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
<font color=blue size=7><b>A fifth Brosnan Bond would have had to be at least as stripped back as FYEO.</b></font>
Agree. Inevitably, one has to come back down to Earth and that was what happened with CR in any event.
I remember Judi saying that it (the next film after DAD) would be Casino Royale, with Pierce. And I had these immediate thoughts: 1) great! They should do it far more realistically, down to earth, Pierce will be happy ... and 2) wait a minute, that is the intro to Bond starting out and Pierce cannot do that story now.
As stated several times in other threads by myself and others, it would have been great if Brosnan had one more film - a far more realistic, down to earth film with some somber scenes mixed in with the lighter (a la Bond vs. Dr. Kaufman, Bond finding Paris; along those lines), but no more super silliness or camp - for his final film. And I would have either toned down Cleese's R/Q or just not had him in it. Shame to go out on DAD. Glad to see Pierce has risen above all that and has a wonderful, varied, and successful career post Bond. Personally, I think he deserved a fifth Bond film and I would have loved that. Timing is all, though. They waited too long. And I would not replace the sublime CR that we got. Would have been ideal for me if 2 years after DAD we had one more Bond with Brosnan, stripped down at least like FYEO; yes.
So yes, I agree with this thesis. :)
It would have been grand.
Have to say it was a happy day for me when i heard they'd sacked Brozza. and i knew things were looking up when they announced Craig had been cast, because I knew he would not allow EON to go down that kind of route while he was on board. I strongly believe Craig would walk away before appearing in a pile like DAD.
that's the thing about Brosnan, i never got the impression he got much creative input. total opposite of craig, who has basically been choosing his own directors and bringing in mates as co-stars. I hear a lot about how Pierce wanted to do a more serious Bond, but the fact is his take on the character was paper thin, lightweight nonsense, which left the producers with little choice about where they were heading. DAD was the natural trajectory to take with an actor who just never really stepped up to the plate.
doubtless, had Pierce done a fifth, it would have been inevitably more down to earth than DAD, but that does not mean it would have been any better. it could just have been another snooze fest like TWINE.
sad thing is, with a decent director I think Pierce could have made a decent Bond, but his whole take on the character was just wrong from the start. he was trying to play it how he thought the audience wanted it, but he never played to his own (frankly very modest) talents as an actor. It's no coincidence that two of his best performances are in films directed by two brilliant directors - Boorman and Polanski. I really think that's what Brosnan lacked - a director to really take him in hand and help him really define and focus his take on Bond. Working with four different directors probably didn't help. he needed someone to work with him on his whole presence - the way he walked into a room, delivered his lines etc. His Bond is just walking, melted cheese.
While I think Connery, Laz, Dalton and Craig all did excellent first films, it did take Rog three films to really refine his take on Bond. By TSWLM, his performance is pretty much perfect, in that it's really been fine tuned to suit his strengths. In my view, Pierce perhaps even got worse as he went on. I'd say TND is his best performance, but it's like choosing between Diet Pepsi and Diet Coke - at the end of the day they both taste like sh*t.
I actually think Pierce is a very decent guy and he is as aware as anyone of his own limitations. I always got the sense he was actually just a little over awed by the role. his response was to be a bit flippant. lack of confidence at the end of the day. As a consequence he never grew into the role and just sorted of withered on the vine. Certainly you could say he was let down by the scripts and directors, but also you've got to accept that the films took the direction they did because of the performances he was turning in. I've heard him slate OHMSS and never heard him say anything very positive about Dalton, which tells you all you need to know really about his view of what a proper Bond movie is. i think he just ignored the darker side of the character, may be fearful of the alleged failure of the Dalton era, but that was a sign of weakness on his part. He should have said right from the start - look, LTK may not have been a huge hit, but there were things about that film and Tim's performance that were really great. And he should have made it clear he wanted to keep some of those elements, even if the general approach was more lighthearted.
So rather than counterpoint, since supposedly you are just expressing your opinion on this thesis (I think you are agreeing with it), I'll just say I pretty much disagree with the majority of what you wrote. I just see a totally different Bond and Bond film than you, when it comes to Brosnan's films.
Fully agree, and look how well most people including me rate Moore's performance in FYEO as probably his best!
Quite. I think Pierce deserved a fifth film, after what he's done for the franchise. Granted I would not have changed Casino Royale, but, as we've seen before in this series, nonsense is usually followed by a more grounded film. DAD left a bad taste, which unfortunately tainted Brosnan's era.
IMO however we could have easily had a FYEO style Brosnan movie-- if nothing else but to send him off on a good note
That wish, along with a 3rd (at least) for Dalton remains on my list of what I wish had happened in the Bond franchise.
Okay, so you're a novice to the world of film-making, I take it? It works like this: the actor does what the producer & director tell him to do. If they don't like what he or she is turning in, they make them do it differently. Movies are generally not controlled by what an actor feels like doing.
So no, I don't have to accept your statement above. That's like saying the reason you're lost is because your car didn't like the route you'd originally planned.
:))
I strongly disagree. Actors are not simply little automated entities that producers and directors just point in the right direction. Every actor should be bringing their own interpretation and ideas to the role.
Of course the producers have a big input into what happens, and they obviously wouldn't cast the actor if they thought they weren't right, but the actor still has considerable leeway in terms of their performance. There are so many ways a line can be delivered or an actor respond to a scene. And some actors are simply better than others.
