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
yeah, perhaps I am being to hard. Kaufman and KD Lang are one of the jewells of the Brosnan era.
It is probably time to stop the Brozzer bashing. He is a nice lad at heart and loved being Bond.
There was a quote a while back about Brosnan's good looks to the effect of "he looks like he should be hosting something."
I never thought he had the gravitas for Bond. He tried but was never quite convincing in the dramatic scenes. (Even Moore did better in, say, the MR centrifuge scene.) But to be fair, Brosnan also was handed pretty lousy scripts.
Or deside to make TLD first with Dalton for 1985, then LTK for 1987 and then AVTAK for 1989. If there back in 1985 or 1987 LTK whas a big risc there better made it possible always can back with AVTAK. But then you get 3 more heavy Bond movies in a row and i believe AVTAK whas choosen to bring back some of humor. Moonraker have the lucky that there stil be some novels to be in a movie whyle LTK don't have this luxery because AVTAK and TLD already be made.
I'd miss TND, whatever my feelings are towards the Brosnan era as a whole, I do like TND.
I rate Brosnan as a weak Bond but not a "bad" one...while he doesn't bring the acting chops or presence to the role in the way I would prefer I still liked him. But the way things worked out meant that EON tried very, very hard with GE to make a bigger, more glamorous, more "classic" Bond film that the audiences would enjoy and that certainly put the franchise back on solid ground. We certainly wouldn't be where we are today if they hadn't.
Best case scenario for me is if they could have squeaked in one last film with Dalton - the abandoned Property of a Lady set in Vancouver and Hong Kong - to satisfy the more hard-core fans and then continue with Brosnan's run as it was. That way the Dalton fans and the general audience both get what they enjoy...
But yeah i agree w/ who ever said that Dalton would have been great in GE
There were also issues with the promotion of the film in the form of teaser posters, based on the Licence Revoked title after American test screenings showed 'Licence Revoked' to be a common American phrase for the withdrawal of a driving licence. The sudden name change confused the poor US audience so much that subsequently their popcorn addled minds began to implode and change queuing lanes for Leathal Weapon instead!
Now we can all look back on the Summer of 89 and agree that Dalton was vastly superior in the role of 007 and has been unfairly maligned by uninformed moviegoers and lovers of the one dimensional Mr Brosnan. So to answer your question Would you forgo the Brosnan Era to add to the Dalton era? God yes, in a New York minute!!
All the movies mentioned by you are indeed better and more fun than LTK, so that is no shame being the lesser movie.
You think that a name change confused the American audience? I give them a heck more credit, they just didn't find Dalton all that good after seven 007 flics with the highly popular Roger Moore. So I credit them good taste instead of calling them dumb.
Then later on they make a movie called 'Quantum of freaking Solace', lol
But all kidding aside, didn't LTK get poor advertizing because they changed the title pretty late in the game? I was just a kid and don't remember.
To those who remember the summer of '89, was there alot of Bond buzz going on? I do know that there was SO much Batman talk going on that the word 'Bat-Mania' was used to describe it.
So... if I have to make the sacrifice of losing GE in the process, I will reluctantly accept the additional Brosnan films to keep GE.
First off Brosnan was tailor made for Goldeneye, he fitted in perfectly and wouldn't swap him in that with anyone, even Dalton who I think would still have been plausible Bond even by that time but Brosnan worked very well for that year
If Timmy had been available for Tomorrow Never Dies however, I would of taken him over Brosnan any day of the week, could well be Brosnan's most lamest 007 release of the four seriously, it's just so damn dull and maybe Dalton could of injected some much needed life into it
Brosnan redeemed himself for The World Is Not Enough, a most enjoyable experience and Dalton for me, I wouldn't let him near that one
Die Another Day is best left with Brosnan, I feel Dalton would of been too old by 2002 to be involved in the part, I would of liked to have seen him in more after 1989 and into the early part of the 1990s but it wasn't to be, Brosnan got the part in '95, gave us a very good (if sometimes stuttering) outing and I'm content to let him be associated with that and no-one else
1995 Brosnan
1997 Dalton/someone else
1999 Brosnan
2002 Brosnan/someone else
I think you have to look at the films as a product of the times in which they were made and take them for what they are. Brosnan was the perfect 90's Bond, nobody else could have done it as well as him during that period. I even remember him getting massive compliments in the press as 'the best Bond since Connery' back in the day.
