› ›

Whose idea was it to cast Brosnan as Bond?

24567…18

Comments

  • GetafixGetafix
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,425
    jaguar007 wrote:
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    In 1986 however? Yes, I'd feel extremely sorry for him.
    Just imagine, being in a lame TV show that's almost over, allowing you to play the part of a lifetime in a big budget movie to be shown all over the world-- only for the show to step in and say 'oh, well we're going to do another season after all, so you won't have time to play Bond. It's in your contract that you have to come with us. Sorry, lulz.'

    Actually Remington Steele was almost canceled until news broke that Brosnan was cast as Bond (he was actually signed). NBC renewed Steele at the 11th hour in order to ride the Bond publicity waive. The producers of Steele wanted to work around the Bond shooting schedule, but it was Cubby who decided to drop Brosnan. He did not want his big screen Bond on the small screen every week.

    As for Dalton quitting the role for GE, that is the story that was given to the press. It is not a greatly kept secret that the real reason "Dalton retired" is that John Calley (then head of MGM) refused to greenlight GE unless the role was recast. Calley was the one pushing for Brosnan, EON wanted to continue with Dalton.

    I knew there must be some evil studio exec at least partly responsible. Doubtless they thought Brosnan would play better with U.S. audiences. I guess they weren't wrong.
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    Yep, Brosnan was very popular, and not just with the US audience. The studio wanted to have someone who was already in people's minds as Bond. Brosnan fit that bill when he almost became Bond with TLD; think people also saw the parallel Moore=The Saint=Bond and Brosnan=Remington Steele=Bond. It took little getting used to see Brosnan and indentify him as Bond. Dalton wasn't nearly as known to audiences. Many people had seen him before but couldn't put a name on him or knew about his theater work.
  • JamesPageJamesPage Administrator, Moderator, Director
    Posts: 1,380
    This is all documented in the TLD and GoldenEye production notes on the main site, but to compliment that, here is a 9 year old (!!!) article about the pre-production drama:
    http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/ge_roadtoproduction.php3?t=&s=articles&id=0197
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    I remember back when Moore announced his retirement, Brosnan was not just another candidate, the public expected him to automatically get the role. As far as the public was concerned, there were no other candidates.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    jaguar007 wrote:
    I remember back when Moore announced his retirement, Brosnan was not just another candidate, the public expected him to automatically get the role. As far as the public was concerned, there were no other candidates.

    Didn't that initially include you aswell?
  • ShorelineShoreline
    Posts: 251
    Cubby`s idea. And a good one. If Dalton had continued as Bond, I feel the series would have continued to lose more and more of it`s audience.
    I like Dalton, and in LTK he really is a bad ass Bond, but the character was becoming sexless.
    Brosnan really helped to re energise the series.
    Babs was wise to listen to her father, along with MGM big wigs.
    Despite the hate Brosnan gets around here, I thought he was absolutely fantastic as Bond.
    I once had the good fortune to meet him, and he was very modest about his take on Bond. Also, he was greatfull for it allowed him the luxery of making smaller films and a broader range of roles.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Shoreline wrote:
    I once had the good fortune to meet him, and he was very modest about his take on Bond.

    Really, when? I'd love to meet him. He seems like he'd be a good to have a drink with - providing you don't bring up Bond.

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Shoreline wrote:
    Cubby`s idea. And a good one. If Dalton had continued as Bond, I feel the series would have continued to lose more and more of it`s audience.
    I like Dalton, and in LTK he really is a bad ass Bond, but the character was becoming sexless.
    Brosnan really helped to re energise the series.
    Babs was wise to listen to her father, along with MGM big wigs.
    Despite the hate Brosnan gets around here, I thought he was absolutely fantastic as Bond.
    I once had the good fortune to meet him, and he was very modest about his take on Bond. Also, he was greatfull for it allowed him the luxery of making smaller films and a broader range of roles.

    As I've said before I actually quite like Broz the person. And I respect and admire the way he used his success as Bond to do lots of other (often better) films and parts.

    If I'm feeling generous I'd admit that at least he kept the show on the road so that finally someone better could take over the reins. I guess every now and then you need someone to keep the seat warm while someone better comes along (or back, as with George and Sean).
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    BAIN123 wrote:
    jaguar007 wrote:
    I remember back when Moore announced his retirement, Brosnan was not just another candidate, the public expected him to automatically get the role. As far as the public was concerned, there were no other candidates.

    Didn't that initially include you aswell?

    yes it did. I was actually a little disappointed when I first heard that Moore had signed to play Bond in AVTAK because I was looking forward to Brosnan playing Bond.

    As much as I prefer Dalton in the role, I have to agree that going with Brosnan as Bond in 95 was the better move for the future of the series. I don't think people would have run to the theater like they did for GE to see another Dalton film.

  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Why did Moore do AVTAK? I mean when I really think about it, I can't make any sense of that one. He was done after FYEO, and only came back because they needed an established Bond to go up against NSNA. Octopussy should have really been it for him. Were Brosnan and Dalton both unavailable? A damn shame really....

