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
Honestly no idea where you’re seeing that, his performance remains consistently good as far as I can see. He even gives his all when he’s doing the video game, and I think to Brosnan’s rather insultingly bored-sounding performance in the one he did.
They’re under no obligation to treat Bond actors exactly the same, it’s weird that people get offended that they may have preferred one artistic route over another, or seen more potential in one way of doing the films than other.
Getting offended on behalf of a multi millionaire movie star seems so odd to me.
There’s an amount of revisionism here. CR certainly did give Bond a boost and make it more exciting and vital again. It had been popular but was losing its way by DAD, CR saw it part of the zeitgeist again.
Crappy move isn’t it? If Craig had tried to pull something like that how long would you have held it against him?
Honestly, he makes a joke about wrist slashing when he’s exhausted after putting everything he’s got into making a very intensive movie for a year or so with a very stressful production which is on record, during which he does multiple action scenes with a broken leg, and people think that means he didn’t want to be there. But Brosnan tries to stab Broccoli in the back and he’s hard done by.
He may be more attractive to older women.
It wouldn't have been held against him. Babs would have came and said "see he always wanted to be Bond! He wanted to be Bond so much he went out of his way to try and make a rival Bond movie. Thats how much passion he has for the character"
To be fair Cubby could have waited for Brosnan. Barbara did it with Craig after all.
I don’t think Brosnan did himself any favours by publicly claiming he’d been kicked to the curb. Nothing against him personally, and I can understand that feeling, but I can definitely see from EON’s perspective why going with a new Bond was the right move. I don’t think a lame duck Brosnan Bond in a final film was what the series needed. As an actor it’s a hard pill to swallow, but it’s not as though he was fired.
I dunno, I suspect it was just a bit of headache PR wise (and probably more for Brosnan to be honest - I’m not sure it made him look good). It’s quite a contrast to how Dalton/EON handled his exit.
I mean, they still made four Bond movies with Brosnan after he pulled that, so I'm not sure what your point is. My question was whether you would hold it against Craig forever if he had done that, and whether you forgive Brosnan for it.
And yeah, Craig did make five Bond movies across fifteen years, got involved in the production, got a top director involved, refused to pause even with a broken leg, even co-wrote one of the things to make sure it got made. If you think he didn't display commitment I'm not sure what I can say.
Yes, I'm not sure it was wise. He didn't really seem angry as far as I've seen it, but with Dalton they had a situation where even if he and the Broccolis had come to a resolution about him doing it, MGM/UA didn't want him, so he was never going to be in B17. But both sides handled it very elegantly and came up with a good way of explaining it in public and both came out looking good from it. Maybe they should have come up with a similar story between the two of them, it's on record that they all met up afterwards in LA, but it didn't seem to get over the line.
I’m sure it could have been handled in a pretty straightforward way. Just say they departed amicably/mutually and that his contract was up. I suspect Brosnan wanted to do one more though.
But the truth is that they were negotiating and Brosnan asked for too much money. It was never going to end amicably.
Not necessarily. Stars have asked for more money and gotten it if the circumstances are right (Roger Moore did it several times with Bond). The circumstances weren’t right for Brosnan to get that fifth film.
The circumstances were bad for Connery, Lazenby and Brosnan. Bad luck. ;)
I think they were old school producers and they only modernized with Craig.
Well it’s a unique concept called my opinion. I find he’s bored in Spectre and is quite uneven in NTTD. Also don’t get me started on his voice work for the Goldeneye remake; where he sounds quite flat giving lines that Brosnan made memorable.
We’ve had this debate before. You can call my defenses of Brosnan “weird” and “odd” but you’re literally defending Multi Millionaires yourself from the opinions of people on the internet? Get over yourself.
