Pierce Not Upset About CR

Barry Nelson

I thought this article that was on MI6 was interesting. Pierce seems to understand the reason for going in another direction with Bond. However, as Campbellpoints out, the irony is that Pierce always wanted to make Bond more grittier, but when EON decided to go in that direction they picked another actor.

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4417

emtiem

An unfortunate irony as, as Wilson points out, they couldn't go down that avenue with Pierce after his first four.

Out of interest Barry, would you have been interested in a gritty Casino with Pierce in the lead?

Predator

Interestingly, I was considering what the film would have been like with the other Bonds in the lead and I couldn't really imagine it bar Connery. There were certainly scenes Brosnan could have done easily, but I'm really not sure Brosnan could have pulled off the torture scene with quite as much panache as Craig.

Still, I would tend to agree that once an actor (through no fault of his own frankly) sets down one stylistic avenue, it is difficult to do such a volte face. Although, to be completely fair, one could say that Brosnan did have a grittier Bond film in TWINE. I think it is too easy to remember that film for its more embarrassing and/or OTT moments than its more dynamic points.

Hardyboy

Pred is correct (no surprise there!)--I think one reason CR works so well is because there's a new actor playing Bond. This 007 is rough around the edges and unpredictable; I don't think we would have easily accepted smooth, affable Brosnan being so reckless and ruthless.

emtiem

Hardyboy wrote:

Pred is correct (no surprise there!)--I think one reason CR works so well is because there's a new actor playing Bond. This 007 is rough around the edges and unpredictable; I don't think we would have easily accepted smooth, affable Brosnan being so reckless and ruthless.

It's true- we need to doubt him. One example is

in the last hand of the poker game when Bond appears to be playing very recklessly- 'has it messed it up again?' we need to be asking ourselves.

highhopes

You guys are right. I'm not sure that Brosnan fans would have accepted the change in style with Pierce in the role.

Although I've sometimes knocked Brosnan on this site, it's been more to annoy the Craig-not-Bond types than anything. I like Brosnan and his performance Bond. I've read several times over the years that he wanted to play a more realistic character, but that Eon would only let him go so far. So I feel bad that he was never given the chance to do something like CR.
However, having seen "Casino Royale," I don't know if he would have worked for me. I've often said there were a lot of people who could have replaced Brosnan if the script was right, but having seen Craig, I'm not so sure now. He really made an impression on me, like seeing Connery for the first time. I knew he'd be good, I just didn't know he'd be that good.
But I'm sure Pierce will bounce back. He's a good actor, too. In fact, I hear he's doing a western, a genre that is sadly underrepresented at the movies, for a filmgoer of my generation (and his). Good for him -- and the movies.

Moonraker 5

highhopes wrote:

I've often said there were a lot of people who could have replaced Brosnan if the script was right, but having seen Craig, I'm not so sure now.

Likewise. After watching CR for a second time this afternoon, I found it an even more enjoyable experience - if that's actually possible. I was more relaxed, and I knew what to look for. Second time round even my criticisms of running too long and the titles are, at best, vanquished, and I found myself thinking that it's actually near impossible to imagine anyone else in the role of Bond in CR.

The bar has been set, perhaps dangerously for some point in the future, incredibly high.

Loeffelholz

I understand Brozzer's disappointment completely. It must be like being released from a successful baseball team---only to have them win the World Series without you the very next season.

But the reality (for me) is that without Dalton and Brozzer taking oh-so-necessary steps away from Moore's style of performance, CR would not have been possible. Tim and Pierce both added elements of humanization and reflection that laid the foundation for what Eon have boldly accomplished this time round.

Thundernuts

For me, Brosnan's defining 'Gritty' moment came in TND, when he kills Paris' assassin in the hotel room.

"I'm a professional... I'm just doing my job"

"So am I"

*Bang*


And he cold-bloodedly executes him. They never developed that side of Brosnan's Bond, after that moment, IMHO.

