47 replies to this topic

[medrecess]

I always wanted to know the opinion of Bond fans worldwide about what they
felt about Pierce's looks.Personally i felt he is too good looking as he has
the right combination of Debonair/Dangerous looks.But i wanted to know the fans opinion regarding this.How do you rate Brosnan looks wise ?

Please share your opinion.Does anyone feel he is an average looking person ?

Note- I am not comparing Pierce and the other Bond actors looks wise.I just
want to explore the general perception of looks across the different nations.

[Santa]

Odd question. I certainly don't think he's too good-looking, and I don't see any way he could be called dangerous-looking. Yes, he's good-looking in a traditional, take-him-home-to-meet-the-parents kind of way but I personally don't find him at all attractive, and I know I'm not alone in this. Many women do go for that kind of look but an equal number don't. I asked a couple of female colleagues just now and they kind of grimaced, as in yes, we all have to admit he's good-looking, but somehow still none of us would want him. In the end, being good-looking is a fairly empty quality. Even the best-looking man in the world needs something other than those looks to be attractive. The best looking man I ever went out with was indeed gorgeous, he was a model, but OMG he was boring. A sense of humour, intelligence, kindness and good personal hygiene are far more important.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Fleming typically mentioned that there was something "cruel" about Bond, and that's not really a word I would use to describe Pierce. I'm not sure that's the same as being "too good looking", but IMHO he was lacking the "cruelty"...

[spynovelfan]

I thought Brosnan looked cruel in THE TAILOR OF PANAMA.



But then, I thought he was closest to Bond in that, too.

[Simon]

Not sure he was any different looking in ToP, but certainly he was a cruel bas---d in that film and was a wonderful Bond turn in a non-Bond film.

Don't think he is too good looking. Personal interviews aside that may colour a 'look', I just think the dialogue he had to act out was junk and anyone would 'look' a sap having to deliver this crud.

To this end I watched DAD last night. I sympathised with him the whole way, there was seemingly no real conversation in it until his turn with Dench in the underground.

[qtst]

Of course Pierce is good looking, that's why he was People's sexiest man alive and among the 50 most beautiful people! He can look either "too pretty" or ugly at times from different angles. But honestly to me, he's not that "too good looking". I think Don Johnson, Tom Cruise and Richard Gere are "too good looking" though. But hey, I still love ol' Pierce the best!

[medrecess]

Richard Gere,PB,Don are in the same league as far as smoothness is concerned.
But Tom looks good in a different way ie boyish looks.

[Jericho_One]

One interesting question that just crossed my mind.
Concerning Brosnan's good looks, have you ever thought that if there was no Pierce as Bond between Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig, the matter of Craig's ugliness probably wouldn't come up in the first place?
Because, let's be honest: I'm all for Craig as the new Bond, but if you compare him to Pierce Brosnan he does look kind of ugly. But if you compare him to Dalton he doesn't seem ugly at all. So, considering that neither Dalton nor Craig are what you could consider ugly (they actually look good), the truth is that you're probably right. Pierce Brosnan is indeed too good looking.

Edited by Jericho_One, 19 June 2006 - 09:45 PM.

[Bondesque]

Broz has a face similar to Rob Lowes. Both are beautiful. Pierce got his scar in TND and a few wrinkles that gave him a bit more character. This helped. He never looked dangerous as Bond. He did look dangerous in The Fourth Protocol. The biggest problem with Broz was his body. Fine height but no real muscularity. He moved clumsily and definately not "panther-like" and he ran horribly. Rodger Moore had the same problem. I'm not saying that bond is a muscle bound thug but Connery, Laz and now Craig had/have a great swagger and the right look to be Bond.

[Jericho_One]

Craig sure does look like a force to be reckoned with when it comes to hand-to-hand combat, without looking too big.
They did a nice job in tuning him for Bond.

[Andrew]

I always thought Brosnan was too much of a pretty boy. He looked more like a schoolboy than a secret agent but that's just me, I know there are many out there who disagree and I respect their opinions...usually

Edited by Andrew, 20 June 2006 - 02:33 AM.

[Judo chop]

I wouldn't have had any complaints about Broz's "looks" (ie. "face") as Bond if it weren't for the situation below the collar bone. The man was just too thin and too light. No punch packed. For too many years Bond Pierced when he should have Bludgeoned.

[medrecess]

Pierce is too good looking and you are right when you say that probably
the audiences would have accepted Craig whole heartedly if there was
a lesser looking man between Dalton and Craig or if Craig came after Dalton
.
Dont get me wrong but IMO Dalton and Craig are good looking too.
But PB is too pretty.ONly a young Moore matches up.


As far as the physique is concerned i like slim looking men .With broad shoulders you look even better in suits.PB looked good in suits and tux.

[Lazenby880]

But then, I thought he was closest to Bond in that, too.

