Never looked to closely in the reports but I believe many of Hatcher's scenes were cut in post production due to her performances not being up to scratch
Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
Never looked to closely in the reports but I believe many of Hatcher's scenes were cut in post production due to her performances not being up to scratch
Yeah, OK.
I actually think Anthony Hopkins would've been better as the Cossack born MI6 operative, since he is the right age to vaguely remember the British betrayal and he looks more Eastern European than Sean Bean. Jonathan Pryce was more suitable for other roles, but he didn't do a bad job in Tomorrow Never Dies as a pompous and crazed media baron, while his motivation was really not that stupid if he is going to have universal media rights for over a billion people.
GoldenEye was more enjoyable than DAD, TLD, and most Roger Moore movies, but it is still a rather average and overrated movie, with a surprisingly muddled plot; it's genuinely legendary contributions to popular culture only being Famke Jansen and that N64 game.
The film when down in order they were made though Goldeneye & Tommorow Never Dies are my 2nd & 3rd favourite Bond movies with CR number 1.
The last two were mixed bags indeed especially the last one Die Another Day, which was just far too over the top. Pierce himself was a good Bond but was never given great material in his last two movies.
The last two were mixed bags indeed especially the last one Die Another Day, which was just far too over the top. Pierce himself was a good Bond but was never given great material in his last two movies.
Pierce never had a great Bond movie. GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough are his best films though. Tomorrow Never Dies is Bond trapped in an American action picture and Die Another Day is an over the top nightmare. All of the Brosnan films seemed to take their cues from the Lewis Gilbert Bond pictures, which were the most over the top films of the series, with huge sets and a light sensibility (especailly The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker). Pierce is a good Bond though. He looks the part and seems to be enjoying himself, most of the time (he seems disinterested at times in TND). I didn't realize how far the series had strayed with his films until Casino Royale came along and returned to the serious Bond, which I appreciated. I wish Pierce had been in a Bond film as good as Casino Royale. It would have been a classic. As it is, I'm not even sure any of his Bond films rank in my top 10 (and yet Pierce could be my second favorite Bond). Strange how that works.
Neil
Neil
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Honestly, I actually wanted to protest the fact that my pompous theatre professor in front of his mostly caucasian classroom from 8 years back praised Jonathan Pryce for putting on yellow face makeup along with slitty-eyes for the Eurasian street urchin character he portrayed in Cameron McKintosh's "Miss Saigon," but could not come up with an effective, under the radar jab for it, so his unfair comparison to fellow theatrical thespian Anthony Hopkins had to do.You ressurected this thread to make an inane three word comment?
Are you seriously doing this? AGAIN?
Based on an something a professor none of us know had an opinion about eight years ago?
STOP CRYING WOLF ALREADY.
How, besides the mention of Jonathan Pryce, is any of this germane to the discussion in this thread? Is there any point to it beyond your neverending desire to see racism where none exists or to discuss it in every post that's not about Sonia?
I thought her role was shrunk because she was pregnant
Agree and disagree. I too was disappointed with Brosnan's tenure as Bond, but unlike you, I wasn't surprised because I thought he was the completely wrong choice for the role right from the beginning.
I also don't think he would have been any better in a "Casino Royale" style movie. If anything, this would have emphasized even more Brosnan's charismatic and tough-guy deficiencies.
The Bond movies have always risen or fallen on who is playing Bond, that is the reason, I think, that Brosnan's tenure is viewed by so many as being up and down. He lacked the ability to lift a bad movie and generally didn't add much to the ones that were otherwise somewhat interesting.
Overall, I thought Brosnan's tenure did much to harm the franchise's most important asset -- the Bond mystique. Fortunately, Daniel Craig has come in and restored what was lost when Sean Connery hung up his Walter PPK -- Bond as a tough-guy, scary dude, who was capable of doing just about anything to complete the mission.
There, I fixed that for you.
^
I thought Brosnan made a great all-package Bond, combining Moore-like charm with a coldness, toughness, and credible ability to get his hair mussed up in the thick of the action like Connery or Dalton. His movies were off and undersold him. My favorite was TND because it was a good, thrill-packed ride. I appreciated GE in the day, but it was always derivative and it's since become pretty dated...most especially because of that horrible "cutting edge" soundtrack.
