158 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

I think that depends on how one defines masculinity. For me Brosnan was a bit more metrosexual than his role required. Too flashy suits, too perfect haircat, too polished shoes, too everything to be exact. His performance wasn't balanced.

Hmm. Sir Roger had very flashy suits, his hair always looked immaculate and he definitely polished his shoes. But his performance was as balanced as Brosnan´s, wasn´t it?

[Aris007]

I think that depends on how one defines masculinity. For me Brosnan was a bit more metrosexual than his role required. Too flashy suits, too perfect haircat, too polished shoes, too everything to be exact. His performance wasn't balanced.

Hmm. Sir Roger had very flashy suits, his hair always looked immaculate and he definitely polished his shoes. But his performance was as balanced as Brosnan´s, wasn´t it?

Yeah, but then it was the 70s!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think that depends on how one defines masculinity. For me Brosnan was a bit more metrosexual than his role required. Too flashy suits, too perfect haircat, too polished shoes, too everything to be exact. His performance wasn't balanced.

Hmm. Sir Roger had very flashy suits, his hair always looked immaculate and he definitely polished his shoes. But his performance was as balanced as Brosnan´s, wasn´t it?

Yeah, but then it was the 70s!

Exactly!
Brosnan didn't represent the 1990's playboy, perhaps he embodied the 1980's playboy (Remington Steel style).

[jaguar007]

, but he's just as manly as Dalton (just not as cynical).

I have to disagree. Dalton had a strong voice and commanding presence that Brosnan lacked. Brosnan had more...flair..than Dalton.

[AMC Hornet]

Roger Moore said he would like to see Hugh Grant play 007.

The man definitely had a sense of humour.

Brosnan suggested Colin Farell for the job.

Manly enough for you?

Edited by AMC Hornet, 21 October 2011 - 09:30 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

, but he's just as manly as Dalton (just not as cynical).

I have to disagree. Dalton had a strong voice and commanding presence that Brosnan lacked. Brosnan had more...flair..than Dalton.

Well, at least... more hair.

[Aris007]

I think that depends on how one defines masculinity. For me Brosnan was a bit more metrosexual than his role required. Too flashy suits, too perfect haircat, too polished shoes, too everything to be exact. His performance wasn't balanced.

Hmm. Sir Roger had very flashy suits, his hair always looked immaculate and he definitely polished his shoes. But his performance was as balanced as Brosnan´s, wasn´t it?

Yeah, but then it was the 70s!

Exactly!
Brosnan didn't represent the 1990's playboy, perhaps he embodied the 1980's playboy (Remington Steel style).

Yes that's the problem. He embodied someone from another time and another place. He wasn't up to date. That's what made him look not-manly enough. Because people's opinions change from time to time.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think that depends on how one defines masculinity. For me Brosnan was a bit more metrosexual than his role required. Too flashy suits, too perfect haircat, too polished shoes, too everything to be exact. His performance wasn't balanced.

Hmm. Sir Roger had very flashy suits, his hair always looked immaculate and he definitely polished his shoes. But his performance was as balanced as Brosnan´s, wasn´t it?

Yeah, but then it was the 70s!

Exactly!
Brosnan didn't represent the 1990's playboy, perhaps he embodied the 1980's playboy (Remington Steel style).

Yes that's the problem. He embodied someone from another time and another place. He wasn't up to date. That's what made him look not-manly enough. Because people's opinions change from time to time.

Just as Connery embodied someone from another time (his), Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Craig do/did. That´s the beauty of James Bond - every film is tied to the current zeitgeist. How this can make any actor not manly enough? Your logic is faulty, Sir.

[JimmyBond]

I think that depends on how one defines masculinity. For me Brosnan was a bit more metrosexual than his role required. Too flashy suits, too perfect haircat, too polished shoes, too everything to be exact. His performance wasn't balanced.

Hmm. Sir Roger had very flashy suits, his hair always looked immaculate and he definitely polished his shoes. But his performance was as balanced as Brosnan´s, wasn´t it?

Yeah, but then it was the 70s!

Exactly!
Brosnan didn't represent the 1990's playboy, perhaps he embodied the 1980's playboy (Remington Steel style).

Yes that's the problem. He embodied someone from another time and another place. He wasn't up to date. That's what made him look not-manly enough. Because people's opinions change from time to time.

