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

1246

Comments

  • Ludovico wrote:
    A CR without the rookie Bond element would have been watered down to mediocrity. And this is not counting the many technical problems coming with an ageing actor playing the lead in an action movie.

    He wasn't that old and in 2006 he didn't look any worse than in DAD. As long as they toned down the action he would've been fine. Here he is in 2007, a year after CR, and he still looks good enough to be Bond



    Also, remove any mention of Bond being a rookie and make the parkour bit the PTS. It doesn't affect the film at all. It's still very good, so how would removing the rookie element be mediocre?

    It'd be worse than mediocre because you'd essentially be losing the theme of the film. It's heart and soul. With what you're suggesting CR would've become just another Bond film instead of standing out as a new beginning.

    And there's no way in hell Brosnan would be doing anything that resembled that parkour chase. Instead of chasing after the bomber I could see Brosnan quickly using some gadget to dispense of him. Not to mention an experienced agent such as him falling in love with Vesper and being played just wouldn't be as believable. The film requires a young James Bond. Plain and simple.

  • At any rate, it's a shame, IMO, that Brosnan didn't make one more film in 2004, before CR.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 12,837
    I never said Brosnan would be doing the parkour chase. Read my post, I said if they toned down the action he could've done CR. When I was talking about the parkour I was referring to the bit where he said it'd be mediocre if it wasn't a rookie film. I was pointing out that with a few edits to the film as it is you could remove the rookie idea entirely and it would still work.
    Instead of chasing after the bomber I could see Brosnan quickly using some gadget to dispense of him.

    He didn't always use gadgets. There are plenty of examples in the Brosnan films where he got out of tough situations without any gadgets.
    Not to mention an experienced agent such as him falling in love with Vesper and being played just wouldn't be as believable.

    So the book isn't believable??? I think CR with an older Bond would make perfect sense. Instead of having a rookie Bond that's not used to killing, you'd have an older Bond tired of killing that wants to pack it in. In fact I think it might make even more sense because Bond wouldn't be retiring as soon as he was made a 00, he'd be retiring after years in the field.

    He's been a spy for longer so therefore he wouldn't have fallen in love with Vesper? What sense does that make?
    At any rate, it's a shame, IMO, that Brosnan didn't make one more film in 2004, before CR.

    I agree, I wouldn't want him to do CR, I'm very happy with the CR we got. I would have liked a better send off for him and I do think he deserved one more before they rebooted it but I wouldn't want him in CR.

    I was just saying that with a few changes, I think he could have done CR. Not that I'd want him to.
  • Posts: 14,799
    In the novel Bond is relatively new to his job. He has not fought SMERSH yet, for instance. And he does not want to retire, he wants to resign. The whole point of falling in love with Vesper is that he has not learned yet to be distrustful.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 6,396
    You're essentially having to rewrite the entire script if you were to have Bond portrayed as a veteran agent. The heart of the character is that he is relatively inexperienced, egotistical and ultimately complacent. That's what makes Bond, and the film, so damn interesting.
  • Ludovico wrote:
    In the novel Bond is relatively new to his job. He has not fought SMERSH yet, for instance.

    He might not have fought SMERSH but there's still no indication that he was new irrc. There was a flashback bit where he remembered his two kills but for all we know that could've been years ago, he could've been on a few missions since then.
  • Posts: 14,799
    Ludovico wrote:
    In the novel Bond is relatively new to his job. He has not fought SMERSH yet, for instance.

    He might not have fought SMERSH but there's still no indication that he was new irrc. There was a flashback bit where he remembered his two kills but for all we know that could've been years ago, he could've been on a few missions since then.

    He was still not a man in his 50s, not even 40s. In MR I think it is said he is 35. The more experience he is, the longer he has been in the game, the less likely it would be that he falls for a mole.
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 1,778
    I never said Brosnan would be doing the parkour chase. Read my post, I said if they toned down the action he could've done CR. When I was talking about the parkour I was referring to the bit where he said it'd be mediocre if it wasn't a rookie film. I was pointing out that with a few edits to the film as it is you could remove the rookie idea entirely and it would still work.
    Instead of chasing after the bomber I could see Brosnan quickly using some gadget to dispense of him.

