117 replies to this topic

[Sensualist]

Again, that is not what I said. And how is saying ‘Brosnan owes it all it Bond’ Brosnan Bashing? I quite think the same thing could be said to different degrees about all of the Bond actors save David Niven. It is an opinion. We are for people sharing their opinions.

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

Couldn’t say since I didn’t even said that was my view.

It's not just that. It's the continuous rant...He's "too greedy"...holding them to "ransom"..."Who does he think he is?"...ALL based without fact.

So? Connery and Roger were similar. It's a business. Greed is on both sides. Not only one. All parties involved have their own interests at heart, yet he focuses-in only an employee. And why the term "ransom"? (Makes it seem as if Broz has a walther at some kid's head. That he'll pul the trigger if they don't sign him for some unseemly sum)

And why yet another new thread on it? Doesn't he have enough of them to add the rant onto the end of one of those?

Edited by Sensualist, 19 March 2004 - 06:07 PM.

[Bon-san]

Just been thinking....

1) 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.

2) Pierce Brosnan owes his entire film career to James Bond. This is an incontestable fact.

3) Without Bond, Brosnan would find it harder to campaign for the environment.

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

5) 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."

Well Hugh, er, I mean Moomoo,

I've taken the liberty of numbering a few of your points. Taking them one at a time:

1) Besides the fact you are making a huge unfounded assumption here, you must also realize that this is how everybody does business. And not just in Hollywood. Life is a chess game. Wake up to that fact, and your angst may fade ever so slightly.

2) I'm contesting. Following his long and successful run on Remington Steele, his wife succumbed after a long battle with cancer. His movie career took a back seat there for awhile. He did do the Fourth Protocol, The Lawnmower Man, and Mrs. Doubtfire among others. As one who is obsessed with $$$, you might check the grosses on those films.

3) OK, now you're undermining your own anti-Brosnan crusade. Perhaps what you mean is that if Brosnan weren't playing Bond, his campaigning might not generate as much money for environmental causes. I'm not sure how or why this reflects negatively upon anyone or anything.

4) No. See 1) above.

5) Hmm. Not sure what to make of this one. Would it be better if he demanded the role? Normally, the Producers ask the actor if he wants the part. That's kind of how it works.

[Loomis]

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.

I do. Why? Because it's an absurd overestimation of Brosnan's contribution to - and importance to the continued success of - Bondage.

Fleming made Bond. MGM/Eon revived Bond. Brosnan played Bond. That's it.

And it's no disgrace to Brosnan that he was "made" by Bond - every actor needs something to "make" him.

[Bond Bug]

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.

I agree. Brosnan was the right man for the job in Goldeneye. In my view the movies have slumped from an artistic or originality point of view since then, with only glimmers of hope in DAD. They all seem to blur into one in terms of style.

I would like the producers to take Bond in another direction and I think it's long overdue. And to do that I think they should dump Brosnan and get somebody like Ewan McGreggor who could have the potential to reach a whole new audience.

[Atticus17F]

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.

Very true but, in all fairness, Bond fans and general cinemagoers - who outnumber the Brosnan fans in any fight - pay to see a James Bond film, not a Pierce Brosnan film. Whether the Brosnan admirers stick around after he's gone is up to them but, when you consider the series has weathered forty-two years, five leads and some terribly bad creative decisions, I find it hard to believe one actor's departure will leave that much of a hole in the takings.

[Athena007]

I do. Why? Because it's an absurd overestimation of Brosnan's contribution to - and importance to the continued success of - Bondage. Fleming made Bond. MGM/Eon revived Bond. Brosnan played Bond. That's it. And it's no disgrace to Brosnan that he was "made" by Bond - every actor needs something to "make" him.

Yes, it's true that every actor has a project that "makes" them. But from where I'm coming from... I don't think enough credit is given. UA/MGM/EON knew that Brosnan would con't to launch the series... why do you think they went after him from the roll back in the late 80's and then again in the mid 90's. They knew he would keep the ball rolling and keep the fans interested. All aspects are in motion here, imo (I'm not saying it's all brosnan)... the success of the franchise, the writing, the director, and yes even the actor.

oh and Atticus17F: I certainly don't believe that Brosnan's departure will leave a hole in the fandom either. I mean obviously it won't... Connery and Moore departed and well, we're all here aren't we

[Loomis]

UA/MGM/EON knew that Brosnan would con't to launch the series... why do you think they went after him from the roll back in the late 80's and then again in the mid 90's. They knew he would keep the ball rolling and keep the fans interested.

And yet they supposedly tried to woo the likes of Mel Gibson and Ralph Fiennes?

[Athena007]

Don't forget Adam West too

[Loomis]

Brosnan Schmosnan!

