I remember hearing a rumour that Pierce and Barbara did not get on. Is this true?
Did Pierce Get On with the Broccolis?
#1
Posted 22 April 2015 - 11:34 PM
#2
Posted 23 April 2015 - 12:20 AM
He got to know the Broccoli's really well when his wife Cassandra Harris starred in FYEO and he was on set with them all.
He was also their pick to play Bond in 1986, before he finally got the role in 1994.
In interviews I have seen with Brosnan, he seemed to get on well with them.
#3
Posted 23 April 2015 - 08:07 AM
Well according my instinct That he doesn't today after his Bond days he did not get on at all he made attack & said a few bad thing about the Broccolis for be ditch as James Bond. Roger Moore & Timothy Dalton do get on well after their time as the British Favourite Spy.
#4
Posted 23 April 2015 - 10:15 AM
It's only a business and they made him very wealthy and increasingly famous and a participant in an indelible aspect of Western culture.
Not sure you need to "get on", given the mutual benefits.
#5
Posted 23 April 2015 - 02:57 PM
I know that Barbara was very keen to have Sean Bean - the same blonde ruggedness she eventually got with Craig - so perhaps it was that. Brosnan was Cubby's choice, not hers.
#6
Posted 23 April 2015 - 03:11 PM
I think he was bruised by the whole experience of being "let go" after Die Another Day and made a few caustic comments afterwards.
However his contract was initially for 3 films and he stayed for 4( and was prepared to do a 5th), so the working relationship can't have been THAT bad. He was also happy to participate in the Everything or Nothing documentary, which suggests to me that (unlike Sean) he had let bygones be bygones.
#7
Posted 23 April 2015 - 09:29 PM
I remember hearing a rumour that Pierce and Barbara did not get on. Is this true?
Our own Zencat had this to say http://debrief.comma...snan/?p=1127509
"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."
Let's not forget how troubled TND's shoot was. I'm sure that had something to do with it.
I know that Barbara was very keen to have Sean Bean - the same blonde ruggedness she eventually got with Craig - so perhaps it was that. Brosnan was Cubby's choice, not hers.
I've heard this rumor that BB wanted Sean Bean, but I've never seen any reliable confirmation. As for Brosnan, he was not Cubby's choice. He was John Calley's. The Broccolis wanted Dalton to stay.
#8
Posted 23 April 2015 - 11:09 PM
#9
Posted 24 April 2015 - 05:48 AM
Agreed. And rumors are never to be trusted, even if that seems "old school" by internet-spoilt-fans.
Fact: Brosnan was one of Cubby´s favorites for the role, but Dalton was supposed to continue - before the whole MGM mess happened and LTK´s box office performance was a disappointment.
Fact: GOLDENEYE was a massive success and comeback, Brosnan was universally lauded and approved of. EON was delighted to be able to plan future Bonds. Brosnan was excited to have a future in movies.
Fact: TOMORROW NEVER DIES was a hectic production, with numerous rewrites during filming. Everybody was nervous and scared of dropping the ball again after GOLDENEYE. It would only have been natural for Brosnan to be tense and angry for the way this film was put together.
Fact: THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY were highly successful, the latter even more so than previous Bond films. Brosnan was loved by worldwide audiences. And of course, as every actor starring in successful films, he wanted this to be reflected in his salary.
Fact: After starring in one of the most successful Bonds ever, Brosnan wanted even more money, knowing that this fifth might be his last Bond film. But that did not gel with EON. Also, another MGM mess was on its way, with executives pushing EON to deliver another DAD-like film. At the same time, the rights for CASINO ROYALE became available. But it was not feasible to have an aging Bond in it. Also Brosnan tried to drum up some good press for him by mentioning CASINO ROYALE to Quentin Tarantino, trying to bring him in as director. EON had other plans and certainly did not want to be held hostage by the irreverent Tarantino during production. So they decided to reboot. Brosnan, too sure of getting called back because he was one of the most successful Bonds ever, was understandably crushed and did one Playboy-interview in which he used a very bad word for BB and MGW. But in the end, he (and his PR people) must have decided that it was not helping his reputation, preferring to come to terms with the fact that his tenure was over. He still tends to make fun of DAD as he knows that critics and the internet community share that opinion. But the worst thing about EON ending his tenure, for Brosnan, must have been the realization that the days of being payed millions was over and that he is not likely to star as a headliner in a major blockbuster again. Then again, that happened to every star in every major franchise. And to carve out a niche as a supporting player and character actor has worked for Connery big time.
#10
Posted 24 April 2015 - 10:35 AM
EON had other plans and certainly did not want to be held hostage by the irreverent Tarantino during production.
Tarantino also wasn't a member of the Directors Guild at that point in his career (he since became one in 2012), and legally speaking I think Eon would have been unable to employ him without running into some controversy with the Guild...so the odds of him directing were alway impossible.
