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
I knew there must be some evil studio exec at least partly responsible. Doubtless they thought Brosnan would play better with U.S. audiences. I guess they weren't wrong.
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/ge_roadtoproduction.php3?t=&s=articles&id=0197
Didn't that initially include you aswell?
I like Dalton, and in LTK he really is a bad ass Bond, but the character was becoming sexless.
Brosnan really helped to re energise the series.
Babs was wise to listen to her father, along with MGM big wigs.
Despite the hate Brosnan gets around here, I thought he was absolutely fantastic as Bond.
I once had the good fortune to meet him, and he was very modest about his take on Bond. Also, he was greatfull for it allowed him the luxery of making smaller films and a broader range of roles.
Really, when? I'd love to meet him. He seems like he'd be a good to have a drink with - providing you don't bring up Bond.
As I've said before I actually quite like Broz the person. And I respect and admire the way he used his success as Bond to do lots of other (often better) films and parts.
If I'm feeling generous I'd admit that at least he kept the show on the road so that finally someone better could take over the reins. I guess every now and then you need someone to keep the seat warm while someone better comes along (or back, as with George and Sean).
yes it did. I was actually a little disappointed when I first heard that Moore had signed to play Bond in AVTAK because I was looking forward to Brosnan playing Bond.
As much as I prefer Dalton in the role, I have to agree that going with Brosnan as Bond in 95 was the better move for the future of the series. I don't think people would have run to the theater like they did for GE to see another Dalton film.
As for Dalton in GoldenEye, I like to hope that it would be like what's going on now: Craig did 2 films and after a long hiatus (not as long, I know), Craig is returning to the role for a third. I think nearly everyone is happy about that, except for those out there that never liked Craig in the first place. It could have been the same with Dalton: 2 films, hiatus, then a return. If only. :(
I think it really was a case of no one else being available at the time, hence Moore agreeing to come back, but only for one final film. I suppose there was also him beating Connery's record of six, that may have came into it.
That's how I've always felt too. Don't get me wrong I'm sure GE with Dalton would have been reasonably sucessful but I just don't think it would have been the powerhouse the existing film was (and needed to be if it were to survive).
I know many people argue that it would have been better for the series to have ended gracefully in the 80s but if that were the case I probably wouldn't be a fan now so I'm grateful it didn't :)
I was too young to remember the Dalton era but I get the impression he just never set the world on fire. Shame I suppose because he is a very talanted actor but he didn't have that 'spark' Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig had.
I think there were about 5 million reasons Moore did AVTAK.
He also secured a bunch of new Bond fans - I'm one of them.
I'm pretty sure all the other Bonds did as well, to varying degrees. My into to the world of Bond was with the James Bond jr cartoon, but I didn't start with the films until 1996 (and not because of Brosnan, but a newly released reissue of the YOLT VHS).
True, but since leaving the role, Brosnan has voiced his true thoughts on his era. Why didn't he speak up when he was in the role? They may have taken his constructive critism onboard. Maybe.
Having recently re-watched the cheesefest Live Wire recently ("she drank the water, shweat, shook then boooom") TWINE is easily a more mature, better performance.
Well, the writers did tailor the scripts to his interpretation of Bond.
Maybe he did... maybe that's why his salary augmented to much.... EON was paying him with big sums of money to keep him quiet and to make him stay in the role... Brosnan brought the popularity and the box office numbers, EON wouldn't want him to badmouth the films... now that he hasn't been Bond since 2002, he speaks more freely...
If he decides to speak at all. It still seems like a very sore subject for him to me, going by his recent interviews.
Why? I haven't a clue. It's been one decade, that passage of time must have helped somewhat.
Brosnan was getting very excited to do Casino Royale according to an interview and then having that situation cut due to Babs mooning over Craig- i would be justifiably pissed off aswell...i mean since leaving Bond Pierce has managed to improve his acting skills (The Ghost Writer, Remember Me and The Greatest) and he really didnt deserve all the hatred of dozens of fans...
I too question the rebooting of the series, was it really necessary, OK there may have been some life taken out of it by then but to start from scratch at that point in time seems a bit questionable, it's like this is Bond starting out, here's where it all began, well what about the other 20 or so adventures before that then, do we just put them in the trash on our way through the door. I don't have a problem with Dench staying on and new Bond at the time it's more than anything what they did with it. I don't think people hated Brosnan as Bond, sure there may have been some disagreements and all but there was no malice intended on his behalf. He can look back on four outings in the part that any of us would give our right arms for, maybe he wasn't pleased about how it turned out in the end but life is full of disappointments and letdowns
I think part of it may also be trying to rationalize his performances after the fact. He was given plenty of emotional meat in his films (especially in TWINE but in all of them really) and the excuse that he didn't get good "acting" or character material to work with is absurd. Bond's friend betraying him in GE? The return into his life and then death of Paris in TND? The relationship with Elektra in TWINE? The first half of DAD? I recently rewatched TWINE and thought that he just didn't have the acting chops - both in maintaining a consistant character and having the conviction in his scenes - to do justice to the script. After all the critics (and the BAFTAs!) praised Craig's performance so much in CR it *appears* to me that his ego may have been bruised and he deflects by saying that it was the fault of the scripts and not his abilities.
Now, I do like Brosnan and am grateful to him for re-igniting the Bond films' box office but he wasn't the strongest actor in the role. I'm sure that if we had seen a different actor in TWINE it would really illustrate how much there was to work with.
I think the reboot concept is overdone. I don't think it was the producers intention to suggest that we're starting from scratch. They had the rights to Casino Royale and they wanted to stay reasonably faithful to the story and that dictated basically that there should be a new, younger Bond. Continuity across Bond movies has never been particularly important to the franchise. Does Connery in DAF make any concession to the fact he's just supposed to have lost his wife? Not really. So I say don't see CR as a 'reboot' but as just an earlier chapter in Bond's life that happens to have been told later in the series - a flashback, as it were.
When he missed out on the role the first time, it was NBC's fault, not Eon's. NBC "uncancelled" Remington Steele to capitalize on Brosnan's popularity when the Bond rumors heated up.
I'd argue that all of the pro-Brosnan press tainted Dalton as the "second choice Bond" in the US before he even got started--and this is coming from someone who preferred Dalton to Brosnan in the role.
Dalton is really the proto-Craig.