    He didn't always use gadgets. There are plenty of examples in the Brosnan films where he got out of tough situations without any gadgets.
    Not to mention an experienced agent such as him falling in love with Vesper and being played just wouldn't be as believable.

    So the book isn't believable??? I think CR with an older Bond would make perfect sense. Instead of having a rookie Bond that's not used to killing, you'd have an older Bond tired of killing that wants to pack it in. In fact I think it might make even more sense because Bond wouldn't be retiring as soon as he was made a 00, he'd be retiring after years in the field.

    He's been a spy for longer so therefore he wouldn't have fallen in love with Vesper? What sense does that make?
    At any rate, it's a shame, IMO, that Brosnan didn't make one more film in 2004, before CR.

    I agree, I wouldn't want him to do CR, I'm very happy with the CR we got. I would have liked a better send off for him and I do think he deserved one more before they rebooted it but I wouldn't want him in CR.

    I was just saying that with a few changes, I think he could have done CR. Not that I'd want him to.

    He'd get out of some tough situations but never with the brute physicality of Craig, Connery, or Lazenby. Brosnan was a notch above Moore in that regard.

    I haven't read Casino Royale in years but I'm pretty sure Fleming describes Bond as being in his mid-thirties. So no he's defiantly not a veteran agent. He's alot closer to the beginning of his career than the end. Hence it being the first novel. Craig being 37/38 at the time of filming was pretty close to the mark.
    Ludovico wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    In the novel Bond is relatively new to his job. He has not fought SMERSH yet, for instance.

    He might not have fought SMERSH but there's still no indication that he was new irrc. There was a flashback bit where he remembered his two kills but for all we know that could've been years ago, he could've been on a few missions since then.

    He was still not a man in his 50s, not even 40s. In MR I think it is said he is 35. The more experience he is, the longer he has been in the game, the less likely it would be that he falls for a mole.

    Exactly. Having seen everything Brosnan's Bond had been through I'd find it very difficult to believe that a senior agent like him would be so easily tricked. It works with a young Bond. Not an older one. It would've made Bond look stupid and naive.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    What a scary thought!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Getafix wrote: »
    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.

    +1.
  • Posts: 14,799
    And let's not forget to mention how pathetic a Bond this age would have looked falling for a woman Vesper's age. He'd be old enough to be her dad!
  • Getafix wrote: »
    What a scary thought!

    You bumped a three year old thread just to say that? What's the point? You're not starting a discussion. You just dragged up something from ages ago to shit on Brosnan a bit more. Did the positive comments in the production timeline thread really rub you that much the wrong way?

    Anyway I don't think Brosnan was right for CR. Craig owns it. But I stand by my old comments about the origin story element. It's pointless and goes out the window after Miami anyway (once they actually get to the plot of the novel), where he really doesn't make any mistakes except trusting Vesper. The GF esque stuff with him reflecting on killing Obanno for example, him "going soft" as I think he said in the novels, would have been a lot more impactful if this was a jaded seasoned 007 instead of one on his first mission imo, because we've seen him do that so many times before, and for the first time ever he's stopped and let the reality of it set in.

    I think one of the strengths of Bond is how he emerged fully formed. We didn't need to see him become Bond and his first meetings with Q, MP, etc. There was no need for the reboot. Give Moneypenny Villier's role. Maybe have Q appear during the defib scene or just give him a film off ala LALD. Stick a gunbarrel at the start, make the parkour the PTS and remove any mention of Bond being a rookie and the film would have been much better off imo. The origin story stuff felt tacked on and just like they were following trends after Batman did it. Think that's why I enjoyed SP so much, we were finally past all that.
  • Posts: 4,400
    Getafix wrote: »
    What a scary thought!

    You bumped a three year old thread just to say that? What's the point? You're not starting a discussion. You just dragged up something from ages ago to shit on Brosnan a bit more. Did the positive comments in the production timeline thread really rub you that much the wrong way?

    Anyway I don't think Brosnan was right for CR. Craig owns it. But I stand by my old comments about the origin story element. It's pointless and goes out the window after Miami anyway (once they actually get to the plot of the novel), where he really doesn't make any mistakes except trusting Vesper. The GF esque stuff with him reflecting on killing Obanno for example, him "going soft" as I think he said in the novels, would have been a lot more impactful if this was a jaded seasoned 007 instead of one on his first mission imo, because we've seen him do that so many times before, and for the first time ever he's stopped and let the reality of it set in.

