117 replies to this topic

[Moomoo]

Just been thinking....

If it's true that Brosnan it out because of his excessive wage demands, I can't help but feel he has bitten the hand that's fed him for nearly a decade.

Latest rumours suggest Brosnan wants between $20-25 million plus 10-25 percent profits. Of course this might be all unfounded nonsense, but it's not unreasonable to come to the conclusion Brosnan is asking for more money than he's got from any other Bond film. So we have to accept some painful truths.

Pierce Brosnan owes his entire film career to James Bond. This is an incontestable fact. Prior to Goldeneye, Brosnan's career was stuck in low budget television movies. He hadn't made the transition from television to the big screen. It's possible he might never have become a film star had he not become Bond.

Without Bond, Brosnan would not be a multi-millionaire. Without Bond, Brosnan would never have become an internationally known actor. Without Bond, Brosnan would find it harder to campaign for the environment. When you are playing Bond, people look up to you. Brosnan has met people from the UN etc as a direct result of playing Bond.

My point is simple - who does Brosnan think he is to demand too much money? He owes everything to MGM/Eon. And I do mean everything. He should be grateful for whatever amount he gets for Bond 21. It's not as if he wouldn't be paid handsomely for appearing in Bond 21. He would. I estimate in excess of $15 million here. Hardly minimum wage. So who does he think is to think he is Mr Big and hold MGM to ransom. I accept that he has made a lot of money for MGM but he wasn't a star before Bond. He should reflect upon that.

I am sorry if this sounds like an anti-Brosnan post, but I'm fed up with all this crap talk from Brosnan about " I will do it if they ask me." Yeah right, and that is a pig flying outside my window. You'll do it if you can make as much money as possible, Pierce. So please, quit with the sanctimonious .

Sorry, but if Brosnan is out because of his greed, I won't shed one tear. He has the opportunity to go out making one more film but it looks extremely unlikely. So the chances are we will remember Brosnan leaving the series in that film "where Bond gets to drive that cheesy vanishing car."

Nice way to leave the series, Pierce.

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 19 March 2004 - 10:25 AM.

[M_Balje]

Without Brosnan Bond mabey don

[Agent 76]

I think he is asking that amount of money ( if that's true ,of course!) because he knows that D.A.D was the most successfull movie of the franchise in the box office , so he thinks that he has the right to ask so much money.

Edited by Agent76, 19 March 2004 - 11:33 AM.

[Bond Bug]

I agree Bond made Brosnan.

If the rumours are true, Yes it may be greedy, but at the same time why shouldn't he name his price? He's under no obligation to do another Bond until he signs a deal and Eon can say yes or no.

Personally I believe Bond is far bigger than Brosnan and at this stage they should dump him.

[Seb Harvey]

still cant believe you folks are taking the time to reply to moomoo, who's really a 15yr old kid at school... whos younger brother works for MGM and "has sources" LOL

hahahahahaha

[Blofeld's Cat]

Thanks for your imput, Seb.

[Loomis]

Just throwing this out here, but perhaps it's not entirely about money. Maybe Brosnan is dissatisfied with the quality of the Bond films and wants to pursue other, more artistically rewarding, projects. Perhaps he's itching to do more THOMAS CROWN AFFAIRs and TAILOR OF PANAMAs, and feels that Bond no longer offers him anything to get his teeth into.

[[dark]]

Just throwing this out here, but perhaps it's not entirely about money. Maybe Brosnan is dissatisfied with the quality of the Bond films and wants to pursue other, more artistically rewarding, projects. Perhaps he's itching to do more THOMAS CROWN AFFAIRs and TAILOR OF PANAMAs, and feels that Bond no longer offers him anything to get his teeth into.

I don't know.

He's spoken very highly of Die Another Day, and both of his last two films seem tailor-made for him, having been given an extra emotional level.

As for Bond making Brosnan, that's probably true.

