25 replies to this topic

[Moomoo]

On another Bond site a boarder calling himself 'George Lazenby' has just posted what he claims to be Brosnan's asking price for Bond 21. I have no idea if this is genuine and like so many rumours no source is mentioned, but here is what he wrote:

On the radio the latest salary dispute is that Brosnan is now down to wanting a 'mere' $20 million + % of profits which would equal to about $58 million total pay if Bond 21 grosses $450 million, which it is expected to by MGM. That is down from Brosnan's original demand of $25 million + % of profits that would have totalled about $65 million pay for Bond 21.

However Eon is said to be willing to go no more than $17 million + % of the profits that would equal to about $55 million total pay. According to the report Eon refuses to go higher and Brosnan refuses to go lower. This they state is the "paralysis" Brosnan is in fact talking about.

Pierce, what are you doing? That amount of pay Eon is offering would be about $55 million based on Bond 21's projected gross. Is there really THAT much difference between $58 million and $55 million? And considering you have alread made $41.1 million from your four Bonds do you really need that extra $3 million THAT much? I don't know but $55 million to make Bond 21 seems extremely fair to me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll see if I can email this guy and find out his source. Who knows if it's true? If it is, we are in the land of crazy money. To say he is greedy would be an understatement. I suggest Brosnan leaves now before what little respect I had for him goes for good.

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 22 March 2004 - 09:56 PM.

[zencat]

This 20 mil + % is everywhere. I don't know where it originated.

[Moomoo]

Yeah, I hate it when people quote the figures and don't mention even the vaguest of source. Either Mr Lazenby is correct or he is making it up to make him sound like a big shot.

For what it's worth, I am the *only* person to have named a source. I will stand or fall on what I was told. I suggest Mr Lazenby reveals the source or shuts up.

Moomoo

[Roebuck]

For that kind of money they could get Connery back for Bond 21.

[Moomoo]

It's crazy money. I dunno, I don't begrudge anyone making money in life - and all actors have to struggle in the beginning of their careers so they should be rewarded when they are a success - but if this figure is true it's absolute madness. $55 million????????

I heard that Tom Cruise made a similar amount for M12, so too Jack Nicholson from Batman's gross. So there is a precedent for this sort of demand.

What does kind of annoy me is Brosnan going on about the environment and yet he may be asking for $55 million for Bond 21. LOL. If he is concerned about the seas and the trees, why doesn't he donate the fee to a worthwhile charity?

I just get upset when Brosnan is interviewed and goes on about wanting to do Bond 21 as if he has nothing to do with this so-called paralysis. Yeah, right. If Brosnan is asking for 20 million plus profits, please MGM, get rid of the guy. His ego is almost as big as his demands.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I am Bond fan and sometimes we have cut the crap and accept facts. Forget all Brosnan's false desire to make a character-driven movie, the bottom line for him is how much will he get paid. And if Brosnan is being too greedy, he should go. Now.

Moomoo

[Sensualist]

This 20 mil + % is everywhere. I don't know where it originated.

The moo-ing little calf is screwing with your brain, Zencat old friend. Why indulge him?

Zencat, you know what the 'rentals' are to the family and the distributors. You also know know what the 'market' is for a Bond actor.

It's completely surprising that you're allowing yourself to be duped by this CBn-er.

Let's turn him into cutlets! His ONLY desire is to get his thread count up and making up dumb garbage is the ONLY way he knows how.

Sensualist can envision the son-of-a-heffer laughing while all you good folk try and make head-or-tail from his juvenile, baseless vomiting.

Edited by Sensualist, 22 March 2004 - 11:07 PM.

[SeaNNy-T.]

moomoo is very well known at starting rumors.......A LOT.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Brosnan doesn't deserve $20-25M!!!!! His career was going nowhere before 1994...he's lucky to be asked back at all...he's too old for the role now anyway. sheesh....the star of the films is James Bond, not insert actor here______.

[Agent 76]

the star of the films is James Bond, not insert actor here______.

Jude Law

considered it done!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Law is handsome and suave but I don't believe he can kick my ***. Sorry, but he isn't threatening enough and too short too.

[Agent 76]

Law is handsome and suave but I don't believe he can kick my ***. Sorry, but he isn't threatening enough and too short too.

yes maybe true...but he could work is tough side for the role..

