Brosnan was a great Bond, his problem was a lack of great material in most cases. (clip)
Great Bond, wishes he would have had the material Dalton and Craig had.
Exactly my opinion as well. Part of the reason I feel PB got shafted by EON. Hire the perfect Actor to play Bond, then feed him 1 good script, and 3 mediocre crap ones. Watch him still pull it off with charm, panache, style and class while scoring the biggest grossing Bond Films at the time. Then give him the boot, complain about Bond not being grounded in reality and sell his replacement as "a return to Fleming". Total crap. EON should be ashamed for the way they treated Brosnan. They wrote the silly, OTT scripts that they turned and then used as reasons for his dismissal.
I realize they had just gotten the rights to CR, I understand that they wanted to reboot. But, I will argue the point to my dying breath. Given the same material, Brosnan would have been better than any of the other 5.
Brosnan was better than he was given credit for, and certainly better than his material most of the time. But no way would he have been better than Connery. No way!
I have to disagree with you here, BL (now that feels odd to say! ) ) I think Brosnan was capable of more of an edge than his producers allowed. The Banker scene in TWINE, Kaufmann in TND, and other scenes showcased his ability to move beyond his material.
Please don't misunderstand me, I love Connery's portrayal most of all. He is # 1 in my books, followed very closely by Brosnan, then Dalton. (and I flip-flop those two constantly, I love them both!) Connery is Bond, and will always be close to my heart. But consider this.
Since Bond, Connery has had a substantial career. We have had many opportunities to see his talents, and they, too, are substantial. But most of the mannerisms we see in his portrayal of Bond appear in other films. Whether you watch "The Man Who Would Be King", "Robin And Marian", "Entrapment", or others you see the same expressions, mannerisms, and voice inflections carried across the characters. Now that works, because we like Connery, His mannerisms and inflections hit a switch in most of us and it fit perfectly for Bond.
I have to say though, that I think Brosnan is the better actor. When I see him in "Tailor of Panama", "The Thomas Crown Affair", "Mrs. Doubtfire" or "Remington Steele", I don't see Bond. I don't mean that he doesn't use some of the same mannerisms and so forth. But he applies it differently. He seems to have more of a range then Connery.
I take nothing away from Connery. We simply would never have had 50 years of Bond without Connery. This website would not exist without Connery. All the people posting on this site would have a hole in our lives we didn't know existed without Connery. And for all that, I am grateful that Connery is so good. But I think, if Brosnan had been given Thunderball- or Goldfinger-esque material, or just more like Goldeneye for 5-6 films, he would be the unquestioned favorite.
Exactly my opinion as well. Part of the reason I feel PB got shafted by EON. Hire the perfect Actor to play Bond, then feed him 1 good script, and 3 mediocre crap ones. Watch him still pull it off with charm, panache, style and class while scoring the biggest grossing Bond Films at the time.
Whilst they grossed very well (and I don't want to take that away from Brosnan's films at all), they were nowhere near as successful as the 60s films or Craig's films when allowing for inflation.
Then give him the boot, complain about Bond not being grounded in reality and sell his replacement as "a return to Fleming". Total crap.
Really? Firstly, as has been pointed out many times, on many websites, ad nauseum, Brosnan wasn't fired: he had a four film contract and he fulfilled it. Secondly, Eon didn't "complain about Bond not being grounded in reality", they just decided upon a change of direction. Thirdly, the didn't "sell his replacement as 'a return to Fleming'", they announced that the series would return to Fleming. Which it has. You make it sound like Eon have spent the last 8 years slagging off Brosnan, whereas the opposite is the case - I challenge you to find a single public criticism of Brosnan from either Barbara Broccoli or Michael G Wilson.
Given the same material, Brosnan would have been better than any of the other 5.
Fair enough, but I find that odd. Brosnan, whilst very good when performing within his fairly narrow range, is a pretty limited actor. Why do you think he would have been so good if given "the right scripts"? Do you think he has ever given a great performance in anything? (I don't, needless to say)
Brosnan was Bond when I became I fan of the films at 17 years old. He was also the first Bond I watched in the cinema (unfortunately it was DAD ) and I was genuinely upset when they dropped Brosnan. The shame for Brosnan was that they only made two good films for him (GE and TWINE) so his time as Bond will not always be remembered for great films. DC is a very good Bond, but the more I see him now, the more I think he'll need replacing sooner rather than later. Like Moore, DC isn't a traditional Bond (though that doesn't mean I don't like their take on the character), whereas Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan all fall into what I'd expect Bond to look and act like.
