I think it's the same when any new Bond comes on the scene and offers a fresh interpretation - the previous incarnation looks a little outdated.
I thought Pierce was magnificent after Dalton, and didn't warm to Craig at first, but now I love DC's interpretation and it's a bit harder to watch Pierce's films ... Even though he was kick-ass at the time.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I wonder if nowadays, Brosnan reflects on the change in direction since the reboot and wonders/wishes he had the same opportunity through the factors of circumstance to do a gritty Bond. Just as Connery's boredom was obvious in YOLT and his more relaxed take in DAF and even NSNA, I couldn't help but see some of that in Brosnan's Bonds, starting with TND and becoming more obvious with each installment. I think he really enjoyed the status of being Bond at the time, but perhaps felt, "with the state of the series being like a cartoon anyway, WTF bother?"
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I also feel he was slightly too smooth and too much of a pretty boy. More often than not he looks immaculate and I feel that Bond has to be slightly rough around the edges in keeping with the novel. Dalton, for me, got the look down to a tee.
Dalton was the one and only as far as I'm concerned, but of the fun cinema Bonds, Brosnan & mid-to-late term Connery are my favourites.
Yeah, Broz looked a little squeaky sometimes, but it's not his fault he cleans up so well. :007)
Ha you're right mate. Perhaps I'm just a little jealous
I wonder if nowadays, Brosnan reflects on the change in direction since the reboot and wonders/wishes he had the same opportunity through the factors of circumstance to do a gritty Bond. Just as Connery's boredom was obvious in YOLT and his more relaxed take in DAF and even NSNA, I couldn't help but see some of that in Brosnan's Bonds, starting with TND and becoming more obvious with each installment. I think he really enjoyed the status of being Bond at the time, but perhaps felt, "with the state of the series being like a cartoon anyway, WTF bother?"
I think Brosnan was more professional than that. I read an interview where he said that after the success of Goldeneye, he was more relaxed, and that 'you have to have the courage to be the man you are as Bond' (if that makes sense- I'm paraphrasing and not doing a good job of it lol).
I think he put everything into it and I never got the sense he was bored or coasting, in the way that Connery did in some of the later films.
I guess also that Brosnan suited a slightly lighter touch than we get now with Craig's films. I can't see Patrick McGoohan playing David Brent in TheOffice, and I can't see Ricky Gervais playing Number Six either, but both put everything they have into their respective roles. Brosnan has a greater range than many of the other Bonds - as Martin Campbell said, he could move very swiftly between emotions - but his style suited his films while Craig's style suits his films...
"How was your lamb?" "Skewered. One sympathises."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I wonder if nowadays, Brosnan reflects on the change in direction since the reboot and wonders/wishes he had the same opportunity through the factors of circumstance to do a gritty Bond. Just as Connery's boredom was obvious in YOLT and his more relaxed take in DAF and even NSNA, I couldn't help but see some of that in Brosnan's Bonds, starting with TND and becoming more obvious with each installment. I think he really enjoyed the status of being Bond at the time, but perhaps felt, "with the state of the series being like a cartoon anyway, WTF bother?"
I think Brosnan was more professional than that. I read an interview where he said that after the success of Goldeneye, he was more relaxed, and that 'you have to have the courage to be the man you are as Bond' (if that makes sense- I'm paraphrasing and not doing a good job of it lol).
I think he put everything into it and I never got the sense he was bored or coasting, in the way that Connery did in some of the later films.
I guess also that Brosnan suited a slightly lighter touch than we get now with Craig's films. I can't see Patrick McGoohan playing David Brent in TheOffice, and I can't see Ricky Gervais playing Number Six either, but both put everything they have into their respective roles. Brosnan has a greater range than many of the other Bonds - as Martin Campbell said, he could move very swiftly between emotions - but his style suited his films while Craig's style suits his films...
I understand how Moore cannot help but be light even when he tried to be ruthless (I was just watching him in the Wild Geese recently) and he himself mentioned that he was uncomfortable with doing a tough Bond as he was directed to do for FYEO in response to the negative creative reactions to MR. However, I don't think it's fair to say that Brosnan can't help but be light because that's his natural style.
