›

If Brosnan had taken the role in 1986 as planned... would his era have been similar to Dalton's?

BondBond
edited March 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 503
Dalton's tenure was made darker and more true to the Fleming material to contrast the Moore era.

If Brosnan had taken over in 1986 as he was supposed to until <i>Remington Steele</i> got renewed, do you think he'd have been as good as Dalton was in TLD and LTK, receiving mostly praise from the hardcore Bond community? Or do you think he'd have been similarly disliked by many as he is now?

In otherwords — how much do you think Brosnan's films themselves and the fact that he followed Dalton instead of Moore has to do with how his tenure turned out?
«1

Comments

  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    No as TLDL had 3 drafts one as Moore was bond, ONE AS IF BROSNAN HAD TAKEN THE ROLE,one as if Dalton had taken the role
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    TLD would probably have been a much lighter film and the series would have continued down the more comedic path. The script for TLD was changed when Dalton came aboard. The original scene with Pushkin (Gogol in early drafts) in the hotel had them drinking Champagne.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    I'm interested in the film script as developed with Brosnan in mind. Can I just say I think Glen might have been able to properly guide Brosnan through his debut, perhaps not as well as Campbell but still well enough. Also, public acceptance towards Brosnan may have been a little bit more generous. Maybe they would have made LTK less gritty with Brosnan in it too and maybe back in '89 that is exactly what was needed to propel Bond into the 90s. Who knows? In retrospect though I wouldn't want it because I'm glad I got at least two Daltons for I am, of course, a fierce Daltonite. ;;)
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited March 2011 Posts: 3,262
    Quoting DarthDimi: Also, public acceptance towards Brosnan may have been a little bit more
    generous. Maybe they would have made LTK less gritty with Brosnan in it too and
    maybe back in '89 that is exactly what was needed to propel Bond into the 90s.
    I think EON wouldn't have made LTK at all with Brosnan since LTK was specifically conceived with Dalton's grittier edge in mind. A 1989 Brosnan Bond film probably would've been in the OP or maybe even TSWLM vein. And with the economic/legal troubles of the early 1990s, Brosnan might've been perceived by the public as "the Bond who wrecked the series" as Dalton's been unfairly maligned.

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    Great question Bond, and I don't recall it ever really being brought up before???
    As DD said, I'd love to see the script for TLD pre-Dalton to see how much was changed. I'm sure it would've had more Moore-esque humour. But he would've likely been better accepted in the US market than Dalton was.
    A factor that didn't help poor old Timbo.
    I agree LTK would have been a lot less gritty and brutal. Something else that I'm not sure the Bond community, nor the world as a whole was ready for in '89. I think that Bond 17 (the lost Dalton film) would have gone ahead in '91, and possibly GE would've never come to be??? Who knows.
    It's one of those age old Bond questions of 'what if?'
    Lazenby doing more
    Gavin doing DAF
    Moore leaving after MR/ FYEO/ OP
    Moore staying for TLD
    Etc

    I do think Pierce would've been a better late 80's / early 90's Bond than the version we got from '95 -'02. Mrs.Benny and I were watching DAD the other night, and she commented on how old Brozza looked. It really was noticeable. I think an '86 to '97 timeline was good for Pierce. Untill '99 tops.
    But then would we have Craig now?
    Possibly not. But would that be a bad thing? Or has DC reinvigorated the Bond series?

    Yes to many questions.
    I'll stop now.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I'm not sure about the thread's question really. I remember Brosnan saying in the 1994 press conference that he admired what Dalton did and wanted to continue "peeling back the skin" (I think that was the phrase he used) so, no, I think it probably would have been different.

