Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: 21st James Bond film will be titled "Casino Royale"

  1. #11
    i luv u xara
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    n.y.u.s.a.w.t.f.s.t.f.u.
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by {I}{K}{E}
    ...
    In 1995 he directed the hit GOLDENEYE which introduced Pierce Brosnan to the role of 007 with great success....
    maybe he'll keep P.B as james bond...
    dude!!!
    la cucaracha, la cucaracha, ya no puede caminar...

    - JOIN our fold@home team... ... something about genetics n' stuff
    -i just had a pm conversation with MYSELF!!!... ... ...wow... that's sad

  2. Movies & TV   -   #12
    cpt_azad's Avatar Colonel
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    6,646
    PB is gettin really old, logically there should be a new Bond. Logically.

    Jeff Loomis: He's so good, he doesn't need to be dead to have a tribute.

  3. Movies & TV   -   #13
    Cheese's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    is everything.
    Age
    47
    Posts
    15,287
    Quote Originally Posted by cpt_azad
    PB is gettin really old, logically there should be a new Bond. Logically.
    Logically?

    Logically Bond should be an old man. Should be about 80 years old...

  4. Movies & TV   -   #14
    cpt_azad's Avatar Colonel
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    6,646
    Okay, literally he should be dead. But I'm saying that the actor who plays Bond should be someone new, not P.B., logically.

    Jeff Loomis: He's so good, he doesn't need to be dead to have a tribute.

  5. Movies & TV   -   #15
    Cheese's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    is everything.
    Age
    47
    Posts
    15,287
    Quote Originally Posted by cpt_azad
    Okay, literally he should be dead. But I'm saying that the actor who plays Bond should be someone new, not P.B., logically.
    Explain why this is the logical thing to do then.

    To me it makes no sense to replace a successful actor in the role that people have come to accept as James Bond. Replacing Pierce Brosnan with somebody who might fail at the role seems distinctly illogical.

    The age thing has no baring on the character as Sean Connery played Bond as a much older actor.

    I say bring back Brosnan and make this the final film of the series, go out on a relative high.

  6. Movies & TV   -   #16
    cpt_azad's Avatar Colonel
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    6,646
    Personally, I think Brosnan is teh best Bond followed by Connery. But trust me on this one, he's not up to the job (and if he is then I'll be really happy, trust me, I'd want him to stay on as Bond, it's what the director might to that's unsettling) as viewed by the industry. I only said it's logical because if Martin C. does direct he'll most likely try and cast someone new. And if Brosnan does end up doing it then I'm sure it'll turn out a hell of alot better than if someone else did it. Either way I'm checking it out, but you're right about one thing WithCheese, this "franchise" is getting old.

    Jeff Loomis: He's so good, he doesn't need to be dead to have a tribute.

  7. Movies & TV   -   #17
    Retired
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    12,488
    Quote Originally Posted by ofbz
    maybe he'll keep P.B as james bond...
    I read somewhere that P.B only wanted to play Bond again if Tarentino directed the movie
    Last edited by {I}{K}{E}; 02-08-2005 at 09:36 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •