The Problem with the Brosnan Films (and it's not Pierce!)

M 'n' M

Just watched Die Another Day for the first time in quite a few years and it started to become much clearer why the Brosnan films had gone so badly wrong.
Basically, it’s a lot to do with very tired, repetitive writing that – even within just those four Brosnan films – repeats itself over and over.
Examples? Let’s walk through the DAD story and have a look.
- M doesn’t think much of 007 (hang on, didn’t we do that in Goldeneye?)
- Bond falls for the wrong woman, who’s actually a baddie (hang on, didn’t we do that in TWINE) or wife of baddie (TND)
- And because of that, his relationship with the leading lady isn’t nearly as effective (Michelle Yeoh, Denise Richards, Halle Berry)
- Let’s have a baddie who Bond thinks is dead (hang on, didn’t we do that in Goldeneye?)
- Let’s have a baddie who is an imitation of Bond’s Englishness (hang on, didn’t we do that in Goldeneye?)
- Let’s have a baddie who is younger than Bond (hang on – Goldeneye! TWINE!!)
- Let’s have a henchman who has strange powers due to some medical peculiarity (hang on, didn’t we do that in TWINE?)
- Let’s have a car with almost magical powers (hang on, didn’t we do that in TND?)
Piers, of course, glides through it all and possibly wonders at the end of it, how come “I” get sacked and those writers keep their jobs?? (also just watched Casino Royale again and think the dialogue is terrible and – guess what?? – some of those themes reappear)

Absolutely_Cart

Agree. Brosnan was a very good Bond but after the superb Goldeneye the writers really screwed him over.

I mentioned before that Brosnan's movies were too video-game (aka killing dozens of people with a charming smile). But I also feel like there was a dissonance between Brosnan (who was trying to make his Bond more serious and more believable) and the Eon writers who were trying to make their movies sillier and less believable.

That said, I didn't hate Die Another Day as much as everyone else does. I felt Tomorrow Never Dies was the worst of the bunch because it was the least original.

Thunderpussy

I do feel that Brosnan could have played Bond better if he'd be given the chance.
There are scenes in all his films, where he gives a glimpse of the " darker" Bond.
Sadly these pass by quickly and get overlooked by a sillier scene which follows
Along.
I don't think the Producers deliberately, went with weak, formulaic scripts, simply
They were playing it safe, using many trusted ideas and the mix of light comedy &
Action that had worked so well for so many years.
The new ideas they did try, I think worked, like Bond being captured by the North
Koreans. Having a female M, etc.
At times they seemed to want Brosnan to be Roger Moore then Sean Connery in
Tone, which lead to some inconsistent moments in his portrayal of 007.

welshboy78

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I felt Tomorrow Never Dies was the worst of the bunch because it was the least original.

And Higgins stars in it

I wonder how Tarantino and Brozzers proposed Casino Royale would have turned out like?

broadshoulder

I think he was screwed by his directors (Michael Apteds wife,Lee Tamahori, the messing around on TND). Also I don't think the producers had the clout ((Paris Carver, Christmas Jones) to take the studios on. They didn't know what they were doing until Casino Royale.

Once they knew what direction they wanted - he was up up and away..

MilleniumForce

Brosnan was avery good Bond, especially in GoldenEye. I let TND off because I find it very enjoyable, but TWINE and DAD felt like they didn't have either enough effort put in (TWINE) or too much effort put in (DAD). The stories aren't great either. TWINE just doesn't feel...right. It's not dark, but it's not that light hearted. When you look at TND, we have one liners, over the top villain, huge climax. TWINE I think has good moments, but aside from that the film isn't that great. DAD I say has too much effort because they're trying to get too many references in.

Blackleiter

I agree wholeheartedly that the problem isn't Pierce. -{

Napoleon Plural

Agree with M n M, but then those themes reappear in CR anyway, as you say. I mean, he falls for a woman, who betrays him, another villain younger or the same age as him, then a beardy foreign bloke (the Cuban in DAD, Mathis in CR) he makes contact with, the female M doesn't like him, it just feels similar and yet as it's Craig, it has different window dressing.

Gala Brand

The Brosnan films were full-on action/adventure films. The story was only an outline to hang the set pieces on and the dialogue filled in the spaces between the action scenes. The stars were the machine guns and the explosions. Because they were James Bond films they needed a guy called James Bond in them and Brosnan filled the "tall, dark, and handsome" stereotype.

