I was particularly happy when Brozzer got Bond. I thought Timmy was great in TLD. At the time, I was in two minds about LTK and I famously slagged it off to Michael G Wilson's face before he informed me that he wrote it and I felt very very silly ;% . (He was very nice about it though - lovely man).
Brozzer was perfect for Goldeneye. No one else could have carried that off. TND was also incredibly good for Brozzer but TBH the cracks started to appear in TWINE, and as for DAD - oh dear.
Brozzer went at the right time. Daniel Craig did an excellent job re-booting the franchise and Judi Dench made the transition seamless.
And finally, George Lazenby was superb as a young-in-service Bond. A bit naïve and arrogant.
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.
It's not a myth. Neeson said in an interview that the was "heavily persued" by the Bond producers.
Simple answer to whether or not bond would have survived without Brosnan - Yes. Of course it would. Nothing against Brosnan, but if it wasn't for him, someone else would have succeeded just as much.
Simple answer to whether or not bond would have survived without Brosnan - Yes. Of course it would. Nothing against Brosnan, but if it wasn't for him, someone else would have succeeded just as much.
You've probably right but Brozzer was really the only choice at the time. I can remember when his casting was announced I was pleased but it was hardly a surprise. I remember Sam O'Neill being suggested but I don't remember him being a firm favourite. He was probably the next on the list.
SNothing against Brosnan, but if it wasn't for him, someone else would have succeeded just as much.
Oh boy do I disagree to that. I was around back then and heavily into the cinema thing and I remember everyone wanting and EXPECTING to see Brosnan as Bond, so when it happened we were all totally thrilled and pumped for GE as never before in my movie memory (which admittedly only starts in about 1970).
Yes, any other competent actor could have made it work and made it successful, but IMO ONLY Brosnan could have generated that level of widespread enthusiasm AND the box office numbers associated with it.
It's hard to explain, They got Brosnan ( their #1 choice) then basically
Didn't do anything with him, script wise, but basically made variations
Of previous films.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
It's hard to explain, They got Brosnan ( their #1 choice) then basically
Didn't do anything with him, script wise, but basically made variations
Of previous films.
Now, imagine the same thing done with an actor the public WASN'T straining at the bits to see as Bond... ?:)
When I went to see Goldeneye for the first time I hardly knew Brosnan at all. Yet, he made Bond his own and carried the series beyond the Cold War and into the 21 century, though Clive Owen would have been just as good (in fact, he could probably make a great Bond even now, after Craig). I just enjoy seeing a mature Bond, after all what he does requires not only youthful physical endurance, but experience and skills as well. Lots of members here appear rather dismissive about Brosnan, but I think his legacy will be more and more appreciated as time passes.
Clive or Jason Isaacs were my first two picks for Bond after Brosnan, actually.
Lots of members here appear rather dismissive about Brosnan, but I think his legacy will be more and more appreciated as time passes.
I agree, especially when we get Andrew Garfield after Craig (I have seen this via The Force) and then people will drone on and on, "Wow, Brosnan was really good! I can't believe now that I was so hard on him during the Craig years!" )
I still remember GE when Broz made his first screen appearance and he WAS Bond. He moved how we expected Bond to move, he looked the part, and he was the public's choice.
I also remember DC being announced and wishing Brozzer would do another. For me, Brozzer was Bond. I had wanted him to be Bond forever, even after the mess of DAD. But then I saw DC and the reboot and knew that it was absolutely the right decision to end the Brosnan era.
Sadly, as Brozzer got older there seemed to be more reliance on gadgets.
It's hard to explain, They got Brosnan ( their #1 choice) then basically
Didn't do anything with him, script wise, but basically made variations
Of previous films.
