Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Brosnan owes it all it Bond


117 replies to this topic

#61 Atticus17F

Atticus17F

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 715 posts
  • Location:Manchester

Posted 19 March 2004 - 11:25 PM

Brosnan who has widely be hailed as reviving the Bond series

Hang on a minute, Xen. Precisely who, apart from Brosnan's admirers, has ever really thought that he was the saviour of the series? I think I recall Barbara Broccoli saying that GoldenEye's success was due to Brosnan, Fierstein and Campbell but I don't recall anyone state "it's all thanks to Pierce". Besides, if the films ever looked like they were in trouble, it was because of legal wranglings and/or poor marketing. Are you trying to tell us that Pierce not only took on the role of Bond, but defended Eon's corner in the courts as well as running its publicity?

I'm not the biggest supporter of Brosnan as Bond, but I can't say I hate his guts either. I respect the contribution he's made to the series but, by becoming James Bond, the only thing he "revived" was his own career.

#62 Moomoo

Moomoo

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • PipPip
  • 913 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:04 AM

Pierce has said he will donate his Bond fee to charity. If you want to make any donations to this charity, please send all cash to:

The Pierce Brosnan Retirement Fund
Post Box 007
Malibu
California

Hee hee.:)

Moomoo

#63 Xenobia

Xenobia

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9744 posts
  • Location:New York City

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:13 AM

To answer Atticus' fair point...I have seen industry papers that have credited Pierce alone, and Pierce with others for reviving the series. Can I name name off the top my head. Not at this juncture, but give me a day or two so I can comb my files, and I'll get back to you.

Folks...he is getting 20 million MAYBE for one film. Considering what Willis, Travolta, Schwartzneger and others routinely get per film, Pierce is still damned cheap!

Can we please not begrudge this man his money?

-- Xenobia

#64 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:15 AM

For me he can receive even 50 million! I just want that they give me a GOOD! Bond movie! :)

#65 Moomoo

Moomoo

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • PipPip
  • 913 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:20 AM

50 million? Is that all? Tut tut. In my day, it was more. I tell you, these big stars - they're so underpaid! :)

Moomoo

#66 brendan007

brendan007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1512 posts
  • Location:Gold Coast, Australia

Posted 20 March 2004 - 12:05 PM

Sure Bond is bigger than any one actor, but right now Brosnan IS Bond. For a generation Connery WAS Bond, as was Moore. I believe that many people who watch these movies now a days are seeing them because Brosnan is Bond. Ditto for Connery and Moore in their days.
A Bond film will only be hugely successful if the public believes that so and so is James Bond. If Brosnan was replaced, a huge chunk of the audience would go too.
It was unthinkable to replace Connery back in the day, therefore Lazenby 'failed'. It was unthinkable to replace Moore, therefore Dalton 'failed'. Whoever replaces Brosnan will probably fail too, as the general public believes Brosnan IS Bond. To have a new actor take on the role now will seem unthinkable to the general public.

#67 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 12:19 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='19 March 2004 - 23:02'] Sean Bean, for one, could have stepped right into the role.

But Brosnan

Edited by Sensualist, 20 March 2004 - 01:29 PM.


#68 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 01:20 PM

By the way, GoldenEye remains Eon's most PROFITABLE P.B. James Bond film.

Inspite of Die Another Day's numbers ($425 mil globally vs $350 mil for GoldenEye) PB's first film only cost $60 million to make which is a reported $82 million cheaper that his fourth film.

World-wide rentals to the producers and distributors for GoldenEye were approx. $180 mil.

World-wide rentals to the producers and distributors for "Day" were approx. $220 million.

The profit, therefore, on GoldenEye was $120 million (approx.).

The profit, in comparison, on "Day" was "only" $78 million (approx).

Hope CBn folk find that "interesting". :)

Edited by Sensualist, 20 March 2004 - 01:49 PM.


#69 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 01:26 PM

I wonder how much GOLDENEYE would have taken at the box office if Mel Gibson had played Bond. Would it have been one of the biggest-grossing films of all time?

#70 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 01:58 PM

I wonder how much GOLDENEYE would have taken at the box office if Mel Gibson had played Bond. Would it have been one of the biggest-grossing films of all time?

I suspect Mel Gibson would have helped GoldenEye do "better". How much "better"? It's a matter of speculation.