You can't fault EON for going in this direction because in the Nineties this kind of film was largely what film-goers wanted and the franchise was in pretty dire straights at the time.

M 'n' M

Gala Brand wrote:

The Brosnan films were full-on action/adventure films. The story was only an outline to hang the set pieces on and the dialogue filled in the spaces between the action scenes. The stars were the machine guns and the explosions. Because they were James Bond films they needed a guy called James Bond in them and Brosnan filled the "tall, dark, and handsome" stereotype.

You can't fault EON for going in this direction because in the Nineties this kind of film was largely what film-goers wanted and the franchise was in pretty dire straights at the time.

I don't disagree that the story isn't that important, but the point i'm making is that the things the writers added were supposed to make the films more edgy - but just made them repetitive and a bit tedious.

Absolutely_Cart

People mistake writing and plot as interchangeable things. They're not.

Plot is just one aspect of writing. Dialogue, theme, message, and atmosphere are also part of it.

Gassy Man

The current writing crew has been recycling the same ideas for at least 20 years, if not longer. Wade and Purvis aren't the most imaginative people, and even those who have come in to polish the scripts haven't turned out anything truly memorable. Very few lines or scenes come across as original or at least remarkable. Casino Royale benefited from on some level following the Fleming novel while the others have just meandered about in imitation of the previous films. But I don't agree that Brosnan is not also responsible. His decision to try to play Bond as a darker figure was a miscalculation, and one only has to look at how poorly his films outside of Bond fare when he tries to do the same. He is a lighter actor, and that is his strength, and his Bond films should have focused on those qualities.

But then filmmakers since the 1980s have suffered from a kind of cognitive dissonance about what made all those movies they watched as a kid work. It's like they can only see and hear the most superficial of elements while missing everything else. They assume the audience isn't really paying much attention anyway or just doesn't know any better, and judging from some of the things I see and hear, they might be right.

The Connery Bonds succeeded mostly because they built upon the masculine foundation that the actor brought to the series -- none of the jokes, for instance, would work if they didn't play on Connery's image. And Connery played the role that way so that there was a unity to the films. By the time that the films with Connery became the most light -- Diamonds are Forever, for instance -- there had been so many imitators and parodies that even Connery, to some degree, was parodying his performances as the character . . . and then it still worked because Connery was consistent in his approach. The same goes for George Lazenby, even though Peter Hunt was determined to make a Bond film unlike any of the previous Bond films.

The same goes for Roger Moore. He came aboard, and the writers -- many of them veterans who worked on the Connery films -- saw that the actor's strengths were his charm and humor. The films were made accordingly. Sure, Moore could play some of the tougher parts, but notice that in the Moore films he is more likely to rely on a gadget or car chase rather than a one-on-one fight? That's because Moore very much did not have the macho qualities that would allow Connery to simply carry a scene with his fists. But there is still unity in the Moore films -- even For Your Eyes Only, arguably the film where he is the most "serious" -- relies more on the chase scenes than anything else to convince us that Moore is Bond. So, the humor provides most of the sensibility that makes the Moore films work.

Starting with Timothy Dalton, the Bond filmmakers weren't sure what to do. They hired an actor whose limitations were that he prefers to play every part like it is Shakespeare and isn't what many people would consider classically handsome. Sure, he's got a striking look and the dark hair, but he looks more like the villain. Add to that that humor and being relaxed aren't his strengths, and it presents a conundrum. So, what do they do? Write the films that don't capitalize on what Dalton brings to the table -- with "funny" scenes of Bond skiing down a mountainside in a cello case or riding a roller coaster with his date . . . both of which feature Dalton in what appears to be his least comfortable moments. When Brosnan comes along, they do the opposite -- try to make him seem more masculine and brooding when he's the guy that would have been more comfortable in the cello case and rollercoaster. But the actors are as much to blame for choosing to play the roles that way, too. Certainly Connery got into enough scrapes when he was making Bond to insist certain things be done a certain way. While Dalton, arguably, was not a big enough actor to make demands, Brosnan was a known enough name. And he chose to try to play Bond in a way that his personality just didn't lend itself to.

broadshoulder

I keep getting the impression that Pierce wished his films were grittier ie November man. Whether they tailored the films to fit him is another question?

Absolutely_Cart

I think the success of the Craig era has to do with the fact that Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig were on the same page with the direction of the movies.