I know I've been accused of Brosnan bashing in the past, but boy howdy! This takes the cake for one of the weirdest ways to slag Brosnan off

[jaguar007]

Some may call him manly, some may call him mamly. Either way he was still very popular in the 90s so I'm not sure the whole "plays 80s man" really holds up

[Aris007]

I think that depends on how one defines masculinity. For me Brosnan was a bit more metrosexual than his role required. Too flashy suits, too perfect haircat, too polished shoes, too everything to be exact. His performance wasn't balanced.

Hmm. Sir Roger had very flashy suits, his hair always looked immaculate and he definitely polished his shoes. But his performance was as balanced as Brosnan´s, wasn´t it?

Yeah, but then it was the 70s!

Exactly!
Brosnan didn't represent the 1990's playboy, perhaps he embodied the 1980's playboy (Remington Steel style).

Yes that's the problem. He embodied someone from another time and another place. He wasn't up to date. That's what made him look not-manly enough. Because people's opinions change from time to time.

Just as Connery embodied someone from another time (his), Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Craig do/did. That´s the beauty of James Bond - every film is tied to the current zeitgeist. How this can make any actor not manly enough? Your logic is faulty, Sir.

I think that there is a misunderstanding here. What "Mr.Arlington Beach" stated is that Brosnan embodied the type of man pictured in the 80s. Brosnan portraed Bond in the 90s. There's a decade between. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Craig were all up-to-date following what their era found attractive for a man, right, down-to-earth, acceptable in terms of clothing and even manly.
I believe that a man from the 80s would look ridiculous today in terms of style and not only. So would he in the 90s. Each decade has its own rules. Society evolves. Something that's 10 years old won't look the same as a new one.

That's my point. I don't if my logic is still faulty.

I think that depends on how one defines masculinity. For me Brosnan was a bit more metrosexual than his role required. Too flashy suits, too perfect haircat, too polished shoes, too everything to be exact. His performance wasn't balanced.

Hmm. Sir Roger had very flashy suits, his hair always looked immaculate and he definitely polished his shoes. But his performance was as balanced as Brosnan´s, wasn´t it?

Yeah, but then it was the 70s!

Exactly!
Brosnan didn't represent the 1990's playboy, perhaps he embodied the 1980's playboy (Remington Steel style).

Yes that's the problem. He embodied someone from another time and another place. He wasn't up to date. That's what made him look not-manly enough. Because people's opinions change from time to time.

I know I've been accused of Brosnan bashing in the past, but boy howdy! This takes the cake for one of the weirdest ways to slag Brosnan off

Certainly I don't call that bashing! It's just an opinion. I didn't say that everything around him is wrong and that he was the worst Bond ever existed. I just say that a part of him the cover was a bit OTT. I strongly believe that he had strong potential, but the writing destroyed it all I'm afraid.

I know I used to fing everything he did cool and Bondian, but people change. I don't know if it was adolecence that made everythinh look right, but right know having taken a break from Bond for a year or so it feels different. It looks strange and certainly not completely right!

[Lachesis]

I know I used to fing everything he did cool and Bondian, but people change. I don't know if it was adolecence that made everythinh look right, but right know having taken a break from Bond for a year or so it feels different. It looks strange and certainly not completely right!

I would cite this as proof Brosnan was playing Bond of his age (the 90's), just like the others and you percieved this delivery as right at the time...its simply your perspectives and biasses that have subsequently changed with the times. The idea that Brosnan was playing an 80's styled man in the 90's is more than a bit absurd and indeed IF that were the case its more likely the costumier and director that are responsible - but I am unsure what these superficial elements have to do with being manly?

Edited by Lachesis, 22 October 2011 - 09:08 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Some may call him manly, some may call him mamly. Either way he was still very popular in the 90s so I'm not sure the whole "plays 80s man" really holds up

Brosnan movies were popular on the nineties, mostly because of the retro fashion from that last decade of the century was inspired by the sixties: the years of the Bondmania.

[The Shark]

Brosnan's Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

?

[Lachesis]

Some may call him manly, some may call him mamly. Either way he was still very popular in the 90s so I'm not sure the whole "plays 80s man" really holds up

Brosnan movies were popular on the nineties, mostly because of the retro fashion from that last decade of the century was inspired by the sixties: the years of the Bondmania.

So Brosnan's Bond is guilty of indulging retro fashion in the nineties, when retro fashion was in fashion in the nineties? Isn't that therefore entirely appropriate, regardless of how we view those fashions today?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Some may call him manly, some may call him mamly. Either way he was still very popular in the 90s so I'm not sure the whole "plays 80s man" really holds up

Brosnan movies were popular on the nineties, mostly because of the retro fashion from that last decade of the century was inspired by the sixties: the years of the Bondmania.

