Was Brosnan "short changed" during his Stint?

13

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,728
    Ludovico wrote:
    Chrisisall is certainly getting on my nerves now, I am struggling to remain civil. I think it is fair to say that he has been patronizing.

    Please try to rise above it, @Ludovico. You are highly valued as a member here, so don't fall into any traps.
  • Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    I think that there's a lot of ignorant revisionism going on regarding the Brosnan era currently as it's the "in" thing to do it would seem in the Craig era. Perhaps the time for the criticism of Craig will come after his day as Bond too. I see a pattern emerging,,,

    :)) Criticism of Craig has been ongoing before he even started filming, where have you been all the time! Yes he's popular enough now but as has been discussed on other threads, name one Bond other than Lazenby that got blistered like Craig has? Smear websites to start, and even worse for Craig due to the internet and many more television and media outlets. If anything, it can only improve for Craig as far as a historical view.

    Let's be fair here. Brosnan had it handed to him on a silver platter, hardly anyone criticized his choice or performances until later when it became obvious to all these "revisionists" that he didn't quite live up to the hype.

    Well in my defence I kind of meant after the praise he mostly currently gets perhaps he will face criticism for some things in his films too in ten to twenty years time,m just as Brosnan is now. Anyone who criticised Craig BEFORE they even saw one frame of film of him as Bond is obviously a contemptible idiot not worth considering in any serious debate. That's what they have DCINB for. Sorry if I missed all that - I suspect that I did so deliberately not to be infected with their disease.

    Fair enough, but I'd be surprised if any new criticisms came up that people haven't already discussed. I'm sure when the next actor comes along it will be in praise of him as being better, but the motivations for that are already obvious.

    Unfortunately, DCINB is now in it's second incarnation. Trust me, you're missing nothing. They eject anyone, immediately, who would dare to say anything positive.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited August 2013 Posts: 17,728
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    I think that there's a lot of ignorant revisionism going on regarding the Brosnan era currently as it's the "in" thing to do it would seem in the Craig era. Perhaps the time for the criticism of Craig will come after his day as Bond too. I see a pattern emerging,,,

    :)) Criticism of Craig has been ongoing before he even started filming, where have you been all the time! Yes he's popular enough now but as has been discussed on other threads, name one Bond other than Lazenby that got blistered like Craig has? Smear websites to start, and even worse for Craig due to the internet and many more television and media outlets. If anything, it can only improve for Craig as far as a historical view.

    Let's be fair here. Brosnan had it handed to him on a silver platter, hardly anyone criticized his choice or performances until later when it became obvious to all these "revisionists" that he didn't quite live up to the hype.

    Well in my defence I kind of meant after the praise he mostly currently gets perhaps he will face criticism for some things in his films too in ten to twenty years time,m just as Brosnan is now. Anyone who criticised Craig BEFORE they even saw one frame of film of him as Bond is obviously a contemptible idiot not worth considering in any serious debate. That's what they have DCINB for. Sorry if I missed all that - I suspect that I did so deliberately not to be infected with their disease.

    Fair enough, but I'd be surprised if any new criticisms came up that people haven't already discussed. I'm sure when the next actor comes along it will be in praise of him as being better, but the motivations for that are already obvious.

    Unfortunately, DCINB is now in it's second incarnation. Trust me, you're missing nothing. They eject anyone, immediately, who would dare to say anything positive.

    Yes, well I suppose that Craig Bond was the first of the real Internet Age. Things weren't as big online back in 1994 when Brosnan was announced as the new Bond. I think this is another, perhaps overlooked (?) factor here.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited August 2013 Posts: 17,687
    Ludovico wrote:
    Chrisisall is certainly getting on my nerves now, I am struggling to remain civil. I think it is fair to say that he has been patronizing.
    I'm just tired of people making little sense in dramatically phrased and/or grammatically incorrect ways...
    NO financially successful major motion picture threatens the end of a franchise, ever.
    If you dislike Brosnan, just say you dislike Brosnan, no need to go to the "almost killed the franchise" stuff. That's the drama thing I'm referring to.
  • Posts: 6,396
    @chrisisall You are not in your English class now and we are not your students, so stop patronising people will you?

    Oh and for the record, I don't disagree with what you are saying. You are correct that DAD did not kill the franchise. I was merely trying to point out that if anyone is going to suggest that it did, then they may as well look towards LTK on the basis that it under performed at the box office!
  • Posts: 14,800
    chrisisall wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Chrisisall is certainly getting on my nerves now, I am struggling to remain civil. I think it is fair to say that he has been patronizing.
    I'm just tired of people making little sense in dramatically phrased and/or grammatically incorrect ways...
    NO financially successful major motion picture threatens the end of a franchise, ever.
    If you dislike Brosnan, just say you dislike Brosnan, no need to go to the "almost killed the franchise" stuff. That's the drama thing I'm referring to.

