67 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

Random thoughts.

Personally, Pierce

[Turn]

Is Bros in the water he stole from his neighbor in this picture?

[RivenWinner]

I think that Brosnan could have done it, and could have done a very good job. The reason that his Bond wasn't particularly good was because he was let down time and time again by the scripts. He was very good in The Tailor of Panama, and if he had been allowed to play Bond more like that, he could have been very good. I always like to see actors play against the style that they're often associated with, so part of it is just me wanting to see Brosnan get the opportunity to play Bond a little closer to what Fleming wrote on the page rather than what he had to play him as in his four films.

Finally someone that thinks Brosnan could have pulled it off. I agree with you, I too feel that he could have given us an excellent CR. However, it obviously would have been a very different CR. Many people assume that it would just be the same story, except you pluck Craig out and drop Brosnan in. lol No. Brosnan was robbed of doing a good, down to earth serious Bond film. There were some early indications that maybe after Die Another Day they would move to a film like that, but he was quickly dropped. I love Craig and Casino Royale hands down, but I still feel that EON dropped Brosnan in a somewhat unprofessional manner. He could have easily done one more film and it would have worked out fine.

I also continue to insist that a chronological reboot of the series was not needed, however, that's best left for another topic.



One final note on Brosnan. I'm not saying that this thread makes fun of him, however, (and I'm sure many of you will agree with me here) Brosnan-bashing/joking has become somewhat popular these days, and I'm not really sure why. It's rather sad actually. He's still a good actor and a good person (he does tons of stuff outside acting) and he still comes out with some films (yeah, sure, he's got stinkers too, but so does everyone else). He contributed greatly to Bond, providing fun, Bond adventures, and expanded the character and the series to a new generation. Did he give us the best Bond film ever? Did he give us the worse Bond film ever? These are topics that are enjoyable and fun to debate among Bond fans. With over 20 films and 40 years of history, stuff like this makes the Bond series fun to watch and discuss.

[Harmsway]

I also continue to insist that a chronological reboot of the series was not needed, however, that's best left for another topic.

It might not have been absolutely needed, but it's still a nice thing to have.

[LadySylvia]

For a 54 year-old man, he looks pretty damn good. Craig better hope and pray that he looks this good by the time he reaches his mid-50s.


As for how CASINO ROYALE would have been with Brosnan in the lead . . . who knows?

[Sbott]

For a 54 year-old man, he looks pretty damn good. Craig better hope and pray that he looks this good by the time he reaches his mid-50s.


As for how CASINO ROYALE would have been with Brosnan in the lead . . . who knows?

I have to completely agree with Lady Sylvia here and can only hope i look that good coming out of the water in my 50's

[plankattack]

It's interesting reading the reactions to the photo. I for one, don't see what all the brouhaha is about - I tend not to do caption competitions, but I do check out the photos and most of those do make our heroes look like plonkers! So sticking up a picture of Brozza with a small spare tire isn't the most heinous of crimes, IMHO.

But as someone who has been critical of every Bond at one time or another (because caring about the character is part of being a fan - and criticism and praise come from the same place of affection) I get annoyed with this idea that there is a lot of Brozza-bashing at CBn, and so by extension he should get some sort of a free pass.

If someone thinks that his tenure is weak, or that DAD is cobblers, then that's their right. I love TWINE (as I always say!!) and I wish more people did, but I don't have a problem with all my friends here who thinks it's utter tosh. But loving TWINE doesn't mean that I'm not going to be critical of Brozza when he gets himself caught up with Damon and Greengrass in their Bourne v Bond feud that they've created for themselves.

So if you think Brozza is getting a hard time, don't whine, stick up for him! But this point needs to be made - hammering DAD (which I, among many wilfully and enjoyably do!!)is different from having a pop at Brozza, in the same way that I love SC, but DAF is cobblers. I have never felt that any of the guys that have been Bond get ganged up on here at CBn - anyone who does probably feels stronger about the actor than they do the character.

Sorry, had to get this off my chest

[Judo chop]

Plankattack '08.

You have my vote.

[G.I Jord]

People can bash PB all they want now. I agree that DC is better in the part, as he's closer to the Bond I always liked, but when PB was Bond not many people complained about it. In fact, most seemed to enjoy him in the part. There were faults, but I'd say it was the lacking quality of the scripts, and not PB's acting. He had some strong moments as Bond - ie, the Kaufmann scene in TND. Had the scripts been stronger and presented more such moments and less explosive, over-the-top, time filler action scenes, more of us would have been left with a stronger impression of just what PB could bring to the role. PB brought Bond back to life and kept him alive into the 21st century, and paved the way for the Golden Era that DC is now delivering to us. Just remember how you felt when PB appeared as Bond for the first time in GE - the first Bond movie in six years - and write him a nice letter thanking him for that rush of excitement, and for keeping Bond alive.

