Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Could Brosnan have done CR?


50 replies to this topic

#1 RedKelly

RedKelly

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 678 posts
  • Location:Racoon City

Posted 01 August 2008 - 04:42 PM

Now first I'm not up for the idea of Brosnan being in CR. But I do think he was cheated a bit and deserved one last film after DAD to show him a great Bond. Now then could you see Brosnan running around a construction site running through walls, jumping of buildings, running around a runway, getting his balls whipped!? Me no I don't think it would be right for a Brosnan Bond film. But could he have done it and did he deserve another?

#2 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 01 August 2008 - 04:50 PM

He probably could have done it, but it wouldn't have made sense for Brosnan to be in CASINO ROYALE as it was a reboot of the franchise. Also, I don't think he would have done it as well as Craig did. Additionally, I don't think he "needed" another shot at Bond; it's not as if the producers owed him anything.

#3 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 01 August 2008 - 04:58 PM

Could Brosnan had done CR??
Yes.
But it would not have been the Casino Royale we got.

#4 killkenny kid

killkenny kid

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6607 posts
  • Location:Albany, New York

Posted 01 August 2008 - 05:05 PM

Yes, but I'm very happy with the one we have. :tup:

#5 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 01 August 2008 - 05:15 PM

I've always wondered what it would be like if Brosnan starred in Casino Royale. I actually think it would be rather interesting. He is a good actor, and the only thing what brought his films down was the terrible writing. I think Brosnan could of done Casino Royale, It it would be rather cool to see him do it, I have to admit. I love Craig in the role though. :tup:

#6 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 01 August 2008 - 05:30 PM

All else being equal, I don’t think there’s any way he could have done it (well) for the physicality aspect alone.

Brosnan during that PTS chase busting through drywall, crashing onto a dumpster, manhandling Mollaka like a ragdoll?
Tearing a nail out of his shoulder (blade)?
Shirtless out of the water?
Even for running around on the tarmac after the truck Broz would have been a paltry substitution.

They would have had to have written a different story, or it’d have been bordering on sci-fi.

As many have already said here and elsewhere, ‘deserve’ has nothing to do with it, and he certainly wasn’t cheated. They said, ‘Here’s a gazillion dollars to perform this script’ and Brosnan said, ‘Ok. Thanks.’ Why is it that Brosnan is the pitiable one here? Was EON cheated by receiving a Bond actor who probably can’t lift his own body weight? No, of course not. Both parties agreed to the terms. It was a completely fair exchange.

#7 ImTheMoneypenny

ImTheMoneypenny

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1352 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 August 2008 - 05:44 PM

I agree now that Brosnan could not have pulled off CR as it is. It would not have been the same movie at all.

Back at the time it was announced, I thought Brosnan should have gotten another chance with proper writing, but now thinking it over, after reading Judo chop's thought provoking post I've had a change of heart. Keeping Brosnan would have only dug the hole deeper as nothing would have changed. We'd have either missed out on CR or not have had it for more years to come and by then Craig would have been out of the running.

#8 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 01 August 2008 - 05:52 PM

I agree now that Brosnan could not have pulled off CR as it is. It would not have been the same movie at all.

Back at the time it was announced, I thought Brosnan should have gotten another chance with proper writing, but now thinking it over, after reading Judo chop's thought provoking post I've had a change of heart. Keeping Brosnan would have only dug the hole deeper as nothing would have changed. We'd have either missed out on CR or not have had it for more years to come and by then Craig would have been out of the running.

I’m not saying there isn’t probably a quality Bond film out there (in potential existence) that Brosnan could work with. I don’t think he was ever particularly comfortable as Bond, but he’s not an entirely inept actor either. So an excellent script with Brosnan as the lead could have made for at least a decent Bond film. (It worked wonders for Lazenby, after all.) It just couldn’t be Casino Royale’s script.

#9 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 01 August 2008 - 06:55 PM

Agreed.

Brosnan's CR would have been differnet than the CR we got, but we still may have had a good Bond movie. Look at Moore in FYEO! IT was a step above the previous outing. CR may have been Brosnan's FYEO. But then I think...How would FYEO been had Dalton stepped into the role in that movie. I think FYEO would have been even a tougher film than what we got, just like the CR we got.