"Thank you very much. I was just out walking my RAT and seem to have lost my way... "
Exactly my opinion as well. Part of the reason I feel PB got shafted by EON. Hire the perfect Actor to play Bond, then feed him 1 good script, and 3 mediocre crap ones. Watch him still pull it off with charm, panache, style and class while scoring the biggest grossing Bond Films at the time.
Whilst they grossed very well (and I don't want to take that away from Brosnan's films at all), they were nowhere near as successful as the 60s films or Craig's films when allowing for inflation.
Then give him the boot, complain about Bond not being grounded in reality and sell his replacement as "a return to Fleming". Total crap.
Really? Firstly, as has been pointed out many times, on many websites, ad nauseum, Brosnan wasn't fired: he had a four film contract and he fulfilled it. Secondly, Eon didn't "complain about Bond not being grounded in reality", they just decided upon a change of direction. Thirdly, the didn't "sell his replacement as 'a return to Fleming'", they announced that the series would return to Fleming. Which it has. You make it sound like Eon have spent the last 8 years slagging off Brosnan, whereas the opposite is the case - I challenge you to find a single public criticism of Brosnan from either Barbara Broccoli or Michael G Wilson.
Given the same material, Brosnan would have been better than any of the other 5.
Fair enough, but I find that odd. Brosnan, whilst very good when performing within his fairly narrow range, is a pretty limited actor. Why do you think he would have been so good if given "the right scripts"? Do you think he has ever given a great performance in anything? (I don't, needless to say)
Ummm... ever seen The Thomas Crown Affair? Grey Owl? Robinson Crusoe? The Matador? While we are challenging, try watching Tailor of Panama and not seeing the capability to be the darker, edgy Bond that this "New Direction" calls for.
As for whether or not PB was fired, what else would you call it? If your Boss called you and said that your services were no longer required would you be ecstatic? I think PB has shown exceptional class in handling it, giving props to DC at every turn. It might be some of the best acting of his career. If it was such a congenial parting as you say, explain this interview:
Barbara has gone on record to state that DAD was too fantastical for a post 9/11 audience, yet it was a script she approved. Wilson has gon on record to state that the best gadget in an era of smart phones and iPads are basic ones, like a gun and a radio. http://movies.about.com/od/skyfall/a/Barbara-Broccoli-Michael-Wilson-Interview.htm Yet, he must have approved the various gadgets in PB's 4. Yet they continue to make JB films, and PB doesn't. They say that the reboot is to be more grounded in reality, so the implication is that the previous work wasn't. But whose fault is that?
75% of communication is non-verbal, so do they really have to spell it out when the actions speak so much louder? Public criticism simply isn't done, so no, I'm not going to find an interview where Babs says "PB is the worst actor to ever play Bond". Of course, they are going to mutter bland statements like "We are very grateful for PB's contributions to the franchise" But then Politicians say they won't raise taxes, too. Are they believed at their word?
I'm not sure I agree that Brosnan has a better range as an actor than Connery, but let's say that's true for the sake of argument. My point isn't that Connery is necessarily a better actor than Brosnan, but he is, in my opinion, a better Bond. To me he possesses that "something" that Brosnan and the others lack. The animal magnetism that women react to, the sense of danger, the sardonic wit, the toughness he exhibits in the fight scenes...I can't quite put my finger on what it is. All I know is that Connery as Bond exhibits the perfect mixture of elements for me, and none of the other actors, including Brosnan, have matched it. That's not a knock on Brosnan, mind you, just a tribute what Sean Connery has been able to achieve.
Exactly my opinion as well. Part of the reason I feel PB got shafted by EON. Hire the perfect Actor to play Bond, then feed him 1 good script, and 3 mediocre crap ones. Watch him still pull it off with charm, panache, style and class while scoring the biggest grossing Bond Films at the time. Then give him the boot, complain about Bond not being grounded in reality and sell his replacement as "a return to Fleming". Total crap. EON should be ashamed for the way they treated Brosnan. They wrote the silly, OTT scripts that they turned and then used as reasons for his dismissal.
I realize they had just gotten the rights to CR, I understand that they wanted to reboot. But, I will argue the point to my dying breath. Given the same material, Brosnan would have been better than any of the other 5.
Brosnan was better than he was given credit for, and certainly better than his material most of the time. But no way would he have been better than Connery. No way!
