Brosnan: My Bond not good enough

[Veronica]

No Pierce, you are the BEST.

Well,quite ml94

[Veronica]

The thing is,even if his movies aren't the greatest in the way Connery movies are Pierce is typecast as Bond.That's simply because he is simply born to be Bond.I mean,he IS Bond.He did something historical-in 1980's for the first time ever people were actually EAGER to see someone other than Connery as Bond.People wanted it.Now,that's something...he was so ideal for the whole thing that I think people,at least for a second forgot that there ever was Connery.

[Kristatos]

The thing is,even if his movies aren't the greatest in the way Connery movies are Pierce is typecast as Bond.That's simply because he is simply born to be Bond.I mean,he IS Bond.He did something historical-in 1980's for the first time ever people were actually EAGER to see someone other than Connery as Bond.People wanted it.Now,that's something...he was so ideal for the whole thing that I think people,at least for a second forgot that there ever was Connery.

I think that's a little unfair on Roger. He's not my favourite Bond, but it's hard to deny that he was popular with audiences in the '70s.

[Veronica]

The thing is,even if his movies aren't the greatest in the way Connery movies are Pierce is typecast as Bond.That's simply because he is simply born to be Bond.I mean,he IS Bond.He did something historical-in 1980's for the first time ever people were actually EAGER to see someone other than Connery as Bond.People wanted it.Now,that's something...he was so ideal for the whole thing that I think people,at least for a second forgot that there ever was Connery.

I think that's a little unfair on Roger. He's not my favourite Bond, but it's hard to deny that he was popular with audiences in the '70s.

I know that Roger was very popular during his time as Bond.Basically,I think hiring him was a strategic move.He was a tv superstar,a millionare.Popular.And he did great thing as well.The other actor was actually accepted as Bond other than Connery.We know what happened to Lazenby...but Moore was accepted and quite popular while Pierce was nailed as the "ideal Bond" since Remington Steele...by the way,who is your favourite Bond?

[ml94]

The thing is,even if his movies aren't the greatest in the way Connery movies are Pierce is typecast as Bond.That's simply because he is simply born to be Bond.I mean,he IS Bond.He did something historical-in 1980's for the first time ever people were actually EAGER to see someone other than Connery as Bond.People wanted it.Now,that's something...he was so ideal for the whole thing that I think people,at least for a second forgot that there ever was Connery.

I think that's a little unfair on Roger. He's not my favourite Bond, but it's hard to deny that he was popular with audiences in the '70s.

He was VERY popular...

[Kristatos]

by the way,who is your favourite Bond?

A toss-up between Connery and Dalton. Connery defined the screen Bond and starred in the best films, but when I read Fleming, I always "see" Dalton in my head.

[Veronica]

Moore was indeed quite popular as Bond.I know in one interview with Connery from '83 when he did "Never Say Never Again" this interviewer said something along the lines how in a poll between Connery and Moore,Connery was chosen by 56% of people(but I'm not sure about the percentage)..still I know it wasn't the vast majority...he still was more popular than Moore but he didn't dominate so much..

[Veronica]

BTW has anyone here seen photoshoot Pierce did for DuJour magazine last year in August?It's the incredibly awesome photoshoot!

[FormerBondFan]

The thing is,even if his movies aren't the greatest in the way Connery movies are Pierce is typecast as Bond.

The worst part is that his debut Bond film is not only his best Bond but also his best action film (or even his best on-screen work in his entire career) in the eyes of the majority. For someone is who not only the modern day Bond (and the best and most popular since Sean) but also a brand named actor, this is not normal.

[Veronica]

The thing is,even if his movies aren't the greatest in the way Connery movies are Pierce is typecast as Bond.

The worst part is that his debut Bond film is not only his best Bond but also his best action film (or even his best on-screen work in his entire career) in the eyes of the majority. For someone is who not only the modern day Bond (and the best and most popular since Sean) but also a brand named actor, this is not normal.

And it's wrong for an actor who was seen as Bond before he even got the role.

[FormerBondFan]

The thing is,even if his movies aren't the greatest in the way Connery movies are Pierce is typecast as Bond.

The worst part is that his debut Bond film is not only his best Bond but also his best action film (or even his best on-screen work in his entire career) in the eyes of the majority. For someone is who not only the modern day Bond (and the best and most popular since Sean) but also a brand named actor, this is not normal.

And it's wrong for an actor who was seen as Bond before he even got the role.