    I am not being dramatic, I am stating an opinion which I do think is backed up by some evidence. I mentioned earlier that a number of financially successful movies did mark a drop in quality in their respective franchise and contributed to its demise. Batman & Robin WAS financially successful. DAD obviously was not critically panned as the Batman movie, but on the long run it became a subject of ridicule. And I don't praise B&R for the Nolan movies.

    And I do NOT dislike Brosnan. I said that he was overall disappointing. And I don't even think he was the cause of DAD, or even part of what was wrong with the movie. At worst he was symptomatic of what was wrong in the franchise at that time. I said before, and I think on this very thread, that casting him for GE was the right move. I never, ever, ever even implied that he nearly killed the franchise.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited August 2013 Posts: 17,687
    DAD did not kill the franchise. I was merely trying to point out that if anyone is going to suggest that it did, then they may as well look towards LTK on the basis that it under performed at the box office!
    Okay, thanks. I get you now.
    And my foot is off the confrontation accelerator now.
    Ludovico wrote:
    I never, ever, ever even implied that he nearly killed the franchise.
    And, sir, I did not say you did.

    But... this is a little too heated right now, and I can't deny my involvement in the miscommunication.
    I hereby sentence myself to watch Batman & Robin....
    ;)
  • Posts: 6,396
    chrisisall wrote:
    I hereby sentence myself to watch Batman & Robin....
    ;)

    NOBODY deserves that sentence as punishment! ;-)
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 12,837
    @Ludvico It helped the franchise because it gave the producers the kick up the arse they needed, inspiring them to take the Craig films in a drastically different direction.

    It was crap, but it was necessary crap. Without that one crap film we wouldn't be celebrating the great film we got last year.

    Couple that with financial success and the reviews not being bad (just mixed), and you've in no way nearly killed the franchise.

    The only downside is that Brosnan ended up as collateral damage and didn't get the great send off he deserved.
  • Posts: 14,800
    @thelivingroyale-DAD was still unnecessary. A more down to earth Bond had been the subject of talks since way before DAD, Brosnan did mention in the past wanting something akin to FRWL, heck there were elements in TWINE that heralded CR (however flawed TWINE was). They went the complete opposite way with DAD, not only in scope, but in stupidity. And while I could have understood the scope, I cannot excuse the stupidity.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2013 Posts: 12,459
    I think nobody excuses the stupidity and plain awfulness that is much of DAD.
    I think because it was so poorly executed (despite high box office), and criticism did mount, that DAD did force a definite change to a far more realistic, serious, and carefully thought out (minus the obvious winks, too) of the film we got next, Casino Royale.

    If DAD were not so much crap, as @thelivingroyale pointed out, it would not have forced such a strong change so quickly. Brosnan was all for a more serious film. Who are we to say how hard he pushed for changes? Do we really know? I don't think so, unless you were in on the meetings with him and the producers.

    We are all only guessing in hindsight here, but I think probably the next Bond film after DAD would not have been so completely, utterly different than DAD if DAD were even a moderately better film. Nor would CR have been as carefully made. I am so pleased with the Casino Royale we got. I do think the push that came from DAD turning out the way it did, did help CR to be made just the way it was.

    And having said all that, I do say that Brosnan certainly had one more good Bond film left in him and it is a shame he had to go out with DAD. I wanted another fine one from him, closer to TND than TWINE. It could have happened, but as we all know, it didn't and life - and the Bond series - marches on.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    The problem was that Brosnan's personal ambitions for the character - a character he may not have understood fully - clashed with the aims of the Producers. Regardless of opinion, Brosnan is a capable actor and could most certainly have been a definitive 21st Century Bond if he had been afforded the opportunity. Brosnan as a great Bond was only hinted at for the most part, giving solid performances all round but allowing his negativity towards the scripts to creep in to his performance. Short changed is putting it a bit bluntly, but he was definitely given less then he should have been.


    I still rank him above Moore and Lazenby thanks to GoldenEye being exceptional, and TND and TWINE (the latter especially) being effective and well made. DAD is the only major damp squib on his Bond CV, and even Connery has one of those too.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Having read a lot of the reviews for DAD at the time, I remember clearly that it was not panned, most of the review were mainly positive but most stating that it went a bit to far.

    It disapointed me at the time, and that was pretty difficult as I was enamoured with everything Bond at that point.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    DAD was the first (and only) time that I walked out of the theater thinking that they should stop making Bond movies. It wasn't because it was the worst movie I had ever seen. I just felt that the creative spirit behind the franchise had died and I didn't want to witness any more of it. Four years later I was blown away by CR.

