Shame On You, EON!

[Alec 006]

Hello,

Now that we've got Daniel and "Casino Royale" has been done...I know I have to learn to let go of the past. Phrases like: "There's nothing you can do about it now"..."Let It Go" "What's The Point?" may come to your mind. Please forgive me, I know this topic has been flogged like a dead horse, but I will never forgive Barbara Broccoli, Michael G. Wilson, EON, MGM, Sony, or whoever were responsible for shamelessly dumping Pierce Brosnan on his arse. Was it over money? Mr. Brosnan asking for $45 million??? Is that true? (*Note: Roger Moore always held out for his money's worth!) Pressure from the higher-ups? Brosnan's age? I'm not sure...but let's go with the last one.

I know Pierce eventually had to give up the torch, but considering Roger Moore was in his late fifty's when he did "A View To A Kill" and that "The Living Daylights" was also written with Sir Rog in mind (WOW!) I strongly believe Pierce had at least one or two good films left in him. Michael G. Wilson would argue that things got too "fantastical" with "Die Another Day"...but they never fired Roger Moore after "Moonraker". Getting rid of Brosnan was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Okay, so they finally got the rights to "Casino Royale"... Ian Fleming's first Bond novel. So they figured they had to do this movie as Bond's origin and re-boot the franchise? Since when have the films been so strict on reflecting what Fleming wrote? I for one, think Pierce would've pulled off "Casino Royale" beautifully, and could've just as easily brought Bond back down to earth, much like Roger Moore did with "For Your Eyes Only". It could've been Pierce's swan song, and it could've been just as good.

One last thing...I'm not out to attack Daniel Craig, but if age was such a factor for the Bond producers, why would you cast an actor who's pushing forty (and looks it) to tell Bond's origin? It doesn't make sense. Miss Broccoli has said that when she saw Daniel and the finished product she cried, because she wished her father could've seen what a great Bond Mr. Craig made. I'm not so sure the late Cubby would've cried with her...or if he did, it wouldn't be tears of joy.

After a brutal legal battle, a six year hiatus, and a world who almost forgot about 007...Pierce Brosnan came along, won over the public in a huge way, breathed new life into the franchise, and raked in millions and millions for Babs, Michael G., and MGM.

"Losing Bond hurt me like mad," Brosnan has said. "It was a shock, unexpected." Then one bad day I had a telephone call. Dropped. Telling my wife Keely and friends was torture."

Hearing that quote broke this 007 fan's heart, even to this day.
Pierce deserved better than a phone call saying his services were "no longer required".

Thank you, Mr. Brosnan...for entertaining us Bond fans so well and doing the 007 franchise so proud! Your place in James Bond history is firmly cemented!

Take Care!

[FormerBondFan]

Worse, EON not only dumped Pierce, but they left him nothing to be remembered as classics(with the exception of GoldenEye). With DC on the field, he is known as the best Bond since Sean Connery and best dressed. This makes me think that he is nothing more than the Anti-Christ of the World of James Bond.

[skywalker]

Great post Alec. You have earned '1' Karma.

[Nick]

Brosnan should have done another one in 2004/2005. He deserved it and they should have coughed up the money. After that Barabara could have cast the man who mows her lawn if she wanted to. Being a James Bond fan was partially ruined for me by the whole Brosnan/Craig handover.

[harrypalmer]

A great post, Alec.

Cubby Broccoli would have used Brosnan much better.

It makes me laugh how Eon stated that Die Another Day was not right and they needed to reboot the franchise, that they had run out of ideas etc. THEY made the last few Bond films. There are lots of great writers/directors who would love to get their hands on Bond - why not ask them.

Rebooting the franchise and casting Daniel Craig as a young Bond does not make any sense at all. Good luck to him and he seems popular, but he looks really old.

[FormerBondFan]

All the stuff about Craig being a popular Bond is just talking nonsense.

[poirot]

I think CR would've been a natural progression for Brosnan's Bond, and a fitting way to resolve his era. It was also an opportunity to tie the previous four films together, and provide them with a unified theme.

*GE portrayed Bond as someone who was loyal to England- even at the expense of his own personal life. He was ultimately betrayed by a close friend- and subsequently forced to kill him.

*In TND, he was ordered to reopen an old wound, and intentionally betray his former lover to get the job done. As a result, he ended up losing yet another person that had been close to him.

*He was betrayed once again in TWINE, this time by a lover who was seeking personal revenge on MI6. In the end, the job led to his putting a bullet in her head.

*In DAD, he discovered that MI6 would betray him worst of all. First, in the form of a fellow agent, and ultimately by both M and MI6. Ironically, he triumphed by striking out on his own- much as 006 had urged him in the very beginning.

By the time of CR, Bond is a far different character than the one who never questioned orders in GE. His loyalty to MI6 has led to constant betrayal, as well as one personal loss after the next. He is an established agent (ala Fleming's CR), but one that has grown far more cynical and weary (ala Fleming's Bond).

