Brosnan in 87 or Brosnan in 95

edited December 2012 in Actors Posts: 266
I have just watched the making of The Living Daylights and as you all know Brosnan was very nearly Bond in that 1987 release. I was just wondering if there is anyone who would've prefered that Pierce had started his tenure then, Do you think Pierce would've been good in TLD and his performance would've been a better debut than GE. Do you think he would've played the chracter differently in 1987 and maybe have been a darker Bond than he actually portrayed from 1995-2002, or do you think he would've took to the same approach and basically done a Connery and Moore combined performance. Brosnan gets quite a bit of flack on here i have noticed but i personally think he is alright and it was other things which hampered his films after GE so basically what i am saying is would Pierce have benefitted if he started in 1987 when a lot of the original Bond team was still in place. I also wonder if he had done TLD what direction would LTK have gone in.
If there is a thread like this please feel free to move or to lock it.
«134

Comments

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Even as a Brosnan supporter I'm going to say a firm and definate...no to Brosnan in '87.

    Having seen Taffin and Live Wire he certainly wouldn't have had the chops to play Bond back then. In Taffin he played a troubled debt collector (quite a meaty role) and his performance was often laughable.

    True he had his flaws during his actual run but it would have been worse in '87 (IMO).

    I think even Brosnan himself once admitted losing out to Bond back then was a blessing in disguise for him.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    The point is moot to me, I prefer Dalton to all others, and no doubt Brosnan would have been fine in TLD, he wouldn't have been awesome, like Tim.
  • Posts: 266
    chrisisall wrote:
    The point is moot to me, I prefer Dalton to all others, and no doubt Brosnan would have been fine in TLD, he wouldn't have been awesome, like Tim.

    That is the thing because it didn't happen and Dalton was really good and he took it in a slightly different direction when you now think of if Brosnan had been Bond in TLD your automatically comparing him to Dalton. What i am trying to say is do you think Pierce would've been better or worse in TLD than he was in GE. And do you think Pierce woud've done a different take on the chracter than he did from 95 onwards.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2012 Posts: 17,245
    I think he would have been just as good as he was in GE, just a bit younger looking of course. The rest might have played out the same... unless different scripts came to him, which is a possibility.
  • Posts: 266
    chrisisall wrote:
    I think he would have been just as good as he was in GE, just a bit younger looking of course. The rest might have played out the same... unless different scripts came to him, which is a possibility.

    I think you're right i think he would've played it pretty similar to how he portrayed Bond in GE which IMO is his best performance, i personally would've liked to see Brosnan in a film scripted by Richard Maibum and produced by Cubby.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I'm not an outright Brozza hater but another definite no I'm afraid. He wouldve looked too clean cut/male modele-esque and rather too slight. Hes not exactly built in GE but 8 years earlier he would have looked like a little lad.

    Although to be fair he does look pretty good in the Fourth Protocol. I dont think it would have been a disaster but I think things worked out for the best - and if it had happened there would have been no Tim so its a 'no' for that alone.

    His TLD screen test doing the Tatiana bed scene is on the extras and its not bad but also not brilliant. Out of interest how old was he in 87? Around 30?
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,175
    He shot this scene AFTER he was rejected from Bond.



    Saying that I did like him in The Fourth Protocol in '87 so perhaps with a better director he could have been good but, as @Wizard said, he probably would have looked even more "male model-y" than he sometimes did.
  • Posts: 266
    I think he was about 34 when he got the part for TLD but i may be wrong.

    @BAIN123 that is intresting that even Pierce has said he didn't think he was ready for it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    Out of interest how old was he in 87? Around 30?
    Like 34.

    Sharky beat me to it!
  • Posts: 11,175
    I've always found it quite errie how he acted alongside other Bond veterans even before he got the role.

    In the above clip the girl is Alison Doody (aka. Miss Jenny Flex from AVTAK). In Around the World in 80 Days he was with Patrick MacNee and Chris Lee (who also appeared in Death Train) and in a few episodes of Remington Steele he was with his own wife Cassandra Harris (Countess Lisl of course).
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 546
    Pierce Bronsan 1987. I'm still curious to this day as far as What if....Cubby casted Pierce Brosnan as 007 for The Living Daylights? I believe Pierce would have gave a great performace as James Bond like he did in his four Bond films. However, with the lawsuit at the time, would Cubby bring back Pierce Bronsan as James Bond? I say yes.
  • Posts: 12,357
    I am of the opinion that how what we know the movies worked out in the end? In terms of which actor was in the lead role was meant to be. No matter what the film is? I cannot see another Bond playing the part of another Bond in one of the other movies? No matter how successful or not it turned out to be?
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I personally think that Brosnan came in at the right time and left at the right time. He shouldn't have come on in 87, nor should he have left any later than 02 (unless Everything or Nothing had become a film, that is).
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 546
    I personally think that Brosnan came in at the right time and left at the right time. He shouldn't have come on in 87, nor should he have left any later than 02 (unless Everything or Nothing had become a film, that is).