#10 ImTheMoneypenny

ImTheMoneypenny

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1352 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 August 2008 - 07:08 PM

I agree now that Brosnan could not have pulled off CR as it is. It would not have been the same movie at all.

Back at the time it was announced, I thought Brosnan should have gotten another chance with proper writing, but now thinking it over, after reading Judo chop's thought provoking post I've had a change of heart. Keeping Brosnan would have only dug the hole deeper as nothing would have changed. We'd have either missed out on CR or not have had it for more years to come and by then Craig would have been out of the running.

I’m not saying there isn’t probably a quality Bond film out there (in potential existence) that Brosnan could work with. I don’t think he was ever particularly comfortable as Bond, but he’s not an entirely inept actor either. So an excellent script with Brosnan as the lead could have made for at least a decent Bond film. (It worked wonders for Lazenby, after all.) It just couldn’t be Casino Royale’s script.



I guess what I should have said is that your post made me reconsider if Brosnan was owed another chance, just 'because', which back then I thought he had. Your post just made me sit back and think harder about why I felt that way, sorry for the confusion! :tup:

#11 Stephen Spotswood

Stephen Spotswood

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 07:46 PM

Hell no.

#12 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 01 August 2008 - 07:49 PM

Different Bond for a different sort of Bond film.

Can't see it. Wouldn't see it. Wouldn't actually watch it.

#13 Colossus

Colossus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1490 posts
  • Location:SPECTRE Island

Posted 01 August 2008 - 07:52 PM

Yeah he could have, but it wouldn't be like the CR we got. For one thing there would be less running, more stunt doubles. And of course no Bond Begins type stuff.

#14 honeyjes

honeyjes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 183 posts

Posted 02 August 2008 - 12:14 AM

I don't think Brosnan would have made the same impact as DC in Casino Royale, the tempo of CR would have been totally different, and we'd have got another tick list of films gone by.

I've always been puzzled as to why Brosnan is perceived as being hard done by, he had completed his three film contract and had an option for a fourth. He made the decision to play Bond in DAD, he must have liked the script otherwise why do it, so why the wringing of hands by fans.

#15 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 02 August 2008 - 12:28 AM

Why is it that Brosnan is the pitiable one here? Was EON cheated by receiving a Bond actor who probably can’t lift his own body weight? No, of course not. Both parties agreed to the terms. It was a completely fair exchange.

Agreed. I could never stomach how many people on here felt Brosnan was owed another film. Show me the proof anywhere that another Bond film staring him would have had potential greatness.

In one of his quotes he said he was just getting the hang of the character when he found out his era was done. Funny he thought he needed more films when he had three more films than Lazenby did and two more than Dalton.

#16 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 02 August 2008 - 03:00 AM

No.

#17 Joey Bond

Joey Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 02 August 2008 - 05:50 AM

It would be the same as asking "What if Sean did OHMSS?"

I echo a lot of people when I answer "possibly, but it wouldn't be the CR we got"

The only other ex-Bond who I can see doing CR (not considering their age) is Dalton. Particularly the scene after the poisoning when Bond says he'd go to the hospital as soon as he wins the game, I thought was very Dalton-esque.

#18 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 02 August 2008 - 05:57 AM

Casino Royale? Yes. The type of Casino Royale we got from Daniel Craig and company? Probably not. While Brosnan does do action well, he is not as buff and physical as Craig is and so would not have sold the physicality of the scenes as well. In addition, a fifth Brosnan Bond film could not have a Bond Begins storyline that Casino Royale was because he was too old for that at 53. It would have had to be altered and, in reality, Casino Royale works best as a Bond Begins-type film anyway.

Having said that, I do think Brosnan had 007 film in him and should have gotten one. He still looked good and was very popular with the Bond community (at the time) and the average film-goer and his movies were very successful (regardless of their perceived shortcomings). What needed to be done was scale back the following film a la On Her Majesty's Secret Service after You Only Live Twice and For Your Eyes Only after Moonraker. That, and getting a solid script for the time since Tomorrow Never Dies, would have helped Brosnan go out on top to everyone's satisfaction. Then we could have come back with a Bond Begins Casino Royale film this year.

