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
Whereas I get quite tired of the bashing of the Craig movies ;)
We even have it in a thread about DAD!
We have underwater cars and no one seems to care. ;)
At least there is no
Suspension of disbelief is quite funny.
Yeah. I think the thing was, DAD made all the previous Bond outlandishness more modern, which might have been a problem. Also, in the era of older Bond films, people haven't seen such outlandishness before, so all the fancy stuffs were loved. But by DAD, people have seen bigger things on screen. Plus, science was getting bigger and people were familiar with it....even in Brosnan's Bond era Pre-DAD. Plus, people have already seen Reeves' The Matrix and accepted its ridiculousness.
If DAD were released in 1977, its flashy look would have blown fans away. It was more like by DAD, people might have had enough of the glitzy stuffs, not that DAD was necessarily bad. It's the same way most fans don't want a repeat of Craig Bond's style for Bond 7, because they might have had enough of Craig's Bond taciturn style, not that Craig's Bond was bad....far away from it!
Don't care what others say
Die Another Day...Worst Bond EVER!
Yes but even GoldenEye has the flying James Bond and the fastest tank in the world.
There’s some great stuff in DAD. Bond being betrayed and tortured for months is legitimately an interesting idea. Yes, a stealth car and a villain modified by gene therapy are a bit out there, but it’s within the precedent of Bond. In better hands the latter idea could have been an updated version of Fleming’s Drax in MR, or maybe even Blofeld. It’s just a bit silly as it is because Graves is a bit of a hit or miss villain, and the idea that he’s suddenly transformed from a Korean Colonel into a white British mogul is noticeably silly in the context of the film.
Like TWINE it’s a film that has a lot of interesting, and darkly Bondian ideas it’s trying to run with, but the film can’t quite express them. The filmmaking isn’t great, Brosnan is confident but arguably not giving the right performance to get the best out of the material, and there’s a sense that the film has been stretched in too many different directions without getting the best out of any of its concepts. Is it a Bond film about our hero dealing with a personal betrayal with a healthy dose of that Bondian fare? (ie. a LTK, GE or SF). Or is it a fun MR esque romp? It’s both and yet it’s none of them.
EON did Brosnan and his Bond dirty by the end of it.
He still got rich and famous, I don't feel too sorry.
Okay so what? What about the people who actually enjoyed his performance? I was one of them, and I would’ve loved to have seen him do at least one more.
I know what you mean about how it's handled. I feel like something like MR is just as (okay, more!) silly, but it's handled with some elan and panache; there's a sense of style about the silliness for the most part, with some totally naff gags in there too, but sure. It helps you have John Barry and Ken Adam bringing a real sense of art to the thing, but Gilbert knows what he's doing too and some of the dialogue sparkles. And even MR dabbles in the darkness, with stuff like scenes with the dogs in the woods.
DAD on the other hand doesn't really have that panache: to me it feels mostly quite tacky and cheap. I enjoy it, I think it's mostly good fun, but it's perhaps the low point of the Bonds in terms of the style of them; it's kind of the least classy 007 has ever been. The story ideas are great but the dialogue is often clunking and the gags obvious, and when you compare it to a Goldfinger or a Skyfall, those films are just dripping in aesthetic class and sophisticated choices, and DAD just isn't. And I always say that half of the point of a Bond film is that it's hokum made far too well and with a glossy, expensive sheen, and DAD isn't really that.
For those of us who hate his performance, it was the best decision the Producers ever made! Also, considering Brossa was long enough in the game, and was a Producer himself, his whining about being dropped irked me a lot, he fulfilled his contract, he should have accepted the situation and moved on!
Yeah I wasn't keen on that either, he was mostly stoic about it but there was a slight undercurrent of being hard done by and, yes, the job was over and there was no obligation to him.
I think he tends to get a pass from a lot of fans for some reason; I do wonder how a lot of fans would react if Craig had been the one who had tried to set up a rival Bond franchise with McClory, for example.
BTW I didn't bash the Craig films @mtm I merely stated that they were good films, that after five films of Bond pining for Vesper and the "grounded" reality of his films it's time for a change.
I hope that the producers consider a tone shift back to a lighter tone if only for a film or two to give us something a bit different. Like how after LTK they went with GE.
As for DAD, I don't see cheapness on the screen. I think the director went overboard with some of the editing and filming techniques. I love Pierce holding his own and not getting lost in the sea of massiveness. As another person stated he deserved better material but still shines as Bond.
You’ve made it a personality trait to hate on the man and his tenure at any opportunity you get so of course you’re going to think that.
Doesn’t take anything from what I said however!
What do you mean Brosnan gets a pass from a lot of fans? He’s been constantly thrown under the bus by those same “fans” ever since 2006.
There also may not have been any obligation, but it still highlights how shitty it was for EON to kick Brosnan to the curb over a phone call nonetheless after he practically helped saved their series.