At the beginning of TWINE, he's got some Doris pumping .50cal shells at him from a boat on the river Thames and he offers her a way out?

Me? I'd have given the bitch a new 9mm hole right in the forehead, whether her figure was perfectly rounded, or not......

emtiem

Thundernuts wrote:

At the beginning of TWINE, he's got some Doris pumping .50cal shells at him from a boat on the river Thames and he offers her a way out?

Me? I'd have given the bitch a new 9mm hole right in the forehead, whether her figure was perfectly rounded, or not......

)

I vote we let him stay!

emtiem

Moonraker 5 wrote:

Second time round even my criticisms of running too long and the titles are, at best, vanquished

Ooh lovely- looking forward to my second viewing even more.

Thundernuts

In all honesty my friends, I'm new to all this internet chat-room malarky, but this site just reels you in.

Sincere apologies if the tone of my humour offends, but I assure you, it's all typed with my tongue firmly wedged in my cheek.

Until I posted here, I really thought that I was the only Tim Dalton fan on the planet.

I'm 35 and I've seen Casino Royale three times this weekend. That's the first time since I can remember that I've returned to watch a movie, twice, ever.

I have a partner, a family, a decent job and I'm not used to all this. I thought nobody loved Bond films as much as I did.

I was so, so wrong.

And I would leave my partner tomorrow for Cary Lowell. So there.

emtiem

Thundernuts wrote:

I'm 35 and I've seen Casino Royale three times this weekend. That's the first time since I can remember that I've returned to watch a movie, twice, ever.

Blimey- even I don't like Bond films that much. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you're clearly a weird net geek!

I vote we get rid of him!

Thundernuts

I have this little itch, emtiem... Would you mind scratching it for me?


No.... A little to the right....

{[];)

Lyle Dark-008

I loved Pierce. He made James Bond slicky & flashy. Isn't that the way 007's supposed to be?

Klaus Hergescheimer

Lyle Dark-008 wrote:

I loved Pierce. He made James Bond slicky & flashy. Isn't that the way 007's supposed to be?

Read the novels. Bond is supposed to be a tortured soul with a ruggedly handsome appearance that has been tarnished by years of heavy drink, smoke, and stressful living, and who has a level of arrogance and egocentrism that is out of this world. He's a guy who hates his job, but he does it because it's what he knows.

Do I think Pierce could have made this type of Bond? Sure. He's more than capable as an actor. They would have to have toughened his appearance a bit, IMO (Made him hit the weight room, aged him some, perhaps even given him the scar on the right cheeK), but he could have done it. However, I don't think he could have done it as well as Craig. Daniel Craig is the man I see when I read Fleming's novels.

words

Try as i might I can't imagine Pierce running up that crane in Casino Royale. I mean he did his knee just jumping on that hovercraft in the DAD PTS. Loved Pierce, but this movie was no place for a guy over 50.

Dan Same

Thundernuts wrote:

At the beginning of TWINE, he's got some Doris pumping .50cal shells at him from a boat on the river Thames and he offers her a way out?

Me? I'd have given the bitch a new 9mm hole right in the forehead, whether her figure was perfectly rounded, or not......

) I don't agree with your views on Brosnan's ruthlessness but I can appreciate that you're at least honest.

Thundernuts wrote:

I'm 35 and I've seen Casino Royale three times this weekend. That's the first time since I can remember that I've returned to watch a movie, twice, ever.

Interesting. I rarely see a film more than twice at the cinemas in its first run. It's not because there aren't any films which I'm incredibly passionate about (there are numerous films which I love to death such as Bond) but rather because I don't want to do to my favourite films what I have done to my favourite songs; and that is play them again and again until I get bored of them. No song is so good that it will sustain its power after being played dozens of times in two days. Anyway, my point is, I try to avoid seeing films too many times at the cinemas in the first run so that I can continue to enjoy them throughout my life. Plus, it's not as if I can't see them at the cinemas at other times in my life.

