"The Living Daylights" Is...Awesome.

[Agentsands77]

I recall Dalton saying that he quit. Then again, George Lazenby says the same thing.

Yes, and I addressed that in a previous post, which either you're forgetting or didn't read. Dalton did quit, but only because he thought it was the best solution for the problem, rather than entangling EON and MGM in some sort of battle. He's a respectable man in that way.

I can't believe you're saying Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore are the same s--t. Roger Moore was the guy who snowboarded to Beach Boys music.

Pierce Brosnan is the guy who straightened his tie while driving a tank in St. Petersberg or underwater in a gadget-laden boat.

Other Moore-like things in the Brosnan era:
-Brosnan's sense of dialogue is right out of Moore (where this more crass style of innuendo came into play, right from his first exchange with Xenia Onatopp in GOLDENEYE).
-Brosnan is much closer to the smooth, refined, soft, and gentle nature of Moore than he is to the rough, raw masculinity and sometimes thuggish nature of Connery's James Bond.
-The tank chase in GOLDENEYE is right out of a Moore Bond film, as is straightening his tie during the chase. Say what you will, but there's nothing Conneryesque about that.
-TOMORROW NEVER DIES has a lot of Roger Moore Bond in it. One example? The very jokey bike chase with all the Moore-like puns.
-THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH has a Q-Boat chase with Bond straightening his tie underwater and riding it on land. Very Roger Moore.
-THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH also features a scene with X-Ray glasses and an inflatable jacket, something much more in the spirit of the Roger Moore era than the Connery films.
-DIE ANOTHER DAY is practically a Roger Moore film, with moments that make MOONRAKER look believable.

Dude, there's 21 official Bond films and I can name 15 villians (henchmen included) who are better than Sanchez.

Nonsense. Sanchez is more interesting than most of the people you listed (though I don't think it's fair to lump henchmen and villains into the same category), including Oddjob, Emilio Largo, Mr. Big, Nick Nack, Stromberg, Jaws, Kristatos, Zorin, 006, Profesor Dent, Mr. Wint and Mr. Kid, Tee Hee, Baron Samedi, May Day, Orumov, and even Xenia Onatopp.

Sanchez is one of the most interesting, engaging, and menacing Bond villains ever produced, not the least of which because of his unique relationship with Bond. He also gets points for the fantastic line of, "Launder it."

 

[Catman]

Pierce Brosnan is the guy who straightened his tie while driving a tank in St. Petersberg or underwater in a gadget-laden boat.

I think its fair to say that Brosnan had a little bit of everyone. His humor may have been Moore-esque, but he shared similarities with other Bonds.

Nonsense. Sanchez is more interesting than most of the people you listed

Too each his own.

(though I don't think it's fair to lump henchmen and villains into the same category)

Bond henchmen are cool enough to be at the same level as the villain. Its like Harley Quinn in the Batman universe. She's a henchwoman but cool enough to be in the same level as the villains.

He also gets points for the fantastic line of, "Launder it."

meh. Mr. Big had a cooler line.

James Bond: My name is...
Mr. Big: Names is for tombstones, baby!

And, Goldfinger had the best one of the all.

James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!

 

[Furious Styles]

As Kevin and Agentsands pointed out, Sanchez is much more than a simple drug dealer. It's no coincidence that the character of Sanchez is enamored with the theme of loyalty. The theme of loyalty plays a huge part in this film. From Bond's loyalty her Majesty (or lack thereof) as well his loyalty to his friend Felix Leiter.

The relationship Sanchez has with Bond is rather intriguing. It's built on the foundation of deciet, not trust. Sanchez has little love for money, since he knows that money is somewhat of an absolute. But trust and loyalty is a much harder commodity to come by.

The final exchange between Dalton and Davi is superb!

Sanchez: You could have had everything!

Bond: Don't you want to know why?

Only then does Sanchez realize that it was Bond's loyalty to his friend that caused his own downfall.

 

[Agentsands77]

I think its fair to say that Brosnan had a little bit of everyone. His humor may have been Moore-esque, but he shared similarities with other Bonds.

I never said he was a Roger Moore clone. I said he was something like if Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton were mixed together. Moore's elegance, humor, charm, gentility with the ladies, as well as Dalton's brooding and occaisional Dalton-like brutality.

I don't think Brosnan had much of Connery though (and I don't mean that as criticism - I just don't see it).

 

[Catman]

I don't think Brosnan had much of Connery though (and I don't mean that as criticism - I just don't see it).

