Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1111214161760

Comments

  • Posts: 135
    Otherwise I'm not really sure who these "theories" that Brosnan bashing is fashionable exactly apply to? It seems to me that Craig gets unreasonably bashed far worse, I don't see any websites set up to bash Brosnan out there.

    A few years ago I'd have agreed with you. But now, especially on this site, it's definitely Brosnan who's the most hard done to.

    You can't say a bad word about Danny boy, he's being called the best Bond ever by tons of people, but start slagging off Brosnan and half the forum will join in with you.

    I get a bit sick of it to be honest. I thought he did a good job and I don't think he gets enough credit for helping to revive the series. If it wasn't for Brosnans success the series could've died in the 90s.

    Perhaps there is a reason for this that has everything to do with genuine, considered opinions about Brozzer's lack of acting chops and originality as Bond and less to do with mostly unreasoned blathering on and on about blond hair, height, Golem ears, and lack of facial expression? I still don't see anti-Brosnan sites, all things considered he's gotten the benefit of the doubt most everywhere except here, where the most intelligent Bond fans appear to reside. I think it's perfectly reasonable and natural for people who favor Craig and see all the great things he's done in the role to be bothered a bit.

    That said, I'm still a Connery man despite all his chauvinistic warts and so no, Craig hasn't proven to be the very best Bond. But when it comes to your last statement about Brosnan, short of continuing with Dalton I very much agree. Brosnan was the acknowledged heir apparent and the only logical choice for the role. History should see him in a favorable light as being the right man for the times. He was a popular figure and monetarily the series was revived and prospered in his tenure. Artistically speaking, I find many of the criticisms to be fair ones when presented reasonably.

    Speaking as an artist myself, I cannot abide this view. History has witnessed Brosnan; in a favored light, he is Bond's golden boy, through and through. As you state, he revived and prospered in the role. To my mind, money talks; it vouched for Brosnan. Everything else matters naught.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @Richardo- Well then, you might as well give the middle finger to everyone who disagrees with you. By your standards, Craig is obviously the better and true Bond golden boy, right? His films all made more money if that's how you're looking at it.

    I will definitely not be coming to your defense anymore if this is your idea of an excuse for all of Brosnan's glaring inadequacies. Which are part and parcel of why he was fired.
  • Posts: 135
    @Richardo- Well then, you might as well give the middle finger to everyone who disagrees with you. By your standards, Craig is obviously the better and true Bond golden boy, right? His films all made more money if that's how you're looking at it.

    I will definitely not be coming to your defense anymore if this is your idea of an excuse for all of Brosnan's glaring inadequacies. Which are part and parcel of why he was fired.
    No, I agree with you completely. Craig is better, right? So...
  • BigGayIslandBigGayIsland Banned
    edited August 2013 Posts: 56
    There's been more than a little censorship on here!

    Perhaps a mod trying to make me look bad? ;))

    Oh well what do you expect with the Big Brother NSA InterDragonpol breathing down your neck. Now as to my opinion of Brosnan? As I said before in my (now deleted) post I am a big fan. If you put Moore in a blender - add three parts vanilla one part sweet-ass strawberry a sprinkle of dark chocolate and VOILA so smooth!! A big fan.

    Big gun too. :))
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,864
    There's been more than a little censorship on here!

    Perhaps a mod trying to make me look bad? ;))

    Oh well what do you expect with the Big Brother NSA InterDragonpol breathing down your neck. Now as to my opinion of Brosnan? As I said before in my (now deleted) post I am a big fan. If you put Moore in a blender - add three parts vanilla one part sweet-ass strawberry a sprinkle of dark chocolate and VOILA so smooth!! A big fan.

    Big gun too. :))

    I've already stated that I'm NOT a mod nor have I any desire to be. Please drop this pretence. I don't feel I deserve this. PM me if you have a problem with me and we can discuss it civilly there.
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2013 Posts: 10,512
    I will definitely not be coming to your defense anymore if this is your idea of an excuse for all of Brosnan's glaring inadequacies. Which are part and parcel of why he was fired.

