105 replies to this topic

[Colossus]

The producers are not without blame for the messy leave either, if it's true that all they did was give him a phonecall after all those years. That is also unprofessional and i'm sure Albert Broccoli would not have behaved this way.

[Kristian]

The producers are not without blame for the messy leave either, if it's true that all they did was give him a phonecall after all those years. That is also unprofessional and i'm sure Albert Broccoli would not have behaved this way.

How is a phone call unprofessional? Unprofessional would have been for Brosnan to find out after CRaig was appointed. Or if he found out through the papers. No, EON informed him directly. What did the Drama Queen Girly Man want? A dinner party with a sad ending? Get over it. EON had already fulfilled their contract and were simply choosing not to use Brosnan further - well within their rights. I have a feeling that there is much more that Brosnan is not talking about. The phone call was a perfectly acceptable way to inform him of their decision. He's not mad about that - he's mad because he was on such a high after DAD and they basically burst his bubble. The man is delusional if he thinks he could have done another Bond movie without people being either creeped out, bored to death, or moved to tears of laughter.

[Ravenstone]

without people being either creeped out, bored to death, or moved to tears of laughter.

Or indeed, all three

[jaguar007]

Remember, Cubby allegedly began shopping the rights to 007 around sometime in 1990, then quickly tried to retract the offer once it started getting some mention in the media.

I thought it was United Artist's share that was being shopped around in the early 90's not EONs share. I also think EON ended up with UAs share to boot.

[Agent 76]

Born to be Bond. The saviour of the franchise. Billion dollar Bond.

Well said Jim. That really defines "his" Bond.

I remember seeing the boat sequence in The World Is Not Enough in the cinema, and being amazed by it.

[jaguar007]

I am certainly a Daltonist and much prefer him over Brosnan, but I acknoweledge the importance Brosnan played in the success of BOnd. In 1986 the public at large thought Brosnan was going to be the next James Bond. Even before TLD was released in 1987, everybody was saying that is should have been Pierce. Heck, Being a fan of Remington Steele, I was all for Brosnan as Bond. However I quickly saw that Dalton was a superior choice and all through Brosnan's tenure, I always stated that I was partial to Dalton. Prior to CR, the last BOnd movie I left feeling really positive about was TLD. The next 5 Bond movies left me a little disapointed.

I do agree with Gravity that Dalton's biggest downfall was his lack of sexiness in the role. That is one reason I think Craig is succeeding where Dalton did not. Craig's take on Bond is a bit like Dalton's, but Craig has that macho animal magnetism that Connery had.

[R. Dittmar]

It seems to me as if the Brosnan tenure was the point at which the tastes of the old-school Fleming semi-purist fanatics (like myself) and the casual Bond fans progressively diverged to the point of being completely out-of-phase. Even Rog at his silliest was still starring in films that were at least partially inspired by Fleming’s books. I can only speak for myself of course, but my feeling during Brosnan’s entire run (except for some interesting ideas in TWINE) was that they weren’t even trying to make anything that would appeal to me anymore. I just figured they were pitching everything to the lowest common denominator, i.e. teenage boys, and the franchise would just burn out after becoming ever more formulaic and childish. After DAD in fact, I <i>devoutly wished</i> the franchise was through. There’ve been a lot of attempts to explain reasons for the dissatisfaction expressed here about Brosnan, but I think the reason for the disappointment is simple. They just weren’t making those films for the more obsessive Bond fans such as us.

[MkB]

There’ve been a lot of attempts to explain reasons for the dissatisfaction expressed here about Brosnan, but I think the reason for the disappointment is simple. They just weren’t making those films for the more obsessive Bond fans such as us.

Maybe you're right, but I don't think CraigBond films are maid for us, obsessive Bond fans, either. We're not numerous enough to place a Bond film on top of the box office, so "joe public" rules.

[jaguar007]

Maybe you're right, but I don't think CraigBond films are maid for us, obsessive Bond fans, either. We're not numerous enough to place a Bond film on top of the box office, so "joe public" rules.

