Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) - Page 19

I cant believe all the negative reaction to this overly positive news.

So what if his promotional photos dont make him look the part. I'm sure it wont take much to make him vaguely look like what we think Bond looks like. The importan part is they hired someone who is an actor, not a movie star.

I think it really shows that they want to take Bond seriously again. I believe the producers have seen the success of the recent Bourne films, and the way the recent and more serious Batman Begins was able to reinvigorate that franchise.

I am very excited about this news and look forward to hearing more about the production and casting. Hopefully it will confirm my suspicions that they are going in a new and better direction.

Not to be too cynical but I'm guessing that they would have loved to have someone who would qualify as a "movie star" but almost any real star probably has almost no interest in tying themselves to the franchise.

Thanks for making my point. Bond shouldn't be an "big budget spectacle". Considering that the maker of the Bourne films have been making superior films to Bond for about $75m each, I do think it is out of line.

Jason

How did I make your point? You stated that the films prior to the Bronsnan era were moderately priced and I disagreed and provided data to back it up. All but the first two Bond films have been "big budget spectacles." You can disagree with that direction but it is hardly unique to the Brosnan era. Indeed, big budgets have been part and parcel with every single Bond era.

Am I the only one who's kinda ticked off at the way the Broccolis just dumped Brosnan? The man carried the franchise for 10 years with 4 successful films and in several popular video games. It just seems like they let him go without any dignity or respect.

Exactly. Goldfinger created the template, and Thunderball confirmed it. For all the tweaks and casting changes since that time, the basic model hasn't changed.

It says a lot about what's happened to filmmaking that a $75 million budget is no longer considered "big".

M.

Brosnan can act. Evelyn and The Matador, among others, proved that. More importantly he oozes charisma. Craig is a good actor, but there's a reason why he always seems to be in roles like Connor Rooney. Casting is an artform. No matter what he brings to the table, he's not going to be able to be Brosnan. Just his look demands a different sort of portrayal. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying the burden of Bond supposed failure shouldn't be blamed on any of Brosnan's supposed shortcomings.

For those of you who haven't seen Daniel Craig (other than in still pictures) there is a video containing highlights of the press conference available for download here:

http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articl...ond21&s=bond21

I LOVED Brosnan as Bond. He's probably my favorite right after Connery. But having said that, the man has to go sometime and if it wasn't this year it would be for the next film in the series (especially with these long gaps in years between movies!).

DIE ANOTHER DAY, with all the CGI nonsense and Halle Berry's poor Jinx character taking a big piece of the pie, was proof positive that this series is in serious need of fresh blood and overhauling. You can't do that while retaining Brosnan, IMO.

As for the "way" in which Pierce was 'dumped', that's showbiz. The only things that were undignified for me were the way Brosnan asked for more money (if true) and now starts whining everywhere he goes. He should have showed some class and bowed out more gracefully.

Yes, he should have taken note of Sean Connery's advice to Anita Ekberg in From Russia with Love.

Brosnan wasn't dumped, anyway. He had a four film contract. He made four films. They were under no obligation at all to hire him again.

If they choose to look elsewhere (for whatever reason), that's their business.

Ah yes, Call Me Bwana.

Perhaps Brosnan was merely taking Connery's real life advice. Which is to get as much as you can, when you can. Connery's fight with Bond producers are legendary. From fighting over time on location, fighting about initial salary, fighting over monies due him etc.

Keeping his mouth shut ... like the time in Japan when Connery said that he didn't find Japanese women attractive?

Please.

Brosnan brought back the franchise from the dead with Goldeneye and then had to endure three pitiful scripts that followed. Talking about a new direction for Bond is fine. But in this case it is like a failing company talking about yet another re-organization. It's because they mucked things up. And that is not on Brosnan.

Jeff,

Thanks for the link. Craig does have a nice speaking voice and shows a sense of humor. He's going to need it.

Why is Brosnan crying foul for being dumped?

I've read several comments from him these past few months where he has said Bond never felt right to him and he hated doing all of the one-liners.

Could be it was Brosnan's agent who convinced him that because all his Bond films were huge worldwide hits and Die Another Day the biggest success of the bunch, he could ask for a huge pay rise, and guaranteed to get it. The last thing they expected is the Bond producers saying "Goodbye Pierce, we're going with someone else", a shock to the system I'm sure.

Other stars should pay heed to what happened with Pierce, Hugh Jackman, if he thinks he is so closely identified as Wolverine that they couldn't possibly replace him, and so can ask for double wages next time, should take a look at how casually Pierce was dumped from the Bond series, same goes for Tobey Maguire. Pierce was hugely popular as 007, each film more successful than the last, but still couldn't hang on to his job as worlds greatest secret agent.

I liked Pierce Brosnan, even if most of his films suffered from too many action cliches, explosions, etc. I would have liked to see him in another movie.

But since that's not happening, I am intrigued by what Daniel Craig can bring to the series. I think he can bring a bit of the grit that Dalton did, and I'm all in favor of that. I like that Craig is hardly just a pretty boy.

He almost already got a taste of that by getting replaced during "Spider-Man 2".

In hindsight, possibly not the best advice to have taken, then.

Each side takes a risk when they part company. While I personally like OHMSS as a film, clearly Connery leaving the franchise cost the producers dearly.

