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
Thanks @Getafix The truth. Brosnan got Bond because of his perfect looks, but Connery got it for his attitude and ironically for his severe roughness underneath the veneer of civility. Connery's voice is another difference as well as body language.
In fact some in the studio according to Cubby's book did not consider Connery handsome in the accepted way of the day. Of course he is. Connery even said some said he looked too Polish!
Don't get me wrong, because Brosnan plays suave very well as it goes with his persona. But Sean Bean in Goldeneye looked like a sociopathic killer and more believable as a brutal man. He was playing a 00 too. Brosnan looks very soft in the PTS of Goldeneye and not the man I would send in to give the Russians a kick in the nuts.
Dalton was even asked to take over from Roger in 1980 but did not like the direction and said no.
[/quote]
I don't get that. If he didn't like the direction then why not see it as an opportunity for a change? Besides wasn't FYEO a "sort of" change of direction anyway?
I haven't read any but I think they've used bits and bobs. I think the TWINE torture scene came from something similar in one of the continuation books.
I'm not sure why they don't base a full film on one either.
Don't they buy the rights up to most of them? I haven't read any of them but one of them must have a decent plot to use. It would save having to make them up from scratch.
This goes with a recurring theme I see on this forum. So, are you saying that Bond more (or should be portayed as) a sociapathic killer? Because I never see him that way. To me, he's simply an intelligence officer who, on occasion, is called to assassinate targets. However, assassinations are such a small part of his job that I don't see that as his basic personality.
Bond is a killer unfortunately. He is not a psyhcopath but neither is he the good guy. But he is capable of murdering with his bare hands and Pierce's personality in the early stages of Goldeneye do not convey that. In the context that Sean Bean looks more like a killer than Pierce Brosnan does in Goldeneye. And they both do the same job. And they are implied as equals.
This is why I think Roger Moore got the balance for his Bond better. Roger did not pretend to be something he is not and it works better. Therefore you can enjoy the nonsensical elements Moore.
I think with Bond, I would not like to see it get more violent or too realistic. It could be heading that way because of trends. But perhaps a return to the happy go lucky Bond is not a bad thing once in a while. A series cannot survive on one note.
But you need an actor who can pull off the campy style so well that it is woven into the fabric of the film. Roger was great at that. I think DAD went campy but it screwed up by taking itself too seriously at the same time. LALD did not pretend to be FRWL.
Brosnan in GE? He had some great moments but to make him radically different to Dalton, they lightened him up too much. I mean the scene in the Aston with the driving instructor is like he thought he was in The Cannonball Run and looks stupid. Campbell's fault too for trying to show that the serious Bond of Dalton was gone.
The scenes with Robbie Coltrane are his best as well as on the train when he rescues Natalya.
You know the scene with the laser watch which is needed to escape from the train? He is brilliant in that and shows depth too as well as coolness.
He is good at that and he was great in the Fourth Protocol. I think Brosnan thought he would get a few more film to show a deeper Bond but it did not materialise. And when you get reviews like : "the best Bond since Connery" off the bat, then it can give you a false sense of security in the role.
I think where EON went wrong with his films is that they believed the media hype the Brosnan era was getting and thought anything he does or is in will be loved anyway. They said they would love him to do many more films.
I genuinely believe that they thought DAD was going to be loved for having something for all fans. And it does not work. And I hope they avoid the mistake of adding forced comedy on Craig because it can backfire in a serious film. You need to be so careful with Bond.
There is a fine line between genius and insanity. Brosnan's era went out on a weaker entry. Action along with set pieces for humour is what defined that film and it was a shame.
I think Pierce suited the role, but his later films were all over the place and considering the budgets that is inexcusable. I think with Pierce, more emphasis was put on the Bond cliches whether they suited the film or not.
The new script writers Purvis and Wade did not help matters. Structurally, TWINE is all over the place as is DAD.
Having watched Brosnan in The Fourth Protocol, it is clear that he could have played a more up to date James Bond as well as keep it serious. He looks stern in that film and shows he has the characteristics to play the part. He is more at ease and shows he plays a killer very well.
TND is to me his best Bond because he captures all the elements as well as the fact that Bond is a spy. His Bond films fall apart when they constantly put him in action situations and do not give him space to breath or develop the character.
But once again it is a shame as they had four films to achieve the perfect balance and squandered it to appease action audience expectations at the time. The studio wanted Bond to really appeal to the American market and the problem is that you have the rest of the world who also enjoy Bond too.
I don't think Daniel would have been able to do much either with such material. You have to know what type of Bond you are going to be and Pierce was given situations that nodded too much to what other actors had done already.
Yes audiences loved it, but no sooner does Mr Craig come along, and then those same people say how Daniel got it right. The modern cinema audience is very fickle.
I agree. I've always felt TND was Brosnan's 'best' effort. In the first half Spottiswoode gets the look and feel almost spot on. I even quite like the plot. M behaves herself and supports her agent. Decent PTS as well. I even like Michelle Yeoh. It trails off at the end, but that is not totally unusual in Bond.
