› ›

Could Pierce Brosnan feasibly come back to do a Bond after Craig leaves?

1…911131415

Comments

  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    SaintMark wrote:
    [
    Moonraker is still a great movie with some fun setpieces but it does have a very dark heart.

    Its about as dark as a deputy dawg cartoon.

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    SaintMark wrote:
    SF showed flipping 007 as an almost Terminator and that is better?

    Bond is still doing fantastic stuff in Skyfall, I agree, but I didn't find him to be portrayed as the invincible character he seemed to be in Moonraker.

  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    SF showed flipping 007 as an almost Terminator and that is better?

    Bond is still doing fantastic stuff in Skyfall, I agree, but I didn't find him to be portrayed as the invincible character he seemed to be in Moonraker.

    Shot twice fell from a moving train of a bridge into a river and lives to tell the tale, I would call that OTT invincable. ANd apperently he recovered not in a hospital as that would put him on the radar for he authorities, that all sounds perfectly plausible.

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    SaintMark wrote:
    Shot twice fell from a moving train of a bridge into a river and lives to tell the tale, I would call that OTT invincable. ANd apperently he recovered not in a hospital as that would put him on the radar for he authorities, that all sounds perfectly plausible.

    Well, having both been shot and having dealt with people who have been shot a couple of times my breaking point might be different than others, I'll grant you that.

  • jasonbournejasonbourne
    Posts: 82
    That fall from the bridge is impossible to survive. I do not say that is a big problem with the film, I just say that it shows that the claim that Skyfall is realistic is unsubstantiated.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    jasonbourne wrote:
    That fall from the bridge is impossible to survive. I do not say that is a big problem with the film, I just say that it shows that the claim that Skyfall is realistic is unsubstantiated.

    Improbable, I'll grant you; not impossible. Look at the folks who bungie jump and have something go wrong, but survive.

    It's weird what the human body can take on occasion.

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    It's best if all are careful to not confuse realism with plausibility. It's realism in the sense, man gets shot = blood comes out.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    But the claims that Craig is a far cry from the superiour skills of previous Bonds is slightly overrated. The character still does feats that no mortal man can match, and that is what we expect, so no complains from me there. But in this aspect Craigs Bond is no different from the previous Bonds.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    Samuel001 wrote:
    It's best if all are careful to not confuse realism with plausibility. It's realism in the sense, man gets shot = blood comes out.
    Depending on where and with what they get shot with. One of the things I had trouble accepting in Skyfall was Bond being able to walk around for any great length of time with parts of a depleted uranium round in him.

  • MaidenDethMaidenDeth
    Posts: 60
    Brosnan was fantastic in the role. His potential could have been shown better with maybe some better scripts, or uh, director, ahem (Die Another Day). He deserved a fifth film though, kinda sucks he had to leave the franchise on a bad note. Goldeneye, the game and the movie, is what introduced me to Bond and had me fall in love with it, so Brosnan will always have a special place in my heart, and I think TND and TWINE is a lot better than it gets credit for around here. But, anyways, no, it's too late for him to make a return to the franchise, it would just screw this whole reboot up and confuse people more than they might already be lol
  • jasonbournejasonbourne
    Posts: 82
    Brosnan is far too OLD to return. He will be 60 next year. I would think that Craig will make his last film in 2016 and then there will be a new Bond in 2018. Then it would be an actor who is born somewhere around 1980.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    jasonbourne wrote:
    Then it would be an actor who is born somewhere around 1980.
    ME 8->
  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    edited November 2012 Posts: 2,782
    I would love them to conclude DC's tenure with a view into the future of 007's retirement and have SC fishing on the shores of a Scottish loch.
  • jasonbournejasonbourne
    edited November 2012 Posts: 82
    Actually, in Never say never again, Connery as Bond retired, but it was made a point that he should perhaps never say never again, so who knows? Maybe Connery will be back one last time? ;) ;)
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    jasonbourne wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Nothing to do with reality? Why do you think SF is the biggest Bond film since the 60's heyday?
    acoppola wrote:
    You are just stating your subjective opinion.

