The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

12324262829

Comments

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    Timothy put a lot of effort and professional pride into the role. His character prep spent reading and understanding Fleming's source material is beautifully obvious in TLD.

    Bratislava defection scene and @peter 's mention, Confronting Pushkin, are two perfect examples of how Dalton nailed the character better than anyone else, really.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    jobo wrote: »
    I know this might be the wrong thread to say it, but I wish Dalton had continued and made Goldeneye as well. Another film based on the same themes, but more in the style of TLD and with a stronger lead (sorry again...) could potentially have made Goldeneye a real classic!

    I too can only wish... Dalton could have sparred beautifully with Sean Bean. What a thespian face off that would have been :((
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Sam Neill wouldn't have been too bad either.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 3,152
    Yes. I like GE as it is - but would've loved to have seen Dalton come back in triumph with it and slap down all the doubters.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    AceHole wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    Timothy put a lot of effort and professional pride into the role. His character prep spent reading and understanding Fleming's source material is beautifully obvious in TLD.

    Bratislava defection scene and @peter 's mention, Confronting Pushkin, are two perfect examples of how Dalton nailed the character better than anyone else, really.

    I concur! Dalton nailed the novel-ian Bond better than anyone!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    chrisisall wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    Timothy put a lot of effort and professional pride into the role. His character prep spent reading and understanding Fleming's source material is beautifully obvious in TLD.

    Bratislava defection scene and @peter 's mention, Confronting Pushkin, are two perfect examples of how Dalton nailed the character better than anyone else, really.

    I concur! Dalton nailed the novel-ian Bond better than anyone!

    Agreed. Stated with the utmost love and respect, the Moore era had lost track of Fleming. (Not saying that Fleming is the only way to go!) Dalton, a "serious" actor, wanted to go back to Fleming. And he did. I love how he explains it in the "Everything Or Nothing" documentary; about how re-inventing Bond was necessary lest the series end up in self-parody; and also about how this was never meant for little children. I regret, to this day, that we got only two Dalton films. He was such a good Bond, such a good actor in the role. Alas, he didn't get the love and praise he deserved. In an alternate universe, he made his third film in '91 and his fourth in '93. This Daltonite keeps dreaming about that reality...
  • Posts: 1,917
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    Timothy put a lot of effort and professional pride into the role. His character prep spent reading and understanding Fleming's source material is beautifully obvious in TLD.

    Bratislava defection scene and @peter 's mention, Confronting Pushkin, are two perfect examples of how Dalton nailed the character better than anyone else, really.

    I concur! Dalton nailed the novel-ian Bond better than anyone!

    Agreed. Stated with the utmost love and respect, the Moore era had lost track of Fleming. (Not saying that Fleming is the only way to go!) Dalton, a "serious" actor, wanted to go back to Fleming. And he did. I love how he explains it in the "Everything Or Nothing" documentary; about how re-inventing Bond was necessary lest the series end up in self-parody; and also about how this was never meant for little children. I regret, to this day, that we got only two Dalton films. He was such a good Bond, such a good actor in the role. Alas, he didn't get the love and praise he deserved. In an alternate universe, he made his third film in '91 and his fourth in '93. This Daltonite keeps dreaming about that reality...

    Very well said by all. I too loved Dalton from the beginning. The first glimpse I got was of him on the tram trailing Kara and it was like looking at the guy I'd been reading about in the Fleming books. Although I was thrilled Bond was back in the mid '90s, that was also balanced out by feeling of loss, of an era that was robbed of reaching its full stride, replaced by something more generic and crowd-pleasing.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Say what you want about TND and TWINE, you definitely come away with them knowing you've just watched a Bond movie that cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else. I've been missing that feeling for a long time now with the last few Craig entries.

    TWINE was like watching a Lifetime Network version of Bond with his tracing the tears on the computer screen and being duped by Elektra. While TND is my favorite of the Brosnan era and a lot of fun, it too smacked of many other action films of the time. Sorry, I never want that feeling again and will take the path the Craig films have taken any time over repeating what those films offered.
    AceHole wrote: »
    Brosnan's films were plagued by generic machine gun battles (especially TND) - no other era of Bond has more of these.

