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
Well, that is his right of course, but since he did not read a single one, I think it displays poor judgment. Symptomatic of his overall tenure.
I find it hard to believe that he never read any of the Bond novels personally. He did buy Ian Fleming's golden typewriter that he used to write the Bond novels and I remember him saying that he read the first chapter of Casino Royale and he liked the end passage on Bond's face in sleep. I assume he did in fact read some of the novels or at the very least passages from them.
Brosnan seemed, just from what I've read in his interviews over the years, to be much more familiar with cinematic as opposed to literary Bond. And unless you have a specific personal game plan for your characterization of Bond, for which again I can only judge by what was said and the results on screen, it's clear that Fleming's ideals weren't well realized on screen in this era. A far cry from what I see in both the Dalton and the current Craig era.
Yes, I think you are referring to the scene in the novel From Russia, with Love (1957) where Fleming has Bond express his distaste for Kerim Bey's cold-blooded killing of Krilencu coming from Marilyn Monroe's mouth. This was re-created in the film version faithfully. I had not noticed the similarity with the TWINE Bond-Renard scene before, so thanks for pointing that out, @SirHenryLeeChaChing!
I was crushed as well. When I first started watching Bond. TWINE was the first one and after I saw TWINE I went back and watched all the Brosnan films. It took me 2 years after I watched the Brosnan films to go and watch all the other ones because I didnt want to watch any other Bond films but the Brosnan ones. After I watched all the other ones I became a Bond superfan. And kept wondering when is the next Bond film, when is it gonna come out. Still assuming Brosnan would come back and when my dad told me he heard on the radio that Pierce was done I refused to believe him because I always thought Pierce would do one more. But when it was true I was crushed.
To reply to your 2nd paragraph when Pierce was signed on to play Bond in TLD i think he wanted/expected to play the Bond that Dalton did because we had just finished Moores run as Bond where he played the light hearted humorous Bond, now Pierce is coming in to take the role more serious. Obviously when he couldn't play Bond in TLD and was finally signed on to play Bond in GE i think he expected to play the same Bond as Dalton did, but since the Dalton films failed at the box office the producers didn't want to chance Pierce to play the type of Bond Dalton did so they went with more family oriented Bond films for Pierce. I think Pierce really wanted to play the role like Daltons Bond and when he found out that he wouldn't be playing that type of Bond if GE I think he was upset but at the same time he probably was like I shouldn't be upset cuz Im playing the role of a lifetime lets see how it goes. And his films did very well so I dont think he was too upset with the Bond he played. When TWINE was made it was the only Bond film that I felt gave Pierces Bond a serious tone with the whole issue with Elektra and stuff. And I think Pierce was very happy with the way he played Bond in TWINE, and expected it to be the same way in DAD, but it wasn't and Pierce just went back to the way he played Bond in TND and I think that upset him and because of that I think he really wanted to do a 5th film and play Bond like he did in TWINE and when he got the call saying were not gonna do another film with you it really pissed/upset him because he he didn't like the last film he did and wanted a better way to go out. IMO the producers owed Pierce a 5th film and should have made a deal for Pierce to do a 5th film after production of DAD had finished for a release in 2004/2005 and NO WAY was Pierce to old to do a 5th film. He would have been 50-52 had he done a 5th film and 50-52 is not old to play Bond at all. And after that they could have made CR with Craig a year later then they did for a release in 2007.
Yes, he is youthful looking and has that thing that every actor desires - a thousand different "faces", if you get my meaning.
Absolutely. I wish I could just snap my fingers and have outcomes of possibilities: what would DAD have been with a complete overhaul? What would Brosnan's fifth Bond have been like? If they did the films like Brosnan wanted, how would GE - DAD have varied? Would it have been better or worse? I'm curious.
Whilst the producers could have treated Brosnan better towards the end of his tenure (a face to face meeting would have been nice) I don't think they owed him anything. He was a struggling C list actor by the time he was offered the role of Bond in '94. He made 4 successful (if not always great) films and was well paid for his time. It gave him a platform to star in other big feature films and set up his own production company (Irish Dreamtime) which allowed him to do projects he wanted to do (Evelyn being a good example).
So yes, I agree Brosnan was still good enough to do one more film, it wasn't his divine right to keep the role and I think EON made the right decision in re-casting at that point.
a) met with Brosnan face to face for that final decision, and really listened as well as talked honestly with him during his entire tenure; taken some of his suggestions, too
b) overhauled the series and keep Brosnan in the loop about changes, and
c) given Brosnan one more film that was more grounded in reality.
