› ›

A question to those who care not for Brosnan's Bond

12357…13

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    To be fair that first quote I think was when the film was coming out (and he didn't mention the kite surfing anyway, so for all we know he might have never hated that). Every actor has to big up a film then, it's his job. Craig for example praised QOS in a few interviews before but then backtracked and blamed the writers strike once the film came out.

    There are plenty of other examples of people working on films doing this.

    You're right. Actors ultimately have to promote the film they're in. He may very well have thought it was a piece of crap but nonetheless he was hardly going to say that back in 2002 was he?

    Nonetheless it is quite embarrassing when looked at now. Ultimately he (and Babs for that matter) should have said "this is crap, start again" to the SFX team back then.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    RC7 wrote:
    The intention was never to pitch Broz as the acting saviour of the franchise, he was installed as a good looking action hero who could deliver an almost nostalgic amalgamation of traits rather than a reinvention of character.
    I've never heard it put better than that, bravo! =D>
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    chrisisall wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    The intention was never to pitch Broz as the acting saviour of the franchise, he was installed as a good looking action hero who could deliver an almost nostalgic amalgamation of traits rather than a reinvention of character.
    I've never heard it put better than that, bravo! =D>

    Exactly. He never changed things up as much as Dalton but he made a brilliant cinema Bond. His films aren't going to win oscars but who cares? His first 3 were great action movies.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    The intention was never to pitch Broz as the acting saviour of the franchise, he was installed as a good looking action hero who could deliver an almost nostalgic amalgamation of traits rather than a reinvention of character.
    I've never heard it put better than that, bravo! =D>

    Exactly. He never changed things up as much as Dalton but he made a brilliant cinema Bond. His films aren't going to win oscars but who cares? His first 3 were great action movies.

    We've got a club here! :)>-
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Maybe I can see why people might not like GE or TWINE, but TND?

    It's a fun action film that does exactly what it says on the tin, and if you can't enjoy it for what it is then you're probably some arty farty type that would turn his/her nose up to most action films.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Fun action isn't always the same as good action. I'm not Brosnan's biggest fan and I think his film's are average at best and too cartoony and yhe action was largely masqueraded by OTT explosions but they're fun and I think looking at Brosnan himself and what he brought to the role as surmised by @RC7, the man is so much easier to appreciate from that perspective. However, bar DAD one could argue the Brosnan era of Bond movies were 100% suitable for the 90s, it jus so happens that it may not be the right cup of tea for die hard Bond fans.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited December 2012 Posts: 3,327
    chrisisall wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    The intention was never to pitch Broz as the acting saviour of the franchise, he was installed as a good looking action hero who could deliver an almost nostalgic amalgamation of traits rather than a reinvention of character.
    I've never heard it put better than that, bravo! =D>
    I think this is why Moore comparisons are often brought up where Brosnan is concerned. Both actors didn't do anything too drastic with the character like Dalton or Craig did.

    They were happy to coast along in films which didn't really test either actor, and also included some very OTT parody scenes which I couldn't imagine Craig or Dalton agreeing to appear in.

    For all their faults, they both still managed to appeal to a mass market audience worldwide, but didn't score particularly high with critics, or fare that well with die hard Fleming purists.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    jetsetwilly wrote:
    I think this is why Moore comparisons are often brought up where Brosnan is concerned. Both actors didn't do anything too drastic with the character like Dalton or Craig did.

    I'd say what Moore did was fairly drastic, actually I'd say it was more drastic than what Craig did (since Dalton had already done the dark Bond, Moore was the first really light hearted Bond).

    But anyway I don't think every actor has to really change the character. I think there's only certain ways you can play Bond without going too far.
    doubleoego wrote:
    Fun action isn't always the same as good action

    Good point but the action in TND is good (even if there's maybe too much of it). It's well shot and edited, and at times it's fairly inventive.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    jetsetwilly wrote:
    I think this is why Moore comparisons are often brought up where Brosnan is concerned. Both actors didn't do anything too drastic with the character like Dalton or Craig did.

