› ›

The PIERCE BROSNAN Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

1…3031333536…136

Comments

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Szonana wrote: »
    DrGorner wrote: »
    In my opinion the weak scripts let Pierce down,not the other way round.
    He's not my favourite Bond, but I do think he did a great job as 007. =D>

    Well except for Goldeneye the scripts weren't the best but i stay with my thought that at those times scripts were not that important in action flicks. Pierce was a Bond of his times and he did a great job.

    Maybe if those movies were made in 2006 they would have cared more for the scripts, getting important directors, oscar recognised actors for the villains and art house Darling beauties who appear often in film festivals.

    The Brosnan era was all about the action and having fun because that's what the 90s and early 2000s called for.
    So they got good actors and beautiful woman where didn't mind if they were taken seriously asactresess except for Sophie she is the only Craig type of Bond girl in Pierce's era.

    I feel bad for repeating it since what im gonna say was once said by a troll in another Bond but i feel like this series has been taking itself too seriously and aming to win an oscar and be one first action movies to get one.

    Well, you may have something there. The films are made with more care now, with a view to garnering greater acclaim. Maybe things like F&F are dropping in to the seat that the Bonds have vacated?

    And maybe one day the Bonds will be less 'artistic' once again. But for now, in an over crowded action market, they must feel this is the best way to go - they have the guaranteed brand name, now push on and keep it relevant.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    The 90s were a fairly...flamboyant...period of film-making. GE came out the same year as Batman Forever for crying out loud. Subtlety was never particularly strong when it came to blockbuster movies during that time.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    And to say, Brosnan was never responsible for helping the franchise revive, being assured as to "James Bond always returned" (as if the six-year gap wasn't enough), then that is highly disrespectful.

    Sorry to offend you (if this was directed at me), but James Bond will always, and I mean always.....return.

    It's bigger than any man.

    It is a 50 plus year cinematic giant.

    The only way it won't return is if EON turns it into a farce, if the actor cast is not popular with the general public, or if the films lose their cool factor (which is essential to cinematic Bond). The last two points stand with respect to Dalton, at least in the US market in the 1980's.

    Similarly, the SW prequels were not looked at kindly for many reasons (of their own making), but after a small break, there is massive pent-up demand for the new one. Same thing goes for Batman.

    These franchises are unkillable. Period.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I have to agree with @Szonnana, the Pierce Brosnan films didn't intend to have scripts like From Russia With Love or For Your Eyes Only floating around. The 1990s was an era where action packed films that were all about escapism and fun worked, and their intention was to make it as big and explosive as possible. Wasn't You Only Live Twice aimed at being explosive because of the over-the-top sentimentality of the mid-1960s? or the Moore era fairly as to speak.

    The production people knew what they were doing at the time, or any time might I say. By the time Casino Royale came out, the era of the cinema along with the audience were changed. They were looking for things along the line of Christopher Nolan's Batman and the sense of seriousness, grim, reality and bit of a gory grit.

    And to say, Brosnan was never responsible for helping the franchise revive, being assured as to "James Bond always returned" (as if the six-year gap wasn't enough), then that is highly disrespectful.

    I don't mind if anyone doesn't like him or his Bond or the films because tastes and opinions vary. But, to overlook facts and fire shots at it with the intention of just antagonizing the man is just out of place. And my apologies if my statement goes onto any offense.


    And now i agree with you.
    each Bond era is done according to their times and the film trends. So yes Casino Royale and the two films which followed is what we need right now because this is the current trend but that doesn't Pierce's era bad it was just different and with different intentions because that's what the 90s called for.

    Big action and explotions so if they didn't have the greatest scripts its because it wasn't demanded at that time not exactly because they failed




  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited September 2015 Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    And to say, Brosnan was never responsible for helping the franchise revive, being assured as to "James Bond always returned" (as if the six-year gap wasn't enough), then that is highly disrespectful.

    Sorry to offend you (if this was directed at me), but James Bond will always, and I mean always.....return.

