It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I agree 100% Brosnan may not be who everyone wanted, but in hindsight he was absolutely needed for the franchise to continue.
Exactly. Brosnan was the ideal man for the moment.
Sure, they knew that and they didn't want another failure like LTK. Until Bourne showed up...
The quote is something along the lines of they always set out to make FRWL but end up making TB. I think that's more about the task of balancing out the core ideas of Bond alongside the spectacle needed for these movies. But I get what you mean. I don't think it was Brosnan's fault. They just wanted to go in a specific direction and he wan't the right fit. It's also as much to do with the producers not being able to make the right decisions to realise those ideas (mainly by not getting the right directors).
I think us fans always go harder on these films in general really! It's because a lot of us have very specific ideas of what we like when it comes to Bond/what these films should be. We're not always right either.
I do agree, SF came out at the right time, as did Brosnan's films. That said it's quite telling (and I think should be encouraging) that general audiences still speak highly of SF, CR, and GE. Even TND is looked on much more positively nowadays. To a lesser extent I think that's true of TWINE. DAD still doesn't have the best reputation but oh well!
Also, Brosnan's Bond seems to have his fans, both on here and in general. I've noticed his Bond is actually viewed a bit more warmly than when he left the role. So there's always a bit of hindsight with these things. And anyway, so many people grew up with or became fans with Brosnan or Craig's Bond (sometimes through both). Both held the role for a good while and starred in these films through quite pivotal times for the franchise. Both were James Bond to audiences. They both deserve their praise no matter what us fans think.
Agreed. I don't think you could have SF without TWINE.
I would say Brosnan doesn't quite have Craig's dramatic instincts or abilities (or at least to convey this as subtly/as realistically). I think only so much can be blamed on direction as well. A director can't make an actor do something beyond their capabilities. They can maybe guide them in a certain way, but when Brosnan overacts or recites a line in a hammy way in TWINE, that was essentially his instinct as an actor. I can't imagine Craig giving quite as weird a reading of 'he knew about my shoulder, he knew where to hurt me'. Or choosing to look like he's holding back tears (for some reason) as he looks at Elektra's post kidnap interview.
Comparing Brosnan to Craig as actors in general can be a bit like comparing apples to oranges sometimes. Where they both overlap is their natural star quality and charisma. Actually there are many moments with their Bond portrayals where they're surprisingly similar. I'd say Craig is the better actor overall, but he is one of the best British actors of his generation and kinda had that reputation before Bond.
To me, Brosnan appeared to be a hired hand, who was brought in to put the tux on and read the lines out - he appeared to have little or no creative input into the series. Contrast that with Remington Steele, where his approach was to show up on set and often ignore the script, in favour of ad-libbing his own material.
I think he was the right Bond for the times but I think he was capable of more (even if ‘more’ may not have been the most appropriate direction for the series at the time).
They already had Dalton, they didn't want Brosnan for that.
I respect your opinion @007HallY but I can’t say that I agree about Brosnan in TWINE; I never found anything wrong with his performance in that film the way some people do. That’s just me personally but I think it’s easy for fans in general to over analyze certain line deliveries and criticize them as being not up to standard; I do it at times. You mentioned that you find Craig has better instincts as an actor but I can’t say that I agree after SP and NTTD; where I found some of Craig’s acting to be perhaps a bit too melodramatic with stuff like “SHUT IT OFFFF” or “HOW DID HE KNOW I WAS HERE” being shouted in a sort of “Christian Bale - Batman” like growl. Again these are just my opinions, and I don’t think any Bond is completely perfect in their films (including Pierce.) I’ll say that Craig has the better eye for good projects however; one of Brosnan’s weak points imo lies in choosing what projects he’ll star in. Craig has never had that issue so I definitely think that he has a better eye for “meatier work” than Brosnan does.
Fair enough. As I even said before, us fans can be more critical when it comes to Bond! And of course certain acting choices work better for some people than it does for others (ie. I can actually understand why Craig made some of the acting decisions he did in NTTD. I think the idea of Bond becoming more relaxed/lively/even chatty after 5 years in exile comes through. But it doesn't work for everyone).
I will say Brosnan's performance in GE is genuinely one of my favourite Bond portrayals. I even go as far to say it's better than Dalton in LTK.
100%
I agree about Pierce in GE; it’s such a thrilling and electrifying performance. It’s my personal favorite debut from a Bond actor because he has it all from the get-go. I’ve always felt that some of the elements that made Pierce so wonderful in GE were lost in the following three films.
I actually really love Dalton’s take regardless of what I stated earlier about lacking a bit of the charm/sophistication needed. In many ways, he’s the most “tactical” of all the Bonds. He’s always 10 steps ahead of his adversaries as if he knows how to play on their weaknesses. I thought LTK portrayed that perfectly, and my appreciation for Dalton only increases as time goes by.
I think Dalton in LTK is fantastic as well. But for me Brosnan's performance in GE is in many ways better film acting. Obviously he's electrifying and does all the usual Bondian fare exceptionally well (with a slightly harder edge than in his subsequent films too), but for me I'm always impressed when actors convey so much with so little and are able to tell the audience exactly what they're thinking.
Just little moments like when Ormov enters the interrogation room and Bond's expression just drops and then hardens when he realises who he is. Or his expressions when he's counting how many times Boris clicks the pen. I think it's actually wonderful acting, very subtle.
Dalton's great, but he tends to go much bigger and is almost theatrical in many ways. Still impressive, but I personally find those smaller acting moments more interesting.
Agreed. It's a particular, and peculiar, alchemy, filmmaking. You don't know what you're going to get in the end. SP is a good example because all of the ingredients are solid, but boy, the souffle falls.
CR has it but SP doesn't.
OHMSS has it but DAF doesn't.
GF has it but TB doesn't.
Nah, It was the Brosnan Formula.
It can't be very serious or very comical and it can't be very realistic or very fantastic.
Even DAD was two movies in one.
They "wanted" to make FRWL but the Brosnan formula was the Brosnan formula.
That's why Bourne was a game changer. Those rules were no longer necessary.
What?!??
Sigh…
Or, how about this, Deke, it could be like two thoughts in one brain. And it gets cluttered and muddled. As in: seriously, what’re you trying to say???
The Brosnan Formula. I'm explaining Brosnan formula and why a movie like FRWL doesn't fit into it.
Casino Royale with Brosnan would be TWINE!
More gadgets, more humor and Vesper dying in a nuclear submarine.
;)
That’s one way of looking at it……………
Outside of hi sexploits off-camera, I really cannot see anything remotely Bondian about him. He always looks to me like the Milky Bar Kid wearing fake facial hair.
I used to be a bit underwhelmed with him too, until I saw him in Aftersun. Couldn’t believe the guy was 25-26 when he played that part (he plays a world weary 31 year old so well, even if his character is a bit immature. Doesn’t sound like a huge age leap but it’s not something a lot of actors can do from what I’ve seen).
Like I said, he’s an unlikely pick, but I think he’s one of those actors who has a lot of great qualities to make a great Bond.
If anyone hasn’t seen either of those movies, I would highly recommend viewing, regardless of your thoughts on Mescal.
Oh yeah, I’d second those recommendations.
Fair enough. Like I said, I think he’s unlikely regardless. And honestly, if I’m going to side with an under 30 year old who’s depressingly close in age to me for Bond it’ll always be Harris Dickinson over Mescal (both of whom are very good actors, actually some of the best British character actors around now).
He looks like Harry Potter.