When Brosnan had to be serious he was like Connery. Some people just don't see that cause Connery's Bond was a man in the `60s. He could slap a woman around and get away with it. Brosnan couldn't do that. And, that's just one example.

 

[Agentsands77]

When Brosnan had to be serious he was like Connery.

I really think he was a lot more like Dalton when he had to be serious. I don't see much Conneryesque about his serious moments. If you could speak in specific examples of where Brosnan's performance was supposedly very Conneryesque, it would be helpful, rather than talking in abstractions (which ultimately leads a discussion nowhere).

Some people just don't see that cause Connery's Bond was a man in the `60s. He could slap a woman around and get away with it. Brosnan couldn't do that. And, that's just one example.

It's not just that, by any stretch. Even without that, he's still not Conneryesque in his demeanor. He's not commanding like Connery was (Connery was VERY take charge), nor is he the end-all, be-all of unresistable masculine power that Connery was, nor is he quite as tough.

 

[Catman]

I really think he was a lot more like Dalton when he had to be serious.

Dude, Dalton was the guy who took the role too seriously. That was Dalton's mistake. No one is like Dalton. Like I said before, you can be serious but have fun with the role.

I don't see much Conneryesque about his serious moments. If you could speak in specific examples of where Brosnan's performance was supposedly very Conneryesque, it would be helpful, rather than talking in abstractions (which ultimately leads a discussion nowhere).

What about when M dissed him in GoldenEye. Reminded me of Bernard Lee (original M) reminding Connery of who was in charge. Also, any scene where Bond and the villain (in all 4 films) had conversations it reminded me of Connery. Oh, and this may not count as serious but whenever Brosnan flirted with women it was just like Connery. Unless it was done for humor then it came across as Moore-esque. But, any romantic scene was Connery-esque. And, what about his scenes with Moneypenny? That didn't remind you of Connery? IT HAD TO, man. Roger Moore BARELY flirted with Moneypenny since the actress was getting old as f--k during the Moore years. And, Dalton didn't do any flirting either. Connery, Lazenby, and Brosnan are the only to have the so-called Moneypenny scene.

 

[Agentsands77]

Dude, Dalton was the guy who took the role too seriously. That was Dalton's mistake. No one is like Dalton. Like I said before, you can be serious but have fun with the role.

Brosnan is quite like Dalton in many scenes. Especially in GOLDENEYE. After that, the Dalton link becomes more and more light, but Brosnan's still drawing a lot from Dalton's take on the role. He may not be taking it as seriously, sure, but that's largely because he has so many jokey moments throughout his films. In the strictly dramatic moments, he's definitely taking a page from Dalton.

What about when M dissed him in GoldenEye. Reminded me of Bernard Lee (original M) reminding Connery of who was in charge.

The scene may be Connery-esque, but is Brosnan really Connery-esque in it? I mean, he doesn't have much to do at all. But still, I'll give it to ya.

Also, any scene where Bond and the villain (in all 4 films) had conversations it reminded me of Connery.

Specific examples?

Oh, and this may not count as serious but whenever Brosnan flirted with women it was just like Connery. Unless it was done for humor then it came across as Moore-esque. But, any romantic scene was Connery-esque.

Nah. Connery was predatory in his charm. Brosnan is not - he's softer, gentler, more romantic (more of a female fantasy figure than a male fantasy figure). And Connery would never be caught dead espousing lines like "taking pleasure in great beauty" like he says to Elektra, or things like that. Much softer than Connery's pure hedonistic streak.

There is one scene in which I see a bit of Connery in Brosnan's romance, and that's in DIE ANOTHER DAY, beside the car with Miranda Frost. His aggression in pursuing her seems to be closer to Connery than any of his other romantic pursuits.

And, what about his scenes with Moneypenny? That didn't remind you of Connery? IT HAD TO, man.

You bet it didn't, largely because Samantha Bond's Moneypenny isn't anything like the Moneypenny of the Connery era, and subsequently their dialogue was little like the exchanges between Connery and Maxwell. Maybe their crass companion ("You always were a cunning linguist, James" "I know just where to put that").

Connery, Lazenby, and Brosnan are the only to have the so-called Moneypenny scene.

Just because it's flirting doesn't mean it's Connery-esque flirting. There's a difference.

 

[Catman]

Sean Connery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUG1GexVz2k

Pierce Brosnan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-ZHP_DeIAk

Maybe not the best example but whatever.

 

[Agentsands77]

Sean Connery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUG1GexVz2k

Pierce Brosnan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-ZHP_DeIAk

Maybe not the best example but whatever.

What is so similar about those?