    Hrmfff... Need I say more about stating once opinion as though it were a fact...

    About Moonraker, I never said it was my favourite, I just said that it was a good Bond movie.

    The reason why I dislike LTK is that it is far too dark and violent.

    What you dislike about LTK is exactly what makes it a series standout. Dark and violent.

    In fact, LTK was ahead of it's time and a return to Fleming.

    Moonraker was a creation of the Star Wars craze and an excuse to get a younger audience. It was Bond for children. As an adult it is not that interesting. Villains like Jaws are laughable now.

    My favourite part of Moonraker are the scenes in M's office. Those are always good with Bernard Lee.

  • jasonbournejasonbourne
    Posts: 82
    If you want a serious and GOOD spy/thriller movie, then James Bond is not a good choice. There are many far better choices, like Jason Bourne to mention just one example. James Bond is not primarily about action, what makes it interesting is the understatement, like the interaction between Bond and Pepper in The man with the golden gun and the relation between Bond and Q (for instance Qs sarchasm about Bonds immaturity). Whether it is a return to Fleming or not is really not very interesting. Who has read Fleming anyway?
  • JamesBondJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    You know, I really admire @sirseanisbond 's speech, he wrote it properly. Bond needs to be the James Bond that was portrayed by Sean Connery in 1962, not the dull character penned by Fleming in CR.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    acoppola wrote:
    My favourite part of Moonraker are the scenes in M's office. Those are always good with Bernard Lee.
    I very much agree with you here; those are among the most enjoyable scenes in the movie, for me.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    JamesBond wrote:
    You know, I really admire @sirseanisbond 's speech, he wrote it properly. Bond needs to be the James Bond that was portrayed by Sean Connery in 1962, not the dull character penned by Fleming in CR.

    Unfortunately that is a recipe for stagnation. To dismiss Fleming is like dismissing Tolkien. The author is the creator of Bond and Connery is just one interpretation.

    Look at the other franchises and why they do so well. When they copied the 1978 Superman template for the 2006 film, they cast a similar actor to Christopher Reeve. Fans went but there was not enough there to drag a new audience in and that was reflected in the box office. It was a good film but not outstanding for the astronomical budget it got.

    But it was obvious that the Batman franchise was many steps ahead by breaking with what we were familiar with. Some Bond fans want path of least resistance when it comes to the character and that is not what Bond was ever about.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    My favourite part of Moonraker are the scenes in M's office. Those are always good with Bernard Lee.
    I very much agree with you here; those are among the most enjoyable scenes in the movie, for me.

    Thanks!

  • JamesBondJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    Look, my friend, Christopher Nolan's Batman was true to the original material, if you've read The Killing Joke, the 2008 film The Dark Knight followed very similar style of storytelling to the graphic novel. But, for Bond, the classic films never made nods to Fleming's style, but Terence Young recreated Bond with the characterization of the masterspy Bulldog Drummond. That's why Connery's Bond was superb.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    JamesBond wrote:
    Look, my friend, Christopher Nolan's Batman was true to the original material, if you've read The Killing Joke, the 2008 film The Dark Knight followed very similar style of storytelling to the graphic novel. But, for Bond, the classic films never made nods to Fleming's style, but Terence Young recreated Bond with the characterization of the masterspy Bulldog Drummond. That's why Connery's Bond was superb.
    Nolan's take on the Dark Knight was, like all takes, "true to the original material" only to a degree (the original material in this case being the character Bob Kane created.) After that he both blended various aspects of how the character has been portrayed throughout the decades while adding some of his own nuance to the overall mythos. Bane, for example, is very little like he was portrayed in the comics, and Ledger's take on the Joker combines a lot of stuff from different eras while completely ignoring aspects from others (there is almost no Dick Sprang in his take, for example).

    Likewise, Connery did bring some of Fleming's character to the screen; shooting a man in cold blood when he is clearly at one's mercy is indeed something Fleming's Bond might do. He also added some new elements to the character, bringing a light-heartedness to the character that really wasn't in the books. The way Hollywood Bond quips, for example, is more Connery than Bond.

  • JamesBondJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    JamesBond wrote:
    Look, my friend, Christopher Nolan's Batman was true to the original material, if you've read The Killing Joke, the 2008 film The Dark Knight followed very similar style of storytelling to the graphic novel. But, for Bond, the classic films never made nods to Fleming's style, but Terence Young recreated Bond with the characterization of the masterspy Bulldog Drummond. That's why Connery's Bond was superb.
    Nolan's take on the Dark Knight was, like all takes, "true to the original material" only to a degree (the original material in this case being the character Bob Kane created.) After that he both blended various aspects of how the character has been portrayed throughout the decades while adding some of his own nuance to the overall mythos. Bane, for example, is very little like he was portrayed in the comics, and Ledger's take on the Joker combines a lot of stuff from different eras while completely ignoring aspects from others (there is almost no Dick Sprang in his take, for example).

    Likewise, Connery did bring some of Fleming's character to the screen; shooting a man in cold blood when he is clearly at one's mercy is indeed something Fleming's Bond might do. He also added some new elements to the character, bringing a light-heartedness to the character that really wasn't in the books. The way Hollywood Bond quips, for example, is more Connery than Bond.

    Of course, after all, it's based on Ian Fleming's character. So, he should carry the outlines the author created for him. But, the character's persona differs a way too much than Connery's portrayal of the character.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    The films have always benefited from an injection of fleming, as Cubby said "if in doubt always go back to fleming" or something along those lines.

    back to the original point about Brosnan coming back, obvioulsy no actor will ever return to the role as far as i can see but I woulddn't have a problem with an older actor being cast in the role, what would be wrong with the character of Bond being a bit older, coming towards the end of his career? The films have to keep evolving so maybe one day they will go down this road.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    Connery came back to the role after a long spell of being away; I think Brosnan could do the same if such an opportunity was offered to him.
  • bgh1968bgh1968
    Posts: 13
    No clearly he would be too old and also why go backwards , a new actor end of debate. I remember recently watching Diamonds are Forever , Connerys brief return to the official series, he looked like my dad....it was time to move on with actors. Also create new stories ..lets not get in the habit of remaking old Bonds...that would be bad news.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    JamesBond wrote:
    Look, my friend, Christopher Nolan's Batman was true to the original material, if you've read The Killing Joke, the 2008 film The Dark Knight followed very similar style of storytelling to the graphic novel. But, for Bond, the classic films never made nods to Fleming's style, but Terence Young recreated Bond with the characterization of the masterspy Bulldog Drummond. That's why Connery's Bond was superb.

    You said it, the early films were Bulldog Drummond. And yet you praise Nolan for being true to the source.

    If the early films were not true nods to Fleming, then how are they accurate to the source? Batman works best when he is closer to the source. And he becomes worst when he mocks the source. Bond went through many films mocking it's roots and crashed and burned. Frank Miller said the same thing and he was the man responsible for representing the true way Batman should have always been.

    I like the early films for what they are, but they are nothing more than the start but not the be all possibility for the franchise. And the approach began to water down by Connery's fourth.



  • JamesBondJamesBond
    edited November 2012 Posts: 669
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesBond wrote:
    Look, my friend, Christopher Nolan's Batman was true to the original material, if you've read The Killing Joke, the 2008 film The Dark Knight followed very similar style of storytelling to the graphic novel. But, for Bond, the classic films never made nods to Fleming's style, but Terence Young recreated Bond with the characterization of the masterspy Bulldog Drummond. That's why Connery's Bond was superb.

    You said it, the early films were Bulldog Drummond. And yet you praise Nolan for being true to the source.

    If the early films were not true nods to Fleming, then how are they accurate to the source? Batman works best when he is closer to the source. And he becomes worst when he mocks the source. Bond went through many films mocking it's roots and crashed and burned. Frank Miller said the same thing and he was the man responsible for representing the true way Batman should have always been.