But, Brosnan ressurrected Bond. Okay, it's possible that had someone else played Bond in GoldenEye, 007 could have been revived, but it was Brosnan the public had been wanting since 1987, and it was Brosnan who got picked. His debut performance was highly acclaimed [as have each of his subsequent performances]. Let's face it. GoldenEye could have very easily tanked in 1995. Heck, most critics were banking that it would. But I think GoldenEye's success - and the consequent rebirth the franchise received - was due, in no small part, to Brosnan. He was and is a Bond for the people, with the right balance of humour, emotion, seriousness and agility.

[Seb Harvey]

Thanks for your imput, Seb.

imput? what is imput?

but seriously, this guy must have three dozen posts on this forum, all saying the same unfounded thing... and you people entertain it by replying to him.

for a start, what hes saying is libellous, yet alone totally unrealistic and false.

I know CBn reckon their "sources" (funny how they are always so shy) as to brosnan not appearing in B21, but come on... moomoo needs to learn when to let go.

hey up... maybe ive just found the source behind CBn's "Licence Revoked" article!!! hahahahahhahaha

[Simon]

........and even if it was about money, so what?

If we were back in the Moore era and if the internet were available then, would we all be chastising Moore for hanging out for a couple of extra potatos?

Quite possibly, but Moore is unequivocably a top chap, so we forgive him.

We could be fairer (if about cash) and just let it play itself out.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Thanks for your imput, Seb.

imput? what is imput?

Apologies to all for my dxsleyic keyboard tonight.

[Moomoo]

I think what I'm posting is a legitimate topic and worthy of discussion.

Just how much does a rich man need? See, I am always fascinated by really rich people wanting more. It's a consistent trait in such people. The greediest people are the richest. No matter if Cruise, Pitt, Clooney, Hanks, Gibson, Brosnan, Connery are worth millions, they still want to paid even more for their next film. Well, in one sense you could say good luck to them. If some idiot wants to pay them 20 mill per film (minus expenses and tax), then so be it. But I have to come back to my main point -

Brosnan can easily make Bond 21 for $15 million. So he loses out on 5 million. Big deal. 15 million is a hell of a lot of money. Most people in the third world make a few cents per day so the guy should come down from his ego and live in the real world. I don't want to get too personal, but all this stuff about Brosnan wanting this amount is kinda sordid.

Sure, he's made millions for MGM and that shouldn't be forgotten, but in some respects his Bond is little more than a good looking guy in a tux. That's not his fault, perhaps it's the scripts he's been given, but for all his pontificating in summer of 1994 that he will "push the envelope," well, not much has happened, has it? Dalton did more pushing of the envelope in his two films than Brosnan has in his four.

All I am trying to say is Brosnan should be a little more grateful and not assume he's worth $20 million. 5 million less won't break him. He can still drive his fast cars, live in his Malibu mansion, go first class around the world. People should not lose perspective. I would guess Brosnan is richer than all of us here combined, so I can't have sympathy for him when his ego has blown out of all proportion and he thinks he's worth $20 million or more.

Moomoo (older than 12)

[Tarl_Cabot]

I've see the trailor to 'Laws of Attraction'. Oh boy...I don't know what Pierce was thinking...trying to convince us he's capable of playing a slob/eccentric? This looks like Gigli for adults! I suggest he sign the contract while he still has a career! That looks aaaaaaaaaaaaahhwful!

[Athena007]

........and even if it was about money, so what?

eXactly! ...even if it was about money, so what? Bond made Brosnan? I think not. Brosnan made/revived Bond... they owe him, he doesn't owe then jack squat. Besides Brosnan had a fan following before (though not particularly as large as the Bond franchise) - which happen to have brought Bond a larger following... his portrayal of Bond has also been racking in MGM/EON a load of money. Including kick back from the games (GoldenEye & Everything or Nothing). If He's asking for more money, more power to him... they should pay up.

[Athena007]

I've see the trailor to 'Laws of Attraction'. Oh boy...I don't know what Pierce was thinking...trying to convince us he's capable of playing a slob/eccentric?

Brosnan has done Romantic Comedy in the past... and that's all he's doing is going back to Romantic Comedy. It suits him just as well as Bond. I

[Moomoo]

Well I don't think they should pay him some figure he's plucked from the air. Say he wants 25 million and a percentage of the film, should MGM agree? Brosnan knows he saved the franchise so he thinks he can ask for any fee. MGM know he saved the franchise but they won't accept any old figure Brosnan and his agent come up with. So they'll dump him.