What revisionism? The notion of Craig’s films bringing EON back some sort of long lost prestige is completely false - completely ignoring essential hits that have come in between the end of the 60’s and Craig’s tenure. I guess TSWLM must not have been part of the zeitgeist. I suppose GE isn’t either 😒
You go at other people for how they feel about Brosnan’s dismissal - citing that “he’s a Millionaire and you don’t have to feel sorry for him” only to go on and write this lovely number about why we should dredge up sympathy for a guy who once publicly expressed that he’d rather do an act of self harm than play a fictional character again; especially when he could’ve said No. Maybe take your own advice because after all “he’s a Millionaire now - you don’t have to feel too sorry for him.”
Connery and Lazenby really got the worst deals with their pay (until DAF anyway for the former). Brosnan, Moore, Dalton and Craig got paid far more even just off the bat.
Depends on what you mean by old school and how it applies here.
I wouldn’t say CR brought EON back from the brink of collapse or anything quite that dramatic, but I think it’s worth saying Bond was most definitely reinvigorated by CR. In a similar way to how GE did it in 95 (although GE had a slightly bigger job). But yeah, I definitely remember there being a sense Bond had lost its way a bit by DAD. I don’t think it could have continued down that path, and there was certainly room for financial and critical improvement.
As for their performances, I think Craig’s the most consistent Bond in terms of all his performances being of a high standard. But I do think Brosnan put in a good voice performance in EON. I rate it higher than his overall performance in TWINE in fact!
I’m more than happy to admit that Craig and Casino Royale reinvigorated the franchise after DAD; but I’m not going to agree with this weird revisionist history that I see popping up about how Craig’s era somehow made Bond cool and popular again for the first time since the 60’s. If that’s people’s opinions then fine but they’re not facts.
I don't quite get the attitude, you'll see I was talking in terms of my opinion too rather than objective truth. I completely disagree, I find his slightly adjusted portrayal in Spectre to be fun to watch- I see him giving Bond a more carefree, playful and confident tone, and I like it. I think Connery is the only Bond to be seen giving a low gas mark performance in any of the films.
Well it's a unique concept called an alternative opinion. I just don't quite understand this idea that they should have been treated exactly equally: these guys are in the business of making films as well as they can and situations change. They're not looking at the situation thinking 'well four films ago we did this with Pierce so we should do it again with Daniel now, because we should be fair'. They're not supposed to do it that way, audiences aren't watching the films to make sure they've done exactly the same things with different actors; they should be doing whatever they feel is necessary in the moment to make what they think is the best film.
Not quite sure what you're reading me saying: I'm not saying Bond had fallen out of favour, it's always a case of giving it a bit of a polish when the gleam started to fade, not pulling the silver out of the bin. DAD was a hit and was popular, but CR made Bond feel new again.
I don't feel sorry for him, I'm just trying to point out how arbitrary all this aggression is, pointed at someone none of us know, mostly based on one comment in an interview which folks take out of context. I'm very happy for him that his portrayal was a massive success, and I'm happy for Brosnan that the same was true of him. Equally I don't care if either of them feel hard done by, I'm sure the beachside mansions help to ease the pain. There's lots of very simplistic narratives going on here based on half truths and glimpses at things from interviews. I don't doubt that Craig and his team could probably cause trouble and gave the producers headaches, much as Brosnan surely did too; neither are saints but equally neither are villains.
I wouldn’t say that’s the case exactly either. Bond has always been popular to some extent, at least in my lifetime. But I do remember a very stark rise in Bond’s relevancy with CR and SF that outweighed the Brosnan tenure. And I think Craig had a lot to do with that (just like how Brosnan had a lot to do with Bond’s return in the 90s working. Or Connery with the series’ initial success. Or Moore etc).
Yeah, or after Golden Gun. It was still a success (although maybe a bit more modest than usual), everyone still loved Bond, but Spy gave the series another boost, enough to keep ticking over until the next boost.
Literally no one has said that Bond hadn't been popular since the 60s. That's patently false.
