Why did EON have to replace Brosnan?

Films
1

This is something that I have been thinking of more and more since the Craig era concluded. And yes I know the straight forward answer: They wanted to make CR a James Bond origin story, so they needed a new actor. I understand that. I have also heard some of the reasons about ‘‘reinvention for this new century’’ with some very vague explanations. But my question is: Why did they HAVE to adapt CR exactly at that point in time? The fact is, Brosnan is the only Bond actor who was not allowed to finish his tenure when he wanted to. And I think that’s a real shame.

I love Brosnan as Bond. He’s the one who introduced me to the series and made me a huge Bond fan, with GE being my second favorite Bond film of all time and TWINE also being among my favorites. And his tenure was highly succesful. So yes I really wish he could have done a 5th film, just like I wish Lazenby could’ve done a 2nd and Dalton a 3rd film. But at least Lazenby and Dalton were allowed to quit by their own choice.

I’ve heard some people say that they could have very well made CR with Brosnan. And while I do agree, I mean there really isn’t anything that suggests the novel is Bond at the beginning of his career. I do think the film works much better as the beginning of a new era, just like it was the first novel. It felt right. With Vesper being an important part of the reason why Bond is the way he is in later books/films. Props to EON for making the film that they did. So I’m not talking about CR with Brosnan, I’m talking about a different film altogether.

The thing is, the whole reboot in my opinion was completely pointless in hindsight. We spent 2 movies (CR and QOS) about Bond’s ‘‘origin story’’ and then in the next film SF he is an over-the-hill agent ready to retire, not as sharp as he used to be and he basically has to ‘‘become Bond’’ all over again, until he finally does retire for good in SP, and then has to become Bond again in NTTD. We never saw Craig’s Bond in his prime, going on a regular mission and have some fun with it. We just went from ‘‘rookie Bond’’ to ‘‘old dog’’.

So here’s my question: Why couldn’t they just do the ‘‘over-the-hill Bond’’ thing to conclude the Brosnan era? Wouldn’t it have been far more interesting to see this seasoned version of Bond who has the same or at least similair history to Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton, who we have seen in his prime, come to the point where he is not as indistructable as he used to be? Maybe it could have been a more emotional story and a nice way to give a nod to OHMSS, and link some of the more emotional elements of the story back to his marriage with Tracy? Or mabye even his friendship with Leiter. Maybe we could explore a bit of Bond’s childhood like SF did? GE is the first time where Bond’s parents are mentioned in the series, so it would have been full circle for the Brosnan era. And a perfect way to end the ‘‘original timeline’’ before the reboot. You basically could have made SF as the final Brosnan film (without the Silva/M personal storyline as it just feels too similair to GE and TWINE). I’ve always felt that the film would just feel more right in the Brosnan era. I’m also sure Brosnan would be very happy to play this more down-to-earth version of Bond. Maybe this film could have been made in 2004 and then they could reboot in 2006 or 2007 (could have had some fun with the (2)007 there). Or maybe something entirely different as a final outing. But at least wait with CR a little bit to give the Brosnan era a proper conclusion.

To me it seems that the real reason for Brosnan’s replacement, based on all the behind-the-scenes stuff over years, is that ever since the release of TWINE (which was one of the most experimental films in the series), EON really hasn’t been sure where to take Bond. The 3 year gap between TWINE and DAD was the first gap longer than 2 year that was by choice and not because of outside forces. After DAD they were completely out of ideas, hence the reboot, which was the easiest solution since there already was a perfect story ready to be adapted with CR. However there was clearly no plan on where to take the series from there. So they basically adopted a new formula with CR, the ‘‘becoming Bond’’ narrative with recurring themes such as a tragic ending, Bond always on the edge of retirement, personal family connections and Bond going rogue. It worked for CR, so it became the new formula. But whereas the old formula was versatile and could have completely different styles/tones, there is only so much you can do with Bond about lost love, retirement, going rogue etc. In my opinion it’s far more interesting to have these concepts as a contrast to the traditional formula (which is why I think OHMSS, LTK and CR work well) rather than build an entire series on that. This is why I think such a film would have worked well as the final Brosnan film, if done right of course.

To me the decision to replace Brosnan and start over with CR shows a lack of creativity more than anything else. But also a lack of planning (which it has to be said, is also a bit of an issue with some older movies like YOLT, OHMSS and DAF and their confusing continuity, even if those were different times). They could have planned a final Brosnan movie, while at the same time also planning CR as the start of a new era. They had the basic structure of the latter ready after all.

