Oscars to feature James Bond 50th Anniversary tribute

He'll just be replaced with Woody Allen.

In the vid you can hear him say "Not me" in response to "Will Connery not be there, or you?"

I've just found out what the set-list is for the Oscars, including the James Bond tribute.

Anyone want to know?

Yeah, go on then.

James Bond Montage (Arr. by Chris Walden):

James Bond Theme and Live and Let Die instrumental

Goldfinger performed by Shirley Bassey (Arr. by Chris Walden)

Movie Musical Medley (Arr. by Doug Bernstein):

Overture Intro and All That Jazz from CHICAGO
And I Am Telling You from DREAMGIRLS
One More Day Instrumental, Suddenly, One More Day and Do You Hear The People Sing? from LES MISÉRABLES

The Way We Were performed by Barbara Streisand

Main Title from OUT OF AFRICA (In Memoriam John Barry)

Everybody Needs A Best Friend from TED

You Can't Stop The Beat from HAIRSPRAY performed by John Travolta

Suddenly from LES MISÉRABLES

I don't think Brosnan will turn up after he was sacked and then had his tenure attacked by Eon, Martin Campbell etc to justify the scrapping of 44 years of Bond film traditions with the awful Craig reboot.

Yes I'm a miserable git but I do not want to see the five real Bonds paraded with B.Broccoli and Daniel Craig. :evil:

Captain Arthurs wrote:

I don't think Brosnan will turn up after he was sacked and then had his tenure attacked by Eon, Martin Campbell etc to justify the scrapping of 44 years of Bond film traditions with the awful Craig reboot.

Yes I'm a miserable git but I do not want to see the five real Bonds paraded with B.Broccoli and Daniel Craig. :evil:

I like the way you think.

However, it would still be an act of extreme ingratitude for Brosnan to not appear (if that is indeed what is being planned; I'm not convinced there really is any sort of plan for this to happen). He owes his post-Remington Steele career to Bond. They gave him a 4-film series with which to resurrect his career; he made a ton of money doing the series, and was rewarded with all sorts of perks. He got to claim that he resurrected the series (which he helped do) at a time when prognosticators were doubting the viability of the series in a post-Cold War era.

No one likes to be fired; no one wants to be dumped or told that they are no longer viable to the company. It's just a reality of life. He acted extremely childish in 2004 when he found out he was not being brought back; it wasn't his series of films. He's a placeholder. It would be a shame if, after having had nearly 10 years go calm down about it, think back upon it, reflect on life, and mature, that he would choose to be just as selfish and infantile now as he was back then. At least in 2004 you could give him the benefit of the doubt and say that the wound was fresh. In 2013 there should be no reason why he can't "man up" and go to the presentation.

If you want to be really picky, Brosnan was never "fired", per say. There was no contract signed for Broz to star in Bond 21. EON just decided to go a different direction and they went separate ways.

That being said, Brosnan clearly wasn't ready to let go of Bond and could still physically play the role for another film had the economic climate at MGM not gone sour. It's a shame he went out on DAD, but it was clear by 2004 that Bond 21 wouldn't be anytime soon and Brosnan would be past the Moore threshold by then. I think that more than anything else forced EON to recast.

If someone reported Dalton or Moore saying the same thing, we wouldn't be talking about past grudges.

For what it's worth, Brosnan did participate in the Eveything or Nothing documentary so it looks like he's no longer upset with EON. And Gravy is right, Brosnan should be greatful that he got to have Bond and revive his career. He finished his contract, so it was always EON's decision whether to continue with him or not.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Captain Arthurs wrote:

I don't think Brosnan will turn up after he was sacked and then had his tenure attacked by Eon, Martin Campbell etc to justify the scrapping of 44 years of Bond film traditions with the awful Craig reboot.

Yes I'm a miserable git but I do not want to see the five real Bonds paraded with B.Broccoli and Daniel Craig. :evil:

I like the way you think.

However, it would still be an act of extreme ingratitude for Brosnan to not appear (if that is indeed what is being planned; I'm not convinced there really is any sort of plan for this to happen). He owes his post-Remington Steele career to Bond. They gave him a 4-film series with which to resurrect his career; he made a ton of money doing the series, and was rewarded with all sorts of perks. He got to claim that he resurrected the series (which he helped do) at a time when prognosticators were doubting the viability of the series in a post-Cold War era.

No one likes to be fired; no one wants to be dumped or told that they are no longer viable to the company. It's just a reality of life. He acted extremely childish in 2004 when he found out he was not being brought back; it wasn't his series of films. He's a placeholder. It would be a shame if, after having had nearly 10 years go calm down about it, think back upon it, reflect on life, and mature, that he would choose to be just as selfish and infantile now as he was back then. At least in 2004 you could give him the benefit of the doubt and say that the wound was fresh. In 2013 there should be no reason why he can't "man up" and go to the presentation.

I'd hate to see what you'd say if you disliked the way he thinks!



But at any rate, yeah, it's laughable for Brosnan, or any filthy rich actor to claim victim status. By all means let's cue a pavane for poor Piercy wiercy!

