Sony wants Connery for their Bond
m2...@utdallas.edu
Got this off of Variety(dependable source)
Of JAMES BOND-age
The rivalry between MGM and Sony over the James Bond franchise thickens.
Dish hears that Sony topper John Calley is courting Sean Connery to star,
and "Godzilla" tandem Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin to direct and
produce, respectively. Though none of them has decided, grudges may
motivate them to say yes. Connery did "Never Say Never Again," the first
remake of "Thunderball," partly to stick it to producer Cubby Broccoli,
whom he felt never paid him his worth. Though Sony bought "Thunderball,"
Connery might like to reclaim his Bond identity and thwart the
Broccoli-controlled Bond franchise again. And Emmerich and Devlin didn't
have much fun working with MGM when the studio distributed their sleeper
sci-fi hit "Stargate," because the duo felt the studio didn't get behind
the film until it opened strongly.
Adding to the intrigue, Dish also hears that Pierce Brosnan, who's played
Bond for the two most recent MGM pics, met Martin Scorsese at a social
event and asked if he might consider doing a Bond turn. Though Scorsese
made no commitment, he didn't say no and seemed receptive.
Any Sony film is predicated on that studio successfully fighting the
whopping lawsuit MGM filed to protect its Bond franchise and challenge
Sony's plan.
Sony was mum, but an MGM spokesman said: "Regardless of who Sony may
claim to be in talks with, MGM has all rights to James Bond and will
block in court any attempts by Sony to proceed with a James Bond film in
any way."
GBroad
> Got this off of Variety(dependable source)
>
> Of JAMES BOND-age
>
> The rivalry between MGM and Sony over the James Bond franchise thickens.
>
> Dish hears that Sony topper John Calley is courting Sean Connery to star,
Amazing. Connery's 67, by my count. He'd probably be very popular, too.
But I can't help wondering what the odds of them hiring, or even
considering hiring, a 67 year old woman to play the female love interest
are. I'd say about one in ten billion. That says something, I think.
GB
Tim Curtin >
GBroad wrote:
>
>
> Amazing. Connery's 67, by my count. He'd probably be very popular, too.
> But I can't help wondering what the odds of them hiring, or even
> considering hiring, a 67 year old woman to play the female love interest
> are. I'd say about one in ten billion. That says something, I think.
>
> GB
Several years ago, Sean did a movie with Audrey Hepburn (God, why did it
take so long to think of putting those two together?) called Robin and
Marian about Robin Hood and, well, Marian, rekindling their old romance
in their middle-age. Seeing these two working together was just so
good. I think it would be incredibly cool to get an actress of around
Connery's age and show a really good, mature love story. I haven't read
Thunderball in a while, but there should be a way to retool the
characters to allow for something like that.
TC
GBroad
In article <66rp70$epq$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, Tim Curtin
<"<tcurtin"@luc.edu>> wrote:
Robin and Marian was a good movie, but somehow I have difficulty seeing a
"mature love story" in any James Bond novel or film. The license to kill
is also a license to have sex with impunity, and that's always been a
major part of the appeal of the character. I think efforts to make Bond
serious have always missed the point. There simply isn't enough of a
character there to do anything all that serious with. Bond is more like a
set of ideas and symbolic associations: good sex, good living, etc. By
contrast, mature relationships are, as they say in the play "Look Back in
Anger" "not something soft you fall into" they require hard work and they
can be very painful. Apart from a half-page (or half minute long
on-screen blip) in OHMSS I've never seen anything in the Bond character
which suggests that it's possible to do anything like that with him.
GB
Tim Curtin >
GBroad wrote:
>
> Robin and Marian was a good movie, but somehow I have difficulty seeing a
> "mature love story" in any James Bond novel or film. The license to kill
> is also a license to have sex with impunity, and that's always been a
> major part of the appeal of the character. I think efforts to make Bond
> serious have always missed the point. There simply isn't enough of a
> character there to do anything all that serious with. Bond is more like a
> set of ideas and symbolic associations: good sex, good living, etc. By
> contrast, mature relationships are, as they say in the play "Look Back in
> Anger" "not something soft you fall into" they require hard work and they
> can be very painful. Apart from a half-page (or half minute long
> on-screen blip) in OHMSS I've never seen anything in the Bond character
> which suggests that it's possible to do anything like that with him.
>
> GB
I agree, but that half-page, half-minute blip represents (to me at
least, if not necessarily the general movie-going public) the high point
of the entire series. The way I see it, why on earth NOT try to do
something exciting and experimental with the character if you have the
opportunity Sony does (I know, the answer is "because it isn't a
money-making proposition"). With a sixty-seven year old Connery, aren't
you sort of obliged to take a new look at the character no matter what
(I understand that this is all just a rumor, but for the sake of
argument)? I mean a seventy-year old Bond pursuing a twenty-five year
old Bond girl, may well be the hero of his next AARP meeting, but I have
trouble thinking that the public will respond well to that, even if it
is Sean. As far as what Bond represents, my way of interpreting it is
that Bond is a person who affects this lifestyle, this set of ideas and
associations to mask something deeper. There are easier jobs which
afford the same opportunity to have fast cars and wild sex.
TC
Blox
Tim Curtin wrote:
> GBroad wrote:
> >
>
> > Robin and Marian was a good movie, but somehow I have difficulty seeing a
> > "mature love story" in any James Bond novel or film.
...OHMSS, as close as you'll get.
> The license to kill > is also a license to have sex with impunity, and that's
> always been a
> > major part of the appeal of the character.
...From what I hear about Connery and the Danish chick, he's, ahem, right up
there.
> I think efforts to make Bond
> > serious have always missed the point. There simply isn't enough of a
> > character there to do anything all that serious with.
...There are elements in the novels the producers just have not exploited yet:
Bond's brain washing from TMWTGG; Bond sent to his death by his boss in YOLT;
confusing his feelings in CR for Vesper with his duties to HMSS; etc. Bond
also took much more physical abuse in Fleming's stories & seemed to always wind
up the novel in a hospital bed. Lord knows how his privates survived Le
Chiffre in CR.
> Bond is more like a
> > set of ideas and symbolic associations: good sex, good living, etc. By
> > contrast, mature relationships are, as they say in the play "Look Back in
> > Anger" "not something soft you fall into" they require hard work and they
> > can be very painful.
...This is true, and of course an actor like Connery could certainly deliver in
this respect -- in fact this is what he could do as Bond at his age -- rather
than the succession of beddings. An older Bond could help the neglected protege
-- make that possession -- of a young neglectful & wealthy Largo -- re-discover
her sexuality (experience goes a long way) & unlock her heart's hardened
incapacity to love. This is right there with the Bond/Domino/Largo triangle and
really has yet to be fully exploited. NSNA got closer than Tball here -- the
next --- if there is a next could make that a front & center thing.
> Apart from a half-page (or half minute long
> > on-screen blip) in OHMSS I've never seen anything in the Bond character
> > which suggests that it's possible to do anything like that with him.
...Well Bond's maturity was intersected in 62 by the advent of Hugh Hefner &
the Playboy Advisor, and today's climate makes the prospects for the hard work
fought by the literary Bond to show up on screen in a picture. I certainly
doubt that you will see maturity any time soon in a _product_ like TND. Just as
NSNA showed Eon how to rediscover characterization in a Bond -- perhaps the
Sony outing -- if it ever happens (and I doubt it will survive the courts) --
will do the same.
>
> I mean a seventy-year old Bond pursuing a twenty-five year
> old Bond girl, may well be the hero of his next AARP meeting, but I have
> trouble thinking that the public will respond well to that, even if it
> is Sean.
...Well he'll probably be bedding Raquel Welch -- but will people pay to see
the picture? Sure...
> As far as what Bond represents, my way of interpreting it is
> that Bond is a person who affects this lifestyle, this set of ideas and
> associations to mask something deeper.
...the inevitability of death: "One day the iron crab will get me, Fleming
said...." I will not waste my days in trying to prolong them...I will use my
time." That's the essence of the hard living & loving Bond of Fleming imho...
> There are easier jobs which
> afford the same opportunity to have fast cars and wild sex.
...Where where where? (smile)
B l o x
>
>
> TC
GBroad
> ...There are elements in the novels the producers just have not exploited yet:
> Bond's brain washing from TMWTGG; Bond sent to his death by his boss in YOLT;
> confusing his feelings in CR for Vesper with his duties to HMSS; etc. Bond
> also took much more physical abuse in Fleming's stories & seemed to
always wind
> up the novel in a hospital bed. Lord knows how his privates survived Le
> Chiffre in CR.
I find I can't agree; I don't think that the cinematic Bond is any less
two-dimensional than Fleming's. There are occasional moments of
introspection, but they come off more as obligatory moments between the
good sex and the good living.