#11
Posted 24 April 2015 - 12:16 PM
I read in a recent interview with Pierce (for NOVEMBER MAN?) that Barbara Broccoli was very supportive to his family while they were dealing with the tragic loss of his step daughter to cancer.
Pretty sure Pierce was stung by the loss of the role but time heals a lot of hurt.
#12
Posted 24 April 2015 - 01:42 PM
They'd known PB since '81. He was first-choice in '86-87, got the gig in '94. PB got a 3-with-an-option-for-a-4th contract (DC received only 3, which was renegotiated in '07, Sir Rog was ultimately 1-at-a-time); option for 4th was honoured. After the tough shoot of TND, PB had a great deal of input into the direction of TWINE (he was on-record as wanting more character development and less shoot-em up). MGM/EON gave him an Aston Martin after one of the films as a bonus (hey, it's worth a quarter mill!!!!)
Did they all get personally? Who really knows. Did they get on professionally? Can't find the proof that they didn't. Was PB unhappy when it ended? Sure, who wouldn't be. But EON honoured their side of the contract. Since, PB has taken Sir Rog's/TD's lead, rather than SC/Laz and been an ambassador for the series.
Conclusion? I think everyone sends a Christmas card......
#13
Posted 24 April 2015 - 03:45 PM
This interview would NOT survive a lie detector test!
However, I think Cubby liked how things turned out with Dalton as Bond. He was probably loyal to Dalton (like he was with Moore) and wanted to give him as many films as possible, including GoldenEye.
Maybe there were also some tension between EON and Brosnan in the early 90s, since Brosnan was involved with the Warhead/McClory project. But John Calley pushed hard for Brosnan and when it became clear that they wouldn't get any money without Brosnan, he became EON's first choice.
What happened in 2002-2005 is a real mystery. Brosnan did confirm that he was asked back to do a 5th. But I think MGW and BB had a mental breakdown around that time. First, they approved some things they definitely should not approve on DAD. Then they started to work on a Jinx movie. And they lost Dana Broccoli around that time.
#14
Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:06 PM
I also think that Brosnan was the first choice back in '86. The whole story they made up about Dalton being the one they wanted from the beginning is forced.
This interview would NOT survive a lie detector test!
I've also never believed that nonsense about Dalton being the first pick but that a play/Brenda Starr/a hangnail prevented him from doing it. Thankfully Albert Broccoli's biography puts this whole revisionist nonsense firmly in the trashcan where it belongs. There, Broccoli clearly states the order was Sam Neill -> Pierce Brosnan -> Timothy Dalton. And it was Dana Broccoli - during the whole Remington Steele is back from the dead fiasco - who had to egg on Cubby to give TD a chance. ARB at first refused because the last time they'd spoken to TD - some seven years back - TD had clearly stated that he would never play the part.
#15
Posted 25 April 2015 - 08:55 PM
I also think that Brosnan was the first choice back in '86. The whole story they made up about Dalton being the one they wanted from the beginning is forced.
This interview would NOT survive a lie detector test!
I've also never believed that nonsense about Dalton being the first pick but that a play/Brenda Starr/a hangnail prevented him from doing it. Thankfully Albert Broccoli's biography puts this whole revisionist nonsense firmly in the trashcan where it belongs. There, Broccoli clearly states the order was Sam Neill -> Pierce Brosnan -> Timothy Dalton. And it was Dana Broccoli - during the whole Remington Steele is back from the dead fiasco - who had to egg on Cubby to give TD a chance. ARB at first refused because the last time they'd spoken to TD - some seven years back - TD had clearly stated that he would never play the part.
I think Sam Neill would have been wonderful in the part - despite he himself believing he wouldn't have been.
#16
Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:19 PM
#17
Posted 25 April 2015 - 11:29 PM
Yes, he, Cary Grant, and Hugh Jackman are the three "What if?" candidates in Bond history for me--especially Jackman. Although I liked all of the actors who were eventually cast as 007, I would have liked to have seen those three play James Bond at least once.
#18
Posted 26 April 2015 - 07:51 AM
If you compare Sam Neill and Timothy Dalton it seems to me that Neill comes across as more of a Roger Moore-body type, someone who is more at home at the baccarat table instead of being adept at physical combat. Dalton, however, is fit, has a nervous energy and still brings the charisma of a gentleman.
In other words: If they had chosen Neill he would have been too close to Moore´s Bond in appearance, and they definitely wanted to rejuvenate the franchise.
#19
Posted 26 April 2015 - 08:08 AM
#20
Posted 26 April 2015 - 08:16 AM
SecretAgentFan, I don't know if I can agreed with that observation,
Neill is a completely different actor as Moore, most of the time very serious, without any humor at all.
Moore did his share of physical stuff in The Saint and in fact I believe him more than Dalton in action scene's.
I'm not saying Moore is stronger physical (he probably isn't), but somehow he gets away with it better than Dalton, who's hand combat scene's are not very good at all.
Edited by Grard Bond, 26 April 2015 - 08:16 AM.