I have to disagree with you here, BL (now that feels odd to say! ) ) I think Brosnan was capable of more of an edge than his producers allowed. The Banker scene in TWINE, Kaufmann in TND, and other scenes showcased his ability to move beyond his material.
Please don't misunderstand me, I love Connery's portrayal most of all. He is # 1 in my books, followed very closely by Brosnan, then Dalton. (and I flip-flop those two constantly, I love them both!) Connery is Bond, and will always be close to my heart. But consider this.
Since Bond, Connery has had a substantial career. We have had many opportunities to see his talents, and they, too, are substantial. But most of the mannerisms we see in his portrayal of Bond appear in other films. Whether you watch "The Man Who Would Be King", "Robin And Marian", "Entrapment", or others you see the same expressions, mannerisms, and voice inflections carried across the characters. Now that works, because we like Connery, His mannerisms and inflections hit a switch in most of us and it fit perfectly for Bond.
I have to say though, that I think Brosnan is the better actor. When I see him in "Tailor of Panama", "The Thomas Crown Affair", "Mrs. Doubtfire" or "Remington Steele", I don't see Bond. I don't mean that he doesn't use some of the same mannerisms and so forth. But he applies it differently. He seems to have more of a range then Connery.
I take nothing away from Connery. We simply would never have had 50 years of Bond without Connery. This website would not exist without Connery. All the people posting on this site would have a hole in our lives we didn't know existed without Connery. And for all that, I am grateful that Connery is so good. But I think, if Brosnan had been given Thunderball- or Goldfinger-esque material, or just more like Goldeneye for 5-6 films, he would be the unquestioned favorite.
I'm not sure I agree that Brosnan has a better range as an actor than Connery, but let's say that's true for the sake of argument. My point isn't that Connery is necessarily a better actor than Brosnan, but he is, in my opinion, a better Bond. To me he possesses that "something" that Brosnan and the others lack. The animal magnetism that women react to, the sense of danger, the sardonic wit, the toughness he exhibits in the fight scenes...I can't quite put my finger on what it is. All I know is that Connery as Bond exhibits the perfect mixture of elements for me, and none of the other actors, including Brosnan, have matched it. That's not a knock on Brosnan, mind you, just a tribute what Sean Connery has been able to achieve.
Brosnan was better than he was given credit for, and certainly better than his material most of the time. But no way would he have been better than Connery. No way!
I have to disagree with you here, BL (now that feels odd to say! ) ) I think Brosnan was capable of more of an edge than his producers allowed. The Banker scene in TWINE, Kaufmann in TND, and other scenes showcased his ability to move beyond his material.
Please don't misunderstand me, I love Connery's portrayal most of all. He is # 1 in my books, followed very closely by Brosnan, then Dalton. (and I flip-flop those two constantly, I love them both!) Connery is Bond, and will always be close to my heart. But consider this.
Since Bond, Connery has had a substantial career. We have had many opportunities to see his talents, and they, too, are substantial. But most of the mannerisms we see in his portrayal of Bond appear in other films. Whether you watch "The Man Who Would Be King", "Robin And Marian", "Entrapment", or others you see the same expressions, mannerisms, and voice inflections carried across the characters. Now that works, because we like Connery, His mannerisms and inflections hit a switch in most of us and it fit perfectly for Bond.
I have to say though, that I think Brosnan is the better actor. When I see him in "Tailor of Panama", "The Thomas Crown Affair", "Mrs. Doubtfire" or "Remington Steele", I don't see Bond. I don't mean that he doesn't use some of the same mannerisms and so forth. But he applies it differently. He seems to have more of a range then Connery.
I take nothing away from Connery. We simply would never have had 50 years of Bond without Connery. This website would not exist without Connery. All the people posting on this site would have a hole in our lives we didn't know existed without Connery. And for all that, I am grateful that Connery is so good. But I think, if Brosnan had been given Thunderball- or Goldfinger-esque material, or just more like Goldeneye for 5-6 films, he would be the unquestioned favorite.
Nah, man, I get you. and in many ways, I agree. I love Connery as Bond, and for all the reasons that you state. My point was simply that, had Brosnan been given the same material to work with, you might be saying the same things about him. IMO, he exhibits those same qualities. He had the cold calculating, the joie-de-vive, the demons, the danger, the swagger, the wit, Brosnan had it all, IMHO. As somebody put it in another thread, (or was it this one?) this man was born to play Bond.
