Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1545556575860»

Comments

  • edited September 2019 Posts: 12,837
    Brosnan gets a lot of stick for not being original enough but the thing about Bond is that it's a role that gets harder to be original in as more actors come along. Unlike say Doctor Who, where you have free reign to completely reinvent it every time, Bond has a set template you've got to stick to because it has source material. There's really only so many ways to play it and by the time Brosnan came along it'd already pretty much all been done before. Craig's Bond isn't a completely original take either, he just got away with it because of how generally overlooked Dalton was and because of how much more consistent his scripts were with his character. And that's not a knock on either of them because as I said, it had more or less all been done before by 1995. Connery set the standard, Moore emphasised the lighter stuff and Dalton emphasised the darker stuff. Brosnan, Craig and every Bond after them will all owe a debt to those actors simply because they were there first. It's unavoidable imo.

    I've always loved Brosnan. He's effortlessly cool and charismatic and carries his films in a way none of the others had to. Moore, Dalton and Craig all got films tailored to their strengths. Brosnan didn't. Look at DAD, it's constantly switching from gritty and hard edged to Moore era silliness yet Brosnan gives it his all and somehow still makes his Bond seem like the same person in all those scenes and keeps the film from completely falling apart. It seems weird to say this because of how popular he was at the time but now that Dalton is getting the respect he deserves I think Brosnan is easily the most underrated Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    Craig's Bond isn't a completely original take either, he just got away with it because of how generally overlooked Dalton was and because of how much more consistent his scripts were with his character.

    I think there's more to this. When Dalton got the role he basically ignored whatever Connery and Moore did and focused solely on the writing of Ian Fleming, and IMO 110% succeeded in bringing that specific characterization of Bond to life on the big screen, and that's exactly why I don't think he was embraced by audiences. Connery and Moore were notable for giving Bond a sense of humor combined with their own swagger. Dalton ignored those aspects. This is why you often heard complaints that Dalton took the role too seriously. He wasn't playing Bond as a sex symbol, because Fleming's Bond wasn't what Connery or Moore were. I think had Dalton had the opportunity to move forward with a third film, there would have had to be a re-calibration of his take on the character and make him less intense and more closer to the cinematic idea of Bond. IMO, I think he could have succeeded. If you go look at the film THE ROCKTEER, that's basically cinematic Bond where Dalton is turning up the charm and swagger in a way he never did with Bond because that was not what he was going for in TLD and LTK.

    With that said, Craig was definitely bringing back a level of intensity that Dalton did 20 years earlier, but the biggest difference is that instead of going full Fleming like Dalton had, he retained the cinematic Bond's humor and swagger. When CR came out, my summation of Craig Bond was that he's a fusion of Fleming's cynicism and Connery's machismo. I think it's great that Dalton is getting much more appreciation in light of Craig's run, but I'm not entirely sure a full Fleming approach could ever work for the cinematic Bond that is recognized by our cultural lexicon.

    But that doesn't mean a full Fleming would be incompatible in other mediums. In theory, the best place that Fleming interpretation can thrive at is on Netflix. There, you could drop all the cinematic iconography and just do straight up period adaptations of the novels, as a film on a streaming service would not have the same connotations of what we expect in a crowded movie theater.
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    00Agent wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The few people I’ve met over the years who actively dislike Brosnan, and like you to know it, are all very similar in personality. Personable enough, knowledgeable, but there’s always a vacant soullessness to them. Unironic misanthropes.

    Yeah they seem to have zero sense of humor (or as dry as a Martini), and are constantly angry... Ironically just like their favorite Bond actor lol

    It's funny, it's almost like with dogs and their owners. People here seem to share certain characteristics of their favorite Bonds. Brosnan guys always go for the puns and the shitty jokes in any situation. Dalton fans just seem to be pissed off and angry about anything. Obviously there are many exception to that rule, there are even people who like both equally, but you can still notice it to a large degree.

