Brosnan's Last 3 Bond Films: The Problem?

2456789

Comments

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I'm going to stay out of this argument but, just one point, I still don't get the "Brosnan has no screen presence" argument. I'm watching TND right now...damn that guy looks good in a tux. I think if he walked into a room people WOULD notice him.

    Whether you prefer Brosnan or Dalton, one thing IS certain - Brosnan is the slicker of the two. Shallow or not it's fairly easy to see why he is the "more popular" Bond. I say that having just stuck in the LTK dvd (I have too much time on my hands).

    Dalton, despite his superior physical size, just doesn't have the same effect. Especially with the scruffy clothes/haircut/frequent angry look he sports in LTK.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Brosnan does look goog in the dinner jacket and suits, I still think that TND has the best fashion of the 1995 - 2002 era.

    Dalton may not be held up in the same regard as Connery, Moore or Brosnan, but Dalton got a grasp on his Bond get go, something I think Brosnan never managed to do.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Brosnan does look goog in the dinner jacket and suits, I still think that TND has the best fashion of the 1995 - 2002 era.

    Dalton may not be held up in the same regard as Connery, Moore or Brosnan, but Dalton got a grasp on his Bond get go, something I think Brosnan never managed to do.

    I think this may be a bit harsh on Brosnan, every performance differs from film to film, Connery in DR NO differs a bit from say TB or DAF, it just the way things progress from film to film.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Brosnan does look goog in the dinner jacket and suits, I still think that TND has the best fashion of the 1995 - 2002 era.

    Dalton may not be held up in the same regard as Connery, Moore or Brosnan, but Dalton got a grasp on his Bond get go, something I think Brosnan never managed to do.

    According to Connery he didn't :p

    Seriously though Dalton does deserve credit for trying to take Bond back to his roots. He knew what he wanted to do with the character- you can't argue that - but there's arguably just that something he doesn't quite have onscreen (IMO). I can't put my finger on it but It might just be because he often looks quite "scruffy" whereas Connery, Laz, Moore, Brosnan and Craig usually looked more appealing - even in casual gear.

    Anyway, back to topic
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited May 2012 Posts: 13,978
    Connery isn't really an expert on Bond, and he isn't one to talk (DAF / NSNA). Anyway...


    I don't think there's a problem with Brosnan's last 3 films, the problem lies in his last 4 films. The lack of a clear direction (i'm taking about where the series was going, not who was directing) is the stumbling block of the Brosnan era. Maybe the Dalton era caued EON to have thier fingers burned, I don't know. What I do know is that when I watch any of the Brosnan films, I can't help but think how much better they would have been with an actor who had the desire to get his claws into the role and really run with it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2012 Posts: 15,718
    I only have a problem with TWINE, which I find totally appalling.

    TND is great fun, Brosnan is super cool in that one, and in DAD, even with all the OTT, Brosnan gave a very Fleming-esque performance.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 1,052
    What Connery thinks doesn't really matter, it could be said that the Connery films feature the least actual character development, unless you count getting bored and fat as character development?

    I don't think changing director helped the Brosnan era, especially when they went from one mediocre director to another!
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Connery isn't really an expert on Bond, and he isn't one to talk (DAF / NSNA). Anyway...


    I don't think there's a problem with Brosnan's last 3 films, the problem lies in his last 4 films. The lack of a clear direction (i'm taking about where the series was going, not who was directing) is the stumbling block of the Brosnan era. Maybe the Dalton era caued EON to have thier fingers burned, I don't know. What I do know is that when I watch any of the Brosnan films, I can't help but think how much better they would have been with an actor who had the desire to get his claws into the role and really run with it.

    Exactly! Yes, the stories and directing were often poor, but these guys were doing the best they could with the most wooden actor to have ever played Bond. Let's face it, the Moore-era films were sometimes a bit ropey and LTK doesn't have the highest production standards, but the lead actor just holds the screen and saves the day (in every sense). Brozza, bless his heart, was just not up to the job. This was obvious from the first minutes of GE and he simply never improved.