The irony is Brosnan's success as Bond will be his very downfall. A cruel irony indeed.

Moomoo

[SeanValen00V]

Script approval? Director choice? Maybe he wants his last Bond film to actually be very good. Might not just be about money, years from now, people will look at his Bond films, wouldn't it be nice to have a gem in there, it could be Bond 21, if everyone involved wants to tell a story.

[Qwerty]

Now we don't know that Brosnan is gone yet at all. It could go either way.

[Moomoo]

No Bond actor has ever had script approval. That includes Brosnan.

If you doubt me, check out Brosnan's DAD dvd commentary. He said he would like the films to be harder, more adult, possibly lose the PG 13 rating. Brosnan is just an actor, not the writer.

Look at it this way; you wouldn't expect Purvis and Wade to tell Brosnan how to act. So why would Brosnan tell the writers what to write?

Brosnan will have virtually zero input in Bond 21 (assuming he gets the role, which is looking doubtful).

Moomoo

[Athena007]

No Bond actor has ever had script approval. That includes Brosnan.

I think what he meant was that Brosnan possibly wants to read the script first and deside if he wants to play Bond in that script. As in approve the script for himself.

I... on the other hand highly doubt this is the case.

[Moomoo]

Well, I have no idea how it works. I suppose Brosnan could look at an early draft of the screenplay and see if it interests him. Would seem a strange way to go about it. Unless someone can correct me, I believe the custom is Bond actors sign multi-picture contracts without reading any screenplays, early draft, or treatments. They sign up but screenplay development is not their concern.

I can't see Brosnan reading the screenplay before he's signed, so he'll have to decide if he wants to play Bond based on his past experience. That decision will be made easier if they tempt him with a big enough paycheck.

Moomoo

[JimmyBond]

Did'nt Connery have script approval for DAF? Seems very familiar. If Brosnan want's script approval, more power to him, at least someone is interested in making a classic Bond film.

[Loomis]

Bond made Brosnan? I think not.

Oh, I think so, Athena. This is not more "Brosnan-bashing" on my part, but I really don't see how it can be convincingly denied that Bond made Brosnan. Sure, Brosnan was a relatively successful guy prior to GOLDENEYE, and if he'd never played 007 he'd still have had success in other movies - but I think it's safe to say that it was Bond that put him where he is today.

Besides Brosnan had a fan following before (though not particularly as large as the Bond franchise) - which happen to have brought Bond a larger following...

Again, I disagree (quite civilly ): I really don't believe that REMINGTON STEELE/Brosnan fans were instrumental in making GOLDENEYE/today's incarnation of Bond a hit.

If He's asking for more money, more power to him... they should pay up.

Yeah? To paraphrase Charlie Sheen in WALL STREET, when is it enough?

[Goldenpussy]

I feel that the actors and Bond form a symbol of equality. Yes Brosnan owes it all to MGM/EON for making him an international star in James Bond, prior to that Brosnan struggled with his acting roles and the death of his wife. Well if I was Brosnan I would be more than happy to be Bond again regardless of how much MGM/EON pays him. Well the fame and glory has gone to his head and he is not thinking about the Bond fans anymore. I really like him but he just needs to tone down on the money issues. What does Brosnan need more money for? He is already rich!!!!! Besides MGM would pay Brosnan about $17 million- $19million anyways. Well without Bond the actors would be nothing and with out the actors Bond will be nothing. Pierce please clear out your head and do it while you are still on top.

[Sensualist]

Just been thinking....

Latest rumours suggest Brosnan wants between $20-25 million plus 10-25 percent profits. Of course this might be all unfounded nonsense

My point is simple - who does Brosnan think he is to demand too much money? He owes everything to MGM/Eon. And I do mean everything.

So who does he think is to think he is Mr Big and hold MGM to ransom.

Moomoo

Little young calves shouldn't think...especially if their thinking is based on "rumours" that are "unfounded nonsense".

