177 replies to this topic

[Syndicate]

I think Brosnan should of had his fifth and final one, not just four. With that then comes Daniel Craig or whoever it maybe. There must be a reason why Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli let go of Brosnan after four. It just that we still have not heard about it today. One day when they are ready, they'll talk about it. Then we can say was that right or wrong to do that. I hope it not like in 17 years then they'll talk about it. As for Craig, I think he need to grow his a litle longer but still consider short not covering his ears at all. How his hair is for the last two Bond movies it looks near military short. One can not even tell did he have the James Bond cut at all. Well I couldn't tell, but I could with Connery, Moore Dalton and Brosnan I could. Maybe all of you could. For people who are not really a Bond fan they will not think of all the pass actors as Bond at any age, like say 19, 28, 37, 48, 55. 67 and so on today. Just like people who are not a Trekkie will not know the Star Trek Timeline, who played who on the which TV series or think of the star as that character, if he or she has also done other stuff also.

[Daddy Bond]

Bond is pretty much a forgotten property and hasn't been as big since Brosnan left. These are the harsh facts we must face.

Harsh facts? Really?

Sounds like someone has "facts" and "opinion" or "personal preference" a bit confused. No offense, but where are these facts?

[Colossus]

The 2000s are unfortunately but admittedly the second nadir of the series next to the liver-spotted Miami Vice 80s. The new-Bond noise of this era had a lot of guts out the gate and they really tried (bless their effort) but faded in the ultimate stretch compared to the 90s Bondmania.

[Guy Haines]

Bond is pretty much a forgotten property and hasn't been as big since Brosnan left. These are the harsh facts we must face.

Harsh facts? Really?

Sounds like someone has "facts" and "opinion" or "personal preference" a bit confused. No offense, but where are these facts?

Indeed. This thread has been, er, interesting and amusing. We've been all over the place with it, and even indulged in some "time travel". But I for one am still no wiser about the some of the harsh facts raised, and have a few questions.

1. By what measure, other than internet polls, is Pierce Brosnan arguably the most popular Bond since Connery and Moore? He may well be, but how is that assertion backed up?

2. How exactly has Daniel Craig failed to make an impact?

3. How can a film which grossed $586,000,000 worldwide be said to have sunk a franchise without trace?

4. If the future of the Bond franchise is "murky", is it really down to Daniel Craig and/or QoS?, or the current financial situation at MGM?

5. It is "pretty certain" that Craig won't be back as Bond in "23". Is it? Why?

6. New studio bosses will want a "clean sweep", with a new actor as Bond. Again, why is that?

7. Why would a fifteen year old film be the only recent Bond film "most people" could mention, if prompted?

8. And, how would the retaining of Pierce Brosnan as Bond after DAD, rather than the casting of Daniel Craig, or any other actor in the role, have made a jot of difference to the current state of the Bond series, given the MGM situation mentioned at point 4 above, which has halted all production of the current Bond film? Isn't that the more likely explanation of the Bond series' current status as a so called "forgotten property", if indeed it can be described as such?

[captnash2]

wish barbara, michael had parted company with pierce under better terms. it was not their finest hour.
cubby and harry handled things with sean over moving on from bond in 70s a lot better.

[Zorin Industries]

wish barbara, michael had parted company with pierce under better terms. it was not their finest hour.
cubby and harry handled things with sean over moving on from bond in 70s a lot better.

To be fair you do not know how Bond management "parted company" with Pierce Brosnan beyond what is reported by people who have scant personal insight themselves.

[plankattack]

wish barbara, michael had parted company with pierce under better terms. it was not their finest hour.
cubby and harry handled things with sean over moving on from bond in 70s a lot better.

I must confess, I'm a bit confused with this notion that EON and Brozza parted badly. The latter's contract was up, that simple. That Brozza didn't like the fact that it wasn't renewed isn't EON's fault, surely? I understand this notion that many of us fans wish that they would've been more public "loving" from both sides (written statements of affection, day off for the world perhaps, in Brozza's honour), but really, who are we kidding? His contract was up. Those are the only terms that mean anything. And don't forget, while Brozza was Bond he got plenty of props from EON and the studio (gifts of an Aston Martin etc) on top of his contract.

