101 replies to this topic

[Auric64]

Had a heated "discussion" with a long time Bond mate over the weekend. As usual it revolved round Brosnan, and whether he had brought anything to the role of Bond in his 10 year tenure.

My friend absolutely hates Brosnan as an actor. He hasn`t a kind word to say about his portrayal of Bond, and believes he is not a good enough actor to carry ANY film, let alone a Bond film. He cited both "The Tailor Of Panama" and Brosnan`s remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair" where fellow actors Geoffrey Rush and Rene Russo, "acted him off the screen".

Of course I disagreed, and stated I felt he was a good actor, and I tried the usual, "Yeah, but he saved the franchise, he is more liked, (certainly by Americans) than Dalton, etc. etc.

He kept coming back with, "Yeah, but Brosnan didn`t bring anything to the Bond character."

I cited Brosnan`s desire to "push the envelope" with the character, but that he was hindered by B&W not wanting to go too far away from the usual "Bond Formula" as they did with LTK. Little bits, like the Paris character from TND, which Brosnan fought to have included, to give his Bond a little more depth, were dismissed by my friend. He made the following point which I am hoping other posters on CBn will discuss. Namely this:

My friend has stated that after TLD, Dalton spoke with Cubby Broccoli and Wilson about making the next film more harder, which both producers were happy to do. My friend`s reasoning then is, if Brosnan really wanted to "push the envelope" after GoldenEye, why didn`t Barbara Broccoli and Wilson listen to him and act upon his wish, as they did with Dalton?

He added that if Brosnan DID ask for more character developement and was told by the producers that that couldn`t happen, he felt that Brosnan should have said to them, "Well, if you are not going to do what I want, then I won`t do your film."

I countered with the point that Brosnan is ONLY an actor and, as an actor, is not able to influence the producers too much. And, as much as he was wanted in the part, the producers were not going to "jump" everytime Brosnan wasn`t happy about something. My friend just came back with, "Well, Dalton got what he wanted." So my friend is saying that Brosnan, as much as he said to the media he wanted change, wasn`t prepared to follow the morals of Dalton, and refuse to do the film until those changes were made.

Does my friend have a point, or is he talking complete b******s, as he usually does, when speaking about Brosnan?

I welcome your thoughts.

Auric64

[templer1972]

Does my friend have a point, or is he talking complete b******s, as he usually does, when speaking about Brosnan?

I welcome your thoughts.

Auric64

I think you and your friend are complete b******s. Brosnan is perfect as Bond and he made USD1.45billion for MGM. That kind of money is not an easy task even for A listed actor.Don't you think so?

[Mods Note: Keep it civil.]

Edited by Qwerty, 11 October 2005 - 04:36 AM.

[Mr_Wint]

The role of James Bond doesn't require a stage actor. To carry a Bondfilm the actor needs looks, style and charisma. I wouldn't describe Pierce Brosnan as an 'excellent' actor. But, compared to Dalton, Brosnan was closer to my vision of Bond.

And, whether Brosnan did or did not ask for more character development or really wanted to "push the envelope" is irrelevant. You dont make good Bondfilm that way, anyway.

[freemo]

Just choose whichever one you like best:

A.)
No. You're all idiots. I'm sick of the negativity. Brosnan is perfect as Bond and EON were stupid dumb idiots for dumping him. He's made 27 gallion dollars for them and is responsible for all the good aspects of his films and none of the bad ones and I want to be the mother of his childern.

B.)
Brosnan a good Bond? Are you kidding? You must know nothing about James Bond!! Brosnan would have to be the worst Bond in the history of every Bond who ever Bonded. I wish he'd just keep his mouth shut? He can't act, looks way too old, and his Bond films contain no redeeming features whatsoever.

[Auric64]

Hey, templer1972!

Thanks for your "kind" words. So I`m talking b******s am I? I think you need to read my post again, and see that it is me who is defending Brosnan, and not my friend. Maybe then you`ll stop talking b******s as well!

Jeez, don`t people get uptight with other people, whom they don`t even know?

Auric64

[Auric64]

Hey, freemo!

Thanks for your post. Please read the reply I`ve given to templer1972, and I think you`ll see that this "idiot" is on your side.

Somebody else who doesn`t read and digest posts before they open their mouths.

Auric64

[Auric64]

Hey, freemo!

Apologies to your post. I only got your A) section, the section didn`t come up first time. I see now you`re offering a choice.

Apologies again.