    I think one of the strengths of Bond is how he emerged fully formed. We didn't need to see him become Bond and his first meetings with Q, MP, etc. There was no need for the reboot. Give Moneypenny Villier's role. Maybe have Q appear during the defib scene or just give him a film off ala LALD. Stick a gunbarrel at the start, make the parkour the PTS and remove any mention of Bond being a rookie and the film would have been much better off imo. The origin story stuff felt tacked on and just like they were following trends after Batman did it. Think that's why I enjoyed SP so much, we were finally past all that.

    I’m not sure I entirely agree….

    I think Bond’s character arc is central to the concept of the “reboot”. Bond is immature and idealistic – however, he’s also questioning his decisions and emotionally struggling with the choices he’s made. By the end of the film, his resolve is solidified and he basically becomes the Bond we know (essentially, the character Brosnan had played for 4 films).

    If Pierce as still there – you could easily rework the script to make way for an older Bond who is emotionally jaded and morose. But the love story angle may not work so well – surely, if you go down this route with an older actor, the denoucement isn’t that they get their heart broken and learn not to trust anyone – they surely know this lesson already?! If you wanted to do a story about an older Bond, we would be looking more towards something akin to what we saw in “Skyfall” or even “Spectre”.

    Personally, Craig makes CR really sing. Brosnan wasn’t the right choice for the script. Beyond the character stuff – the script demands an actor with a certain physicality. There’s no way I can imagine Pierce in the opening Madagascar chase. His whole “unflappable” and “suave” shtick would never have worked with the more grounded, gritty and rugged approach. This is representative of the whole film which was something of a tonal shift that Pierce was out of step for.
  • Posts: 14,799
    Bond trusting Vesper and falling in love with her in CR is a HUGE mistake. One that someone relatively new to the spy world would do. Not a mistake done by an old agent close to retirement age (or at least ready to take a desk job). CR was already an origin story in its literary form, where Bond and his world are introduced to the reader. Some of its appeal and its drive comes from it being an introduction. You lose it with an established Bond character and actor.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 613
    MI6 did a great breakdown of the Tarantino/Brosnan/Casino Royale project:

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/cr_quentin_tarantino_timeline.php3

    It's not mentioned in that timeline, but before Brosnan's CR pitch to EON Tarantino had tried to get a job on the Bond series through Tony Scott. EON offered Scott the director's chair for DAD, and Scott said he would only do it if Tarantino were hired as the screenwriter. EON, of course, got "cold feet."

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001716/news?year=2002

    Can't say I blame Babs and MGW, though. Tarantino, as evidenced in interviews, is incredibly arrogant and obnoxious, and I can't imagine him clicking with EON creatively.

    Not only that, he seemed to lack a basic understanding of the novels. I recall an interview he did on Charlie Rose in which he claimed that CR ends with Bond shooting Vesper!

    And Uma Thurman opposite Brosnan? Oh God, no. Dodged a bullet there.

  • Posts: 14,799
    Uma Thurman as Vesper would have been terrible. She's got nothing of the vulnerability and broken innocence needed for the role.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,165
    Just imagine, Tarantino could have made Brosnan the first James Bond with a foot fetish.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited August 2017 Posts: 16,328
    Getafix wrote: »
    What a scary thought!

    And the award for unnecessary thread bumping just to bash Pierce and fuel their hatred of him goes to you. :)
    golden-turd-300x208.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    In retrospect I think Brosnan could have pulled off CR, if it was tweaked a little for him. No reason why he couldn't have done it. Ideally he would have kicked off his tenure in 1995 with it.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Would have been interesting to see how Brosnan managed with a proper script and decent director. Brosnan and Tarantino would have been interesting.
  • Posts: 684
    For me any appeal of a Brosnan CR would have to revolve around its script making work of Bond's age and experience (someone pitched a specific vision of this in a thread, I think it was last week, that I really liked), whereas in the CR we actually got, I fully agree with @thelivingroyale in that I think Bond's age and inexperience is a contrivance that hangs up proceedings unnecessarily.

