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
And if Cubby had given final cut away to the latest fashionable director rather than trust his experienced instinct..?
Why? Because we agree with some of Eon’s decisions? You think we have no criticism to give?
No you're wrong, Pierce himself said he was kicked to the curb. (You mean like that?) :>
but in all seriousness, I've heard reports saying he was asking for too much money, but I think Pierce probably felt a little strung along and didn't like being kept out of the loop as to what all their plans were.
Despite all that, the series came back to the pop culture forefront in the 90s, and Brosnan's charm and popularity were a big part of that, even if the movies themselves were only seen as okay. But Brosnan was Cubby's choice and Craig was Barbara's, and she did the movies she wanted to with him, for better or worse. It's natural that she would praise Craig more than Brosnan, but given that Brosnan inherited a fading series and left it profitable while Craig inherited a series that was riding a box office high and left it in ruins, maybe she should've been a bit more professional with Brosnan, not to mention grateful.
1. Contracts are made to be broken.
2. Filming schedules are made to be flexible (They did this with Rami Malek)
It seemed to me that Pierce gave up just a little too easily.
It's not about final cut. People need to think critically about reports like this one. Amazon has incentives to put stories in the papers that make the Broccolis look out-of-touch or incompetent.
It's about the money. Nolan made about $100 million from "Oppenheimer". He is the biggest name-brand director in Hollywood. He got 15% first dollar gross (first dollar gross!) off of "Oppenheimer", in addition to everything else. Why on Earth if you were the Broccolis would you take that big of a chunk out of your own earnings when you could have another quality filmmaker make a hit movie for a significantly smaller amount? Similarly: if you are Nolan who could get any idea funded, why on Earth would you take gun-for-hire work?
Now Amazon may make a different decision given that they need a HIT above all else, and they may decide whatever the cost is to them is worth it since they have no established track record. But then we get back into the micromanaging point — will Amazon have the necessary discipline to work with him? I would assume not.