    It's bigger than any man.

    It is a 50 plus year cinematic giant.

    The only way it won't return is if EON turns it into a farce, if the actor cast is not popular with the general public, or if the films lose their cool factor (which is essential to cinematic Bond). The last two points stand with respect to Dalton, at least in the US market in the 1980's.

    Similarly, the SW prequels were not looked at kindly for many reasons (of their own making), but after a small break, there is massive pent-up demand for the new one. Same thing goes for Batman.

    These franchises are unkillable. Period.



    Oh, not at all. I wasn't offended. Don't get me wrong, sir. I was referencing in general.

    I think it's safe to say that the 90s really gave Bond yet another boost because... well... the 80s didn't take Dalton's entries in such welcoming manners, particularly the average cinema goers who were used to Moore's presence in the role. Dalton's was quite the opposite which didn't fare with some people.

    I don't think I could take it for granted as to why 'Bond will always return'. He could have been delayed for ten years or moreso, or couldn't have come back at all, because the box office numbers, at the end of the day, are what that speak. Before casting Brosnan, I could say they did risk at acquiring the right actor for the role that was demanded in the right time. Sure, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes were in consideration but I don't think they would have worked for the role. In the mid-2000s? Perhaps.

    You see, the Brosnan era didn't require quality acting or high notch performance. They were just adventures, something I personally enjoy. Whereas the subsequent entries since his departure focused on character development, exploring sides that haven't been looked at before, as well as injecting reality, down-to-earth approach and vulnerable personalities into the chromosomes of the franchise.

    Now, I can't go and compare The Spy Who Loved Me with From Russia With Love, for instance, because they are of two different breeds and genres while grown out of the same series. That is how the Brosnan era is to Craig's as is Moore's to Dalton's.
    Szonana wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I have to agree with @Szonnana, the Pierce Brosnan films didn't intend to have scripts like From Russia With Love or For Your Eyes Only floating around. The 1990s was an era where action packed films that were all about escapism and fun worked, and their intention was to make it as big and explosive as possible. Wasn't You Only Live Twice aimed at being explosive because of the over-the-top sentimentality of the mid-1960s? or the Moore era fairly as to speak.

    The production people knew what they were doing at the time, or any time might I say. By the time Casino Royale came out, the era of the cinema along with the audience were changed. They were looking for things along the line of Christopher Nolan's Batman and the sense of seriousness, grim, reality and bit of a gory grit.

    And to say, Brosnan was never responsible for helping the franchise revive, being assured as to "James Bond always returned" (as if the six-year gap wasn't enough), then that is highly disrespectful.

    I don't mind if anyone doesn't like him or his Bond or the films because tastes and opinions vary. But, to overlook facts and fire shots at it with the intention of just antagonizing the man is just out of place. And my apologies if my statement goes onto any offense.


    And now i agree with you.
    each Bond era is done according to their times and the film trends. So yes Casino Royale and the two films which followed is what we need right now because this is the current trend but that doesn't Pierce's era bad it was just different and with different intentions because that's what the 90s called for.

    Big action and explotions so if they didn't have the greatest scripts its because it wasn't demanded at that time not exactly because they failed




    Precisely, madam. That was what I was trying to say.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    And to say, Brosnan was never responsible for helping the franchise revive, being assured as to "James Bond always returned" (as if the six-year gap wasn't enough), then that is highly disrespectful.

    Sorry to offend you (if this was directed at me), but James Bond will always, and I mean always.....return.

    It's bigger than any man.

    It is a 50 plus year cinematic giant.

    The only way it won't return is if EON turns it into a farce, if the actor cast is not popular with the general public, or if the films lose their cool factor (which is essential to cinematic Bond). The last two points stand with respect to Dalton, at least in the US market in the 1980's.

    Similarly, the SW prequels were not looked at kindly for many reasons (of their own making), but after a small break, there is massive pent-up demand for the new one. Same thing goes for Batman.