Tubes wrote:

If you want to be really picky, Brosnan was never "fired", per say. There was no contract signed for Broz to star in Bond 21. EON just decided to go a different direction and they went separate ways.

That being said, Brosnan clearly wasn't ready to let go of Bond and could still physically play the role for another film had the economic climate at MGM not gone sour. It's a shame he went out on DAD, but it was clear by 2004 that Bond 21 wouldn't be anytime soon and Brosnan would be past the Moore threshold by then. I think that more than anything else forced EON to recast.

If someone reported Dalton or Moore saying the same thing, we wouldn't be talking about past grudges.

I agree that he probably had a 5th Bond film still left in him, but I don't think MGM's "economic climate" was so "sour" in 2003 that they could not have gone ahead and had a 5th film ready for Brosnan to be released in 2004. Also, while Brosnan was still physically capable of playing Bond, he clearly couldn't let go of the series mentally. Offhand I have a very hard time recalling anyone who acted as ungrateful about their release from a film series as he had. Lesser actors have had more limited chances than he did to keep a series going. Look at Brandon Routh: he got one shot at SUPERMAN RETURNS and that was it. Look at Timothy Dalton. Let's not forget what Brosnan was probably feeling in 2004 was something Dalton felt in 1994, when it was Brosnan circling the role like a shark and not Tim. It's a young man's game; there's no shame in admitting you've lost a step or two (why does that sound so familiar?)

Other actors have left a series more gracefully than Brosnan, whether voluntarily or whether being pushed out. It's not like The Oscars are being presented in Damascus, or Detroit, or some other third-world right shit-hole. The ceremony is being held in Hollywood; he lives in Malibu. It's practically his backyard.

Again, I don't think economics played a part in recasting. I think 9/11 and Jason Bourne had a much bigger impact on the series than whatever cash flow problems MGM might have been having in 2003/2004. Whatever they were, it didn't stop them from putting out Casino Royale in 2006, and unfortuantely, didn't stop them from putting out QUANTURD OF SOULLESS. Maybe if their financial problems had occured sooner we could have been spared QOS and skipped right on over to SKYFALL.

And, let's face it, by being pushed out when he did, he got to go out on top, never having a failed Bond film on his resume; having earned over $1.2 billion just at the box office alone (though SKYFALL does now kind of make that number look small). He had a string of 4 hit Bond films, a fairly decent non-Bond career....and by going out on top he didn't suffer the indignity of sticking around in a role that was too young for him, or looking physically worn down like Connery and Moore got towards the end. He went out on a high note, with the biggest of his four films at the box office being his swan song. Tons of other actors would love to have the career he had....like Lazenby for example.

There was never going to be a 2004 release for Bond 21 because that was originally reserved for the Jinx spin-off. Bond 21 was always planned to take the 2005 slot. As far as I know, Jinx was in script development in 2003 but by October MGM decided to not to green-light it, thus rendering the whole development a waste for EON. So then they started developing Bond 21 in 2004 but decided not to ask Brosnan back for a fifth film, thus pushing the film to a 2006 release so they would have time to cast the new 007.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/longest-oscars-in-hollywood-history-yawnfest-instead-of-usual-snorefest/

Grammy-winner Adele will be part of the James Bond special celebrating 50 years of the spy film franchise. I’ve learned it was impossible to get all the actors who played 007 together on one stage because of various behind-the-scenes fusses and feuds over the years. All in all there are so many performers scheduled that there’s a shortage of dressing rooms. And if even a few participants are a minute or two late hitting a mark, then this show’s length could wind up in the history books.

Okay, so there WAS an attempt to get all the Bond's together on one stage for the Oscars. Hmmmm....well, we know we can probably assume that Moore and Lazenby were NOT the hold outs. I'll wait and reserve my bile and invective for tomorrow based upon who does show up tonight, if any. I'm suspecting Brosnan and Connery were the holdouts, and probably Brosnan was driving a harder line than Connery. That's pure speculation on my part simply because I'd like to believe that after nearly 29.5 years after officially hanging up the role for good, Connery isn't still upset with Broccoli and Saltzman, neither of whom are alive to do anything about his alleged grievances.

The real dirt will start to trickle out tomorrow about which ones put up a fuss about doing the Special; it'll start getting leaked to all the major entertainment and gossip sites.

I'm assuming Lazenby was up for it (because he's not got anything else to do and it's his only chance of ever going to the Oscars), and I'm assuming Moore was up for it because he was always a good sport about the series....and I'm assuming Craig was willing to be there because he's the reigning Bond....I'm 50/50 about Dalton (he never cared much for these sorts of press events, but really....can't you make an exception for one night?) and I'm pretty sure Brosnan and Connery were against it.

Brosnan better hope he was willing to participate, because if it gets out that he refused to be a part of it, his name will be "mud" in Bond fandon.

I think Brosnan got over it, otherwise he would have not participated in the EVERYTHING OR NOTHING documentary.

Python wrote:

I think Brosnan got over it, otherwise he would have not participated in the EVERYTHING OR NOTHING documentary.

