Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

15455565759

Comments

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    thedove wrote: »
    I guess as Bond fans we all have our camps that we are passionate about.

    My favourite Bond is and probably always will be Sean Connery. That's rather funny since outside of NSNA and GF (classic movie night at the cinema) I never experienced him on the big screen.

    I can appreciate Moore's portrayal as he made the character more in his image. I think Lazenby did a nice job but got saddled with a script that kept bringing up Sean's image of Bond and it just didn't work. Dalton was a great change of pace from Moore. I think LTK went a little too far to be honest from what a Bond movie should be. However I can appreciate that Dalton took a different tack from both Moore and Connery.

    Brosnan to me was a little bit of a hybrid of Connery and Moore. He had the confidence of Connery's Bond. He had the ability to deliver some comedic moments like Moore. Then we have Craig who really harkens to Dalton and maybe a bit of Connery.

    I do find that the passion rises in fans when any of Lazenby, Dalton or Brosnan are either held up as ideals or put down as lousy.

    I will state again that Brosnan wasn't that bad as some on here make him out to be. At least from my perspective he did a good job. His films were uneven to be sure but to me he was the last Bond to portray the classic Bond. The Bond that Craig is portraying is very far removed from the Bond character I knew and grew up with.

    This. For some reason it always seems fashionable to bash the previous Bond and praise the incumbent. I remember seeing a lot of articles in the 90's, praising Pierce to the hilt, and decrying Dalton as the nadir of the series. This is nothing different.
    Pierce was the right Bond, at the right time. As have all the others been. Each Bond is a product of his time, and each era is influenced by the cinematic zeitgeist. The 90's was all about OTT action and brash leading men. Brosnan's era fit that, perfectly.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Roadphill wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I guess as Bond fans we all have our camps that we are passionate about.

    My favourite Bond is and probably always will be Sean Connery. That's rather funny since outside of NSNA and GF (classic movie night at the cinema) I never experienced him on the big screen.

    I can appreciate Moore's portrayal as he made the character more in his image. I think Lazenby did a nice job but got saddled with a script that kept bringing up Sean's image of Bond and it just didn't work. Dalton was a great change of pace from Moore. I think LTK went a little too far to be honest from what a Bond movie should be. However I can appreciate that Dalton took a different tack from both Moore and Connery.

    Brosnan to me was a little bit of a hybrid of Connery and Moore. He had the confidence of Connery's Bond. He had the ability to deliver some comedic moments like Moore. Then we have Craig who really harkens to Dalton and maybe a bit of Connery.

    I do find that the passion rises in fans when any of Lazenby, Dalton or Brosnan are either held up as ideals or put down as lousy.

    I will state again that Brosnan wasn't that bad as some on here make him out to be. At least from my perspective he did a good job. His films were uneven to be sure but to me he was the last Bond to portray the classic Bond. The Bond that Craig is portraying is very far removed from the Bond character I knew and grew up with.

    This. For some reason it always seems fashionable to bash the previous Bond and praise the incumbent. I remember seeing a lot of articles in the 90's, praising Pierce to the hilt, and decrying Dalton as the nadir of the series. This is nothing different.
    Pierce was the right Bond, at the right time. As have all the others been. Each Bond is a product of his time, and each era is influenced by the cinematic zeitgeist. The 90's was all about OTT action and brash leading men. Brosnan's era fit that, perfectly.

    Well said,both of you,100% agree. =D>
  • Posts: 11,425
    In answer to the thread title - "yes"!
  • Posts: 6,727
    Getafix wrote: »
    In answer to the thread title - "yes"!

    +1
  • Posts: 4,023
    Getafix wrote: »
    In answer to the thread title - "yes"!

    Nothing good about him?
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 1,595
    I'm curious if there's anything @Getafix values about him/his performances.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    I'm curious if there's anything @Getafix values about him/his performances.

    You must be new around here lol.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 6,682
    I understand this is his favorite bit of Brosnan acting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k8YpQKzl_k&t=1m11s



    (I know you like him outside of Bond, it's just a joke)
  • 00Agent wrote: »
    I'm curious if there's anything @Getafix values about him/his performances.