    I think it's harsh to insinuate Brosnan was fired based on a string of inadequacies.

    The producers wanted to take a significant change of direction. The only feasible way to achieve this, and guarantee the audience were to buy in to it, was to recast the lead. It wasn't ever going to be plausible to take a marked deviation with Pierce returning to the role. I've seen many sound bites from Babs talking openly about how her view of Brosnan and his ability to bring a humanity and vulnerability to the role. Whether one would disagree with this is of course up for discussion, but I don't think Barbara ever doubted Pierce.

    I blame Tamahori for ending the Brosnan tenure, even more so than P+W. I always assumed their original script, featuring Gala Brand would have been somewhat more character heavy, reduced to the lightweight Frost role once Tamahori boarded. I also blame Tamahori for persisting with a cartoonish visual style, an over-reliance on CGI and green-lighting some seriously dreadful set work (the airfield inserts with the 2D physical ice-bergs are appalling). All this combined to deliver a film which, rather than being timeless, looks like what it is - an early 2000's actioner.

    This isn't to say Brosnan is immune to criticism, I just feel, while he could have done more to help himself, he certainly did nothing to warrant a firing. He was let go to facilitate a creative change, not because he was shit.
  • 002002
    edited August 2013 Posts: 581
    @Richardo- Well then, you might as well give the middle finger to everyone who disagrees with you. By your standards, Craig is obviously the better and true Bond golden boy, right? His films all made more money if that's how you're looking at it.

    I will definitely not be coming to your defense anymore if this is your idea of an excuse for all of Brosnan's glaring inadequacies. Which are part and parcel of why he was fired.

    You do realise that Brosnan wasnt "fired" he had a 3 Movie Contract with the option of a Fourth Film (Die Another Day) and fufilled his contract

    In fact he had a 5th Bond albiet as Everything or Nothing (true it was a video game but with its casting and visuals it feels like a bond movie) and its a better send off than Die Another Day



  • That Pierce fulfilled his contract isn't in question. Nor that EON wanted to go in a new direction. But that's not something Pierce seemed to understand at that time. He thought he should do another and the record shows he was quite upset and bitter that his services were no longer required. Seems to me that he certainly looked at it as being fired.

    Brosnan holds a unique distinction in the series in that he was the only of the 6 actors who did not walk away from the role on their terms (Connery, Lazenby, Dalton) or mutually and amicably agree (Moore) it was time to move on. Not being asked back to your job can also be seen as a form of termination. That's how I would view that circumstance as well.

    As for his glaring inadequacies, I'm just going to keep repeating myself and I have better things to do at this time. There were people like me who saw them and felt this way after TWINE, and that number grew after DAD to include his employers at EON, and now people are looking back and seeing the same things in hindsight. And the Brosnan fans out there don't like that and have a seemingly endless supply of myriad excuses such as this "backlash theory". Brosnan never had to face what Craig did before he even started filming, so it seems to me that at least some of his more fervent fans took his dismissal for exactly what it was. Obviously it's quite the bitter pill to swallow.



  • Posts: 1,052
    I still say Pierce was too popular at the time, nobody really gave him much stick and now the floodgates have opened and whilst that era was flawed, some of the criticism is very over the top. At the end of the day he he made a couple of decent Bond films, one near miss and one shocker, with good moments from Brozzer along the way.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    and that number grew after DAD to include his employers at EON

    While I'm no Brosnan stalwart, I just don't think this is verifiable. It's fine for people to knock seven shades out of Brozzer, but I think you at least have to face facts and accept that while it would be wonderful, for some, to cement his supposed 'firing' in the annals of Bond history, the reality just doesn't really tally. The following is what Babs had to say regards DAD - CR