Auric64

[freemo]

To actually talk about the topic:

It's nice that Dalton and Brosnan took an interest in their character and attempted to bring in some elements and give their own take on him, but in the end it's the producers who run the show, and if you told them "Do it my way or get someone else", which I doubt either actor actually did, they'd probably go for the latter. Some of the actors have perhaps had more commercial appeal than others, but no actor is or has been bigger than the character. It's James Bond who is the star.

I think your friend is a wee bit bonkers.

[templer1972]

Hey, templer1972!

Thanks for your "kind" words.  So I`m talking b******s am I?  I think you need to read my post again, and see that it is me who is defending Brosnan, and not my friend.  Maybe then you`ll stop talking b******s as well!

Jeez, don`t people get uptight with other people, whom they don`t even know?

Auric64

Yoo Auric64!

You don't need to tell what your friend thought of Brosnan acting skill to us.If your friend think Brosnan is a bad actor let him do the posts.

[Auric64]

Hi, templer1972 and freemo

Thanks again for your replies.

freemo - thanks for your comments. Yes, my friend is a wee bit bonkers, but I`ve known him for 25 years and as friends, you have to make allowances for that, don`t you think? lol.

Quote

Yoo Auric64!

You don't need to tell what your friend thought of Brosnan acting skill to us.If your friend think Brosnan is a bad actor let him do the posts.

Unquote

templer1972 - thanks for your comments as well. However, again, you have missed the point. I posted this thread BECAUSE my friend was SO against Brosnan, that I wanted to find out whether other forum members felt the same as him. Hey, it`s a Bond thread. If you don`t want to comment on it, then don`t. I`m hoping others will, to see if there is justification in my friend`s comments, that`s all. No need to get worked up about it.

I don`t know if my friend is a poster here. If he isn`t, and he reads this post, he may very well join to air his views. That then can only be good for all of us, as topical debate is surely the lifeblood of the forum. Yes?

Regards

Auric64

[Bondian]

Hi Auric64.

I think most of us who have a strong opinion on whether we really like an actor or not, should leave their feelings away from this board.

I know that I have been fairly negative about Brosnan in the past, but I would never slate him, or anyone else off here. And as you can see, you'll get trampled on from a great height if you do.

In answer to your question. Nobody should write off Brosnan completely because he did lend himself to the part, and in the process made a huge following.

I know it's hard sometimes, but it's best to remain tactful and courteous when posting. Besides, fan sites are for discussion and not for putting people down.

Cheers,


Ian

[Auric64]

Hi, Ian

Thank you for your reply.

In answer to your point about being polite on the forum, I think I have been very polite, bearing in mind it was templer1972 that was being rude to me. I simply responded to point out that, even if somebody doesn`t agree with somebody else`s point of view, there is no justification or reason to put that person down, as templer1972 did to me, simply because he didn`t understand why I posted the thread in the first place.

Perhaps your reply should also be directed to that person as well.

Regards

Auric64

[cvheady007]

I have a very difficult time seeing how someone could peg Brosnan with a "bad actor" label, especially after watching the DVD commentaries and seeing how complimentary the directors and Michael Wilson have been of Brosnan. I have thoroughly enjoyed his portrayal of 007...yes, there have been some disappointments in his movies, yet no Bond actor has made a flawless picture (except for Connery once or twice).

[David Schofield]

If you're aware of my previous posts, you'll know I'm not a Brozza fan and for all that he brings to the role - looks, suaveness, dress scence - he in many ways takes away by being too lightweight and ultimately not having the physical presence or ruthlessness for the role, something which befell Roger.

However, to label Brozza a bad actor is very unreasonable. When he is good and the part fits - from Remington Steele to Laws of Attraction via Thomas Crown - he is invariably excellent and a fine actor.

As Bond, where he gets lead down blind allies and into real trouble is his toughening up and emotionalising the role. "It's what keeps me alive," on a beach at sunset, hair blowing in the wind is one of the most cringeworthy moments in all the films. Similarly, his "I never miss" in TWINE makes you snigger because Brozza does not carry the intimidating physical presence to make you actually feel he is genuinely so ruthless and unstoppable.

For the unpteenth time, I'll say Brozza should have been allowed to play Bond to his light-comedic strengths. We know he wanted to "play Hamlet" by doing Licence to Kill type stuff but the idea of Brozza toughening it up in Casino Royale is frightening.

Brozza is NOT a bad actor - just not brilliantly cast in what has been asked of him in his portrayal of Bond. Brozza in Moonraker, however, and you're onto something...