I consider myself an obsessive BOnd fan. I have been collecting memoribilia for almost 30 years and (much to my wife's dismay) I have a seperate room in our house for it. I think Craig is the best thing to happen to the Bond films in the last 40 years with CR easily being the best Bond film since OHMSS.

[MkB]

Maybe you're right, but I don't think CraigBond films are maid for us, obsessive Bond fans, either. We're not numerous enough to place a Bond film on top of the box office, so "joe public" rules.

I consider myself an obsessive BOnd fan. I have been collecting memoribilia for almost 30 years and (much to my wife's dismay) I have a seperate room in our house for it. I think Craig is the best thing to happen to the Bond films in the last 40 years with CR easily being the best Bond film since OHMSS.

Oh yes! Sure. That's not what I meant. My point is that, we obsessive Bond fans love CraigBond films, BUT the main goal of the producers is not to please us, an insignificant minority. They don't think in terms of "Will it feel good for true Bond fans?", but "Will it feel good for Joe Public" - and ideally, "Joe Public AND the true Bond fans", but IMO we're not an absolute priority.

[R. Dittmar]

Oh yes! Sure. That's not what I meant. My point is that, we obsessive Bond fans love CraigBond films, BUT the main goal of the producers is not to please us, an insignificant minority. They don't think in terms of "Will it feel good for true Bond fans?", but "Will it feel good for Joe Public" - and ideally, "Joe Public AND the true Bond fans", but IMO we're not an absolute priority.

There’s no question that the Bond producers are running a business so they have to attract the largest audience possible. What they’ve consistently had (or at least Cubby had), however, is the ability to put together films that strike enough of the right chords to please the lifelong fanatics while appealing to the larger audience they need to be successful. Look at how often they’ve rejuvenated the franchise by going back to the basics with left over Fleming material. I speak just for myself of course, but I just felt that they lost the magic touch when Brosnan took over. They turned out a bunch of faux-Bond. They hit a bunch of shallow superficial widely known notes from the older films that even your grandma would recognize without doing anything to make it uniquely Bond. When so much of the action genre in and of itself is a homage to or rip-off of Bond elements anyway, you have to appeal to the fans of the franchise that have helped to set it apart from all others if it’s to stay vital. If you’re just going to make stiffing the fanatics standard operating procedure, then there’s no reason to make a Bond film at all instead of just some generic action flick. Joe Public is fickle. If you’re not consciously trying to differentiate your product and build on your customer base, then the public will get bored and drift away to the next big thing.

[Double-Oh Agent]

The producers are not without blame for the messy leave either, if it's true that all they did was give him a phonecall after all those years. That is also unprofessional and i'm sure Albert Broccoli would not have behaved this way.

How is a phone call unprofessional? Unprofessional would have been for Brosnan to find out after CRaig was appointed. Or if he found out through the papers. No, EON informed him directly. What did the Drama Queen Girly Man want? A dinner party with a sad ending? Get over it. EON had already fulfilled their contract and were simply choosing not to use Brosnan further - well within their rights. I have a feeling that there is much more that Brosnan is not talking about. The phone call was a perfectly acceptable way to inform him of their decision. He's not mad about that - he's mad because he was on such a high after DAD and they basically burst his bubble. The man is delusional if he thinks he could have done another Bond movie without people being either creeped out, bored to death, or moved to tears of laughter.

True, EON did fulfill their contract. However, I still don't think they did right by letting Brosnan know he would no longer be needed with a phone call. After all he'd done for the series and EON, he deserved a face-to-face meeting. Like it or not, he did save the 007 franchise and made it viable again. He deserved better. Cubby Broccoli certainly would not have informed Brosnan that he was going in another direction by a phone call. He would have sat him down and explained his reasons and then thanked him for all his good, hard work before "regretfully" going their separate ways. After all the money he'd made EON, Brosnan deserved that much.

