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
it even counts as a Bond movie.
but it's not part of the official MGM/UA/Sony Cannon of films.... I can't even call the film an official Bond film, because it is legally without a vast majority of the official trademarks.. ie: gun barrel, Bond theme, and even the 007 logo used for promotion.
Therefore, Pierce in CR or QOS even just wouldn't have worked, there is no way Brosnan could of pulled off the Madagascar scenes and there was a lot of other bits that hard work and endurance were necessary and Brosnan seems now, at least in hindsight, incapable of pulling off, unless they went along the lines of Moore in 1985 and have a stunt double do most of his scenes for the real action
Which is perhaps why the franchise has survived the times, the different performers gave their versions best suited for the times. It is their individual strength.
General consensus is usually it was Pierce's worst 007 adventure
Because CR and QOS were written for a different actor, Brosnan would have been terrible in them. Had Brosnan gotten a fifth chance, I think EON would have gone the more MR ---> FYEO route, however. MGW and Babs had realized how ridiculous the series had got and it was time for something else. (Hell, that is why they let Brosnan go in the first place!) I was always shocked (and still am) that they got rid of Brosnan when they did. He was always guaranteed hit at the box office. Brozza's Bond films were generally blasé, but to many they got the job done and that was good enough for the mass film audience. EON could have easily kept Brosnan around for one more film and made it a proper, down to earth swan song. He was looking a tad older in DAD, but looked far better than Moore in OP and AVTAK and Connery in DAF. (I still do not understand how Connery aged 15 years between 1967 and 1971 ;-) ) They could have milked one more Brosnan film, but it would not have been in the exact style of the Craig films. Maybe Brosnan's 5th would have been a little more serious, but I almost guarantee you all the Brosnan aspects would be in place: machine gun fire, bad puns (albeit less of them), and another big name Hollywood Bond girl.
I will always maintain that Brosnan appeared at times over americanized, yes, smarmy, and not what Fleming intended, I don't have an issue with the man, Pierce is a very well known and established actor, I enjoyed his Bond tenure for the most part, but there was times when you would watch and think 'something doesn't feel right here etc'
Allegedly Pierce Brosnan said he would only have stayed on to do Casino Royale if Tarantino was hired.
Let's assume that Brosnan was not let go and the version of CR that we got in 2006 was pretty much the same with some minor script changes - instead of Bond being a new 00 maybe he was recently brought back to the service after a long break to recover from the 14 months of torture in DAD (let's pretend after the events of the film it caught up with him there was delayed PTSD, or even some different unseen mission that led to a long recovery). That's probably the easiest way to look at it.
Assuming that the style of the script was the same and that Campbell directed in the same style we still would have gotten a competent film. But the crucial core would be missing which is Craig. For example, the action scenes would be changed considerably - Brosnan would not be convincing in the ones that we saw. But the action scenes in CR also helped with character definition - how many times have we heard about Bond's ego and his bullheadedness? That was so clearly demonstrated in Craig's Madagascar chase and that was pretty much a set-piece with no dialogue!
Craig also gives a subtle performance and very interesting line readings throughout CR which I doubt Brosnan would have matched. He had the chance to have done so in his other films but did not. I can't believe that he was capable of giving different (better?)performances in his other films and chose not to; I think that his performances are fairly standard and obvious and can't see him changing. The big change for me in his performances was that he was fairly restrained in GE but then became the smug, self-satisfied Bond starting in TND and continuing (and getting worse IMHO) through the next two films. I would have liked to see him continue in the same vein as GE but I think a lot of that goes to Martin Campbell. He might have nudged Brosnan towards that type of performance again but I doubt we'd hit (BAFTA nominated) Craig's level of performance.
The CR we got suited Craig's acting chops (although I think he could have elevated any of Brosnan's films) and physicality. I'm pretty damn glad we got the CR that we did.
Brosnan could have been miserable but Daniel Craig would have trouble with a camp charming Conneryesque/Mooresque role.
The movies would be terrible and would have killed off the series.
<b>@ Flandry</b>- HOW do you know that Craig can't do Connery-like one liner humor? He just hasn't been given much to work with, but when he has such as the line about Fields' handcuffs in QOS, it was slam-dunk good.
I salute you sir!
TWINE is my 2nd favourite bond film, i loved it and i think its by far brosnans best
to me it counts as connerys best bond film (don't kill me, i enjoyed it)