[SeanValen00V]

If you're aware of my previous posts, you'll know I'm not a Brozza fan and for all that he brings to the role - looks, suaveness, dress scence - he in many ways takes away by being too lightweight and ultimately not having the physical presence or ruthlessness for the role, something which befell Roger.

However, to label Brozza a bad actor is very unreasonable. When he is good and the part fits - from Remington Steele to Laws of Attraction via Thomas Crown - he is invariably excellent and a fine actor.

As Bond, where he gets lead down blind allies and into real trouble is his toughening up and emotionalising the role. "It's what keeps me alive," on a beach at sunset, hair blowing in the wind is one of the most cringeworthy moments in all the films. Similarly, his "I never miss" in TWINE makes you snigger because Brozza does not carry the intimidating physical presence to make you actually feel he is genuinely so ruthless and unstoppable.

For the unpteenth time, I'll say Brozza should have been allowed to play Bond to his light-comedic strengths. We know he wanted to "play Hamlet" by doing Licence to Kill type stuff but the idea of Brozza toughening it up in Casino Royale is frightening.


Guy Hamilton who directed Connery in his early Bond films, took him to tailors, and really made Connery Bond, I think the directors on brosnan's films didn't have the creative pact with producers and bond actor to help Brosnan. Connery needed help, Dalton needed help, Roger went his own way and never got told off though, lots of people liked him for it.




Brozza is NOT a bad actor - just not brilliantly cast in what has been asked of him in his portrayal of Bond. Brozza in Moonraker, however, and you're onto something...

In other words, the script writers and producers didn't do enough to give him what he needed to showcase his bond, remember brosnan has said himself he didn't like some lines, that he felt like a phony, there wasn't enough creative decisions made on set, what John Glen and Tim Dalton did on their bond films was argue creatively, and it led to better results, in the sense of Brosnan, he seemed like a hired gun, told what to do, but he didn't have the support of the producers I think to really nail the bond, he didn't have someone like John Glen assisting Dalton, and saying this looks better for you as Bond etc.

[Bondian]

That was a little dig at Templar1972, but as you can see I did it in a diplomatic way.

I've been flayed alive by certain member of this forum, but it would be unjust to mention their names.

Hi, Ian

Thank you for your reply.

In answer to your point about being polite on the forum, I think I have been very polite, bearing in mind it was templer1972 that was being rude to me.  I simply responded to point out that, even if somebody doesn`t agree with somebody else`s point of view, there is no justification or reason to put that person down, as templer1972 did to me, simply because he didn`t understand why I posted the thread in the first place.

Perhaps your reply should also be directed to that person as well.

Regards

Auric64

[doublenoughtspy]

Interesting argument.

I agree with your friend. I don't think Brosnan is a bad actor - I just don't think he brought much to the role.

One of your arguments is that he is more accepted than Dalton was to American audiences.

You don't think that having 2 to 3 times the budgets, larger & more competant advertising campagins, better co-stars, who were hot in America at the time (Hatcher, Richards, Berry), or any other factors contributed to the Brosnan's films box office success?

And too, look at DAF - it made more money than OHMSS. Surely you don't consider it the better film?

Brosnan has been great for the series - but by the same token - look at his predecessors - Dalton played it hard, Moore played it light - Pierce seemed to be stuck in the middle ground - which some people rave about, but for others it was "Bond for the masses", a popcorn Bond, with no substance.

I don't think Dalton necessarily had more clout.

But the fact that the producers brought back Campbell while kicking out Brosnan shows who they credit the success of Goldeneye to.

And to correct some issues, Templar1972 - you need to check your facts. Box office totals aren't what MGM gets - they get less than half that. Minus the cost of the film & marketing - TWINE lost money!

And to the other person - it wasn't Guy Hamilton who took Connery to his tailor, it was Terence Young.

[Kingdom Come]

Brosnan always comes across to me as a phoney and not only as Bond. Some actors can come across as selfconscious performers and for some reason get away with it and make it work to their advantage like Nicholson for example or Malkovich and it becomes a plus, but not Brosnan.

Don't get me wrong, I liked him as Bond but to me he was filling in until the REAL Bond came along.

[Dunph]

Brosnan is only a 'good actor' technically speaking in a few of the films I've seen him in. The majority of them he has been weak, nondescript. I'd class him as a movie star -yes- but not an actor. He's the kind of man who is famous for famous' sake, but has done little else to warrant his success other than Bond, frankly.

I look forward to the Matador though.

[killkenny kid]

Just like Clint Eastwood said opinions are like..... a matter of taste.

[Quartermaster007]

Well, I think Brosnan played Bond perfectly!

It's just those dang scripts.

Purvis and Wade!