Connery's relationship with Q was unique. It was always very natural, and he was always very bored and trying to occupy himself. It was a wearying ordeal for him to deal with Q, and there was that dislike for the other. Furthermore, there wasn't a whole lot of jokery going on - sure, there was humor, but it was more or less straight-faced.

Brosnan's relationship with Q is jokey as all get-out. Full of puns and joking back and forth, the scenes are generally pretty silly. Brosnan's Bond also has something of a desire to show off and be something of a smartass, which isn't really anything like Connery's take. Again, this is all closer to Moore, with his consistent puns and show-off nature.

 

[Catman]

What is so similar about those?

It isn't the best example, but look at their facial expressions. You can tell Pierce Brosnan tried his best to copy Connery. If you haven't noticed that yet then I don't know what else to say.

EDIT:

I think you're confusing writing with performance. That scene may have been written as a Roger Moore-type scene, but Brosnan isn't giving a Roger Moore performance.

EDIT AGAIN:

Remember Diamonds Are Forever? That movie is the blueprint for Roger Moore films.

Look at this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Cbi14jXfg

That scene has Roger Moore written all over it, but is Sean Connery giving a Roger Moore performance? No. So, just cause Brosnan's films were written as Moore films doesn't mean he gave a Roger Moore performance.

 

[Agentsands77]

It isn't the best example, but look at their facial expressions. You can tell Pierce Brosnan tried his best to copy Connery. If you haven't noticed that yet then I don't know what else to say.

I don't think that he's particularly trying to copy Connery in facial expressions. If you want to say, sure. Why not. But I was never talking about performance, I was talking about characterization. And the characterization of Bond in this scene is quite different from the Bond Connery made famous, but it's not very far removed from the Bond that Moore played.

Remember Diamonds Are Forever? That movie is the blueprint for Roger Moore films.

Sure it is, for the most part. It's a bit different in nuance and characterization, but in terms of going for a sillier 007, it laid the groundwork. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN are essentially Moore Bond flicks that happen to star Sean Connery in them.

That scene has Roger Moore written all over it, but is Sean Connery giving a Roger Moore performance? No. So, just cause Brosnan's films were written as Moore films doesn't mean he gave a Roger Moore performance.

You can never legitimately separate performance from how a character is written. They're forever intertwined. This discussion was mostly about how Brosnan's Bond was characterized, not distinguishing between performance and script (though ultimately that's a moot thing to do, because an actor's job is to bring a script to life, not act against the intentions of the script). We're talking about Brosnan's characterization on the whole.

The question was what is his Bond most like, and my answer to that question is that the Bond Brosnan played mostly comes across like Moore and Dalton combined. Sure, he's not copying Roger Moore's mannerisms, necessarily. He isn't Roger Moore. But that doesn't mean there isn't similarity between the characterizations. That's why I say his Bond is like Moore.

 

[Catman]

I was never talking about performance, I was talking about characterization.

No wonder we never got anywhere in this debate. We were talking about two different things. I brought up some characterization stuff, but for the most part I was talking about performance. That's why I can't see any Dalton in Brosnan. Pierce Brosnan was never as serious as Dalton. Maybe the writing called for Dalton-esque moments but Brosnan didn't give a Dalton-esque performance. He was trying to pull off a Connery style performance. Which, if you think about, every actor who's played Bond does. Sean Connery was the first James Bond. He set the standards, so every actor looks at his performance to see how it is done. Even Roger Moore has admitted to doing that. What seperates all the Bonds is characterization (which you brought up) and what the actor feels he should do differently. Yet, if we break it down to performance we'll find a little Connery in all of them since Connery set the standards. When Brosnan is serious I see him taking notes from Connery. Even if the writing doesn't call for it he does it. Go back and look at the Q scenes. Both scenes are written differently, but Brosnan is definitly taking notes from Connery and not Moore. Just look at the way he delievers his lines and the way he reacts to what Q has to say. It's Connery-esque, buddy.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I can't believe you're saying Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore are the same s--t. Roger Moore was the guy who snowboarded to Beach Boys music.

He's also the one who mercilessly kicked a man in a car off a cliff to his death in For Your Eyes Only. In TSWLM he asks a thug for information and then kills him anyway. And so on.

To suggest all Moore's stuff is silly and all the other Bond actors were serious is a lowbrow, unobservant statement. All the films vary in tone.

 

[mister Lennon]

Evident, no all the Moore stuff was campy, there are so many serious things in his movies. But in general terms, the Moore's stuff was more light and campy than the others' stuff.