    As for Dalton in GoldenEye, I like to hope that it would be like what's going on now: Craig did 2 films and after a long hiatus (not as long, I know), Craig is returning to the role for a third. I think nearly everyone is happy about that, except for those out there that never liked Craig in the first place. It could have been the same with Dalton: 2 films, hiatus, then a return. If only. :(
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    Why did Moore do AVTAK? I mean when I really think about it, I can't make any sense of that one. He was done after FYEO, and only came back because they needed an established Bond to go up against NSNA. Octopussy should have really been it for him. Were Brosnan and Dalton both unavailable? A damn shame really....

    I think it really was a case of no one else being available at the time, hence Moore agreeing to come back, but only for one final film. I suppose there was also him beating Connery's record of six, that may have came into it.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    jaguar007 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    jaguar007 wrote:
    I remember back when Moore announced his retirement, Brosnan was not just another candidate, the public expected him to automatically get the role. As far as the public was concerned, there were no other candidates.

    Didn't that initially include you aswell?

    yes it did. I was actually a little disappointed when I first heard that Moore had signed to play Bond in AVTAK because I was looking forward to Brosnan playing Bond.

    As much as I prefer Dalton in the role, I have to agree that going with Brosnan as Bond in 95 was the better move for the future of the series. I don't think people would have run to the theater like they did for GE to see another Dalton film.

    That's how I've always felt too. Don't get me wrong I'm sure GE with Dalton would have been reasonably sucessful but I just don't think it would have been the powerhouse the existing film was (and needed to be if it were to survive).

    I know many people argue that it would have been better for the series to have ended gracefully in the 80s but if that were the case I probably wouldn't be a fan now so I'm grateful it didn't :)

    I was too young to remember the Dalton era but I get the impression he just never set the world on fire. Shame I suppose because he is a very talanted actor but he didn't have that 'spark' Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig had.
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    Why did Moore do AVTAK?

    I think there were about 5 million reasons Moore did AVTAK.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    Brosnan was the safe choice, what with being popular. He certainly brough ££££'s to the series, unfortunately that all. When you compare his era to Connery, Moore & Dalton, it becomes clear how creatively barren the Brosnan era was. The series sacrificed money for direction.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    Brosnan was the safe choice, what with being popular. He certainly brough ££££'s to the series, unfortunately that all. When you compare his era to Connery, Moore & Dalton, it becomes clear how creatively barren the Brosnan era was. The series sacrificed money for direction.

    He also secured a bunch of new Bond fans - I'm one of them.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 401
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    it becomes clear how creatively barren the Brosnan era was.
    Yes, but is that really Brosnan's fault? He wasn't the one writing the scripts.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    BAIN123 wrote:
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    Brosnan was the safe choice, what with being popular. He certainly brough ££££'s to the series, unfortunately that all. When you compare his era to Connery, Moore & Dalton, it becomes clear how creatively barren the Brosnan era was. The series sacrificed money for direction.

    He also secured a bunch of new Bond fans - I'm one of them.

    I'm pretty sure all the other Bonds did as well, to varying degrees. My into to the world of Bond was with the James Bond jr cartoon, but I didn't start with the films until 1996 (and not because of Brosnan, but a newly released reissue of the YOLT VHS).
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    it becomes clear how creatively barren the Brosnan era was.
    Yes, but is that really Brosnan's fault? He wasn't the one writing the scripts.

    True, but since leaving the role, Brosnan has voiced his true thoughts on his era. Why didn't he speak up when he was in the role? They may have taken his constructive critism onboard. Maybe.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 13,356
    Well Brosnan wanted more to play in The World Is Not Enough and they gave it to him. The script was horrid and he didn't deliver but it was Brosnan's for the taking to a certain degree. EON didn't agree with some of his (no doubt better) casting choices though, so who knows what the hell went on during his Bond days?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I honestly think that, for the most part, Brosnan worked in TWINE. True there are some "off" moments but having just looked at a section of it I think he performs quite well.

    Having recently re-watched the cheesefest Live Wire recently ("she drank the water, shweat, shook then boooom") TWINE is easily a more mature, better performance.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    it becomes clear how creatively barren the Brosnan era was.
    Yes, but is that really Brosnan's fault? He wasn't the one writing the scripts.

    Well, the writers did tailor the scripts to his interpretation of Bond.


  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    Why didn't he speak up when he was in the role?

    Maybe he did... maybe that's why his salary augmented to much.... EON was paying him with big sums of money to keep him quiet and to make him stay in the role... Brosnan brought the popularity and the box office numbers, EON wouldn't want him to badmouth the films... now that he hasn't been Bond since 2002, he speaks more freely...
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    You know, of all the six actors who played the role Brozzer is discussed the most. Him and his era fascinate people for all manner of reasons.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    since 2002, he speaks more freely...

    If he decides to speak at all. It still seems like a very sore subject for him to me, going by his recent interviews.