[Tarl_Cabot]

He's got a big future doing non Bond roles...

[zencat]

This 20 mil + % is everywhere. I don't know where it originated.

The moo-ing little calf is screwing with your brain, Zencat old friend. Why indulge him?

...

It's completely surprising that you're allowing yourself to be duped by this CBn-er.

I wasn't saying I believed it's true. I was just saying I've been hearing this 20 + % rumor everywhere (and long before Moomoo mentioned it). I have no insight at all what Pierce is asking, or what MGM is offering, or if there is even a negociation going on at all.

[Agent 76]

He's got a big future doing non Bond roles...

for sure...

But he's still my favourite to take on the role of OO7.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Jackman is your future Bond I'm afraid...I'd rather see an unkown,Lazenby type.

[Agent 76]

...I'd rather see an unkown,Lazenby type.

why can I know Tarl?

[SnakeEyes]

If they are offering him $17mill + % then he should take it. It's a good price.
Only yesterday I was thinking "if I was Brosnan i'd want at least 17mil".

As for the next Bond, I say go with someone we don't know. Shape him into the role and the role into him. Make the franchise set the genere instead of succuming to the genere and making sure the franchise fits it.

Restore Bond to Bond.

[Agent 76]

As for the next Bond, I say go with someone we don't know. Shape him into the role and the role into him. Make the franchise set the genere instead of succuming to the genere and making sure the franchise fits it.

Restore Bond to Bond.

that's not bad after all...
your post makes a lot of sense!

[Robinson]

Brosnan doesn't deserve $20-25M!!!!! His career was going nowhere before 1994...he's lucky to be asked back at all...he's too old for the role now anyway. sheesh....the star of the films is James Bond, not insert actor here______.

Unfortunately, Brosnan's track record as Bond, the films financial success and Hollywood's pay scale- shows that Brosnan deserves $20-25million a picture.

EON had a chance to lock Brosnan up when it picked up his option to do a fourth film(DAD). They could've re-signed him to another 3 picture deal after TWINE but chose to go on a film-by-film basis. Now, it could cost them dearly. Locking Pierce down for 2-3 additional films after TWINE would've kept his salary in check. Now, if EON/MGM want "the Bond of record" on board for #21, in the immortal words of Mayor Carmine from ANIMAL HOUSE "they have to pay."

Yeah, Pierce was stuck doing USA "Movies of the Week" and supporting roles prior to GE but darn it if he didn't deliver once he signed on. He was the Bond whom practically everyone in the US wanted as Bond and folks flocked to the multiplexes to see him sport the tux and PPK. He's no different from a pre- BASIC INSTINCT Sharon(King Solomon's Mines & Action Jackson) Stone, Reese Witherspoon or Vin Diesel, who were or are now part of the $20mil a pic fraternity.

Tarl, you and others can scream that the star of the film is James Bond but you know better than to say that twice. Lazenby and Dalton are testament to the opposing argument. Lazenby wasn't Connery and Dalton wasn't Brosnan or Moore and mainstream moviegoers and the press didn't let them forget it. If it was all about the Bond character, then Dalton should've been hanging upside down in that stall saying "Excuse me, I forgot to knock" three minutes into GOLDENEYE and the press should be asking Wilson and Broccoli "what's up" with Bond 21. Instead, they're asking Brosnan. You wanna know why- "you know the name, you know the number." BROSNAN IS BOND.

Personally, I enjoyed Dalton. And while I've enjoyed Brosnan's turn as 007, I felt sad. Brosnan's success as Bond seemed to underscore the fact that most didn't like or want Dalton as Bond. In essence, I and other afficianados were wrong in our appreciation of Tim. And now, here's where we are now: a successful actor who could be standing on the greatest payday of his career. A film franchise that's a victim of it's late 90's early 21st century success and loyal fans who are hanging on every news clip, blurb and rumour that's either leaked or published.

Get mad at Brosnan if you want, he's an easy scapegoat. But judging from what's transpiring, it's totally out of his hands.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I agree Brosnan has been a successful Bond but my point was if he can't get signed up for B21 because he's holding out for a payday in excess of $20M than cut him loose. I garantee you Hugh Jackman's 007 films will make as much or more as the PB films, maybe even more and for a cheaper fee.

