It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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's not nice (although if anyone's had to work freelance for certain jobs you do sometimes have to negotiate for certain sums based on your worth). But as the great Roger Moore himself said:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9TPXQW28PfE
And he's right. Why would an actor - particularly the lead of a large franchise and thus a major part of its success even in the short term - settle for less than they can get? The bulk of those profits are just going to go into someone else's pockets anyway. Sir Sean using his DAF money to set up a charity, or Sir Roger using a bit of money and high profile to do humanitarian work isn't the worst thing in the grand scheme of things, at least if we're going to have such a system for making big budget movies.
I guess he would have made tons of money if he had continued after DAF but it was too late.
Incidentally, I do think Lazenby was also ripped off a bit in terms of pay too, albeit in a much more low key way. Again, he didn't even make as much as Connery did for FRWL (not even half as much!) That's crazy. Even with how underwhelming OHMSS was it made enough to justify more.
Probably a possible reason why he had turned down Deneuve even she'd decided to reduce her salary of large percentage, but still hired Bach because she's more cheaper, as she's not a big star like Deneuve is (despite of just auditioning for a minor role).
The battle of the Bonds was good business for the actors.
Apparently, according to Roger, CB said his agent could "shit in his hat" :))
To some extent (Cubby didn’t want to pay more than $80,000 while Deneuve was willing to put her pay down to $250,000). But to be honest, I suspect there’s also an element that maybe she wasn’t of all that much interest for the role anyway (I think she herself simply wanted to play the part, but I don’t think Cubby ever seriously considered her. Not sure if I can see her in the role honestly, but I’ve probably not seen her in enough).
Yeah, I don’t think Cubby could have gotten away with underpaying Moore (don’t know who Moore’s agent was but I imagine his fame meant he had effective ones).
But yeah, I think with those sorts of things there’s always an element of hard lines and tactics. I certainly can’t see EON going to the extent now of screen testing other actors while the old one is renegotiating (it’s not always an effective move anyway and is quite costly, so it’s not a bad thing they don’t do this). But as we’ve discussed on these forums with Brosnan’s ‘dismissal’ from Bond producers have to make tough choices that’s in their interests. It’s not a straightforward case of villains and good guys in that sense, despite questionable decisions and a relative bit of greed inherent to all this.
Yes, and they've done those decisions for a reason, Barbara ended Pierce's Bond tenure because, story wise, she's going to reboot the series, for sure, she have felt that things already gone too far by DAD, and reboot means, a younger Bond.
The same for some of Cubby's decisions, he's after the quality of the film after all, he'd rather give half of the money to the film production than to risk for the cast, although if aligned with his principles, he would give them a chance, he had mostly opted for actors that were not that much big, Roger Moore's fame was fading by the time in 70s, no longer as big as he was in 50s and 60s, much the same as Tony Curtis, his co star in The Persuaders who, by the late 60s was spending more time doing drugs because he's struggling to find an offer or a break, and I think that had something to do with Moore's age too, hence, he's much more affordable by the time Bond went to his calling, he had never hired big time actors, let alone in their peak of fame, he's mostly after Shakespearean, TV and small time Actors.
Although this could be a contrary, as I'd bet, he would be willing to pay a big price to hire Bardot to play Tracy (that's if Connery would be doing Bond and would not play in Shalako), as Bardot was still big at that time and an icon, and if my memory serves, it's Cubby who wanted Bardot for the role, as is it Maibaum or Hunt who had stated that Cubby was a Francophile, I could possibly see of Bardot having a bigger paycheck than Connery if she's really cast.
Yes, those perceptions of some when it comes to things like these were very much limited, I agree, there's more than meets the eye, as what they're always saying.
And I think for Cubby's decisions, I think they're a bit reasonable.
On a larger point, these are Multi Million Dollar companies we’re talking about here; I don’t think they should be completely shielded from criticism even if it’s criticism you disagree with.
Lets stay in the world of fantasy for a moment and ponder this would you rather.
Some on these boards have suggested an animated Bond might be cool, others have suggested a time period Bond movie might be interesting to explore. Lets ask the question:
Would you rather an animated Bond series or movie OR a Live Action time period Bond film set in the 50's or 60's?
Both have a wealth of creative places to go. I can see the merits in both, but which would you rather hear Barbara announce, assuming she won't yet announce Bond 26! LOL!
I mean, a period film would be awesome, but the thing is, it would surely interfere with or take the place of getting a contemporary Bond film made, which should be the priority I think. Where as, an animated series could be handled by another creative team - meaning we can enjoy both cartoon and a film released side by side.
Lets dive into some production waters!
Would you rather Amazon take more creative control of the Bond Universe OR EON continue to rube the creative force of the series?
As the pause between films lengthen, one wonders if Amazon exerted some control of EON would that speed up the pace to a new film adventure? Would it even get us back in a regular production cycle of a new film every 2-3 years? Spin off series and expanding the Bond universe might also be in play to create content for Prime.
Or is it better that the family business run things and go at their pace? After all they paused between Pierce and Daniel and the series didn't suffer. This pause will likely just increase the demand for the next film adventure.
After all, at this point, something about from family business seems a bit running out of mill at this point, like the long delay in the updates regarding the Bond 26, and they haven't release any Bond related shows or things to keep the fans at bay, look at that Bond video game, what happened in there? The only thing that keeps us going is the James Bond comics, and with the end of the current story (You Cold Cold Heart), there are no news about who would be the new writer for a Bond comic, at this point, we're all hanging in the air, waiting to receive something from Bond, if Amazon is there, it would help at least regarding the progression, and if Bond 26 does not still come out, at least they would do anything to keep the fans standing.
We can't do anything Bond related at this point, rewatch the films back to back? Re-read the novels?
But again, it depends, if Amazon would be involved in filmmaking, I'm worrying about the quality of the film, but hey, it's better than never, as EON stands for: It's Everything Or Nothing.
So for that, with the given scenarios above, I'd give Amazon a shot.
My goodness, I'll be old and dead before Bond 50 comes. 😩
I've got it right here