29 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

According to this, in 1985 there were media reports that Roger Moore was considering producing a movie based upon his old TV series, The Saint, and that Pierce Brosnan was a prime candidate to play Simon Templar.

According to this, Pierce Brosnan was considered for the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman for the 1989 film, Batman.

Would you have wanted to see him as Simon Templar aka The Saint or Bruce Wayne aka Batman? Or both? Which role do you think he would have been good at? Or are you glad he wasn't cast in these roles?

I think he would have done a good job with both roles. I think I would have prefered him as Bruce Wayne/Batman, though. Michael Keaton did a great job but I'm a Pierce Brosnan fan. Ultimately, I would have wanted him as James Bond in The Living Daylights.

[bryonalston]

Simon Templar. Alec Baldwin should have been Batman instead of Keaton IMO. I also agree that Brosnan would have done better in TLD than Dalton (who did a damn fine job BTW) and Dalton should have done GE.

[templer1972]

IMO Brosnan would make a great Simon Templer. I wish someone could revive a new Saint film with Brosnan.

[Righty007]

IMO Brosnan would make a great Simon Templer. I wish someone could revive a new Saint film with Brosnan.

His version would kill Val Kilmer's version! Isn't it ironic that Val Kilmer has played both Simon Templar and Bruce Wayne?

[Qwerty]

If I had to choose, I'd pick The Saint.

[David Schofield]

IMO Brosnan would make a great Simon Templer. I wish someone could revive a new Saint film with Brosnan.

His version would kill Val Kilmer's version! Isn't it ironic that Val Kilmer has played both Simon Templar and Bruce Wayne?

Yup. And Kilmer was better as both than anyonelse I have seen. He certainly gave the Saint far more dynamics and made him more interesting than Brozza could: I suspect with Brozza we'd get just a variation on his usual character.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

IMO Brosnan would make a great Simon Templer. I wish someone could revive a new Saint film with Brosnan.

His version would kill Val Kilmer's version! Isn't it ironic that Val Kilmer has played both Simon Templar and Bruce Wayne?

And did horrible in both roles. I don't know about batman but Pierce would've madea a great Simon Templar.

[Simon]

I never would have seen Brosnan as Templar, until I saw him in Tailor of Panama where he played a self confident bas---d.

This is a requisite for the literary version of Templar and if done along these lines, would have been perfect.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I have always though that Brosnan was born to play The Saint. I think he would have been much better as Simon Templar than he was at James Bond. And that

[spynovelfan]

Does this even need to be asked, really? Brosnan has always been more suited to The Saint than either Batman *or* Bond. I think he pretty much plays Simon Templar in THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, as well as REMINGTON STEELE, of course. The characters of Bond and Templar are pretty close, broadly speaking. Both are suave, clever, wry, rogueish orphans - they are also popular folk heroes (verging on anti-heroes) in the same vein as Robin Hood and the Scarlet Pimpernel (both of which Brosnan would also have been good for in his prime). Bond requires the actor to be more convincingly threatening physically, though, which is why I think Brosnan would have been better as Templar. Don't see the point in casting him as Batman, who's an American.

[k13oharts]

Don't see the point in casting him as Batman, who's an American.

Pierce Brendan Brosnan is now an American citizen since September 23, 2004
Wikipedia Article: Pierce Brosnan

[Righty007]

Don't see the point in casting him as Batman, who's an American.

Christian Bale is British...

[Johnboy007]

Brosnan doesn't have the menace for Bruce Wayne. Simon Templar suits him better.

[TheSaint]

Simon Templar. Alec Baldwin should have been Batman instead of Keaton IMO.

THANK YOU! I've been saying that since 1989.

[TheSaint]

Yup. And Kilmer was better as both than anyonelse I have seen. He certainly gave the Saint far more dynamics and made him more interesting than Brozza could: I suspect with Brozza we'd get just a variation on his usual character.

Kilmer didn't play The Saint in that abomination. You could've called that film The Angel for all that it would've made a difference.

