A question for Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton and or/Daniel Crig fans

SzonanaSzonana Mexico
edited April 2016 in Actors Posts: 1,130
More like 3 questions

1 How how do you notice the details that their Debut films wasn't written for them
2 how much does it affect your enjoyment of that film and performance
3 how does this fact influence your ranking of the films of your Bond actor.

Im not discriminating Sean Connery or Roger Moore its just that thier respective films felt and looked perfectly tailored for them since the first film.

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    1. I notice it for Brosnan and Dalton respectively. GE has Dalton DNA & TLD has Moore/Brosnan DNA. I don't notice it with CR. I believe that one is written for Craig.

    2. It doesn't really. Actually, it might improve my enjoyment, because the films bring a degree of familiarity to them which I like and also hold the actor in check, due to the link to his predecessor.
    As an example, I rank GE as Brosnan's best, by far. That's because less of his acting tics are present here, and he is playing it fairly traditionally, without bringing his own take, which we see more of in TND.

    The same goes for TLD, where Dalton is yet to let fly fully with his unique interpretation of Bond (that is to come in the next film)

    3. It helps the respective ranking. Does not hurt it at all.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    CR wasn't written for Craig, it just happened to be Craig who got the role in the end.

    CR without the reboot nonsense would have worked well with Pierce Brosnan. That's something most Craig fans ignore.
    The movie was tailored for Craig in the end, but with a few changes in the script it could have been tailored for Brosnan as well. Campbell would have done a good job, no doubt about that.

    Only with QOS Craig got a movie that only he was able to do.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,661

    1 How how do you notice the details that their Debut films wasn't written for them I can see it when I think about it, but I don't consciously notice it when watching the films because I'm always too into them!
    2 how much does it affect your enjoyment of that film and performance Not at all.
    3 how does this fact influence your ranking of the films of your Bond actor. Not a bit; I'm a fan of all three.


  • bondjames wrote: »
    1. I notice it for Brosnan and Dalton respectively. GE has Dalton DNA & TLD has Moore/Brosnan DNA. I don't notice it with CR. I believe that one is written for Craig.

    2. It doesn't really. Actually, it might improve my enjoyment, because the films bring a degree of familiarity to them which I like and also hold the actor in check, due to the link to his predecessor.
    As an example, I rank GE as Brosnan's best, by far. That's because less of his acting tics are present here, and he is playing it fairly traditionally, without bringing his own take, which we see more of in TND.

    The same goes for TLD, where Dalton is yet to let fly fully with his unique interpretation of Bond (that is to come in the next film)

    3. It helps the respective ranking. Does not hurt it at all.

    Sounds about right, although LTK isn't really Dalton's full interpretation by any means.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    1. I notice it for Brosnan and Dalton respectively. GE has Dalton DNA & TLD has Moore/Brosnan DNA. I don't notice it with CR. I believe that one is written for Craig.

    2. It doesn't really. Actually, it might improve my enjoyment, because the films bring a degree of familiarity to them which I like and also hold the actor in check, due to the link to his predecessor.
    As an example, I rank GE as Brosnan's best, by far. That's because less of his acting tics are present here, and he is playing it fairly traditionally, without bringing his own take, which we see more of in TND.

    The same goes for TLD, where Dalton is yet to let fly fully with his unique interpretation of Bond (that is to come in the next film)

    3. It helps the respective ranking. Does not hurt it at all.

    Very interesting answers
    I thought i was being overly concious on how all their debuts look a bitt more fitted to their predecessor.
    Maybe Casino wasn't written for Pierce but i do think we had some moments where i felt this scene was more Pierce style especially the Train Scene with Vesper and the famous little finger scene that looked more a very early draft for Pierce that latter transformed into Casino Royale.

    But its cool that you say it works on their advantage instead of affecting them on bad way.
    I do like their respective debuts very much but for me its quite of a little disadvantage snce they are fully comfortable in the role and its like it fits them not so well.

    So i do think the three were better in their latter films, they gained more confidence and a script tailored for them i think helped them a lot.
    So I guess it does affect a little even though i still enjoy The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and Casino Royale very much

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    1 How how do you notice the details that their Debut films wasn't written for them

    It's painfully obvious with Dalton (the one liners, cello scene). Brosnan's script was quite generic, a self-mocking, self-referential mess, but I like it!

