Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…

[Good Will Riker]

^^^

It is no wonder that some women who have met Sean Connery have stated afterwards that he isn't who they thought he was.

Perhaps they were expecting a more dignified "James Bond-type," when in reality he appears a more a product of his blue collar upbringing.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I enjoyed all of Brosnan's Bond films. DAD is certainly the weakest of the three, but I own the DVD and rewatch it as much as I do the others.

And on the subject of a Bond actor suffering because of the material written for him, Timothy Dalton would likely have done better as Bond had his scripts not stunk so much. His performance as Bond is quite good, if only it weren't stuck in substandard screenplays.

I disagree that Dalton could have done better...I don't care for his acting, but I'll give him credit for "taking the bullet" of the worst scripts in the Bond series...scripts that would have been forced on Brosnan is NBC had let him out of his contract to do Bond when first approached.

Brosnan was the best of the Bond actors hands down. He had the dry humor and the mysogynistic charm down pat.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Me, I loved them all and wish Brosnan had gotten at least a 5th film. The Broccoli kids came in and wanted to put their fingerprints on the series so we have what we have. Which isn't bad but Daniel Craig just reeks of the producers trying to emulate Bourne. Plus Craig looks nothing like the cinematic Bond we've come to know nor does it contain the other Bond accoutrements(Q,Moneypenny), again it wants to be Bourne.

I know the now cliche arguments about how this is more closer to the spirit of Flemings early BOND, so, I stil like my tweaked cinematic BOND over Bourne2.0

Craig's bond come off more as a thug than an MI agent. He never quite pulls of the Bond charm. At best, he layers it over a creepy sense of barely leashed danger to anyone he considers a threat. There's as much Hannibal Lecter/Ted Bundy in Craig's Bond as there is James Bond.

 

[TedShatner10]

Moore always gets the 'nice guy' pass, but he's the one who cheated on his second wife with her best friend, whereas bastard Connery is the one who got cheated on. Does nice always translate to, 'he picked up the check?'

There is always two sides to the same story and even the most genuine person has a past, but Roger Moore still seems the most consistantly pleasant and non-assholish.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

I disagree that Dalton could have done better...I don't care for his acting, but I'll give him credit for "taking the bullet" of the worst scripts in the Bond series...scripts that would have been forced on Brosnan is NBC had let him out of his contract to do Bond when first approached.

What? Dalton wasn't in Die Another Day or A View To A Kill.

 

[Sci]

Me, I loved them all and wish Brosnan had gotten at least a 5th film. The Broccoli kids came in and wanted to put their fingerprints on the series so we have what we have. Which isn't bad but Daniel Craig just reeks of the producers trying to emulate Bourne. Plus Craig looks nothing like the cinematic Bond we've come to know nor does it contain the other Bond accoutrements(Q,Moneypenny), again it wants to be Bourne.

I know the now cliche arguments about how this is more closer to the spirit of Flemings early BOND, so, I stil like my tweaked cinematic BOND over Bourne2.0

Craig's bond come off more as a thug than an MI agent. He never quite pulls of the Bond charm. At best, he layers it over a creepy sense of barely leashed danger to anyone he considers a threat. There's as much Hannibal Lecter/Ted Bundy in Craig's Bond as there is James Bond.

I never got the sense of anything out and out predatory, serial-killer-ish, from Craig's Bond, but I agree that in some ways he was a bit of a thug. I mean, you're talking about a guy who's basically a hit man. And I think that's what the character ought to be -- a poshed-up thug. There should always be something terribly unrefined and dangerous just beneath the surface.

 

[gblews]

He never quite pulls of the Bond charm.

Both overrated and overused (by BrosnanMooreDalton).

At best, he layers it over a creepy sense of barely leashed danger to anyone he considers a threat.

Exactly who Bond is supposed to be.

 

[Good Will Riker]

Moore always gets the 'nice guy' pass, but he's the one who cheated on his second wife with her best friend, whereas bastard Connery is the one who got cheated on. Does nice always translate to, 'he picked up the check?'

There is always two sides to the same story and even the most genuine person has a past, but Roger Moore still seems the most consistantly pleasant and non-assholish.

Not to mention, Sir Roger Moore is a goodwill ambassador of UNICEF.

 

[DWF]

TWINE is my least favorite of the Brosnan Bond movies but I loved the other three. And I always thought he was perfect for the role, when I first saw him on Remmington Steele I thought he would make a great James Bond and I'm glad he got his chance.

 

[Samurai8472]

I posted these in another james bond forum when the topic was screen tests. Here is stills of brosnans screentest. Oh and check out youtube for Sam Neil's(Alan Grant of Jurassic Park) and James Brolin's screentest.

this is from the "Mission Dossier" from the second disk of "The living daylights. You only get the second disk if you bought the Ultimate Edition boxset VOL 1,

 

[Good Will Riker]

^^^

Are those "stills," or are they actually live footage of screentests of Pierce Brosnan as 007?

I have all of the James Bond DVDs (Including Never Say Never Again), but The Living Daylights is one of 4 James Bond Special Edition DVDs that I didn't upgrade to the Ultimate Edition.

 

[Samurai8472]

^^^

Are those "stills" or are they actually live footage of screentests of Pierce Brosnan as 007?

I have all of the James Bond DVDs (Including Never Say Never Again), but The Living Daylights is one of 4 James Bond Special Edition DVDs that I didn't upgrade to the Ultimate Edition.

They're stills while Patrick Mcnee narrates and some of the production crew talk.

Sam Neil was a favorite but Broccoli didn't approve

 

[trevanian]

Moore always gets the 'nice guy' pass, but he's the one who cheated on his second wife with her best friend, whereas bastard Connery is the one who got cheated on. Does nice always translate to, 'he picked up the check?'

There is always two sides to the same story and even the most genuine person has a past, but Roger Moore still seems the most consistantly pleasant and non-assholish.

Not to mention, Sir Roger Moore is a goodwill ambassador of UNICEF.

Mm-hmm, the woman he cheated on was with them as well as I recall.

 

[trevanian]

He never quite pulls of the Bond charm.

Both overrated and overused (by BrosnanMooreDalton).

At best, he layers it over a creepy sense of barely leashed danger to anyone he considers a threat.

Exactly who Bond is supposed to be.

Doesn't work with the 'like most hard men, Bond was easily tipped into sentimentality' that is as much the core as the bastard part. Balancing these extremes is what makes Connery and to a lesser degree Dalton work.

Craig doesn't have any depth as Bond, and is further sabotaged by how they wrote Bond as immature. add to that, in CR he seems to have more trouble killing in hot blood than cold (which is very unBondlike), and you really do have a nasty sociopath instead of an intriguing character (Dexter is more charismatic.)

 

[Australis]

Remember, in the books M refers to Bond as a "blunt instrument", which is exactly what he is in CR, a thug. I think the polish will come later, we get a hint of it in the very last line in CR.

Craig's Bond is immature, it's very early days for him. This is essentially a reboot, and he has to 'learn' to become the character we're already used to.

 

[trevanian]

Remember, in the books M refers to Bond as a "blunt instrument", which is exactly what he is in CR, a thug. I think the polish will come later, we get a hint of it in the very last line in CR.

Craig's Bond is immature, it's very early days for him. This is essentially a reboot, and he has to 'learn' to become the character we're already used to.

He is WAY TOO OLD to be playing Bond this way. If the director had gotten to cast a 22 or 27 year old as he'd intended, it MIGHT have worked (a la Maverick in TOP GUN, which sucks IMO but obviously worked for folks), but not a guy who looks that worn and aged.

I don't recall M ever referring to Bond as a blunt instrument in the books. Would that have been in GOLDEN GUN, which a lot of folks think was ghostwritten by Kingsley Amis from Fleming's notes?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…

Craig's Bond is immature, it's very early days for him. This is essentially a reboot, and he has to 'learn' to become the character we're already used to.

Agreed.

Craig has made this franchise interesting again for the first time in twenty-five years or more. They'd have done better to cast actors rather than faces more often during the interim.

 

[Skywalker]

Remember, in the books M refers to Bond as a "blunt instrument", which is exactly what he is in CR, a thug. I think the polish will come later, we get a hint of it in the very last line in CR.

Craig's Bond is immature, it's very early days for him. This is essentially a reboot, and he has to 'learn' to become the character we're already used to.

He is WAY TOO OLD to be playing Bond this way. If the director had gotten to cast a 22 or 27 year old as he'd intended, it MIGHT have worked (a la Maverick in TOP GUN, which sucks IMO but obviously worked for folks), but not a guy who looks that worn and aged.

Now that, I agree with. Martin Campbell wanted a younger actor for Bond. The producers disagreed. I liked Craig's performance, but it would be interesting if we could go back and see how the movie would have turned out if Campbell had gotten his way.

 

[DWF]

Remember, in the books M refers to Bond as a "blunt instrument", which is exactly what he is in CR, a thug. I think the polish will come later, we get a hint of it in the very last line in CR.

Craig's Bond is immature, it's very early days for him. This is essentially a reboot, and he has to 'learn' to become the character we're already used to.

He is WAY TOO OLD to be playing Bond this way. If the director had gotten to cast a 22 or 27 year old as he'd intended, it MIGHT have worked (a la Maverick in TOP GUN, which sucks IMO but obviously worked for folks), but not a guy who looks that worn and aged.

I don't recall M ever referring to Bond as a blunt instrument in the books. Would that have been in GOLDEN GUN, which a lot of folks think was ghostwritten by Kingsley Amis from Fleming's notes?

I don't think a younger actor could've played Bond in Casino Royale with the same amount of growth that Daniel Craig play him. Casino Royale was great way to reboot the series and it needed it, the Brosnan movies wer somewhat in response to the other late 80s and 90s action movies while Casino Royale is more gritty approach to storytelling much like the current Batman movies are.

Still I'm curious as to where they're going to take this Quantum storyline for a while I thought they were going to bring back SPECTRE but this could be even better.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…

Still I'm curious as to where they're going to take this Quantum storyline for a while I thought they were going to bring back SPECTRE...

I'm sure McClory's heirs would appreciate that.