Naturally, there is also an uneasy relationship between M and Bond. Neither is sure they can fully trust the other (ala Fleming's TMWTGG). When Bond is assigned something as trivial as Le Chiffre, how would he react? Would he feel it is beneath his talents? Would he be offended, and suspect that M is simply trying to get him out of the way (again, ala TMWTGG)? Surely there would be a mission that Bond feels is more urgent? (After all, it's already well established that he hates to be sidetracked from a larger case.)

Despite being older, this scenario is much closer in spirit to Fleming's novel than a crass, rookie agent who isn't very good at his job. It is also a James Bond that is far more likely to be disillusioned and contemplating quitting the service for good. After all, if he has really fallen in love with Vesper, he would realize that the only way it could work is if they disappeared together.

And there would be no need for silly talk about "armor", for we would know immediately when Bond was slipping from his usual game. Instead of having to tell us, we would literally be able to see Bond affected by Vesper. His emotional baggage would also lead to far deeper conversations than that of martinis and married women.

Of course, just when Bond begins to suspect that there is life beyond MI6 for him, the cold reality would set in. He would once again be betrayed, and then watch as his personal dreams slip away. His final "Bond. James Bond." would not be a limp suggestion that, "Okay, now I'm supposed to be suave", but an almost tragic embrace of, "This is who I am".

[skywalker]

A truly fantastic perspective Poirot. IMO this is one of the best Bond related articles I have read regarding Brosnan potentially starring in CR.

You have given us plenty of food for thought.

[Bourne]

poirot said:

I think CR would've been a natural progression for Brosnan's Bond, and a fitting way to resolve his era. It was also an opportunity to tie the previous four films together, and provide them with a unified theme.

*GE portrayed Bond as someone who was loyal to England- even at the expense of his own personal life. He was ultimately betrayed by a close friend- and subsequently forced to kill him.

*In TND, he was ordered to reopen an old wound, and intentionally betray his former lover to get the job done. As a result, he ended up losing yet another person that had been close to him.

*He was betrayed once again in TWINE, this time by a lover who was seeking personal revenge on MI6. In the end, the job led to his putting a bullet in her head.

*In DAD, he discovered that MI6 would betray him worst of all. First, in the form of a fellow agent, and ultimately by both M and MI6. Ironically, he triumphed by striking out on his own- much as 006 had urged him in the very beginning.

By the time of CR, Bond is a far different character than the one who never questioned orders in GE. His loyalty to MI6 has led to constant betrayal, as well as one personal loss after the next. He is an established agent (ala Fleming's CR), but one that has grown far more cynical and weary (ala Fleming's Bond).

Naturally, there is also an uneasy relationship between M and Bond. Neither is sure they can fully trust the other (ala Fleming's TMWTGG). When Bond is assigned something as trivial as Le Chiffre, how would he react? Would he feel it is beneath his talents? Would he be offended, and suspect that M is simply trying to get him out of the way (again, ala TMWTGG)? Surely there would be a mission that Bond feels is more urgent? (After all, it's already well established that he hates to be sidetracked from a larger case.)

Despite being older, this scenario is much closer in spirit to Fleming's novel than a crass, rookie agent who isn't very good at his job. It is also a James Bond that is far more likely to be disillusioned and contemplating quitting the service for good. After all, if he has really fallen in love with Vesper, he would realize that the only way it could work is if they disappeared together.

And there would be no need for silly talk about "armor", for we would know immediately when Bond was slipping from his usual game. Instead of having to tell us, we would literally be able to see Bond affected by Vesper. His emotional baggage would also lead to far deeper conversations than that of martinis and married women.

Of course, just when Bond begins to suspect that there is life beyond MI6 for him, the cold reality would set in. He would once again be betrayed, and then watch as his personal dreams slip away. His final "Bond. James Bond." would not be a limp suggestion that, "Okay, now I'm supposed to be suave", but an almost tragic embrace of, "This is who I am".

"Okay, now I'm supposed to be suave"

[Kadov]

Very insightful, poirot. And your analysis is certainly "much closer in spirit to Fleming's novel than a crass, rookie agent who isn't very good at his job." Fleming was always writing about the disillusionment of Bond, and had EON done something akin to your interpretation, CR would have been a great film.

[FormerBondFan]

If Brosnan did CR, would the theme song still be titled You Know My Name?

[009]

A Brosnan Bond in 2004 would have made potloads of money.

[poirot]

009 said:

A Brosnan Bond in 2004 would have made potloads of money.

Of course, that was delayed while EON considered making a film about Jinx. Hard to believe that these are the same people who are now regarded as saving the franchise.

[Greg Haugen]

They seem a lot more eager to get the films out now that Craig is there instead of Brosnan.

[poirot]

drax said:

They seem a lot more eager to get the films out now that Craig is there instead of Brosnan.

I think the rush to get Bond 22 into production was just an attempt to downplay all the negative press. I really don't think they ever expected to release it in May 2008.

I mean, they issued a press release to say Craig would be back...just months after announcing his three film deal. It was redundant.