Was Pierce Brosnan the new Roger Moore?

Silhouette Man

When we look back at the actors who have porttrayed James Bond on-screen, do we see the lightness of style/sense of humour most in the portrayals of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan? I think that we do. Brosnan-Bond was Moore with a few dashes of Lazenby vulnerability thrown in for good measure!

I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this one as I know that in the Craig era Brosnsn often gets a bad rap!

Firemass

That's one thing I really enjoyed about the Brosnan era is that he was considered to combine the "best of both" i.e Sean's cool menace and Roger suave charm. Watching a Brosnan film was like a celebration of all things Bond.

Now with Daniel Craig in the role suddenly Pierce and Roger are no longer cool because they weren't gritty, hard edged killers.

Silhouette Man

Firemass wrote:

That's one thing I really enjoyed about the Brosnan era is that he was considered to combine the "best of both" i.e Sean's cool menace and Roger suave charm. Watching a Brosnan film was like a celebration of all things Bond.

Now with Daniel Craig in the role suddenly Pierce and Roger are no longer cool because they weren't gritty, hard edged killers.

Exactly, but you can't say that now - people seem to forget that Pierce Brosnan WAS James Bond in the 1990s - there are plenty of articles to testify to that fact. It's only been post-Brosnan that the view has somewhat altered/changed due to Daniel Craig!

Brosnan_fan

I wouldn't say Brosnan was "Moore revisited". Sure, he delivered groan-inducing puns, but he never went for the campy approach when he was playing Bond; a good thing in my books.

If you were to sit back and look at all 4 films during his tenure, he wasn't really attempting to be/copy RM at all. Added to which, the tones of those films were never Moore-style.

Blackleiter

I always viewed Brosnan's Bond as his own creation. True, he has some of Moore's demeanor when it comes to the one-liners, but he also attempted to bring more depth to the character and revealed more of Bond's human side. He even occasionally showed a few of the hard edges of Dalton's Bond, which I find refreshing. But ultimately Brosnan was let down by the scripts which couldn't seem to decide what kind of Bond film to be. This is especially evident in DAD which veers from the harshness of the opening capture and torture of Bond, to the nonsense displayed in the Iceland scenes. I think that's the reason Brosnan gets a bum rap, and that's a shame.

Firemass

Brosnan's first bit of dialog as 007 was delivered hanging upsidedown in a bathroom stall, "beg your pardon, i forgot to knock."

How seriously are we supposed to take that? Kind of a bad start IMO.

I would agree with blackleiter about Brosnan being his own creation. Brosnan was the ultimate Bond for me because he kind of summarized everything the previous actors brought to the role.

If anything the films, not Brosnan, were more "Roger Moore" template. For example, Tomorrow Never Dies reminds me of The Spy Who Loved Me/For Your Eyes Only/The Man With The Golden Gun.

Die Another Day has also drawn many comparisons to Moonraker, although as a MR fan I take offense to this.

Moore Than

Firemass wrote:

Brosnan was the ultimate Bond for me because he kind of summarized everything the previous actors brought to the role.

To me, Pierce Brosnan was not the ultimate Bond but the good all-rounder. He could do things like cool menace, but not as good as Sean Connery. He could do the suave charm, but not as good as Roger Moore. As good and as popular as Brosnan was, he never left his own mark on the character in the way that Connery, Moore, Timothy Dalton, and now Daniel Craig have.

Charmed & Dangerous

I prefer Brosnan's Bond to Dalton's. Brosnan was better in the fight scenes, wore Bond's clothes better (sorry but Dalton just wasn't convincing in a suit), and delivered his lines with more believability (I find dalton just a bit too, umm, almost Shakespearean in his delivery at times). To me, Brosnan brought back some essential coolness and I wanted to BE Bond watching him, in a way that Dalton never inspired me. Brosnan in the tank chase, Brosnan chatting up Onatopp in the Casino, Brosnan capturing the plane in the Pyrenees... I cant recall that level of enjoyment watching Dalton.
But that's my personal opinion and apologies - I don't dislike Dalton, he did a great job - but for me Brosnan was a great Bond.

davidelliott101

If Brosnan had taken over the role in "The Living Daylights", I think he would have been a straight continuation of the Roger Moore Bond (or the new Roger Moore). Light comedy (like in Remington Steele) would have stayed. Personally, I think the fact Dalton was Brosnan's predecessor made Brosnan toughen up the role more than if he directly took over for Moore. It would have been seemless to the audience, which was used to Roger Moore.

