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
With QOS I remember thinking it was alright but something was off. Watched it again the other week and a lot of it is good but pacing wise it just doesn't flow well.
My take on the Brosnan years is that the production of the films let Brosnan down far more than the other way around. Brosnan has his bad acting moments - no doubt - but he's a good actor and could have done more with the character than EON was prepared to allow at the time. Brosnan seems to understand and explain as much in his quote from the article (above) - I think this outlines my and others' biggest problem with the Brosnan years. Of course, others like it for that reason - so it's all a matter of perspective.
I think Brosnans biggest fear was not being 'another Dalton' as he saw it and therefore turned away from the literary character towards a very lightweight homage of Sean and Rog.
Brosnan is the anti Dalton, even though i think deep down he wanted to give the part more dramatic heft.
Sad really. I blame EON and Brosnan tbh
I get that most of the Bonds didn't turn to the novels directly for inspiration but they were at least honest about only having read one or two. I wonder if Broz made the mistake of essentially, as you've stated before @Getafix, blagging it and trying to come off like he knew more about the character than he actually did.
It kind of hurts to admit it but I get the sense Brosnan was basically a yes-man. He did what Eon told him to do.
Turning to the books gets you only so far when the dialogue and stories your given are about the furthest away from Fleming as you can get (while still skating by as legitimately "Bond"ish). When Dalton was Bond, they were still using pieces from the books and giving Dalton something to work with. EON went full-on pop for Brosnan's tenure - the public ate it up but that, of course, doesn't mean it's good.
Brosnan isn't off the hook - although I think he is a pretty good actor overall, he certainly has the tendency to overact. His painface is painful to watch! His ideas for more explicit sex were finally realized in DAD and was proven to be a really bad idea. Turns out we don't want to watch Bond blubber out an oh-face.
The worst ones I think are when he's fighting with Mr Kil.
Christ.
I think at least some of this can be attributed to cheesy writing, which looking back seemed quite common in big 1990s films.
He is better than Dalton, George and some even say Craig.
I don't quite get it either. When I ask any hater all they can say is that he's over dramatic and too "Terminator-like." I don't really agree with either. I will admit that he is the most dramatic out of all the Bond actors, but not overly dramatic. His Bond does hold the most kills out of all the Bonds (although Craig's isn't too far behind), but I wouldn't go as far as calling him the Terminator.
I remember when GoldenEye came out. I was a little kid and it was years before I became a Bond fan. I remember seeing Bond everywhere. It's the only time I can recall Bond being as big as it was. While Casino Royale is amazing, and was talked about quite a bit when it first came out, it just never had what GoldenEye seemed to have when it was first released.
There is a bit of a difference from my perspective. There's a spitefulness that's not really there when discussing Dalts. It's rare (in fact I can't recall an instance off the top of my head) where Dalts is absolutely torn a new one. That's quite a regular occurrence with Brosnan. Aside from that, I think it's more the snide comments that grate with me. The petty asides when the Brosnan isn't even part of a conversation but just has to be dropped in as the punchline because it's so obviously hilarious. I like them both, so I have no agenda, but from my perspective it's definitely Brosnan who gets the bulk of the shit shovelled his way.
I've seen people get really precise in picking at Dalton. I have criticised Brosnan, I won't deny that, but on the whole, I don't think it happens that much.
I'm pretty sure that's why we ended up with DAD. By that point EON had given up on getting a decent performance from Brosnan and just let rip with total CGI fantasy nonsense.
I'd bet that Babs is not a Brosnan fan.
I think they could have given it to another actor and it could have been a success.
Bond is bigger than any one actor
Brosnan did not blow any of the opportunities because he was never presented with them. Even when the script called for moments where he needs to be really emotional, there are usually followed up by some ridiculous over the top action scene that usually makes us the audience forget about it instantly. Also no, we ended up with DAD because EON decided to hire a jackass more interesting in overusing CGI and trying to make a "Best of Bond" or "Bond's greatest hits" film. None of that is Brosnan's fault whatsoever.
Yes but does Bros handle the 'dramatic' scenes well? Regardless of what happens afterwards, does he convince when he's actaully required to act and bring the character to life?
This whole thread is based on an interview where Brosnan basically says he never got a grip on who the character was. That is what he always lacked - the ability to take this fantasy slightly ridiculous character and give him an element of human believability that elevates Bond above cartoon character.
That is the basic challenge that faces every actor - how do you elevate this man from two dimensional into someone who actually resonates with an audience beyond 12 year old boys.
I beg to differ. Go over to the thread "Would GoldenEye had been a success with Dalton?" right now and tell me that Brosnan doesn't get too much hate. It's actually quite irritating.
Absolutely false. Brosnan said that he always wanted a more serious Bond and actually wanted to have something closer to what we got with Casino Royale. EON was what screwed Brosnan and themselves over. They wanted to play it safe and stick to the formula that was currently working for them at the time.