I know that everyone and their dog says that (and they are not necessarily wrong in saying so), but is Le Carr

[spynovelfan]

[quote name='Lazenby880' post='567387' date='20 June 2006 - 11:51']
[quote name='spynovelfan' post='566981' date='19 June 2006 - 11:31']But then, I thought he was closest to Bond in that, too. [/quote]
I know that everyone and their dog says that (and they are not necessarily wrong in saying so), but is Le Carr

[pgram]

Sir Roger was the best looking Bond, IMO, but he didn't have a problem being TOO handsome. The problem with Pierce seemed to have been that he was too AWARE of being good looking. That, and the fact that he was pretty boy looking, didn't help him very much. Still, starting his Bond career in GE and not in TLD helped: he would have been too much of a baby face.

I agree with the posts about his movement and body. He did look good in suits, but out of them, there was little evidence that this was James Bond.

[medrecess]

Sir Roger was the best looking Bond, IMO, but he didn't have a problem being TOO handsome. The problem with Pierce seemed to have been that he was too AWARE of being good looking. That, and the fact that he was pretty boy looking, didn't help him very much. Still, starting his Bond career in GE and not in TLD helped: he would have been too much of a baby face.

I agree with the posts about his movement and body. He did look good in suits, but out of them, there was little evidence that this was James Bond.

Yes he was always aware and concerned about looks unlike Roger who was as
good looking.

For me Pierce was the perfect Bond.

[Mamadou]

When I was younger (i.e. a mid-adolescent 14-year-old) and just getting into Bond (pardon the pun), PB made me swoon. Literally. I was on the treadmill at the health club, when GE started on one of the TVs. PB appeared and I fell off the treadmill. The woman next to me said, "I know exactly what you mean." If you had asked me this question then, I'd have said no.

But now that I'm just getting into adulthood, my tastes have definitely changed. I had a thing with Sean for awhile, until I saw TLD and fell in love all over again with Tim. And it's stayed that way for about a year (seeing "Jane Eyre" and "Lion in Winter" in rapid succession confirmed that).

No, I'm not fickle, I'm just new at this.

P.S. To answer the question for today, I'll say "Yes, but not much."

Edited by Mamadou, 21 June 2006 - 04:55 AM.

[medrecess]

I must say your reply is one of the most interesting reply's i have ever read.
It shows that nothing lasts forever, we change and our preferences change.
But i had a doubt.You said if you asked the question today the reply would
be Yes , but not much.but who is too good looking for you ?

[Simon]

[quote name='Lazenby880' post='567387' date='20 June 2006 - 12:51']
[quote name='spynovelfan' post='566981' date='19 June 2006 - 11:31']But then, I thought he was closest to Bond in that, too. [/quote]
I know that everyone and their dog says that (and they are not necessarily wrong in saying so), but is Le Carr

[Jericho_One]

[quote name='Simon' post='567771' date='21 June 2006 - 10:55']
[quote name='Lazenby880' post='567387' date='20 June 2006 - 12:51']
[quote name='spynovelfan' post='566981' date='19 June 2006 - 11:31']But then, I thought he was closest to Bond in that, too. [/quote]
I know that everyone and their dog says that (and they are not necessarily wrong in saying so), but is Le Carr

[qtst]

I think the new Superman is definitely TOO Good Looking!

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think he was too good looking circa '86 and so the right man was cast but for Goldeneye was fine. I did think he was too pretty to be threatening but I changed my mind after The Fourth Protocol. I view him as a Roger Moore type: looks, charm and style in spades but not exactly convincing as a dangerous guy.

And unfortunately I think I'm too good looking as well.

[Jericho_One]

Back in '86 he was almost definitely too young and fresh looking.
Being cast only when he was over forty was a good thing - he already was a bit rugged in a good sense, it was a Bond almost "au point". But even in Goldeneye he was still somewhat too young looking (that probably was due to his hairstyle (just a bit too long). I particularly think his peak was on TND.
He would probably have another Bond in him was he to star in another film before he started looking too old to be a convincing agent. (Despite the fact that the same thing happened with Sir Roger Moore).
Even Connery looked too old in DAF.
Anyway, when it comes to good looks, Brosnan (at least for the time being) will always be another step ahead of the other Bonds.
But there's another question: Bond's clothes as chosen by the production. During Brosnan era (and that probably will go on with Craig, although the CR photos on the web show him in some informal outfits), Bond not only looked well dressed, he also looked expensively dressed. So, Brosnan did look too good from every angle.

[medrecess]

Back in '86 he was almost definitely too young and fresh looking.
Being cast only when he was over forty was a good thing - he already was a bit rugged in a good sense, it was a Bond almost "au point". But even in Goldeneye he was still somewhat too young looking (that probably was due to his hairstyle (just a bit too long). I particularly think his peak was on TND.
He would probably have another Bond in him was he to star in another film before he started looking too old to be a convincing agent. (Despite the fact that the same thing happened with Sir Roger Moore).
Even Connery looked too old in DAF.
Anyway, when it comes to good looks, Brosnan (at least for the time being) will always be another step ahead of the other Bonds.
But there's another question: Bond's clothes as chosen by the production. During Brosnan era (and that probably will go on with Craig, although the CR photos on the web show him in some informal outfits), Bond not only looked well dressed, he also looked expensively dressed. So, Brosnan did look too good from every angle.

