189 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

However, the point I was making was that the steel only became solid in 2005; in 1994 she was taking from, not giving to, Calley. She wanted to give him Bean, he said no and and gave her Brosnan. She backed off and made the film. Not so quite steel-balled then. Just the boss's daughter.

Those balls only got to be made steel as I poined out in my previous post, by the success of Pierce Brosnan's James Bond films... the man she fired/sought not to re-employ.

As I said, though, that's multi million dollar business for you.

Balls or no balls, in 1994 the Bond series was not a valuable as it had been and is now. In business dealing you have to have something worth bargaining with, not just balls.

[0077]

There were rumours that some crew members thought he'd got a bit too big for his boots on the last film.

Agreed. And it somewhat shows in some of his post Bond interviews where he's badmouthing the producers, by swearing like a sailor. When Bronsan got the news he must have had a vision of no more million dollar cheques written in his name. He probably also secretly figured that the franchise wouldn't survive without him.

Pierce's Bond was terrible and generic. His movies were shallow and lacked substance. I'm glad he's gone.

[jaguar007]

.

Furthermore, I think Barbara hadn't fully come into her own,

Of course not. She had been an Associate Producer on the two Dalton films. GE was her first film as a main producer.

There were rumours that some crew members thought he'd got a bit too big for his boots on the last film.

[Mr. Blofeld]

However, the point I was making was that the steel only became solid in 2005; in 1994 she was taking from, not giving to, Calley. She wanted to give him Bean, he said no and and gave her Brosnan. She backed off and made the film. Not so quite steel-balled then. Just the boss's daughter.

The sad thing is, GoldenEye might've been a better Bond film with Dalton or Bean; at least Bean seemed somewhat in the Dalton mode, but Brosnan?

For all his pretensions of being a dramatic actor, "peeling back the layers", and admiring Goldfinger, etc., he was just "Moore-lite". More gadgets, more puns; just the rote Bond.

It worked for eight years, but eventually, audiences would have gotten tired of Brosnan the same way they'd gotten tired of Moore in the '80s; for all the goodwill heaped upon Brosnan now, if he'd continued on, he'd have killed the series.

[Royal Dalton]

For all his pretensions of being a dramatic actor, "peeling back the layers", and admiring Goldfinger, etc., he was just "Moore-lite". More gadgets, more puns; just the rote Bond.

Well, that's what the studio wanted at the time. Can't really blame Brozza for it. If anything, I think he should have been more Moore. Because, with the serious stuff, he was playing against his strengths as a light leading man a lot of the time.

[JimmyBond]

For all his pretensions of being a dramatic actor, "peeling back the layers", and admiring Goldfinger, etc., he was just "Moore-lite". More gadgets, more puns; just the rote Bond.

Well, that's what the studio wanted at the time. Can't really blame Brozza for it. If anything, I think he should have been more Moore. Because, with the serious stuff, he was playing against his strengths as a light leading man a lot of the time.

That was one of the problems with the Brosnan films, imo. Everyone (EON, Brosnan, MGM) had their ideas on how the films should be, and they were never able to get that mix right. The only Brosnan film to come close to having a consistent tone was Goldeneye. The other three films all had weird tonal shifts that were detrimental to the overall film.

[00 Brosnan]

I don't think he got a bad rap. Like all of the actors, certain films he did were better than others and there were people who didn't like him in the role. Regardless of what some hardcore Bond fans believe, mainstream wise, he was the most popular Bond since Sean Connery. He had a lot of fan support to return for a fifth film.

Barbara Brocolli just wanted to jump on the reboot craze that was/is running through Hollywood. It's as simple as that. Cubby Brocolli would have never done Brosnan like that.

I have never heard, that I recall, Barbara and Pierce not liking one another, but if it were true, it would help to explain Brosnan's extremely personal, childish reaction to being terminated. I used to be a big, big Brosnan supporter until he decided to burn all his bridges upon being let go; I've never viewed him the same way since.

I have a hard time believing many people wouldn't act the same way if they were in the same situation. He had a role he absolutely loved and was extremely popular in. He made films that continuously made record profts, was asked back and then by way of a phone call, dumped.

