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
Outside the ranks of serious Bond fans, Brosnan is the fall guy for nothing. On the contrary, most of the media and the general movie-going public still regard him as the savior of the series and the Ideal Bond, as far as I can tell. At least before Skyfall went supernova at the box office, I would still regularly encounter people who felt that, "They never should have gotten rid of Bronson" (or "Brozman"; it's amazing how many people still don't know how to pronounce the man's name after all these years). In fact, as I've mentioned in other threads, I even found a fair number of people holding out hope that Pierce could come back to the role after D-Craig is finished.
Now, among Bond Fanatics like us, there's a widespread sense that the Bond films of the Brosnan era were subpar. In that sense, I believe that the Broz was a victim of circumstance to a certain extent. The scripts were mediocre, and the films tended to be indifferently directed by self-consciously slumming filmmakers (Martin Campbell excepted).
I wouldn't completely exempt the Broz from blame, however. For me, Brosnan's Bond always came off as a bit of a lightweight. And I'm not just talking about his physical appearance. With his high-pitched, whispery voice and occasionally fey mannerisms, I never found him to be a convincing action hero or alpha-male type.
As for Brosnan's approach to the role, he always struck me as basically a watered-down Rog, mixed with a little bit of watered-down Sean and a dash of watered-down Tim. Though he tried to emulate Connery's macho swagger, he lacked the masculine charisma to pull it off. And though he also tried at times to play a more human and vulnerable Bond like Dalton, he didn't really have the acting chops at the time to pull that off, either. I've always appreciated the effort, but I've always found the end result a bit lacking.
What's really disappointing about the Broz, however, is that what should have been his strength, a Moore-like penchant for light comedy, didn't really work all that well, either. This is where I feel that poor writing really held him back. "The things I do for frequent flyer miles" was the most lame, unfunny one-liner in the entire series. And in the subsequent films, most of the the so-called "comic relief" seemed to amount to a 15-year-old virgin's idea of sexual innuendo. I'm not sure how much humor anyone, even His Rogness himself, could have wrung out of that material.
Overall, Brosnan's Bond just felt generic, a stereotype rather than a character. In that sense, he fit right in with his hyper-formulaic Bond films. There's plenty of blame to go around concerning how the Bond films 1995-2002 turned out. Laying some of that blame on the Broz doesn't make him a fall guy, IMO.
I do lay a lot of blame with EON though. They should never have cast him in the first place. He was Cubby's one really bad choice. Plus after GE Babs and MGW appointed Purvis and Wade, who have been the absolute bane of thie series.
And rather than bringing in this strange assortment of directors they should have found some young hungry unknown from TV or elsewhere who loved the series but a desire to bring in fresh ideas.
It's all very well prioritising the survival of the series but when that comes at the expense of the soul of the films then you have to question if it's a price worth paying.
Agreed! Brosnan pulled that off really well!
Such wasted talent after GoldenEye in his films :(
Wow, Brosnan Bonds are really love them or hate them aren't they? It literally seems to alternate with every post!
I agree he was wicked :)
I miss his era now, due to my severe dislike for Skyfall!
Didn't that 'frequent flyer miles' line get cut from GE's pts?
The jokes he was given rarely tripped off the tongue and he was always trying to get things going and get better scripts, directors, the things handed to Craig on a plate.
But at the time he could do no wrong, much like Craig now really.
I'm not sure Craig had it handed to him on a plate. He started off with Cambell directing, as did Brozza. I suspect he did insist on Haggis being brought in to add some class to the GE script though. Basically DC was prepared to walk away from Bond unless he thought what was on offer were decent quality films. If Brozza had had more balls, perhaps he too could have demanded something better from EON.
Based on what he gave us in all of his films, I'm inclined to think he didn't have the chops for it. As I said, his version of Bond had great character issues to deal with in every film that he did; more than any other Bond at the time. If he couldn't bring life to THAT then why could he have done better with even more difficult material?
And look at Dalton can take a two-word line "Why me?" and inject it with so much subtext. Or Craig with a one word line! ("No." when asked by M in CR if keeping his emotions out of the equation would be a problem) And as someone else said, Dench was able to give great performances in the Brosnan era, and she was working with the same scripts as Brosnan.
Seems to me that the proof is that Brosnan talked a good game but wasn't able to put his money where his mouth was...
I always got the feeling that they didn't realise DAD was as bonkers as it was, I'm pretty sure everyone involved knew what MR was.
Brozzer had no say, I think he fell out with Babs over the chaos of TND. He tried to get Ang Lee to direct one - now whatever happened to him? Approaching Tarantino was unwise, bound to wind up Babs. But when Craig did the same with Mendes, all is praise. So really, Babs fancies Craig, didn't fancy Brozzer.
DAD was made up as it went along, it seemed. Rewrite up to the wire and what you get is a first draft.
Besides, his run lasted 7 years, Moore's 12. They all end someday, I don't see how that has to do with "fall guy".
Certainly not handed to him on a plate. He wanted to read the CR script, and only after liking it finally accepted the role, and like Getafix already said got the same director Brosnan got for his first Bond film. QOS barely had a script to speak of - obviously the writers' strike couldn't have been predicted when planning the schedule, but anyway, and I'm not so sure the director was the right choice. And then for the next film he approached Mendes himself.
Well QOS was certainly made up as they were shooting it...
