›

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

12346»

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    If dalton had gotten that third film, from what I know of it...maybe it's better we didn't ;)
    LOL, concepts, treatments & partially completed scripts mean nothing. Can you imagine Dalton agreeing to be Bond in a film with ROBOTS? Puhhhleeeze.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,844
    Getafix wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    If dalton had gotten that third film, from what I know of it...maybe it's better we didn't ;)

    Definitely true of the never realised 1991 draft. But GE was originally written for Dalton, so his third would actually have been essentially what Brosnan got as his first film.

    It woild have needed serious recast for Dalton to be in GE. I'm talking more specifically of Trevelyan. Anyway that is off topic.

    I could see people warming up to Jason Isaacs or Ralph Fiennes as Bond. Slowly. But the public wanted Brosnan.
  • Agent7FAgent7F
    edited April 2015 Posts: 820
    If the Bond Franchise did not delay after Licence to KillTimothy Dalton would had his 3 more till he was 50. His era would finish in 35th anniversary year 1997. But was done was don of delay if Pierce Brosnan did not play 5th James Bond I would rather perfere Jason Isaacs or The Professionals Colin Wells.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    If only Dalton had continued until the Craig era. Brosnan did a dent job especially in Goldeneye but his films just became too much "techno thriller"and less proper espionage.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Getafix wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Connery is currently the biggest star of the Bond actors. Regardless of box office success his star shines brightest of all in Hollywood and beyond. His credits are wonderfully impressive.

    Brosnan has a major career as a leading man in film now. He rescued Bond whether the Daltonites admit it or not ;-). Yes his films don't stack up as well as some of the other Bond stars, but they made money and kept the franchise alive. I don't think Dalton could have taken Bond into the 21st Century - he didn't have enough big screen appeal.

    Craig is a major star as well. Again forget box office takings, the fact he is offered major leading roles is testament to that. He is just more picky and less focused on being a big film star than Brosnan. But he is a major star.

    In the 70s Moore was seriously one of the biggest box office stars in the world. He made Gold, Shout At The Devil, The Wild Geese, North Sea Hijack, The Sea Wolves and they all made money. Not just his Bonds.

    Lazenby and Dalton will always be best known for playing Bond and little else. Dalton's career was heading towards TV mini series-ville. Maybe Penny Dreadful will give him something to build on. I do hope so.

    I think you're probably right with most of this. Although I think the question of whether Dalton could have taken Bond successfully into the 21st century (or at least the 1990s) is just always going to remain a moot point.

    As a fan, it seems obvious to me that Dalton could have gone on and made a very successful 3rd movie. I'd have loved a third (even fourth) Dalton film, with someone else (not Brosnan) then taking over. TLD is regularly ranked by fans amongst the best Bond movies. And LTK has a bit of a cult following. Had Dalton made GE, I think it would have been a better movie than the one we got, and I think it would have topped and tailed the Dalton era nicely. Two straight down the line Bond romps, sandwiching a nicely different movie in the middle. I don't think Dalton wanted his Bond to be overwhelmingly seen as this dour character, which is how he's sometimes stereotyped - he liked the romance, action and drama as much as any one. IMO the two Dalton movies have some of the best action sequences in the entire series.

    However, Brosnan was a huge commercial success. I don't personally really enjoy any of his movies, but I have to give him some credit for keeping the show on the road. I just think that Bond is bigger than any one actor, and the idea that Bond was finished without Brosnan is labouring a point. Certainly the ship needed to be put back on an even keel after the US box office performance of LTK and the 6 year break, but I think Dalton (or someone else) could have also achieved that.

    Maybe Eon took a decision similar to the one they took after 2002. Regardless of the Bond actor's appeal they simply needed a fresh start. Perhaps it wasn't Dalton's fault in the 90s, any more than it was Brosnan's fault after DAD - by 1994 they needed a fresh start with a new star and a new(ish) direction ie updating the technology for a modern audience.

    I'm not 100% convinced Dalton jumped. I'm more in the 'he was pushed' camp, but perhaps we will never know for sure.

    I do agree that Bond would have survived with Dalton into the next century, but the movie world is ruthless, and they had to be sure of success and Brozzer was the people's Bond (light hearted comment folks).

    After 2002 another new direction beckoned and Brosnan was also pushed. Shows how the world had changed from the 60s and 70s. Connery and Moore were allowed to keep going as long as they wanted. John Glen even said after AVTAK that Roger was 'good for 2 or 3 more'. I mean WHAT?

    Ruthless times, ruthless times.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,844
    RE Dalton, I think it was 50/50:some people wanted him still, some couldn't wait to see the back of him. And sometimes one just gets fed up.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Jumping from Actor to Producer is a very different role. You are basically changing from artist/ performer to businessman/woman/ exec. I can't see it personally.
Sign In or Register to comment.