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 did ask this question months back would Brosnan have continued as Bond all the way until 2002 had he got the role in 1986 and EON still having the 6 year hiatus and many think he would have. Brosnan wanted the role as Bond. I think deep down he would have love to have broke Moorea record
IMO with out Brosnan the series would be dead. He resurrected the series from its 6 year death.
I'm sure the Dalton fanboys would have relented and given Brosnan the plaudits if he'd confounded expectations and been either good or original in the role...but he wasn't. He was a lightweight compared to Connery, Moore and now Craig.
That's your opinion that he was lightweight. That doesn't mean it's true. We were just never given a chance to see Pierce take on heavier and darker material.
Funny thing is he didn't steal the role at all. Goldeneye in pre production had Dalton in the role. Dalton resigned and that gave Brosnan the role. Dalton could of stayed on if he wanted too.
TWINE was supposed to be his chance to show he could act and he blew it. Hence, in increasing desperation about what to do with Brosnan, EON then went for the nuclear option with DAD - a film so ridiculous and OTT that you don't notice how bad the acting is.
His range was somewhat limited, and he is not good within the constraints of the Bond character imho. He is much better when he is allowed to operate outside the confines of James Bond (like Andy Osnard for ToP or Hammond in No Escape.......where he can really let his hair down so to speak). Unfortunately, James Bond requires an actor to have some finessed 'range' within a certain set of parameters (without going outside that) and I didn't see it from him.
Therefore, I'm glad he did not continue to 2012. I would have preferred if he had started earlier though, because I actually liked him more in the 1980's. There was more verve to him then. I loved the Noble House miniseries.
I didnt think he blew it at all. That was his best performance in the role. Look everyone is going to have different opinions. No one is right no one is wrong. IMO Brosnan was a better Bond the Dalton.
He acted Better in TWINE than Dalton did in TLD. And no Eon didn't go the Nuclear route. Tamahori did. Brosnan's acting is the only reason I watch Die Another Day because he's just so smooth and Badass. He makes anything watchable. It wasn't Brosnan's fault Die Another Day sucked. It was Tamahori's fault for butchering the Script. At least he didn't get away with Making Connery Bond's dad in that film.
Source? Dalton in TLD is one of my favourite Bond performances. TWINE has lots of hokey, soap opera elements and Brosnan doesn't pull them off all that well. Broz is the best in TND.
The Brosnan bashing on this site is just ridiculous (an this is coming from someone who thinks his era was subjectively one of the weakest).
Dalton's terrible timing with the humor, horrible delivery of "Bond, James Bond." His sappy romance with Kara. That was a soap opera right there. His stiff "I'm Acting" approach. It all felt forced and uncomfortable. And the overly angry shoving of the cello case in the back of the Aston, laughable. The PTS, The Sniper scene and scenes with Bond and Saunders were his best moments in TLD.
Brosnan was always smooth and his performance never felt forced or uncomfortable. Even during Die Another Day. Brosnan's era is one of the strongest.
Somebody call a doctor! Murdoch's lost it again.
I agree that TLD had some pretty soap opera'ish elements, particularly in the sap Kara romance dept. However, TWINE is the ultimate soap opera masquerading as a Bond film imho. There is very little redeeming in that film. I'd take DAD in a flash personally, with no regrets, Halle and all.
I like Brosnan but his performance in GE is woeful. He's better in TND and DAD and merely inadequate in TWINE. Dalton gives two top tier performances in TLD and LTK. We'll just have to agree to disagree here.
How does that explain my "hate" for Dalton's overly stiff performances as Bond?
By the time DAD came along Brosnan's performance as Bond was improving. The films were not.
Brosnan is not as good as an actor as Craig but I am still a fan.
I was a fan of Dalton when he was still in the roll btw ....and I do admire him.
I have no clue as to your logic as to why if I like Brosnan I can't like or dislike Dalton on his own merits?
I don't need a doctor nor do I overstate.(Unless it's about Bond music haha.) I say how it is. I'm too REAL! :))
There you can sputter your garbage as much as you want and open as many Brosnan bashing threads you want.
It's a shame like a dozen or so people can hijack a whole forum with their hate.
Giving him Casino Royale without the rookie agent aspect and staying away from the first mission thing Pierce could have pulled it off very nicely.
You know guys i adore Bond, but sometimes i feel like many of you are taking the role way too seriously. We are talking about a ladies man character who happens to be a secret agent and knows how defend himself when the times call for it.
Bond isn't supposed to be an oscar winning role so need to look for a thespian.
Pierce was an amazing Bond.he was a very believable ladies man who made every woman swoon( at least he had the effect on me)
I also want to point out That i disagree that he was like Roger Moore. Sure he was very fine with the double entender jokes and one liners but ultimately Pierce was a ladies man action hero while Moore was a comedian a great one i have to admit but a comedian nonetheless.