Yes, Brosnan shouldn't have went off in the press like he did. But in his defense he'd been highly successful in the role, the movie-going public greatly accepted him as 007, it came as a big surprise, and his non-renewal was the second time the role had been "taken" from him, which had to hurt, especially since he felt he had at least one more Bond film in him.

As for him being too old, that's bull. He looked good then, and he still looks good now, certainly better than Roger Moore or Sean Connery were at that age. He easily had another film in him. In 2005/2006, he would have been 52/53 years old. Young enough for one last turn at the wheel before riding off triumphantly into the sunset.

My guess is the producers realized that Die Another Day was as far as they could go in that sci-fi direction and that they needed to scale back for the next film. But with Brosnan likely around for only one more film, they felt it didn't make sense to put him in a down-to-earth Bond film and then make a switch to a new 007. Better to start out with a new Bond in a scaled down film like Casino Royale and make it a Bond Begins outing. I also believe that at this point, EON (namely Barbara Broccoli) already had her eye on Daniel Craig and realized that if they were ever going to get him, they had to strike then while the iron was hot before he became too big for them/Bond. So they made the controversial decision to not renew Brosnan's contract and try to get Craig. It still took them awhile, but they eventually got their man and the rest is history. Nevertheless, they should have informed Brosnan of his status in person.

[SecretAgentFan]

The producers are not without blame for the messy leave either, if it's true that all they did was give him a phonecall after all those years. That is also unprofessional and i'm sure Albert Broccoli would not have behaved this way.

How is a phone call unprofessional? Unprofessional would have been for Brosnan to find out after CRaig was appointed. Or if he found out through the papers. No, EON informed him directly. What did the Drama Queen Girly Man want? A dinner party with a sad ending? Get over it. EON had already fulfilled their contract and were simply choosing not to use Brosnan further - well within their rights. I have a feeling that there is much more that Brosnan is not talking about. The phone call was a perfectly acceptable way to inform him of their decision. He's not mad about that - he's mad because he was on such a high after DAD and they basically burst his bubble. The man is delusional if he thinks he could have done another Bond movie without people being either creeped out, bored to death, or moved to tears of laughter.

True, EON did fulfill their contract. However, I still don't think they did right by letting Brosnan know he would no longer be needed with a phone call. After all he'd done for the series and EON, he deserved a face-to-face meeting. Like it or not, he did save the 007 franchise and made it viable again. He deserved better. Cubby Broccoli certainly would not have informed Brosnan that he was going in another direction by a phone call. He would have sat him down and explained his reasons and then thanked him for all his good, hard work before "regretfully" going their separate ways. After all the money he'd made EON, Brosnan deserved that much.

Yes, Brosnan shouldn't have went off in the press like he did. But in his defense he'd been highly successful in the role, the movie-going public greatly accepted him as 007, it came as a big surprise, and his non-renewal was the second time the role had been "taken" from him, which had to hurt, especially since he felt he had at least one more Bond film in him.

As for him being too old, that's bull. He looked good then, and he still looks good now, certainly better than Roger Moore or Sean Connery were at that age. He easily had another film in him. In 2005/2006, he would have been 52/53 years old. Young enough for one last turn at the wheel before riding off triumphantly into the sunset.

My guess is the producers realized that Die Another Day was as far as they could go in that sci-fi direction and needed to scale back for the next film. But with Brosnan likely around for only one more film, they felt it didn't make sense to keep him down-to-earth Bond film and then make a switch to a new 007. Better to start out a new Bond with a scaled down film like Casino Royale and make it a Bond Begins outing. I also believe that at this point, EON (namely Barbara Broccoli) already had her eye on Daniel Craig and realized that if they were ever going to get him, they had to strike then while the iron was hot before he became too big for them/Bond. So they made the controversial decision to not renew Brosnan's contract and try to get Craig. It still took them awhile, but they eventually got their man and the rest is history. Nevertheless, they should have informed Brosnan of his status in person.

That´s exactly what I feel is the reality of this situation. Excellent analysis!

[[dark]]

The producers are not without blame for the messy leave either, if it's true that all they did was give him a phonecall after all those years. That is also unprofessional and i'm sure Albert Broccoli would not have behaved this way.

