Great video montage of how Brosnan became Bond

[BrosnanIsBond007]

I'm betting this guy's commentary videos have been posted on this site before, but I just recently found this and thought it was a great build up to Brosnan finally getting the Bond role in 1994, 8 years after it was initially offered to him (but he was screwed by NBC w/Remington Steele). I got goosebumps the first time I watched it.

Interestingly, his next video, a lengthy review of 'Goldeneye', is largely negative and mostly involves him complaining that Dalton should have kept the role, and that Brosnan is weak, making biased complaints about plot, characters, action, etc. He makes a few good points, but the majority of it is so unnecessarily negative that it turned me off from the rest of his videos, but I still think this one is amazing.

[stockslivevan]

Not surprisingly, I agree with a lot of his reviews. I don't see GE in the same negative light as him, but I do know plenty that have their reasons even if I disagree with them. I think his criticism of TWINE is spot on, being story with a lot of potential but utterly compromised by the film being slavish to formula and that it's simply not well constructed (like having Bond and Elektra in bed out of the blue).

[The Saint 007]

Yeah, I've seen that guy's Bond reviews. Although he does a pretty good job at making these videos, I don't always agree with everything he says. I haven't watched his Connery/Lazenby related videos yet, but I have seen his Moore, Dalton, Brosnan videos, and his recent Casino Royale videos. And believe me, if you were turned off by the GoldenEye videos, than It's probably best that you don't watch his other Brosnan related videos, especially Die Another Day, because he really goes on a Brosnan bashing spree. Even when I just recently watched his Casino Royale videos (which he refers to as "The Craig Reconstruction" ) he still takes shots at Brosnan. I was constantly rolling my eyes during the videos. I mean fine, we get the point that you hate Brosnan, but most of the things you're bashing him for are NOT EVEN HIS FAULT!

I always say that Brosnan had much more potential as Bond than what was shown, but the producers/filmmakers really messed things up for him. I love GoldenEye, and I think it's Brosnan's best Bond film. Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough are just okay, and I don't care too much for Die Another Day. But overall, I rank Brosnan as my third favourite Bond, and I think things would have been so much better had he been given better content to work with. I believe Brosnan himself has said that he wasn't too pleased with how his Bond career turned out.

The Roger Moore videos also have a certain amount of bias and unnecessary negativity, that kind of annoyed me as well. I know everyone has their own opinions, and I respect that. But if you start making childish jabs like how Moore and Brosnan would lose in a fight against the other Bonds, or bashing a particular Bond actor for things that are beyond his control, that's where I have to draw the line.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

Dalton looked mousey, Brosnan would have made a beter Bond? Did thay fella even see Brosnan in the 1980's, obviously not.

[FormerBondFan]

The Roger Moore videos also have a certain amount of bias and unnecessary negativity, that kind of annoyed me as well. I know everyone has their own opinions, and I respect that. But if you start making childish jabs like how Moore and Brosnan would lose in a fight against the other Bonds, or bashing a particular Bond actor for things that are beyond his control, that's where I have to draw the line.

The bashings of Moore I can understand since he had control of what he wants....which is injecting loads of humor in Bond. As for Pierce bashings, this I will never understand, considering that he got the rap for the things he had absolute no control over.

[The Saint 007]

The Roger Moore videos also have a certain amount of bias and unnecessary negativity, that kind of annoyed me as well. I know everyone has their own opinions, and I respect that. But if you start making childish jabs like how Moore and Brosnan would lose in a fight against the other Bonds, or bashing a particular Bond actor for things that are beyond his control, that's where I have to draw the line.

The bashings of Moore I can understand since he had control of what he wants....which is injecting loads of humor in Bond. As for Pierce bashings, this will never understand, considering that he got the rap for the things he had absolute no control over.

