158 replies to this topic

[Mr. Somerset]

Don't get me wrong, I like Pierce (I was a fan of Remington Stelle), but not as Bond. The main problem I have with him as Bond is is lack of manliness. Place the guy next to Sean Connery and he looks like he should be prancing in a tutu at a pride parade.

Ouch.

*pssst...Pierce, go away now! Don't read this*

Note I said "next to Sean Connery" of course if you look up masculinity in the dictionary, you will find a picture of Sean Connery

Getting kicked in the face by Daniel Craig, naturally.

That made me laugh.
I'd say Pierce was manly in the Simon Templar sense.
I've always looked at Bonds as possesing two physical types:
The Bond actor who could have or did play Simon Templar -more suave than rugged
and the Bond actor who might have made a decent Mike Hammer- harder edged.

PB, I could have seen playing the Saint at some point. Same goes for Dalton, although his demeanor was more cold.
Connery's Bond was much more in the Mike Hammer mold- and Craig has that quality as well.

[jaguar007]

nuff said

[s.a.s. Malko]

Don't get me wrong, I like Pierce (I was a fan of Remington Stelle), but not as Bond. The main problem I have with him as Bond is is lack of manliness. Place the guy next to Sean Connery and he looks like he should be prancing in a tutu at a pride parade.

Ouch.

*pssst...Pierce, go away now! Don't read this*

Note I said "next to Sean Connery" of course if you look up masculinity in the dictionary, you will find a picture of Sean Connery

Getting kicked in the face by Daniel Craig, naturally.

I think Craig is not tall enough to kick Connery´s face even when Connery is on his knees :-)

[Safari Suit]

nuff said

I dunno, some might say a true test of "manliness" is being secure enough in your masculinity to do something like that. Maybe that's BS but frankly I think it at least offers more food for thought than another lazy shot founded on a astoundingly cerebral concept like Brosnan's "lack of manliness"

[Double-Oh Agent]

Oh come on. Connery was fighting some seriously tough guys. Brosnan up against grant or oddjob would have been butchered. At least when Connery fought these guys, he still put up an impressively agressive fight.

And Brosnan didn't during the Alec Trevelyan fight--one of the best fights in Bond history? Granted, he didn't have as many fights or imposing henchmen to fight as Connery did (in part to only doing four films to Connery's seven) but Brosnan was fine in his fights and didn't get beaten up at any more or less a rate than any of the other Bonds.


But again, you've listed off a name of villains Bond has gone up against that are tough adversaries by any standard. Obviously Connery and Moore aren't just going to fight these guys without getting tagged, we might as well be watching superman going all out and whipping the butts of greedy children with bad tempers waving sticks in the air.

But again, my point is you made it sound that only Brosnan was beaten up in his films while the other Bonds weren't--and Connery was often beaten up, granted it was usually by imposing henchmen, but that only made his victories all the sweeter. Other than Jaws, I would say Moore's opponents are roughly along the same equivalent as Brosnan's were. I'd also say that Brosnan is at the very least as "manly" as Moore and clearly a better and more believable fighter than Moore.

Perhaps if Brosnan had been given better henchmen to go up against, you and other people would have a higher opinion of him and his "manliness". But Xenia was a woman so EON couldn't have him punching her in a hand-to-hand combat situation, Stamper and Zao were both missed opportunities for great knock-down drag out fights, and Renard was even more so for many reasons. Brosnan proved in the Trevelyan fight that he could do a good, hard fight scene but unfortunately, the writers and/or stunt coordinators never really gave him another one of that type, but it certainly wasn't Brosnan's fault for that or due to his supposed "lack of manliness".

But is it really? I'm sorry but compare Brosnan to Connery. Connery didn't have the luxury of looking tough as nails just because he had hidden gadgets up his sleeve all the time. Connery is the quentessential definition of what being a man was all about. Brosnan came off as a poser. There was no real agression or better yet alpha male quality to him.