There’s also the issue of creative control. I’m sure every Bond actor (including Brosnan) would’ve liked to have far more creative control, but only Craig really got that. I still don’t understand why. In my opinion, no Bond actor should have much creative control. Because that is usually where the actor becomes bigger than the character, which is one of the elements I strongly dislike especially about NTTD. It feels more about Craig rather than Bond. And this goes against the whole philosophy of Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman. It’s just mind boggling to me how Craig was allowed so much creative control, while Brosnan wasn’t even allowed to end his tenure when he wanted to.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes
2

I don’t remember the details really, but I seem to recall Eon had only recently acquired the rights to CR when they opted to film it. Which is to say, I think once they had it available, it took precedence over any other half-formed plans they might’ve been kicking around. I can certainly understand the appeal of basing a film on genuine Fleming source material as opposed to coming up with a totally original plot, and I imagine the allure of using an adaptation of the original Bond novel to turn back the clock and “start fresh” was pretty powerful.

Plus, DAD was pretty much the MR of the 21st century in that it was hugely successful financially while also being perceived as the absolute farthest one could take things before necessitating a dramatic swing back in the opposite direction. Having already turned the dial to 11, the decision was made to tone things down as opposed to going even crazier, and I’m sure from a marketing perspective it’s easier to sell “this one’s totally different” when you’re not trotting out the same guy who’s appeared in your last four films, already.

Reading between the lines – and I may be off base on this so I’ll let others chime in – I get the impression relations were strained between Brosnan and the second generation Broccolis, and I suspect his asking for a pay hike was the last straw. As I understand it, Brosnan got the same deal as Moore in that he was signed for three pictures, with any subsequent entries negotiated individually and by mutual consent. Which is to say, Brosnan wasn’t owed a fifth film any more than Eon would’ve been owed a commitment from him to return. If either he or the producers ever felt they were better off without the other, they were free to cut ties. Technically even DAD wasn’t a “sure thing” by that standard, as the collaboration could have ended at any point without anyone being in breach of anything.

For my own part, I think the series was nearing creative bankruptcy by the time of DAD and if we’d had more of the same with the next film, I’d likely have stayed home. Could Brosnan have handled a radical shift in tone and approach? Quite likely; he’s a talented guy. But pragmatically if the object is to reposition the franchise with a fresh approach, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to “start over” with a guy who is no longer bound to a multi-picture deal, who on Day 1 already has enough clout to throw his weight around and with whom you’d have to keep negotiating ever-bigger salaries with ad infinitum. And let’s face it, he wasn’t getting any younger.

I know part of your question is “why couldn’t we get a film that wasn’t CR” as much as it is why couldn’t Brosnan stay on, but that requires me to imagine a film that wasn’t CR but was worth seeing, and I’m not sure they had it in them. I sympathize with Brosnan fans who think he got the short end of the stick, but if we’re going to go down that road, we might as well wish for better things for him from Day One. He never really got a great film, IMO. I can be sorry he wasn’t given better material, but I can’t bring myself to be sorry it ended and everyone moved on. Frankly I don’t see any reason to believe the fifth time would have been the charm for Brosnan-Bond, and by that point I was all out of “maybe the next one will be better” hope. Eon needed the self-administered kick in the pants CR gave it. Although to be fair, it should’ve kept on kicking after CR, as well.

3 Likes
3

Interesting observations there. And I always felt there was far more going on in the relationship between Brosnan and EON than what has been made public. Indeed EON didn’t own it to Brosnan to have him return. But it just seems so strange to me that they did the complete opposite with Craig, even waiting a few years until he felt ready to return for the biggest paycheck for a Bond actor ever, with part of the deal being Bond to be killed off. It just gets me thinking, were Brosnan’s demands really more outrageous than that?

I can defenitely understand how tempting it was for EON to start fresh after DAD went too crazy. And CR defenitely delivered and it was exactly what the series needed at the time. I also used to be glad that it happened that way, although these days I have come to have more of a soft spot for DAD. I can have great fun watching it.

But the thing is. It just seems there wasn’t a clear vision of where to take the series beyond adapting CR. The direction they took from SF and onwards they also could have taken with Brosnan. Brosnan’s Bond would have fit the idea of an over-the-hill agent more than Craig who we saw was just beginning. And I think it would have been great with the right writing. And after DAD they could have done what FYEO did after MR. The series has always had big changes in direction and tone even within individual tenures (especially with Connery and Moore). And Brosnan’s tenure, regardless if you love it or not (I happen to be a great fan), was a huge success overall. So it would have made sense, in context of the series’ history, to continue with him rather than make another huge gamble with a new actor. It just seems that there was more going on there than just ‘’wanting to go in a new direction’’.

