Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1679111261

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 15,967
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Murdock, me, three. The man is perfection.

    Speaking of him, have you seen shots from his upcoming thriller 'November Man?' He's looking young and slick in the suit he's wearing from the picture I saw last night. Saw another shot of him driving and firing a gun out the window. Beautiful.

    I sure did! He looked fantastic for 60. I can't wait to see the film.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 32,869
    Yes, he does, and neither can I. It's about time we see him in another action thriller. What was the last one, 'Seraphim Falls'?
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 15,967
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Yes, he does, and neither can I. It's about time we see him in another action thriller. What was the last one, 'Seraphim Falls'?

    I think so. It will be nice to see the 5 Bond movie he never got. ;)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 32,869
    @Murdock, absolutely. It's shaping up to be something great, that's for sure. I'm hoping for a trailer soon, it's been shooting since late May.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,044
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Murdock, absolutely. It's shaping up to be something great, that's for sure. I'm hoping for a trailer soon, it's been shooting since late May.
    I will see this as soon as it's out, but I can't help but think of his adopted daughter's recent death... I want to support him in any small way I can.

  • edited July 2013 Posts: 388
    timmer wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    The authoritative age for Fleming's Bond according to learned Bondologists is November 1921, Armistice Day. The research is all detailed on wiki and published works. Bond would have been about 31 for the events of Casino Royale, by which time he was also already a seasoned agent.
    CR the book is not an origins story. It's rather just the first Bond 007 adventure novel.
    But anyway Bond is ideally of generic mid-thirties age, give or take. Fleming even artificially played with his age to keep him younger in the 1960s, and as we all know Fleming's mandatory double-0 retirement age was 45.

    Not sure about him being 31 in CR @timmer. MR is set less than a year after the events of MR and Fleming specifically mentions that Bond is 37 years old (as he's 8 years away from the mandatory retirement age of 45 that you mention.)
    Yes there is no doubt as to the MR reference, however the learned Bond scholars, John Griswold( most notably I think) and Harry Chancellor, having exhaustively researched the Fleming data, concluded Bond to have been born in 1921, Armistice Day, taking into account all of the info provided by Fleming.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories#Fictional_chronologies
    Pearson had made the same study and concluded Armistice Day 1920 for his authorized biography. They corrected Pearson by a year.
    The confusion arises of course because Fleming contradicted himself so much, that it was left to the learned Bond scholars to suss out the consensus.
    Both Griswold and Chancellor set the events of CR in 1951, although Griswold says it could also be 1952. Griswold pinpoints the monthly interval as between May and July. Chancellor isn't as specific, thus I tend to defer to Griswold, when the pair can't quite reach consensus. Thus Bond is actually 29 or 30 at Royale based on his birthdate.
    However Fleming I think did yes intend him to be 35ish - that generic mid-thirties Bond age, where Bond ideally should permanently reside. This also jives with Fleming's MR age, published two years later. And even the Bond scholars, set MR in 1953, two years after Royale, so it all fits.
    But you can make the case that Bond was 29 approaching age 30 at Royale, based on the birthdate which is extrapolated and distilled by Griswold and Chancellor, from Fleming's broader dispersal of info provided throughout the books.
    To make sense of the whole chronology, 29 at Royale, is a good place to start I think, as we can then move forward through the books and comfortably say goodbye to Bond in TMWTGG,Feb 64(Griswold) at the age of 43, with Bond still below mandatory 00 retirement age.
    Suffice to say though, IMO, Bond's age actually resides in a permanent literary limbo of mid-thirties. That's where Fleming I think ideally wanted to keep Bond, even if he did seem to reluctantly acknowedge early '40s towards the end
    So ideally I think the films should aspire likewise, which is actually what they started off doing, by casting a 31 year old Connery initially, followed by a 29-30 year old Lazenby.

    So Brozzer, I think would have fared much better if he had been cast younger. He wouldn't have been forced to have to establish himself in his less-than-limbre 40s, the age ideally where he should have been already established and settling into his final mature Bond swan-song roles, much like the arc Fleming's Bond achieved as did Connery's Bond, who bowed out at age 40. Although as I said earlier, nothing wrong with pushing these guys into mid-40s, to mandatory 00 retirement age.
    Ideally Craig should be done now, as he's already 45 and looking every bit of it.