    At the time it was glorious (think of the shift from DAD to CR), and it still is in a certain right, but a decade on it's easier to see CR as symptomatic of BATMAN BEGINS than of Bourne. Beyond financial appeal, I find it a little curious that Bond should have been approached from an 'origin story' point-of-view, considering that sort of tale inherently belongs to the superhero genre (explaining how such and such human being came to possess extraordinary powers/"become themselves"), yet the 'superhero' Bond is expressly what EON was at the time trying to move away from and at odds with the way Craig wanted to portray him.

    It doesn't help to look at the 'arc' as presented CR in the context of three Craig films that followed, which played merry hell with it (i.e. he became Bond at the end of CR, until he became Bond at the end of QOS, then was 'too old' by the start of SF, and by SP we're ignoring his relative experience/inexperience completely).
  • Posts: 11,425
    Brozzer directed by Boorman or Polanski as Bond would have been worth a watch.

  • Posts: 1,879

    Strog wrote: »
    For me any appeal of a Brosnan CR would have to revolve around its script making work of Bond's age and experience (someone pitched a specific vision of this in a thread, I think it was last week, that I really liked), whereas in the CR we actually got, I fully agree with @thelivingroyale in that I think Bond's age and inexperience is a contrivance that hangs up proceedings unnecessarily.

    At the time it was glorious (think of the shift from DAD to CR), and it still is in a certain right, but a decade on it's easier to see CR as symptomatic of BATMAN BEGINS than of Bourne. Beyond financial appeal, I find it a little curious that Bond should have been approached from an 'origin story' point-of-view, considering that sort of tale inherently belongs to the superhero genre (explaining how such and such human being came to possess extraordinary powers/"become themselves"), yet the 'superhero' Bond is expressly what EON was at the time trying to move away from and at odds with the way Craig wanted to portray him.

    It doesn't help to look at the 'arc' as presented CR in the context of three Craig films that followed, which played merry hell with it (i.e. he became Bond at the end of CR, until he became Bond at the end of QOS, then was 'too old' by the start of SF, and by SP we're ignoring his relative experience/inexperience completely).

    In several of your posts you mention Batman Begins as the catalyst for CR, but in doing so you discount that Eon wanted to do a Bond begins origin story as far back as 1985/86 after Moore left the role. It was Cubby's insistence that audiences didn't want to see Bond as an amateur that scrapped it. There was no real film superhero genre then to speak of, aside from Superman.

    Having the rights to CR finally come available after years made it too attractive to pass up. For years I recall fans saying they had wanted a proper CR and that's what we got and glad to say they did it right, not a veteran Bond story. The combination of a classic story with fresh actor and approach proved the right decision.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 684
    BT3366 wrote: »
    In several of your posts you mention Batman Begins as the catalyst for CR, but in doing so you discount that Eon wanted to do a Bond begins origin story as far back as 1985/86 after Moore left the role. It was Cubby's insistence that audiences didn't want to see Bond as an amateur that scrapped it. There was no real film superhero genre then to speak of, aside from Superman.
    @BT3366 Have I? I've made the connection in my head certainly, and I know making the connection between the two isn't an original or large leap by any means, but I don't remember mentioning it on this forum. Regardless, I hope it's not coming across as something I like to whinge on about.

    I didn't know the bit about the Dalton changeover and the options considered. That's interesting, and your point about no superhero film genre is well taken, though I would argue superheroes having been around since the 30s in comics was enough to cement the 'origin story' as very much a superhero—or at least comic book—idea. I think even if Cubby had elected to go through with it back then, comic comparisons of some sort would have been drawn.
    Having the rights to CR finally come available after years made it too attractive to pass up.
    I agree. And as with many things it seems, the CR we were given really was a coming together of perfect coming together of circumstances.
  • Posts: 1,879
    It may have been another thread, but I know I saw mentions of Batman Begins before in relation to CR. Guess it wasn't in this particular looking back. My apologies.

    To be honest, when CR was announced I had fears critics would all use Bond Begins as their headlines in reviews and we didn't get that too much due to the quality. I was also worried about Texas hold-em being worked into the story as I thought it would be a passing fad as internet poker was huge at the time and it would date the story.