If you had a job you absolutely loved and the majority of people liked the way you did your job, you were financially successful and made record profits for the company and then one day fired b/c the company wants to follow what other companies are doing and change directions....I doubt you would have kind words to say about the company if asked.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 07 April 2011 - 06:55 PM.

[jaguar007]

Regardless of what some hardcore Bond fans believe, mainstream wise, he was the most popular Bond since Sean Connery.

I don't think I agree with that. I think Roger Moore in his heyday, was probably more popular with the general public than Brosnan ever was. I remember TSWLM and MR being a much bigger deal in the theaters than any of Brosnan's films.

was asked back and then by way of a phone call, dumped.

In all fairness to EON, he was on location in the Bahamas when he was informed EON decided to go into a different direction. Had he been in LA or London, he may have been told in person.

[Capsule in Space]

I don't think he got a bad rap. Like all of the actors, certain films he did were better than others and there were people who didn't like him in the role. Regardless of what some hardcore Bond fans believe, mainstream wise, he was the most popular Bond since Sean Connery. He had a lot of fan support to return for a fifth film.
Barbara Brocolli just wanted to jump on the reboot craze that was/is running through Hollywood. It's as simple as that.

You've got it right 00Brosnan. He had a lot of support and he was intending on doing another Bond film. Michael Wilson wanted to reboot, and that gave Broccoli the excuse to let go an actor she wasn't fond of in the first place.

I have a hard time believing many people wouldn't act the same way if they were in the same situation. He had a role he absolutely loved and was extremely popular in. He made films that continuously made record profts, was asked back and then by way of a phone call, dumped.

If you had a job you absolutely loved and the majority of people liked the way you did your job, you were financially successful and made record profits for the company and then one day fired b/c the company wants to follow what other companies are doing and change directions....I doubt you would have kind words to say about the company if asked.

Brosnan has a reason to be upset. His Bond resuscitated the franchise, and EON showed no gratitude. Pierce Brosnan does not deserve to be given a bad rap. He should be celebrated as being one of best James Bonds that we've had.

[00 Brosnan]

I don't think I agree with that. I think Roger Moore in his heyday, was probably more popular with the general public than Brosnan ever was.

I can respect your opinion on that, but since this is a forum for debate, I'd like to further defend my point. Brosnan's popularity as James Bond even before he officially had the role is part of the reason Dalton was never really accepted in the role by the mainstream public and I don't believe Moore's films continuously out-grossed each other as Brosnan's did once he actually had the role.

In all fairness to EON, he was on location in the Bahamas when he was informed EON decided to go into a different direction. Had he been in LA or London, he may have been told in person.

You may be right.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 07 April 2011 - 07:54 PM.

[DR76]

I mean, the name Die Another Day just seemed...I don't know...like they squeezed something out at the last minute. That is not to say that I don't like the films, but I just think it could have been...thought out a little more is all.

Actually, I got that impression from TOMORROW NEVER DIES, not DIE ANOTHER DAY. I think that the 1997 movie was the nadir of the Brosnan years.

[jaguar007]

I don't think I agree with that. I think Roger Moore in his heyday, was probably more popular with the general public than Brosnan ever was.

I can respect your opinion on that, but since this is a forum for debate, I'd like to further defend my point. Brosnan's popularity as James Bond even before he officially had the role is part of the reason Dalton was never really accepted in the role by the mainstream public and I don't believe Moore's films continuously out-grossed each other as Brosnan's did once he actually had the role.

I agree that part of the reason Dalton was not accepted was because the public wanted Brosnan. Heck, I really wanted Brosnan as Bond in the 80s. I was disappointed back in 84 when I first heard Moore was going to do the next Bond movie because I was sure Pierce Brosnan would replace him. When Dalton was announced as Bond in 86, I hoped he would be another Laz and Brosnan would take over, that is until I saw footage from TLD. Dalton quickly changed my mind and was was very upset when Dalton did not return as Bond. I still rank him quite a bit higher than Brosnan.

I don't know how old you are 00Brosnan, were you around in the Moore era? I remember people as a whole seemed more interested in the Bond movies in the 70s than they did at all during the 90s. TSWLM and MR were much more the buzz than GE ever was (granted I was a kid-teen during much of the Moore era and a parent by the time GE came out so my views could be related to people in my age group at the time)

[Mr. Blofeld]

He should be celebrated as being one of best James Bonds that we've had.

