In Family Business, he, Dustin Hoffman and Matthew Broderick make the most unconvincing 3 generations of men in one family.
And in North by Northwest she played HIS mum!
I always accepted the "We gave Dalton a soft way out" version of the story.
But I don't think they did any such thing for Brosnan, did they? And that was after four of the most successful Bonds of all time.
I don't think they necessarily owed Brosnan a fifth film. I do think they probably did owe him a nicer way of saying his services would no longer be required! Didn't they just call him and say "You're out"?
I do think a version of Casino Royale as Bond's last mission rather than one of his first could have worked.
I do think a version of Casino Royale as Bond's last mission rather than one of his first could have worked.
Brosnan definitely had one more movie in him but what with Bourne (and even to a lesser degree xXx - remember the scene where the guy with the tux comes a cropper early on?) making 007 look a little passé, I can understand why Eon felt it was time for a refresh. Plus wasn’t he supposedly looking for mad money to do another movie? (Again, all depends on who you believe)
He was over 50 by the time they cut him loose, he was born in 1953. If a fifth film had come out circa 2006 he'd have been around 53. I'd agree he looked better at that age than Craig but The Matador showed he could do burned out.
Re Craig it's been nearer 7 years since he filmed his last scene!
I’m belatedly seeing social media posts from yesterday, which was apparently the 40th anniversary of the official announcement that Timothy Dalton was the 4th Eon James Bond.
If you include NSNA (as you should, among others because it references the US President and the WH specifically), Reagan has a record of five Bonds.
And also kinda remarkable that there was no Bond film in either Trump eras (so far).
Again, Thatcher gets an extra Bond via Never Say Never Again, so its seven Bond films in total (there's even a picture of her in frame in M's office, in fact). Wowzers.
Technically Connery left on his own terms after NSNA, cause he willingly came for that, and made a ton of money from it (though Taliafilm played hard to get to get that money, but anyway). Schwatzman did ask him in 1984 if he'd consider an eighth one, as Jack had the option but Connery said no, and Schartzman never optioned, which McClory obviously didn't (but who cares).
That said, I'm not sure I buy into "Moore leaving into his own terms" shtick. He kept saying since before FYEO that he was too old for the part and he was done, until Cubby made him an offer every time that brought him back for more. If, if AVTAK had done a ton of money (instead of underperforming compared to not only FYEO and OP, but NSNA as well), you can bet Moore could and even would have been back.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Lazenby did ask Cubby to do one more Bond, in 1970/71. A major reason why DAF looks rushed as it is is because it was filmed and released fairly close to UA making an exclusive deal with Connery to return for the one Bond movie, but before then, there was talk of replacing Lazenby with other actors. But George did have a meeting with Cubby who told he'd "come back to (him)". Obviously, he never did.
Point is, he thoughtlessly burned bridges that prevented him, even if he'd wanted to, to return. Its why the UA rumor that they "fired the star (Lazenby)" isn't entirely inaccurate - had Saltzman and Cubby had the final say, they might've given Lazenby one last shot.
Very true all that, but a few notes: MGM/UA wanted Dalton replaced during development of GE, not the Broccolis. Cubby asked Dalton personally to come back but not for the one, as he was contractually obligated, but for at least three more (meaning the entirety of the 90's most likely), which was not a prospect that excited Dalton. However, Cubby wanted Dalton to tell him "yes, I will stay for three or so more Bond films" so that he could take that commitment back to the negotiating table, as the Broccolis really fought to keep Dalton. They were loyal to him to a fault, and they relented less because Cubby himself wasn't at his prime (although he probably could've done more effect if he were younger, probably) but also because Tim just didn't want to become Bond to become a long-running gig for him like it was for Roger.
Correct, If it was up to him, he'd have done GE and walked. But MGM/UA argued that bringing back Dalton only for one and then reintroduce the character again in the next one after spending so much energy getting GE made didn't make sense to them, and Cubby agreed with them actually.
As I said, if AVTAK did incredibly well, Moore would more than likely had been the lead for TLD. At the end of the day, it was a financial decision.
As for Brosnan... Well, no actor is owed anything, its a gig and unless contractually obliged, its not yours to handle. But what happened with him was that he was asked to come back, and negotiations were underway for a contract. So he was in the run during as late as summer of 2004, which quite a way after DAD was released when the Broccolis suddenly decide to make the gamble of rebooting Bond with a new actor. I do sympathize with Brosnan, however, because he always wanted to take Bond to the edge in a way Dalton had with LTK, and he sorta did with TWINE, but he was actually interested in delving into the more interesting parts of CR, which he'd read and memorized during that and the previous year in prep. If you focus on Brosnan throughout DAD, you can see his committmnt in a Bond who is completely consumed whilst on the mission, and you can extrapolate from that a genuine desire for a movie to reflect his performance, unlike what DAD turned out to be, and I feel bad that he didn't go out on a note of his choosing, especially after he originally lost the part because of greedy executive decision by NBC anyway.