Pierce is probably asking for a reasonable $18-20 million. That's it. It's totally reasonable to ask for slightly more than you got three years ago especially after the last movie grossed 25 percent more than the previous one.

Moomoo, you sound like one envious and jealous little moomoo.

And, o, Sensualist would have thought Pierce "OWES EVERYTHING" to the good genes of his parents. Without those strikingly handsome looks, I doubt Eon would have bothered courting him 18 years ago.

And why mention "ransom"? Did Pierce have some exec's child kidnapped in order to extort the makers into giving him more dough? It's a free market, little moomoo.

Get a life and stop harping on here-say and unfounded rumours and translating them into irritatingly obnoxious threads...

(CBn "Team", do we need yet another "bash Brosnan" thread from this mooing little calf? Can't he simply lop on his envious little rant onto the end one of his other ill-founded and fact-deficient threads? Or do you kind folk just like to see the thread "count" go up, and up, and up...)

Edited by Sensualist, 19 March 2004 - 05:13 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

  (CBn "Team", do we need yet another "bash Brosnan" thread from this mooing little calf?)

We certainly could do with out another round of your personal attacks, Sensulist. It appears to me that Moomoo is presenting his opinion based on information that may be speculation. And he presented it as such. Nothing wrong with that.

[Sensualist]

We certainly could do with out another round of your personal attacks, Sensulist. It appears to me that Moomoo is presenting his opinion based on information that may be speculation. And he presented it as such. Nothing wrong with that.[/color][/font]

So you think that bashing the Bond of record ("He is still our James Bond") over and over and over and over and over (*sigh*) without concrete facts, (and only on the basis of "unfounded nonsense" and "rumours") is the way to go on CBn, then, Evan?

Is it? Do Daniel and Dave share that view too?

[Athena007]

Oh, I think so, Athena. This is not more "Brosnan-bashing" on my part, but I really don't see how it can be convincingly denied that Bond made Brosnan. Sure, Brosnan was a relatively successful guy prior to GOLDENEYE, and if he'd never played 007 he'd still have had success in other movies - but I think it's safe to say that it was Bond that put him where he is today.

I don't see this thread as Brosnan Bashing... just yet lol Discussion and debating/arguing is fine... it's when it gets petty (insults) that I find it irritating.

You know... it could be a double edged sword...
Brosnan made/revived Bond
and Bond made Brosnan
...I don't think that's too illogical to state.

Again, I disagree (quite civilly ): I really don't believe that REMINGTON STEELE/Brosnan fans were instrumental in making GOLDENEYE/today's incarnation of Bond a hit.

Oh I didn't mean that Brosnan brought tons of fans into the Bnd world and it would be nothing without him. What I mean is that I do believe there are Brosnan fans who would not be watching Bond if it wasn't for him, you know? And you wonder, will they con't to watch when he leaves the roll, maybe but maybe not.

[Jim]

Ian Fleming made Bond
Sean Connery made Bond (and Bond made him, too - so much of what MooMoo wrote originally about Mr Brosnan could have been written about Mr Connery, changing salient names and dates etc)

Pierce Brosnan ... which came first? The decision to bring James Bond back in GoldenEye and then cast Mr Brosnan, or that they had to cast Mr Brosnan to even think about bringing James Bond back in GoldenEye? I tend to the view it was the first. Accordingly, the statement that Brosnan made (?) / revived Bond isn't really that senstive to what happened. Revisionist, though. GoldenEye as a film may have revived Bond, though. The decision to film it revived the franchise. That it was a success revived the possibility of continuing the series from that point on. Was its success wholly Mr Brosnan? Over here it was marketed as James Bond, in the "grand caper" manner of James Bond rather than the "James Bond" of Licence to Kill. That is why it succeeded.

[Mister Asterix]

So you think that bashing the Bond of record ("He is still our James Bond") over and over and over and over and over (*sigh*) without concrete facts, (and only on the basis of "unfounded nonsense" and "rumours") is the way to go on CBn, then, Evan?

Again, that is not what I said. And how is saying