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
This is exactly it. When you're playing a literary character such as Bond you have as much chance to be the definitive interpretation as any previous incumbent in the role and that includes comparisons to the 'guv'nor' Connery too.
Characters arising from film and television are different as there is an acknowledgement that the original actor would have helped define the role. So there is no point ever casting another John Steed but fair game to continue casting James Bonds and Simon Templers.
Dalton always spoke of his excitement reading the Fleming novels when he was young whereas Brosnan always spoke in terms of watching Goldfinger and hence he hemmed himself in.
I recall one interview in which he admitted he hadn't even finished reading all of Casino Royale as it was 'all there' in the first chapter or some such thing.
"You need therapy."- Catwoman
I hear people bashing on Connery a lot. He really is a bitter old man.
You'd know that? :O)
No? Just based on comments and his general behaviour.
Some of the members here would also qualify with incessant Brosnan bashing and nitpicks on the series in general.
i wouldn't say he is bitter... still harboring a grudge over money owed? perhaps... but he is not bitter... the only thing he wont seem to do, is public events pertaining to Bond.... in terms of BB and MGW, i think they'll always leave the door open for Sean to return one day and do some sort of event - but Sean seems content not to... when asked about Bond, he never seems to shy away from the questions - at least from what i've seen (like in interviews, documentaries and such)... i just think there those who've embraced it more - like Rog, Dalts, Laz - they'll often time still attend events... i dont think Pierce has reached that point yet - don't know if he ever will, it would be a shame not to - but like Sean, thats his prerogative.
There you can sputter your garbage as much as you want and open as many Brosnan bashing threads you want.
It's a shame like a dozen or so people can hijack a whole forum with their hate.
I've read Pierce's thoughts, on SP recently and Dan and his era over the years, and none of it, that's right, NONE of it, speaks of ill-will, unsophistication or low-blows of any kind. In fact, when Pierce does criticize anything about the recent Bond films (of which I can't think of much), Dan is always one element he points at as working at the highest capacity. Such were his comments here-he felt SP needed some work in the story department, a comment which is well supported and felt amongst the community here, but he also went on to say, as others have posted, that Dan was spectacular. Furthermore, he went on to support Dan in the media avalanche that is now covering him head to toe because of comments (wrist slashing) he made in good fun, but that imbecilic interviewers/commentators chose to misinterpret either because of their aforementioned stupidity or for the potential of turning out a few more stories about whether or not he's done with Bond. Pierce wasn't obligated to stand up for Dan or anything, yet he did all the same, and shared some insight into the exhaustive process of making Bond films that leaves you zombified at the end (it's a lot of work, case you didn't know), which for some reason, many people can't seem to grasp.
So, what does this all boil down to, you ask? Well, quite simply, Pierce, much like everyone else, is entitled to have an opinion. Those who see his comments about SP as being defaming or rude to Dan obviously haven't read them, as again, Dan was one of the elements/parts he has always praised, above all other things. More importantly, why the hell should everything that he says about anything, SP included, always be through-the-roof positive? He's got free will, Calvinists be damned, so he should be able to express himself like the grown man he is without the worry of being flamed for it by the internet's brigade of keyboard warriors, who, incidentally, don't have a license to kill themselves. He's not biting the hand that fed him, just being open and honest about an experience he and Dan have shared, and the pressures and demands of which they know all too well. And, though Pierce has had a rough time of it personally, recently losing his daughter in the same way as his first wife, he still goes out of his way to give props to his Bond predecessor. I honestly don't think he could be a cooler, more kind hearted guy if he tried, and with the personal hell he's been in lately, he has no reason or obligation to be such a beacon of light. He does it just because that's the kind of guy he is, and I'm sorry some people can't see that.
In addition, these so called "digs" Pierce made about Dan in past interviews, of which I've also watched, were done in FUN. Remember that elusive, three letter word? When Brosnan quipped that he was back on the spy scene in Bond territory and all that, his comments were playful, as regardless of what his bashers think, he respects the Bond brand and the opportunities it's given him as an actor and that respect extends to the others actors who've come both before and after him. I hate to spoil some people's fun around here, but there's no private war going on under the radar between Pierce and Dan. You can wish for it all you want, but it's never going to happen, and the sooner some people realize that, the better.