Ultimately, though, it truly is a matter of preference. Some people like Mel Gibson as Hamlet, others Lawrence Olivier, others Kenneth Branagh, still others say that it can never be done well as a movie. I respect that. To each his own. Even Daniel Craig has good points. (betcha never thought you'd see me write that, huh BL?)
Ummm... ever seen The Thomas Crown Affair? Grey Owl? Robinson Crusoe? The Matador? While we are challenging, try watching Tailor of Panama and not seeing the capability to be the darker, edgy Bond that this "New Direction" calls for.
Yep, all of those. I think he's a solid performer and was good in most of those roles - he's also very good in in After the Sunset and The Ghost (I think he's he's dreadful in Grey Owl but YMMV). But his range is quite narrow and, in most of his successful roles, he plays a variation on the same character - superficially charming but apparently facile men with a bit more to them than meets the eye. He plays this role in Thomas Crowne, Mrs Doubtfire, After the Sunset, Remington Steele, The Ghost, The Tailor of Panama, and Laws of Attraction to name but a few. Nothing wrong with that - he's very good at it. But I don't think any of his performances come close to, for example, Connery or Craig. Different strokes though.
As for whether or not PB was fired, what else would you call it? If your Boss called you and said that your services were no longer required would you be ecstatic?
I'd call it the end of a contract. If my boss called me and said that my services were no longer required tomorrow then I would be very upset as I have a contract that runs until 31 July. If, however, my boss called me on 1 August and told me my services were no longer required that would be different as that is what we had explicitly agreed when we signed to contract. I really don't understand why so many people struggle with this fairly elementary concept.
I don't get your point. Pierce Brosnan made his last Bond film in 2002. The first iPhone came out in 2007 and the iPad first came out in 2010. What's the link?
Yet they continue to make JB films, and PB doesn't. They say that the reboot is to be more grounded in reality, so the implication is that the previous work wasn't. But whose fault is that?
Sure. I agree with that. But they were very proud of the 90s films. They just decided (correctly) that the 90s tone wasn't suitable for a post-9/11 world.
75% of communication is non-verbal, so do they really have to spell it out when the actions speak so much louder? Public criticism simply isn't done, so no, I'm not going to find an interview where Babs says "PB is the worst actor to ever play Bond". Of course, they are going to mutter bland statements like "We are very grateful for PB's contributions to the franchise" But then Politicians say they won't raise taxes, too. Are they believed at their word?
Er, okay. But if you start going down that route, why not suggest, I don't know, that Barbara Broccoli hated Cubby Broccoli? Sure, she's never going to come out and say that. She'll mutter bland statements like "I'm really proud of my father's work." But then Politicians say they won't... etc.
As soon as you decide that you're not going to believe a word anyone says then you allow yourself to believe anything. But it frankly makes you a bit of a conspiracy nut if you're suggesting Eon hat Brosnan in the face of all the evidence.
The way they let him go was kind of brutal, mainly by Babs. Think he heard about it through another source or something, sort of like getting fired by text. It may have been because he went behind their backs and talked to Tarantino about a Bond film. I think he was champing at the bit and rightly so after rubbish like DAD. It became a kind of, you don't like it, off you go then thing.
I heard Babs and Pierce fell out over the shambles of TND. Only read that once though.
The way they let him go was kind of brutal, mainly by Babs. Think he heard about it through another source or something, sort of like getting fired by text. It may have been because he went behind their backs and talked to Tarantino about a Bond film. I think he was champing at the bit and rightly so after rubbish like DAD. It became a kind of, you don't like it, off you go then thing.
Honestly, I just don't think it was anything of the sort - it seems very straightforward. Brosnan had a four film contract (technically a three film contract with the option of a fourth) and he made all four films. DAD did pretty well at the box office so Brosnan and Eon opened up mutual negotiations for a fifth film. Brosnan wanted a pay rise whilst Eon decided that they wanted to reboot the series with a new Bond and so pulled out. They called his agent (as is standard practice in Hollywood) and then followed it up with a phone call to Brosnan personally to explain the decision and hank him for his work.
I think that's all there was to it (it's all on record) and everything I've heard to the contrary seems to be just based on hearsay and conjecture.
Even Daniel Craig has good points. (betcha never thought you'd see me write that, huh BL?)
