CommanderBond.net

Mr Pierce Brosnan will return as James Bond Agent OO7 in Bond 21.
Eon Productions has confirmed the fact!

Comingsoon.net

Rumour is TERMINATED!

This post has been edited by Agent76: 16 February 2004 - 16:24

"For now, Pierce Brosnan is our James Bond. We haven't made any statement to say he isn't our James Bond," says Eon's Publicity Manger Catherine McCormack. "It's so difficult to comment when we don't have a script or even a start date."

Asked whether Brosnan signed a contract for the next film, she added, "He signed an initial three contract deal with us and from then on it's on a film by film basis. So he hasn't signed one yet."

1. "For now..." What does this mean?
2. He hasn't signed a contract. So he isn't in Bond 21. As of this moment. This may change. But if he's not signed up, he's not doing it, at the moment. Accordingly, they are confirming that he has no licence to kill, at present. True, this is probably usual in the film industry not yet to have signed the contract; but if he hasn't signed the contract he isn't going to be James Bond, is he? This is capable of changing. But it is also capable of not changing.
3. "It's so difficult to comment..." No. If he is in Bond 21, then he's in Bond 21. Why not say so? Because he hasn't signed up and if he doesn't sign up he isn't in the film.
4. The reference to script seeming to be a determining factor is very interesting.
5. Title to thread is misleading. See point 2.
6. "We haven't made any statement..." Yes, but is making the statement or taking the decision the determining thing in whether he plays Bond?

Unsure whether it looks that optimistic that he will sign. Very cagey language. However, what this does confirm is that Pierce Brosnan, at present, is not in Bond 21. If this information is straight from the horse's mouth, on its most positive reading it would still be factually inaccurate to state that he is.

Accordingly, as he is out of contract, his tenure is over, his licence is revoked and he is not playing James Bond in Bond 21. If he signs a new contract, his tenure restarts. What's the problem here?

hmm... with all possible back doors left open. "For now...", "... haven't made an official statement...", "...so difficult to comment..." and "...no contract signed, yet..."

One cannot confirm a fact, cause a fact is,... well... , a fact. Rumours can be confirmed. Or denied.
This is a non-statement, but I have to admit hat it sounds more like "Brosnan is in. " But we all know EON... I'll wait for an official statement.

Did you eckshpeck them to tok?

Merde.

as I see I shouldn't have started this Thread, so I ask to one of the staff If they can delete this thread please.

thank you


ps: sorry for the wrong information

Had to come back for this thread.

We now have an 'alleged' statement coming out of Eon. I say 'alleged 'because Eon didn't release it. Uk movie magazine, Empire, rang up Eon:

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news/ne...p?news_id=15595


Well, this is completely vague and inconclusive. I already told you they haven't got a script. I was told that via the source. So there's proof I was right in that respect. (Go check my 'What the source said at MGM' thread if you don't believe me)

Here is what I wrote:

"Based on what I was told, there is no draft Bond 21 screenplay in existence. Nothing. Not a thing. Wade and Purvis were writing Jinx and then that was scrapped. Eon was furious with MGM. Wade and Purvis are now in limbo. So there is no Bond 21 screenplay at the moment. As a result, MGM has decided to alter the time schedule and plan Bond 21 for summer 2006. This has been done for commercial reasons. Larger box office openings across the world. As for the year 2007, I don't think that is a serious consideration"


So what does this statement from Eon tell us? Nothing. Brosnan isn't signed. Wow - does that mean he's still Bond? Of course not.

Had Eon stated that Brosnan will sign for Bond 21 in the next few months, I will accept I am wrong - but that isn't what was stated. It's a non-statement, people, confirming and denying nothing. Well done Empire for getting a non-exclusive.

As I said - it's a smokescreen.

I stand by the following: Jackman is the next Bond, the deal is done and Bond 21 is summer 2006.

Moomoo

This post has been edited by Moomoo: 16 February 2004 - 16:40

Why? It's an interesting pice of news. Someone said something regarding the recent rumours, which IMHO doesn't bring the speculation to an end. The information is correct, but your point of view may still turn out to be wrong (as well as it is may turn out be absolutely right).

Sorry, just having a nitpickin' day today.

Just like to add one more thing - the longer there is no screenplay in existence, the more likely the chance Bond 21 will be for summer 2006. Something to ponder...

Moomoo

I can write a screenplay in a day, it wouldnt be good, but I could do it. There is still plenty of time between now and 2005.

I don't see anything in the press release by EON that says anything that would put rest to the rumor. What is surprising is that they don't have a script yet. I guess Purvis and Wade were too busy with the Jinx script to worry about Bond 21.

Not at all conclusive, I agree. But they do say Brosnan is their man, not Jackman. And they would be pro-actively lying if this were not case. So not a total non-statement.
Also, how is this situation any different from that before DAD? Brosnan signed a new contract for that one didn''t he? So for a while he wasn't James Bond. No-one got all excited then, did they?

Can I just say the whole saga has now taken on a bizarre new angle. If we are to take these comments from Eon at face value, they were clearly upset with the Mail's article.

Quote:

All these rumours have come from a newspaper who quoted someone at Eon when they haven't spoken to anyone here,' complained Eon's Publicity Manger Catherine McCormack. 'For now, Pierce Brosnan is our James Bond. We haven't made any statement to say he isn't our James Bond.'

But the Mail claim its source was from Eon. So either the Mail chanced its luck and has made an outrageous lie (wouldn't be the first time!) or someone at Eon is up to dirty tricks to discredit Brosnan. The whole thing is weird.

I can't see how any of this 'affair' enhances the Bond franchise. Wish people would speak in clear terms. Why all this shades of 'gray talk' is beyond me.

Moomoo

Yeah weird- a tabloid lying and a film not fully cast a year and a half before release. Wow. This must be the twilight zone.