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
But was Brosnan really THAT instrumental though? The 6 year hiatus and with the scripts/stories being what they were, nothing really changes if you swap out Brosnan for any generic Bond-looking actor who's at least competent to perform in front of a camera.
What exactly did Brosnan actually bring to the role?
$825 to be precise ;-)
1. Skyfall 2012 Daniel Craig $1,108,561,008
2. Thunderball 1965 Sean Connery $1,014,941,117
3. Goldfinger 1964 Sean Connery $912,257,512
4. Spectre 2015 Daniel Craig $880,669,186
5. Live and Let Die 1973 Roger Moore $825,110,761
6. You Only Live Twice 1967 Sean Connery $756,544,419
7. The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 Roger Moore $692,713,752
8. Casino Royale 2006 Daniel Craig $669,789,482
9. Moonraker 1979 Roger Moore $655,872,400
10. Diamonds Are Forever 1971 Sean Connery $648,514,469
11. Quantum of Solace 2008 Daniel Craig $622,246,378
12. From Russia with Love 1963 Sean Connery $576,277,964
13. Die Another Day 2002 Pierce Brosnan $543,639,638
14. Goldeneye 1995 Pierce Brosnan $529,548,711
15. On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969 George Lazenby $505,899,782
16. The World is Not Enough 1999 Pierce Brosnan $491,617,153
17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
23. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
24. Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,191
Interest I think. I remember being quite pleased at his casting because it felt like the series would now prosper. Dalton didn't have the appeal of Brosnan back then (which is why he was allowed to fall on his sword). Brozzer seemed perfect for the role, most people thought so. Everyone became interested in Bond again. In 1989 no one seemed bothered other than hard core fans.
Of course opinions change, and I'm less enamoured of PB now. I sort of like quite a lot of his time as Bond, but on reflection he was no Connery or Moore.
Live and Let Die is way higher than Moonraker when adjusted for inflation.
I think that Dalton just didn't excite audiences and as @NicNac says no one was too bothered when he was got rid off.
Would the public have accepted Dalton in GE? Very difficult question to answer but the indications weren't very promising, particularly after the 6 year hiatus.
But asking if the series being revived was down to Brosnan and he was the only one who could've done the job I'm not sure is true either.
Fact 1: People didn't warm to Dalton.
Fact 2: Brosnan was a popular choice for the role with the public.
But that doesn't mean someone else couldn't have come in and had similar popularity to Brosnan.
I'm not even sure Dalton's unpopularity was the key factor here. It seems as though the public has just reached Bond fatigue by the 80s with the five 80s films bottom of the box office and delivering diminishing returns as the decade went on with only TLD earning more than its predecessor due no doubt to new Bond bounce.
It could be argued that the 6 year gap was more fundamental than who was cast as long he did a competent job (and wasn't Dalton).
Box office takings were down in the 1980s generally, not just the case with the Bonds. Sean Bean should have been Bond in GoldenEye though. They went with Brosnan because he was a popular choice and they needed a huge success.
Over the years we had heard rumours about Michael Caine, Patrick MacGoohan, Sean Bean, but a Bond different to the accepted look still seemed a no-no.
Of course it took BB to change that, and now we can consider actors outside of the traditional look. Except we don't really. We are hankering for another tall, dark, handsome Bond
Hmm.
Inflation adjusted:
Batman - $545m
Last Crusade - $427m
Lethal Weapon 2 - $321m (for an R rated film)
LTK - $75m
Ok these are only domestic grosses (but domestic is what the studios base their decisions on) and LTK did reasonably internationally but it seems there were plenty of box office dollars out there in 89 if you give the audience something they want. Just doesnt seem like they wanted Dalts.
Absolutely, LTK underperformed in the north American market, that's pretty undisputed.
Yes, and it makes me a bit sad @NicNac. It took the Broccoli's guts to really think outside the box when casting Daniel Craig. 'Acting skills' became more dominant than 'typical Bond looks' when casting the lead actor.
But its true Moores early films weren't as successful until TSWLM came out!
Is it possible to be 'precise' about these things? I believe the figures you quoted were probably for 2012 as SF is not adjusted. Below are figures from last year which push LALD to over $860m, as I said.
Rather than going if we are going to do this we need to plan it out and get DC cooperating on going forward.
Instead the thought of bring this element back was too much for them to contend with and they didn't consider what would happen if DC left.
Like some have already said they should have just finished the Dc era with wrapping up Quantum and Mr White and then either rebooted with a new timeline or continue from DC's with a new Bond and introduce SP with an actor committed to staying and playing this out.
But Spectre's being in all four of DC's films, right? :)
You just want Poldark :)
Or a real-life character of Judah Ben-Hur.
Licence to Kill was No. 4 its opening weekend in the U.S. It finished behind Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. The only other "new" movie being released that weekend was a re-release of Bambi.
I'm glad Bond is back on surer footing these days from a financial perspective.
At his current rate, Craig would be in his nineties by the time he reached 25 films.
That being said I still stand by that he will be doing Bond 25
First black Bond director.
I think (relatively) a low key trajectory could be expected for pretty much anyone after something as massive as Bond, plus Craig seems like the kind of actor who'd most likely go for that sort trajectory anyway. It's not an acting ability issue, it can be what kind of stuff an actor is most interested in. I don't know for sure about him, but looking at his other work and how exhausting and stressful some of the Bond stuff apparently has been for him, I would imagine he'd rather not continue doing that type of work after Bond, and would prefer smaller scale stuff.
How good any actor is and how successful the movies they are in are box office -wise are of course two mostly unrelated things. I don't think success as an actor = box office.
The same here. I wasn't happy with Seydoux and Waltz at all. Seydoux was passable, but unconvincing, Waltz was pretty awful.
It's never gonna be "all" anyway, not even "most". Neither men nor women. A lot of people don't give a crap about Bond whoever the actor is. And whoever the actor is people will never agree on him anyway. I also disagree that all or most women would appreciate a Bond actor's looks above anything else, or that all or most women would have similar ideas about what counts as good looks.
Your criteria? You have specific criteria for looks? Oh. So clearly looks are very important for you, even if not the Bond actor's looks...
I think you exaggerate this "any woman" and "all women" thing. Opinions vary, you know. I do agree with you that Brosnan was and is a good looking guy. However, I don't think he's more attractive than Craig. Two different things you often seem to treat as one. Maybe they are the same for you, but for many they are not. I also don't think Craig's body is his "best trait" at all - frankly I find that aspect of him pretty uninteresting.