›

Was Brosnan "short changed" during his Stint?

OHMSS69OHMSS69
edited October 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 2,341
For a popular actor and one whose casting was received to thuderous applause his movies actually "stink". He had the misfortune of playing in some badly written films. Maybe he was trying too hard given the material he had to work with. Weak villians, horrible women (save for Electra King) and just being hampered by a production team that was intent on "playing it safe".
I must confess I was never a Brosnan fan and would have preferred to see Dalton continue (at least for two more films). Goldeneye showed some promise but TND and the others all just fell flat. DND should be ranked along with Moonrake and DAF as the worst of the franchise.
The Bond movies that actually took a chance and stepped out are actually very very good. (OHMSS, LTK, CR)
«134

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    For a popular actor and one whose casting was received to thuderous applause his movies actually "stink". He had the misfortune of playing in some badly written films. Maybe he was trying too hard given the material he had to work with. Weak villians, horrible women (save for Electra King) and just being hampered by a production team that was intent on "playing it safe".
    I must confess I was never a Brosnan fan and would have preferred to see Dalton continue (at least for two more films). Goldeneye showed some promise but TND and the others all just fell flat. DND should be ranked along with Moonrake and DAF as the worst of the franchise.
    The Bond movies that actually took a chance and stepped out are actually very very good. (OHMSS, LTK, CR)
    I think Natalya knocks Elektra out of her socks, and I definitely believe Brosnan got screwed over. It is sad that he loved playing Bond so much he wasn't aware of the failure the series had and the nails in the coffin after DAD. Poor Pierce never thought EON would shoo him out like he was never there to begin with. Do that to Craig EON, and we'll have some problems.

    P.S. You may want to spellcheck your Bond titles.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Forgot about Natalya...
    fun piece of trivia: Brosnan is the only Bond actor who was actually "let go" [fired]
    the others all quit on their own....just FYI
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Interesting take. Pierce definitely was shown the door rather unceremoniously and it definitely wasn't entirely his fault. As Bond actors go, it is harder for me to decide who was worse, Pierce or Lazenby. I'd have to go with Pierce unfortunately, because he was supposed to be an actor and we all know Lazenby was not.

    Izzy is definitely a good looking woman, but I'll take Sophie in a mega heartbeat. Famke Janssen too. I'm a sucker for a woman who smokes cigars B-)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited October 2011 Posts: 28,694
    Forgot about Natalya...
    fun piece of trivia: Brosnan is the only Bond actor who was actually "let go" [fired]
    the others all quit on their own....just FYI
    Obviously he was let go. What about my post alluded to any confusion on the suspect? And FYI every Bond fan knows that trivia backwards and forwards.

    And how could you forget this:

    image
    image
    image
    image

    You're welcome. ;-)
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    My bad. seems that the hottest Bond girls are the ones who are International unknowns. Look at the well known American Actresses who fell flat (Terri Hatcher, Denise Richards, Halle Berry) the "unknowns" who played opposite them fanned better
    Michele Yeow
    Sophie Roseau(sp?)
    Brit who played Miranda Frost (her name escapes me)
    These actresses all showed up the bigger named actress opposite them.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited October 2011 Posts: 13,894
    I don't think it's a case of Brosnan trying too hard, but Brosnan not trying enough. If his scripts were that bad, what was stopping him from rising above such an ostacle with his acting? That's what a better actor would've done.

    And I think Dalton should have done easily another 3 (1991, 1993 & 1995), before handing over the role to say.... James Purefoy.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    My bad. seems that the hottest Bond girls are the ones who are International unknowns. Look at the well known American Actresses who fell flat (Terri Hatcher, Denise Richards, Halle Berry) the "unknowns" who played opposite them fanned better
    Michele Yeow
    Sophie Roseau(sp?)
    Brit who played Miranda Frost (her name escapes me)
    These actresses all showed up the bigger named actress opposite them.
    It's Sophie Marceau and Frost was played by Rosamund Pike.
    I don't think it's a case of Brosnan trying too hard, but Brosnan not trying enough. If his scripts were that bad, what was stopping him from rising above such an ostacle with his acting? That's what a better actor would've done.
    Like I said. Brosnan was so in love with playing the role he never thought he would be let go. He loved playing Bond too much and fell blind to the shortcomings of the films, of which weren't all completely his fault.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    Like I said. Brosnan was so in love with playing the role he never thought he would be let go. He loved playing Bond too much and fell blind to the shortcomings of the films, of which weren't all completely his fault.
    No, but not having an idea of where to go with the role was. To think we could have had that in 1987. Coupled with a baby-faced Brosnan. X_X
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Like I said. Brosnan was so in love with playing the role he never thought he would be let go. He loved playing Bond too much and fell blind to the shortcomings of the films, of which weren't all completely his fault.
    No, but not having an idea of where to go with the role was. To think we could have had that in 1987. Coupled with a baby-faced Brosnan. X_X
    Or a pain-faced Brosnan in all actuality. :-))
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    "Short changed"? I wouldn't say so. Brosnan had 4 opportunities to prove himself as bond and, while I enjoy GoldenEye on many levels, he failed.