    In terms of DIE ANOTHER DAY we’d become too fantastical.The invisible car. It’s kind of crazy, because the invisible car was based on some military technology about camouflaging military vehicles out in operations, and it kind of went from being something that was semi-practical, to being too fantastical. Our approach to it was misguided. So we felt... It wasn’t that we were unhappy with Pierce Brosnan, it was that we felt we had to take a change of direction in terms of the Bond character and the series, and we had to go back to reality, because we’re living now in a post-9/11 world. Frivolity didn’t seem appropriate. So around that time, or a year or two before, as a result of the settlement between all the legal wrangling, we’d gotten the rights to Casino Royale, which had been the Holy Grail of the Bond books. And the book that Cubby [Broccoli] and Harry [Saltzman] had wanted to make, but Fleming had sold the rights to TV and then to Columbia, who’d made a spoof out of it. So, the two events collided. One was a decision to take a change in direction, and the other was that we had the rights to Casino Royale. So Michael [G. Wilson] and I felt it right and appropriate to tell that story. And in order to tell that story, we needed to recast the role, because we had defined a Bond who... The whole point of that story is that it’s Bond becoming James Bond. So it’s the man who is basically a blunt instrument, who, through a sort of rite of passage transforms into the James Bond that we all know now, so we had to recast the role. And it was extremely difficult to say that to Pierce. Because A, he was incredibly successful, and the public loved him, and B, we loved him. We’re very close to him and his whole family, so it was a very tough decision. But we felt we had to do it for the longevity of the series. And he understood that. He took it like a gentleman, and we remain very close.


  • Posts: 1,052
    Excepet Casino Royale was not a story about Bond becomin Bond, he already was Bond.
  • @RC7- we can split hairs all day and night on this. The statement from Barb is official and I don't dispute that she said any of it or that what she said was her genuine impression of that conversation. Anyone who's read Sir Roger's autobiography would expect no less from Barb, who is a wonderfully warm and caring person by his and most everyone's accounts as well as being a master of tact and diplomacy (no surprise after dealing with the Jones/Roberts twin diva act of 1985). But that last statement "And he understood that. He took it like a gentleman, and we remain very close" and Pierce's comments are at odds with the other, because he appeared to be not quite as understanding as it appeared to her and there are numerous statements out there to support that as well. It's not worth the time and effort for me to dig any up, as I said they are out there to read.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    @RC7- we can split hairs all day and night on this. The statement from Barb is official and I don't dispute that she said any of it or that what she said was her genuine impression of that conversation. Anyone who's read Sir Roger's autobiography would expect no less from Barb, who is a wonderfully warm and caring person by his and most everyone's accounts as well as being a master of tact and diplomacy (no surprise after dealing with the Jones/Roberts twin diva act of 1985). But that last statement "And he understood that. He took it like a gentleman, and we remain very close" and Pierce's comments are at odds with the other, because he appeared to be not quite as understanding as it appeared to her and there are numerous statements out there to support that as well. It's not worth the time and effort for me to dig any up, as I said they are out there to read.

    Yes I know, Pierce was pissed because he'd wanted to make CR and understandably felt aggrieved. All I'm suggesting is that we don't go too far in our bending of the truth to justify the apparent failings of Brozzer. A combination of factors all contributed to the transition period between DAD & CR, my point being that Brosnan being 'inadequate' was certainly not a motivating factor IMO. From the POV of some fans, yes, but I don't think that is the general reality of the situation. As the saying goes, sometimes 'Shit happens'.
  • @RC7- Fair enough on all of that. But I do wish the Brosnan fans out there would be a bit more accepting and tolerant of the fact that there are many of us here who don't think he was the best thing since sliced bread. Sometimes it's like we can't have that opinion and that something or someone else is to blame.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2013 Posts: 13,350
    Has anyone read these Brosnan comments from him in a Playboy interview from December 2005?

    Playboy: Do we detect some bitterness?

