Location: Pierce Brosnan

Discussion: What if Brosnan started in 1986?Reported This is a featured thread

Showing 3 posts

Posted Anonymously
What if Brosnan started in 1986?
Dec 20 2010, 5:58 AM EST | Post edited: Dec 20 2010, 5:58 AM EST
It was in the 11th hour when Brosnan almost got the Bond role but he lost it to Timothy Dalton, due to his contract to Remington Steele. Could you imagine if Brosnan started Bond in 1986, from TLD, LTK, up to Bond 23, (even the canceled 1991 Bond film TPOAL)? ? We've imagined Sean Connery played Bond until 1985. So we have only two long Bond eras in the franchise. Sean Connery (1962-1985) and Pierce Brosnan (1986-2012). 2  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
Keyword tags: None
1. RE: What if Brosnan started in 1986?
Dec 20 2010, 10:06 AM EST | Post edited: Dec 20 2010, 10:06 AM EST
I have thought about this before and this is what I think:

I think that I wouldn't have minded having Brosnan be Bond in1987 but I think he probably should have ended in 2005 instead of 2012 because he would have been too old. I also would like to think that they could have done DAD better and they also could have fit another movie in there before CR came out.

Brosnan wasn't a bad Bond at all, I enjoyed all his movies even though his last one was just crazy lame.

I think that I would also miss the Tim Dalton experience if he wasn't Bond though.. I mean he was already cut short on his time as Bond.

ALSO while we are on the subject of imagining Bond timelines I like to image what it would have been like to see Moore in OHMSS and DAF which I think he could have made DAF better like TSWLM style. OHMSS I think they could have made that movie seriously with Moore like FYEO.Just imagine Moore with Tracy in OHMSS and then seeing him 12 years later in FYEO putting flowers on her grave! It could have been awesome :]
Do you find this valuable?    
2. RE: What if Brosnan started in 1986?
Dec 20 2010, 4:24 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 20 2010, 4:25 PM EST
I'm not sure if this would've worked to be honest.

If you look at Brosnan's Bond performance, he is somewhat like Roger Moore (not quite as rough around the edges as Connery/Craig but a bit more suave and lighthearted).
Having 2 similar Bonds one after the other would lead to unfair comparisons, I like the fact that Dalton was between Moore and Brosnan because he was different than they were and gave a darker, more Fleming-y interpretation.

I think it is important that each Bond actor is different from the last because it makes them stand out more. Moore, Dalton. Brosnan and Craig all shine in the Bond role because they don't try to emulate their immediate predecessors.
Do you find this valuable?