Whose idea was it to cast Brosnan as Bond?

18911131418

Comments

  • edited August 2012 Posts: 11,425
    One thing we can perhaps agree on is that recent non-Fleming stories have been dire.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Come to think of it, a fair chunk of Dr No (the film) is changed - presumably for financial reasons. No himself simply has iron hands rather than pincers, there's no "deadly obstical course" in the film (instead we just see Bond going through a vent and almost getting drowned), No's death is completely different (in the book he's buried under a mountain of bird poo when Bond takes the controlls of a nearby machine) and they don't escape in the dragon.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I'm not familiar with the books but it strikes me CR was closer to the novel than most of the other films that used book titles.

    Dr No, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS were all closer to the books than CR has managed. But then when they were filmed the books were far closer to the time they were written in. GF was story-wise actually improved upon (making the gold radio-active instead of stealing it), I am sure even Fleming would agree with that.

    And Brady, if you remember CR the movie were they dragged Mathis away because he was apperantly a traitor according to 007. So far your ally theory in that movie, and of course he was an ally I am just not sure what the idea was from the writers of the script. This was one stupid decision.
    I can't disagree with you there, and it is sad to see such a character die just 2 films into it. Mathis could have been valuable in the rest of the Craig era, so hopefully he will appear again in further future Bond films with a new lead, and where he is closer to Bond's age like in the novels than a mentor type. I also agree with your disappointment at CR's Venice climax. I would have preferred an adaption of the novel's ending, where we can showcase Bond's hurt more clearly, and focus more on an emotional impact than an action barrage. Dan would have been fantastic in that scene, and Eva so beautifully tragic, laying in the bed cold in death. It's a shame, because I think that would make CR an even better film, and I would choose that any day over the action road they went down.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Getafix wrote:
    One thing we can perhaps agree on is that recent non-Fleming stories have been dire.

    Most non-Fleming stories have been dire, not just the recent ones.

    The Moore era in particular, used up almost all the good titles of the Fleming novels and nearly all the films had very little in common with their literary counterparts.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Was watching a bit of Lara Croft last night and was amused to see DC doing a Vesper in his under water death scene.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    One thing we can perhaps agree on is that recent non-Fleming stories have been dire.

    Most non-Fleming stories have been dire, not just the recent ones.

    The Moore era in particular, used up almost all the good titles of the Fleming novels and nearly all the films had very little in common with their literary counterparts.

    Or anything Bond related at all. *shivers* :-S
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Getafix wrote:
    One thing we can perhaps agree on is that recent non-Fleming stories have been dire.

    Most non-Fleming stories have been dire, not just the recent ones.

    The Moore era in particular, used up almost all the good titles of the Fleming novels and nearly all the films had very little in common with their literary counterparts.

    Or anything Bond related at all. *shivers* :-S

    Quite true unfortunately. They weren't without their entertainment factor though.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    One thing we can perhaps agree on is that recent non-Fleming stories have been dire.

    Most non-Fleming stories have been dire, not just the recent ones.

    The Moore era in particular, used up almost all the good titles of the Fleming novels and nearly all the films had very little in common with their literary counterparts.

    Or anything Bond related at all. *shivers* :-S

    Quite true unfortunately. They weren't without their entertainment factor though.

    I can see how some find that entertaining, but I can't sit through it. I love comedies, but not in my Bond films.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Getafix wrote:
    One thing we can perhaps agree on is that recent non-Fleming stories have been dire.

    Most non-Fleming stories have been dire, not just the recent ones.

    The Moore era in particular, used up almost all the good titles of the Fleming novels and nearly all the films had very little in common with their literary counterparts.

    Or anything Bond related at all. *shivers* :-S

    Quite true unfortunately. They weren't without their entertainment factor though.

    I can see how some find that entertaining, but I can't sit through it. I love comedies, but not in my Bond films.

    I agree. The Moore films that end up in my DVD player the most are the first three, and sometimes FYEO. The other three I only tend to watch when they're on television or during a Bondathon. A bit like DAD and DAF.
  • He's not my favourite but I always enjoy Moore. It's hard not to enjoy his films, even in AVTAK I enjoy his performance. He's just great.

