Brosnan's Last 3 Bond Films: The Problem?

1234579

Comments

  • Posts: 4,617
    Its very hard to separate the scripts from the acting. The writers were writing for a certain type of Bond and that was PB. Can anyone imagine PB playing Bond in CR? or even writing it like that knowing that PB was playing the role. Its really a combination of reasons.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,731
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Let's not forget "Modern Bond's" biggest downfall...Judi Dench.

    And Purvis and Wade, how they're still writing the screenplays is beyond me :O

    Dench was a beacon of light in an otherwise dull acting decade from Brosnan.

    Disagree. Dench held the series (up untill & including Skyfall) back as the producers got more and more focused on 'her M' (all stern motherliness and lacking credibility as chief of MI6) whilst forcing the character into the stories more and more.
    I for one am glad to see the back of her (her M that is - Judi Dench herself is a darling)
  • Posts: 11,425
    AceHole wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Let's not forget "Modern Bond's" biggest downfall...Judi Dench.

    And Purvis and Wade, how they're still writing the screenplays is beyond me :O

    Dench was a beacon of light in an otherwise dull acting decade from Brosnan.

    Disagree. Dench held the series (up untill & including Skyfall) back as the producers got more and more focused on 'her M' & forcing the character into the stories more and more.
    I for one am glad to see the back of her (her M that is - Judi Dench herself is a darling)

    I think during the first two Brosnans she wasn't too bad, but as time went on the producers' obsession with shoe-horning her into every other scene became a real issue. I think it's part of Bab's feminist agenda. I don't have anything against feminism, but the world of Bond should not be dominated by M (male or female) to the extent that it became while Dench was in the role. Good riddance, I say.
  • Posts: 1,405
    Perdogg wrote: »
    Here is an example of part of the problem:

    Tomorrow Never Dies:

    Bond - (to Paris Carver) "I can get you out of the country in 48 Hours"
    Paris - "No one can protect me from him James, not even you."

    The World is Not Enough:

    Bond - (to cigar girl) "I can protect you."
    Cigar Girl - "Not from him".

    And Renard turned out to be a sissy...
  • Posts: 4,617
    There is a scene with M in DAD "you burned me", PB always seems lacking in that scene, no real tension, he struggles with his body language, compare that to the similar scene in SF in Ms flat, its chalk and cheese IMHO
  • Posts: 11,425
    Perdogg wrote: »
    Here is an example of part of the problem:

    Tomorrow Never Dies:

    Bond - (to Paris Carver) "I can get you out of the country in 48 Hours"
    Paris - "No one can protect me from him James, not even you."

    The World is Not Enough:

    Bond - (to cigar girl) "I can protect you."
    Cigar Girl - "Not from him".

    And Renard turned out to be a sissy...

    Doesn't Craig's Bond have exactly the same exchange with Severine in SF?

    Good old Purvis and Wade!
  • Getafix wrote: »
    I think during the first two Brosnans she wasn't too bad, but as time went on the producers' obsession with shoe-horning her into every other scene became a real issue. I think it's part of Bab's feminist agenda. I don't have anything against feminism, but the world of Bond should not be dominated by M (male or female) to the extent that it became while Dench was in the role. Good riddance, I say.

    Well said. Nothing against Dench at all.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think during the first two Brosnans she wasn't too bad, but as time went on the producers' obsession with shoe-horning her into every other scene became a real issue. I think it's part of Bab's feminist agenda. I don't have anything against feminism, but the world of Bond should not be dominated by M (male or female) to the extent that it became while Dench was in the role. Good riddance, I say.

    Well said. Nothing against Dench at all.

    Dench is a very good actor. In GE I thought she was one of the few redeeming features. But by SF I couldn't wait for her character to die.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Dench is a very good actor

    Bit of an understatement there.

    She's a great actress and a real national treasure for Britain.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    "Closer to Connery", "Closer to Moore", I think it's a shame that Brosnan didn't take his portrayal in his own direction, and stamp his own individual mark on the role. It's hard to get close to the two Bond knights. They are iconic (an overused but fair term to use in this case, I think) for a reason.

