Skyfall would have been a better movie if Pierce was the lead in lieu of Daniel

1234579

Comments

  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 657
    They're all compared to Connery. He defined the role ... and man he was great so every new actor will be compared to him.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    They're all compared to Connery. He defined the role ... and man he was great so every new actor will be compared to him.

    Yes, obviously. What I was shocked by was that Brosnan was considered by some to be the best since Connery or *gasp* the best ever.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger regnifrednuhT
    Posts: 34,626
    Everyone is entitled to their own ridiculous opinion.
  • Posts: 11,168
    Connery?? Pah. As some have said, a footballer who got lucky ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Connery?? Pah. As some have said, a footballer who got lucky ;)

    Can one simply "luck" into being one of the best actors of his generation and the single most magnetic screen presence of his age? ;) And to this day, nobody wears a suit like him.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Schloss Drache
    Posts: 13,091
    Rubbish - it could only star Daniel Craig!
  • Posts: 11,168
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Connery?? Pah. As some have said, a footballer who got lucky ;)

    Can one simply "luck" into being one of the best actors of his generation and the single most magnetic screen presence of his age? ;) And to this day, nobody wears a suit like him.

    Hell yeah. Whatever you may think of Connery as an actor, his screen presence cannot be disputed.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "Better cold with them on, than dead with them off, I always say."Moderator
    Posts: 10,825
    Yes, obviously. What I was shocked by was that Brosnan was considered by some to be the best since Connery or *gasp* the best ever.

    That's the fickle press for you.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Schloss Drache
    Posts: 13,091
    The last time I click on a thread started by bloomin' @DennisThatcher! :)) 8-|
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger regnifrednuhT
    Posts: 34,626
    He was great in FYEO.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 9,933
    RC7 wrote: »
    All of the actors get criticised for one thing or another. There's no more vitarol than when people critisize Dalton for overacting, or the "Dracula" hair in LTK, etc..

    There's a disproportionate level of hate fired at Pierce within the fan community. He's the current whipping boy.
    I'm growing tired of it myself.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf England
    Posts: 3,879
    RC7 wrote: »
    All of the actors get criticised for one thing or another. There's no more vitarol than when people critisize Dalton for overacting, or the "Dracula" hair in LTK, etc..

    There's a disproportionate level of hate fired at Pierce within the fan community. He's the current whipping boy.

    Well back in the 1990's, it was as if the sun shone out of Brosnans..... nose. Now that he hasn't been the current Bond for a number of years, the cool aid has worn off, and people can now judge him clearly without the "Best Bond ever / Best Bond since Connery" promotion from the press. If the internet existed as it does now, but back in the 90's, it would have been Dalton that was being torn apart. Craig is getting a lot of love now ( :-?? ), but wait until the next Bond is cast.

    It's always shocked me that Brosnan was once so heavily compared to Connery (at least that's what I hear). Amusing in a kind of sad way, but I will chalk it up to people being so desperate for Bond again following the hiatus that they were ready to instantly love anything they got. Of course the more positive acclaim of Goldeneye must have also helped, because people could always say of Brosnan, "[Such and such] might not be a great film, but he did Goldeneye and that was good."

    The press at the time said he was a good combination of the hardness of Connery and the smoothness of Moore. The truth is that he falls short on both counts and wasn't as good as either actor.
  • Posts: 11,168
    Connery and Moore had their faults but, the older I get, the more I see what people mean when they talk about them oozing a sense of confidence. Both made it always look easy and you rarely if ever got the sense they were intimidated by the role.

    (In Moore's case I suspect playing a version of himself contributed to his confidence as, for him, he was in safe territory and could "do his thing")
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    I don't have a single complaint about Connery's performances, in any of the films. I hold the script of You Only Live Twice responsible for people viewing him as tired in the role, as the narrative really loses sense of what Bond is feeling in its attempt to be ambitious, and because of that Sean gets lost too.

    The single criticism I have is that after 1965, he let himself go. In You Only Live Twice you could see that he had added on a fair bit of belly weight, and by Diamonds Are Forever that pudginess carried into his face too. He wasn't aging gracefully, and because of that he feels less Bondian than in his first four. It's very important for a Bond actor to look the part as well as act it, and while he had all of the latter, the former was hurting his portrayal and overall effectiveness. Gone was the sleek, athletic and panther like fiend, replaced by a man who looked like a copper close to retirement who'd taken the liberty of a few too many on-duty donuts.
  • Posts: 11,168
    Indeed. Connery was something of a porker in his later films and hardly a blunt instrument.
  • Posts: 1,475
    NicNac wrote: »
    Finger hovering over the lock button..... ;)

    Hovering? I would have thought it would have come crashing down by now...
  • Posts: 12,218
    I'll say it again, no other Bond actor had it as easy as Brosnan when cast. He was hailed the greatest since Connery before a single scene of GE was shot. Since he never had to prove himself there was going to be a backlash later on.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'll say it again, no other Bond actor had it as easy as Brosnan when cast. He was hailed the greatest since Connery before a single scene of GE was shot. Since he never had to prove himself there was going to be a backlash later on.

