Brosnan in Skyfall: Could it have worked?

Skyfall: Professional choices come back to haunt both Bond and M as they question their place at MI6 and tackle a demented, expert cyberterrorist. 



This is simply a 'what if' discussion. As is stands, Skyfall is an excellent Bond film. Feels positively Flemingesque (particularly similar to a latter Fleming novel) in its writing and expertly crafted by a deft team. Skyfall comes third in Craig's era; Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace two parts to the same narrative - the Bond at the beginning of his career as a 00 agent, while the 2012 film shows Bond over the hill. Which is where this idea comes into play. 

It's about poignancy, but I'll back up a little. 

The jump between the CR/QOS Bond to SF is a big one, and one not lost on fans and the general movie goers, either. Looking at the relationship between Bond and M based solely on Craig's era, I too would probably risk his life during the mission in Turkey in order to put Bond down. The trouble caused by Bond between humiliating MI6 by shooting up an embassy, losing a vital lead in the bomb-maker (which would prevent a lot more stupidity to come), breaking into M's apartment, having an older ally tortured for no good reason and, to wrap it up quickly in the words of M, "killing every possible lead" as well as the extraneous collateral damage in losing Solange, Vesper, Fields, Mathis, the special branch agent, Slate, Mitchell, etc. brings MI6 to the forefront of each and every assignment Bond has ventured into. It's true that SF is intended to be a standalone mission, and it is certainly how I view it, but in retrospect, as SP is forcing us to view Craig's assignments, it doesn't work. 

Looking at Brosnan's era, Bond and M earn each other's respect by the end of the Goldeneye briefing. Successfully completing his mission in GE, we soon have M who backs Bond 100% by the TND PTS ("What the hell is he doing?" / "His job."). Contrast that to QOS where, for example, Bond doesn't feel an obligation to tell M what really happened to the special branch agent, nor does she give him the benefit of the doubt. Come TWINE, and she entrusts him with a more personal assignment. In DAD, she even gives him the time of day to see him after his release despite the evidence suggesting he leaked information, which says something about their dynamic in that she trusts him, and feels he wouldn't have betrayed MI6 knowingly ("with the drugs they were giving you, you wouldn't know what you did or didn't say"). Imagine the pay off in Skyfall when we see a genuinely older Brosnan cradling M as she dies, having been through much more together than Craig-Bond. 

And let's be honest, Brosnan still looked youthful enough in 2012. Or, rather, youthful enough to play an ageing spy. Dye his grey hair and I'd buy it:



And imagine the possibilities of returning cast in SF. 

I imagine it would still play out similarly in the PTS. If they wanted Naomie Harris as a Bond girl, this would still play out the same. And it would make more sense for Bond to actually know her name in the PTS - not find out at the end of the film. Or, if Brosnan still wanted Keira Knightley, she could have played the role of Eve instead of Harris. Either way it would leave Samantha Bond to return in what could be her final outing, and rid of Moneypenny's origins as a field agent. So Eve as played by Harris/Knightley would shoot at Bond instead of Moneypenny, and we've opened up a new Bond girl role in SF - an incompetent MI6 agent, a new girl on the job, thematically fitting into the narrative, too. 

Everything still plays out similarly, though with Tanner played by Michael Kitchen, who I imagine would be much more sympathetic than judgemental than Rory Kinnear's portrayal (i.e. imagine the change of delivery in "We could do this later..." during Bond's physical tests). This would further continue their dynamic in Fleming's novels as pals, and not as M's toyboy started in QOS. Perhaps at this point, the sole scene that would need a little more rewriting would be the Q scene, with the Quartermaster played by John Cleese. It still could take place in the gallery, but there wouldn't be an introduction between the two.

Shanghai could play out the same, as could Macau for most part. There would be no doubt that Bond bangs Eve since there would be no smoke and mirrors around whether Bond and Moneypenny have had sex. Or, if Eve is relegated to MI6 (assuming Harris/Knightley wouldn't be in the role, since it would be a smaller part), I toyed with the idea of Wai Lin returning here. He contacts her in Shanghai at the bar while waiting for Patrice's flight details (or perhaps she meets him there), and then joins him in Macau and takes the position of Eve. 