    I just have a hard time imagining this story done any other way.
  • Posts: 684
    BT3366 wrote: »
    It may have been another thread, but I know I saw mentions of Batman Begins before in relation to CR. Guess it wasn't in this particular looking back. My apologies.
    Ah, no worries. This forum's sprawling and discussions run together between threads and people. And like I said, the notion's been in my head for ever. Almost a moot point whether I've previously expressed it. ;)
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I was also worried about Texas hold-em being worked into the story as I thought it would be a passing fad as internet poker was huge at the time and it would date the story.
    I remember having the same reservations at the time, as it pertained to the switch to Texas hold-em. That it would date the story didn't occur to me, though I think it is an interesting concern. Ten years on, do you think it has? I think it stands out slightly in the film—as being...less elegant?—but I think so far it's managed at least to avoid what I might call being 'dated.'
  • AleanderAleander Kavala, Greece
    Posts: 33
    Lots of dissing Brosnan, early on, and I want to say a few words on that:

    1) Brosnan was a fantastic James Bond.
    2) Craig is a great James Bond, despite never really being allowed to fully be one until SPECTRE.
    3) Casino Royale is great as it already is.
    4) Casino Royale would've been great if Brosnan was in it, too.
    5) Ian Fleming's Casino Royale did not feature a rookie James Bond at all.
    6) Cubby and Harry did not want to start CR with a rookie Bond. They simply wanted to started their franchise with CR. I doubt they'd change their approach if they did CR instead of Dr. No.
    7) "Poor man's Cubby Broccoli Bond"? That is hilarious, if not vindictivaly savage towards those of us who like Brosnan.
    8) While the Craig era undoubtably has far more of Barbara's vision in it, nevertheless she was the driving force for the Brosnan era. DAD was her idea, mostly.
    9) Cubby wanted to go back to the original approach? While it may have truth as a statement, it hardly absolves him from dilluting the Fleming books with his "lovely" ideas about space satellites, solar satellites, and space stations in stories about diamond smuggling, a smug assassin and a rocket sceheme respectively. Not to mention his decision to basically rotate OHMSS and YOLT with one another, thus taking away YOLT's drive-for-vengeance arc. Not to mention his hiring Roger Moore for AVTAK, which in my mind hurt the franchise immensly and Dalton, despite his best efforts, didn't help to recover it. Cubby was not a saint, and none of you should view him as such.
    10) Several of the Brosnan films are better than a lot of the others. In my mind, GE and TWINE as better than Skyfall, even - despite the latter having the superior exploration of Bond's psyche. But, the other two have better plots that are intrisically tied to the character's arc for each given film.
    11) I cannot stress enough how good Brosnan would've been in CR. And the slight remark that he was less of a Bond than Craig? Nonsense! Brosnan's the truest representation of Fleming's Bond. Just try and read TMWTGG without Brosnan in mind.

    I undoubtably have more to say, but these I just wanted to get off my chest.
  • Posts: 1,879
    Aleander wrote: »
    11) I cannot stress enough how good Brosnan would've been in CR. And the slight remark that he was less of a Bond than Craig? Nonsense! Brosnan's the truest representation of Fleming's Bond. Just try and read TMWTGG without Brosnan in mind.
    Couldn't disagree more on the truest representation of Fleming's Bond comment. For me, that would be Dalton.
  • AleanderAleander Kavala, Greece
    Posts: 33
    For the longest time, I thought so, too. But after re-reading the books this year, I don't think so (although he and Connery are definitely close seconds). Dalton was a good one, but Brosnan portrayed his coldness and professionalism better than Dalton.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Originally that concept was scripted for a Bond who would be in his 20s, and Campbell's favorite of the candidates was Henry Cavill who was about 23 at the time. I think it would have played more convincingly with a younger actor.

    Craig at the age of 37 playing a "rookie agent" was never convincing for me. They could have easily dropped that angle altogether. Craig however was still at the appropriate age to play the Bond featured in Fleming's novel, a man who's well experienced on the field but never had his heart broken on it. That's the heart of the story.

    The "rookie agent" angle was just a pet project of Wilson, who had been wanting to do that idea as far back as 1986.
Sign In or Register to comment.