    Also, I can't imagine a film as dark as LTK being made with Brosnan - that was always a Dalton vehicle.
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    Posts: 823
    Brosnan was probably not mature enough and experienced enough for the role of Bond, coming straight from TV to the largest and most successful film franchise in movie history!!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2011 Posts: 15,718
    I honestly can't imagine Brosnan in TLD. He was already babyface in GE, it would have been much worse in 1987. No, Brosnan suffers the same Dalton symdrome - they look better with age. Whereas Connery and Moore peaked in their younger years as Bond. With Dalton and Brosnan, they could have played Bond a decade later than they did. I picture Dalton all the way to 1999 as Bond, and Brosnan could have succeeded him in 2002.... all the way till 2012. Honestly, Brosnan looked very Bondian in Ghost Writer, and he's the same age as Moore in AVTAK. If you look at recent pics of Brosnan, he could have ended his tenure in 2012 for the 50th anniversary. I would have loved seeing Brosnan in his late 50's as Bond, when his acting was getting much better, and seeing a older Dalton as Bond for the entire 90's decade.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Quoting Bond: do you think he'd have been as good as Dalton was in TLD and LTK, receiving mostly praise from the hardcore Bond community? Or do you think he'd have been similarly disliked by many as he is now?
    I really don't think Brosnan had it in him to convince many of the hardcore fans. Brosnan was more of a traditional action movie star with limited acting skills. His range wad exposed in Bond, but he could likely have been quite successful had he remained in television or not been Bond. He looked too green in the 80s to be a convincing Bond in TLD. That being said, there's no question Brosnan was too old for the role in DAD as some have mentioned. His optimal tenure, age-wise, would have been early 90s to late 90s, very similar to Dalton's optimal tenure, but Dalton had the chops to be convincing in in 1987, something Brosnan lacked even in GE.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Quoting Luds: That being said, there's no question Brosnan was too old for the role in DAD as some have mentioned
    I actually believe Brosnan's optimal tenure is 2002-2010/2012. His acting improved drasticly over time, and his babyface/wussy factor went away aswell. When I watch Ghost Writer, I always think that Brosnan could have still be playing Bond today. I saw recent pics of him, and he still looks Bondian.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Sorry DC, but Bond doesn't walk with a cane ;) Bond is supposed to be in shape and well, a deadly spy. Brosnan in DAD was fat, and could barely move without tearing a knee. Perhaps his acting is better, I don't follow his career, but the cinematic Bond EON wants to project isn't near the end of his career.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2011 Posts: 15,718
    Pierce Brosnan in 2011


    image
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Personally I never thought of Brozza as being "fat" in DAD. sure he's getting on but at least he's gain for the physical stuff.

    IMO Connery looked more "fat" in DAF.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    He could have been fine as Bond in '87 but the film would be way different. Dalton had a big control over the tone and script from what I've read, he pushed the series back to Fleming and thank god for that, but Brosnan never weilded that power or even showed an inclination to. He claims he wanted a darker Bond but then we wound up with DAD (funny how every thread about Brozzie degrades into this subject, yes? :O ).

    I dunno. The legal problems would have happened anyway, right? So then we would have gotten two Brosnan films we might not even care about and who takes over in '95? I agree with Benny. Too many questions.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited March 2011 Posts: 5,767
    Quoting Bond: Dalton's tenure was made darker and more true to the Fleming material to contrast the Moore era.

    If Brosnan had taken over in 1986 as he was supposed to until Remington Steele got renewed, do you think he'd have been as good as Dalton was in TLD and LTK, receiving mostly praise from the hardcore Bond community? Or do you think he'd have been similarly disliked by many as he is now?

    In otherwords — how much do you think Brosnan's films themselves and the fact that he followed Dalton instead of Moore has to do with how his tenure turned out?
    Fascinating topic. I like both Dalton and Brozzer, but I would imagine it could have been a lot of fun having a young Brozzer play Bond 5-7 times or so starting in ´86.
    Quoting DarthDimi: Also, public acceptance towards Brosnan may have been a little bit more generous. Maybe they would have made LTK less gritty with Brosnan in it too and maybe back in '89 that is exactly what was needed to propel Bond into the 90s. Who knows?
    I´m sure LTK as it was would have been an impossibility with Brosnan at the time. But I could imagine that a somewhat Moore-ish lightheartedness together with the considerable rejuvenation of the main character would have sufficed to keep the British end up, or straighten it properly after AVTAK, thus possibly avoiding the financial trouble of LTK.
    Quoting j7wild: Brosnan was probably not mature enough and experienced enough for the role of Bond, coming straight from TV to the largest and most successful film franchise in movie history!!
    Quoting Luds: Brosnan was more of a traditional action movie star with limited acting skills. His range wad exposed in Bond, but he could likely have been quite successful had he remained in television or not been Bond. He looked too green in the 80s to be a convincing Bond in TLD.
    I smoewhat appreciate what Brosnan did with Bond, but IMO it could have been even more fun if he wouldn´t have attempted to be a big screen actor but stayed the way he was in Remington Steele. Moore wasn´t much of an actor, yet he concentrated on certain aspects and thus made Bond a lot of fun. Brosnan had a similar opion, and perhaps he even would have done it that way had he not succeeded Dalton. He clearly reflects some of the aspects that were brought to the series by Dalton.
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    edited March 2011 Posts: 638
    Quoting DaltonCraig007: I actually believe Brosnan's optimal tenure is 2002-2010/2012. His acting improved drasticly over time, and his babyface/wussy factor went away aswell. When I watch Ghost Writer, I always think that Brosnan could have still be playing Bond today. I saw recent pics of him, and he still looks Bondian.
    I have to disagree with you. I saw Ghost Writer and while his acting is a bit better, he looked too old for Bond (he actually looks older than Dalton), not to mention his current gut.