It reminds me of what the rapper Jay Z said on a radio interview about making a classic album. What separates a good album from a GREAT album is just a matter of all the things being there. Right place, right time. The producers need to deliver, the management needs to market it well, the customer needs to have a demand for it, the artist needs to be in the right mind state, etc.

I think that's why Craig succeeded where Brosnan failed. I think of Brosnan like a talented singer with a bad record label and bad producers.

AlphaOmegaSin

broadshoulder wrote:

I keep getting the impression that Pierce wished his films were grittier ie November man. Whether they tailored the films to fit him is another question?

Brosnan could of done a gritty Bond Well -{ His fifth Film most likely would have gone in this Direction. I think he himself said that he would of liked to have approached the Role in a darker Way.

Mr_Sable_Basilisk

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I think of Brosnan like a talented singer with a bad record label and bad producers.

I would say the wrong record label. The incredients for a darker Bond were there in GE, but weren't followed up in TND. The producers choose a different route. Rather a pity

Thunderpussy

Brosnan wouldn't so much release a record, as have it escape ! ,

chrisisall

Gassy Man wrote:

His decision to try to play Bond as a darker figure was a miscalculation, and one only has to look at how poorly his films outside of Bond fare

So, you haven't actually SEEN them, I'm guessing... )

Absolutely_Cart

Brosnan's films would have been worse if he tried to be a goofy Bond on top of all the goofiness in the script already.

Brosnan was fine the way he was.

CmdrAtticus

Gassy Man wrote:

The current writing crew has been recycling the same ideas for at least 20 years, if not longer. Wade and Purvis aren't the most imaginative people, and even those who have come in to polish the scripts haven't turned out anything truly memorable. Very few lines or scenes come across as original or at least remarkable. Casino Royale benefited from on some level following the Fleming novel while the others have just meandered about in imitation of the previous films. But I don't agree that Brosnan is not also responsible. His decision to try to play Bond as a darker figure was a miscalculation, and one only has to look at how poorly his films outside of Bond fare when he tries to do the same. He is a lighter actor, and that is his strength, and his Bond films should have focused on those qualities.

But then filmmakers since the 1980s have suffered from a kind of cognitive dissonance about what made all those movies they watched as a kid work. It's like they can only see and hear the most superficial of elements while missing everything else. They assume the audience isn't really paying much attention anyway or just doesn't know any better, and judging from some of the things I see and hear, they might be right.

The Connery Bonds succeeded mostly because they built upon the masculine foundation that the actor brought to the series -- none of the jokes, for instance, would work if they didn't play on Connery's image. And Connery played the role that way so that there was a unity to the films. By the time that the films with Connery became the most light -- Diamonds are Forever, for instance -- there had been so many imitators and parodies that even Connery, to some degree, was parodying his performances as the character . . . and then it still worked because Connery was consistent in his approach. The same goes for George Lazenby, even though Peter Hunt was determined to make a Bond film unlike any of the previous Bond films.

The same goes for Roger Moore. He came aboard, and the writers -- many of them veterans who worked on the Connery films -- saw that the actor's strengths were his charm and humor. The films were made accordingly. Sure, Moore could play some of the tougher parts, but notice that in the Moore films he is more likely to rely on a gadget or car chase rather than a one-on-one fight? That's because Moore very much did not have the macho qualities that would allow Connery to simply carry a scene with his fists. But there is still unity in the Moore films -- even For Your Eyes Only, arguably the film where he is the most "serious" -- relies more on the chase scenes than anything else to convince us that Moore is Bond. So, the humor provides most of the sensibility that makes the Moore films work.

Starting with Timothy Dalton, the Bond filmmakers weren't sure what to do. They hired an actor whose limitations were that he prefers to play every part like it is Shakespeare and isn't what many people would consider classically handsome. Sure, he's got a striking look and the dark hair, but he looks more like the villain. Add to that that humor and being relaxed aren't his strengths, and it presents a conundrum. So, what do they do? Write the films that don't capitalize on what Dalton brings to the table -- with "funny" scenes of Bond skiing down a mountainside in a cello case or riding a roller coaster with his date . . . both of which feature Dalton in what appears to be his least comfortable moments. When Brosnan comes along, they do the opposite -- try to make him seem more masculine and brooding when he's the guy that would have been more comfortable in the cello case and rollercoaster. But the actors are as much to blame for choosing to play the roles that way, too. Certainly Connery got into enough scrapes when he was making Bond to insist certain things be done a certain way. While Dalton, arguably, was not a big enough actor to make demands, Brosnan was a known enough name. And he chose to try to play Bond in a way that his personality just didn't lend itself to.

