Pierce Brosnan relaxed over the end of his Bond era, yet to see Casino Royale

18-Nov-2006 • Actor News

Ever since reviving James Bond's commercial fortunes with "GoldenEye," 007 Actor #5 Pierce Brosnan told anyone who would listen that he'd love to play a grittier, more realistic secret agent - reports DailyNews.

Now that film, "Casino Royale," has been made. But with 38-year-old Daniel Craig, not 53-year-old Brosnan, wielding the licence to kill.

Traumatic as the long, drawn-out recasting of James Bond was (Brosnan expected to play the part a fifth time for several years before the ax came down), it was necessary for this particular movie "Casino Royale."

"Royale" is more-or-less an origin story that tries to recalibrate many familiar aspects of the series and do away with others. A younger actor was needed to play the unformed Bond, as well as one whose take on the role isn't firmly established in fans' minds.

Nevertheless, those who've worked on the Pierce Brosnan Bond films find the whole situation unfortunate.

"Pierce was very successful in the way he portrayed it, no doubt about it," says series co-producer Michael G. Wilson. "But you couldn't make 'Casino Royale' with Pierce, based upon him making four before. It was difficult for us to come to that conclusion on a personal level with him. It was strictly a decision about the direction that we had to take the series to keep it alive in the future."

"He always wanted a little more character, perhaps a grittier, tougher Bond," says Martin Campbell, director of both "GoldenEye" and "Royale." "And of course, the irony is that it went to Daniel Craig, who immediately made it his own. But I did talk to Pierce about two weeks ago, and I must say he was incredibly relaxed. Whatever problems, if he had them, about not getting it seemed to be long past. He was very gracious toward Daniel.

"He hadn't seen the new film, by the way," Campbell adds.

Thanks to `Brokenclaw` for the alert.