13 replies to this topic

[James Bond [007]]

Why did Pierce Brosnan's contract could not have been for 6 films? And also I was wondering since Timothy Dalton entered as Bond when Pierce Brosnan was offered the role but declined it for Remmington Steel, Does someone know how much movies was the contract for?

Edited by James Bond [007], 26 November 2005 - 05:29 AM.

[dinovelvet]

Why did Pierce Brosnan's contract could not have been for 6 films? And also I was wondering since Timothy Dalton entered as Bond when Pierce Brosnan was offered the role but declined it for Remmington Steel, Does someone know how much movies was the contract for?

Brosnan did not decline The Living Daylights to do Remington Steele, he was pretty much forced into it. RS had been cancelled but there was a 90 day window for them to renew it. During those 90 days, Pierce was getting buzz for being the guy chosen to be the new Bond, and this buzz led the RS producers to renew the show. Cubby didn't want someone playing Bond who could be seen on tv for free, and no agreement could be made with the RS people, so Dalton became Bond instead.
As for contracts, Dalton was contracted for three. Brosnan was contracted for three, with an option for a fourth.

[stamper]

I think this "won't ride on the back of my publicity" by Broccoli was the biggest mistake he made while producing the series. It almost killed the franchise. They should have stuck with Pierce. To see him grow on celluloid from naive agent to the harder, grittier 007 of TND (I think World is not enough is the worst) or DAD... Just my two cents !

[SecretAgent007]

It also makes you wonder if MGM would have had it's trouble and the lack of a Bond movie for 6 years. Pierce was very popular here in the US, even more so than his TV show. I can't imagine TLD and LTK not making a lot more money if it would have been Pierce. He could have ended up making 7 films, instead of 4.

[Andrew]

I think this "won't ride on the back of my publicity" by Broccoli was the biggest mistake he made while producing the series. It almost killed the franchise. They should have stuck with Pierce. To see him grow on celluloid from naive agent to the harder, grittier 007 of TND (I think World is not enough is the worst) or DAD... Just my two cents !

How did it almost kill the franchise? If you're refering to the six year break that was because of legal problems and if you're refering to box office returns, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that The Living Daylights brought in more than the previous film.

[trumanlodge89]

not only that, but i think dalton was a much better choice for the role at the time. brosnan looked too young in '87.

dalton didn't cause the series to take the 6 year break, just like brosnan isnt the cause of the 4 year break this time around, though to the outside observer it would appear otherwise.

[Double-Oh Agent]

One thing to consider when wondering how many Bond movies Pierce Brosnan would have done had he gotten the role in 1987 was that his wife Cassandra Harris got ovarian cancer in the early '90s--a condition that wound up taking her life. As it was, Brosnan practically gave up his career to take care of her, only taking the odd role to pay the bills. As a result, he very possibly would have resigned from the James Bond role to care for her.

If that had happened, would Cubby Broccoli, who was a family man, have held up producing Bond movies with Brosnan until Harris' condition resolved itself and Brosnan was ready to continue? Hard to say. Of course, Paretti's backroom shennanigans might have held up production of the Bond movies anyway, making everything moot.

[Timatom90]

I read somewhere that Brosnan reportedly (yeah, i know, that sounds like I heard it from a friend of a friend...) went to a secluded beach and screamed his lungs out after finding out that he wasn't chosen to play Bond (due to his RS role).

[Andrew]

I read somewhere that Brosnan reportedly (yeah, i know, that sounds like I heard it from a friend of a friend...) went to a secluded beach and screamed his lungs out after finding out that he wasn't chosen to play Bond (due to his RS role).

Wow...

[Tinfinger]

Wow, that would have been something to behold if Pierce had done them from 87 onward. Funny to see how touchy some people get about the Dalton films and their box office.

[Andrew]

Wow, that would have been something to behold if Pierce had done them from 87 onward.  Funny to see how touchy some people get about the Dalton films and their box office.

?

[Athena007]

I actually think it was good that Brosnan wasn't able to do The Living Daylights (or Licence To Kill). I mean those films weren't really a big hit... and I doubt that's "all" Dalton's "fault". Brosnan was able to accept the roll at the right time and make 007 films that were more suited to him... and I think because of his messy Remington Steele contract, that actually saved him from being a "flop." As he probably would have been the 2 film Bond has he been able to take the roll back when he was first offered it. Hope that made sense.

[stamper]

I don't think box office bares any relation to a movie quality as a rule (thought many good movies makes good money, many bad also). I think Dalton was OK in the role, but he didn't gel with the general public. That's all there is to Bond. You gotta make your mark on the general public to make it. Questions of acting etc... comes after, you are carrying a franchise, not just one film.
Brosnan... I think there would have been the gap anyway, because it never had any relation to Dalton. So my guess is, there would have been LD and LTK, the break, (due to legal Eon problems + Pierce family problems), then back with Goldeneye. Perhaps we would never had World is not enough, but something better...

[SeanValen00V]

Brosnan himself said he looked back at 1987, and felt he didn't have the right look for Bond then, even if he wanted it, he was a little too young, and looked a little too young, Brosnan's confidence as Bond grew with age, and I think he can still do another Bond film, if those stupid producers would of letted him, we indeed should of saw his 5th film this november gone in 2005.

Not nice are those bond producers for fans. But I'm glad Dalton was Bond when he was Bond and Brosnan had his outing in Goldeneye, they both looked right for the times, Dalton should of done 1 or 2 more though, and Pierce had another one in him.

They will always feel like unfilled Bond holes in the series, the lost dalton and brosnan films, never really being able to feel satisfied, Pierce might of done 4 films, but if I only they let him play Bond how he wanted, if you look at Dalton in LTK, it was written for him, it was very character driven. DAD was overloaded with a bit too much cgi and a uneeded jinx character, miranda frost was enough.