With all the speculation about "Casino Royale" and the next James Bond not over but coming towards a close sometime soon, along came this report over the weekend from an apparent MGM insider named 'Artists United' which offers a potential other possibility which many may have dismissed. Like all Bond talk, take this with a grain of salt:
"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. One co-worker pointed to an analysis by Steven Jay Rubin (author of "The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia" and "The James Bond Films") in the Dec. 1995 issue of Cinefantastique Magazine, which supports the mentality of the filmmakers. In this article, Rubin states the dilemma that haunts an actor who doesn't have the "big screen" persona required for the Bond role: Dalton, he states, "lent no star-power to the character. This became increasingly difficult for the studio marketing department, because they realized that people weren't flocking to see a Timothy Dalton movie; they were going to see a Bond movie with what's-his-name" (19).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!"
A few hours after this arrived, FerryAve reported that Gavin Carlys has been announced as the man to play James Bond in the upcoming thriller "Casino Royale". The actor himself seemed to be convinced he landed the part too - "I'm a big fan of Clive's work, especially his portrayal of Dwight McCarthy in Sin City. [I've loved] the comic series forever. He's a truly talented man. But, I suppose, I just got lucky".
Thanks again to 'Trevor' & 'Artists United'.