    Dragonnpol recommended Griswold's book to me after posting on the Fleming discontinuity thread and whilst I think Griswold did a decent job, his problem is that he's trying to make sense out of a series of books written by a man who didn't care about consistency (also, I find a few of his interpretations a little odd.) The 1921 birthdate is a necessary compromise when trying to reconcile the various pieces of contradictory information given across the stories.

    It's difficult to use Griswold's chronology as the final word as it goes against the clear intention of the stories so often. e.g. If Bond was born in 1921 then he would have been 12 years old when he bought his Bentley (in 1933); and whilst I understand why Griswold tried to fit it so MR happened 2 years after CR, it directly contradicts Fleming's text (CR takes place in late summer, LALD takes place the following February and MR takes place three months later in May.)

    All of which is a rambling way of saying that I think Fleming's intention was to have Bond be 36/37 in CR. That said, I agree with you that it works to have Bond slightly younger in that story.

    A younger Bond to follow Craig could work but I have to say that Cavil would have been way too young in CR.

    The age of the actor assuming the role really depends on who it is. Connery was 32 in Dr No but looks much older. In fact, he looks older at the age of 40 in DAF than Moore did age 50 in TSWLM. Craig was looking much older in SF but that seemed to be accentuated by makeup, hair and costume in order to reflect Bond's role in the story. Will be interesting to see if they continue down that route in Bond 24?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 32,869
    @chrisisall, absolutely. Very tragic thing he's going through. No father should ever be in a situation where he has to bury any of his children, and like I said when she first passed, Pierce has endured enough heartbreak for 100 lifetimes.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 4,622
    [Dragonnpol recommended Griswold's book to me after posting on the Fleming discontinuity thread and whilst I think Griswold did a decent job, his problem is that he's trying to make sense out of a series of books written by a man who didn't care about consistency (also, I find a few of his interpretations a little odd.) The 1921 birthdate is a necessary compromise when trying to reconcile the various pieces of contradictory information given across the stories.

    It's difficult to use Griswold's chronology as the final word as it goes against the clear intention of the stories so often. e.g. If Bond was born in 1921 then he would have been 12 years old when he bought his Bentley (in 1933); and whilst I understand why Griswold tried to fit it so MR happened 2 years after CR, it directly contradicts Fleming's text (CR takes place in late summer, LALD takes place the following February and MR takes place three months later in May.)

    All of which is a rambling way of saying that I think Fleming's intention was to have Bond be 36/37 in CR. That said, I agree with you that it works to have Bond slightly younger in that story.

    A younger Bond to follow Craig could work but I have to say that Cavil would have been way too young in CR.

    The age of the actor assuming the role really depends on who it is. Connery was 32 in Dr No but looks much older. In fact, he looks older at the age of 40 in DAF than Moore did age 50 in TSWLM. Craig was looking much older in SF but that seemed to be accentuated by makeup, hair and costume in order to reflect Bond's role in the story. Will be interesting to see if they continue down that route in Bond 24?
    The Bentley car purchase caught me off guard too. Fleming has him buying a car in 1933, so I figured, well I guess you could do that at 16 years of age, so that puts him born in 1917 at the latest, thus age 34 if he is to meet-up with LeChiffre in 51. So that fits and it also fits with MR or close enough.
    I think Griswold does a good job. I would have to re-read his reasoning for the chronology. It seemed to make sense considering what he was left to work with.
    Anyway I do think Fleming intends that Bond was mid-thirties as ideal age. I would think though that a man of Bond's talents would be able to achieve 00 status by mid-twenties and be a seasoned agent by 30, so I do like the 1921 birth-year.
    It sets up the canon nicely, other than buying the Bentley at 12 ;)

    And no Broz wasn't all that bad. His finest moment IMO was the make-out scene with Frost. He tells her icey self, to put her back into it, and then doesn't let on when the thugs leave, even telling her (to her consternation) that he knew they were gone. Well done!

