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
Is it up to YOUR boss how you do your job? Of course it is. If the Boss doesn't like the way an employee does the job, that employee is out of work. I'm surprised some people need these things explained to them.
Criticize Pierce, or Daniel, or whoever you choose all you like, but please try to do so from an educated perspective. Pierce isn't one of my favorite Bonds -- I'd put him fourth of six -- but I don't think him quite as miscast as you seem to. He has his moments...and he also had some of the worst scripts that any Bond actor has had to contend with. He even had Tamahori as his director, for Fleming's sake! Considering the position he was in -- the Bond that Eon had forced on them, the Bond who never was allowed to feel secure in the role, the only Bond ever to be fired from the role -- I think Pierce acquitted himself reasonably well.
Post of the day sir. =D>
Well, certainly the most patronising post of the day.
In answer to your question, not entirely, no. And I think a lot of people would say the same thing. I happen to be lucky enough to work remotely, thousands of miles from my 'boss'. I get the job done, and frankly all they care about are the results. There are certain perameters within which I have to work, but within that there is considerable leeway on how I carry out my job. A good boss cares about results, rather than focussing on precisely how their employee does their job. Granted, if you work on a factory production line there probably isn't much scope for interpretation, but many many people have jobs that allow them some freedom and creativity. Isn't that why actors choose acting?
I may be wrong, but isn't inrepreation what actors are usually paid to do - bring their own interpretation of the role. They have to deliver a serviceable performance at the end of the day, but my understanding was that the spin they put on the character is usually down to them and the director. Of course, EON will have an idea of what sort of Bond they wanted Brosnan to be, but you seem to imply EON micromanaged his performances, which I think is highly unlikely. One of the things I keep hearing again and again about Babs and MGW is how much freedom they give their directors to pursue their own style and direction. Does it therefore seem likely that they spend their time telling the Bond actors how to act? I doubt it.
I cannot imagine actors like Dalton or Craig taking well to being told how to act by the producers. Why do you assume they were any different with Brosnan? I think Cubby chose the man he'd been after for years, and had a fairly good idea of what kind of Bond he'd be, and Babs and MGW let him get on with doing it the way he wanted. The fact that ultimately Babs and MGW felt it was necessary to sack him tells you all you need to know about what they actually thought of Brosnan's interpretation. They could have given him a 5th film - he was doing well enough at the box office, but they sacked him instead, and rebooted the series.
And what's this comment about 'the Bond that Eon had forced on them, the Bond who never was allowed to feel secure in the role'. What are you on about? Brosnan had plenty of scope in his films to do all sorts of interesting things with the character, but he usually just fluffed it.
I've said it countless times before, but I like the man and enjoy many of his non-Bond performances. This is not about beating up on Brosnan the man, but rather discussing the short-comings of his Bond. And this is all in response to comments the man himself made in a leading UK newspaper just a couple of weeks ago. What are we supposed to do? Ignore what he said? Rather than posting aggressive posts on this thread, wouldn't it be easier for those who don't like it to just ignore the thread?
You are right. You do hear of actors who don't want to watch their own performances. Or at least say they can't bear to. I wonder how true this is. I also think there are some who rather enjoy it.
Any way, I think Brosnan's comments go beyond this - he is acknowledging something which he has alluded to previously - i.e. that he knows he never really nailed the character. He's sort of blaming the poor scripts and weak material (which was certainly part of the problem) but at heart he's recognising his own shortcomings. I genuinely respect him for this. As someone else said, I think it's a sign of his own confidence, now that he's established a solid and interesting post-Bond career.
@Getafix, you seem to keep making incorrect assumptions about "the way things are" and someone really needs to to point them out to you.
Just because you have the luxury of working thousands of miles physically separated from your boss, don't assume the rest of the world shares that situation. Plenty of people who "provide results" have still found themselves unemployed for any number of petty reasons. If it never happens to you, count yourself lucky. And just for curiosity's sake: how many folks out there would care to hazard a guess on the percentage of "good bosses" to "mediocre bosses" to "just plain crummy bosses" out there in the working world?
