ray t (21 May, 2002 11:57 p.m.):
with respect to the money issue:
He should not get TOO GREEDY!
Is he greedy? Let's get some rough figures! He got $2m for GE, $6m for TND, $10m for TWINE, total is $18m. Total gross for three films are more than one billion, assuming another billion for all ancillary income, that will be 1.8 billion. So Mr Brosnan is getting a meagre 0.9% of total gross, ie. less than one percent!
Remember, British actors do not share in any residue income only until recently. So unlike his American counterpart, he cannot benefit financially from the success of the films.
Doing a Bond movie demands twice to treble amount of time than normal films, and including promotion, that takes a whole year, and it's physically demanding.
Now the franchise is still in a healthy state, it still enjoys an extremely high budget, a good time slot for release, and is the most watched clip in Yahoo movie (for those who worries about public awareness of DAD)The franchise is now worth more than a billion in goodwill. If the dudes in MGM suddenly feel they don't want to make further Bond movies, they can sell their rights to others who wants to make the movie and pocket an extra one billion net. These are all the massive financial gain that he has in part contributed.
So is he greedy? OR is he a parasite to the franchise as some may imply?
2...He's dumping money into to Irish Dream Time and he needs to do Bond to keep dumping money into it!
He made the money so why can't he spend it in whatever way he likes?
And for your info, most star production company gets allowances from studio for its day-to-day running cost, in return studio gets the first look deal, because stars are individuals, unlike company, they do not have billion in credit line and can't really afford to *dump money*. Production company only means star gets a greater share in back-end, so if the film is a financial success, they can get more which serves as an incentive for them to make a better movie.
3...his last few movies ex-bond have been box office "stiffs" (apart from TCA) and no one seems to be buying him BOX OFFICE WISE other that bond.
Last few ex-bond???
Second last is TCA which is no doubt a commerical and critical success.
Last one is Tailor which is lauded critically.
http://members.tripo...OP/reviews.htmlTailor opened in 199 screens and grossed 2m with a zero marketing budget,and the pre-release estimate was 0.5m. It was another classic case of mishandling by studio. It was a small budget film and a gross of 14m domestic isn't any shame.
FYI, some so called mega star box office aren't any better boxoffice-wise even at 15x more screens:
Bruce Willis, Hart's War-19m at 2800,
Jim Carrey , Majestic-25m at 2500
Nicolas Cage, Captain Corelli's Mandolin- 25m at 1600
For overseas, Tailor has same zero marketing budget, and showing in at least 2/3 less screens in some countries while almost no show in the other countries, and 14m in limited release isn't too bad.
Again FYI, just give one example is enough:
Mel Gibson-We were soldiers - 18m at wide release.
It seems like he is making similar numbers as those mega stars even under extreme disadvantageous and deprived situations.
And his upcoming film 'Evelyn' will not make any wave in box office. But it's less than 10m in budget and can easily recover all cost plus a good profit. It is the small character piece that Brosnan always wants and also a film which has particular meaning to him for years. I respect him for taking on less traditional and/or safe roles.
As far as i am concerned, Eon and Danjaq are holding the cards because time is against brosnan...
That's becasue he has contributed his time, his prime and his charm to James Bond, and time is against him, of course, who won;t get older? But he has still ten years ahead of him post bond. And aside from your bean counter mind, there are always people who belives quality matters as much if not more than quantity.
P.S. I wonder why there is such a sudden surge in negative attacks on Brosnan. Expect more.