    These franchises are unkillable. Period.



    Oh, not at all. I wasn't offended. Don't get me wrong, sir. I was referencing in general.

    I think it's safe to say that the 90s really gave Bond yet another boost because... well... the 80s didn't take Dalton's entries in such welcoming manners, particularly the average cinema goers who were used to Moore's presence in the role. Dalton's was quite the opposite which didn't fare with some people.

    I don't think I could take it for granted as to why 'Bond will always return'. He could have been delayed for ten years or moreso, or couldn't have come back at all, because the box office numbers, at the end of the day, are what that speak. Before casting Brosnan, I could say they did risk at acquiring the right actor for the role that was demanded in the right time. Sure, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes were in consideration but I don't think they would have worked for the role. In the mid-2000s? Perhaps.

    You see, the Brosnan era didn't require quality acting or high notch performance. They were just adventures, something I personally enjoy. Whereas the subsequent entries since his departure focused on character development, exploring sides that haven't been looked at before, as well as injecting reality, down-to-earth approach and vulnerable personalities into the chromosomes of the franchise.

    Now, I can't go and compare The Spy Who Loved Me with From Russia With Love, for instance, because they are of two different breeds and genres while grown out of the same series. That is how the Brosnan era is to Craig's as is Moore's to Dalton's.

    Well said. I agree.

    The right actor for the times is critical. As I recently did my Bondathon, that went through my mind. EON has been very lucky (skillful?) at casting the right actor for the times. The only period they got it wrong (as far as the general public was concerned) was with Dalton (so it seems) and perhaps that is because the ghost of Brosnan (first choice) was always hanging over poor Tim's tenure, who knows....
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    And to say, Brosnan was never responsible for helping the franchise revive, being assured as to "James Bond always returned" (as if the six-year gap wasn't enough), then that is highly disrespectful.

    Sorry to offend you (if this was directed at me), but James Bond will always, and I mean always.....return.

    It's bigger than any man.

    It is a 50 plus year cinematic giant.

    The only way it won't return is if EON turns it into a farce, if the actor cast is not popular with the general public, or if the films lose their cool factor (which is essential to cinematic Bond). The last two points stand with respect to Dalton, at least in the US market in the 1980's.

    Similarly, the SW prequels were not looked at kindly for many reasons (of their own making), but after a small break, there is massive pent-up demand for the new one. Same thing goes for Batman.

    These franchises are unkillable. Period.



    Oh, not at all. I wasn't offended. Don't get me wrong, sir. I was referencing in general.

    I think it's safe to say that the 90s really gave Bond yet another boost because... well... the 80s didn't take Dalton's entries in such welcoming manners, particularly the average cinema goers who were used to Moore's presence in the role. Dalton's was quite the opposite which didn't fare with some people.

    I don't think I could take it for granted as to why 'Bond will always return'. He could have been delayed for ten years or moreso, or couldn't have come back at all, because the box office numbers, at the end of the day, are what that speak. Before casting Brosnan, I could say they did risk at acquiring the right actor for the role that was demanded in the right time. Sure, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes were in consideration but I don't think they would have worked for the role. In the mid-2000s? Perhaps.

    You see, the Brosnan era didn't require quality acting or high notch performance. They were just adventures, something I personally enjoy. Whereas the subsequent entries since his departure focused on character development, exploring sides that haven't been looked at before, as well as injecting reality, down-to-earth approach and vulnerable personalities into the chromosomes of the franchise.

    Now, I can't go and compare The Spy Who Loved Me with From Russia With Love, for instance, because they are of two different breeds and genres while grown out of the same series. That is how the Brosnan era is to Craig's as is Moore's to Dalton's.

    Well said. I agree.