Have you seen the Tailor of Panama BTW? It would have been highly amusing to see Brozza play Bond like that.
Brozza had the elegance for the part. And I actually prefer Spottiswoode to Campbell. He did a great job in the first half of TND and then the second unit did the second half or at least they may as well have,
Yes, I have seen TTOP. Have you seen The Fourth Protocol? I think that is why the producers wanted him to play Bond. More so than Remington Steele. Pierce can play straight very well and had he done that in Bond, he would have avoided the traps that were his downfall.
Bond is a tricky part and takes more than spewing out one liners. I just hope with Craig that they do not make him into Mr Funny Man in his next film to dispel criticism of his first two. He is not the same actor type as Roger or Sean. Humour has to be adjusted to your personality.
This is one of the few thing I am going to disagree with you on. Dalton is my favourite Bond, and one of my favourite actors, but i'm glad he didn't take the role on in the late 60's or early 70's. He looked a bit.... dare I say it... fey. But the time TLD came around, he had grown into his looks. I would have rather seen Dalton carry Bond into the 1990's, then begin in the late 1960's / early 1970's.
Really i thought that Pierce brought a more sensitive modern age Bond i mean the scene on the beach with Natayla has to be one of the best bond moments that not until Craig was with Vesper in the shower.
to be honest i think TWINE (despite what people say TWINE was the last classic bond adventure) i mean Brosnan's Bond had some really good moments like when he is about to execute Renard in the silo or when he kills Elektra plus you are have to admit the film gives me a lump in the throat when you see Desmond in his final Q peformance
i think what made Brosnans films not as strong as Goldeneye or The 80s bonds was when Cubby Brocolli passed away and Babs and MGW were left handling the reigns they obviously didnt want to do anything drastic and well they were still finding their feet
but i think one of the worst things especially with DAD was appealing for The American Market by casting american actresses (Halle Berry, Denise Richards) instead of going for the unkowns.
besides Pierce is my childhood Bond and he was a good bond
Why I wish he took it earlier is because he would have probably done 5 or 6 films for Cubby. I do agree he took over when he looked the most seasoned, but knowing the history of his tenure, I would have taken an earlier start when there was less b*llshit from the studio that was falling to pieces due to bad management.
Dalton was too good for just 2 films. I still feel short changed. I think each Bond actor should get three shots in the role. The 70's would have guaranteed a long Dalton run and if you see Dalton in Wuthering Heights when he becomes the bastard Heathcliffe, you see he could have played Bond in 1973. He has an older face and would have adapted to the Bond persona easily.
No question, but his image would have suited the 70's perfectly and had Dalton shown more enthusiasm Cubby would have signed him. But Cubby by calling him in obviously saw something that would suit the films of the time.
I think I went out of my way to highlight it was not so much Pierce but the producers pandering to expectation to guarantee success. Cubby no longer being involved did have an impact and good that you mentioned that.
Brosnan's Bond had great moments but they tried to give him depth whilst dumbing down his leading ladies and stories. Sophie Marceau was his best leading lady in the sense that they could have really taken him somewhere with a woman like that.
Halle Berry being an Oscar winning actress is laughable as a Bond girl. The dialogue is like the audience is sedated or mentally challenged. When she delivers " I got the thrust of it!", they may as well have put up a subtitle saying to the audience "Did you get that?" Old Bond was dirty but subtle with a class. DAD was pathetically classless in it's delivery of the one liners. Bond may as well have said "Yo b**ch!".
Jill St John hands down was far more interesting.
But instead he looks like a fish out of water with Denise Richards who ties his hands with how he can react.
They would cast leading ladies to get younger males to see the films and in some way it was worse than AVTAK with Tanya Roberts. Roger's expert tongue in cheek navigated around it better.
Totally agree. Brozza was not dealt a great hand. Having said that, I believe the lead actor has to take a large degree of responsibility for his own performances, which were generally just not that great. I've seen Brozza given enough decent performances in other films to know he is not completely lacking in talent, but he chose to play Bond the way he did and for that he must carry the can. Ultimately I don't think he actually took it very seriously - he thought if he just showed up and cheesed his way through the film the fans would love it, and to be fair, it's difficult to argue with his box office. It's just that by adopting that approach he denied himself a legacy to be proud of.
I agree. If you watch one of the Goldeneye documentaries, when he says playing Bond is "a hoot!", right there you can see his intention for his character.
The producers will fit the scripts in to where they think you want to take the character. Brosnan's era you could set your watch to when the sex scene would come up. I think Brosnan thought that by having three sex scenes per movie made you a classic Bond.
Brosnan suffered from too much praise and believed what he read in the newspapers. Goldeneye comes out and on a plate the media say he is the best since Connery.
Brosnan's Bond era ironically was killed with kindness. All those kind words from the press meant that they took the eye off the ball. Brosnan was so unanimously accepted that it worked against him in the long run. He had too many people to please.