    I think he was at his best when he did some serious stuff as well as the comedy, so I think TSWLM and OP are his best films.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    He's not my favourite but I always enjoy Moore. It's hard not to enjoy his films, even in AVTAK I enjoy his performance. He's just great.

    I think he was at his best when he did some serious stuff as well as the comedy, so I think TSWLM and OP are his best films.

    Moore himself was always good. He always looked like he was enjoying himself. Even when the films weren't good, he was a major reason to continue watching. Sometimes though, it just got too much.
  • Posts: 3,327
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Obviously CR was changed in parts. The novel was published in 1953 for crying out loud. CR kept all the crucial parts from the book, added them, and also did some things better in the book that they threw in themselves.

    Precisely. I think Vesper in the road was better than a spike strip. More 'dramatic'.

    I'm not saying these changes aren't good, and I know most of them were needed, I'm just saying, since there's that many changes, I don't think it's really as close to the book as everyone makes out.
    I think it is very close to the book. Just because a carpet beater has been replaced by a rope, for example, doesn't mean suddenly the film is absolutely nothing like the book.

    Get real!

  • edited August 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    One thing we can perhaps agree on is that recent non-Fleming stories have been dire.

    Most non-Fleming stories have been dire, not just the recent ones.

    The Moore era in particular, used up almost all the good titles of the Fleming novels and nearly all the films had very little in common with their literary counterparts.

    Or anything Bond related at all. *shivers* :-S

    Quite true unfortunately. They weren't without their entertainment factor though.

    I can see how some find that entertaining, but I can't sit through it. I love comedies, but not in my Bond films.

    I enjoyed most of Moore's movies - although they weren't without their problems. Say what you like about Moore's Bond, but Moore himself is always a pleasure to watch. I think thats why I rate him highly.

    Who can't be charmed by this guy?
  • JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Obviously CR was changed in parts. The novel was published in 1953 for crying out loud. CR kept all the crucial parts from the book, added them, and also did some things better in the book that they threw in themselves.

    Precisely. I think Vesper in the road was better than a spike strip. More 'dramatic'.

    I'm not saying these changes aren't good, and I know most of them were needed, I'm just saying, since there's that many changes, I don't think it's really as close to the book as everyone makes out.
    I think it is very close to the book. Just because a carpet beater has been replaced by a rope, for example, doesn't mean suddenly the film is absolutely nothing like the book.

    Get real!

    It's not just that though. We have the entire first half, which starts of with different 00 kills, then a free running sequence and the whole miami scenes, neither were in the book. Then in the 2nd half we have the big list I put a page back.

    Like I said, I prefer the film and think the changes were for the best, but there's that many changes I don't think it's very close to the book, it just follows the basic outline with all the important events.
  • Posts: 3,327
    It's not just that though. We have the entire first half, which starts of with different 00 kills, then a free running sequence and the whole miami scenes, neither were in the book. Then in the 2nd half we have the big list I put a page back.

    Like I said, I prefer the film and think the changes were for the best, but there's that many changes I don't think it's very close to the book, it just follows the basic outline with all the important events.
    We've already established the first half of the film has absolutely nothing to do with the book. It is the second half of the film we are talking about.

    And with regards your list, mostly you are just splitting hairs with differences.
    Following basic outlines with all the important events, as you rightly put above, is pretty much admitting the film follows the book fairly closely.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    CR adapted 100% from the book into a movie would never happen. The film as it is isn't without it's faults buy it's still damn good and one of the strongest adaptations of IF's novels in the series.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    It's not just that though. We have the entire first half, which starts of with different 00 kills, then a free running sequence and the whole miami scenes, neither were in the book. Then in the 2nd half we have the big list I put a page back.

    Like I said, I prefer the film and think the changes were for the best, but there's that many changes I don't think it's very close to the book, it just follows the basic outline with all the important events.
    We've already established the first half of the film has absolutely nothing to do with the book. It is the second half of the film we are talking about.

    And with regards your list, mostly you are just splitting hairs with differences.
    Following basic outlines with all the important events, as you rightly put above, is pretty much admitting the film follows the book fairly closely.

    +1
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    It's not just that though. We have the entire first half, which starts of with different 00 kills, then a free running sequence and the whole miami scenes, neither were in the book. Then in the 2nd half we have the big list I put a page back.