    You must be new around here lol.

    I'm not. I know he strongly dislikes him. I was saying I wonder If there is any aspect at all that he likes.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I understand this is his favorite bit of Brosnan acting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k8YpQKzl_k&t=1m11s



    (I know you like him outside of Bond, it's just a joke)

    Pierce is great in that movie.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    I loved Brosnan when he was Bond. I saw GE in the cinema and thought his Bond was terrific.
    I've relegated him since and I think it is simply because, for me, Daniel Craig is just so brilliant in the role. He is how I want Bond to be portrayed. Horses for courses.
    On reflection it's a bit unfair for me to criticise Brosnan simply because he isn't Daniel Craig!
    He isn't bad at all really, it's just his version can feel a little dated and a bit pastiche. I think as the years continue to role on and we get a new , inevitably different Bond characterisation Mr B will be re-evaluated. Hopefully more favourably. (Because one thing Pierce did do was help ensure the continuation of Bond. Had he/GE flopped in '95 we wouldn't have B25 in production that's for sure. So he deserves a bit more love just for that)
  • Posts: 6,682
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I understand this is his favorite bit of Brosnan acting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k8YpQKzl_k&t=1m11s



    (I know you like him outside of Bond, it's just a joke)

    Pierce is great in that movie.

    He really is. He's very skillful at that style of acting.
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    cwl007 wrote: »
    He isn't bad at all really, it's just his version can feel a little dated and a bit pastiche. I think as the years continue to role on and we get a new , inevitably different Bond characterisation Mr B will be re-evaluated. Hopefully more favourably. (Because one thing Pierce did do was help ensure the continuation of Bond. Had he/GE flopped in '95 we wouldn't have B25 in production that's for sure. So he deserves a bit more love just for that)

    Exactly this! In 1995, we needed that kind of Bond. We hoped for that kind of Bond. I can't honestly think Craig's Bond being successful between 1995-2002, he's great for these times, but wouldn't have been what we needed for the 90s.

  • Pierce is definitely due for a re-evaluation. especially once we've seen our final film with Craig as Bond and a new actor is chosen for the role. I'm already expecting a solid bunch of "DC wasn't all that hot" trash talkers within 12 hours of the new fellow being chosen. It's just part of the process. Some people can't love the new Bond without hating the old one... Dalton suffered from it, then Brosnan took the stick. Time wounds all heels.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    vzok wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    In answer to the thread title - "yes"!

    Nothing good about him?

    Dalton fans hate Brosnan for "usurping" the role from him. Just like how Brosnan fans hate Craig for doing the same to Brosnan. Like how Craig fans will perceive the next actor taking the role.

    So spiteful! So petulant!
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    vzok wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    In answer to the thread title - "yes"!

    Nothing good about him?

    Dalton fans hate Brosnan for "usurping" the role from him. Just like how Brosnan fans hate Craig for doing the same to Brosnan. Like how Craig fans will perceive the next actor taking the role.

    So spiteful! So petulant!

    Not my case, really. As much as I wished Pierce to do another two, I welcomed Craig with the open arms and in fact I enjoy his films, particularly CR and SPECTRE. But you're right, I don't get why so many people has to hate the Bond which is different to the one they liked. In the end, all of the six actors were successful or we wouldn't be talking about Bond now.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    vzok wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    In answer to the thread title - "yes"!

    Nothing good about him?

    Dalton fans hate Brosnan for "usurping" the role from him. Just like how Brosnan fans hate Craig for doing the same to Brosnan. Like how Craig fans will perceive the next actor taking the role.

    So spiteful! So petulant!

    Not my case, really. As much as I wished Pierce to do another two, I welcomed Craig with the open arms and in fact I enjoy his films, particularly CR and SPECTRE. But you're right, I don't get why so many people has to hate the Bond which is different to the one they liked. In the end, all of the six actors were successful or we wouldn't be talking about Bond now.