4 Likes
4

A final Brosnan Bond based on CR would have been interesting. But as pointed out already the relations were strained, Brosnan gambled too much on his fee, and the idea to start fresh was too tempting.

However, CR had Bond already be not that young, and the following films gave up any interest in a slowly developing timeline.

I agree: Brosnan‘s tenure was wasted, only milked for box office potential, than discarded before it was really used for what it could have been worth.

2 Likes
5

The idea of CR as the final Brosnan film is certainly intriguing. Though I’m not sure if that would have been the right decision. I do feel that CR works best as the start of a new era rather than the end. I was also thinking that we already had women betraying Bond both in TWINE and DAD with Elektra King and Miranda Frost. Having the whole Vesper Lynd love story come after that might have felt a bit repetitive and would have diminished the impact of that story. Vesper would have felt like yet another woman betraying Bond rather than having this far more significant part in Bond’s history like she has now.

When I think of a final Brosnan film I was actually thinking more along the lines of something like SF. Bond not being as sharp and indistructable as he used to be, quiting then returning, people doubting if he is still capable of doing the job, before coming back and saving the day while also exploring that bit about his childhood. Along with the bigger role for Judi Dench’ M. It would have been really interesting to see a relationship similair to Bond and M in Skyfall with Brosnan, especially after the rather cold start to their relationship in GE. I think it could have been great. And it would have been a nice change of direction for the series after DAD. I also feel that this kind of story would have felt more right at this point in the series than it did after QOS in the Craig era. We never really saw Craig’s Bond as the prime 007 before SF and the whole point of CR and QOS was a fresh new start. Thus SF having him as this ‘‘legacy character’’ with the Aston Martin DB5 and all just feels unearned and weird to me.

3 Likes
6

As a Pierce Brosnan fan, a fifth Brosnan 007 film would have been great! :sunglasses:

But as has been said, after the over the top, anniversary call-back film Die Another Day, there was nowhere to go in the series except to scale back the next adventure. For Your Eyes Only proved it could be done really well after Moonraker, but I believe, as has also been said above, that the producers did not know where to go with James Bond at that time. Not helping matters is that there does seem to have been some tension between Brosnan and the Broccolis for whatever reason, and when he made his (high) salary demand/request they took the opportunity to jump ship and not renew his contract.

Also, during Brosnan’s tenure, EON and MGM acquired the rights to Casino Royale (in 1999 while production was going on with The World Is Not Enough). In exchange MGM gave up any rights/claims to Sony/Columbia for Spider-Man. I agree that Casino Royale, while not really a Bond begins story, nevertheless, works best as a cinematic Bond actor’s first mission. As a result, Brosnan at 51 years old in 2004, was too old for that type of film, so it would have had to have been a different story completely. But with the EON team (in Brosnan’s words) “in paralysis” for which direction to go, it further made him the odd man out so to speak.

Now the question is, could EON have done a good or even great film for Brosnan’s fifth? The answer is obviously, yes they COULD, but after his last couple and even several of the future Daniel Craig films, a better question is WOULD they have been able to, and that answer is a lot more murky. Brosnan is often labeled as the “Hybrid” Bond. I agree that he is, but I, by no means, see that as a bad thing. He can do the humor like Roger Moore and yet still be believable in the fight scenes like Sean Connery. Probably more than any of the other Bond actors, he has the widest Bond-style range–not necessarily as good at the humor as Moore (though Brosnan was given some very bad dialogue/one-liners) or as tough and machismo as Connery, but a wide range nonetheless. There is a lot to work with with him, and I don’t think the producers/writers ever really trusted him or gave him more to do than their limited perceptions of him or perhaps what they thought audiences wanted of him.

Additionally, I personally feel that once EON got control of Casino Royale, they couldn’t wait to film it. Obviously, they were in the process of filming TWINE when they got it. Then they still wanted the popular Brosnan to return for a fourth film and 2002 was also the big 40th anniversary film so CR wouldn’t work there, which meant that the next film circa 2004-06 was prime CR territory.

I also think that once EON started thinking of the possibility of continuing without Brosnan, Barbara Broccoli started looking at 007 contenders and liked Craig so much that she felt if they didn’t act then, drop Brosnan, and sign Craig, that they would never get him as he seemed to be on the verge of stardom at the time with Layer Cake and all. So that is, in fact, what they did–they did not renew Brosnan’s contract and eventually hired Craig for Casino Royale.

And so that long delay between 2002-2006, not only made us miss out on a deserved fifth Brosnan Bond film, it also made us miss out on the once in a millennial opportunity to have a 007 film in 2007. :frowning_face: :angry:

C’est la vie, damn it.