    Bond's movie action-sequences need to have some element of novelty - otherwise it isn't (cinematic) 'Bond'

    While the Brosnan era started Bond using machine guns more extensively than usual, Craig's films have been just as bad. One of my bigger problems with NTTD is how often the action just goes for video game-like running around with a machine gun, in Cuba and then especially at the climax. He also used one during his escape from Blofeld's base in SP.

    And it's hardly the only instances of Bond with a machine gun as Lazenby's did during the invasion of Piz Gloria in OHMSS, Moore in the tanker battle in TSWLM and Dalton at the air strip in TLD.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    chrisisall wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    Timothy put a lot of effort and professional pride into the role. His character prep spent reading and understanding Fleming's source material is beautifully obvious in TLD.

    Bratislava defection scene and @peter 's mention, Confronting Pushkin, are two perfect examples of how Dalton nailed the character better than anyone else, really.

    I concur! Dalton nailed the novel-ian Bond better than anyone!

    I used to think this, but interestingly, no longer.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Regardless of the declining quality of his films, Brosnan created an entire new generation of Bond fans in the 90s. If EON had gone the "Craig" route back then making more gritty movies and turning Bond into a blue collar action hero it would've been too much like other heroes at the time like Riggs, McLane, and the various characters Arnold and Sly played. Bond was unique because he was totally unlike those characters. The Brosnan movies definitely have an element of pastiche (thanks for that word, Dalton) but it's also what makes them unapologetically Bondian. Say what you want about TND and TWINE, you definitely come away with them knowing you've just watched a Bond movie that cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else. I've been missing that feeling for a long time now with the last few Craig entries.

    Have you seen TND or TWINE?
  • Posts: 7,507
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Regardless of the declining quality of his films, Brosnan created an entire new generation of Bond fans in the 90s. If EON had gone the "Craig" route back then making more gritty movies and turning Bond into a blue collar action hero it would've been too much like other heroes at the time like Riggs, McLane, and the various characters Arnold and Sly played. Bond was unique because he was totally unlike those characters. The Brosnan movies definitely have an element of pastiche (thanks for that word, Dalton) but it's also what makes them unapologetically Bondian. Say what you want about TND and TWINE, you definitely come away with them knowing you've just watched a Bond movie that cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else. I've been missing that feeling for a long time now with the last few Craig entries.

    Have you seen TND or TWINE?


    I am guessing probably not, as he did state that Bond meeting Carver and Paris at the Hamburg party was one of the best scenes in the entire series... 8-}
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    chrisisall wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    Timothy put a lot of effort and professional pride into the role. His character prep spent reading and understanding Fleming's source material is beautifully obvious in TLD.

    Bratislava defection scene and @peter 's mention, Confronting Pushkin, are two perfect examples of how Dalton nailed the character better than anyone else, really.

    I concur! Dalton nailed the novel-ian Bond better than anyone!

    I used to think this, but interestingly, no longer.

    Yes, same here: they don't feel like the same guy to me.
    TLD is one of my favourite Bond films and I wouldn't change any of it, but do I think it may have been better for the series if Brosnan had been Bond from this one? Probably yeah- he would have been very good in it (even if he would have been very thin with massive hair! :D ) and I feel it would have been a bigger hit. I guess the hiatus would still have happened, but I feel like they would have got him back for B17.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    mtm wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    Timothy put a lot of effort and professional pride into the role. His character prep spent reading and understanding Fleming's source material is beautifully obvious in TLD.

    Bratislava defection scene and @peter 's mention, Confronting Pushkin, are two perfect examples of how Dalton nailed the character better than anyone else, really.

    I concur! Dalton nailed the novel-ian Bond better than anyone!

    I used to think this, but interestingly, no longer.