As I just recently mentioned in another thread (Convince me of Craig), I think EON's creative mandates before and after the reboot were dramatically different and the resident Bond even when given leeway for their personal "brand," were largely restricted by what EON wanted them to do. An interesting constant is Martin Campbell since you bring him up; he was tasked in bringing back the familiar Bond that was in stagnant hiatus for 6 years (during which time the action film genre had taken a huge paradigm leap), Bond was touted as the original action hero and we got Bond's greatest hits. Nine years later, Cambbell is back again, this time creatively dismantling the Bond forumula, bringing in an Oscar-winning ringer (Haggis) to polish the script and pardon the analogy, but with purpose, creating a Bizarro version of the world of Bond. As much as some would like to think, no Bond team at any time was given substantial creative freedom within said EON mandate ("Best of Bond" contrasted with "Gritty, Rebooted, Thug Bond). I can understand the huge differences in the productions of GE and CR, but the strange anomaly is, they were done with the same director! With that said, would it be unreasonable or unrealistic to expect Brosnan to give a delivery comparable to Craigs in CR, had it been done in 1995 but with all other things constant?
Speaking of interviews, I always find interesting what Bond actors had to say, during and after their tenure and depending when it was said, it's sometimes through the filters sanctioned by EON. I found it really telling what Brosnan had to say about his being let go, how DC called him up (which actually corroborates with DC's account of that conversation), the polite restraints in what was said, but nonetheless with the palpable sentiments peeking through. Like you, I also remember what Brosnan had to say about his role while he still had it and likewise found some of his statements were made with polite, PC restraint. I also remember (albeit vaguely) other things he said about being creatively constrained, or something to that effect; he mentioned how at some points he wanted to take Bond in certain directions but was shot down by Mike and Babs (but not the directors, who too are leashed) and Brosnan became a bit more vocal about this near the end of his tenure.
I do think that it was heinously unfair and below-the-belt for Mike and Babs to "cry" how they were desperately worried about the stagnation of the series that led to their drastic actions that was the reboot; it was still them who were in control of the creative direction of PB's installments and it was they who decided on the "Best of Bond" direction that they've made up to be a living culprit in itself (as if this creative malaise grew arms and put a gun to their heads), while patting themselves on the back for making this heroic, radical decision with PB becoming the sad collateral. I'm sure that if they could have gotten away with it, they would outright blame PB for that creative malaise and it's somewhat ironic that diehard DC fans happily promote ignorant thinking like that.
On the comments about DC being recognized by his industry for his acting ability, I don't doubt or disagree with any of that. However, it's interesting how both he and Brosnan has about the same amount of awards from a mixed bag of recognizing bodies but both not having significant nominations or wins from the more reputable film institutions. As much as Craig is touted as an acting god, therein lies the proof.
To be fair, while Brosnan was Bond he had his share of groupies on this board and his delivery in the role was elevated to Chuck Norris levels and I'm seeing the same outlandish adoration for the resident Bond, but in more measure. Me, on the other hand, I try to be fair and objective about Bond actors, directors, etc.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I always liked and enjoyed PB as James Bond. I admit I was a fan of PB since his early days as Remington Steele and after 30 years I still enjoy reruns of this tv-show. When PB took on the role as James Bond I thought it a piece of perfect casting. I think we can all be very grateful to him for giving James Bond a new lease of life in the 90s. While I usually prefer the 60s Bonds, GE is in top five. And last but not least PB really knows how to wear suits. Seems to me he was born in one. Probably one of the reason why I liked Remington Steele so much.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I always liked and enjoyed PB as James Bond. I admit I was a fan of PB since his early days as Remington Steele and after 30 years I still enjoy reruns of this tv-show. When PB took on the role as James Bond I thought it a piece of perfect casting. I think we can all be very grateful to him for giving James Bond a new lease of life in the 90s. While I usually prefer the 60s Bonds, GE is in top five. And last but not least PB really knows how to wear suits. Seems to me he was born in one. Probably one of the reason why I liked Remington Steele so much.
