Anyone else feel like Brosnan was the "fall guy"?

135678

Comments

  • Posts: 140
    I've always been a bit ambivalent toward Pierce Brosnan, myself, and I'm not convinced that "fall guy" applies.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Can't disagree with anything that the Broz bashers have said. His era sucked.

    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.
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    edited February 2013 Posts: 290
    dkem91 wrote:
    I always enjoyed them trying a more human story in The World is Not Enough, but the formula approach sort of killed that, not to mention rewrites by he directors wife. But it was a step in the right direction, and in a few scenes we get a glimps of what a cold Bond Brosnan could have been if given the chance. Specifically the shooting of Electra.

    Agreed! Brosnan pulled that off really well!

    Such wasted talent after GoldenEye in his films :(
    chrisisall wrote:
    CIA wrote:
    It's a DUD :))

    Brosnan rocked in his time. I still love his first three, and if my virtual gun hadn't jammed, you'd be taking damage for your diss on him bro. :))

    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!
  • I saw him in Mrs Doubtfire and felt he had that sly bitchy banter with Robin Williams down pat, references to Doubtfire's Scottish accent being a bit 'muddy'... or something. I though, great, can imagine him doing that with a Bond villain. Also good in the first scene of Live Wire, defusing a bomb under a lady's car. But nothing much like that in the Bond films.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,189
    The "frequent flyer" line was when he'd just "used his head" to escape from the Tiger helicopter. Cheesey but I never really had a big issue with it.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I saw him in Mrs Doubtfire and felt he had that sly bitchy banter with Robin Williams down pat, references to Doubtfire's Scottish accent being a bit 'muddy'... or something. I though, great, can imagine him doing that with a Bond villain. Also good in the first scene of Live Wire, defusing a bomb under a lady's car. But nothing much like that in the Bond films.

    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.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Another important point is that although Brosnan said that he *wanted* to do a darker Bond it doesn't mean that he would have had the acting talent to actually *do* it...

    Doesn't mean he wouldn't have had it, either.
    Precisely.

    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...

  • Posts: 1,052
    Brozzer was always talking about peeling back the layers of the character and all that sort of thing during his tenure and I genuinely believe that all concerned thought they were making films that were more gritty than they actually were.

    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.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 512
    You could always see Dalton acting. Sometimes you can Brozzer too, but his moments were on the money imo: waiting for Paris to show up, killing Elektra, and some jokes worked. Ruthless in the TWINE pts, on a par with Dalton in my book.

    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.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    He had some horrible scripts to work with, especially TND & DAD. TWINE is his best performance als Bond imho, minus his ridiculous pain face at the end.

    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".
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 2,081
    Getafix wrote:
    --- 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.

    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.
    ---

    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.

    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.

  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I will never deny the importance Brosnan had in a time the franchise was going through a hard time. I like the guy but I think his best performances have not been in Bond films. However, the other day I heard something in a work meeting that made me think of his case. We were discussing the quality of our PhD students. Someone was saying that sometimes it's not the student's fault that he or she fails and that the project doesn't go as planned, sometimes it's the project that is bad and doesn't work. Someone else made a comment that put all of us thinking, that a gifted young researcher will realize that the project is bad and turn it around to make it work. Sounds familiar?
  • Posts: 194
    chrisisall wrote:
    Another important point is that although Brosnan said that he *wanted* to do a darker Bond it doesn't mean that he would have had the acting talent to actually *do* it...

    Doesn't mean he wouldn't have had it, either.
    Precisely.

    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.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Sandy wrote:
    I will never deny the importance Brosnan had in a time the franchise was going through a hard time. I like the guy but I think his best performances have not been in Bond films. However, the other day I heard something in a work meeting that made me think of his case. We were discussing the quality of our PhD students. Someone was saying that sometimes it's not the student's fault that he or she fails and that the project doesn't go as planned, sometimes it's the project that is bad and doesn't work. Someone else made a comment that put all of us thinking, that a gifted young researcher will realize that the project is bad and turn it around to make it work. Sounds familiar?

    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
  • Posts: 1,548
    LeChiffre wrote:
    I thought Lee Majors was the fall guy! (" I'm the unknown stuntman who made Eastwood such a star") lol!

    The joke has been made. Move along.

    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.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Getafix wrote:
    I saw him in Mrs Doubtfire and felt he had that sly bitchy banter with Robin Williams down pat, references to Doubtfire's Scottish accent being a bit 'muddy'... or something. I though, great, can imagine him doing that with a Bond villain. Also good in the first scene of Live Wire, defusing a bomb under a lady's car. But nothing much like that in the Bond films.

    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 Campbell 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.

    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.

    chrisisall wrote:
    Another important point is that although Brosnan said that he *wanted* to do a darker Bond it doesn't mean that he would have had the acting talent to actually *do* it...