Dalton was awesome as Bond, I prefer his version over Brosnan, but I think as was mentioned, by 1995 Brosnan had the clout to play 007 the way he wanted to by that point... tough like Connery but also have those light comedy Moore bits, too. He took the best of the four actors that came before him and was able to display those different aspects pretty well.

chrisisall

davidelliott101 wrote:

I think the fact Dalton was Brosnan's predecessor made Brosnan toughen up the role more than if he directly took over for Moore.

Never thought of that... but I'm sure it wouldn't have been as silly as some of the Moore stuff, just not as serious as we got. Good point though!

Blackleiter

I agree davidelliott101 makes an excellent point.

chrisisall wrote:

davidelliott101 wrote:

I think the fact Dalton was Brosnan's predecessor made Brosnan toughen up the role more than if he directly took over for Moore.

Never thought of that... but I'm sure it wouldn't have been as silly as some of the Moore stuff, just not as serious as we got. Good point though!

chrisisall

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

To me, Brosnan brought back some essential coolness and I wanted to BE Bond watching him, in a way that Dalton never inspired me. Brosnan in the tank chase, Brosnan chatting up Onatopp in the Casino, Brosnan capturing the plane in the Pyrenees... I cant recall that level of enjoyment watching Dalton.

I love Brosnan as Bond, but what Dalton brought to the party was a down to Earth, realistic and all-too-human character complete with the impulsiveness, momentary intensity and imperfections evident in the Bond of the Fleming novels.
In the end, a plausible & seriously flawed man trumps a marginally flawed superhero for me. -{

Napoleon Plural

Well Brozzer benefitted from not being Dalton - he had movie star good looks, could deliver a one-liner, was more at ease with the ladies and more comfortable in the role. He put himself into the role, whereas Dalton acted it, or hid behind his acting.

But I felt he was Moore with a more serious side. Moore was great imo, but he had no range. Okay, at times he does surprise - the centrifuge scene in MR for instance. But mostly, he aims to reassure by giving you what you expect. You don't see Moore getting emotional over someone's death much, because the whole point is the films is make believe. So Brozzer had that extra string to his bow.

For all that, I felt that Brozzer is a guy who is playing James Bond and doesn't bring much new to the table. Connery created a character, so did Moore (for better or worse, and even if it is his established screen persona) and so does Craig. Lazenby sort of put on the tux and hoped for the best, I kind of felt Dalton did too and although Cavill look tried to look manly and with a deeper voice last night at the Baftas, I do sort of get the feeling that if you look the part already, you'll just hit your marks, say your lines and hope for the best.

BIG TAM

I concur with much of what's been said. Brosnan was a hybrid of Moore & Connery. Nothing wrong with that in many ways. I find him to be a more natural film actor than Dalton, but Dalton invests more with the material given. It is ironic that Craig's now given the opportunites denied to Brosnan, the ability to flesh out 007.

As an aside, Henry Cavill came across as a good-looking lump of wood at last night's BAFTAs. I appreciate in being himself that may be unfair to judge him as a actor (I've not seen him in anything), but on visual evidence alone he offered me no indication he'd make a memorable 007. But I'm happy to one day be proved wrong.

But this does lead me to believe playing Bond is not just about looking good in a dinner jacket anymore. It requires a rounded acting performance, not merely an extension of one's own personality.

L Jones

No. If Brosnan was the new Roger Moore, I would have dismissed him as Bond. Brosnan had his own style. That is why he lasted 7 years in the role.

Nick37

There was a bit of a Roger Moore vibe to him. I didn't notice it when I first took up the Bond franchise in the 1990s, but having access to all the films on dvd (Without having to wait for the "Bondathon", he's stuck a bit with Roger Moore's shadow. The scripts didn't help, and Brosnan has said in interviews as of late that he was told how to play the character, instead of being able to have a go of it on his own.

Because of that, we're left with a serviceable performance, but nothing that really stands out. There's more to it than looking good in a tux. Honestly, before having a chance to read the books and view all the films on a regular basis, my top two would have been Connery and Brosnan. Now that my 007 horizons have been expanded, I hate to say it, but Brosnan's about 5th on my list.