    Like I said, I prefer the film and think the changes were for the best, but there's that many changes I don't think it's very close to the book, it just follows the basic outline with all the important events.
    We've already established the first half of the film has absolutely nothing to do with the book. It is the second half of the film we are talking about.

    And with regards your list, mostly you are just splitting hairs with differences.
    Following basic outlines with all the important events, as you rightly put above, is pretty much admitting the film follows the book fairly closely.

    Well then we just have different views on what following the book closely means then. I think just following the basic outline doesn't make it that close to the book.

    And I think the first half alone makes the film pretty different from the book. I think we'll just have to disagree on this one.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 3,327

    Well then we just have different views on what following the book closely means then. I think just following the basic outline doesn't make it that close to the book.

    And I think the first half alone makes the film pretty different from the book. I think we'll just have to disagree on this one.

    Using your logic, following basic outlines of all the important events in a novel, translated to film can be applied to Dr. No, FRWL, GF, TB and OHMSS too.

    In OHMSS there was no scene from the novel where Bond tries to escape Piz Gloria while hanging from a cable car wire, or a stock car sequence, or fights in hotel rooms, or a fight in a bell room, or Tracey getting kidnapped by Blofeld, yet this is still a faithful adaptation.

    In FRWL there was no speedboat chase, and no SPECTRE involved, nor Blofeld (who has nothing remotely to do with the novel), yet this is still a faithful adaptation.

    In GF the Oddjob fight is very different to the book, the plot has changed, the torture scene altered (saw mill in the book, about to cut through Bond's jaffa's), no Aston Martin car chase, yet this is still a faithful adaptation of the novel.

    etc. etc.

    I could go on and on all day with this, but I think you may now get my point......

  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I get your point, and I know lots of the faithful adaptions of the Bond books have little changes like the one CR has in the 2nd half, but the 1st half alone makes it too different for me, to be thought of as extremely close to the book. I think the changes are good, but I just don't think it's close to the book. Sorry.

    I haven't read FRWL but that doesn't sound that close to the book either.
  • Posts: 11,425
    CR is definitely CLOSER to the book than a lot of the others that just used the titles though.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Getafix wrote:
    CR is definitely CLOSER to the book than a lot of the others that just used the titles though.

    Than the Moore films, yeah. But I think some of the 60s films are closer. But I'll be fair, they were closer to the time of the books and so it was easier to get more stuff from the books in them.
  • Posts: 3,327

    I haven't read FRWL but that doesn't sound that close to the book either.
    FRWL is a very close adaptation in most people's eyes, but judging your opinion of CR, you may not think the same as most people....

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Basically, there's no Bond film that is an entirely faithful adaptation of the book it is meant to be based on. Just some that are closer than others.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Basically, there's no Bond film that is an entirely faithful adaptation of the book it is meant to be based on. Just some that are closer than others.
    Exactly!

    The films which follow the Fleming books closely are (in this order) -
    Dr. No
    FRWL
    OHMSS
    GF
    TB
    CR

    FYEO, TLD, LTK and OP use quite a lot of extensive material (scenes, characters) from the books, either short stories, or scenes previously unused from full length novels (LALD in particular).

    The films loosely based on the novels are -
    DAF
    LALD
    TMWTGG

    TSWLM has nothing to do with the novel (although Jaws is loosely based on the Horror character)

    MR and YOLT have very little to do with their books.

    AVTAK and QOS have nothing to do with their short stories.




  • Posts: 11,425
    How come they haven't used any of the post-Fleming books as the basis for a film?

    Are they all that bad?
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Dalton was the first choice for TLD, but he turned it down as he had a theatre play going on and another film to do. He said it would be impossible to commit to their schedule.

    Only then was Brosnan approached and signed after Dalton ruled himself out. But the series would have continued in the Roger Moore vein, because I doubt the grittier aspects would have suited his very young face.

    When Brosnan fell through due to the green lighting of Remington Steele, then Dalton was asked once more and agreed. The 60 days is what made this possible. Had there been no 60 day wait until Brosnan was finalised then Brosnan would have been Bond. They were behind schedule.