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that Moore had control of everything when it came to the humorous aspects of his Bond films. Yes, Moore did want play a light-hearted Bond, but things like Sheriff J.W Pepper, Jaws getting a girlfriend, and so on, were not Moore's ideas. Even the slide whistle in The Man With The Golden Gun was John Barry's idea, which he apparently regretted doing afterwards. Since I sort of have a campy sense of humour myself, I don't mind the silly shenanigans in Moore's Bond films. But at the same time, I understand why some people may not be into that sort of thing. I just don't like it when people blame Moore for certain flaws in the films, or all of the silly humour. The filmmakers catered to the humour because it was Moore's personal strength and style, understandably. However, Moore himself did not brainstorm all the humorous ideas to add in the films, but there are some people who like to put the full blame on him as if he actually did. And don't even get me started with those forum punks who constanly poke fun at Moore because he wasn't violent and hardcore enough.

The same nonsense goes on with Brosnan. He has no control of the casting, directors, script, CGI effects, etc. but some people will still put the blame on him for everything as if he was making the films himself. I've even heard that the producers blamed Brosnan for the negative criticisms of Die Another Day. I'm not too sure if that's actually true or not, but if it is true, then the producers should be ashamed of themselves. And like Moore, Brosnan also gets his share of bashing by the forum punks who think he's too pretty and not hardcore enough. It's ridiculous.

[FormerBondFan]

The same nonsense goes on with Brosnan. He has no control of the casting, directors, script, CGI effects, etc. but some people will still put the blame on him for everything as if he was making the films himself. I've even heard that the producers blamed Brosnan for the negative criticisms of Die Another Day. I'm not too sure if that's actually true or not, but if it is true, then the producers should be ashamed of themselves. And like Moore, Brosnan also gets his share of bashing by the forum punks who think he's too pretty and not hardcore enough. It's ridiculous.

But unlike Rog, Pierce wanted a much darker Bond.

[The Saint 007]

The same nonsense goes on with Brosnan. He has no control of the casting, directors, script, CGI effects, etc. but some people will still put the blame on him for everything as if he was making the films himself. I've even heard that the producers blamed Brosnan for the negative criticisms of Die Another Day. I'm not too sure if that's actually true or not, but if it is true, then the producers should be ashamed of themselves. And like Moore, Brosnan also gets his share of bashing by the forum punks who think he's too pretty and not hardcore enough. It's ridiculous.

But unlike Rog, Pierce wanted a much darker Bond.

I know, but since the dark tone of Licence To Kill wasn't very well received by audiences, the producers went for a more balanced approach for GoldenEye. Even if Dalton would have stayed, it still would have been that way. And perhaps the TV series Remington Steele also played a part in how the producers wanted Brosnan to play Bond. But after Die Another Day, I honestly thought that Brosnan would return in a more serious and down-to-earth Bond film, just like Moore did after Moonraker. Unfortunately, it never happened. Some people will say that Brosnan was already starting to look old in Die Another Day and couldn't play Bond any longer, but I hardly think that's the case. Craig looks far older, and yet he's still allowed to continue playing Bond for who knows how long.

[FormerBondFan]

The same nonsense goes on with Brosnan. He has no control of the casting, directors, script, CGI effects, etc. but some people will still put the blame on him for everything as if he was making the films himself. I've even heard that the producers blamed Brosnan for the negative criticisms of Die Another Day. I'm not too sure if that's actually true or not, but if it is true, then the producers should be ashamed of themselves. And like Moore, Brosnan also gets his share of bashing by the forum punks who think he's too pretty and not hardcore enough. It's ridiculous.

But unlike Rog, Pierce wanted a much darker Bond.

I know, but since the dark tone of Licence To Kill wasn't very well received by audiences, the producers went for a more balanced approach for GoldenEye. Even if Dalton would have stayed, it still would have been that way. And perhaps the TV series Remington Steele also played a part in how the producers wanted Brosnan to play Bond. But after Die Another Day, I honestly thought that Brosnan would return in a more serious and down-to-earth Bond film, just like Moore did after Moonraker. Unfortunately, it never happened. Some people will say that Brosnan was already starting to look old in Die Another Day and couldn't play Bond any longer, but I hardly think that's the case. Craig looks far older, and yet he's still allowed to continue playing Bond for who knows how long.

I haven't seen The Fourth Protocol yet, but I read that he played the part the movie much darker than any of the roles he had played in his career.

And not all of LTK is dark though. There are parts that are very funny, especially when Tim's Bond tells Pam to "switch the bloody machine off" and when Q tells Pam not to mess with his toys.