    2 how much does it affect your enjoyment of that film and performance

    TLD is awkward at times. Apart from those moments Dalton's performance is great. The other two gave distinct performances regardless of the script (body language is more important than what is spoken)

    3 how does this fact influence your ranking of the films of your Bond actor.

    TLD, CR and GE are in my top 6 (1, 3, 6 respectively).
  • Posts: 108
    I always felt some of the dialogue in TLD was at odds with how Dalton portrayed Bond, as in the car chase in the Aston Martin ("salt corrosion", "must be some atmospheric anomaly" + his look and "I had a few optional extras installed"). Now I know why - thanks for clearing that up!

    That being said, I enjoy TLD very much. The same applies for GE and CR.
  • I'm pretty sure TLD wasn't written for Moore. There were no line about Bond's free bus pass.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'm pretty sure TLD wasn't written for Moore. There were no line about Bond's free bus pass.
    TLD wasn't written for Moore. It was written with Moore in mind. Because they hoped Brosnan would carry on with the tradition of his predecessor and his traits. And then, Remington Steele happened.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 79
    And then, Remington Steele happened.


    Thank god. ;)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    And then, Remington Steele happened.
    Thank god. ;)
    In a way, I agree. As much as I love Brosnan, his 1980s counterpart would've actually brought the Bond image into the wrong alleyways. I'm glad they made his Bond a mixture of Connery and Moore with a little bit of Dalton thrown in.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    And then, Remington Steele happened.
    Thank god. ;)
    In a way, I agree. As much as I love Brosnan, his 1980s counterpart would've actually brought the Bond image into the wrong alleyways. I'm glad they made his Bond a mixture of Connery and Moore with a little bit of Dalton thrown in.
    And then, Remington Steele happened.
    Thank god. ;)
    In a way, I agree. As much as I love Brosnan, his 1980s counterpart would've actually brought the Bond image into the wrong alleyways. I'm glad they made his Bond a mixture of Connery and Moore with a little bit of Dalton thrown in.


    Im glad also Pierce had to wait till the 90s and get more acting expirience. I loved his Bond and like you said he got the best of each of his predecessors
  • 1. The only one I agree with is that GE was written for Dalton and not Brosnan. TLD was still written for Dalton because Moore was certainly leaving after AVTAK (there were just a few hangovers of Moore's style) and CR was definitely written for Craig. It is noticeable that Dalton comes after Moore since their styles clash. But GE fits very well in Brosnan's era.

    In my view, the Dalton and Brosnan eras are not too dissimilar.

    2. CR is incredible, no doubt. GE is also incredible, no doubt.

    Both of Dalton's films are affected by Moore's tenure by differing degrees. The influence on TLD is observable, but it is justifiable - there is less of it in there than LTK, it is not stupid humour (IMO, if you don't believe that I can't convince you), and it also builds on Bond's relationship with Kara (a big plus in my opinion).

    Conversely, all the dumb humour sticks out badly in LTK because the overall tone and atmosphere it is trying to create make it very dissonant together. Pineapple tourists, bar fight, truck stunts, some Q jokes, and the like. They feel badly out of place here and they definitely do affect my enjoyment of LTK.

    3. #1 GE, #2 CR, #4 TLD, #12 LTK
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    In a way, I agree. As much as I love Brosnan, his 1980s counterpart would've actually brought the Bond image into the wrong alleyways. I'm glad they made his Bond a mixture of Connery and Moore with a little bit of Dalton thrown in.

    It became increasingly less of the others and increasingly more of, well, Moore as Brosnan's tenure went on. By DAD, his films had become even more ridiculous than Moore's.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    In a way, I agree. As much as I love Brosnan, his 1980s counterpart would've actually brought the Bond image into the wrong alleyways. I'm glad they made his Bond a mixture of Connery and Moore with a little bit of Dalton thrown in.