I think the Ice Palace is a lovely idea but it does kind of leave the impression of being overwhelmingly plastic and fake, even some of the exteriors don't really convince. If you're familiar with the UK a lot of the locations look distractingly home counties-ish (especially anything set in N Korea - I think I actually laughed out loud at the final shot of the Korean cabin plonked on a very obviously South Coast of England cliff!), and I think it's still to date the only Bond film where none of the main cast set foot in any of the foreign locations the film is actually set in.
Yeah I think Pierce, like Roger, manages to keep his head above all of the craziness with his charisma and screen presence where not all Bonds would have been able to.
But I don’t think the producers made a mistake by not renewing his contract either (he wasn’t fired in that sense, and I don’t think it’s fair to say he was). It may not have been nice for Brosnan as he seemed to genuinely love playing the role, but I think at the time Bond was at a bit of a crossroads creatively. They had the opportunity to adapt CR with a new actor and even a new timeline. It was a chance to start afresh, and it’s what the series needed. While I wish his last two films had been better realised, they were a sort of dry run for some of the better things in the Craig era, and I’m not sure if some of the talent that joined later on (the likes of Mendes) would have been as inclined to if it hadn’t been for that change in tenure. I think Brosnan’s job was simply done by that point, and it’s fine. Ideally all Bond actors go fully on their own terms, but sometimes those decisions have to be made.
I fully agree with you. I love Goldeneye and I love Tomorrow Never Dies; they’re both in my Top 10 of the series, and argubly are the movies that made me a Bond fan. I also don’t think the producers made the wrong mistake either when it came to recasting in 2005. I’m glad we ended up getting Casino Royale with Craig and everyone else involved. I just find it to be incredibly telling that the same people who would constantly offer Craig Millions of Dollars to come back whenever he felt hesitant - would simply scoff at Brosnan’s request for a bigger paycheck for one final film before firing him over telephone. If I’m not mistaken, Casino Royale started production with the idea that Brosnan would be reprising the role (there were also some early drafts written by Purvis and Wade with Brosnan’s version in mind.) It was only after Brosnan asked for $25M Salary, to which MGM agreed to pay $17M of that amount, that EON decided to recast. Ironically years later Craig’s salary for NTTD was $25M.
I’m not agreeing with what I’m about to say, but the optics of that situation as well as others are why some people buy into the whole “schoolgirl crush” narrative about Craig and Barbara Broccoli.
But that's because you've written that in such a way to make him sound the victim. Another way to write it would be he asked for too much (some reports put it as $25m plus 5% of the profits) and when they all had dinner in Santa Monica he supposedly got up and walked out when the producers outlined their plans. So the 'over the telephone' angle sets up a false narrative too: it's not as if they didn't speak to him face to face, but he was shooting in the Bahamas at the time so I'm not sure what was expected of them- to fly to the Bahamas when they're making a movie? They informed him immediately.
If he had priced himself out of it it seems quite a stretch to somehow blame the producers for that.
Brosnan bumped down that initial asking price of $25M to just $20M + the percentage of profits just to try and play ball and they still said no. You’re also confusing the timeline, that lunch meeting they had occurred after the infamous phone call so no matter how you may look at it, he was still fired over that call and they had no intention of changing their minds. That’s a pretty crappy thing to do to somebody who helped resurrect your families legacy no matter how you look at it.
You also phrase it as Brosnan “asking for too much” while ignoring the fact that Craig asked for that same price of $25M as well as box office grosses for NTTD and EON had no problem giving him that. I’m not writing about this in any way to make him sound like a victim; I’m writing down the facts as they’ve been reported. It’s not my fault that EON doesn’t look good in the optics of this scenario.
I know it was after the call, but to meet someone after you've told them you're not hiring them when you don't have any obligation to doesn't really fit with the image of a cold heartless phone call, does it.
And again: he was shooting in the Bahamas. How far are you supposed to fly to tell someone you're not hiring them? As I said, they told him immediately and then were willing to have lunch with him to discuss it after that. A lunch which the studio head understood PB stormed out of.
Also Variety at the time reported his asking price as $25m plus 5%: "No one but the producers have ever gotten gross points on Bond pics"
5% of DAD's worldwide gross would have been $22m incidentally, so bumping 'down that initial asking price of $25M to just $20M + the percentage of profits just to try and play ball' is kind of not quite giving the whole picture!
(CR made even more and on a budget of $150m, so that's a big slice he was asking for if that's correct).
I'm not sure why that's relevant though: it's not as if Brosnan knew about that at the time, and $25m back then was a lot more than $25m is now.
My point is that the optics can be adjusted depending upon how they're phrased and what's left out (storming out of a lunch, 5% of gross etc.). As I say: you can phrase it like he was the victim, but another way of looking at it is that he asked for too much and they baulked, which they're perfectly at their rights to do, and came up with a better plan. That years later Craig had made himself more essential to what the producers perceived as the later film's success is hardly his fault and perhaps reflects more on what Brosnan didn't do.