How is a phone call unprofessional? Unprofessional would have been for Brosnan to find out after CRaig was appointed. Or if he found out through the papers. No, EON informed him directly. What did the Drama Queen Girly Man want? A dinner party with a sad ending? Get over it. EON had already fulfilled their contract and were simply choosing not to use Brosnan further - well within their rights. I have a feeling that there is much more that Brosnan is not talking about. The phone call was a perfectly acceptable way to inform him of their decision. He's not mad about that - he's mad because he was on such a high after DAD and they basically burst his bubble. The man is delusional if he thinks he could have done another Bond movie without people being either creeped out, bored to death, or moved to tears of laughter.

True, EON did fulfill their contract. However, I still don't think they did right by letting Brosnan know he would no longer be needed with a phone call. After all he'd done for the series and EON, he deserved a face-to-face meeting. Like it or not, he did save the 007 franchise and made it viable again. He deserved better. Cubby Broccoli certainly would not have informed Brosnan that he was going in another direction by a phone call. He would have sat him down and explained his reasons and then thanked him for all his good, hard work before "regretfully" going their separate ways. After all the money he'd made EON, Brosnan deserved that much.

Yes, Brosnan shouldn't have went off in the press like he did. But in his defense he'd been highly successful in the role, the movie-going public greatly accepted him as 007, it came as a big surprise, and his non-renewal was the second time the role had been "taken" from him, which had to hurt, especially since he felt he had at least one more Bond film in him.

As for him being too old, that's bull. He looked good then, and he still looks good now, certainly better than Roger Moore or Sean Connery were at that age. He easily had another film in him. In 2005/2006, he would have been 52/53 years old. Young enough for one last turn at the wheel before riding off triumphantly into the sunset.

My guess is the producers realized that Die Another Day was as far as they could go in that sci-fi direction and needed to scale back for the next film. But with Brosnan likely around for only one more film, they felt it didn't make sense to keep him down-to-earth Bond film and then make a switch to a new 007. Better to start out a new Bond with a scaled down film like Casino Royale and make it a Bond Begins outing. I also believe that at this point, EON (namely Barbara Broccoli) already had her eye on Daniel Craig and realized that if they were ever going to get him, they had to strike then while the iron was hot before he became too big for them/Bond. So they made the controversial decision to not renew Brosnan's contract and try to get Craig. It still took them awhile, but they eventually got their man and the rest is history. Nevertheless, they should have informed Brosnan of his status in person.

Brilliant post. That's how I see it, as well.

[Otis Fairplay]

I would say Pierce Brosnan initially was greeted pretty much the same way Daniel Craig has been; as the best Bond since Sean Connery if not ever. I would not say it is just a case of the latest Bond actor being unquestionably praised either, since I seem to recall the reception of Timothy Dalton ranging from mild appreciation to indifference. Rather, I think Brosnan did connect with the audience, critics and – while you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise these days – Bond fans by large. While I would say things started to cool off somewhat around the time of The World is Not Enough, there is little denying Brosnan struck a major chord with the times that the Bond Franchise much needed to hear.

Nothing new there, then. However, for further and more illuminating reflections on Brosnan’s stature during his tenure I would suggest picking up one or two Bond books written around that time. My guess is, you will invariably find the authors – objective and level-headed as you might imagine them to be – fawning over Brosnan and his contribution to the series. For example, check out John Cork & Bruce Scivally’s James Bond The Legacy, where the authors get the later Moore years and the Dalton era over and done with in a rather brusque manner before delving disturbingly deeply into Brosnan and his films. Books with less restricting ties to the franchise pretty much follow suit, like the recommended Martinis, Girls and Guns by Martin Sterling & Gary Morecambe, which ends on a happy note as the authors gush enthusiastically over Die Another Day. Did you know, by the way, that Gustav Graves is possibly the most enjoyable villain since Auric Goldfinger and that this film arguably is the best directed since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service? I must admit I did not, until I read passages like these.