    I'd say what Moore did was fairly drastic, actually I'd say it was more drastic than what Craig did (since Dalton had already done the dark Bond, Moore was the first really light hearted Bond).
    Hmmm...I suppose looking at it from that POV, yes Moore did in some ways reinvent the character, although you could make a case for saying Connery laid out this blueprint already in DAF before Moore came along.

    I guess when I mean drastic, I meant bringing depth to the character, research who Bond really was, what made him tick, his motivations, his emotions, etc.

    Moore is a better actor than many give him credit for, but you never sensed he was too botherd about exploring the character like Craig or Dalton did. He was happy for a light-hearted approach which didn't demand too much of his acting talents overall.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Moore didn't really like the darker side of the character, I think he's said that himself a few times.

    I think even in DAF (which is sort of the first Moore film in a way) Connery had a darker side (strangling the girl in the bikini, the fight in the lift, etc). Although Moore was more serious in his first two films he was always much more light hearted than Connery was.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    the action in TND is good (even if there's maybe too much of it). It's well shot and edited, and at times it's fairly inventive.
    Here's a question: are Craig's movies more brimming with action than Brosnan's?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I don't think more action, literally. All of Brosnan's and Craig's are action packed for sure.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    chrisisall wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    the action in TND is good (even if there's maybe too much of it). It's well shot and edited, and at times it's fairly inventive.
    Here's a question: are Craig's movies more brimming with action than Brosnan's?

    I think QOS is, CR maybe about equal, SF no.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Here's a question: are Craig's movies more brimming with action than Brosnan's?

    I think QOS is, CR maybe about equal, SF no.
    That seems about right.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Moore didn't really like the darker side of the character, I think he's said that himself a few times.

    I think even in DAF (which is sort of the first Moore film in a way) Connery had a darker side (strangling the girl in the bikini, the fight in the lift, etc). Although Moore was more serious in his first two films he was always much more light hearted than Connery was.

    I read a quote from him a few months ago that said one of his breaking points that led to him wanting to be done with Bond was the scene of Zorin gunning down all of the workers in the mine in AVTAK.
  • ElliotCarverElliotCarver
    Posts: 249
    Brosnan's flaw is that there's absolutely no depth to his Bond. I'd say the same about Moore, but at least he did some unique spin on it. Brosnan is just Action Hero #531.

    Saying that, his movies vary from great to abysmal. TND and TWINE are both in the upper echelon of Bond movies, GE is somewhere in the middle and DAD is understandably at the very bottom.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2012 Posts: 17,800
    ElliotCarver wrote:
    Brosnan's flaw is that there's absolutely no depth to his Bond.
    Oh c'mon, there were flashes.
    No matter what any wayward Bond fan says, Tomorrow Never Dies is one of the five best Bond films we ever got. It shouldn't have worked, but it's grand Cinema Bond- everything YOLT & TSWLM should have been, but fell short of by comparison.
  • ElliotCarverElliotCarver
    Posts: 249
    chrisisall wrote:
    ElliotCarver wrote:
    Brosnan's flaw is that there's absolutely no depth to his Bond.
    Oh c'mon, there were flashes.
    No matter what any wayward Bond fan says, Tomorrow Never Dies is one of the five best Bond films we ever got. It shouldn't have worked, but it's grand Cinema Bond- everything YOLT & TSWLM should have been, but fell short of by comparison.

    I wouldn't say top 5, but top... 8 at the very least. The villain is my favorite at least, wink wink, nudge nudge. =)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    ElliotCarver wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    ElliotCarver wrote:
    Brosnan's flaw is that there's absolutely no depth to his Bond.
    Oh c'mon, there were flashes.
    No matter what any wayward Bond fan says, Tomorrow Never Dies is one of the five best Bond films we ever got. It shouldn't have worked, but it's grand Cinema Bond- everything YOLT & TSWLM should have been, but fell short of by comparison.