Except that he wasn't. At all.

Don't romanticize him.

[jaguar007]

He should be celebrated as being one of best James Bonds that we've had.

Except that he wasn't. At all.

Don't romanticize him.

Well, I would rank him somewhere in the top 6

[00 Brosnan]

I don't know how old you are 00Brosnan, were you around in the Moore era? I remember people as a whole seemed more interested in the Bond movies in the 70s than they did at all during the 90s. TSWLM and MR were much more the buzz than GE ever was (granted I was a kid-teen during much of the Moore era and a parent by the time GE came out so my views could be related to people in my age group at the time)

I'm 24, I wasn't around in the Moore era, but Moore's films (LALD is one of my favorites) I don't believe continuously out-grossed each other, which would suggest a dip in interest at points during his tenure. Whereas, Brosnan's films continuously made more and more money while setting record profits...suggesting there was great interest in Bond films and they were only becoming more popular.

Speaking about GE in particular (since you singled it out), I hate to go back to using box office numbers as evidence, but making record box office profits suggests there was considerable buzz (It being the first Bond film in 6 years and the long-awaited debut of Brosnan in the role). I was only 8 in 1995 so I can't make any "talk of the town" arguments.

[jaguar007]

I'm 24, I wasn't around in the Moore era, but Moore's films (LALD is one of my favorites) I don't believe continuously out-grossed each other, which would suggest a dip in interest at points during his tenure. Whereas, Brosnan's films continuously made more and more money while setting record profits...suggesting there was great interest in Bond films and they were only becoming more popular.

Speaking about GE in particular (since you singled it out), I hate to go back to using box office numbers as evidence, but making record box office profits suggests there was considerable buzz (It being the first Bond film in 6 years and the long-awaited debut of Brosnan in the role). I was only 8 in 1995 so I can't make any "talk of the town" arguments.

No, Moore's films did not continuously out gross each other (TND took in less than GE) but keep in mind, Moore did almost twice as many films as Brosnan did. I am also comparing Moore and Brosnan at their heights. If I compare Moore and Brosnan at their lows, Brosnan's lowest grossing film was more successful than Moore's least successful.

As far as Brosnan setting record box office revenue, that is all due to inflation. Considering inflation (as well as return on investment) none of the Bond movies hold a candle to those of the early-mid 60s.

[Jim]

He did as well as he was ever going to, in the circumstamces.

[iBond]

He should be celebrated as being one of best James Bonds that we've had.

Except that he wasn't. At all.

Don't romanticize him.

Dude, I'm sure whomever your favorite 007 is, you would be saying the exact same thing.

[jaguar007]

Personally I have never seen Pierce Brosnan Rap, but if it is anything like his singing in Mama Mia, I'm sure his rapping is pretty bad

[iBond]

Personally I have never seen Pierce Brosnan Rap, but if it is anything like his singing in Mama Mia, I'm sure his rapping is pretty bad

Funny man. Man, I have the feeling that you wish Pierce was never James Bond.

Edited by iBond, 09 April 2011 - 09:16 PM.

[jaguar007]

Personally I have never seen Pierce Brosnan Rap, but if it is anything like his singing in Mama Mia, I'm sure his rapping is pretty bad

Funny man. Man, I have the feeling that you wish Pierce was never James Bond.

If it meant Timothy Dalton would have continued than yes.

Seriously, Brosnan was my top choice to be Bond back in 86 and 94 (when casting was taking place). I really wanted Dalton to continue, but the only person I could see replacing him was Brosnan. I'm glad Brosnan got to be Bond, he was the Bond that was needed at the time. I think GE is a good movie, I just didn't care for Brosnan's performance in it, he appeared less than confident. I am quite fond of TND and I think it was Brosnan's best performance. TWINE and DAD are unfortunately both in the lower echelon of Bondom for me with TWINE possibly being my least favorite Bond movie.

While Brosnan may be my least favorite Bond, it does not mean I don't like him at all, I like all the Bonds and Bond movies (even TWINE has some stuff going for it). I have been a fan of Brosnan as an actor since Remington Steele in the 80s. I may occasionally bash Brosnan, but it is usually in response to someone bashing another Bond (usually Craig).

[00 Brosnan]

Funny man. Man, I have the feeling that you wish Pierce was never James Bond.

