MovieChat Forums > Remington Steele Discussion > Disappointed with Brosnan's attitude tow...

Disappointed with Brosnan's attitude towards the series


Even though this is the series that launched Pierce Brosnan's career, he has not had many kind things to say about it over the years. True, it was because of the series that he was not able to accept the role of James Bond in 1986 but he once stated that he wanted to leave the show after the second year because he was afraid that no one would take him seriously as an actor once the series ended. Even if this is how he felt, he should at least acknowledge the fact that this was the show where he got his start and the fact that he was ever even considered for the role of Bond - as well as other parts - was because of RS instead of biting the hand that first fed him.

reply

In a way it did stereotype him that no one was able to take him seriously as an actor until many years passed, I'm pretty sure even if he did get the Bond gig that he would have played it very differently than people would have expected and alienate fans (probably not as much as Dalton). THE FOURTH PROTOCOL, his first project after STEELE, seemed like his way of saying he's not just some dandy looking funny man. Took him nearly a decade to revitalize his career after STEELE thanks to getting Bond once and for all. In retrospect I can see that the show really wasn't his bag and that he only took it because it was a job. Now he gets to work on stuff he enjoys.

reply

That is a shame.

I loved Brosnan when he was on Remington - but he simply was not right for James Bond at the time - regardless of what he thinks.

The show gave him his start, and he should appreciate that. And he got to be Bond, when he had grown into the role as an actor (maybe a bit to old for the role, but a far better actor than he was on Remington).

It all played out like it should have, and he should be thankful for that.

reply

He was crazy too young for Bond back then.

Lots of actors hated the shows that made them famous. They're great when they make you a household name but then they hamper your career. Tom Selleck lost out on being Indiana Jones. Caruso proved that it don't pay to buck the system.

"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"

reply

magnum P.I is a hell of a lot better than the Indiana Jones crap

reply

Yes, he should be grateful. Several times I've heard him or his wife or Michael Gleason relate the story of how she put a mortgage on their house in Great Britain, just so he could "rent a wreck" and go around Hollywood doing screen tests. I think the wreck was an AMC Pacer, by the way.

Few of these guys are ever grateful. I think they're paranoid about being typecast.

In the end though, NBC did really do him dirty (though it gave us six more hours to enjoy), by not ending the show when they first decided to. He would have been the new James Bond, and instead of making about $5000 per show he would have made upwards of 6 million dollars per movie. They caused him to miss a couple of JB movies, so that's about twelve million or more, he would have lost.

reply

I totally agree that NBC tried to cash in on his publicity of being James Bond which is the only reason why they decided to renew the series for a fifth season. But fortunately for Pierce and for us, it only delayed his becoming James Bond since he was ultimately chosen to play the role seven years later. But Pierce needs to realize that if it weren't for Remington Steele, he may never have been considered for the role and his career would have taken a different turn. As for the money he lost from not playing Bond earlier, we can only hope that he got at least part of that money back from the residuals he received from Remington Steele reruns.

reply

I don't recall ever reading where he's badmouthed the show. I do recall several instances where he badmouthed NBC for how they handled the situation at the time- they had canceled the show and then when Pierce began getting all that press and publicity about being the new James Bond, NBC revoked the cancellation and made him do 5 more hours of Remington Steele, effectively keeping him from playing Bond. Not a whole season, mind you, but FIVE HOURS!

So yeah, I think he had a right to badmouth NBC. Never once have I heard him say he didn't like playing Remington Steele, however. There's a difference between his attitude toward the network and towards the series itself.

reply

If you read the People magazine article published in early August 1986, Brosnan had stated that for him the series had become "just a job"and how he had "had enough" of the series after the first two seasons. For him, the only satisfaction he got from doing it was the money. Also, he had stated that people don't really take television actors very seriously which was another reason why he was ready to move on in his career. He also stated that he had major disagreements with the producers over the direction the series was taking. He wanted it to be more "hard edged" like a proper detective series but the producers just wanted the series to remain as it is. He also disagreed with his television relationship with co-star Stephanie Zimbalist. He did not feel that they were progressing in their relationship which he also blamed the producers for. In that entire article, he really had nothing positive to say about the series and was very critical of how it was produced and if he said these things in People, more than likely he repeated these diatribes in other publications. To be sure, over the years, he has now softened his position towards the series but if you ever read this article, you definitely get the impression that he did not like it and desperately wanted to leave.

reply

I always thought he was much better as Remington Steele. However, no Bond ever ran better than Pierce. He was great at running.

reply

I don't know how long it took Brosnan to revitalize his career after Remington Steele, but I know he's never fully revitalized his reputation with me.

I watched Remington Steele from the beginning. And when he was brought back for the last season, I did not appreciate the disrespect he showed to the fans -- the fans who launched his career and gave him a job for the previous four years -- by allowing his bitterness in being forced back onto the series show in his performance.

It was unprofessional and disrespectful. Without Remington Steele he wouldn't have been offered the role of Bond in the first place.

reply

You're spot on Maggie. I was not a big fan of RS and saw a few episodes during the 1986 summer reruns when I had heard that he was going to be the next James Bond just to check out the next Bond. Even though I also believe that his attitude towards the series was indeed unprofessional and disrespectful not just towards the fans but also towards NBC and MTM Productions, I have tried to see things from both sides of the coin. NBC should never have revived the series just to try to cash in on Brosnan's new popularity as the next James Bond. As Bond producer Albert Broccoli has stated, "Remington Steele is not going to be James Bond". The network tried to ride on Bond's coattails. If a series can't make it on its own, it should be cancelled. And he was not the only one affected by this ill-advised revival. Stephanie Zimbalist had to decline the offer to play in Robo-Cop, which could have done wonders for her career also. But on the other hand, Brosnan was under contract with NBC until 1989 and the network owned options on that contract no matter what happened to Remington Steele. Brosnan knew what he was getting into when he signed that contract so for him to complain about how "unfair" this was held no other substance other than that of cock and bull. So IMO, a greedy television network does not justify his attitude towards this series or NBC.

reply