I never got a poser vibe from Brosnan. He always seemed to be the coolest guy in the room to me and one who could handle himself in any situation. However, I will freely admit that he is not as "manly" or as tough as Connery, but then who is? Shoot, he was named People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive when he was 58 years old! Today, Connery is 79 and he STILL has it. Just because Brosnan isn't Connery doesn't mean he sucks or is a poser. Hell, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, AND Craig can't touch Connery in that department.


Yes, James Bond is also 6ft something but Daniel Craig isn't.

But not everyone can be/play James Bond either. Just look at some of the 007 contenders over the years.

I've seen campy gay men get the better of homophobic "tough guys" but by anyone's standards they wouldn't be considered manly.

If you look long enough, you can find exceptions to every rule. But Brosnan being the one "non-manly" James Bond is not one of them. EON has, so far, been fortunate to hit on all six of its 007 actors and that includes traits regarding their manliness.

This fight imo is the most overrated fight in the history of the Bond series. It was poorly choreographed, looked too staged and considering it was a personal moment of combat, it lacked authenticity. Sean Bean's performance was the only thing that gave the fight any sot of credibility.

Totally disagree. It's one of the best. And Brosnan matches Bean punch for punch.

Hardly call him tough and manly there. Stamper's men were uncoordinated idiots. Bond took advantage of this and started attacking them with nearby peripherals in a rather comedic way I might add.

Connery used peripherals in his fight with Bouvard in Thunderball too (chair, tapestry, fire poker) among other fights. And the only reason there's comedy in the Tomorrow Never Dies fight is because you see much of the fight from outside the sound-proofed room. What's funny is that this very physical, visible, and undoubtedly noisy fight is going on right next door and the guard in the room isn't watching it and can't hear it. It has nothing to do with how Brosnan is fighting or using the peripherals.


Hardly a manly moment. It was the gadget that Kaufman electrocuted himself with that turned the tables around. All Bond did was make a tough-looking face and pull the trigger.

While he benefited from the use of a gadget (which Bond hasn't?--see Connery with Grant and the briefcase) Brosnan still plays this scene well. FYI, I was referring more to the coldness he displays in doing away with Kaufman.


Again, the real hero being the gadget. Compare that to when Connery who was completely unarmed was at Dr.No's dinner table.

Hardly. Granted, it gave him an element of surprise, but he still had FOUR people to deal with afterward (all of whom were standing around him while he sat), three of which were armed, and he very capably and believably overcame that--and yes, did it in a manly way.

As for the Dr. No dinner table scene, what happened? All it pretty much was was verbal jousting. Brosnan does the same thing with Elliot Carver in Saigon. About the only difference is the setting and the quality of the writing.

Please tell me you're joking.

No, I'm not joking. The confrontation with Elektra up in the tower and his killing of her works. His bending over her body afterwards, does not.

I'll agree this fight was manly but lets be real here, it was an excuse to show off yet another area of expertise that ond is so good at and top of that, lok at where the fight took place. Hardly a fight to the death or to be taken too seriously...with all those spectators around.

You're definitely nit-picking here. How's this any different than Craig's free-running in Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace? Both are excuses to "show off yet another area of expertise". The important thing is that it is well done and exciting and the sword fight is both.

No, it wasn't a fight to the death, although if none of the spectators were present it could have been. However, that fight got amped up waaaay more than any normal "friendly" sword fight ever does. Bond and Graves took it very seriously and were out to hurt each other, if not kill each other, which all great Bond-villain gaming competitions should do.


You mean the way he struts in smirking and looking like John the Baptist in wet clothes? Well, it's not like he had any other options. Every other to play Bond has walked into a hotel looking decidedly more manly and confident.

All the other Bonds were fortunate to enter hotels looking very much themselves (i.e. clean-cut, clean shaven, and wearing a suit). Brosnan has to do it with long hair, a scraggy beard, and wearing pajamas and yet he still manages to do it in a "manly" way that only Bond can do and get away with.