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,044
    timmer wrote:
    And no Broz wasn't all that bad. His finest moment IMO was the make-out scene with Frost. He tells her icey self, to put her back into it, and then doesn't let on when the thugs leave, even telling her (to her consternation) that he knew they were gone. Well done!
    He's a bad man...
    :))
  • 00Hero00Hero Banned
    Posts: 121
    Murdock wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Pierce Brosnan was:

    *The Best looking Bond.
    *The smoothest Bond.
    *The most vulnerable Bond.
    *The Bond with the best do.
    *The best Bond with a machine gun.
    *The Bond with the highest number of double entendres per movie.
    *The Bond with the most confirmed kills.
    *The Bond most likely to bite his sexual conquests.
    *The only Bond to straighten his tie even under water.

    *Opinions stated on this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies as a whole of the MI6 site, who bear no responsibility or liability for the content.


    I too share these opinions. ;)
    Me 3 chaps especialy on the tie straightening.
  • Posts: 3,001
    I'm very intrigued by November Man and hope it does well on release. The story suits Brosnan as an agent back from retirement very well. I also like the sound of the plot - a journey through a mental institution for dangerous and damaged spies, whilst hunting a mole within the mysterious 'R section' for whom he has operated.
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    chrisisall wrote:
    Pierce Brosnan was:

    *The Best looking Bond.
    * Yep and fits the physical description of Bond especially with in goldeneye with the [ , ] hair commar
    *The smoothest Bond.
    *The most vulnerable Bond.
    [ Next to Dalton but yeah Brosnan was a very emote bond]
    *The Bond with the best do.
    *The best Bond with a machine gun.
    *The Bond with the highest number of double entendres per movie.
    [Well i would say yes but then agian...Roger Moore]
    *The Bond with the most confirmed kills.
    *The Bond most likely to bite his sexual conquests.
    *The only Bond to straighten his tie even under water.


    [/i]

    i agree
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    I wouldn't say Brosnan was the smoothest. That title goes to Connery imo.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 11,169
    I'd say Broz was the slickest. Connery was the coolest.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 9,061
    Brozza was easily the suavest.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    I don't see it. Brosnan was definitely cool but I wouldn't say he was necessarily suave. For starters, the way one walks is a major contributing factor in determining suaveness and Brosnan had a weak way of walking. He never felt like he had a dominating presence in the way he carried himself. To be suave is to be effortless and natural. Anyone can act cool but with suaveness comes a level of habitual panache and confidence that goes beyond drinking from a martini glass and the straightening of a tie.

    Brosnan in the Thomas Crown Affair appeared to be suave in that because I believe he felt less intimidated in that role than he was when in the role of Bond and the impression I get is, he was able to really inhabit and become these other characters but for Bond, it always looked like he was acting instead of being. On that note, it is hard to deny that the man was often cool and slick as Bond.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 11,169
    Broz did have his weaknesses but I never really felt he had a 'weak' way of walking per-se. He just "walked" to me. I (sort of) see where you're coming from in relation to GE but not as much with the others. Watch him in TND for instance - he seemed pretty confident and "suave" to me in that. What exactly are you expecting him to do?

    On that note what about Dan's slightly camp Terminator/tough-guy walk (don't pretend you haven't noticed)? Broz had his faults but he never had that :p
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,044
    BAIN123 wrote:
    On that note what about Dan's slightly camp Terminator/tough-guy walk (don't pretend you haven't noticed)?

    :)) Ho man, I didn't see that coming! LOL!
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 11,169
    chrisisall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    On that note what about Dan's slightly camp Terminator/tough-guy walk (don't pretend you haven't noticed)?

    :)) Ho man, I didn't see that coming! LOL!

    I always thought that was "acting" a little but there we go (and I like Dan).

    We can pick

    I do think that in parts of GE Broz does come off as a little "lite" but I think he's more assertive and more "suave" in the others.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,044
    BAIN123 wrote:
    (and I like Dan).

    Me too, but now that you mention it, his gait was entirely different in Cowboys & Aliens...
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 11,169
    chrisisall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    (and I like Dan).

    Me too, but now that you mention it, his gait was entirely different in Cowboys & Aliens...

    There is something a bit T-1000ish about Craig. I've often felt that. My mum has even made fun of Craig's run in the past
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,044
    BAIN123 wrote:
    My mum has even made fun of Craig's run in the past
    You know who's always had a real funny run? William Shatner!