"What actors are paid to do" isn't one particular kettle of fish. It is a wide variety of situations, and what Pierce was being paid to do --and what the various directors and scriptwriters were being paid to do -- was to Not Rock the Boat. Keep the cash cow delivering milk on a regular basis and in copious amounts. The result was a certain "by the numbers" feel to much of Brosnan's output as Bond, and that was clearly not HIS decision to make. It was Eon's. Neither you nor I will ever know exactly what the relationship between Pierce, Barbara, and Michael G was like -- but I assure you, with the zillions of dollars at stake in the continuation of the Bond empire, the powers-that-be at Eon do indeed spend a good part of their time telling the Bond actors, directors, and scriptwriters exactly what sort of Bond they're looking for this time out. THAT'S WHAT THEIR JOB ENTAILS. Once again, I'm surprised some people need these things pointed out to them.
I think you're willfully ignoring what I'm saying or just arguing for the sake of it.
Do the producers have a view on what kind of Bond movie they want? I have no doubt of it. Do they oversee the development of plot ideas and the script? Of course. Do they discuss the type of Bond they want each actor to be? Perhaps, but I suspect not so much - they are casting the actor for his perceived qualities as an actor and what he brings to the role, not to mold him into something else entirely or something he isn't. Do they then tell the Bond actors how to act? I doubt it very much. The performances are primarily down to the actor, and the director.
For the record, I am categorically NOT saying that the producers do not have a say. What I am saying is that Brosnan - as with every actor before him - has to take responsibility for his own performances. I don't hear Dalton whingeing that EON made him be 'too serious' , or Rog moaning on about how Cubby always made him raise his eyebrows when he didn't want to. Numerous directors are on record saying how much leeway Babs and MGW give to them to do what they want. Did EON want DAD to turn out as the total crapfest that it did? I doubt it. And if they excercised the kind of control you imply that they do, I strongly doubt that it would have turned out the way it did. It therefore seems logical, if they are noted as producers who give their director's a lot of freedom (we know that Spottiswood and Forster were both involved in extensive rewrites of their respective films) that they also give the actors a fair amount of freedom as well. So, with all due respect, what you're saying does not make for a very convincing argument.
And once again, I am not beating up on Brosnan. I am responding to an article in which he himself expresses reservations about his own performance as Bond.
You want to talk patronizing, GAF? Let's talk about the title you chose for this topic thread. You take the position many actors (or singers, or other performers) have voiced, a statement to the effect that they don't particularly enjoy watching their own performances, and you turn it into an insult directed towards someone whose work in other roles you claim to enjoy. I call malarkey and I call upon you to change it.
Pierce Brosnan: 'I was never good enough as Bond'
Would that have been okay for you?
For clarity's sake, my point is simply that in my view Pierce Brosnan is primarily responsible for Pierce Brosnan's performances as Bond, not EON.
It would have been better to quote what he actually did say, rather than making something up and putting it into his mouth. The words, "I can't bear to watch myself as Bond" don't actually appear in this article, do they? No. You made the statement up and attributed it to him. THAT is my problem here: the disrespect for a working professional you routinely bring to the table every time you sit down. Again: change the title of this topic or acknowledge that all you really care about is the opportunity to belittle someone more talented than yourself.
I'd say that Brosnan, eager for the part, went in with his best performance. Which going by his predecessors didn't amount to much.
For alot of his era there was no clear vision like we had the Moore, Dalton - we now have a very very clear one with Craig.
Such comments are usually being taken as moderate self-deprecation. Why is it now all of a sudden a confession of the actor´s failure?
And am I the only one who learned for the first time today about a salary dispute as main reason for Brosnan having been sacked?
So “I have no desire to watch myself as James Bond. ‘Cause it’s just never good enough.” would have been acceptable for you... ?
I'll remember to clear title threads with you in future before posting them.
Or may be not.
Why not avoid the thread if you don't like it? I actually have a lot of respect for Brosnan and have gone out of my way on countless occassions to explain that my issue is with his performance as Bond. This is a Bond forum, not a Brosnan appreciation site and I don't think there is anything I have posted in this thread that is not justified by the original article, not that I should have to justify my views to you or any one else.
