Is Pierce Brosnan in the frame for a return to James Bond 007? New rumours point to Sony control

04-Apr-2005 • Casino Royale

An apparent MGM insider named 'Artists United' contacted Dark Horizons at the weekend to offer an alternative future to the Clive Owen rumours. Could Pierce Brosnan be brought back?

"So - the next Bond. The buzz is that, ultimately, the filmmakers would like Pierce Brosnan back. All the stuff we heard about Brosnan being out is just a ploy from both camps. The negotiations between Brosnan and Eon came to an end because, in the last year, things were up in the air, thanks to all the organizational changes taking place. Many things have been affected by the Sony takeover, and I must say that there are days when it feels like doom and gloom as I walk along the hallowed halls of MGM - there are all sorts of reorganizations in the works and, well, the bleakness of uncertainty surrounding our jobs. Moreover, with the delay of the Bond film and many organizational matters still being worked out, there wasn't really any reason for Eon to continue with the negotiations. And with Eon still immersed in some business matters with Sony, as well as lacking a director (at that time) and a solid script, and an initial salary request from Brosnan that they balked at, it was suddenly premature to proceed with the negotiations. Brosnan's apparent bitterness in some of the interviews (according to our sources at the publicity side) is essentially the reaction of an actor who was chumped from the first stirrings of a good deal in the making: last year, things began to look hopeful, not just in terms of salary, but in the area of story development and an agreement to move away from an excessive action-oriented/special effects kind of Bond film.

"So where does this leave us? Well, what we're sensing is that the Brosnan/Eon camps are still going through the motions of bluffing each other: an echo of the old poker game that Cubby Broccoli went through with Roger Moore. Moore frequently announced that he wouldn't be back. (Geez, if he had a web site back then, he'd be plastering it with farewell messages.) It's a typical tactic of PR handlers--make your star seem aloof and distant to make the filmmakers worry and chase him--and it worked for Moore. In fact, during the days of "For Your Eyes Only," Moore wasn't even signed until about a month before shooting began. It took Cubby Broccoli's personal intervention along with top studio brass to secure a deal with Moore. Whether it will work for Brosnan remains to be seen, but the mood around here (at least for now) is that he'll be back. Hence, the reluctance of the filmmakers to come right out and announce that they have parted ways with Brosnan. If anything, they've kept the door open by not making any casting announcements in the recent press release.

"So much money is at stake and the word is, SONY are not in a gambling mood. They could lose more with an unknown actor, or with an experienced but unpopular actor. They're well aware that you just can't place any actor in this role; and with Brosnan's star power and successful track record ($1 billion from four films), he's currently the strong money-maker for the Bond films. The phrase we've started to hear recently is "The Dalton Problem." Although a fine actor, Timothy Dalton just didn't appeal to the public. They are keen to avoid the same happening with Owen and the other 'candidates' who are supposedly on a short list for the role."

"So, providing Brosnan and Sony/Eon can iron out various political and financial issues - our money's on Brosnan coming back for Casino Royale and possibly even Bond 22!"

Thanks to `Zao` and `JP` for the alerts.