But above all I will suggest David Giammarco’s For Your Eyes Only, parts of which must play like sweet music for anyone who thinks Pierce Brosnan gets a too rough a deal these days. Here, nearly half the book is dedicated to the Brosnan era. If memory serves me well, Giammarco does not only credit him for single-handedly saving the Bond series in the 90’s – which with some generosity at best might be called speculation – but also in a rather snide aside addressed to the Dalton films claims everybody knew the role of Bond rightfully belonged to Brosnan. It all seems at bit like the Second Coming of Bond, actually, and whether you agree with the writer or not I think it is quite an amusing read.

So. I am fairly sure I had a point somewhere but I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I think writings like the above examples show that in spite of dissenting voices, not only less discriminating moviegoers and critics hailed Pierce Brosnan back in the day, but serious Bond aficionados and alleged connoisseurs also gladly took his Bond under their wing. Rather a contrast to the way his era has come to be dismissed by the mainstream media and the as far as I am concerned uncalled for amount of ridicule and derision heaped his way on the Internet. Quite a sobering twist of fate, I think.

[Mister E]

it was written with Roger Moore in mind; he'd not resigned yet. But that's all nonsense and we know it

What I have noticed there is sometimes a hang over from the previous era. Moore's first two films were clearly written with him but it had a Connery ghost floating around, Sir Rog was a bit of an hole at the time. Dalton had some Moore-isms in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS like the armed to the teeth Aston Martin. Brosnan's GOLDENEYE had some hang overs but even more so since the first draft was written for Dalton but was clearly eventually fixed for Brosnan. I can easily imagine Dalton in the original draft for GE, it had the dialogue in the vein of Timmy's first two outings. The final draft was without a doubt Brosnan. Even CASINO ROYALE's first half is a bit Brosnan heavy. So anyway, that's my case.

[Colossus]

As for him being too old, that's bull. He looked good then, and he still looks good now, certainly better than Roger Moore or Sean Connery were at that age. He easily had another film in him. In 2005/2006, he would have been 52/53 years old. Young enough for one last turn at the wheel before riding off triumphantly into the sunset.

CR would have fit as a good swansong too as a jaded weary agent contemplating retirement with the girl and having it dashed before him.

Well said clarification on the rest of the post there too Double-Oh Agent.

[Mister E]

CR would have fit as a good swansong too as a jaded weary agent contemplating retirement with the girl and having it dashed before him.

Well said clarification on the rest of the post there too Double-Oh Agent.

Even if that was how the story was written, Brosnan still wouldn't have been able to pull it off. He's bad actor and I am glad he left, all he could do is all the Bond sterotypes. He can't pull off anything complex.

[Kristian]

CR would have fit as a good swansong too as a jaded weary agent contemplating retirement with the girl and having it dashed before him.

Well said clarification on the rest of the post there too Double-Oh Agent.

Even if that was how the story was written, Brosnan still wouldn't have been able to pull it off. He's bad actor and I am glad he left, all he could do is all the Bond sterotypes. He can't pull off anything complex.

Truly. And in response to the post further up concerning Brosnan looking "good"... did you not watch DAD and the scene with Brosnan mugging through his wrinkles in his introductory scene with Jinx? The first time we watched DAD in the cinemas, there was a chorus of "Eeeews." In the following weeks, I heard similar comments from other friends and acquaintances.

Yes, he deserves credit for allowing the Bond films to survive into the 21st century. But regardless of how he felt treated by EON, he should've taken it up with them, rather than going to the press. I suppose I just don't have much sympathy for a man who had a reasonably good run and was mad because he couldn't do ONE more movie. FOUR, THREE, OR MAYBE EVEN TWO movies, I might understand. But one more flick wasn't worth whining to the press about.

At any rate, Danny's here to stay. Thanks to Pierce for everything he did to pave the way.