I don't think any of them gave a below par performance in any film to be honest, including Brosnan- I think he was good all the way through. Connery is the only one in YOLT for me: he's not bad but he's not being as inventive or 'alive' as he is in previous films.
Yes, Skyfall was a phenomenon, in the UK especially. The last time it had got close to that was probably GoldenEye because there was a lot of hype around that, but -and this is entirely subjective- I felt like Skyfall rode a bit higher because folks knew that Craig was a great Bond by that point so there was a hunger for him, and there was a huge swell of national pride with the Olympics; it was exactly the right moment.
Can’t blame Brosnan for feeling upset that way. We’re all human. This was a guy who once had the role in the late 80s and then lost it and then was able to get the roll again, to be promised one final movie and have that movie taken away. But like I said, before, the producer did not owe him anything because he fulfilled his contract. Brosnan should have negotiated for five films instead of four if he really wanted to make a fifth movie
I’m not sure if Lazenby ever had that reputation in the late 60s. Moore took a while for critics to stop comparing him to Connery too from what I understand. Don’t know about Dalton but my understanding is his Bond was praised more in hindsight. I guess Brosnan and Craig enjoyed that title.
Brosnan’s performance in TWINE can be an odd one for me. It’s definitely not awful (he’s wonderfully charismatic and doesn’t seem disengaged). It just comes down to very specific dramatic moments which are a bit… well, odd. I don’t think it’s fully to do with direction, but just his instincts/strengths as an actor not quite being suited to certain scenes (ie. he goes a bit too ‘big’ with the more dramatic moments, and I can see a Bond like Craig or Dalton doing them more naturally).
That said it’s not as bad as some of Lazenby’s acting moments (I wouldn’t call his performance awful either. A bit weak though).
I would’ve never hold it against Craig. Had he done that because in the end it’s a business. If I know that actor is gonna make me money, I would want him to star in it.
I never said Craig never committed to the role. He 100% did. When did they say he never did? I have mad respect for the effort Craig put into all five of his movies. And it’s not just that way for his bond movies it’s that way for all his movies. It’s what a great actor he is.
Yes I guess, as you say though he's not bad or worse than in his other films, maybe it's more because he's doing stuff we're not used to seeing his Bond do. I think if you take out the slightly OTT stuff like crying at Martin Lewis reading the news, you're still left with the stuff he does well in his other movies and he's just as good as in those.
It’s just my opinion - maybe I misread your tone but it sort of came across as you singling it out as “foreign” and in that case that’s on me and I apologize. I just don’t see that in Spectre at all. I see an actor who just doesn’t really want to be there and who isn’t as engaged with the material (which fair enough it’s not like Spectre is the strongest Bond film) and that extends into NTTD. I respect your views but I don’t agree. I will say you’re right about Connery though.
You’re not wrong - but when so much of this information is out there as public knowledge - you can’t really do anything to change the public perception. I think it’s more common to think that Brosnan sort of got the short end of the stick - which unfortunately does happen in the industry. My takeaway was that they were more than happy to do Bond 21 with Brosnan - but after Bourne, and after the reception to DAD they started to get different ideas, and when they found out Brosnan’s salary demands - they changed course. I just find it interesting that they were willing to give Craig more than any other Bond actor had been given in terms of Pay and Creative Influence on the scripts. Maybe they learned their mistakes from the Brosnan era in which case fine - but until EON and Brosnan come out and disclose what happened (something that’s never going to happen) - people are going to speculate based on the info that’s out there.
What you were responding to was my initial response to the notion that Craig’s era brought the series success in a way it hadn’t experienced since the end of the 60’s. I think notion is false and it’s one that I see the most avid of Craig’s fans push.