The Man with the Golden Gun is the weakest novel in the series and the
whole brainwashing bit had already been done, much better, in Deighton's
"Ipcress File." Also, I don't read any confusion in Casino Royale. In
fact, I think it's important to understand what Fleming was trying to do
in that scene. Bond's only loyalty is to the Secret Service and Great
Britain. The moment he finds out that she is a double agent his love for
her is gone "now he saw her only as a spy". That's not a human reaction,
but it's the kind of reaction Fleming wanted. He wanted a romantic spy
whose foremost attribute was patriotism to replace the much more complex
spies of Eric Ambler and Graham Greene. I don't think there's room in
the character for much in the way of development. However, I do think it
would be interesting to see something done to Fleming's novels along the
lines of the BBC's Sherlock Holmes series. Set them as period pieces with
modest budgets and remain faithful to the books. Now, that simply won't
ever happen, because the big studios can continue to make millions and
millions simply by making Bond films that are entirely reactive to
whatever happens to be going on in the action genre these days, while
maintaining a familar and perpertually young James Bond at the centre of
the shooting. In my opinion, it's like the effort of the "Batman" film
makers to make a psychologically complex Batman. It's an interesting idea,
but the bottom line is that Batman is a comic book character and whole
situation is preposterous. I think it's about the same with Bond. I like
Bond for the good sex, the good living, the action, the coolness, etc. I
don't think there's room there for much else, and I think Fleming on the
whole realized this.
GB
PETER GREENHILL
m2...@utdallas.edu wrote in message <66q52q$mqe$1...@news.utdallas.edu>...
>
>Got this off of Variety(dependable source)
>
>Of JAMES BOND-age
>
>The rivalry between MGM and Sony over the James Bond franchise thickens.
>
>Dish hears that Sony topper John Calley is courting Sean Connery to star,
>
Interesting. Even in his mid 60s Connery would create massive interest as
Bond. I have
yet to see TND but the last two Bond movies were poor and I welcome the Sony
franchise. Also use John Barry for the score!!.
If Connery really is too old for Bond then use him for the villain and try
for Sean Bean or
Daniel Day Lewis or Ralph Finnes as Bond.
pg
Icebreaker
GBroad wrote:
> Amazing. Connery's 67, by my count. He'd probably be very popular, too.
> But I can't help wondering what the odds of them hiring, or even
> considering hiring, a 67 year old woman to play the female love interest
> are. I'd say about one in ten billion. That says something, I think.
>
> GB
It will never happen. And if it did, it would be a major mistake. Very
few people really want to see Connery at this age trying to play Bond.
There's nothing worse than athletes and movie stars vainly trying to
recapture past glory or sticking around well past their prime.
Furthermore, as someone mentioned, one reason Connery took NSNA was to
get back at Broccoli. Connery felt underpaid. Albert isn't around
anymore. There's almost no incentive for Connery to come back. I've
hedged in the past on whether I would watch WARHEAD 2000. There is no
such hedging now. If Connery came back to the role I definitely would
skip this film.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Icebreaker
"http://www.007forever.com/index.html"
'Words are the new weapons; websites are the new artillery'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBroad
In article <66sqod$6...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, JEFF HAUSE
<jha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> -- Felix Leiter is not only without a hand and leg, he's lost an ear, nose,
> and has patches over BOTH eyes.
Actually something very much like this happened in Gardner's novelization
of License to Kill - Bond even thinks something like, "Oh no! Not again!"
and finds Leiter has been munched on by a shark once more!
GB
Robert Cotton
Actually I read LTK for two reasons, one, an irritating desire for
completeness, and two, to find out how Gardner worked the rehash of LALD.
When I reached the sequence you described, I nearly died laughing.
--
RCC
GBroad wrote in message ...
Icebreaker
Matthew Bradford wrote:
> I just don't think that's true. Perhaps YOU don't want to see Connery play
> Bond again now, but I really don't think that that applies to mass audiences.
> I think that there are millions of movie-goers who would still welcome Connery
> back to the role.
Matthew, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I respect your views,
but I think you're in serious denial if you truly believe that the mass
moviegoing audience would welcome back Connery. Roger was too old by the
time AVTAK was released, and though he and Connery are on different
levels, Roger was still a popular Bond at the time he left the role. I
can't imagine why the audience would accept AN EVEN OLDER James Bond.
> Case in point: The Rock. A huge hit, with Connery
> essentially playing Bond again.
Even if that were true, which I disagree with, Connery more or less
hates the 007 role. He is our William Shatner. NSNA provided him with
opportunities he didn't have with EON produced 007's. There's just no
incentive for him to return. I'm confident that audiences want Pierce,
they do not want Connery, and that Connery does not want 007.
> Also, I remember reading that Connery had finally forgiven Broccoli.
> Matt
"Forgiven Broccoli"? That's very sporting of Connery, considering it was
the 007 role that put him on the map. But I understand what you're
saying.
Icebreaker
Had one more thing to add to all this...
The very fact that SONY may be courting Connery to do 007 one more time
shows just how desperate and defeated this project is. They realize that
no one else is seared into the public conciousness of 007 right now
quite like Sean or Pierce. They can't have Pierce, so they are going
after Connery. To me, this is complete evidence that this project is
going nowhere. No major star is going to want to get into a competing
Bond film. None of the major sponsors will endorse a rogue 007 project.
SONY can't land the endorsement deals EON got. Major companies and
sponsors know who the real Bond is. And that is McClory's problem in a
nutshell. His material is limited. He can't get a current major star to
sign on to the project, and no big name commerical endorsements will be
forthcoming. Do us all a favor and raise the white flag Kevin.
--
Matthew Bradford
In article <3491D1...@mindspring.com>, icebr...@mindspring.com wrote:
>It will never happen. And if it did, it would be a major mistake. Very
>few people really want to see Connery at this age trying to play Bond.
Bond again now, but I really don't think that that applies to mass audiences.
I think that there are millions of movie-goers who would still welcome Connery
essentially playing Bond again. So many critics lament, every time a new Bond
movie comes out (and I certainly don't agree with them), "Where's Sean
Connery?" etc. I really don't think it can be said that "very few" people
want to see Connery as 007 again. That said, I definitely agree with you on
your first point, it will never happen.
>Furthermore, as someone mentioned, one reason Connery took NSNA was to
>get back at Broccoli. Connery felt underpaid. Albert isn't around
>anymore.
Also, I remember reading that Connery had finally forgiven Broccoli.
Matt
Matthew Bradford
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
m-bra...@nwu.edu
Matthew Bradford
Well, to begin, I don't for a minute believe this movie will ever get made.
But it's still fun to speculate! So, IF Sony really did get Emmerich and
Devlin to direct/produce a Bond movie, where would David Arnold's allegiances
lie? He'll probably be tapped as the EON composer for a while now, after his
TND score's success. But he's scored all of Emmerich's movies so far. If he
did a Sony Bond, I'd bet that would effectively sever his ties with EON
forever. It's an interesting thing to wonder about...
JEFF HAUSE
>Several years ago, Sean did a movie with Audrey Hepburn (God, why did it
>take so long to think of putting those two together?) called Robin and
>Marian about Robin Hood and, well, Marian, rekindling their old romance
>in their middle-age. Seeing these two working together was just so
>good. I think it would be incredibly cool to get an actress of around
>Connery's age and show a really good, mature love story. I haven't read
>Thunderball in a while, but there should be a way to retool the
>characters to allow for something like that.
>
John Pearson's Bond biography did something like this, and it was very
entertaining. I wonder if McClory's allowed to make a sequel to
"Thunderball." Bond and Blofeld finally face off as old men for the last
time? (Notice to everyone about to start a flame war because of this idea:
get a life -- it's just an idea)
-- Q could issue Bond a motorized wheelchair with all the Aston Martin
accessories.
-- Blofeld still has the cat, only it's long dead and stuffed by a
taxidermist.
-- Domino still has a mole on her thigh, only now because of age it has
sunken down to her ankle.
-- Felix Leiter is not only without a hand and leg, he's lost an ear, nose,
and has patches over BOTH eyes.
-- The Bond/Largo card game is now a shuffleboard contest.
Seriously, though, I would LOVE to see Connery play Bond as an older man (it
seems like they started to in NSNA, then fell back into formula in the
second half of the film). Go Sony!
Jeff
JEFF HAUSE
In article <349208...@mindspring.com>,
Icebreaker <icebr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Had one more thing to add to all this...
>
>
>The very fact that SONY may be courting Connery to do 007 one more time
>shows just how desperate and defeated this project is. They realize that
>no one else is seared into the public conciousness of 007 right now
>quite like Sean or Pierce. They can't have Pierce, so they are going
>after Connery.
Calley and Connery are friends, and worked together on NSNA (okay, not great
friends, but Sean was closer to him than Broccoli...)
>To me, this is complete evidence that this project is
>going nowhere. No major star is going to want to get into a competing
>Bond film.
Oh yeah? Put an ad in 'Variety.'