    Contains swearing.
    Brosnan: It’s bloody frustrating that the f*****s pulled the rug when they did. It was like, “Come on, we’re family here. You talk about being a family. You know my late wife; you know my family now. Yet I get a call from my agents at five in the afternoon in the Bahamas, and I hear that you’ve shut down negotiations because you don’t know how, where or which way to go and that you’ll call me next Friday?” What can I say? It’s cold, it’s juvenile, and it shouldn’t be done like that, not after 10 years and four films.

    Or this when asked about the films:

    All the movies made money. Creatively, maybe, they could have been stronger, but they were Bond movies, and they advanced a certain degree out of the dolddrums where they had been. They were tricky to do. I never really felt as as though I nailed it. As soon as they put me into a suit and tie and gave me those lines of dialogue, I felt restricted. It was like the same old same old. I was doing Roger Moore doing Sean Connery doing George Lazenby. I felt as if I were doing a period piece dusted off. They never really took the risks they should have. It would have been great to light up and smoke cigarettes, for instance. It would have been great to have the killing a little more real and not wussed down. My boys watch the movies on DVD, so I see them from time to time. I see myself with nowhere to go, and it’s all rather bland.

    Or this when asked about The Matador. He changes the topic back to Bond:

    Contains swearing.
    I would like to see this film be a glorious poke in the eye to certain parties and to be a success and have other glorious roles follow in it’s wake. When the f*****s try and hem you in with Bond, it’s great to come back with The Matador. It’s great to say, “F*** you, a*****e. F*** you who wouldn’t give me a job. F*** you who thought I was some wuss. F*** you, who thought I was a pretty boy. F*** you, who thought anything of me without even knowing me or giving me the chance. F*** you.” But when you go around with all that inside you all the time, you end up completely mangled so you have to let it go.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I was doing Roger Moore doing Sean Connery doing George Lazenby. I felt as if I were doing a period piece dusted off. They never really took the risks they should have.

    You can't say he's wrong. This is basically how I've described Brosnan's tenure on several occasions. Where he hates it from a creative standpoint, I take it for what it is and rather enjoy it. Regards him feeling restricted, I can sympathise and believe he'd have played it entirely different in other circumstances. Others on here believe he just wasn't up to it, period. Each to their own.
  • @Sam- these were exactly the kind of comments that give my theory that Pierce saw their refusal to let him do CR as a type of dismissal, in particular those of the first spoiler. I'm sure at the time of her statement that @RC7 provided, she believed the split was an amicable one. It's like I've said, if you want to come back to a job and your employer doesn't want you back, one could see that as being "fired".

    I also think that his comment about not "nailing it" has been fairly used in criticisms of his overall performance. If he didn't think so, I think it's fair for people to agree with him that he didn't.

  • Posts: 6,396
    @Sam- these were exactly the kind of comments that give my theory that Pierce saw their refusal to let him do CR as a type of dismissal, in particular those of the first spoiler. I'm sure at the time of her statement that @RC7 provided, she believed the split was an amicable one. It's like I've said, if you want to come back to a job and your employer doesn't want you back, one could see that as being "fired".

    I also think that his comment about not "nailing it" has been fairly used in criticisms of his overall performance. If he didn't think so, I think it's fair for people to agree with him that he didn't.


    If you've ever read Roger's autobiography he was most upset by the comments made by Cubby regarding his contract negotiations. Not always as clear cut as it seems when someone gives an interview to the press. There's often other things going on between the scenes that we're not aware of. I always thought the relationship between Cubby and Roger was sound.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @Sam- these were exactly the kind of comments that give my theory that Pierce saw their refusal to let him do CR as a type of dismissal, in particular those of the first spoiler. I'm sure at the time of her statement that @RC7 provided, she believed the split was an amicable one. It's like I've said, if you want to come back to a job and your employer doesn't want you back, one could see that as being "fired".

    I also think that his comment about not "nailing it" has been fairly used in criticisms of his overall performance. If he didn't think so, I think it's fair for people to agree with him that he didn't.