    Yes DAD was a collosal train wreck and Tamahori is largely responsible, but it was all an attempt to cover up for the fact Brosnan was floundering desperately in the role. He was given umpteen chances to prove he could pull it off. The producers went out of their way to give him a 'proper' story with TWINE and he completely blew it. I have nothing against Brosnan the man but from a quality perspective, he was the biggest disaster to ever happen to the series.
  • Posts: 232
    I've never really thought that Brosnan was trying to be Connery or Moore. I think because Brosnan has dark hair & hairy chest= Connery, and because he is better suited to light humor= Moore. But really, when I see Brosnan, I think he has his own identity. To accuse Brosnan of channeling Connery/ Moore, it would have to be applied to his entire career. His Bond is not miles away from his Remington Steele character (which I admit I am huge fan of), which embodies an old fashioned hollywood, dashing hero mold. I think the producers just had a horrible time trying to get straight, what kind of Bond they wanted to make. The scripts truly confuse Brosnan's Bond, and made him one dimensional. When they tried to insert depth (aka: Brosnan's farewell to Mrs. Carver, or quick mourn of Elektra) it feels corny, awkward, and contrived. I really enjoy Brosnan's films overall, but it does feel like a missed opportunity to a greater legacy.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    I would say the storys in the scripts diminished with each following one but the production values got higher. that being said i really think there are some massive clangers of lines being dropped in these craig films as well as story holes. Bond saying "I thought he had my back" was a bit too stupid sounding for me, his almost shooting camille in the head in QoS, just not the way I think it would go. still this new one should be good as hes hopefully a much more cheerful disher out of grim justice. also the day bond stopped being a detective and Mi6 started phoning him every piece of information was the day bond died. and became a shoot first kinda idiot.

    He shoulda kept the PPK as well, p99 is just too damn big to walk around with.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I agree with a lot of the sentiments thus far, especially the fact that the producers and writers and everyone played it too safe. They didn't take any chances except with DAD and the torture scene and then the movie imploded an hour later. The movies are tepid, weak willed and by the numbers. They simply checked the Bond cliches off as they wrote the script and Brosnan was so excited to be Bond that he didn't challenge them and went along for the ride.

    I don't blame him, nor do I hate him at all, but he didn't go for it when he had the chance. It's too bad b/c his acting has dramatically improved since. Check out The Matador, a film that came out a mere two years after his last Bond (though he didn't know it was his last at the time). It's great and he's great. He even got nominated for a Golden Globe. Nice but too late for Bond.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I'm in no way Brosnan's biggest fan and I probably rank him as my least favourite Bond but I think it's a bit unfair to say that he blew it. I believe that as Bond Brosnan just didn't have the acting skill to really make an impression from an acting perspective. That being said I feel that every other aspect of his movies contributed some sort of overcompensation to mask Brosnan's shortcomings in the lead role. Sure, on paper he looked good, he was the people's choice and he fulfilled those hollow expectations wonderfully in that he looked like a James Bond. Now, looking like James Bone and being James Bond are 2 different things and I get the impression the former some how managed to keep the series afloat through out Brosnan's run, so little was done to really challenge the series and strive for actual good quality. I mean why bother? If the series was still doing good numbers with a mediocre product there's little motivation to go above and beyond.

    When I read and watch interviews from Brosnan and the producers, writers and directors from the Brosnan era, there's this overwhelming feeling that I get from them that they were just going by the numbers and business as usual. They often tried to promote each movie with some sort of profound approach to the Bond character and the story but you can see there was no conviction in their words.

    In short Brosnan was entertaining for the most part but because of him although he kept Bond popular he just wasn't good enough for the series to be taken seriously and the lack of direction was in part because Brosnan's popularity as the guy who should be Bond who eventually got the role was enough to carry these mediocre movies without needing a clear direction as to where the series should be heading.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I'd like to say a little more about Cubby's death and the six year break before GE. Think of all the pressure they were under. Six financial/legal trouble and it probably seemed like Bond was gone for good. That must have been scary. Then they come back hard with GE and bam! Bond gets it's biggest overal BO payday ever and then Cubby dies.

    I'm sure they were shell-shocked by his passing. They didn't want to mess it up for fear of losing their audience, already gun shy by the six year gap and potential loss of the series forever. I don't blame them for doing what they had to to keep it going. It's easy to look back and say they messed up. The films weren't great but they were what they were and kept the series going. I'm glad b/c now they seem to have learned from their mistakes and Bond is risky and cutting edge. It's the exact opposite of safe, flawed as some decisions may be the series is swinging back the other way.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I'd like to say a little more about Cubby's death and the six year break before GE. Think of all the pressure they were under. Six financial/legal trouble and it probably seemed like Bond was gone for good. That must have been scary. Then they come back hard with GE and bam! Bond gets it's biggest overal BO payday ever and then Cubby dies.

    I'm sure they were shell-shocked by his passing. They didn't want to mess it up for fear of losing their audience, already gun shy by the six year gap and potential loss of the series forever. I don't blame them for doing what they had to to keep it going. It's easy to look back and say they messed up. The films weren't great but they were what they were and kept the series going. I'm glad b/c now they seem to have learned from their mistakes and Bond is risky and cutting edge. It's the exact opposite of safe, flawed as some decisions may be the series is swinging back the other way.

    I agree. They did what they had to at the time. Brosnan was popular with the audiences and you can't argue too much with that. He is one of the few Bond actors to actually be sacked though, which says a lot about what the producers ultimately thought of him.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Why do people believe Brosnan was sacked? He wasn't. He was contracted to do a 4 films only and he did them. Regarding coming back for a 5th GE initially didn't want to...until a little later but that's beside the point. He only signed for 4 films and he dI'd them all. End of.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    doubleoego wrote:
    Why do people believe Brosnan was sacked? He wasn't. He was contracted to do a 4 films only and he did them. Regarding coming back for a 5th GE initially didn't want to...until a little later but that's beside the point. He only signed for 4 films and he dI'd them all. End of.