Wow! You really threw me for a loop there, pal! ) But you're right, of course. It's all a matter of personal preference and I actually agree that Brosnan has many of the same qualities that I admire in Connery. It's like a delicious dish using the same recipe, but each cook mixes it just a little differently. That small difference can have a huge impact on the taste. Still delicious, but with an extra "umph" that another cook can't quite match. As I stated previously, though, I absolutely agree that Brosnan was better than his material.
Even Daniel Craig has good points. (betcha never thought you'd see me write that, huh BL?)
Wow! You really threw me for a loop there, pal! ) But you're right, of course. It's all a matter of personal preference and I actually agree that Brosnan has many of the same qualities that I admire in Connery. It's like a delicious dish using the same recipe, but each cook mixes it just a little differently. That small difference can have a huge impact on the taste. Still delicious, but with an extra "umph" that another cook can't quite match. As I stated previously, though, I absolutely agree that Brosnan was better than his material.
Yes i go along with that as i have mentiond before, Brosnan made good of a poor script
im just a proffesional doing my job (so am i ) never rang more true
In My Opinion. Brosnan was a great Bond and could of been even
greater. If he'd of been given some decent scripts, something to
work with.
In his first press conference he spoke of how Bond was a man
with inner demons, Which he was looking forward to playing.
Sadly he never got the chance, Still what he did as very
entertaining, with some fantastic scenes in amongst some weak
films.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Even Daniel Craig has good points. (betcha never thought you'd see me write that, huh BL?)
Wow! You really threw me for a loop there, pal! ) But you're right, of course. It's all a matter of personal preference and I actually agree that Brosnan has many of the same qualities that I admire in Connery. It's like a delicious dish using the same recipe, but each cook mixes it just a little differently. That small difference can have a huge impact on the taste. Still delicious, but with an extra "umph" that another cook can't quite match. As I stated previously, though, I absolutely agree that Brosnan was better than his material.
Ok, first off, I really don't appreciate your condescending tone in this post. I'm not an idiot, as you imply by your questioning whether I can grasp simple concepts. Nor does reading between the lines make me a "Conspiracy nut".
As for whether or not PB was fired, what else would you call it? If your Boss called you and said that your services were no longer required would you be ecstatic?
I'd call it the end of a contract. If my boss called me and said that my services were no longer required tomorrow then I would be very upset as I have a contract that runs until 31 July. If, however, my boss called me on 1 August and told me my services were no longer required that would be different as that is what we had explicitly agreed when we signed to contract. I really don't understand why so many people struggle with this fairly elementary concept.
It is not a difficult concept as I understand Contracts quite well. I write several of them every week for new and returning clients. What I do not understand is lack of loyalty. PB helps resurrect the franchise, is touted as the Best Bond Ever, has the highest grossing film in Bond History (something many put a lot of stock in, not me personally) and then his contract is not renewed? And all he gets is a phone call. "So sorry, have a nice life, Don't let the door hit ya on the way out" PB has stated that it was massively painful to take that call. If it was a clean cut, expected thing, it wouldn't have been that way. Did you read the interview I provided a link to?
I don't get your point. Pierce Brosnan made his last Bond film in 2002. The first iPhone came out in 2007 and the iPad first came out in 2010. What's the link?
The link is the constant subtle ways of slamming the past batch of movies. The best gadget is a gun and radio, therefore, Laser watches, exploding pens, and jet packs are passe' and undesirable. And iPhones aren't the only smart phones, BTW. Blackberry's have been around for a decade or so.
75% of communication is non-verbal, so do they really have to spell it out when the actions speak so much louder? Public criticism simply isn't done, so no, I'm not going to find an interview where Babs says "PB is the worst actor to ever play Bond". Of course, they are going to mutter bland statements like "We are very grateful for PB's contributions to the franchise" But then Politicians say they won't raise taxes, too. Are they believed at their word?
Er, okay. But if you start going down that route, why not suggest, I don't know, that Barbara Broccoli hated Cubby Broccoli? Sure, she's never going to come out and say that. She'll mutter bland statements like "I'm really proud of my father's work." But then Politicians say they won't... etc.
As soon as you decide that you're not going to believe a word anyone says then you allow yourself to believe anything. But it frankly makes you a bit of a conspiracy nut if you're suggesting Eon hat Brosnan in the face of all the evidence.
So you believe everything, then? Do you think they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true? Are you dating a French Model you met on the Internet? ( ) couldn't resist it, sorry. for those who have no idea, http://youtu.be/rmx4twCK3_I)
Sorry, but reading between the lines is very different from not believing. And how does doubting salespeople qualify as being a conspiracy nut? EON had a new film to sell, they cannot risk offending former fans and so they offer bland statements of generic praise while touting the latest as the best ever.
