Jump to content


Photo

Here's to Pierce Brosnan.


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#31 Lucky

Lucky

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 25 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:47 PM

Here's to Pierce Brosnan indeed. Whenever I think of Bond, he's who I picture. He's who got me into the franchise, the star of my favorite Bond movie (GoldenEye) and my favorite of all the Bonds. Not that I don't love what Craig's done, I think his more serious Bond works splendidly, but I loved Brosnan's films too, and the delight he took in his own prowess was always fun to watch. While Die Another Day certainly had some over the top elements, there was a lot in it I liked, such as the darker opening. i wish Brosnan had had one more Bond film, but 4 is a good run, and this fan will always be grateful for his contribution to the franchise.



#32 DaltonCraig

DaltonCraig

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 182 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:29 PM

I celebrate all the Bonds, but Brosnan's films have absolutely no appeal. I understand Goldeneye may have been the first 007 film for a lot of people so I am sure their is a great fondness for their first Bond, but I am so glad Brosnan is gone. I never understood the appeal of his performance in Goldeneye, which is a weak, mugging self-aware performance trying to play it safe and stay between the lines. The fact that Martin Campbell made the far superior Casino Royale with a different actor tells us a lot. 

 

Brosnan has MGM for ratcheting up their marketing approach for his Bond films (and the films that follow) after they undersold and half-assed the marketing of the mid-to-late 80s films. 

 

While 007, Brosnan seemed only motivated by the prospect of stardom and brought absolutely nothing to the role except his own "celebrity" appeal to the average TV-watching, Wal-mart shopper. "Die Another Day" is the series low-point because it's only ambition was commercial appeal, robbing his films of any substance.

 

The World is Not Enough is a complete mess as well. I suppose "Tomorrow Never Dies" is his best film because it moves so fast you can't get too mired in how badly the series had evolved. 



#33 Iceskater101

Iceskater101

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2398 posts
  • Location:Midwest, MN

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:45 PM

Ouch.. I loved Goldeneye and it's my favorite Brosnan film. I think Die Another Day was one of the worst James Bond movies.



#34 Trevelyan 006

Trevelyan 006

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 820 posts
  • Location:Antenna Cradle

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:54 PM

I celebrate all the Bonds, but Brosnan's films have absolutely no appeal.

 

To each their own, I suppose. 



#35 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9046 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:00 AM

I celebrate all the Bonds, but Brosnan's films have absolutely no appeal. I understand Goldeneye may have been the first 007 film for a lot of people so I am sure their is a great fondness for their first Bond, but I am so glad Brosnan is gone. I never understood the appeal of his performance in Goldeneye, which is a weak, mugging self-aware performance trying to play it safe and stay between the lines. The fact that Martin Campbell made the far superior Casino Royale with a different actor tells us a lot. 

 

Brosnan has MGM for ratcheting up their marketing approach for his Bond films (and the films that follow) after they undersold and half-assed the marketing of the mid-to-late 80s films. 

 

While 007, Brosnan seemed only motivated by the prospect of stardom and brought absolutely nothing to the role except his own "celebrity" appeal to the average TV-watching, Wal-mart shopper. "Die Another Day" is the series low-point because it's only ambition was commercial appeal, robbing his films of any substance.

 

The World is Not Enough is a complete mess as well. I suppose "Tomorrow Never Dies" is his best film because it moves so fast you can't get too mired in how badly the series had evolved. 

 

Oh. Finally I understand the truth!



#36 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1427 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:43 PM

Pierce didn't have as good as directors as Craig, for one thing.  Lee Tamahori and Roger Spottiswoode, vs. Marc Forster and Sam Mendes?  Compare their non-Bond movies.  Martin Campbell developed a lot as a director between GoldenEye and Casino Royale, in part due to his prior experience with Bond, so Craig got a more experienced director.  The producers tried to inject dramatic credibility with Michael Apted, but TWINE seems like the 2nd unit directors did all the action, Apted did the scenes with dialogue, and the pieced together mishmash is just that. 

