Brosnan in CR and QOS
jorgem
DTWPosts: 98MI6 Agent
If Brosnan was still in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, what would be the results?
Anyone here imagine Pierce Brosnan playing Bond in QOS? (and CR?)
Anyone here imagine Pierce Brosnan playing Bond in QOS? (and CR?)
Comments
All in all though, they are different Bonds, and Craigs films call for more than a 'catalogue' Bond, which Pierce does very well. Craig would have been ridiculous and uncomfortable in any of the Bonds written for Brosnan.
Couldn't agree less, Sweepy - Brosnan hasn't got the acting range of Dalton. He would have floundered in LTK.
TLD was possibly written with Brosnan in mind....so he may have had a chance in that one.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
What about the Brosnan of GE in CR? I think I'd be interested to see Brosnan's rash younger Bond, simply cuz he'd not be in superhero-mode for it.
I'd go along with you there. I've always been a fan of Brozzer---Thomas Crown, Matador and Seraphim Falls all feature great performances---and I enjoyed his run as Bond as much as many (more than some
He could have done more, I think, if the writing had been better...but Dalton was even more mistreated by his scripts...
I don't think either of the latest films would have played to Brozzer's strengths...but it would have been interesting to see a 35 year-old Pierce make a run at CR. Dalton could have done a good job with it as well.
Craig was extraordinarily lucky to get the job when he did; the planets lined up for him.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Brosnan's biggest problem by the time DAD had come and gone was that too many people viewed his portrayal of Bond as an indestructible superman and probably would have had trouble accepting a more human and vulnerable Brosnan at that point in his tenure; it would have been too much of a transformation after the tone of his prior films.
His own films such as The Matador, Thomas Crown, Tailor of Panama, Evelyn and many others show that he has a good range as an actor, far more than the Bond films ever required of him. You see bits of it in Goldeneye, like that moment of pain and rage in the PTS when Bond thinks 006 has been killed for example. Its a pity that Babs, Mikey and the rest of EON didn't exploit his talent to its fullest by hiring better writers and directors to push the character further along during Brosnan's stay.
No two Bond actors have played 007 in the same way. When the Producers decided to make CR, they knew they could not use Mr Brosnan, because the dynamics of the story they wanted to tell would not suit him. - I apply that argument to Sir Sean, Sir Roger, Mr Dalton and Mr Lazenby too.
Craig is my favorite Bond, but its not just because of the way he plays the character. - In an ideal world, its the way I would (more or less!) What makes him stand out is his physicality in the role, its frightenigly exhaustive and effective. - Could he have played any of the other's take on Bond? No. Each one is the unique style of the actor in question.
Chin chin! -{
While I like Brosnan, he has limited range and mostly gets by because he fits a type according to his made-for-the-80s-and-90s looks. His Bonds demand the formula because without it, there's not much left to offer except light comedic charm, and neither CR nor QoS was geared toward that. It's funny that he's often compared to Cary Grant, when I think he resembles and acts a lot more like Maximillian Schell in Topkapi, a film he's been trying to remake as a sequel to the Thomas Crown Affair (which capitalizes on his charms and should have been the blueprint for his portrayal of James Bond).
But to answer the question, If Pierce had been younger, he maybe could have, by the grace of God, pulled off CR and QOS, but lets face it he would have been nowhere near the awesomeness that is Daniel Craig's performance as Bond in these two films. IMO Craig is the best Bond yet! and bless his heart Pierce just never quite did it for me. His Bond is nothing compared to Craig's Bond.
Have to disagree there - opinions, eh ?
CR had the strongest script since OHMSS - but I agree that Craig delivers a great performance.
Also, if he were to be in CR or QoS he would've needed to do them when he was younger and new to the role...it would not've worked at his age nor with his experience in the Bond role previously (this is not to mention the fact that he couldn't have done four and then done CR with its relaunch of the character).
Agree that there was some of the good Brosnan Bond in TWINE, but like the Dalton Bonds just a wreck of a film overall. EON's been lost since MR, too bad they chewed up a couple of potentially suberb Bonds in all that, and happy for the new guy Craig getting a long-needed reset (too soon to start the please-don't-backslide-EON.com website?
