I read that article when Goldeneye came out. That's part of the annoying press machine that accompanied the Brosnan era..."Tim took it way too seriously"...etc.Ok fair enough. Tim was a serious Bond. but I thought Brosnan took himself too seriously(borderline manic depressive grimaces on his face at times),which is diffrent.It was an uneven performance.I was expecting a more Remmington Steele-sque/Roger moore happy go lucky Bond based on all the anti-Dalton dirt I was reading(Thomas Crown is Brosnan's ideal Bond template IMHO).
Goldeneye was an OK Bond film. I'm sure he can do better if he gets a superior script so I support his hiring...I'm curious to hear his thoughts on the 97-2002 films. 
Martin comes off as defending his Goldeneye against Dalton's films, there's no way in hell Brosnan's peformance in GE beats Dalton's in his 2 films, Brosnan played the role too cautiously, played it safe, he's admitted that, Dalton from the very first scene witht the wind blowing on his face in the living daylights, lit the screen up. It took Brosnan more time to find his Bond,
Dalton found it in his first scene, he made you believe in this dangerous Bond.
Goldeneye's story comes off as best of Bond stuff, Living daylights and licence to kill are the series strong storylines along with OHMSS, Russia, Dr No etc.
I believe EON never really gave Pierce Brosnan his true Bond, he was always searching for it, and had some great scenes like in the beginning of DAD, but the messed it up and choose to ignore it in the rest of the film, TND in the first half, I believe that half is the best we've seen Brosnan's Bond, he was great in that, 2nd film, more confortable, alot of energy, the 3rd act prevented it from being perhaps the best Bond film for a long time, but I think it showed Brosnan's Bond in better light then Goldeneye.
To put things straight, the English understood Dalton's Licence to Kill and made it number 1 for 6 weeks! Goldeneye was number 1 for like 3 weeks-4weeks, I believe alot of what made GE successful was the marketing campaign, impressive, new Bond, the movie was alright, not impressive, it was aways intended to launch Bond, but not be the defining movie, TND was a improvement, it's 3rd act prevented it from being brilliant rather then very good, TWINE, DAD, all seemed to have made creative sell outs, characters like Christmas Jones, Jinx, waste of screen time, screen time better used for Bond and Renard etc, Bond and Miranda Frost, Miranda Frost-Rosamund Pike was more stunning and deserved to be on the movie poster of DAD then Halle Berry.
Things like this, and I don't blame Brosnan, he was a hired gun, EON dropped the ball in silly mistakes which otherwise would of made each Brosnan Bond film better and better easily, so they can repay him now by not giving him his 5th Bond which he deserved in my opinion, he deserved a good story for his Bond, but they dumped him.
James Bond fanchise=very hard to mess up
EON-MGM-SONY-PRODUCERS-easily have messed up brosnan films from being better then they are.
Cubby Brocolli to Barabara Brocolli-don't let them screw it up, well whatever is going on, maybe Sony influenced??? we can't really know the real reason behind it.
Why was Brosnan dumped? Answer lies with EON-MGM-SONY, somewhere in there, there messing Bond up, parties are comprimising and leading to bad decisions, maybe Sony wanted a younger Bond to bring in more numbers, some dumb reasoning to bring in more youth, exactly the reasoning that would scare away adult fans, things like this , political behind the seens crap spoiling
Bond.
If I had the money to buy the Bond rights, hire my own writers, I'll give you guys kick
Bond film, character, good action, all of it, it's not hard to do, but studios-producers have to comprimise their great Bond film, Pierce Brosnan being outed is the worst decision I've seen from EON-MGM, while some of you may think yeah cool, new Bond coming, don't let it get to your head, you may wait and have another flawed Bond film, short from being great if they wanted too, but not being bad, because the Bond formula is too cool, and they take it for granted, and you guys will watch it and make them money, so it'll continue.
Some fans around here talk about the box office of films as if it's more important then the quality of the Bond film, whats the point of having Bond continue, if there gonna make all new films like 60-70% of what they can really do with it? It's easy to make a Bond film that's successful, hammer up the action, put some character in it, make the trailers look impressive, screw your Bond actor-brosnan, by giving him less character work and more action, and the opening weekend is big, but once all the numbers are counted and gone, your left your dvd at home, and watching, are you happy with the character and story, could it of been better.
In this respect Licence to kill and living daylights are always getting new fans, new Bond fans look up Dalton and his films, they are cult films, and see what a Bond should have in it, the connery films as well, balance of character then action, the Bond character is too cool, so you focus on him first, then action later, not the other way around.
Edited by SeanValen00V, 13 November 2004 - 07:21 PM.
