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
How do I get to this universe?
I'm still figuring that out. :))
Even more than that. The Miami sequence could conceivably have been the pre-titles.
I love Dan in CR, and my instinct is that he's much better suited to the source material, but this would've been a good take. Especially appreciate how the story is flipped on its head. The tux scene is a nice illustration.
I agree. In this case the impact of a lost future is less than the loss of a new beginning -- because in CR Bond is beginning. He is beginning again soon after beginning at all, if you get me. The veteran Bond that Brosnan would've played in his CR would've had something of a history, closer to the Bond of the novel who had chosen the double-o life and knew it well.
This is true.
On the evidence of his tenure, I agree. But a confession: weirdly in the past few years he seems to have gained a stronger sense of, as you say, 'clear machismo' -- I pick it up whenever I'm watching him, be it in his roles or his interviews. Has anyone else picked up on this or am I way, way off?
I love Moore and Connery, but as much as I would want infinite films with them, the truth is they had their six/seven.
If I understand this 'clear machismo' idea correctly, I'd say Brosnan had achieved it by the time of Die Another Day.
It's tough to tell, the film was riddled so with idiotic dialogue the likes of which would bury even Connery's best efforts.
Nice. That would be spectacular!
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. The action in places reminds me of the PlayStation Brosnan games in the early 2000s and Craig basically acts like him throughout the film. It doesn't always suit him.
I get what you mean but I can't picture anyone but Craig in SP. I do think that a slightly tweaked SF (Cleese in place of Wishaw, Moneypenny is just Eve and leaves at the end rather than taking a desk job) could have made a brilliant finale to the Brosnan era though.
The more I think about it the more I'm glad it was Craig in CR. He does a great job and while I think Brosnan would have nailed the dramatic moments, he just doesn't have the physicality Craig does that made the action scenes so great.
Shouldn't have been an origin story though. There's no reason Craig couldn't have just followed on from Brosnan as normal. Q could just have a film off or a small scene (maybe when they inject Bond with the tracking thing?), MP could have filled Villier's role, make the free running the PTS and get rid of any references to Bond being promoted. Job done.
Can anybody give me any real evidence as to why this would have been? Purvis and Wade seem to take all the criticism for not giving him material he could shine with. The producers held him back, etc.
I'm not a Brosnan basher. I've just never seen any real evidence that he would have had risen to the level some fans claim he would have given the chance.
Funnily enough, the same has come true regarding Craig.
Funnily enough, the same has come true regarding Craig.
Sadly, he didn't bring it to Bond until it was too late. He was uncertain (although very 'cool') & hesitant in GE, overly smug in TND (watch the AVIS Q scene or the BMW chase), & effete & affected in TWINE (the infamous Baku debacle and the Banker's office).
In DAD he brought a hard edged ruthlessness and confidence to his performance. Basically, this was the Pierce Brosnan I always wanted to see. I think The Tailor of Panama gave him the confidence to bring out his best.
Regarding his turn as Bond, I don't blame him for that. The producers obviously have been meaning to peel off a few layers and 'expose' Bond. This could be Bab's female influence or it could be a desire to appeal to the female viewing audience. Who knows? It's just that Brosnan doesn't do that well imho. That's Craig's shtick - he's the emo Bond. Brosnan was supposed to play it cool and ruthless. He failed Bond (as he's noted) and the producers failed him.
In TND, he may be smarmy, but you can sense he's having a bit more fun - especially in the lighter scenes with Desmond.
As I've mentioned before, watch his Q scene in TND and compare with his R scene in DAD. I much prefer him in the latter film. He's a cold cynical b'strd there. That's what I expect from Bond. In TND it's all a bit too self aware except for Kaufmann where he's excellent.
But filming CASINO ROYALE would have wasted its potential. It was the untold Bond story that establishes the character. To me it's simmering under the surface from the start in 1962, even though it's not presented on screen. But most of the viewing audience was unaware of a great story to be revealed.
I was surprised the producers took the bull by the horns and made some very bold choices. Not just Craig, but to update Fleming's story (my favorite Bond book) to screen in thrilling ways, even improving on it for film. Seeing Bond's first two kills and starting with his first mission is better storytelling. How the torture scene plays out is another improvement and insight into Bond's character.
The filmmakers made a choice to NOT put everything on the table and tick off all the boxes at once. So no Q, no Moneypenny. Familiar items like the sacrificial lamb, the martini, the car chase (and crash!), and OO7 getting captured and tortured by the villain are given a context and understanding the audience can return to. It makes sense of Bond in all forms, across Connery and Moore and the rest. That wouldn't have been possible with Brosnan, and the tone of DIE ANOTHER DAY just adds to that impossibility.
At the time I would have kept Brosnan. I wouldn't have chosen Craig for the role. Wouldn't cast Jeffrey Wright as Leiter. Wouldn't bring Dench M forward as M. Wouldn't put Mathis' motives in question
I'm going to take up that rec on THE TAILOR OF PANAMA, @bondjames . The sort of film one is always meaning to get around to but never does. I do like Pierce, so I'm looking forward to it.
I found your last sentence particularly enlightening. I have to wonder if how much of their joint mistake came down to a mutual but flawed surface level interpretation of Pierce. By this I mean, Pierce is a good looking fellow. So was Rog. Those two are easily the most classically handsome Bonds. The rest have all been more rugged, and their Bonds have followed more cold, ruthless characterizations. Their looks naturally manifest their respective Bonds' internal psychologies, in other words. So too do Rog and Pierce's 'light' Bonds—more similar in tone to each other than to any of the others—mirror their classical handsomeness. So I'm just wondering how much discrepancy there is between the kind of Bond he appeared to be on the surface vs. what he would've been best at. (Obviously this is all dependent on a very particular interpretation of his looks.)
Ultimately that film works better for Craig.
Skyfall, however, would have been absolutely perfect for Brosnan. The whole "washed up and out of time" agent thing would have worked superbly and his slightly softer relationship with Judi Dench's M would have given the finale more impact.
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with @bondjames . I think when Brosnan went ice cold, he could do it as well as any of them, even Connery.