27 replies to this topic

[Bon-san]

In the same article in which Christopher Lee exhorts the media and public to give Daniel Craig a chance, he states without qualification, "Pierce Brosnan is by far the best and the closest to the character that Ian invented."

Serious food for the Brosnazi faction. But more likely heresy for the Old Guard, the Rog-ettes, the Daltonites, and the Daniel Craig for Prime Minister party.

Let the spin begin. Debate, debate, and more furious debate.

Perhaps I should apologize in advance for starting this, but I won't.

[hcmv007]

Actually, Chrristopher Lee is a cousin of Fleming, by marriage. Ian also suggested that he play the role of James Bond, which Lee politely refused. Of course they did play a lot of golf together, and were good friends until the time of Fleming's death.

I will admit, Brosnan had the PHYSICAL tools as Bond. Height, hairstyle, looks, build-it is all Bond to me. Bros did sort of reboot the franchise, so I will be thankful for that. As far as I am concerned, Mr Lee is speaking from somewhat of a personal feeling, one that is shared by many a Bond fan. Craig has been unfairly treated by some members of the press, and Lee, being the class act he is, offered his support. AFA his opinion on Bros being the best Bond, I believe it was Connery, but that is his opinion, and it should be respected. (I am not saying you weren't, Bon-san.)

[Kingdom Come]

I agree with Fleming that Moore was the perfect Bond as he saw him. But why do all these people say he or she were the best or greatest or a genius ONLY after they have left or died?

[J.B.]

I found this article interesting today after seeing "The Matador" last night. I finally found a place where it was showing and had the chance to see it. Not only did I already agree with Lee on his assessment but I also think that Brosnan could have been tough enough for any script put out there for Bond. The Matador, while not an example of Brosnan getting beat up physically or anything like that, definitely showed a depth to his acting and he looked terrible throughout the film due to the rough living of his character in the film. As I watched it, time and again I came back to thinking how he had so much Bond left in him, especially with a decent script.

This isnt whining or anything like that, but just observations. I love Connery as the 60's Bond but Brosnan was really great as the Bond of today.

So, I guess I could be president of the Brosnan Back for Bond club. All I can say is Daniel Craig, prove me wrong! (Even with no front teeth. HA!)

[spynovelfan]

I agree with Fleming that Moore was the perfect Bond as he saw him.

LOL! Did someone challenge you to make a hundred completely inaccurate posts on CBN in one day or something?

[Moore Not Less]

I very much admire Christopher Lee as an actor. And I respect his opinion regarding Ian Fleming and Pierce Brosnan, even though I don't agree with it. I enjoyed Brosnan's portrayal of Bond and I respect what he tried to achieve with the character, but I prefer Roger Moore and Sean Connery.

As for giving Daniel Craig a chance? I say (and have said all along) definitely yes, even though he does not fit my image of Bond. I also doubt that he will have the necessary charisma to carry Casino Royale and convince enough fans that he really is 007. If he should prove me wrong this November then I will happily admit it.

Edited by Moore Not Less, 20 February 2006 - 08:34 PM.

[Kingdom Come]

Spynovelfan, Fleming did say he thought Roger was ideal as Bond. He said it sometime in the early 60s. - Either before Connery or just after Connery's films started. I can remember being surprised about that as much as you! it is in one of the Bond books - someone in here may be able to tell us both which one it was.

[TortillaFactory]

Old news. Lee's always said this, and he has a point, though I've become increasingly wary of comparing FilmBond to LitBond at all. Apples, oranges. Brosnan had a certain boyish charm that works. Throw in some of Dalton's melancholy gravitas and you're almost there. But you can't be LitBond in a Bond film. It's too much of a different thing.

[Blue07]

[quote name='Bon-san' date='20 February 2006 - 17:40' post='520949']
In the same article in which Christopher Lee exhorts the media and public to give Daniel Craig a chance, he states without qualification, "Pierce Brosnan is by far the best and the closest to the character that Ian invented."

Why is he without qualification?

Man speaks a lot of sense in my opinion. Brosnan still number 1

[Loomis]

Perhaps I should apologize in advance for starting this

Why? Are you Christopher Lee?