  • Posts: 11,169
    chrisisall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    My mum has even made fun of Craig's run in the past
    You know who's always had a real funny run? William Shatner!

    Haha, he's a rather notorious overactor. Like Brosnan can be.
  • Posts: 12,492
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Broz did have his weaknesses but I never really felt he had a 'weak' way of walking per-se. He just "walked" to me. I (sort of) see where you're coming from in relation to GE but not as much with the others. Watch him in TND for instance - he seemed pretty confident and "suave" to me in that. What exactly are you expecting him to do?

    On that note what about Dan's slightly camp Terminator/tough-guy walk (don't pretend you haven't noticed)? Broz had his faults but he never had that :p

    I don't think Brosnan was a weak walker as Bond, but gosh was he a poor runner! I always thought he was totally unconvincing as a runner, always looking uncomfortable.

    As for the camp Terminator, I would say this is Brosnan too, who used a lot of machine gun in his Bond movies, more than any other Bond.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 11,169
    Ludovico wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Broz did have his weaknesses but I never really felt he had a 'weak' way of walking per-se. He just "walked" to me. I (sort of) see where you're coming from in relation to GE but not as much with the others. Watch him in TND for instance - he seemed pretty confident and "suave" to me in that. What exactly are you expecting him to do?

    On that note what about Dan's slightly camp Terminator/tough-guy walk (don't pretend you haven't noticed)? Broz had his faults but he never had that :p

    I don't think Brosnan was a weak walker as Bond, but gosh was he a poor runner! I always thought he was totally unconvincing as a runner, always looking uncomfortable.

    As for the camp Terminator, I would say this is Brosnan too, who used a lot of machine gun in his Bond movies, more than any other Bond.

    In terms of the camp Terminator I meant in terms of Craig's walk rather than what he did (or didn't do) with machine guns. His posture does sometimes seem a bit...robotic. Maybe that was intentional though.

    I'd say in terms of Bros running he was more convincing than Moore but maybe not as convincing as most of the others. That said according to him he did used to play Rugby which involves a bit of very short distance running.
  • Posts: 12,492
    Well, I don't want to be rude about Brosnan but I always thought he looked like he had something stuck somewhere when he ran.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 5,034
    Tomorrow Never Dies was Brosnan's most believable performance in terms of physicality. During the finale especially, I thought he moved pretty convincingly (and I include the way he runs in that), even though the finale was a tad overblown.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,430
    BAIN123 wrote:
    On that note what about Dan's slightly camp Terminator/tough-guy walk (don't pretend you haven't noticed)? Broz had his faults but he never had that :p

    Indeed. Definitely the worst aspect of Dan's Bond. Like a short-man swagger. I think it's the pout that makes it camper.

    I always loved the way Brosnan moved. He knows how to carry himself. No one beats the panther Connery on that front, but Brosnan was a slick mover.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited July 2013 Posts: 16,044
    Ludovico wrote:
    Well, I don't want to be rude about Brosnan but I always thought he looked like he had something stuck somewhere when he ran.
    That's a style of running where you attempt efficiency at reaching speed- it doesn't look pretty, but it's realistic. It's also a function of being tall. I'm a couple of inches shorter than Broz, but my run is similar to his. Shorter folk take more steps per kilometre, so they end up looking less 'mechanical' about it.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Ludovico wrote:
    Well, I don't want to be rude about Brosnan but I always thought he looked like he had something stuck somewhere when he ran.

    I never had a problem myself with Brosnan's running. The reedy Irish-American accent for an English spy, a lack of physical presence that rarely radiated how dangerous the character is supposed to be, the smarm, the lack of focus in developing his version of Bond after 1997 and box ticking through the rest of his tenure while blaming scripts, producers, and fellow actors for his misfortunes are what makes the Brozzer at best a partial success to his detractors. Many wouldn't even be that kind. Just my two cents. I appreciate many other things about his tenure and I am not trying to do a hatchet job on the guy especially given what he's going through at the moment (though I'm sure he probably could care less what people here are saying), but perfect he surely is not compared to what came before and after him, which in the cases of the master Connery, Dalton, and Craig are much better representations of the character that Fleming created.
Sign In or Register to comment.