    If you've ever read Roger's autobiography he was most upset by the comments made by Cubby regarding his contract negotiations. Not always as clear cut as it seems when someone gives an interview to the press. There's often other things going on between the scenes that we're not aware of. I always thought the relationship between Cubby and Roger was sound.

    Oh, I have it and was almost expecting this to come up. It appeared to me that he blamed the belief that he was not asked to return on Cubby's autobiographer as erroneous information. Sir Rog always seemed to me to be an extremely honest man and not a bad sport when things didn't go his way, which is the antithesis of what Pierce appeared exactly to be in that Playboy interview, so I would tend to believe his version of events. What gives his words further creedence is the fact that he also felt that Octopussy was going to be his finale as Bond, and was not expecting for Cubby to ask him to return for AVTAK. At that point, and I am recapping this for those who haven't read it, he and Cubby discussed him returning for TLD (and there is an deleted scene with Dalton that was something right up his kind of comedic alley and gives further weight to his story), but mutually agreed after AVTAK that a new Bond was needed. Contract negotiations, Sir Rog always left that to his agent and tried not to let those disturb his friendship with Cubby.

    We'll never know, of course, if Sir Rog was diplomatically stretching the truth to defuse that gossip, or if Donald Zec or his publisher purposely wrote it to help sell more copies of the book. It's called "When The Snow Falls" and one that's on my list to read one day.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Brosnan's comments from that PB interview are quite interesting. With Brosnan being so popular (the people's choice) and with his films being financial successes, by the time TWINE came about Brosnan should have manned up and fought for better creativity. Connery left on his own terms because he was dissatisfied and had on set disputes with Saltzman and threats about stopping filming if if Harry ever showed up on set, Lazenby had balls from the offset simply by getting the role in the manner that he did and had the audacity to be an egomaniac, which worked in his favour to a certain degree, Moore didnt want to be Connery version 2 as the oroducers initially tried to go for and he was able to negotiate a creative change to change up the character. Dalton wasn't going to take the job unless they went back to grass roots and similarly with Craig, Craig had to be begged to take the role and to be convinced the series was going to be taken and treated a lot more seriously and the man is now pretty much an unofficial producer.

    All the aforementioned actors including Moore never came off as desperate regarding the role of 007 but with Brosnan, it seems to me that, he was more interested in coveting the role than anything else. It's all well and good talking tough in a titty magazine (which I find somewhat ironic) but if Brosnan was that popular with a global audience, his films being such successes and EoN still feeling somewhat stirred and shaken from the 6 year hiatus, I feel Brosnan could have manned up and at least threatened to walk if he didn't get the creative changes he wanted.

    Imo, most of Brosnan's playboy interview is him inadvertedly calling himself out with his own insecurities and masking it with a tough attitude that just comes off as juvenile ranting. I still find him to mostly be a fun Bond to watch but I'm not buying into what he's selling. He had the opportunity for potentially better movies but again, he was too desperate and enamoured with coveting the role above everything else.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    And what about that last comment about The Matador. To me, that's going too far. He shouldn't have said things like that.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 6,396
    Yes I agree with both of you @doubleoego and @Samuel1001. There was just more than a hint of sour grapes on PB's behalf when he was told they would be looking for a new actor for the role.

    I still don't think he's watched TLD after all these years, which prior to '94 I could totally understand given the circumstances to which he missed out on the part at the first time of asking. But since he became Bond, why he's never sat down to watch the film I don't know. He does seem to let ego get in his way quite often.
  • Posts: 135
    Pierce Brosnan was the people's heir apparent; the natural successor to the role. He inventively blended all aspects of his predecessors to perfection. He wasn't new; thus, that was his strongest area. He was the first Bond who brought everything that came before to the table, and provided a verifiable smorgasbord of Bondian delicacies. All couched in his considerable acting chops- a fine Bond indeed.
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 3,494
    doubleoego wrote:
    Brosnan's comments from that PB interview are quite interesting. With Brosnan being so popular (the people's choice) and with his films being financial successes, by the time TWINE came about Brosnan should have manned up and fought for better creativity. Connery left on his own terms because he was dissatisfied and had on set disputes with Saltzman and threats about stopping filming if if Harry ever showed up on set, Lazenby had balls from the offset simply by getting the role in the manner that he did and had the audacity to be an egomaniac, which worked in his favour to a certain degree, Moore didn't want to be Connery version 2 as the producers initially tried to go for and he was able to negotiate a creative change to change up the character. Dalton wasn't going to take the job unless they went back to grass roots and similarly with Craig, Craig had to be begged to take the role and to be convinced the series was going to be taken and treated a lot more seriously and the man is now pretty much an unofficial producer.