Sensualist, however, does NOT feel it would have been "one of the biggest grossing films of all time"

Only Thunderball was at the "Star Wars"/"Lord of the Rings" level. And even it had the misfortune of being released in the same year as "The Sound Of Music" (the number 1 movie of 1965, Thunderball being number 2 that year) which IS one of the BIGGEST GROSSING films of ALL TIME (inflation adjusted).

Even the biggest Lethal Weapon movie wasn't bigger than "Goldfinger", let alone "Thunderball", so that would answer something.

Btw, "Signs" is Mel Gibson's biggest grossing movie to date (putting it at the Goldfinger level only)

(Tho he ain't even "in" it) The Passion of The Christ MIGHT end up being his "biggest" by Good Friday/Easter Sunday.

----

But to get back. So Mel Gibson could have done better for GoldenEye. But then what?

He'd have been hard pressed to do a follow-up and it would have been up to Eon to sign Pierce again.

So it would have been to "square one" again.

Edited by Sensualist, 20 March 2004 - 02:02 PM.


#71 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:12 PM

GoldenEye remain as a big successful movie in Bond franchise in terms of box office and rentals because back in 1994 Goldeneye was the "return" of James Bond to the lights!

Edited by Agent76, 20 March 2004 - 02:13 PM.


#72 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:17 PM

GoldenEye remain as a big successful movie in Bond franchise in terms of box office and rentals because back in 1994 Goldeneye was the "return" of James Bond to the lights!

O, ok!

Any further insights? :)

(It would be outrageously cool if you realised that there was NO James Bond movie in 1994. LOL)

Edited by Sensualist, 20 March 2004 - 02:27 PM.


#73 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:33 PM

Pierce has said he will donate his Bond fee to charity.

Moomoo

Moooooo!....Moooooo!

Why would he donate his $17-21 million fee to charity? Sounds like more garbage rumour from the dairy farm.

Are you from the beef-producing side of things?

Cutlets for dinner, anyone? :)

#74 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:47 PM

I suspect Mel Gibson would have helped GoldenEye do "better". How much "better"? It's a matter of speculation.

Quite, but I venture to suggest that Mel Gibson IS James Bond would have been so stunningly successful as to make Brosnan, the so-called Billion Dollar Bond, look like Dalton.

In particular, Gibson would have given GOLDENEYE a tremendous leg up in the United States. I don't see why he would have "been hard pressed to do a follow-up" - bunged $20 million or so, he'd have done TOMORROW NEVER DIES with a smile on his face, surely?

Being a huge, A-list star (and ambitious filmmaker), Gibson would not, I concede, have been as durable as Brosnan. Had he played Bond in GOLDENEYE, I reckon he'd have called it a day with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH; but I do think it's safe to say that he'd have trounced Brosnan at the box office and taken the James Bond series into the big league. The really big league, I mean.

#75 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:50 PM

GoldenEye remain as a big successful movie in Bond franchise in terms of box office and rentals because back in 1994 Goldeneye was the "return" of James Bond to the lights!

O, ok!

Any further insights? :)

(It would be outrageously cool if you realised that there was NO James Bond movie in 1994. LOL)

the movie was made during 1994 , capiche? :)

#76 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 03:27 PM



Any further insights? :)

(It would be outrageously cool if you realised that there was NO James Bond movie in 1994. LOL)

the movie was made during 1994 , capiche? :)

Actually the movie was made in 1995.

The announcement of Pierce Brosnan as James Bond was on the 7th of June, 1994.

Filming was originally scheduled for Autumn but three things happened which delayed filming and the projected release date, which, originally was "pegged" for Summer '95.

*** Firstly, Cubby Broccoli underwent emergency coronary bypass surgery (from which he NEVER fully recovered). Michael and Barbara, thus, had the torch passed on to them and the movie had very little involvement on the part of Cubby.

*** "True Lies" hit the screens that summer (Sensualist and fiancee' were there opening night after an evening of fine dining) and forced Eon and MGM/UA to up the ante. They decided to re-work GoldenEye on a number of fronts and thought more time was needed to properly work on James Bond's return.

*** Pinewood was unavailable for production in Autumn of that year so the producers had to build a new facility: They converted the Rolls Royce-owned WWII bomber factory at Leavesden.

GoldenEye was made in 1995 and released on November 17th of that year. (The same time-line schedule has been used ever since.)

Capiche?

You really need to do some more 'research' into the subject, Agent 69. :)

Edited by Sensualist, 20 March 2004 - 03:32 PM.


#77 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 03:46 PM

I suspect Mel Gibson would have helped GoldenEye do "better". How much "better"? It's a matter of speculation.

