Definitely, The thing is/was that too many times, this guy so wanted to do this…
On the other hand, if not Brosnan, who would/should/could/might have been the better man (or would have been a disaster, had rumors been true) to carry the torch through the Nineties and into the 21st century?
Discuss…
(separate thread if need be)
Personally, I’d still say that he was the right man at the right time for the job. His movies did well, they were what more or less most people wanted to see, and it was better entertainment than most other things back in the day. He had to work with the material he was given, and he made the best of it. And unlike his successor, he never seemed to have a problem with Being James Bond at least a little bit in real life. One of the best things about Brosnan was that he really loved being Bond. The only one of the bunch who was ready and willing to do another one but was denied (I just noticed that right now)
Some say he was robbed of the chance of doing Casino Royale and going out with a Bang (with or without Tarantino – Hi Jim), but doing this would have been just wrong. Simply because CR is (and always has to be in a movie adaption) the origin story. You just don’t use it for the end of a “actor”’s tenure, but for the start of one.
They finally had the rights, there was a need to take a new direction (The Bourne Competition etc.), and reboots were the thing back in the day. Wasn’t Brosnan’s fault, just politics and market decisions.
I liked and still like what happened after that, not sure if I’m going to like what will happen next…
I can’t imagine anyone else to secure Bond restarting in the 90´s, frankly. The rumored one-off with Gibson? Why? He was still associated with LETHAL WEAPON. Liam Neeson? After SCHINDLER´S LIST? Absolutely not. Any unknown? In the 90´s? Nah.
Brosnan was the guy so many wanted as Bond. When he finally became Bond it was another way-in for mass audiences to settle in and enjoy.
The guys who were somewhere rumoured to be in the running came from a weirdly wide spectrum, all and sundry from Hugh Grant to Ioan Gruffudd. Most of their subsequent careers don’t really suggest they would have been a huge success, at least not in the kind of films Craig did. Closest come Hugh Jackman and Gerard Butler who did a series of conventional action flicks without adding anything special to the genre. But I suppose either might have gone in vaguely the Craig direction and have possibly succeeded.
The most interesting option for me, however, would have been Jason Isaacs. No doubt on advice of his agent he did one of those Bond vibe fashion shots around the time Craig made noises of not returning - or rather, failed to make any noises of coming back. Based on his Malfoy, Star Trek and many supporting roles I think he was a missed opportunity. Would make a fabulous M still.
EDIT: That said, I disagree on CASINO ROYALE necessarily having to be a reboot, becoming-Bond story. I rarely find myself on Tarantino‘s side of an argument, but the book does have an atmosphere of farewell - to innocence, naïveté, bachelorhood, youth in general - and that might have worked with a middle-aged Bond.
Jackman at least had the fame and would have brought mass audiences at least for a first film. And he would have been more of that great looking suave guy we were accustomed to. But that would hardly have been right for CR.
I agree, the farewell atmosphere of the novel could have suited Brosnan‘s last film very well, but as a starter the new guy had to be special and different.
Goran Višnjić would have been interesting, I must say.
And both Višnjić and Jackman might have been up for more frequent films in a tighter work schedule, something the undead corpse of MGM was also pushing for at a time. Impossible to say for sure how that would have played out with the constant threat of collapse looming. Perhaps with a more conventional run after CASINO ROYALE.
I know this might be an unpopular opinion, but I think Craig was wrong for the part in hindsight. And this is coming from someone who has CR in his top 5. I was fully on board with him after CR and I was really looking forward to see him grow in the role together with the character of Bond in the overall narrative of his films, but that never really happened in my opinion. His portrayal of the character works for CR because it’s film that’s all about character development and being rough around the edges, but it doesn’t work for an entire era. He just feels too much like your average Britsh tough guy who spends most of his time in the gym than Bond. He just doesn’t have the natural charisma and screen presence for the character. Even the drama, which his era will be most remember by, I don’t feel was one of his stronger aspects. Lazenby in OHMSS and Dalton in LTK sell the drama and the pain much more for me for example. In addition, I feel like he didn’t even like being Bond that much and only wanted the part if he could have creative control and take the character to dramatic extremes. I feel Craig would’ve been perfect casting for a Bond villain.
