There's an op-ed in today's New York Times about the James Bond franchise. It chronicles some of the stylistic and casting changes that it has experienced over the years, leading to the observation that
"Until now, the Bond family has been loyal to its stars. The shocking thing about Daniel Craig is not that he is fair-haired (like Roger Moore), working class (like Sean Connery), or angry (like Timothy Dalton). The really shocking thing is that a new Bond actor was sought when the current star - Pierce Brosnan - was still a huge success. For the first time in Bond history, a popular star has been fired, and fans are reeling.Daniel Craig was hired to be a smaller, more realistic James Bond. Could a grittier sort of Bond film have been made with Mr. Brosnan? Of course! The first half of "Die Another Day" (2002) was hard as nails. Could he have played a different kind of spy? Watch "The Tailor of Panama" and your doubts will be erased. Unlike some of his predecessors, who clung to the role too long, Pierce Brosnan has been forced out while still on top..."
The article then concludes, though, that perhaps it will turn out for the best for both Brosnan and Bond, however, to have parted company.
Not being a James Bond fan myself, I can't really comment on any of this. And though I've enjoyed some of Brosnan's work (eg, I agree that his performance in the "Tailor of Panama" was really quite good) I'm not really a big fan of his either.
So that's not why I posted this. I posted it, and in the "Friends, Family, and Other Folks" category, because the author is my step-sister.
Congrats on getting published, Deborah!