Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1474850525360

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    bondjames wrote: »
    I joke about PB too, and I don't intend to be nasty either, but I really think they did give him some opportunity to show his acting chops....particularly in TWINE. I was certainly not impressed (far from it actually) in this instance, although I'm sure others may have been.

    So it's not all down to scripts, although they were pretty poor during his tenure.

    I think it begs the question if Brosnan ever felt he REALLY needed to push himself because the scripts were mediocre anyway, there was no real competition to the series for EoN to sit up and check themselves, Brosnan was just happy to be running around as Bond, audiences loved him and it's not as though the man is a ****** actor. He knew his films weren't Connery-era good, so maybe he just thought, "screw it, I'm Bond, I'm famous, I'm getting paid. It's a good gig" and just rolled with it, much to the frustration of some Bond fans.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I joke about PB too, and I don't intend to be nasty either, but I really think they did give him some opportunity to show his acting chops....particularly in TWINE. I was certainly not impressed (far from it actually) in this instance, although I'm sure others may have been.

    So it's not all down to scripts, although they were pretty poor during his tenure.

    I think it begs the question if Brosnan ever felt he REALLY needed to push himself because the scripts were mediocre anyway, there was no real competition to the series for EoN to sit up and check themselves, Brosnan was just happy to be running around as Bond, audiences loved him and it's not as though the man is a ****** actor. He knew his films weren't Connery-era good, so maybe he just thought, "screw it, I'm Bond, I'm famous, I'm getting paid. It's a good gig" and just rolled with it, much to the frustration of some Bond fans.
    That's certainly possible. One will never really know what dynamics were at play with EON/MGM etc. during that time. I heard he wanted something harder edged but never quite got it..... It's telling that he now says that he recalls GE and the rest are a blur to him....meaning he does feel that one was his best for whatever reason.

    He definitely levered his Bond fandom for more lucrative gigs and even his own production company, so at the end of the day it worked out well for him financially.

    Bottom line though - I think that he could have elevated TWINE with his own performance if he wanted to (despite the mediocre direction), and I personally don't think he did.

    I'm curious to see what performance Campbell gets out of him in his new Jackie Chan starrer.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I joke about PB too, and I don't intend to be nasty either, but I really think they did give him some opportunity to show his acting chops....particularly in TWINE. I was certainly not impressed (far from it actually) in this instance, although I'm sure others may have been.

    So it's not all down to scripts, although they were pretty poor during his tenure.

    I think it begs the question if Brosnan ever felt he REALLY needed to push himself because the scripts were mediocre anyway, there was no real competition to the series for EoN to sit up and check themselves, Brosnan was just happy to be running around as Bond, audiences loved him and it's not as though the man is a ****** actor. He knew his films weren't Connery-era good, so maybe he just thought, "screw it, I'm Bond, I'm famous, I'm getting paid. It's a good gig" and just rolled with it, much to the frustration of some Bond fans.
    That's certainly possible. One will never really know what dynamics were at play with EON/MGM etc. during that time. I heard he wanted something harder edged but never quite got it..... It's telling that he now says that he recalls GE and the rest are a blur to him....meaning he does feel that one was his best for whatever reason.

    He definitely levered his Bond fandom for more lucrative gigs and even his own production company, so at the end of the day it worked out well for him financially.

    Bottom line though - I think that he could have elevated TWINE with his own performance if he wanted to (despite the mediocre direction), and I personally don't think he did.

    I'm curious to see what performance Campbell gets out of him in his new Jackie Chan starrer.

    It's interesting to wonder if had he ended up been Bond in The Living Daylights whether he would have taken on a more hard-edged take on the role a la Dalton.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    doubleoego wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I joke about PB too, and I don't intend to be nasty either, but I really think they did give him some opportunity to show his acting chops....particularly in TWINE. I was certainly not impressed (far from it actually) in this instance, although I'm sure others may have been.

    So it's not all down to scripts, although they were pretty poor during his tenure.