Pierce was destined to be Bond or at least to be part of the spy/action genre ever he saw GF at age 11.

[Veronica]

The thing is,even if his movies aren't the greatest in the way Connery movies are Pierce is typecast as Bond.

The worst part is that his debut Bond film is not only his best Bond but also his best action film (or even his best on-screen work in his entire career) in the eyes of the majority. For someone is who not only the modern day Bond (and the best and most popular since Sean) but also a brand named actor, this is not normal.

And it's wrong for an actor who was seen as Bond before he even got the role.

Pierce was destined to be Bond or at least to be part of the spy/action genre ever he saw GF at age 11.

Another interesting fact is that the day Pierce moved to London is the day Ian Fleming died. This will sound stupid but if that's not a sign I don't know what is.

[FormerBondFan]

There's nothing wrong about Pierce being seen as Bond before he was cast into the role in GE, and of course, there's nothing about him being memorable as Fleming's fictional spy. However, it is VERY wrong that he is seen just Bond to the public (the younger generation in particular) today, especially due to the fact that GE (again) is not only his sole classic Bond but also his best actioner (or even his best work in his entire acting career) to the majority. Pierce may not need this, but he deserves another memorable role. Think Sir Patrick Stewart for example. Thanks to X-Men, the public now sees him beyond his Star Trek work.

[The Sweeney]

I think Brosnan had the potential to be a great Bond. When he was cast in GE, I was so excited with the potential of Brosnan in the role.

Unfortunately, EON didn't really know which direction to take the films in. They didn't want to continue down the path that Dalton tread, as LTK wasn't that well received (although personally it is one of my favourite Bond films).

So instead, they tried to do a one size fits all, tick all boxes, type movie, with a mix of Dalton, Connery, Lazenby and Moore all in go. Had they chosen a harder edged Bond, and focused more on Fleming material, than writing some of the garbage they did, which became a parody of itself by the time we reached DAD, I think Brosnan's films would have been far better than they were.

I think Brosnan wanted to push the Fleming angle. I once read he had a copy of one of the Fleming novels on set during filming, which he referred to constantly. Unfortunately the scripts didn't allow for this, instead pushing a cinematic version which EON thought the public wanted to see - Connery one minute, Moore the next.

[Veronica]

I think Brosnan had the potential to be a great Bond. When he was cast in GE, I was so excited with the potential of Brosnan in the role.

Unfortunately, EON didn't really know which direction to take the films in. They didn't want to continue down the path that Dalton tread, as LTK wasn't that well received (although personally it is one of my favourite Bond films).

So instead, they tried to do a one size fits all, tick all boxes, type movie, with a mix of Dalton, Connery, Lazenby and Moore all in go. Had they chosen a harder edged Bond, and focused more on Fleming material, than writing some of the garbage they did, which became a parody of itself by the time we reached DAD, I think Brosnan's films would have been far better than they were.

I think Brosnan wanted to push the Fleming angle. I once read he had a copy of one of the Fleming novels on set during filming, which he referred to constantly. Unfortunately the scripts didn't allow for this, instead pushing a cinematic version which EON thought the public wanted to see - Connery one minute, Moore the next.

There was something about Brosnan's potrayal that really hasn't been seenn since Connery that vibe that just makes you say "he's the man every man wants to be and every woman wants to be with".. he could take a one liner with an ease just like Connery but he wasn't in a "jolly-dolly it's all fun" way like Moore. He also had that incredible coolnes that Connery possessed as well. He had the style the sophistication. Even more,he was also believeable as a spy and had these cold-blooded moments that really leave you speechless. He just speak "Bond",he has that vibe. Also I don't think he was undefined as you suggested. He is actually the most well-rounded Bond. With charisma and coolnes of Connery a wit known by Moore and the cold-bloodedness that is usually spoken about Dalton. He also had those truly beautiful moments like hotel room scene in TND or the whole thing with Elektra in TWINE even if the rest of the script pretends that never happened. In GoldenEye primarly there many details about Bond. For example when Xenia says "Enjoy while you still can." "The very words I live by." Or with Alec in that statue park or at the beggining or on Cuba.. and naturally he just truly had it. That something that just made him Bond. A crying shame apart from GoldenEye his movies never did their full potential. Although for my money both TND and TWINE are underrated. Maybe that's because they never excelled GE. And even in DAD there is a scene that is just the purest essence of Bond even as if the plot becomes more and more ridiculous each minute that one scene was needed. Because all of this and first and foremost for the fact that Broccoli actually told him how he's going to do at least one more movie Pierce more than deserved it. The fifth movie actually deserved him.