    I agree, Brosnan and Craig are my favorites, no need to choose sides. It's ridiculous.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    People always like to make it seem like there can only be one real winner, especially between two. There can only be one, not six or more. Dumb mentality.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    With Brosnan being my favorite Bond I didn't like Craig's casting at first, but the trailer for CR got me hooked and after the parkor scene I was won over and a Craig fan. Though in recent years, I'm really not enjoying his take on Bond anymore. Well moreso, I'm just bored of it. I've kind of grown out of enjoying the "Dark and Brooding" protagonist phase and very much would love to see the more lighter, suave and gentlemanly Bond make a comeback in the vain of Brosnan and Moore. So no, Brosnan's not bad one bit.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,657
    I never said anything bad about Pierce as a person or as a Bond actor, and before Craig came and I finally dug deeper into the Dalton movies he was my second favourite after Connery. But even then there were only two of his movies that I thought were any good, and those were obviously the first two. I disliked TWINE from the first moment that I saw it at the cinema, and think the only redeeming value of DAD was the impression I had initially during its first half that it was at least better than TWINE...but that didn't last past the invisible-car scene.

    Still, I don't blame it on Brosnan at all. With a half-way decent script and competent direction like in GE and TND he was IMO even a better Bond (in the sense of closer to Fleming's vision) than Roger Moore, not to mention Laz.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    Well this Dalton fan doesn't "hate" Brosnan for replacing Dalton. My hatred is reserved for a select list of people, which Brosnan doesn't make.
    Yes, I wish Dalton had made another two Bond films in 1991 and 1993, or 1995 and 1997. But I don't hate Brosnan. He looked the part once he filled out a little in TND, and he was good in the action scenes. I just feel that he lacked presence in his own films. He put bums on seats (which was important at the time, but less so now), but in all the docs I have seen of his films, it sounds like he didn't have a plan when approaching the role. He just turned up, read the lines, made few suggestions, and left. He didn't, or didn't have a chance to, create HIS Bond.
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    He did create his Bond. A vulnerable version of the character that could still share a laugh or two. Not as humoristic as Moore, not as frivolous as Connery, but I can tell quite a number of things that were first exploited with Brosnan. The scene where he shoots Elektra down is still shocking to see, the beach scene in GE which brings back memories of Goldfinger the novel, where Bond reflects about his line of duty.

    Betrayal. He was the first Bond who had to really cope with betrayal in the line of duty. He was fooled by Elektra and Miranda Frost, by Trevelyan for a while. i go as far as saying that most of the things we have seen in the Craig films had a precedent in the Brosnan era, the thing is that back then producers didn't dare to go further with that, but it was a production decision mostly.

    -Skyfall takes a lot of TWINE: MI6 is blown, the big threat emanates from M's past, the villain is someone M wanted dead, survived and is now retaliating with everything he's got. Bond is also inactive and someone "approves" him for the mission. The villain himself is a mix between Trevelyan and Boris: a former MI6 agent going on his own but with a computer hacking knowledge. Just like in TWINE, M trusts Bond with something that leans into the personal field.

    -SPECTRE has a villain coming from Bond's past, like Trevelyan. Someone Bond thought he was dead for years.

    -QOS has Bond disavowed by MI6 with the Americans considering him a liability, just like in DAD, with M ultimately trusting him even when the CIA or NSA is pressuring her.

    -Most important of all, the role of women. I'd say without doubt Brosnan is the one who had women questioning his way of life. All of the "resign before loving me" charade started implicitly with Natalya and Paris. The idea that Bond's job is incomplatible with formal relationships (Yes, ok, OHMSS - but there it was Bond who thought of that, not the girl). In other words, Natalya and Paris set a huge precedent for Vesper and Madeleine.

    DAD has also anticipated the crude, gritty and raw tone we had in the Craig films. Compared to the first three ones, the violence is kind of strong during the first part.