    I agree with you. As much as I would have loved to see Pierce Bronsan as 007 in The Living Daylights, everything worked out in the end. :)
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    It took Brosnan a while to finally shake off his made-for-TV presence. With a director-who-wasn't-there like John Glen, Brosnan probably would have been even worse as Bond than he was post-95 as he would have been in full pathetic Remington Steele mode.
  • Posts: 4,746
    More years of Brosnan? Absolutely! I'm in!
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,324
    It was far better for him to be Bond in '95. He got his chance in the end.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe JenaMaloneforBond.comModerator
    edited December 2012 Posts: 12,573
    So it's option a) Brosnan in 1987 or option b) Brosnan in 1995?

    I'll take option c) Dalton starts in 1987 and continues through the 1990's, before passing the torch over to another actor that wasn't Brosnan, somewhere roundabout 2000.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    I detect a lack-O-love for Brosnan above... :))
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Jazz007 wrote:
    It took Brosnan a while to finally shake off his made-for-TV presence. With a director-who-wasn't-there like John Glen, Brosnan probably would have been even worse as Bond than he was post-95 as he would have been in full pathetic Remington Steele mode.

    I'm not sure Brosnan is the only Bond actor with a "TV" manner about him.

    I must admit I think Dalton also has a rather "made for TV" quality (perhaps even more so than PB?). Most of the stuff he's been in during his career has been television based - both before and after Bond. The main difference is that Brosnan was/is the "lighter" of the two. Kind of in the same field as Moore.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    However, with the lawsuit at the time, would Cubby bring back Pierce Bronsan as James Bond? I say yes.

    Interesting point. Would Brozzas tenure have survived the 6 year hiatus? He wanted the part so much theres no way he wouldve quit like Tim but also LTK would have been a radically different film and with Remington Steeles popularity its a fair surmise that Brozza would have brought in better figures than Tim domestically (although with the crippling competition in 89 still a significant drop on TLD). Difficult to say but I dont think there would have been the same appetite for change.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe JenaMaloneforBond.comModerator
    edited December 2012 Posts: 12,573
    chrisisall wrote:
    I detect a lack-O-love for Brosnan above... :))

    I don't mind him in TND. And though it might have been interesting to have Dalton from 1987 to 1995, Brosnan in 1997 with Dalton returning in 1999, I would have preferred Dalton to steer the good ship Bond though the 1990's.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    My favourite Commander, yes.
  • No to Brosnan in '87. I would have really enjoyed seeing Dalton in the role from '85-'91 or '93 and Brosnan taking over either in '93 or '95-'03. Give Dalton more time to win the fans over, and then give Brosnan better scripts and casts and I think the franchise doesn't have the issues it had after LTK and DAD.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Jazz007 wrote:
    It took Brosnan a while to finally shake off his made-for-TV presence. With a director-who-wasn't-there like John Glen, Brosnan probably would have been even worse as Bond than he was post-95 as he would have been in full pathetic Remington Steele mode.

    I'm not sure Brosnan is the only Bond actor with a "TV" manner about him.

    I must admit I think Dalton also has a rather "made for TV" quality (perhaps even more so than PB?). Most of the stuff he's been in during his career has been television based - both before and after Bond. The main difference is that Brosnan was/is the "lighter" of the two. Kind of in the same field as Moore.

    Dear Mr @Bain123 Tim Dalton back in the 70's and 80's was seen as one of England's finest actors. Do you actually have any idea what Shakesperian training involves for actors?

    It is the hardest training for any actor/actress. It is the equivalent of what classical musicians go through and far exceeds most pop artists ranges. You are confusing populist culture with actual talent.

    So what exactly do you mean by made for tv manner? Because it is an argument made of paper that requires little effort for me to tear to shreds. Actors work in many mediums. Cinema is just one but your success depends on money generated and Hollywood takes less risk with films than they did 20 years ago.

    By implying your "Made for tv" quality, it implies you are saying Dalton is not a good actor. By all accounts professionals that have worked with him like Colin Farrell say you can learn from him.

    Hollywood is all about youth and back in the seventies Dalton turned down all film work to concentrate on theatre. He wanted to be a super actor. Had he done more films then yes, he would have been famous. Directors wanted him.

    Film is made at 24 frames a second whilst tv shows in the USA are 30 frames per second. But the acting standard is the same. Movie stars in general are not usually considered great actors. But they are popular and are used to bring audiences in.