    The right actor for the times is critical. As I recently did my Bondathon, that went through my mind. EON has been very lucky (skillful?) at casting the right actor for the times. The only period they got it wrong (as far as the general public was concerned) was with Dalton (so it seems) and perhaps that is because the ghost of Brosnan (first choice) was always hanging over poor Tim's tenure, who knows....
    I can only blame the producers of Remington Steele for that (who, as a matter of fact, murdered their own series with the last season by providing forced scripts), but then again, I am grateful we've had Dalton for at least two films. The man looked deadly when he gazed with threats. Something not even Connery would have brought to the role.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited September 2015 Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    And to say, Brosnan was never responsible for helping the franchise revive, being assured as to "James Bond always returned" (as if the six-year gap wasn't enough), then that is highly disrespectful.

    Sorry to offend you (if this was directed at me), but James Bond will always, and I mean always.....return.

    It's bigger than any man.

    It is a 50 plus year cinematic giant.

    The only way it won't return is if EON turns it into a farce, if the actor cast is not popular with the general public, or if the films lose their cool factor (which is essential to cinematic Bond). The last two points stand with respect to Dalton, at least in the US market in the 1980's.

    Similarly, the SW prequels were not looked at kindly for many reasons (of their own making), but after a small break, there is massive pent-up demand for the new one. Same thing goes for Batman.

    These franchises are unkillable. Period.



    Oh, not at all. I wasn't offended. Don't get me wrong, sir. I was referencing in general.

    I think it's safe to say that the 90s really gave Bond yet another boost because... well... the 80s didn't take Dalton's entries in such welcoming manners, particularly the average cinema goers who were used to Moore's presence in the role. Dalton's was quite the opposite which didn't fare with some people.

    I don't think I could take it for granted as to why 'Bond will always return'. He could have been delayed for ten years or moreso, or couldn't have come back at all, because the box office numbers, at the end of the day, are what that speak. Before casting Brosnan, I could say they did risk at acquiring the right actor for the role that was demanded in the right time. Sure, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes were in consideration but I don't think they would have worked for the role. In the mid-2000s? Perhaps.

    You see, the Brosnan era didn't require quality acting or high notch performance. They were just adventures, something I personally enjoy. Whereas the subsequent entries since his departure focused on character development, exploring sides that haven't been looked at before, as well as injecting reality, down-to-earth approach and vulnerable personalities into the chromosomes of the franchise.

    Now, I can't go and compare The Spy Who Loved Me with From Russia With Love, for instance, because they are of two different breeds and genres while grown out of the same series. That is how the Brosnan era is to Craig's as is Moore's to Dalton's.

    Well said. I agree.

    The right actor for the times is critical. As I recently did my Bondathon, that went through my mind. EON has been very lucky (skillful?) at casting the right actor for the times. The only period they got it wrong (as far as the general public was concerned) was with Dalton (so it seems) and perhaps that is because the ghost of Brosnan (first choice) was always hanging over poor Tim's tenure, who knows....

    I also agree each actor ( except for Dalton who was ahead of his times) was perfect for their times and the films they got which made them all great in their own way.



  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Szonana wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    And to say, Brosnan was never responsible for helping the franchise revive, being assured as to "James Bond always returned" (as if the six-year gap wasn't enough), then that is highly disrespectful.

    Sorry to offend you (if this was directed at me), but James Bond will always, and I mean always.....return.

    It's bigger than any man.

    It is a 50 plus year cinematic giant.

    The only way it won't return is if EON turns it into a farce, if the actor cast is not popular with the general public, or if the films lose their cool factor (which is essential to cinematic Bond). The last two points stand with respect to Dalton, at least in the US market in the 1980's.

    Similarly, the SW prequels were not looked at kindly for many reasons (of their own making), but after a small break, there is massive pent-up demand for the new one. Same thing goes for Batman.

    These franchises are unkillable. Period.



    Oh, not at all. I wasn't offended. Don't get me wrong, sir. I was referencing in general.

    I think it's safe to say that the 90s really gave Bond yet another boost because... well... the 80s didn't take Dalton's entries in such welcoming manners, particularly the average cinema goers who were used to Moore's presence in the role. Dalton's was quite the opposite which didn't fare with some people.