TonyDP

Lyle Dark-008 wrote:

I loved Pierce. He made James Bond slicky & flashy. Isn't that the way 007's supposed to be?

Don't worry Lyle, there are a lot of us who feel that way. As for Pierce, he was a class act, he breathed new life into Bond after a long hiatus, and he (along with Dalton) helped paved the way for Craig to give us his more dangerous and humanized take on the character.

Brosnan went out on top (both figuratively and literally in that last scene with Jinx) and left many of us wanting more. That's how I try to approach his departure and I can think of no better epitath for his tenure in the role.

Barry Nelson

emtiem wrote:

An unfortunate irony as, as Wilson points out, they couldn't go down that avenue with Pierce after his first four.

Out of interest Barry, would you have been interested in a gritty Casino with Pierce in the lead?

I don'think he could have done the CR that has been made with Craig. I do think he could have made a CR type film, with many of the same elements that CR has. Fall in a love with a woman, find out she is a double, question your job as an agent. The script would need to be tailored for an older agent, but it could have been done.

Dan Same

TonyDP wrote:

Don't worry Lyle, there are a lot of us who feel that way. As for Pierce, he was a class act, he breathed new life into Bond after a long hiatus, and he (along with Dalton) helped paved the way for Craig to give us his more dangerous and humanized take on the character.

Brosnan went out on top (both figuratively and literally in that last scene with Jinx) and left many of us wanting more. That's how I try to approach his departure and I can think of no better epitath for his tenure in the role.

I also love Pearce. I think he was incredibly classy but I also think he handled the whole 'humanised' Bond really well without being OTT. One may criticise the Brosnan films for some of the character aspects, but I think that the blame (should there be any blame) should be levelled at the scripts rather than Brosnan himself.

emtiem

Barry Nelson wrote:

emtiem wrote:

An unfortunate irony as, as Wilson points out, they couldn't go down that avenue with Pierce after his first four.

Out of interest Barry, would you have been interested in a gritty Casino with Pierce in the lead?

I don'think he could have done the CR that has been made with Craig. I do think he could have made a CR type film, with many of the same elements that CR has. Fall in a love with a woman, find out she is a double, question your job as an agent. The script would need to be tailored for an older agent, but it could have been done.

Would you have enjoyed it, being as it would have been, a grittier, more realistic take in the way Brosnan wanted to do?

Barry Nelson

emtiem wrote:

Barry Nelson wrote:

emtiem wrote:

An unfortunate irony as, as Wilson points out, they couldn't go down that avenue with Pierce after his first four.

Out of interest Barry, would you have been interested in a gritty Casino with Pierce in the lead?

I don'think he could have done the CR that has been made with Craig. I do think he could have made a CR type film, with many of the same elements that CR has. Fall in a love with a woman, find out she is a double, question your job as an agent. The script would need to be tailored for an older agent, but it could have been done.

Would you have enjoyed it, being as it would have been, a grittier, more realistic take in the way Brosnan wanted to do?

Hard to say without knowing more details. I know I liked Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, suave, debonair, yet with moments of toughness and cold heartedness. I think he could have done a tougher Bond, hell that is what he wanted to do, so I think, I would have enjoyed it as long as some of the ohter suave moments remained.

Dan Same

Fish1941 wrote:

As long as he keeps doing roles like he did in the fabulous "The Matador", he should have nothing to worry about.

Another film which is yet to come to Australia. X-(

Thundernuts

Dan Same wrote:

Fish1941 wrote:

As long as he keeps doing roles like he did in the fabulous "The Matador", he should have nothing to worry about.

Another film which is yet to come to Australia. X-(

You're missing a classic.

The pastiche 'Gunbarrel' scene where Brosnan walks through the hotel foyer in a pair of underpants and a set of cowboy boots is worth the entrance fee alone...