I thought Brosnan made a great all-package Bond, combining Moore-like charm with a coldness, toughness, and credible ability to get his hair mussed up in the thick of the action like Connery or Dalton. His movies were off and undersold him. My favorite was TND because it was a good, thrill-packed ride. I appreciated GE in the day, but it was always derivative and it's since become pretty dated...most especially because of that horrible "cutting edge" soundtrack.
There, I fixed that again for you.
I guess that is more accurate. Lazenby and Moore certainly don't fit that bill.
That soundtrack sucked at the time and hasn't improved. There is, amazingly, a reason for it- specifically, Eric Serra usually worked with the director (usually Luc Besson) throughout preproduction and shooting to make sure his sounds and the visuals came together.
On Goldeneye he was hired to knock up a quick score after production had wrapped.
Big difference.
I remember asking, during a press gig from MGM while TND was shooting, "Is Eric Serra coming back" (and hopiing not) and the PR guy said, and I quote "No, he's gone off to ruin The Fifth Element this year."
He is still my favorite Bond and I liked his movies the best.
Re: Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…
I love all the revision of history going on here. Brosnan nearly ruined the franchise? WTF? If he hadn't been so good the franchise would have never returned after Dalton (and I say that as someone whose favourite Bond is Dalton.) The only Brosnan film I hate is TWINE, its just so bleak and, frankly, dull, even the action scenes. DAD I love up till the end-invisible car and all- and people forget that it was supposed to be a celebration flick as it was the 20th, hence why it was a tad over the top. Brosnan's only failing-imo- is that he's almost too generic, he's a composite of all the other Bonds (thugish as Connery, vulnerable as Lazenby, Suave as Moore, cold as Dalton) without really imposing anything that was uniquely him on the role. This is where Craig has something of an edge, but Brosnan was still a fantastic Bond.
I love all the revision of history going on here. Brosnan nearly ruined the franchise? WTF? If he hadn't been so good the franchise would have never returned after Dalton (and I say that as someone whose favourite Bond is Dalton.) The only Brosnan film I hate is TWINE, its just so bleak and, frankly, dull, even the action scenes. DAD I love up till the end-invisible car and all- and people forget that it was supposed to be a celebration flick as it was the 20th, hence why it was a tad over the top. Brosnan's only failing-imo- is that he's almost too generic, he's a composite of all the other Bonds (thugish as Connery, vulnerable as Lazenby, Suave as Moore, cold as Dalton) without really imposing anything that was uniquely him on the role. This is where Craig has something of an edge, but Brosnan was still a fantastic Bond.
Re: Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…
Personally, I like all of the Bonds individually. Moore is unfortunate as some of the weaker scripts came along during his tenure but they each brought a different take to the character and that works for me.
I certainly don't agree with the way Daniel Craig is put on a pedestal here. He's only done one film and that was a mediocre entry in to the series. In many ways it was a Bond film that was ashamed of being a Bond film and decided to hide the "Bond" parts away.
Personally, I like all of the Bonds individually. Moore is unfortunate as some of the weaker scripts came along during his tenure but they each brought a different take to the character and that works for me.
I certainly don't agree with the way Daniel Craig is put on a pedestal here. He's only done one film and that was a mediocre entry in to the series. In many ways it was a Bond film that was ashamed of being a Bond film and decided to hide the "Bond" parts away.
I agree with the sentiment of like all the Bonds, I too have never met an (official) 007 I didn't like.
I'm less concerned about Daniel Craig being put on a pedestal and more concerned with Casino Royle being put on a pedestal. Craig was brilliant (and I hated the guy when he was cast, he really made me eat my words and I'm not ashamed to admit that) but in fact part of the reason CR is so good is soley down to Craig. It isn't a brilliant film, and is really quite flawed (too long, curious choice of Bond girl, personality-less villain and the fact that most of Bond's detective work involved doing what his SONY ERIKSON mobile phone told him to do!)
I do wonder where the Bond franchise goes from here. Assuming Daniel Craig keeps putting in the same level of performance I pity the guy who has to follow him (but then again I said the same about Brosnan) I'm also curious to see at what point the quips and gadgets and Moneypenny return (I still don't see why there's no Moneypenny she's hadrly an unbeleivable character)
^Sorry, that's what I meant - Casino Royale is put up on a pedestal here. Craig was fine for the most part, but Casino Royale has a number of flaws as a film which I've mentioned before, the most obvious being the terrible pacing that comes after the grossly unnecessary torture scene.
But if you didn't have it...you'd have people crying foul, because it is one of the most memorable/defining moments in the original novel, which the movie follows pretty closely.