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
I've only just now watched that clip. I'm laughing so hard I've got tears in my eyes.
Absolutely brilliant =))
As much as I enjoy Broz thank god he didnt get the part in 1986. Taffin was 2 years later.
There's no more to add to that :-)
http://lifebetweenframes.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-lost-dalton-film.html
Add Giancarlo Paretti trying to sell the broadcasting rights to the Bond series and a livid Danjaq suing MGM, and you can understand why Dalton got screwed over.
In an alternate universe, I’d make sure Paretti never tries to merge MGM with another company, Dalton would got his third movie in 1991, and I’d tell Calley to get stuffed :D
Wonderful! You can’t beat a bit of Bronholm.
If you haven’t heard it, Adam Buxton on Smershpod reviewing Taffin is well worth a listen. Here’s some edited highlights, some great stuff in there, including some language, but hey, if you can’t take a swear or two then maybe you shouldn’t be living here.
Full podcast here: https://play.acast.com/s/smershpod/smershsidespecial-taffin
The public had been talking Brosnan up as Bond-esque for years before he was given the job
After Dalton didn't work out the producers took the path of least resistance and gave them what they wanted
This is what I’ve always heard.
Glitz and glamour were still 'in' and not yet considered bad-taste and the decade brought a very real sense that 'things can only get better...'
The sentiment at the time was that we had never had it so good in the Western World - Brosnan's somewhat shallow, hedonistic & perfectly coiffed superspy icon was the Cinematic conceptualization of this mid-to late 1990's hedonism.
Gritty cinema only became 'cool' after 9/11 ...
So his movies were pretty well liked on its release time right?
It was till Craig came to the picture that Brosnan’s films except Goldeneye were put down by almost everyone.
No, everyone liked Goldeneye, but after that his films were seen as slick but unmemorable - just kind of disappointing (until DAD that is; a lot of knives were out for that one, though I myself was of the opinion that at least they really went for it - they wanted a big, stupid fantasy picture, and that was what they made, totally balls to the wall, because at the time I think Eon were looking at Vin Diesel's XXX as a threat, they didn't really see Bourne coming for some reason).
The big shift in perception that came with Craig's success was that, pre-Craig, Brosnan was seen as a great Bond let down by an increasingly clueless Eon, whereas after Craig's success, people started blaming Brosnan himself as part of the reason the films were lacking.
Or at least that's how I remember it.
I was at best bored and unimpressed and found them loud and cheesy.
However, as I’ve said before: I did really enjoy the first half of TND. I found Brozz to be his best, most relaxed and confident and more importantly, likeable. He also looked quite handsome. It was everything after the Halo jump that went down hill for me.
I think this is bang on. And it’s important to remember that we might not have gotten to the gritty Bond if it wasn’t for Brosnan. They needed a hit with Goldeneye, and as much as I love Dalton, I’m not sure if the film would’ve been as successful with him in the lead. I don’t think it would’ve flopped or anything, and I think Dalton is the better Bond, and the better actor. But they needed a real movie star for that one, and Brosnan had those qualities in spades.
Maybe it’s just my nostalgia talking, but I’ll always defend Brosnan as an underrated Bond. He was effortlessly cool, perfect as the flashy Britpop action hero, and I do think he bought real emotion to it. That side of his films has aged poorly, because it was essentially just a rough warm up for the Craig era. But TWINE in particular did a lot of interesting things imo, and I always found how Brosnan played the darker moments interesting, because of how passionate he was. People say he overacts, and okay, I can’t defend the pain face. But I think he did make his Bond distinct in some of those scenes, because he didn’t play those moments as cold blooded like the others would have. He played it hot blooded. He’d get genuinely angry, he’d get genuinely sad. And there was a sort of woundedness and broodiness about him at times. I think his Bond had more depth than people give him credit for, and that was entirely down to his performance. He always gave me a sense of something deeper going on, I could imagine him brooding at the bar dwelling on killing Alec or Elektra.
I also genuinely think he gives one of the best Bond performances in DAD. I can’t imagine any other Bond carrying that film like he did. Moore couldn’t have sold the Korea stuff, Craig and Dalton couldn’t have sold the awful quips. Connery would’ve taken one look at the script and phoned it in, and Lazenby would’ve been lost without a decent director. But Brosnan carries that trainwreck completely on his shoulders. There’s so much tonal whiplash in that film that I think it’s amazing that Bond feels like the same character throughout. But he does, thanks to Brosnan. I know “greatest hits” is often levelled at him, but they really needed a jack of all trades like him to carry DAD. Same probably goes for all his films past Goldeneye actually. The others all got films that played to their strengths, but he had to lurch from proto Craig to rebooted Moore between scenes, and he actually made a success of it. I know a lot of his era has aged poorly, but I think he deserves credit for that. He’ll always be one of my favourite Bonds.
He could've personified the 80's as well if he were casted then too.
He could've been the tall, dark, handsome, poofy-haired yuppie. Portrayed as an embodiment of success and luxury.
Pierce has always been ridiculously handsome, and he still is to this day (I have a mancrush on him), but he looked his best in the 80's.
Be Here Now's a flawed classic, though I suppose the mentality of "bigger is better" applies to both.
I remember early reviews of the Bourne script, before the film was even shot: they were lacklustre at best. I was surprised when the movie was released and it got raving reviews.
When DAD was released, it looked already dated. And the sci-fi stuff looked like a cheap gimmick.
Yeah it did.
I never understand why they take Bond into the fantastical, the moment they do it just gets ripped to shreds.
The sci-fi elements papered over cracks in the Brosnan era, but it's stood out like a sore thumb in Craig era. I can't understand why the producers push for it
As much as I like Dalton, I'm glad they hired Pierce for Goldeneye, he owns that film. But the subsequent films he's just the guy in the tux not much more, which is more a fault of the writing than anything