Bond in suit was such an important element of the Bond heritage and in the book "Dressed to Kill, the Return of the Suited Hero," it is said that there was an urgent need to recapture the Bond tradition particularly after the 6-year hiatus. The book mentions that in reflection of changing public tastes, dress-down casual became the order of the day during Dalton's reign and even when he wore suits, they were "off the peg" and non-descript. I was surprised to read how even during the latter part of Moore's tenure, Bond had gotten more relaxed in his wardrobe, though Moore started his stint with Bond going strong sartorially by also going to Saville Row in continuation of that tradition established with Connery's Bond, but with his own tailor. In PB's movies, I loved how there was a return to doing full-bore action scenes while decked to the nines in his Brioni suits (but in a traditional cut), particularly the escape from St. Petersberg (GE), the raid on Tomorrow's Hamburg headquarters (TND) and the boat chase in TWINE; that is trademark Bond no matter how outlandish it would seem in a realistic "Bourne" world of action and like you said, PB perhaps cuts the best the figure in a suit among all the Bonds.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Good points Superado. Just to qualify though, I said Brosnan had a 'slightly lighter touch' - not an all-out light touch But you and I both agree that he did the best with what he was given.
"How was your lamb?" "Skewered. One sympathises."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Good points Superado. Just to qualify though, I said Brosnan had a 'slightly lighter touch' - not an all-out light touch But you and I both agree that he did the best with what he was given.
Definitely agree. I think we are forgetting that the movie Bond cannot be exactly like the book Bond for the series to have become successful let alone survive 50 years. It was the glamor, style and coolness that made Bond different and actractive to the movie audiences and I think they can veer a little away from that core but will eventually need to embrace it if they want to keep the series alive.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I think that Brosnan came into the Bond movies at the wrong time. After the disastrous results of LTK and TLD, the producers played it very safe with Pierce. Much to his own dismay, according to quotes from his IMDB page (which makes some good reading.)
here are some samples:
They're too scared. They feel they have to top themselves in a genre which is just spectacle and a huge bang for your buck. But I think you can have your cake and eat it. You can have real character work, a character storyline and a thriller aspect and all kinds of quips, asides, the explosions and the women. We're just saturated with too many overblown action films with no plot. That's ludicrous. It's so damn crazy! That's absolutely sheer lunacy because "Casino Royale" is the blueprint of the Bond character. You find out more about James Bond in that book than in any of the other books. I would love to do a fifth Bond and then bow out, but if this last one is to be my last, then so be it. My contract is up. They can do it or not.
When you look at Ian Fleming's work, it's there on the page. The martinis, the drugs, the cigarettes, the casino, the blood on the hands. But they never went there. Hopefully, they will go there with Daniel [Daniel Craig]. They have the product, they have the man, and I'm sure they will.
It never felt real to me. I never felt I had complete ownership over Bond. Because you'd have these stupid one-liners - which I loathed - and I always felt phony doing them. I'd look at myself in the suit and tie and think, "What the heck am I doing here?" Such sentiments were nothing new. That was always the frustrating thing about the role. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson play it so safe. The pomposity and rigmarole that they put directors through is astounding . . . I can do anything I want to do now. I'm not beholden to them or anyone. I'm not shackled by some contracted image.
[on Casino Royale (2006)] I always wanted to go back, because it's the blueprint of Bond's character. It's the one where Fleming [Ian Fleming] really painted in the details of what Bond was about, so I was disappointed that it didn't happen, but you can't go around with that in your heart. It's all such a game really, and you win some, you lose some, you're there, you're not there. Getting the part of Bond and playing the part of Bond was a blessing and a curse, which I think [Sean Connery] has spoken about, and I'm sure Daniel [Daniel Craig] is just getting the full taste of right now. So, you know, one can really only look at the blessings in life.
It would have been great to light up and smoke cigarettes, for instance. It would have been great to have the killing a little bit more real and not wussed down. It's all rather bland. I remember doing a sex scene with Halle [Halle Berry] - I mean frolicking in the bed - and there was director Lee Tamahori right under the sheets with us. But the way we ended up doing it was almost like the old days in Hollywood - kissing the girl but still having your feet on the floor.
Sure there is some frustration in there. Pierce felt that he was robbed from a good movie. And righfully so, because his last movie was DAD. But Pierce sounds also like a genuine fan, who knew his material. His first movie was GF. He has the looks, the attitude, the walk to have been a great Bond. His material was however mediocre.
2 things I find that are missing in Pierce's Bonds are strong villains and exotic locations. Most of the villains where quite forgettable and underused. And the locations did not have the grandeur that the Connery and Moore movies had.
I always felt that, despite the fact that I like the PB movies, it could have been so much better.
Thank you, which brings us back to the age old question: Did the producers almost kill the franchise? The reboot with Craig of course is great, but it could have been done sooner, couldn't it? Also, in the current movies the actors seem more high profile than in the 80's for example, with exceptions of course (Walken for example.)