I'm not trying to knock Brosnan, I've gone on record saying how much I like him but if I'm to be honest, my opinion is, he just lacked a natural and credible manliness and he had no commanding presense. I think Brosnan gets a tough time particulalrly because of this. What ever the flaws of all the other actors, they all were at least commanding to some degree but Brosnan....*sighs*

I don't get this lack of credible manliness and/or commanding presence coming from you and others. I see none of it and find much of it just anti-Brosnan folks who are looking to bash him for something/anything. Simply put, Brosnan is just as acceptable in those areas as the other Bonds. Some may have more of one or both, but he has more than enough of both himself.

[jaguar007]

I don't think fight scenes show how manly or unmanly one is, they are scripted and choreographed. It is about mannerisms and attitude. While Brosnan came across as more masculine than he did as Remington Steele, imo he is still the least masculine of the Bonds. It is partially his slim build, his soft voice, too pretty looks and his mannerisms were slightly effeminate. It does not make him un-enjoyable to watch. I said earlier I was a fan of Remington Steele and some of his other films.

I would rank the manliness of the Bond actors from most macho to least macho

1. Connery (uber-macho)
2. Craig
3. Lazenby
4. Dalton
5. Moore
6. Brosnan

BTW, The macho listing is not a listing of my favorite Bonds, just how I think they come across as manly.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I think Brosnan was manly enough for the part. I don't find him any less masculine than Moore or Lazenby.

As for the comments about the GoldenEye fight above, I think the whole film lacks the kind of intensity one would expect from having one of Bond's old pals turning on him and the world. The Mr. Brosnan VS Mr. Bean (heh) fight is very good in my eyes, but could have been even more "personal", whatever that means.

[Tarl_Cabot]

nuff said

LOL

[The Shark]

It's because he's worth it.

[JimmyBond]

It's because he's worth it.

That...makes no sense at all.

What point are you trying to get across with such a nonsensical post?

[BrozFan]

It's because he's worth it.

That...makes no sense at all.

What point are you trying to get across with such a nonsensical post?

I can only summise from your post that you are not "worth it"?

The Shark is making total sense even if I don't quite agree with the point he is making.

On a separate note Roger Moore in TSWLM giving Sandor a limp kick that he can only muster because the former is hanging from a wooden beam is far less masculine that anything Brosnan is 'guilty' of doing. Roger, the abit charming wuss, Moore was documented as afraid to use guns or slap around female characters (something is uber 'manly' contemporaries are not afflicted by). His lack of 'manliness' seriously shone through despite his coolness. Unfortunately there seems to be no fashionble bashing thread for him...

Edited by BrozFan, 21 September 2009 - 11:06 PM.

[JimmyBond]

It's because he's worth it.

That...makes no sense at all.

What point are you trying to get across with such a nonsensical post?

I can only summise from your post that you are not "worth it"?

The Shark is making total sense even if I don't quite agree with the point he is making.

Perhaps you can explain his point to me then, because all I see is his sentence "Because he's worth it." And I've no idea what that means.

Maybe it'd make more sense if the picture was showing up? I dunno.

Edit: I got the picture to show up, and I still have no idea what Shark means. The question asked is Was Brosnan manly? And Shark replies with because he's worth it!?

That makes no sense.

[Tybre]

It's because he's worth it.

That...makes no sense at all.

What point are you trying to get across with such a nonsensical post?

I can only summise from your post that you are not "worth it"?

The Shark is making total sense even if I don't quite agree with the point he is making.

Perhaps you can explain his point to me then, because all I see is his sentence "Because he's worth it." And I've no idea what that means.

Maybe it'd make more sense if the picture was showing up? I dunno.

Edit: I got the picture to show up, and I still have no idea what Shark means. The question asked is Was Brosnan manly? And Shark replies with because he's worth it!?

That makes no sense.

Image address: http://img.trendenci...an-loreal-a.jpg

That's about all I can gather towards any degree of a point about the picture.

[JimmyBond]

Thanks Tybre, but I copy and pasted the link myself earlier and now the picture is showing up for me (weird I know). But like I said earlier, the picture still doesnt shed any light on Shark's cryptic and ultimately pointless post.

[BrozFan]

It's because he's worth it.

