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
Agree. Die Another Day is equivocally Brosnan's best performance as Bond.
Regarding the OP, I don't think Brosnan would've worked in Casino Royale given it's Bond's origin story. It always required someone younger who fit into the narrative of a new 00 agent learning through naivety. If you also look at the way Brosnan handled the more emotional and vulnerable scenes in The World Is Not Enough I think it's fair to say that a CR with him in it would've been a poor effort in contrast to what we got with Craig.
I agree, in order to do CR justice you needed a younger Bond.
While I agree a faithful adaption means Bond is on his first mission. But having said that I don't think it has to be his first mission to have the story make sense. I would have enjoyed seeing an older Brosnan fall for the lady and then have his heart broken when she turns. In some ways to me it's more dramatic.
It would certainly work with an older Bond. I just think it adds an extra layer of danger when Bond is still relatively inexperienced. Plus it was an opportunity, one I wish they would take with an older Bond on the brink of retirement. Cover both ends. They sort of take this route in Skyfall atleast.
It wasn t Bond s first mission in the book. He had been going on for years.
Exactly. Seems the 2006 film has revised history thereby making it common belief that CR was Bond's first assignment.
First assignment as an double O agent! :P The point is there are people on this forum that seem to get very passionate that Brosnan couldn't do it. I'd argue that it could have been played by Brosnan quite easily.
I think he would have been fine as Bond in CR. He deserved a chance to star n a Fleming story at the very least. I personally would have preferred the film to not be a re-boot regardless and it wouldn't have been had Pierce starred.
Right on the money, my fellow Twin Peaks fan.
Yes, in the film it is Bond s first 00 assignment, but in the book he had been one since the war.
Best thing I've read all day @DrClatterhand
Nailed it. I completely agree with everything you just said.
The last sentence is debateable. Connery could play it straight or with tongue in cheek. I don't get the comedic timing with Craig. Connery played Bond tough in FRWL and then had fun with the character in DAF. I'd argue even Moore has had a greater range with the character. Craig's Bond is serious, tough and looks like someone not to be messed with. Could Craig handle the material in a lighter Bond film? We will never know since it's been serious for the run. However I suspect he'd have some trouble with the lighter fare.
I think the literary Bond was given his '00' status in December 1950, and the events of Casino Royale begin in May 1951, so it may not have been his first assignment, but it would be one of his first I suppose.
Where do you have this from?
According to John Griswold's advanced chronology, chapter six of From Russia With Love references the December 1950 date, (I looked and he's right), and the dates for CR are in the 'Dossier From M' chapter in CR, (I haven't checked that).
Right, thanks.
Have you seen Knives Out? Or the self deprecating humor from last night's SNL?
Craig Bond is best served in how he portrays it, and I wouldn't want to see knee-slappers from him, but, to say he'd have trouble with the lighter fare doesn't seem entirely accurate.
I seem to remember a discussion on here a few years ago about when the literary Bond got his '00' status. It might be worth a search.
Also, when Bond is talking to Mathis in CR he says "in the past few years I've killed two villains". Which leads the reader to believe that he's only killed two, (which has earned him his '00'). If he'd been a '00' for a few years, you'd expect that number to be considerably .... higher?
I think Logan Lucky and Knives Out shows that Craig has quite a talent for humour and comic timing.
I don't think it is one of the hallmarks of his portrayal but why should be have to be wisecracking.
Roger was the king of this and Connery did the deadpan so adeptly, although after Connery I would say Craig when given the right lines is fantastic and the deadpan delivery, not Sean level but definitely better than the others.
Brosnan tried the Roger routine but to me he just came off smarmy, when they tried to give Craig those lines in SPECTRE it just didn't work but likes of the below, he is fantastic at.
"yes considerably"
"that last hand nearly killed me"
and of course "its time to get out"
Craig was the ideal actor for CR and he gave us the most assured and confident debut since Connery delivered those immortal lines.
Not really. In the books, the 00 prefix did not mean a licence to kill. It was a code given to agents who had killed in the line of duty. Bond had joined the service in 1938 according to Fleming, but the 00 status came much later.
The Goldfinger novel puts it like this:
It did. In chapter six of FRWL it says 'The double 0 numerals signify an agent who has killed and who is privileged to kill on active service'.
And chapter two of Dr No tells us The licence to kill for the secret service, the double-0 prefix, was a great honour..
Then there's the Goldfinger reference MakeshiftPython mentions. There are others too.