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
In hindsight I'm extremely glad that he didn't get the rights to Casino Royale. I'm sure that at some point someone will make a Bond film set in the 50's.
Maybe Tarantino could do his own 50s/60s set spy movie with Brosnan in the lead. That's something I'd like to see.
I'm sure a fifth Brosnan Bond film - be it Casino Royale or Die Another Night (the sequel to DAD!) :P - would have been a big success.
That's very surprising. Suggests they didn't actually like him at all. Why cast him in the first place if they felt like that? I guess it was Cubby's last act and they felt they had to respect it, but when the Irishman's mediocrity just couldn't be tolerated anymore they ditched him. Would be interesting to know what they really think of him. I bet they think he was awful.
With all due respect I doubt EON dumped Brosnan merely due to the fact that they didn't find him to be engaging dinning conversation.
Bond getting stale wasn't an excuse. It was just the truth. Plus after 9/11 esponiage was given a serious face again. Having spies windsurf giant waves just didn't seem right.
I think the problems with Brosnan's era were mainly down to the producers actually. Anyone remember the "CGI is the future" comments from them around the time of DAD?
I feel sorry for Brosnan. I thought he did a good job as Bond and deserved a better send off but the producers used him as a scapegoat when DAD turned out awful ("look, new Bond, new direction!") even though I think that was mainly their fault (yeah you can blame Tamahori and the script but they let that happen, instead of stopping things getting out of hand they supported them).
Here here. I will do the same. :)
You're right that the producers have to take responsibility as well. Brosnan is only one very small reason that DAD is awful. No one could have saved that movie. I did despair during the whole Brosnan era about whether MGW and Babs really had any idea about what they were doing. But I guess taking a longer term perspective you could say they reestablished the commercial success of the series after a long period of doubt, and then used this to reboot. I don't know if that was their 'plan', but they certainly appear in a much more positive light now than they did a decade ago.
The film could have started in 2005 with Bond, played by Brosnan, talking with M, a woman, etc. reminiscing on his first mission. We would then flashback to the late 70s/early 80s when Bond first gets 00 status and the film could have been the backstory to Brosnan's Bond.
As for Brosnan's films, I just re-watched them for the first time in a few years and I really, really enjoyed them. They are simply a lot of fun and Brosnan did a fine job as 007.
GE--Old wine in a new bottle, a great Bond for the 1990s.
TND--Carver was great and this reworking of YOLT was a lot of fun.
TWINE--Had an almost film noir quality with Ms. King--a true femme fatale.
TND--I will never understand the hate that this film gets. It's just as good (or bad) as the other three films from the Brosnan era. I thought that the invisible car was a real hoot. TND was a great hybrid of the novel Moonraker and the film DAF and great escapist fare in the Moore tradition.
Plus, keep in mind that while a lot of us love Dalton, the franchise was dead in the water by the late 80s/early 90s. It was Brosnan who gave the series a shot in the arm and brought it back from the dead and made 007 fresh and relevant again for a whole generation of fans. Pierce deserves a lot of credit.
There is a problem with this hypothetical scenario: Brosnan's age. He may have looked younger than he was in GE and even TND, but he ver much looked his age in DAD and there is no way a long flashback would have been believable. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Even at his most youthful looking, Brosnan never looked 25 or 30 years younger! And an extensive flashback, going Godfather II with Bond so to speak, would have brought many, many, many technical issues.
You said it. At 53 years old there wouldn't be a girdle strong enough or enough hair dye or makeup in the world to make Brosnan look like he did in the mid 80s. It would've been a disaster. We should count our blessings things worked out the way they did.
Brosnan as a rookie Bond in CR would have been ludicrous. A CR without the rookie Bond element would have been watered down to mediocrity. And this is not counting the many technical problems coming with an ageing actor playing the lead in an action movie.
And a question no one seems to ask is what would've come next? Just recast the role or reboot it entirely? If they were going to reboot the series CR was the perfect story to do it with. They'd be passing up a major opportunity just to satisfy a man who already had his run.
Anyway, that's some thoughts about it. Brosnan would have been back if they had chosen Quentin Tarantino's version of CR.
I think Tarantino had even less of a chance of working on CR than Brosnan. Thankfully.
Yeah, it had something to do with Tarantino not belonging to the directors guild or something.
No I just think the producers didn't want him anywhere near Bond.
Alright. God point
I don't know, it may have worked. If they can make an invisible car, they could make a 53 year old look ten years younger. Yes, the math wouldn't quite work, but if Brosnan really got in shape and a lot of makeup was applied, they may have been able to pull it off.
There is an obvious issue with that. EON didn't obtain the rights to CR until 2005.
Why would Dalton do one film, step down from the role only to come back 20 years later?
It wouldn't have made any sense. I was just throwing that out there as Dalton was asked in play 007 in '67. So I was creating a scenario where Dalton plays Bond for one film, pulls a Lazenby and leaves, and then comes back when he actually did play James Bond, in the late 80s. In this alternative universe EON would have had the rights to use CR.
He wasn't that old and in 2006 he didn't look any worse than in DAD. As long as they toned down the action he would've been fine. Here he is in 2007, a year after CR, and he still looks good enough to be Bond
Also, remove any mention of Bond being a rookie and make the parkour bit the PTS. It doesn't affect the film at all. It's still very good, so how would removing the rookie element be mediocre?
Brosnan looks good for a man of his age. But he looks like a man of his age, now and back in 2002 AND 2006. CR is all about Bond learning to become 007, about learning to asvoid falling in love, keep an emotional distance, remain professional, see the big picture, etc. You lose all this if Bond is an experienced agent. So yes, it makes the movie more mediocre.
As for the parkour, it wouldn't have been in the movie at all.
No, it would not hjave worked. It is easy to make someone look older in a movie, but doing the reserve is very difficult. Lots of makeup would have looked like lots of makeup.