    Why? I haven't a clue. It's been one decade, that passage of time must have helped somewhat.
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    well it was the 90s...
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Older people have longer memories is all I can add, look at it that way. Brosnan is a man of nearly 60 years of age and by that stage there's no doubt a lot of memories of ill feeling or being wrong done that can manifest itself or cast long shadows, I can appreciate that, 10 years in time doesn't always close old wounds when you get to a certain age some should understand. If Brosnan is still sore over his Bond departure or was wrongly done by whoever then I can appreciate that, even a decade down the road
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    the worst thing is that Babs and MGW didnt care about improving his bond i mean he should have had a 5th film to undo all the damaged caused by DAD...instead they join the hollywood banwagon and decided to reboot the series...it didnt need rebooting they could have had an explaned why moneypenny and Q werent in MI6...finantial situations and they were cut..i mean why reboot it and keep Judi Dench on?

    Brosnan was getting very excited to do Casino Royale according to an interview and then having that situation cut due to Babs mooning over Craig- i would be justifiably pissed off aswell...i mean since leaving Bond Pierce has managed to improve his acting skills (The Ghost Writer, Remember Me and The Greatest) and he really didnt deserve all the hatred of dozens of fans...

  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Finally, back to Bond discussions

    I too question the rebooting of the series, was it really necessary, OK there may have been some life taken out of it by then but to start from scratch at that point in time seems a bit questionable, it's like this is Bond starting out, here's where it all began, well what about the other 20 or so adventures before that then, do we just put them in the trash on our way through the door. I don't have a problem with Dench staying on and new Bond at the time it's more than anything what they did with it. I don't think people hated Brosnan as Bond, sure there may have been some disagreements and all but there was no malice intended on his behalf. He can look back on four outings in the part that any of us would give our right arms for, maybe he wasn't pleased about how it turned out in the end but life is full of disappointments and letdowns
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    Why didn't he speak up when he was in the role?

    Maybe he did... maybe that's why his salary augmented to much.... EON was paying him with big sums of money to keep him quiet and to make him stay in the role... Brosnan brought the popularity and the box office numbers, EON wouldn't want him to badmouth the films... now that he hasn't been Bond since 2002, he speaks more freely...

    I think part of it may also be trying to rationalize his performances after the fact. He was given plenty of emotional meat in his films (especially in TWINE but in all of them really) and the excuse that he didn't get good "acting" or character material to work with is absurd. Bond's friend betraying him in GE? The return into his life and then death of Paris in TND? The relationship with Elektra in TWINE? The first half of DAD? I recently rewatched TWINE and thought that he just didn't have the acting chops - both in maintaining a consistant character and having the conviction in his scenes - to do justice to the script. After all the critics (and the BAFTAs!) praised Craig's performance so much in CR it *appears* to me that his ego may have been bruised and he deflects by saying that it was the fault of the scripts and not his abilities.

    Now, I do like Brosnan and am grateful to him for re-igniting the Bond films' box office but he wasn't the strongest actor in the role. I'm sure that if we had seen a different actor in TWINE it would really illustrate how much there was to work with.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    Finally, back to Bond discussions

    I too question the rebooting of the series, was it really necessary, OK there may have been some life taken out of it by then but to start from scratch at that point in time seems a bit questionable, it's like this is Bond starting out, here's where it all began, well what about the other 20 or so adventures before that then, do we just put them in the trash on our way through the door. I don't have a problem with Dench staying on and new Bond at the time it's more than anything what they did with it. I don't think people hated Brosnan as Bond, sure there may have been some disagreements and all but there was no malice intended on his behalf. He can look back on four outings in the part that any of us would give our right arms for, maybe he wasn't pleased about how it turned out in the end but life is full of disappointments and letdowns

    I think the reboot concept is overdone. I don't think it was the producers intention to suggest that we're starting from scratch. They had the rights to Casino Royale and they wanted to stay reasonably faithful to the story and that dictated basically that there should be a new, younger Bond. Continuity across Bond movies has never been particularly important to the franchise. Does Connery in DAF make any concession to the fact he's just supposed to have lost his wife? Not really. So I say don't see CR as a 'reboot' but as just an earlier chapter in Bond's life that happens to have been told later in the series - a flashback, as it were.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2012 Posts: 6,385
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    But good things to those who wait!

    Then he was let go when he wanted to continue. All in all, I wonder if he thinks the experience was worth it? Still seems, quite uneasy to talk about it even today.

    When he missed out on the role the first time, it was NBC's fault, not Eon's. NBC "uncancelled" Remington Steele to capitalize on Brosnan's popularity when the Bond rumors heated up.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I was too young to remember the Dalton era but I get the impression he just never set the world on fire. Shame I suppose because he is a very talanted actor but he didn't have that 'spark' Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig had.

    I'd argue that all of the pro-Brosnan press tainted Dalton as the "second choice Bond" in the US before he even got started--and this is coming from someone who preferred Dalton to Brosnan in the role.

    Dalton is really the proto-Craig.

Sign In or Register to comment.