Quite, but I venture to suggest that Mel Gibson IS James Bond would have been so stunningly successful as to make Brosnan, the so-called Billion Dollar Bond, look like Dalton.


Being a huge, A-list star (and ambitious filmmaker), Gibson...(h)ad he played Bond in GOLDENEYE, I reckon he'd have called it a day with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH; but I do think it's safe to say that he'd have trounced Brosnan at the box office and taken the James Bond series into the big league. The really big league, I mean.

Well, Mel Gibson (who was "only" 'a pretty face and sex symbol' until he showed his chops in "Hamlet" and in "Lethal Weapon") was a mega-star.

He only wanted to do ONE. If he'd have agreed to do three (your own fantasizing), he'd have been James Bond. Eon would have signed him.

But doing "one only", Sensualist would suggest, likely would have "destabalised" Eon at a time when Cubby was gravely ill.

It's not an entirely irrelevant point.

#78 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 20 March 2004 - 03:59 PM



Any further insights? :)

(It would be outrageously cool if you realised that there was NO James Bond movie in 1994. LOL)

the movie was made during 1994 , capiche? :)

Actually the movie was made in 1995.

The announcement of Pierce Brosnan as James Bond was on the 7th of June, 1994.

Filming was originally scheduled for Autumn but three things happened which delayed filming and the projected release date, which, originally was "pegged" for Summer '95.

*** Firstly, Cubby Broccoli underwent emergency coronary bypass surgery (from which he NEVER fully recovered). Michael and Barbara, thus, had the torch passed on to them and the movie had very little involvement on the part of Cubby.

*** "True Lies" hit the screens that summer (Sensualist and fiancee' were there opening night after an evening of fine dining) and forced Eon and MGM/UA to up the ante. They decided to re-work GoldenEye on a number of fronts and thought more time was needed to properly work on James Bond's return.

*** Pinewood was unavailable for production in Autumn of that year so the producers had to build a new facility: They converted the Rolls Royce-owned WWII bomber factory at Leavesden.

GoldenEye was made in 1995 and released on November 17th of that year. (The same time-line schedule has been used ever since.)

Capiche?

you win!

#79 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 04:04 PM

He only wanted to do ONE. If he'd have agreed to do three (your own fantasizing), he'd have been James Bond. Eon would have signed him.

Yes, and he'd have wiped the floor with Brosnan.

But I'm not sure that Gibson was actually willing to do even one Bond flick. I've read conflicting reports about this: some say he was happy to star in GOLDENEYE only, while others claim that he never had any interest at all in playing 007 and turned MGM/Eon down flat.

Re: the "when was GOLDENEYE made?" debate, I'd suggest that, since Brosnan was cast in 1994, and script and pre-production work was well underway that same year, we can say that the film was made in 1994 and 1995. They certainly didn't start from scratch in '95.

#80 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 04:57 PM

He only wanted to do ONE. If he'd have agreed to do three (your own fantasizing), he'd have been James Bond. Eon would have signed him.

Yes, and he'd have wiped the floor with Brosnan.

But I'm not sure that Gibson was actually willing to do even one Bond flick. I've read conflicting reports about this: some say he was happy to star in GOLDENEYE only, while others claim that he never had any interest at all in playing 007 and turned MGM/Eon down flat.

Re: the "when was GOLDENEYE made?" debate, I'd suggest that, since Brosnan was cast in 1994, and script and pre-production work was well underway that same year, we can say that the film was made in 1994 and 1995. They certainly didn't start from scratch in '95.

:) When someone in the normal course of typing says "made", Sensualist's logical assumption is "filmed". If you want to incorporate pre-production and "thinking" then you have to say that Dr. No was made in 1959, 1960 and 1961 and that Die Another Day was made in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Would you say that?

Also, Mel Gibson is way beyond Bond and the likes of Lethal Weapon now. If he said he wasn't interested in playing Bond then, then you have to wonder how his mind was working at that time.

Hearing things to the effect that the genesis of The Passion came about 8 years ago, (When he had bigger fish to fry than your run-of-the-mill "action" popcorn/candy movie), you're probably not to far away from your second thought.

Looks like the guy COULD have been Bond ('pretty boy', 'sex symbol' at one time) but DIDN'T care. Had money. About to direct and star in an eventual Oscar winner (Braveheart).

He coulda had the world...but the world was not enough! He had to have THIS world and BEYOND and be filthy rich to boot!

Edited by Sensualist, 20 March 2004 - 05:05 PM.