[Double-Oh Agent]

My guess is the producers realized that Die Another Day was as far as they could go in that sci-fi direction and needed to scale back for the next film. But with Brosnan likely around for only one more film, they felt it didn't make sense to keep him down-to-earth Bond film and then make a switch to a new 007. Better to start out a new Bond with a scaled down film like Casino Royale and make it a Bond Begins outing. I also believe that at this point, EON (namely Barbara Broccoli) already had her eye on Daniel Craig and realized that if they were ever going to get him, they had to strike then while the iron was hot before he became too big for them/Bond. So they made the controversial decision to not renew Brosnan's contract and try to get Craig. It still took them awhile, but they eventually got their man and the rest is history. Nevertheless, they should have informed Brosnan of his status in person.

That´s exactly what I feel is the reality of this situation. Excellent analysis!

Brilliant post. That's how I see it, as well.

Well said clarification on the rest of the post there too Double-Oh Agent.

Thanks guys!

[CM007]

I would say Pierce Brosnan initially was greeted pretty much the same way Daniel Craig has been; as the best Bond since Sean Connery if not ever. I would not say it is just a case of the latest Bond actor being unquestionably praised either, since I seem to recall the reception of Timothy Dalton ranging from mild appreciation to indifference. Rather, I think Brosnan did connect with the audience, critics and – while you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise these days – Bond fans by large. While I would say things started to cool off somewhat around the time of The World is Not Enough, there is little denying Brosnan struck a major chord with the times that the Bond Franchise much needed to hear.

Nothing new there, then. However, for further and more illuminating reflections on Brosnan’s stature during his tenure I would suggest picking up one or two Bond books written around that time. My guess is, you will invariably find the authors – objective and level-headed as you might imagine them to be – fawning over Brosnan and his contribution to the series. For example, check out John Cork & Bruce Scivally’s James Bond The Legacy, where the authors get the later Moore years and the Dalton era over and done with in a rather brusque manner before delving disturbingly deeply into Brosnan and his films. Books with less restricting ties to the franchise pretty much follow suit, like the recommended Martinis, Girls and Guns by Martin Sterling & Gary Morecambe, which ends on a happy note as the authors gush enthusiastically over Die Another Day. Did you know, by the way, that Gustav Graves is possibly the most enjoyable villain since Auric Goldfinger and that this film arguably is the best directed since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service? I must admit I did not, until I read passages like these.

But above all I will suggest David Giammarco’s For Your Eyes Only, parts of which must play like sweet music for anyone who thinks Pierce Brosnan gets a too rough a deal these days. Here, nearly half the book is dedicated to the Brosnan era. If memory serves me well, Giammarco does not only credit him for single-handedly saving the Bond series in the 90’s – which with some generosity at best might be called speculation – but also in a rather snide aside addressed to the Dalton films claims everybody knew the role of Bond rightfully belonged to Brosnan. It all seems at bit like the Second Coming of Bond, actually, and whether you agree with the writer or not I think it is quite an amusing read.

So. I am fairly sure I had a point somewhere but I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I think writings like the above examples show that in spite of dissenting voices, not only less discriminating moviegoers and critics hailed Pierce Brosnan back in the day, but serious Bond aficionados and alleged connoisseurs also gladly took his Bond under their wing. Rather a contrast to the way his era has come to be dismissed by the mainstream media and the as far as I am concerned uncalled for amount of ridicule and derision heaped his way on the Internet. Quite a sobering twist of fate, I think.

Fanatstic Post but I think it will be lost on the Bond blow ins of this site.I totally agree and just to prove Pierce´s popularity is how well his films did with the general public making money competing with the likes of Titanic,Harry Potter And The Return Of The King.That´s some achievement

[jaguar007]

Personally I always liked Brosnan in the role, but had always wished Dalton had done more. During his tenure I never thought of another actor should be doing Bond (except Dalton) and accepted Brosnan. In fact I was disapointed when it was announced that he was not going to do a fifth. However I also felt Brosnan never made a great Bond movie (I know many people consider GE to be one of the best, but I don't). I had pretty much accepted that Bond would never again reach the heights it did in the 60s, but enjoyed every Bond movie for what it was. Then came Casino Royale. During Dalton's years I really wanted to see a serious version of the novel with Dalton in the role. I could never see Brosnan playing Bond in CR and I still can't. Craig and CR really brought Bond back to the quality of the 60s era films. I was overjoyed with CR, I realized that Bond could be good cinema again and not just a James Bond movie. It was after I saw what Craig did with the role that I started to sour toward Brosnan for what he could not do with the role in 4 films.