Was that new footage or old, stock footage? In any case, it was before SF went on to make 1.108 billion dollars. Maybe seeing how much SF made caused him to change his mind.

I will say this: he's either a holdout or he knows how the holdout is/was, because his comments to TMZ clearly reflected he knew the reunion was not going to happen because at least one person was holding out. TMZ assumed it was Brosnan, but maybe he was just being diplomatically honest and intimating that it was not him but someone else. We'll find out soon enough. And if he refused to go on stage to promote the tribute to Bond, then there will be hell to pay.

It was new footage, Connery was the only actor not to participate in the doc.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/02/24/oscars-update-streisand-may-tour-europe-still-searching-for-sugar-man-and-007

IT WAS CONNERY!!!!

…Sean Connery’s friends say he turned down an invite to be part of tonight’s James Bond tribute. Academy insiders say they didn’t even get into it. But Connery still has bad feelings about George Lazenby taking over for him as 007 in 1969. Connery remains in the Bahamas. Lazenby is here in Hollywood and coming to the Oscars. He made one James Bond movie and is kind of a trivia question. But he’s here. Life is about showing up.

I doubt Connery is sour about Lazenby.

Python wrote:

I doubt Connery is sour about Lazenby.

Friedman has great sources. He's a knowledgeable insider. He probably just put it into his own words, and he's probably not all that knowledgeable about the Bond history. *BUT*, he was probably told by Connery friends that Connery didn't want to do the special because of lingering bitterness towards EON. Heck, I could have told you that and I have no inside info.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/oscars-2013-live-coverage-commentary-nikki-finke-live-snarking/

OK, here’s what really happened with this tribute to 50 years of James Bond films. (Besides the fact it looks like it was edited with a blunt meat cleaver.) The Academy and the show’s producers hoped to gather together all the living 007 actors. But Sean Connery refused to come because he hates the Broccoli family. Something about how he thinks they cheated him out of money he was owed. Then Pierce Brosnan refused to come because he hates the Broccoli family as well. Something about how he thinks they pulled him from the role too early. Roger Moore was dying to come because, well, he’s a sweetheart. And Daniel Craig would have come because he does what he’s told by the Broccoli family’s Eon Productions whose Bond #23 Skyfall just went through the box office global roof. So there you have it.

The 76-year-old Shirley Bassey gets the first standing ovation of the night. But a couple of clips and one song is all there is to the Bond tribute? Is it coming in waves? More is needed to save this drowning telecast. Even before she sang a note, Shirley brought more real glamour to this year’s Oscars than the previous hour of bland jokes and bad dancing.


Geez, that was it? I found the "tribute" to be overwhelmingly underwhelming....I've seen better tribute clips put together by fans on YouTube. Adele looked a bit timid at first, but seemed to pick it up by the end. The only one who came off pretty good was Shirley Bassey.

My God...50 years of James Bond and this was the best the Oscars could come up with? The awful dance number back in 1982 was a better tribute to 007 than this. At least Babs and Michael can use that millions of dollar bills they earned to wipe away the bitter, salty tears of sadness.

Oh....and Pierce Brosnan is a tool. If I ever run into him in public I'll spit on him. What an ass-hat! Two sad-sack losers had to ruin it all for the fans. :evil:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

...Sean Connery refused to come because he hates the Broccoli family. Something about how he thinks they cheated him out of money he was owed. Then Pierce Brosnan refused to come because he hates the Broccoli family as well. Something about how he thinks they pulled him from the role too early. Roger Moore was dying to come because, well, he’s a sweetheart. And Daniel Craig would have come because he does what he’s told by the Broccoli family’s Eon Productions whose Bond #23 Skyfall just went through the box office global roof.

So Craig didn't show up because he wasn't commanded by "Mistress Babs" to and what happened to George and Timothy?



The Idiots who made the crappy Oscar James Bond tribute video could had used some guidance from the person who made this EXCELLENT Bond tribute video and posted it on YouTube:

:cheers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3LfFjioDmk

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Oh....and Pierce Brosnan is a tool. If I ever run into him in public I'll spit on him. What an ass-hat! Two sad-sack losers had to ruin it all for the fans. :evil:

You can understand his grievance, though. He as effectively fired from the role.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

My God...50 years of James Bond and this was the best the Oscars could come up with? The awful dance number back in 1982 was a better tribute to 007 than this.

Come on now. The mere presence of Dame Shirley Bassey made this better than that LSD-induced orgy of lasers, jumpsuits, and unrepressed homosexuality.

Hats off to SF. With Craig as 007, his films have achieved something I didn't think would be possible. Two of his movies are ranked in the 90's on RT, won global acclaim, and SF has gone one step further.

Biggest BO movie since TB, biggest BO ever in the UK, 7th biggest globally of all time, BAFTA's, and now 2 Oscars.

This is a great day to be a Bond fan...... :cheers:

Python wrote:

I doubt Connery is sour about Lazenby.

Why would he be? He wanted out in 1967 and probably couldn't care less who replaced him.