[The Sweeney]

I think Brosnan had the potential to be a great Bond. When he was cast in GE, I was so excited with the potential of Brosnan in the role.

Unfortunately, EON didn't really know which direction to take the films in. They didn't want to continue down the path that Dalton tread, as LTK wasn't that well received (although personally it is one of my favourite Bond films).

So instead, they tried to do a one size fits all, tick all boxes, type movie, with a mix of Dalton, Connery, Lazenby and Moore all in go. Had they chosen a harder edged Bond, and focused more on Fleming material, than writing some of the garbage they did, which became a parody of itself by the time we reached DAD, I think Brosnan's films would have been far better than they were.

I think Brosnan wanted to push the Fleming angle. I once read he had a copy of one of the Fleming novels on set during filming, which he referred to constantly. Unfortunately the scripts didn't allow for this, instead pushing a cinematic version which EON thought the public wanted to see - Connery one minute, Moore the next.

There was something about Brosnan's potrayal that really hasn't been seenn since Connery that vibe that just makes you say "he's the man every man wants to be and every woman wants to be with".. he could take a one liner with an ease just like Connery but he wasn't in a "jolly-dolly it's all fun" way like Moore. He also had that incredible coolnes that Connery possessed as well. He had the style the sophistication. Even more,he was also believeable as a spy and had these cold-blooded moments that really leave you speechless. He just speak "Bond",he has that vibe. Also I don't think he was undefined as you suggested. He is actually the most well-rounded Bond. With charisma and coolnes of Connery a wit known by Moore and the cold-bloodedness that is usually spoken about Dalton. He also had those truly beautiful moments like hotel room scene in TND or the whole thing with Elektra in TWINE even if the rest of the script pretends that never happened. In GoldenEye primarly there many details about Bond. For example when Xenia says "Enjoy while you still can." "The very words I live by." Or with Alec in that statue park or at the beggining or on Cuba.. and naturally he just truly had it. That something that just made him Bond. A crying shame apart from GoldenEye his movies never did their full potential. Although for my money both TND and TWINE are underrated. Maybe that's because they never excelled GE. And even in DAD there is a scene that is just the purest essence of Bond even as if the plot becomes more and more ridiculous each minute that one scene was needed. Because all of this and first and foremost for the fact that Broccoli actually told him how he's going to do at least one more movie Pierce more than deserved it. The fifth movie actually deserved him.

You're obviously a big fan of Brosnan, so you see his films in a different way than I do.

I agree though, that Brosnan should have done one more movie, but in a FYEO, back-to-basics style that was much needed after DAD. CR was probably not the right choice of film, as that is the first Fleming story, back at the beginning where Bond earns his stripes. This wouldn't have fit Brosnan by this period in his tenure as Bond, and should only have been made with a new actor in the role.

The Skyfall storyline would actually have worked better with Brosnan, older, potentially past it but then makes a comeback by the end of the movie.

[Veronica]

I think Brosnan had the potential to be a great Bond. When he was cast in GE, I was so excited with the potential of Brosnan in the role.

Unfortunately, EON didn't really know which direction to take the films in. They didn't want to continue down the path that Dalton tread, as LTK wasn't that well received (although personally it is one of my favourite Bond films).

So instead, they tried to do a one size fits all, tick all boxes, type movie, with a mix of Dalton, Connery, Lazenby and Moore all in go. Had they chosen a harder edged Bond, and focused more on Fleming material, than writing some of the garbage they did, which became a parody of itself by the time we reached DAD, I think Brosnan's films would have been far better than they were.

I think Brosnan wanted to push the Fleming angle. I once read he had a copy of one of the Fleming novels on set during filming, which he referred to constantly. Unfortunately the scripts didn't allow for this, instead pushing a cinematic version which EON thought the public wanted to see - Connery one minute, Moore the next.