So Brosnan's Bond is guilty of indulging retro fashion in the nineties, when retro fashion was in fashion in the nineties? Isn't that therefore entirely appropriate, regardless of how we view those fashions today?

No.

What I said is that having the sixties retro fashion on the nineties, almost anyone who had played the role of Bond would have enjoyed success with the movies- even if the actor plays the part with a non commanding voice and with a look reminiscent of an 1980's playboy- , because people, following that retro fashion, had a predisposition to embrace anything that seemed to be iconic of the sixties, and the stories of the Brosnan era seemed like a greatest hits of Bond (particularly emphasizing the sixties peaks of the EON series).

[Lachesis]

Some may call him manly, some may call him mamly. Either way he was still very popular in the 90s so I'm not sure the whole "plays 80s man" really holds up

Brosnan movies were popular on the nineties, mostly because of the retro fashion from that last decade of the century was inspired by the sixties: the years of the Bondmania.

So Brosnan's Bond is guilty of indulging retro fashion in the nineties, when retro fashion was in fashion in the nineties? Isn't that therefore entirely appropriate, regardless of how we view those fashions today?

No.

What I said is that having the sixties retro fashion on the nineties, almost anyone who had played the role of Bond would have enjoyed success with the movies- even if the actor plays the part with a non commanding voice and with a look reminiscent of an 1980's playboy- , because people, following that retro fashion, had a predisposition to embrace anything that seemed to be iconic of the sixties, and the stories of the Brosnan era seemed like a greatest hits of Bond (particularly emphasizing the sixties peaks of the EON series).

I think if the films or Brosnan in particular had failed to capture the requisite mood the audiences would have little truck whether Retro was in or not (they were not so forgiving of Dalton in LTK 6 years earlier and ironically Brosnan's biggest Bond commercially was DAD in '02 rather than his 90's outings). The idea that the producers cast this wrong at a time it just happened not to matter is a little hard to believe.

[SecretAgentFan]

Some may call him manly, some may call him mamly. Either way he was still very popular in the 90s so I'm not sure the whole "plays 80s man" really holds up

Brosnan movies were popular on the nineties, mostly because of the retro fashion from that last decade of the century was inspired by the sixties: the years of the Bondmania.

So Brosnan's Bond is guilty of indulging retro fashion in the nineties, when retro fashion was in fashion in the nineties? Isn't that therefore entirely appropriate, regardless of how we view those fashions today?

No.

What I said is that having the sixties retro fashion on the nineties, almost anyone who had played the role of Bond would have enjoyed success with the movies- even if the actor plays the part with a non commanding voice and with a look reminiscent of an 1980's playboy- , because people, following that retro fashion, had a predisposition to embrace anything that seemed to be iconic of the sixties, and the stories of the Brosnan era seemed like a greatest hits of Bond (particularly emphasizing the sixties peaks of the EON series).

Now that is clearly wrong, Sir. Otherwise "The Avengers" would have been a huge hit.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Some may call him manly, some may call him mamly. Either way he was still very popular in the 90s so I'm not sure the whole "plays 80s man" really holds up

Brosnan movies were popular on the nineties, mostly because of the retro fashion from that last decade of the century was inspired by the sixties: the years of the Bondmania.

So Brosnan's Bond is guilty of indulging retro fashion in the nineties, when retro fashion was in fashion in the nineties? Isn't that therefore entirely appropriate, regardless of how we view those fashions today?

No.

What I said is that having the sixties retro fashion on the nineties, almost anyone who had played the role of Bond would have enjoyed success with the movies- even if the actor plays the part with a non commanding voice and with a look reminiscent of an 1980's playboy- , because people, following that retro fashion, had a predisposition to embrace anything that seemed to be iconic of the sixties, and the stories of the Brosnan era seemed like a greatest hits of Bond (particularly emphasizing the sixties peaks of the EON series).

Now that is clearly wrong, Sir. Otherwise "The Avengers" would have been a huge hit.

Not, really...

One of the major problems of The Avengers movie was that it wasn't set on the sixties (even some critics said that at the time, I think). Altough, it's true that Bond movies from the nineties never were period pieces either, Bond- unlike Peel & Steed partnership- was accepted as a kind of "relic" from the sixties, that nonetheless has survived until the nineties. Preconception that is even used by the script of GE, through of a Bond's 1964 Aston Martin for instance.

