Whose idea was it to cast Brosnan as Bond?

1568101118

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    actonsteve wrote:
    Grahman Rye is often quoted as another defense of Brosnan. Before it happens again, i'd like to say that I would rather trust my own judgement, and not take his word as gospel.

    He did?

    Graham Rye wanted me to do a review of the Brosnan era back in 2002. In retrospect as it was finishing. I said no because I didntn own much of the Brosnan era and he said he would send me his DVDs as he wasnt really watching them. He gave me the impression he wasnt impressed with the era at all. I had his DVDs until recently.

    And he was the president of the James Bond British fan club.

    BAIN used a quote of his in defence of GE, but what he'd quoted came across more as criticism than complimentary.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I used that quote in the defence of Brosnan as Bond - not GE!
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I used that quote in the defence of Brosnan as Bond - not GE!

    Either way, it wasn't very convincing! ;)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    @Getafix why do you have Brosnan in your avatar ? and you didn't even use an unflattering pic of him ??
  • Posts: 11,425
    Dammit, that was the most unflattering pic I could find! If you can find something worse I'd appreciate it.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think it's an ok profile pic. At first glance u could have been a fan.

    I've seen FAR worse pics of Brosnan.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    there's plenty of unflattering pics of Brosnan in the BondCapCon thread.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I think it's an ok profile pic. At first glance u could have been a fan.

    I've seen FAR worse pics of Brosnan.

    It's gone from being ironic (the lowest form of wit) to a gruding respect. I mean, if Brozza can be Bond, any one can, right?! He's the people's Bond!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,037
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I think it's an ok profile pic. At first glance u could have been a fan.

    I've seen FAR worse pics of Brosnan.

    It's gone from being ironic (the lowest form of wit) to a gruding respect. I mean, if Brozza can be Bond, any one can, right?! He's the people's Bond!

    How does that work? There's nobody out there like Brosnan. Not that I know of anyway!

  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I think it's an ok profile pic. At first glance u could have been a fan.

    I've seen FAR worse pics of Brosnan.

    It's gone from being ironic (the lowest form of wit) to a gruding respect. I mean, if Brozza can be Bond, any one can, right?! He's the people's Bond!

    How does that work? There's nobody out there like Brosnan. Not that I know of anyway!

    To me he was always the most inexplicable actor to be cast as Bond (hence the thread title). All the others I totally understand. So for me, he is the Bond that holds out hope for the average Joe. If someone so unsuited to playing the role can swing the part, there's always hope for the rest of us! We can always dream...
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Connery didn't think he was that bad a choice.

    Can't argue with him :p

    Brosnan may not be the greatest actor in the world but he has one thing. Charm. That goes a LONG way.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,037
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I think it's an ok profile pic. At first glance u could have been a fan.

    I've seen FAR worse pics of Brosnan.

    It's gone from being ironic (the lowest form of wit) to a gruding respect. I mean, if Brozza can be Bond, any one can, right?! He's the people's Bond!

    How does that work? There's nobody out there like Brosnan. Not that I know of anyway!

    To me he was always the most inexplicable actor to be cast as Bond (hence the thread title). All the others I totally understand. So for me, he is the Bond that holds out hope for the average Joe. If someone so unsuited to playing the role can swing the part, there's always hope for the rest of us! We can always dream...

    I've gathered that so far alright, but what has made you think that? Brosnan doesn't seem like an average Joe to me at all. No more of an average Joe than Connery was.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Connery didn't think he was that bad a choice.

    Can't argue with him :p

    I think Connery was secretly glad that they'd ditched Dalts, who he really knew was his only serious challenger. It's like John Barry pushing David Arnold as his successor - if someone a bit rubbish comes after you, then you continue to look good by comparison. A sign of deep insecurity if you ask me.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Dalton doesn't come anywhere near Connery in terms of screen coolness.

    Davi makes a cooler screen presence than Dalts does ;)
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dalton doesn't come anywhere near Connery in terms of screen coolness.