Moore movies became the comedy Phase of Bond which was very well managed and handled but still the 70s were the comedy Bond very well polished by Moore.
That phase started with On her Majesty's secret service( except for the ending) followed by Diamonds are forver and cemented by the 7 movies with Roger Moore.
Pierce's movies were action/ adventure flicks. They had some comedy and romance but at the end were pop corn big explosive action.
I got so out of topic but this is how i sed the different Bond eras.
Connery's flicks from Dr No till you only live twice were action movies of the 60s
George Lazenby opened the doors for comedic Bond from 1969-1985)
Dalton made the more drama centered Bond with much more complex stories but were like Diamonds in the rough because they( producers) didn't know how to take that direction so with the fear of failure they went for low budget movies with a made for tv look to them.
They had great scripts, acting and peace they just needed to go bigger and really go for it.
Pierce went back to the action genre very reminding of the Connery films from 62-65 but with a Modern twist to fit the 90s.
Craig is the Polished Diamond of Dalton. With him they took the more dramatic root with more depth but with the only difference that this time they had faith in their product and spent all the budget they didn't with Dalton.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the producers were afraid of that root with with Dalton because they didn't trust him its just they were afraid of taking that route because Moore made 7 films and were scared of change.
With Craig was different because of the Hollywood trend dictated going into more serious grounds so no more scared of maybe doing something wrong.
So you can see im not bashing Dalton
Here are some thoughts i have for late Connery and Lazenby before tbe ending of hos movie.
After you only live twice Connery himself and Lazenby were the diamonds in the rough for Moore.
They expirimented with Lazenby and Connery in Diamonds are forever for the comedic approach which they latter mastered with Roger Moore.
If you try and get a copy of Cubby Broccoli's autobiography "When The Snow Melts", it explains very well what happened. Cubby always wanted Dalton, but, Dalton turned down the role in 1986 saying he had a scheduling conflict with a theatre play, and therefore would not be able to commit. Schedules for Bond films back then were very strict, and an actor had to be found well before filming starts.
So, with that in mind, Cubby went for Pierce, as Dalton turned it down again. It was only when the fiasco with the Remington Steel contract happened, that the opportunity presented itself to hire Dalton, who became available again. Also, Cubby assumed that Dalton did not want the part, until his wife Dana intervened, and suggested that Cubby invite Dalton for a chat.
Back in the 1980's there was greater pressure to release a Bond film every two years.
Even the documentary Everything Or Nothing continues the story that Pierce was first choice, but, Cubby's book paints a different picture. And sadly, Cubby was not around for that documentary.
However, Pierce was a fine choice for the role, and I am not shocked that Cubby would have wanted him. I think Pierce has great Bond moments, but EON intentionally moved away from the Dalton style, and reintroduced all the cliches to play safe with the USA box-office. That was not all Pierce's fault! I remember how bashed the Dalton era was before the release of Goldeneye.
I respectfully disagree here. The Moore movies were, for the most part, excellent thrillers with a more casual, disinterested and "Keep calm and carry on" James Bond, played splendidly by Roger Moore. These weren't comedies overall. They had more humour in them.....but certainly not comedies. A lot of the Moore type humour was sprinkled throughout SP. Also, Moore delivered a very consistent (emotionally) portrayal of 007 over the course of 12 years and 7 films. Not an easy thing to do.
I don't see it actually, outside of GE, which was a wonderful combination of a Connery/Moore/Dalton type film, and which therefore resonated with the public in general and also with a lot of the hardcore (note its high ranking on this site with many, unlike the other Brosnan vehicles). I think they became generic action films after that (which could have been made by anyone for anyone). To me, they were more parodies of Bond than Bond itself.
so IMO that's another reason why I think Brosnan is a better Bond then Dalton
I disagree on your second statement personally. I found Brosnan just wasn't comfortable in the role at all (I felt that anyway). When he retrospectively admitted that in a later interview, I agreed with his own assessment. His films were light hearted fun though. No doubt.
I'll agree for all except TND. I find it the most watchable of his outings, and the only one I regularly revisit.
/:) Oh, you say that as if you don't really mean it...
No, I mean it. I actually quite like the PTS. And it's the film where I find Brosnan's performance least annoying. He is more convincing than in GE, where he's clearly overawed by the role. TWINE is one of the worst Bond performances ever, and by the time of DAD he's on complacent autopilot - all the 'best since Connnery' nonsense had gone to his head and he thought he could just wing it.
I knew what you meant :> .... and I tend to share most of your opinions on Brosnan and the '95-2012 fracas, it seems.