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
Well i just have some more words. If it weren't for Brosnan, i wouldn't be here.
They sound as vile as ever.
I will never forgive them for upsetting the actor.
I hear this argument all the time; that Brosnan had an awesome Bond performance within him but that the scripts just wouldn't let him give it. So I'm curious - what about all the issues with Alec betraying him in GE? The death of Paris in TND? The whole falling for Elektra and being betrayed by her in TWINE? The whole first half of DAD?
Brosnan was given LOADS of opportunity to show his acting chops, and in every film that he was in. So how does someone reconcile the fact that it was the fault of the scripts with him being given so many emotional and character issues to deal with in every film?
Bond and Trevelyan's relationship was the only one fleshed out very well by the respective script, and both Brosnan and Bean did very well with it. So the counter argument is not strong either.
Paris' death was pretty much forgotten after the Hamburg scenes apart from the throwaway line in the Saigon tower just before Bond and Wai Lin escaped.
The relationship between Bond and Elektra wasn't fleshed out as well as it should have been either, it was only in the "I never miss" scene did we get any sort of emotional confrontation between the two, and again I think both Brosnan and Marceau did very well.
Die Another Day was just a crap movie, with very poorly judged plotting.
You can blame Brosnan's acting ability if you're biased enough to do so, but the scripts were a major factor. All the emotional stuff was teased but pretty much brushed over in favour of another action sequence.
Brosnan gets the living shit kicked out of him for his apparent lack of acting ability. I don't think he is lacking, he does what he does. The same way Moore does what he does, and Craig does what he does. I always found Brosnan, charming, suave, charismatic, visually striking and believable in the role 'he' chose to portray. I don't think anyone would claim he has the acting chops of Craig, although for the record Craig's ability is about as limited as it gets. He's the same in every film. It just so happens his 'same' suits the sullen, morose, emotionally scarred 007 of the current era, and he's reasonably good at avoiding the pitfalls of over-acting. But, he is by no means what one might call, a master of his craft.
I think people should cut Brosnan some slack, no amount of whining about Craig's gritty, real, blah, blah, blah, blah, changes the fact that, for a period Brozza 'was' Bond. It's hard for me to grasp the idea of 'hate' in the Bondiverse. For me there's something positive to be had out of each film, and each portrayal. I don't understand the few members here who seem to care for about 5 films in the entire franchise, the rest deemed too non-Fleming, or not 'real' (there goes that horrendous adjective again) enough. Each to their own. I find it odd.
I don't hate Brosnan as Bond at all; I did like him, I just find that he was probably the most limited of the Bonds (acting-wise) other than Lazenby. I hated Moore's interpretation of Bond when I was a kid but I can see now that he does what he does well, it's just a version of Bond that I don't prefer.
As for Brosnan, he seems to always go for the most obvious line readings or he pushes too hard trying to bring ACTING! to a scene. I find that he works best when he isn't trying too hard; I think that's why his performance in GE is my favourite. Campbell did a nice job of restraining him and getting him to just "be" instead of "acting" in certain scenes.
A good actor can bring an interesting reading to a line to show a much greater subtext than might first be evident by the words. Likewise, a good actor can take a silly line and make it real if he has enough conviction when he delivers it. So while a script can limit an actor's choices they by no means eliminate any possibility of giving a good performance. That's why I was saying up above that Brosnan was given loads of opportunity to give a great performance by the very nature of what his character goes through in every film. Note how other actors in the franchise have been able to make lines as simple as "Why me?" and "No." say more about their character than a page full of exposition laden dialogue.
But just to clarify, I'm not a Brosnan hater. I'm tremendously grateful for what he did for the franchise and have no problem with people loving him as Bond. That won't stop me from asking questions to clarify someone's opinion, though.
Sorry, my post looked like it was directed at you, that wasn't my intention at all. I agree with most of your last post.
No problem, I understand that it was more likely directed at those here that feel it is their duty to show other members that they are "wrong" to have the opinions that they do...
As I hinted at in the thread about a director's commentary for QoS I'm more interested in the "why" of someone's opinions than the "what". How will I ever change my beliefs about something if I can't understand why someone has one that is different than mine..?