Halcon

Yes, I often think this while watching Brosnan's Bond. Thinking back, I too loved watching his Bond films and often thought how cool it would be to be Bond thanks to Brosnan.

Brosnan 'understood' the character very well. Only thing was, Brosnan doesn't have or didn't have the screen presence of Moore. Moore came off as a bonafide movie star, deserving of all the glitz and shine he brought to the role.

Brosnan not quite so much, but very cool in other aspects.

Nick37

Agreed Halcon. Brosnan definitely made it seem "Cool" to be Bond. But now that I'm older, that's just not enough to enthrall me for 4 films.

I think what stands out the most to me about Brosnan's Bond is that all the actors prior to him became the role. Even George Lazenby brought his own take to the role, and didn't just ape Connery. Connery combined the humor and charm, Moore concentrated on the humor, and Dalton concentrated on the danger, creating the darkest and most realistic assassin to date (Sorry Daniel).

Having a chance to digest all the Bond films, and each actor's interpretation, Brosnan feels less like "James Bond", and more like another agent who was promoted to 007, told how Bond acted, and then was sent out to be him.

Instead of "Being" James Bond, he's "Playing" James Bond, especially since he's trying to combine the performances of the two top franchise actors into one performance.

Lazenbyfan

You know what's interesting to note about each actor's portrayals. They were more or less a representation of their time when cast.

Connery was the first and had the "movie star" look and attitude still inherent in leading men in the early 60's. Think Cary Grant.

Lazenby was cast really as a Connery-substitute, as unfair as that sounds, so his casting doesn't really apply to my original statement. Still...his casting was unique in that he was cast for his looks and fighting prowess.

Moore had the free-spirited 70's vibe and the "super hero" action.

Dalton had the 80's "realistic" action hero, vulnerability, and "safe sex" attitude of not sleeping around like his predecessors did.

Brosnan had a 90's mixture of the best of everybody, really. Connery's sexiness, Lazenby's humanity, Moore's wit, and Dalton's toughness.

Craig is somewhat like the 00's Jason Bourne-styled spies in film now.


So, I don't see Brosnan as the new Moore, I see him as the Bond of the 90's.

chrisisall

Well said, Lazenbyfan.

Dalkowski110

Brosnan was basically Moore who took himself seriously, was darker, and had a bit of a hard edge, as well. For example, can you REALLY see Roger Moore's Bond cynically holding Jonathan Pryce at gunpoint on a computer console while a gigantic drill is about to shred him apart as he delivers his one-liner? I thought not.

Brosnan seemed to be getting the feel for how to play Bond in GE, but its supporting cast more than made up for it. At that point, he was Moore who was slightly more serious. He really seems to find himself in TND, but I found the script erratic (and Vince Schiavelli's accent to be the worst German accent filmed since the Allies were churning out propaganda flicks in WWII...). If only they had left in the deleted scene where Paris Carver is revealed to be informing on Bond to Elliott Carver. It would have completely explained his change of mood during the car chase.

In TWINE, Brosnan dials it back a bit, which is more than a bit of a disappointment. Still, most of the central tenets in Brosnan's Bond from TND are present here, such as musing sarcastically about killing an unarmed man as he's about to execute Renard. Again, can you really see Moore doing that? And what about "I never miss"? Do you really think that scene would have appeared in a Roger Moore Bond film?

But then we're "treated" to DAD. Brosnan really, really seems to be trying to play himself as he was in TND, but it disappears pretty quickly thanks to the horrible script. When things go to Iceland in the plot, they go to pieces for the movie. Ironically, DAD would likely have been better-suited for Moore. Moore NEVER took himself seriously except during parts of the first two films he was cast in. Brosnan tried making up for the film's numerous problems by doing just that: taking himself seriously. It worked in TND, but it couldn't work and just made the film look worse in DAD. Moore, I think, if you had a time machine and brought him back from 1979 or 1980 and cast him, would have been able to adapt to the script because he would likely have seen it as a big joke.

I think Brosnan is somewhere in the middle. He's certainly not a mixture of Connery and Moore as was billed; I think he's his own distinct character who just happened to have the same penchant for one-liners Moore did.

