› ›

Pierce Brosnan Not a Fan of Spectre

12357

Comments

  • brinkeguthriebrinkeguthrie Piz Gloria
    Posts: 1,400
    Brosnan dissing the Bond series again...totally caught off guard by that.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    He has admittedly made some pretty big gaffes regarding his general knowledge of Fleming. I remember seeing an interview with him and Robert Patterson in which he said "there was only 7 books by Fleming" #-o

    Poor old Pierce. He's not the sharpest tool in the box. Amazing where looks alone can get you.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    He has admittedly made some pretty big gaffes regarding his general knowledge of Fleming. I remember seeing an interview with him and Robert Patterson in which he said "there was only 7 books by Fleming" #-o
    Are you saying he didn't read all the Bond books before inhabiting the character? That is unfortunate imho.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2015 Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    He has admittedly made some pretty big gaffes regarding his general knowledge of Fleming. I remember seeing an interview with him and Robert Patterson in which he said "there was only 7 books by Fleming" #-o
    Are you saying he didn't read all the Bond books before inhabiting the character? That is unfortunate imho.

    In fairness neither did Connery. True he met Ian Fleming but he admitted during an interview for DAF to only actually reading a couple.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Who read all the books, apart from Dalton?

    Brosnan I suspect didn't read (or finish) any of them.

    I actually think Dalton MAY have overdone it on the books and lost sight of the cinematic tradition. I respect him though for realising that there was no point just aping the past - a lesson Brosnan never learnt or understood.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Who read all the books, apart from Dalton?
    Craig I believe, and I assumed all the actors would have had to. If not, that is quite sad.

    @BAIN123, Connery could have got away with it, because Fleming was around when his film portrayal was being envisaged/devised/approved, but still, it should be a requirement I think.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    Who read all the books, apart from Dalton?

    I think Craig also did. Moore apparently read some of them too but didn't rely on them in the way that Dalton did.

    I had a conversation about this subject with @Bondsum a few weeks back.

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Who read all the books, apart from Dalton?
    Craig I believe, and I assumed all the actors would have had to. If not, that is quite sad.

    I always assumed may be they just read one of two.

    Like I said, I think Dalton may be overdid it.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2015 Posts: 11,189
    I think Dalton was the first one of the six to really study the books in an academic sort of way.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I think referencing the novels is important but it's also important for the screen Bond to bring something a little different and interesting each time. Getting too bogged down in the books may not help that, although it worked out okay for Dalton.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    i do admire Dalton's commitment and enthusiasm for the book Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The trouble with not reading the books imho is you don't get the essence. Then your portrayal may end up being a mishmash or just drawing from the other actors. This is what I felt deeply and personally about Brosnan's portrayal, and perhaps this explains it now.

    Why channel a predecessor when you can channel the real deal from the book.....but reinterpret it your way or a way that suits you best?
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    The trouble with not reading the books imho is you don't get the essence. Then your portrayal may end up being a mishmash or just drawing from the other actors. This is what I felt deeply and personally about Brosnan's portrayal, and perhaps this explains it now.

    Why channel a predecessor when you can channel the real deal from the book.....but reinterpret it your way or a way that suits you best?

    I totally agree. Have you read this article?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/10761541/Pierce-Brosnan-I-was-never-good-enough-as-Bond.html

    When I read the bit where Brosnan says his films were underwritten in terms of the Bond character, I remember thinking "read the books you Plonker!"
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2015 Posts: 11,189
    the literary character is actually quite boring I think. He's just an indulgent, jaded civil servant who goes on a lot of exciting adventures.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The trouble with not reading the books imho is you don't get the essence. Then your portrayal may end up being a mishmash or just drawing from the other actors. This is what I felt deeply and personally about Brosnan's portrayal, and perhaps this explains it now.

    Why channel a predecessor when you can channel the real deal from the book.....but reinterpret it your way or a way that suits you best?