From here until the end, everything will more or less be the same. Samantha Bond Moneypenny wouldn't have to be at the public enquiry, but can appear at the end when Bond meets Mallory's M as it happens in the film. Eve can still participate in the shootout at the enquiry. John Cleese dealing with Silva's escape would be interesting, and I suppose the old vs new motif could still be explored with Q not keeping up with cyberterrorism and making the mistake of connecting Silva's booby trapped hard drive and causing his release. 

And M's trust in Bond as he takes her to Scotland would be well founded. The very film before shows M chastising Bond for jeopardising missions ("I want you to take your ego out...") and the safety of others ("How many is that now?") so her trust in him is curious. However, with Brosnan in the role, there would be a poignancy at play ("knowing who to trust is everything in this business"). If she is going to trust anyone it would be the person she had trusted 100% in previous missions, sans the opening of DAD, but he was set up, and she was simply following protocol ("along with my freedom?" / "for as long as I deem necessary, yes"). 

Perhaps this could have even been Brosnan's penultimate film, with his tenure looking something like this:

Goldeneye
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Die Another Day
Casino Royale
Skyfall
Shatterhand

If we look at Fleming's novels, he lost his true love in OHMSS, making a mess of assignments within the 8 months between Tracy's death and before setting out for the impossible mission in Japan. So, perhaps the last three films of Brosnan's hypothetical era could have played out similarly: Bond loses Vesper in a faithful adaptation of CR (SPECTRE substituting SMERSH), SF is the mission where Bond's psyche is struggling to cope with losing Vesper, coupled with the effects of ageing in a modern world (which would have been a much more effective follow up than QOS. And let's face it, Bond doesn't truly succeed in SF like he does in other films). This, in turn, would be like one of the assignments Bond makes a mess of during the 8 months between Fleming's OHMSS and YOLT. Then a faithful adaptation of YOLT would take place where Bond can visit Japan and the Garden of Death. 

Of course, this is a romantic idea from a fan pissed off with the climate of Bond films, feeling Brosnan was cheated and nothing could be done to change this. But could it have happened? Should it have happened? Would it have been better?

I hated Skyfall so badly with a passion like I have everything since 2006, but all your points are not only what ifs but solid improvements in my book. Of course it didn't help in the theater that not even a minute in and we're off to an awful start with that entrance of Bond shot and the plot device of the NOC List from Mission:Impossible. (M:I is a masterwork when you really look hard at it.)

I don't quite know if a CR adaptation within the continuity after DAD would have worked outside of a heavily OHMSS styled version with older 007 which would dovetail in nicely with this proposed Skyfall re-version. you'd just have to flip the young almost fully Bond-ed 007 of the novel into worn out 007 in the same situation.

Absolutely there should have been a fifth film for PB after DAD instead of the usual wait, legal wrangling etc. instead of jumping ship all of a sudden because Bourne Supremacy made a little bit of money, some people were far too easily impressed and the Internet was poking a large amount of fun at DAD. Cough-It's not like the film wasn't wildly successful!-Cough

Nah.

He was in Skyfall. It was called TWINE, and I liked him in it just fine.

Brosnan had a great run. Might've been shorter than people were expecting, but the upside is that he went out on top with a big box office smash.

hegottheboot wrote:

I hated Skyfall so badly with a passion like I have everything since 2006, but all your points are not only what ifs but solid improvements in my book. Of course it didn't help in the theater that not even a minute in and we're off to an awful start with that entrance of Bond shot and the plot device of the NOC List from Mission:Impossible. (M:I is a masterwork when you really look hard at it.)

I don't quite know if a CR adaptation within the continuity after DAD would have worked outside of a heavily OHMSS styled version with older 007 which would dovetail in nicely with this proposed Skyfall re-version. you'd just have to flip the young almost fully Bond-ed 007 of the novel into worn out 007 in the same situation.