Well there’s a lot of background there I simply don’t know about really. I can see what @mtm is saying though - it depends on the specifics/optics. Often those sorts of negotiations can be messy, and EON were within their rights not to renew his contract (it’s their franchise at the end of the day).
I suspect it’s also a bit different with Craig too. From what I understand he was actually contracted for another movie anyway as he’d signed for two more after SF. I don’t know if anything behind the scenes impacted that/it was still in effect by 2016, and I know there were negotiations (likely in terms of pay but also where to go creatively). He certainly left the role on his own terms (obviously injuries and stress didn’t help, but he ultimately came back for one more). They likely wanted to tie up loose ends from his tenure, whereas Brosnan didn’t have that issue after DAD.
I think it’s fair to say Craig and Broccoli do have a good working relationship as well and I suspect he’s quite useful behind the scenes. But I don’t think that points to some sort of schoolgirl crush thing (I think ultimately that’s something a few fans tend to say, and as I always try to iterate, we fans know next to nothing about how these films are actually made, and we certainly don’t know any of the people who work on them in that position).
Doesn’t matter whether or not it fits with that image. I could go and meet with somebody for lunch after firing them over a phone call; doesn’t really change anything does it?
These people are Multi-Millionaires; it’s not like they couldn’t afford plane tickets. It’s about being courteous and respectful. Brosnan probably wouldn’t have stormed out of that lunch meeting had the producers treated him with a bit more dignity and flew out there to give him the news face to face. The fact they didn’t do that initially ultimately says something.
Yes that was until they started paying Craig base salary as well as a percentage of the films gross.
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/daniel-craig-net-worth/
It wasn’t all coming at the expense of EON though. MGM was willing to pay $17M of that salary on their end. EON still said no.
Optics have nothing to do with it either. EON only had to pay $8M out of that $25M request Brosnan had and yet still said no; only to go on and give Craig the same amount just as a base salary alone + percentage of the films grosses for his final two films. Doesn’t matter how you look at it, or whether you liked the direction they went with. That was ultimately what happened in the end and it leaves a bit of a foul stench behind.
Ah yes; never mind that Brosnan helped revive a character/series that was practically dead in the water. Never mind that some of the creative suggestions Brosnan had were flat out ignored when they could’ve actively improved upon some of those films. Never mind that Brosnan’s push to bring things darker and more down to earth was continually ignored by EON only for them to just do it later with his replacement. Nope I guess it’s all Brosnan’s fault; he hadn’t proven himself essential to the producers success at all. He hadn’t made them Millions of Dollars over 4 films and all the marketing those films entailed. He hadn’t become the face of Bond for an entire generation who grew up with those films.
By all means it must’ve been “okay” to fire him over the phone as opposed to being more dignified and respectful and at least having a conversation face to face with him.
I’m not arguing against their right to do it at the end of the day; ultimately things turned out okay in the end and I’m glad they did. But it doesn’t look good the way in which they seamlessly kicked Brosnan to the curb, especially after digging in a bit more deeply.
But what loose ends from SPECTRE were present that needed to be tied up? For all my complaints about that film, it presented a satisfying conclusion to Craig’s Bond for the time. Nothing about the film’s ending suggested there was more to come with Craig’s Bond.
I don’t buy the “schoolgirl” crush narrative either. I think they just have a really great working relationship that was exclusive to them. All I’m saying is that when information like this gets out, it’s no wonder that some people get the wrong impression about EON and their relationship with Craig.
‘“I sat in Richard Harris’s house in the Bahamas, and Barbara and Michael were on the line —‘We’re so sorry.’ She was crying, Michael was stoic and he said, ‘You were a great James Bond. Thank you very much,’ and I said, ‘Thank you very much. Goodbye.’ That was it. I was utterly shocked and just kicked to the kerb with the way it went down.”
Even in his own words he only would have done one more. I think he was under the impression they’d go with him after DAD, but no contract was arranged for it, there were obviously issues around pay, and I suspect the reception towards DAD factored into it. I think even with his apparent push towards something darker it wouldn’t have guaranteed a solid film (TWINE is in part quite a dark film when you think about it).
I think it’s just one of those things. It’s a business at the end of the day, and I think when weighing it all up it was simply seen as best to go without Brosnan. And they were seemingly correct. I don’t think it was malicious on EON’s part, or that they didn’t like him or whatever, and I’m sure many examples exist of similar situations.
Well, I don’t think anyone was 100% happy with SP under the circumstances, and I think they wanted a more satisfying, rounded ending to everything. I can see where that impulse came from, and he seemingly had at least one more contracted.
I think fans sometimes think about these things too much and are quick to judge people they don’t know from positions of anonymity as we have on the internet/these forums. So the schoolgirl crush thing has always been odd for me.