Lee is entitled to his opinions (he writes generously), but I don't see how Brosnan is closer to "Fleming's Bond" than any of the others. Indeed, as I've banged on many a time, I think he's further away from old Ian's creation than any of his predecessors, at least in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Does Lee explain why he feels Brosnan nails Fleming's character so perfectly?

(Incidentally, I think there's much more "Fleming" in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN than in most of the films, but I imagine Lee would be too modest to say so.)

[ACE]

(Incidentally, I think there's much more "Fleming" in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN than in most of the films, but I imagine Lee would be too modest to say so.)

You're scrupulously silent on why you like MWGG, Loomis. I'd love to hear how you back up the above sentence. Is your tongue in your cheek? I think MWGG is under-rated, for sure, but let's not get carried away.

Lee was nothing like the Scaramanga in the novel.

[Kingdom Come]

Lee and Hamilton had Scaramanga come across as a school teacher.

[Harmsway]

(Incidentally, I think there's much more "Fleming" in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN than in most of the films, but I imagine Lee would be too modest to say so.)

You're scrupulously silent on why you like MWGG, Loomis. I'd love to hear how you back up the above sentence. Is your tongue in your cheek? I think MWGG is under-rated, for sure, but let's not get carried away.

Lee was nothing like the Scaramanga in the novel.

He's posted volumes on why he likes TMWTGG in the past.

[Loomis]

(Incidentally, I think there's much more "Fleming" in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN than in most of the films, but I imagine Lee would be too modest to say so.)

You're scrupulously silent on why you like MWGG, Loomis. I'd love to hear how you back up the above sentence. Is your tongue in your cheek? I think MWGG is under-rated, for sure, but let's not get carried away.

Lee was nothing like the Scaramanga in the novel.

What Harmsway said. I've posted plenty on why I think THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is so great (just as I've posted plenty on why I think THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is so terrible), and just can't be fagged to go over all the old ground again (which isn't to say I may not change my mind in the future ). I sometimes feel I've raved on so much about TMWTGG that other forum members must be heartily sick of it!

[bondrocks14]

I have a hard time choosing who is the best Bond because they are all great in their own way (except for maybe Dalton, imo). But I am safe to say, that since 1995, Brosnan is the best Bond and still is, he has many Bond-like attributes that Daniel Craig doesn't have. He's the best bond of this era.

[spynovelfan]

Spynovelfan, Fleming did say he thought Roger was ideal as Bond. He said it sometime in the early 60s. - Either before Connery or just after Connery's films started. I can remember being surprised about that as much as you! it is in one of the Bond books - someone in here may be able to tell us both which one it was.

I think we've been through this before. There's no reliable record of Fleming saying this, as far as I am aware. Would be delighted to be proved wrong, though.

[Skudor]

In the same article in which Christopher Lee exhorts the media and public to give Daniel Craig a chance, he states without qualification, "Pierce Brosnan is by far the best and the closest to the character that Ian invented."

Serious food for the Brosnazi faction. But more likely heresy for the Old Guard, the Rog-ettes, the Daltonites, and the Daniel Craig for Prime Minister party.

Let the spin begin. Debate, debate, and more furious debate.

Perhaps I should apologize in advance for starting this, but I won't.

If Lee said it that settles it. After all he's Fleming brother, Tolkiens mother, and no doubt Shakespeare's son.

[fatima]

In the same article in which Christopher Lee exhorts the media and public to give Daniel Craig a chance, he states without qualification, "Pierce Brosnan is by far the best and the closest to the character that Ian invented."

Serious food for the Brosnazi faction. But more likely heresy for the Old Guard, the Rog-ettes, the Daltonites, and the Daniel Craig for Prime Minister party.

Let the spin begin. Debate, debate, and more furious debate.

Perhaps I should apologize in advance for starting this, but I won't.

If Lee said it that settles it. After all he's Fleming brother, Tolkiens mother, and no doubt Shakespeare's son.

