Whose idea was it to cast Brosnan as Bond?

11213141517

Comments

  • Posts: 6,396
    chrisisall wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I'd never even heard of Brosnan when he was cast. I got the impression he was not widely known in the UK.
    Then....



    hehehehehe

    I've only just now watched that clip. I'm laughing so hard I've got tears in my eyes.

    Absolutely brilliant =))
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Hehe, that clip shows up in every Brosnan thread, and lately he has been very much in the wind here, hasnt he?
  • Posts: 11,189
    Haven't you seen that clip before? It's great :) you should see how Adam and Joe incorporate it into some songs. YouTube Adam and Joe Taffin.

    As much as I enjoy Broz thank god he didnt get the part in 1986. Taffin was 2 years later.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 6,396
    'Taffin Tennis'



    There's no more to add to that :-)
  • Posts: 11,189
    ...except this:

  • Posts: 6,396
    Bloody wonderful. I've been laughing all evening.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I wonder if Taffin was on Brosnan's audition tape when he was applying to be Bond.
  • Posts: 43
    It would seem that the mystery has been solved, the recently deceased John Calley wanted Pierce as Bond.
    http://lifebetweenframes.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-lost-dalton-film.html
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Haydock, England
    edited August 2021 Posts: 254
    jaguar007 wrote: »
    In 1986 however? Yes, I'd feel extremely sorry for him.
    Just imagine, being in a lame TV show that's almost over, allowing you to play the part of a lifetime in a big budget movie to be shown all over the world-- only for the show to step in and say 'oh, well we're going to do another season after all, so you won't have time to play Bond. It's in your contract that you have to come with us. Sorry, lulz.'

    Actually Remington Steele was almost canceled until news broke that Brosnan was cast as Bond (he was actually signed). NBC renewed Steele at the 11th hour in order to ride the Bond publicity waive. The producers of Steele wanted to work around the Bond shooting schedule, but it was Cubby who decided to drop Brosnan. He did not want his big screen Bond on the small screen every week.

    As for Dalton quitting the role for GE, that is the story that was given to the press. It is not a greatly kept secret that the real reason "Dalton retired" is that John Calley (then head of MGM) refused to greenlight GE unless the role was recast. Calley was the one pushing for Brosnan, EON wanted to continue with Dalton.

    Add Giancarlo Paretti trying to sell the broadcasting rights to the Bond series and a livid Danjaq suing MGM, and you can understand why Dalton got screwed over.

    In an alternate universe, I’d make sure Paretti never tries to merge MGM with another company, Dalton would got his third movie in 1991, and I’d tell Calley to get stuffed :D
  • Posts: 7,500
    This is one of the things I love about this site: Old threads that were dead for years, suddenly brought back out of nowhere, and you end up reading a highly interesting discussion dating back almost ten years!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2021 Posts: 14,861
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    ...except this:


    Wonderful! You can’t beat a bit of Bronholm.

    If you haven’t heard it, Adam Buxton on Smershpod reviewing Taffin is well worth a listen. Here’s some edited highlights, some great stuff in there, including some language, but hey, if you can’t take a swear or two then maybe you shouldn’t be living here.


    Full podcast here: https://play.acast.com/s/smershpod/smershsidespecial-taffin
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    The Public

    The public had been talking Brosnan up as Bond-esque for years before he was given the job

    After Dalton didn't work out the producers took the path of least resistance and gave them what they wanted
  • Posts: 526
    jaguar007 wrote: »
    In 1986 however? Yes, I'd feel extremely sorry for him.
    Just imagine, being in a lame TV show that's almost over, allowing you to play the part of a lifetime in a big budget movie to be shown all over the world-- only for the show to step in and say 'oh, well we're going to do another season after all, so you won't have time to play Bond. It's in your contract that you have to come with us. Sorry, lulz.'

    Actually Remington Steele was almost canceled until news broke that Brosnan was cast as Bond (he was actually signed). NBC renewed Steele at the 11th hour in order to ride the Bond publicity waive. The producers of Steele wanted to work around the Bond shooting schedule, but it was Cubby who decided to drop Brosnan. He did not want his big screen Bond on the small screen every week.

    As for Dalton quitting the role for GE, that is the story that was given to the press. It is not a greatly kept secret that the real reason "Dalton retired" is that John Calley (then head of MGM) refused to greenlight GE unless the role was recast. Calley was the one pushing for Brosnan, EON wanted to continue with Dalton.

    This is what I’ve always heard.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,727
    To be honest Pierce's casting was in keeping with the times... the mid 90's brought Britpop, the Spicegirls, New Labour, Western economic upturn, a new brand of cool care-free society.
    Glitz and glamour were still 'in' and not yet considered bad-taste and the decade brought a very real sense that 'things can only get better...'