    He wanted to carry on in the role and the producers didn't ask him back. That's about as close to getting sacked as you get with EON, isn't it? As far as I'm aware, only Lazer and (perhaps) Dalton received the same treatment. Sean and Roger were able to carry on (in fact, were begged to carry on) as long as they wanted.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    With Dalton there was pressure from the money men to push him out, and a reluctance from Cubby to let him go. That's how I believe it went down.
  • Posts: 11,425
    With Dalton there was pressure from the money men to push him out, and a reluctance from Cubby to let him go. That's how I believe it went down.

    That was my understanding as well. I suspect Cubby had both a personal and professional liking for Dalts and would have liked him to stay on in the role. Although you could say that ultimately if Cubby wasn't prepared to fight on Tim's behalf, he was effectively showing him the door.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Getafix wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Why do people believe Brosnan was sacked? He wasn't. He was contracted to do a 4 films only and he did them. Regarding coming back for a 5th GE initially didn't want to...until a little later but that's beside the point. He only signed for 4 films and he dI'd them all. End of.

    He wanted to carry on on the role and the producers didn't ask him back. That's about as close to getting sacked as you get with EON, isn't it? As far as I'm aware, only Lazer and (perhaps) Dalton received the same treatment. Sean and Roger were able to carry on (in fact, were begged to carry on) as long as they wanted.

    Still, it's not the same as being fired, sacked or dismissed. The term applies when one is actively carrying out their contractual obligation and that wasn't the case with Brosnan. He had finished and fulfilled his contract. Eon are/were in no way obligated to keep him on.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Getafix wrote:
    With Dalton there was pressure from the money men to push him out, and a reluctance from Cubby to let him go. That's how I believe it went down.

    That was my understanding as well. I suspect Cubby had both a personal and professional liking for Dalts and would have liked him to stay on in the role. Although you could say that ultimately if Cubby wasn't prepared to fight on Tim's behalf, he was effectively showing him the door.

    To be fair, Cubby did that with all the Bond actors. Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton. He wanted them all to stay on.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I forgot it was Laz who walked away from the role. What an idiot!
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Getafix wrote:
    With Dalton there was pressure from the money men to push him out, and a reluctance from Cubby to let him go. That's how I believe it went down.

    That was my understanding as well. I suspect Cubby had both a personal and professional liking for Dalts and would have liked him to stay on in the role. Although you could say that ultimately if Cubby wasn't prepared to fight on Tim's behalf, he was effectively showing him the door.

    I think Cubby would've fought to keep Dalton in the role, with his, as you said, personal and professional liking for Dalton. But it must've been an uphill battle when the head of MGM simply would not green light funding for Bond#17 with Dalton in the role.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Watching that Renny Harlin press conference where he openly slates Dalton makes me wonder whether OTHER directors who were apprroached said similar things. I don't know for sure but how else can u explain him suddenly "quitting" the role.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Watching that Renny Harlin press conference where he openly slates Dalton makes me wonder whether OTHER directors who were apprroached said similar things. I don't know for sure but how else can u explain him suddenly "quitting" the role.

    Perhaps EON told him that MGM would simply not fund the film with him in it.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Re Harlin; He's the only director speak out in such a way against Dalton, that I have heard of. I doubt that Harlin's comments are in any way connected to Dalton's departure.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Perhaps and then Dalrs being the wonderfully engaging film actor he is went on to do bigger and better things.

    Oh no wait...he didn't ;)

    Seriously, Harlin may have been the only one to speak openly about it but I do wonder though whether other directors privately similar things to the producers.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited May 2012 Posts: 13,978
    And Brosnan was really valued that much by EON. *looks at phone* Oh yeah... :P


    Now let's bring this back on topic.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Perhaps and then Dalrs being the wonderfully engaging film actor he is went on to do bigger and better things.

    Oh no wait...he didn't ;)

    Don't start that one again. No one can take Toy Story 3 away from him. He literally MADE that movie. I mean, the animation and everything. The voice was just something he did as a favour, in between bit parts in Miss Marple and Dr Who.

    What a loser!
  • Posts: 11,189
    Forgive me I was a bit harsh. I feel sorry for the bloke.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Forgive me I was a bit harsh. I feel sorry for the bloke.

    I do as well. He just comes across as a bit of a saddo these days - had it and lost it.

    It's not even as if his post-Bond career has seen him making a triumphant return to 'serious' stage work. The guy is just a washed-up has-been.

    I don't think he's ever recovered from his relationship with Redgrave ending.
Sign In or Register to comment.