    Doesn't mean he wouldn't have had it, either.
    Precisely.

    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...

    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.
    Sandy wrote:
    I will never deny the importance Brosnan had in a time the franchise was going through a hard time. I like the guy but I think his best performances have not been in Bond films. However, the other day I heard something in a work meeting that made me think of his case. We were discussing the quality of our PhD students. Someone was saying that sometimes it's not the student's fault that he or she fails and that the project doesn't go as planned, sometimes it's the project that is bad and doesn't work. Someone else made a comment that put all of us thinking, that a gifted young researcher will realize that the project is bad and turn it around to make it work. Sounds familiar?

    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.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    I will never deny the importance Brosnan had in a time the franchise was going through a hard time. I like the guy but I think his best performances have not been in Bond films. However, the other day I heard something in a work meeting that made me think of his case. We were discussing the quality of our PhD students. Someone was saying that sometimes it's not the student's fault that he or she fails and that the project doesn't go as planned, sometimes it's the project that is bad and doesn't work. Someone else made a comment that put all of us thinking, that a gifted young researcher will realize that the project is bad and turn it around to make it work. Sounds familiar?

    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 actor is capable of appearing in sub-par material that they may regret sometime down the line.

    -Daniel Craig
    -Christian Bale
    -Brad Pitt
    -John Cusack
    -George Clooney
    -Liam Neeson

    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.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Sandy wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    I will never deny the importance Brosnan had in a time the franchise was going through a hard time. I like the guy but I think his best performances have not been in Bond films. However, the other day I heard something in a work meeting that made me think of his case. We were discussing the quality of our PhD students. Someone was saying that sometimes it's not the student's fault that he or she fails and that the project doesn't go as planned, sometimes it's the project that is bad and doesn't work. Someone else made a comment that put all of us thinking, that a gifted young researcher will realize that the project is bad and turn it around to make it work. Sounds familiar?

    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 actor is capable of appearing in sub-par material that they may regret sometime down the line.

    -Daniel Craig
    -Christian Bale
    -Brad Pitt
    -John Cusack
    -George Clooney
    -Liam Neeson

    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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Broz was so intense in Live Wire, if only he'd been enabled by writing or direction to bring some of THAT to Bond for more than mere fleeting moments.... 8-|
  • Posts: 11,189
    chrisisall wrote:
    Broz was so intense in Live Wire, if only he'd been enabled by writing or direction to bring some of THAT to Bond for more than mere fleeting moments.... 8-|

    I must admit I'm not a big fan of his performance in that:

    "What is it...humm...you only f**k senators now"
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I must admit I'm not a big fan of his performance in that:

    "What is it...humm...you only f**k senators now"
    It's not the greatest movie in the world, but I liked his (dare I re-use the word) intensity.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Broz was so intense in Live Wire, if only he'd been enabled by writing or direction to bring some of THAT to Bond for more than mere fleeting moments.... 8-|

    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.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I'm less than confident that Pierce would have performed nearly as well under that circumstance.
    I agree with you.
    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.
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    edited February 2013 Posts: 290
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The "frequent flyer" line was when he'd just "used his head" to escape from the Tiger helicopter. Cheesey but I never really had a big issue with it.

    That line was great :)

    I thought most of the GoldenEye script was fantastic tbh.

    Also... look what I bought today!!

    Qf0G0Mx.jpg
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 2,341
    Maybe Brosnan was so happy to get the part after nine years that he just was ready to take any crappy work and run with it.
    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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2013 Posts: 17,789
    hoppimike wrote:
    Also... look what I bought today!!

    Qf0G0Mx.jpg
    Being from the States I gotta ask- does that number on the lower right indicate the optimum age that the film will be best for?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    yep.
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    Posts: 290
    lol, it was only £1 and I thought of you guys so I bought it xD

    And no it of course means 12+!!
  • Posts: 15,106
    I don't think Brosnan was the fall guy, he has his admirers and his detractors. I see things this way: his tenure was necessary, he may even have saved Bond, albeit not as much as Moore did, however overall it ended up a disappointment. With or without Brosnan, it could have been more and at some point he embodied what went wrong with it: it was too safe, it lacked inventivity, it was often by the number. And while I will never blame him for DAD (the main culprit was Tamawhori), I think he could have put his foot down at some point to prevent, or try to prevent, it to be the total trainwreck it became. Oh and he was too old to play Bond in the end, something I don't blame him for, but I find that many of his fans quickly forget.
  • Posts: 194
    I also think part of it was Brosnan didn't have the benefit of the political unrest that the others did, well with the exception of post 9/11 DAD. GE had post Cold War story lines, but aside from that I didn't buy anything they were selling from villain motive standpoint. Everyone else had the Cold War, Craig has post 9/11 terrorism to ground his movies.
Sign In or Register to comment.