    I don't think I could take it for granted as to why 'Bond will always return'. He could have been delayed for ten years or moreso, or couldn't have come back at all, because the box office numbers, at the end of the day, are what that speak. Before casting Brosnan, I could say they did risk at acquiring the right actor for the role that was demanded in the right time. Sure, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes were in consideration but I don't think they would have worked for the role. In the mid-2000s? Perhaps.

    You see, the Brosnan era didn't require quality acting or high notch performance. They were just adventures, something I personally enjoy. Whereas the subsequent entries since his departure focused on character development, exploring sides that haven't been looked at before, as well as injecting reality, down-to-earth approach and vulnerable personalities into the chromosomes of the franchise.

    Now, I can't go and compare The Spy Who Loved Me with From Russia With Love, for instance, because they are of two different breeds and genres while grown out of the same series. That is how the Brosnan era is to Craig's as is Moore's to Dalton's.

    Well said. I agree.

    The right actor for the times is critical. As I recently did my Bondathon, that went through my mind. EON has been very lucky (skillful?) at casting the right actor for the times. The only period they got it wrong (as far as the general public was concerned) was with Dalton (so it seems) and perhaps that is because the ghost of Brosnan (first choice) was always hanging over poor Tim's tenure, who knows....

    I also agree each actor ( except for Dalton who was ahead of his times) was perfect for the films they got and were great in their own way.



    True. Dalton was an answer to a question that no one was asking in 1987 and particularly in 1989.

    Brosnan was an answer to a question people were demanding an answer to since 1989 at least. Namely, can Bond be 'cool' again in the 90's and beyond? The answer, at least in GE, was a resounding YES.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    And to say, Brosnan was never responsible for helping the franchise revive, being assured as to "James Bond always returned" (as if the six-year gap wasn't enough), then that is highly disrespectful.

    Sorry to offend you (if this was directed at me), but James Bond will always, and I mean always.....return.

    It's bigger than any man.

    It is a 50 plus year cinematic giant.

    The only way it won't return is if EON turns it into a farce, if the actor cast is not popular with the general public, or if the films lose their cool factor (which is essential to cinematic Bond). The last two points stand with respect to Dalton, at least in the US market in the 1980's.

    Similarly, the SW prequels were not looked at kindly for many reasons (of their own making), but after a small break, there is massive pent-up demand for the new one. Same thing goes for Batman.

    These franchises are unkillable. Period.



    Oh, not at all. I wasn't offended. Don't get me wrong, sir. I was referencing in general.

    I think it's safe to say that the 90s really gave Bond yet another boost because... well... the 80s didn't take Dalton's entries in such welcoming manners, particularly the average cinema goers who were used to Moore's presence in the role. Dalton's was quite the opposite which didn't fare with some people.

    I don't think I could take it for granted as to why 'Bond will always return'. He could have been delayed for ten years or moreso, or couldn't have come back at all, because the box office numbers, at the end of the day, are what that speak. Before casting Brosnan, I could say they did risk at acquiring the right actor for the role that was demanded in the right time. Sure, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes were in consideration but I don't think they would have worked for the role. In the mid-2000s? Perhaps.

    You see, the Brosnan era didn't require quality acting or high notch performance. They were just adventures, something I personally enjoy. Whereas the subsequent entries since his departure focused on character development, exploring sides that haven't been looked at before, as well as injecting reality, down-to-earth approach and vulnerable personalities into the chromosomes of the franchise.

    Now, I can't go and compare The Spy Who Loved Me with From Russia With Love, for instance, because they are of two different breeds and genres while grown out of the same series. That is how the Brosnan era is to Craig's as is Moore's to Dalton's.

    Well said. I agree.

