›

Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1…2425272930…60

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited April 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Ludovico wrote:
    If Christmas Jones was supposed to be a joke, not meant to be taken seriously, why did they make her a a nuclear scientist? Pussy Galore has an implausible name, they still cast the right actress to the role, Honour Blackman did not take her character like a joke. I have nothing against the character of Christmas Jones, but she was very poorly cast.

    I don't really mind Christmas Jones. Yes she's not very convincing but doesn't really do anything that offensive and is only in it for a few scenes.

    I'd actually take her over the likes of Goodnight in TMWTGG. Just because a character is MEANT to be comic relief it doesn't make her any less annoying or childish.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited April 2014 Posts: 15,229
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    If Christmas Jones was supposed to be a joke, not meant to be taken seriously, why did they make her a a nuclear scientist? Pussy Galore has an implausible name, they still cast the right actress to the role, Honour Blackman did not take her character like a joke. I have nothing against the character of Christmas Jones, but she was very poorly cast.

    I don't really mind Christmas Jones. Yes she's not very convincing but doesn't really do anything that offensive and is only in it for a few scenes.

    I'd actually take her over the likes of Goodnight in TMWTGG. Just because a character is MEANT to be comic relief it doesn't make her any less annoying or childish.

    Mary Goodnight was poorly written and a travesty of the original character. But she was far better cast than Christmas Jones. Jones was better written (minus a few annoying one liners, but she was far from the only culprit), but poorly cast.

    And just like TMWTGG as a whole, it wouldn't have taken much to make Mary Goodnight a far better Bond girl. For Christmas Jones, a better actress would have improved her tremendously. Wasn't a French Polynesian actress considered at a time?
  • CraigisnotbondCraigisnotbond
    Posts: 99
    So Denise Richards miscasting makes Brosnan a terrible Bond?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Craigisnotbond wrote:
    So Denise Richards miscasting makes Brosnan a terrible Bond?

    I didn't say that. Your assumption. Denise Richards miscasting was symptomatic of his tenure, but in no way a criticism of his acting.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Ludovico wrote:
    Craigisnotbond wrote:
    So Denise Richards miscasting makes Brosnan a terrible Bond?

    I didn't say that. Your assumption. Denise Richards miscasting was symptomatic of his tenure, but in no way a criticism of his acting.

    I think it was @AstonLotus who mentioned the whole Denise Richards thing.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited April 2014 Posts: 12,837
    I like Denise Richards in TWINE. She's not very convincing but she's really fit (one of the hottest Bond girls, shame she's had loads of work done since then, she looks awful now), she's likeable and she's not a useless character, she actually does something besides being a damsel in distress.

    I don't think Denise Richards did that bad a job (I think some people just can't look past the fact that she's Denise Richards and their criticism is based on that rather than her actual performance) and there are much worse Bond girls.

    I actually agree with @AstonLotus here. You're not really meant to take her seriously. She's a fun, campy, sexy character that's mainly there as eye candy. It's not like Jinx, who is meant to be Bond's equal but is just a shit character (and while she's hot, she's not as fit as Christmas either).

    Also, and please don't kill me for this, I..... I found the Christmas comes once a year line funny. I'm sorry. I'm immature.

    @Ludovico I actually prefer Christmas to Pussy Galore. The "I must be dreaming" bit is one of the funniest parts of the film but I thought the character was a bit forgettable (nothing about her personality stands out to me and she seems a bit boring/monotone imo) and I don't think Honour Blackman was very fit (especially compared to Connery's other girls).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    I agree with you @thelivingroyale, I'll go one step further and say, I'll take Christmas Jones over Paris Carver.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Murdock wrote:
    I'll go one step further and say, I'll take Christmas Jones over Paris Carver.

    Definitely. I think Paris is one of the worst Bond girls but I quite like Christmas.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I'll go one step further and say, I'll take Christmas Jones over Paris Carver.

    Definitely. I think Paris is one of the worst Bond girls but I quite like Christmas.
    Same here. I think one of the arguments against her was because her outfit, but if I was in Kazakhstan I'd be wearing a t-shirt and shorts myself. Plus I like girls in a tank top.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    @Ludovico I actually prefer Christmas to Pussy Galore. The "I must be dreaming" bit is one of the funniest parts of the film but I thought the character was a bit forgettable (nothing about her personality stands out to me and she seems a bit boring/monotone imo) and I don't think Honour Blackman was very fit (especially compared to Connery's other girls).

    All personal tastes aside, Honour Blackman could act and her beauty was natural. She was also and more importantly a far more believable partner to Sean Connery than Denise Richards was to Brosnan.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Agreed with you lot, I'd take Jones over Mrs. Carver any day. Were there really complaints about Jones' outfit?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Agreed with you lot, I'd take Jones over Mrs. Carver any day. Were there really complaints about Jones' outfit?

    Oh yeah, Several times on this very forum I've seen people complain that Nuclear Physicists wouldn't wear tank tops and shorts or something like that.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Murdock wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Agreed with you lot, I'd take Jones over Mrs. Carver any day. Were there really complaints about Jones' outfit?

    Oh yeah, Several times on this very forum I've seen people complain that Nuclear Physicists wouldn't wear tank tops and shorts or something like that.

    I don't care what your job title is, I'm sure at some point you're going to strip down to a tank top and shorts if the weather says otherwise.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Agreed with you lot, I'd take Jones over Mrs. Carver any day. Were there really complaints about Jones' outfit?

