|
Post by adam on Mar 1, 2008 8:54:49 GMT -5
Brosnan was Cubby Brocoli's choice. When B B took over Brosnan was in the middle of his Bond contract. As soon as that expired she got in her own man and completly changed everything. I suppose she was trying to show everyone she was a strong independent woman who is'nt afraid to change a 30 year old institution. That's fair enough, trouble is Craig was the worst posssible choice & CR one of the worst Bond movies ever.
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Mar 2, 2008 23:05:51 GMT -5
DAD got 'OK' reviews when it came out & did great box office. No one complained about Brosnan or suggested a change in direction or a new actor. It's also interesting to note that its success came in the wake of both 9/11 and Jason Bourne. This immediately renders the whole "Bond had to change" argument moot, because it simply wasn't a factor at all. I think they missed a great opportunity by not following up on the events of DAD- specifically, Bond's capture. One reason a reboot was unnecessary is because they had just created a clever way in which to unbalance 007 and alter him. So I wanted to see what happened when he and M tried to get back to business as usual. A big complaint of DAD is that it dropped the capture idea too quickly...although it still felt as if Bond and M never completely resolved their issues in the film. It would've been closer to Fleming's spirit to run with that loose plot thread, rather than trying to reinvent the whole thing. Ironically, it was also a perfect setup for imitating Bourne in a subtle manner. What if Bond wasn't back to 100%? Or what if he and M no longer trusted each other implicitly? And what affect would the failure in Korea have on future missions? I'd think a routine mission like Le Chiffre would be exactly the type of lightweight stuff he'd suddenly be handed. Of course, the ultimate joke is that once EON finally took a chance and decided to do something different...they literally had no idea how to follow it up. Even Purvis and Wade have admitted that they simply couldn't think of a way to get an older 007 into Casino Royale. They basically needed Paul Greengrass to draw them a blueprint so they could try and copy it.
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Mar 3, 2008 1:37:03 GMT -5
DAD got 'OK' reviews when it came out & did great box office. No one complained about Brosnan or suggested a change in direction or a new actor. It's also interesting to note that its success came in the wake of both 9/11 and Jason Bourne. This immediately renders the whole "Bond had to change" argument moot, because it simply wasn't a factor at all. I think they missed a great opportunity by not following up on the events of DAD- specifically, Bond's capture. One reason a reboot was unnecessary is because they had just created a clever way in which to unbalance 007 and alter him. So I wanted to see what happened when he and M tried to get back to business as usual. A big complaint of DAD is that it dropped the capture idea too quickly...although it still felt as if Bond and M never completely resolved their issues in the film. It would've been closer to Fleming's spirit to run with that loose plot thread, rather than trying to reinvent the whole thing. Ironically, it was also a perfect setup for imitating Bourne in a subtle manner. What if Bond wasn't back to 100%? Or what if he and M no longer trusted each other implicitly? And what affect would the failure in Korea have on future missions? I'd think a routine mission like Le Chiffre would be exactly the type of lightweight stuff he'd suddenly be handed. Of course, the ultimate joke is that once EON finally took a chance and decided to do something different...they literally had no idea how to follow it up. Even Purvis and Wade have admitted that they simply couldn't think of a way to get an older 007 into Casino Royale. They basically needed Paul Greengrass to draw them a blueprint so they could try and copy it. Excellent analysis. And you raise some interesting dramatic tensions that could've spun from the events in DAD. Regarding Purvis and Wade admitting that they couldn't think of an older 007 into CR: well, that also stems from the "paralysis" of Eon. I remember just a day or so after Craig was announced as the new Bond, Mike Wilson revealed in an interview that they had to reboot the series because they were scared, scared of the competition, scared of the state of the franchise.
