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

The_Reaper

NapoleonPlural wrote:

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, part of the fancying must be Babs wanting to step out of the shadow of her old man. Brosnan was his boy, Craig is now hers. Her find. Her big star, the first Bond actor chosen under her sole tenure as carrier of the Bond flame (Wilson notwithstanding).

Quarrel

For all of Brosnan's shortcomings as an actor and his Bond outings (and there are more than a few, to be sure), there is one thing we can say about Brosnan's tenure as Bond:

He left the franchise in better shape than he found it.

Not every Bond actor can say the same.

chrisisall

mistersmith wrote:

In my opinion, Brosnan was the best Bond since Connery.

AND Dalton.
In fact, they ARE my three favourites.

002

chrisisall wrote:

mistersmith wrote:

In my opinion, Brosnan was the best Bond since Connery.

AND Dalton.
In fact, they ARE my three favourites.

agreed i think Sean, Roger, Tim and Pierce are the best bonds...imagine them in the original Goldeneye 64 Deathmatch...

Gaffer138

It Seems most people suddenly turn on the old bond when a new one is appointed,
Personally I think Brosnan was a top notch Bond, Was just as cold as Connery and didn't mind shooting Bond girls or giving them a good back hander when needed. Was just as childish/rude as Moore and could double entendre just as well as anything in the "carry on bond " era that Roger Moore did so well.Equally as suarve and Gentlemanly as Dalton and just like Poor old Lazenby this HAS now happened to the other fella! Most of my Bond loving friends agree he ticked all the boxes and all consider GOLDENEYE to be one of the best all round bond films ever.

Ludovico

Quarrel wrote:

For all of Brosnan's shortcomings as an actor and his Bond outings (and there are more than a few, to be sure), there is one thing we can say about Brosnan's tenure as Bond:

He left the franchise in better shape than he found it.

Not every Bond actor can say the same.

I agree with this. Brosnan was the most financially sound casting choice at the time too. That said, I don't think he could have gone on after DAD, he was really getting too old.

danielcraig007

He got old real fast from Goldeneye to DaD, it seemed like 20 years more then the 7. He suited the silly OTT of his Bond Movies perfect. He's never been the greatest actor so i could never see him do a CR QoS or SF but he did his job admirable, he was my first Bond to see in the cinema, although i don't think he was as successful as capturing the Bond character as the others before or after him.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Connery, Dalton, Craig= holy trinity of Bond actors. Defending Brozzer and his paint by numbers approach as a great Bond= priceless. Although I very much enjoy his first two films, putting him ahead of anyone short of Lazenby is an endless source of amusement to me.

CraigMooreOHMSS

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Connery, Dalton, Craig= holy trinity of Bond actors. Defending Brozzer and his paint by numbers approach as a great Bond= priceless. Although I very much enjoy his first two films, putting him ahead of anyone short of Lazenby is an endless source of amusement to me.

That may be so, but I personally have him equalled with Dalts as the third best Bond, ahead of Moore and Lazenby. Craig in second and Connery in first, naturally.

doubleoego

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Connery, Dalton, Craig= holy trinity of Bond actors. Defending Brozzer and his paint by numbers approach as a great Bond= priceless. Although I very much enjoy his first two films, putting him ahead of anyone short of Lazenby is an endless source of amusement to me.

This man knows what he's talking about.

CharlesDreyfus

Brosnan was a terrific populist Bond. He was what the series needed after Dalton, who was undeniably fantastic (particularly in TLD), but alienated a chunk of the audience. My dad, who grew up on Connery, hated Dalton and loved Brosnan. In all likelihood, SF wouldn't exist if not for Brosnan keeping the franchise alive.

Brosnan was the first "current" Bond I was consciously aware of (GE came out when I was 11), so his films carry a certain nostalgia for me, although I dislike TND and hate DAD. I much prefer him to Moore, because Brosnan brought more humanity to the role. Moore, especially in his last few films, was completely predictable in his delivery and performance (as he himself often jokes). While Brosnan's not as talented as Craig, Connery or Dalton, I think he is a solid actor when he's given good material (TAILOR OF PANAMA is phenomenal).

SirHenryLeeChaChing

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Connery, Dalton, Craig= holy trinity of Bond actors. Defending Brozzer and his paint by numbers approach as a great Bond= priceless. Although I very much enjoy his first two films, putting him ahead of anyone short of Lazenby is an endless source of amusement to me.

That may be so, but I personally have him equalled with Dalts as the third best Bond, ahead of Moore and Lazenby. Craig in second and Connery in first, naturally.

