37 replies to this topic

[triviachamp]

You can't be fired if you were never hired.

That is why I put "fired" in quotes. Anyway he did want to continue and it seems that the other actors all left of their own accord.
Of course my brain did not think of using "rehired."

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.

Hmm...interesting point. How exactly did MGM kill Jinx? Did they say they would not fund it? Wouldn't that be one of the few goods things done at MGM on Kerkorian's watch?

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.

A bit difficult to copy Batman Begins when Casino Royale was in planning before BB was released.

Interesting points. So it seems that the reboot was the reason he was dumped? I suppose that explains why they made DAD instead of CR.

Oh and I agree that when Craig goes it will not be pleasant in the Bond World.

[K1Bond007]

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.

Hmm...interesting point. How exactly did MGM kill Jinx? Did they say they would not fund it? Wouldn't that be one of the few goods things done at MGM on Kerkorian's watch?

Probably. MGM wouldn't fund it because other heroine flicks of the time had flopped at the box office. Tomb Raider 2 and Charlie's Angels 2 specifically, I believe. According to P&W anyway.

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.

A bit difficult to copy Batman Begins when Casino Royale was in planning before BB was released.

Interesting points. So it seems that the reboot was the reason he was dumped? I suppose that explains why they made DAD instead of CR.

True. But the idea may have been inspired by Batman considering the switch to CR didn't come till later 2004 after Batman had wrapped. I don't know. I kind of threw it in at the last minute without thinking it at all through because of the obvious similarity.

[Mr_Clark]

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.

Yep, Eon Productions has been trying to make this film since 1962. Pierce Brosnan had a three film contract with the option of a fourth, not to mention he left. He wasn't "fired", at all.
He never had "5th contract" either, that was some BS rumor created by the obessed Brosnan fan boys at DCINB.com...

[PrinceKamalKhan]

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.

I'm very glad Brosnan did not do CR as it probably would have been closer to the 1967 film than what we eventually got. The only way a Brosnan CR might have worked is if they made it his first Bond film instead of GE and gone with the "reboot" idea then. In a way I think the way the DAD/CR scenarios turned out, kinda gives us an idea of how MR/FYEO might have turned out if another actor(Dalton, perhaps?) had replaced Moore in 1980, i.e. hugely popular veteran Bond actor's 4th film(an OTT-Sci-Fi/Fantasy extravaganza) turns out to be his last followed by a more serious, down-to-earth reboot with a newer, younger, more serious actor.

[ACE]

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

1...Personal/Professional rejuvination on ... 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!

I've the oddest feeling you may have hit several nails on the head with this post.

I think Dana's passing was a significant watershed between how things used to be done and how they now could be done.

I understand that she was a strong yet unsung creative force on the Bonds.

[Publius]

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.

While I for one don't like to engage in simple insults, I don't see anything wrong with people making jokes at his (or any of the actor's) expense. The only thing that bothered me about it when it was being done against Craig is that he hadn't even been seen in action yet. Now that CR is out, I think it should be open season on him. If I had been around for Brosnan's debut, I'd be the first to defend him against the bile until GoldenEye came out. Then he'd have to stand on his own. After four wildly successful movies? He's a big enough boy to handle any abuse. (And that's not meant to sound like a P&W-concocted Halle Berry line.)


Anyway, I don't like to propagate rumors, but does anyone think there could be some truth to the idea that one or both of the Broccolis didn't personally care for Brosnan in the role of Bond? It could be that after his (respectably lengthy) contract was up, the fortieth anniversary had been celebrated with him in it, Bond was a commercial powerhouse once more, and the rights to CR had finally been acquired, it was as good a time as any to do something that he/she/they had always really wanted to do. Sort of like a mainstream band getting all "artsy" and creative with an album after sufficiently establishing themselves. Thoughts?

[plankattack]

While I for one don't like to engage in simple insults, I don't see anything wrong with people making jokes at his (or any of the actor's) expense. The only thing that bothered me about it when it was being done against Craig is that he hadn't even been seen in action yet. Now that CR is out, I think it should be open season on him. If I had been around for Brosnan's debut, I'd be the first to defend him against the bile until GoldenEye came out. Then he'd have to stand on his own. After four wildly successful movies? He's a big enough boy to handle any abuse. (And that's not meant to sound like a P&W-concocted Halle Berry line.)


Anyway, I don't like to propagate rumors, but does anyone think there could be some truth to the idea that one or both of the Broccolis didn't personally care for Brosnan in the role of Bond? It could be that after his (respectably lengthy) contract was up, the fortieth anniversary had been celebrated with him in it, Bond was a commercial powerhouse once more, and the rights to CR had finally been acquired, it was as good a time as any to do something that he/she/they had always really wanted to do. Sort of like a mainstream band getting all "artsy" and creative with an album after sufficiently establishing themselves. Thoughts?

I tried to make this point somewhere else, but some of us really seem to have a thin skin when it comes to Brozza. Since when did he become untouchable? I grew up with Sir Rog but I'm the first to admit that he stayed for at least two movies too many.

I think that are a large percentage of fans for whom Pierce is their first Bond, so the idea of anyone else being Bond, and hearing that the next guy is better, is just too much to stomach. I've lived through four Bonds (alive but not cinematically conscious for the other two) and who knows how many people taking a stab at writing a Bond novel.

But that 6-yr gap between TD and Brozza were formative years for alot of fans so to criticise Brozza would be akin to bashing SC thrity years ago.

Edited by plankattack, 19 March 2007 - 07:40 PM.

[nnaka261]

I totally agree. I was born in 1984, so my first glimpse of James Bond was Pierce Brosnan. In my imagination, he'll be what I see as Bond. But I watched all the other actors, so there really isn't any kind of "loyalty" to one incarnation or another. I'm appreciative of what they all have done with the character. Though I would say the screenwriters are largely to blame for any missteps in the franchise, and not completely the fault of Sean, George, Roger, Timothy, Pierce, or Daniel.