[Robinson]

I garantee you Hugh Jackman's 007 films will make as much or more as the PB films, maybe even more and for a cheaper fee.

I agree but, we could be in the same situation two films from now. The series could be a victim of Jackman's success. He may want $20mil immediately after his third film is completed. Technically, he doesn't need Bond to make him. X-MEN's already given him a buzz and if VAN HELSING does well, it will solidify his hunk status. Jackman could have two hit franchise film series that he's closely associated with by the time BOND 21 starts filming. Would EONs producers put money down on Hugh knowing he's already "known?" Hugh could command $10mil for number 21- granted, that's cheaper than Pierce's twenty but not by much.

We're at the point where even going with rising stars can prove costly. Welcome to the post-Cubby era, where Barbara and Michael are truly left to their own devices.

[Loomis]

Personally, I enjoyed Dalton. And while I've enjoyed Brosnan's turn as 007, I felt sad. Brosnan's success as Bond seemed to underscore the fact that most didn't like or want Dalton as Bond. In essence, I and other afficianados were wrong in our appreciation of Tim.

Hmmm.... well, we were only "wrong" if we're going to judge everything by how much it took at the box office. Personally, I'm more than secure in my appreciation of, say, Yasujiro Ozu and Satyajit Ray, even though their films never made a dime.

In fact, I think us hardcore Bond fans should be championing the less "successful", lesser-known works of Bondage: "Colonel Sun", ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, LICENCE TO KILL, "The Man From Barbarossa".... If we don't, who will? Not Joe Public, 'cause he's almost certainly not even heard of 'em.

[Bond Bug]

Yes this story may be untrue, but it is in line with what I was thinking.

Yes Tom Cruise may get similarly huge sums for Mission Impossible, but Cruise is proven box office gold.

Brosnan has never had a starring role in a non-Bond movie that has grossed over 100m USA, his last 3 movies averaged 5m. Yes Mrs Doutfire did, but that was more a cameo and nobody went to see it because Brozzy was in it.

Most of Cruise's movies smash 100m and he co-produced Mission Impossible. He got the rights and then the finance with his own initiative and enthusiasm and his own bankability.

Brosnan is just a hired TV or straight to video actor that was ideal as for Goldeneye, but now there is no evidence that he is an asset any stronger than a string of possible younger actors. They should dump him immediately if his success has gone to his head.

I don't want the producers to take no risks in the next Bond. It is time they were more experimental and the more they have to fork out for Brosnan, the more they will make a movie that is a safe return.

Brosnan has clearly self-destructed as Bond and I bet he will not be a major player anymore without Bond.

[Moomoo]

I can reveal the source for the amount Brosnan is asking for. It came from an entertainment radio station in LA that was interviewing one of MGM's casting execs. Just found that out. The executive claimed Brosnan wants $20 million plus share of profits. In total; it could be as much as $55 million if Bond 21 makes over $400 million. I dunno about licence to kill - more like licence to be stinkin' rich! LOL.

Moomoo

[Sensualist]

I can reveal the source for the amount Brosnan is asking for. It came  from an entertainment radio station in LA that was interviewing one of MGM's casting execs...The executive claimed Brosnan wants $20 million plus share of profits. In total; it could be as much as $55 million if Bond 21 makes over $400 million.

Moomoo

You daft little cow...Seems as if 1) you have no idea how to do the math on studio 'rentals' and 2) you've obviously got your head up some fat heffer's @$$.

Die Another Day grossed $425-430 million world wide. It cost about $142 million. The profit to the 'studio' (after theatre owners took their share) was about $80 million from it's global theatrical run.

Either you made up the story and are lying. Or the so-called 'exec' is really stupid to make such a suggestion and, as a result, ought to be fired on the spot for being dumb.

Sensualist thinks you have no clue about the numbers and are fabricating things up to get yourself noticed and to get your post and thread count up.

Edited by Sensualist, 24 March 2004 - 01:38 AM.

[Moomoo]

When did your affair with Brossy begin? You seem to love him so much.

Sensualist, in the style of your President, I'd just like to say:

"You are man of limitational intelligencia."

(No, I don't know what it means either!!!)

Moomoo