I kind of see Brosnan as "Moore Jr" in his approach, whether he intended it or not I don't know, I think he was going for super spy GF/TB/YOLT Connery from what I've read. Bottom line for me since I love Sir Rog even in my 4th place is that Pierce came up short for me by way of natural comparison.

Piggybacking on what Charlie D just said, my favorite Brosnan movies are not his Bond films. Given a good script he does just fine, no doubt he can be a solid actor in that respect. But he isn't what I'd call exceptionally talented either to be truthful. He got the public on board for him as Bond, and the series did need that at that time, but in his last two films he became a box ticking caricature of Bond and that's part of why he needed to move on from the role and into other opportunities. That will happen to Craig one day and it'll be on to the next one.

CraigMooreOHMSS

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Connery, Dalton, Craig= holy trinity of Bond actors. Defending Brozzer and his paint by numbers approach as a great Bond= priceless. Although I very much enjoy his first two films, putting him ahead of anyone short of Lazenby is an endless source of amusement to me.

That may be so, but I personally have him equalled with Dalts as the third best Bond, ahead of Moore and Lazenby. Craig in second and Connery in first, naturally.

I kind of see Brosnan as "Moore Jr" in his approach, whether he intended it or not I don't know, I think he was going for super spy GF/TB/YOLT Connery from what I've read. Bottom line for me since I love Sir Rog even in my 4th place is that Pierce came up short for me by way of natural comparison.

Piggybacking on what Charlie D just said, my favorite Brosnan movies are not his Bond films. Given a good script he does just fine, no doubt he can be a solid actor in that respect. But he isn't what I'd call exceptionally talented either to be truthful. He got the public on board for him as Bond, and the series did need that at that time, but in his last two films he became a box ticking caricature of Bond and that's part of why he needed to move on from the role and into other opportunities. That will happen to Craig one day and it'll be on to the next one.

Well see while I always loved Sir. Rog as a person and a figure, I never really took to his take on Bond. Brosnan for me was superior because he at least took it seriously 80-90% of the time. I don't agree that he was a caricature of Bond in TWINE, but in DAD yes, most definitely. But it wasn't only him, the series became a caricature of itself in the space of those two hours of DAD. In TWINE his acting chops were shown to be limited, but at least he tried even if it didn't work. The only difference between Brosnan and Lazenby here is that Lazenby had stronger material and acting around him to carry him through.

4EverBonded

In my opinion, Brosnan was a far better actor than Lazenby. Period.
The issues I have with DAD are not with Pierce.

I am glad the reboot happened when it did; it was appropriate.

thelivingroyale

4EverBonded wrote:

In my opinion, Brosnan was a far better actor than Lazenby. Period.

I do like Lazenby. I think he's good in OHMSS and especially brilliant in the final scene.

But I completely agree with you and I don't think you can question it really. Even if you think Lazenby is a better Bond I'm not sure you can really say he was a better actor than Brosnan.

Christ Laz wasn't even an actor at all until OHMSS, and I think when you compare their careers post Bond it speaks for itself. Lazenby has become a joke thanks to his crap career outside of OHMSS while Brosnan has gotten some good films and acclaimed performances under his belt outside of Bond (although Lazenby was going to work with Bruce Lee, which is pretty awesome).

BeatlesSansEarmuffs

I don't really understand the bashing of ANY Bond portrayal. Yes, I have my favorites (Connery, Dalton, Craig) and my less favorites (Lazenby & Moore) but I can find value in the contributions of most of these fine actors. For me, Brosnan sits pretty well in the middle...and that's probably his biggest problem.

As I see it, most of these actors put their own stamp on the Bond series, but Brosnan failed in this crucial test. Connery defined the role...and Moore redefined it in his own fashion. Dalton strove to revive the character in the Fleming mold...and Craig rebooted the series quite effectively. I believe that Brosnan's biggest mistake was in trying to be an "EveryBond." His Bond was blended from a base of Connery with a strong dash of Moore and a twist of Dalton. In trying to please everyone, he ended up satisfying very few fully.

I think if he had been a bit more particular about what he expected from scripts or special effects -- if he had campaigned for a more appropriate partner than Denise Richards in TWINE or against the atrocious CGI in DAD -- his standing would be much higher among Bond fans today. Instead, he saw himself as little more than a hired hand in the fields of Eon, and his tenure as Bond was somewhat the worse for this well-intended attempt at "professionalism."

chrisisall

BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote:

In trying to please everyone, he ended up satisfying very few fully.

Do you mean, very few HARDCORE fans there? Because the public at large LOVED him.

