37 replies to this topic

[triviachamp]

Personally I never really cared for Pierce and was not upset that he was replaced with Craig but what happened with Brosnan? Looking at the archives the first concrete rumours of Pierce being out was in February of 2004, 20 months before Craig was cast. Endless rumours later it was official.

So what happened with Pierce? Was he at one point signed for Bond 21 or not? Did he ask for too much money? Did he try Roger Moore-style negotiating tactics? Was his complaining what ruined it for him? Did Sony try to get him back?

Were the producers upset at being forced (it appears) to get Brosnan in 1994? Was it a reboot before he was dumped or not?

Also can anyone explain why the "Daniel Craig is Bond" story was debunked months before he was cast? What was up there?

[Santa]

A bit of all of the above, I imagine.

[dinovelvet]

Personally I never really cared for Pierce and was not upset that he was replaced with Craig but what happened with Brosnan? Looking at the archives the first concrete rumours of Pierce being out was in February of 2004, 20 months before Craig was cast. Endless rumours later it was official.

So what happened with Pierce? Was he at one point signed for Bond 21 or not? Did he ask for too much money? Did he try Roger Moore-style negotiating tactics? Was his complaining what ruined it for him? Did Sony try to get him back?

Were the producers upset at being forced (it appears) to get Brosnan in 1994? Was it a reboot before he was dumped or not?

Also can anyone explain why the "Daniel Craig is Bond" story was debunked months before he was cast? What was up there?

At the premiere of DAD, Brosnan said he'd been asked back for a fifth film. We know that contract negotiations were taking place - supposedly Brosnan asked for a big pay hike (some say $25 million), and EON told him to take a different kind of hike. I think that's all there is to it, really. There are other rumors out there, but who knows; I suspect we'll never really get the full story.

[00Twelve]

It always seemed he was showing a bit too much 'tude toward the end there. I think also that EON was just dying to do Casino Royale, and wasn't gonna shed any tears about needing a younger actor. Also, as dino eloquently put (LOL man!), Brosnan wanted some serious A-list cash flow to be Bond again, and EON was like, "Um. No." Do the math, and you see why things got a little less than couth.

[Dell Deaton]

Personally, I'm not convinced we have the real (full?) story as to why Mr. Lazenby went. So what else is new?

[JimmyBond]

Of course, hearing it from the producers, none of those scenarios actually happend. According to Barbara Brocolli they wanted to do Casino Royale and the only way they could do it was with someone younger. Not sure I buy that, but that's their official stance on the whole thing.

[Jim]

He was out of contract and there was no obligation to hire him again. They wanted to do something different and rehiring him would have prevented it; accordingly, not fired, just not rehired.

I think.

Ah - who knows/cares? It's over.

[JimmyBond]

He was out of contract and there was no obligation to hire him again. They wanted to do something different and rehiring him would have prevented it; accordingly, not fired, just not rehired.

I think.

Ah - who knows/cares? It's over.

That explanation jives with the producers story the most, so that is probably what happend. I'm sure money did play a small part in it, but not to the point where it was all about the money.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Irrespective of how it went down, I'm just glad that the end result is Casino Royale.

[Skudor]

He didn't have a contract to do B21 so therefore wasn't, strictly speaking, fired. Just not re-hired. As to why - who knows. Could be purely because they wanted to do CR or it could be that due to his excessive pay demands they decided to go straight to CR rather than do a final PB Bond film before doing CR. Or doing CR with Pierce in the lead (let's face it, that's quite possible although the end product would have been closer to the 1967 origian CR movie).

Who knows. Probably it's a mix of all sorts of things. It just made sense to move on.

[Double-0-Seven]

I agree with the others who said he wasn't fired, but he wasn't rehired. His contract had run out, and the producers were looking to do an origin story using Casino Royale, so instead of rehiring Pierce, they looked for a younger actor.

As for your second question about Craig, I believe the story was proven false months before he was cast because MGM had offered him the role but EON had never contacted him about it.

[killkenny kid]

What? Brosnan isn't Bond any more.

[Santa]

What? Brosnan isn't Bond any more.

Darling, Brosnan was never Bond...










Sorry, couldn't help it

[killkenny kid]

What? Brosnan isn't Bond any more.

Darling, Brosnan was never Bond...


oh baby.







Sorry, couldn't help it

[HildebrandRarity]

Brosnan was associated with the role for nearly 20 years and he was too old to portray 007 for a relatively faithful adaptation of Casino Royale. End of story.

