Would Bond have survived & thrived into the 21st Century without Broz?

chrisisall

As of '94 Dalton was out. A new Bond HAD to be chosen. Fleming purists like me & casual but seriously-inclined fans might have embraced Clive Owen or Jason Isaacs, but really, as far as the general movie-going public was concerned, it was a time for star power to save Bond from being drowned in a sea of hard-R action oblivion.
I think Brosnan was the only man who could carry Bond through to the new millennium successfully.
And I loved his Bond, btw... -{
Thoughts?

MilleniumForce

Not just Brosnan; GoldenEye itself. It had been six years since the last James Bond film; they were going to have to get people back to Bond. If GoldenEye had not been as good as it was, the whole series wouldn't have ended there/on the next film. GoldenEye had to be a film that made old audiences think "Bond is back and better than ever" and make new audiences want to see the next film.

In short, Dr No, GoldenEye and Casino Royale all relied on the same thing; people wanting to see Bond and to get the franchise going again.

chrisisall

MilleniumForce wrote:

In short, Dr No, GoldenEye and Casino Royale all relied on the same thing; people wanting to see Bond and to get the franchise going again.

DN? Is that a typo? You mean DAF or LALD or something?

AlphaOmegaSin

I agree -{

He pretty much saved the Franchise.

always shaken

Hooray for Saint Brozzers

Charmed & Dangerous

100%. I remember audiences cheering when Brozzer said "Bond, James Bond". And they lapped up the PTS too. I just can't see anyone else in the mid nineties doing half the job he did. Audiences were warmed up with True Lies and other slick, glamorous, action films and Brozzer was the epitome of that slightly lighter- toned genre, just like his role-model Cary Grant.

AlphaOmegaSin

The Tank crashing through the Wall must have sent Pulses running -{

Thunderpussy

I too can remember all the excitement of Brozza getting Bond. -{
He was the man of the moment.

chrisisall

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

The Tank crashing through the Wall must have sent Pulses running -{

I remember laughing & clapping in the theatre when that happened. Outrageous Bond back in full swing with the theme in the background! A great cinema moment.

AlphaOmegaSin

It's a shame I missed its Release, Me being Four and all :007)

chrisisall

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

It's a shame I missed its Release, Me being Four and all :007)

Heh, I missed Goldfinger first run for precisely the same reason. But I did manage to catch it in revival (more than once).

Thunderpussy

I was only around 5, when I was brought to see OHMSS , I slept though
Most of it, but did remember bits. ) ( it was a family holiday )

Absolutely_Cart

Survive? Yes. Thrive? Not sure.

I think the 80's were just not a good time for Bond and people would warm up to it eventually. But having a strong outing in the mid-90's really helped.

Also, Brosnan was a great choice for Bond, one that many people wanted.

Dutchfinger

I'm not exactly sure if he was the only man at the time that could help the franchise survive, but from what I gather, he certainly was the top choice at the time. People already wanted him back in '86 for TLAD as most fans will know. He was even seen doing some commercials in a Bondian way before he actually got the part. (The diet coke commercial is the one I'm thinking off)

I would also add that he is a terrific Bond, to me he has a certain Bond factor that Connery has as well. His scripts might not have been the best ones, and his movies might have been generic, but Brosnan did do his job, and he did it right! Furthermore, if Daniel Craig starred in the Brosnan movies and Brosnan got CR, QoS and SF instead, we would be talking the other way around without a doubt! (Had Brosnan been a younger actor) And to be honest, I'm convinced that if Craig was the one that starred in GE, TND, TWINE and DAD with the scripts exactly the way they are, these movies wouldn't have been nearly as succesful as they were with Brosnan.

Blackleiter

Dutchfinger wrote:

And to be honest, I'm convinced that if Craig was the one that starred in GE, TND, TWINE and DAD with the scripts exactly the way they are, these movies wouldn't have been nearly as succesful as they were with Brosnan.

I agree, but I seriously doubt that Craig would have been selected to portray Bond as he is depicted in those scripts.

chrisisall

Dutchfinger wrote:

And to be honest, I'm convinced that if Craig was the one that starred in GE, TND, TWINE and DAD with the scripts exactly the way they are, these movies wouldn't have been nearly as succesful as they were with Brosnan.

{[] My man! Total agreement!
But then, each Bond actor has been right for the movies they were in IMO.

Absolutely_Cart

Agree with both Chris and Dutch.

I think Brosnan in Casino Royale would've been great though.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I think Brosnan in Casino Royale would've been great though.

Re-worked for a much older Bond possibly. But I think it was more fitting to introduce a new and younger actor. Younger than Craig was, actually.

Absolutely_Cart

Valid point. Since it was Fleming's first book depicting an inexperienced Bond, Craig is the better choice.

JamesBondRadio.com

I think they were all great and perfectly suited for the time in which they were Bond. I always wonder, as much as I love Majesty's and Lazenby whether he'd have enjoyed as much success long term as Roger did during that period. Had George continued it would have probably gone waaay darker, when the 70s audience seemed to prefer the light hearted. I think it's probably the same with Tim/Pierce during that period.

AlphaOmegaSin

Dalton during the 90's would have defiantly worked (See his canceled third Film) But the 90's suited Brosnans Bond -{

Matt S

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Valid point. Since it was Fleming's first book depicting an inexperienced Bond, Craig is the better choice.

Though Bond's inexperience is a huge part of the Casino Royale film, it's not essential to the Casino Royale story overall. Brosnan could have done a great job in a Casino Royale film that focused more on Fleming's story.

AlphaOmegaSin

That's what Tarentino wanted to do with Brosnan.

Matt S

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

That's what Tarentino wanted to do with Brosnan.

If Cubby Broccoli were still making Bond films he would have done it too. He was opposed to rebooting the series with Dalton when Michael Wilson wanted to do it. And if Broccoli let Moore do a Bond film at 57, he would have been okay with Brosnan doing it a few years younger.

Number24

Brosnan was without a doubt very important in making Bond a success again, but was he the only actor who could have done it? I'm not sure. Liam Neeson, James Purefoy and possibly Sam Neill were good candidates at the time. What do you think?

chrisisall

Number24 wrote:

Liam Neeson, James Purefoy and possibly Sam Neill were good candidates at the time. What do you think?

Nope. Not well enough known back then IMO.

BigChris

Adrian Paul and later Gerald Butler would have been great choices in the 21st Century if Pierce had not taken on the role in 1995. That said, I remember when UA/MGM offered $25 million to Mel Gibson to be Bond in 1991 and honestly that would have killed the franchise for good. (Mel was still at the top of his game at that point but it would have set the kind of precedent that would see someone like The Rock play the role now.)

AlphaOmegaSin

Mel would have damaged the Series

Number24

Double post

Number24

chrisisall wrote:

Number24 wrote:

Liam Neeson, James Purefoy and possibly Sam Neill were good candidates at the time. What do you think?

Nope. Not well enough known back then IMO.

Liam Neeson was in Schindler's List two years before GE, the year Sam Neill was in Jurassic Park. Based on those two films alone they had a better cinema career at that time than any starting Bond actor.

Thunderpussy

I know this could be an urban myth, but I thought Liam Neeson was offered 007
but turned it down, ironically because he didn't want to do " Action" films.