Well as I doubt very much if anyone on this forum ever actually met Ian Fleming, I think that probably gives Mr Lee just a wee head start into his thinking

Edited by fatima, 21 February 2006 - 04:35 PM.

[marktmurphy]

Well as a doubt very much if anyone on this forum ever actually met Ian Fleming

Read the Morlands thread and the posts from JohnB: very enlightening!

[SeanValen00V]

I found this article interesting today after seeing "The Matador" last night. I finally found a place where it was showing and had the chance to see it. Not only did I already agree with Lee on his assessment but I also think that Brosnan could have been tough enough for any script put out there for Bond. The Matador, while not an example of Brosnan getting beat up physically or anything like that, definitely showed a depth to his acting and he looked terrible throughout the film due to the rough living of his character in the film. As I watched it, time and again I came back to thinking how he had so much Bond left in him, especially with a decent script.

This isnt whining or anything like that, but just observations. I love Connery as the 60's Bond but Brosnan was really great as the Bond of today.

So, I guess I could be president of the Brosnan Back for Bond club. All I can say is Daniel Craig, prove me wrong! (Even with no front teeth. HA!)

Agreed, the reasons why 4 films were not enough, was the producers never really gave Brosnan the tools to mould his Bond.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think Anakin/Vader may have caused him to be permanently damaged.

Brosnan the best ever? No way.The films just didn't offer him the opportunity to strut his stuff to achieve that level of praise. It's ok to have an opinion...I just don't see Bond as a male model who mows people down with machine guns and surfs tsumamis....and makes really bad puns...

[zencat]

Best Bond ever...

Moore. Roger Moore.

[Judo chop]

Well, he is correct when he says Craig should be given a chance. That is a fact, not an opinion.

As far as PB being the closest to Fleming, or having set the bar for the best cinematic Bond (which are two different things for mercy's sake!), Mr. Lee is entitled to his opinion. However, if I ever meet the man, I will:

1) Inform him that his opinion is wrong.
2) Gratuitously apologize.
3) Begin to wallow in admiration.
4) Ask him to sign my third nipple.

[SeanValen00V]

I think Anakin/Vader may have caused him to be permanently damaged.

Brosnan the best ever? No way.The films just didn't offer him the opportunity to strut his stuff to achieve that level of praise. It's ok to have an opinion...I just don't see Bond as a male model who mows people down with machine guns and surfs tsumamis....and makes really bad puns...

You misunderstand Lee then, it's not the bond brosnan played in his Bond movies, it's the potential brosnan had to play the bond he never really did in his films, Lee very much looks at Brosnan at his potential, the Madator element, we never saw the best of brosnan as bond, but that doesn't mean he wasn't capable of it. Brosnan goes down probabley the most bondian actor in the world still capable of playing Bond, but wasn't allowed to show it in the form he wanted too, it's a tragedy I think, all the bond producers had to do was let Brosnan do his 5th, let Taraninto direct it, and he would of had his first and best actual James Bond film tailored for him. Fans would of been pleased, pass the baton to new bond for 2007, no matter how I see it, even if Craig is good, the way the brosnan era ended was a dark spot on the bond series.

I guess if they bothered getting great writers in for TND AND TWINE instead of Neal/Wade blah blah again and for DAD as well, 4 movies would been enough, and Brosnan would of been creatively more pleased, so would the fans.

[Blue07]

I think Anakin/Vader may have caused him to be permanently damaged.

Brosnan the best ever? No way.The films just didn't offer him the opportunity to strut his stuff to achieve that level of praise. It's ok to have an opinion...I just don't see Bond as a male model who mows people down with machine guns and surfs tsumamis....and makes really bad puns...

You misunderstand Lee then, it's not the bond brosnan played in his Bond movies, it's the potential brosnan had to play the bond he never really did in his films, Lee very much looks at Brosnan at his potential, the Madator element, we never saw the best of brosnan as bond, but that doesn't mean he wasn't capable of it. Brosnan goes down probabley the most bondian actor in the world still capable of playing Bond, but wasn't allowed to show it in the form he wanted too, it's a tragedy I think, all the bond producers had to do was let Brosnan do his 5th, let Taraninto direct it, and he would of had his first and best actual James Bond film tailored for him. Fans would of been pleased, pass the baton to new bond for 2007, no matter how I see it, even if Craig is good, the way the brosnan era ended was a dark spot on the bond series.