Edited by Quartermaster007, 11 October 2005 - 02:47 AM.

[tdalton]

Brosnan is only a 'good actor' technically speaking in a few of the films I've seen him in. The majority of them he has been weak, nondescript. I'd class him as a movie star -yes- but not an actor. He's the kind of man who is famous for famous' sake, but has done little else to warrant his success other than Bond, frankly.

I look forward to the Matador though.

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

[K1Bond007]

I think you and your friend are complete b******s. Brosnan is perfect as Bond and he made USD1.45billion for MGM. That kind of money is not an easy task even for A listed actor.Don't you think so?

No, not really. That's how much the film's made. MGM's income is a lot less. Brosnan comes in dead last in terms of actual studio income on average per film without even taking into account inflation. With all his films combined he barely edges past George Lazenby with his one film in terms of studio income - with inflation Brosnan comes in last here too.

I like Brosnan. I thought he was a good all around Bond who had some crumby films (TWINE and DAD), but he hardly brought anything new to the table. As stated he was "Bond for the masses". I tend to view him as Connery, Moore, and Dalton rolled into one. He has no signature - no stamp on the series like they did.

As an actor in other things beyond Bond, I don't really care for him. I honestly think he's overrated. Brosnan was born for one role and he's been playing it all his life.

[Byron]

he hardly brought anything new to the table. As stated he was "Bond for the masses". I tend to view him as Connery, Moore, and Dalton rolled into one. He has no signature - no stamp on the series like they did.

As an actor in other things beyond Bond, I don't really care for him. I honestly think he's overrated.

I agree with your above comments

Brosnan was a very generic Bond .

I hope the next actor playing Bond brings some interest back to the character.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I like my Post Connery Bond star to play Bond outside the box, ie not "for the masses"...so, I 'm Dalton fan.He looked fantastic in the role but was prehaps a bit awkward at times, maybe as a result of bad writing and editing-but he was 1987's "new James Bond" and that's exactly what he delivered;he was not McBond like his successor, at least not for me. Brosnan was ok, just nothing really compelling about him;he's more naturaly jaunty than Dalton and seems to enjoy the glam lifestyle more but he looks like an aging male model rather than somebody who Halo jumps outta airplanes and slits throats, blows crap up...etc.Ah well, I don't see any acceptable successor to Brosnan outside of Owen or Jackman.

[Red Grant 15]

I like Dalton better, but I thought Brosnan did a good job as Bond, and I think he's a good actor. Brosnan probably did try to push the envelope, but Wilson and Broccoli wouldn't let him.

[a_crook]

I liked the idea of Brosnan back when he should have taken the role the first time, during the Remington Steele era. However he was over the hill by the time he finally slipped on the tuxedo. In fact I find him a little too feminine, mainly his walk and demeanor at times. He was more like Moore than Connery, pudgy and goofy. Dalton in the end was a pretty good Bond, The Living Daylights was one of the better Bonds. He played more in the vein of Connery, but it wasn't as effortless and he didn't have the sense of hummor and sarcasm.

I won't say Brosnan isn't a good actor but something about the way he played Bond didn't fit. I thought The Thomas Crown Affair was a better Bond that any of the three actual Bond movies Brosanan was in.

Ranked Bonds in my Book:

1-Connery 2-Lazenby 3-Dalton (really a tie for 2) 4- Brosnan 5- Moore

[Harmsway]

Brosnan is not a bad actor. He's certainly not one of the greatest around, but he's a solid actor capable of turning in some solid work.

His Bond was sincerely lacking, however. Not only did the scripts never play to his strengths, he never really got comfortable in the role. It always looked like he was pretending to be Bond, not being Bond. There wasn't that sense of comfort or ease there, the ease that makes Connery's Bond so delightful.

If Brosnan had played Bond more like his character in Tailor of Panama, though...

[Dunph]

Harmsway, may I be so bold as to throw down the gauntlet and ask you to name me a piece in which Brosnan has given a solid performance? (I'm not talking about the films and appearances that have played on his Bond persona i.e. Thomas Crown)

[Harmsway]

Harmsway, may I be so bold as to throw down the gauntlet and ask you to name me a piece in which Brosnan has given a solid performance? (I'm not talking about the films and appearances that have played on his Bond persona i.e. Thomas Crown)

Well, aside from Thomas Crown Affair and The Tailor of Panama, I thought he did a fine job in Evelyn. And he's getting considerably high critical marks for The Matador.

I'm not a fan of the actor, mind you, and he's my least favorite Bond. But he's not a terrible actor either.