>None of the major sponsors will endorse a rogue 007 project.
>SONY can't land the endorsement deals EON got. Major companies and
>sponsors know who the real Bond is.
Here we go with the banking again...
>And that is McClory's problem in a
>nutshell. His material is limited. He can't get a current major star to
>sign on to the project, and no big name commerical endorsements will be
>forthcoming. Do us all a favor and raise the white flag Kevin.
HE JUST GOT SONY!!!!!
Jeff
JEFF HAUSE
In article <349207...@mindspring.com>,
Icebreaker <icebr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Matthew Bradford wrote:
>
>> I just don't think that's true. Perhaps YOU don't want to see Connery
play
>> Bond again now, but I really don't think that that applies to mass
audiences.
>> I think that there are millions of movie-goers who would still welcome
Connery
>> back to the role.
>
>Matthew, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I respect your views,
>but I think you're in serious denial if you truly believe that the mass
>moviegoing audience would welcome back Connery.
Oh, they'd HATE that. How DARE he reprise the role he made famous. Since
this is all just speculation, it's not worth getting too far into - but I
will say this: When fans start arguing about movie grosses, the series is
dead. We're supposed to be Bond fans, not bankers.
The more Bond, the better! I'm going now -- "From Russia With Love" is on
TBS.
Jeff
Onthewhole
seems to me connery is bond BUT you never can tell about these fictional
heroes. i grew up thinking no one could top basil rathbone as holmes. then
along came jeremy brett.....
bond: saxby...
ww: BURT saxby? tell him he's fired!
Icebreaker
JEFF HAUSE wrote:
>
> Oh, they'd HATE that. How DARE he reprise the role he made famous. Since
> this is all just speculation, it's not worth getting too far into - but I
> will say this: When fans start arguing about movie grosses, the series is
> dead. We're supposed to be Bond fans, not bankers.
Well Jeff, I don't remember arguing movie grosses in the thread you
quoted from and i'm too lazy to go back and double check. But even if I
did, so what? A person can be concerned with quality as well as making a
profit. I realize you can't stand any discussion about movie grosses,
but i'm sorry. They are an important part of filmaking and can be used,
sometimes, to be a barometer of how the audience likes a film.
And I agree with you 100 percent. The audience would HATE Connery's
return and it would take a lot of chutzpah on his part to return to it.
What nerve of Sean!
Icebreaker
JEFF HAUSE wrote:
>
> >None of the major sponsors will endorse a rogue 007 project.
> >SONY can't land the endorsement deals EON got. Major companies and
> >sponsors know who the real Bond is.
>
> Here we go with the banking again...
Again, so what? It was important in 1962 and it's important in 1997. Dr.
No didn't get financed with Monopoly money you know. And what i'm also
trying (if this hasn't been made clear) to say is that these sponsors
are also backing up, not only TND, but Pierce as well. You don't think
he did the VISA commercial for free do you? My point is that not only is
Brosnan THE MAN because of the film, he's also THE MAN because you've
got major companies throwing obscene amounts of cash his way to endorse
their products albeit in a tie in with TND (i.e VISA, OMEGA,BMW) or more
indirectly, like Heinekin. The audience (from critical and box office
reaction) and the commercial world have stood up and said Brosnan is
their Bond. SONY would be a fool to try and challenge this.
>
> >And that is McClory's problem in a
> >nutshell. His material is limited. He can't get a current major star to
> >sign on to the project, and no big name commerical endorsements will be
> >forthcoming. Do us all a favor and raise the white flag Kevin.
>
> HE JUST GOT SONY!!!!!
yes, he did get SONY didn't he. And if SONY did'nt have a disgruntled
exMGM/UA staffer there, do you really think McClory would be wheeeling
and dealing? Nah. Funny how NO OTHER STUDIO invested into his little dog
and pony show other than a studio run by bitter John Calley.
Tim Curtin >
GBroad wrote:
>
> In article <66sqod$6...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, JEFF HAUSE
> <jha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > and has patches over BOTH eyes.
>
> of License to Kill - Bond even thinks something like, "Oh no! Not again!"
> and finds Leiter has been munched on by a shark once more!
>
> GB
Some guys just can't get a break. BTW, I never read LTK, does Felix get
lucky and have the shark only eat his prosthetics or what?
TC
Denise Perry
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:36:24 -0600, Tim Curtin <"<tcurtin"@luc.edu>> wrote:
>GBroad wrote:
>>
>> Amazing. Connery's 67, by my count. He'd probably be very popular, too.
>> But I can't help wondering what the odds of them hiring, or even
>> considering hiring, a 67 year old woman to play the female love interest
>> are. I'd say about one in ten billion. That says something, I think.
>>
>Several years ago, Sean did a movie with Audrey Hepburn (God, why did it
>take so long to think of putting those two together?) called Robin and
>Marian about Robin Hood and, well, Marian, rekindling their old romance
>in their middle-age. Seeing these two working together was just so
>good. I think it would be incredibly cool to get an actress of around
>Connery's age and show a really good, mature love story. I haven't read
>Thunderball in a while, but there should be a way to retool the
>characters to allow for something like that.
I really liked this movie at the time. Notable is that a former
Bond adversary (Robert Shaw) plays his adversary (Sheriff of
Nottingham) in Robin and Marian.
Wmkoenig
Icebreaker wrote:
>Matthew, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I respect your views,
>but I think you're in serious denial if you truly believe that the mass
>moviegoing audience would welcome back Connery. Roger was too old by the
>time AVTAK was released, and though he and Connery are on different
>levels, Roger was still a popular Bond at the time he left the role. I
>can't imagine why the audience would accept AN EVEN OLDER James Bond.
>
>
Perhaps. But just think of how happy Gene Siskel would be. ;-)
0011
Fred Armstrong
Maybe Sony should get Denzel Washington to be Bond.
JEFF HAUSE
In article <34928D...@mindspring.com>,
Icebreaker <icebr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>JEFF HAUSE wrote:
>>
>> >None of the major sponsors will endorse a rogue 007 project.
>> >SONY can't land the endorsement deals EON got. Major companies and
>> >sponsors know who the real Bond is.
>>
>> Here we go with the banking again...
>
>Again, so what? It was important in 1962 and it's important in 1997. Dr.
>No didn't get financed with Monopoly money you know. And what i'm also
>trying (if this hasn't been made clear) to say is that these sponsors
>are also backing up, not only TND, but Pierce as well. You don't think
>he did the VISA commercial for free do you?
Visa has approached every Bond since Moore. And I GUARANTEE you if Connery
did another Bond film, then advertisers would be after him.
>My point is that not only is
>Brosnan THE MAN because of the film, he's also THE MAN because you've
>got major companies throwing obscene amounts of cash his way to endorse
>their products albeit in a tie in with TND (i.e VISA, OMEGA,BMW) or more
>indirectly, like Heinekin. The audience (from critical and box office
>reaction) and the commercial world have stood up and said Brosnan is
>their Bond. SONY would be a fool to try and challenge this.
>
That would be exactly why everybody would WANT to make a new Bond.
>>
>> >And that is McClory's problem in a
>> >nutshell. His material is limited. He can't get a current major star to
>> >sign on to the project, and no big name commerical endorsements will be
>> >forthcoming. Do us all a favor and raise the white flag Kevin.
>>
>> HE JUST GOT SONY!!!!!
>
>yes, he did get SONY didn't he. And if SONY did'nt have a disgruntled
>exMGM/UA staffer there, do you really think McClory would be wheeeling
>and dealing? Nah. Funny how NO OTHER STUDIO invested into his little dog
>and pony show other than a studio run by bitter John Calley.
>
Here's news for you. Only one sudio CAN deal with McClory -- and it's a
bigger studio (by far) than MGM.
As for the idea of this project being dead, it's only been TWO MONTHS.
You're talking about the movie busines -- NOTHING happens in two months.
Nobody hires actors, signs up advertisers or begins cross-promotions until
they are ready for production -- that's (at least) a year away. They don't
even have a Bond yet -- and they won't get one without a script. Eon didn't
hire Brosnan or Dalton or Moore (or even Connery) until months -- sometimes
weeks -- before filming. The movie process is slow -- just because people
talk about it every day here on this NG doesn't mean it would or should move
any faster.
As for Calley, major studios don't let their executives by properties and
make major announcements unless their legal department thinks they can. You
have no idea what's going on; I don't either; MGM doesn't know what Sony's
doing, and vice-versa.
I still can't understand the big deal! I'm looking forward to TND, and I'll
look forward to the Sony film. This is the only fan newsgroup I know of
where people get PISSED when a new movie with their hero is announced. That
kid posting a few weeks ago was right -- get a life!
JEFF HAUSE
In article <34928B...@mindspring.com>,
Icebreaker <icebr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>JEFF HAUSE wrote:
>>
>> Oh, they'd HATE that. How DARE he reprise the role he made famous. Since
>> this is all just speculation, it's not worth getting too far into - but I
>> will say this: When fans start arguing about movie grosses, the series is
>> dead. We're supposed to be Bond fans, not bankers.