Couldn't agree more. While Pierce is not my favourite Bond, I thought he done a decent job, especially in Goldeneye. Shame the proceeding films weren't simular in tone.

Bashing a Bond actor when he retires from the role has always been apparent. When Pierce was Bond, he was 'second only to Connery' and considered by many to be the best. Dalton was deemed grumpy and rubbish as Bond (where was the humour? etc etc). Whilst Dalton was Bond he was second to Connery and better than Moore as they went back to Bond's cinematic roots. Whilst Daniel Craig is Bond, he is second to Connery, and Brosnan is all of a sudden 'crap' and 'Bond-lite'.

I remember people liking Brosnan when he was Bond, many saying they couldn't image any one else in the role (remember danielcraignotbond etc).

I think that when Daniel Craig's tenure in the role is over, they will go into the Moore direction and become somewhat lighter in tone.
Either way, you can bet any money, that when he hangs up the tux, Daniel Craig will get bashed to some degree. It's become a recurring pattern in Bond casting.

[bonds_walther]

CR would have been rubbish with Brosnan. His acting skills were poor in DAD, so I wouldn't have been filled with confidence had he taken the role one last time.

Maybe he'll get his own NSNA? Oh, hold on, that was DAD!

[Blonde Bond]

Funny comparison. Heh!

But I do hate it when everyone seems to turn against Brosnan and his movies, now that he's not Bond anymore. I'm fairly sure, that Joe & Jane Moviegoer still thinks greatly of him and his time as Bond. He was James Bond to many.

That said, I have a feeling that he could've pulled a good performance, if he had done CR. Be it in -95 or as older Bond, after DAD. He never got the chance so we shall never know. But in my humble opinion, I saw that he had those moments, in GE and TWINE especially, that showed glimpses of the more dramatic Bond that was needed for his CR performance.

I believed in Brosnan

[LadySylvia]

Funny comparison. Heh!

But I do hate it when everyone seems to turn against Brosnan and his movies, now that he's not Bond anymore. I'm fairly sure, that Joe & Jane Moviegoer still thinks greatly of him and his time as Bond. He was James Bond to many.

That said, I have a feeling that he could've pulled a good performance, if he had done CR. Be it in -95 or as older Bond, after DAD. He never got the chance so we shall never know. But in my humble opinion, I saw that he had those moments, in GE and TWINE especially, that showed glimpses of the more dramatic Bond that was needed for his CR performance.

I believed in Brosnan

I heartily agree with you.

[HH007]

The more and more I think about it, had Casino Royale been made much as it was with Daniel Craig in the role, back in 1995 with Brosnan in the lead, it could have been a very interesting film. I think that if they had gone with a rougher around the edges Bond for Brosnan's first outing, that he could have exceled in such a role.

I'm sorry but Brosnan never had the acting chops to bring this off..

The role in Casino Royale needed a man who is getting to grips with his life/profession. A blunt instrument who is to be honed and still developing his skills and making mistakes as he went along. At this point Bond is a green SAS man learning to build up his shell..

Dalton could do it. Early Connery could do it. But Brosnan was too smoothe and his acting is a little too wooden to pull it off.Certainly he isnt the powerhouse machine that is Craig..

I think that Brosnan could have done it, and could have done a very good job. The reason that his Bond wasn't particularly good was because he was let down time and time again by the scripts. He was very good in The Tailor of Panama, and if he had been allowed to play Bond more like that, he could have been very good. I always like to see actors play against the style that they're often associated with, so part of it is just me wanting to see Brosnan get the opportunity to play Bond a little closer to what Fleming wrote on the page rather than what he had to play him as in his four films.

For once I agree with you, tdalton, I always said Brosnan would have been a better Bond if he only had better scripts to work with.

[Daddy Bond]

I believe I read an interview - probably on this website - with Purvis and Wade wherein they stated their first CR script was intended for PB. It featured an aged Bond at the end of his career who falls in love with Vesper and realises there's more to lfie than what he's been doing - only to have her betray him and get taken away from him at the end. Though I'm pleased with DC and his film, a part of me is still intrigued by the initial idea, and what PB could have done with it. It probably would have been an excellent final Bond film for him, and as it seemed to have offered the grey areas of Bond's character that PB desperately wanted to play - but rarely got the chance to - I think we would have seen him do something quite interesting with the role.

