13 replies to this topic

[jorgem]

It was in the 11th hour when Brosnan almost got the Bond role but he lost it to Timothy Dalton, due to his contract to Remington Steele. Could you imagine if Brosnan started Bond in 1986, from TLD, LTK, up to Skyfall, (even the canceled 1991 Bond film TPOAL)? We've imagined if Sean Connery played Bond until 1985. So we have only two long Bond eras in the franchise. Sean Connery (1962-1985) and Pierce Brosnan (1986-2012).

[thecasinoroyale]

Well he'd be 33 starting 'The Living Daylights' and would be 59 during 'Skyfall'.

I think he would be great post 90s, and possibly sell 'The Living Daylights' but I can't see Brosnan at 35 years old striking the nerve that Dalton did during 'Licence To Kill'.

However the 90s would be his playground, as he would take Bond on a journey the way Moore did for 10+ years into the 2000s, which would be great to see Brosnan do with solid scripts.

I couldn't see him eclipse 'Die Another Day' with 'Casino Royale' - it's too big a jump to make in style for the same actor to go from something so fantastical down to something more serious and darker. Plus he'd be 53 in 2006 and would think 'CR' and 'QOS' would have to be toned and trimmed and calmed down a lot to accomodate this.

Interesting idea though but I think he would probably wear out towards the end of the 90s and need a new actor or change of pace if his films continues the way they were post 'Tomorrow Never Dies'.

[Iceskater101]

I think he also would have been great post 90's but I wouldn't have wanted him to star in skyfall. To me that is too old.

[Judo chop]

Then I probably wouldn't be posting this now.

[Pussfeller]

I could easily imagine him in TLD. Less so LTK. But presumably if Brosnan had taken over the role in 1986, they wouldn't have written his second film to suit Timothy Dalton's sensibilities. They would have written another Moore-ish adventure to complement Brosnan's breezy, action-comic approach.

[tdalton]

Then I probably wouldn't be posting this now.

Same here.

I also doubt that we'd have Daniel Craig in the role right now, either. Regardless of what peoples' opinions of Dalton are, his tenure was necessary for the series. If they had gone with two consecutive tenures in the styles that the Moore and Brosnan eras ultimately adopted, the character would have forever been rebranded as a comedic, over-the-top action figure. There would have been no way back to the more serious approaches of Connery and Lazenby had they gone from the 1970s through the early 2000s with, more or less, the same approach to the character.

[plankattack]

I think the series might have been in trouble. But not because of Brozza.

Through the 80s box office had been sliding, briefly peaking for TLD and then plummeting for LTK. I do feel that the series would have continued getting squashed in a competitive marketplace, regardless of who the lead was. The best thing for everyone was the six-year hiatus, allowing EON to reassess itself.

GE is a vast improvement on most of the 5-odd films that precede it, I believe the Brozza of '95 had more heft and presence then the Brozza of '87, and I also think EON with Babs and Mike in charge had a new sense of the series, and the marketplace it was competing in.

I do believe that the legal troubles would have occurred regardless of the lead - it's disingenuous to somehow try to tag TD with a lack of enthusiasm for solving the issues that surrounded it, something which I've read some speculation on on some website somewhere recently.

I like the way history has played out - despite his short tenure, TD helped lay the groundwork for DC's interpretation now (see tdalton's post above), and in between Brozza had a terrific run as the series' ambassador, helping EON rebound and renovate itself.

[AMC Hornet]

I couldn't see him eclipse 'Die Another Day' with 'Casino Royale' - it's too big a jump to make in style for the same actor to go from something so fantastical down to something more serious and darker.

Quite right - how can you follow something like, say, Moonraker except with another Moonraker?

[Pussfeller]

If they had gone with two consecutive tenures in the styles that the Moore and Brosnan eras ultimately adopted, the character would have forever been rebranded as a comedic, over-the-top action figure. There would have been no way back to the more serious approaches of Connery and Lazenby had they gone from the 1970s through the early 2000s with, more or less, the same approach to the character.

Moore is congenitally light-hearted and whimsical, but I don't have a similar feeling about Brosnan. I've always had the impression that he never had a strong personal philosophy about Bond, and that his levity and glibness was a deliberate reaction against Dalton's hard-edged style. If Brosnan had taken over in the mid-eighties, he'd have felt like distinguishing himself from Moore rather than Dalton, and it's conceivable that his films would have embraced the blood-soaked Reaganite action-hero sensibility even more enthusiastically than LTK did. Brosnan, much more than Dalton, is blessed with the basic demeanor of an eighties action hero: cool, handsome in a Troy McClure sort of way, well-coiffed, somewhat puerile, devoid of emotional vulnerability, and fluent with cheesy one-liners. He could have taken Bond in a Die Hard / Lethal Weapon direction. A sexless bloodbath is about as far from Moore as you can get.

I like the way history has played out - despite his short tenure, TD helped lay the groundwork for DC's interpretation now (see tdalton's post above), and in between Brozza had a terrific run as the series' ambassador, helping EON rebound and renovate itself.

This is my view as well. Dalton was a felix culpa (not to be confused with felix gulpa, the species of shark that ate Leiter). His brief tenure prevented Bond from sliding into brainless late-eighties action territory and forced it to become more self-aware and reflective. Without Dalton as a palate-cleansing chaser to Moore, Brosnan would never have made a film like GE. Instead, he would probably have turned Bond into a glib, Mel-Gibsony sadist with a smile, who would eventually have crash-landed in the late nineties.

[elizabeth]

I don't think he would have been good post 90s. While I enjoyed DAD, he was a little on the old side, and EON needs to keep the Bond actors looking young and fresh. Craig, while he may not be my favorite Bond and his films may not be my favorite in the series (both of these by a long shot), is perfect for that.

[S K Y F A L L]

I wouldn't mind seeing Brosnan in TLD but not until SF and if we got Brosnan since TLD I would be fine with him ending on DAD or even a another film in 2004 and I wouldn't changed the Craig film.

[Kelly Smith]

TPOAL???? Oh, never mind. Google is a wonderful thing.

Edited by Kelly Smith, 02 November 2012 - 03:36 AM.

[coco1997]

Brilliant post, Pussfeller.

[Chemateo]

That is too long of a tenure. I was already tired of Brosnan by TWINE. Brosnan really let himself go around DAD and I think Brosnan's visible aging by 2012 would be a bit too distracting like Moore's appearance in AVTAK.

I think Brosnan could have done LTK, in fact I think EON would have done that with Brosnan anyway. EON likes to say they wrote LTK for Dalton but never really collaborated with him in the creative process like they did in the early stages of Bond 17 and the first two drafts of GE. The essence of LTK was what EON wanted to do to keep things fresh and compete with Hollywood.

In fact, Brosnan discussed his idea for Bond in an interview with Starlog in the 80s that was similar to Dalton's approach. Brosnan felt things had gone a bit astray and were relying too much on gimmicks and wanted to bring Bond more down to earth.