It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
:)>-
I agree as well. I was 100% stoked when I left the theatre after GE.
It is from the next film onwards that my personal enthusiasm began to wane however, and I think it did for many others too.
There's no way Daniel Day Lewis would have considered it.
Mark Rylance? Too committed to the stage.
Stephen Dillane? Interesting possibility, but he was losing his hair by 95/96.
Sean Bean? Hmmmm. I wonder if he was bothered playing the villain instead.
Rufus Sewell? Not seasoned enough back then.
Ralph Fiennes? See Daniel Day Lewis. But at least a commitment to Bond might have kept him away from The English Patient.
Hugh Grant? No.
Rupert Everett? No.
Kenneth Branagh? Too into his own thing.
Christian Bale? Was still just a baby, having done Little Women in 94. Had he been a touch older, he'd have been perfect at that time!
Martin or Gary Kemp? Spandau Ballet to Bond? Say it ain't so. But Martin wouldn't have been too bad.
Ewan McGregor? Too rough around the edges.
Christopher Eccleston? Had just starred with McGregor in Shallow Grave. He would have been an interesting choice.
Nathaniel Parker? I think he would have been perfect for the part, but was there enough name recognition? And was his role in Wide Sargasso Sea a liability?
Colin Firth? He might have been the best, most viable option. I think I read that he "waited" to be asked and would have done it. But the call never came. So maybe this is my answer.
Don't get me wrong. I did enjoy it, as high octane fun entertainment.
However, I remember leaving the theatre feeling less than enthused and somewhat concerned. It was entertaining beyond words but still very underwhelming in a way, if that's possible.
GoldenEye is so entertaining that it's hard to believe it couldn't have been successful with any competent actor in the lead role. However, let's not forget that Pierce was the people's choice for Bond at the time (from my personal experience anyway) and his casting helped to restore some faith in the series again after the long hiatus. He truly was the chosen one who was going to be the best thing since Connery. I can remember this excited many people that I knew who didn't like Dalton and/or Moore. Also, GE represented a huge stylistic change for the series and Brosnan's good looks and sense of style seemed to fit perfectly with the direction they were going for.
Say what you will about TND, TWINE and DAD but those films made EON a lot of money. Would the public have kept shelling out money to see films of that quality level with another actor in the role who wasn't the chosen one? Hmm.. Perhaps. Or maybe not. Of course without Brosnan they might have turned out a lot differently. There's no questioning Pierce's popularity though. He certainly did his part to help revive the franchise (financially speaking) and make Bond relevant again.
However, I think on a net basis, they made the best financial & critical return on investment with GE.
His 'chosen' status did likely help to allow the movies post-GE to succeed as you suggest. Another actor may not have been able to pull that off.
Say all you want but my describing word for his performance is "stale" and I'm sure someone else could have done just as well a job at being "stale".
As harsh as that sounds, I don't "hate" Brosnan as Bond, since he did kind of revive him for younger audiences (including myself), but that doesnt automatically mean that his performance was unique....
Not "unique"? So what? This is basically an adult comic book series. I don't need unique (or daring or Oscar-winning or multi-layered...) so much as I need "entertaining". Pierce was entertaining to most except those that dislike him for personal or genetic reasons.
GE was a low point in the entire series for me. Appalling movie, dreadful performance from Brosnan. I literally could not believe what I was seeing, I felt it was that poor. Having accepted that Dalton was gone and realising Brosnan was not actually a practical joke, I actually thought TND was a lot better. I prefer the look of he film . Better soundtrack, decentish villain. I thought things were looking up. Then came TWINe and DAD.
Lots if people could have done a much better job. The idea that Brosnan was the only possible choice that made commercial sense is utterly absurd . I don't like Clive Owen , but Jason Isaacs might have been okay .
I think the only chance Bond ever had of dying was when Connery left, but the franchise survived that.
I agree with this. I think every Bond was perfect for the time they were cast. I don't think Bond has ever been miscast, they've all done a great job.
I wonder if, in hindsight, this was all part of Michael/Barbara's long term plan. MGW famously wanted to do a 'younger Bond'/origin story for TLD but Cubby didn't want to rock the boat and said no. But now that MGW was in charge, he could get to do this. BUT first of all they had to re-establish Bond for a new era. So, first they had to make a series of safe, generic, by-the-numbers Bond films which had one foot in the Cubby era to make the series viable again. Then, once Bond was Back, they could do what they really wanted, which was to start over with an early days storyline with a harder edge.
Well said. People seem to forget that even the lowest grossing Bond film LTK still churned out a big profit for all involved. No Bond film has ever lost money or bombed at the the box office. There have been peaks and valleys but that is so with any film series.
*Brosnan Hate Brigade
With regards to Clive Owen, may be he would have stepped up to the mark, but I personally find him very dull. His voice in particular oozes boredom.