[Turn]

Fanatstic Post but I think it will be lost on the Bond blow ins of this site.I totally agree and just to prove Pierce´s popularity is how well his films did with the general public making money competing with the likes of Titanic,Harry Potter And The Return Of The King.That´s some achievement

I don't find this "achievement" more impressive than what Roger Moore's Bond films accomplished, making good box office while up against classics such as Star Wars, Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Return of the Jedi, Rambo, along with a slew of other solid popcorn films in the much tougher summer season.

Brosnan had the advantage of his films being released in the fall, holiday season, where there were fewer action and fantasy films, save for those you mentioned.

[DrNoNo]

I have brought this up and replied to threads like this in the past. A couple of years ago when "Casino" first came out, I was getting horribly flamed for posts like this one.

The bottom line is, Broz was a great Bond but his movies, with the exception of GE, weren't that good. And DAD was really really bad I thought.

But, as you have said, MANY people at the time were saying things like, "Best since Connery" blah blah blah. And now if you say you like Broz you're a fool.

It's not Broz's fault he had really bad movies to work with. The same can be said of some of Sir Rog's films. It's not his fault the script sucked.

From the reviews I have read, "Quantum" isn't that great so we will see if, over time, there is a backlash to Craig.

Bond fans, like most fans, are very fickle.

[DrNoNo]

Also, if you go to the General Discussion forum and look at the "Who is your favorite Bond" poll...which was started in 2003...a lot of the older posts from 2003 have people saying things like, "Broz is the best" "There is no other Bond than Broz" etc etc etc

[DR76]

The fans and the media loved Brosnan's Bond during the 1990s. Just as they love Craig now. And I suspect that not long after EON finds a new actor to portray Bond, the Craig bashing will commence in full force - in the same manner that Brosnan is being bashed right now.

I couldn't care less how he had reacted to being replaced by Broccoli and Wilson. All that mattered to me is that I found his movies entertaining. And I did. Even the slightly bland TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

[CM007]

True, EON did fulfill their contract. However, I still don't think they did right by letting Brosnan know he would no longer be needed with a phone call. After all he'd done for the series and EON, he deserved a face-to-face meeting. Like it or not, he did save the 007 franchise and made it viable again. He deserved better. Cubby Broccoli certainly would not have informed Brosnan that he was going in another direction by a phone call. He would have sat him down and explained his reasons and then thanked him for all his good, hard work before "regretfully" going their separate ways. After all the money he'd made EON, Brosnan deserved that much.

This may be apples-to-oranges, but after AVTAK had come and gone in theaters Lois Maxwell was informed through a telephone call by Cubby that she would not be returning.

I think Roger informed EON through an official letter that he was resigning. I think he resigned sometime in mid-December 1985, because not long afterwards there was a small blurb in PEOPLE Magazine with the title: "A VIEW TO A ROLE?" and a picture of Antony Hamilton (Cover Up) suggesting Hamilton had met with Broccoli about becoming the next 007.

So there are different ways to let somebody know they aren't being kept on. I've been let go from jobs with a polite telephone call and I've let employees go with a telephone call. Sometimes it saves both parties from the awkwardness of a face to face meeting. A telephone call is an acceptable form of communicating a personnel hiring or firing decision.

The problem with Brosnan's exit, for him at least, was that he now had the dubious distinction of being the first actor to be officially forced out of the role. I'm sure that hurt him a lot, and probably confused him, because the series had just banked it's biggest box office (not adjusted for inflation) since probably MOONRAKER. On the other hand, it's a business, and he took over the role from someone else and not entirely in the best of circumstances I might add (though no fault of his).

