brosnan is generic. by superninja	May 31st, 2001 10:15:20 AM
Look, I loved him in Remington Steele, but tell me what he brings to Bond besides a British accent and good looks (minus the athleticsm Connery, Moore and even Dalton had)? He doesn't have personality. He has a little bit of charisma, but it doesn't go very far. It's like watching a video game version of Bond. BLOCK 'O' WOOD.
wrong again! by NapoleonWilson	May 31st, 2001 10:15:31 AM
Harry your judging Clive Owen on the strength of ONE movie. Catch some of the crap he's made for television in the UK and you'd change your mind mate. A far better Bond would be Colin Firth. However like some other folks here have said, I cant see either actor swallowing the arse-puckering cringy dialogue that the Bond movies have. I hear Brosnan wanted to explore the character a bit, expand the fact the Bond has a dead wife and a history. No wonder he wants out after Denise 'tits' Richards is the highlight of a Bond film. And as for a Guy Ritchie Bond film? jesus....give me a jobbing director as apposed to a one-trick pony.
Hugh Jackman? by Spamagnet	May 31st, 2001 10:19:57 AM
Forget that! Let's get Hugh Laurie! Or perhaps Rowan Atkinson! Or better yet, promote John Cleese from R to Bond himself! ..... sorry, couldn't help myself .....
3 Bond choices by Al Snows 1 fan	May 31st, 2001 10:23:58 AM
For what its worth, my three choices for Bond, in order, are 1)Adrian Paul, 2)Christian Bale, and last, and most certainly least 3)Clive owen. By the way, the actors who have played Bond, are Scottish, Welsh, English, Irish, and Australian(?). The makers have for the most part stuck to actors from the same part of the world, apart from the Aussie, so why change?
apologies by NapoleonWilson	May 31st, 2001 10:24:27 AM
......if ive repeated other folks comments. I didnt read them before i posted...honest............... .butGuy Ritchie directing Bond????? what a bunch of mockney bollocks! The best Bond director was Peter Hunt.... a jobbing director!
Bond...James Bond by sundown	May 31st, 2001 10:26:23 AM
I come from the stand point of when a 'franchise' continually makes money it isn't in need of an overhaul. Excuse me but only certain people around these parts have a prejudice towards Bond. Make no mistake these films don't have the zing they should but they are far from bad an I think Apted did a fine job. My problem is the way Bond laughs off everything particularly the death of Teri Hatcher int he second of Brosnans. He goes from her horrible death to a fun action scene where he plays with the gadgets on the car. Poor editing in my opinion...you didn't see Riggs running around cracking jokes after the chick bought it in Lethal Weapon 2. That was the event that drove the film to its finale. Hatchers death should have done the same. I thought Apteds work was superior and I really liked the injured Bond however the villain was wasted and we didn't get to see him use his 'powers' over Bond. I was more pumped when Bond dove for that sub than at any part in the previous films but the pay off fight was weak. They just don't want to push Bond past a certain point so it will always be PG13 and will always let down us bloodthirsty geeks who want a counter-intelligence agent who is a cold blooded killer. If i were 9in charge of the franchise I'd do one last one with Brosnan and Connery. Connery is the retired Bond someone wants dead and Brosnan must protect him. This is where they finally firm up the continuity and tell a little about the history of Bond which will make it all the more special. In the end Connery proves to be not so helpless and they defeat the villain (hopefully played by an Anthony Hopkins or someone who can act) along with his bad ass henchman (Donnie Yen!) in a major battle. The trick is getting actors that can work and giving them lines and real motivation and yes Specter should be reintroduced. At the end of the film Brosnan retires (fakes death?) like Connery did and in the next film the new Bond takes over. New series pits Bond against Specter in a series of battles. But since MGM couldn't give a shit about me or y'all I doubt this will happen.
Bond Villans by dashamus	May 31st, 2001 10:30:40 AM
Personally, I think that the Bond series need a new recurring villan/organization for Bond to combat. It's all very well fighting a madman, then another different madman, then another.. after a while it gets boring. Bring back SPECTRE or HYDRA as said earlier. MGM could easily get a set of 3-6 scripts with this theme and possibly get back into the black! Shamus
. by NapoleonWilson	May 31st, 2001 10:32:56 AM
If you get Adrian Paul then it'll be the first straight-to-video Bond film.
sundown by superninja	May 31st, 2001 10:33:31 AM
I happen to like the idea of it being the same person. Does it make sense? Not really, but if you dump it, you lose the background of his dead wife, experience, history, etc. Not that they've been using it anyway...But I don't like the "pass the mantle" idea. I just want to see a new Bond. Brosnan is bored and it shows, and that's about the worst position for an actor to be in. Of the Brosnan films, I think TND is the best, plot-wise, despite the Rupert Murdock villain being lame and the obvious product placement.
Bond is Scottish. by kdraines	May 31st, 2001 10:34:22 AM
Fleming wrote him that way. That's one of the reasons Connery was so perfect for the role.
