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
The fact that there’s a good chunk of Bond fans calling him a “Greatest Hits” Bond is no accident. Brosnan himself has been saying in interviews for the past 20 years that he felt he never nailed the part and made the role his own, and that he had simply blended Connery and Moore’s approaches. I can’t disagree with him there. He was obviously craving for something that was never quite satiated.
But regardless of his dismissal of Bond, he seemed to have imprinted on a whole generation of Millennial Bond fans who to this day still revere him as their childhood Bond. No one can take that away.
But that brings me back to my original point though, the “Greatest Hits Bond” is an incredibly weak argument when it’s held to scrutiny. If Brosnan combines elements of Connery/Moore to such heavy scrutiny from the fan base, then why isn’t that same logic applied to Daniel Craig, who has combined elements of Connery/Lazenby/Dalton as well to less scrutiny? Because it’s not true, and thats the same answer for Brosnan.
You see why I think it’s a lazy argument? Because it’s diminishing an actors abilities to “oh he just copied people who did it better beforehand” while completely ignoring the actors own traits, quirks, and personality that they bring to the role out of sheer ignorance. It’s the most straw grasping/basic argument made commonly against Brosnan, and I’ve seen that same type of lazy criticism lodged against Daniel Craig in some circles, and it’s tiring and inaccurate.
You mention the generation of Bond fans who grew up with Brosnan, and I consider myself part of that generation, we don’t revere Brosnan because we thought he was exactly like Connery/Moore, we revere him for what he brought to the role, for the type of Bond he was, CGI Kite surfing be damned. As for Brosnan’s comments, those are simply humble words, much like how Moore ranked himself behind Lazenby before. It just think it’s a weak argument that deserves to be debated and held to scrutiny.
I’ve stated my counter arguments at least twice in this thread lol. If you disagree, then it’s simply down to your opinion, not my arguments. It’s his own personality, traits, and quirks that he brings to the role, just the same as any other actor. That’s part of what “making the role your own” means isn’t it? I can also go through each of his films like a fine tooth comb and pluck out all the examples, but that means I’d have to sit through Die Another Day again. I’ve also stated the blatant hypocrisy of calling Brosnan a “Greatest Hits” Bond while ignoring the same argument can literally be made about any of the other actors after Connery. You obviously interpret Brosnan’s comments as that because that’s how you view the performance is it not? I see it as the man being modest, stating his own influences and dismissing his own legacy as Bond, ignoring the poor scripts he was given, and the impact he’s had on millions. If you disagree with my opinions then that’s fine, but it’s not because of any lack of solid arguments on my end, it’s because you simply don’t agree, and I think saying that is much more honest and respectful than regurgitating the same common (and weak) argument against Brosnan, while ignoring my arguments, plus I can and I have made a pretty solid and sound argument against that criticism lodged at Brosnan plenty of times in the past on this forum, and I can make more arguments backing up my views. I just think that it’s time to stop critiquing Brosnan’s Bond for not being allowed to flesh out and expand when that’s more of a problem with the producers/writers/directors post Goldeneye.
I applaud your beliefs and defense of them. But answer me this: If you are describing Brosnan's Bond to someone who is a casual fan or didn't know of his take, what is your elevator speech, so to speak, that describes his portrayal? Not a drawn-out dissertation, just a couple sentences.
With Brosnan it felt like they were always looking for his take but nothing stuck. I think his best was in DAD where there was more Fleming cynicism injected in the writing and Brosnan played up to it. It’s just too bad THAT ended up being his last film. But it’s at least a far better performance than his dreadful one in TWINE (which I put more on the director, since most actors didn’t look too good in that film).
I’d describe Brosnan’s Bond as the out of touch/old fashioned Cold War Agent who still remains completely certain in his beliefs/methods no matter how much the world around him changes. I’ll admit that’s all driven by how he’s portrayed in Goldeneye, but that’s enough for me to disassociate him from Connery/Moore. I don’t disagree that he’s taken other elements from previous Bonds, I just disagree with the notion that he’s portrayal is nothing else but an amalgamation.
I think the biggest crime of the handling of Brosnan’s Bond was not giving him enough Fleming, and to be honest I’m sure that if he had actually read more of Fleming (my understanding is he hasn’t read any of Fleming), and if the filmmakers were willing to commit to a more serious tone instead of falling for the repeated trap of over-escalation that EON finds themselves in, it’d be less of an uphill battle for me defending Brosnan. I just defend his take because I don’t see the problems with it, and I’m also very nostalgic.
Brosnan once claimed that DN was the first ever Bond novel. He probably thought it was the film they were adapting based on the word 'gold' in the title.
In all seriousness though that would actually make sense. I always got 'Reflections in a Double Bourbon' vibes during the beach scene in that film.
That seems to me more PR than anything else, but that’s just me
- Hey Pierce!
- Bruce Feirstein, good to see you!
- Listen, my hands are a little full carrying all these drafts of the GoldenEye script. Do you think you could hold on to my copy of the Goldfinger novel for a few minutes?
- Sure, no probs.
(Pierce grabs the novel. On-set photographer notices what's happening.)
- Pierce, could you turn here for a second!
(Photographer takes the picture.)
- Thank you, Pierce, you're a pierce-- I mean, a prince!