People can bash PB all they want now. I agree that DC is better in the part, as he's closer to the Bond I always liked, but when PB was Bond not many people complained about it. In fact, most seemed to enjoy him in the part. There were faults, but I'd say it was the lacking quality of the scripts, and not PB's acting. He had some strong moments as Bond - ie, the Kaufmann scene in TND. Had the scripts been stronger and presented more such moments and less explosive, over-the-top, time filler action scenes, more of us would have been left with a stronger impression of just what PB could bring to the role. PB brought Bond back to life and kept him alive into the 21st century, and paved the way for the Golden Era that DC is now delivering to us. Just remember how you felt when PB appeared as Bond for the first time in GE - the first Bond movie in six years - and write him a nice letter thanking him for that rush of excitement, and for keeping Bond alive.

Agreed

[tambourineman]

I think if Broz had done CR it would have been by far his best movie. It would have been completely different (and not as good) as the CR we have, but I think it could have been a damn good movie if they'd done it properly, and would have been Brosnan's 'For Your Eyes Only' to DAD - his Moonraker.

[Harmsway]

Part of the problem with CASINO ROYALE as Brosnan film is that I don't think the Vesper story would be particularly weighty, given his era. In Craig's CASINO ROYALE, the relationship is weighty because this is a young, reckless Bond. There's a freshness there to it.

But with Brosnan, you have a Vesper relationship that it's yet another "important" love interest. It's hard to make a case for Vesper being particular special when you already had Paris Carver show up in TOMORROW NEVER DIES and then the whole Elektra King soap opera debacle. In some ways, it would just feel like more of the same, even bordering on ludicrous. Does James Bond really have this many "meaningful and deep" relationships? Even if it was executed better than those relationships were, that's still an issue.

[broadshoulder]

Part of the problem with CASINO ROYALE as Brosnan film is that I don't think the Vesper story would be particularly weighty, given his era. In Craig's CASINO ROYALE, the relationship is weighty because this is a young, reckless Bond. There's a freshness there to it.

But with Brosnan, you have a Vesper relationship that it's yet another "important" love interest. It's hard to make a case for Vesper being particular special when you already had Paris Carver show up in TOMORROW NEVER DIES and then the whole Elektra King soap opera debacle. In some ways, it would just feel like more of the same, even bordering on ludicrous. Does James Bond really have this many "meaningful and deep" relationships? Even if it was executed better than those relationships were, that's still an issue.

Harmsways speaks the truth.

And,yes there have been more "love of his lifes" in the Brosnan era. I suppose it was to showcase Brozza and his Oscar worthy gurning -er, I mean acting..

[dodge]

God, I missed you guys. The photo is a hoot and just what the doctor ordered.

If Brozza had done CR...I can't bear to finish that and refuse to trash him. He did what he did when he did it, and did some of it passably well. We've done more than move on, we've moved up now. Praise be.

[Eddie Burns]

Erm...its not like Moore's scripts were top calibre or Dalton's, or some of Connery's. The difference being that all the above named actors took what they had and made it work and MOST IMPORTANTLY brought their own twist of the character. Brosnan failed to do this.

My first Bond film in the cinema was Goldeneye and I enjoyed the film (obviously) but to me it felt like they really hadn't improved the character or introduced something new. It all felt run-of-the-mill. I remember thinking at the time that Sean Bean as James Bond was a missed opportunity rather than being impressed by Brosnan performance. Watch the film again, and its clear who the superior actor is between the two. Bean would have definitely been a better Bond, no doubt in my mind. He just had more presence on screen

Brosnan's good moments for me was when he shot Elektra, walking into the Hong Kong hotel, him walking into Valentin's Casino and i'm sure there's more but just cant remember atm. I think if Brosnan simply put more thought into his portrayal's his movies would have been better despite the scripts. To be fair he did want to play a more serious Bond, but then how would you explain the straightening of the tie underwater in TWINE when it was supposed to have been a serious film? Something of his own doing I might add. I don't know, I think he rode the wave as long as he could before he realized he probably made one of the worst entries in the series and wanted to go out on a high. I think he left it too late.

I like Brozza, I like his films and enjoyed his portrayal of Bond, but what irks me is that NOTHING stands out from his era. No unbelievable stunt, change in direction, interpretation of character, memorable villain, or Bond girl. Its just all pretty bland. Oh well you can't win em all

[coco1997]

I remember thinking at the time that Sean Bean as James Bond was a missed opportunity rather than being impressed by Brosnan performance. Watch the film again, and its clear who the superior actor is between the two. Bean would have definitely been a better Bond, no doubt in my mind. He just had more presence on screen.

Yes! Finally someone else who agrees with me!

[tdalton]

I remember thinking at the time that Sean Bean as James Bond was a missed opportunity rather than being impressed by Brosnan performance. Watch the film again, and its clear who the superior actor is between the two. Bean would have definitely been a better Bond, no doubt in my mind. He just had more presence on screen.