Not only this, but I have read (will try and find the quote) MGW specifically talking about how they want the actors to bring their own take to the part. Do you think Craig just sits there waiting for Babs and MGW to tell him what to do? Like hell! He's consulted on practically everything. He was even writing the script for QoS, that's how involved he is in the whole process. Too right, if EON really disliked what Dan was doing, I'm sure they'd say something, but you can also be pretty sure Dan would tell them where to stick it.
What you're saying is actually totally naive. Of course the films are tailored to the actors - it's bloody obvious. TSWLM is the perfect Moore vehicle. You can only really only see Tim doing LTK. The whole direction of the series since Dan took over is tailored to his strengths as an actor. And yes, the Brosnan films were tailored to him too - flimsy, lightweight nonsense, culminating in the worst film in the entire history of the series. I don't even know why it's mentioned in the same breath as MR, since MR has a lot more going for it than DAD.
Too right I put Laz above Brosnan. Having rewatched OHMSS just recently I was blown away afresh by the movie and actually also by Laz's performance. It has layers of subtlety and nuance that Brosnan could only have dreamed of. Of course it helps to have great source material and an inspired director, but there is absolutely no way in a million years that Brosnan could have pulled off anything like Laz's performance with Rigg in OHMSS. It's just light years ahead on every level.
Not everybody likes Brosnan as Bond. Or Moore. Or Dalton. Or Craig. Though I think nearly everybody does like Sean as Bond. :) Hmmm. But not everybody likes Lazenby as Bond, for sure.
It is interesting also to note that you write like you were there, in the meetings with Brosnan, Michael, and Barbara and directors... and apparently with the current Craig era, you are there too; fully reporting on the amount of input each actor definitely had with them, practically quoting them.
To put Brosnan near Laz in terms of acting ability is genuinely laughable for me; but certainly not the way you intend it. Quite the opposite. But at least I got another chuckle before heading out for work today.
LOL, in fact I *COULD* see Brosnan doing LTK, given that the PRODUCTION was geared towards it, and letting his bad side loose. They were geared towards a 'safer mode' Bond after Dalton's magnificent but not-totally-Joe-publically-accepted take. AND, Brosnan got in some good hard-edged moments anyway that you clearly seem to have missed...
And flimsy lightweight nonsense? Can you say, "Here's to us"?
Sir, you should see a doctor about that Brosnan allergy you have. I know a good one. Dr. Kaufman. He makes house calls too.
Well thank you!
Here's my thing: Moore is not my absolute favourite Bond, but I would never blame him solely for some of the nonsense in MR. In fact, I like Moore a great deal.
I just don't understand the severe dislike for ANY particular Bond actor. They all gave us their best under the circumstances IMO. None of them failed us.
I agree. I never blame an Actor over a mediocre to bad movie. If anything I blame the writer and director First. Do I blame Patrick Stewart and William Shatner for the badness of Star Trek Generations? no. I blame the writers and director.
@chrisisall, I don't like throwing terms like 'naive' around - it's petty. But I was simply responding to the tone of your previous post which was condescending, and in my view completely wrong with regards to the responsibility that Brosnan bears for the general direction of his films. Yes, the producers have a huge say in the overall quality and direction of the movie, but does that mean actors are not responsible for the quality of their own performances? Absolutely not.
Yes, of course Brosnan could technically have been cast in anything. Would it have been any good though? That's an entirely different matter. Stick Brosnan in LTK and you've probably got an absolute stinker. As you say though, there were plenty of opportunities for Brosnan to explore the darker side of Bond during his tenure, but how did he handle them? Pretty poorly in my opinion. Hence the decision to make a film like DAD. By the time DAD came along you just get the sense EON had given up on getting anything other an than the most bland and superficial performances out of Pierce.
I write what I think, based on my interpretation of what was going on behind the scenes and my own judgements about the films. It's all just opinion and I don't pretend it's any other way. I happen to think Brosnan gave the weakest performance as Bond of any of the actors, by quite a considerable margin. Brosnan may have given better performances than Laz in their wider careers, but when it comes to Bond, Lazenby just blows Brosnan away. Who knows how he did it - pure fluke? great directing? great co- star? or may be he actually had some raw talent. Whatever the reason, Lazenby's performance in OHMSS and the film in its totality is one of the creative and acting high points of the entire series. Not something I hear many people saying about Brosnan's films.
But ultimately, I'm not bothered if people like Brosnan's Bond or not. I personally think it was a bad casting decision from an artistic perspective, but I acknowledge he kept the show on the road commercially.
Back to the thesis. Yes, a 5th Brosnan would have been more stripped back and down to earth but there is little chance it would have been as good as FYEO.
I think you've proven yourself to be someone entirely unfamiliar with the film industry here. If you've seen Taylor Of Panama you must know that Brosnan was capable of anything given the proper script & director. That you keep playing the Brosnan hate card means that you simply do not want to see that the producers & directors determined his role as Bond. Some actors PUSH for what they want, others place themselves in the hands of the chosen film-makers.
Go on hating Brosnan if it justifies your dislike of his films. No one can change how you feel.
At least we can agree on Dalton's brilliance, eh?
Sheesh you act like Brosnan didn't sign an autograph or something so now you bash him every chance you get.