How close were we to seeing Brosnan in 'Casino Royale'?

edited March 8 in Actors Posts: 4,197
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_brosnan_back.php3?t=bond21&s=bond21&id=0915

Remember these stories? There was a time when Brosnan looked like he would do CR even after the debacle surrounding his departure. What was this story about? Was he going to return? Do we know anything more because there was a time before Craig's announcement where it looked like Brosnan would have returned.
«13456

Comments

  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Thank god we were saved from this nightmare scenario. For years I really felt that now Cubby was gone, Bond was doomed. But Babs and MGW came good with the casting of DC and proved to me that they had more vision and guts than I'd previously given them credit for. I still don't think they're the perfect creative (as opposed to commercial) custodians of the series, but they have in recent years taken significant strides in the tight direction.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,373
    the plan for Casino Royale for Michael and Barbara, was to showcase a fresh Bond just starting off as 007 - this was Cubby's original plan back in the 60's, but they couldn't get the rights - and he later wanted to attempt it again with Dalton in the 80's, but couldn't do it..... so, the notion of Pierce doing the film, after he'd already been in 3 films I don't find very likely... they probably would've pushed CR back, and gone with a new original script...... could they have done it, yes - it would've been easy to fudge details here and there....... but Michael and Barbara wanted to stick to the plan that their father had laid out, and it turned out to be the right decision.
  • Posts: 12,621
    I don't think we were close at all to see Brosnan again and that he was really seriously considered. Being a top contender for a role he already had in a casting procedure is hardly a mark of confidence anyway. And Brosnan as Bond in CR wouldn't have worked anyway, unless they seriously modified the script.
  • Posts: 12,009
    Had Brosnan did a 5th movie? There is no way I think they would have done CR. It's the 1st assignment! The beginning, so it would have been too much of a stretch for this to have happened in my honest opinion.
  • Posts: 6,396
    The very moment that Babs and Michael decided upon CR as the next Bond film, Brosnan was no longer part of the equation.

    So to answer the OP's question, he was not close in the slightest.
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,256
    The very moment that Babs and Michael decided upon CR as the next Bond film, Brosnan was no longer part of the equation.

    So to answer the OP's question, he was not close in the slightest.

    This ^ is all there really is to say about it, IMO.
  • RogueAgent wrote:
    Had Brosnan did a 5th movie? There is no way I think they would have done CR. It's the 1st assignment! The beginning, so it would have been too much of a stretch for this to have happened in my honest opinion.
    lol remember when people were complaining about Craig's age in CR? :-j

    I would have loved a 5th Brosnan movie- but certainly not Casino Royale. They would have inevitably 'rewritten it' so that it wasn't the first assignment and it likely would have been Casino Royale in title only. And that alone would have pissed people off
  • We came pretty close to a 5th Brosnan, the hypothetical For Your Eyes only to Die Another Day's Moonraker. We'll debate forever whether or not he should have gotten it, but outside of Tarantino's proposal (which Babs & MGW likely didn't think too much of), there was no chance Brosnan was getting Casino Royale.
  • I think it was time for a change. I don't think Craig should do more than 5 either. He'll start looking old by then.

    While were at it, here's a nice pic of these two bad asses together ...

    2005-craig02.jpg
  • Posts: 1,402
    I remember this report. I also remember another report saying Campbell didn't want to do the film with Brosnan because the only reason he came on in the first place was to do something different. It's amazing how this article (and others like it from other sites at the time) were so convinced he was coming back. Well, everything worked out so that's all that matters
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 12,621
    bondbat007 wrote:
    I remember this report. I also remember another report saying Campbell didn't want to do the film with Brosnan because the only reason he came on in the first place was to do something different. It's amazing how this article (and others like it from other sites at the time) were so convinced he was coming back. Well, everything worked out so that's all that matters

    I really wonder how much of it is accurate, someone may have mentioned out of frustration that maybe they should consider sticking with Brosnan for one more movie when casting became difficult, but that would be as far as I can possibly see. Sony coming to the inevitable conclusion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it? Inevitable? It was broke and needed fixing. And not only broke, but used as well. Reading the article again, it seems that Brosnan was the only one giving credit and credibility to the rumour... and the only one really wanting Brosnan back!
  • My understanding is that Babs and MGW had always intended from the outset that a new Bond would appear in the movie. But Sony were intent on keeping Brosnan. Mainly because it was their first Bond film and they wanted a guaranteed hit working off the template that had been so successful in the '90's with Pierce. There was no way that Brosnan could have done the CR script as it was because the film was a reboot plus the script required a far more physical actor (imagine Brosnan doing the parkour or Miami sequences). They would have had to retool the script to cater for an older more experienced Bond opposed to the naive rookie in the shooting draft.

    Nonetheless I think Sony were putting pressure on EON to deliver a hit hence why Pierce's name was brought back into the fold. Had the prods intended to make a normal Bond movie with a new actor playing the lead then they would likely have caved under the pressure in my opinion and Pierce would have done a 5th.