I think the reason most people slate him now, is because we're now in 2012. Give it another couple of years and it'll be 20 years since Pierce picked up the Walther. Imagine someone playing Bond 'Roger style' now...it wouldn't work, because it doesn't suit the times in which we live.
Unfortunately, Tim was the backup man for Bond back in 87. When I watch TLD pre title sequence, I can see Brosnan doing it clear as day and IMHO I think he'd have done a much better job. Tim was okay but he wasn't quite right. He certainly had 2 cracking scripts to play with but in terms of his portrayal...it wasn't all that. He just wasn't charming enough and lacked that charisma you need to pull off Bond.
Brosnan's would-be conduct as an actor in TLD does intrigue me but I would never replace Dalton with anybody in that film. As for LTK, I quite honestly doubt anyone besides Dalton could have handled the material as well as he. Brosnan, for example, would have a hard time - or so I think - resonating with the tragic, revenge driven plot of the film. A classically trained actor like Dalton might simply be better suited to for example witness, rather placidly at moments, how one after the other link in Sanchez' organisation is removed by the chief leader himself, and actually make us believe the act of vengeance is a complete emotional success. Also, as he triggers Sanchez into issuing desperate and surprisingly impulsive employment terminations with, unbeknownst to Sanchez at those moments, deleterious effects to his grand operations, Bond constantly needs to keep a straight face while subtly amping up his inner aggression so that his final strike can be empowered by pure rage - hence a rather violent conclusion to his personal vendetta. For this to be effective, Dalton needed to always pinpoint a certain scene in the overall story progression and adjust the canvas of his acting to the requirements of said scene. The closest Brosnan probably came to this (or was allowed to come to this) is TWINE. Here, however, I find his anger much less consistent and much less spontaneous. I will admit though that TWINE and LTK are overall two different films and that, perhaps, the director has something to do with all of this as well. Still, while I will never bash Brosnan or follow the anti-Brosnan movements, I find it hard at this point to consider Brosnan the better choice were we once again to decide who'd play the part of 007 in '87 and '89.
Good post TC. It's nice to see someone else who still has a bit of love for the Brozz. I too remember the whole "best since Sean Connery" stuff, it seems that most actors who come along get labelled as such. I remember - even after DAD - Brosnan being labelled as "second only to Sean Connery among the Bond's" (even though they didn't like the film.
It's funny with Tim. I like him and kind of feel a bit sorry for him but he (arguably) just didn't quite have that sense of fun that Brozza (Connery, Moore and even Craig) had and which made him (them) popular. Brozz had a more flippant attitude that didn't really suit Dalts ("a world-wide financial meltdown...and all so mad little Alec could settle a score with the world 50 years on") I do however think Dalts is by far the stronger actor and was definitely the right choice for TLD in '87. Pierce would have been quite bad judging by the films he was in around that time.
He was, however, perfect for the 90s. Flashy and complete with a twinkle.
Also, another plus I think Brosnan had was the way he moved. Watching him he almost glides through the scenery. It's little things like how he pulls off his belt in the archive in GE or the way he walks from his car to the hotel in TND. I remember Connery being quoted saying that the character needed to move well.
I remember reading in a book somewhere about the PTS of Goldeneye being set 8 years earlier than the actual film which would have been around the time of TLD, almost as if the filmakers were saying Brosnan should have been Bond all along.
Pierce brought me into the world of Bond- he was one of my childhood heroes and it pains me that they go
One scene I LOVE in GE is the tank chase. I know it's preposterous but it always gets my inner child excited. Don't know if I can see Dalts doing that either (although it is more believable than fighting androids).