 

[Catman]

He's also the one who mercilessly kicked a man in a car off a cliff to his death in For Your Eyes Only. In TSWLM he asks a thug for information and then kills him anyway. And so on.

To suggest all Moore's stuff is silly and all the other Bond actors were serious is a lowbrow, unobservant statement. All the films vary in tone.

True, Moore had his serious moments, but thats what they were...moments! His films were pretty light-hearted and silly. FYEO is like the only serious Bond film. Everything else was pretty light-hearted and silly...but also fun. I loved TSWLM and Octopussy.

 

[Batman Beyond]

I am sick of this Brosnan bashing, especially when its made to justify Craig as Bond. Daniel Craig is good despite the fact that Brosnan was great, also. I like them both.

However, I find Brosnan and Dalton the closest to Fleming's Bond than any[/i]. Even the great Sean Connery. And to compare Brosnan with Moore is silly - his characterization came with a script. It matters, because a Moore would've willingly played it sillier, while Brosnan chose to play it straight and with panache.

If anything, I consider his performance in TWINE one of the top five best performances in Bond history. Ever.

 

[Catman]

And to compare Brosnan with Moore is silly - his characterization came with a script. It matters, because a Moore would've willingly played it sillier, while Brosnan chose to play it straight and with panache.

Basically what I said.

 

[Agentsands77]

I am sick of this Brosnan bashing, especially when its made to justify Craig as Bond.

Who's doing any bashing? I'm doing analysis. Hell, I love Roger Moore, so comparing Brosnan to him is hardly a bad thing from where I stand.

And to compare Brosnan with Moore is silly - his characterization came with a script.

But script and performance are inextricable from one another. A performance is merely an interpretation of what's already on the page, and you have to do it. No point in talking "What if?"

However, I find Brosnan and Dalton the closest to Fleming's Bond than any[/i].

Honestly, I think Brosnan is one of the further ones from Fleming's Bond, but that's just me. Brosnan's Bond wouldn't have called a girl a "b!tch" after talking with her in a cigarette shop (neither would have Dalton's for that matter). That sort of personality I really only see in Connery and Craig.

Now, I know that Brosnan would have lept at the chance to play that kind of Bond, so don't think I'm making it out like it's his kind of fault or anything. But as far as the Bond he was playing, I don't see a lot of Fleming. There's certainly some Fleming vibe in TOMORROW NEVER DIES, though, when he goes back to his room and has some drinks and has the gun there (not exactly the best strategy, but it's a damn cool moment... wish he'd had more of those).

It matters, because a Moore would've willingly played it sillier, while Brosnan chose to play it straight and with panache.

Brosnan played it no straighter than Roger Moore did in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, and I find the FOR YOUR EYES ONLY approach fairly close to Brosnan's overall approach to the role.

If anything, I consider his performance in TWINE one of the top five best performances in Bond history. Ever.

I consider it the worst, beating even wooden-as-a-board Lazenby because of its sheer awfulness. For most of it, he looks bored, and for the rest, he overacts. Brosnan is much better in his other three films.

 

[Agentsands77]

Pierce Brosnan was never as serious as Dalton. Maybe the writing called for Dalton-esque moments but Brosnan didn't give a Dalton-esque performance.

GOLDENEYE is seeped in moments where Brosnan is as serious as Dalton (in performance, not characterization).

The pre-title sequence, for one. The scene where he confronts Trevelyan in the statue park for another. Then there's the scene on the beach. I mean, I see a LOT of Dalton in it. The difference is that Brosnan is naturally a more charismatic actor.

Go back and look at the Q scenes. Both scenes are written differently, but Brosnan is definitly taking notes from Connery and not Moore.

I think Brosnan is ultimately taking notes from himself.

Just look at the way he delievers his lines and the way he reacts to what Q has to say. It's Connery-esque, buddy.

Suit yourself. I suppose it can be viewed that way. But overall, Brosnan's persona isn't very close to Connery's, even if there's occaisionally a moment where he does have some closeness.

 

[Catman]

Honestly, I think Brosnan is one of the further ones from Fleming's Bond

Christopher Lee, Ian Fleming's cousin, would disagree with you. This is a quote from the man:

"In my opinion--and I think I know as much if not more about Bond than anyone, particularly about the characters on whom [Ian Fleming] told me Bond was based--Pierce Brosnan was by far the best and closest to the character."

Brosnan played it no straighter than Roger Moore did in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, and I find the FOR YOUR EYES ONLY approach fairly close to Brosnan's overall approach to the role.