>
>Well Jeff, I don't remember arguing movie grosses in the thread you
>quoted from and i'm too lazy to go back and double check. But even if I
>did, so what? A person can be concerned with quality as well as making a
>profit.
I wasn't aware that you are an investor.
>I realize you can't stand any discussion about movie grosses,
>but i'm sorry. They are an important part of filmaking and can be used,
>sometimes, to be a barometer of how the audience likes a film.
>
>And I agree with you 100 percent. The audience would HATE Connery's
>return and it would take a lot of chutzpah on his part to return to it.
>What nerve of Sean!
>
God I love ticking you off!
Jeff
Icebreaker
JEFF HAUSE wrote:
> Here's news for you. Only one sudio CAN deal with McClory -- and it's a
> bigger studio (by far) than MGM.
What is that supposed to mean? I can tell you this, in the fall of '96
when McClory made his new announcement, he was NOT partnered with SONY.
He claimed to have a financial backing at the time. Then nothing
happened for another year. Did McClory lie? What made the difference
between the announcement this year and last year?
> As for Calley, major studios don't let their executives by properties and
> make major announcements unless their legal department thinks they can. You
> have no idea what's going on; I don't either; MGM doesn't know what Sony's
> doing, and vice-versa.
You're right. I don't know all the inside info. That's why I rely on
those who do know. Example: John Cork, editor of Goldeneye Magazine, had
this to say in the latest issue and I quote "...I have had the chance to
peruse the McClory material and I feel that any studio which believes it
can produce a viable series of films off of those variations of the same
story must be in serious denial."
Frankly, I don't know of one insider in the Bond community, or in the
entertainment world who believes that SONY can possibly do anything more
than a NSNA remake, even if they are entitled to do that. And MGM's
lawsuit is very telling. They are of the opinion that this "news" from
SONY was meant to disrupt their stock offering and I agree.
> I still can't understand the big deal! I'm looking forward to TND, and I'll
> look forward to the Sony film. This is the only fan newsgroup I know of
> where people get PISSED when a new movie with their hero is announced.
Hello Jeff! We want quality pictures, not retreads of 30 year old
material.
>That
> kid posting a few weeks ago was right -- get a life!
I have a life, thank you very much. And guess what? You don't tick me
off, so don't get happy. I enjoy arguing this with you.
Icebreaker
Wmkoenig wrote:
> Perhaps. But just think of how happy Gene Siskel would be. ;-)
Good one. But i'd cast someone other than Connery just to spite Siskel.
At least Ebert has got good taste. He's generally not as finicky as
Siskel.
--
JEFF HAUSE
In article <349321...@mindspring.com>,
Icebreaker <icebr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>JEFF HAUSE wrote:
>
>> Here's news for you. Only one sudio CAN deal with McClory -- and it's a
>> bigger studio (by far) than MGM.
>
>What is that supposed to mean? I can tell you this, in the fall of '96
>when McClory made his new announcement, he was NOT partnered with SONY.
>He claimed to have a financial backing at the time. Then nothing
>happened for another year. Did McClory lie? What made the difference
>between the announcement this year and last year?
>
He said he was making "Warhead" in '76, too, and he didn't get a film
produced until '83. So actually this is moving pretty fast, despite Eon's
usual legal actions.
Look, Eon was also going to make FYEO in 1977, and Pierce Brosnan was the
next Bond in 1984, and "Portrait of a Lady" was the next Bond film in 1990.
It's called self-promotion, and most of it is bogus. This film COULD be
bogus too, but you don't know, I don't know, MGM doesn't know (hell, Sony
doesn't know for sure). But the fact is that a major studio made the
announcement, saying they would develop a script (not McClory's) and produce
a film in '99. Does that sound like a plan to you?
>
>> As for Calley, major studios don't let their executives by properties and
>> make major announcements unless their legal department thinks they can.
You
>> have no idea what's going on; I don't either; MGM doesn't know what
Sony's
>> doing, and vice-versa.
>
>You're right. I don't know all the inside info.
Thank you!!!!!!!!!
>That's why I rely on
>those who do know. Example: John Cork, editor of Goldeneye Magazine, had
>this to say in the latest issue and I quote "...I have had the chance to
>peruse the McClory material and I feel that any studio which believes it
>can produce a viable series of films off of those variations of the same
>story must be in serious denial."
>
John Cork is a great guy, but I don't think Sony would go to a fan club
magazine for legal advice (no matter how entertaining it was). I can't claim
to know Sony's angle, but neither can Cork, you, MGM or anyone who isn't
involved on their side... Hey -- The Living Daylights is on!!!
>Frankly, I don't know of one insider in the Bond community, or in the
>entertainment world who believes that SONY can possibly do anything more
>than a NSNA remake, even if they are entitled to do that.
I look forward to it. A lot of people would go to see it, and believe it or
not, the world wouldn't end. As far as a series, I'd like to see the first
film before forming an opinion.
>And MGM's
>lawsuit is very telling. They are of the opinion that this "news" from
>SONY was meant to disrupt their stock offering and I agree.
>
What exactly do you expect MGM to say?
>
>Hello Jeff! We want quality pictures, not retreads of 30 year old
>material.
>
Then don't watch Eon movies - that's basically what they all are.
Personally, I enjoy them (okay, SOME of them).
>
>>That
>> kid posting a few weeks ago was right -- get a life!
>
>I have a life, thank you very much. And guess what? You don't tick me
>off, so don't get happy. I enjoy arguing this with you.
>
Dammit.
JEFF HAUSE
>
>Frankly, I don't know of one insider in the Bond community, or in the
>entertainment world who believes that SONY can possibly do anything more
>than a NSNA remake, even if they are entitled to do that. And MGM's
>lawsuit is very telling. They are of the opinion that this "news" from
>SONY was meant to disrupt their stock offering and I agree.
>
One thing I forgot to mention in previous post: If this was all just a plan
by Calley to ruin MGM's public stock offering in October, why is he talking
to Connery and the makers of "Independence Day" in December?
Jeff
m2...@utdallas.edu
> > Perhaps. But just think of how happy Gene Siskel would be. ;-)
> Good one. But i'd cast someone other than Connery just to spite Siskel.
> At least Ebert has got good taste. He's generally not as finicky as
> Siskel.
thats what I thought before Ebert went ahead and gave Home Alone 3 two
thumbs up
Icebreaker
JEFF HAUSE wrote:
>
> He said he was making "Warhead" in '76, too, and he didn't get a film
> produced until '83.
And why was that? Nobody wanted to deal with him, nor his "rights" until
Connery came aboard. Connery was the key. Warhead sat in limbo until
Connery took it seriously.
> So actually this is moving pretty fast, despite Eon's
> usual legal actions.
> Look, Eon was also going to make FYEO in 1977,
Moot point. They still made a Bond film. Star Wars was what changed that
situation. BTW, this is something i've wondered for a while...if Star
Wars had never come out, how would Moonraker be different? It was
obviously influenced by Star Wars. Any ideas?
and Pierce Brosnan was the
> next Bond in 1984, and "Portrait of a Lady" was the next Bond film in 1990.
Was 'Portrait' ever the official title of the next Bond film or just a
rumor? Now I heard over the radio and in several other places in April
of 1992 that Whoopi Goldberg had signed to play a villian in the next
James Bond movie. My guess at the time was that her romantic
relationship with Dalton probably helped her get te part. Then nothing
happened until fall of 93 when UA announced plans for Bond18. What is
the truth about Whoopi's 007 involvment? Does anyone know? It sounded
great at the time, as the 007 films needed an injection of humor with
Dalton at the the helm.
> But the fact is that a major studio made the
> announcement, saying they would develop a script (not McClory's) and produce
> a film in '99. Does that sound like a plan to you?
Both General Custer and Bonaparte Napoleon had plans as well. Just
because a person has plans doesn't mean they are good plans.
Jim Paul
> > He said he was making "Warhead" in '76, too, and he didn't get a film
> > produced until '83.
>
> And why was that? Nobody wanted to deal with him, nor his "rights" until
> Connery came aboard. Connery was the key. Warhead sat in limbo until
> Connery took it seriously.
This is nonsense. Check your facts before shooting your mouth off. Connery,
Len Deighton and McClory had been working on a "James Bond of the Secret
Service" draft since 1975. But continuing litigation from EON prevented the
film from being made until 1983. Connery would not agree to star until the
lawyers indemnified him *personally* against lawsuits.
--
To reply, remove the NOSPAM. from the return e-mail address
JEFF HAUSE
In article <34941F...@mindspring.com>,
Icebreaker <icebr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>JEFF HAUSE wrote:
>>
>> He said he was making "Warhead" in '76, too, and he didn't get a film
>> produced until '83.