    I admit that the change in course was due to fan reaction but I can't agree that DAD was a necessary evil. It's great that they learned from their mistakes but it didn't have to reach rock bottom like that before they decided to make it better. In that regard I do think that Brosnan was short changed.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    chrisisall wrote:
    I hereby sentence myself to watch Batman & Robin....
    ;)

    Nobody should be subjected to B&R @chrisisall! Think of your sanity! :O
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Murdock wrote:
    Nobody should be subjected to B&R @chrisisall! Think of your sanity! :O
    Murdock, I'll let you in on a secret: I own the movie and actually watch it every other year or so- It actually cracks me up (it's so bad it's good).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    chrisisall wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Nobody should be subjected to B&R @chrisisall! Think of your sanity! :O
    Murdock, I'll let you in on a secret: I own the movie and actually watch it every other year or so- It actually cracks me up (it's so bad it's good).
    Fair enough. I watch it when I see a bad reality show. :))

  • edited August 2013 Posts: 19,339
    Brosnan was the necessary choice in 1994.He was VERY popular in the States due to Remington Steele and that is the exact market that EON were looking to exploit,and clearly Dalton wasnt convincing the American public at the time that he could be Bond.

    It had to be Brosnan,it had to be a revamp,it had to be explosive,it had to be witty with Moore-esque oneliners,and Bond had to be back,suave as ever.
    It was a tried and trusted formula and GE had to work or the franchise was finished.

    People can say what they like about Brosnan but it was his star quality that brought in the crowds worldwide,he was a familiar household name,the same as Moore was in 1973,in a very similar situation.

    Brosnan and Moore were very similar and necessary to save the franchise,so for people to say DAD nearly killed the franchise need to look at the amount of revenue it brought in,as with all of Brosnan's Bond films.

    DAD was meant to be an OTT spectacular adventure to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Bond and is still popular with non-Bond enthusiasts as their idea of a Bond film .

    Brosnan needs a bit more respect on here...mind you it has always been this way since i joined 7 years ago !!


  • Posts: 14,800
    Brosnan was necessary and part of the success of GE no doubt about that. But I'm not sure many non Bond fans enjoy DAD.
  • 002002
    edited August 2013 Posts: 581
    barryt007 wrote:
    Brosnan was the necessary choice in 1994.He was VERY popular in the States due to Remington Steele and that is the exact market that EON were looking to exploit,and clearly Dalton wasnt convincing the American public at the time that he could be Bond.

    It had to be Brosnan,it had to be a revamp,it had to be explosive,it had to be witty with Moore-esque oneliners,and Bond had to be back,suave as ever.
    It was a tried and trusted formula and GE had to work or the franchise was finished.

    People can say what they like about Brosnan but it was his star quality that brought in the crowds worldwide,he was a familiar household name,the same as Moore was in 1973,in a very similar situation.

    Brosnan and Moore were very similar and necessary to save the franchise,so for people to say DAD nearly killed the franchise need to look at the amount of revenue it brought in,as with all of Brosnan's Bond films.

    DAD was meant to be an OTT spectacular adventure to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Bond and is still popular with non-Bond enthusiasts as their idea of a Bond film .

    Brosnan needs a bit more respect on here...mind you it has always been this way since i joined 7 years ago !!


    Agreed completely i have never seen a forum dedicated to bashing brosnan more than this website..
  • Brosnan got paid handsomely for being Bond. He wasn't shortchanged; we were.

    As for 'killing the franchise' I'd agree with that, but it's not meant literally. Sure, it was a big hit. It's just that creatively, once you have invisible cars and naff CGI, there's nowhere else to go, you can't turn back the clock. Yes, MR you could say was a tad similar - but only DAD killed the presumed timeline so that only a reboot was viable, starting from scratch. Admittedly I guess I'm factoring in the sheer hate that DAD amassed from fans since its release, which makes the 'killing franchise' stance a bit stronger.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I get the feeling that MR had/has it's lovers and haters, DAD seems to be universally derided!?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I get the feeling that MR had/has it's lovers and haters, DAD seems to be universally derided!?
    Well, I can't really watch MR, I CAN watch DAD however...
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @002- at least we're not trying to deny his very existence in here. And what you deem as "bashing" are usually fair criticisms and opinions that people are entitled to have. My biggest problem with his era was his last two films, not so much him because I like GE and TND a lot and thought he did very well in TND. He really didn't have a whole lot to work with at times and has had a better career outside of the series. But his exit comments in Playboy tend to illustrate a different side of him, and what his attitude was, that give those of us who were lukewarm to his portrayal plenty of valid criticisms that some of his ardent supporters seem to too easily dismiss.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 6,396
    002 wrote:
    barryt007 wrote:
    Brosnan was the necessary choice in 1994.He was VERY popular in the States due to Remington Steele and that is the exact market that EON were looking to exploit,and clearly Dalton wasnt convincing the American public at the time that he could be Bond.