    But it is obvious that Cubby would only have gone for the harder Bond if Dalton played him. I could not imagine Cubby seeing Brosnan as a Connery type.

    But the media spun the story a different way as they wanted Brosnan thanks to his Remington Steele style which is James Bondy in a way. I mean Dalton and Brosnan are radically different actors. Deep down, Cubby wanted some real change and only Dalton had the experience to do that.

    Eon had Dalton on their radar since 1968 so it makes sense he would have been approached first.

    But Brosnan was cast by Cubby as John Glen was keen on him as well as Michael G Wilson. Those two also wanted Sam Neill.


  • Posts: 11,425
    acoppola wrote:
    Dalton was the first choice for TLD, but he turned it down as he had a theatre play going on and another film to do. He said it would be impossible to commit to their schedule.

    Only then was Brosnan approached and signed. But the series would have continued in the Roger Moore vein, because I doubt the grittier aspects would have suited his very young face.

    When Brosnan fell through due to the green lighting of Remington Steele, then Dalton was asked once more and agreed. But it is obvious that Cubby would only have gone for the harder Bond if Dalton played him. I could not imagine Cubby seeing Brosnan as a Connery type.

    But the media spun the story a different way as they wanted Brosnan thanks to his Remington Steele style which is James Bondy in a way. I mean Dalton and Brosnan are radically different actors. Deep down, Cubby wanted some real change and only Dalton had the experience to do that.

    Eon had Dalton on their radar since 1968 so it makes sense he would have been approached first.

    But Brosnan was cast by Cubby as John Glen was keen on him as well as Michael G Wilson. Those two also wanted Sam Neill.


    It still amazes me that they had him in mind for so long. Cubby was a bit of a genius with his casting. The only one he got wrong for me was Brozza, but may be, given how bad those films are, it wouldn't have made much difference if it was any other actor.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Getafix wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Dalton was the first choice for TLD, but he turned it down as he had a theatre play going on and another film to do. He said it would be impossible to commit to their schedule.

    Only then was Brosnan approached and signed. But the series would have continued in the Roger Moore vein, because I doubt the grittier aspects would have suited his very young face.

    When Brosnan fell through due to the green lighting of Remington Steele, then Dalton was asked once more and agreed. But it is obvious that Cubby would only have gone for the harder Bond if Dalton played him. I could not imagine Cubby seeing Brosnan as a Connery type.

    But the media spun the story a different way as they wanted Brosnan thanks to his Remington Steele style which is James Bondy in a way. I mean Dalton and Brosnan are radically different actors. Deep down, Cubby wanted some real change and only Dalton had the experience to do that.

    Eon had Dalton on their radar since 1968 so it makes sense he would have been approached first.

    But Brosnan was cast by Cubby as John Glen was keen on him as well as Michael G Wilson. Those two also wanted Sam Neill.


    It still amazes me that they had him in mind for so long. Cubby was a bit of a genius with his casting. The only one he got wrong for me was Brozza, but may be, given how bad those films are, it wouldn't have made much difference if it was any other actor.

    Dalton was first choice, Brosnan the second and the third Sam Neill Cubby did not like as Bond. But the pressure of the 25th anniversary looming meant they had to get on with the job. And Brosnan at the time was a compromise.

    Dalton was even asked to take over from Roger in 1980 but did not like the direction and said no. Cubby liked Dalton for being honest and also admired the fact that he was a serious actor who respected the franchise and what it achieved for British cinema.

    Had Roger Moore said no to Bond in 1972, then I think Cubby would have signed Dalton and persuaded him to do it. He was on the list already and Cubby has a way.

    Man LALD with Dalton would be killer. Guy Hamilton would have put him to good use and taken advantage of his toughness. Maybe this happened in an alternate universe?:)

    Dalton when he was younger looked incredible no question. He had a roughness despite being a poshly trained actor. He grew in Manchester and has that northern attitude.

    Once Dalton stepped down, they needed a safe actor to take over. And with Dalton's exit they had to go backwards not forwards. Gritty Bond in Goldeneye was a thin veneer. A sheep in wolfs clothing.

  • Posts: 11,425
    acoppola wrote:
    A sheep in wolfs clothing.

    I like that!
Sign In or Register to comment.