If Brosnan had taken the role in 1986 as planned... would his era have been similar to Dalton's?

Master_Dahark

Right- he looks just like he did in TLD- just......better! lol
But the dude has never looked BAD, mind you- I wish I had that chin!

The_Reaper

The stache must stay. The stache rules all. :-))

jolearon

Brosnan would have carried on the silly-esk Moore mentality, I think we've all learned from Dalton, to get on the right track for Brosnan. And no offense to Dalton, but I'm glad we had Dalton to make an example from, because Brosnan 1995, wouldn't have been the same. I do like Dalton's films as well, but I think it worked out well.

thelordflasheart

There's a lot that I agree with up above...

Had Brosnan got the role in '86 we would have gotten a far more lightweight version of his Bond. He's admitted that his life experience helped him a lot once he got the role in GE and that's just the beginning. I don't find him baby-faced in GE but think he would have been too boyish looking and slight back in '86. His acting skills were not as developed either, and I don't rate his acting skills very highly. Not that he's a bad actor, just a limited one (much like Moore).

There's also two important facts to consider. First, I honestly believe that Dalton "showed him the way" and made him try to give a better, fuller performance. Had he not seen Dalton's version I think his Bond would have been far more like Remington Steele/Roger Moore. Also, he was helped in his debut by Martin Campbell. To have John Glen direct him would have given us a rather standard Bond performance (I put Dalton's performance as all from Dalton).

While Brosnan aged well compared to mortal men I think he was indeed too old looking by the time DAD came 'round. Too young in '86, getting long in the tooth by the early 2000's - I think his tenure hit the sweet spot. I think think the fact that he had to wait for Bond helped a lot too - had he got it in '86 when he was considered the heir apparent I wonder if it would have gone to his head more? I'm sure he had a lot more gratitude once it came round again.

I think had he done TLD we would have gotten slightly improved Moore films - light, fun, not entirely well made but enjoyable. I think the public would have liked him but his films would not have been as popular as the ones from the 90's. I think the break helped a lot, both for the series and for him.

DaltonCraig007

Call me the odd bird @thelordflasheart, but I believe that Brosnan would have been better if his tenure started later... Brosnan really aged well post DAD and gain some much needed acting skills... Just see him in Ghost Writer, at 57 he could have played a Bond on the verge of retirement.... He really looked good for his age in that Polanski film, and he stole every scene he was in. So yes I think Dalton could have played Bond from 1987 to 1993 (4 films), than Liam Neeson could have picked up from 1995 to 2001 (4 films), than Brosnan could have played Bond from 2003 to 2009 (4 films), than Fassbender for 2012 onwards,

thelordflasheart

Call me the odd bird @thelordflasheart, but I believe that Brosnan would have been better if his tenure started later... Brosnan really aged well post DAD and gain some much needed acting skills... Just see him in Ghost Writer, at 57 he could have played a Bond on the verge of retirement.... He really looked good for his age in that Polanski film, and he stole every scene he was in. So yes I think Dalton could have played Bond from 1987 to 1993 (4 films), than Liam Neeson could have picked up from 1995 to 2001 (4 films), than Brosnan could have played Bond from 2003 to 2009 (4 films), than Fassbender for 2012 onwards,

I agree that he looked good for his age but my personal preference is for a younger Bond - younger than 57, anyway. Acting skills are tricky things - actors often go to what they're used to and comfortable with unless a director pulls them in a different direction. So Brosnan may or may not have improved his Bond performances, or he could just as likely given the same type of performance he always did. I think that a good director would move him in a different direction but he had a lot of meat to work with in TWINE and DAD and still was very standard issue Brosnan - or in some cases, not very good at all (the infamous "confronting Elektra" scene).

I always think of Bond as being early to late 30s in age, say 33 to 37. Maybe I got that from Fleming but it's what I always think about. Or maybe because Connery was 32 when he started (same age they originally wanted Roger Moore at if you believe the stories), Lazenby was 28, Dalton was 21 (!) when they first wanted him and Brosnan was early 30s when they first wanted him.

I generally don't judge an actor's suitability for a role until I see him play it but I just can't picture Neeson as Bond at all...

OHMSS69

Hard to say. Cubby was heavily involved and had not started to take the backseat as he did in the late nineties leaving the heavy lifting to his children. Babs and Michael Wilson who seemed content to "play it safe" with Brosnan. Abandoning promising premises that would have defined Brosnan more than his films actually did.
Of course the films would have played to Brosnan's strengths (whatever they were??)
the fact that he was so universally welcomed (except by me) that he could have done almost anything with the role. Goldeneye showed such promise and then Cubby was out of the picture and we ended up with movies that progressively got worst.

002

actually back in 2004 they didnt do a bond movie but they went for the video game Everything or Nothing which woul have been Brosnans greatest swansong as it shows him (in the cutscenes) to have a more serious degree with many moments of humour

it is much better to think of that then his last peformance in Die Another Day (which ironically is now heaps better than QOS which im suprised didnt kill the franchise)

001

Everyone wanted brosnan after seeing him in RS.
People were upset that he couldn't make tld.
But i think dalton did a great job in the film (brosnan was not as good an actor as him) and i beleive could have started doing bond films 5-10 years earlier because by the time ltk was made he looked like he had enough,looked too old for more bond films.

002 wrote:

actually back in 2004 they didnt do a bond movie but they went for the video game Everything or Nothing which woul have been Brosnans greatest swansong as it shows him (in the cutscenes) to have a more serious degree with many moments of humour

it is much better to think of that then his last peformance in Die Another Day (which ironically is now heaps better than QOS which im suprised didnt kill the franchise)

Qos didn't kill the franchise because it made a lot of money at the box office.

echo

thelordflasheart wrote:

To have John Glen direct him would have given us a rather standard Bond performance (I put Dalton's performance as all from Dalton).

I'm not the biggest Glen fan, but doesn't he get some credit for Moore's performance in FYEO?