>
>And why was that? Nobody wanted to deal with him, nor his "rights" until
>Connery came aboard. Connery was the key. Warhead sat in limbo until
>Connery took it seriously.
>
My point was that it took him 7 years to start up that project. Eon's
lawyers fought with him that entire time, too, saying he had no rights for a
new Bond film, when he obviously did. Eon ALWAYS says this.
>Was 'Portrait' ever the official title of the next Bond film or just a
>rumor? Now I heard over the radio and in several other places in April
>of 1992 that Whoopi Goldberg had signed to play a villian in the next
>James Bond movie. My guess at the time was that her romantic
>relationship with Dalton probably helped her get te part. Then nothing
>happened until fall of 93 when UA announced plans for Bond18. What is
>the truth about Whoopi's 007 involvment? Does anyone know? It sounded
>great at the time, as the 007 films needed an injection of humor with
>Dalton at the the helm.
>
Don't know. They performed together in "Love Letters" at that time and their
chemistry was great.
Side note: at the same time, Al Ruddy had bought McClory's rights to make a
TV series with Pierce Brosnan. Note that I said SERIES. Eon threatened to
sue and the project was dropped -- but because Ruddy couldn't afford a legal
battle with MGM. Sony doesn't have that problem.
>> But the fact is that a major studio made the
>> announcement, saying they would develop a script (not McClory's) and
produce
>> a film in '99. Does that sound like a plan to you?
>
>Both General Custer and Bonaparte Napoleon had plans as well. Just
>because a person has plans doesn't mean they are good plans.
>
You haven't seen the plans.
Jeff
Icebreaker
The Reverend Jim Paul wrote:
> This is nonsense. Check your facts before shooting your mouth off. Connery,
> Len Deighton and McClory had been working on a "James Bond of the Secret
> Service" draft since 1975. But continuing litigation from EON prevented the
> film from being made until 1983. Connery would not agree to star until the
> lawyers indemnified him *personally* against lawsuits.
Nah. Your post is nonsense. Facts schmacts. Just as in the 60's, McClory
couldn't get anyone to bite at his project for fear of running up
against EON. And if Connery had not been attached to the project from
anywhere between 75 and 83 is still wouldn't have gotten made. The whole
point of NSNA, right down to it's title, was that Connery had returned.
Without Connery being in the role, there would have been no reason for
the vast majority of people to have gone to see that movie.
And if you want to split hairs go ahead. I'm not going to argue with YOU
about this. Willy Krebbs has spoken.
Jim Paul
In article <349449...@mindspring.com>, icebr...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Willy Krebbs has spoken.
Well you'll certainly get no argument from me on that one!
Shaukkor
>"Forgiven Broccoli"? That's very sporting of Connery, considering it was
>the 007 role that put him on the map. But I understand what you're
>saying.
...Or is it Connery who put Broccoli on the map with his characterization of
Bond?
Dave Bernardi
Shau...@msn.com
jdwiseman
m2...@utdallas.edu wrote:
>
> Icebreaker (icebr...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> > Wmkoenig wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps. But just think of how happy Gene Siskel would be. ;-)
>
> > Good one. But i'd cast someone other than Connery just to spite Siskel.
> > At least Ebert has got good taste. He's generally not as finicky as
> > Siskel.
>
> thats what I thought before Ebert went ahead and gave Home Alone 3 two
> thumbs up
>
I used to be in tune with Ebert, but this year he has proven that his
tune has gone flat.
jd
Richard Ashton
I think there is an on-going confusion on Connery's opion about Bond.
The guy ain't stupid. He knows Bond made him, and he know's that HIS
Bond films are the best of the bunch (omitting NSNA).
On the Making of THUNDERBALL video there is Connery (circa Rising Sun)
being very positive about the films.
More interesting is the commentary on the Criterion Laser Disc of THE
ROCK -- I which director Michael Bay talks about Connery at length. One
anecdote is about Connery secretly confiding that he's really playing
James Bond...and liking it.
Put a cool rug on, give the man $20+ million and a cut of the gross --
and I think you've got Connery ready to come out of retirement.
And it's not so absurd. For SONY the risks are high. They have one shot
to get it right. So going with Connery first time out would establish
them as a serious franchiser of Bond. Thereafter they could re-cast the
role. And let's face it, even with a weak script like NSNA, Connery
still has "it" -- certainly more than Brosnan (and I like Brosnan a
lot).
The publicity alone would give the film a HUGE opening weekend (which is
what the business seems to be about these days).
All the best
Richard
Icebreaker wrote:
>
> > Case in point: The Rock. A huge hit, with Connery
> > essentially playing Bond again.
>
> Even if that were true, which I disagree with, Connery more or less
> hates the 007 role. He is our William Shatner. NSNA provided him with
> opportunities he didn't have with EON produced 007's. There's just no
> incentive for him to return. I'm confident that audiences want Pierce,
> they do not want Connery, and that Connery does not want 007.
Richard Ashton
HI
I saw that performance of Love Letters in Beverly Hills too. You're
right, the chemistry was great.
At about the same time Buzz had an item joking that the next Bond would
be called "Goldbergfinger."
Oweee!
RA
Richard Ashton
Nahhh. In the '60s there was a 10-year no compete clause. EON recognized
that McClory had the rights to remake THUNDERBALL, but his deal with EON
in '65 said that he couldn't make a Bond film for 10 years. Right on cue
McClory popped up in 1975 to get going with "James Bond of the Secret
Service."
RA
Blox
GBroad wrote:
> In article <3491D031...@nospan.edu>, Blox <Bl...@nospan.edu> wrote:
>
> > ...There are elements in the novels the producers just have not exploited yet:
> > Bond's brain washing from TMWTGG; Bond sent to his death by his boss in YOLT;
> > confusing his feelings in CR for Vesper with his duties to HMSS; etc. Bond
> > also took much more physical abuse in Fleming's stories & seemed to
> always wind
> > up the novel in a hospital bed. Lord knows how his privates survived Le
> > Chiffre in CR.
>
> I find I can't agree; I don't think that the cinematic Bond is any less
> two-dimensional than Fleming's. There are occasional moments of
> introspection, but they come off more as obligatory moments between the
> good sex and the good living.
...A spin through the novels will reveal that Fleming's Bond was more a bit more
complex, suffering as he was from ennui, love hangovers, physical punishment, etc
than the cinematic Bond who floats through the proceedings relatively unscathed in
these respects. Only FRWL, OHMSS & LTK really nipped into the mindset of Fleming's
Bond imho. In any event, I agree with all that you say and only wish to remind of my
original point that "There are elements in the novels the producers just have not
exploited yet" -- and there are elements -- but these relate to unexploited
situations -- none of which really grant Bond any complexity as a character.
> The Man with the Golden Gun is the weakest novel in the series and the
> whole brainwashing bit had already been done,
...Of course the novel's weak, despite an effort at completion by Kingsly Amis. But
then _everything_ in the spy game has been "done before" by now. The brain washing
element, the idea of Bond being sent off to his doom on this novel & YOLT by an
untrustworthy brass -- this is but one element the producers haven't utilized and
they could effectively. Sure beats Bond on a boogie board in AVTAK, a tarzan yelping
vine leap in Octopussy, and all of the other really silly bits the producers _have_
elected to weaken the pictures with.
> much better, in Deighton's
> "Ipcress File."
...Not to mention "Manchurian Candidate." But it hasn't figured into a Bond yet,
and it would be interesting as one plot device of many in a picture. But then again
that's a mere opinion...
> Also, I don't read any confusion in Casino Royale.
...Bond wearying of playing Red Indians...
> In
> fact, I think it's important to understand what Fleming was trying to do
> in that scene. Bond's only loyalty is to the Secret Service and Great
> Britain. The moment he finds out that she is a double agent his love for
> her is gone "now he saw her only as a spy". That's not a human reaction,
> but it's the kind of reaction Fleming wanted.
...Right and "the bitch is dead now" scene hasn't been played yet and deserves to
figure into a _real_ Bond film..
> I don't think there's room in the character for much in the way of development.
...I definitely _do not_ agree. Poor Bond has been in prison for years. A more
developed Bond tried to succeed in OHMSS -- but was handicapped by a well intended
but awkward performance by a used car salesman. Had Connery played the part -- and
the picture succeeded at the BO (which it doubtless would have) -- Hunt would have
continued directing the series and the next Bond -- DAF would probably not have
taken such a huge step in the opposite direction. Without Connery's capacity as an
actor, the producers had no choice but to compensate for Roger Moore's lack of
charisma in LALD & future Moore pics by placing bigger stunts and explosions around
him -- externals. Bond really suffered in Moore's hands with respect to the
direction Peter Hunt intended to bring the character. His Bond was all posturing,
but how can one expect otherwise from an actor who doesn't take himself seriously as
an actor? Glen _tried_ in FYEO to capture the spirit of the early cinematic Bond but
you can see clearly that Moore' s heart wasn't in it (as he is on record in words to
this effect). Connery was legally hamstrung in NSNA & takes that material as far as
it can go in that picture with character development. Dalton read Fleming &
efforted to play Fleming's Bond in TLD -- a picture written for Moore -- but was
sandbagged by a weak script imo in his reprise in LTK. Goldeneye struggles to
redeliver on basic cinematic Bond expectations -- but the spirit of Fleming's
Commander Bond just hasn't had a _fair_ shake in celluloid since TLD.