    Yes, same here: they don't feel like the same guy to me.
    TLD is one of my favourite Bond films and I wouldn't change any of it, but do I think it may have been better for the series if Brosnan had been Bond from this one? Probably yeah- he would have been very good in it (even if he would have been very thin with massive hair! :D ) and I feel it would have been a bigger hit. I guess the hiatus would still have happened, but I feel like they would have got him back for B17.


    Interesting point, I see where you are coming from.
    For the 'stability' and continuity of the franchise it would have indeed been more optimal.
    But we would have been deprived of Dalton's 007, and that for me is unthinkable.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    AceHole wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    Timothy put a lot of effort and professional pride into the role. His character prep spent reading and understanding Fleming's source material is beautifully obvious in TLD.

    Bratislava defection scene and @peter 's mention, Confronting Pushkin, are two perfect examples of how Dalton nailed the character better than anyone else, really.

    I concur! Dalton nailed the novel-ian Bond better than anyone!

    I used to think this, but interestingly, no longer.

    Yes, same here: they don't feel like the same guy to me.
    TLD is one of my favourite Bond films and I wouldn't change any of it, but do I think it may have been better for the series if Brosnan had been Bond from this one? Probably yeah- he would have been very good in it (even if he would have been very thin with massive hair! :D ) and I feel it would have been a bigger hit. I guess the hiatus would still have happened, but I feel like they would have got him back for B17.


    Interesting point, I see where you are coming from.
    For the 'stability' and continuity of the franchise it would have indeed been more optimal.
    But we would have been deprived of Dalton's 007, and that for me is unthinkable.

    Yeah I certainly personally prefer having both, but I can well imagine that Eon might look back on that period and think the films would have been in a stronger position with him there from the late 80s. I used to think that he needed that time to mature a bit, but I rewatched Fourth Protocol again recently and he holds the screen very effectively- that guy could have Bond right there and then.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    mtm wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    Timothy put a lot of effort and professional pride into the role. His character prep spent reading and understanding Fleming's source material is beautifully obvious in TLD.

    Bratislava defection scene and @peter 's mention, Confronting Pushkin, are two perfect examples of how Dalton nailed the character better than anyone else, really.

    I concur! Dalton nailed the novel-ian Bond better than anyone!

    I used to think this, but interestingly, no longer.

    Yes, same here: they don't feel like the same guy to me.
    TLD is one of my favourite Bond films and I wouldn't change any of it, but do I think it may have been better for the series if Brosnan had been Bond from this one? Probably yeah- he would have been very good in it (even if he would have been very thin with massive hair! :D ) and I feel it would have been a bigger hit. I guess the hiatus would still have happened, but I feel like they would have got him back for B17.


    Interesting point, I see where you are coming from.
    For the 'stability' and continuity of the franchise it would have indeed been more optimal.
    But we would have been deprived of Dalton's 007, and that for me is unthinkable.

    Yeah I certainly personally prefer having both, but I can well imagine that Eon might look back on that period and think the films would have been in a stronger position with him there from the late 80s. I used to think that he needed that time to mature a bit, but I rewatched Fourth Protocol again recently and he holds the screen very effectively- that guy could have Bond right there and then.

    I actually prefer Brosnan in The 4th Protocol, Thomas Crown, The Matador... :-?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 3,152
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I regret, to this day, that we got only two Dalton films. He was such a good Bond, such a good actor in the role. Alas, he didn't get the love and praise he deserved. In an alternate universe, he made his third film in '91 and his fourth in '93.
    Absolutely. Then Pierce could've come on and done his thing and there wouldn't be this nagging sense of 'what if'. As it is, there's still no closure, man!
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    I prefer brosnan over dalton.
  • I like Brosnan. Aside from Lazenby, I don't think there's a single "bad" Bond, and even Lazenby's film he's in is fantastic.

    I think a lot of the criticisms that get leveled at him are valid (he feels more corporate, a little less of a spy, a little more of a brand).

    On the other hand, I think a lot of the things leveled at him are pretty unfair and also true of the rest of the series (generic, stupid, loud, silly, whatever).