    I think it begs the question if Brosnan ever felt he REALLY needed to push himself because the scripts were mediocre anyway, there was no real competition to the series for EoN to sit up and check themselves, Brosnan was just happy to be running around as Bond, audiences loved him and it's not as though the man is a ****** actor. He knew his films weren't Connery-era good, so maybe he just thought, "screw it, I'm Bond, I'm famous, I'm getting paid. It's a good gig" and just rolled with it, much to the frustration of some Bond fans.
    The thing with this is, I don't think Pierce would have pushed or tried to force EON to change things. He wanted to be Bond for so long and finally got his dream job, He may not have wanted to bite the hand that fed him so to speak.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    @Murdock, yeah that wouldn't surprise me and it's something I have often thought to be the case. Still, he got to fulfill a dream that at one point slipped through his fingers.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 725
    Comments in here and Tarantino's about Brosnan doing CR have always been wacky to me. The strength of CR is that it was not only genuine Fleming, but it was the first book, the origins story, that required a young film bond to be at all credible. The entire story of CR would have had to be rewritten to accommodate a Bond pushing 50. Brosnan's latter scripts were getting more and more camp while the spy film world was getting more competition and EON needed to toughen up their Bond. When Eon finally got the rights to CR, it simply was logical to reboot with a younger actor, who was also to be blunt about it, a better actor. Brosnan is obviously still bitter about it, but he also appeared to never get aggressive with EON over toughening up his scripts, the way Craig consistently has for better or worse. Brosnan was content to be a Bond movie star, Craig, and I'd guess Dalton not so much.

    Some in here have noted that everyone is entitled to an opinion about SP. all of us posters sure are, but we have the impact of a pig's fart. Even the press are just doing what they are paid to write no matter how wrong headed or right. But when you are only one of a handfull of ex-bonds, slagging off on a new film a week in, it comes off as vindictive. Comments by other Bonds were always well out of opening range, and none of their comments had the endless net impact today's comments have, particularly negative ones. Have always liked Brosnan the person, but lost respect for him over the timing of his digs at SP. Also, his comment about it maybe being Bourne like was just dumb, SP was totally un Bourne like. It's why some, who wanted SF2, hated it.
  • Posts: 1,296
    I'm sad that Dalton has to leave for Brosnan to make his entrance but Pierce is worth his weight in gold and theat weight only went up with each movie he made. Why not make two films at once with each of them?
  • Posts: 533
    There was nothing wrong with Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond. He was just fine. It has always been traditional with many Bond fans to bash the previous Bond. Roger Moore went through the same crap, when Dalton was Bond. And Dalton went through the same when Brosnan was Bond. This little tradition is really getting annoying.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Just wait until Craig leaves & a new era with a new Bond begin. He will get bashed just as much as Brosnan.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Unless they accidentally get another nut like lazenby then we can just bash him
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,790
    Unless they accidentally get another nut like lazenby then we can just bash him

    I don't agree. Lazenby got bashed because he wasn't Connery. The situation is different now. The new one is always "the best since Connery" and his predecessor usually gets a bad rap.

    By the general public that is. Fans and the more wiser critics will always acknowledge how every actor brought something different to the role.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Brosnan ticks a lot of boxes as Bond, but perhaps it was the combination of excessively high expectations for him and the fact that he was given such shoddy material to work with that makes people think less of him now.

    Pierce doesn't deserve the hate at all, IMO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Brosnan ticks a lot of boxes as Bond, but perhaps it was the combination of excessively high expectations for him and the fact that he was given such shoddy material to work with that makes people think less of him now.
    Only speaking for myself, if he had ended on a higher note than his last two (which I rank as the bottom of the barrel), then I would have had a higher impression of him. He didn't have the greatest material to work with, true, but he never elevated the material he was given either, at least not in my view. I always felt that Moore/Connery/Craig did that.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    I don't see Moore Connery or Craig elevating Die Another Day.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    Murdock wrote: »
    I don't see Moore Connery or Craig elevating Die Another Day.