[The Saint 007]

The same nonsense goes on with Brosnan. He has no control of the casting, directors, script, CGI effects, etc. but some people will still put the blame on him for everything as if he was making the films himself. I've even heard that the producers blamed Brosnan for the negative criticisms of Die Another Day. I'm not too sure if that's actually true or not, but if it is true, then the producers should be ashamed of themselves. And like Moore, Brosnan also gets his share of bashing by the forum punks who think he's too pretty and not hardcore enough. It's ridiculous.

But unlike Rog, Pierce wanted a much darker Bond.

I know, but since the dark tone of Licence To Kill wasn't very well received by audiences, the producers went for a more balanced approach for GoldenEye. Even if Dalton would have stayed, it still would have been that way. And perhaps the TV series Remington Steele also played a part in how the producers wanted Brosnan to play Bond. But after Die Another Day, I honestly thought that Brosnan would return in a more serious and down-to-earth Bond film, just like Moore did after Moonraker. Unfortunately, it never happened. Some people will say that Brosnan was already starting to look old in Die Another Day and couldn't play Bond any longer, but I hardly think that's the case. Craig looks far older, and yet he's still allowed to continue playing Bond for who knows how long.

I haven't seen The Fourth Protocol yet, but I read that he played the part the movie much darker than any of the roles he had played in his career.

And not all of LTK is dark though. There are parts that are very funny, especially when Tim's Bond tells Pam to "switch the bloody machine off" and when Q tells Pam not to mess with his toys.

Well, perhaps Brosnan would have been more confortable with a more serious portrayal to Bond. But when you consider how Brosnan was in the Remington Steele TV series, you would figure that he would be perfect for a more light-hearted Bond. But like I said before, the content Brosnan had to work with was the biggest issue.

Speaking of Remington Steele, I was actually considering to buy the series on DVD as another alternative to Bond. I will admitt, however, that I've only seen a handful of episodes on TV years ago, so I don't quite remember the show too well. I'll either have to watch some episodes on YouTube, or borrow the DVDs from my cousin, before I decide to buy the series myself.

I completely agree with you on Licence To Kill, there certainly was some humorous moments in the film to help lighten things up.

[BrosnanIsBond007]

I know, but since the dark tone of Licence To Kill wasn't very well received by audiences, the producers went for a more balanced approach for GoldenEye. Even if Dalton would have stayed, it still would have been that way. And perhaps the TV series Remington Steele also played a part in how the producers wanted Brosnan to play Bond. But after Die Another Day, I honestly thought that Brosnan would return in a more serious and down-to-earth Bond film, just like Moore did after Moonraker. Unfortunately, it never happened. Some people will say that Brosnan was already starting to look old in Die Another Day and couldn't play Bond any longer, but I hardly think that's the case. Craig looks far older, and yet he's still allowed to continue playing Bond for who knows how long.

That would have made for a great 5th Brosnan Bond film I think, if it was a little darker, and maybe Bond's age would come into question within the story. It needed to go more in that direction after DAD. Then his 6th one could've sent Brosnan out with a bang, go back to a Goldeneye-like formula, action all over the place. That's what I would've done, anyway

[The Sweeney]

I think some of the criticism leveled at Brozza is fair game. I'm sure the actors had some influence over the direction of their films. Dalton definitely influenced the producers to go down the Fleming route, and I'm sure Moore's flippant humour in real life played a part in his films being less serious. I think Moore had issues playing Bond too tough and dark (the scene in question in FYEO, when Moore has to kick the car over the cliff - apparently he didn't want to do that scene).

With Brosnan, he never once went on interviews talking about the Fleming side to Bond. It was always about the action and gadgets. He saw Q as a Merlin figure. Brosnan embraced the cinematic character and totally ignored the Fleming one. He saw Bond as a super hero, and his films reflected that.

[BrosnanIsBond007]

I think some of the criticism leveled at Brozza is fair game. I'm sure the actors had some influence over the direction of their films. Dalton definitely influenced the producers to go down the Fleming route, and I'm sure Moore's flippant humour in real life played a part in his films being less serious. I think Moore had issues playing Bond too tough and dark (the scene in question in FYEO, when Moore has to kick the car over the cliff - apparently he didn't want to do that scene).