    The thing that gets me is that Pierce still looked like Bond in 2006:
    Arrivals%2BOrange%2BBritish%2BAcademy%2BFilm%2BAwards%2Bbkcgp6BIuupl.jpg

    I'd like to have seen him leave on a great movie, but such is life. At least he was able to do at least one classic/legendary Bond film with GE.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Paradox Hotel
    Posts: 38,299
    10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,778
    10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.

    Thankyou sir.
    =D>

    The Brosnan Era was essentially a nostalgia act. It was Cubby's Bond. The Craig Era is purely Barbera Broccoli and Michael Wilson's Bond.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 6,396
    10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.

    Thankyou sir.
    =D>

    The Brosnan Era was essentially a nostalgia act. It was Cubby's Bond. The Craig Era is purely Barbera Broccoli and Michael Wilson's Bond.

    It was all 'painting by numbers' wasn't it? An exercise in ticking off the boxes.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    People need to understand that, "looking" like Bond just isn't enough. Walking From Fenchurch Street through Bank and St.Pauls Monday to Friday twice a day, I see plenty of men who look "Bondian" but that in no way means they are. Bond is more than just looking suave and being cool. There has to be a legitimate and genuine x-factor that comes off as effortlessly natural and that's a mighty big emphasis on effortless and natural.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,425
    10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.

    Thankyou sir.
    =D>

    The Brosnan Era was essentially a nostalgia act. It was Cubby's Bond. The Craig Era is purely Barbera Broccoli and Michael Wilson's Bond.

    Really? That's a bit unfair on Cubby, who produced all the classic movies and whose last film was LTK. The Brosnan era had very little to do with Cubby IMO - and everything to do with Babs and MGW finding their feet (or not). Apart from the very poor decision to cast Bond in the first place, I feel there is little blame that can be laid at Cubby's feet for what happened to the series over the following decade. The Brosnan films definitely felt like a pastiche of the Cubby era - but very poor pastiches and you can't really blame Cubby for that. It was Cubby who cast Dalton and wanted to take the films back to first principles - much as happened with the casting of Craig. The Brosnan era was an unfortunate aberaiton. The best I can say for Brosnan is that the series was commercially in a difficult place and needed to play it safe to reestablish itself - whether it needed to carry on playing it safe for four films is another matter.
  • Getafix wrote:
    10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.

    Thankyou sir.
    =D>

    The Brosnan Era was essentially a nostalgia act. It was Cubby's Bond. The Craig Era is purely Barbera Broccoli and Michael Wilson's Bond.

    Really? That's a bit unfair on Cubby, who produced all the classic movies and whose last film was LTK. The Brosnan era had very little to do with Cubby IMO - and everything to do with Babs and MGW finding their feet (or not).

    Very true. I'll re-phrase. "A poor man's Cubby Broccoli Era". I think that pretty much summed up Brosnan's tenure.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.

    Thankyou sir.
    =D>

    The Brosnan Era was essentially a nostalgia act. It was Cubby's Bond. The Craig Era is purely Barbera Broccoli and Michael Wilson's Bond.

    Really? That's a bit unfair on Cubby, who produced all the classic movies and whose last film was LTK. The Brosnan era had very little to do with Cubby IMO - and everything to do with Babs and MGW finding their feet (or not).

    Very true. I'll re-phrase. "A poor man's Cubby Broccoli Era". I think that pretty much summed up Brosnan's tenure.

    Agreed.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Paradox Hotel
    Posts: 38,299
    Exactly what I meant as well. They were like a bad tribute band after Cubby passed away.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 12,621
    10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.

    Thankyou sir.
    =D>

    The Brosnan Era was essentially a nostalgia act. It was Cubby's Bond. The Craig Era is purely Barbera Broccoli and Michael Wilson's Bond.

    In a way, even the casting decision of taking Brosnan came from Broccoli. So in 2005, when Brosnan wanted to do one last Bond, he was clinging on a perception of himself that dated back to the 80s. Then, and even more in the 90s when GE was in the pipeline, everybody wanted Brosnan: the producers wanted Brosnan, the public wanted Brosnan, Brosnan wanted Brosnan. I am exagerating of course, but not that much. Brosnan built his pre-Bond career on the role he didn't have yet. In 2005, Brosnan wanted Brosnan, but people had moved on.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,425
    I think I was one of the few in 94/5 who still wanted Dalton... I hadn't even heard of Brosnan at that time.

    I naively believed that EON could not make a bad casting choice when it came to Bond,as all their previous decisions had been largely inspired. How they proved me wrong with the Broz!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Paradox Hotel
    edited January 2014 Posts: 38,299
    Getafix wrote:
    I think I was one of the few in 94/5 who still wanted Dalton... I hadn't even heard of Brosnan at that time.

    I naively believed that EON could not make a bad casting choice when it came to Bond,as all their previous decisions had been largely inspired. How they proved me wrong with the Broz!

    I knew him from Remington Steele, Lawnmower Man and Mrs Doubtfire. I was a bit skeptical, but gave him the benefit of doubt. Shouldnt have done that, although I did another three times. Shows what a forgiving dupe I am. I can safely say that I would not have bothered seeing a fifth Brosnan film.