In any case, to me his performance in The November Man gives a decent glimpse into how he'd have wanted his final Bond performrance to have been like. And frankly, if he had done it, it'd have been spectacular IMO. Speaking of which....
I dunno, I've grown to the idea that Connery in The Rock really is James Bond. I like the idea, though that still doesn't make it a James Bond movie - just an action movie with James Bond in it.
Not that remarkable. If they hadn't delayed the release there would very likely have been no Bonds during Biden's term. It's looking very likely that in the period of 12 years there will have been one Bond film.
Then we need to add Casino Royale and bump LBJ's total by 1.
Except Die Another Day DID do incredibly well and they booted Brosnan. DAD was his highest grossing film. He was being called "The Billion Dollar Man" at the time. Then he was let go.
I just read someone's take on the end of the Brosnan era as saying with the advent of the Bourne films that "the era of invisible cars and CG parachutes was at an end".
That was ONE FILM! And it was the dumbest one (by a LOT) that Brosnan made!
I mean it as a sort of coincidence. But yeah, 12 years since Spectre with only one Bond out is not great.
I mean, no, cause its a parody. We don't need to state that NSNA is by all accounts a serious Bond thriller, do we?
Because they wanted to go clean slate and go reboot route, which was very popular at the time - in fact, the "reboot" term entered movie lexicon exactly with the release of films like CR and Batman Begins.
Basically, these two situations are entirely different. Cubby kept bringing Moore back because he was still a viable box office draw as Bond, and any recasting would be riskier than casting an assuredly beneficial choice Its why he brought Moore back for both FYEO and OP, particularly in the latter as Connery was going to come to the Bond movie you avoid talking about in your posts.
I do remember reading that Tamahori and the Broccolis went to a screening of Bourne Identity, and him this is the future of spy action thrillers, but I really don't know if Tamahori should be credited with the idea of a new direction.
Eh, still better than QOS, and by a mile (though when DAD was silly, it was really silly). But for my money, the first hour or so, before Bond goes to Iceland, is every bit as good as any of Brosnan's other three.
Thing is with DAD, it's the same as Moonraker, irrespective of how well the films do, the producers realised they'd possibly gone too far and made the conscious decision that the next film should be more grounded. Obviously in the case of FYEO they went with the incumbent Bond for that gritter film, whereas in the case of CR they decided it was a good time to switch Bonds.
And actually come to think of it you can see a parallel with the 60s. You Only Live Twice upped the levels of ridiculous and the next film was the far more grounded OHMSS. They changed Bonds but obviously this wasn't there choice, Connery chose to leave.
And actually come to think of it you can see a parallel with the 60s. You Only Live Twice upped the levels of ridiculous and the next film was the far more grounded OHMSS. They changed Bonds but obviously this wasn't there choice, Connery chose to leave.
Yeah, if they had their way, Connery would've done all the Bond films based on the books.
You are absolutely correct. I may have said here before (I've been saying it for 20+ years) that The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day are four films. TWINE alternates between two films, DAD has one for the first half and another for the second. And the second one is BAD.
It is interesting how many Bonds are films of two halves. I still maintain that whilst the first half of QoS is an unholy mess, the film settles down nicely once Bond is in Bolivia and I really like the latter half.
The first time I saw Spectre I remember thinking it was great, but then everything after Austria happened and my opinion nosedived (and in hindsight even some of the stuff I'd liked earlier in the film I'm more critical of now--the world's least dramatic car chase for example).
I really like the first half of LTK, but whilst I enjoy the latter half, seeing Bond manipulate Sanchez and skulk around to bring him down from within is far more enjoyable than the crash bang wallop of the finale (for me at least)
The first time I saw Spectre I remember thinking it was great, but then everything after Austria happened and my opinion nosedived (and in hindsight even some of the stuff I'd liked earlier in the film I'm more critical of now--the world's least dramatic car chase for example).
I really like the first half of LTK, but whilst I enjoy the latter half, seeing Bond manipulate Sanchez and skulk around to bring him down from within is far more enjoyable than the crash bang wallop of the finale (for me at least)
I saw it once. But if I remember rightly, that was one of those movies (like The Amazing Spider-Man or Thor: The Dark World) where I was all in on the protagonist and really enjoyed the story (esp. Bond and M) but I could not give a flying about the "plot" or the villain. The actual plot, AFAIC, is Bond dealing with events of Casino Royale. Everything else is the writers saying "But... It HAS to have a Bond villain!"
Similar threads