Yes! Finally someone else who agrees with me!

I've always agreed with the idea that Sean Bean should have been Bond during the 1990s. He is easily the best part of GoldenEye, and the film is always much better when he's on screen. He would have been a fantastic Bond, and probably would have ended up being the best had he gotten the opportunity.

[sharpshooter]

I've always agreed with the idea that Sean Bean should have been Bond during the 1990s. He is easily the best part of GoldenEye, and the film is always much better when he's on screen. He would have been a fantastic Bond, and probably would have ended up being the best had he gotten the opportunity.

Yes, Sean Bean is brilliant. He would have been a great Bond.

[coco1997]

I remember thinking at the time that Sean Bean as James Bond was a missed opportunity rather than being impressed by Brosnan performance. Watch the film again, and its clear who the superior actor is between the two. Bean would have definitely been a better Bond, no doubt in my mind. He just had more presence on screen.

Yes! Finally someone else who agrees with me!

I've always agreed with the idea that Sean Bean should have been Bond during the 1990s. He is easily the best part of GoldenEye, and the film is always much better when he's on screen. He would have been a fantastic Bond, and probably would have ended up being the best had he gotten the opportunity.

I usually hate sounding like a suck-up, but my immense respect for you just grew even higher, tdalton.

[Harmsway]

I've always thought that Sean Bean was the best "Bond who never was."

[coco1997]

I've always thought that Sean Bean was the best "Bond who never was."

Nice to know. And yet the posters on the MI6 forums seem to think that Bean would have been a terrible Bond.

[Santa]

Sorry, but I too can't bear the idea of Sean Bean as James Bond. Maybe it's just an English thing (although I realise there are plenty of Brits who won't agree) but he's just too northern for me. Even when he's putting on a bad southern accent, he even looks northern. If anything could have turned me off James Bond for good, it would have been Sean Bean.

[coco1997]

Sorry, but I too can't bear the idea of Sean Bean as James Bond. Maybe it's just an English thing (although I realise there are plenty of Brits who won't agree) but he's just too northern for me. Even when he's putting on a bad southern accent, he even looks northern. If anything could have turned me off James Bond for good, it would have been Sean Bean.

That's a shame. I think he would have been a fantastic successor to Timothy Dalton and a suitable bridge to Daniel Craig.

[jaguar007]

I know many people think GE is Brosnan's best performance as Bond, but I think it is among his worst. I always felt he seemed uncomfortable with the role and tried to play it too much like Dalton instead of using his own personality. Too much like a kid putting on his dad's tux and pretending he is James Bond. In the later films he was much more relaxed and showed his natural charm. It is too bad that the scripts and directors got worse as Brosnan got better. In DAD however, his acting seemed very forced like he really did not want to be there.

I attended the world premiere of GE and among all the excitement, while watching the movie I would not help thinking how much better Dalton would have been in the movie.

[Eddie Burns]

Sorry, but I too can't bear the idea of Sean Bean as James Bond. Maybe it's just an English thing (although I realise there are plenty of Brits who won't agree) but he's just too northern for me. Even when he's putting on a bad southern accent, he even looks northern. If anything could have turned me off James Bond for good, it would have been Sean Bean.

Really? I never knew he was northern until I saw an interview with Jonathan Ross! That really took me by suprise, lol (i'm not english btw)! I was left wondering if this was the same man who played 006 or an imposter. Thats credit to his acting. And even if he was the northern Bond, so what? Are you biased against northerners in your own country? Sometimes I worry about our society, one minute I think we're living in an open-minded world where people are judged buy character instead of their accent or how they look, then I turn around and see posts like yours that confuse me.

Sean Bean, despite being Northern, 'looking Northern', and 'putting on a bad southern accent' still outshone Brosnan, the vanilla Bond, in what many consider to be his best Bond film. He brought more depth to his character in one movie than Brosnan brought to his in four. Bean as Bond would have been a masterstroke, but too risky a move for the producers to pull at the time. I think he would have made Bond more interesting in the 90's than Brosnan, with the exact same scripts.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Sean Bean, despite being Northern, 'looking Northern', and 'putting on a bad southern accent' still outshone Brosnan, the vanilla Bond, in what many consider to be his best Bond film. He brought more depth to his character in one movie than Brosnan brought to his in four. Bean as Bond would have been a masterstroke, but too risky a move for the producers to pull at the time. I think he would have made Bond more interesting in the 90's than Brosnan, with the exact same scripts.

The worst part is, GoldenEye led to his being typecast as a villain in such clunkers as The Island and The Hitcher...