    Obviously.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,980
    SFNDMK wrote:
    Actually Dalton was first considered to play Bond in TLD... He first refused because he was busy filming another movie... Many others were considered until Glen and Broccoli settled for Brosnan and the rest well... Is history

    Hard to really know amid the PR spin who was offered it first, Brosnan or Dalton...I think we'll have to wait until Dalton writes his memoirs.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited June 2012 Posts: 8,037
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Connery didn't think he was that bad a choice.

    Can't argue with him :p

    I think Connery was secretly glad that they'd ditched Dalts, who he really knew was his only serious challenger. It's like John Barry pushing David Arnold as his successor - if someone a bit rubbish comes after you, then you continue to look good by comparison. A sign of deep insecurity if you ask me.

    I think that's a very cynical way of looking at it, and I'm not sure Connery had that thought in his head at all. After his first four films he lost any interest in the quality of the series and was focused on money.

    David Arnold isn't rubbish either. I don't see why Barry would want to lessen the quality of the music to a series that he gave nearly 30 years of his life to, just for his own reputation. That would be unprofessional, and Barry was very professional in his work.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Connery didn't think he was that bad a choice.

    Can't argue with him :p

    I think Connery was secretly glad that they'd ditched Dalts, who he really knew was his only serious challenger. It's like John Barry pushing David Arnold as his successor - if someone a bit rubbish comes after you, then you continue to look good by comparison. A sign of deep insecurity if you ask me.

    I think that's a very cynical way of looking at it, and I'm not sure Connery had that thought in his head at all. After his first four films he lost any interest in the quality of the series and was focused on money.

    David Arnold isn't rubbish either.

    I was joking really. But more seriously I would say I don't trust Connery's judgement any way. Despite being the best Bond and an often brilliant actor, he has made so many bad choices in terms of his career and the movies he's made that he is not really one to trust about what's good and what's not. Much of the 70s, 80s and last 15 years or so (post The Rock) has been pretty awful in terms of what he's made. Therefore, if he said he thought Brosnan was good, that doesn't really carry much weight with me. Sorry to disrespect the Sean, but that's the way I feel.
  • Another PB bashing - I feel sorry for the fella. Serves me right for walking into this thread. But please he gave us 4 films - two good ones and two not so good. But he's done something that none of us will do...grow a set and step in the role of Bond.

    Mucho respect to him...us fan boys can be as critical as we want but the he did it.

    I've grown to appreciate all the Bonds in their own era and understand that they were right for their time.

    PB will always be 'just surviving' here. :(
  • Posts: 11,425
    Another PB bashing - I feel sorry for the fella. Serves me right for walking into this thread. But please he gave us 4 films - two good ones and two not so good. But he's done something that none of us will do...grow a set and step in the role of Bond.

    Mucho respect to him...us fan boys can be as critical as we want but the he did it.

    I've grown to appreciate all the Bonds in their own era and understand that they were right for their time.