    That's a pretty fair assessment.

    Yes. He never made it his own.

    Dalton resisted taking the part for almost two decades, and when he did accept, he wanted to do it on his own terms. He pretty much succeeded as well. But he was never desperate for the role - same as Craig.

    But Brosnan wanted it too badly in my view - he was overwhelmed by the legacy of Connery and Moore and unable to escape their shadow.
  • Posts: 1,405
    Getafix wrote: »
    Perdogg wrote: »
    Here is an example of part of the problem:

    Tomorrow Never Dies:

    Bond - (to Paris Carver) "I can get you out of the country in 48 Hours"
    Paris - "No one can protect me from him James, not even you."

    The World is Not Enough:

    Bond - (to cigar girl) "I can protect you."
    Cigar Girl - "Not from him".

    And Renard turned out to be a sissy...

    Doesn't Craig's Bond have exactly the same exchange with Severine in SF?

    Good old Purvis and Wade!

    Unfortunatly for Severine, she turned out to be right...
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    I watched November Man last night and damn, Brosnan still has it. Amazing what he could have done in an edgier Bond film.
  • Posts: 1,970
    The Brosnan films IMO were not ment to be serious bond films, they were ment to be fun films and IMO that's what they were fun bond films and it worked. The Brosnan films were the most successful Bond films for the serious until DC era. The fans rejected dalton for taking a more serious approach to the role so the producers listen to the fans and made Bond films that they wanted at the time and that was fun adventurous fantasy Bond films.

    I loved Pierce as James Bond, TWINE is my favorite Bond film ever. I really wish they had given Pierce a 5th Bond film to do. I feel like he deserved it with how successful his films were.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Brosnan's first three films were great. It was his last film that was the problem.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Brosnan had three great ones and a real wtf of a fourth.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Brosnan had ONE great one, two mediocre ones and one unbelievably-bad-yet-somehow-irresistible one.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Brosnan had ONE great one, two mediocre ones and one unbelievably-bad-yet-somehow-irresistible one.

    In your opinion. ;)
  • There was a general sense of spinelessness from the producers during the Brosnan era. They clearly had their hearts in the right place with each film but the execution lacked as they didn't quite have the conviction to see their ideas through clearly.

    Goldeneye is the exception. It's a film they clearly spent their time on and the themes and ideas are by far the strongest of Brosnan's era. The film perfectly drags the Bond kicking and screaming into the '90's while fully embracing his Cold War roots. Furthermore, the film has a well-crafted villain and great performances and stand-out action and stunt sequences.

    TND was clearly a film made in a rush. There is little new or creative in the film and instead what we have is a rather 'by numbers' Bond films and as far as formulaic Bond movies go it's a good'un. From my understanding the producers had a tight deadline with the film and therefore had to hit their marks as quick as possible. The film is hardly a flop but it's just a tad soulless.

    I personally love TWINE but understand other people's issues with it. Despite a great initial premise, the film does not quite have the courage of it's convictions and soon descends into formula (eg Christmas Jones is a totally unnesesery character and detracts more than adds to the film). It's a shame because Michael Apted is an interesting and more cerebral choice of director.

    DAD was clearly intended to be a more character-driven story that payed homage to Bond's legacy after 40 years onscreen. The choice of Lee Tamahori, the man who made 'Once Were Warriors', was a genuinely exciting choice. However, the film is a mess and really grabbed all the more risible elements from Brosnan's earlier films and slopped them into one movie.

    The producers should have had the balls to do what they did with CR earlier. The Brosnan films are far too reverent and respectful to Cubby Broccoli's legacy. So instead of anything new or exciting we got some rather derivative films.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Err, people seem to forget that Cubby Broccoli gave us Dr. No, FRWL etc. and immediately prior to Brosnan's era, he gave us LTK. How do the Brosnan films resemble those films? Not very much at all.