    That said, he clearly cared about the role, wanted to explore the character more, and EON didn't have the stones to really go through with it at that time (you can see hints of it all throughout his tenure, most obviously in TWINE, and it is also in that film in which they fail to commit most egregiously and that's why the result is such a head scratching combination of box-ticking and gestures toward something more substantive).
  • Mi6appealMi6appeal Denver, CO USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 10
    People talk about the Brosnan movies being formulaic like it's a bad thing. I want the formula when I see a Bond movie. If I want originality, I'm not going to see a movie in a series with 25 entries. Roger Ebert's review of TWINE captures why I think it's a great Bond. Being a great movie, and being a great Bond movie aren't exactly the same thing. And to those people who are going to run here and say CR and SF and NTTD are great movies and great Bond movies, I'll point out that I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, either, before I say no, they're good movies and good Bond movies, but they're not the best examples of either the Bond movie or general movies category.

    If you really want hard, gritty, and realistic, watch Zero Dark Thirty (great film). That's probably the closest the general public is ever going to get to what espionage and special operations are really like, and it's pretty fucking grim.

    Lastly, I don't get the reflex that says if you like Craig, you have to disown Brosnan. Both are just about tied as my favorite Bond, with one inching out the other, from time to time. I liked Craig in CR when I first saw it, but not enough to replace the image of PB as Bond in my head. Craig didn't really own the character, for me, until that moment in SF in the PTS, after he tears off the back of that train car with a backhoe, scrambles up the arm of that machine, jumps and lands inside the severed car, just inches from the edge, sticks the landing without breaking a sweat, then shooting his cuffs, calm and as cool as can be, he swaggers off. At that moment, he replaced PB as Bond in my head and became my favorite. Until recently, since I've been rewatching some Brozz, and I forgot just how much he LOOKS the part, and just lives in that calm, cool, unflappable demeanor that defines the character for me. But I still think DC in SF is the single best performance of any Bond actor in a single film.

    I think my favorite character beat in the entire series is that moment in TWINE, at the casino, when Bond stabs the guy's tie into the bar, steals his gun, and downs his martini in one gulp. That's all Brozz.
  • Posts: 387
    It's funny people say they wanted more Dalton which I understand.

    Myself, I regret Brosnan didn't get the gig in 86. If he had done TLD and LTK, then the come back, that would have made his stint at 6 films over a 17 years period. That would have been a huge body of work and just bloody awesome.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    It’s strange: I think Dalton is a head and tails a better Bond than Brosnan, BUT, I do think Brosnan c. 1986/7 would have been a kick ass Bond; the one early role Brosnan had that I loved was The Fourth Protocol. He was stone-cold and believable. If that actor played Bond I think he would have been tremendous. I also think his youth would have made him somewhat fearless in the role.
    It’s the Brosnan of ‘95 and onwards I’m not so keen on.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2021 Posts: 16,413
    peter wrote: »
    It’s strange: I think Dalton is a head and tails a better Bond than Brosnan, BUT, I do think Brosnan c. 1986/7 would have been a kick ass Bond; the one early role Brosnan had that I loved was The Fourth Protocol. He was stone-cold and believable. If that actor played Bond I think he would have been tremendous. I also think his youth would have made him somewhat fearless in the role.

    Yeah I think that's bang on- the cold Protocol Brosnan would have worked very well in this. I think we'd also have got the comedy squinty Pierce of Remington Steel and the Diet Coke ads as well, but I don't think that's a bad thing as people loved all that and the audience would have most probably connected with him better. And in Daylights he would have landed a few of the gags better than Tim did- I think even his greatest fans acknowledge that he wasn't at his most comfortable with the laughs.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    peter wrote: »
    It’s strange: I think Dalton is a head and tails a better Bond than Brosnan, BUT, I do think Brosnan c. 1986/7 would have been a kick ass Bond; the one early role Brosnan had that I loved was The Fourth Protocol. He was stone-cold and believable. If that actor played Bond I think he would have been tremendous. I also think his youth would have made him somewhat fearless in the role.