    I would say Dalton is the only Bond actor that I would say was "short chaged" because his opportunities to carve out a fulfilling 007 legacy were cut short by a long period of legal actions.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    He was about as shortchanged as DC is getting it. The current EON administartion somehow fails to deliver decent movies. While Brosnan walks away with 3 1/2 pretty decent movie DC doesn't get any further than 3/4 decent movie (the last act of CR is bloody awefull; QoS might have been a good idea was poorly executed in every aspect). I hope for DC that Bond23 will give him a decent movie otherwise I would walk If I were him.
    And Lazenby shortchanged himself walking away from the franchise, his one effort shows so much promise that in a sense I can only think of him as a dickhead, But his one Bondmovie is easily one of the best ever made.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    It's fair to say OHMSS was regarded a success due more to all other elements involved rather than Lazenby himself, many have said 'wooden appearance', OK, George wasn't to everybodys liking but that film had a certain magic and remains a nostalgic favorite to a number of both neutrals and Bond enthusiasts alike

    Dalton simply stepped down from the role in 1994 after years of legal wranglings

    Brosnan had a good run out, four films as 007, hardly a bad innings was it, I don't believe he said which one was his best to be involved in, I'd imagine Goldeneye for arguments sake. My own best Brosnan was The World is not Enough, he seems a little more focused here and seemed a bit out of sorts in TND. Die Another Day is generally viewed as a bit of a letdown but you can't just put all the blame for that on the Irishmans shoulders, he did what he could with what he was given, it's other aspects of the release that brought it down
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    i feel no shred of sympathy towards Brosnan... did he get the short end of the stick with the writing? sure... but he knew what he was getting himself into with each film - it's not like he was just shown the script the day they start principal photography.....

    sorry, thems the breaks.... in the end he made his money - who cares lol.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Brosnan made his money alright

    $38,000,000 from his four films :O

    Should keep him in Guinness for a few years anyway
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited October 2011 Posts: 4,399
    wasn't his contract for Die Another Day $30 million?... I could be off, but since his intial 3 film contract was up, they had to renegotiate a new contract for his fourth - and back then, I thought I remember hearing that it was worth $30 million.

    EDIT**

    Nevermind, his salary was $16 million for DAD
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    As far I can make out he was paid $16M for his last Bond, which was quite a rise from the £1,300,000 salary from Goldeneye, probably equates to something Connery asked for back in '71 when he came back for Diamonds, damn lot of money which ever way you look at it

    It's worth noting also that Brosnan was 'officially the lightest Bond' during filming of Goldeneye, and had become 'the heaviest Bond' by time of Die Another Day

    Enough Brosnan statistics for one night I think
  • VijayGaloreVijayGalore
    edited August 2013 Posts: 78
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    It's worth noting also that Brosnan was 'officially the lightest Bond' during filming of Goldeneye, and had become 'the heaviest Bond' by time of Die Another Day

    Enough Brosnan statistics for one night I think
    Isn't this a bit of a superificial criticism, surely? :-W I am not so sure it is worth noting at all?
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,400
    I've always been of the opinion that Dalton should've done them up to at LEAST TND (with Pam replacing Paris to make the "former Bond girl" thing actually have weight with the audience) and could've done them up to DAD. Brosnan's not a great actor, and Bond is the best way of seeing that. He had fantastic material (GoldenEye) that was made poor by him, had capable bits in the scripts that followed that he did nothing with, and had terrible material that, if he was a good actor, would've at least managed to work with.
  • Skyfall007silvaSkyfall007silva
    Posts: 121
    I think Brosnan is was extremely short changed. He had great material with Goldeneye, and look what he did there. I feel as though, despite having to pull through generic ideas, repeated and recycled plot lines, incompetent script writers and amateur directing, Brosnan carried each film, actually making them work for the most. He truly does capture an image of Bond, and he did want to push the envelope, he understood the character, and wanted it grounded in reality. However, I will just surmise and say, I don't think the producers wanted to take a cash cow into murky waters. Why risk it?
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533



    I have no problems with Brosnan as Bond. Nor did I have any problems with his movies, aside from "TOMORROW NEVER DIES".