I am still unsure. I still believe the Bond movies were fit for the periods they were released. But I do also believe they were more trend follower than trendsetter in the70's, 80's and 90's. Which is a shame.
Thank you, which brings us back to the age old question: Did the producers almost kill the franchise? The reboot with Craig of course is great, but it could have been done sooner, couldn't it?
I believe not, considering the eras, political/social/economic climates and such.
The main problem has been (for a long time now) that Bond is BIG money. BIG money rarely is chanced with. When they took a chance (Lazenby, Dalton) it threatened profit ceilings. Brosnan was the absolutely brilliant choice at the time, but this casting confidence brought with it a we-can-do-no-wrong-now arrogance (pointed out by greater writers before me on this site) that let the writing chores slip. Writing by committee trumped singular artistic vision. It's remarkable the directors were able to do what they did with the scripts they were handed to work with IMO. Even Tamahori. Yeah, he went nuts, but he went nuts with a script that was nuts. 8-)
They ended up taking a chance again with Craig & a different tone... and it worked. Still committee, but they know now to back off a bit.
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
Some good analysis on this thread. I'd say Pierce Brosnan was very successful as James Bond. He had all the right qualities & was the fans' favourite to take on the role at another make-or-break time for the series. But I do feel he had it easier than Dalton (right man, wrong time) & Moore (always combatting the ghost of Connery). My problem (if it is a problem) is that his films feel a little indistinct of one another. But as has been pointed out we must remember his output came from a specific era. But as an actor I do feel Brosnan could have done CASINO ROYALE & in many ways his maturing years would have made SKYFALL even more poignant. But this doesn't detract from the good work Craig's doing.
I'd say Pierce Brosnan was a pretty well rounded, jack of all trades Bond, and could perhaps be seen as a hybrid of Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. Two decent movies out of four is not amazing, but also not a disastrous track record and GoldenEye is easily among the most popular instalments in the past three decades.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,820MI6 Agent
Each actor (and in spite of his modesty Sir Roger IS a well rounded actor) has brought something new and a bit different to Bond.
In the same way, each new writer and director has added their own bits and pieces too. Some of these experiments worked well, others not so.
As far as I am concerned Mr Brosnan did an excellent job. - Bond was not in a good place Post Dalton. Some critics were questioning the "Reds under the Bed" mentality of espionage drama, and action flicks were generally falling into one of three camps. 1) The buddy cops / pair of oddballs show style like Air America, the Leathal Weapon flicks or Bad Boys.
2) Testosterone Overload - All the Arnie Sw films, The Die hards, Universal soldier etc etc. And,
3) The post cold war remnants, including terrorist plots action films - The Hunt For Red October, The Peacemaker, Passenger 57, Patriot Games, Outbreak, The Jackal, and of course Mission Impossible and Triple X. - the latter two both using elements we associate with Bond, trying to add that audience. The Bournes have done something similar in more recent years.
All of that made people seriously question if there was still a place for Bond. Goldeneye proved the case there was. TND and DAD both hark back to the Connery and Moore eras respectively and the writers of DAD said that was intentional. TWINE to me is the perfect balance of the past and the (then) present, and the film has the right balance of all the pieces. (See my comments in the recent TWINE thread.) Had the films been made grittier / darker / sharper, they may still have worked. However, maybe not.
I do feel Skyfall was badly overhyped. I also agree that (in spite of its technical and narrative flaws) the poisoned dagger was shoved in the back of QoS a little to quickly by too many people. - Myself included. ;% I also have no doubt in the future there will be critics who are falling over the Craig films now, who will revile them when Mr Joe Bloggs is seen as the next Bond, and Connery will always be "the best cause he was the original." As others have noted that's a fallacy, for many of us grew up with Sir Roger, Mr Dalton or Mr Brosnan as their first Bond.
None of the Bond films have been a failure. I say that because Bond is still an ongoing active series of films today, after others have come and gone in production terms. The DVDs (traditional and blueray) speak for themselves. Not to mention that Thankfully - Mr Brosnan is still a successful actor continuing to make films and be damned good in them. - He was great with Ewan McGreggor in The Ghostwriter.
We live in a world where there will always be the header "People are saying..." or "You know they say that..."