Absolutely there should have been a fifth film for PB after DAD instead of the usual wait, legal wrangling etc. instead of jumping ship all of a sudden because Bourne Supremacy made a little bit of money, some people were far too easily impressed and the Internet was poking a large amount of fun at DAD. Cough-It's not like the film wasn't wildly successful!-Cough

I don't hate Skyfall. I think it's a brilliantly crafted film let down by the lead actor and the score. I actually quite like the opening, though there is no reason why the gun barrel would not have worked. 



One of the improvements would be that Brosnan's CR would omit the ridiculous origin story that Eon forced on us with Craig's film. And I say this, as you know, since Fleming's novel doesn't refer to it being his first mission or that Bond is a 00. Sure he recounts how he got the 00 status, but it doesn't mean it's his first mission since. Brosnan's CR would focus on developing a tangible, believable relationship between Bond and Vesper, as opposed to relying on plot contrivances and 180 degree flips in character arcs. Brosnan's CR would also focus on the villain's plot (as it stands now, CR06 attempts to juggle too many narrative threads, all of which suffer). So I think that CR would have slipped in as merely another mission, all the more fitting considering he decides to quit the service, which would be high time after the events of DAD anyway. 

Grav wrote:

He was in Skyfall. It was called TWINE, and I liked him in it just fine. 

Brosnan had a great run. Might've been shorter than people were expecting, but the upside is that he went out on top with a big box office smash.

As do I, and perhaps it might have been too much that Dench's M is directly linked to two attacks on MI6. However, that would play an interesting part in Skyfall anyway, considering it questions her competency. 

Brosnan indeed had a great run, and yes it was shorter than many expected. But I doubt that any subsequent films after DAD would have meant lesser box office returns, especially considering CR is an adaptation of a novel - the first time that would have happened in decades. Brosnan was always going to have good results at the box office.

I don't think so. A seasoned Brosnan, getting on in years might just pull it off. I think QOS is a better fit. Simply on account of the film. Though there is that link to Brosnan and Dench. Personally think his Bond had his M moment with the scene on the ship early in DAD.

Perhaps it could've worked. There was something a bit jarring about Craig-Bond going from hothead rookie to ageing glue factory resident in the space of a film.

CJB wrote:

Perhaps it could've worked. There was something a bit jarring about Craig-Bond going from hothead rookie to ageing glue factory resident in the space of a film.

Exactly. And it's something not lost on the general public either (if they remember QOS, that is). 

Hilly wrote:

I don't think so. A seasoned Brosnan, getting on in years might just pull it off. I think QOS is a better fit. Simply on account of the film. Though there is that link to Brosnan and Dench. Personally think his Bond had his M moment with the scene on the ship early in DAD.

Don't think QOS would be a better fit. The "Bond" of that film was completely different to the Bonds of the past. 

Bond and M had that moment in DAD, which I don't mind to be honest, but the writing and direction was inferior to Skyfall's. But even then, it makes it all the more interesting to see Brosnan's Bond cradling Dench's M having been through those circumstances ("if I had my way you'd still be in North Korea") as opposed to Craig Bond cradling M as she dies after endlessly trying to pull her "elite" agent up.

That picture will haunt me in my nightmares. That looks like a genetic experiment gone wrong. "Thanks"...

I honestly do not think that the Brosnan era and the Craig era can be clipped together because they differ so much in context of style, visualisation, characterisations, story-telling, setting, atmosphere (and I don't mean 009's choice of "New York New York" in the car Bond has stolen in SP which is triggered by the button "atmosphere") etc. etc. etc.
I think we have actually already agreed on this; so there is no need to go into further details. The Brosnan era ends with DAD with a lot of curious machines that can do pretty much everything, a setting which is so orientated towards fantastic, unreal technology that it almost moves away from Bond, only to be followed up by a cycle which increasingly tries to reduce technical, unrealistic gadgets and gives way to a realistic use of technology in form of cyber terrorists and a criminal organisation which tries to launch the ultimate surveillance system (even legally! That is how far we have moved; but this is another story).