My guess is that there was a bit of rift between Barbara Broccoli and Brosnan (no doubt due in part to his asking price) and she got it in her head to try and cast Craig as the next Bond before he got too big a star. Remember, he was approached about the possibility very early on around which point (if memory serves me correctly, which may be shaky in this case) Brosnan's contract was not renewed. Nevertheless, Craig put off saying yes for about a year. So all that, combined with the drawn-out sale of MGM and a desire to start over made Brosnan expendable (from EON's point of view) before his time. While I do like Craig and Casino Royale, I will always wonder what a fifth and final Brosnan Bond film would have been like.

#19 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 02 August 2008 - 07:01 AM

As many have already said here and elsewhere, ‘deserve’ has nothing to do with it, and he certainly wasn’t cheated. They said, ‘Here’s a gazillion dollars to perform this script’ and Brosnan said, ‘Ok. Thanks.’ Why is it that Brosnan is the pitiable one here? Was EON cheated by receiving a Bond actor who probably can’t lift his own body weight? No, of course not. Both parties agreed to the terms. It was a completely fair exchange.


Good point there, Judo, there seems to be an attitude of 'poor wittle Pierce' in fandom, when in fact he signed a contract saying he'd do three films, with an option for a fourth. He did four, and they then decided to go another way. Brosnan accepted $16 mil (or thereabouts) to do DAD, and then long after the check had been cashed, complained about having to say stupid one-liners. What did EON owe him? Nothing! When they hired him for Goldeneye, he was a washed-up tv star doing direct-to-video flicks. Pretty soon, the Bond clout allowed him to set up his own production company, rake in the dough from commercial endorsements, and he was an A-list name across the globe. His treatment of EON in the media in 04/05 was very tactless and ungrateful indeed.
On the one hand, I would have liked to have had another Broz movie in 2004, as something is better than nothing...but then again maybe the extra development time went into CR to make it a truly special film.
There's a theory that was bandied about in another thread a while ago, that Babs and Mike, when they inherited Bond in the early 90s, decided to make a series of safe, by-the-numbers Bond films to re-establish 007 as a box office juggernaut after the series had nosedived in the 80s. Then when they'd gotten Bond back to doing big numbers at the box office, they were free to do what they always REALLY wanted - to start the whole thing over again and do a gritty, realistic take on the character.

#20 Syndicate

Syndicate

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 639 posts
  • Location:San Francisco, California

Posted 02 August 2008 - 07:41 AM

In my view Brosnan doing Casino Royale would have been a good one. Just that they really would have to leave out how Bond god his double O and learning to get the hang of it. But they would still have the whole Casino card playing scence, the pre credit might still be the same with the storyline changed a little. There would be the good old gun barell that we are used to. For sure John Cleese would return as the Q, and that scence where Bond need to use medical device in his care. It would start out with one of the workers in Q branch telling him what to do, the switch over to John Cleese doing the rest, They would make it that that worker does not know enough or going the long boring about it and Q would have to get in there. The fight scence in the hotel would have been done in the same style as they did that one in TND at party in the office. I'm sure would they have brought back Felix Leiter or used Joe Don Baker at Jack Wade again. But in meetings with M for sure they would bring back Colin Salmon as Charles Robinson and Michael Kitchen as Bill Tanner, if not both of them one of them will be there. Moneypenny would also be back in the storyline. The tracking device put in Bond's arm would not even be needed at all in the storyline. The whole romance scence would be Bond taking time off to relax and try and find real love again since OHMSS, the part about resigning would be cut out of the storyline so no typing into the laptop of wanting to resign.

Well those are some of the stuff, how I see the movie if Brosnan got his fifth time as James Bond.

#21 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 02 August 2008 - 08:11 AM

Could Brosnan have done Casino Royale? Of course. Could he have done justice to that script? No.

I'm by no means a Brosnan-basher. I like his films and I think he's a much better actor than some on here will allow. But I also believe that Daniel Craig is in a different league. In fact, I don't believe any other Bond - Connery included - could have done Casino Royale better.

#22 Aris007

Aris007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3037 posts
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 02 August 2008 - 12:39 PM

I've always wondered what it would be like if Brosnan starred in Casino Royale. I actually think it would be rather interesting. He is a good actor, and the only thing what brought his films down was the terrible writing. I think Brosnan could of done Casino Royale, It it would be rather cool to see him do it, I have to admit. I love Craig in the role though. :tup:


Agreed! I also think that the problem in Brosnan's films wasn't the actor but the stupid script! I'm a little doubtfull though about his abillity to represent the side of Bond's character that Craig did! Still interesting, though!