[David Schofield]

Yup. And Kilmer was better as both than anyonelse I have seen. He certainly gave the Saint far more dynamics and made him more interesting than Brozza could: I suspect with Brozza we'd get just a variation on his usual character.

Kilmer didn't play The Saint in that abomination. You could've called that film The Angel for all that it would've made a difference.

My knowledge of what constitutes "the Saint" really only extends to the various TV series: I am not familiar with the books. However, I am quite convinced you could not have made a Saint movie of the Moore/Ogilvy/Dutton - even Brosnan - variety in 1996. You needed the quirk of Kilmer.

Similarly, if you are looking at a "literal" interpretation, no one could make an argument that Roger Moore played Ian Fleming's James Bond in, say, Octopussy, surely.

[Mister Asterix]

Similarly, if you are looking at a "literal" interpretation, no one could make an argument that Roger Moore played Ian Fleming's James Bond in, say, Octopussy, surely.

[mra]Perhaps. But at least with Moore

[So Play The Violins]

I'd choose The Saint just because I'd like to see more of it.

[Lazenby880]

Undoubtedly Simon Templar, a role which would seem to play to Brosnan's strengths than James Bond. He has the right humour and suaveness for the Saint, and as has been previously noted Remington Steele was reasonably close.

As Batman? Absolutely not. One would imagine a Brosnan Bruce Wayne being largely similar to George Clooney, possibly with the same horrific results. He is not sufficiently dark or introspective enough to play the Dark Knight (cannot say he had the wrong build - look at the extensive regime Christian Bale had to go through to bulk up after practically starving himself for The Machinist), in my opinion. Better off sticking to the roles which suit him best, like the fluffy romantic comedies he is supposedly so good in.

Edited by Lazenby880, 23 August 2005 - 12:55 AM.

[TheSaint]

My knowledge of  what constitutes "the Saint" really only extends to the various TV series: I am not familiar with the books. However, I am quite convinced you could not have made a Saint movie of the Moore/Ogilvy/Dutton - even Brosnan - variety in 1996. You needed the quirk of Kilmer.

Similarly, if you are looking at a "literal" interpretation, no one could make an argument that Roger Moore played Ian Fleming's James Bond in, say, Octopussy, surely.

My knowledge of what constitutes "the Saint" extends to the original novels, radio shows, b/w movies of the 30's-50's, the comic books & strips, and the various tv incarnations. I can assure you that Kilmer's version is nowhere near ANY of those versions. I also think that a Saint movie in the vein of the Moore/Ogilvy/Dutton incarnation, starring Brosnan, would've been more succesful than the Kilmer abortion. Can I use harsher terminology?

[David Schofield]

[quote name='TheSaint' date='23 August 2005 - 04:50'][quote name='David Schofield' date='5 August 2005 - 03:02']My knowledge of

[TheSaint]

You see, that's where we disagree: you cannot make a Roger Moore/Ogilvy etc style Saint movie anymore. Its rather too old hat. Hell, look at the problems EON are having deciding the direction of the new Bond, a figure far more cool and 2005 significant than the Moore Saint. I applaud the directors of the Kilmer movie for noticing that.

And yet, there was no "Saint 2:Ths Time It Sucks Less" so, the idea of taking the name and throwing out everything that makes the Saint The Saint didn't work. Hopefully, the next attempt at a Saint film/tv series will learn from the mistakes of the Paramount production.

[ACE]

You see, that's where we disagree: you cannot make a Roger Moore/Ogilvy etc style Saint movie anymore. Its rather too old hat. Hell, look at the problems EON are having deciding the direction of the new Bond, a figure far more cool and 2005 significant than the Moore Saint. I applaud the directors of the Kilmer movie for noticing that.

And yet, there was no "Saint 2:Ths Time It Sucks Less" so, the idea of taking the name and throwing out everything that makes the Saint The Saint didn't work. Hopefully, the next attempt at a Saint film/tv series will learn from the mistakes of the Paramount production.

LOL, Mr Dubya aka El Santos aka TheSaint!