    I like the early films for what they are, but they are nothing more than the start but not the be all possibility for the franchise. And the approach began to water down by Connery's fourth.



    Well, I have nothing against the respectful author nor Craig himself. But, the James Bond franchise I hold dear to me is because of Sean Connery. OK, let's talk about Casino Royale 1967, can you really want to see that film? It's rubbish. Because it was an insult to the character created by Ian Fleming (outlines) and Terence Young (persona) (I'm talking about the films), just like today's Jason Bourne is an insult to the character Robert Ludlum created in his trilogy (as I consider Erik Van Lustbadder's books are non-canonical). The Fleming books are not the reason I became a huge fan of Bond, it was Connery's Bulldog Drummond style performance that made me the fan I am today, and gave me the desire to be Bond someday. I agree Pierce Brosnan's (my 2nd favourite Bond) last film was totally an insult to the franchise and probably is the worst Bond film to date, but before that, Bond was BOND. With the arrival of Casino Royale 2006, the series has been transformed to a scumbag and rubbish Jason Bourne clone, the trash that was created by Tony Gilroy, not the one penned by Robert Ludlum in his trilogy. So, I really think that Bond should go back to its origins. Bring back the gadgets, bring back the Connery material, bring back the supervillains who want to take over the world with deadly motivations, using deadly mcguffins. That's what makes Bond BOND.
  • 007bond762007bond762
    Posts: 71
    I think he looks too old for the part.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    JamesBond wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesBond wrote:
    Look, my friend, Christopher Nolan's Batman was true to the original material, if you've read The Killing Joke, the 2008 film The Dark Knight followed very similar style of storytelling to the graphic novel. But, for Bond, the classic films never made nods to Fleming's style, but Terence Young recreated Bond with the characterization of the masterspy Bulldog Drummond. That's why Connery's Bond was superb.

    You said it, the early films were Bulldog Drummond. And yet you praise Nolan for being true to the source.

    If the early films were not true nods to Fleming, then how are they accurate to the source? Batman works best when he is closer to the source. And he becomes worst when he mocks the source. Bond went through many films mocking it's roots and crashed and burned. Frank Miller said the same thing and he was the man responsible for representing the true way Batman should have always been.

    I like the early films for what they are, but they are nothing more than the start but not the be all possibility for the franchise. And the approach began to water down by Connery's fourth.



    Well, I have nothing against the respectful author nor Craig himself. But, the James Bond franchise I hold dear to me is because of Sean Connery. OK, let's talk about Casino Royale 1967, can you really want to see that film? It's rubbish. Because it was an insult to the character created by Ian Fleming (outlines) and Terence Young (persona) (I'm talking about the films), just like today's Jason Bourne is an insult to the character Robert Ludlum created in his trilogy (as I consider Erik Van Lustbadder's books are non-canonical). The Fleming books are not the reason I became a huge fan of Bond, it was Connery's Bulldog Drummond style performance that made me the fan I am today, and gave me the desire to be Bond someday. I agree Pierce Brosnan's (my 2nd favourite Bond) last film was totally an insult to the franchise and probably is the worst Bond film to date, but before that, Bond was BOND. With the arrival of Casino Royale 2006, the series has been transformed to a scumbag and rubbish Jason Bourne clone, the trash that was created by Tony Gilroy, not the one penned by Robert Ludlum in his trilogy. So, I really think that Bond should go back to its origins. Bring back the gadgets, bring back the Connery material, bring back the supervillains who want to take over the world with deadly motivations, using deadly mcguffins. That's what makes Bond BOND.

    In the end, who am I to tell you otherwise? I can appreciate your angle and your taste as obviously any of us have to like the actor playing the character.

    There are three categories of fans these days Original, post Cubby Broccoli produced and the reboot. You are original which is great.

    By the way, I find Brosnan nothing like Connery considering he was aiming at him for his portrayal. Connery just looks far tougher than Brosnan. Connery has that kicked in by life experience face.

    CR 1967 is rubbish for sure.



Sign In or Register to comment.