The Two Problems That Cost Mel Gibson His Shot At Playing James Bond
Listen, I know when you see a headline like "The Two Problems That Cost Mel Gibson His Shot At Playing James Bond," the first thought to cross your mind is going to be, "I bet I know at least one of the problems." However, the time period in which Gibson was in the running to play 007 was well before the many problematic controversies the actor has weathered, so it's not that, smarty-pants.
His name was being floated between the Timothy Dalton years and Pierce Brosnan's run, and it made a kind of sense. He was a huge action star, radiated charisma in everything he was doing, and was coming off of his award-winning directorial outing "Braveheart." Let's also not forget that despite his on-point American accent, Gibson is Australian, which puts him squarely in the eligible category for Bond. George Lazenby previously played everybody's favorite secret agent, albeit for only one movie, but Australians have been established as Bond material!
Turns out, all those bonafides actually worked against Gibson (minus the Australian part), as was revealed by MGM Producer Jeff Kleeman in "Nobody Does It Better: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of James Bond" by Edward Gross and Mark A. Altman.
Problem one: Gibson was a big star, which meant a big paycheck. Keep in mind that when hiring a new James Bond, the producers have to think four or five movies down the line — and the way most deals are structured, the leading man's salary goes up with every new movie. So, if they started by paying Gibson his AAA movie star salary, they would quickly not be able to afford him as his run as the character progressed.
Money and time
Pierce Brosnan ended up getting cast, and of course he did. The man was genetically designed in a lab to play James Bond. He had the looks, the talent, and, maybe most importantly, was known, but not an A-lister just yet.
The second problem Gibson had was the fact that he was so in demand, between his directing and acting talents, that the studio and longtime Bond producers the Broccolis knew he would be hard to schedule for further films. According to Kleeman, this was a major factor in considering their next Bond:
"We might have to wait three or four years before we could get a slot to make the next movie. You say, 'Do I want to hire the biggest name who's going to cost me the most and not necessarily allow me to have a consistent release for the franchise and success, or do I want to hire somebody who I know can be affordable two, three, four movies down the line, and who will also be available for two, three, four movies in a row?' It's complicated. There's a lot of reasons behind the way the Broccolis hired the way they hired."
As fascinating of a "What If" as this bit of trivia is, I think we an all agree that it was for the best that Gibson didn't get this role and we were instead treated to Brosnan as 007 for multiple movies. A lot of them are bad, granted, but he was perfect for the part and always gave 110%, even in the bad ones. Maybe especially in the bad ones.
So, if you're expecting a big name to be announced as the next 007, take a look at their past reasoning, which I can guarantee is still at the front of their minds today.