Great job in analyzing the weaknesses in the EON series. I think another large factor was Fleming's work. Connery's films benefitted from Fleming's plots and writing. EON just had to tweak them to make them work as films. By the time they got to YOLT and DAF, they knew they could just jettison his whole work and hang the whole enterprise around the actions scenes and a superspy in a tux. In fact, when I watch the series post TB, usually the scenes I savor are those few they nitpick out of Fleming's work to stick in the plots. At least Craig was fortunate to have been given CR to start with and they've been trying to maintain a continuity with his character as they did in the beginning with Connery.

Gassy Man

chrisisall wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

His decision to try to play Bond as a darker figure was a miscalculation, and one only has to look at how poorly his films outside of Bond fare

So, you haven't actually SEEN them, I'm guessing... )

I've seen my share, starting with The Long Good Sunday and including films like Dante's Peak, Nomads, The Deceivers (one of my favorite roles of his), The Thomas Crown Affair (another favorite role and how he should have played James Bond), Live Wire, Taffin, Mister Johnson, The Tailor of Panama, Mrs. Doubtfire, The Lawnmower Man, Mars Attacks!, Seraphim Falls, and others, including, of course, Remington Steele. But this is why I say he shares part of the blame -- he could have chosen to play James Bond differently than he did but instead went the route he chose.

Gassy Man

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

The current writing crew has been recycling the same ideas for at least 20 years, if not longer. Wade and Purvis aren't the most imaginative people, and even those who have come in to polish the scripts haven't turned out anything truly memorable. Very few lines or scenes come across as original or at least remarkable. Casino Royale benefited from on some level following the Fleming novel while the others have just meandered about in imitation of the previous films. But I don't agree that Brosnan is not also responsible. His decision to try to play Bond as a darker figure was a miscalculation, and one only has to look at how poorly his films outside of Bond fare when he tries to do the same. He is a lighter actor, and that is his strength, and his Bond films should have focused on those qualities.

But then filmmakers since the 1980s have suffered from a kind of cognitive dissonance about what made all those movies they watched as a kid work. It's like they can only see and hear the most superficial of elements while missing everything else. They assume the audience isn't really paying much attention anyway or just doesn't know any better, and judging from some of the things I see and hear, they might be right.

The Connery Bonds succeeded mostly because they built upon the masculine foundation that the actor brought to the series -- none of the jokes, for instance, would work if they didn't play on Connery's image. And Connery played the role that way so that there was a unity to the films. By the time that the films with Connery became the most light -- Diamonds are Forever, for instance -- there had been so many imitators and parodies that even Connery, to some degree, was parodying his performances as the character . . . and then it still worked because Connery was consistent in his approach. The same goes for George Lazenby, even though Peter Hunt was determined to make a Bond film unlike any of the previous Bond films.

The same goes for Roger Moore. He came aboard, and the writers -- many of them veterans who worked on the Connery films -- saw that the actor's strengths were his charm and humor. The films were made accordingly. Sure, Moore could play some of the tougher parts, but notice that in the Moore films he is more likely to rely on a gadget or car chase rather than a one-on-one fight? That's because Moore very much did not have the macho qualities that would allow Connery to simply carry a scene with his fists. But there is still unity in the Moore films -- even For Your Eyes Only, arguably the film where he is the most "serious" -- relies more on the chase scenes than anything else to convince us that Moore is Bond. So, the humor provides most of the sensibility that makes the Moore films work.

Starting with Timothy Dalton, the Bond filmmakers weren't sure what to do. They hired an actor whose limitations were that he prefers to play every part like it is Shakespeare and isn't what many people would consider classically handsome. Sure, he's got a striking look and the dark hair, but he looks more like the villain. Add to that that humor and being relaxed aren't his strengths, and it presents a conundrum. So, what do they do? Write the films that don't capitalize on what Dalton brings to the table -- with "funny" scenes of Bond skiing down a mountainside in a cello case or riding a roller coaster with his date . . . both of which feature Dalton in what appears to be his least comfortable moments. When Brosnan comes along, they do the opposite -- try to make him seem more masculine and brooding when he's the guy that would have been more comfortable in the cello case and rollercoaster. But the actors are as much to blame for choosing to play the roles that way, too. Certainly Connery got into enough scrapes when he was making Bond to insist certain things be done a certain way. While Dalton, arguably, was not a big enough actor to make demands, Brosnan was a known enough name. And he chose to try to play Bond in a way that his personality just didn't lend itself to.