I guess if they bothered getting great writers in for TND AND TWINE instead of Neal/Wade blah blah again and for DAD as well, 4 movies would been enough, and Brosnan would of been creatively more pleased, so would the fans.

Valid points again SeanValen, (except the Tarantino bit!) I think the lack of a Brosnan fifth and the fact he was never given a script (particuarly latterly) that matched his potential will always be a bone of contention, maybe even for some non-supporters. The scripts in paticular really let him down and I find it strange that P&W are still on board particuarly when EON fell the need to hire a writer of the calibre of Haggis to polish CR - what kind of statement does that send out? Sure having writers touch up scripts may be par for the course - but Haggis? Does that show confidence in P&W? One can only wonder just how great Brosnan's Bonds could have been with this new approach to Bond and some quality scripts. I think people still find it hard to seperate blame for dodgy CGI and bad scripts from Brosnan himself.

Brosnan deserves much more respect for his Bond era and I think, as is usually the case, in time he will.

[Lounge Lizard]

Well, as much as I admire Christopher Lee (I saw him once at a concert in Amsterdam- almost superhumanly charismatic man), I can't agree with him on this one.

I've never actively disliked Brosnan*, but the man himself has admitted that he was embarassed with most of what he had to say and do in his four films. And it showed, too much nervous mannerisms, too much signs of an actor praying for divine interference. One can go on forever about all the missed opportunities and the wasted potential of Brosnan- and one might even be right, because the actor didn't bother me at all under the tight, unrelenting direction of Martin Campbell. But in the end, we are left with what is there on the screen: one debatable and three sub-par Bond movies, and a Bond who looks increasingly uncomfortable (more so than Dalton).

Well, that's my opinion anyway, I can't blame you if you pick the views of Christopher Lee, OBE, over mine.

Someone needs to explain this 'Matador factor' to me in more detail. What aspect of The Matador should Brosnan have channeled as Bond? His newly acquired lack of vanity (which is, to these eyes, largely superficial)? Or the hint of psychosis in his eyes? Or just his more relaxed and confident mood (I would agree with that)?



* His lack of a powerful voice is hardly cause for dislike. His self-satisfied smirk (which also stained the BAFTAs ceremony this week) is, however.

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 22 February 2006 - 01:25 PM.

[Blue07]

Well, as much as I admire Christopher Lee (I saw him once at a concert in Amsterdam- almost superhumanly charismatic man), I can't agree with him on this one.

I've never actively disliked Brosnan*, but the man himself has admitted that he was embarassed with most of what he had to say and do in his four films. And it showed, too much nervous mannerisms, too much signs of an actor praying for divine interference. One can go on forever about all the missed opportunities and the wasted potential of Brosnan- and one might even be right, because the actor didn't bother me at all under the tight, unrelenting direction of Martin Campbell. But in the end, we are left with what is there on the screen: one debatable and three sub-par Bond movies, and a Bond who looks increasingly uncomfortable (more so than Dalton).

Well, that's my opinion anyway, I can't blame you if you pick the views of Christopher Lee, OBE, over mine.

Someone needs to explain this 'Matador factor' to me in more detail. What aspect of The Matador should Brosnan have channeled as Bond? His newly acquired lack of vanity (which is, to these eyes, largely superficial)? Or the hint of psychosis in his eyes? Or just his more relaxed and confident mood (I would agree with that)?



* His lack of a powerful voice is hardly cause for dislike. His self-satisfied smirk (which also stained the BAFTAs ceremony this week) is, however.

I think the Matador factor would have more to do with having a decent script that was tailored around the actors rather than around set pieces and cheap one liners.

[Colossus]

I've always stated that to nail Bond, the guy has to have a balance of wit and seriousness. Moore was a bit too campy, Dalton was a stiff-lipped Brit, only two have nailed the medium ground, Connery and Brosnan.
Lazenby did one film and he looked equal but too little to see.