Which brings us to the question: could Brosnan have played Bond in CR and QoS? I'd say yes. While these 2 films are big departures from the accepted Bond formula of the previous 20, we're still talking about Bond here, not Hamlet. I couldn't think of any scene in CR (and certainly none in QoS) that Brosnan couldn't have handled. The only problems with Brosnan playing Bond in these films are (a) his age, as he was too old to be believable as a rookie double-O, and (b) he has been widely accepted as a suave, sophisticated spy, so he couldn't go back to playing a "rough around the edges" agent still learning the ropes.
As far as the superhero/human thing, I'd say that it's a 50/50 deal over the course of PB's 4 Bond films. He was very human in most of GE (except for the dive after the plane, but that's no worse than Craig's miraculous escape from the DC3), and in TWINE, and also in the opening part of DAD (where Bond was actually imprisoned and tortured). TND's script and the latter part of DAD, however, did ask him to play Bond in what some would call "superhero mode", but that was the producers' and writers' decision and not the actor's.
Craig has been good in the role, but I would say that the single most important thing that has happened in the Bond franchise since 2006 is the sudden willingness on the producers' part to abandon the "business as usual, 100% control" approach they'd been using previously. Who would have ever believed that Wilson & Broccoli would ever be willing to film a mostly faithful adaptation of a Fleming novel that revolves around a card game, or that they would be seeking out an "art-house" director to take the helm of a Bond movie? Wilson & Broccoli's "change of heart" is, IMO, the main reason why Bond fans are enjoying a fresh, new take on their favorite character. It's too bad W & B didn't have this "change of heart" sooner.
This basically means that no he could not believably play Bond as it is written for CR and QoS, but yes you are right he could do it albeit in a very different form of the two.
Thats why the question is kind of silly. Could Roger Moore do TLD? No, becuase it would be exactly like his performance in AVTAK. Thats why it annoys me when Leonard Maltin (old codger) said if Connery had done OHMSS it would have changed the series, I dont believe you can speculate this kind of thing.
"Better make that two."
The Saint and Remington Steele had similarities, The Saint had Roger Moore, he was the first candidate for the role but he lost it to Sean Connery, due to his contract on The Saint; Remington Steele had Pierce Brosnan, he was considered to replace Roger Moore after he retires (c. '85-'86). Around August 1986 NBC renewed the show for another year, that kept Brosnan until June 1994. Eventually he lost the role to Timothy Dalton. Dalton's Bond dreams finally came to a reality in 1986. He was approached three times back in 1968 to replace Connery, then in 1980-81 during Moore's FYEO and in 1982-83 to replace Moore. Then in 1986, Dalton was through for the role.
If Roger Moore started in Dr. No and ended in AVTAK, it would be great but Connery will not be the 'iconic' Bond. If Sean Connery was playing Bond until AVTAK in 1985, that would be great in the history of entertainment as well as Connery's life. He returned as Bond in the non-EON film Never Say Never Again. I can't imagine those two either. (e.g. Moore in DN, FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, FYEO, OP, (NSNA), AVTAK vs. Connery in DN, FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, FYEO, OP, (NSNA), AVTAK.).
Also Brosnan in TLD, LTK, (TPOAL), GE, TND, TWINE, DAD, CR, QOS.
NOTE: 007 titles which is bolded are the ones that the actor should done.
Brosnan should not have done CR and QoS, too old, as for TLD and LTK I like how TD did those, Brosnan would have been too young.
Honestly I dont even know why we are talking bout this!
"Better make that two."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Isn't it fun to disagree or agree and possibly even get into internet fights over things that never happened and never will happen and have no bearing on the wider world?
That's why I joined this site...to go tit for tat on Bondology, the most unexact science there is.
...oh and Brozzers should not have done CR and QoS.
Agreed
"Better make that two."
Sorry, I meant to say that yes, PB could have done CR and QoS back in '95. However, for other reasons, those 2 films couldn't have been made back then.