I agree with you.Always ahead in terms of looks.Also his clothes were exquisite and expensive.Saville Row,Armani mostly.In GYE he looked young
for someone who is 42 years old.Men in there late 20s and early 30s look
older.
Even for me peak was TND as he looked mature,mean and dangerous.
It was the right balance of ruggedness and pretty boy looks in that movie
for me and that worked.He looked like a believable spy with some experience.

[K1Bond007]

I think he was too good looking circa '86 and so the right man was cast but for Goldeneye was fine. I did think he was too pretty to be threatening but I changed my mind after The Fourth Protocol. I view him as a Roger Moore type: looks, charm and style in spades but not exactly convincing as a dangerous guy.

I think I agree with this. It's not really that he's too good looking, it's that he's not realistic-looking as a dangerous secret agent. I think the same goes for Roger Moore. Dalton and Connery probably had the best look followed by Lazenby. Both have good looks, are rather suave, and have that dangerous-looking side.

You could look at it like this: If all the Bond's we're standing in a line and you had to pick one to have a fight with, who would it be. I'd pick Brosnan or Moore. I'd stay the away from Craig that's for sure. I'd be iffy about taking on Lazenby, which is funny because out of them all he's the one that would surely kick your because of his Special Forces unarmed combat training.. hell I think I read once that he was a instructor.

[Emma]

Broz has a face similar to Rob Lowes. Both are beautiful. Pierce got his scar in TND and a few wrinkles that gave him a bit more character. This helped. He never looked dangerous as Bond. He did look dangerous in The Fourth Protocol. The biggest problem with Broz was his body. Fine height but no real muscularity. He moved clumsily and definately not "panther-like" and he ran horribly. Rodger Moore had the same problem. I'm not saying that bond is a muscle bound thug but Connery, Laz and now Craig had/have a great swagger and the right look to be Bond.

To me Roger, Lazenby and Pierce carried themselves more like Kings or 'Imperial' Englishmen. Sean moved like a panther.

Daniel Craig has none of this. He moves more like a gladiator or an enforcer for the Bulgarian or Russian mob. I look at Craig and he has that kind of face they used to use, when casting abusive husbands on tv movies.

Many women do go for that kind of look but an equal number don't. I asked a couple of female colleagues just now and they kind of grimaced, as in yes, we all have to admit he's good-looking, but somehow still none of us would want him. In the end, being good-looking is a fairly empty quality. Even the best-looking man in the world needs something other than those looks to be attractive. The best looking man I ever went out with was indeed gorgeous, he was a model, but OMG he was boring. A sense of humour, intelligence, kindness and good personal hygiene are far more important.

One of the chief reasons, many women would not want a man who is as
good looking as Pierce, is because in their heart of hearts is that they know
a guy who is as good looking as Pierce wouldn't look twice at an ugly or average looking woman. I really think that your average looking woman (and by average I mean a woman who doesn't look as if she would be found modeling for Victoria's Secrets or Playb*y, find men who look like Pierce a threat.
We've all seen beautiful women with ugly men. But it's very rare to see a handsome man with an ugly woman. A guy like Pierce would really bring out the insecurity in an average/ugly woman, he would constantly remind her that she's not good looking enough to be with him.

But to answer the original question......


No I don't think that Pierce is too good looking. However I agree with many here who said that he would have been wrong for the part if he had gotten it in his mid 30's. Then he would have seemed too 'pretty'. But for when he did the part no. Because he was older and his features had hardened. Another thing which helped, is that even though Pierce is an exceptionally handsome man. He did not act or behave like a narcisstic pretty boy. Like George Clooney or Richard Gere or Tom Cruise. There's a great deal of substance to Pierce and an inherant humility that shines through.

I think the new Superman is definitely TOO Good Looking!

Yep.. that he is.....

[Santa]

[ There's a great deal of substance to Pierce and an inherant humility that shines through.

I think the new Superman is definitely TOO Good Looking!

I couldn't disagree more with both of these statements. Thank God we don't all fancy the same people.

[ke02eww]

[ There's a great deal of substance to Pierce and an inherant humility that shines through.

I think the new Superman is definitely TOO Good Looking!

I couldn't disagree more with both of these statements. Thank God we don't all fancy the same people.

A gentleman prefers blondes....of the opposite sex....

I always leave questions like to this to my wife....

She agrees with the both statements....

Now Honour Blackman.....

[Harmsway]

Is Pierce too good-looking for Bond?

IMO, yeah, he always was. He was just too "pretty-boy" and lacked the cruelness and rougher edge I desire in Bond. I also thought that Brosnan had nowhere near a big enough or fit enough.

In his performance as Bond, he also didn't carry that underlying menace and danger. He seemed, well, somewhat "safe" rather than someone you would call a "coldhearted bastard."