First of all, I've already said that I don't think that SF was ever meant to be a standalone mission, but part of the series.
Nor am I too sure if Bond really cradles M. I mean, he sees someone collapse whom he has known for a long time and might have been close to and jumps to her help. He holds her and closes her eyes, yes. But that is kind of a standard procedure. He may feel guilty because he decided to use her for bait.
Now we have to dig deeper into SF. Bond confronts M that she gave order to shoot and risked his life in doing so. But she gives him a rational and logical answer: it was either losing him or losing all the agents on that list. It was a practical decision she had to take, a part of her job. Bond accepts this answer and makes his peace with it. This clears the stage for Silva - who does not accept this logic. M even blames herself for Silva's fate and Bond reassures her that she had only done her job. If they share a moment, it is in this repeated discussion of the nature of their jobs.
This was never about Bond having shot in an embassy or having broken into her apartment. She would have given the same order for every other agent. It was losing one agent or losing many. It was nothing personal, which is one of the major aspects SF hinges on. It serves as fertile ground to contrast Bond and Silva (and their relationship to M and their understanding of their job, their role...her job, her role).

I like the fact that Moneypenny was given a story - who she was before she became M's secretary. And most of all, that girl is so much more than a secretary. She knows about the work Bond does. She has been there. This will give the Moneypenny / Bond relationship a completely new dynamic.

No no no. I love the young Q and the old Bond. Don't take him away. That is brilliant. The jerk, the geek, whatever, he's a stereotype of our age. Successful too young, so he has a mortgage and two cats. He's ambitious and anxious to protect his career at first, only to side with Bond later on. Still trying to understand what life is about and that "right" and "wrong" might not be as easily defined as he had thought. And they need their young genius to decode Silva's cypher as well as hack SPECTRE's surveillance system. Exactly, the old Q can't take on the cyberterrorists! The fact that we face cyberterrorists makes Q more important than ever. At the end of SP, he's their only hope. He's the only man who can do the job. He becomes a man on the field instead of a man in a lab-coat who works in the background.

I somehow don't see how Wai Lin and Sévérine would fit together...

M does not trust in Bond. He kidnaps her.  
He makes clear to her that she's the target and as long as she remains in London everyone is at risk. Enough agents have died because Silva wanted to get at her. This is the motif reversed: the decision is grounded in logic and practical thinking. Nothing personal. No she has to swallow her own bitter pill. If she says she must sacrifice Bond to rescue the agents on that list; she must be ready to play the bait for a madman to prevent further fatalities.

You're equaling Vesper and Tracy, which means throwing two Fleming characters together, the double agent fiancé and his (very ideal) wife. Madelaine is the stronger candidate to become Tracy...she likes the same drink; she's the daughter of an assassin and hence the only one who might understand him (as Blofeld points out); she can shoot a gun. I am pretty sure that something about Japan has leaked for 25...or this is just wishful thinking on my side. But Vesper and Tracy will both be there, I'm pretty sure of that. Tracy is the daughter of a villain who becomes Bond's ally. Do the math. (And fun fact of the day: Who gives Bond the mobile number of Mr White, Madelaine's father? Vesper.)

Brosnan was cheated? If life was fair Timothy Dalton would have the golden typewriter and not Brosnan! Dalton wanted the films to be faithful to Fleming's novels. If anyone was cheated, it would be Dalton!

I think Skyfall was intended to be a standalone - and worked well as such - but they got stupid and lazy with SPRECTUM and so they decided that Silva was working for Bond's step-brother because Marvel has fucking ruined cinema.

Yeah, that's the one aspect I truly hate: Silva as second in command to Blofeld. No, he even isn't, the second in command is C which makes even less sense...
But, after all, their genius hacker mastermind was Silva, so I have a feeling that he must have programmed the surveillance network. Blofeld can't do that, come on. And C is his student, so he can hardly be the better of his master...Silva must be the genius behind this software because it takes Q at least half an hour to get into it. And Q is not wet behind his ears when it comes to hacking...
[Which brings me back to my outlandish theory that Silva is still alive. ]. If you look at those two movies there is much more to them than just meets the eye. That's why I like them. It' the same with Fleming's novels.