2 Likes
7

I would’ve accepted a fifth Brosnan film no problems, especially at the time. I didn’t seriously consider him being replaced until he actually was. I suspect that could’ve been the same mindset for Brosnan himself. There was a lot of chatter about Bourne taking over, but I didn’t see that as a real threat. Rival spy franchises challenged all the time, but Bond had the longevity to see anything off.

CR could’ve been reworked for an older actor, but really, we all know it’s an early days story and should be adapted as such. I think what we got from the Brosnan era was his era and another film probably should have continued similarly if they wanted him to stay. They didn’t, so the tone was changed.

I suspect the talk of wanting to go darker is defensiveness after the fact. Really, Brosnan shouldn’t have to take that position. He did the job asked of him, and it was the business model until it wasn’t. DAD just pushed things a little harder to the point it raised eyebrows, box office be damned.

5 Likes
8

I think the talk of hybrid Bond or „Brosnan only combined Connery and Moore yet did not bring anything new“ is not accurate.

Like every Bond actor so far Brosnan did his own thing, and I don’t see any Connery in his portrayal nor any Moore. Labeling him as a mixture of these styles is just as meaningless and lazy as the idea of „going back to Fleming“.

Look at the sardonic toughness of Connery or the way Moore actually played a comedic scene - Brosnan does both very differently.

It rather seems that this label was applied in order to show audiences that they got the feeling of the popular Bonds back after Dalton.

The same one can detect in the labeling of Craig as „more of a Connery vibe“. Really? In which scene? Craig does Bond as only Craig could do it. Just being tough is not what Connery was about at all, nor did Connery ever show the hurt behind the anger.

Returning to the thread‘s question: Eon did not have to replace Brosnan, they chose to because they were afraid they would lose against Bourne in the post 9/11 world. And Brosnan just cannot do absolutely tough and gritty, the way Cary Grant could not have done it. Looks are a major element in an actor‘s arsenal, and Brosnan just was and is too handsome, has too much of a dressman‘s appeal.

4 Likes
9

2 things dashed any thoughts of me wanting a 5th Brosnan film - DAD and 9/11.

DAD had taken things too far into the realm of absurd. And it’s not just the tsunami surfing and space lasers but also the constant flippant dialog.

Could he have come back from that? Sure, but adding 9/11 on top that… I just didn’t want my spy fiction to be in that Brosnan tone anymore, and turning it down a couple of notches just wouldn’t have been enough.

It was just time.

2 Likes
10

I actually don’t buy the DAD went too far argument.

First: it was not Brosnan‘s idea to amp up the fantasy element and he certainly wouldn’t have wanted to go further in that direction.

Second: no over the top Bond film has stopped previous actors to continue.

And even in 2002, still under the impact of 9/11, DAD did the best business of the Brosnan era.

It seems that Eon just had no interest in going further with Brosnan. But it would have been possible and very likely lucrative if they had made one more down to earth Brosnan film and then restarted a new era with CR. There was no reason they had to immediately do CR with a new actor.

3 Likes
11

…keeping in mind my post is only about how I felt about it, not how I thought general audiences or Eon felt about it.

2 Likes
12

I did not mean to attack you, just posting my opinion! :slightly_smiling_face:

13

Oh, I didn’t think you were! :+1:

2 Likes
14

There have been many criticisms of Eon on these boards for a variety of reasons, the majority of which I disagree with, as they have kept the films that I love going for 60+ years and I have enjoyed each offering, though of course, some more than others.

However, one criticism that I think is both relevant here and valid is that, once they have a new toy, they cannot resist diving in and playing with it straight away, rather than planning how to use it in the most effective way.

‘We’ve got the rights to Casino Royale: let’s reboot now!’

‘We’ve got the rights to Spectre: let’s discard the sinister organisation that we spent two films building up and go straight in with Blofeld!’

I’m not too fussed about the ‘lost’ fifth Brosnan, but I do think about what could have been if they had stuck with Quantum as the big bad of the Craig era.

6 Likes
15

I enjoy DAD but it did push the franchise harder into a direction of large scale CGI (the Icarus beam destruction particularly) that went against the general spirit of the franchise, which is doing things for real. I wouldn’t have wanted that being the template going forward.

4 Likes
16

This is where they made their biggest mistake of the Craig era. They had an opportunity to really cement Quantum as a great villainous organization for the Bond franchise and squandered it because of the perception that Quantum of Solace was a bad film. In an alternate Craig era, I think there’s great potential for Quantum to even surpass SPECTRE.

