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
Fair enough.
Not even God could save DAD! ;-)
I agree with this learned poster's assessment.
Only one man could have saved DAD. With the Daltonator it would have been a classic - no doubt about it!
Give Dalts some credit. He wouldn't have touched that film with a 10ft pole! ;-)
Oh come on that's not very fair to Brosnan. He did the best with what he was given. EON were running a very tight ship until Craig came on board. Then they finally loosened up and Started listening to their lead actor instead of just giving him material.
Don't you think you have to ask 'why?' this happened? Not that I entirely agree any way. But if they were not listening to their lead actor then that's presumably because they didn't think much of what he was saying or thought he wasn't up to dealing with better material. But the point is that there is always the opportunity, even with a bad script, for a good actor to deliver a quality performance. Brosnan NEVER did that. Even when they gave himn some meatier scenes, as they were obviously trying to do with TWINE, he blew it. Nothing he did on screen as Bond stands the test of time. They might as well have thrown a bucket of chicken entrails in the general direction of the camera - it would have been more engaging.
Example?
Maybe he could have done it. That said I wouldn't change the scene we have for the world.
As Pierce didn't quit in '99 after his best performance, and decided to try again three years later, with poor results (when by now he was evidently too old for the part) then needless to say, another appearance four or five years thereafter would of been dragging Flemings iconic character a bit further into the mud. Regardless of 'how close' we were to seeing it, it thankfully never occured, and Craig came in and put on an outstanding performance and really, we've never looked back
To be honest, I can't really remember - I haven't seen it since the cinema - but I do remember the scenes with Elektra having potential to be more interesting than they actually were. But as others point out, QoS is hardly the best script, but there are plenty of scenes where Craig shines. All I remember the Broz for are the godawful gruntings and embarassing swaggering.
You should watch it again. I'd watch TWINE again with a clear mind. I did recently not having seen it in a good few years. I picked up on a lot. Sure some lines could be better but that doesn't make Brosnan the worst actor in the world. Like I said he did the best with what he was given. As for why EoN was so tight. Well, Cubby died in 96 so maybe MGW and Babs were afraid to take it in their direction and played it safe until they were confident enough to Break from the Cubby formula.
In Goldeneye :p
Exactly. I'm really hoping that Fiennes actually likes his office and decides to stay in it for a film or two!
Well said sir. I've always felt the same way. QOS is a good example. Another is the fact that, although some might call me crazy, I still find The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to be an entertaining and watchable movie. All due to be the fact that the legendary Sir. Connery was the star. You could film the man reading the phonebook for 90 mins and he'd still probably find a way to make it entertaining. That's a rare quality in an actor to be able to single-handedly carry a mediocre or sub-par movie. A quality Brosnan never had. As @Getafix said he's very much a TV actor as far as his talents go. Not a larger than life movie star like Sean Connery, Carey Grant, Jack Nicholson, Harrison Ford, etc.
She was contained in TND, mostly. She was in some kind of high-tech office thing during the PTS and in a car briefly, but she stayed well within the bounds of Bernard Lee's M. Nothing like everything between TWINE and SF.
But it's sadly unlikely that Fiennes' M, Moneypenny, and Q will stay at the office, if Skyfall and the rumors are any indication. At this point, it would be more of a deviation to have them in the office than out of it!
Im going to have to call B.S. on the whole thing. Not only because I would've dreaded Brosnan starring Casino Royale but for 2 reasons.
1) This report came out a mere month before Craig was officially announced as the new James Bond. When casting the star and leading man of a multi-billion dollar Hollywood cash cow franchise, an actor doesn't just walk into an audition, read a monologue, and then wait 3 weeks for an answer. Yet according to this report in September 2005 there is no clear candidate for the role and EON was ready to come crawling back to the very man they shunned and had since blasted them in interviews. And then alakazam it's October 2005 and Daniel Craig is jetting down the River Thames and EON is gung-ho on their new Bond and never looking back. I'm not a Hollywood expert but that doesn't sound right. Craig had probably been extensively screen-tested and consulted with for a period of several months. I'm almost 100% sure that by September of 2005 he was already unofficially cast as the new 007 and it was just a matter of negotiating and drawing up his multiple film contract. Which in itself can take weeks.
2) By September 2005 the script to Casino Royale was most certainly already written. After all I'm sure the potential serious candidates for Bond would have wanted to have read the script and find out what they were getting themselves into. Craig himself said he was only interested in playing the part after reading the script. That being the case the script for the 2006 film we got very clearly required a younger 007 then we'd seen in decades. It's practicality the theme and selling point of the film. For EON to go from a thirty something year old actor debuting as a novice James Bond on his first major assignment to a 53 year old Pierce Brosnan playing an aging 007 in what would probably be Brosnan's swansong would practically require a total re-write. They wouldn't introduce Quantum if Brosnan was on his way out and probably not returning for Bond 22. The whole reboot concept would've been thrown out the window. Q and Moneypenny would probably be shoe-horned back in. Bond's entire young eager upstart characerization wouldn't be present anymore. The subplot of M not sure if she can trust Bond and if she promoted him too early wouldn't make any sense. We wouldn't be getting that parquore chase, that's for damn sure. Basically it's be a totally different film. We'd be going from a debut to a finale. I highly doubt they'd be able to make the November 2006 release date if they were starting from scratch a mere 14 months earlier.
That being said I believe this whole story was just wishful thinking by Brosnan and his supporters.
You pretty much sums it up. In the end, Brosnan wanted Brosnan, this is what it seems to me anyway.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2005/05/03/craig-vaughn-on-bond
He was first mentioned in April 2005, from the on, he was the one they wanted.
To be fair though the CR novel is not really like the DC film of the same name so Brosnan could have done it, as in the book Bond is already into his stride not a rookie. How it would have turned out though is anyone's guess.
The ultimate reboot would take us back to Bond during his WW2 service.