Roger Moore was always criticised but because of that, they made him try harder to avoid that.
On the other hand Craig being seen as an unlikely choice compared to Brosnan, used the hate to his advantage and the result is there to be seen by all.
I agree. If you watch one of the Goldeneye documentaries, when he says playing Bond is "a hoot!", right there you can see his intention for his character.
The producers will fit the scripts in to where they think you want to take the character. Brosnan's era you could set your watch to when the sex scene would come up. I think Brosnan thought that by having three sex scenes per movie made you a classic Bond.
Brosnan suffered from too much praise and believed what he read in the newspapers. Goldeneye comes out and on a plate the media say he is the best since Connery.
Brosnan's Bond era ironically was killed with kindness. All those kind words from the press meant that they took the eye off the ball. Brosnan was so unanimously accepted that it worked against him in the long run. He had too many people to please.
Roger Moore was always criticised but because of that, they made him try harder to avoid that.
On the other hand Craig being seen as an unlikely choice compared to Brosnan, used the hate to his advantage and the result is there to be seen by all.
[/quote]
Funnily enough I actually agree @acopolla. I remember Brozza saying at the end of the DAD DVD audio commentary that he was "along for the ride" and left a lot of the creative decisions to BB and MGW.
Funnily enough I actually agree @acopolla. I remember Brozza saying at the end of the DAD DVD audio commentary that he was "along for the ride" and left a lot of the creative decisions to BB and MGW. [/quote]
I cannot feel sorry for Brozzer @Bain123 He got four chances unlike Dalton's two. That is double in my book. Roger as well as Sean cemented their Bonds by their third movie. I think he took a step back in his third compared to his second.
I can only think he thought he was in the safe as he got to the third film and thought he had carte blanche for another four films.
In fact Brozza's TND is where he nails Bond the best. He makes his best mark on the role there. Why he decided to personality change is anyone's guess.
In a way brozza should have been smarter. I mean in the Everything Or Nothing documentary he gives away how he over laboured his "Bond, James Bond!" in Goldeneye.
In the documentary EON, he does not realise but he comes across like he took that line way too seriously and talks about that more than the actual playing of the overall character. I don't think Anthony Hopkins would have sweated it as much.
Funnily enough I actually agree @acopolla. I remember Brozza saying at the end of the DAD DVD audio commentary that he was "along for the ride" and left a lot of the creative decisions to BB and MGW. [/quote]
BAIN, you've changed your tune over the past year!
My problem was never with Brozza himself. He's a nice guy. I just thought he didn't put the effort in. He never fully 'filled' the character.
Funny thing is you always try and make out that we disagree on everything, but apart from SF, I can't actually think of much that we disagree on. You even seem to grown in your appreciation of the Dalts.
BAIN, you've changed your tune over the past year!
My problem was never with Brozza himself. He's a nice guy. I just thought he didn't put the effort in. He never fully 'filled' the character.
Funny thing is you always try and make out that we disagree on everything, but apart from SF, I can't actually think of much that we disagree on. You even seem to grown in your appreciation of the Dalts.[/quote]
Do you remember the scene with Elektra in TWINE where Bond tells her how Renard knew how to hurt him and the line : "Isn't that your motto?" @Getafix
Well, I remember cringing at how weak he made Bond look. Not vulnerable but almost needy. It was his worst acting in the film and clearly a scene that an actor like Craig, Connery, Moore or Dalton would have nailed with better strength.
I thought I was watching amateur dramatics and was scratching my head how the same actor from The Fourth Protocol could waste a scene of such potential.
See I have to be honest @Bain123 I started to watch the Connery films after Brosnan became Bond. Up until that point, I thought Brosnan was super. And it was there that I began to see Brosnan's shortcomings. Connery could make a scene interesting even when he sits on Blofeld's toilet in DAF. Connery just burns the screen because he does not look like he needs any approval.
In fact I saw more the macho male in Dalton than in Brosnan. And physically Dalton's face being rougher looking had that Connery roughness.
And why I admire Dalton and Craig too is because they don't play to the camera or indicate that they want to be accepted in the part. Brozza is guilty of that.
And neither did Roger care much.
I really still am shocked at with all the support and money, Brosnan's era should have been spectacular.
So so true. This is for me why Connery remains the best. In the early films there are a number of scenes where Bond is the only character on the screen. I'm thinking of the scene in Dr. No (I think), or may be FRWL, where he arrives in his hotel and checks for bugs. The Bond theme is playing and even though all he's doing is moving silently round his room, it's totally gripping. There in that scene you see the genius of Cubby and Harry's casting.
Craig is a marvelous actor and the Elektra scene would have been mind blowing with him. Brozza is a fine actor but being Bond was everything to him and as such desperation came through subliminally in his portrayal. Dalton and Craig would not cry if they ended their Bond runs after one movie. And I like that.
See @Getafix You are right. A lot of Bond films have scripts with weaknesses. But the past actors overcame those. LALD is a pastiche but the actor blends into it seemlessly.