For instance: Michael Wilson: "I think having him in the role, first of all, attracts other people, like Sam [Mendes], and attracts a good cast because the director and he attract good cast. Then you want to get the writing... it gives you more opportunities with the writing. So all of that comes out of having him in the role. He doesn't necessarily participate in the early script materials. He does when the director is on board and he's working with the director. But I think it's having him there, knowing he is going to be in the film, is what inspires everyone to up their game." http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/interview-james-bond-producers-barbara-broccoli-michael-wilson/
Implication: the previous actor didn't attract good directors, writers, didn't inspire those around him, etc. and that's why we switched. So, just like politicians, producers often talk out of both sides of their mouth when there is money on the line.
Lets be honest, you dont need a big range as an actor to play Bond. What you do need is some basic qualities: The physique, the charm, a certain look. It is not Shakespeare for heavens sake.
I dont think any of the actors are particularly great. Connery is great in what he does, but also his range is relatively limit. Its not Anthony Hopkins for example, and just like all the other Bond actors, Connery has been in quite a few stinkers.
But...Connery is Bond. But let us also not forget: He had 2 huge advantages: The Fleming novels and he had Terence Young in the beginning that trained and coached him.
Brosnan had none of that. He neither did not have John barry, He did not have Ken Adam. Lets just imagine, how Brosnan would have done in From Russia with love for example. or Goldfinger. I think he would have aced it. More than any other Bond but Connery.
Like you mentioned in another thread, Brosnan was BORN to play Bond. However, his Bond is perhaps over calculated in trying to combine the best elements of Connery and Moore. It almost seems a little too perfect.
But that's what happens when you take over a long running series and have to take into account what's been done before.
Sorry, but I can't imagine Brosnan in FRWL or Goldfinger. Nor can I imagine Connery in Goldeneye. Each Bond was perfect for their era.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Brosnan had none of that. He neither did not have John barry, He did not have Ken Adam. Lets just imagine, how Brosnan would have done in From Russia with love for example. or Goldfinger. I think he would have aced it. More than any other Bond but Connery.
No one was better than Dalton IMO. But that's coming from a literary perspective.
Connery & Brosnan were the two greats in purely cinematic, crowd-pleasing adventure Bonds.
Craig is the new-world, dark, terrorist-fixated Bond now.
Comments
I have to disagree with you here, BL (now that feels odd to say!
Please don't misunderstand me, I love Connery's portrayal most of all. He is # 1 in my books, followed very closely by Brosnan, then Dalton. (and I flip-flop those two constantly, I love them both!) Connery is Bond, and will always be close to my heart. But consider this.
Since Bond, Connery has had a substantial career. We have had many opportunities to see his talents, and they, too, are substantial. But most of the mannerisms we see in his portrayal of Bond appear in other films. Whether you watch "The Man Who Would Be King", "Robin And Marian", "Entrapment", or others you see the same expressions, mannerisms, and voice inflections carried across the characters. Now that works, because we like Connery, His mannerisms and inflections hit a switch in most of us and it fit perfectly for Bond.
I have to say though, that I think Brosnan is the better actor. When I see him in "Tailor of Panama", "The Thomas Crown Affair", "Mrs. Doubtfire" or "Remington Steele", I don't see Bond. I don't mean that he doesn't use some of the same mannerisms and so forth. But he applies it differently. He seems to have more of a range then Connery.
I take nothing away from Connery. We simply would never have had 50 years of Bond without Connery. This website would not exist without Connery. All the people posting on this site would have a hole in our lives we didn't know existed without Connery. And for all that, I am grateful that Connery is so good. But I think, if Brosnan had been given Thunderball- or Goldfinger-esque material, or just more like Goldeneye for 5-6 films, he would be the unquestioned favorite.
Whilst they grossed very well (and I don't want to take that away from Brosnan's films at all), they were nowhere near as successful as the 60s films or Craig's films when allowing for inflation.
Really? Firstly, as has been pointed out many times, on many websites, ad nauseum, Brosnan wasn't fired: he had a four film contract and he fulfilled it. Secondly, Eon didn't "complain about Bond not being grounded in reality", they just decided upon a change of direction. Thirdly, the didn't "sell his replacement as 'a return to Fleming'", they announced that the series would return to Fleming. Which it has. You make it sound like Eon have spent the last 8 years slagging off Brosnan, whereas the opposite is the case - I challenge you to find a single public criticism of Brosnan from either Barbara Broccoli or Michael G Wilson.