What I hate about the idea that SF was not part of the series is the break with CR and QoS. CR ends with finding Mr White; QoS end with finding the conspiracy around Vesper. Those plot-elements clearly belong together. SF is all about an unknown enemy who works in the shadows and we do know that this is not Silva, because his motive is personal. SF opens the stage for a major enemy who works in a hide-out somewhere and threatens the MI 6 in its existence (blowing up the building is a physical demonstration as well as a step in their plan, as M has to defend her actions afterwards). Silva demonstrates how easily the security network of the MI 6 can be attacked and some weeks or months later in SP, it was most surprisingly decided that the 00 section was outdated and should be closed. Silva has paved the way for the 9 eyes protocol. You need all the work of Silva to start SP off. I have read that SF was planned as a back-to-back movie with its successor and that the idea was dismissed. I don't think so. These two are back-to-back movies. SF cannot be a standalone because SP makes no sense without it. It starts with a dead M. If you have not seen her death in SF you would be pretty surprised I assume...

Kath wrote:

 SF is all about an unknown enemy who works in the shadows and we do know that this is not Silva

It is Silva, Kath. I believe Eon is on record with saying that SF is a standalone film (of course this is before SP was announced). 

It is Silva because they didn't know who was behind the attacks. If it was Quantum/SPECTRE they would have suggested it/mentioned it as a possibility in the film.

FieldsMan wrote:

Kath wrote:

 SF is all about an unknown enemy who works in the shadows and we do know that this is not Silva

It is Silva, Kath. I believe Eon is on record with saying that SF is a standalone film (of course this is before SP was announced). 

It is Silva because they didn't know who was behind the attacks. If it was Quantum/SPECTRE they would have suggested it/mentioned it as a possibility in the film.

Fair point.
There are screenplays which are so well written that you only understand them fully when you watch the film twice. I just can't help but interpret these lines in SF differently after having seen SP.
But this is my personal feeling.

I am not exactly impressed by what a production company wants me to believe.  
If the idea to have back-to-back films was dismissed in favour of a standalone, only to decide for a continuation after all, EON would be very chaotic.  It looks to me like they have opted for a film which could work as both a standalone and part of a series. They probably wanted to see how SF would do at the box office. I don't know.

Kath wrote:

If the idea to have back-to-back films was dismissed in favour of a standalone, only to decide for a continuation after all, EON would be very chaotic. 

Therein lies the problem with Craig's era, my friend. Bond "became Bond" in CR, and then they back pedal in QOS to continue Bond's journey of self discovery. IIRC, QOS wasn't originally intended to be a follow up to CR. And with QOS being an extension of the "rookie" Bond of CR, the jump to an ageing, over-the-hill Bond in SF is a stretch. Skyfall amps up the complexity with great success, but this is misinterpreted and abused for SP, resulting in a pseudo-sequel to SF, retconning the entire era, all in all to show Bond become Bond, and then to leave the job? It's all very confused and confusing, and none of what Eon has done since 05 has been planned.

FieldsMan wrote:

Therein lies the problem with Craig's era, my friend.

Is that a compliment or an insult?   Looking at the context I am not so sure...
I have no beef with people who have different opinions and I hope it is the same with you.

FieldsMan wrote:

Bond "became Bond:sarcasm:" in CR, and then they back pedal in QOS to continue Bond's journey of self discovery. IIRC, QOS wasn't originally intended to be a follow up to CR. And with QOS being an extension of the "rookie" Bond of CR, the jump to an ageing, over-the-hill Bond in SF is a stretch. Skyfall amps up the complexity with great success, but this is misinterpreted and abused for SP, resulting in a pseudo-sequel to SF, retconning the entire era, all in all to show Bond become Bond, and then to leave the job? It's all very confused and confusing, and none of what Eon has done since 05 has been planned.