That...makes no sense at all.

What point are you trying to get across with such a nonsensical post?

I can only summise from your post that you are not "worth it"?

The Shark is making total sense even if I don't quite agree with the point he is making.

Perhaps you can explain his point to me then, because all I see is his sentence "Because he's worth it." And I've no idea what that means.

Maybe it'd make more sense if the picture was showing up? I dunno.

Edit: I got the picture to show up, and I still have no idea what Shark means. The question asked is Was Brosnan manly? And Shark replies with because he's worth it!?

That makes no sense.

It's because he's worth it.

That...makes no sense at all.

What point are you trying to get across with such a nonsensical post?

I can only summise from your post that you are not "worth it"?

The Shark is making total sense even if I don't quite agree with the point he is making.

Perhaps you can explain his point to me then, because all I see is his sentence "Because he's worth it." And I've no idea what that means.

Maybe it'd make more sense if the picture was showing up? I dunno.

Edit: I got the picture to show up, and I still have no idea what Shark means. The question asked is Was Brosnan manly? And Shark replies with because he's worth it!?

That makes no sense.

Image address: http://img.trendenci...an-loreal-a.jpg

That's about all I can gather towards any degree of a point about the picture.

Thanks Tybre, but I copy and pasted the link myself earlier and now the picture is showing up for me (weird I know). But like I said earlier, the picture still doesnt shed any light on Shark's cryptic and ultimately pointless post.

This absurd thread is slamming Brosnan for not being 'manly'.

The Shark threw out the L'Oreal tagline "because you're worth it" as uttered by the celebrities that endorse said products.

Pierce Brosnan was/is featuring in L'Oreal adverts for male skincare products. So when The Shark says "because he's worth it" he is alluding to the supposedly effeminate idea of the modern metrosexual male: i.e. the Pierce Brosnan that will go on tv and say he moisturises. Thus alluding to the pretty-boy stereotype many label Brosnan's Bond with.

Not that Brosnan's extra curricular work has anything to do with Bond mind you...

He made a joke. You didn't get it. That doesn't mean you should denounce other people's posts as non-sensical and pointless.

Edited by BrozFan, 22 September 2009 - 12:26 AM.

[Bucky]

he might have been cool but i dont think i would describe him as manly

[JimmyBond]

He made a joke. You didn't get it. That doesn't mean you should denounce other people's posts as non-sensical and pointless.

Perhaps I would have got it if it was funny. As it stands it's pointless. And yes, nonsensical

[BrozFan]

He made a joke. You didn't get it. That doesn't mean you should denounce other people's posts as non-sensical and pointless.

Perhaps I would have got it if it was funny. As it stands it's pointless. And yes, nonsensical

How is a comment pointless if it is related to the thread?

And how is a comment nonsensical if it can be understood?

Your confusion had nothing to do with whether the comment was funny or not - you clearly didn't understand the intertextual reference - hence why you asked to have it explained to you.

Edited by BrozFan, 22 September 2009 - 01:53 AM.

[JimmyBond]

A good joke shouldnt require explanation though. And I'm not the only one that was confused as to the meaning of his post.

And this thread isnt really a bashing thread. Why is it that whenever someone posts something that's a tad bit critical it's all of a sudden considered Brosnan bashing?

[BrozFan]

A good joke shouldnt require explanation though. And I'm not the only one that was confused as to the meaning of his post.

And this thread isnt really a bashing thread. Why is it that whenever someone posts something that's a tad bit critical it's all of a sudden considered Brosnan bashing?

If I said that I didn't quite follow The Godfather on first viewing, and found the plot hard to follow, would that make it a bad film?

No is the answer to that one.

Look mate, to some, no explanation was required. It can't be helped if you and your friend are not the brightest bulbs in the box.

Besides, I doubt it was meant to be the greatest witticism of all time - it was a reference meant to point out how some aspects of Pierce Brosnan's life, i.e. television adverts, somehow tarnish his reputation as a decent, or 'manly' Bond and help construct an image in some people's minds as to why Brosnan is not what thet would call 'manly'.