    It had to be Brosnan,it had to be a revamp,it had to be explosive,it had to be witty with Moore-esque oneliners,and Bond had to be back,suave as ever.
    It was a tried and trusted formula and GE had to work or the franchise was finished.

    People can say what they like about Brosnan but it was his star quality that brought in the crowds worldwide,he was a familiar household name,the same as Moore was in 1973,in a very similar situation.

    Brosnan and Moore were very similar and necessary to save the franchise,so for people to say DAD nearly killed the franchise need to look at the amount of revenue it brought in,as with all of Brosnan's Bond films.

    DAD was meant to be an OTT spectacular adventure to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Bond and is still popular with non-Bond enthusiasts as their idea of a Bond film .

    Brosnan needs a bit more respect on here...mind you it has always been this way since i joined 7 years ago !!


    Agreed completely i have never seen a forum dedicated to bashing brosnan more than this website..

    I disagree. It's not Brosnan that gets a kicking on here, it's the films that are pretty disliked (with the exception of GE perhaps). I think most members here agree that it's not his fault the other films were poorly written. In fact he's pretty much the only reason I watch TND, TWINE and DAD (which is regarded as crap because it is crap).

    You should head over to dcinb.com. You'll find Craig gets more of a battering on there then Brosnan does on here.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    his exit comments in Playboy tend to illustrate a different side of him, and what his attitude was, that give those of us who were lukewarm to his portrayal plenty of valid criticisms that some of his ardent supporters seem to too easily dismiss.
    Sir Henry, if I let my enjoyment of Bond in the movies be affected by how much I would enjoy hanging out with the actors, I'm afraid I'd only watch the Moore films...
  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    barryt007 wrote:
    Brosnan was the necessary choice in 1994.He was VERY popular in the States due to Remington Steele and that is the exact market that EON were looking to exploit,and clearly Dalton wasnt convincing the American public at the time that he could be Bond.

    It had to be Brosnan,it had to be a revamp,it had to be explosive,it had to be witty with Moore-esque oneliners,and Bond had to be back,suave as ever.
    It was a tried and trusted formula and GE had to work or the franchise was finished.

    People can say what they like about Brosnan but it was his star quality that brought in the crowds worldwide,he was a familiar household name,the same as Moore was in 1973,in a very similar situation.

    Brosnan and Moore were very similar and necessary to save the franchise,so for people to say DAD nearly killed the franchise need to look at the amount of revenue it brought in,as with all of Brosnan's Bond films.

    DAD was meant to be an OTT spectacular adventure to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Bond and is still popular with non-Bond enthusiasts as their idea of a Bond film .

    Brosnan needs a bit more respect on here...mind you it has always been this way since i joined 7 years ago !!


    I couldn't agree more on this topic ! Thank you for showing DAD's strengths and usefulness in the franchise. And definitely more respect for Pierce Brosnan.
  • Posts: 14,800
    @002- at least we're not trying to deny his very existence in here. And what you deem as "bashing" are usually fair criticisms and opinions that people are entitled to have. My biggest problem with his era was his last two films, not so much him because I like GE and TND a lot and thought he did very well in TND. He really didn't have a whole lot to work with at times and has had a better career outside of the series. But his exit comments in Playboy tend to illustrate a different side of him, and what his attitude was, that give those of us who were lukewarm to his portrayal plenty of valid criticisms that some of his ardent supporters seem to too easily dismiss.

    Brosnan did act like a prima dona in this interview and he does deserve criticism for it. I think no other Bond actor clung on the role as much as he did.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    chrisisall wrote:
    his exit comments in Playboy tend to illustrate a different side of him, and what his attitude was, that give those of us who were lukewarm to his portrayal plenty of valid criticisms that some of his ardent supporters seem to too easily dismiss.
    Sir Henry, if I let my enjoyment of Bond in the movies be affected by how much I would enjoy hanging out with the actors, I'm afraid I'd only watch the Moore films...

    What are you referring to here? It sailed over my head.

    To be honest, I like the Moore films better. I rate FYEO and LALD higher than GE and TND- and MR over DAD. But the latter is like comparing Limburger and Fomunda cheese ;)

    @Willy- like I've said ad nauseum, Brozzer gets more of a fair shake here because at the very least we don't throw his fans out the door for defending what they like about him.

  • Posts: 6,396
    I would love to see someone come on here and passionately defend DAD because as far as I'm concerned, the had jury delivered their verdict, the judge had passed sentence and the executioner carried out the necessary capital punishment!
Sign In or Register to comment.