Comments | kingofhearts134: EWWW to the MAX!

kingofhearts134

EWWW to the MAX!

Jun 21, 2006 23:17

So here's the deal. I'm not sure if anyone on here knows about the new 007 movie coming out, but if you do, then you know about the new James Bond. Why Pierce Brosnan had to be a snob and ask for more money for the next Bond movie is beyond me, but I guess since MGM is freakishly rich what with a giant grip in the movie industry and a casino that ( Read more... )

light ranting, angry times, 007

Comments 4

zeekie June 22 2006, 17:05:02 UTC

i thought i heard somewhere that they decided pierce was too old...?

headinthewall June 23 2006, 01:15:31 UTC

I am a life long James Bond fan and I happen to agree with you about Daniel Craig not being a good Bond or not looking the part rather. But it's not Pierce Brosnan's fault they fired him. The new Bond movie is a "reboot" of the franchise much like "Batman Begins." So the big shots over at Eon Productions felt it necessary to cast a new younger Bond cuz in Casino Royal the first James Bond book, he was young and had just become a "OO" agent.

Consequently, this is like the start of a whole new series of Bond movies that will have nothing to do with the continuity of the previous 20 Bond films which in their universe, each takes place right after the last and they pretend like Bond never ages. This is the start of a whole new series of movies so the Pierce Bronson ones and Roger Moore ones and Sean Connery ones effectively have never been made or do not exist. Much like the previous four Batman movies never existed before "Batman Begins."

And Sean Connery is the best Bond ever with Pierce Bronson coming in second.

kingofhearts134 June 24 2006, 12:34:49 UTC

Oh I see, so Casino Royale takes place before, ahhhhhh... it is clear to me why they would want a young bond now, but as I have said earlier, Pierce told the executives he wanted more for this one than Die Another Day, and the executives basically said, 'go to hell then'. Also, the aformentioned executives, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, really had no idea what they were doing and what they were going to do for the next bond film. It was thanks to Pierce that they are focusing on plot rather than special effects for Casino Royale. So I can see how "Bond 21" will seem like, and I guess will be really, a "Bond 01" film. Sure Pierce is 53 right now, but a bit of hair dye and make-up makes Pierce look at most 40. And regardless, Pierce had a good 4 movies and I would totally be up for a younger Bond, just not Craig. I mean the guy doesn't even have eyebrows. And he didn't know how to play poker at all. The man sat there at the table while doing a go-over of the script and couldn't tell a Royal Flush from a Full House. They had to ( ... )

headinthewall June 26 2006, 03:04:44 UTC

They do know that Cuba Gooding Jr. is black right? And I totally agree that Pierce Brosnan had a few more good years left of playing Bond. Why they needed to "reboot" the series now at this juncture in Bond's history is beyond me. But I will not be boycotting the movie but I will not pay to see it.