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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I don't think changing director helped the Brosnan era, especially when they went from one mediocre director to another!
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.
He shoulda kept the PPK as well, p99 is just too damn big to walk around with.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To be fair, Cubby did that with all the Bond actors. Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton. He wanted them all to stay on.
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.
Perhaps EON told him that MGM would simply not fund the film with him in it.
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.
Now let's bring this back on topic.
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!
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.