> However, I do think it
> would be interesting to see something done to Fleming's novels along the
> lines of the BBC's Sherlock Holmes series. Set them as period pieces with
> modest budgets and remain faithful to the books.
...I don't agree again, because small budget Bond doesn't work, ie : LTK. Audiences
_expect_ something fairly impressive at the end. Fleming's inability to deliver in
terms of cinematic scale is precisely why Jack Whittingham was called in to draft
"Thunderball." But what Fleming could do well certainly should be present in the
pictures. Again this is an opinion, but I thought I'd share with you...
> Now, that simply won't
> ever happen,
...never, never say "won't ever" in Hollywood.
> because the big studios can continue to make millions and
> millions simply by making Bond films that are entirely reactive to
> whatever happens to be going on in the action genre these days, while
> maintaining a familar and perpertually young James Bond at the centre of
> the shooting.
...That's sounds like TND -- but this Bond bears an enormous burden with
stockholders -- it _has_ to be a hit for the studio. Future pictures won't be so
encumbered.
> In my opinion, it's like the effort of the "Batman" film
> makers to make a psychologically complex Batman.
..I agree but again I am not suggesting Bond rant at Bloxfinger, "Okay, let's get
nuts." I am suggesting that many Fleming story elements and devices have yet to be
exploited. They are waiting there for the next Richard Maibaum to rediscover and
readapt for cinema. Raymond Benson is doing an outstanding job of readapting
Fleming in new literary works. Imo his novels should be adapted -- just as
Fleming's novels were adapted producing great Bond pictures. Something is missing
imo when even the best of screewriters makes one up from scratch.
> It's an interesting idea,
> but the bottom line is that Batman is a comic book character and whole
> situation is preposterous. I think it's about the same with Bond.
...Yes and you have several Bond audiences out there, each owing to generational
iterations of the character in literary and cinematic form. And the expectations of
the audience will vary depending upon what they have imprinted upon. In the
beginning, Fleming was being adapted & Fleming was on hand to review and contribute
bits to the scripts. Whereas they almost screwed up in Dr. No by making him a
monkey, they nailed the genre with the next 2 pictures. And when they ceased
adapting Fleming and started adapting adaptations of Fleming -- the series started
to get thin. OHMSS is such a great Bond because it was adapted from a Fleming
novel..
> I like
> Bond for the good sex, the good living, the action, the coolness, etc. I
> don't think there's room there for much else,
...except for the contexts for these elements to occur in a story -- that's all I'm
saying. Bond is not Shakespere -- never will be. But there are things the character
can do other than just go through the motions.
> and I think Fleming on the
> whole realized this.
...Yes,but then again OHMSS -- one of his most developed novels -- came _after_ he
killed Bond
off in FRWL.
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
B l o x
GBroad
> it can go in that picture with character development. Dalton read Fleming &
> efforted to play Fleming's Bond in TLD -- a picture written for Moore --
but was
> sandbagged by a weak script imo in his reprise in LTK. Goldeneye struggles to
> redeliver on basic cinematic Bond expectations -- but the spirit of Fleming's
> Commander Bond just hasn't had a _fair_ shake in celluloid since TLD.
Here's the point on which I think we're going to disagree the most. I
don't think that Dalton's Bond, described by one local critic as "dark,
brooding, and hard edged" owed so much to Fleming as to Die Hard and
Lethal Weapon. Frankly, I think it's a miss-reading of Fleming to see
Bond's character as severe as the one which Dalton portrayed. There are
some moments in Fleming - Bond going wild at the end of Goldfinger, the
"die Blofeld! die" bit in You Only Live Twice, but on the whole, I think
Fleming's Bond is rather light, more like Moore's than Dalton's, with
Connery getting it about right tone-wise. I read the Bonds as a
tongue-in-cheek revival of earlier trends in spy fiction, and a kind of
send-up of the grim & serious spy fiction of Graham Greene ca. 1935-1945.
To me, even Fleming's OHMSS is just a romp, with the long brainwashing
passages, "You love chickens. You love them. Gobble gobble" or whatever,
and the lines like "there were 11 staff at Piz Gloria. From the look of
them, 3 Corsicans, 3 Bulgarians, 3 Germans, 2 Italians and probably 3
Frenchmen in the kitchen" or however it went. I think the spirit of
Fleming's Bond is very, very tongue-in-cheek, but Dalton played him dead
straight, more like a John Le Carre character than an Ian Fleming one. I
am very strongly of the opinion that Dalton was further from Fleming's
Bond than Moore.
GB
Bill Hatfield
In article <66vl8o$j...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, JEFF HAUSE
<jha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I look forward to it. A lot of people would go to see it, and believe it or
> not, the world wouldn't end. As far as a series, I'd like to see the first
> film before forming an opinion.
I agree - two Bond films at once, what could be better? - but I also think
that the announcement of a "series" was a bit ambitious. McClory has been
planning a series since '59, but he's only gotten so far with NSNA. '83
was great, though, because it was really a resurgence of interest in Bond.
I mean, the New York Times had about a dozen articles on Bond that year.
How could EON not benefit from the extra competition right now?
Bill Hatfield
w...@ids.net
Bryan Carter
Just watched "From Russia With Love" on DVD.
This is one of my favorite, BTW, and the DVD was fantastic!
JEFF HAUSE wrote in message <66t4si$h...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...
>In article <349207...@mindspring.com>,
> Icebreaker <icebr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Matthew Bradford wrote:
>>
>>> I just don't think that's true. Perhaps YOU don't want to see Connery
>play
>>> Bond again now, but I really don't think that that applies to mass
>audiences.
>>> I think that there are millions of movie-goers who would still welcome
>Connery
>>> back to the role.
>>
>>Matthew, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I respect your views,
>>but I think you're in serious denial if you truly believe that the mass
>>moviegoing audience would welcome back Connery.
>
>Oh, they'd HATE that. How DARE he reprise the role he made famous. Since
>this is all just speculation, it's not worth getting too far into - but I
>will say this: When fans start arguing about movie grosses, the series is
>dead. We're supposed to be Bond fans, not bankers.
>
>The more Bond, the better! I'm going now -- "From Russia With Love" is on
>TBS.
>
>Jeff
>
The Rink
>> I still can't understand the big deal! I'm looking forward to TND, and I'll
>> look forward to the Sony film. This is the only fan newsgroup I know of
>> where people get PISSED when a new movie with their hero is announced.
>
>material.
I'll say it again. It is both foolish and arrogant to critique a film that
doesn't even exist yet. For all you know, if the film gets made, it'll be
*better* than TB or NSNA. Neither one of those were perfect, and a remake
could potentially surpass them both. I'm with Jeff -- it's ridiculous that
everyone is so up in arms about this. Downright absurd. Even if it *is* a
piece of junk, so what? Is that somehow killing the quality of the EON films?
If anything, the competition will boost their incentive to do better.
Secondly, since when is "30 year old" bad? The Bible, Shakespeare, Chaucer,
etc, are all ridiculously older than Thunderball and remain pillars of
artistic and literary excellence today. BAD art ages, not "quality pictures."
Why, then, are Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, and Ben-Hur *still* some of the
most watched, most celebrated, most enduring films of today?
Thirdly, your implication that EON *isn't* "retreading 30 year old material"
is utterly ludicrous and belies your EON brainwashing. Yes, I enjoyed
Goldeneye -- I'm a Bond fan. But I'm also a realist. Goldeneye is largely
recycled. No, I don't fault it overmuch for that, but I don't deny it, either,
since such an action would say much more about me than it would about the
film. If McClory made a new Bond film with Sony, it'd be more likely *not*
to be so much a "retread" of "30 year old material" than a new EON film,
simply because a fresh crew would be working on it and presumably attempting
to make something different than what was made before. History bears it out.
Regardless of whether you liked NSNA or not, there's no denying it's a very
different take on the Bond character and formula. (That's a *good* thing.)
These inane, irrational flame posts lashing against McClory and Sony were
largely the reason I stopped reading this newsgroup some months ago. I come
back to retest the waters, and it seems this sort of nonsense is still going
on.
I strongly suggest changing this newsgroup to alt.fan.eon. Meanwhile, I'll
see about a rec.arts.movies.james-bond and see if that would draw a half-way
rational crowd.