    =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
  • Posts: 6,677
    What about the ones who are Dalton and Brosnan fans? ;)
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,778
    Univex wrote: »
    What about the ones who are Dalton and Brosnan fans? ;)

    That would include me. Tim is my absolute favourite of all the Bond actors, but I’m a massive Pierce fan as well.
  • Posts: 6,677
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    What about the ones who are Dalton and Brosnan fans? ;)

    That would include me. Tim is my absolute favourite of all the Bond actors, but I’m a massive Pierce fan as well.

    And me. Both are great. And so are the others. I'm so glad there hasn't been a Bond actor I dislike so far.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,527
    Tim is my favourite Bond. Pierce is the one I watched in theatres as a teenager. I like Pierce. I simply think that with the exception of GE, he was never given a Bond film that played to his strengths. Craig is a much more fortunate man in that way.

    Pierce should have been given his From Russia With Love. Instead, he got a DAF, TMWTGG and MR to work with.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 6,677
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Tim is my favourite Bond. Pierce is the one I watched in theatres as a teenager. I like Pierce. I simply think that with the exception of GE, he was never given a Bond film that played to his strengths. Craig is a much more fortunate man in that way.

    Pierce should have been given his From Russia With Love. Instead, he got a DAF, TMWTGG and MR to work with.

    This is so true.

    @DarthDimi has worded better than anyone could.

    BTW, the one Bond actor I could possibly see getting even better as Bond with age is Dalton. He looks menacing nowadays. Pierce looks good but I'm afraid he lost his islander looks and gained a mid-atlantic accent with a California tan. If he passed as english at one point, he doesn't now, IMO.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Brosnan gets a lot of stick for not being original enough but the thing about Bond is that it's a role that gets harder to be original in as more actors come along. Unlike say Doctor Who, where you have free reign to completely reinvent it every time, Bond has a set template you've got to stick to because it has source material. There's really only so many ways to play it and by the time Brosnan came along it'd already pretty much all been done before. Craig's Bond isn't a completely original take either, he just got away with it because of how generally overlooked Dalton was and because of how much more consistent his scripts were with his character. And that's not a knock on either of them because as I said, it had more or less all been done before by 1995. Connery set the standard, Moore emphasised the lighter stuff and Dalton emphasised the darker stuff. Brosnan, Craig and every Bond after them will all owe a debt to those actors simply because they were there first. It's unavoidable imo.

    I've always loved Brosnan. He's effortlessly cool and charismatic and carries his films in a way none of the others had to. Moore, Dalton and Craig all got films tailored to their strengths. Brosnan didn't. Look at DAD, it's constantly switching from gritty and hard edged to Moore era silliness yet Brosnan gives it his all and somehow still makes his Bond seem like the same person in all those scenes and keeps the film from completely falling apart. It seems weird to say this because of how popular he was at the time but now that Dalton is getting the respect he deserves I think Brosnan is easily the most underrated Bond.

    I agree with this. By the time Brosnan took the role, every facet of the character had been covered. Connery had done the cool, Roger had done the Suave, Lazenby had done the vulnerability and Dalton had done the hard nosed. Obviously there are more nuances to each of those, but I am sure you get my drift. I am not sure there was anywhere left to go for a truly original version of Bond.

    When Pierce took over he essentially took a slice of Connery, and a slice of Moore and put them together. No bad thing in my book.

    Daniel Craig has basically done the same thing, just with Lazenby and Dalton.
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    edited September 2019 Posts: 373
    Brosnan fans hate Craig for doing the same to Brosnan.

    I hate to admit it but I was sort of in that camp. It wasn't Craig I hated - my anger was at the people behind the scenes. I wouldn't have been against Craig nor the idea of a reboot... but I really wished Brosnan could have gotten one more.

    People aren't daft. After DAD people could see that this couldn't go on forever. But there was ONE MORE they could've squeezed out of Brosnan.

    I think it would have been nice if he got to make that movie - and maybe they could've hung a campaign on the fact that it was gonna be his last one. Give him a chance to say goodbye to the role and fans a chance to say goodbye to him.

    I think Brosnan really deserved better than he got.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 3,564
Sign In or Register to comment.