As for who I would have liked instead, not sure, I’ve never put too much thought into that. I guess I would’ve liked Clive Owen much more, but it’s also a matter of actually wanting to be Bond, which I’m not sure was the case with Owen. And Henry Cavill I feel would’ve been great as well, but I’m not much of a fan of Bond being that young as he would have been during CR. I defenitely wouldn’t want him now for the part though for all the obvious reasons. Best scenario would’ve been if they just kept Brosnan for at least another film and make a Skyfall like film which I’ve always felt would have been a more fitting film to close off the Brosnan era rather than the middle of the Craig era. Then I guess they could’ve started fresh with Cavill and have him grow into ‘‘Bond in his prime’’, which we never got with Craig
And I would not be surprised if Craig came back as a Bond villain in the future.
EON would’nt do it, but AON could do that.
It seems to be quite an unpopular opinion here, but I do like each of Craig’s Bond movie. Even Craig getting creative control with executive producer credit wasn’t that bad. Both Spectre and NTTD have their flaws, but they are quite good movies in my opinion. While on the other hand TWINE and DAD are among the worst in the series to me (though I love Goldeneye and TND on the contrary). This may not be related to Brosnan himself, maybe those movies would have been better, had he got more creative control, but he never got.
As for the actor having to absolutely love playing James Bond every minute of his life, I really do not get your point. Connery started to be very annoyed with the character with Thunderball, and still is recognized as one of, if not the best Bond. Craig only seemed annoyed with Spectre (which was also a troubled production). Moreover, apparently he really enjoyed himself during filming of NTTD (especially for the Cuba sequence which was his last, and is the one that everybody is cheering).
Coming back to the topic, one last unpopular opinion (because it is too obvious I guess): I do think Cavill could have been a very good Bond, but he was not the right guy at the right moment. Craig was.
They could do it if they wanted to cheapen their own version of Bond. It would be one thing to bring a former Bond back to play Bond again. I’d be very much open to it for Brosnan (or, in a real pipe dream, Dalton) and, who knows, maybe a decade down the line I’d be open to seeing Craig take another crack at it.
But as a villain? I have no desire to see it. And that would severely overshadow the guy that Amazon has chosen to play Bond to the point that it would be, in my view, more of a detriment to the film than it would be a benefit.
Still think it’s one of those major missed opportunities, but one must never look back, no regrets, etc etc, and the financial and critical successes of the Craig films got Eon to a point they could sell the thing for billions of dollars. Which was the point. Always was the point. Always is the point. No-one’s in it for love. Any charitable aspect is just a tax dodge.
Ideally, Pierce Brosnan would have gotten at least one more film–one that would have been a scaled down/more realistic mission a la For Your Eyes Only or as ChrissBond007 suggested a Skyfall-type film. That would have been the way to go out. He wanted to do another film and he deserved it.
Now, I think Casino Royale does work best as an introduction to a new Bond as it gets him properly jaded for his missions to follow. As a result, I don’t think Brosnan circa 2004 would have been the right 007 for that story–and I love Brosnan. But I think having a new Bond in Casino Royale in 2007 should have been the way to go.
As for which actor I think would have been the best to play the new Bond in 2007, my top pick was Hugh Jackman (39 years of age) and I think he would have been great. My second choice would have been Jason Isaacs (44). I like Henry Cavill, but back then he was way too young (24) to be Bond. But he’s my #1 choice now.
Brosnan really does feel like the “right guy at the right time.” His era had its flaws, but he carried the role with charisma and actually seemed to enjoy being Bond, which shows on screen. Even when the scripts got uneven, he never phoned it in.
And yeah, Casino Royale could never have been his swan song. That story works only as a reboot. The shift to Craig was more about timing, competition, and the market than anything Brosnan did wrong. Still, his run holds up better than people give it credit for.
I agree. The Moore era ran seven films and showed that the family were willing to retain an actor long term. Lazenby was also offered the same length tenure. Brosnan’s films were banking cash and I’m fairly confident a fifth film would have as well. They could have easily made alterations based on feedback as they did in the past. But as you say, timing, competition and the market were the deciding factors this time.
Jason Isaacs and Clive Owen would have been my choices for the part had Craig not gotten the nod for Casino Royale.