Then make the change to a new Bond actor - it would have been timely and I think Pierce would have been ready to bow out graciously. But the way it was done was anything but gracious.
Also, let's think about this: I believe EON did not want a Fleming based Bond when GE came to be made. They were purposefully leaning away from Dalton's take on Bond. (Mind you, I loved Dalton's Bond.)
I think Pierce could have done one more film, and it could have been a good one - but that is all in hindsight. And in fairness to my respect for his Bond, I sincerely wish he did have one more quite good Bond film in his canon before retiring from the role (GE, TND both being fine entries).
Bond changes over the years, and because of that the series survives. If things did not change, this franchise would have died out decades ago.
If DAD had not been so awful from a creative standpoint (it made oodles of money, so not talking about that), would we have ever gotten the truly excellent Casino Royale? I doubt it. Circumstances push producers into taking risks they otherwise would not be brave enough to take. Money talks. DAD made money. But it also stank and the stench finally got through to Michael, Barbara, et al.
So as a Brosnan fan, I wish he had one more good Bond film - and I think he did deserve it. That would have rounded his tenure far more satisfyingly than what happened (as well as the way the change was handled; not good at all).
But I would not change Casino Royale - the one we got - for anything. It is a gem and one of the best Bond films made so far. I can admire that film, and Daniel Craig's Bond, without taking anything away from my enjoyment of and respect for Pierce Brosnan's Bond.
Ok they didnt owe him another movie but they owed him a better send off IMO
But Connery and Moore had more films and still their last ones were better than DAD.
I actually thought Sean & Rogers send offs were good IMO. I wish Connery had done OHMSS as well but we cant have them all
While he's not my favorite Bond, Connery has that honor with Brosnan as a very close second, but when I hear the name James Bond my mind immediately goes to Pierce Brosnan. He's was Bond when I was growing up, not to mention he's in my favorite Bond movie GoldenEye. I even enjoy Die Another Day, it's the first Bond film I saw in the theater but I do admit it's Brosnan's worst Bond. I really wished he could've done one more and left on his own will rather than being fired from the roll.
Most of the bashing started after Casino Royale came out. After its release, Brosnan was not cool anymore. I mean, sure, he had his haters, just like every actor does, but he was met with overwhelmingly positive support during his tenure. Even people who despised his movies thought the scripts were at fault, not him. Everything about this man screams Bond, at least to the younger generation of fans. Brosnan was the perfect mixture of OTT, gadgets, guns, and realism. When I think of Bond, PB's face comes to mind along with the James Bond theme.
I thought TND was actually an improvement on GE - a bit more pacy and straightforward. Not great, but a step in the right direction. But then was practically bored to death by TWINE. And then along came DUD.
I am not a huge fan of DC, but he towers over the Broz in acting ability and screen presence.
I disagree.Brosnan had one of the most crucial elements that is needed for playing Bond....CHARM.Craig doesnt have that and hes also the shortest Bond ever.I always laugh when i look at the cover of the Bond 50 boxset and see how they added a few inches of height to Craig to make it look as if he is as tall as the other Bonds.
You make a good point about DC. And I agree to an extent.
But he's still miles better than Brosnan (if not miles taller).
Pierce deserved a fifth film to finish with, and he was fired in a very unprofessional and unkind way. GE and TND are great Bond films and hold up very well. Pierce's acting is quite good in both. He was a splendid Bond.
By the way, I think this thread's title is rather annoying, actually.
We get that you hate Craig, AstonLotus; you just won't find many at all on this forum agreeing with you. None of your points hold any merit for me.
As for Pierce, I am really looking forward to Pierce's new film coming out, November Man. :) And I still enjoy his Bond films a lot.
Dalton a 3rd? Sure. Lazenby a second? Perhaps. Roger an eighth...? Well, may be not.
But surely if anyone deserved to get the boot, it was Brosnan.
At that time, yes, absolutely. Not merely because of DAD, which was not his fault, but because he was showing his age. Maybe, maybe they could have had him for a Bond in movie in 2004, but in 2006, once CR was going to be the next Bond? Not a chance! That would have been laughable.
And in a way, it is a good thing for him that he left the role when he did: he could focus on different projects and he never had the role role too long the way Roger Moore or even Sean Connery had it. Yes, DAD was one Bond movie too many. But the movie was an embarrassment in itself.
Scotty, shields UP!