#21
Posted 26 April 2015 - 08:52 AM
To clarify: I like Sam Neill a lot - and I love his little-seen black comedy "Death in Brunswick". I do believe that he would have made a very interesting Bond (and Dustin´s assessment is spot-on) - but my personal feeling is that I did prefer EON´s decision to go with Dalton.
One of the severely underrated aspects to EON´s choosing a new Bond is, IMO, that they never just try to go for a type of actor similar to the predecessor. Lazenby couldn´t have been more different from Connery. The same applies to Moore - Dalton - Brosnan and Craig. Therefore it will be most interesting to see who will follow DC.
#22
Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:59 AM
I tried watching ACE OF SPIES but found it very, very dull and didn't get passed the first episode. Did it get better?
#23
Posted 26 April 2015 - 11:25 AM
Totally disagree with that. You can't judge actors based on still pictures.If you compare Sam Neill and Timothy Dalton it seems to me that Neill comes across as more of a Roger Moore-body type, someone who is more at home at the baccarat table instead of being adept at physical combat. Dalton, however, is fit, has a nervous energy and still brings the charisma of a gentleman.
In other words: If they had chosen Neill he would have been too close to Moore´s Bond in appearance, and they definitely wanted to rejuvenate the franchise.
Neill has more star-quality and charisma than Dalton, and he is a better actor than Brosnan, but I am not sure he is right for Bond. Neill's acting is very serious and sombre, dare I say pretentious.
#24
Posted 26 April 2015 - 12:24 PM
There are a number of huge gaps - eight years between 1910 and 1918, then six between 1918 and 1924 - the events of which are sadly only mentioned in passing. There are some shifts in tone when Reilly's private life comes to the fore, giving the tale a somewhat jarred feeling. But overall it's still a fine series centred on one of espionage's most intriguing figures.
Reilly, with his ruthless freelance attitude and his adventures close to history's hotspots, always ready to profit from the outcome, perhaps best resembles a mix of Bond and the early Blofeld. The plot thickens somewhat after the first six episodes and I definitely recommend watching the entire series.
#25
Posted 26 April 2015 - 02:30 PM
Totally disagree with that. You can't judge actors based on still pictures.If you compare Sam Neill and Timothy Dalton it seems to me that Neill comes across as more of a Roger Moore-body type, someone who is more at home at the baccarat table instead of being adept at physical combat. Dalton, however, is fit, has a nervous energy and still brings the charisma of a gentleman.
In other words: If they had chosen Neill he would have been too close to Moore´s Bond in appearance, and they definitely wanted to rejuvenate the franchise.
Neill has more star-quality and charisma than Dalton, and he is a better actor than Brosnan, but I am not sure he is right for Bond. Neill's acting is very serious and sombre, dare I say pretentious.
Just to be fair: I did not base my judgement on still pictures but on the many films and the casting tape I´ve seen of Neill.
And I really like him as an actor - but I prefer Dalton as Bond. But to each his own, of course.
#26
Posted 26 April 2015 - 03:06 PM
I really like Sam Neill, too. I don't think he was quite right for Bond, though.
As for Brosnan in '86. Broccoli couldn't have wanted him that badly, or he would have signed him up, rather than bypassing him in favour of Dalton (who he was prepared to wait for).
#27
Posted 26 April 2015 - 05:24 PM
Reilly, with his ruthless freelance attitude and his adventures close to history's hotspots, always ready to profit from the outcome, perhaps best resembles a mix of Bond and the early Blofeld. The plot thickens somewhat after the first six episodes and I definitely recommend watching the entire series.
Completely agree. Really good series...
#28
Posted 27 April 2015 - 09:17 PM
I really like Sam Neill, too. I don't think he was quite right for Bond, though.
As for Brosnan in '86. Broccoli couldn't have wanted him that badly, or he would have signed him up, rather than bypassing him in favour of Dalton (who he was prepared to wait for).
*sigh*. You're kidding, right? Broccoli would have had a long, long wait if he were prepared to wait for Brosnan. Remington Steele went back into production the exact same time that TLD was in production. Pierce Brosnan doesn't get a lot of love around here but even I'd admit that he can't be in two parts of the globe at once. Further, as ARB pointed out, why would anybody pay to see PB as Bond in a cinema when they can stay home and watch him for free on the telly in a Bondish programme? Remember ARB's famous line? "James Bond will not be Remington Steele and Remington Steele will not be James Bond."
And yes, ARB did want Brosnan badly. Which is why he sought to do a deal with NBC. Shoot eight or so more episodes on location with us and that's it. Not good enough for NBC who wanted a series of episodes with the option of renewing the show for another year - or years.
#29
Posted 27 April 2015 - 09:23 PM
"Remington Steele will not be playing James Bond."
Broccoli's choice.
#30
Posted 27 April 2015 - 09:27 PM
"Remington Steele will not be playing James Bond."
Broccoli's choice.
Exactly. And...?