    It became increasingly less of the others and increasingly more of, well, Moore as Brosnan's tenure went on. By DAD, his films had become even more ridiculous than Moore's.
    I don't think I could agree with that. Die Another Day had its "ridiculous" moments, but the plot and the villain's background and schematics were serious for the most part. I don't get it why people think Brosnan's films are ridiculous when in fact they are not.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,984
    @ClarkDevlin - Everyone's schemes are "serious" depending on your perspective. But when you have people changing ethnicities through surgery and Brosnan outrunning space lasers in whatever that was, cars going invisible, the parasailing scene, Brosnan getting electrocuted by a guy in iron man suits, etc. it's what most people would call ridiculous. Even the dialogue was worse than in Moore's movies.

    The only things I can think of that are or could be more ridiculous than some of the stuff in DAD are Jaws falling in love and perhaps the space laser battle in MR.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't know how to descibe this other than to say that I think DAD was truly a 'jump the shark' moment in Bond history for the reasons @ForYourEyesOnly outlined.

    I don't mind the film for what it is, but as I've said elsewhere, this was truly Bond meets Austin Powers, and I think it was done intentionally on EON's part, because Powers was a box office and cultural powerhouse at that time.

    An 'if you can't beat them, join them' sort of thing.

    Having said that, I much prefer DAD to TWINE, despite all of this.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Ethnicity. Yes, changing ethnicity was actually over-the-top, but not ridiculous. Invisible cars do actually exist, and Top Gear proved that with a low budget build. Imagine what governments can do with all the money they have without the public knowledge. Iron Man/Robocop suits? Well, things like these have been in development by the Japanese since the 1980s. We still don't know what is Area 51 about or whatever takes place inside yet the government keeps it secret.

    As for the dialogues, that I can understand why is it ridiculous to some. To me they were unrealistic, comic-book-like, but not on the level where some refer to it as parody/comedy/spoof criteria. But, that's Die Another Day, the most hated Bond film among the fans for more than a reason, with some of them being biased.
  • Posts: 108
    Brosnan's films aren't ridiculous, but surely you must admit that DAD had some pretty outrageous scenes - outrageous in the bad sense. An invisible car? A diamond-scattered henchman? The tsunami-stunt, so very clearly CGI? Walking into a hotel, dripping wet, in his pyjamas asking for a room?

    Should I continue?

    I hold Brosnan responsable for some of those mishaps. Looking at Moore, Dalton and Craig, it's clear the lead actor has a say in things. The fact that Brosnan let all of those things pass in DAD really raises the question in my mind if he actually truly liked the character or the franchise. Of course, the real baddies here are the producers. What were Broccoli and Wilson thinking? "Let's introduce Bond to the 21st century and get on board the CGI train, and let's go all the way".

    I find very little redeeming about DAD. Graves is over-the-top, Jinx is unworthy of an Academy Award winning actress, Desmond Llelewyn is sorely missed. Ironically, Brosnan is the only one "keeping the British end up". His best Bond-performance IMHO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @ClarkDevlin, they really weren't taking themselves seriously though, unlike with the GF car or even the TSWLM car. It was sort of played for laughs throughout, with all the cheesy puns, getting to the point (how many times do we need to hear 'point' jokes in one film) etc. It was like a big send up.

    Even MR had seriousness during the space scenes, apart from Jaws who became the comic relief for the film.

    Like I said, I actually enjoy the film, but it is taking the piss in my view.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited April 2016 Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin, they really weren't taking themselves seriously though, unlike with the GF car or even the TSWLM car. It was sort of played for laughs throughout, with all the cheesy puns, getting to the point (how many times do we need to hear 'point' jokes in one film) etc. It was like a big send up.

    Even MR had seriousness during the space scenes, apart from Jaws who became the comic relief for the film.

    Like I said, I actually enjoy the film, but it is taking the piss in my view.
    That, I can agree with. DAD had too many cheesy puns... Perhaps that's why I enjoy it. But, certainly it didn't get to be a parody, did it? Some action films have their fair share of cheesy puns, particularly the ones from 80s and 90s. The pre-9/11 action films, to be precise, until Jason Bourne stole the spotlight.
    Brosnan's films aren't ridiculous, but surely you must admit that DAD had some pretty outrageous scenes - outrageous in the bad sense. An invisible car? A diamond-scattered henchman? The tsunami-stunt, so very clearly CGI? Walking into a hotel, dripping wet, in his pyjamas asking for a room?