I'll give you that. However, that was ONE out of SEVEN movies. Roger Moore will always be remembered as the Bond from TSWLM, Moonraker, and Octopussy. And, saying that Bond is like Brosnan is a little silly.

The difference is that Brosnan is naturally a more charismatic actor.

Maybe that's what it is.

 

[Agentsands77]

Christopher Lee, Ian Fleming's cousin, would disagree with you. This is a quote from the man:

"In my opinion--and I think I know as much if not more about Bond than anyone, particularly about the characters on whom [Ian Fleming] told me Bond was based--Pierce Brosnan was by far the best and closest to the character."

I know. I've read the quote. To be honest, I'm dubious about the man's real qualification to make that statement. And at the end of the day, it's just another opinion.

At the end of the day, what Fleming's vision of the character was is unimportant - it's what's on the page that "Fleming Bond" has to be known and judged by. And judging from what I see on the page, there's no way Brosnan's Bond matches up with that. Brosnan would have been more than willing to do it, but he wasn't even given an opportunity to.

I'll give you that. However, that was ONE out of SEVEN movies. Roger Moore will always be remembered as the Bond from TSWLM, Moonraker, and Octopussy. And, saying that Bond is like Brosnan is a little silly.

I don't think so - I think Brosnan's Bond isn't entirely unlike the Bond in those films. Not in the jokier moments, but in how he carries himself and interacts with other characters.

 

[Catman]

I know. I've read the quote. To be honest, I'm dubious about the man's real qualification to make that statement. And at the end of the day, it's just another opinion.

His real qualifications? Maybe that he's the man's cousin and discussed the character. I have a theory that the reason Connery is so AWESOME in the role is because he actually met Fleming and had a chance to ask questions.

At the end of the day, what Fleming's vision of the character was is unimportant

it's what's on the page that "Fleming Bond" has to be known and judged by. And judging from what I see on the page, there's no way Brosnan's Bond matches up with that. Brosnan would have been more than willing to do it, but he wasn't even given an opportunity to.

It also depends on interpretation. What do you see Bond as? I see Bond as male fantasy. I know others don't see it that way, but I do. And, based on what I know about Fleming I'm pretty sure James Bond is who he wanted to be.

I don't think so - I think Brosnan's Bond isn't entirely unlike the Bond in those films. Not in the jokier moments, but in how he carries himself and interacts with other characters.

Maybe not entirely but Brosnan and Moore are difference. I remember Tom Mankewich who wrote the first two Moore Bond films said that the difference between Sean Connery and Roger Moore is that Moore is too much of a nice guy. And, that comes acorss in his performance. Connery and Brosnan may be nice guys in real life, but they can portray cold-blooded killers. Something Moore had a tough time with.

 

[Agentsands77]

What I mean by that is, if it's his vision and it didn't get put on the page, then it's unimportant. At the end of the day, what matters is what an author writes in a book, not what they were trying to do with a book. If a book is different than their vision, tough. It's the art that matters, not the inner vision of an artist.

It also depends on interpretation. What do you see Bond as? I see Bond as male fantasy. I know others don't see it that way, but I do. And, based on what I know about Fleming I'm pretty sure James Bond is who he wanted to be.

Bond has always been male fantasy.

But I'm talking about the personality and description on the page. That's what defines "Fleming's Bond" and closeness to that determines a portrayal's "Fleming factor." Does it match up? Well, none of the Bond's are 100% there, but I don't see Brosnan matching up in most respects.

Connery and Brosnan may be nice guys in real life, but they can portray cold-blooded killers. Something Moore had a tough time with.

If you ask me, Moore never had a problem with it. See THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, where he knocks Gabor off the roof. Or when he shoots Stromberg. Or FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, where he kicks Locque's car off the cliff. Hell, I fully buy Moore as being able to kill in cold blood - in some ways, he seems the most chilling Bond of them all, considering how lightly he takes it all.

 

[Catman]

What I mean by that is, if it's his vision and it didn't get put on the page, then it's unimportant.

Or maybe there's some things you haven't noticed yet.

If you ask me, Moore never had a problem with it. See THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, where he knocks Gabor off the roof. Or when he shoots Stromberg. Or FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, where he kicks Locque's car off the cliff. Hell, I fully buy Moore as being able to kill in cold blood - in some ways, he seems the most chilling Bond of them all, considering how lightly he takes it all.

Seven movies and you can only think of three moments? Like I've said before, Moore has had his moments, but for the most part he was a pretty light-hearted Bond. In fact, aside from a few moments he wasn't even that violent in the role. Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan were more violent than him. Most of the violence in Moore films were cartoon violence.