Well I say this. Mr Brosnan did a great job as Bond. We were lucky to have him and his films just as entertaining as any of the other Bond actors, both in and out of the 007 role. Enough said.
(TB2 steps off his soapbox, picks it up while nodding Thanks to the audience, and walks off to put the kettle on!)
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Watched TND again last night and Still Think P Brosnan made a Great Bond. -{
As many have already pointed out, given a decent script, as in "The Tailor of
Panama" and " The Thomas Crown Affair " He could've been even Better. Instead
he was given DAD.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
I thought Pierce was magnificent after Dalton, and didn't warm to Craig at first, but now I love DC's interpretation and it's a bit harder to watch Pierce's films ... Even though he was kick-ass at the time.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Ha you're right mate. Perhaps I'm just a little jealous
I think Brosnan was more professional than that. I read an interview where he said that after the success of Goldeneye, he was more relaxed, and that 'you have to have the courage to be the man you are as Bond' (if that makes sense- I'm paraphrasing and not doing a good job of it lol).
I think he put everything into it and I never got the sense he was bored or coasting, in the way that Connery did in some of the later films.
I guess also that Brosnan suited a slightly lighter touch than we get now with Craig's films. I can't see Patrick McGoohan playing David Brent in The Office, and I can't see Ricky Gervais playing Number Six either, but both put everything they have into their respective roles. Brosnan has a greater range than many of the other Bonds - as Martin Campbell said, he could move very swiftly between emotions - but his style suited his films while Craig's style suits his films...
I understand how Moore cannot help but be light even when he tried to be ruthless (I was just watching him in the Wild Geese recently) and he himself mentioned that he was uncomfortable with doing a tough Bond as he was directed to do for FYEO in response to the negative creative reactions to MR. However, I don't think it's fair to say that Brosnan can't help but be light because that's his natural style.
As I just recently mentioned in another thread (Convince me of Craig), I think EON's creative mandates before and after the reboot were dramatically different and the resident Bond even when given leeway for their personal "brand," were largely restricted by what EON wanted them to do. An interesting constant is Martin Campbell since you bring him up; he was tasked in bringing back the familiar Bond that was in stagnant hiatus for 6 years (during which time the action film genre had taken a huge paradigm leap), Bond was touted as the original action hero and we got Bond's greatest hits. Nine years later, Cambbell is back again, this time creatively dismantling the Bond forumula, bringing in an Oscar-winning ringer (Haggis) to polish the script and pardon the analogy, but with purpose, creating a Bizarro version of the world of Bond. As much as some would like to think, no Bond team at any time was given substantial creative freedom within said EON mandate ("Best of Bond" contrasted with "Gritty, Rebooted, Thug Bond). I can understand the huge differences in the productions of GE and CR, but the strange anomaly is, they were done with the same director! With that said, would it be unreasonable or unrealistic to expect Brosnan to give a delivery comparable to Craigs in CR, had it been done in 1995 but with all other things constant?
Speaking of interviews, I always find interesting what Bond actors had to say, during and after their tenure and depending when it was said, it's sometimes through the filters sanctioned by EON. I found it really telling what Brosnan had to say about his being let go, how DC called him up (which actually corroborates with DC's account of that conversation), the polite restraints in what was said, but nonetheless with the palpable sentiments peeking through. Like you, I also remember what Brosnan had to say about his role while he still had it and likewise found some of his statements were made with polite, PC restraint. I also remember (albeit vaguely) other things he said about being creatively constrained, or something to that effect; he mentioned how at some points he wanted to take Bond in certain directions but was shot down by Mike and Babs (but not the directors, who too are leashed) and Brosnan became a bit more vocal about this near the end of his tenure.
I do think that it was heinously unfair and below-the-belt for Mike and Babs to "cry" how they were desperately worried about the stagnation of the series that led to their drastic actions that was the reboot; it was still them who were in control of the creative direction of PB's installments and it was they who decided on the "Best of Bond" direction that they've made up to be a living culprit in itself (as if this creative malaise grew arms and put a gun to their heads), while patting themselves on the back for making this heroic, radical decision with PB becoming the sad collateral. I'm sure that if they could have gotten away with it, they would outright blame PB for that creative malaise and it's somewhat ironic that diehard DC fans happily promote ignorant thinking like that.
