The simple answer was nothing went wrong other than 9/11. Reality was that happened and EON got the rights to CR. PB had already been in the role for multiple films prior and BB and MG thought if you are going to make the first book then it needed a new actor enter DC.
They felt following in the same vein after 9/11 was not appropriate and the franchise needed a new Bond for what was the dawn of a new era.
It's all there on Everything or Nothing the history of JB
Cheers :007)
My name is Bond, Basildon Bond - I have letters after my name!
The simple answer was nothing went wrong other than 9/11. Reality was that happened and EON got the rights to CR. PB had already been in the role for multiple films prior and BB and MG thought if you are going to make the first book then it needed a new actor enter DC.
They felt following in the same vein after 9/11 was not appropriate and the franchise needed a new Bond for what was the dawn of a new era.
It's all there on Everything or Nothing the history of JB
Cheers :007)
I think it's time I watched everything or nothing again, it's an incredibly enthralling documentary. As for Pierce Brosnan other than the last half of DAD Brosnan had a very successful tenure unfortunately for me DAD just pushed things too far for me, I left the cinema very disappointed and was on a bit of a Bond downer until seeing casino royale. I don't think the Bourne films helped the latter Brosnan era.
The simple answer was nothing went wrong other than 9/11. Reality was that happened and EON got the rights to CR. PB had already been in the role for multiple films prior and BB and MG thought if you are going to make the first book then it needed a new actor enter DC.
They felt following in the same vein after 9/11 was not appropriate and the franchise needed a new Bond for what was the dawn of a new era.
It's all there on Everything or Nothing the history of JB
Cheers :007)
That may have been a reason, but it was also an excuse to give for wanting to get rid of Brosnan. Just as Moore was able to shift tones for his fifth Bond film, Brosnan could have done that too and stuck around for a few more films if they still wanted Brosnan.
The simple answer was nothing went wrong other than 9/11. Reality was that happened and EON got the rights to CR. PB had already been in the role for multiple films prior and BB and MG thought if you are going to make the first book then it needed a new actor enter DC.
They felt following in the same vein after 9/11 was not appropriate and the franchise needed a new Bond for what was the dawn of a new era.
It's all there on Everything or Nothing the history of JB
Cheers :007)
That may have been a reason, but it was also an excuse to give for wanting to get rid of Brosnan. Just as Moore was able to shift tones for his fifth Bond film, Brosnan could have done that too and stuck around for a few more films if they still wanted Brosnan.
Issue is as in CR Bond earns his 00 status you could hardly give it to PB after having done previous films would it would not make sense.
Cheers :007)
My name is Bond, Basildon Bond - I have letters after my name!
I think having Brosnan stay for the CR role just after driving a invisible car would have felt a bit weird and I think M Wilson acknowledges this somewhere, they simply went to far and needed a refresh
The only Brosnan Bond I disliked was Die Another Day, which I *hated* on first viewing. A full 45 minutes of adverts and trailers had put me in a sour mood beforehand, then I was presented with the loudest film I ever saw. I've actually warmed to it slightly on viewing it a few times since. The car chase on ice scene doesn't work at all, totally lacking any sense of danger, and the climax on the plane just goes on forever. There is some good stuff though, and Brosnan is great, though beginning to get a mite too old for the part.
My theory at the time was that one reason Eon changed their leading man was that nobody wanted to get in the same situation as the last few Roger Moore films, afraid to change a successful formula but with a Bond whose age stretched credulity too far. Who'd have thunk we'd have wound up with a fifty year old Bond again?
Lee Tamahori and DAD were what went wrong. I don't blame Tamahori entirely as obviously there's a script element to the mix too but between them they really dropped the ball.
Up until DAD I'd really enjoyed the Brosnan times and there were elements of that film that worked. Decent cast, stunning Bond girl (Pike) and a plot that, handled right could have been a goer. Unfortunately it appears everyone got carried away and fell into the film makers trap of "it needs to be bigger than the last one". Not better, bigger and unfortunately being the second doesn't necessarily equal the first.
Shame as it isn't how Pierce should have gone out.