 

They took some gambles with TWINE, TND and GE, learned from their mistakes, and made similar bets with more success in subsequent movies (chair tortures, blowing up MI6, getting M out into the field, Bond falling for the wrong girl, former MI6 agent goes bad.)  Even screenwriters Purvis and Wade developed through their five outings from TWINE to SF.

 

Craig is definitely a way better actor, and so was Dalton for that matter, but with both Brosnan and Dalton the producers felt they couldn't break from formula.  But with DC, they committed to completely deconstructing it. Michael Wilson once said, "We wanted to make a film as if we had never made a Bond movie before."  And that's just it--Brosnan's Bonds are movies, Daniel Craig's are films.



#37 trevanian

trevanian

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 355 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 03:47 PM

I celebrate all the Bonds, but Brosnan's films have absolutely no appeal. I understand Goldeneye may have been the first 007 film for a lot of people so I am sure their is a great fondness for their first Bond, but I am so glad Brosnan is gone. I never understood the appeal of his performance in Goldeneye, which is a weak, mugging self-aware performance trying to play it safe and stay between the lines. The fact that Martin Campbell made the far superior Casino Royale with a different actor tells us a lot. 

 

Brosnan has MGM for ratcheting up their marketing approach for his Bond films (and the films that follow) after they undersold and half-assed the marketing of the mid-to-late 80s films. 

 

While 007, Brosnan seemed only motivated by the prospect of stardom and brought absolutely nothing to the role except his own "celebrity" appeal to the average TV-watching, Wal-mart shopper. "Die Another Day" is the series low-point because it's only ambition was commercial appeal, robbing his films of any substance.

 

The World is Not Enough is a complete mess as well. I suppose "Tomorrow Never Dies" is his best film because it moves so fast you can't get too mired in how badly the series had evolved. 

 

Oh. Finally I understand the truth!

Dude clearly hasn't seen TAILOR OF PANAMA. Brosnan needs a good director and a script,and he had neither. (points made in the OTHER thread.) I think Dalton was ill-served by JG at times, but not to the same detrimental level. 



#38 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:01 PM

You can take Brosnan out of Bond, but not the Bond out of Brosnan!

 

Spotted yesterday on the streets of L.A looking great for 59!

 

 
article-0-1892D8E0000005DC-453_634x961.j
 
 
article-2292071-1892DC0C000005DC-95_634x

 

 



#39 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:49 PM

People keep blaming Brosnan's acting for someone's else scripts.

If this is the way we should think, then Moore's acting sucks, as out of 7 movies, just FYEO had a good script. [/sarcasm]



#40 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9046 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:41 PM

 

I celebrate all the Bonds, but Brosnan's films have absolutely no appeal. I understand Goldeneye may have been the first 007 film for a lot of people so I am sure their is a great fondness for their first Bond, but I am so glad Brosnan is gone. I never understood the appeal of his performance in Goldeneye, which is a weak, mugging self-aware performance trying to play it safe and stay between the lines. The fact that Martin Campbell made the far superior Casino Royale with a different actor tells us a lot. 

 

Brosnan has MGM for ratcheting up their marketing approach for his Bond films (and the films that follow) after they undersold and half-assed the marketing of the mid-to-late 80s films. 

 

While 007, Brosnan seemed only motivated by the prospect of stardom and brought absolutely nothing to the role except his own "celebrity" appeal to the average TV-watching, Wal-mart shopper. "Die Another Day" is the series low-point because it's only ambition was commercial appeal, robbing his films of any substance.

 

The World is Not Enough is a complete mess as well. I suppose "Tomorrow Never Dies" is his best film because it moves so fast you can't get too mired in how badly the series had evolved. 

 

Oh. Finally I understand the truth!

Dude clearly hasn't seen TAILOR OF PANAMA. Brosnan needs a good director and a script,and he had neither. (points made in the OTHER thread.) I think Dalton was ill-served by JG at times, but not to the same detrimental level. 

Dude, I have seen it. And I love Brosnan´s Bond. And I love THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

 

I´m just not whining about the UNJUST BETRAYAL OF BROSNAN time and again.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users