Fair enough, but I find that odd. Brosnan, whilst very good when performing within his fairly narrow range, is a pretty limited actor. Why do you think he would have been so good if given "the right scripts"? Do you think he has ever given a great performance in anything? (I don't, needless to say)
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Ummm... ever seen The Thomas Crown Affair? Grey Owl? Robinson Crusoe? The Matador? While we are challenging, try watching Tailor of Panama and not seeing the capability to be the darker, edgy Bond that this "New Direction" calls for.
As for whether or not PB was fired, what else would you call it? If your Boss called you and said that your services were no longer required would you be ecstatic? I think PB has shown exceptional class in handling it, giving props to DC at every turn. It might be some of the best acting of his career. If it was such a congenial parting as you say, explain this interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2010/02/pierce-brosnan-still-wants-to-be-james-bond/
Barbara has gone on record to state that DAD was too fantastical for a post 9/11 audience, yet it was a script she approved. Wilson has gon on record to state that the best gadget in an era of smart phones and iPads are basic ones, like a gun and a radio. http://movies.about.com/od/skyfall/a/Barbara-Broccoli-Michael-Wilson-Interview.htm Yet, he must have approved the various gadgets in PB's 4. Yet they continue to make JB films, and PB doesn't. They say that the reboot is to be more grounded in reality, so the implication is that the previous work wasn't. But whose fault is that?
75% of communication is non-verbal, so do they really have to spell it out when the actions speak so much louder? Public criticism simply isn't done, so no, I'm not going to find an interview where Babs says "PB is the worst actor to ever play Bond". Of course, they are going to mutter bland statements like "We are very grateful for PB's contributions to the franchise" But then Politicians say they won't raise taxes, too. Are they believed at their word?
Nah, man, I get you. and in many ways, I agree. I love Connery as Bond, and for all the reasons that you state. My point was simply that, had Brosnan been given the same material to work with, you might be saying the same things about him. IMO, he exhibits those same qualities. He had the cold calculating, the joie-de-vive, the demons, the danger, the swagger, the wit, Brosnan had it all, IMHO. As somebody put it in another thread, (or was it this one?) this man was born to play Bond.
Ultimately, though, it truly is a matter of preference. Some people like Mel Gibson as Hamlet, others Lawrence Olivier, others Kenneth Branagh, still others say that it can never be done well as a movie. I respect that. To each his own. Even Daniel Craig has good points. (betcha never thought you'd see me write that, huh BL?)
Yep, all of those. I think he's a solid performer and was good in most of those roles - he's also very good in in After the Sunset and The Ghost (I think he's he's dreadful in Grey Owl but YMMV). But his range is quite narrow and, in most of his successful roles, he plays a variation on the same character - superficially charming but apparently facile men with a bit more to them than meets the eye. He plays this role in Thomas Crowne, Mrs Doubtfire, After the Sunset, Remington Steele, The Ghost, The Tailor of Panama, and Laws of Attraction to name but a few. Nothing wrong with that - he's very good at it. But I don't think any of his performances come close to, for example, Connery or Craig. Different strokes though.
I'd call it the end of a contract. If my boss called me and said that my services were no longer required tomorrow then I would be very upset as I have a contract that runs until 31 July. If, however, my boss called me on 1 August and told me my services were no longer required that would be different as that is what we had explicitly agreed when we signed to contract. I really don't understand why so many people struggle with this fairly elementary concept.
The script for DAD was at a pretty late stage before 9/11 - the film started shooting in Jan 2002. Also, she's clearly looking at it with hindsight.
I don't get your point. Pierce Brosnan made his last Bond film in 2002. The first iPhone came out in 2007 and the iPad first came out in 2010. What's the link?
Sure. I agree with that. But they were very proud of the 90s films. They just decided (correctly) that the 90s tone wasn't suitable for a post-9/11 world.
Er, okay. But if you start going down that route, why not suggest, I don't know, that Barbara Broccoli hated Cubby Broccoli? Sure, she's never going to come out and say that. She'll mutter bland statements like "I'm really proud of my father's work." But then Politicians say they won't... etc.