{[]
In answer to the original question, there's no doubt that Pierce Brosnan brought the franchise back to the public eye. At the same time, how quickly he's faded now that Craig is in the role is testament to whether he has lasting quality as 007. In other words, for people -- particularly those who were kids or teens -- during his tenure, he was James Bond. Not so much for everyone else. He lacks the iconic qualities of Sean Connery or even Roger Moore (though the argument could be made he didn't make as many films). That he's remembered more than Timothy Dalton or George Lazenby isn't saying much.
Thunderpussy's observation is exactly right. With Brosnan, we got an actor who should have done more with the role. Instead, he and the films are basically "caretaker Bonds." That is, they kept the franchise going in a slightly better than middling way, neither pushing the franchise toward anything new or daring nor committing any fatal errors that brought everything to a halt. They come across as largely committee-driven, marketing-inspired compromises existing primarily on cliche and formula and the fact that Brosnan, at least on paper, seemed a made-to-order Bond. But, the 90s in particular, were a good decade for that.
I love TND, I remember feeling very excited seeing Bond getting his instructions
in M's car. Really gives the impression, Britain is gearing up for a war and it's down
to Bond to stop it.
Not to mention the fantastic performance from a certain AJBer :v )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I still think the idea of having Bond drive his car by remote control from the backseat
Was a fantastic idea. -{ Whenever I'm driving in a multistorey car park, I can't help but
Imagine I'm driving the BMW, myself. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
Brozzer was perfect for Goldeneye. No one else could have carried that off. TND was also incredibly good for Brozzer but TBH the cracks started to appear in TWINE, and as for DAD - oh dear.
Brozzer went at the right time. Daniel Craig did an excellent job re-booting the franchise and Judi Dench made the transition seamless.
And finally, George Lazenby was superb as a young-in-service Bond. A bit naïve and arrogant.
It's not a myth. Neeson said in an interview that the was "heavily persued" by the Bond producers.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
You've probably right but Brozzer was really the only choice at the time. I can remember when his casting was announced I was pleased but it was hardly a surprise. I remember Sam O'Neill being suggested but I don't remember him being a firm favourite. He was probably the next on the list.
Yes, any other competent actor could have made it work and made it successful, but IMO ONLY Brosnan could have generated that level of widespread enthusiasm AND the box office numbers associated with it.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
..
Then ran it into the ground
Wrong people in charge in the brosnan era
FRWL... Okay.
Maybe GF...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Didn't do anything with him, script wise, but basically made variations
Of previous films.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Thanks!
I also remember DC being announced and wishing Brozzer would do another. For me, Brozzer was Bond. I had wanted him to be Bond forever, even after the mess of DAD. But then I saw DC and the reboot and knew that it was absolutely the right decision to end the Brosnan era.
Sadly, as Brozzer got older there seemed to be more reliance on gadgets.
In answer to the original question, there's no doubt that Pierce Brosnan brought the franchise back to the public eye. At the same time, how quickly he's faded now that Craig is in the role is testament to whether he has lasting quality as 007. In other words, for people -- particularly those who were kids or teens -- during his tenure, he was James Bond. Not so much for everyone else. He lacks the iconic qualities of Sean Connery or even Roger Moore (though the argument could be made he didn't make as many films). That he's remembered more than Timothy Dalton or George Lazenby isn't saying much.
Thunderpussy's observation is exactly right. With Brosnan, we got an actor who should have done more with the role. Instead, he and the films are basically "caretaker Bonds." That is, they kept the franchise going in a slightly better than middling way, neither pushing the franchise toward anything new or daring nor committing any fatal errors that brought everything to a halt. They come across as largely committee-driven, marketing-inspired compromises existing primarily on cliche and formula and the fact that Brosnan, at least on paper, seemed a made-to-order Bond. But, the 90s in particular, were a good decade for that.
In fact, I'd say that TND is a bit underrated.
in M's car. Really gives the impression, Britain is gearing up for a war and it's down
to Bond to stop it.
Not to mention the fantastic performance from a certain AJBer :v
Was a fantastic idea. -{ Whenever I'm driving in a multistorey car park, I can't help but
Imagine I'm driving the BMW, myself.