›

The James Bond All-Encompassing "What-If" Thread

2»

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,838
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think Brosnan would have been fine in TLD. I'm not sure if he would have been necessarily as good as Dalton (because I think Dalton was excellent in TLD, if a little intense at times, and a little weak in the humour dept) but I think he would have pulled it off quite readily and been a worthy successor to Moore had he started then.

    Moreover, I think the films would have been more successful had it been Brosnan (as the public would have more readily accepted him as Moore's replacement) and therefore we may have had a more conventional follow up movie and perhaps not as long a wait for the third (I realize this is pure speculation).

    I truly believe Brosnan hit his peak before 1995 (that's just me). He looked best to me then and was very confident in those years before he got Bond (especially in and around 1988 when he got the Noble House and when he did the Fourth Protocol) so I think a Brosnan run starting in 1987 could have been excellent and he could have taken it all the way up to the mid/late 90's.

    I actually think so too. Brosnan built his entire pre-Bond career on Bond. When it wasn't him, it was the people promoting his movies and TV dramas milking as much as they could Bond imagery (I remember a VHS cover of Noble House with Brosnan in a tuxedo). I think quality wise it would not have been as good as Dalton's movies, but Brosnan would certainly have made the movies more popular IMO.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    If Brosnan had been cast in 1987, it would have been an extension of Moore, only with Remington Steele as Bond.
    You say that like it's a bad thing...
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    chrisisall wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    If Brosnan had been cast in 1987, it would have been an extension of Moore, only with Remington Steele as Bond.
    You say that like it's a bad thing...

    It would mean no Dalton as James Bond. :(
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,813
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    If Brosnan had been cast in 1987, it would have been an extension of Moore, only with Remington Steele as Bond.
    You say that like it's a bad thing...

    It would mean no Dalton as James Bond. :(

    That would be a disaster as he is my favourite Bond actor. :(
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    If Brosnan had been cast in 1987, it would have been an extension of Moore, only with Remington Steele as Bond.
    You say that like it's a bad thing...

    It would mean no Dalton as James Bond. :(
    Well.... yeah, okay, THAT would be pretty unacceptable IMO...
    #-o
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    If anything, we should have gotten more Dalton. At least from '85 till '93. At least.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    If anything, we should have gotten more Dalton. At least from '85 till '93. At least.
    In another dimension THAT Earth got 5 Dalton Bonds... I was born in the wrong part of the Multiverse...
    [-(
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Imagine this scene:

    "If only I could find a REAL man."

    Enter Brosnan.

    #CRINGE!
  • ThepastykidThepastykid
    Posts: 553
    "If only I could find a pretty boy clothes horse"

    Brosnan enters.

    Fixed it
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    chrisisall wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    If Brosnan had been cast in 1987, it would have been an extension of Moore, only with Remington Steele as Bond.
    You say that like it's a bad thing...

    It's not? ;)

    Honestly, I think Dalton started at the right time, but should have stayed on. If Dalton had made a 3rd and 4th in 1991 and 1993 (I can't imagine Dalton staying on longer, unless EON had the right to CR, to tempt him back for a 5th), Brosnan still could have taken over in 1995. And, like Dalton, Brosnan would have had time to age a little (as opposed to Brosnan starting in 1987/Dalton starting in 1968).
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    If Brosnan had been cast in 1987, it would have been an extension of Moore, only with Remington Steele as Bond.
    You say that like it's a bad thing...

    It would mean no Dalton as James Bond. :(

    Sounds like a win-win to me ;)
  • BrilliantANDbogusBrilliantANDbogus Location of Junkanoo
    Posts: 19
    I think John Glen should have just done three. Eyes, Octopussy and View. Five was too many for him. They should of recruited Martin Campbell to revamp the series in the aftermath of Edge of Darkness, with Timothy Dalton as Bond.

    This followed by a Martin Campbell Licence To Kill, then in a perfect world followed by a third Dalton in 1992, followed by a hiatus to retool, then picking up with Brosnan in Goldeneye just like in reality.

    But what would the third have been directed by? My vote Michael Caton Jones. Keep it British,
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    I don't have a problem with Glen having made 5 Bond, I think Glen was the best Bond director when it came to action. But 5 is enough (for any director), so a new pair of hands would have been wise for Dalton's 3rd.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    Agreed. Four out of Glen's five rank pretty high on my list. Even though I felt that with LTK he was on fire, I wouldn't have objected to another director stepping in for a '91 Bond film.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    As I've said before, I understand Glen can be though at as 'boring, 'predictable' and 'workmanlike', but IMO I love that you can know exactly what to expect from his films. M scene, Q scene, Moneypenny scene, Gogol, Defense Minister, etc. It gives me a warm feeling. Also, I think Barry gives his 2 best work under Glen (AVTAK and TLD), and some of the best Bond performances are from this era (Moore in FYEO and OP, Dalton in TLD and LTK).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited July 2015 Posts: 17,691
    Next: WHAT IF after TB they'd continued to be basically faithful to Fleming's novels?
    How would that have affected the franchise for good or for bad, both creatively & in terms of box office success?

    I think EON saw saw an end to Bond's story on the horizon, and wanted to depart from it to keep it from going that way. If still faithful to the novels, they would have been basically locked into an arc that would have ended in the Seventies. Reboots were uncommon then, and I think they made a box office wise, if artistically challenged choice.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    I think it could have been very interesting to see them go faithful on OHMSS first and then YOLT! I'd be especially intrigued to see a film version of a novel that's 50 % 'the teachings of Mr Fleming on the subject of Japan'. ;-) Just joking, Bond on a rampage, going after Blofeld with a clear reason; nothing could beat that!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    What if Bond movies had bucked the 'bigger-is-better' notion and had stayed smaller-ish & more intimate like the first three all along? Would the series have survived until now?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    First I want to say something to the original question:

    The James Bond movies had a huge impact on pop-culture and the whole movie and television industry.
    To remove it would be like Gene Roddenberry had never created Star Trek. Unimaginable.
    A movie/TV pop-culture world without any Trek? Without Bond?

    Sure, we would all be fans of some other long-lasting franchise that might have emerged but I'd rather not know.

    To the new question:
    I don't see much of a difference between let's say Goldfinger and YOLT.
    What I'm sure of is: had they not stopped doing low-budget cheap looking Bond movies after DAF LALD and TMWTGG the series would have been dead by 1977.
    TSWLM may be the most important Bond movie of them all, because of it we still can enjoy Bond in new adventures.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    First I want to say something to the original question:
    The James Bond movies had a huge impact on pop-culture and the whole movie and television industry.
    To remove it would be like Gene Roddenberry had never created Star Trek.
    Agreed- absolutely nothing in spy or sci-fi would be what it is today.
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    TSWLM may be the most important Bond movie of them all, because of it we still can enjoy Bond in new adventures.
    Yes, that was totally a pivotal film in my (& your) estimation.
Sign In or Register to comment.