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
Let's get back on track please.
Being better than Brosnan really isn t enough if you want to be a decent Bond.
That is an achievement in itself.
all a matter of perspective. clearly people have lots of different perspectives on what fun is
EDIT: I'd love to see a Bond actor with Brosnan's looks, height and charm going forward. I think he had some limitations acting wise though, and that's where I hope they can find a better balance - someone who can bring a bit of Craig's intensity combined with Brosnan's style and easy cool would be perfect for cinematic Bond #007 imho.
True but I don't deny there were limitations in his skills as an actor but for me, his portrayal of the character wasn't heavily shrouded with a heavily melancholic disposition or a dourness that made being the character such a depressing chore. Brosnan's films aren't the best and he's by no means the best Bond but I'd rather be his Bond than Craig's that's for sure.
And clearly also what serious is.
This is an opinion I share too (wrote about it in the production thread earlier). Brosnan puts a smile on my face when watching Bond, Craig rarely does - and I feel that's an important thing. It's not about who's the better actor, it's about who sells you the "Bond experience" best.
Was Brosnan a bit of a lightweight as Bond? Did he overdo it on occasion? No doubt and such instances are well documented. However, I think he also did a decent enough job with some incredibly lousy scripts. As with Dalton, I think the blame lies with the producers, who didn't commit fully to their actor.
I think Brosnan was actually at his best in GE. He was the only Bond plebiscited in the role. I don't think any Bond actor will ever be in the future.
Yes, sir! That's it. The Bond experience. I feel like that's what encompasses what Bond is all about and separates him from everone/everything else in Hollywood. Bond really is an experience and the people involved making these films from producers, to lead actor/actress, director, composer....all of that is why we have a million and 1 pages where none of can really agree on who would be a great choice to play Bond. We're all looking for the factor that can provide the capacity to deliver on that Bond experience and history has shown us that we can speculate till the cows come home on our choices but we'll never truly know until we see everything unfold in the big screen.
In any case, I think there's a general base line needed for the portrayal of Bond and every Bond actor so far has delivered with varying degrees. Brosnan definitely had it, the guy looked like he was having the time of his life, really selling that old adage of "who every man wants to be".
Even Craig...in CR up until M told him the deposit of the poker game winnings hadn't been made; he was swimming with that special Bond factor where one could imagine and enjoy being this man. He was a ruthless killing machine but had a relaxed and playful nature to him as depicted many times throughout the film before running all over the gaff in St.Mark's Square.
100% agreed. CraigBond in SP felt like a betrayal of what Craig started and was working towards in terms if character development. Everything for the most part felt half-hearted, forced, insincere, pastiche and as a member of the audience I felt utterly detached from Bond. I just didn't care or have any investment in anything he did or was doing.
Brosnan...now he had this natural charm where I don't know if it was a case where he just felt extremely delighted he was playing Bond but you could see that no matter how good or bad he or the film was, he pulled you in for the ride he was on.
Bond needs to be fun and exciting dangnabbit.
I don’t think he could play Bond
Well said! Whoever gets the part needs to sell us the experience most of all. What we've seen with the 6 actors we've had, is how different a portrayal can be, but the important thing is to tick the right boxes.
The key ingredient which it entails in my opinion is this 'manly' cut the bs gusto. Connery had this in spades, especially seen in GF, a little cheeky and most of the times a little aloof, too. Campbell doesn't screw around either, has hard opinions and is quite dominant in his vision. This is what Bond needs, now more than ever. Enough with the emo introspection, bring back Bond with the quintessential gusto.
As an example, in GE: "kill her, she means nothing to me". We know she does but he won't show it.
In CR: "well then you're an idiot. I said you're a bloody idiot". Obviously arrogant and in the moment ego manifestation at his overconfident loss and misread of Le Chiffre's tell, but an essential ingredient of the character
Interesting quotes and indeed they underline what the character essentially is about. In the current climate we are debating whether Bond could or should be black, a female, a transgender with one leg. Well perhaps not the last one, but in the current political climate as you state things have gone south and not the sunny variant. Bond has been successful all these years because of the formula Bond (truly) is. Sure, there is some room to explore the character, especially after the Brosnan years. But for the sake of Bond and the true fans, let alone the spirit of Fleming, don't mess with Bond's fundaments, as he is the epitome of what a straight man sometimes dreams of to be and has: adventure, spy of spies, beautiful women, the nicest cars and to top off a vodka martini, shaken politically incorrect.
I honestly do not care if I (would) offend with this statement, I just merely state what the majority is thinking, including women.
It is probably true that smoking in the 60s was seen as much more healthy than it is now, so Bond smoking in the early films is not the same as it would be today. But already in the TB novel, M is lecturing Bond about health and sends him to a health farm, whereupon Bond discovers he feels much better and fitter afterwards. So Brosnan in TND saying, "filthy habit" makes sense.
But the luxury part is an essential part of the Bond from the novels, and Bond films as a whole were an expression of indulgence in luxury. And here is where at least the last two films greatly neglect the source material and mistreat Bond´s character: Bond shouldn´t suffer from his condition, but have an elaborate and happy system of compensation.
Interesting point. And I agree. In Pierce's case, I think the lesse the better. He's like a dancer. Good moves, good posture, good looks, fantastic mannerisms. But the less he talks, the better. Come to think of it, so does Craig. There's a thing they have in common, despite Craig's superb deep voice.
As for Craig, every time I watch Layer Cake, in which he talks quite a lot comparatively, I direly miss him talking more in the last two Bond films. Talking suits Craig well.
I think he finally got the part down just perfectly for DAD though. There is a certain weary confidence and restrained arrogance in him in Cuba and he's brimming with Bondian cool in his scenes with Pike, Berry, Dench and Stephens. It's a real shame the film is so cartoonish. I think perhaps The Tailor of Panama allowed him to spread his wings a bit in a 'spy' capacity without the pressure of being Bond, and he then brought some of that experience to the following years DAD.
I saw him on Broadway after SF and realized what a good actor he can be in the right circumstances. The Bond role hasn't really given him sufficient meaty material to showcase his capabilities outside of CR imho, and I think that's what he thrives on. He's on record saying he finds certain elements of the role difficult, particularly that which cannot be acted.
As I've mentioned previously, I sincerely hope he doesn't try to play the icon in B25 though. He tried it in SP, and that is where I found his performance severely wanting. If they give him a script where he can actually 'act' rather than 'project', I think he could be very good next year.
The actual films aside, both of which I do like, to me Brosnan was at his best in his middle to films , with his best being in TWINE; the fluffy hair was gone, he had put on just enough weight and he conducted himself with confidence while retaining a certain boyish, mischievous quality.
I actually thought he looked quite trim in TWINE - which is by no means a negative - there’s a slight Connery GF vibe going on, but I think he looks at his best in TND. The bedroom scene at the Atlantic - he looks the absolute nuts.