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
I don’t think communicating with people over the phone (or video call nowadays) even in those situations is unusual for any industry. Sometimes you can’t be in the same room as them and it’s better to get that information to the individual as soon as possible.
I’m sure these are the sorts of decisions the producers don’t enjoy making. But they have to make them sometimes.
Oh no it’s not unusual by any means. All I’m saying is that when you’re about to break news like that - it’s much better to have an honest face to face conversation about it rather than do it over a phone call. Especially when they probably wouldn’t have been as successful as they were back then (and even now) had it not been for the foundations Brosnan’s Bond helped rebuild. I can’t picture a scenario where they would’ve done that to Craig in that manner.
Well, yes, it does. One version, as suggested by the idea he was 'fired over the phone' is that they coldly and matter of factly told him they didn't want him and hung up and never spoke to him again, as opposed to the actuality that they were very emotional on that phone call, and were happy to speak to him face to face when they were able to. And which he walked out of.
I feel like you're adding in your own narrative here to try and excuse Brosnan- this is adding optics, surely?
Yes, they could afford to fly anywhere, but they're also in the middle of planning a new film. It's not a great use of time or money, and fans retelling this story always seem to take way more offence than Brosnan himself does. If it had been Craig and they'd flown halfway around the world to tell him he wouldn't be in the new movie they'd be accused of being in love with him so much they'd go anywhere for him.
Why not see it as them giving him the courtesy of a personal phone call (not through agents) as soon as they realised the situation so as not to keep him in the dark for any longer than they wanted, followed up by a face to face meeting as soon as they could after?
Yes, we know all this, it doesn't really change anything.
Not really, no; you're ignoring a lot of the points which have been made. It wasn't just $8m, it was percentage of gross; £25m in 2006 isn't the same amount as in 2021; and the situation with Craig wasn't the same as it was with Brosnan. You're trying to paint it as them playing favourites but the films weren't in the same position. You say the optics have nothing to do with it, but you brought them up.
Also, Brosnan is a multi-multi millionaire. He's absolutely fine. You don't need to worry about him. He wasn't hard done by: he did a job, got paid loads for it, made four massive movies as the star and remains world famous to this day. He wasn't fired from anything. He's okay.
As I say, I think it's clear you've made your choice as to how to interpret the events of 20 odd years ago: this isn't an objective reading of them.
Also as I say, the events can be seen in a different way: he made demands which were too high and didn't read the room well enough (later Craig was offered a percentage deal, obviously because he and his agent did read the room - this situation changes nothing about the Brosnan one though) and they decided not to go with him; they told him personally as soon they could even though he wasn't being fired from anything (you can't be fired from a job you don't have); they met up with him even though they didn't have to and he threw a tantrum and walked out on them allegedly.
Brosnan did, incidentally, try and basically doublecross Cubby when he lost out on TLD by recruiting McClory to start a rival 007 series: he was actively trying to steal from their family's legacy. The Broccolis forgave this however and still gave him another chance for GoldenEye.
Now, I'm not claiming all of that is an objective reading of the events either, but it's pretty easy to paint people as bad guys without all the facts or knowing exactly how it went down. And crucially: this is big business. They all play hard ball because there's huge sums of money involved, it isn't about who loves who the most. Even with the McClory thing I expect they probably didn't take it personally because the goal is make money and make films and they know that. Even Cubby and Roger were pretty vicious about each other when it came to negotiation time, frankly none of this even sounds as bad as that, and yet the perception is that they loved each other.
Of course, but he was in the Bahamas. And for all we or they knew he was about to turn down some big movie which would be shooting at the same time as CR, so how would he have felt if the Brocs had waited a week or so just so that they could find the time to schedule a flight?
The courteous thing to do is to tell someone as soon as you possibly can, and they did that, and they did it personally. Which in a world of agents and intermediaries isn't something you can always rely on.
I've already replied to this conversation too much so I'll step out now.
Cubby could have waited like they do now.
It’s like I said, we’re fans and we have to understand we don’t know these people. So it’s impossible to say that for sure.
