Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
What actually happened to Pierce Brosnan?
I've heard and read many things - even quotes from Pierce - and everything is so topsy-turvy. What actually happened to Pierce Brosnan? Was he fired? Did his contract expire? Did he quit voluntarily?
What exactly happened and what was the background behind it?
What exactly happened and what was the background behind it?
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It doesn't answer all the questions, but if you take a look around the main site you can piece it all together.
producers just didn't hire him again.
Wrong, his contract came to an end.
BB said that after DAD which was very, very fantasy and sci-fi loaded they (her and MGW) wanted to change the direction. Furthermore CR's rights were finally in the hand of EON and BB + MGW didn't want to lose any time to shoot CR and Brosnan would not have fit in as they wanted to do CR as it was meant to be, Bond's first mission.
Brosnan may not have been technically sacked but it's clear that EON on longer wanted to work with him.
People who dislike him think he was sacked ! :D So you take your pick. :D
That video showcasing the level combined with Dalton's Bond theme was just magic
I like Brosnan the man but still think he was sacked ;)
you can say " My you've filled out nicely" or to put the boot in...
.. " Wow, you're a fat b*$tard Now".
Just depends how nice or nasty you want to be. ;)
Personally, I think that in Brosnan's case he was the only actor out of the 6 who's contribution and relationship with the producers was the most business-like and the least familial. Even Lazenby had all the stops pulled out to get him to stay, we all know Connery's situation, Moore was begged to stay continuously and Dalton was asked to come back too but declined and let's not even bother talking about Craig because he might as well change his last name to Broccoli.
I do feel a bit sorry for him, but I also see where EON were coming from.
I agree that Brosnan and EON seemed to have a less familial relationship, and so when the time came to reboot with CR when they got the rights, I don't think it was all that difficult for EON to make the change. It was just business. I'm pretty sure that the immense success of Bourne played a part as well though. Damon did fantastic work in the first film and redefined the spy role in a more realistic way for a post 911 world, which must have impacted EON's decision process for a new actor.
I think they'll have a much more difficult time getting rid of Craig, just like they found it so difficult to part ways with Moore.
I think if the producers put in as much effort as they did to get Mendes back, who knows what they'll do to keep Craig. Anyway, in Brosnan's defence his best work is his post Bond career and although he may have looked tge part for Bond, he was always a fan boy of tge series who had the opportunity to star as the leading character and that's something he'll always have. He got to live the dream.
BB + MGW finally being able to do Casino Royale was the game changer.
That EON wasn't happy with Brosnan is nonsense. Thanks to Brosnan the franchise was put on a new level of success twice!! First with GE, second with DAD.
BB said it herself: After DAD and getting the rights to CR they wanted to change the direction.
It's obvious that CR could not have been made with Brosnan.
As for BB being so fond of Craig, just imagine how quickly that will be over if Spectre doesn't perform as expected.
You took the words out of my mind, i totally agree with you.
I saw the documentary everything or nothing and that's exactly what happened, Pierce left the part because they really wanted to do Casino Royale and that film needed a new actor o make us believe that was his first mission.
Very true. EON has always made it a point to hold onto their leading man as long as they can (sometimes too long) and Brosnan was the only case where they dumped their James Bond. And when he still conceivable could've had one more film left in him to boot.
They threw the bank at Connery for DAF and offered him an even greater sum for LADL. Even after Lazenby proved to be a pain in the ass and OHMSS underperformed they still offered him an absurdly lucrative 7 film contract. They offered Moore an 8th film despite the little fact that he would've been pushing 60 by 1987. They had every intention of filming a 3rd Dalton film. And it doesn't look like they're in any rush to part ways with Craig.
There's this misconception out there that won't die that Brosnan's films were such box office juggernauts for the Bond series. When nothing can be further from the truth. Adjusted for inflation none of Brosnan's films even crack the top 10 highest grossing Bond films. Every Connery film (minus Dr. No) grossed more than Brosnan's entries. All 3 of Craig's films have left Brosnan's movies in the dust. And as far as Roger Moore goes, LALD, TSWLM, and MR all grossed considerably more.
Yes Brosnan's films outgrossed both of Dalton's films but is that really something to brag about? The series was running on fumes at that point as far as the general public was concerned. Atleast when compared to it's prior success.
BTW this isn't Brosnan bashing. It's just simple numbers.
38 years old compared to 53 in 2006. I don't know but that sounds alot younger to me. Brosnan's oldest son is only about 4 years older than Daniel Craig.
I'm not disputing that his films made money. Every Bond film has. I'm just stating the fact that Brosnan's films made less money than half of the films in the series. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Look up the numbers for yourself.
This whole notion of Bronson bringing the series to "new levels of success" is laughable. Financially the series peaked with Goldfinger and Thunderball and it wouldn't reach that level again for nearly another 50 years with Skyfall and hopefully Spectre. Critically you can basically say the same thing. Peaked in the 60s and re-emerged with the Craig Era.