    The right actor for the times is critical. As I recently did my Bondathon, that went through my mind. EON has been very lucky (skillful?) at casting the right actor for the times. The only period they got it wrong (as far as the general public was concerned) was with Dalton (so it seems) and perhaps that is because the ghost of Brosnan (first choice) was always hanging over poor Tim's tenure, who knows....

    I also agree each actor ( except for Dalton who was ahead of his times) was perfect for the films they got and were great in their own way.



    True. Dalton was an answer to a question that no one was asking in 1987 and particularly in 1989.

    Brosnan was an answer to a question people were demanding an answer to since 1989 at least. Namely, can Bond be 'cool' again in the 90's and beyond? The answer, at least in GE, was a resounding YES.


    Yes Dalton as good as he was no one wanted a Violent Bond people still wanted the cool Bond to have a good time for a few hours.

  • GetafixGetafix
    edited September 2015 Posts: 11,425
    That wasn't my view at the time. After seeing GE I felt Bond had gone over a cliff, and probably wasn't coming back up for a long time. From my perspective at least I was proved right. Although even I have to acknowledge that at the time the rest of audience seemed to love GE. I really felt they just wanted the comfort blanket of cheesy one liners and a hackneyed plot. GE definitely gave them all that. I was a big Dalton fan and for me Brosnan didn't come close to matching up. It wasn't until recently that I realised there were actually other people who'd liked Dalton and weren't that keen on Brosnan.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    That wasn't my view at the time. After seeing GE I felt Bond had gone over a cliff, and probably wasn't coming back up for a long time. From my perspective at least I was proved right. Although even I have to acknowledge that at the time the audience seemed to love GE. I really felt they just wanted the comfort blanket of cheesy one liners and a hackneyed plot. GE definitely gave them all that.

    Thank you.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited September 2015 Posts: 11,189
    It's a good thing you two aren't bosom buddies regarding your views of Skyfall.

    Hackneyed, contrived, forced blablabla.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It's a good thing you two aren't bosom buddies regarding your views of Skyfall.

    I found something to appreciate in this thread. What more can you ask for?
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited September 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Why, is he a big SF fan?

    I think SF was the biggest Bond disappointment for me since GE. Although SF is the better of the two and still probably better than any of the Brosnan films.

    SF felt like a step back into Brosnan territory for me. Not as bad, but that kind of hackneyed, creaking plot, and just dull.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It's a good thing you two aren't bosom buddies regarding your views of Skyfall.

    I found something to appreciate in this thread. What more can you ask for?

    No more smart-Alec comments?
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I like Pierce. What's this new film he has out with Owen Wilson?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited September 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    I like Pierce. What's this new film he has out with Owen Wilson?

    No Escape I think it's called.

    (waits for inevitable comeback regarding his Bond era).

    Seriously, it looks quite good.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    SF is somewhere in my top 7, but relax, the Brosnan films are all in my bottom drawer.

    Graciously leaving this thread now.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I like Pierce. What's this new film he has out with Owen Wilson?

    No Escape I think it's called.

    (waits for inevitable comeback regarding his Bond era).

    Seriously, it looks quite good.
    I saw it. Not a bad film (it was panned heavily but I think critics are being harsh. I was living in an African country as a kid when there was a coup, and the experience was quite similar). PB plays a character just like his Osnard from TOP. If you liked him there you'll love him here. Unfortunately, it's only a bit part.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    delete
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Getafix wrote: »
    That wasn't my view at the time. After seeing GE I felt Bond had gone over a cliff, and probably wasn't coming back up for a long time. From my perspective at least I was proved right. Although even I have to acknowledge that at the time the rest of audience seemed to love GE. I really felt they just wanted the comfort blanket of cheesy one liners and a hackneyed plot. GE definitely gave them all that. I was a big Dalton fan and for me Brosnan didn't come close to matching up. It wasn't until recently that I realised there were actually other people who'd liked Dalton and weren't that keen on Brosnan.

    @getafix I understand your reasons on why you don't like Pierce's portrayal and even tough i love Pierce i respect how open your are disliking his portrayal.