    F'n succinctly stated and exactly historically factual. I'd only add that Sean seemed to be pissed off more about not getting his rightful share of profits and feeling cheated that way. Which he was right to feel. I think he blamed both Harry and Cubby for that, as he was equally bitter towards Cubby up until the time they had the deathbed conversation Barb speaks of in "Everything Or Nothing". Plus the loss of privacy with "Bondmania" played into that.

    All the aforementioned actors including Moore never came off as desperate regarding the role of 007 but with Brosnan, it seems to me that, he was more interested in coveting the role than anything else. It's all well and good talking tough in a titty magazine (which I find somewhat ironic) but if Brosnan was that popular with a global audience, his films being such successes and EoN still feeling somewhat stirred and shaken from the 6 year hiatus, I feel Brosnan could have manned up and at least threatened to walk if he didn't get the creative changes he wanted.

    I also have that impression, it was a childhood dream to be Bond and once he had it, he seemed to be too content with the money, notoriety, and increased opportunities to do other films due to his higher profile being an "A lister". That's my main criticism of him past just not being the kind of Bond I prefer regarding his accent and mannerisms. He wasn't a game changer as far as bringing a new element to the role that consistently came across on screen. I saw the growth from GE to TND, and nothing after that. @Richardo seems to think he had acting chops, that I would agree with in other roles but not for Bond, which demands a certain amount of personal creativity that Brosnan left in the hands of EON and their scriptwriters to create for him. Whose fault is that? The apologists will blame it all on someone or something else, exactly as Pierce also does in this interview.

    Imo, most of Brosnan's playboy interview is him inadvertedly calling himself out with his own insecurities and masking it with a tough attitude that just comes off as juvenile ranting. I still find him to mostly be a fun Bond to watch but I'm not buying into what he's selling. He had the opportunity for potentially better movies but again, he was too desperate and enamoured with coveting the role above everything else.

    The Playboy interview makes him a big crybaby in my eyes, juvenile ranting as you've said. After re-reading it, I'm convinced that all his fanboys are in even more denial of his faults than he is. I feel insulted when he says "f**k off" to those who have called him a pretty boy and a wuss. The latter I would not dare to say he was in real life, I don't know the man. But for such a perfect amalgamation of the traits his predecessors brought, here's what I see- I don't see it. He lacks the cold icy stare of a professional assassin and provocateur. I rarely believed he was capable of what Connery and Dalton could do on a consistent basis, convince me he was the stone killer that Fleming saw him as. We get more of the "reluctant" quality from Brosnan. But that's OK, Sir Roger's approach was very similar. Neither were "dangerous" Bonds, although I might be convinced with a little persuasion that those who think he is aren't familiar with the term in a Bondian context. Now we get to the pretty boy side of things. Watch GoldenEye where after a grueling fight with Trevalyan that sees Bean bleeding and bruised, there's hardly a trace of blood nor bruising on Brosnan and somehow, he still looks GQ perfect. Hardly a hair out of place. If any of you have ever been in a knock down, drag out fight you will know that this isn't realistic and acceptable for a Bond film, and borders on cartoonish. Now there's the charm (I swore I wouldn't repeat myself but what the hell). Yes he's fun and charming to a certain degree, but compared to Sir Roger's inimitable brand of that, he lacks there too. So, is Brosnan truly the perfect amalgamation of his predecessors? Well, certainly those who feel he is all that and a big bag of potato chips can think so, they are entitled to their opinion. For the kind of Bond I want to see, he is serviceable and I always credit him for what I feel he truly deserves credit for without fail, but he is FAR from the perfect amalgamation and I'm not so sure his portrayal of a sensitive and emotional kind of Bond doesn't lend to the "wuss" theory. Wiping computer tears and looking dopey in love doesn't help him. He could have never done the Vesper death scene half as well as Craig did it, bringing such a range of emotions in such a brief time. It's not in his skill set and frankly, not many others could have left some men and many women weeping in their theater seats as Craig did. Opportunities to do just that with Paris and Elektra didn't happen.