And let's not be too revisionist about EON and Sean. Remember Sean put UA over a barrel to do DAF. Surely us fans wished he would have done it for free, no? And publicly made statements about how much he loved EON and how it had made his career etc, etc.

As for Brozza, Babs and Mike didn't renew his contract. That didn't trash him in public, they didn't belittle his time as Bond and yet conventional wisdom is that they parted badly. No, Brozza parted badly.

Edited by plankattack, 20 September 2010 - 11:54 AM.

[David_M]

Lots of opinion on this thread, but few facts. For instance, I still haven't seen an explanation for just why Brosnan was sacked from "The Producers" and whether his part went to Nathan Lane or Matthew Broderick.

[Zorin Industries]

Yep. Lots of tittle tattle masquerading as fact dressed up as chinese whispers on this Brosnan thing.

[Turn]

I think Brosnan should of had his fifth and final one, not just four. With that then comes Daniel Craig or whoever it maybe. There must be a reason why Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli let go of Brosnan after four. It just that we still have not heard about it today. One day when they are ready, they'll talk about it. Then we can say was that right or wrong to do that. I hope it not like in 17 years then they'll talk about it. As for Craig, I think he need to grow his a litle longer but still consider short not covering his ears at all. How his hair is for the last two Bond movies it looks near military short. One can not even tell did he have the James Bond cut at all. Well I couldn't tell, but I could with Connery, Moore Dalton and Brosnan I could. Maybe all of you could. For people who are not really a Bond fan they will not think of all the pass actors as Bond at any age, like say 19, 28, 37, 48, 55. 67 and so on today. Just like people who are not a Trekkie will not know the Star Trek Timeline, who played who on the which TV series or think of the star as that character, if he or she has also done other stuff also.

Again, I still don't understand this sentiment from some fans. What makes anyone think one more Brosnan film would have been any better than DAD? Just four films? Two more than Dalton or Craig have gotten and three more than Lazenby had. Why would a potentially mediocre fifth have made things any better?

And will closure on this subject really make a difference? Not to me as I think Craig is what the series needed. I could give a toss about how his hair looks. Brosnan had great hair, but it didn't make him a better Bond. Just as I don't think Craig's muscular physique makes him a better Bond.

If people are too lazy or uneducated to understand a timeline on a series, that's their problem.

[WhiteKnight2000]

wish barbara, michael had parted company with pierce under better terms. it was not their finest hour.
cubby and harry handled things with sean over moving on from bond in 70s a lot better.

To be fair you do not know how Bond management "parted company" with Pierce Brosnan beyond what is reported by people who have scant personal insight themselves.

Well Brosnan himself has talked about this. Some people are actually well read on the chain of events, there's a lot of information out there. You just need to pay attention to it and keep up with it.

Brosnan recieved a phone call in the middle of filming a movie from the Bond producers saying briefly and bluntly that they were 'going a different way with a different Bond' for the next film. No explanatons, no thank yous no nothing.

So much for the Bond 'family' that Pierce was happy to have been a part of.

[David_M]

Again, I still don't understand this sentiment from some fans. What makes anyone think one more Brosnan film would have been any better than DAD?

Well, Brosnan himself certainly fostered this notion throughout his tenure. His pitch for each film always sounded to me like, "This will make up for the last one."

[Zorin Industries]

wish barbara, michael had parted company with pierce under better terms. it was not their finest hour.
cubby and harry handled things with sean over moving on from bond in 70s a lot better.

To be fair you do not know how Bond management "parted company" with Pierce Brosnan beyond what is reported by people who have scant personal insight themselves.

Well Brosnan himself has talked about this. Some people are actually well read on the chain of events, there's a lot of information out there. You just need to pay attention to it and keep up with it.

Brosnan recieved a phone call in the middle of filming a movie from the Bond producers saying briefly and bluntly that they were 'going a different way with a different Bond' for the next film. No explanatons, no thank yous no nothing.