[Atticus17F]

oh and Atticus17F: I certainly don't believe that Brosnan's departure will leave a hole in the fandom either.

Sorry, Athena. Didn't intend to single you out.

[Athena007]

Didn't think you were. Atticus17F I was just responding.

I like this thread

[Genrewriter]

Getting silly is a sign you should stop posting? So that's what I've been doing wriong all this time!

[Loomis]

Hey, I like "silly".

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Pierce Brosnan didn't entirely make Bond; Bond didn't entirely make Pierce Brosnan. It was/is a symbiotic relationship - both enhanced one another. He has does his job in serving the series. The series has rewarded him well for it.

That he's asking for more payoff is to be expected, I believe. For example, sports athletes tend to demand more compensation when the product they are party to is successful. He qualifies in the same way as an entertainer and employee, who has done his job (i.e. contribute to keeping the series breathing) so it's not unreasonable to ask for more compensation, a pay raise, a bonus, whatever it should be. But it doesn't mean he's entitled to any number under the sun.

The challenge is to decide the "right number" to recognize his contribution to the series and yet not overcompensate. Hopefully sound business management and mutual respect and consideration will be a part of the negotiations. I can't imagine they won't. I belive both sides of members on this issue have raised good points, but the answer lies somewhere in between, and the clincher will be finding it.

[Jim]

why do you think they went after him from the roll back in the late 80's and then again in the mid 90's.

Because he was cheap.

Perhaps?

Because he would be grateful and sign up to what they wanted to sign him up to?

Perhaps.

Looking at it, it was a hell of a risk. Leading man status - the leading man status - thrust upon someone who had never lead in any sort of equivalent film.

Made him, though, didn't it? Where would he be today, were it not for...?

[Athena007]

Pierce Brosnan didn't entirely make Bond; Bond didn't entirely make Pierce Brosnan. It was/is a symbiotic relationship - both enhanced one another. He has does his job in serving the series. The series has rewarded him well for it.

Yes, that was part of the point I was trying to make later on in the "debate" Well said.


Ok G and Loomis... Silliness is not an excuse to stop posting... it only mean, YAHOO... more mayhem!!!!

[Mister Asterix]

Looking at it, it was a hell of a risk. Leading man status - the leading man status - thrust upon someone who had never lead in any sort of equivalent film.

Made him, though, didn't it? Where would he be today, were it not for...?

Quite. Same could be said for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton. Hell, George is widely considered to be a failure as Bond (not by me), but Bond is still the biggest influence on his public life and career.

[Loomis]

"Brosnan owes it all to Bond" is a much more sensible and widely accepted statement than:

"Bond owes it all to Brosnan".

[Bon-san]

why do you think they went after him from the roll back in the late 80's and then again in the mid 90's.

Because he was cheap.

Perhaps?

Because he would be grateful and sign up to what they wanted to sign him up to?

Perhaps.

Looking at it, it was a hell of a risk. Leading man status - the leading man status - thrust upon someone who had never lead in any sort of equivalent film.

Made him, though, didn't it? Where would he be today, were it not for...?

This line of analysis would also apply to Connery in the 60's/70's. But I rarely, if ever, hear gripes about his contract negotiations with Eon.

[Genrewriter]

Ah, then it's a good thing that mayhem is my specialty. Eh, Athena?

Jim: I see your point, if not for Bond I could see Brosnan possibly currently doing a Remington Steele reunion show on an NBC Saturday Special, trading lighthearted flirtatious barbs with Stephanie Zimbalist.

[Jim]

Quite. Same could be said for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton. Hell, George is widely considered to be a failure as Bond (not by me), but Bond is still the biggest influence on his public life and career.

Exactly - although of those four, probably Moore would have lasted "but for"; maybe Dalton with his theatre work. The others...hmmm...dunno.

Bond has been the making of the majority. James Bond is key. Played him? Sure. Made him? Nope. It's the concept of James Bond that sells, has sold, and will continue to sell.

[Roebuck]

Bond is bigger than Brosnan. Bond is who the public come to see and, properly managed, the franchise will go on long after Brosnan. If the guy really was asking for a twenty million plus payday (and I seriously doubt he is) it would be time to show him the door. That kind of money should be up on screen and not in the lead actors pocket.

[SnakeEyes]

Exactly.

Connery made 007, but 007 also made Connery. Fair share here.
Lazenby. Nothing before, nothing now.
Moore was quite alright before, but now - thanks to the films - he can sit and do whatever he pleases knowing he won't need to 'work' again.
Dalton has always been a successful actor, 007 was just another feather in his cap.
Brosnan - 007 made him, he...made 3 poor films and a good opening film.

The problem with the films now, is that instead of shaping popular culture like the Connerys, they are instead BEING shaped by popular culture - the "eye n33d mey explozionz now0r" generation.