#81 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 20 March 2004 - 05:05 PM

what age Mel Gibson was in 1995 by the way? :)

#82 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 05:17 PM

what age Mel Gibson was in 1995 by the way? :)

Look it up.

#83 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 20 March 2004 - 05:19 PM

what age Mel Gibson was in 1995 by the way?  :)

Look it up.

"thanks".

#84 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 20 March 2004 - 05:21 PM

[quote name='Sensualist' date='20 March 2004 - 06:19'] [quote name='Mister Asterix' date='19 March 2004 - 23:02'] Sean Bean, for one, could have stepped right into the role.

But Brosnan

#85 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 05:36 PM

[quote name='Agent76' date='20 March 2004 - 17:19'] [quote name='Sensualist' date='20 March 2004 - 17:17'] [quote name='Agent76' date='20 March 2004 - 17:05'] what age Mel Gibson was in 1995 by the way?

#86 Roebuck

Roebuck

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1870 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 06:07 PM

Regardless of when it was made, Goldtop owed much of it's success to a smart advertising campaign and the novelty of a movie icon returning to the screen after a six year gap. Trailers portrayed it as a wall-to-wall action movie with occasional shots of Brosnan speeding around in a DB5 to reassure the old guard fan base that this was the same James Bond they remembered, but more so. Now for my money it features the least confident d

Edited by Roebuck, 20 March 2004 - 07:51 PM.


#87 Sensualist

Sensualist

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 06:14 PM

Regardless of when it was made, Goldtop owed much of it's success to a smart advertising campaign and the novelty of a movie icon returning to the screen after a six year gap...

It's all about the brand.

Yes. It is, indeed, all about brand. But don't you think we can go far back as YOLT...then DAF...then Moonraker...then AVTAK to realise that FlemingBond and ScreenBond parted company well before the Die Another Day era?

In fact, didn't Die Another Day, TWINE and Tomorrow Never Dies (Frankfurt hotel room scene, etc) have MORE bits'n pieces of FlemingBond than YOLT?

#88 Roebuck

Roebuck

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1870 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 06:21 PM

didn't Die Another Day, TWINE and Tomorrow Never Dies (Frankfurt hotel room scene, etc) have MORE bits'n pieces of FlemingBond than YOLT?


Not a view I'd subscribe to myself, but if you believe they did, does that have more to do with the casting of Brosnan or the producers and their choice of writer/director?

As Pierce admited himself, he tends to just go with the flow.

Edited by Roebuck, 20 March 2004 - 06:26 PM.


#89 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 20 March 2004 - 06:31 PM

In fact, didn't Die Another Day, TWINE and Tomorrow Never Dies (Frankfurt hotel room scene, etc) have MORE bits'n pieces of FlemingBond than YOLT?

Don't think so. What, for instance, does the TOMORROW NEVER DIES hotel scene have to do with Fleming? Fleming's Bond didn't blub and get all clingy with women, mithering a load of sentimental balderdash about "getting too close". And had it been Fleming's Bond in that room, he'd have been puffing away like a chimney, not just necking the vodka.

Likewise, I don't think YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is a Fleming-free zone. Far from it, in fact. The very English upper class wit of the scene between Bond and Henderson (in which 007 refrains from correcting Henderson on how he likes his vodka martinis) is something that Fleming would have very much appreciated, along with the travelogue elements, the larger-than-life villain and his crazy schemes involving rockets....

#90 Moore Not Less

Moore Not Less

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1030 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 20 March 2004 - 07:47 PM

Folks...he is getting 20 million MAYBE for one film.  Considering what Willis, Travolta, Schwartzneger and others routinely get per film, Pierce is still damned cheap! 

Can we please not begrudge this man his money?

-- Xenobia

For Pierce Brosnan, being paid $20million dollars for one film is not about greed or holding people to ransom, it's about his popularity with the general public and his status as an actor within the film industry.

As an actors popularity and status rises he is more likely to be offered the best scripts, the best roles, which in turn can lead to him having more control over his career. Even the most popular actors make wrong decisions and the best scripts don't always translate well from script to screen. But even a bad film starring Bruce Willis or John Travolta or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or even dare I say Pierce Brosnan, is far more likely to make money than a bad film starring Fred Bloggs. This is why the big studio chiefs are prepared to pay so much for the services of these actors.

Yes indeed, they are not necessarily the best actors, and most people would agree with that, but they are certainly the most popular.

Edited by Moore Not Less, 20 March 2004 - 07:49 PM.