    I get the sense that the Bond loving public also thought Brosnan was cheated out of it the first time around (which he kind of was), so when he finally got the role it was a bit of a victory worth celebrating and, in their minds, long overdue.
  • Posts: 10,889
    IF we had to have had another Brosnan yawn fest, then I can see that having him in SF would have made some sense. If he could have played it straight without gurning, winking and grunting his way through the film it might have worked. Not a fan of SF any way so wouldn't really care too much about Brosnan being in it.
  • Posts: 2,341
    I think SF is perfect the way it is and Brosnan would have just ruined it and made it as boring as his last three pictures.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 15,863
    I think he would have worked fine in it. It would have been great to see him work with some darker material. With him in it, it would be just as good.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    We just need Pierce to do more November Man films, though I fear the first didn't have the impact it deserved to have to secure more sequels.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Daniel Craig is not the problem of Skyfall, not the biggest anyway.
  • Posts: 512
    The leading man wasn't the problem. The narrative was.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 27,218
    We just need Pierce to do more November Man films, though I fear the first didn't have the impact it deserved to have to secure more sequels.

    If Pierce had played Bond as he was in NOVEMBER MAN, it would be a three-way battle for my second place favorite Bond instead of two-way (Connery isn't moving out of that top spot, so second is the bast any of the rest can hope for. Though I actually thought that Craig may eventually have had a shot until SP).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I personally thought he was a bit nasty & overly animated in November Man. Somewhat lacking in the calm suaveness I expect from Bond and leaning more towards the frayed & 'annoyed' energy that Dalton often exhibited.

    I realize it's a fine line, but I prefer 'film' Bond to retain a little 'stylish calm' while doing what he does, and I think Connery, early Moore and early Craig best capture that.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally thought he was a bit nasty & overly animated in November Man. Somewhat lacking in the calm suaveness I expect from Bond and leaning more towards the frayed & 'annoyed' energy that Dalton often exhibited.

    I realize it's a fine line, but I prefer 'film' Bond to retain a little 'stylish calm' while doing what he does, and I think Connery, early Moore and early Craig best capture that.

    Well, yes, the man Pierce plays is a far different man than Bond, so the performances will fluctuate. Peter is frayed and annoyed because he's been thrown into a conspiracy he didn't ask for while trying to enjoy a quiet retirement, and on top of that he's got past allies turning on him. He'd be a robot if that didn't get him losing his cool.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally thought he was a bit nasty & overly animated in November Man. Somewhat lacking in the calm suaveness I expect from Bond and leaning more towards the frayed & 'annoyed' energy that Dalton often exhibited.

    I realize it's a fine line, but I prefer 'film' Bond to retain a little 'stylish calm' while doing what he does, and I think Connery, early Moore and early Craig best capture that.

    Well, yes, the man Pierce plays is a far different man than Bond, so the performances will fluctuate. Peter is frayed and annoyed because he's been thrown into a conspiracy he didn't ask for while trying to enjoy a quiet retirement, and on top of that he's got past allies turning on him. He'd be a robot if that didn't get him losing his cool.
    Yes, I agree. That sort of characterization suits Brosnan very well & he played a similarly animated (but more crafty) spy in Tailor of Panama (one of my favourite Brosnan performances). I have mentioned to other members here in the past that the Devereaux character is quite different from Bond.
  • Posts: 10,889
    DRush76 wrote: »
    The leading man wasn't the problem. The narrative was.

    Agreed. Lots of good things about SF but bad plot
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally thought he was a bit nasty & overly animated in November Man. Somewhat lacking in the calm suaveness I expect from Bond and leaning more towards the frayed & 'annoyed' energy that Dalton often exhibited.

    I realize it's a fine line, but I prefer 'film' Bond to retain a little 'stylish calm' while doing what he does, and I think Connery, early Moore and early Craig best capture that.

    Well, yes, the man Pierce plays is a far different man than Bond, so the performances will fluctuate. Peter is frayed and annoyed because he's been thrown into a conspiracy he didn't ask for while trying to enjoy a quiet retirement, and on top of that he's got past allies turning on him. He'd be a robot if that didn't get him losing his cool.
    Yes, I agree. That sort of characterization suits Brosnan very well & he played a similarly animated (but more crafty) spy in Tailor of Panama (one of my favourite Brosnan performances). I have mentioned to other members here in the past that the Devereaux character is quite different from Bond.

    Bond and Devereaux have the same commitment to duty, resourcefulness, compassion and hint of hardness, but the latter also lacks the snobbiness, sophistication, elegance of movement and carnal addictions that the former does. None of these make Devereaux worse or weaker, thougj, as I'd quicker watch more November Man movies than most of Brosnan's Bonds, it just makes him different.

    We can even see in the clothes Devereaux wears-suit coats with jeans and shirts with heavy wrinkling in them-that he doesn't care for looking his best or taking the risk of standing out while on the job. He just puts on what's around him while in the field and calls it a day.

    The suit Pierce wears at the end of the film though, the gray suit with black dress shirt, is one of my favorite ensembles I've seen him in. It reminds me of the linen suit he wears at the end of TWINE and another tweak on a similar look in DAD. Pierce actually looks better as Bond with an open collar sans tie, which can't be said for any other Bond actor in my mind.
Sign In or Register to comment.