Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
^ 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
Then i no longer would have been a Bond fan!!
Bloody hell are you serious ?!!!!
The rookie Bind aspect of CR wasn't necessary and ultimately became pointless once it turned into a love story. There is a brief phone conversation with M where it is alluded to again, but to all intents and purposes it gets completely forgotten about after the train sequence. A similar thing happens with "the list" they are chasing in Skyfall.
Fair point but Brosnan better than Craig in CR ?
I just think the dynamic works much better, a veteran agent slightly worn out and cynical, but also sentimental about a life he could have had. Then the idea of a young woman giving him the opportunity to live out that life, even for a short while, would be all the more powerful. Brosnan always wanted a story with real meat to it, he would have put in a brilliant wistful performance but the script was torn from his hands. That's what I think CR needed, to be that little bit punchier. Imagine Brosnan trying on the Tux, giving Vesper that look, thinking to himself "I've still got it". It would have been great.
But this has been my opinion for ages now. CR in a lot of ways is a tale of two stories. One is the rookie Bond, green to the surface having trust issues with his boss and being a bit of a loose cannon. The problem is this is not what Fleming intended, or he would have included it in original version. Why would M give such a loose cannon that she can barely keep her hands on such an important assignment, even if he is " the best card player in the service". Get the second best, or the third best if they aren't complete tear aways. Why would Bond resign from the service after his first mission as a 00? There are just so many questions that arise because of the decision to make Bond a rookie, and the big splash that a reboot would make in the press.
This material was added, and it actually conflicts with the original Fleming material once it begins to take place in the second act. And this is why the third act is such a mess, It's ripped between the two stories and any sense of clarity is lost. Had Brosnan played the part, they never would have entertained the idea of a rookie Bond, and so the conflicting narratives would have never been a problem. The story would have been much slimmer and streamlined, without jeopardizing any of the great Fleming material that did get used.
Regarding Brosnan, I also don't think he could have pulled off CR (as it was written) as well as Craig did. There are many moments in that film which required acting subtlety & a clear machismo, which isn't Brosnan's strong suit. QoS needed an intensity that Brosnan again wouldn't have been able to bring (imho) without overacting.
I think Brosnan could have easily carried SF & SP though (in fact, he would have been perfect for the bawling scene at the end of the earlier film).
How so? :p
Imagine the interplay with Vesper and Brosnan - amazing. The older guy getting his feathers rustled by this young women who he is right away enamoured by, and his way of life begins to leave an impression on her. Those scenes of the both of them in the car and the hotel room would've really sparkled. But you're right, it would have been a much much wistful, sombre, bittersweet story. A story of an older agent who gets a chance to live the life he's wished he could have, before it is cruelly torn away.
I always thought that Eva would have chewed him up and spat him out in CR, but now I'm not so sure.
Y'know I've always thought that Brosnan deserved one more film but it shouldn't have been CR, but I think you've just convinced me. Craig is brilliant don't get me wrong but he had plenty of moments to prove he could nail that Fleming esque vulnerability. Brosnan rarely did (but when he did he did great) and he arguably deserved that chance imo, given how successful he was and how long he'd been campaigning for it himself. And you're right, forgetting performances for a second, I think the film makes more sense with a more experienced Bond.
I've never been a fan of the Bond begins/complete reboot stuff. I always felt it was very unnecessary. But even if they were dead set on an origin story, it shouldn't have been CR. It works well in the first half with his two kills and showing his learning curve with his recklessness in Madagascar and then him slowly becoming the Bond we're used to in Miami. But once we get to the actual novel all of that seems pretty pointless. His only "mistake" after thatnis trusting Vesper, but Fleming's Bond made the same mistake and he wasn't a rookie. You could easily just make it a story about a seasoned agent letting his guard down when he's given the chance to get away from killing, instead of a rookie naively falling in love and being blind to the enemy. In fact it does work better. The bit where Bond looks in the mirror after killing Obano and wonders what he's doing with his life is a brilliant scene, shades of Bond at the airport in the GF novel after he kills the mexican. But in GF Bond "going soft" (as I think he puts it) made sense because all he'd seen was beginning to take an effect on him. In the context of the film it's a rookie coming to terms with this new world of violence so it still works, but it's infinitely more powerful if you get the sense that Bond has done this many times before imo. So with that in mind I think an older damaged Bond works better. Actually the sad part is even if they didn't want Brosnan, they could have easily sold Craig as a more seasoned Bond. He didn't look particuarly young. There was no reason for it to be an origin story.
If you're going to cut anything though it should be Venice. The story essentially ends when Le Chiffre dies. The rest of it is a quiet epilogue and the filmmakers made the mistake of trying to turn it into a big finale.
Gone off on a bit of a rant but I've never been a huge CR fan. I admire it a lot more than I enjoy watching it. Mid table for me. I would have liked Brosnan to get one more film that was in line with what he wanted (preferrably directed by Tarantino), could be CR could be an original story. But whether it was Brosnan or Craig starring, CR really would have benefited from cutting the rookie Bond stuff imo.
Actually as I've just written all this I've just remembered we already got a brilliant story of a seasoned Bond letting his guard down in TWINE (which I'll defend til the day I die as a top ten Bond film). So maybe it was best to give CR to a new actor to avoid it being a retread. Brosnan still deserved one more after DAD though.
Yes, it would have been great had they given him a better sendoff. I can see an altered version of CR (tailored to fit Brosnan's style) working. It just seems that it took a recasting of the role for them to really focus on making an incredible film again.
That would've been great but not sure Eon woukd want the neo-Nazis as villains as in the Gardner novel. Maybe just the environmental disaster plot would be used instead?
How poetic would that have been, what with DAD being our closest adaptation of the Moonraker novel.
It's a good read. Plotwise it's a mixture of Licence Renewed and Icebreaker. It was the next novel after Never Send Flowers.