    By no means I'm taking merits away of Craig's Bond, just bringing up that I do think Pierce was a mix between his predecessors but has also brought unique things we haven't seen in previous Bond. I can't imagine anyone else acting out the Elektra death scene and making it convincingly. Connery is too devil-may-care. Lazenby? We didn't know him enough. Certainly not Moore. Dalton would have been a bit overacted and maybe Craig as well. It needed that unique flair of emotion and regret that comes naturally with Pierce on his many roles.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    There's definitely a lot of rough ideas in Brosnan's films that got perfected in Craig's run. TWINE has a lot of ideas I think would have made it a great film, but was ultimately let down by its execution. Aside from Campbell, EON didn't really pick the right directors for Brosnan's run. How the director of TURNER & HOOCH and STOP! OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT got a Bond gig will ALWAYS perplex me.
  • Posts: 6,727
    There's definitely a lot of rough ideas in Brosnan's films that got perfected in Craig's run. TWINE has a lot of ideas I think would have made it a great film, but was ultimately let down by its execution. Aside from Campbell, EON didn't really pick the right directors for Brosnan's run. How the director of TURNER & HOOCH and STOP! OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT got a Bond gig will ALWAYS perplex me.

    Spottiswoode did do a very fine political thriller called Under Fire in 1983. So maybe that got him the gig. But his Direction is uninspired on TND, particularly the finale on the stealth boat, which is really badly helmed.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 6,727
    Well this Dalton fan doesn't "hate" Brosnan for replacing Dalton. My hatred is reserved for a select list of people, which Brosnan doesn't make.
    Yes, I wish Dalton had made another two Bond films in 1991 and 1993, or 1995 and 1997. But I don't hate Brosnan. He looked the part once he filled out a little in TND, and he was good in the action scenes. I just feel that he lacked presence in his own films. He put bums on seats (which was important at the time, but less so now), but in all the docs I have seen of his films, it sounds like he didn't have a plan when approaching the role. He just turned up, read the lines, made few suggestions, and left. He didn't, or didn't have a chance to, create HIS Bond.

    Agree with a lot of this.
    I don't hate Brosnan for taking over from Dalton. When it was announced Brossa was going to take over from Roger, before the MTM Remington Steele contract issue intervened, I knew he was wrong choice then. Mark Gatiss made a good point about GE, that it was a film by a committee, here are all the traits of Bond, the car, the gadgets etc, but they are presented in such a bland way, and Brossa is part of that, for me, he wears the tux, reads the lines and doesn't fall over the furniture, but that's not enough to be Bond. Brossa just didn't (doesnt) cut it for me.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited September 2019 Posts: 5,185
    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.
  • Posts: 6,665
    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.

    Hey, I love Brosnan, but I'm an ironic misanthrope. See, the irony wasn't lost on me.

    Seriously now, I totally get what you mean. Soulless people, they are, unless they only criticise DAD. In that case, they just have good taste.

    ;)
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    Call us angry, call us miserable, call Dalton fans whatever you want. But at the end of the day Brosnan fans are getting a taste of what Dalton fans had back in the 90's, and they don't like it. Fancy that. All fun and games writing Dalton off as a failure. Now Craig is on the scene.

    Funny you talk of angry Dalton fans, @00Agent. I seem to remember a group of absolutely not angry Brosnan fans absolutely not setting up a campaign to get Craig removed as Bond. Yeah, not angry at all. Dalton fans get angry at Brosnan. Right, so Brosnan fans get apoplectic with rage at Craig, start a campaign to remove him as Bond, and even go out of their way mock every possible pic of him.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    One thing Dalton and Brosnan have in common is that their tenures were unexpectedly cut short. More so for Dalton, but it was considered a shock in 2004 that EON was parting way with Brosnan. DAD may have been a critical failure, but it was the highest grossing Bond of the series at that time, and Brosnan was not shy in expressing he was open to doing one more film. I know that I and many others were at least expecting him to have a run that lasted as long as Connery or Moore, as he seemed to be as popular as those two, so why would his run be any different? I thought of DAD being his MR, and that the following films would scale back in a manner that Moore's did.

    So it would be no surprise if certain fans of those two feel their Bonds were robbed of a longer legacy, and that resentment would spill over onto the actor that took over the role. Given that Craig may leave with fiveunder his belt (which no actor has done since Moore neary 40 years ago) in a time span of over a decade, I don't expect to see a number of Craig fans be resentful of who the next actor will be. Like Connery and Moore, I think many of us will believe Craig did more than enough for the franchise and that when he bowed it that it was simply the right time. At least, I like to think that's how most of us will feel.
Sign In or Register to comment.