The spy and the superhero by flynno	May 31st, 2001 10:41:23 AM
I think the problem started when Roger Moore wanted to play Bond "different" than Connery. Connery was young and brash, but he was still a spy. Roger Moore played an older Bond, with more gadgets and assistance that Connery had. Want to see the WORST bond film? Watch Octopussy sometime. This was the one that gelled the movies on the course of being pure dumb action drivel. It's horrible! The only good scene in there is Bond on the airplane. See, Roger Moore's bond would kill someone with a wrist dart hand laser explosive rocket, but Connery's bond would fu** somebody up with a chair and a PHONE! Watch Thunderball some time. THAT's the way Bond films should be.
I disagree Harry!! My favorite Bond flick is "For Your Eyes Onl by The_Lion	May 31st, 2001 10:47:08 AM
In the last Bond flick, the bad guy's headquarters (at least where we saw him) was some place where fire burns on some rocks. Lame. How about an underwater city, or space station, or some kind of of impressive headquarters. -------------------One thing I do agree on is, MORE SPYING! Less action-hero B.S. uzi shooting.
Them wacky spy movies by RenoNevada2000	May 31st, 2001 11:14:55 AM
Well you have to admire the diversity of opinion here- On one hand you have Tippex wondering "why do Americans hold poor British actors and directors in such high esteem" while right below him Smyth accuses we Americans as being "soooooo insular." Is it any wonder no one can agree on anything in these Talkbacks? Now than, a word or two or several for Charles Grady, who seems to think that a direct rethinking of the Bond franchise is a bad idea. The Bond movies have moved through several styles over the years from serious spy thriller to camp to its current incarnation as two steps removed from the standard action flick. These moves have been gradual and probably there was not much careful planning involved. It's time that someone put some serious thought into the future of the Bond films. If the execs in charge think that people will flock just because it's the Bond brand name on the films, they're soon going to find themselves with a "Star Trek: Voyager" sized piece of shit. Bond used to be the trendsetter. Now it's being spoofed in films like "Austin Powers" and the abysmal Leslie Nielson flick "Spy Hard." Take a look at the good start the "Superman" and "Batman" franchises had and how quickly they crashed and burned. The chief reason there was no long term planning. It is possible to change and evolve the manner we tell stories on the screen. If it weren't, we'd still be watching silent films. Finally- Hud, you may be right. Derrick Flint may be just the man we need for these post-hip, ironic times.
BMW film freak? by PlasmaOrb	May 31st, 2001 11:27:51 AM
I think someone has been watching the BMW films a little too much. Its not about how much is spent, its how the story is, you should know this by now. Stories can only hold up as well as the director and vice versa. You can put anyone in that chair and the film would still be shite. We need to start bringing in some comic book writers with a edgey sense of writing and see what happens. What better short stories than comics... these guys think visually and mentally. Lets bring someone on board like Warren Ellis, Alan Moore, Garth Ennis, Grant Morrison or someone like that (especially since they are british, which would be good) Its just a thought...
I have to add that MY personal favorite Bond flick: by Smugbug	May 31st, 2001 11:40:38 AM
Never Say Never - it showed a aging Bond (Connery) and a GREAT femme fatale in Barbara Carrera. Also, I thought the villain was awesome (I forgot his name here, but he also played the philandering husband of Meryl Streep in Out of Africa). Anyways, I believe Russell Crowe wouldn't do it - cuz, he seems to like "odd" personalized roles. Hugh Jackman's got a chance to "grow" as an actor right now and he's very much recognized as Wolverine - why would he want to be recognized as Bond. Remember how long it took Connery to scrape off the Bond stigma and start getting recognized for other stuff. As for Moore, the worst Bond ever and always. Remember in 1981 when TWO Bond films opened up during the summer? Never Say Never against, was it For Your Eyes Only? Never won with the old school Bond fans. Even though it wasn't officially part of the franchise. Nevertheless it was a better flick. Remember, my opinion. Okay, moving on: Hugh and Russell a no-no for Bond flicks. I also thought that Timothy Dalton had the best Connery-type of Bond ideal. Too bad the directors of his movies sucked. I'd say that I'm tired of Adrian Paul. And so what if he's got "martial arts move" - he wouldn't work. Maybe Colin Firth. But I still think someone like Clive Owen would also. But please oh please don't get a Fincher, or Tarantino. Bond should not be directed to the MTV 20-30 crowd with lots of fast editing and faux-style "look at me, I'm a spy" type dialogue. BUT, a Bond flick should have exotic locales, fast cars, cool gadgets, beautiful and deadly women (WOMEN not GIRLS - as in Denise Richards), necessary action, all wraped in a blanket of suave, sophisticated deadly spy maturity. Remember, we all should WANT to be 007. I know whenever I watched a Bond flick as a kid, I wanted to be a female- Connery....
Better Bond..... in 15 years by kothoga212	May 31st, 2001 11:57:57 AM
I have come to the conclusion that the perfect Bond of the future will be Jude Law, he's totally sexy, very suave, perfect for James Bond.

Talkbacks

Reconception for JAMES BOND... Using Wong Kar Wai and Clive Owen