    "Bond... Wrong Bond."
  • 10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.

    Thankyou sir.
    =D>

    The Brosnan Era was essentially a nostalgia act. It was Cubby's Bond. The Craig Era is purely Barbera Broccoli and Michael Wilson's Bond.


    I do agree, but I think it had a lot do with Babs and MGW's mindset back then. They were a bit more fearful and reverent of the Bond legacy. It wasn't till the Craig era they knew that the brand had gone stale because of this rationale and they went in a new direction.

    But had they bought on a good writer and director for Pierce (ala Logan and Mendes) there was still another film in him. Look at SF that film if anything dosen't really fit the DC era and if anything works better as a DAD sequel. I'm not saying Brosnan should have made SF because Craig was amazing in that film but had the prods had the balls 10 years ago Pierce could have got something better.

    It was never Brosnan's fault it was the material being handed to him.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,425
    I cannot agree - it was definitely in large part Brosnan's fault for the lazy and unintelligent way he approached the character of Bond. But, yes, the scripts and teams on most of his films were also pretty awful.

    However, as others have noted, a Dalton or a Craig could have done A LOT more with Brosnan's scripts. There are some meaty scenes in there amongst the dross, but he wasted pretty much every opportunity that came his way.
  • 10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.

    Thankyou sir.
    =D>

    The Brosnan Era was essentially a nostalgia act. It was Cubby's Bond. The Craig Era is purely Barbera Broccoli and Michael Wilson's Bond.


    I do agree, but I think it had a lot do with Babs and MGW's mindset back then. They were a bit more fearful and reverent of the Bond legacy. It wasn't till the Craig era they knew that the brand had gone stale because of this rationale and they went in a new direction.

    But had they bought on a good writer and director for Pierce (ala Logan and Mendes) there was still another film in him. Look at SF that film if anything dosen't really fit the DC era and if anything works better as a DAD sequel. I'm not saying Brosnan should have made SF because Craig was amazing in that film but had the prods had the balls 10 years ago Pierce could have got something better.

    It was never Brosnan's fault it was the material being handed to him.

    I'll have to respectfully disagree with the Skyfall statement. Just because it doesn't follow the CR/QOS storyline does't mean it's not a Craig film. Could you imagine Brosnan acting in the M death scene? The audience would be the ones doing the wince-face. Skyfall is very much in the Craig/Dalton vein. I needs a Bond who can act given the personal nature of the story.

    And @Getafix is right. Brosnan was given some really good scenes to play (the 006 confrontation at the memorial, the Kaufman scene, confronting Electra before killing her in cold blood). But he never made the most of it. He can't blame anyone but himself for that.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    10 years ago the franchise was a rotting corpse. Barbara and Michael needed a clean sheet to step out of the shadow of their father and make it their own, and they have.

    Thankyou sir.
    =D>

    The Brosnan Era was essentially a nostalgia act. It was Cubby's Bond. The Craig Era is purely Barbera Broccoli and Michael Wilson's Bond.


    I do agree, but I think it had a lot do with Babs and MGW's mindset back then. They were a bit more fearful and reverent of the Bond legacy. It wasn't till the Craig era they knew that the brand had gone stale because of this rationale and they went in a new direction.

    But had they bought on a good writer and director for Pierce (ala Logan and Mendes) there was still another film in him. Look at SF that film if anything dosen't really fit the DC era and if anything works better as a DAD sequel. I'm not saying Brosnan should have made SF because Craig was amazing in that film but had the prods had the balls 10 years ago Pierce could have got something better.

    It was never Brosnan's fault it was the material being handed to him.

    I'll have to respectfully disagree with the Skyfall statement. Just because it doesn't follow the CR/QOS storyline does't mean it's not a Craig film. Could you imagine Brosnan acting in the M death scene? The audience would be the ones doing the wince-face. Skyfall is very much in the Craig/Dalton vein. I needs a Bond who can act given the personal nature of the story.

    And @Getafix is right. Brosnan was given some really good scenes to play (the 006 confrontation at the memorial, the Kaufman scene, confronting Electra before killing her in cold blood). But he never made the most of it. He can't blame anyone but himself for that.

    The Elektra scene isn't his finest moment, but with Kaufman and particularly statue park, I don't see how they'd have been played any better. Craig would have given it a different slant, but I don't know about Dalton and I love Dalton.
  • Posts: 11,425
    With Dalts GE would have been a far superior movie.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken I'm gonna use this to clarify that Dalton is tied with Craig
    Posts: 1,637
    People make the "bad script" argument for Pierce and I don't buy it. Craig had overall one of the worst scripts, directors, and overall films in the series with QoS yet his performance is beyond brilliant.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 15,993
    People make the "bad script" argument for Pierce and I don't buy it. Craig had overall one of the worst scripts, directors, and overall films in the series with QoS yet his performance is beyond brilliant.

    Could Craig save DAD?
Sign In or Register to comment.