On the comments about DC being recognized by his industry for his acting ability, I don't doubt or disagree with any of that. However, it's interesting how both he and Brosnan has about the same amount of awards from a mixed bag of recognizing bodies but both not having significant nominations or wins from the more reputable film institutions. As much as Craig is touted as an acting god, therein lies the proof.
To be fair, while Brosnan was Bond he had his share of groupies on this board and his delivery in the role was elevated to Chuck Norris levels and I'm seeing the same outlandish adoration for the resident Bond, but in more measure. Me, on the other hand, I try to be fair and objective about Bond actors, directors, etc.
Bond in suit was such an important element of the Bond heritage and in the book "Dressed to Kill, the Return of the Suited Hero," it is said that there was an urgent need to recapture the Bond tradition particularly after the 6-year hiatus. The book mentions that in reflection of changing public tastes, dress-down casual became the order of the day during Dalton's reign and even when he wore suits, they were "off the peg" and non-descript. I was surprised to read how even during the latter part of Moore's tenure, Bond had gotten more relaxed in his wardrobe, though Moore started his stint with Bond going strong sartorially by also going to Saville Row in continuation of that tradition established with Connery's Bond, but with his own tailor. In PB's movies, I loved how there was a return to doing full-bore action scenes while decked to the nines in his Brioni suits (but in a traditional cut), particularly the escape from St. Petersberg (GE), the raid on Tomorrow's Hamburg headquarters (TND) and the boat chase in TWINE; that is trademark Bond no matter how outlandish it would seem in a realistic "Bourne" world of action and like you said, PB perhaps cuts the best the figure in a suit among all the Bonds.
Definitely agree. I think we are forgetting that the movie Bond cannot be exactly like the book Bond for the series to have become successful let alone survive 50 years. It was the glamor, style and coolness that made Bond different and actractive to the movie audiences and I think they can veer a little away from that core but will eventually need to embrace it if they want to keep the series alive.
here are some samples:
They're too scared. They feel they have to top themselves in a genre which is just spectacle and a huge bang for your buck. But I think you can have your cake and eat it. You can have real character work, a character storyline and a thriller aspect and all kinds of quips, asides, the explosions and the women. We're just saturated with too many overblown action films with no plot. That's ludicrous. It's so damn crazy! That's absolutely sheer lunacy because "Casino Royale" is the blueprint of the Bond character. You find out more about James Bond in that book than in any of the other books. I would love to do a fifth Bond and then bow out, but if this last one is to be my last, then so be it. My contract is up. They can do it or not.
When you look at Ian Fleming's work, it's there on the page. The martinis, the drugs, the cigarettes, the casino, the blood on the hands. But they never went there. Hopefully, they will go there with Daniel [Daniel Craig]. They have the product, they have the man, and I'm sure they will.
It never felt real to me. I never felt I had complete ownership over Bond. Because you'd have these stupid one-liners - which I loathed - and I always felt phony doing them. I'd look at myself in the suit and tie and think, "What the heck am I doing here?" Such sentiments were nothing new. That was always the frustrating thing about the role. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson play it so safe. The pomposity and rigmarole that they put directors through is astounding . . . I can do anything I want to do now. I'm not beholden to them or anyone. I'm not shackled by some contracted image.
[on Casino Royale (2006)] I always wanted to go back, because it's the blueprint of Bond's character. It's the one where Fleming [Ian Fleming] really painted in the details of what Bond was about, so I was disappointed that it didn't happen, but you can't go around with that in your heart. It's all such a game really, and you win some, you lose some, you're there, you're not there. Getting the part of Bond and playing the part of Bond was a blessing and a curse, which I think [Sean Connery] has spoken about, and I'm sure Daniel [Daniel Craig] is just getting the full taste of right now. So, you know, one can really only look at the blessings in life.
It would have been great to light up and smoke cigarettes, for instance. It would have been great to have the killing a little bit more real and not wussed down. It's all rather bland. I remember doing a sex scene with Halle [Halle Berry] - I mean frolicking in the bed - and there was director Lee Tamahori right under the sheets with us. But the way we ended up doing it was almost like the old days in Hollywood - kissing the girl but still having your feet on the floor.
Sure there is some frustration in there. Pierce felt that he was robbed from a good movie. And righfully so, because his last movie was DAD. But Pierce sounds also like a genuine fan, who knew his material. His first movie was GF. He has the looks, the attitude, the walk to have been a great Bond. His material was however mediocre.