Who is the Saint for the benefit of those (me) who know nozzing of the character other than the TV shows, Sanders movies and the Kilmer "abomination" (yes, I think the moderators should allow you to use harsher terminology for this one occasion). Is there a site which examines the literary character of Charteris?

ACE

[Cesari]

I'm not a fan of Brosnan.
But he would have been a perfect Simon Templar.When he was younger becouse he is too old now.
He is suave, elegant, handsome... He would have been a great Saint... but an awfull Wayne. Brosnan as Batman?? What an idea!!!
And when I learnt in 1986 that Brosnan would be the nexr Bond I was terrified. I didn't want that teenage and smiling Remington Steele being My Bond!!!
He was perfect in 1994 for GoldenEye but would have been too young and too tender for LTK!!
Tks to Dalton!!!

[spynovelfan]

Who is the Saint for the benefit of those (me) who know nozzing of the character other than the TV shows, Sanders movies and the Kilmer "abomination" (yes, I think the moderators should allow you to use harsher terminology for this one occasion). Is there a site which examines the literary character of Charteris?

www.saint.org is probably the best starting point. Charteris was a terrific writer - for a quick taste of his writing style (and a stinging attack on Fleming's skills as a writer), check out this thread:

http://debrief.comma...53&hl=charteris

Or even contribute to it! I think it's a fascinating article, myself.

[avl]

He was also seriously considered for the US version of Doctor Who...

[rogermoore007]

Definitely Templar because of Pierce's turn in Thomas Crown. That would be a great remake of the Saint if it was ever attempted

[hartley_bond]

IMO Brosnan would make a great Simon Templer. I wish someone could revive a new Saint film with Brosnan.

His version would kill Val Kilmer's version! Isn't it ironic that Val Kilmer has played both Simon Templar and Bruce Wayne?

Yup. And Kilmer was better as both than anyonelse I have seen.

You thought he was a better Templar than Price, Conway, Sanders, Moore and Hayward?! The mind boggles!

[Emma]

According to this, Pierce Brosnan was considered for the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman for the 1989 film, Batman.

Would you have wanted to see him as Simon Templar aka The Saint or Bruce Wayne aka Batman? Or both? Which role do you think he would have been good at? Or are you glad he wasn't cast in these roles?

I think he would have done a good job with both roles. I think I would have prefered him as Bruce Wayne/Batman, though. Michael Keaton did a great job but I'm a Pierce Brosnan fan. Ultimately, I would have wanted him as James Bond in The Living Daylights.

Don't know if this is true. But Brosnan would have been a better and more appropriate choice for Bruce Wayne than that dweeb Michael Keaton. (Sorry for the negativity folks but I am a HUGE Batman fan, and Michael Keaton was completely innapropriate for the part.)

Brosnan is essentially playing Bruce Wayne in 'The Thomas Crown' affair. And for those of you who collect Batman will notice that Jim Lee used Brosnan's likeness in Batman:Hush. Brosnan has all the qualities that Bruce Wayne has the command, the animal magnatism, the height etc..

But most of all Brosnan has that subtle "Do not f___ with me" aura that Bruce Wayne has.

Whenever I think of Bruce Wayne/Batman I think of Pierce Brosnan.

Edited by Emma, 03 October 2005 - 12:55 PM.

[Emma]

As Batman? Absolutely not. One would imagine a Brosnan Bruce Wayne being largely similar to George Clooney, possibly with the same horrific results. He is not sufficiently dark or introspective enough to play the Dark Knight (cannot say he had the wrong build - look at the extensive regime Christian Bale had to go through to bulk up after practically starving himself for The Machinist), in my opinion. Better off sticking to the roles which suit him best, like the fluffy romantic comedies he is supposedly so good in.

I never saw George Clooney in Batman and Robin. In fact I avoided the film because he was in it. Howewever I undersand that he essentially did the same level of acting he did in all his other films and tv shows. Which is smirking and looking pretty.

Brosnan, despite his limitations, has far more depth than Clooney has. I'd laugh if George Clooney or Michael Keaton came up to me in a Batsuit. I wouldn't do the same thing with Pierce Brosnan