|
|
|
Post by adam on Mar 3, 2008 15:16:14 GMT -5
They did miss a great opportunity after DAD. Bond getting captured showed he is fallible. The next film could have had Brosnan getting some things wrong and being punished for it. Just because he's an experienced spy does'nt mean he can't make mistakes or get outwitted. The producers could have also embraced the fact that Brosnan was getting older. Maybe had him coming out worse off in a fight with a younger man or getting out of breath during a chase. They could have had 'M' suggesting he's not up to the job anymore after what happened in DAD. Bond would then be on a mission to prove her wrong. Or they could have made a joke of his age, like they did in FYEO with Bond rejecting the advances of a teenager. Moore gave two of his most confident performances as a more mature Bond in FYEO & O. There is no reason why Brosnan would'nt have done the same. Instead the producers got scared as soon as Brosnan hit 50.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Mar 3, 2008 16:14:09 GMT -5
DAD got 'OK' reviews when it came out & did great box office. No one complained about Brosnan or suggested a change in direction or a new actor. It's also interesting to note that its success came in the wake of both 9/11 and Jason Bourne. This immediately renders the whole "Bond had to change" argument moot, because it simply wasn't a factor at all. I think they missed a great opportunity by not following up on the events of DAD- specifically, Bond's capture. One reason a reboot was unnecessary is because they had just created a clever way in which to unbalance 007 and alter him. So I wanted to see what happened when he and M tried to get back to business as usual. A big complaint of DAD is that it dropped the capture idea too quickly...although it still felt as if Bond and M never completely resolved their issues in the film. It would've been closer to Fleming's spirit to run with that loose plot thread, rather than trying to reinvent the whole thing. Ironically, it was also a perfect setup for imitating Bourne in a subtle manner. What if Bond wasn't back to 100%? Or what if he and M no longer trusted each other implicitly? And what affect would the failure in Korea have on future missions? I'd think a routine mission like Le Chiffre would be exactly the type of lightweight stuff he'd suddenly be handed. Of course, the ultimate joke is that once EON finally took a chance and decided to do something different...they literally had no idea how to follow it up. Even Purvis and Wade have admitted that they simply couldn't think of a way to get an older 007 into Casino Royale. They basically needed Paul Greengrass to draw them a blueprint so they could try and copy it. If only they had to spoken to you Poirot. I think your idea would have worked a treat.
|
|
|
Post by brookystreet on Aug 23, 2008 8:24:34 GMT -5
There is loads of things that could've been done to the Bond films since the 90's. PB does GE - TWINE and in 2002 we get DC in CR (Which isn't a reboot) with a film every 2 years till his fifth and final in 2010. Then in 2012 the 50 years, 25 films celebration begins and we have a reboot with Henry Cavill.
|
|
alex
Commander
Posts: 344
|
Post by alex on Sept 27, 2008 10:03:27 GMT -5
If it wasn't for the legal problems they should have updated Colonel Sun for Timothy Dalton in 1991. Even if it hadn't taken a huge amount of money they had Brosnan in the wings but at least Dalton would have got one more chance to cement himself in the role.
|
|
|
Post by Gambit on Sept 30, 2008 9:45:59 GMT -5
I think there might have been preassure from MGM to ditch Dalton if he had wanted to go on. It's possible that GoldenEye might have done well with him after a break from LTK but not a sure thing.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Sterling on Sept 30, 2008 15:34:24 GMT -5
To begin with I’m a huge fan of DAD, consider it one of the better Bond films ever made and by no means criticize for being over the top. Still, the situation in which Bond franchise found itself in 2002 was in many ways similar to that after release of MR in 1979. Had he been taken further in DAD direction, Bond would have ended up as science fiction film. In such circumstances the only wise decision was to tone the next film down a bit and go for something like FEYO or, to make more contemporary comparison, TWINE in mood. The worst possible solution was to get rid of Brosnan. He was as strong and comfortable in the role as never before (performance he gave in DAD with no doubt was his best). That was giving certain flexibility – the ways Brosnan played Bond could have been changed, even radically because he just WAS Bond – everything he would have done, Bond would have done and audience would have accepted that. If EON really had wanted to change the franchise (and hadn’t invented the whole story just to cover Craig’s lacks as classic Bond) the greatest possibility to do so without ruining its legacy was criminally wasted.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Haugen on Oct 1, 2008 9:02:53 GMT -5
I get the impression Brosnan was never Barbara's man. There is that story that she wanted Sean Bean as 007 in GE but MGM and Cubby insisted on Brosnan.
|
|
FormerBondFan
00 Agent
Posts: 5,455
Favourite James Bond Films: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible and any upcoming action films starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good because he'll need it to expand his reputation as an actor, especially in the action realm)
Favourite Films: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Harry Potter, Middle-Earth, The Matrix, Mission: Impossible
|
Post by FormerBondFan on Oct 1, 2008 9:10:10 GMT -5
I get the impression Brosnan was never Barbara's man. Is that the reason why Pierce didn't get the creative freedom he needed?
|
|
|
Post by Greg Haugen on Oct 1, 2008 9:31:07 GMT -5
It would make sense. If this theory is correct, then when Barbara took control of the series with her Butler Michael G Wilson, she effectively inherited a James Bond actor that she wouldn't have picked herself.
|
|