143 replies to this topic

[Le G]

"Pierce Brosnan Fired From Bond Role!"
Brosnan: "It's over, it's over, it's absolutely over!"

According to the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, who interviewed Brosnan yesterday on location in Bahamas, Brosnan is now fired as Bond! Brosnans is sad to have been shocked when he first got the call telling him that he had been axed from the role!

-I had a contract four Bond-films! I made them and I told them that I wanted to continue! But suddenly in the negotiations they change there mind! They told me that they wasn

[Agent 76]

nothing new...

[The_Mole]

Soon we'll probably realise that this just isn't getting better.

Pierce is off.
Pierce is on.
Pierce is off.
Pierce is on.
Hugh Jackman's on.
Clive Owen's on.
Hugh Jackman's off.
Jack Black's on.
Clive Owen's off.
Jack Black's off.
Pierce is on.

It follows the same old narrative structure.

Let's wait before speculating. There can be only one Bond.

[luciusgore]

Oh they'll eventually pay him what he wants and he'll be back on the job. He's such a primadonna.

[zencat]

This sure puts to rest the "Pierce is back in talks" rumors. Would he be saying things like this to the press if he were really back at the table?

[kevrichardson]

This sure puts to rest the "Pierce is back in talks" rumors. Would he be saying things like this to the press if he were really back at the table?

I whole heartly agree with you Zencat !! So let's finally focus on Bond 21 , and who will be the New James Bond . Brosnan is old news and he is getting to much attention .

[CharlieBind]

[So let's finally focus on Bond 21 , and who will be the New James Bond . 

Lets hope that Bond 21 will star a certain..... P. Brosnan!

[hrabb04]

I want Brosnan back as Bond. He's not the problem. Your lame-brained writers would have been my first choice of people to fire.

[Seannery]

This sure puts to rest the "Pierce is back in talks" rumors. Would he be saying things like this to the press if he were really back at the table?

Who knows what to make of this paper and article. He may very well out and signs are pointing that way but this article can have Pierce say i've been misquoted again and given he's being interviewed by those not of english first speakers the chances of a mistake or an excuse to say he was misquoted just increases. Even if this is a reputable paper Pierce has weasel room if it becomes necessary.

[Seannery]

Plus reading the translation it seems the interview seems a bit bombastic and almost juvenile--just another reason to be leery. That being said maybe it is true. MAYBE.

[Peter Franks Is Alive In Vegas]

How can he be fired if he hasn't been hired for a 5th Bond film?

He has never been the official 007 for Bond 21, he has been as secure for this role as Jackman or Owen have ever been...

Now if we only had some solid rumours (real news is too much to ask for) about our new James Bond actor if Brosnan won't be hired again...

[Jack Bauer]

Lots of exclamation points! I am happy for the clarification! Thanks for posting this!

[Peter Franks Is Alive In Vegas]

Lots of exclamation points! I am happy for the clarification! Thanks for posting this!

I don't know if this was directed at me, sorry if you found my post annoying, it was just my two cents on the matter, my opinion, I thought discussion boards were for that...

Edited by Peter Franks Is Alive In Vegas, 13 October 2004 - 02:13 AM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

He's not missing anything except a big pay check. He'd have 4 year wait for another possible shoddy Bond film that embarrasses the series and it's fans.Se la vi Pierce. Enjoy your leasure time,millions.

[The_Mole]

I think the writers need an overhaul.

And the direction should not include eye candy explosions or editing effects. We get that too much with MTV.

We need to at least return to the dark gritty realism of GoldenEye. That can't be that hard... Can it?

Libya... Afghanistan...

[Tarl_Cabot]

"We need to at least return to the dark gritty realism of GoldenEye. That can't be that hard... Can it?"

Realism? Like that Superman dive into the airplane? Or the Godzilla movie style mintures?

[Tim007]

From CBn's main page:

"Pierce Brosnan Fired From Bond Role!"
Brosnan: "It's over, it's over, it's absolutely over!"

[Agent 76]

finally he's out.

[Jim]

'bye 'bye.

[Loomis]

finally he's out.

Is he, though? Sorry, but we've had so many months of "Is Brosnan in or out?" that it seems impossible to take any news - "from the horse's mouth" or otherwise - without an enormous pinch of salt.

Will Brosnan shortly do a Donald Rumsfeld and insist that his latest comments have been "regrettably misunderstood"? If so, it would be in keeping with his "I haven't said no to Bond" remarks of just a couple of weeks ago. (As reported on the IMDb on 30 September: "There was no announcement. I think the reporter heard it wrong. I think what I said was, 'I've had my fill of talking about Bond.' It was not an official announcement.")

And yet, according to CBn's latest article, Broz "accepted the knowledge (that his run as 007 was over for good)" quite some time ago, while shooting AFTER THE SUNSET!

*Sigh* Who knows what's going on?

[Oetzi]

"Pierce Brosnan Fired From Bond Role!"

What contract has he been 'fired' from? You can't 'fire' someone if they dont have a contract...

[Bon-san]

"Pierce Brosnan Fired From Bond Role!"