If it meant Timothy Dalton would have continued than yes.

I'm the opposite. I would have liked Dalton to have done more films, but not at the expense of Brosnan.

Had Moore actually retired after FYEO maybe my opinion of Dalton as Bond would be higher as I would have been able to see how he handled the role from more "angles." While I find TLD to be one of the best Bond films, Dalton's only other Bond, LTK ranks number 21 out of 22 (in front of AVTAK) on my "Best Bond films" list.

[JimmyBond]

While Brosnan may be my least favorite Bond, it does not mean I don't like him at all, I like all the Bonds and Bond movies (even TWINE has some stuff going for it). I have been a fan of Brosnan as an actor since Remington Steele in the 80s. I may occasionally bash Brosnan, but it is usually in response to someone bashing another Bond (usually Craig).

Gotta agree with you here. I really wanted Brosnan to do well, he had a great start in Goldeneye, but then the films just lost focus. I'm kind of iffy about TND ever since I last watched it and actually tuned out during the finale. My opinion on TWINE is well known around here, that only leaves DAD. A decent film but it could have been so much better.

Brosnan's problem is, yes his films were mostly generic Bond films. There's really nothing that stands out with his series. And his four films can't even stack up to Dalton's two...or even Lazenby's one.

[TheREAL008]

I agree with Jaguar also. Pierce is an incredible actor, no doubt about it. However he shines more brightly outside of Bond. Some fans are too rabid to place Pierce on a pedastool and proclaiming him "The Best Bond Ever" when it's not the truth.

I can't watch any of his Bond movies because there's too much horrible use of innuendo and badly placed puns. Not one of his films are perfect, as with the actors before him.

I was adamant about the reboot at first but then I came to the realization that it needed to happen. Austin Powers xXx, Johnny English, and even Jason Bourne helped put the hurt to the Bond franchise and Pierce wasn't exactly helping to remind the general moviegoing public of why Bond was the cornerstone of the spy genre anyhow.

Lastly, there are the comments he's made about the producers over why he was let go of the series. I've forgotten how many articles he was in where he's flat out cursed BB and MGW over ageism when he could have turned the other cheek, thanked them and the fans and have been the better person.

In closing I don't believe he got a bad rap, whatever rep he currently has with Bond fans...for good or ill...he's brought it upon himself.

And yes, Timothy and George were better Bonds than him.

[Safari Suit]

Austin Powers and xXx didn't hurt Bond at all, if anything they helped. Bourne may have hurt future films in the pre-Craig vain, hard to say.

[TheREAL008]

Perhaps a bad choice of words from me?

The point I was trying to get across was that if it seemed alright to "make fun" of Bond either by absurd parody or even by having a slight nod to the character in other movies, then probably the reboot should have happened in 2002/2003. Die Another Day had the potential in it's first half to proclaim to the world that Bond could still be relevant but unfortunately it fell flat on it's face with the dismal second half, providing even more cannon fodder to the naysayers?

I don't mean to be reading too much into it, and if I am then it's my fault completely.

[Safari Suit]

Well there's absolutely no need to apologise, but I don't think being eligable for parody means something is irrelevant; remember how many Bond parodies there were circa Thunderball when the series was at its cultural peak. And it's not as if Casino Royale hasn't been parodied once or twice

[SecretAgentFan]

Austin Powers and xXx didn't hurt Bond at all, if anything they helped. Bourne may have hurt future films in the pre-Craig vain, hard to say.

I agree with the first part: parodies have shown to only strengthen Bond´s status. Bourne, IMO, was pushed by the media to be a successor to the throne but EON wisely re-booted Bond then to counter that claim. I think Bond right now is in a better position than it has been since the height of Bondmania with THUNDERBALL.

[TheREAL008]

I understand now.

[blueman]

I get the impression MGM was driving the Bond bus more than EON in '94, bringing Bond back was likely viewed as problematic at best if not outright risky, they wanted Brosnan (safe choice) and they got him. They also got the type of films from him they wanted, safe Bond-style entertainments in the TB mold. Can't blame MGM, it's a business after all and they got their return. Some fans like him and his films, some don't (IMO he's a middling actor and a jerk of a human being). The films were all good box office, at worst one could say he kept the Bond seat warm for Craig and that ain't bad.

That's my rap.