2 things I find that are missing in Pierce's Bonds are strong villains and exotic locations. Most of the villains where quite forgettable and underused. And the locations did not have the grandeur that the Connery and Moore movies had.
I always felt that, despite the fact that I like the PB movies, it could have been so much better.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Thank you, which brings us back to the age old question: Did the producers almost kill the franchise? The reboot with Craig of course is great, but it could have been done sooner, couldn't it? Also, in the current movies the actors seem more high profile than in the 80's for example, with exceptions of course (Walken for example.)
I am still unsure. I still believe the Bond movies were fit for the periods they were released. But I do also believe they were more trend follower than trendsetter in the70's, 80's and 90's. Which is a shame.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
The main problem has been (for a long time now) that Bond is BIG money. BIG money rarely is chanced with. When they took a chance (Lazenby, Dalton) it threatened profit ceilings. Brosnan was the absolutely brilliant choice at the time, but this casting confidence brought with it a we-can-do-no-wrong-now arrogance (pointed out by greater writers before me on this site) that let the writing chores slip. Writing by committee trumped singular artistic vision. It's remarkable the directors were able to do what they did with the scripts they were handed to work with IMO. Even Tamahori. Yeah, he went nuts, but he went nuts with a script that was nuts. 8-)
They ended up taking a chance again with Craig & a different tone... and it worked. Still committee, but they know now to back off a bit.
#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
Then again, I'm of the opinion that Brosnan's best performance as James Bond was in The Thomas Crown Affair.
Same here. I also liked the Tailor of Panama, where he played a 'darker' Bond. Great movie. Like I said, Brosnan had much more potential. Pity.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
#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
In the same way, each new writer and director has added their own bits and pieces too. Some of these experiments worked well, others not so.
As far as I am concerned Mr Brosnan did an excellent job. - Bond was not in a good place Post Dalton. Some critics were questioning the "Reds under the Bed" mentality of espionage drama, and action flicks were generally falling into one of three camps. 1) The buddy cops / pair of oddballs show style like Air America, the Leathal Weapon flicks or Bad Boys.
2) Testosterone Overload - All the Arnie Sw films, The Die hards, Universal soldier etc etc. And,
3) The post cold war remnants, including terrorist plots action films - The Hunt For Red October, The Peacemaker, Passenger 57, Patriot Games, Outbreak, The Jackal, and of course Mission Impossible and Triple X. - the latter two both using elements we associate with Bond, trying to add that audience. The Bournes have done something similar in more recent years.
All of that made people seriously question if there was still a place for Bond. Goldeneye proved the case there was. TND and DAD both hark back to the Connery and Moore eras respectively and the writers of DAD said that was intentional. TWINE to me is the perfect balance of the past and the (then) present, and the film has the right balance of all the pieces. (See my comments in the recent TWINE thread.) Had the films been made grittier / darker / sharper, they may still have worked. However, maybe not.
I do feel Skyfall was badly overhyped. I also agree that (in spite of its technical and narrative flaws) the poisoned dagger was shoved in the back of QoS a little to quickly by too many people. - Myself included. ;% I also have no doubt in the future there will be critics who are falling over the Craig films now, who will revile them when Mr Joe Bloggs is seen as the next Bond, and Connery will always be "the best cause he was the original." As others have noted that's a fallacy, for many of us grew up with Sir Roger, Mr Dalton or Mr Brosnan as their first Bond.
None of the Bond films have been a failure. I say that because Bond is still an ongoing active series of films today, after others have come and gone in production terms. The DVDs (traditional and blueray) speak for themselves. Not to mention that Thankfully - Mr Brosnan is still a successful actor continuing to make films and be damned good in them. - He was great with Ewan McGreggor in The Ghostwriter.
We live in a world where there will always be the header "People are saying..." or "You know they say that..."
Well I say this. Mr Brosnan did a great job as Bond. We were lucky to have him and his films just as entertaining as any of the other Bond actors, both in and out of the 007 role. Enough said.
(TB2 steps off his soapbox, picks it up while nodding Thanks to the audience, and walks off to put the kettle on!)
As many have already pointed out, given a decent script, as in "The Tailor of
Panama" and " The Thomas Crown Affair " He could've been even Better. Instead
he was given DAD.
Agreed - along with The Matador, in which again he was excellent.
+1
+2
#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