To be honest, it’s better sometimes giving news like that over the phone (I’ve never worked directly in the film industry, but having worked in television/post production I have seen producers have to let go of people in that manner). I’m sure it wasn’t a case where they surprised him with the news with an out of the blue call, and I gather he had some indication it was a ‘we’ve reached a final decision’ type call. At the end of the day it’s a business call, albeit one where the producers showed genuine remorse about a hard decision.
You're still seemingly missing the point I'm trying to convey. I'm questioning the decision to fire him over a telephone call to begin with. Doesn't matter how emotional they may have been over the phone, that should've been a conversation that was done face to face considering the successes they all shared up until that point. The fact that your placing so much emphasis on Brosnan "storming out" of their lunch meeting while conveniently ignoring the way they chose to fire him is a bit disingenuous.
I think what's rather telling are the lengths your going to defend a Multi-Million Dollar Production Company from the slightest bit of criticism.
They were in the middle of a four year hiatus, they had the money and the time. They just didn't choose to have that conversation face to face with him. There is no other way of looking at it really. Plus if Craig were in Brosnan's shoes I'd be just as upset so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.
If that's how you want to look at it, go ahead.
Kind of does but okay.
So $8 Million Dollars and a percentage of gross was apparently too much for EON back in 2005 yet $25M and a percentage in 2015 and 2021 isn't? You know by 2021 the cumulative rate of inflation was 34.4%?
Now Brosnan's salary (the $8M that was left to cover) without percentage of profits would equate to $10,752,777.78 in 2021. So it still would've been less than the money they paid to retain Craig's services (and I'm not even mentioning the percentage of box office since I don't have exact numbers for Craig's percentage.)
If you want to continue believing that go right ahead. I'm just reading the numbers, the accounts, and what it all implies.
Did I say he wasn't? All I implied was he kind of got screwed out of the role by the evidence given. So what what your point?
I'm literally just posting numbers and accounts from all parties involved. Perhaps the reason you don't find any of what I posted an issue is because you actually enjoyed the films that came as a result, and feel less inclined and dare I say perhaps a biased to admit that perhaps the way they let Brosnan go wasn't the best way.
Right and all I can say is that EON ended up having to pay Craig more for those last two films than they would've had to pay Brosnan just for one more. If that's their decision then fine, they own the franchise. But the logic is somewhat backwards.
I'm not sure what you mean by bringing this up? Sean Connery literally made a rival Bond film with McClory, yet that never stopped him and Cubby from making amends before Broccoli passed away. The stories of the Broccoli family and their kindness have been around for decades, so I'm not sure what you mean when you bring that up.
I'm not trying to paint EON as bad guys here, nor am I trying to suggest that they made the wrong decision. All I'm saying is that they could've handled Brosnan's dismissal better than they did; you can't blame the man for being upset after he got fired over a telephone called, and told the same thing in person weeks later when it should've been done in person to begin with. It's just common courtesy and common respect. I'm willing to be forgiving of EON for a lot of things, but I also can admit that was a poor choice of judgement.
Aargh. I mean, I've talked at length about the phone call, you've even chopped the last part of my previous post out of your reply where I talk about only that and the reasons as to why it's courteous to let someone know as soon as you do if you're going to hire them or not, so let's not be using terms like disingenuous.
And he wasn't fired. You can't be fired from a job you don't have, and he was never contracted to make Bond 21. So even choosing that term is making it more emotive than it needs to be. Yes, he was seen as the incumbent Bond and so they obviously felt a responsibility to let him know personally even though he didn't actually technically have the job and weren't actually obliged to speak to him. Actors have been let go from roles in far less civilised ways: Henry Cavill got pretty short shrift when he was bumped from Superman, and when I think of it I've never heard of Cubby getting in touch with Brosnan when he lost Bond the first time. Maybe he did, I have to assume so. I've certainly never seen Brosnan express frustration that they didn't tell him in person, and if he wasn't offended by that I'm not sure why anyone else should be.