    But I agree that EON lost confidence during the Brosnan era. Commercially Dalton's last film was not a huge success, so they needed to address that and also work out how Bond could be relevant post-Cold War. Their approach was to do it by the numbers. I think the Brosnan films are clearly a (very poor) attempt to regain the magic of the Moore era. Which is understandable. However, by TWINE and DAD, they really should have had more confidence to do things differently. May be that's thought they were doing by appointing Tamahori, but it didn't work out how they'd hoped.

    I think ultimately they realised they were never going to be able make that break into new territory with Brosnan, and CR gave them a convenient way to get rid of him.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Magic of the Moore era? Don't go too far

    Wasn't it during that "magical" Moore era that the original Broccolli/Saltzman partnership deteriorated and eventually broke up? Yes it was. The Moore era had it's moments but I REALLY wouldn't call it "magical" either. Very hit-and-miss I think despite the fact the films made money and Moore was a popular Bond. The producers and filmmakers were certainly having something of an identity crisis then too.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Pierce wanted a Scorsese to direct, but had to settle for a tamafooey
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Magic of the Moore era? Don't go too far

    Wasn't it during that "magical" Moore era that the original Broccolli/Saltzman partnership deteriorated and eventually broke up? Yes it was. The Moore era had it's moments but I REALLY wouldn't call it "magical" either. Very hit-and-miss I think despite the fact the films made money and Moore was a popular Bond. The producers and filmmakers were certainly having something of an identity crisis then too.

    LALD is okay but a bit boring IMO. Gun is actually underrated. Lots to enjoy when I saw it recently. Spy is an outright classic. MR has a good first half and very good production design and special effects (more than can be said for the remake, DAD), FYEO - nice back to basics entry, OP is a minor classic IMO. AVTAK has some great bits but is overall perhaps not a great entry. So yes, hit and miss, but some very strong entries in there.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    What ever can be said about Moore and Brosnan, their performances as Bond did not get worse as time went by. Moore remained consistent during his tenure, and Brosnan actually improved as his era progressed. IMO I can't say the same about Connery, who, while still watchable in DAF and YOLT, was nowhere near to the level of his first 4 films.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Is GG underrated? I've always considered it fairly dull overall. The general feel to film is flat, Goodnight is horrible and the comedy is insulting.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    I rather have a slide whistle on an impressive stunt done for real, than a stunt made purely of CGI with a CGI Bond.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I rather have a slide whistle on an impressive stunt done for real, than a stunt made purely of CGI with a CGI Bond.

    which is my problem with the recent 007 outings.

  • Posts: 1,493
    Brosnan, IMO, wanted the role so badly that once he got it he was oddly constrained, caught between being a Connery Bond and a Moore Bond - pressured by commercial demands (after Dalton) and broad writing and directing (after GE) which failed to give him the material and freedom to create his own Bond. I believe Brosnan feels dis-satisfied with his time as Bond because he knows he could have been his own Bond if he'd really had the chance.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I still feel that we were cheated out of a 5th Brosnan swansong of a 007 movie, which could have been done easily between DAD & CR.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Roger Moore got For your eyes only after moonraker. Pierce brosnan got daniel Craig in casino royale. Not fair, but that's life
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    As I've said on the other thread talking about Brosnan, in my opinion, the only distinct element that he brought to the role in the 4 movies was an element that I could not stand. That was his sentimental, mushy, overy emo-portrayal. There was a sort of 90's sensibility that he appeared comfortable bringing to the screen that I found very troubling.

    For me, Bond is the man who slapped Anders around in TMWTGG. The man who throws out the sexist one liners. The thug in a suit. the rogue. The unabashed misogynist.

    Brosnan brought a soap opera element to the whole thing (best captured by the slap he received from Paris in TND) that I did not like.

    When he portrayed the harder edged Bond (as he did in parts of DAD) or the Moore/ConneryDalton impression (as he did in GE), I enjoyed him immensely.

    BB supposedly did not want Hugh Jackman for Bond because he was too fey. I felt Brozza was too fey as Bond. DC is anything but that, which is why I prefer him as Bond, despite him not being as handsome (conventionally speaking), not as tall, and blonde.
Sign In or Register to comment.