With Brosnan, he never once went on interviews talking about the Fleming side to Bond. It was always about the action and gadgets. He saw Q as a Merlin figure. Brosnan embraced the cinematic character and totally ignored the Fleming one. He saw Bond as a super hero, and his films reflected that.

That's true for the most part, but he has said in interviews that he wanted more creative control in what would have been his 5th film, and wanted to go darker with it. He even says in the press conference where he is announced as the new Bond that he wants to explore the character's "inner demons", which they didn't really do in the 4 films he was in. The 5th film would've been a great time to do it.

[The Sweeney]

I think some of the criticism leveled at Brozza is fair game. I'm sure the actors had some influence over the direction of their films. Dalton definitely influenced the producers to go down the Fleming route, and I'm sure Moore's flippant humour in real life played a part in his films being less serious. I think Moore had issues playing Bond too tough and dark (the scene in question in FYEO, when Moore has to kick the car over the cliff - apparently he didn't want to do that scene).

With Brosnan, he never once went on interviews talking about the Fleming side to Bond. It was always about the action and gadgets. He saw Q as a Merlin figure. Brosnan embraced the cinematic character and totally ignored the Fleming one. He saw Bond as a super hero, and his films reflected that.

That's true for the most part, but he has said in interviews that he wanted more creative control in what would have been his 5th film, and wanted to go darker with it. He even says in the press conference where he is announced as the new Bond that he wants to explore the character's "inner demons", which they didn't really do in the 4 films he was in. The 5th film would've been a great time to do it.

I'd like to have seen a darker Bond with Brozza in, as I felt he never really gave a good account of himself in the 4 movies he was in (particularly DAD).
Much of his acting to me was OTT, far too much for the introvert character of the novels. This is where Craig has really nailed the character, IMO. Brozza was a little too flamboyant in his emotional portrayal. Many often make fun of Brozza's pain face, which I too had issues with. Bond should be played slightly low key in expressing himself, but with a bit of macho swagger on the surface - Connery and Craig nailed this perfectly.

Dalton had a real good grasp of the Fleming character too. Think of the moment Sanchez discovers who Bond really is, and starts questioning him. Bond remains silent until he is thrown onto the conveyor belt. That to me was the essence of Fleming's Bond.

Even Moore occassionally grasped Fleming's Bond. The centrifuge scene in MR was a perfect example. Moore steps out of that near death trap dishevelled and disorientated, but never looking OTT. He downplayed it brilliantly.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

A 6th Brosnan Bond? Oh good god no.

[The Saint 007]

This same guy also does a video series called The Bond Blueprint, which goes over the old-school Bond formula in great detail. I thought those videos were pretty good.

[BrosnanIsBond007]

A 6th Brosnan Bond? Oh good god no.

Well not like Die Another Day, but a 5th Brosnan Bond with a darker turn and a 6th that's got really solid action (not as ridiculous as DAD) in the vein of Goldeneye would've been awesome.

[FormerBondFan]

A 6th Brosnan Bond? Oh good god no.

Well not like Die Another Day, but a 5th Brosnan Bond with a darker turn and a 6th that's got really solid action (not as ridiculous as DAD) in the vein of Goldeneye would've been awesome.

I would make the 6th Brosnan Bond the darkest (with character development) while still keeping it solid action. This is what I call going out with a bang as saving the best the last.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

A 6th Brosnan Bond? Oh good god no.

Well not like Die Another Day, but a 5th Brosnan Bond with a darker turn and a 6th that's got really solid action (not as ridiculous as DAD) in the vein of Goldeneye would've been awesome.

A 5th & 6th Brosnan film would have brought in money, but they would have been as by the numbers box ticking as his first 4 Bonds. Just imagine it, an even more out of shape Brosnan than he was in DAD. Thanks, but no thanks.

He had 4 chances to make something of Bond, and he lucked out each time, so I wouldn't waste the resources of 2 more films on him.

[Kristatos]

I think a 6th film would have been overstretching it, but I'd like to have seen a non-reboot CR with Pierce as Bond.