So much for the Bond 'family' that Pierce was happy to have been a part of.

As I imagined, you do not have any insight into the reality of one actor leaving the role and another taking it. I am not going to illuminate what you think you know as your posts prove there is no point but there is a lot more to Brosnan moving on than what some fans want to believe and endlessly bring up as if that was the last word on the situation. And how anyone can claim there were "no thank yous, no nothing" without really knowing that for sure is typical of fan whispers.

[jaguar007]

Those people who are actually well read on the chain of events will also know that word was floating around that Brosnan was asking for something like $20million for his 5th Bond movie. He was publicly not saying the nicest things about the producers in the wake of their mother's death.

Also keep in mind that Brosnan was filming After The Sunset when he got the call. He was probably in the Bahamas and the producers either in London or LA.

[zencat]

Those people who are actually well read on the chain of events will also know that word was floating around that Brosnan was asking for something like $20million for his 5th Bond movie. He was publicly not saying the nicest things about the producers in the wake of their mother's death.

Also keep in mind that Brosnan was filming After The Sunset when he got the call. He was probably in the Bahamas and the producers either in London or LA.

All true.

I also heard from a reliable source that there was serious tension with Pierce as far back as TND. I found that impossible to believe at the time, but now I believe it.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Those people who are actually well read on the chain of events will also know that word was floating around that Brosnan was asking for something like $20million for his 5th Bond movie. He was publicly not saying the nicest things about the producers in the wake of their mother's death.

Also keep in mind that Brosnan was filming After The Sunset when he got the call. He was probably in the Bahamas and the producers either in London or LA.

All true.

I also heard from a reliable source that there was serious tension with Pierce as far back as TND. I found that impossible to believe at the time, but now I believe it.

While there are always two sides to every story and I'm not claiming any insider knowledge, I think along these lines as well.

[WhiteKnight2000]

Yet again you're all dealing with rumours and hearsay. I gave you a fact from Brosnan's own mouth.

The producers may not have wanted to pay his fee but instead go for a bargain basement Bond, well they got one.

Edited by WhiteKnight2000, 20 September 2010 - 05:19 PM.

[zencat]

Yet again you're all dealing with rumours and hearsay. I gave you a fact from Brosnan's own mouth.

What, that all he got was a phonecall? Boo-ing-hoo. What should they have done, thrown him a parade?

I'd say the millions they paid him, the free cars and clothes they gave him, the free travel and perks they provided, and the career WAY beyond what he would ever had on his own was thanks enough.

It was a job. Not an adoption.

[WhiteKnight2000]

Yet again you're all dealing with rumours and hearsay. I gave you a fact from Brosnan's own mouth.

What, that all he got was a phonecall? Boo-ing-hoo. What should they have done, thrown him a parade?

I'd say the millions they paid him, the free cars and clothes they gave him, the free travel and perks they provided, and the career WAY beyond what he would ever had on his own was thanks enough.

It was a job. Not an adoption.

Sorry but just because somebody might make a lot of money doesn't exclude them from basic courtesy and manners. You may disagree and if so I have sympathy for you.

Edited by WhiteKnight2000, 20 September 2010 - 05:35 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Indeed Zen. Well put (showing a bit of old Zorin Industries business aggression there.... I like it!).

It is a job that someone was contracted for. Nothing more than that. The job was extended (in the same way any employment contract can be extended or otherwise) but that was not indicative of lengthening the work for another ten years. Film-making history is littered with chinese-whispers. What's the old adage - "never let the truth get in the way of a good story". Sadly we have the audience of fans who - some of which - do not like this or that and bend and twist everything to suit that twisted perception they oddly hold so dear. It makes them feel like they are nearer the process of - in this case - making James Bond films when they know all they have is what such and such said on "good authority". And for the record, when anyone says that to you in relation to film-making, the person passing on the information is usually fairly distant from the truth themselves. Most professionals do not tell all and sundry the private business details of casting or not casting an actor in a film. Less (info) is always more - especially when it comes to Bond and Eon's decisions.

