› ›

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

1234568»

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited August 2015 Posts: 11,189
    ...an Aussie walks in behind them and says that this never happened to the other fella.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    An Irishman, a Scotsman and a Welshman walk into a pub...

    This is what happened when Brosnan walked into a pub...



  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Two Englishmen sat at the bar. One raises his eyebrow to the other.

    Punchline please...
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited August 2015 Posts: 11,189
    ...one says we had an empire before you were born. The balls were in our court.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Getafix wrote: »
    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.

    Lol anytime GE or LTK touted as a great Bond film.

    I'll stop as soon as everyone agrees with me.

    Pssst ..I still like both those films *sighs* ...they just irritate me lol.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    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.

    Lol anytime GE or LTK touted as a great Bond film.

    I'll stop as soon as everyone agrees with me.

    Pssst ..I still like both those films *sighs* ...they just irritate me lol.

    That's the kind of sense of humour I appreciate! You have to accept the flaws to enjoy most Bond movies.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    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.

    Well I am glad Spielberg never did a Bond. I have never been a big fan. Even with his own babies like Indie he can ape it.

    Anyway, back on topic, Brosnan was maybe the one and only plebiscited Bond when cast. No actor has ever been as widely accepted as Bond before they even started shooting. He is the only Bond actor who did not truly have to earn it. And this is also why his tenure disappointed in the end.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2015 Posts: 9,020
    Brosnan was Cubby's decision in the 80's.
    To say they cast him because of popular demand is ridiculous.

    Brosnan is a very versatile actor. He (and maybe Connery) is the only one of all of them that has made films in about every genre possible. And he is always convincing.
    For those who just claim he isn't a good actor they should watch the following movies:

    - The November Man
    - The Taylor Of Panama
    - Mamma Mia
    - The Ghost Writer
    - Remember Me
    - Bag Of Bones
    - Seraphim Falls
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited August 2015 Posts: 15,106
    Actually, Brosnan was cast at least partially because of his appeal, in any case the casting decision was in tune with what the public wanted at the time. Back in 1987, Brosnan was fairly unknown, then Dalton got the role and was perceived by many as second choice. In 1995, Brosnan was known for the role he had lost and was meant to have, he was then certainly a popular choice. I wanted him as Bond in 1989 and all I had seen of him was that Around the World in 80 Days miniseries.
Sign In or Register to comment.