    image
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited March 2011 Posts: 4,813
    LOL I totally have a pair of those trunks!

    image


    In all fairness, he's very 'relaxed' in that pic, and if he were doing a movie, he'd be in better shape and fixed up. I'm sure all good looking people look worse when they're not filming

  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    Quoting Master_Dahark: In all fairness, he's very 'relaxed' in that pic, and if he were doing a movie, he'd be in better shape and fixed up. I'm sure all good looking people look worse when they're not filming
    Very true, this is one of the worst pics of Brosnan out there. He is still a very good looking man, but even it Ghost Writer, his gut was apparent at times and while always groomed well, his wrinkles do show quite a bit (as they did for Moore as well).

    This picture may be a little more fair as it is right from the movie
    image

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718

    image
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Would it have been similar to Dalton's, no. I think Brosnans era was always going to turn out the way it did. Brosnan got the role due to Remmington Steele, and that's how his Bond was destined to be.

    Dalton was offered TLD first, before Brosnan, and i'm glad that after Tim had to turn the film down, fate offered him a 2nd chance. I
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Quoting MajorDSmythe: Brosnan got the role due to Remmington Steele, and that's how his Bond was destined to be.
    Which is why, IMO, Brosnan should have gotten the part later in his career, even later than 1995, so Remington Steele would be long behind him, and his maturity and improved acting talent be more prominent.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Had Brosnan continued for another two films, along with his improved performance from Die Another Day, would people still wish he'd have started earlier? Then at least, he only have had two bad films, performance wise.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    I honestly would have welcomed a 5th Brosnan in 2004- and then have Craig show up in 2006 uninterrupted in Casino Royale. Too bad....
    It would have been nice for him to come back and finish with a 'real' Bond film.

    As for him staying till 2012... nah.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I think 1995 was probably about the right time for Brosnan to get the part. Had he got it in 1986 he would have looked too young IMO (he looks fairly youthful in GE despite being over 40).
  • nick_007nick_007 Ville Marie
    edited March 2011 Posts: 443
    Brosnan today looks like Moore circa 1985. Too old for Bond.

    Brosnan's Bond would not have been like Dalton's. However, his Bond would not be the same as it has been written in history.

  • sheriouslyseansheriouslysean
    Posts: 16
    Quoting Bond: If Brosnan had taken over in 1986
    Quoting Bond: do you think he'd have been as good as Dalton was in TLD and LTK
    No - I've always found Brosnan to be more in the format of Moore, minus the Moore-humour and wit. Brosnan, coming from mainly a tv background, I reckon, would not have as much power on set or during pre-production to shape Bond into anything more than a sub-Moore portrayal of Bond. Dalton, on the other hand, was an experienced stage actor when he started Bond and was very involved in shaping the direction of his portrayal of Bond, leading to his version of Bond being the darkest pre-Craig.

    Personally, I would have liked to have seen what would have happened if Dalton had came in on AVTAK and run through the late '80s and '90s - certainly Bond would be rather different than it is today. A lot of the good press about Craig is about his much more gritty image and more book-based Bond portrayal, but really this is what Dalton brought almost 2 decades previously. Between them was Brosnan, who doesn't look much younger than Dalton, even though Dalton is around 7 years older.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2011 Posts: 15,718
    I honestly don't picture Dalton as Bond pre-1987. What I love about Dalton is his maturity, his world-weariness. A younger/baby-face Dalton would put me off his portrayal. If Dalton were to have made more movies, it would be continuing after LTK, not coming earlier than TLD. I just wouldn't love Dalton looking any younger than what he looked like in '87.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    But check out Dalton in Flash Gordon- he's not baby faced at all; he just looks... well, younger :)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Yes - but I just don't picture Dalton Bond looking any younger than in TLD. I'd love to see Dalton playing Bond in 1991, 1993, etc. But before 1987? Can't picture it at all.
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    image

    I could totally see Dalton as Bond in 1980 (minus the stache)
Sign In or Register to comment.