    I totally agree. Have you read this article?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/10761541/Pierce-Brosnan-I-was-never-good-enough-as-Bond.html

    When I read the bit where Brosnan says his films were underwritten in terms of the Bond character, I remember thinking "read the books you Plonker!"
    Yes, I had read that comment before about him feeling like he was in a time warp. It's also the producer's fault to not insist on reading the books first (maybe 6 months prior to flming to let it just sink in about real character traits.......absorb it)....but he should have also demanded that it be done. Crazy....
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The trouble with not reading the books imho is you don't get the essence. Then your portrayal may end up being a mishmash or just drawing from the other actors. This is what I felt deeply and personally about Brosnan's portrayal, and perhaps this explains it now.

    Why channel a predecessor when you can channel the real deal from the book.....but reinterpret it your way or a way that suits you best?

    I totally agree. Have you read this article?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/10761541/Pierce-Brosnan-I-was-never-good-enough-as-Bond.html

    When I read the bit where Brosnan says his films were underwritten in terms of the Bond character, I remember thinking "read the books you Plonker!"
    Yes, I had read that comment before about him feeling like he was in a time warp. It's also the producer's fault to not insist on reading the books first (maybe 6 months prior to flming to let it just sink in about real character traits.......absorb it)....but he should have also demanded that it be done. Crazy....

    There is a wealth of information for any actor to draw on. Even if the scripts are garbage, there's no excuse for not inhabiting the character - Craig has shown this several times.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think it shows a slight lack of class on Brozzer's part and perhaps a teensie weensie bit of sour grapes.

    What irks me though is that he says SP was overlong and had a weak story. Did he ever watch any of his own Bond movies?

    He's probably annoyed because SF ripped of TWINE and GE and did both stories better.

    Agreed.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Even though Dan Craig is a better actor and far better Bond, PB is still entitled to his opinion
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Even though Dan Craig is a better actor and far better Bond, PB is still entitled to his opinion

    He is entitled to his opinion. I just think voicing it at this time and in this way makes him look a little foolish and only invites unflattering comparisons with his truly dreadful movies.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Getafix wrote: »
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »
    Craig said he'd rather slash his wrists rather than play Bond again. And even Roger Moore defended him on that.

    That's not the point.

    The point is people here take every smallest opportunity to bash Brosnan.
    Just read some of the comments here.

    Why do people get so wound up about the Brosnan bashing? It's just a bit of harmless sport.

    At this point it's a goddamned broken record.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,419
    I've never been a fan of Brosnan. When I first heard he was up for the role, I was in dismay. I'm from Ireland, and the media went nuts here, "born to play Bond" and "The man from Meath scores 007" etc. I hated the idea. Never ranked him much as an actor, and couldn't picture him as Bond. When MTM productions stepped in and then Dalton got the role I was delighted! When eventually it came his way again, he was obviously thrilled, and the media here went nuts again "Second chance,blah blah". When I saw GE, I was with an audience who were in great anticipation after the long gap, and going along with that buzz, I enjoyed the film. But I wasn't impressed by Brosnan, thought he was bland and wooden! Looking at it now though, GE the film is very dated, LTK stands up better today and it came 6 years before. When Brosnan was out, and Craig stepped in, I was thrilled again, and after seeing CR, I was elated that we had a decent Bond in the part. It seems to me that in a way Brosnan had a right to be aggrieved. He lost the role, got it again, thought he was going to be there for at least 5 or 6 films (which I believed!), saw DAD his fourth,and final film in his contract attacked, and considered by some, myself included, to be worst Bond film ever. Then Craig steps in and gets universal praise for CR, is it any wonder he was bleating to any one who listened about 'losing' the role. On the other hand, Brosnan himself is a producer, and knows about contracts, and should have realised, "That's Showbiz", but didn't. He hasn't really been a success, outside of Bond, so that bitterness is still there I reckon.
    I only found out recently that he turned Tim Burton down for the Batman role, before Michael Keaton was cast. Who knows what would have happened then! A third film for Dalton, or a an unknown actor cast?.
    Regarding the books. Isn't Connery on record as saying he didn't particularly like them, because of the lack of humour.. And Roger didn't consider Bond a hero, he preferred real life heroes, like his Dad, who I think was a Fireman?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    He has admittedly made some pretty big gaffes regarding his general knowledge of Fleming. I remember seeing an interview with him and Robert Patterson in which he said "there was only 7 books by Fleming" #-o
    Are you saying he didn't read all the Bond books before inhabiting the character? That is unfortunate imho.

    In fairness neither did Connery. True he met Ian Fleming but he admitted during an interview for DAF to only actually reading a couple.

    Yeah but Connery is Connery. The popularity of the books themselves were in part thanks to him and his early outings anyway. When you're that good, not reading all the books matters not.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,399
    Pierce speaks the truth.... if anyone knows a weak script, it's Pierce ;) lol

    but lets look at what he is saying shall we...
    “I was looking forward to it enormously. I thought it was too long. The story was kind of weak — it could have been condensed. It kind of went on too long. It really did.”

    this is truth... and i've said the film is guilty of the same thing... the momentum of this movie was building towards Bond's confrontation with Blofeld - much in the way that the movie DN was building towards Bond's confrontation with Dr. No.. imagine, after Bond destroy's No's base on Crab Key - they end up going back to London for additional 20 minutes.... the stuff in London and Blofeld's base in SP could've been condensed down into 1 climactic ending - this isn't LOTR, we don't need 2 or 3 endings...
    “[‘Spectre’] is neither fish nor fowl. It’s neither Bond nor Bourne. Am I in a Bond movie? Not in a Bond movie? But Daniel, in the fourth go-round, has ownership of it. He had a nice looseness to him.”

    About Bond vs Bourne - i felt more that way about QOS than i did about SP.. in SP, it felt like a Bond movie straight through... but it being "neither fish nor fowl" - agreed.. IMO, it's not terrific, but it's not bad.. it's very middle of the road.. and agreed also about Dan's performance...
    “He’s a mighty warrior, and I think he found a great sense of himself in this one with the one-liners and a nice playfulness there. Just get a tighter story, and he’ll have another classic.”

    Thats a Bingo!!.. Pierce hit the nail right on the head... this movie had all the earmarks of going down as a classic - even bigger than SF or even CR, if it just had a tighter script..
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    I'm glad you boys feel better after this bash-fest. :))
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    i am not bashing anything..

    i personally still really like Spectre, but i am fully aware, and understand it's shortcomings - as i am with most Bond films... just because one finds flaws in something, doesn't mean they hate it... well, to some (because some people will tend to judge films based on picking apart individual moments, not as a whole).. but me, flaws and all - i still really like it...

    I feel the same way about other films too - most notoriously the last Indiana Jones movie... i could've done without a lot of the crap in that film too, but i still enjoy it...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I only found out recently that he turned Tim Burton down for the Batman role, before Michael Keaton was cast. Who knows what would have happened then!?
    I did not know this. One learns something new every day!
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I only found out recently that he turned Tim Burton down for the Batman role, before Michael Keaton was cast. Who knows what would have happened then!?
    I did not know this. One learns something new every day!

    i'm *clears throat* Batman :))
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Yep it has turned into a full blown Brosnan bash fest by the usual suspects. What a waste of an already poorly allowed thread. With a start that was already in the personal review thread. But the words Brosnan always draws some "fans" like flies to a pile of cow-dung.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I don't like Pierce's Bond and don't make no secret of it but the Brosnan I can't help but like him and to be honest he's got a point.

    He's very positive about Dan and I thought he was terrific in SPECTRE but his criticisms aren't without merit.

    The same way us Skyfall fans are supposedly blind to all it's plot holes the worshipers at the Throne of SPECTRE are happy to forgive the weak plot and the worst climax of the Craig era.

    Last 2 set pieces are empty and lack tension, whereas the Scotland climax of Skyfall is thrilling and has an edge to it. I liked SPECTRE but I'm not going to say I wasn't disappointed and it appears Brosnan was too.


  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    I wonder what Sean Connery thought of it, if he's even seen it.
This discussion has been closed.