    What surprises me is your dislike for Daniel Craig

    Please don't take offense in my question but is your dislike for him based on getting the parise Dalton deserved in the 80s?

    Timothy was ahead of his times but it is unfair how people priase Daniel for what Dalton had such a hard time.
    It is a little frustrating listening or reading Daniel Craig was so bad ass and very Fleming and Dalton was stiff and didn't have fun.

    Really its almost an identical portrayal just Craig had better support from Barbara becasue the times were calling for Bond Craig is doing and are giving his films a bigger budget.

    If some say Dalton flicks looked like TV movies because of the lack of support by everyone due to being ahead of his times but lets speak hypothetically

    If a young Dalton would have made The living daylights and licence to kill in 2006 his success would have been as Big as Craig's.

    Dalton just had the missfortune to come when a Bond like his wasn't needed.



  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I like Pierce. What's this new film he has out with Owen Wilson?

    No Escape I think it's called.

    (waits for inevitable comeback regarding his Bond era).

    Seriously, it looks quite good.
    I saw it. Not a bad film (it was panned heavily but I think critics are being harsh. I was living in an African country as a kid when there was a coup, and the experience was quite similar). PB plays a character just like his Osnard from TOP. If you liked him there you'll love him here. Unfortunately, it's only a bit part.

    I loved him in TOTP. One of his best performances.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited September 2015 Posts: 16,333
    GoldenEye is a perfect Bond film for the time. It's the the right amount of action and drama. The story was also compelling. Brosnan and the casting were why the movie was so good. If it was with Dalton and a completely different cast, it probably would have failed.

    Also Brosnan might be a B-Movie actor but Dalton has starred in his crock of them himself. ;)
    flash_gordon_timothy_dalton.jpg
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Murdock wrote: »
    GoldenEye is a perfect Bond film for the time. It's the the right amount of action and drama. The story was also compelling. Brosnan and the casting were why the movie was so good. If it was with Dalton and a completely different cast, it probably would have failed.

    Also Brosnan might be a B-Movie actor but Dalton has starred in his crock of them himself. ;)
    flash_gordon_timothy_dalton.jpg

    Had it had Dalton it would have been infinitely better!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Dalton is a better actor than Brosnan anyhow no matter what film they were to star in.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Getafix wrote: »
    Had it had Dalton it would have been infinitely better!
    Not really. Dalton's no more better than Brosnan. I prefer Dalton is his non Bond movies, but in TLD he's not that good. He's much better in LTK. Where as I don't like some of Pierce's non Bond movies. A bit ironic. :))
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I like Pierce. What's this new film he has out with Owen Wilson?

    No Escape I think it's called.

    (waits for inevitable comeback regarding his Bond era).

    Seriously, it looks quite good.
    I saw it. Not a bad film (it was panned heavily but I think critics are being harsh. I was living in an African country as a kid when there was a coup, and the experience was quite similar). PB plays a character just like his Osnard from TOP. If you liked him there you'll love him here. Unfortunately, it's only a bit part.

    I loved him in TOTP. One of his best performances.

    Havent been able to watch no escape since it will be released this weekend here in Mexico and i really want to see it so thanks for your comments.

    I loved his performance in The Tailor of Panama but i prefer him as James Bond or Thomas Crown type of roles.


  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I've seen him last in Survivor. And I've got to say, through that weakly executed film in everything from performance to editing and further, Brosnan was the only thing that I liked in there. His role as a very cold blooded, haunting, reasonable and ruthless assassin couldn't have been any more the intriguing to see. And I dare to say, he was as good in The November Man, too.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I've seen him last in Survivor. And I've got to say, through that weakly executed film in everything from performance to editing and further, Brosnan was the only thing that I liked in there. His role as a very cold blooded, haunting, reasonable and ruthless assassin couldn't have been any more the intriguing to see. And I dare to say, he was as good in The November Man, too.
    Agreed.

Sign In or Register to comment.