Spin, spin, spin. Brosnan's modesty is a confession of failure because that's the way @Getafix WANTS to view it, and he won't be satisfied until the rest of the world sees it the same way. And a salary dispute is a sufficient reason to give for Eon's purposes, it's more than they probably want to give and nowhere near the full story.
“It was a very hard one to grasp the meaning of, for me. The violence was never real, the brute force of the man was never palpable. It was quite tame, and the characterisation didn’t have a follow-through of reality, it was surface. But then that might have had to do with my own insecurities in playing him as well.”
Is it just my spin, or is Brosnan perhaps addressing his own shortcomings here and acknowledging that his own insecurities got in the way of his performance?
Pierce Brosnan admits he can't watch himself as James Bond
http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11345&t=mi6&s=news
Which with hindsight might explain the thread title I used. I 'fess up to adding the word 'bear'.
I hope this satisfies your need for me to justify the thread title.
When you go to family events and there is usually someone going around with a camera of some description. Where as when it is a celeb face next you, it is them you are looking at! :))
As I said before, many other actors, and also much more established ones than Brosnan, are quoted similarly, and noone takes it as confession.
I appreciate Brosnan´s Bond performances far less than those of any other Bond actor, but that doesn´t automatically turn Brosnan´s words into a confession. As I said before, I´m pretty sure even Moore said about the same concerning films he starred in.
What I read from that is what everyone a bit more familiar with the films knew all along: That there was a lot of experimentation, for better and worse.
Brosnan wasn´t the best actor in the world, but a continuing idea on the side of writers/producers/directors of where the Bond character was going to go could only have helped.
I think it's interesting though that he does not say 'I don't like seeing myself on screen'. He says “I have no desire to watch myself as James Bond."
Yeah, he didn't think he nailed it. Which he's entitled to think. In hindsight he reckons he'd have approached it differently, no doubt. It doesn't change the fact that many people bought into his interpretation and his movies. That's how life works. I'm sure there are many artists/performers who dislike or downright hate elements of their work. Only the other day I was listening to Noel Gallagher describe how little love he has for the Oasis song 'Roll with it'. Does that mean it's shit? I'm sure many people still adore it. I don't know what you want to discuss other than the fact Brosnan has regrets? If his words consolidate your opinion of him then great, but for others they are merely that, words.
It was posted on the MI6 news pages, so I am clearly not the only one who thought it was worthy of comment.
If this article and interview is not worthy of discussion on this site, what is?
It was already discussed in a separate thread a little while back, you were a bit late to the party. I'm happy to discuss anything, but I think a lot of people felt your assumptions were a little loaded, such that his comments were some kind of validation of your opinion, which of course is fine. As I stated above, a lot of us happen to buy Brozzer as Bond so his comments aren't of particular relevance. I understand his position, I really do, but if you're assuming this is some kind of golden egg of propaganda that can be used to sully the Brosnan Bond then I think you're mistaken. Art is subjective and, again as I stated above, some artists despise the work which makes them popular. That's life.
But don't you think opting for the 'Art is subjective ' line is a bit of a cop out ? So everything is relative and there is no such thing as good or bad art...?
Where do you stand on the CGI in DAD for instance? Neither good, nor bad?
Fair enough though if you say this was already discussed elsewhere. I thought it was worthy of its own thread, but also happy to see this closed and redirected to the relevant thread.
Thank you, @RC7. You have come to the core of the matter. @Getafix, we understand that you don't care for Brosnan's interpretation of Bond, and you're entitled to hold that opinion. But after a certain point, you're not just beating a dead horse, you're violating it. Move on already!
Don't go there. Please. In the name of good taste, just don't.
It was stupid. As has been much of what I've heard from you, @Getalife.
--There, you see? THAT'S what you get when I'm moved to "be a lot harsher than I usually am." So I rescind that statement and I urge you to be a little more charitable in the way you voice your assessments.