    Oh yeah, Several times on this very forum I've seen people complain that Nuclear Physicists wouldn't wear tank tops and shorts or something like that.

    I don't care what your job title is, I'm sure at some point you're going to strip down to a tank top and shorts if the weather says otherwise.

    Unless you're a Bee Keeper ;-)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @WillyGalore, you have me there. Or an astronaut! But don't negate me. ;-)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Brosnan was the best Bond ever, and his four films will never be surpassed.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Brosnan was the best Bond ever, and his four films will never be surpassed.

    Who the hell are you and what have you done with our beloved @Thunderfinger? You fiend. ;-)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Brosnan was the best Bond ever, and his four films will never be surpassed.

    Who the hell are you and what have you done with our beloved @Thunderfinger? You fiend. ;-)
    260375.gif

  • CraigisnotbondCraigisnotbond
    Posts: 99
    Ludovico wrote:
    Craigisnotbond wrote:
    So Denise Richards miscasting makes Brosnan a terrible Bond?

    I didn't say that. Your assumption. Denise Richards miscasting was symptomatic of his tenure, but in no way a criticism of his acting.

    Sorry about that, bud.
  • CraigisnotbondCraigisnotbond
    Posts: 99
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Brosnan was the best Bond ever, and his four films will never be surpassed.

    It looks like it with the way things are going. Watching movies previous to Brosnan, although good, are dated. If I grew up with Connery and watched the series progress, then it would have been a different thing. I guess I have sentiment value to Brosnan since he's the actor I grew up with, and only actor I consider to be Bond, plain and simple. I remember I felt gutted when I found out he was being replaced. I didn't bother seeing Casino and Quantom until 2 days before Skyfall's release. Again, this is just my opinion.

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    That quote was meant as a joke
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Craigisnotbond wrote:
    I guess I have sentiment value to Brosnan since he's the actor I grew up with, and only actor I consider to be Bond, plain and simple.
    Then don't just pick on Mr. Craig. You should change your name to ConneryLazenbyMooreDaltonandCraigarenotbond. Heck, you could even add Barry Nelson and all the blokes from CR 67 while you're at it.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    pachazo wrote:
    Craigisnotbond wrote:
    I guess I have sentiment value to Brosnan since he's the actor I grew up with, and only actor I consider to be Bond, plain and simple.
    Then don't just pick on Mr. Craig. You should change your name to ConneryLazenbyMooreDaltonandCraigarenotbond. Heck, you could even add Barry Nelson and all the blokes from CR 67 while you're at it.

    :))
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,169
    Craigisnotbond wrote:
    Watching movies previous to Brosnan, although good, are dated. If I grew up with Connery and watched the series progress, then it would have been a different thing. I guess I have sentiment value to Brosnan since he's the actor I grew up with, and only actor I consider to be Bond, plain and simple.

    I grew up with Moore, then he was replaced by the excellent Dalton. But during this period I was introduced to Connery and Lazenby. After a very long wait, we got Brosnan who I also liked, and so then to Craig.
    I love all the Bond actors one way or another. More men have walked on the moon than there have been Bond actors.
    But I can never understand why one particular actor would so captivate anyone.
    It's like they're missing out on so much.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    pachazo wrote:
    Craigisnotbond wrote:
    I guess I have sentiment value to Brosnan since he's the actor I grew up with, and only actor I consider to be Bond, plain and simple.
    Then don't just pick on Mr. Craig. You should change your name to ConneryLazenbyMooreDaltonandCraigarenotbond. Heck, you could even add Barry Nelson and all the blokes from CR 67 while you're at it.

    What I find staggering is not that one picks on Daniel Craig, but that one would disregard a whole franchise, including classics, to put one precise tenure on an pedestal.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Imagine not even having a "top five".
    Sorry, it stops at four...
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    And not a very high top if you have these for movies to choose from. I don't think Brosnan himself could in all honesty say that even his best Bond is superior to FRWL.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Craigisnotbond wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Craigisnotbond wrote:
    So Denise Richards miscasting makes Brosnan a terrible Bond?

    I didn't say that. Your assumption. Denise Richards miscasting was symptomatic of his tenure, but in no way a criticism of his acting.

    Sorry about that, bud.

    The Brosnan miscasting makes Brosnan a terrible Bond. How can you not love Denise? One of the few good things about that film, along with the title sequence and song.
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The problem with that whole "not meant to be taken seriously" argument is that it does not excuse or account for genuinely poor film-making.

    Moonraker is not meant to be taken seriously and I'm not it's biggest fan, but at least that's a competently made production with a bit of class. We all know Bond films are meant to be fun but I think most people expect a certain standard from a long running series like this. Saying "oh its not meant to be taken seriously" can be a bit of a cop-out. Michael Bay films "aren't meant to be taken seriously".

    I agree that some of the flack Brosnan gets here is mean-spirited BUT some of it is valid. I love Brosnan but you can't argue that even he isn't satisfied with his films.

    Its very common for actors and other filmakers to be critical of their work.It speaks well of Brosnan that he is humble enough to say he wasnt great.As far as im concerned, he has NOTHING to be sorry about as he was a FANTASTIC James Bond.On par with Connery for being just the right mix of suave charm and toughness.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I am humble enough to say I am not a great community member. Not sorry about that, either... as I am a FANTASTIC member. :))
    No, sorry. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even the ones with the wrong ones. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.