Could Brosnan's films stand as their own franchise?

MilleniumForce

They are the furthest from the novels. Bond is definetly more of an action hero in these four. Whereas Moore's or even some of Connery's (the only exception being FRWL) have to be Bond due to how different they are from action films. They focus more on story and character, whilst Brosnan's focus more on action and looking cool. However, there's nothing wrong with that. And if they were a franchise, you could probably throw LTK in there as well, with it's violence and Miami Vice feel. So, could they have stood alone as a different franchise?

broadshoulder

MilleniumForce wrote:

They are the furthest from the novels. Bond is definetly more of an action hero in these four. Whereas Moore's or even some of Connery's (the only exception being FRWL) have to be Bond due to how different they are from action films. They focus more on story and character, whilst Brosnan's focus more on action and looking cool. However, there's nothing wrong with that. And if they were a franchise, you could probably throw LTK in there as well, with it's violence and Miami Vice feel. So, could they have stood alone as a different franchise?

Theres not much difference between the films - they would however earned alot of money. But to be honest, they would have gone the way of conventional Hollywood stock.

Absolutely_Cart

Sure. The possibilities with gunshots, explosions and spinny blade thingies and endless.

Seriously, they would've stood on their own. Not as much if they didn't have the James Bond IP, but they'd still sell well.

chrisisall

No, Brosnan's Bonds are BONDS. Just like Craig's are. The recipe may vary, but the product remains OO7.

Absolutely_Cart

Granted, I can't say the spinny drilly bit machines in the 90's were any less Bond than the 60's, 70's, 80's and 00's tropes injected into the films.

AlphaOmegaSin

Like Chris said, the Brosnan Films are Bond Films through and through.