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
That's partially why it was so humiliating: he thought he had a far better hand than he had. He trusted his good fortune far too much. He was the only Bond actor plebiscited in the role which I think made him complacent.
Thankfully! Or we'd have had Robbie Williams and Hugh Grant as Bond!
I was more commenting in the context of Brosnan, who was a very popular Bond at the time of his dismissal. The fact that EON burdened him with third rate rubbish during most of his tenure due to their own incompetence post-Cubby wasn't really his fault and even though he's my least favourite Bond I think he got a raw deal, unlike Craig.
I would have liked to see him directed as Bond by a decent director. He should have been pushing for John Boorman to direct him as Bond after TTOP.
Really? I don't think you mention this enough. You should put yourself about more on the Brosnan threads and tell us some more. ;)
Brosnan's popularity was not nearly as high though. He was no longer untouchable.
Still, his popularity was much higher than Craig's at the time of the switch, and as Brosnan himself said, the films were making money and doing better box office as they went along. I don't blame him for thinking he was in a strong negotiating position. I don't think he saw the change in approach and reboot coming in the context of Bond. After all, they had never done that before. The time was right to jump on the bandwagon, thanks to Nolan.
I think Craig has been overall more rational about it. Even cynical. Him carrying on with Bond 25 is due to a number of factors, not only Babs. And it's exceptional that he's doing one more.
didn't Cubby take some convincing from Campbell and MGW to accept Brosnan in 94? I have always felt Babs shared that scepticism.
I'm not sure about Cubby needing convincing though. I was always under the impression that he and Wilson were in favour of Brosnan.
Having said that even he acknowledged Brosnan became bitter when he was dropped.
If Brosnan fought an uphill battle it was his own doing: he's the Bond who had it easiest upon casting. Granted, they didn't know what to do after GE, but Brosnan had a huge capital starting his tenure.
Dalton conversely suffered because he lived in the shadow of another actor during his tenure (a terrible place to be for anyone) and because the producers didn't go all in with a vision that suited his portrayal. Rather, they hedged, which never really works (witness SP).
A corpse can't kiss itself.
Cubby was pressured (or, if you prefer, convinced) by MGM/UA to cast Brosnan. My sense of it is, all three of them -- Cubby, Barbara, and MGW -- preferred Dalton.
I doubt Campbell had any say in the matter. At that point in his career, he probably would have considered himself lucky to even get a Bond film and would not have wanted to rock the boat.
"Pierce Brosnan will always be the 'what if' Bond. What if his tenure had built on Goldeneye rather than fallen away from it? What if he was gifted a script such as Licence To Kill or Casino Royale, the two films that came immediately before and after him? What if Pierce was placed, just once, at the centre of proceedings; rather than playing second fiddle to cars, action and gadgets. Pierce made one much loved film, Goldeneye - but every other Bond made a better one. Considering the talent of the man that’s a sobering thought. But there exist many caveats. Brosnan carried his films in a way no other Bond has had to do. With a weak Bond, none of his films, including Goldeneye, are strong enough to work regardless - in the way On Her Majesty’s Secret Service transcends the game but miscast George Lazenby. Meanwhile both Dalton and Moore required scripts that played to their very different strengths. In some ways Brosnan was too good a fit. The writers could shun Bond the character and focus on the fripperies because they knew Brosnan would shine regardless. Perhaps this is merely the fanboy talking.
But while it’s easy to scorn all the whizzbang in the cold light of Craig, remember that Craig only exists due to Brosnan. All four of his films were huge box office - giving the franchise the creative freedom to experiment with Casino Royale. If Casino Royale failed, well, back we go to the gadgets. But if Goldeneye failed, after a six year hiatus, after the commercial and critical failure of Dalton (posterity has been kind to Timothy, rightly, but it wasn’t always thus), nearly 30 years since the last genuine blockbuster that was The Spy Who Loved Me, if the first post-Cold War Bond fell flat on its arse - well, the future would have looked pretty bleak.
So farewell, Pierce. You gifted us one of the most loved Bond films of all. The other three films mixed qualified success and entertaining failure - in time I suspect we shall look more kindly on your era. As I hope will you; and I hope you appreciate the massive contribution you made to the series you loved so much. You let Bond become the behemoth of today. If nothing else, you’ll always be my favourite Bond, my Bond. And all that’s left to say is thank you."
It's from the denofgeek series of reviews which are well worth reading by the way. Never seen them mentioned on here but they're great. Funny (in one of them he describes the rules of baccarat as "both players turn over their cards and Bond wins"), insightful, he clearly knows/understands his Bond, and even when I don't agree with him he's always fair and balanced (even with his favourites he isn't biased, I was actually really surprised when I got to the end of the GE one and he said it was his personal favourite because he'd been quite critical of all its flaws).
Thanks for making me spill soda all over my monitor... but maybe i misread that and this was supposed to be a worst case scenario of how bad things trully could have gone?
But other than that, i can actually agree with a lot of what has been said in that review. He is my favorite Bond as well and i do hope that he will appreciate his contributions more (he still seems to hold a grudge, or maybe i am just imagining that) also i am pretty sure his tenure will be remembered more kindly in the future, just like with Roger.