What contract has he been 'fired' from?  You can't 'fire' someone if they dont have a contract...

I think it is pretty clear that a healthy portion of CBn's staff have been eagerly awaiting the day they could write that headline.

Less bloodthirsty (and more accurate) headlines such as, "Brosnan not returning as James Bond", or "Brosnan's Bond reign is over", just wouldn't have had that sensational "POP!" so craved by news reporting agencies these days.

[J J]

...in the words of Charlton Heston's George Taylor (to those who took this decision): YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. D*MN YOU. G*D D*MN YOU ALL TO HELL!

[Loomis]

I still feel that if Brosnan had really and truly called it a day, there'd be a "farewell to James Bond and thanks to everyone involved and to all my fans for so many exciting years in the role of 007"-type message on his official site.

Nothing on the BBC. And the other Bond fansites appear to be ignoring this latest "news".

Just business as usual, perhaps. It'll be easy enough to claim to have been misunderstood by Swedish journalists, I expect.

[LordAsriel]

[quote name='Bon-san' date='14 October 2004 - 11:55'][quote name='Oetzi' date='14 October 2004 - 06:16']"Pierce Brosnan Fired From Bond Role!"

What contract has he been 'fired' from?

[stromberg]

[quote name='Bon-san' date='14 October 2004 - 13:55'][quote name='Oetzi' date='14 October 2004 - 06:16']"Pierce Brosnan Fired From Bond Role!"

What contract has he been 'fired' from?

[Loomis]

Not much room for speculation left, not much chance for any misquotations, unless Brosnan claims that the whole interview is fake.

Or that he's been misunderstood. And there's precedent for that (look back to Brosnan's remarks of just a couple of weeks ago). There seems to be a history (not just with Brosnan, by any means) of stating something as plain as day, then retracting it. Look at Rumsfeld the other day. Look at Tony Blair, with his claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and his current refusal to acknowledge that he, the British government, British intelligence or anyone else ever misled anyone over anything. It's just the world of "spin" we live in.

To quote The_Mole:

"Soon we'll probably realise that this just isn't getting better.

Pierce is off.
Pierce is on.
Pierce is off.
Pierce is on.
Hugh Jackman's on.
Clive Owen's on.
Hugh Jackman's off.
Jack Black's on.
Clive Owen's off.
Jack Black's off.
Pierce is on.

It follows the same old narrative structure."

The BBC, dear Loomis, has published that many rumours about Bond recently (and most of them were wrong) that they'll stay away from this until it's officially confirmed.

Perhaps we should all do that - treat this "news" as rumour until it's officially confirmed.

Next week: an "insider" on a message board claims Brosnan is back in talks with Eon, and Brosnan tells the world that Swedish journalists with a less-than-perfect grasp of English (not that I've ever met a Swede without a perfect grasp of English, but still) misinterpreted his words in their quest for a "sensational" story.

Don't get me wrong, though: I'm certainly not arguing that Brosnan is still James Bond. In fact, I'd agree that it seems very likely that BOND 21 will go ahead with someone else as 007. However, the final, definitive, no-two-ways-about it, official announcement (proof) that he won't be back has yet to come. And we have been down this road before, as I'm sure you'll agree.

[Bon-san]

Quoting Stromberg:

And once again, there's Shooting the Messenger on this board "Brosnan fired as Bond" is bloodthirsty and sensational? Bah, humbug. It's only paraphrasing Brosnan's own words. No need for having a go at the staff for this. There might be a few among them who are more and some who are less happy with this decision. That headline can be understood as an acclamation as well as a regret. Depends on one's own point of view and what one is willing to read into it. Nothing's clear at all and nothing is as it seems, Bon-san.

End of quote.


Perhaps my post was harsh. I certainly have no ill feeling about any of the CBn staff as individuals. I thoroughly enjoy their posts, respect the sometimes difficult nature of the job they do here, and appreciate the time they dedicate to this site. I also think this is the best Bond site on the web, by leaps and bounds. And lastly, although this is not really a "hard news" site per se, I feel the news reporting here is very well done.

I have had the sense, though, that there is a certain measure of anti-Brosnan sentiment manifested in the official collective conscience here. I also had the feeling that that sentiment at least somewhat colored the reporting in the "Licence Revoked" story months back. This is not fact I'm asserting here. Just feeling. Suffice it to say, I wholeheartedly support the CBn staff. However, my passion for Bond may at times induce me to disagree with anyone here, staff or not.

As for the headline being read as both an acclamation and a regret, well, I don't think so. There was no regret expressed in the article.

But moving on...

Edited by Bon-san, 14 October 2004 - 01:33 PM.

[Bond_Bishop]

I thought we had hope fore Brosnan in Bond 21. But probably not. Bring in Clive Owen or Hugh Jackman.

[Mister Asterix]

I think it is pretty clear that a healthy portion of CBn's staff have been eagerly awaiting the day they could write that headline. 

[mra]The only reason we were happy about writing that headline is because it is another thing to prove that our story back in February was correct. Okay, Jim