#23 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 02 August 2008 - 12:42 PM

I'm a little doubtfull though about his abillity to represent the side of Bond's character that Craig did!


I dont think he would have had a problem tbh. He was fantastic in Evelyn.

#24 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 02 August 2008 - 03:05 PM

I concur, it would not have made sense to have Brozzer do CR as it was a reboot. He must have known his days were numbered when they mentioned this although I do read that he actually mentioned/brought that idea up??? Surely he must of known it would not have worked with him...only one thing for it and that was a new actor. (who worked for considerably less in CR than Brozzer would have done)...

#25 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 August 2008 - 05:19 PM

I'm sorry that he didn't get to leave on a higher note, yes. But I'm immensely relieved that he didn't perform in CR. The stunts alone would've half-killed him. And CR worked so well because it was about how Bond began. And even Broz had been struck by the lighting of acting genius, he couldn't have pulled that one off on the other side of 50.

#26 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 02 August 2008 - 11:48 PM

Now then could you see Brosnan running around a construction site running through walls, jumping of buildings, running around a runway, getting his balls whipped!?

I didn't even want to see Craig in two of those scenes, let alone Brosnan.

In theory at least, I don't see why Brosnan couldn't have been in Casino Royale, though. They would have had to have changed some things around a bit, of course. But I don't think it would have necessarily needed to be all that different from the film we ended up with.

But Casino Royale always seemed destined to be the next man's first film. So, I don't really think Brosnan ever had a realistic chance of starring in it.

#27 Donovan Mayne-Nicholls

Donovan Mayne-Nicholls

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 381 posts
  • Location:Santiago, Chile

Posted 03 August 2008 - 03:34 AM

Cr as Brosnan's fifth film would have been a VERY different film. It wouldn't have been as faithful as the film we got, hence the early reports of 21 being "inspired" on CR. It could have only be done right if Eon had acquired the rights before '95 and had opened PB in CR. Regardless, PB is an inferior actor to DC and while I enjoyed his performance as Bond, when it came to Bond being involved at a personal level, he was poor (TWINE) and the script to CR demmanded an actor of a higher caliber. One of the reasons many fans don't like TWINE is probably because it wasn't written expressly for the lead's strengths and it shows. The same movie would have been far better received/perceived had starred a better actor. PB getting angry at M is just risible. But good ole Pierce got too full of himself, demmanding meetier scripts to flex his acting muscles and generally being annoying in interviews, giving too much advice to Eon it's a wonder they didn't give him the boot earlier. Not since the pre PC days of connery and Lazenby had the actor criticised the films he was promoting so badly. Granted, Eon never fulfilled on the GE promise, but even TND and DAD were better than most other movies Mr Brosnan has chosen personally and he should have meekly accepted that if it weren't for them, he would have faded into obscurity for ever.

#28 Quantumofsolace007

Quantumofsolace007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3488 posts

Posted 03 August 2008 - 03:54 AM

I would of preffered Brosnan in a postfleming novel adaption Man with red tattou would of been in my opnion the perfect way to end the brosnan era in 04 then Craig could come in 06 with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace in 08 :tup:

#29 BlackFire

BlackFire

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1300 posts
  • Location:Mexico

Posted 03 August 2008 - 05:12 AM

Yes, but as said many times before, it wouldn't be the same CR we saw with Craig. The simple fact that Craig has muscles gives the writers more action and stunting ideas; Ideas that Pierce wouldn't simply look good doing.

But on the other hand, he would be awesome doing a Devil May Care movie if we're talking about an older Bond :tup:

#30 Mercator

Mercator

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 365 posts
  • Location:UK/Deutschland

Posted 03 August 2008 - 10:14 AM

If he'd been, I wished that we could have had Moneypenny back (for the guy who has office next door to the M) and Q back (for the guy who injext Bond) and maybe come to Montenegro to explain gadgets. I liked more humour and less poker - it was too lang for me. Oh, and we would not need silly b&w beginnings - we could have had more action! I founded CR a bit boring and too lang. I thinking Pierce could have this done.