    Should I continue?

    I hold Brosnan responsable for some of those mishaps. Looking at Moore, Dalton and Craig, it's clear the lead actor has a say in things. The fact that Brosnan let all of those things pass in DAD really raises the question in my mind if he actually truly liked the character or the franchise. Of course, the real baddies here are the producers. What were Broccoli and Wilson thinking? "Let's introduce Bond to the 21st century and get on board the CGI train, and let's go all the way".

    I find very little redeeming about DAD. Graves is over-the-top, Jinx is unworthy of an Academy Award winning actress, Desmond Llelewyn is sorely missed. Ironically, Brosnan is the only one "keeping the British end up". His best Bond-performance IMHO.
    For the most part, I agree. Outrageous moments are raining in like bullets in Die Another Day, and as much as I enjoyed the parachute surfing scene (even more so as a kid back when it was released), the CGI could've been done a lot better. Then again, some of the CGI are awfully noticeable in the most recent film, too. Eon should hire better visual effects artists. Because their work certainly hasn't improved.

    As for holding Brosnan responsible, you're ignoring the fact that he tried to bring in his own thing ever since Tomorrow Never Dies, most notably Monica Bellucci, and instead they vetoed it and went with the drastic Teri Hatcher. He tried to make Bond darker, yet they ignored him. He was the one willing to put them into making Casino Royale, and the film was being written with him in mind, first, until he received a negative phonecall at all of sudden. Had Cubby been alive, he would've handled things the way it should've been, and we wouldn't have had what was the result of Die Another Day as Bond 20.

    Jinx would've been fine had she been more serious and less incompetent. And to point it out, I actually enjoyed John Cleese as Q a lot more than I tried to like him as R. And then comes Brosnan's performance. Yes indeed his best performance as Bond was in Die Another Day... And the worst? The World Is Not Enough.
  • Posts: 108
    Then again, some of the CGI are awfully noticeable in the most recent film, too
    If you're referring to the stick-on face, I agree - same mistake as in Skyfall. But for the rest, I get the feeling the stunts in SP at least could be performed for real (a true Bond trademark) - in DAD, the tsunami-scene screams 'green screen'.
    As for holding Brosnan responsible, you're ignoring the fact that he tried to bring in his own thing ever since Tomorrow Never Dies ...
    I was aware of the first instance, not of the other examples. It puts another light on his involvement, but I wonder why Moore, Dalton and Craig seem to have been listened to, and Brosnan not, or am I simplifying things?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Then again, some of the CGI are awfully noticeable in the most recent film, too
    If you're referring to the stick-on face, I agree - same mistake as in Skyfall. But for the rest, I get the feeling the stunts in SP at least could be performed for real (a true Bond trademark) - in DAD, the tsunami-scene screams 'green screen'.
    Yes, these and the scene in the PTS where Bond and Estrella enter their hotel room, you could see their shoulders blurred once their lines make a pass at the windows, which I assume have been given the outer-world sunlight via green screen.

    And yes, DAD's parachute surfing scene, along with the fight on the hovercraft in its PTS feel green screen, too (in actuality, that was blue screen, judging from the on-set photos).
    As for holding Brosnan responsible, you're ignoring the fact that he tried to bring in his own thing ever since Tomorrow Never Dies ...
    I was aware of the first instance, not of the other examples. It puts another light on his involvement, but I wonder why Moore, Dalton and Craig seem to have been listened to, and Brosnan not, or am I simplifying things?
    I don't know about that, to be honest, but something tells me that Brosnan's casting was Cubby's wish, and Barbara Broccoli didn't like him, perhaps. I know Michael G. Wilson had no problems since he was seen shaking hands with him happily alongside Cubby during the contract signing photos during the time The Living Daylights was being promoted. My guess is: They (the new producers) didn't like Brosnan.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    @ClarkDevlin - Yes, ethnicities. And I agree TWINE was his worst performance, certainly.

Sign In or Register to comment.