Look self harm is an incredibly serious topic, especially here in the US where one of the leading causes of death in young men aged 18-24 is suicide. In a context like that, I completely understand why some people are off put by Craig’s words - it wasn’t the smartest thing to say about an opportunity that most people would kill for. I mean I’m glad he didn’t mean it! The world would’ve lost a tremendous actor had he actually meant it - but still one comment like that is sometimes all it takes for people to form a solid opinion on somebody they don’t know - and so I completely understand why some people think the way they do about Craig. I don’t agree with it - but I can at least understand that and when you compare that to how Brosnan expressed and conducted himself in certain interviews - you start to see why some people contrast the two actors.
It’s just those individual moments. His overly dramatic expression and ‘huh?’ after Renard recites Elektra’s line is another. Matbe he just wasn’t comfortable with the material (Brosnan as Bond had his share of subtle acting).
I know it’s tempting to blame the script and direction but I think it truly shows the actor’s performance is their own.
To be fair in context the quote makes more sense and is something people would say in regular conversation. Obviously it was a public interview but I get the sense there was an element of it being picked apart. Not the best PR though! I can understand making that feux pas though and I don’t think it severely impacted things in the long run.
I don’t really think people do drop in stuff like that into regular conversations - at least not these days. The only example I can give is when a woman once jokingly told me she was going to “kill herself” because she had to drive all the way across town to a different Pharmacy for her prescriptions - but she immediately apologized and felt embarrassed for letting that slip.
I’m sure that interview was taken out of context entirely - and like you said nothing happened in the long run. I’m just stating that I can see why a quote like that went down the way it did.
But some were more "best since Connery" than others.
Really? I’m sure it depends on the circles you’re in (again, it’s potentially a feux pas to put it mildly, much like the example you gave) but I’ve certainly heard that expression. Same for the ‘kill yourself’ thing (a bit random but it used to be a running joke among co-workers of mine when I worked in a busy bar - ie. Person A would say ‘I can’t get all this done in time, what do I do?’ Person B says ‘you could always kill yourself. No? Then just get on with it’ etc. When said in the wrong circles/not amongst friends that bit of dark humour would go down like a lead balloon and be awkward. I’m sure people I worked with even got into that position! So I’m somewhat sympathetic to Craig).
I think a lot of it had to do with the press overblowing a story too. He shouldn’t have said it in that context but I don’t know if it permanently altered how certain fans see him.
I’m completely serious haha, aside from that one example I listed earlier I’ve never heard anyone in my lifetime joke about that. I mean I’m sure somebody has made a remark like that to me out of jest before but still none to my recollection. Maybe it’s just a result of a different upbringing or a generational thing but my friend group, work colleagues, family, we’d all raise our eyebrows and question a man’s mental health if he started joking like that. I’m not sure if it’s because of that statistic I listed earlier but jokes like that sort just aren’t a thing these days, at least that I’m aware of, and if they are still out there - I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re confined mostly to the Internet.
It probably says more about my old co workers! Maybe it’s dark British humour in play or that of the hospitality industry (don’t know if it’s generational - most of them were two years younger than me or thereabouts/in their 20s. Although as you said I’m sure there’s jokes like that all over the internet too so maybe it’s generational in that sense. I don’t know).
I mean, social interactions, particularly what passes for humour and off hand remarks, can vary from group to group. Even if there’s no direct harm meant making an off hand remark in a context that’s not quite right can go down badly. In one setting a bit of dark humour is a way of bonding, or a certain remark is innocuous, and in another it can be completely different. I think that’s what happened with the Craig example.
It's a completely different world, being interviewed by a journo trying to make a story out of everything you say must be such a weird experience.
I was listening to someone interviewing a government minister on the radio the other day (and this is regarding politics but not about it) and they were trying to catch the minister out on making them say that Trump was wrong to say something, and they wouldn't say the words 'Trump is wrong' even though they were making the case for the thing he said being wrong: but the reasons for that are obvious: they can't say those exact words otherwise you're creating an international incident. And the interviewer knows it, the interviewee knows it, and the audience all know it, so what's the point? Just made me think how exhausting interviews are for the people having to guard every word for fear of starting some international crisis or fan hatred campaign because they picked the wrong turn of phrase.