One could make a case that the risk is even greater now, at least for Sony. $ony paid a bundle for MGM, with the valuation of the Bond franchise a large part of the pie. So while it should be noted that Sony does not make the filmmaking/casting decisions (Eon does) they still have a lot to lose. If the new Bond movie tanks, it will hurt future distribution and Sony's high-def DVD rollout of the Bond series and the entire program. If (and that's a big if) that were to occur, 15 million additional for the star is going to look like chicken feed. As if they aren't having enough problems.

Eon? The Bond series goes on no matter what happens. It really just gets down to how much money they make.

Sony owns half of Eon Productions.

regarding Pierce asking for a pay raise for a 5th outing as Bond:

Michael Wilson was interviewed right after the Craig anouncement about the decision for going with Craig. It came down to fear on Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli's part that they were going downhill with the franchise and needed to do something different. Pierce was contracted for 4 films as has been noted above, and he was invited back to do a 5th. But they decided not to. So he wasn't fired. If it was about money, Wilson said they would have worked that out.

regarding a new direction for the franchise:

A surprising thing came out of the interview. While it has been mentioned before that the video games have been highly successful, all under Pierce Brosnan's tenue, they felt they needed to skew the films to appeal to that younger video game player who have started to come to the films as a result of the games. And the typical Bond audience now tends to be older. Does that make sense? The main audience for Bond is older, but they want to appeal to the youthful market and bring them in. I guess us 'older" members of the audience have lost interest in Bond. It is the appeal of the Bourne films that have gotten EON scared too.

It seems there's an unfortunate thing is happening here, I have a theory. IMHO, the cinematic Bond is dead as we know it. If EON really wants to maintain and grow a younger audience, they will gear Bond to that market. The Bond of the cold war era really is a relic as M put it. All the elements of that English gentleman secret agent that Ian Fleming created during that era of the 1950's is quite an outdated thing, and not very PC.

So Craig will bring in that new modern edgy feel that worked so well in Batman Begins and the Bourne films. A part of me can understand that and I can see why EON wants to do that. Part of me feels it's a risky move that will backfire on them. If they are so scared about the competition, then maybe they ought to consider ending the series.

If Casino Royale is successful, where do they go? Redo Live and Let DIe and Moonraker, they are the next two novels in chronological order. And with Judi Dench as "M". My guess is that the 2 screenwriters are up to a new plot as they are at it right now.

Michael Wilson Interview

That's interesting. I never thought that they would go in the direction of remaking the older films but it would definitely make sense with they way the are going. If Craig turns out to be successful and "Casino Royale" does well, we might just see re-dos of the older films while staying maybe closer to the original novels. Think of hype alone of what a new version of "Goldfinger" would do.

I assume (always dangerous) that most saw Layer Cake and Craig was excellent in that. But he also had the benefit of good support and a good script. Eon must provide these but, despite several entertaining outings, they really haven't done that in decades. Having hit the perfect formula in Goldfinger, they've spent the last 40 years trying to top that while remaining true to that formula. I personally liked OHMSS because it's the closest you'll ever come to Fleming on the screen, but Broccolli and Co. didn't because it didn't make them enough money quickly enough (it has, I understand, performed well enough over time).

The daughter of a friend of mine once asked her mother whether every Bond movie had to have a submarine and the Royal Navy coming to the rescue. Even the young can see tired cliches on screen.

PatH

David-Did not mean to imply that they are actually going to remake the films with Craig as Bond. I was conjecturing with tongue in cheek. :b

Casino Royale is the last full Ian Fleming 007 novel left to be made as an official EON Bond film. Sure is a shame, they could have ended the series of films on a high with Brosnan, assuming they didn't muck up the script.

I guess with all the remakes recently, it would be something the studio thought about atleast once.. You might've just given them the idea! I'm just waiting for the "Bond Vs. Bourne" movie.

Incorrect. Eon Production is wholly owned by the Broccoli family. I believe you are referring to Danjaq L.L.C., which is the holding company that controls the Bond copyrights. Danjaq is not a production company.

Sony (and perhaps Comcast) own shares of Danjaq via MGM, via United Artists via purchasing Harry Salzman's shares.

On further investigation, it turns out Cubby Broccoli bought back Harry Saltzman's stake from MGM in the 1980s. So we were both wrong.

But Sony still seems to have some level of control over them, as they have key element approval rights on the Bond films.

As such, they prevented Barbara Broccoli from announcing Daniel Craig as the new James Bond back in April.

OK that does it for me and James Bond. Pierce was my fav since I saw him in Remington Steel and there is no replacement. They should have let the series die instead. I guess my James Bond collection has been completed.

Moneypenny and Q are out of Casino Royale according to IMDB.

Actually, I imagine it's more of way of saying "look, it's proper, Fleming Bond", more than anything else. I suspect the ramaining, unused Fleming short-story titles might get used too, over the next few years, just to further cement the stance, whether the scripts relate to the books or not.

Also, I think it will be seen as a way of finally burying the original version (which, despite what some might say, is actually quite faithful to the book in parts - cetainly more so than, for example, Moonraker, You Only Live Twice, or The Spy Who loved Me), which can only be a bad thing since 1) the film was made fair and square and does (and should be allowed to continue to) exist, whether Eon/MGM/whoever like it or not and 2) it was actually an absolutely great movie. Not a "Bond" movie (though no-one can agree what one of those is anyway), but a triumph on its own terms.