    The sentiment at the time was that we had never had it so good in the Western World - Brosnan's somewhat shallow, hedonistic & perfectly coiffed superspy icon was the Cinematic conceptualization of this mid-to late 1990's hedonism.

    Gritty cinema only became 'cool' after 9/11 ...

  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    AceHole wrote: »
    To be honest Pierce's casting was in keeping with the times... the mid 90's brought Britpop, the Spicegirls, New Labour, Western economic upturn, a new brand of cool care-free society.
    Glitz and glamour were still 'in' and not yet considered bad-taste and the decade brought a very real sense that 'things can only get better...'

    The sentiment at the time was that we had never had it so good in the Western World - Brosnan's somewhat shallow, hedonistic & perfectly coiffed superspy icon was the Cinematic conceptualization of this mid-to late 1990's hedonism.

    Gritty cinema only became 'cool' after 9/11 ...


    So his movies were pretty well liked on its release time right?
    It was till Craig came to the picture that Brosnan’s films except Goldeneye were put down by almost everyone.



  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    Szonana wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    To be honest Pierce's casting was in keeping with the times... the mid 90's brought Britpop, the Spicegirls, New Labour, Western economic upturn, a new brand of cool care-free society.
    Glitz and glamour were still 'in' and not yet considered bad-taste and the decade brought a very real sense that 'things can only get better...'

    The sentiment at the time was that we had never had it so good in the Western World - Brosnan's somewhat shallow, hedonistic & perfectly coiffed superspy icon was the Cinematic conceptualization of this mid-to late 1990's hedonism.

    Gritty cinema only became 'cool' after 9/11 ...


    So his movies were pretty well liked on its release time right?
    It was till Craig came to the picture that Brosnan’s films except Goldeneye were put down by almost everyone.



    No, everyone liked Goldeneye, but after that his films were seen as slick but unmemorable - just kind of disappointing (until DAD that is; a lot of knives were out for that one, though I myself was of the opinion that at least they really went for it - they wanted a big, stupid fantasy picture, and that was what they made, totally balls to the wall, because at the time I think Eon were looking at Vin Diesel's XXX as a threat, they didn't really see Bourne coming for some reason).

    The big shift in perception that came with Craig's success was that, pre-Craig, Brosnan was seen as a great Bond let down by an increasingly clueless Eon, whereas after Craig's success, people started blaming Brosnan himself as part of the reason the films were lacking.

    Or at least that's how I remember it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,254
    I seem to remember the Brozz Era as being very popular, since I was very much in the minority compared to the reviews I read and the obviously repeat biz that happened at the Box Office.

    I was at best bored and unimpressed and found them loud and cheesy.

    However, as I’ve said before: I did really enjoy the first half of TND. I found Brozz to be his best, most relaxed and confident and more importantly, likeable. He also looked quite handsome. It was everything after the Halo jump that went down hill for me.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 2,895
    No one saw Bourne coming, not even Universal who funded it. It was just Doug Liman's pet project. Ironically, Liman wanted to direct a Bond film but knew they'd never let him as he'd only directed two little indie films, so instead he bought the Bourne Identity film rights from Robert Ludlam personally and drove the whole thing. Universal had zero expectations for it - it was just a little $60 million dollar movie they expected to vanish after a month. Like Sandbagger said, all eyes were on xXx as the competition for Bond - which just seems bizarre now!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Yeah it's quite funny to think that EON maybe saw xXx as the next big thing, considering how Bourne completely changed the action thriller landscape.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    That first Bourne movie was a muted success, though - I remember, because I was quite hyped for it, having seen the Richard Chamberlain tv adaptation as a kid; lots of the reviews at the time were along the lines of 'good, not great', and though I loved it, the friend I went to see it with said "it never really got going, did it?" as we walked out. I think it built-up popularity on dvd, though.
  • Yeah, I remember the Brosnan era being popular. Goldeneye was definitely the highpoint, there was a real buzz around that one that we wouldn’t see again until Craig. But the others still did well, and even DAD wasn’t universally thought of as crap at the time. It was divisive, but a lot of people thought it was an improvement on TND and TWINE. It just aged very badly very quickly, like a lot of those early 2000s action films did.
    AceHole wrote: »
    To be honest Pierce's casting was in keeping with the times... the mid 90's brought Britpop, the Spicegirls, New Labour, Western economic upturn, a new brand of cool care-free society.
    Glitz and glamour were still 'in' and not yet considered bad-taste and the decade brought a very real sense that 'things can only get better...'

    The sentiment at the time was that we had never had it so good in the Western World - Brosnan's somewhat shallow, hedonistic & perfectly coiffed superspy icon was the Cinematic conceptualization of this mid-to late 1990's hedonism.

    Gritty cinema only became 'cool' after 9/11 ...