But it would seem that this salient point is repeatedly going over your head.

I understand what Shark is getting at but such comments go hand in hand with the cheap shots about dressing in ghastly sequin-numbers for the end of Mamma Mia which have absolutely nothing to do with his Bond portrayal, hence why (some) comments could be perceived as bashing.

[BrozFan]

I also think that Daniel Craig is almost too manly for Bond.

Rubbish. Surely you jest?

I totally agree with what WhatMeWorry has said - this is my major critcism of Craig's Bond.

I like the physicality Craig brings to the table. No-one can argue that he is more than competent in action scenes, however what gains he has in these areas, I feel, make him lacking in others. Yeah he is 'manly' in a stereotypical sense, but it is a far too brutish macho image for the Bond of the books, or even the movies for that matter, that borders on a mini-Schwarzenggar - just with better pronunciation.

Take the scene where he crashes through the dry-wall when pursuing Mollaka in Casino Royale. Yes it was humourous and unexpected and provided a nice juxtoposition and set a new tone for the character very efficiently. But is a was too comic-book. Too Hulk-smash but in pink rather than green. He looks like he spends every night in the gym. I'm sure he eats well and has perfectly formed stools but it just looks like he tries to hard. With ALL the other Bonds, their 'manliness' appears much more natural to me. Become too 'manly' and it becomes almost thuggish and somewhat repulsive.

Overall I think Craig is great in the roll. He can act and he is as cool as a cucumber. But is he suave? I'd have to say no, even if the swanky Tom Ford suits can dissuade me momentarily.

Edited by BrozFan, 22 September 2009 - 02:47 AM.

[Tybre]

At least the way I see it, Craig Bond isn't meant to be suave. Not genuinely suave anyway. With QoS intended as picking up pretty much right after CR left off, and CR really giving us the impression this is the first time Bond's done the whole "the name's Bond. James Bond.", fancy tux, etc. thing, it wouldn't make sense for Craig Bond to be running around all full of Roger charm in Quantum of Solace, now would it? And who knows, maybe he can bring that suaveness to the table in the next film. And if he doesn't, he doesn't. He's still a good 007.

[BrozFan]

At least the way I see it, Craig Bond isn't meant to be suave. Not genuinely suave anyway. With QoS intended as picking up pretty much right after CR left off, and CR really giving us the impression this is the first time Bond's done the whole "the name's Bond. James Bond.", fancy tux, etc. thing, it wouldn't make sense for Craig Bond to be running around all full of Roger charm in Quantum of Solace, now would it? And who knows, maybe he can bring that suaveness to the table in the next film. And if he doesn't, he doesn't. He's still a good 007.

I agree that bucketloads of charm of the Roger variety would not be approriate for QoS, or even Craig's Bond. But even on a more 'serious' mission I think he could have illustrated the suave he was capable of. Its all about the way he carries himself: its all a tad boring and abbrasive seeing him charge in and out of rooms, slamming doors etc. The way he carries himself has nothing to do with Bond being at the start of his career. It is deliberate motif of Craig's characterisation.
For example, I particularly dislike the way in which Craig searches through the archived tapes in the security room in CR: flipping violently through each disc, spending all of one micro-second reading each because he is quite obviously more interested in slamming each plastic case into the next as hard as humanly possible with one finger. Rather than coming across as efficient, the paralingusitics are all rather oafish.

Of course he doesn't have to be suave and personally I like it when each actor is different in their interpretation. But I think without the a certain level or suaverity (yes I'm coining that one!) it can leave some fans cold, and in my case, depsite his good points, helps me rank Craig lower than I would like.

And if he doesn't bring the suave to the table then yes he will still be a good Bond. But by that same token if Brosnan (for example) isn't quite as 'rough and tumble' as the likes of Craig or Lazenby that doesn't mean he is not also a good 007 either.

Edited by BrozFan, 22 September 2009 - 03:11 AM.