As for a 5th Brosnan film, looking back, I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t have happened. Brosnan’s a really good actor who, to that point, had been handed some absolutely dreadful scripts and had still turned people out to the box office and had a significant hand in resurrecting the franchise. Part of me now actually would have been curious to see how a FYEO-style film for him might have looked, as that would obviously have been the direction that they would have taken a post-DAD Brosnan film, given the franchise’s history of swinging the stylistic pendulum to the complete opposite extreme after venturing a bit too far out into the more outlandish aspects of storytelling.

I think we see the hints of that in TWINE, which for all of its excesses, is a fairly small-scale storyline that has some hints of themes of CR and OHMSS that could have really worked as an all-time great Bond film had they given it the same serious treatment that a film like, say, SF (which is very similar to TWINE in a lot of ways) got just over a decade later.

6 Likes
17

Me neither, but the shift from the VFX bonanza of MOONRAKER to the real stunts-laden FOR YOUR EYES ONLY would have been a clear template for Brosnan‘s fifth, too.

An old Brosnan Bond by the way, working now as a fixer in the southern US is what his turn in „Fast Charlie“ offers.

Can’t recommend that movie too much.

4 Likes
18

Some very interesting perspectives here!

I guess the thing that frustrates me the most of all is EON’s lack of planning ahead. They have the rights to CR, so let’s reset the franchise and see where it goes. They have the rights to SPECTRE, so let’s bring back SPECTRE and Blofeld and see where it goes. They could have build on an interesting timeline from CR, there were so much possibilities after that film. Maybe give Bond a similar character development to the books, while having different tones and styles from movie to movie so that some could be more lighthearted fun adventures and some a bit darker and serious, and slowly build on a great overarching story with a satisfying climax. Instead they basically jumped from Fleming’s CR to Fleming’s YOLT, because they wanted Bond to be in a constant state of personal emotional struggle and his relevancy being questioned, that was the new template during the Craig era. In SF Bond suddenly became this old dog, a legacy character. Then they brought back SPECTRE and Blofeld without a clear vision on where to take those concepts, turning the whole thing into quite a mess. The whole concept of the reboot and SPECTRE were wasted in my opinion.

If you make the decision to replace the actor who resurrected the franchise at perhaps the most difficult point in the franchise, was casted by the great Cubby Broccoli, was pretty much a guarantee for box office succes, the first actor since Connery who was instantly beloved among the general public (as opposed to Lazenby, Moore and Dalton, who it took more time for their portrayals to receive the praise they deserved and Moore did eventually get this during his tenure of course) and even brought in a lot of new fans through being the face of the video games (like with myself), you better have a clear plan on where to take the series beyond simply adapting CR. Adapting CR wasn’t going to magically solve EON’s creative problems, and it didn’t in my opinion. If anything the Craig era only slowed the franchise down with bigger gaps between films.

And that’s my point. They could have made Brosnan’s fifth film the way they made FYEO with Moore, while also having a rough vision on where to take the series after that with CR and onwards. And I fully agree with some here that Brosnan could have very well played a more down-to-earth grittier version of Bond. He had that range to play many different sides of the character. And it would have been a fascinating contrast to DAD.

And regarding the behind-the-scenes problems between Brosnan and EON, I guess we can never know for sure. But it does seem that they enjoyed working with Craig more than they did with Brosnan. Although to me it always seemed that after SP, Craig didn’t exactly seem keen to continue, and even made some harsh public comments about the franchise and the character. But they wanted to continue with Craig and even met his, frankly absurd, creative demands to return. So it makes one wonder how Brosnan’s situation was different.

SP is also kind of similar to DAD in many ways. Both films went too far in what they were trying to do, with most fans wanting a complete change of direction after that. After DAD however they were free to continue into any direction they wanted with Brosnan. DAD didn’t write Brosnan’s Bond into a corner like SP did for Craig’s Bond, so the possibilities for perhaps the first ever proper Bond ‘‘swan song’’ were limitless.

2 Likes
19

Agreed. This, however, would have taken some foresight and planning on the part of EON, which are two things that are definitively not in their wheelhouse.

2 Likes
20

Indeed if the intent was to establish the Craig era as special and unique, it wouldve made sense to give him his own evil organization to battle instead of recycling Connery’s. As it is, he’s left to borrow whatever leftover gravitas he can from yesterday’s foes (SPECTRE and Blofeld), another guy’s car and ultimately, still another guy’s song. Yawn.

Keeping “Quantum” on the board beyond QoS would also have helped eventually make the title of that film less of a head-scratching clunker, and make the film itself retroactively essential viewing regardless of whether people enjoy it or not. As it is, the fact that it is totally reliant on CR to work at all, coupled with the fact that it adds nothing that will matter going forward, makes it all too easy to simply skip over and ignore.

Anyway thats my plan.

4 Likes