Great job in analyzing the weaknesses in the EON series. I think another large factor was Fleming's work. Connery's films benefitted from Fleming's plots and writing. EON just had to tweak them to make them work as films. By the time they got to YOLT and DAF, they knew they could just jettison his whole work and hang the whole enterprise around the actions scenes and a superspy in a tux. In fact, when I watch the series post TB, usually the scenes I savor are those few they nitpick out of Fleming's work to stick in the plots. At least Craig was fortunate to have been given CR to start with and they've been trying to maintain a continuity with his character as they did in the beginning with Connery.

{[] and nice thoughts on your part.

chrisisall

Gassy Man wrote:

Seraphim Falls

Ahhh, now THERE was a friggin' MOVIE!!! :x

Firemass

M n M wrote:

Just watched Die Another Day for the first time in quite a few years and it started to become much clearer why the Brosnan films had gone so badly wrong.
Basically, it’s a lot to do with very tired, repetitive writing that – even within just those four Brosnan films – repeats itself over and over.
Examples? Let’s walk through the DAD story and have a look.
- M doesn’t think much of 007 (hang on, didn’t we do that in Goldeneye?)
- Bond falls for the wrong woman, who’s actually a baddie (hang on, didn’t we do that in TWINE) or wife of baddie (TND)
- And because of that, his relationship with the leading lady isn’t nearly as effective (Michelle Yeoh, Denise Richards, Halle Berry)
- Let’s have a baddie who Bond thinks is dead (hang on, didn’t we do that in Goldeneye?)
- Let’s have a baddie who is an imitation of Bond’s Englishness (hang on, didn’t we do that in Goldeneye?)
- Let’s have a baddie who is younger than Bond (hang on – Goldeneye! TWINE!!)
- Let’s have a henchman who has strange powers due to some medical peculiarity (hang on, didn’t we do that in TWINE?)
- Let’s have a car with almost magical powers (hang on, didn’t we do that in TND?)
Piers, of course, glides through it all and possibly wonders at the end of it, how come “I” get sacked and those writers keep their jobs?? (also just watched Casino Royale again and think the dialogue is terrible and – guess what?? – some of those themes reappear)

Good observations, but don't lump Die Another Day in with the first 3 Brosnan films. Also, many of your points could apply to any number of Bond films, not just the Brosnan era.

Skyfall should be getting more heavily criticized for ripping off Goldeneye and TWINE.

chrisisall

Firemass wrote:

Skyfall should be getting more heavily criticized for ripping off Goldeneye and TWINE.

) Yeah.

Thunderpussy

Not ripped off, but rather " Inspired by"

Absolutely_Cart

And Batman's The Dark Knight and Silence of the Lambs

superado

Gassy Man wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

His decision to try to play Bond as a darker figure was a miscalculation, and one only has to look at how poorly his films outside of Bond fare

So, you haven't actually SEEN them, I'm guessing... )

I've seen my share, starting with The Long Good Sunday and including films like Dante's Peak, Nomads, The Deceivers (one of my favorite roles of his), The Thomas Crown Affair (another favorite role and how he should have played James Bond), Live Wire, Taffin, Mister Johnson, The Tailor of Panama, Mrs. Doubtfire, The Lawnmower Man, Mars Attacks!, Seraphim Falls, and others, including, of course, Remington Steele. But this is why I say he shares part of the blame -- he could have chosen to play James Bond differently than he did but instead went the route he chose.

Agreed, the Fourth Protocol, The Deceivers and Noble House show that Brosnan could have successfully and convincingly played Bond more serious and darker. However, I do not think he was given much leeway by EON to play Bond that way, which IMO is why he devolved into parodying the character the way he did.

Thunderpussy

As with D Pleseance in YOLT, I have a feeling with the weak scripts Brosnan was
As always the professional, but " Took the money and ran".

chrisisall

This Pierce bashing can easily continue without me. -{

Absolutely_Cart

I don't know about that. Brosnan always wanted to be Bond and felt crushed when he was sacked. I think it was moreso him being proud of his own work.