As for the idea that Casino Royale couldn’t have served as a swansong for Brosnan, I’m not sure that I agree. It has been a while since I read the novel, but I don’t remember it really screaming “Rookie Bond!” at the reader the way the film does. The story could remain largely unchanged to serve as the finale for a Bond, or the finale for Bond himself in a way that would have been better than what we got in No Time to Die.
I’d say the Bond of Fleming’s Casino Royale is perhaps the most ‘mature’ incarnation, second only to the burnt-out case of You Only Live Twice/The Man with the Golden Gun double feature. Yes, Fleming said his Bond is always supposed to be in his fighting prime 36/38 - but that first book certainly feels like Bond has had already a veritable career in the Service under his belt, having been a valuable officer since before the war and seasoned enough to be sent on this caper alone (Mathis is a mere contact without important function, providing just exposition and possibly keeping Bond from being searched for weapons at the casino; Vesper is entirely useless).
Also, sensibly, Bond doesn’t do anything outside his brief. He drives down the coast in the direction of le Chiffre’s villa but that’s it. In later books Bond would become a lot more proactive and adventurous. Almost certainly he’d pay that house a nighttime visit during the week he’s already spending in Royale. But the Bond of these first pages has the definite air of the seasoned pro, the bachelor who’s sure luck or love will one day bring him down - like his creator. I could absolutely see this adapted with the right actor in his 40s or 50s (if we forget for the sake of the argument that this is supposed to be an ongoing series without reboots or final chapters killing the guy).
Agreed. I would go a step further and say that I could see it being adapted as a final mission of sorts. Take the same story, but a Bond that is at the end of his career, going out for what would seem to be an “easy” mission, to bankrupt a man at a card game. He falls in love with Vesper along the way, sees an out for himself, only for her to betray him in the end. The final line of the novel would hit different there, harder I would think, and send Bond off with a better gut punch of a finale than having him take a rocket to the face for…reasons.
I agree just because CR was Fleming’s first novel doesn’t mean it needs to Bond’s “origin” story, or explain why he is the way he is. It might even work better for an more experienced Bond, although I consider losing Tracy a more significant tragedy than losing Vesper, so you almost have to start over to make that work.
I gather the original intent was to cast a young actor for CR, but that went out the window when they settled on Craig. Instead, it’s an “origin” story in the sense of “how did a brutal killer become sophisticated and urbane?” And hey, I get that a large part of Connery’s appeal was that he navigated that line between “polished gent” and “rough and tumble brawler,”but I feel CR approaches it the wrong way around. To me, Bond, like many a British war hero, had a sense of style and taste before being thrown into harrowing circumstances, and his ability to rise to the challenge with ingenuity, courage and cool-headedness only made him seem more British, if you follow. It’s a recurring theme in heroic literature, including the Tarzan novels where even an upbringing by apes in the jungle can’t undo the inherent superiority of British genes.
Craig’s Bond in CR is the opposite: he’s a bringer of death and mayhem, a human wrecking ball, more soccer hooligan than Blades material. M truly regards him as a “blunt instrument:” as much trouble as he causes her, it’s still better to have him on the payroll than running loose on the street. People are going to die wherever he goes anyway, so she might as well point him in a direction where some good may result. So where I feel like any “origin” should answer “what led a man of class and sophistication to take up a life as an assassin,” CR instead asks “How did an angry street brawler end up in expensive suits and luxury cars”?
It’s a fantastic film, but for me it misses the point of who and what the character is, and the beginning of a long period of a focus I regard as “James Bond” in name only.
Good call on that. In the book Bond muses he’ll sleep with Vesper - and if she gives him any trouble afterwards he’ll just quit the Service and travel the world. Which is probably what Bond would have done without the war and if he hadn’t ended up in intelligence. As a student he had been going on Alpine tours and later, when Drax loses a small fortune to him, briefly thinks of making a mint with shares and retire. Bond was always imagined as a guy living the high life (doing the Cresta run would at least involve being on friendly terms with that set, guys like Gianni Agnelli, Gunter Sachs and Paul Gallico). Not necessarily as rich, but certainly on first name terms, as we would expect from someone who ‘once dabbled on the fringes of the racing world’.