As soon as you decide that you're not going to believe a word anyone says then you allow yourself to believe anything. But it frankly makes you a bit of a conspiracy nut if you're suggesting Eon hat Brosnan in the face of all the evidence.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I heard Babs and Pierce fell out over the shambles of TND. Only read that once though.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Honestly, I just don't think it was anything of the sort - it seems very straightforward. Brosnan had a four film contract (technically a three film contract with the option of a fourth) and he made all four films. DAD did pretty well at the box office so Brosnan and Eon opened up mutual negotiations for a fifth film. Brosnan wanted a pay rise whilst Eon decided that they wanted to reboot the series with a new Bond and so pulled out. They called his agent (as is standard practice in Hollywood) and then followed it up with a phone call to Brosnan personally to explain the decision and hank him for his work.
I think that's all there was to it (it's all on record) and everything I've heard to the contrary seems to be just based on hearsay and conjecture.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Wow! You really threw me for a loop there, pal!
Yes i go along with that as i have mentiond before, Brosnan made good of a poor script
im just a proffesional doing my job (so am i ) never rang more true
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Indeed he did. It's not every grounded action hero that can wind surf an enormous Tsunami wave while dodging icebergs
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
greater. If he'd of been given some decent scripts, something to
work with.
In his first press conference he spoke of how Bond was a man
with inner demons, Which he was looking forward to playing.
Sadly he never got the chance, Still what he did as very
entertaining, with some fantastic scenes in amongst some weak
films.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Well put, sir! -{
one Bond it could of made all the difference.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yep - I recently watched TND and TWINE, and I enjoyed them immensely (just as I have all of the Brosnan films). -{
It is not a difficult concept as I understand Contracts quite well. I write several of them every week for new and returning clients. What I do not understand is lack of loyalty. PB helps resurrect the franchise, is touted as the Best Bond Ever, has the highest grossing film in Bond History (something many put a lot of stock in, not me personally) and then his contract is not renewed? And all he gets is a phone call. "So sorry, have a nice life, Don't let the door hit ya on the way out" PB has stated that it was massively painful to take that call. If it was a clean cut, expected thing, it wouldn't have been that way. Did you read the interview I provided a link to?
The link is the constant subtle ways of slamming the past batch of movies. The best gadget is a gun and radio, therefore, Laser watches, exploding pens, and jet packs are passe' and undesirable. And iPhones aren't the only smart phones, BTW. Blackberry's have been around for a decade or so.
So you believe everything, then? Do you think they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true? Are you dating a French Model you met on the Internet? (
Sorry, but reading between the lines is very different from not believing. And how does doubting salespeople qualify as being a conspiracy nut? EON had a new film to sell, they cannot risk offending former fans and so they offer bland statements of generic praise while touting the latest as the best ever.
For instance: Michael Wilson: "I think having him in the role, first of all, attracts other people, like Sam [Mendes], and attracts a good cast because the director and he attract good cast. Then you want to get the writing... it gives you more opportunities with the writing. So all of that comes out of having him in the role. He doesn't necessarily participate in the early script materials. He does when the director is on board and he's working with the director. But I think it's having him there, knowing he is going to be in the film, is what inspires everyone to up their game."
http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/interview-james-bond-producers-barbara-broccoli-michael-wilson/
Implication: the previous actor didn't attract good directors, writers, didn't inspire those around him, etc. and that's why we switched. So, just like politicians, producers often talk out of both sides of their mouth when there is money on the line.
I already did!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I dont think any of the actors are particularly great. Connery is great in what he does, but also his range is relatively limit. Its not Anthony Hopkins for example, and just like all the other Bond actors, Connery has been in quite a few stinkers.
But...Connery is Bond. But let us also not forget: He had 2 huge advantages: The Fleming novels and he had Terence Young in the beginning that trained and coached him.
Brosnan had none of that. He neither did not have John barry, He did not have Ken Adam. Lets just imagine, how Brosnan would have done in From Russia with love for example. or Goldfinger. I think he would have aced it. More than any other Bond but Connery.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
Like you mentioned in another thread, Brosnan was BORN to play Bond. However, his Bond is perhaps over calculated in trying to combine the best elements of Connery and Moore. It almost seems a little too perfect.
But that's what happens when you take over a long running series and have to take into account what's been done before.
Sorry, but I can't imagine Brosnan in FRWL or Goldfinger. Nor can I imagine Connery in Goldeneye. Each Bond was perfect for their era.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Connery & Brosnan were the two greats in purely cinematic, crowd-pleasing adventure Bonds.
Craig is the new-world, dark, terrorist-fixated Bond now.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS