Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
A question for Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton and or/Daniel Crig fans
More like 3 questions
1 How how do you notice the details that their Debut films wasn't written for them
2 how much does it affect your enjoyment of that film and performance
3 how does this fact influence your ranking of the films of your Bond actor.
Im not discriminating Sean Connery or Roger Moore its just that thier respective films felt and looked perfectly tailored for them since the first film.
1 How how do you notice the details that their Debut films wasn't written for them
2 how much does it affect your enjoyment of that film and performance
3 how does this fact influence your ranking of the films of your Bond actor.
Im not discriminating Sean Connery or Roger Moore its just that thier respective films felt and looked perfectly tailored for them since the first film.
^ 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
2. It doesn't really. Actually, it might improve my enjoyment, because the films bring a degree of familiarity to them which I like and also hold the actor in check, due to the link to his predecessor.
As an example, I rank GE as Brosnan's best, by far. That's because less of his acting tics are present here, and he is playing it fairly traditionally, without bringing his own take, which we see more of in TND.
The same goes for TLD, where Dalton is yet to let fly fully with his unique interpretation of Bond (that is to come in the next film)
3. It helps the respective ranking. Does not hurt it at all.
CR without the reboot nonsense would have worked well with Pierce Brosnan. That's something most Craig fans ignore.
The movie was tailored for Craig in the end, but with a few changes in the script it could have been tailored for Brosnan as well. Campbell would have done a good job, no doubt about that.
Only with QOS Craig got a movie that only he was able to do.
1 How how do you notice the details that their Debut films wasn't written for them I can see it when I think about it, but I don't consciously notice it when watching the films because I'm always too into them!
2 how much does it affect your enjoyment of that film and performance Not at all.
3 how does this fact influence your ranking of the films of your Bond actor. Not a bit; I'm a fan of all three.
Sounds about right, although LTK isn't really Dalton's full interpretation by any means.
Very interesting answers
I thought i was being overly concious on how all their debuts look a bitt more fitted to their predecessor.
Maybe Casino wasn't written for Pierce but i do think we had some moments where i felt this scene was more Pierce style especially the Train Scene with Vesper and the famous little finger scene that looked more a very early draft for Pierce that latter transformed into Casino Royale.
But its cool that you say it works on their advantage instead of affecting them on bad way.
I do like their respective debuts very much but for me its quite of a little disadvantage snce they are fully comfortable in the role and its like it fits them not so well.
So i do think the three were better in their latter films, they gained more confidence and a script tailored for them i think helped them a lot.
So I guess it does affect a little even though i still enjoy The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and Casino Royale very much
It's painfully obvious with Dalton (the one liners, cello scene). Brosnan's script was quite generic, a self-mocking, self-referential mess, but I like it!
2 how much does it affect your enjoyment of that film and performance
TLD is awkward at times. Apart from those moments Dalton's performance is great. The other two gave distinct performances regardless of the script (body language is more important than what is spoken)
3 how does this fact influence your ranking of the films of your Bond actor.
TLD, CR and GE are in my top 6 (1, 3, 6 respectively).
That being said, I enjoy TLD very much. The same applies for GE and CR.
Im glad also Pierce had to wait till the 90s and get more acting expirience. I loved his Bond and like you said he got the best of each of his predecessors
In my view, the Dalton and Brosnan eras are not too dissimilar.
2. CR is incredible, no doubt. GE is also incredible, no doubt.
Both of Dalton's films are affected by Moore's tenure by differing degrees. The influence on TLD is observable, but it is justifiable - there is less of it in there than LTK, it is not stupid humour (IMO, if you don't believe that I can't convince you), and it also builds on Bond's relationship with Kara (a big plus in my opinion).
Conversely, all the dumb humour sticks out badly in LTK because the overall tone and atmosphere it is trying to create make it very dissonant together. Pineapple tourists, bar fight, truck stunts, some Q jokes, and the like. They feel badly out of place here and they definitely do affect my enjoyment of LTK.
3. #1 GE, #2 CR, #4 TLD, #12 LTK
It became increasingly less of the others and increasingly more of, well, Moore as Brosnan's tenure went on. By DAD, his films had become even more ridiculous than Moore's.
The only things I can think of that are or could be more ridiculous than some of the stuff in DAD are Jaws falling in love and perhaps the space laser battle in MR.
I don't mind the film for what it is, but as I've said elsewhere, this was truly Bond meets Austin Powers, and I think it was done intentionally on EON's part, because Powers was a box office and cultural powerhouse at that time.
An 'if you can't beat them, join them' sort of thing.
Having said that, I much prefer DAD to TWINE, despite all of this.
As for the dialogues, that I can understand why is it ridiculous to some. To me they were unrealistic, comic-book-like, but not on the level where some refer to it as parody/comedy/spoof criteria. But, that's Die Another Day, the most hated Bond film among the fans for more than a reason, with some of them being biased.
Should I continue?
I hold Brosnan responsable for some of those mishaps. Looking at Moore, Dalton and Craig, it's clear the lead actor has a say in things. The fact that Brosnan let all of those things pass in DAD really raises the question in my mind if he actually truly liked the character or the franchise. Of course, the real baddies here are the producers. What were Broccoli and Wilson thinking? "Let's introduce Bond to the 21st century and get on board the CGI train, and let's go all the way".
I find very little redeeming about DAD. Graves is over-the-top, Jinx is unworthy of an Academy Award winning actress, Desmond Llelewyn is sorely missed. Ironically, Brosnan is the only one "keeping the British end up". His best Bond-performance IMHO.
Even MR had seriousness during the space scenes, apart from Jaws who became the comic relief for the film.
Like I said, I actually enjoy the film, but it is taking the piss in my view.
For the most part, I agree. Outrageous moments are raining in like bullets in Die Another Day, and as much as I enjoyed the parachute surfing scene (even more so as a kid back when it was released), the CGI could've been done a lot better. Then again, some of the CGI are awfully noticeable in the most recent film, too. Eon should hire better visual effects artists. Because their work certainly hasn't improved.
As for holding Brosnan responsible, you're ignoring the fact that he tried to bring in his own thing ever since Tomorrow Never Dies, most notably Monica Bellucci, and instead they vetoed it and went with the drastic Teri Hatcher. He tried to make Bond darker, yet they ignored him. He was the one willing to put them into making Casino Royale, and the film was being written with him in mind, first, until he received a negative phonecall at all of sudden. Had Cubby been alive, he would've handled things the way it should've been, and we wouldn't have had what was the result of Die Another Day as Bond 20.
Jinx would've been fine had she been more serious and less incompetent. And to point it out, I actually enjoyed John Cleese as Q a lot more than I tried to like him as R. And then comes Brosnan's performance. Yes indeed his best performance as Bond was in Die Another Day... And the worst? The World Is Not Enough.
And yes, DAD's parachute surfing scene, along with the fight on the hovercraft in its PTS feel green screen, too (in actuality, that was blue screen, judging from the on-set photos).
I don't know about that, to be honest, but something tells me that Brosnan's casting was Cubby's wish, and Barbara Broccoli didn't like him, perhaps. I know Michael G. Wilson had no problems since he was seen shaking hands with him happily alongside Cubby during the contract signing photos during the time The Living Daylights was being promoted. My guess is: They (the new producers) didn't like Brosnan.