If Brosnan want's to feel prowd about that, let him. Just lowers my rock bottom appreciation of him anyway.

[Moore Not Less]

Bond is bigger than Brosnan. Bond is who the public come to see and, properly managed, the franchise will go on long after Brosnan. If the guy really was asking for a twenty million plus payday (and I seriously doubt he is) it would be time to show him the door. That kind of money should be up on screen and not in the lead actors pocket.

Bond is bigger than any actor. If the series can survive the loss of Sean Connery it can survive period, provided that it is properly managed as you stated.

All this rubbish about Pierce Brosnan holding EON/MGM to ransom with his pay demands. If EON/MGM believe that it is good business to pay Brosnan what he is asking for then they will retain him for Bond 21. If EON/MGM believe that it is bad business to pay Brosnan what he is asking for then they will find another actor. Simple really.

Is anyone here suggesting that if they themselves were in Brosnan's position they would NOT try to get as big a pay cheque as they possibly could?

[Mister Asterix]

Is anyone here suggesting that if they themselves were in Brosnan's position they would NOT try to get as big a pay cheque as they possibly could?

I

[Xenobia]

I wear my heart on my sleeve, so you all know that I am a Brosnan Fan.

Given what some truly creative genius in Hollywood get for their masterpieces (Kevin Costner's fees for Waterworld and John Travola's pay day for Battleship Earth or whatever that film was called), I think Brosnan who has widely be hailed as reviving the Bond series has more than earned what will probably be a one time pay check of 20 million dollars for this film.

Jim wondered where Brosnan would be without Bond. I think someone with his talent would have been noticed anyway. He may have wound up with lots of supporting roles, but those supporting roles might have gotten him the Oscar he should have gotten for Grey Owl and Evelyn.

I ask all of you...where would Bond be without Brosnan? Without Bond, MGM would have fallen apart, so where would Eon have made what became GoldenEye? Would any other studios, especially with the much cheaper Kevin McClory floating around, have taken a chance on them?

In 1994 was there anyone on the market who so clearly fit the role and could pull it off the way Brosnan has? For me, and for a lot of people, the answer is no.

But I'd love to hear arguments to the contrary.

-- Xenobia

[Mister Asterix]

In 1994 was there anyone on the market who so clearly fit the role and could pull it off the way Brosnan has? For me, and for a lot of people, the answer is no.

But I'd love to hear arguments to the contrary.

I think there were more good potential Bonds in

[Athena007]

Brosnan - 007 made him, he...made 3 poor films and a good opening film.

Now that's just unfair to put that on him. He did what was put infront of him. A Bad film starts with the writer[s] and director. An actor can add to it, but that's not it's origin. You can't blame an actor for a bad film unless he wrote/directed it. Just that you can't blame producers for a bad film, they just funded the thing.

I personally like his Bond films. Love GoldenEye. Really Like TWINE and DAD (there are aspects about both of these films that I don't like, but that's due to some of the other actors and some characturization). And then there's TND, ick - yes, i actually hate a Brosnan film, but it's the writing I can't stand not Brosnan's acting.

[Contessa]

Brosnan - 007 made him, he...made 3 poor films and a good opening film.

The problem with the films now, is that instead of shaping popular culture like the Connerys, they are instead BEING shaped by popular culture - the "eye n33d mey explozionz now0r" generation.

If Brosnan want's to feel prowd about that, let him. Just lowers my rock bottom appreciation of him anyway.

So many illogical assumptions in this thread, I was tempted not to reply, but anyway... (MBE, you still around? I know you could help out with this one )

This post seems to imply that Brosnan has control over the content of the Bonds he does and that he actually enjoys being overshadowed by blue-screen effects and bad CGI. Both of these presumptions are off-base. I do believe that Brosnan would like more control over the scripts, and that he would like more focus on character and story. For all Brosnan's flaws, which have been highlighted more than sufficiently in other threads, he seems to me a reasonably intelligent guy who does care about the quality of his films. He may not have had the clout to create the kind of product he wanted to in the past, but he seems to be making some progress (at least with his own company).

I don't believe that Brosnan "made" Bond. The role certainly did serve to elevate his profile and give him greater ability to choose from a wider variety of scripts and roles. Many people I know only started watching Bond again once Brosnan assumed the role, though, as they disliked Dalton's portrayal (this doesn't reflect my own view, BTW) so it could be said that he has been responsible for some portion of the ticket sales for the films.

I'm not going to even respond to the person who started this thread. Everything he has stated is based on hearsay and emotional appeal.

[Jim]

You can't blame an actor for a bad film unless he wrote/directed it.

On that logic, neither can one credit an actor for a good film.

Except that so many folk wish to. Which is a little eeny bit inconsistent.