Given the fact that I have just read some months ago that Ben Wishaw was not even approached yet, I sadly have to agree with you. It was a blog entry pointing out that disorganisation was the new way of EON. Give me some days, I will look that one up, too.
I mean, they have a release year and a lead actor...and nothing else!!! I don't want to be negative, but not having a distributor might be something of a downside. Do they want to spread the copies by hand?  
(And now you will hate me, but I have a well founded suspicion that Disney is way closer than you all think. James Bond guest stars the one or other children's series and there is the adorable series Kim Possible. They have the 0; the 0; and the 7 already, obviously).
It looks like EON have panicked after pretty much all media has said in summer during the silly season that Craig would return as Bond. Every second day or so someone would sent me an article "Have you seen this yet?!". I have said so often that it was a canard that I missed the real deal...
Still I refuse to believe that they just throw money "away".

Is this really only me? Every time I watch CR I wonder who the young man is and what has happened to Daniel Craig?


I do not say that he has become less attractive; but Craig has aged visibly. So visibly that they cannot sell him off as rookie anymore.
That decision always looked logical to me. It seemed to come, err, naturally.

How far do you want to go into this? I am not so sure if this is a journey of self-discovery...

But, you must give me that, a production company that wrecks sheer havoc with the work of an author...I mean

vol. 6
vol. 5
vol. 7
vol. 8
vol. 11
vol. 10
vol. 4 (and now they have to suddenly insert a plot-line about Tracy's death...that's what happens if you mix up Fleming's work just as you please)

etc. etc. etc.

looks pretty chaotic to me. I would say that they have been chaotic in a way before '05. But I still believe that they must plan their steps very carefully...or, errr, should.

I am appeased with the Craig era because they do stick roughly to Fleming's sequential order. How many of us think 25 will be YOLT (and, yes, Garden of Death, please!!)? We have that suspicion for a reason.

Kath wrote:

that's what happens if you mix up Fleming's work just as you please

Options generally need to be exercised in a given period to continue. The contract between Glidrose (as was) and EON is not public domain but Eon's film rights probably follow standard publishing practice, which would partially explain the Bond films' pick'n'mix of the novels and shortstories.

Kath wrote:

Craig has aged visibly.

Would you say that's natural ageing or something else? I workout but am not enough of a gymbunny to give an informed opinion.

Can't speak for Fields, but I find your input interesting. Although your refusal to see the huge qualitative difference between Skyfall - a fabulous film - and Spectre - awful beyond belief - is perplexing... Re-reading that last sentence it appears I am in full Rees-Mogg mode this morning.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Options generally need to be exercised in a given period to continue. The contract between Glidrose (as was) and EON is not public domain but Eon's film rights probably follow standard publishing practice, which would partially explain the Bond films' pick'n'mix of the novels and shortstories.

Thanks for the explanation. Could you explain this a bit further, please?
Other serial works like LOTR have been filmed in the right sequential order (and imagine the uproar if Tolkien's work had not been filmed in the right order)...Why was it different for Fleming?

Erica Ambler wrote:

Would you say that's natural ageing or something else? I workout but am not enough of a gymbunny to give an informed opinion.

I think it is. I mean, you can, of course, see the thing the other way round and say that make-up has "created" an older Craig to make him fit to the plot-line of SF. But it looks pretty natural to me...I think it is (mostly) his facial complexion that has changed. He has gotten some wrinkles...for starters. The blonde seems to have changed more towards an ash blonde (and probably some grey). This impression of a changed hair colour is further strengthened by the contrast to Silva's very intensive (and artificial looking) blonde. The face seems to have become a bit "broader". He just looks more "fresh" in CR and I cannot put my finger on it...

Erica Ambler wrote:

Can't speak for Fields, but I find your input interesting. Although your refusal to see the huge qualitative difference between Skyfall - a fabulous film - and Spectre - awful beyond belief - is perplexing... Re-reading that last sentence it appears I am in full Rees-Mogg mode this morning.