    I will bet anything that once a new actor replaces Daniel Craig as Bond, fans will be making similar comments about how the actor was "short changed" during his tenure. People are so fickle.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Skyfall007silva wrote:
    However, I will just surmise and say, I don't think the producers wanted to take a cash cow into murky waters. Why risk it?
    I think that certainly was a part of it. You can definitely see their growing pains during the Brosnan era before they finally hit their stride with Casino Royale.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Not really. He did exactly the right amount of films his talent would allow.
  • LeighBurneLeighBurne
    Posts: 57
    I was never really a fan of Brosnan to be honest. That's not to say I hate him, I just don't rate him as 007. He seemed way too egotistical. GoldenEye was brilliant, but things went quickly downhill from then on (although I admit I enjoy Tomorrow Never Dies, but then it was my first Bond movie in an actual cinema).

    I guess he got short changed in that every one of his movies was noticeably worse than the one before. That's not a good trend to have.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,830
    He was not short changed. No Bond actor had it as good as he did when he was cast, before the film even started shooting. The producers wanted Brosnan. The public wanted Brosnan. Brosnan wanted Brosnan. If things went wrong afterwards he is not the only one to blame, but he was borderline plebiscited in the role.
  • Bertha_widehips420Bertha_widehips420
    Posts: 19
    Noooo way. His salaries were more than up to snuff. And everything else is gravy...
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533


    If things went wrong afterwards he is not the only one to blame, but he was borderline plebiscited in the role.


    Exactly what went wrong? You're all acting as if you're the last word on the Brosnan films. If you didn't like them, fine. But just because you didn't like them, doesn't mean they were complete failures. There are plenty of Bond fans out there who enjoyed his films. I can say the same about all of the Bond movies.

    Saying that you didn't like these movies or this Bond actor is one thing. But to make some overall judgment that Brosnan's tenure was a failure or that the actor was "short change" . . . as if this was fact strikes me as ridiculous and a little arrogant. I despise Bond movies like "SKYFALL" and "GOLDFINGER". At least I know they were among the most successful in the franchise.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,830
    DRush76 wrote:

    If things went wrong afterwards he is not the only one to blame, but he was borderline plebiscited in the role.


    Exactly what went wrong? You're all acting as if you're the last word on the Brosnan films. If you didn't like them, fine. But just because you didn't like them, doesn't mean they were complete failures. There are plenty of Bond fans out there who enjoyed his films. I can say the same about all of the Bond movies.

    Saying that you didn't like these movies or this Bond actor is one thing. But to make some overall judgment that Brosnan's tenure was a failure or that the actor was "short change" . . . as if this was fact strikes me as ridiculous and a little arrogant. I despise Bond movies like "SKYFALL" and "GOLDFINGER". At least I know they were among the most successful in the franchise.

    I don't think Brosnan's tenure was a failure. But it ended up in disappointment. GE was a very strong first movie, TND was lesser but he got better in it, much more comfortable in the role, then TWINE was flawed but I think still good, and it went to the bottom in DAD, which nearly killed the franchise. Things did went wrong, Brosnan himself said he had bad script, that he didn't nail the role completely, etc. I still think he was the right choice for Bond in GE and Dalton, for all his qualities, had to go. But that does not mean Brosnan's tenure was all fine and dandy.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited August 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Deserved a better send off than DAD but I'm fine with his first three as they are. I thought GE and TWINE were great films and TND was fun, if a bit generic.
    DRush76 wrote:
    Exactly what went wrong? You're all acting as if you're the last word on the Brosnan films. If you didn't like them, fine. But just because you didn't like them, doesn't mean they were complete failures. There are plenty of Bond fans out there who enjoyed his films. I can say the same about all of the Bond movies.

    Saying that you didn't like these movies or this Bond actor is one thing. But to make some overall judgment that Brosnan's tenure was a failure or that the actor was "short change" . . . as if this was fact strikes me as ridiculous and a little arrogant.

    Well said.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Ludovico wrote:
    it went to the bottom in DAD, which nearly killed the franchise.
    That's funny, I thought it was one of the higher grossing Bond films...

    Truth is, he WAS popular, ALL the way to the end of his tenure. His films made money. Brosnan was good for Bond.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Brosnan's films made money, so that part of his tenure can be considered successful. The rest is entirely personal opinion, to which my opinion is lukewarm at best.
Sign In or Register to comment.