--
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Samuel Stoddard, a.k.a "The Rink" | At-A-Glance Film Reviews:
| s...@cisunix.unh.edu | http://pubpages.unh.edu/~ss1/movies/
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
Derek Lawless
Hi,
If Sean knows he made the best Bond movies then he's going senile. What
about OHMSS, SWLM, FYEO, TLD, TND? All of these films are better than TB,
YOLT and the farcial DAF (was Sean playing the original Teletubby in this
film?).
The impression I get from Sean is that for years he resented the fact that
he was famous mainly for Bond and nothing else. He may be a big star once
again and so feels he can bask in his 007 glory but remember back when he
was making movies like Meteor and Highlander? If you'd asked him then why he
dropped the Bond role to become a serious actor you probably would've need
life assurance.
You're probably right that audiences would pay to see him play Bond once
again. But for the wrong reasons. People would be interested to see if he
could still 'get the leg over' (if you'll pardon my french) and play spot
the stunt double doing everything but the dialog. And who would be M? George
Burns has sadly passed away... Unless you want Bond to tell a younger M
about how he was saving the world while M was in nappies.
If you don't agree with the above then consider that most people in this ng
dislike Moore and films like MR for making Bond into a joke. Connery playing
a 68 yr old Bond 'clicking chicks' would make MR look like oscar material.
Rich Handley
Here, here! Let's stop jumping to conclusions, shall we, people?
There's absolutely no reason to be bashing McClory, SONY, or a movie
that hasn't even been WRITTEN yet. Lighten up, people -- if it's ever
made, it just MIGHT be good! As a Bond fan, I hope it IS!
s...@christa.unh.edu (The Rink) wrote:
>I'll say it again. It is both foolish and arrogant to critique a film that
>doesn't even exist yet. For all you know, if the film gets made, it'll be
>*better* than TB or NSNA. Neither one of those were perfect, and a remake
>could potentially surpass them both. I'm with Jeff -- it's ridiculous that
>everyone is so up in arms about this. Downright absurd. Even if it *is* a
>piece of junk, so what? Is that somehow killing the quality of the EON films?
>If anything, the competition will boost their incentive to do better.
>Secondly, since when is "30 year old" bad? The Bible, Shakespeare, Chaucer,
>etc, are all ridiculously older than Thunderball and remain pillars of
>artistic and literary excellence today. BAD art ages, not "quality pictures."
>Why, then, are Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, and Ben-Hur *still* some of the
>most watched, most celebrated, most enduring films of today?
>Thirdly, your implication that EON *isn't* "retreading 30 year old material"
>is utterly ludicrous and belies your EON brainwashing. Yes, I enjoyed
>Goldeneye -- I'm a Bond fan. But I'm also a realist. Goldeneye is largely
>recycled. No, I don't fault it overmuch for that, but I don't deny it, either,
>since such an action would say much more about me than it would about the
>film. If McClory made a new Bond film with Sony, it'd be more likely *not*
>to be so much a "retread" of "30 year old material" than a new EON film,
>simply because a fresh crew would be working on it and presumably attempting
>to make something different than what was made before. History bears it out.
>Regardless of whether you liked NSNA or not, there's no denying it's a very
>different take on the Bond character and formula. (That's a *good* thing.)
Sincerely,
Rich Handley (Card...@unix.asb.com)
Icebreaker
Richard Ashton wrote:
>
> Nahhh. In the '60s there was a 10-year no compete clause. EON recognized
> that McClory had the rights to remake THUNDERBALL, but his deal with EON
> in '65 said that he couldn't make a Bond film for 10 years. Right on cue
> McClory popped up in 1975 to get going with "James Bond of the Secret
> Service."
>
> RA
I understand that. But what I said still stands. When he got his
settlement, McClory still found it difficult to shop his rights around.
Bond was big. McClory couldn't secure Connery. Nobody wanted his
project. Now depending on whose telling the story, McClory approached
the EON team, or EON approached McClory and eventually Thunderball got
made.
Leo Mepham
Who is the best female Bond villainess??????
Luciana Paluzzi? Famke Janssen? Grace Jones? Karin Dor?
You choose!!!
Chris.
Nick Rheinwald
GBroad wrote:
>
> Frankly, I think it's a miss-reading of Fleming to see
> Bond's character as severe as the one which Dalton portrayed.
...snip...
> I am very strongly of the opinion that Dalton was further from Fleming's
> Bond than Moore.
>
I think you're misreading both Fleming and Dalton. Dalton was only
"severe" compared to Moore and, to some extent, Connery. To me, he was
a true embodiment of Fleming's character. The character that Dalton
portrayed, like the one described by Fleming, was a minor caricature of
a true field agent. Serious for the most part, but given to instances
of dark humor and having a rather marked weakness for women. Even in
LTK which was certainly the darkest of all the Bonds, Dalton was not
funeral-level serious; he still cracked some jokes and bedded his share
of females. So, even then he was still (in your terms) parodying the
classic fictional spy. Moore, on the other hand, was often about one
smirk short of playing Austin Powers. He found humor in just about
every situation, and he resolutely refused to take himself seriously.
Of course, it can be argued that the scripts were just as much to blame
as Moore himself, and in FYEO he showed that he could, in fact, play the
role fairly straight. Nonetheless, Dalton's determined yet nonchalant
demeanor fit Fleming's creation to the hilt.
--Nick
NORRIEJAM
In article <3494BBDA...@nospan.edu>, Blox <Bl...@nospan.edu> writes:
>...Are there any of you who would actually _not_ go see the a new Connery
>Bond
>film? (Aside from MGM & Eon executives, employees, their friends and
>families...(wink))
>
>B l o x
>
I would go and see Bond no matter who was doing it, and so would the people you
refered to in your statement above.
Norrie
"We have an old saying too Georgi....
and you're full of it"
Timothy Dalton as James Bond 007
in "The Living Daylights" (1987)
nathan makdad
What about Ronald Reagan? Old and a former actor.......
Ben Dyer
In article <19971216021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
plzh...@aol.com (PLZ hireRG) wrote:
> > What about Ronald Reagan? Old and a former actor.......
>
> "Well, I'd love to tell you about the time I saved the world from Blofeld, but
> I just can't recall it..."
Or an even more absurd alternate scenario: Walter Matthau.
Ben Dyer
<<http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/4353/index.html>>
Icebreaker
The Rink wrote:
> I'll say it again. It is both foolish and arrogant to critique a film that
> doesn't even exist yet.
I'm not reviewing, nor critiquing the film. As it doesn't exist, it is
rather impossible to do a review of it.
> For all you know, if the film gets made, it'll be
> *better* than TB or NSNA.
From my POV, TB was better than NSNA. NSNA was only half as good as TB.
Will that mean that Warhead will only be half as good as NSNA? IF so,
you are looking at a film that is only 25 percent as good as the
original.
> Neither one of those were perfect, and a remake
> could potentially surpass them both. I'm with Jeff -- it's ridiculous that
> everyone is so up in arms about this.
Who said I was up in arms about it? Maybe i'm being paid by EON to say
these things. Maybe i'm on a secret mission for EON to disinform
Internet Intelligence. You never know:)
> Downright absurd. Even if it *is* a
> piece of junk, so what? Is that somehow killing the quality of the EON films?
> If anything, the competition will boost their incentive to do better.
And there is a key aspect to all of my "rantings" that you've missed
Rink. And you too Jeff. And i've even editorialized this on my site. The
point i'm arguing for is quality. QUALITY. QUALITY. QUALITY! Yes most of
the Bond films are more or less the same. But EON has the advantage and
the rights and the abilities and flexibility to change and reshape each
adventure every two years so that the similiarities aren't so obvious.
McCLory has no such luxury. If McClory must make a new Bond flick, how
about bringing in young blood like Scottish/American actor John
Barrowman? That would impress me more than bring Connery back. Bringing
Connery back is what i'd expect them to do. Want to thrill me? Want to
surprise me? Try something new, daring and different. But guess what?
McClory can't. He's saddled with the same rights, the same stories et
al. that he had 30 years ago.
> Thirdly, your implication that EON *isn't* "retreading 30 year old material"
> is utterly ludicrous and belies your EON brainwashing.
Yep you got it. EON has been on a quiet, methodical and focused plan of
brainwashing. Their main targets are primarily young people. EON started
brainwashing me at the tender age of 12 when I went to the theater in
the summer of 83 and saw OCTOPUSSY. My acceptance of Roger Moore as 007
was all the proof that EON needed that I was totally out of it, and was
now a willing sheep in their fold. Heil Broccoli!
> These inane, irrational flame posts lashing against McClory and Sony were
> largely the reason I stopped reading this newsgroup some months ago. I come
> back to retest the waters, and it seems this sort of nonsense is still going
> on.
>
> I strongly suggest changing this newsgroup to alt.fan.eon. Meanwhile, I'll
> see about a rec.arts.movies.james-bond and see if that would draw a half-way
> rational crowd.
Hey everyone. Rink's having a pity party. We're all invited.