    Now I'll wait for the fanboys to tell me to "fook off" or defend the indefensible. Like him all you want. But don't expect me to be less than amused at your theories. Again @doubleoego, a fantastic post!


  • Posts: 14,864
    doubleoego wrote:
    Brosnan's comments from that PB interview are quite interesting. With Brosnan being so popular (the people's choice) and with his films being financial successes, by the time TWINE came about Brosnan should have manned up and fought for better creativity. Connery left on his own terms because he was dissatisfied and had on set disputes with Saltzman and threats about stopping filming if if Harry ever showed up on set, Lazenby had balls from the offset simply by getting the role in the manner that he did and had the audacity to be an egomaniac, which worked in his favour to a certain degree, Moore didnt want to be Connery version 2 as the oroducers initially tried to go for and he was able to negotiate a creative change to change up the character. Dalton wasn't going to take the job unless they went back to grass roots and similarly with Craig, Craig had to be begged to take the role and to be convinced the series was going to be taken and treated a lot more seriously and the man is now pretty much an unofficial producer.

    All the aforementioned actors including Moore never came off as desperate regarding the role of 007 but with Brosnan, it seems to me that, he was more interested in coveting the role than anything else. It's all well and good talking tough in a titty magazine (which I find somewhat ironic) but if Brosnan was that popular with a global audience, his films being such successes and EoN still feeling somewhat stirred and shaken from the 6 year hiatus, I feel Brosnan could have manned up and at least threatened to walk if he didn't get the creative changes he wanted.

    Imo, most of Brosnan's playboy interview is him inadvertedly calling himself out with his own insecurities and masking it with a tough attitude that just comes off as juvenile ranting. I still find him to mostly be a fun Bond to watch but I'm not buying into what he's selling. He had the opportunity for potentially better movies but again, he was too desperate and enamoured with coveting the role above everything else.

    This is a really good analysis. I think it was the main problem with Brosnan: he never nailed the role of Bond because he always took it more as an icon than a character. He wanted to play this alpha male icon, he had it, then did not know what to do with it, the only thing he wanted was to keep it. In the Playboy interview, he does come off as a sore loser.
  • Posts: 14,864
    Little observation here: ever noticed that Brosnan is the Bond that used most heavy artillery? He used machine guns more than his Walther PPK! Sometimes he almost seem like Rambo's British cousin in a tux. Even his cars were the most armed. Maybe it was a way to compensate his lack of menace. It didn't always work.
  • Ludovico wrote:
    Maybe it was a way to compensate his lack of menace.

    I think it's more down to the fact that it was the 90s.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 908
    Ludovico wrote:
    Maybe it was a way to compensate his lack of menace.

    I think it's more down to the fact that it was the 90s.

    Yeah, that nails it!
    For the lack of menace they had the non shaven look in GE.
  • Posts: 135
    This is true. Listen to Martin Campbell's commentary on the Ultimate Edition DVD disc.
  • Posts: 14,864
    Ludovico wrote:
    Maybe it was a way to compensate his lack of menace.

    I think it's more down to the fact that it was the 90s.

    Dalton did not use a machine gun as far as I remember and he was in the 80s.
Sign In or Register to comment.