I don't know about Pierce and Barbara not getting along, is there any actual proof of that or are you merely speculating? There is hardly anything wrong with lead actors approaching directors. How the actors and directors go about it obviously matters. If nothing comes of it, better keep quiet, probably. How about it if the producers actually liked the idea of Mendes directing a Bond film? I haven't seen them "praising" the actor in public for taking the initiative there, but since they liked the idea they talked to Mendes and it then went on from there. "Fancying" an actor is hardly how directors get chosen. Daniel and the producers do seem to have an excellent working relationship, which is how it should be.
This is how I feel. I enjoyed GoldenEye, though I'm not sure where I'd rank it, but that's the only one I really cared for. Though I have to admit, as little as I care for some of installments, he really did have some cool/memorable moments, I just think his movies were a little weak on the whole.
You may have a point however those who disliked QoS/SF, called them rushed/messy and yet still praised Craig in the role may disagree with your thesis ;)
I do see what you mean but sometimes even a talanted/recognised/experienced actor is capable of appearing in weak/sub-par material that they may regret sometime down the line.
-Daniel Craig
-Christian Bale
-Brad Pitt
-Sean Connery
-John Cusack
-George Clooney
-Liam Neeson
Sorry mate I couldnt be arsed reading the earlier posts so didnt see it. My proper answer is no. Bond gave Brosnan the career he has so he should be grateful and I'm sure he is unlike Connery who seems to still harbour a grudge against Cubby.
Yes, it went down exactly like this. Craig had nothing handed to him, he insisted on what he needed to make the role work for him and got it, or he was walking away. I don't think Brosnan had the same balls, he had to know the scripts were sub par. Failing to act on it means he was as culpable as the scripts themselves.
Double yes to the last statement in particular. And not just insisting like Craig (and throw in Moore and Dalton too who had vision of their characterizations as well as Fleming's) in making the changes to the script and the other things he needed to do to make the character better. Great point about Dalton and Craig too, give these guys one or two words and they can do more with that and an expression than Pierce could with an entire line. They are obviously much better actors.
Now that one is the deepest sentiment of all. I agree that I like Brosnan better not being Bond than being Bond. Seriously. And that last statement is so true in all but the worst of circumstances. TWINE is the perfect example of that. Craig and Dalton would have played it so much differently here after insisting on some subtle script changes than would have made the issues less obvious, and sucked you in with their ability and magnetism. This is why I stated earlier that Brosnan has to be as culpable as the scripts he was given for allowing all the box ticking and even worse going along with it. He had enough handicaps going in with the soft Irish American voice and not quite masculine mannerisms. Bond is supposed to be a "man's man" that other men fear and Pierce doesn't give off that vibe that makes the difference between the great Bonds and the mediocre ones like him. Sir Roger knew he wasn't all that either in the way he wanted to play Bond, but because he is a talented actor, he knew exactly how to work around that and was indeed as active in contributing as the others I have mentioned. But he made his share of mistakes as well in allowing MR to go that far knowing that it wasn't Bondian nor the right way to go, so that while off topic here this should be pointed out, as well as staying around one movie too many. And Pierce was prepared to do the same thing if he'd gotten CR. I don't think he could have remotely handled the 2006 script with his skill set. Barb and Mike deserve credit for knowing when to pull the plug on his era, he'd done nothing whatsoever in the last two films to earn a 5th and was just spinning his wheels.
In fact that is in accordance to my thesis, a resourceful actor will make the most out of the material that is handed, just like a student will take the most out of bad results/experiments. Bad source material worked by a great actor is watchable, by a sub-par one is not.
Well true...but there are some great actors that have appeared in crap too. People for instance are talking about Taken 2 being a stinker. That's starring a highly recognised Oscar winning actor who's played several historical figures in the past...and yet the majority are still saying its rubbish (I must admit I've not seen it).
Hitchcock is another somewhat mediocre film that suffers from being highly fictionalised yet features some fine names who have done great work in the past.
I take your point, a good actor is more likely to turn bad/weak material around but I'm not sure its always the case.
I must admit I'm not a big fan of his performance in that:
"What is it...humm...you only f**k senators now"
I agree that I enjoyed him here in that film, as well as others, but the point regarding his Bond is that you simply cannot deflect the blame for the failure, his last two films in particular, solely on P&W, Apted, or Tamahori. This is what skews the thesis that Brosnan was "the fall guy" and makes the premise more apologetic than factual.
I know you really like Brosnan as Bond, and that you also are a fan of QOS. Now I wouldn't say QOS was better than GE or TND, because I did enjoy those two more, yet Craig took a mess of equal proportion and for me was both better and more Bond than Brosnan in all 4 of his films. He made sure that the key areas that defined QOS as a proper sequel happened on screen. I'm less than confident that Pierce would have performed nearly as well under that circumstance.
Remember Superman IV? Chris Reeve had a LOT of creative input there, and while I loved him as an actor, his writing & producing skills simply weren't there. Some actors 'get' the bigger picture, and some merely rise or sink to the material they're handed.
That line was great :)
I thought most of the GoldenEye script was fantastic tbh.
Also... look what I bought today!!
GE, his best film with the only decent girl and villains, his hair was too long and he looked stiff and wooden in the scenes with old Desmond.
His subsequent films were so formuliac and bad that he was just going thru the motions and mailing it in. Everyone involved, the writers, producers, supporting cast and Pierce himself were just painting by the numbers and his era would suffer from it.
As for the stunt casting that cropped up after GE, maybe a better actor with more range could have created some chemistry with these weak leading ladies. As he did was wear a tux, show off his good looks and run around firing a lot of friggin machine guns.
And no it of course means 12+!!