    PB will always be 'just surviving' here. :(

    How many in a set?
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 266
    Since i've been on this board i've noticed that Pierce gets his fair share of critcism (more than any other bond actor). I am one of the bond fans that like all the actors which have played bond. I think that after Goldeneye was so successfull the writers, producers etc wanted to carry on with the greatest hits type element which they introduced in Goldeneye and in Brosnan's performance. What i mean by that is Bond had just had a six year absence and the last film hadn't set the box office alight and they needed a success, so with Goldeneye they tried to bring us everything we've come to associate with bond, big stunts (Dam jump), DB5, Casino scene, Bond, James Bond introduction in tuxedo, The Drink etc, and most of these elements are in the first 15 minutes of the film probaly to say to the audience this is a bond film, bond is back and the script tried to incorporate every characteristic of Bond which probably kind of shaped Brosnan's performance. So they tried gritty fight scenes like Connery and tried to be ruthless but also tried to have a vulnerbility like Lazenby and the charm and quips like Moore, so it was like a greatest hits performance. So when Goldeneye was a success i think they tailored the scripts in the same formula so when you look back on his tenure it was hard to see Pierce's identity in the role and what his stamp was on it. But saying all that i enjoy his films and i like him as Bond. And maybe his stamp on it was trying to be the all rounder and maybe he just fell short. A lot of casual film fans and casual bond fans still see Brosnan as the best though, so i dont think we can underestimate what he done for the franchise IMO. Personally i think it was a good decision to hire Brosnan, he may not be the greatest actor or best Bond but he helped make Bond popular and relevant in the 90's.
  • Posts: 1,143
    Sharky wrote:
    Since i've been on this board i've noticed that Pierce gets his fair share of critcism (more than any other bond actor). I am one of the bond fans that like all the actors which have played bond. I think that after Goldeneye was so successfull the writers, producers etc wanted to carry on with the greatest hits type element which they introduced in Goldeneye and in Brosnan's performance. What i mean by that is Bond had just had a six year absence and the last film hadn't set the box office alight and they needed a success, so with Goldeneye they tried to bring us everything we've come to associate with bond, big stunts (Dam jump), DB5, Casino scene, Bond, James Bond introduction in tuxedo, The Drink etc, and most of these elements are in the first 15 minutes of the film probaly to say to the audience this is a bond film, bond is back and the script tried to incorporate every characteristic of Bond which probably kind of shaped Brosnan's performance. So they tried gritty fight scenes like Connery and tried to be ruthless but also tried to have a vulnerbility like Lazenby and the charm and quips like Moore, so it was like a greatest hits performance. So when Goldeneye was a success i think they tailored the scripts in the same formula so when you look back on his tenure it was hard to see Pierce's identity in the role and what his stamp was on it. But saying all that i enjoy his films and i like him as Bond. And maybe his stamp on it was trying to be the all rounder and maybe he just fell short. A lot of casual film fans and casual bond fans still see Brosnan as the best though, so i dont think we can underestimate what he done for the franchise IMO. Personally i think it was a good decision to hire Brosnan, he may not be the greatest actor or best Bond but he helped make Bond popular and relevant in the 90's.

    Great post and I very much agree with you. He isn't the best but he did a good job and was for me the right choice at the time. If you look at each Bond, all were brought in to freshen up the franchise. Whilst Dalton is very much appreciated by most Bond fans, to the casual fan he lacked the charm and confident suave style that seemed to be craved when Brosnan was brought in. I enjoy all the Brosnan Bond movies although DAD is not the greatest and is painful in places!!
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Brosnan was a cool, charming, ruthless at times, and very good Bond. I have no qualms about saying he was a fine Bond. Even in DAD his performance is good, sepecially the first half of the film; the film fails but not because of him.

    GE and TND will always be in my top 10, and the PTS of TWINE is one of the very best
    ever.

    He is the favorite whipping boy of some very vocal members here; you can sense it really gives them pleasure to go on and on and on bashing him. I think that is rather telling, says something about them, and not in a good way. A bit of overkill.

    Just wanted to say that for me, and all of my personal friends, Brosnan was a fine Bond indeed. And it is nice to see him move on to good roles since then. I'm personally looking forward to November Man.
  • Posts: 5,634
    Brosnan is probably my third, or fourth favorite of all the Bonds. Will never get close to Connery or Dalton as closest to the original Fleming creation. Has done some other good work outside of Bond, such as The Fourth Protocol, The Lawnmower Man (a guilty pleasure) or Evelyn for instance. A bit too greasy for me as Bond sometimes, a bit too oily, seemed so far detached from the character sometimes even, but all said, there were some outstanding moments to be had, and I thoroughly enjoyed TWINE and Goldeneye, for the most part. Will never be the worst James Bond we ever had, but will never come close to being the best either. It's just my viewpoint speaking, but it's how I've always felt about it
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,037
    Sharky wrote:
    Since i've been on this board i've noticed that Pierce gets his fair share of critcism (more than any other bond actor). I am one of the bond fans that like all the actors which have played bond. I think that after Goldeneye was so successfull the writers, producers etc wanted to carry on with the greatest hits type element which they introduced in Goldeneye and in Brosnan's performance. What i mean by that is Bond had just had a six year absence and the last film hadn't set the box office alight and they needed a success, so with Goldeneye they tried to bring us everything we've come to associate with bond, big stunts (Dam jump), DB5, Casino scene, Bond, James Bond introduction in tuxedo, The Drink etc, and most of these elements are in the first 15 minutes of the film probaly to say to the audience this is a bond film, bond is back and the script tried to incorporate every characteristic of Bond which probably kind of shaped Brosnan's performance. So they tried gritty fight scenes like Connery and tried to be ruthless but also tried to have a vulnerbility like Lazenby and the charm and quips like Moore, so it was like a greatest hits performance. So when Goldeneye was a success i think they tailored the scripts in the same formula so when you look back on his tenure it was hard to see Pierce's identity in the role and what his stamp was on it. But saying all that i enjoy his films and i like him as Bond. And maybe his stamp on it was trying to be the all rounder and maybe he just fell short. A lot of casual film fans and casual bond fans still see Brosnan as the best though, so i dont think we can underestimate what he done for the franchise IMO. Personally i think it was a good decision to hire Brosnan, he may not be the greatest actor or best Bond but he helped make Bond popular and relevant in the 90's.