Baltimore_007

Brosnan did some good work before Bond, of course recognized by Remington Steele, and while he was a good choice initially for Bond in 1994, it just didn't work out from this perspective. Still put in a very decent performance here and there, but for sure, in the bottom two of the six actors to have played the part of Bond (Lazenby is the other, and even then, he only did the one release, just never got a chance to show what he could do)

You talk about what Fleming intended, a real portrayal of the character. Only Dalton and Connery ever made the mark. Craig is good, but just has those one or two deficiencies weighing him down. Brosnan did an OK job, nothing overly special. At least not compared to some of the previous names mentioned

BeatlesSansEarmuffs

You are correct, @chrisisall; I should have specified few FANS. The public at large was quite satisfied with his portrayal, more so than with Dalton's really. But they're not even thinking about the subject now. They're probably more satisfied with Craig than they were with Brosnan. It's only we fans who obsess over such matters...

Dragonpol

Yes. I think Brosnan was the fall guy here, as I intend to write about on a future blog article.

Szonana

Getafix wrote: »

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Here are some compelling quotes straight from our dear Pierce, about how he viewed Bond. It is nice to see that he knew he was a part of a sinking ship at the end of it. I have bolded all the comments Pierce made about his time as Bond, the unbolded others concerning his views on the other Bond actors. Truly revealing stuff:

"George is just an angry, old, pissed-off guy. He was never an actor, but some pissed-off Aussie who doesn`t know how to show his feminine side. I met him, and he`s got that kind of brittle edge to him."

"There was only one Bond for me, and it was Sean Connery. That made the role daunting."

"Bond is an enigma. He`s smooth and bigger than life, but he`s vague as a personality. It`s a little like doing a period piece. Look, I`m thankful, the role made me an international star. I`ve been in the backwaters of Papua New Guinea and heard, 'Hey, Bond.'"

"(March 2004) They`re too scared. They feel they have to top themselves in a genre which is just spectacle and a huge bang for your buck. But I think you can have your cake and eat it. You can have real character work, a character storyline and a thriller aspect and all kinds of quips, asides, the explosions and the women. We`re just saturated with too many overblown action films with no plot. That`s ludicrous. It`s so damn crazy! That`s absolutely sheer lunacy because "Casino Royale" is the blueprint of the Bond character. You find out more about James Bond in that book than in any of the other books. I would love to do a fifth Bond and then bow out, but if this last one is to be my last, then so be it. My contract is up. They can do it or not."

"(on Casino Royale (2006)) I`m looking forward to it like we`re all looking forward to it. Daniel Craig is a great actor and he`s going to do a fantastic job."


It never made it in to the papers, but I`ve had my face sliced open by a stuntman and a knee injury. But it`s all part and parcel of being Bond.

"I think Daniel (Daniel Craig) is a very fine actor. These are rocky waters, but I think he will have the last laugh. You get twisted some way or another if you throw yourself into it. There`s going to be mishaps."

"It would have been great to light up and smoke cigarettes, for instance. It would have been great to have the killing a little bit more real and not wussed down. It`s all rather bland. I remember doing a sex scene with Halle (Halle Berry) - I mean frolicking in the bed - and there was director Lee Tamahori right under the sheets with us. But the way we ended up doing it was almost like the old days in Hollywood - kissing the girl but still having your feet on the floor."

"(2005) A few years ago I would have said I could imagine playing James Bond in a more ferocious way. Like a sort of Quentin Tarantino character - but now, at 52, I am definitely too old."

"I know most actors say otherwise, but I like sex scenes. Bond was supposed to be this great lover, but I always found the love scenes in those movies a little dull. It`s lovely to work out the fantasy of it all in celluloid and then go home to my wife."

"(on the movie industry)There`s too many people in seats of power who just haven`t got a clue what they`re doing. They`re bean counters, and it just pisses me off because consequently our kids go to see crap movies."

"(on Casino Royale (2006)) I always wanted to go back, because it`s the blueprint of Bond`s character. It`s the one where Fleming (Ian Fleming) really painted in the details of what Bond was about, so I was disappointed that it didn`t happen, but you can`t go around with that in your heart. It`s all such a game really, and you win some, you lose some, you`re there, you`re not there. Getting the part of Bond and playing the part of Bond was a blessing and a curse, which I think (Sean Connery) has spoken about, and I`m sure Daniel (Daniel Craig) is just getting the full taste of right now. So, you know, one can really only look at the blessings in life."

I think that all the films I`ve ever made are personal, even James Bond, because it`s so much of myself, so much of who I am as a man and as an actor. You have to invest yourself in every character that you portray.