[plankattack]

Brosnan was associated with the role for nearly 20 years and he was too old to portray 007 for a relatively faithful adaptation of Casino Royale. End of story.

All the points in the spread are sprinkled into the truth.

I tend to believe the above - it makes sense from a creative and franchise-lifespan point of view.

But the business points make sense too. Brosnan was originally signed with 3 + an option for a fourth, contract. He fulfilled that and then priced himself out of the market. Was he fired? No, he just wasn't rehired. Being the incumbent is different from having a contract. EON then found it easier to make the creative decision to go "young."

Which came first? We'll never know for sure, but I'll say this for Broz, he definitely has been very gracious (if various media and web reports are true) towards the series and the new lead, in recent months.

[MarkA]

You know what dismays me about this site recently is the downright vitriolic and nasty posts about Brosnan. Ok you may not prefer his take on Bond, (I personally didn't really like Roger Moore's) that's your preference. But over the months there has been some pretty nasty personal digs at Brosnan. Nearly as bad as those anti-Craig bunch. Brosnan came along at the right time. Gave his all to the franchise, maybe was let down by some of the material, but all the same was incredibly popular. I also like the new man but I refuse to slag off Brosnan in praising Craig. Lighten up, and maybe grow up. It's beginning to leave a nasty taste in the mouth reading some of these posts.

[Santa]

Ah, well some of us have sense of humour, you see. It's a precious thing and allows us to make and take these comments with tongue firmly in cheek.





Sorry, feeling bitchy today.

[Daddy Bond]

Of course, hearing it from the producers, none of those scenarios actually happend. According to Barbara Brocolli they wanted to do Casino Royale and the only way they could do it was with someone younger. Not sure I buy that, but that's their official stance on the whole thing.

That is the way it is presented on the DVD specials. Maybe so. Although I doubt that the specials on the DVD were the place to say, "Brosnan wanted too much money."

[MarkA]

Ah, well some of us have sense of humour, you see. It's a precious thing and allows us to make and take these comments with tongue firmly in cheek.

I'm sorry but you know nothing about me. So don't make personnal statements.

[Judo chop]

I heard Brosnan had bad breath and they were running out of leading ladies that would work opposite him.

Could be some truth to it... Bondgirl quality was getting rather meager near the end there.

[HildebrandRarity]

Ah, well some of us have sense of humour, you see. It's a precious thing and allows us to make and take these comments with tongue firmly in cheek.

I'm sorry but you know nothing about me. So don't make personnal statements.

In everyone's defence...she did say she was being a big bitch today.

In any case, I supported Pierce's movies at the theatre and bought the dvds and soundtracks and some of the publications during his tenure (Dressed To Kill, The Essential Bond, The Legacy, etcetera) and I now i'll support DC's movies. I love all 6 of their portrayals.

I fear that in 2004 and 2005 Pierce was less than gracious towards the producers and left a bad taste in some fans' mouths which has carried over. This, coupled with CR's outright commercial and critical mega-success, has led to a re-writing of history in some quarters of Bond fandom with the same anti bias towards PB that was prevelant towards DC over the one year period starting in mid October 2005.

History has a tendency of being re-written from time to time, depending on who has the upper hand at the time...and right now Pierce's followers do not have the upper hand.

I have been a follower of James Bond and not a specific actor so I can sit back and read the proceedings as if watching a soap opera and can only think how silly it is that so many people get so bent out of shape over a mere literary/cinematic character or a group of individuals earning millions upon millions of dollars.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 15 March 2007 - 09:06 PM.

[killkenny kid]

History has a tendency of being re-written from time to time, depending on who has the upper hand at the time...and right now Pierce's followers do not have the upper hand.

I have been a follower of James Bond and not a specific actor so I can sit back and read the proceedings as if watching a soap opera and can only think how silly it is that so many people get so bent out of shape over a mere literary/cinematic character or a group of individuals earning millions upon millions of dollars.

Indeed, but from a few little things I see now. I think the real fun, will begin when it's Mr. Craig time to go.

[HildebrandRarity]

History has a tendency of being re-written from time to time, depending on who has the upper hand at the time...and right now Pierce's followers do not have the upper hand.

I have been a follower of James Bond and not a specific actor so I can sit back and read the proceedings as if watching a soap opera and can only think how silly it is that so many people get so bent out of shape over a mere literary/cinematic character or a group of individuals earning millions upon millions of dollars.

Indeed, but from a few little things I see now. I think the real fun, will begin when it's Mr. Craig time to go.

Yea?

I'm getting older (aren't we all?) and I dare say I have a lot more going on in my life to keep me on it than having to wait 3 or more years to see the 'the real fun', if any, when Craig decides/is forced 'to go'.

