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
As for looks, again, I would say Brosnan and Moore are on a par. Moore was an extremely handsome man in his prime and I think it contributed awfully to his roles in Ivanhoe and the Saint and certainly with Hollywood's courting of him in the late fifties and early sixties.
But he's Connery. He can get away with much more than almost any other actor alive. He's Connery.
Poor old Brozzer is critacised for everything he ever did with Bond!
Maybe it is because he is the Bond most people here grew up with?
If we are all honest, all the Bonds have had dodgy moments, even Connery.
DAF? please.....it is a long way from FRWL or TB!
Brozza's very occasional hint of an Irish accent is the very least bad thing about him. I always thought Dalton sounded more Northern than Welsh though.
I would give Moore the edge. Moore had the ability of prefect timing, something Brosnan could not do. Moore could take a bad one liner and pull it off where with Brosnan they could fall flat.
Exactly. No comparison. Any one who thinks Brozza measures up to Rog needs to rewatch and pay more attention to timing and general screen pressence.
Looking at the guy's CV it's clear he was a total idiot to drop out of Bond in '94. His career since then has been awful. I can only guess he actually lost interest in the role and/or doesn't care what he appears in now. Bit sad really.
By comparisson Brozza has done much better and more interesting work post Bond.
Weird how he was so choosy about not wanting to play Bond in the 70s because he thought the films were too light and then after Bond has just appeared in an endless stream of crud. The guy appears to take himself a tad to seriously in interviews as well. Bit of an odd bod.
Contrast with Roger who also mainly did rubbish outside of Bond but knew how lucky he was to have the part and therefore kept on coming back for until he was ready for a zimmer frame.
Definitely. I always liked Rog but to be totally honest have only given him full credit in light of what happend after Dalton left. He now stands as an acting colossus.
Roger didnt too quite well- unless you want to think of Spice Girls
Timothy didnt do well post bond but he did do a great job with Hot Fuzz, The Rocketeer, Toy Story 3 and ofcourse appearences in Chuck and Doctor Who
Pierce managed to try diffrent movies like After The Sunset, The Greatest, The Ghost Rider and returned to Tv to do the frankly crappy Stephen King Bag of Bones..
By way of contrast, Brozza's output is impressive because he's such a lesser screen pressence. Despite this he's done some decent movies and has an impressive on-going career.
True. The come-back began with the Name of the Rose and the Untouchables.
Yes. And he won an Oscar. I think as time has gone on, the two Bond Titans, Connery and Moore, have gone up in the public's eye. Now that we've seen the changing of the guard so often, it puts into light how incredible it was for Moore to hang on for as long as he did and still have the success he did. And how important it was for Connery to establish the cinematic version of Fleming's creation.
Remember, when Moore took over, and then even after his first two films, there were many that thought Bond was done for. It was only after Spy where he established himself in the role and proved the series could continue after Connery left.
The producers are always looking for the next Connery or the next Moore or whomever they believe the public will accept as the real Bond. Hence they chose Brosnan b/c they felt the public already saw him as Bond. Why do you think they offered Craig another contract worth five more films after SF? They want him to be the Big Bond, the man with the most movies, a grand total of 8, so he can supplant the Titans as the real deal.
As for Connery, people are forgetting some of the great movies he made during the 70s. The Man Who Would be King, Robin and Marion, Murder on the Orient Express. Of course there was also Zardoz, Cuba etc.
When given the right part Brozza is more than capable of holding his own. Tailor of Panama being a case in point. I think an earlier post knocked his performance in The Ghost Writer, but again I'd say that he was pretty decent in that.
Brosnan can be quite extraordinary when given the right part. The Blair-type character in The Ghost and the smarmy agent in Tailor are two parts that really let him shine. I daresay there's an actor in Brosnan that was damaged by his conventional good looks and a part that was so much larger than life. He's no Olivier but he could have been a fine actor in his own right.