"(on why he thinks he would have regretted winning the James Bond role in 1986) It`s a role better suited to someone who is in his 40s, old enough to have the confidence and the sophistication and strength to be able to stand there and just let the moment sit. Bond is a man with the greatest of confidence. And playing that takes practice. In 1986 I think I was 33 or something like that, and I still looked like a baby. Finally, I`m growing into this face of mine. That takes time."

"(on George Lazenby) George seems to be an unhappy camper about Bond. He gets pissy and spits the dummy out. Tim (Timothy Dalton) was fantastic. He really had the balls to go out there and play it on the nose - Ian Fleming undiluted. But where were the laughs? Sean (Sean Connery) was brilliant, he played it dead on the money. And Roger (Roger Moore) really made it his own and went for the laughs. I think those two were the best."

"I`ve been identified with James Bond or Thomas Crown for so long - suave, elegant, sophisticated men in suits. It`s like you`ve been giving the same performance for 20 years."

You`re not even allowed to show a bloody nipple. It`s pathetic. What Bond needs is a good, palpable killing sequence and a good sex scene - and it doesn`t have to be graphic, you can use your imagination. We had a good one in The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) - a really classy, sexy scene.

"When you look at Ian Fleming`s work, it`s there on the page. The martinis, the drugs, the cigarettes, the casino, the blood on the hands. But they never went there. Hopefully, they will go there with Daniel (Daniel Craig). They have the product, they have the man, and I`m sure they will."

"It never felt real to me. I never felt I had complete ownership over Bond. Because you`d have these stupid one-liners - which I loathed - and I always felt phony doing them. I`d look at myself in the suit and tie and think, "What the heck am I doing here?" Such sentiments were nothing new. That was always the frustrating thing about the role. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson play it so safe. The pomposity and rigmarole that they put directors through is astounding . . . I can do anything I want to do now. I`m not beholden to them or anyone. I`m not shackled by some contracted image."

Very interesting. But I just don't buy it. His 'acting', when he was given the occasional chance was just awful.

dkem91 wrote:

My feeling on Brosnans tenure was that EON was playing it safe. There had just been a six year gap and it was in question if the series was still relevant. So I think Brosnan's films were played safe to get the series back on its feet. You can't blame them for playing it safe at first, the series had to prove itself once again, but it didn't need to go as far as it did ( the second half of Die Another Day).

I understand all that. After the long gap they needed a hit and so they played it safe. I still think GE could and should have been a better movie but I certainly understand the reason why they went down the formulaic route. However, after that I think they did try and take it in a slightly different direction, particularly with TWINE. The problem was that the screenplays and directing and the lead actor himself were also pretty weak.

For my money TND is Brosnan's best film. It's parred back without too much flab or tedious nostalgia. It flags towards the end but overall his best effort, which still leaves it near the very bottom of my rankings.

I think Pierce is a little too harsh with himself and even more with Barbara and Michael

First with himself because he was great, a mix between Connery and Moore but very nicely done. I loved him as James Bond and makes me sad he didnt feel he wasn't good enough.

With Barbara and Michael he should understand they were under huge presure after box office failures which were the Dalton films, everyone would be scared in their position.
They didn't want to screw him.

They didnt have bad intentions with him and he had to be a little more comprehensive towrads them.

Anyway i love that he accepts to like sex scenes he is the only one accepst that and thats really cool.

I love pierce as an actor and enjoy his intreviews very much but inwished he would stop having hard feelings against Barbara and Michael

Getafix

Ludovico wrote: »

HASEROT wrote:

Brosnan was never a very versatile actor.. if you've seen him in one role, then you've seen them all.. the only thing that changes in his performance from film to film is his level of smugness and smarm.. in every role, he's essentially just being "Pierce Brosnan is Pierce Brosnan as so and so".... i dont mind Pierce though, and i loved him in films like Seraphim Falls and The Thomas Crown Affair... as Bond, i think he did the best with what he was given - which wasn't much.. but at the same time, i dont think he ever really managed to carry a film with his performance - he just sort of blends in with the surroundings...... a combination of bad scripts, average directors, and some piss poor casting decisions will kill you every time.

do i think they threw Pierce under the bus? Not at all... like several others have said, i've never heard the producers speak outwardly negative about Pierce at all (the sour grapes seem to be all at his end).. i just think he was the victim of poor circumstances... as the producers themselves really were waffling back and forth on which direction to take the franchise.. and it wasn't until Pierce was done that they came to the realization that they needed to take a more grounded approach... something Pierce wanted - but something i never heard him champion until after his ties were cut with the franchise.