Though are any of the counterpoints really that useful here when the Billy Goats of Reality are approached by the Troll under the Bridge?

And quite how ditching Pierce Brosnan weakened the Bond management is beyond ridiculous in light of the MGM developments where it is fairly clear getting Daniel Craig and waking up the series put the Broccolis and their team in the greatest bargaining seat in (potentially) Bond's fifty year cinematic journey (touch wood).

Sorry but just because somebody might make a lot of money doesn't exclude them from basic courtesy and manners. You may disagree and if so I have sympathy for you.

And "courtesy" and "manners" is a two way street.

If you pick up anything from this useless line of enquiry you are peddling then please realise that "courtesy" and "manners" as well as "loyalty" and "generosity" is exactly how the Bond management conduct themselves. And I say that from an insight I trust fairly well.

[Jim]

Hence having retitled the thread.

The way it's described, even in the way Mr Brosnan is reported to describe it, sounds perfectly straightforward, clear and businesslike.

[WhiteKnight2000]

If you pick up anything from this useless line of enquiry you are peddling then please realise that "courtesy" and "manners" as well as "loyalty" and "generosity" is exactly how the Bond management conduct themselves. And I say that from an insight I trust fairly well.

Those old phrases, 'reliable source', 'insight I trust'.

I'm afraid they carry little weight on the internet.

I'm also amused how suddenly people have become armchair experts on the producers handling of Brosnan's dismissal.

[David_M]

I confess I've never seen what the problem is supposed to have been. Brosnan was not a salaried employee who came to the office to find his door locked and his stuff thrown to the curb. He did not have a contract in force that EON failed to honor. All that existed was an "option," on both sides; each film was negotiated on a one-by-one basis. He had the option of coming back, they had the option of not asking; first one to opt out ends the deal. Pretty standard; Roger Moore had the same arrangement for years and years.

Brosnan wasn't "fired." All that happened was that they opted not to hire him on a fourth time. As far as I'm concerned, they did him a favor to even call. If they wanted to be hateful about it, they could have just hired a replacement and let Brosnan find out when the rest of the world did.

Frankly, I think the producers feel better about their decision every time Brosnan opens his mouth.

[Zorin Industries]

If you pick up anything from this useless line of enquiry you are peddling then please realise that "courtesy" and "manners" as well as "loyalty" and "generosity" is exactly how the Bond management conduct themselves. And I say that from an insight I trust fairly well.

Those old phrases, 'reliable source', 'insight I trust'.

I'm afraid they carry little weight on the internet.

I'm also amused how suddenly people have become armchair experts on the producers handling of Brosnan's dismissal.

So "the weight of the internet" is more important than the truth, is it? Well it obviously is to you.

I could tell you why I trust the "insight" I allude to but it is simply none of your business. As is this whole situation regarding one actor who left one role nearly ten years ago. It doesn't occupy my time as clearly as it does yours.

[WhiteKnight2000]

I could tell you why I trust the "insight" I allude to but it is simply none of your business. But there are no armchairs involved in my familiarity with what you suggest you know more about than any of us.

The 'I know more than you do, but I can't tell' holds little weight with me I'm afraid. You could just be anybody.

We could all play that game couldn't we?

[Turn]

Frankly, I think the producers feel better about their decision every time Brosnan opens his mouth.

So do I whenever I watched CR or QoS.

If anybody should be offering thanks, Brosnan should to Eon for taking him away from a career where he was starring in straight-to-video action films, little-seen dramas and playing relatively minor supporting roles to bigger stars like Robin Williams and Barbra Streisand.

Would he really still have high-profile roles with directors like Polanski if he hadn't been associated with Bond? Possibly, but not as likely.

[WhiteKnight2000]

Wow, look at all the Brosnan hate in this thread. It's turning nasty.

Try and keep perspective.

[zencat]

Wow, look at all the Brosnan hate in this thread. It's turning nasty.

Try and keep perspective.

I think it started nasty. I also think it's played out.

Closed.