I’ll always defend Pierce, and admittedly my knowledge on Fleming is limited due to only reading a few of the novels, but I’ll always remember when Pierce did the Goldeneye Watch-along, he was saying how Casino Royale was the blueprint novel, but not much about the character of Bond stood out to him, or something along to that effect. Now Casino Royale being one of the few Fleming novels I’ve read, and thus far my favorite, I felt just about inclined to disagree with him about that point. Wish he would’ve explored the books a bit more if I’m being honest
He's an avatar, flitting from scene to scene to act out as intensely as possible whatever the script has him doing. And as has been mentioned, none of these four scripts is particularly strong.
That said, he's still generally fun to watch.
How does this impact Pierce, well the scripts were sometimes incomplete or being re-written as things were being filmed. In a recent podcast it was shared that Hopkins was set and excited to play the villain of TND. Judi Dench casually mentioned that the script wasn't finished yet and that shooting started soon. Sir Anthony quickly backed out.
Craig has had large gaps between his films after the bungle of QOS.
I think Pierce was a good James Bond. Might have been great for the sole fact he never got a decent script after GE. The producers seemed to be willing to try different things with his Bond. But they never nailed it, as such for me Brosnan's Bond is a great "what might have been." Imagine a TND with more polish and a finished script before shooting? Imagine a DAD that wasn't rushed in order to meet the 40th anniversary. Shoehorning in all that had come before.
I didn't know that. To be fair I'm actually glad we got Jonathan Pryce. Something about Sir Anthony's intensity would have felt a bit too dark and dramatic given the absurdity/megalomania of Carver's plan. It makes sense that he'd be this little man trying to play God.
I know TND can feel a bit dated at certain points (it does resemble a 90s action flick at times) but I honestly think it's great. I actually think the scene where Bond meets Paris in the hotel room is well written, and because Brosnan plays it in this rather understated way he manages to sell it. I think if the rest of the Brosnan era had just leant into that sense of breeziness with healthy splashes of drama, Brosnan would have excelled. As entertaining as he was as Bond he's not an actor of Daniel Craig's level and simply wasn't able to convincingly adapt to some of the weightier character moments, especially in TWINE ("He knew about my shoulder, he knew where to HURT me?' ugh, very much Soap Opera level acting).
TND seems to get criticism for being too much like a James Bond film. I bloody love it!
If my memory serves, she's Danish?
I like Pierce, but he's the second weakest Bond actor, by a pretty large margin. I don't think you could drop him into TLD or CR and have it end up nearly as good. (Yes, I know TLD was written for Moore and maybe Brosnan.)
I'm sure you're right. Sorry I got Bond wrong.
I agree, Brosnan’s my 2nd favorite Bond, but I do think there have been stronger actors to have played the part, but by no means is he a “bad actor”, just has his strengths and weaknesses. I think he may have managed TLD quite well, but definitely not CR. That film needed Craig or an actor of his caliber.
Yes, but she has a Swedish name, so easy mistake to make.
Seems to me like they just switched Stromberg's name around.
He played the playboy better than anyone. He would have carried Spectre better than Craig and wouldn’t have been shabby in CR either (the film is so good that none of the 6 would have been miscast, even Lazenby).
If Pierces films had had a more serious and realistic tone to them, he would have shined so much more.
Despite Connery and Craig owning the role, Pierce was born to play it even if his films didn’t necessarily allow him to fully showcase it.
He’s better than Lazenby, though Lazenby is more convincing when it comes to the physicality.
Dalton didn’t give it enough importance despite adding the most dimensionality to the role before Craig.
Good looking yes, but he's not as suave and masculine as the other 5 actors.
He's not the typical women's protector or Alpha Male as how we called it.
It also doesn't help that yes the scripts, and I would also add some miscast supporting actors during his tenure like Jonathan Pryce, Robert Carlyle, and Teri Hatcher to name a few.
Because he wasn’t allowed too. That’s more a problem with the producers, scriptwriters, and directors than Pierce himself. Connery, Moore, Dalton, and Craig wouldn’t have been able to navigate those post-Goldeneye films any better I’m afraid.
Craig’s pain face in SP was just as bad, as that whole sequence was 10x more cringeworthy than the TWINE scene, especially when you consider the plot points that try to cram into that scene, and the rather convoluted way in which Bond escapes that. I also disagree that Pierce lacked “Suaveness” and “Masculinity”, otherwise there’s no way in hell he would’ve landed the part. You also have to remember that going into the 90’s, those scenes of “Masculinity” exemplified by the likes of Connery was incredibly outdated. Pierce was an incredibly masculine and suave actor, in fact he was probably more suave than Lazenby, Dalton, and Craig that’s for sure.
Yes, I get and understand where you're coming from, but Lazenby, Dalton, and Craig were more manly, I mean their deep voice, their hardness, the way they acted, how tough are they, and the way they interact with women, they're very manly.
Brosnan comes off to me as too smooth and soft.
Once producers hire an actor, they learn the limitations of each, and their strengths.
Brosnan got the scripts he was best suited for.
I agree with @mtm that he feels Moore may've been better suited in OHMSS than Connery because, I feel, Connery, a great actor and mega-star, had limitations when it came to being tender and vulnerable (case in point, in the film Outland, he sounds like he's about to laugh when he tells his wife that he loves her too); Brosnan was, and is, limited as an actor. I wouldn't want to see him dropped in any of the Craig films. He didn't and doesn't have the chops, IMO.
Although I will whole heartedly agree he was certainly the right actor to re-introduce James Bond after a six year hiatus.