    Nope. If Broz got it instead of Dalton, they'd have tailored it to his Remington Steele persona to capitalize on its appeal. No, things definitely worked out as best they could have....
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    It’s strange: I think Dalton is a head and tails a better Bond than Brosnan, BUT, I do think Brosnan c. 1986/7 would have been a kick ass Bond; the one early role Brosnan had that I loved was The Fourth Protocol. He was stone-cold and believable. If that actor played Bond I think he would have been tremendous. I also think his youth would have made him somewhat fearless in the role.

    Yeah I think that's bang on- the cold Protocol Brosnan would have worked very well in this. I think we'd also have got the comedy squinty Pierce of Remington Steel and the Diet Coke ads as well, but I don't think that's a bad thing as people loved all that and the audience would have most probably connected with him better. And in Daylights he would have landed a few of the gags better than Tim did- I think even his greatest fans acknowledge that he wasn't at his most comfortable with the laughs.

    If we got the Brozz from The Fourth Protocol, mixed with the one liners, he’d have hit it out of the park because he was more comfortable killing a one liner (whereas Dalton, and Craig (the deep water bit from SF) were not so cozy in this environment). And, as you have stated @mtm , with a population behind the Brozz casting, I think TLD would have been a financial juggernaut (and LTK would not have been in cannon; something that hurts me, 😂)


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2021 Posts: 16,413
    chrisisall wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    It’s strange: I think Dalton is a head and tails a better Bond than Brosnan, BUT, I do think Brosnan c. 1986/7 would have been a kick ass Bond; the one early role Brosnan had that I loved was The Fourth Protocol. He was stone-cold and believable. If that actor played Bond I think he would have been tremendous. I also think his youth would have made him somewhat fearless in the role.

    Nope. If Broz got it instead of Dalton, they'd have tailored it to his Remington Steele persona to capitalize on its appeal.

    Well Daylights would have been the same movie- Dalton was cast so late in the game they didn't even have time to make suits for him and he had to bring his own along. So I don't think they would have tailored that movie to him particularly.
    LTK wouldn't have happened, no.

    "That goirl didn't know one end of a raifle from the other"
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    They did manage to tailor a few scenes for Dalton’s interpretation like Pushkin’s interrogation. But plotwise TLD was pretty much locked in. I think they were trying to gauge what his Bond could be like with the mixture of Fleming flourishes, cinematic style quips, etc. And then there’s the bits that they realize didn’t suit Dalton and ultimately scrapped like the magic carpet gag.
  • Posts: 387
    Oh yes, I thought these were his own suits (Dalton). In TLD he is probably the only Bond who dresses a bit like anyone with money would back in 1986.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    They did manage to tailor a few scenes for Dalton’s interpretation like Pushkin’s interrogation.

    How do you mean? Was that changed?
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Remington Steele was only reason that brosnan didn't play bond in tld and onwards. Dalton was second choice.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Stamper wrote: »
    It's funny people say they wanted more Dalton which I understand.

    Myself, I regret Brosnan didn't get the gig in 86. If he had done TLD and LTK, then the come back, that would have made his stint at 6 films over a 17 years period. That would have been a huge body of work and just bloody awesome.

    I regret both facts, to be honest, the same way I regret a cool and suave Connery not staying on until, say, 1987, on the best of terms with the producers, while I also regret that Lazenby didn't fulfil that seven-picture deal. And that comes from someone who really loves Moore. :-D So I guess the issue for me is that several (hypothetical) "careers" really sound good.

    Take Brosnan. In hindsight, we could have gotten a fifth Brosnan in 2004 and still have CR in 2006 with Craig. Too much of a good thing for general audiences? Possibly. But I'm sure many of us would have been okay with that. Brosnan opened strong with GE. He himself agrees that things went down fast after that. DAD is a joke to him--or at least that's what he pretends in the EON documentary. I just wish that he could have ended his career on the level of another GoldenEye as it were.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,803
    Wasn't Dalton the first and third choice. Plus sought years earlier.

Sign In or Register to comment.