Firemass wrote:

Brosnan's first bit of dialog as 007 was delivered hanging upsidedown in a bathroom stall, "beg your pardon, i forgot to knock."

How seriously are we supposed to take that?

But remember: he did so with the full knowledge that he would kill the guy within seconds. Which he did and which was shown. You could almost say the same thing about a guy who puts down his dance partner and explains "She's...just dead." But yet, that scene in TB was considered rather chilling for its time, even with the one-liner. He'd just used a woman (albeit a bad one) as a human shield.

chrisisall

This is why I love AJB.

Nick37

"Brosnan was basically Moore who took himself seriously, was darker, and had a bit of a hard edge, as well. For example, can you REALLY see Roger Moore's Bond cynically holding Jonathan Pryce at gunpoint on a computer console while a gigantic drill is about to shred him apart as he delivers his one-liner? I thought not."

Actually, yes. It echos a similar scene in "The Spy Who Loved Me". After Stromburg misses him, Moore coldly says, "You shot your bolt, Stromberg." He then shoots him twice down the long shaft the bolt came from, then gets up, and pumps two more bullets into Stromburg for good measure. So yes, Moore could do cynical. And surprisingly enough, after Jaws is dealt with and he's rescuing Anya, she asks him where Stomberg is. To my surprise, he says, "Dead. And so are we if we don't get out of here FAST..." I was floored. No joke?

Dalkowski110

Nick37 wrote:

Actually, yes. It echos a similar scene in "The Spy Who Loved Me". After Stromburg misses him, Moore coldly says, "You shot your bolt, Stromberg."

I actually thought about this scene and Moore does act coldly, but not so cynically that he's laughing at a man who is about to be physically torn apart. I think Moore's Bond would have just out-and-out executed Carver via gunshots (which was exactly what he did to Stromberg) instead of subjecting him to an extremely cruel and unusual punishment.

Nick37

"I actually thought about this scene and Moore does act coldly, but not so cynically that he's laughing at a man who is about to be physically torn apart. I think Moore's Bond would have just out-and-out executed Carver via gunshots (which was exactly what he did to Stromberg) instead of subjecting him to an extremely cruel and unusual punishment."

Then I would counter with the scene from the following film, "Moonraker", where Moore, after shooting Drax in the chest with a slow acting cyanide dart (Heartbroken, Mr. Drax!) , jocularly leads him to the airlock chamber, tells him to take one small step for mankind, shoves him in, locks it, then shoots his arse out into space while Drax is unable to lift a finger to stop Bond.

jorgem1

I think he was. Brosnan was the second longest running Bond actor in the franchise, from 1994 to 2004.

Napoleon Plural

What about 1962 - 1983?

Thing about Moore and the air lock chamber is that while he is joking, it doesn't seem sadistic because it's just Moore being Moore. Any other actor behaving like that would seem downright nasty because they are simply playing it differently, they are more credible as Bond.

Lazenbyfan

chrisisall wrote:

Well said, Lazenbyfan.

Thanks!

Nick37

"Thing about Moore and the air lock chamber is that while he is joking, it doesn't seem sadistic because it's just Moore being Moore. Any other actor behaving like that would seem downright nasty because they are simply playing it differently, they are more credible as Bond."

True, you have a point. I guess my last statement on the matter would be when Moore kicks Loque's car over the edge of the cliff in "For Your Eyes Only". He drops a bit of a one-liner "You left this with Ferraro, I believe." Then gives the car a boost over the edge. It's definitely a scene where Roger Moore isn't Roger Moore, and it's much more a sadistic action than Moore has given us in the past. Frankly, it's his best moment in the franchise, to me. It makes me wish he'd taken that approach from the start. He showed in that scene that he could throw in a one-liner, but also be ruthless.

Firemass

Carver getting killed by the drill was embarrassing.

A. He had a generous window of time to shoot Bond

B. He also had ample time to dodge the slow moving drill. Deer in the headlights?

Anyway.... I prefer the cold blooded kill in TSWLM over subjecting the villain to cruel and unusual punishment.

chrisisall

Firemass wrote:

Anyway.... I prefer the cold blooded kill in TSWLM over subjecting the villain to cruel and unusual punishment.

But... in TND Bond gave me (part of the public) what I wanted! :v