I think Pierce Brosnan can be carried by a movie, but never really carries it. Casting him as Bond was a great marketing decision, heck it might have contributed to saving the franchise, but it did contribute to create a creativity limbo, so to speak. Brosnan is an average actor, but he is even less a muse. But yes, you are right, the producers were mainly responsible to the lack of clear direction. But it had started, I think, with LTK.

Good posts and I agree with both of you. Pierce is likeable and perfectly serviceable when properly cast and well directed. He has a useful role as an actor, just not as Bond. And I agree that from what I've seen he is not someone who can carry a poor movie on his own - few can, to be fair. I think Craig is the same in that sense - as his lack of success outside Bond demonstrates.

I Also agree that the creative confusion began before Brosnan and that LTK already showed that EoN really weren't sure what direction to go in.

Any way, Pierce was definitely not a scapegoat. He carries a lot of the responsibility for the quality of his Bond performances. I do think though that it was EON who didn't reAlly know what to do with him. With the right director and script he could have done a decent Bond movie. I would have love to see Tarantino directing him as Bond. I still kind of hope that EoN one day has the balls to hire Tarantino. Such a shame we never got a Spielberg Bond as well.

BondJasonBond006

Goldeneye is one of the best Bond movies.
I even go so far that this is general consensus.

BAIN123

BondJasonBond006 wrote: »

Goldeneye is one of the best Bond movies.
I even go so far that this is general consensus.

I agree. Certainly amongst my generation at least (late 20s/early 30s) it's still very popular.

I'm yet to meet anyone in person who has a negative view of the film.

Getafix

BAIN123 wrote: »

BondJasonBond006 wrote: »

Goldeneye is one of the best Bond movies.
I even go so far that this is general consensus.

I agree. Certainly amongst my generation at least (late 20s/early 30s) it's still very popular.

I'm yet to meet anyone in person who has a negative view of the film.

I think you're probably right.

I have seen it ranked quite low in several online best of Bond rankings though. As I said I will rewatch it some time, but my memories of it are that it's pretty dismal.

mcdonbb

Getafix wrote: »

BAIN123 wrote: »

BondJasonBond006 wrote: »

Goldeneye is one of the best Bond movies.
I even go so far that this is general consensus.

I agree. Certainly amongst my generation at least (late 20s/early 30s) it's still very popular.

I'm yet to meet anyone in person who has a negative view of the film.

I think you're probably right.

I have seen it ranked quite low in several online best of Bond rankings though. As I said I will rewatch it some time, but my memories of it are that it's pretty dismal.

I didn't like it. PB matured nicely in TND but GE was lame. Overacted ..trying to hard for a catch phrase, ...not near as bad and unentertaining as LTK as indicated by the BO performance but not there yet IMHO.

Getafix

mcdonbb wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

BAIN123 wrote: »

BondJasonBond006 wrote: »

Goldeneye is one of the best Bond movies.
I even go so far that this is general consensus.

I agree. Certainly amongst my generation at least (late 20s/early 30s) it's still very popular.

I'm yet to meet anyone in person who has a negative view of the film.

I think you're probably right.

I have seen it ranked quite low in several online best of Bond rankings though. As I said I will rewatch it some time, but my memories of it are that it's pretty dismal.

I didn't like it. PB matured nicely in TND but GE was lame. Overacted ..trying to hard for a catch phrase, ...not near as bad and unentertaining as LTK as indicated by the BO performance but not there yet IMHO.

Ha ha. Love your insistence on getting a dig In at LTK every post!

I prefer LTK to GE, but I don't buy this idea LTK is a classic either.

Szonana

002 wrote: »

chrisisall wrote:

mistersmith wrote:

In my opinion, Brosnan was the best Bond since Connery.

AND Dalton.
In fact, they ARE my three favourites.

agreed i think Sean, Roger, Tim and Pierce are the best bonds...imagine them in the original Goldeneye 64 Deathmatch...

Count me in with these three favorites
Pirece Brosnan, Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton.

I think these three have all the things i look the most for in a Bond actor.

chrisisall

Szonana wrote: »

002 wrote: »

chrisisall wrote:

mistersmith wrote:

In my opinion, Brosnan was the best Bond since Connery.

AND Dalton.
In fact, they ARE my three favourites.

agreed i think Sean, Roger, Tim and Pierce are the best bonds...imagine them in the original Goldeneye 64 Deathmatch...

Count me in with these three favorites
Pirece Brosnan, Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton.

I think these three have all the things i look the most for in a Bond actor.

=D>

Getafix

An Irishman, a Scotsman and a Welshman walk into a pub...