    I wouldn't say top 5, but top... 8 at the very least. The villain is my favorite at least, wink wink, nudge nudge. =)

    You mean Stamper, right? ;)
  • ElliotCarverElliotCarver
    Posts: 249
    Creasy47 wrote:
    ElliotCarver wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    ElliotCarver wrote:
    Brosnan's flaw is that there's absolutely no depth to his Bond.
    Oh c'mon, there were flashes.
    No matter what any wayward Bond fan says, Tomorrow Never Dies is one of the five best Bond films we ever got. It shouldn't have worked, but it's grand Cinema Bond- everything YOLT & TSWLM should have been, but fell short of by comparison.

    I wouldn't say top 5, but top... 8 at the very least. The villain is my favorite at least, wink wink, nudge nudge. =)

    You mean Stamper, right? ;)

    No, no, no, definitely not.

    I mean Gupta. The most memorable Bond villain, easily.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @ElliotCarver, but of course you meant Gupta. My mistake! It surely isn't Carver, I wouldn't even go into guessing that he was your favorite.
  • ElliotCarverElliotCarver
    Posts: 249
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @ElliotCarver, but of course you meant Gupta. My mistake! It surely isn't Carver, I wouldn't even go into guessing that he was your favorite.

    Pfff, Carver. I've never seen what people see in him. Surely it can't because he's a megalomaniac bastard who probably has one of the more evil plots in a Bond movie. Surely it can't be the fact that he's actually a rather believable villain, a villain who really suited the time period of the movie.

    Surely that can't be it.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    TND is actually fairly relevant now, with all the phone hacking and everything that's been going on lately, the media being evil doesn't seem far fetched.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    TND is actually fairly relevant now, with all the phone hacking and everything that's been going on lately, the media being evil doesn't seem far fetched.

    It's superb. It might not be executed in such a 'believable' way, but it is a better premise than both QoS and Skyfall. I've always thought it was a great bit of foresight. Revelvant then, even more relevant today. It carries a weight of relevance you just don't get from hacking, even with the assange debacle.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    RC7 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    TND is actually fairly relevant now, with all the phone hacking and everything that's been going on lately, the media being evil doesn't seem far fetched.

    It's superb. It might not be executed in such a 'believable' way, but it is a better premise than both QoS and Skyfall. I've always thought it was a great bit of foresight. Revelvant then, even more relevant today. It carries a weight of relevance you just don't get from hacking, even with the assange debacle.

    Exactly. Fair enough Murdoch n co are never going to try and start WW3 but it is more relevant than QOS and SF, you're right there.

    I'd say TND is one of the most relevant Bond films.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Ahhh, love for TND.... this is a good day!
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    TND is actually fairly relevant now, with all the phone hacking and everything that's been going on lately, the media being evil doesn't seem far fetched.

    It's superb. It might not be executed in such a 'believable' way, but it is a better premise than both QoS and Skyfall. I've always thought it was a great bit of foresight. Revelvant then, even more relevant today. It carries a weight of relevance you just don't get from hacking, even with the assange debacle.

    Exactly. Fair enough Murdoch n co are never going to try and start WW3 but it is more relevant than QOS and SF, you're right there.

    I'd say TND is one of the most relevant Bond films.

    I understand why a lot of people would think this. I agree that it's a good idea but I don't think that it was executed as well as it could have been.

  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    chrisisall wrote:
    No matter what any wayward Bond fan says, Tomorrow Never Dies is one of the five best Bond films we ever got. It shouldn't have worked, but it's grand Cinema Bond- everything YOLT & TSWLM should have been, but fell short of by comparison.
    I'd say it was Brozza's best film, but that is as far as it goes. It wouldn't sit in my top 10, never mind top 5.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    jetsetwilly wrote:
    I'd say it was Brozza's best film, but that is as far as it goes. It wouldn't sit in my top 10, never mind top 5.
    That's less my problem than yours.
    :))
    Just kidding- we all have our preferences.
    I think we can agree though that Dalton, Connery & Craig rule, albeit not necessarily in that particular order. Yes?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    It isn't because GE is my favorite, but it's pretty interesting seeing people rate TND as Brosnan's best. I was always under the impression that people thought GE was the best, TND and TWINE were okay, and DAD was trash.
Sign In or Register to comment.