I've no objection to a 50 year old Bond if the actor is continuing in the part- 50 is too old to start being Bond, but not too old to continue.
I quite agree. Roger Moore was aged 50 when he made TSWLM and looks great. Four or five years later audience credulity was starting to be stretched. Daniel Craig is a very physically fit man and still looks convincing,though as I recall he keeps his shirt on in Spectre.
Tom Cruise is still a viable action movie star aged 55 - the last Mission:Impossible movie was great!
I've no objection to a 50 year old Bond if the actor is continuing in the part- 50 is too old to start being Bond, but not too old to continue.
Particularly if the film embraces that and plays to it (whilst avoiding the hoary 'I'm too old for this shiz') Here's hoping...
That is why it was jarring to watch a grizzled Bond in SF who couldn’t shoot for sh** in the Service’s target range. It might have been an admirable touch for characterization on paper considering what had just happened to Bond, but IMO that kind of feebleness should never be done for him at anytime. IMO, DC wasn't even old looking during SF (or now for the matter) and they actually went ahead to make him look decrepit, which would have been akin to putting RM in plaid bermuda shorts.
Though it was conventionally done, a similar situation in DAD was handled better when Bond recovered to his former self with a haircut, shave and a new suit, and from an audience’s perspective, you got this feeling that he “was back,” and all within a span of 30 minutes!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
in Die Another Day he'd just been tortured for two years
he should be in much worse shape than at the beginning of Skyfall
this is evidence of how poorly Die Another Day is written, not an example of how Skyfall could have been done better
(though I do think the hotel lobby scene is the best part of the film)
in Die Another Day he'd just been tortured for two years
he should be in much worse shape than at the beginning of Skyfall
this is evidence of how poorly Die Another Day is written, not an example of how Skyfall could have been done better
(though I do think the hotel lobby scene is the best part of the film)
{[] {[]
The lobby scene and the clothing is what makes this movie barely watchable, for me. Where did that magic go in the rest of the movie?
(LTK is great but the clothing makes it barely watchable.)
I've no objection to a 50 year old Bond if the actor is continuing in the part- 50 is too old to start being Bond, but not too old to continue.
I quite agree. Roger Moore was aged 50 when he made TSWLM and looks great. Four or five years later audience credulity was starting to be stretched. Daniel Craig is a very physically fit man and still looks convincing,though as I recall he keeps his shirt on in Spectre.
Tom Cruise is still a viable action movie star aged 55 - the last Mission:Impossible movie was great!
Cary Grant was almost hired as Bond at age 58, though that is pushing it as a action hero/spy!
I'll never get why DAD gets so much hate. Well, I know the origin of that is the bad CGI and sadly that's what stuck in the heads, like the 50th will stay in the heads for SF.
The first hour of DAD is as good as it gets in any Bond.
Bond recovering seemingly fast from his torture is not a problem. Especially in retrospect when we look at Craig being shot to death, falling to his death into water and then drown. It has Monty Python humour quality that he walks around and shags in the next scene he is in. But because it's Craig, his fans don't care. Brosnan of course is SOOOO unrealistic.
I haven't seen Tomorrow Never Dies or The World Is Not Enough for a very long time, as I was not a fan of Pierce Brosnan. However, I just saw Goldeneye with my wife (we've been watching the entire series in order) and she loved it, and so did I. I guess some things do get better (and worse) with age but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'll comment here again after I see the next two bond films but as for Die Another Day which I do fully recall, I was not a fan for the reasons pointed out by everyone else. Reading what others have said, it may be fair to say that Brosnan, much like Dalton were great bond actors but were given less-than-wonderful material to worth with in one way or another.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that went wrong was the excess CGI during his fourth film. If we got rid of just a few scenes, it would be better remembered. Nonetheless, all the Brosnan films are fun and entertaining.