[jaguar007]

he might have been cool but i dont think i would describe him as manly

BINGO! I may not come across as a big Brosnan fan, but I do like the guy, as I said earlier I was a big fan in the 80s of Remington Steele. This hits the nail on the head. He is cool, but not that manly. It is like comparing John Wayne and Cary Grant. John Wayne was certainly more manly, but Cary Grant was so cool (of course Pierce Brosnan is no where near as cool as Cary Grant, and I think Brozza himself would be the fist to agree with me).

[jaguar007]

however what gains he has in these areas, I feel, make him lacking in others. Yeah he is 'manly' in a stereotypical sense, but it is a far too brutish macho image for the Bond of the books, or even the movies for that matter, that borders on a mini-Schwarzenggar - just with better pronunciation.

Take the scene where he crashes through the dry-wall when pursuing Mollaka in Casino Royale. Yes it was humourous and unexpected and provided a nice juxtoposition and set a new tone for the character very efficiently. But is a was too comic-book. Too Hulk-smash but in pink rather than green.

Freshly set- dry wall is not very hard to bust through, even Brosnan Bond could have done it. Nobody complains when Connery busted through the paperish wall in YOLT, yet I have heard people argue about how un-Bondish it is to bust through dry wall. When freshly set, it is not that much more sturdy than paper. I would rather see Bond bust through it than stop and worry about messing up his three piece suit he was wearing in Madagascar

Sometimes people complain about Craig not being suave enough to be Fleming's Bond. Am I alone in feeling that Fleming's Bond was not really that suave? Sure he wore suits(but so did almost all men in the 1950s) and was fastidious about certain foods (like scrambled eggs), but he was not really very suave.

[Tybre]

however what gains he has in these areas, I feel, make him lacking in others. Yeah he is 'manly' in a stereotypical sense, but it is a far too brutish macho image for the Bond of the books, or even the movies for that matter, that borders on a mini-Schwarzenggar - just with better pronunciation.

Take the scene where he crashes through the dry-wall when pursuing Mollaka in Casino Royale. Yes it was humourous and unexpected and provided a nice juxtoposition and set a new tone for the character very efficiently. But is a was too comic-book. Too Hulk-smash but in pink rather than green.

Freshly set- dry wall is not very hard to bust through, even Brosnan Bond could have done it. Nobody complains when Connery busted through the paperish wall in YOLT, yet I have heard people argue about how un-Bondish it is to bust through dry wall. When freshly set, it is not that much more sturdy than paper. I would rather see Bond bust through it than stop and worry about messing up his three piece suit he was wearing in Madagascar

Sometimes people complain about Craig not being suave enough to be Fleming's Bond. Am I alone in feeling that Fleming's Bond was not really that suave? Sure he wore suits(but so did almost all men in the 1950s) and was fastidious about certain foods (like scrambled eggs), but he was not really very suave.

Indeed. The man feels to me like a dandy. Someone who puts on the bon vivant front because he feels that's what's important, not because he really is one.

[Santa]

Freshly set- dry wall is not very hard to bust through, even Brosnan Bond could have done it.

Quite. I've done it twice, once by accident.

[Loomis]

nuff said

I dunno, some might say a true test of "manliness" is being secure enough in your masculinity to do something like that.

I concur.

And I don't see any particular grounds to slam Brosnan and/or his Bond as unmanly.

A fella can be more than manly enough without being macho in a rootin' tootin' John Wayne way.

[Hotwinds]

I want to know what the average age is on this forum is to have the word a.s.s. cenosored out. Should we say "he could kick my bum"?

Pierce Brosnan's Bond could kick my and I consider myself manly.

[BoogieBond]

I like the analogy an interviewer made to Martin Campbell during CR interviews :
Connery and Craig are your Frank Sinatra type Bonds, scrappers and tough.(Hence the Macho image)
Brosnan and Moore are your Dean Martin type Bonds, smooth and a bit more finesse to them.
Depends if you like your Bond as Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin.
All Bonds are masculine by definition, having courage and bravery and a daredevil nature, because that's what Bond is(not to mention a bit of Bond's womanising ways)