Connery and Lazenby had both publicly quit the role. Roger was a successful, but old actor by the time AVTAK came out, and knew it was time to resign. Dalton was allowed to resign from the role officially, otherwise he would've been forced out. ANd let's face it. After 6.5 years, it seemed an almost foregone conclusion that when Bond returned he'd be played by someone else.

Yes, Brosnan shouldn't have went off in the press like he did. But in his defense he'd been highly successful in the role, the movie-going public greatly accepted him as 007, it came as a big surprise, and his non-renewal was the second time the role had been "taken" from him, which had to hurt, especially since he felt he had at least one more Bond film in him.

Brosnan has no defense. What was his quote about EON? " 'em"? I mean, he said some pretty harsh stuff about EON. His behavior was totally unprofessional, and for a man whose career had been saved from doing suppporting roles and made-for-TV films on the USA Network, he acted mighty ungrateful towards the people who had helped him out.

Tomorrow isn't promised us. He lost a wife to cancer, nearly lost a son to a car accident....I think he got his priorities mixed up after losing the 007 gig, and this is coming from a person who was absolutely steamed when he was let go, and wasn't buying any of EON's hogwash arguments about why they needed to make a change. At the end of the day there are more important things in life than whether your resume shows you did 4 mega-hit Bond films instead of 5.

I totally agree but the problem with the sitution with Brosnan was the fact the EON didn´t phone him it was his agent who told him he wouldn´t be returning so EON told his agent and not Him.That´s what got Brosnan bitter,twisted and angry is that they never told him.That must off been hard to take and also the fact that they thought that he was to old to play Bond.While all this was going on Sony were courting Brosnan asking him to return before Daniel Craig was announced,actually 2 weeks before he was announced as his successor so the whole thing was just a big mess.

I don´t blame Brosnan for being bitter,any normal human being would be but he should never have done that interview so close to everything that was going on.He should´ve just gone on with his life and make great movies like the Matador.I do think that his Bond era for him was a constant struggle.He wanted something the the studio and producers wouldn´t allow because MGM were being kept afloat by the money that his Bond movies were making so I don´t think he had the freedom like Daniel Craig has with Sony Colombia pictures.

As for the Em quote,I really don´t think he really meant it.I think he took him not returning alitlle to personally IMO.

[broadshoulder]

That´s what got Brosnan bitter,twisted and angry is that they never told him.That must off been hard to take and also the fact that they thought that he was to old to play Bond.While all this was going on Sony were courting Brosnan asking him to return before Daniel Craig was announced,actually 2 weeks before he was announced as his successor so the whole thing was just a big mess.

Have you got any evidence that Sony were courting Brosnan two weeks before DC was announced? Or is this just an urban myth?

[CM007]

That´s what got Brosnan bitter,twisted and angry is that they never told him.That must off been hard to take and also the fact that they thought that he was to old to play Bond.While all this was going on Sony were courting Brosnan asking him to return before Daniel Craig was announced,actually 2 weeks before he was announced as his successor so the whole thing was just a big mess.

Have you got any evidence that Sony were courting Brosnan two weeks before DC was announced? Or is this just an urban myth?

No it isn´t an Urban Myth.Pierce stated in an interview in GQ I believe.Sony never wanted Craig but BB stuck her heels in as in No Craig no Bond films.

[Kristian]

That´s what got Brosnan bitter,twisted and angry is that they never told him.That must off been hard to take and also the fact that they thought that he was to old to play Bond.While all this was going on Sony were courting Brosnan asking him to return before Daniel Craig was announced,actually 2 weeks before he was announced as his successor so the whole thing was just a big mess.

Have you got any evidence that Sony were courting Brosnan two weeks before DC was announced? Or is this just an urban myth?

No it isn´t an Urban Myth.Pierce stated in an interview in GQ I believe.Sony never wanted Craig but BB stuck her heels in as in No Craig no Bond films.

Clever girl. Good for her.