    Anyone else who could, then?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    Murdock wrote: »
    I don't see Moore Connery or Craig elevating Die Another Day.

    Anyone else who could, then?
    I could elevate it. The amount of absurdities of the film combined with my strange sense of humor, It would be interesting. :))
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I don't see Moore Connery or Craig elevating Die Another Day.

    Anyone else who could, then?

    No one. Brosnan did as well as could be done in the part.

    You are a scholar and a gentleman sir.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited December 2015 Posts: 1,727
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I don't see Moore Connery or Craig elevating Die Another Day.

    Anyone else who could, then?

    No one. Brosnan did as well as could be done in the part.

    You are a scholar and a gentleman sir.

    Disagree. GE and TWINE saw him struggle, for different reasons. A more refined actor would have done more with those roles.
    Only in TND and DAD did he give solid performances, incidentally the two most tongue-in cheek & hammy of the post 80's Bond films.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    Pierce is the Best Bond so no he wasn't bad at all.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    I thought his performance in GE was fine, really.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    I thought his performance in GE was fine, really.
    I thought it was exquisite. :)>-
  • Posts: 11,189
    Murdock wrote: »
    I thought his performance in GE was fine, really.
    I thought it was exquisite. :)>-

    I like his performance in GE overall, but you can tell at times how aware he is of the role's expectations. Look at his expression during the bar scene with Zukovsky, especially the moment when he says "call it professional courtesy". He looks very self conscious and nervous (I think that was one of the first scenes they shot). Martin Campbell says in the audio commentary that it took a few takes to get the performance during the "Lienz Cossack" scene.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Murdock wrote: »
    I thought his performance in GE was fine, really.
    I thought it was exquisite. :)>-

    No, apparent in the scenes with Sean Bean, bean acts him off the screen. First time I watched GE I was like why is Sean bean not Bond instead?!.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Brosnan is great, there can be no debate. If you want you can slate, but that's on YOU, mate. All I'll now state is I wish he made eight.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Brosnan is great, there can be no debate. If you want you can slate, but that's on YOU, mate. All I'll now state is I wish he made eight.

    Rhyming now won't improve Brosser's performances, I'm afraid :>

    A valiant effort, however.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    AceHole wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Brosnan is great, there can be no debate. If you want you can slate, but that's on YOU, mate. All I'll now state is I wish he made eight.

    Rhyming now won't improve Brosser's performances, I'm afraid :>

    A valiant effort, however.
    I 'Dr. Suessed' it for the juvies.
    ;)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Sean Bean would have made for a better Bond for me too but let's not forget, the Brosnan era after GE were carelessly produced.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    For the record - I do not 'hate' Brosnan as Bond, or the man himself, and I don't think all his films are awful. Just most of them.

    No, seriously, the majority of his 007 outings are passable- to decent entries. There is just something about them that somehow lacks 'the magic'. What is it about the Brosnan era that makes the films feel so... generic? I can’t quite put my finger on it, it puzzles me.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    AceHole wrote: »
    What is it about the Brosnan era that makes the films feel so... generic? I can’t quite put my finger on it, it puzzles me.
    It was the 90's. A lot of movies from that era were trying to outdo the 80's whilst still evolving... this led to films of wildly uneven tone. Look at True Lies- a silly comedy? An adventure? And of course that affected the Bonds made subsequently since it was a thinly veiled Bond movie itself and another Cameron hit.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Murdock wrote: »
    I thought his performance in GE was fine, really.
    I thought it was exquisite. :)>-
    With regard to Bean "acting Broz off the screen" Im not entirely sure about that. Bean's "finish the job James...blow them all to hell" delivery is questionable.

    No, apparent in the scenes with Sean Bean, bean acts him off the screen. First time I watched GE I was like why is Sean bean not Bond instead?!.
Sign In or Register to comment.