There was something about Brosnan's potrayal that really hasn't been seenn since Connery that vibe that just makes you say "he's the man every man wants to be and every woman wants to be with".. he could take a one liner with an ease just like Connery but he wasn't in a "jolly-dolly it's all fun" way like Moore. He also had that incredible coolnes that Connery possessed as well. He had the style the sophistication. Even more,he was also believeable as a spy and had these cold-blooded moments that really leave you speechless. He just speak "Bond",he has that vibe. Also I don't think he was undefined as you suggested. He is actually the most well-rounded Bond. With charisma and coolnes of Connery a wit known by Moore and the cold-bloodedness that is usually spoken about Dalton. He also had those truly beautiful moments like hotel room scene in TND or the whole thing with Elektra in TWINE even if the rest of the script pretends that never happened. In GoldenEye primarly there many details about Bond. For example when Xenia says "Enjoy while you still can." "The very words I live by." Or with Alec in that statue park or at the beggining or on Cuba.. and naturally he just truly had it. That something that just made him Bond. A crying shame apart from GoldenEye his movies never did their full potential. Although for my money both TND and TWINE are underrated. Maybe that's because they never excelled GE. And even in DAD there is a scene that is just the purest essence of Bond even as if the plot becomes more and more ridiculous each minute that one scene was needed. Because all of this and first and foremost for the fact that Broccoli actually told him how he's going to do at least one more movie Pierce more than deserved it. The fifth movie actually deserved him.

You're obviously a big fan of Brosnan, so you see his films in a different way than I do.

I agree though, that Brosnan should have done one more movie, but in a FYEO, back-to-basics style that was much needed after DAD. CR was probably not the right choice of film, as that is the first Fleming story, back at the beginning where Bond earns his stripes. This wouldn't have fit Brosnan by this period in his tenure as Bond, and should only have been made with a new actor in the role.

The Skyfall storyline would actually have worked better with Brosnan, older, potentially past it but then makes a comeback by the end of the movie.

Quentin Tarantino actually wanted to do CR with Pierce but once he found out Pierce is booted he didn't wanna do it. I think he would have made it much better. Of course the whole love story should have been done MUCH MUCH better(if Tarantino wanted to do a love story) and of course the poker game. And with no getting the licence and without that catching a hitman at the beginning Bond would have never done that. And the movie of course should have been interesting at least because the CR we ended up was....boring. But CR wasn't needed they just needed to do a movie in a "FYEO" way like you said.

And yes I'm a big fan of Brosnan but even I am nkt going to defend DAD.The thing is until recently I haven't watched the Bond movies. I maybe watched three movies as a whole and a couple of others in glimpses. But for my whole life when someone if I like James Bond I would immediately say yes. The man that I always saw as Bond?Brosnan.Pierce Brosnan. Someone commented:"Although I adore Connery as both actor and Bond the best Bond is Pierce Brosnan because whenever I see Pierce my first thought is always:look,it's James Bond. He was by far the most Bond like." This just explains it all.

[FormerBondFan]

A crying shame apart from GoldenEye his movies never did their full potential.

Both his Bond career and his career overall had a lot of potential to prosper after GE. Without a fifth Bond from Pierce as a perfect send-off, he still has his career, right? And again there's so much he can do with action realm. What matters now is that he has his new beginning, and he could have that with NM. If not NM, what would be the potential to become the turning point of Pierce's career? The Moon and the Sun? Survivor? There has to be something for Pierce's career to break free from the realm of under radar/not-so-great reviews.

[Veronica]

A crying shame apart from GoldenEye his movies never did their full potential.

Both his Bond career and his career overall had a lot of potential to prosper after GE. Without a fifth Bond from Pierce as a perfect send-off, he still has his career, right? And again there's so much he can do with action realm. What matters now is that he has his new beginning, and he could have that with NM. If not NM, what would be the potential to become the turning point of Pierce's career? The Moon and the Sun? Survivor? There has to be something for Pierce's career to break free from the realm of under radar/not-so-great reviews.

Isn't he doing a thriller with Mila Jovovich?

[FormerBondFan]

A crying shame apart from GoldenEye his movies never did their full potential.

Both his Bond career and his career overall had a lot of potential to prosper after GE. Without a fifth Bond from Pierce as a perfect send-off, he still has his career, right? And again there's so much he can do with action realm. What matters now is that he has his new beginning, and he could have that with NM. If not NM, what would be the potential to become the turning point of Pierce's career? The Moon and the Sun? Survivor? There has to be something for Pierce's career to break free from the realm of under radar/not-so-great reviews.

Isn't he doing a thriller with Mila Jovovich?

Survivor is the title, and Pierce is said to be the villain. The question right now is this: will it break the mold and help his career to break free from the realm of under radar/not-so-great reviews? If not, what will? The Moon and the Sun?