-{
I haven't seen Tomorrow Never Dies or The World Is Not Enough for a very long time, as I was not a fan of Pierce Brosnan. However, I just saw Goldeneye with my wife (we've been watching the entire series in order) and she loved it, and so did I. I guess some things do get better (and worse) with age but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'll comment here again after I see the next two bond films but as for Die Another Day which I do fully recall, I was not a fan for the reasons pointed out by everyone else. Reading what others have said, it may be fair to say that Brosnan, much like Dalton were great bond actors but were given less-than-wonderful material to worth with in one way or another.
I read that Martin Campbell only opts in for directing if the series is in hiatus or needs a drastic comeback, and in both cases where he directed, those words ring true.
I read that Martin Campbell only opts in for directing if the series is in hiatus or needs a drastic comeback, and in both cases where he directed, those words ring true.
An expert in cleaning up special categories of messes, kind of like this guy )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
They felt following in the same vein after 9/11 was not appropriate and the franchise needed a new Bond for what was the dawn of a new era.
It's all there on Everything or Nothing the history of JB
Cheers :007)
This my first post.
My favorite Bond of all time is Pierce Brosnan.
And my favorite Bond movie of all time is GOLDENEYE.
That may have been a reason, but it was also an excuse to give for wanting to get rid of Brosnan. Just as Moore was able to shift tones for his fifth Bond film, Brosnan could have done that too and stuck around for a few more films if they still wanted Brosnan.
Thanks!.
Then, my favorite Bond director is Martin Campbell.
I love his 2nd Bond film CASINO ROYALE with Craig.
Cheers :007)
It would have worked well with Brosnan.
My theory at the time was that one reason Eon changed their leading man was that nobody wanted to get in the same situation as the last few Roger Moore films, afraid to change a successful formula but with a Bond whose age stretched credulity too far. Who'd have thunk we'd have wound up with a fifty year old Bond again?
Up until DAD I'd really enjoyed the Brosnan times and there were elements of that film that worked. Decent cast, stunning Bond girl (Pike) and a plot that, handled right could have been a goer. Unfortunately it appears everyone got carried away and fell into the film makers trap of "it needs to be bigger than the last one". Not better, bigger and unfortunately being the second doesn't necessarily equal the first.
Shame as it isn't how Pierce should have gone out.
I quite agree. Roger Moore was aged 50 when he made TSWLM and looks great. Four or five years later audience credulity was starting to be stretched. Daniel Craig is a very physically fit man and still looks convincing,though as I recall he keeps his shirt on in Spectre.
Tom Cruise is still a viable action movie star aged 55 - the last Mission:Impossible movie was great!
Particularly if the film embraces that and plays to it (whilst avoiding the hoary 'I'm too old for this shiz') Here's hoping...
That is why it was jarring to watch a grizzled Bond in SF who couldn’t shoot for sh** in the Service’s target range. It might have been an admirable touch for characterization on paper considering what had just happened to Bond, but IMO that kind of feebleness should never be done for him at anytime. IMO, DC wasn't even old looking during SF (or now for the matter) and they actually went ahead to make him look decrepit, which would have been akin to putting RM in plaid bermuda shorts.
Though it was conventionally done, a similar situation in DAD was handled better when Bond recovered to his former self with a haircut, shave and a new suit, and from an audience’s perspective, you got this feeling that he “was back,” and all within a span of 30 minutes!
he should be in much worse shape than at the beginning of Skyfall
this is evidence of how poorly Die Another Day is written, not an example of how Skyfall could have been done better
(though I do think the hotel lobby scene is the best part of the film)
The lobby scene and the clothing is what makes this movie barely watchable, for me. Where did that magic go in the rest of the movie?
(LTK is great but the clothing makes it barely watchable.)
Cary Grant was almost hired as Bond at age 58, though that is pushing it as a action hero/spy!
The first hour of DAD is as good as it gets in any Bond.
Bond recovering seemingly fast from his torture is not a problem. Especially in retrospect when we look at Craig being shot to death, falling to his death into water and then drown. It has Monty Python humour quality that he walks around and shags in the next scene he is in. But because it's Craig, his fans don't care. Brosnan of course is SOOOO unrealistic.
escapism in the same vein as YOLT and MR.
"Better make that two."
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
-{
-{
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
An expert in cleaning up special categories of messes, kind of like this guy