I'm not understanding the point here. As you say, they do get to choose and were happy with one deal but not the other. Not every situation is equal to the every other, and they're not obliged to adhere to some set of arbitrary rules based solely on what's gone before, or even more impossibly: what they'll do in a different situation in the future.
Not really; as I've been pointing out, you're leaving out details and focusing on others in order to frame the situation in a certain way. You said they 'scoffed' at his request and fired him over the phone (ignoring that they met him to talk about it afterwards etc.), that he 'probably' stormed out because of how they treated him, that there's a 'foul stench' around it, that he secured their 'family's legacy' for them, that they weren't 'dignified or respectful' to him etc. - this is not just literally posting objective facts and figures, it's a very subjective reading of the events and framing them in a specific way. And I've stressed that whenever I've framed them as him asking too much etc. it is purely as a counterpoint to that- you seem to think that I genuinely think about it that way but I've been clear that I've just been demonstrating how easy it is to read the situation in a different, opposite way. I don't think it's as simple as either 'they were awful to him' or 'he messed it up', and as I said in my last post, they're all professionals in big business and know how it works. I don't know how else to express that to you, clearly I'm failing at it so I really will leave it at that now.
I have not left anything out @mtm. I have laid out all the events. So if I missed something you posted because you chose to go back and edit it into your original post, that isn't on me now is it?
I love the classic argument of "They didn't have him under contract so they were within their right not to renew it" completely ignoring the fact they asked if he would want to come back around for Bond 21, and started writing drafts with his take on the character in mind before they found his out his salary demands; something I mentioned earlier. But hey, whatever fits your opinions I suppose.
Again @mtm, I haven't left out any details. I brought up their lunch meeting, and everything else. And what I said isn't inaccurate at all. They dismissed him once they found out his pay demands; that's practically scoffing him. Nothing else to it. They dismissed him over a telephone call. Nothing else to it. The man practically had helped secure their legacy for them too if we're being honest, seeing as how he helped reinvent Bond after many said it was dead in the water. The way in which he was dismissed/let go/fired does have a foul stench especially when compared to how willingly they paid Craig Millions to come back for future installments. If you want to dismiss all of this information as a "subjective reading" because you don't like the implications then I don't know what to tell you. You seem to be taking everything I say personally to where you're trying to twist my words to fit your argument, and paint me as somebody who doesn't do any research when it comes to these topics, and you're also acting as if I'm personally attacking you for liking Craig's films by expressing my disappointment over Brosnan's departure.
If you don't want to continue this conversation, then by all means I'm perfectly alright doing that. I've gained nothing from this conversation other than being gaslit for sharing my opinions and providing proof.
In some ways it speaks to the relationship that Barbara and Michael were speaking directly to Pierce. There is no nice way to say goodbye to an employee. Over the course of the series I believe Pierce was one of the few to be let go while still wanting to play the part.
Moore knew his time had come to an end. Craig knew that NTTD would be his last.
Then we have Connery who wanted out and wasn't coming back. However the film wasn't tailored to a farewell to the character. Dalton wanted to do one more, but Cubby wanted him to commit to a couple of films. They mutually parted due to that. Not sure there was any hostility because of it. Brosnan was all geared up for another film. DAD had broken Box Office records and was seen as a commercial success. It would be the equivalent of Moore being asked not to return after Moonraker. I can see how he'd be hurt by the rebuke. He cared about the character and was eager to continue.
GoldenEye with Dalton would be Dalton's worst movie. Yes, I'm going to give Pierce some credit.
Again, sometimes we have to accept we just don’t know these people/what happens often in these situations. And most fans will have a bias about the actor as that’s the ‘face’ of the series at that time.
She hated John Calley. Maybe the Goldeneye thing wasn't so smooth.
I’m going to stop posting after this because I’ve already invested too much time into this topic already. And I want to clarify that I’m not upset with what we finally got; but I just find it so odd that they asked him to come back for one more after DAD, started writing drafts with him in mind, then once they found out what his asking price was they decided to recast. I know stuff like this happens all the time in Hollywood, but I don’t see the logic in EON rejecting Brosnan’s asking price only to go on and give Craig that same exact payday with box office grosses for both SP and NTTD, which incidentally ended up costing EON more in the end to retain his services.