Now, can we all please get back to discussing the things that really matter, and leave Pierce to practice his natural human right to free speech? We can? Excellent. :)>-
^:)^
1. He has praised CR, SF und Craig on numerous occasions and I like that.
2. Of course he is entitled to his opinion and being realistic and honest is just fine - instead of the typical "everyone and everything is so great" Hollywood thing
3. The thing is about timing. Still today he tells the story about how Connery showed up on the set of GE, how Moore told nice things about him as Bond... he should know better than anyone else how important it is in such a role to get supportive comments from you predecessors, how painfull it is to shoot a Bond (plus pre and post production and global PR), he should know just how proud Craig must now be on his new "baby", and of course he should know just how important good PR is (especially in the case of a 300 Mio. production).
So why the hell would you comment in public that you though the movie was lame while the movie is just being released around the world?
Anyway, he is been doing a good job to promote the Franchise and to praise Daniel Craig (again in this very interview) and I just think he is a very honest guy who did not mean to hurt EON, the franchise or specifically Craig or the movie. He just should have been a bit more careful at this point in time.
But you know what makes me feel proud? This guy is a star but he still goes to the movie theaters like a fan (which he is) and watches the Bond movies on its release :-)
I think his comments have some merit as well. SP is too long and the script needed another rewrite. But that's not the point. He should have said, "Hey! Go see the new Bond film! It's great." That would have increased my respect for him.
If some are upset by it, they can visit the Pierce Brosnan Appreciation thread.
If they feel strongly enough about it, they can come on here and support his statements, and argue their position forcefully and convincingly.
If they don't feel the need to do either, then perhaps they should take a break from the site for a while and calm down.
The fact that a thread flourishes suggests there is a demand for the subject matter and that it interests members.
The Brosnan fans should see all the criticism as a good opportunity to defend their guy. Sadly I hardly ever see any convincing defence of Brosnan on here in terms of substantive, well argued positions. His defenders usually just complain about the criticisms with no actual response to what is being said.
Infact what I usually hear in Brosnan's defence is that yes, his films weren't great, but that's why he should have done a fifth - that's not what I call a convincing argument.
Ha ha ha ha. Yes.
Agreed. And normally the other side of things the arguments are well reasoned and compelling.
To elaborate a bit on his post, it seems to depend on what YOU thought of the film as a viewer. I remember @Getafix was in the minority back in 2012 with his criticisms and disappointment of SF. I can't help but feel that if Broz made the same comments about THAT film 3 years ago then he would be far less critical of the man.
But this time they aren't. There is no reason to believe Brosnan's remarks, that weren't that negative in the first place (the film was too long is all he says) will influence ticket sales whatsoever. So why would you complain about these remarks? This thread isn't about his acting, it's about something he said about SPECTRE, that has some people completely riled up.
To be honest, if someone told me the main actor in a film was completely on top of his game, but the story was so-so, I'd probably still go and see the film. Especially if it were an actor of whom I knew to be very good in the first place.
This isn't the war on terror, no 'if you're with me you're agianst me'. It's a film review.
Some have not seen the film yet. It hasn't opened in all markets. Some are ambivalent to Bond and could be influenced at the margin.
The discussion is a valid one because the timing of the comments are inappropriate for a former Bond at this moment. It's in bad form. His opinion itself may be very valid and justifiable (I happen to think so). It's also valid because it's a comment made by a Bond actor who we know has harboured bitterness towards the franchise on occassion due to the manner in which he was let go.
It's a fair discussion, just as the Craig 'wrist slasher' discussion was......and I'm sure that comment was far more damaging to box office.
I suppose in many ways he's best qualified to tAlk about these things.
Craig will be in that position in a few years too.
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
I see nothing offensive in his remarks. And in no way could his comments affect the financial success of the film. I think he was brave in his honesty, and bloody nice about Daniel Craig!
Dalton is my favourite Bond, but, I have a soft spot for Pierce in the role, and thought he was fantastic in his first two films.
And those who say that Dalton nearly sank the series is not quite true. LTK was badly promoted, and at the time, the studio was badly mismanaged. Look at how much was spent on promoting Skyfall as well as Spectre. Craig is fortunate to have a studio backing him 100%! Surely that helps box office numbers???
Also, LTK only under performed in the US. Everywhere else it did pretty well.
Indeed @getafix The film did very well internationally. It made $158 million on a budget of $30 million. And Dalton was offered to stay on by Cubby. It was Dalton who carried Cubby's coffin at his funeral, so that shows how close he was.
How an actor does in the role has a lot to do with good marketing and getting a great team behind them. When a studio is half-arsed, the box office results are terrible.
LTK was released around too much comptetion in the USA, and coupled with weak marketing promotion, the results were less. Take Spectre for instance as it was released just before the heavy hitting franchises get released, like for instance Star Wars 7.
I actually feel Skyfall and Spectre were too intrusively marketed in my face. Every Youtube video I almost watched has a Spectre trailer. It actually started to irk me!