    One of the best posts on this subject so far, totally agreed.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Sharky wrote:
    Since i've been on this board i've noticed that Pierce gets his fair share of critcism (more than any other bond actor). I am one of the bond fans that like all the actors which have played bond. I think that after Goldeneye was so successfull the writers, producers etc wanted to carry on with the greatest hits type element which they introduced in Goldeneye and in Brosnan's performance. What i mean by that is Bond had just had a six year absence and the last film hadn't set the box office alight and they needed a success, so with Goldeneye they tried to bring us everything we've come to associate with bond, big stunts (Dam jump), DB5, Casino scene, Bond, James Bond introduction in tuxedo, The Drink etc, and most of these elements are in the first 15 minutes of the film probaly to say to the audience this is a bond film, bond is back and the script tried to incorporate every characteristic of Bond which probably kind of shaped Brosnan's performance. So they tried gritty fight scenes like Connery and tried to be ruthless but also tried to have a vulnerbility like Lazenby and the charm and quips like Moore, so it was like a greatest hits performance. So when Goldeneye was a success i think they tailored the scripts in the same formula so when you look back on his tenure it was hard to see Pierce's identity in the role and what his stamp was on it. But saying all that i enjoy his films and i like him as Bond. And maybe his stamp on it was trying to be the all rounder and maybe he just fell short. A lot of casual film fans and casual bond fans still see Brosnan as the best though, so i dont think we can underestimate what he done for the franchise IMO. Personally i think it was a good decision to hire Brosnan, he may not be the greatest actor or best Bond but he helped make Bond popular and relevant in the 90's.

    The truth, "compliments of Sharky."
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,981
    "Personally i think it was a good decision to hire Brosnan, he may not be the greatest actor or best Bond but he helped make Bond popular and relevant in the 90's."

    This one sentence says it all. I would have loved to have seen Dalton continue as Bond and think he would have given Goldeneye a certain edginess but in the end it would not have been as successful.


  • Posts: 5,634
    Dalton as Bond in 1995 just would of been too inappropriate I'm afraid, Tim's time as 007 had passed by then, I'm kind of relieved in a way he pulled out a year before, and I just feel it wouldn't have worked, and if there was to be another release after License to Kill, 1991 or no later would of been the time for it. Bond actors can rapidly age in only a few years after all, we've seen it before. Brosnan was the right choice for Goldeneye
  • Posts: 4,762
    Whoever decided to cast Brosnan as 007 deserves a medal, a trophy, a truckload of 100 billion dollars, an early retirement deal, and anything else I can think of to make the rest of their life incredible! Hahaha. Seriously though, they have some sense in a good 007 actor, that's for sure.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    Whoever did cast Brosnan deserves many, many thanks. If it weren't for him/her/they, then I may not have enjoyed the incredible beauty that was GE, and therefore, experienced the entirety of Brosnan's excellent pre-and-post-Bond roles, leading him into my 'Favorite Actor' position. I love that man.
Sign In or Register to comment.