    I think this is bang on. And it’s important to remember that we might not have gotten to the gritty Bond if it wasn’t for Brosnan. They needed a hit with Goldeneye, and as much as I love Dalton, I’m not sure if the film would’ve been as successful with him in the lead. I don’t think it would’ve flopped or anything, and I think Dalton is the better Bond, and the better actor. But they needed a real movie star for that one, and Brosnan had those qualities in spades.

    Maybe it’s just my nostalgia talking, but I’ll always defend Brosnan as an underrated Bond. He was effortlessly cool, perfect as the flashy Britpop action hero, and I do think he bought real emotion to it. That side of his films has aged poorly, because it was essentially just a rough warm up for the Craig era. But TWINE in particular did a lot of interesting things imo, and I always found how Brosnan played the darker moments interesting, because of how passionate he was. People say he overacts, and okay, I can’t defend the pain face. But I think he did make his Bond distinct in some of those scenes, because he didn’t play those moments as cold blooded like the others would have. He played it hot blooded. He’d get genuinely angry, he’d get genuinely sad. And there was a sort of woundedness and broodiness about him at times. I think his Bond had more depth than people give him credit for, and that was entirely down to his performance. He always gave me a sense of something deeper going on, I could imagine him brooding at the bar dwelling on killing Alec or Elektra.

    I also genuinely think he gives one of the best Bond performances in DAD. I can’t imagine any other Bond carrying that film like he did. Moore couldn’t have sold the Korea stuff, Craig and Dalton couldn’t have sold the awful quips. Connery would’ve taken one look at the script and phoned it in, and Lazenby would’ve been lost without a decent director. But Brosnan carries that trainwreck completely on his shoulders. There’s so much tonal whiplash in that film that I think it’s amazing that Bond feels like the same character throughout. But he does, thanks to Brosnan. I know “greatest hits” is often levelled at him, but they really needed a jack of all trades like him to carry DAD. Same probably goes for all his films past Goldeneye actually. The others all got films that played to their strengths, but he had to lurch from proto Craig to rebooted Moore between scenes, and he actually made a success of it. I know a lot of his era has aged poorly, but I think he deserves credit for that. He’ll always be one of my favourite Bonds.
  • I've been saying for the last decade or so that Brosnan has been getting a lot of undeserved flak and that he was due a re-appraisal once Craig left the tuxedo empty. Pierce was a perfectly fine Bond for his time... and I'm a Dalton fan. I wish TD had been able to do a few more, but alas, it was not to be. Whoever the next fellow is, I hope he'll be able to make the role his own.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 1,964
    Pretty sure it was Cubbys idea along with the public.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    edited November 2021 Posts: 538
    AceHole wrote: »
    To be honest Pierce's casting was in keeping with the times... the mid 90's

    He could've personified the 80's as well if he were casted then too.

    He could've been the tall, dark, handsome, poofy-haired yuppie. Portrayed as an embodiment of success and luxury.

    Pierce has always been ridiculously handsome, and he still is to this day (I have a mancrush on him), but he looked his best in the 80's.

  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 467
    If we keep on the Britpop metaphor, Die Another Day was definitely the Be Here Now of Bond films...
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    Posts: 539
    If we keep on the Britpop metaphor, Die Another Day was definitely the Be Here Now of Bond films...

    Be Here Now's a flawed classic, though I suppose the mentality of "bigger is better" applies to both.
  • Posts: 14,799
    As much as I
    Venutius wrote: »
    No one saw Bourne coming, not even Universal who funded it. It was just Doug Liman's pet project. Ironically, Liman wanted to direct a Bond film but knew they'd never let him as he'd only directed two little indie films, so instead he bought the Bourne Identity film rights from Robert Ludlam personally and drove the whole thing. Universal had zero expectations for it - it was just a little $60 million dollar movie they expected to vanish after a month. Like Sandbagger said, all eyes were on xXx as the competition for Bond - which just seems bizarre now!

    I remember early reviews of the Bourne script, before the film was even shot: they were lacklustre at best. I was surprised when the movie was released and it got raving reviews.
  • Posts: 372
    9/11 changed the cultural landscape, just as COVID is doing.
  • Posts: 14,799
    Stamper wrote: »
    9/11 changed the cultural landscape, just as COVID is doing.

    When DAD was released, it looked already dated. And the sci-fi stuff looked like a cheap gimmick.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    9/11 changed the cultural landscape, just as COVID is doing.

    When DAD was released, it looked already dated. And the sci-fi stuff looked like a cheap gimmick.

    Yeah it did.
    I never understand why they take Bond into the fantastical, the moment they do it just gets ripped to shreds.

    The sci-fi elements papered over cracks in the Brosnan era, but it's stood out like a sore thumb in Craig era. I can't understand why the producers push for it

    As much as I like Dalton, I'm glad they hired Pierce for Goldeneye, he owns that film. But the subsequent films he's just the guy in the tux not much more, which is more a fault of the writing than anything
Sign In or Register to comment.