Thanks. I find your input interesting, too. I do see the difference, though. SP amuses me. Probably sometimes when it is not supposed to amuse me; but it amuses me. I like both; but I like them in very different ways. I probably do not take SP as seriosuly you all seem to do. And, it offers different readings, one more reason to like it.

Kath wrote:

Thanks for the explanation. Could you explain this a bit further, please?

Hmmm, it's a complex subject. I'm in publishing but have no involvement with that side of things; it's strictly legal stuff. However, as I understand it, the right to film a novel is not sold outright. Instead an option is sold to film it within a specified time period. If the producer fails to do so the rights revert to the author/publisher. This can be quite lucrative: Harry Harrison claimed he made more money from repeat sales of options than book sales. And he was a bestselling author.

Anyway, this is how the Broccoli family got involved in Bond. The option to film the novels was owned by Harry Saltzman but he could not raise the finance to begin production. His rights were about to lapse when Cubby Broccoli, who had a production deal with United Artists, appeared. So began an uneasy partnership. Things were complicated further as Ian Fleming had sold the film rights to Casino Royale to an American producer some years earlier (outright, IIRC), which is how a competing Bond film came into being. Fleming then compounded this by plagiarising Thunderball from an original script by Kevin McClory.

Kath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Would you say that's natural ageing or something else?

I think it is.

Right. I ask as there has been speculation elsewhere that Craig's rapid ageing was caused by 'bulking up' for 007.

Kath wrote:

I probably do not take SP as seriosuly you all seem to do.

Could be. A lot of regulars burnt their forum membership cards (and bras) after Spectre.

I'd say a lot of the regulars burnt their cards, bras et al long before Spectre, sadly.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Hmmm, it's a complex subject. I'm in publishing but have no involvement with that side of things; it's strictly legal stuff. However, as I understand it, the right to film a novel is not sold outright. Instead an option is sold to film it within a specified time period. If the producer fails to do so the rights revert to the author/publisher. This can be quite lucrative: Harry Harrison claimed he made more money from repeat sales of options than book sales. And he was a bestselling author.

Anyway, this is how the Broccoli family got involved in Bond. The option to film the novels was owned by Harry Saltzman but he could not raise the finance to begin production. His rights were about to lapse when Cubby Broccoli, who had a production deal with United Artists, appeared. So began an uneasy partnership. Things were complicated further as Ian Fleming had sold the film rights to Casino Royale to an American producer some years earlier (outright, IIRC), which is how a competing Bond film came into being. Fleming then compounded this by plagiarising Thunderball from an original script by Kevin McClory.

Thanks a lot!

Erica Ambler wrote:

Right. I ask as there has been speculation elsewhere that Craig's rapid ageing was caused by 'bulking up' for 007.

I didn't even know that. I was completely on the wrong track, I'm sorry.
Only if he took substances, I think. And what personal trainer would agree that an actor should take substances to bulk up which give him wrinkles? Sounds like that scene in Stardust when the evil witch uses magic to cease her wrinkles and then her breasts sag because she has used magic.   (Never burn your bra too early?)
Bulking up is never healthy, but I have not heard before that it can speed up aging...
But what we see in CR looks very, very unnatural. That's probably part of the reason why the Craig Bond is deemed superhuman, because he looks like the suits of Superman and Batman...only in real. That does definitely not look normal, or even like a secret agent. That looks like extreme body-building. It is a bit out of character and it was definitely not healthy for Craig.

Someone on Twitter posted about this and had to share.



https://twitter.com/Musical1250/status/1133140384027168770

"They say you lost something in North Korea...
-We'll just have to find it, won't we?"

I don't think It could've worked quite well, as I like Skyfall with Craig like it already is. Brosnan would've been too old for that already and I assume he'd be quite tired by then.

I'd love to have Brosnan back, but I need to see things how they really are.

Considering Bond is supposed to be a "played out" in the film, and Brosnan still looking rather youthful for his age, I'd say his advancing years would work in his favour here. Especially when one realises we went from "rookie Bond" in CR/QOS to "over the hill" Bond in SF. Odd trajectory.