Perhaps they learned from Brosnan and didn't want a repeat? And to say they were getting the same product/work from Brosnan and Craig is not too genuine, Craig was much more of a creative and driving force in his era. Times just changed.
To end my contributions to this discussion on one note, I’m just going to reiterate my original back point that Brosnan was royally screwed over and wasted. EON fumbled his tenure so much then let him go in the most unceremonious of ways, only to finally meet the his requests with his replacement. No matter how one looks at it - it’s a bit f@cked. Doesn’t matter if you’re a fan of the Craig era or not; Brosnan got screwed over at the end of the day, and I’m getting the impression that some people don’t really want to admit that because it must somehow inherently be an attack on the Craig era when it isn’t.
Yeah, it wasn't an appropriate way of telling Brosnan to leave. It should have been handled better. If I were EON, I would have given Brosnan that 5th film of his...since they've already started preparing it with him in mind, then carry on with Craig immediately after the 5th film. Albeit whether Craig would have still been available, is another matter entirely.
I’m just sharing my thoughts and opinions on this subject. If disagree with anything I post you, I would suggest you ignore it and move on without being condescending. Have a nice day :).
But apart from suggesting a darker, more grounded film (which even then seems to be something he said more publicly in hindsight) what did Brosnan do to try and be that creative force? Do we even know one way or the other? We know directors and collaborators like Mendes actively felt confident doing Bond because either they’d outright worked with Craig in the past or liked his take on the role. Even that’s a major benefit for a franchise like Bond that I don’t think was quite there in the same way with Brosnan.
I can understand Brosnan’s issues with how this all went. I don’t blame him, and I don’t think he was quite as belligerent about it as some people make out (and like I said before, I think we as fans are often biased about actors one way or the other - if we don’t like something about the series we’re quick to point the finger at them, if we like their portrayal we’re sometimes more quick to defend them etc).
I dunno, perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe it was completely unfair on EON’s part, but as it is it seems to me less like an f- you to Brosnan and more a difficult situation (fraught with stuff like pay negotiations no less) that they weighed up and thought best for their franchise, and one they tried to handle in the best way they could. Maybe I’m wrong, but I can see why they thought it more beneficial to give Craig a pay rise and not Brosnan under those circumstances based on where the series was at. And I could be wrong, but I suspect these decisions were made with those considerations and thoughts rather than Broccoli having a crush on Craig, or some bizarre vendetta against Brosnan for not getting Sean Bean 10 years ago.
But I do agree, I don’t think EON did the best job with Brosnan’s last two films, and he certainly doesn’t deserve criticism for that. But unfortunately I think to course correct a part of that meant a new Bond.
Also, I read that Brosnan suggested Ang Lee, Martin Scorsese and John McTiernan. Barbara and Michael ignored Brosnan and chose Tamahori.
I like Barbara and Michael, but I have to be honest and say they didn't treat Brosnan well. Plus, I can't blame Brosnan for being bitter about it. Also, clearly, Brosnan's isn't the one to blame for DAD being too outlandish. I still like DAD because of Brosnan's stellar performance and Brosnan knew he needed a better director to match his performance, if only Barbara and Michael listened to him. It seems Barbara and Michael paid deaf ears to all suggestions made by Brosnan during his era.
To be fair to Michael and Babs, those suggestions for Directors are not that great either. Ang Lee is considered a bit arty, his excursions into mainstream like 'The Hulk' and 'Gemini Man' were awful, Scorsese is just a daft idea, and though McTiernan has been put forward by fans here, it's really been based on 'Diehard', the rest of his output hasn't been that great at all!
I can understand their hiring of Apted, but their choice of Tamahori was an odd one, if they just based it on 'Once Were Warriors'!!
Predator and red october are great.
Anyway EON love "has beens". They are cheaper.