Very true. There are a tonne of responses on the forums that run along the lines of 'Well I disagree.' No reason needed. I've probably done it myself on occasion, but I tend to try and give a 'why' as much as possible. Otherwise, like you say, it's not a discussion. Merely an exchange of statements.
If only it was an exchange of "statements"... ;-)
"Screw you! Brosnan rulez!"
"No, Brosnan SUCKS and Craig rulez! SCREW YOU MORE!"
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!
LOL
That's the point. People often mistake - for their own convenience - critisism with mindless attacks and then dress it up as opinion. That's a far cy from an opinion, that is critical of something or someone and hence crucial to a good debate.
As for this thread - it rarely does any good to fly under such a title.
@Royale - I DO hope to not fit into the shoes of Deanna Brayton. She was seriously ill in her mind, but demonstrated in an impressive way, how much power the internet has and how easily people just follow like stupid sheep instead of bothering to form an own opinion based on some facts or - in this case - a finished product.
But then again, I am a huge, massive fan of the Fleming novels. Does this make me any more or less of a Bond fan than the person who loves all the Bond films but has never read any of the novels?
Not at all.
I would say that if there is a small but hostile minority of Brosnan haters here the CNB crew are complaining about, they are at least well policed and have their reasons for their view. Any ex-MI6 member who is now there either got way out of line and was banned, or are equally intolerant of the fact that they couldn't push their hateful views of Craig without reaction from those who disagree. Now they have there own little corner to hang out on and complain. I couldn't be happier that Craig's success has made them all eat their words, maybe they will learn now to be better Bond fans and realize that the decisions made were for the health of the franchise and future installments as opposed to hanging on to an actor whose time had come and gone. BB a "green vegetable"? That's something an elementary student would giggle at. What real Bond fan would want to waste their time at a site populated with people such as this?
There's a useful 4 letter word to describe Ms. Deanna after her rant- it begins with a capital "C". She's the perfect example of someone that gets banned around here for going too far.
This site is easily the very best Bond fan site out there. If someone can't get along here, there's something wrong with them and not us.
There is no right and wrong opinion, it's a case of does one agree or disagree with one presented. With that said, in my opinion Brosnan ranks alongside of Lazenby as the worst actors to play Bond. But like you, I am grateful for what he did for the franchise. In the hands of another actor, it may have gotten worse. What impressed me the most about Pierce was his attitude- he wanted the job more for the fulfillment of a personal lifetime goal to play Bond because he loved the character since childhood, and not just because it was a plum role that would advance his bank account and notoriety. He was genuinely sad and disappointed and though I would disagree, he felt he had more to give. A guy like that I can't help but respect, my motivations and disappointment would have been exactly the same given the same circumstances. To me, his accent wasn't right and he wasn't forceful enough. I had the same latter issue with Sir Roger at times, but if you watch both in other films as well you can clearly see who is the better actor and who had a vision. With Sir Roger I knew what type of Bond I was going to get, with Pierce I could never get a handle on it because the interpretation changed from movie to movie and I could never fully understand that in comparison to the other actors who by their third film (except for Dalton who presented his vision right off) had established where they were going and allowed me a certain comfort zone.
Some people blame the era's deficiencies on the scripts, this is nothing new to virtually any era. The GE was excellent for the most part, TWINE and DAD were the opposite. I thought Pierce did his best work in TND and there were issues there with a few parts of the script not entirely fleshed out, although I would say that after researching the history of QOS the issues there in respect to a working script were considerably greater and harder to overcome.
I never said it makes anyone a lesser Bond fan. I think you assumed that, I just said I found it odd. Odd that some can't find a single redeeming feature in certain films.
But I agree that the later Brosnan films were fairly weak.
:))
I can find redeeming features in most of the weaker Bond flicks (or what I consider to be the weakest), although I draw a line where DAD is concerned. I can find elements and scenes that I like in Brozza's other 3 flicks though. OP and AVTAK I struggle with a bit, as I find them the weakest films outside of DAD. YOLT has a few decent moments, but I find that to be the weakest of the Connery films.
Sir Sean says he'll piss in his ear for me :)
I'm happy to have six different Appreciation threads for the actors, but this community is not anti-any actor, and as such it's alienating the Brosnan fans who ARE a part of this Community.
I'm locking it, but if anyone disagrees and wants to PM me to argue their case I will re-consider.