Look Rink, you're better than this. If you don't like what goes on in
these threads, don't read them. You've been around this ng long enough
to know the score.
Truly yours,
Icebreaker
nathan makdad wrote:
> >
> What about Ronald Reagan? Old and a former actor.......
He's more suited for the Q role. Desmond never could remember his lines.
Ronald couldn't remember much about the 80's.
PLZ hireRG
> What about Ronald Reagan? Old and a former actor.......
"Well, I'd love to tell you about the time I saved the world from Blofeld, but
JEFF HAUSE
In article <3495F7...@mindspring.com>,
Icebreaker <icebr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>And there is a key aspect to all of my "rantings" that you've missed
>Rink. And you too Jeff. And i've even editorialized this on my site. The
>point i'm arguing for is quality.
Moonraker?
>QUALITY.
A View to a Kill?
>QUALITY.
Octopussy?
>QUALITY!
GoldenEye?
>Yes most of
>the Bond films are more or less the same. But EON has the advantage and
>the rights and the abilities and flexibility to change and reshape each
>adventure every two years so that the similiarities aren't so obvious.
They just choose to ignore this and go on remaking "Thunderball," too.
>McCLory has no such luxury. If McClory must make a new Bond flick, how
>about bringing in young blood like Scottish/American actor John
>Barrowman? That would impress me more than bring Connery back. Bringing
>Connery back is what i'd expect them to do.
I'd LOVE to see a 70-year-old Bond. It's probably the only opportunity we'd
ever have to see that take on the character. Eon could never sacrifice their
cash cow with something that off-beat.
There's a story that K. Amis had an idea for a retired Bond story, but
Glidrose turned it down. I think that's a mistake, since Fleming worked so
hard to make sure he DIDN'T repeat himself in every book.
>Want to thrill me? Want to
>surprise me? Try something new, daring and different.
That's the LAST thing Eon wants to do.
>But guess what?
>McClory can't. He's saddled with the same rights, the same stories et
>al. that he had 30 years ago.
>
NSNA did everything GE tried to do, but did it 12 years earlier: a Bond who
was treated like a Cold War relic; who had outlived his usefulness and has
to prove himself by the end of the film (sadly both films dropped this idea
an hour in to fall back into formula).
Personally, I think Sony wants to use Connery once, then hire Brosnan away
for a film when his Eon contract is up (this ought to set "Icebreaker" off).
PS: Want to thrill me? Go... oh, never mind...
Fenop2
>EON has the advantage and
>the rights and the abilities and flexibility to change and reshape each
>adventure every two years so that the similiarities aren't so obvious.
couple of years.
NSNA was at a disadvantage here, I think it might be the only film in
history which featured a remake with the same lead actor!
C'mon, theres a snow ski sequence in evry other Bond film!
>The
>point i'm arguing for is quality. QUALITY. QUALITY.
>From my POV, TB was better than NSNA. NSNA was only half as good as TB.
>Will that mean that Warhead will only be half as good as NSNA? IF so,
>you are looking at a film that is only 25 percent as good as the
>original.
Ice, I'm only two years younger than you but I do not see all the genios in
the early Bonds.
I felt Sean Connery was much better in NSNA than in any of the previous
ones. Maybe it was because he had ten more years of addtional training from
when he had last played the role?
Maybe it was because he never agreed with Ians and EONs interpretations
of the character and thought he should be played more humorously.
Maybe it's because I'm only a jaded 24 yr old, and have been accustomed to
alot of nice camera movement and quick cuts, which NSNA had plenty of both.
Fenop2
>Ronald couldn't remember much about the 80's.
This is true, but for God's sake, please don't turn around and tell me that
Clinton can remember anything much about any of His various scandals.
Icebreaker
Please. Don't even get me started on that dirtbag.
Cavan Scott
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:56:51 -0800, Leo Mepham <sc...@dial.pipex.com>
wrote:
FAMKE JANSSEN of course!
THE SONS OF ROG
A celebration of the life and career of the master of the raised eyebrow, Mr Roger Moore.
http://www.rgdking.co.uk/cavan
WE'RE KEEPING THE BRITISH END UP!
Icebreaker
Leo Mepham wrote:
>
> Who is the best female Bond villainess??????
>
> Luciana Paluzzi? Famke Janssen? Grace Jones? Karin Dor?
>
> You choose!!!
>
> Chris.
On a side note, Femme Fatale's latest issue, with Honey Rider on the
cover, ranks the 50 best Bond girls ever. They rank the most obscure to
the most prominent. From the legit Bond films, to Casino Royale and
NSNA. Guess which Bond girl didn't make the cut? Of all of Bond's 20
some odd films, which Bond girl was so pathetic that she didn't even
rank among 50? Stacy Sutton. Will Tanya Roberts ever be able to live
down this role? Oh the shame of it all!
Lawless
If they do want him, they'll be waiting awhile. Connery just signed a
contract to do a new movie, which has 3 attached "sequels" I guess you
could call them. hge won't be doing any other movies for another 5
years. until those are done.
Blox
Lawless wrote:
...And if past is prologue, Connery's contract will allow him to make at
least 1 picture between the others...including "Largoball".
Blox
Leo Mepham
LUCIANA PALUZZI!!!!!
Chris.
"But not this one. What a blow
it must be - you having a faliure!"
(Fiona Volpe in 'T').
Tim Foley
Is anyone familiar with Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt novels? In one of those,
_Night Probe!_, the hero, Dirk Pitt, crosses paths with a former British
Secret Service agent. Although Cussler never names the agent, he broadly
implies that it is none other that James Bond.
So far, only one of Cussler's books as been made into a movie, the
disappointing _Raise the Titanic!_ (mid '80's). I've always thought that
if the Dirk Pitt series had been filmed, it would be great to see Sean
Connery in the ex-SS agent role.
I just saw _Tomorrow Never Dies_ (what's with that title?); an enjoyable
two hours, a good action movie, a decent Bond film.
--
in Town,
Tim
Rhino
"Tim Foley" <timf.si...@rmi.net> said:
>:|I just saw _Tomorrow Never Dies_ (what's with that title?); an enjoyable
>:|two hours, a good action movie, a decent Bond film.
SPOILER ANSWER
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Tomorrow" is the title of Carver's newspaper - but that's about the
only link I could make!
**** /\/\/\/\+-+- Rhino -+-+/\/\/\/\ ****
**** http://village.vossnet.co.uk/r/rhino ****
**** James Bond, Carry On Films, Prisoner ****
**** Hammer Horror, Trivia, Black Adder ****
**** John Wyndham, James Herbert, etc etc ****
You see, we have all the time in the world ......
kwin...@ingr.com
In article <01bd0d25$1b01dd60$8d265da6@default>,
"Tim Foley" <timf.si...@rmi.net> wrote:
>
> Is anyone familiar with Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt novels? In one of those,
> _Night Probe!_, the hero, Dirk Pitt, crosses paths with a former British
> Secret Service agent. Although Cussler never names the agent, he broadly
> implies that it is none other that James Bond.
>
> So far, only one of Cussler's books as been made into a movie, the
> disappointing _Raise the Titanic!_ (mid '80's). I've always thought that
> if the Dirk Pitt series had been filmed, it would be great to see Sean
> Connery in the ex-SS agent role.
>
The other thirg I really would like to see is Connery as M.
regards
Klaus
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Braden Hill
Yikes..well, I didn't read all these articles, so maybe this has been
said before, but...
And I don't mean to sound discriminatory at all here, but
realistically speaking, if the fate of the world was at hand, would
you trust a 70 year old spy for the job? Or would you trust a prime,
able-bodied, fast moving, strong new spy with new ideas?
I think if Bond were real, and still remarkably working for MI6 at 70,
not having been killed by bullets or STD's, he'd probably have been
promoted enough to where he'd either have a desk job, or M's job.
And even if that WASN'T the case, if Bond, strangely enough, was still
kicking butt at 70, then all those 25-45 year old bad guys need to
start going to the gym.
On another note, I was under the impression that Kevin McClory owned
the rights to Thunderball and all of its re-writes and so if he
chooses could put out a Bond film whenever he felt like it. But I
just heard that MGM acquired all of the rights and scrapped Warhead
2000 AD which was to be Kevin's next movie. So I guess this whole
convo is moot.
Mark Hellmanns
>Who is the best female Bond villainess??????
>
>Luciana Paluzzi? Famke Janssen? Grace Jones? Karin Dor?
>
>
Famke Janssen
AElrod1701
Famke Janssen has my vote as well. "She always did enjoy a good squeeze."
A.D. Elrod
Daniel Bolton
> >>Who is the best female Bond villainess??????
> >>
> >>Luciana Paluzzi? Famke Janssen? Grace Jones? Karin Dor?
Luciana Paluzzi is the greatest woman who ever graced this earth. End of
story.
--
------------------------
Daniel Bolton
kls...@mailbox.uq.edu.au
------------------------