    Just because an actor does more television work does not mean he/she are inferior like you allege. Have you seen Dalton in the BBC adaptation of Jane Eyre? Because a lot of movie stars would fall on their swords to pull that off. It is seen as one of the best ever adaptations of the novel.

    Take an actor like the brilliant Adrien Brody. He does less films now than a few years back. He was in Polanski's The Pianist but Hollywood could care less. If he fails to put bums on seats and someone with less talent than him can, then guess who will get the green light?

    Tom Cruise is a movie star, but he cannot touch an Adrien Brody for range or real talent. But a Joe average cinema goer does not have the mental capacity to sink in the subtleties of a Brody.

    Mr Bain, you need to really look into how the industry works. And that includes it's politics of who gets work and who does not.

    And seeing as this is a public forum, you need to be fully aware of your facts rather than go by your assumptions. It's a tough world out there. :)

  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    As I'm a real fan of him and his Bond, I'd say yes...Of Course. But, honestly, I think Tim Dalton did a great job in TLD. I know the story behind the scenes and I still think Pierce at that time might have been not in the character enough, at the opposite of 1995. He matured well. There's still a doubt for me to imagine another actor portray in TLD because it's a deeper plot than what was before, and a darker and closer Fleming's Bond. I couldn't see him (1987) in the cottage house smoking that cigaret alongside M. He might have been as good as Dalton. Probably. God only knows...

    However, I truly wished the franchise continued in early 90's as posted before. Either Dalton or Brosnan in a very respected CR adaptation. Then Brosnan in "GoldenEye" and so on.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,436
    No Dalton? Brosnan instead? For me, a definite no. And I am a huge fan of Brosnan as Bond.

    But TLD and LTK were perfect for Dalton - the gritty, handsome, simmering yet sensitive, wonderful Bond that was his. Timothy Dalton was, and is, a very fine actor and I am so glad he came along when he did. I wish he had done at least one more Bond film.

    Goldeneye was the perfect start for Brosnan. And I thought he looked great; indeed better and more mature (which is a good thing) than he did in the 80's. That role fit him like a glove. I only wish he other films were as good.
  • Absolutely not. As others have noted, Brosnan hadn't developed the acting chops that he later would...and judging by, say, TWINE, he should have developed some more! So acting-wise he wasn't where he needed to be.

    Then there's performance. I believe that Dalton showed him what was possible and that he changed the direction that he would have gone in 87 to a somewhat more serious one (I recall reading once, and I don't know if it's true, that Campbell and Brosnan decided to copy Dalton and REDUCE Bond's dialogue in GE to make him appear tougher and more of a man of action).

    Then there's his physical presence. By GE Brosnan had filled out a little but was still looking pretty manorexic. It's a real credit to Campbell that he made Brosnan believable in the fight scenes. But imagine an even skinnier Brosnan working with a journey-man director like John Glen. Nope, no way could I believe him physically as Bond at that point.

    I suspect, and we'll never know, that Brosnan would have given a much lighter, Moore-ish (and Remington Steel-ish) performance if he had been cast in 87. Remember that it was Dalton who wanted the films more serious (no flying carpet, and as the scene in Pushkin's hotel room was written specifically for him we wouldn't have gotten it with Brosnan). He was also the one who started to go back to Fleming and wanted a three dimensional Bond. Had he not been able to blaze that trail I don't think Brosnan would have attempted to follow down it.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 173

    But TLD and LTK were perfect for Dalton - the gritty, handsome, simmering yet sensitive, wonderful Bond that was his. Timothy Dalton was, and is, a very fine actor and I am so glad he came along when he did. I wish he had done at least one more Bond film.

    Goldeneye was the perfect start for Brosnan. And I thought he looked great; indeed better and more mature (which is a good thing) than he did in the 80's. That role fit him like a glove. I only wish he other films were as good.

    ^I could have written this. To the question, would I have preferred that Brosnan start his tenure in '87, that's a big, fat, bold, resounding, no. He was good in Goldeneye (by far the best of his quartet), but Brosnan in '87 would have only meant no LTK, and I just can't fathom that. I sincerely don't think that Brosnan would have been the type to favor a more "human" approach, like Tim, or to put character development above spectacle and cookie-cutter Bond. He seemed so enamoured with the role, that the sheer excitement of "being" this character would have probably gotten to him. Also from what I gathered while watching the EON docu, he was over the moon at the thought of being more famous and richer and perhaps that would have been forefront on his mind. Tim gave us one of the most personal, intense and dramatic takes on Bond in LTK and I'll always be glad for that.

    @accopola, excellent points :).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    Regan wrote:
    Tim gave us one of the most personal, intense and dramatic takes on Bond in LTK and I'll always be glad for that.
    Tim's two will forever be my favourites, lest the unexpected happens...
Sign In or Register to comment.