[jaguar007]

Some may call him manly, some may call him mamly. Either way he was still very popular in the 90s so I'm not sure the whole "plays 80s man" really holds up

Brosnan movies were popular on the nineties, mostly because of the retro fashion from that last decade of the century was inspired by the sixties: the years of the Bondmania.

So Brosnan's Bond is guilty of indulging retro fashion in the nineties, when retro fashion was in fashion in the nineties? Isn't that therefore entirely appropriate, regardless of how we view those fashions today?

No.

What I said is that having the sixties retro fashion on the nineties, almost anyone who had played the role of Bond would have enjoyed success with the movies- even if the actor plays the part with a non commanding voice and with a look reminiscent of an 1980's playboy- , because people, following that retro fashion, had a predisposition to embrace anything that seemed to be iconic of the sixties, and the stories of the Brosnan era seemed like a greatest hits of Bond (particularly emphasizing the sixties peaks of the EON series).

Now that is clearly wrong, Sir. Otherwise "The Avengers" would have been a huge hit.

Except The Avengers TV has largely been forgotten by mainstream US audiences and the movie basically sucked.

[Lachesis]

It still seems to me that people are re-evalutating Brosnan in light of their own changing attitude's rather than some unforced mistake made at the time of casting. The reception, both commercial and critical, to Brosnan as Bond was positive at the time of GE and certainly reawakened interest in Bond, whether he played it 'retro' or not it really seems it was the right descision for that time. Indeed, though it pains me to think it, as someone who believes Dalton was head and shoulders better in the role (and deserved a GE of his own), the reception of Dalton tends to indicate that the public of the time weren't ready for a more serious take and might well have been happier if Brosnan had been cast for TLD as per the producers first choice.

As fans we love to retrospectively revisit and often wish we could rewrite history in our own image but the ongoing success of Bond has really been down to shrewd and responsive descisions by a production team (whether we individually like them or not) that was cleary in tune with the needs of the audiences of the day.

[AMC Hornet]

[DR76]

Exactly what are the requirements for being manly?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Exactly what are the requirements for being manly?

IMO, a commanding voice does helps a lot; thing that Brosnan certainly never had (unlike the other five Bond actors within the EON series).

[Jim]

Exactly what are the requirements for being manly?

Not being womanly.

[Lachesis]

Exactly what are the requirements for being manly?

IMO, a commanding voice does helps a lot; thing that Brosnan certainly never had (unlike the other five Bond actors within the EON series).

I probably can see something in the voice issue, Brosnan's is very mellow and post GE carries a vaguely bored tone but then I'm not sure I'd rate Lazenby or Craig's voice as commanding so it's not a major factor in my assessment of their manly convictions.

Edited by Lachesis, 28 October 2011 - 12:49 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Exactly what are the requirements for being manly?

IMO, a commanding voice does helps a lot; thing that Brosnan certainly never had (unlike the other five Bond actors within the EON series).

I probably can see something in the voice issue, Brosnan's is very mellow and post GE carries a vaguely bored tone but then I'm not sure I'd rate Lazenby or Craig's voice as commanding so it's not a major factor in my assessment of their manly convictions.

I think Brosnan's voice it's far away the less aggressive from the Bond actors; that's of course including Lazenby (who had, imo, a playboysh voice tone) and Craig (who has a very dry voice tone to talk- i.e. when he yells at Vesper: "Go", at the end of the staircase fight. In fact, his delivery make me remember Connery's in Thunderball when he yells: "Move" to Largo's spy in the hotel-).

Actually, I have to say that it has less to do with acting and it's more related with the natural tone of each actor; and this is why I think producers made a mistake at casting an actor with a non commanding voice (who isn't able to pitch a voice like that neither) for a role like Bond.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 28 October 2011 - 05:47 PM.

[TCK]

If Brosnan wasn't manly, I don't know what you call manliness.



In Goldeneye, don't you see his manliness during the indoor swimming pool scene ("No more foreplay..."), or when he beats the man up aboard the Manticore ? Pierce Brosnan was manly but not enough to be a manly James Bond, because his Bondian manliness was an empty manliness, just like his Bond was an empty Bond. His 007 has class, but he only has that. That's the way I see it.

[Thunderfinger]

They might as well have put Samantha Bond in the lead and cast Pierce as Mr. Moneypenny.