Comparison between Pierece Brosnan's James Bond and Daniel Craigs portrayol.
Having just watched both the Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig runs of James Bond, you can really tell the departure from the camp of the Brosnan (and previous) Bonds.
I'm curious whether the relative success of the The Bourne Identity had something to do with the shift to a more gritty, dark Bond franchise. I think after four decades of bright, cartoonish action thrillers the winds changed, especially with how America reacted after the September 11 attacks. The addition of the second Bourne movie in 2004 (The Bourne Supremacy). I think a consideration was also that a single budget of one of the Brosnan movies could have paid for two Bourne movies. I'm not sure who you would consider a bigger star in 2002, Pierce Brosnan or Matt Damon. Probably too subjective to warrant entering into discussions.
It is quite incredible how successfull the Bond franchise has been across six decades with bringing in close to seven billion dollars through 24 films. The 25th set to be released in 2021. I can't imagine No Time to Die won't bring in a metric ton of money, COVID-19 concerns notwithstanding. No Time to Die starring Daniel Craig also seems to have the highest budget at a reported 250 million US dollars. I won't bet against a substantial portion of that was to get Daniel Craig back in the saddle for one more film.
I have enjoyed by the Brosnan films (Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The world is Not Enough, and Die Another day), just as much as the Daniel Craig flims (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, and Spectre) but for different reasons. The Brosnan films really epitomised the campy nature of franchise, which the Craig films have poked fun at throughout.
Till next time,