I ain't waiting i'm afraid. Life's too damn short.

[plankattack]

I love all 6 of their portrayals.

I have been a follower of James Bond and not a specific actor so I can sit back and read the proceedings as if watching a soap opera and can only think how silly it is that so many people get so bent out of shape over a mere literary/cinematic character or a group of individuals earning millions upon millions of dollars.

Here, here!

Yes, we definitely seem to be in a midst of a period where you almost have to pick "your guy" and stick with him in an act of almost Mafioso-like loyalty. But like Hildebrand, I'm a Bond fan before anything else and I think that's what makes CBn such a great place - we celebrate our favourite character in all his forms.

I liken it to supporting a team - the actors are players that come and go - in the end I want the best for the team. I took part in the "Top 5 reasons you can't blame Brozza" throwdown yesterday, but like Hildebrand, I've got the books, the films, the cars etc, and in a weird way I feel that entitles me to have my say on whatever topic Bondian that I think I might have something to add. And I'm more than happy to listen to everyone else's too.

Of course, the trouble is, too many of my opinions are complete bollocks

[00Twelve]

Well, good Bond fans are like buttcheeks: Sometimes crap gets between them, but they always come back together in the end.

[Santa]

Ah, well some of us have sense of humour, you see. It's a precious thing and allows us to make and take these comments with tongue firmly in cheek.

I'm sorry but you know nothing about me. So don't make personnal statements.

Er, I hate to play tit for tat, but I believe telling people to lighten up and grow up would constitute a personal statement going by what you say, in which vein I think I'll continue to leave a nasty taste in your mouth. However, to be honest, I have a life and am not going to get that upset about anyone slagging off Brosnan, Craig or anyone else who's just playing a part. Except maybe Roger. No-one is allowed to slag off Rog.

History has a tendency of being re-written from time to time, depending on who has the upper hand at the time...and right now Pierce's followers do not have the upper hand.

I have been a follower of James Bond and not a specific actor so I can sit back and read the proceedings as if watching a soap opera and can only think how silly it is that so many people get so bent out of shape over a mere literary/cinematic character or a group of individuals earning millions upon millions of dollars.

Indeed, but from a few little things I see now. I think the real fun, will begin when it's Mr. Craig time to go.

That will indeed be an interesting time.

[K1Bond007]

You can't be fired if you were never hired. His contract was up. I think they had plans to possibly do another film with him, but then the idea of a reboot came up and it was over. They went a different direction. IMHO, when MGM dumped the idea of the Jinx spinoff, they effectively dumped Pierce Brosnan by essentially forcing EON to come up with an alternate way to lift some of their formula burden off of Bond while making Bond still exciting and relevant to today's world.

When you look at the last few films you can see how badly the formula weighed on them - specifically with the last few films and especially Die Another Day. Q & Moneypenny, trying to fit them in, finding new out-of-this-world (literally) gadgets etc. And there are only so many times that the public can accept the same story of some millionaire attempting to start a war or take over the world by means of some elaborate ultra-high tech gadget made of some sort of outrageously expensive alloy or mineral. So as soon as someone brought up the idea of doing Casino Royale, I think the writers or Wilson queried whether they should just do a reboot obviously taking note of Batman's great success. If you're going to do it with James Bond, Casino Royale is clearly the best and probably only shot to do it with. Once Royale was the direction they wanted, Brosnan was long gone.

I believe this is the most logical explanation ... though perhaps a little sensationalist on my part

[Santa]

I think it's one of those stories about which, like most, we'll never know what really happened. Only Pierce, Babs and Mike probably know the whole story, and anything we get from any of them inevitably would have a personal slant to it. Anything we have now is pure guesswork.

[HildebrandRarity]

It clearly was all about two (known) elements and one (private) element:

1...Personal/Professional rejuvination on the part of the already filthy rich shareholders of Danjaq upon getting the rights to the book.

2...Costs. I.e. a shift away from Pinewood towards Prague as well as a shift away from possibly paying PB $20-23 million to paying DC 'only' $3-5 million.

The private element being the foul stench eminating from Pierce's camp about 'paralysis' and the like during a time (Oscars 2004) when Dana Broccoli was passing away from cancer.

When that was going on, I immediately thought about Quantum Of Solace and felt that Brosnan was history and there was no coming back. Pierce was affording Barbara no amount of comfort during a period of grief for the family and he cut his own throat.

You just don't do what Pierce did in public in the Spring/Summer of 2004. You just don't!