› ›

Brosnan's Bond Popularity

245

Comments

  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Brosnan was so popular at the time. His films appealed to a new generation of fans. Brozz was so beloved and I take issue with him and his films because they represented a time of much promise and lots of spectacle but the films boiled down to EON being to chickenshit to really spread their wings.

    Moore and Dalton were both given the chance to "be themselves" and put their own spin on Bond but Brosnan was just a good looking male model who dressed in a tux, said "My name is Bond, James Bond." and fired off a crap load of machine guns.

    Despite this, he was VERY POPULAR. Many of his diehard fans hated the hiring of Daniel Craig and not since Lazenby had to step into Sean's shoes was a Bond actor so viciously slammed.

    I have read posts on this community that has described the Brosnan era as "sew-age," "golden showers era" and other colorful metaphors.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Brosnan was just a good looking male model who dressed in a tux, said "My name is Bond, James Bond." and fired off a crap load of machine guns.

    And Lazenby was better? HAHAHAHAHAH! Broz brought a certain depth to the role, like Dalt did (but different). Later Connery through early Moore were mostly superheroes.
  • CraigisnotbondCraigisnotbond
    Posts: 99
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Brosnan was so popular at the time. His films appealed to a new generation of fans. Brozz was so beloved and I take issue with him and his films because they represented a time of much promise and lots of spectacle but the films boiled down to EON being to chickenshit to really spread their wings.

    Moore and Dalton were both given the chance to "be themselves" and put their own spin on Bond but Brosnan was just a good looking male model who dressed in a tux, said "My name is Bond, James Bond." and fired off a crap load of machine guns.

    Despite this, he was VERY POPULAR. Many of his diehard fans hated the hiring of Daniel Craig and not since Lazenby had to step into Sean's shoes was a Bond actor so viciously slammed.

    I have read posts on this community that has described the Brosnan era as "sew-age," "golden showers era" and other colorful metaphors.

    Exactly, that's my main point. Brosnan was extremely popular during his era. I remember as a kid going to Target, The Thomas Crown Affair always had like 20-30 copies on the shelf for years; there was a whole section reserved for it, and it sold well! I feel like he was amongst the top movie stars when he was Bond. I just got shocked when I read people's opinions on Brosnan nowadays. It seems like they turned their backs on him when Casino came out (not everyone).
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited February 2014 Posts: 1,778
    chrisisall wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Brosnan was just a good looking male model who dressed in a tux, said "My name is Bond, James Bond." and fired off a crap load of machine guns.

    And Lazenby was better? HAHAHAHAHAH! Broz brought a certain depth to the role, like Dalt did (but different). Later Connery through early Moore were mostly superheroes.

    Wait you thought later Connery and Moore were superheroes but Brosnan wasn't? The only thing Brosnan was missing was a cape. That was one of the biggest problems of the Brosnan Era. He was an unstoppable killing machine that wept for Paris' death one second and was having the time of his life during the next.
  • CraigisnotbondCraigisnotbond
    Posts: 99
    To an extent, all the Bond interpretations had some degree of superhero associated with them. I agree that Brosnan was an unstoppable killing machine, but he was following the trend of the major action stars - Bruce, Arnold, and Sly. In order to have successfully revived the franchise, the series had to go with the flow. The same can be said about the Craig era's relationship with the Bourne series.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    edited February 2014 Posts: 1,009
    Brosnan was a great Bond. Except for GE, his movies weren't. What's more: I just love his performance in TWINE (all the performances there are top-notch if you ask me)... It's just that the movie never catched on me. I like it, but it has a certain something that puts it just in the middle of my personal list.

    TND is a Michelle Yeoh movie more than a Bond one (man, she steals the show) and DAD... DAD is another Moonraker: funny romp, stupid film.
  • CraigisnotbondCraigisnotbond
    Posts: 99
    I can see that. I thought GE was his worst performance. PB said the lines and smiled. He got more comfortable in each Bond movie he did.
  • Matt007Matt007
    Posts: 1,314
    Craig is a far far better actor.

    I liked Brosnan at the time because there was no alternative. Looking back, his movies are poor. Neither serious nor gritty, they all fall apart after an hour.

    He doesn't convince me. Whereas Craig is dangerous. Might not be as traditionally good looking, but so what. He's reenergised people's expectations for the films.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2014 Posts: 12,837
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Brosnan was just a good looking male model who dressed in a tux, said "My name is Bond, James Bond." and fired off a crap load of machine guns.

    And Lazenby was better? HAHAHAHAHAH! Broz brought a certain depth to the role, like Dalt did (but different). Later Connery through early Moore were mostly superheroes.

    Wait you thought later Connery and Moore were superheroes but Brosnan wasn't? The only thing Brosnan was missing was a cape. That was one of the biggest problems of the Brosnan Era. He was an unstoppable killing machine that wept for Paris' death one second and was having the time of his life during the next.

    That was his Bond though. A flashy, unstoppable action hero with some depth to him. It was sort of tragic because by this point, Bond was somebody who was so used to death and killing that it no longer affected him. He even said this in Goldeneye. When Natalya asks him how he can be so cold, he says it's what keeps him alive. That was Brosnan's Bond. He killed loads of people but he wasn't affected by it at all because it was his job, he was doing it "for England" and he decided that if he let it affect him then he'd end up dead.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2014 Posts: 17,691
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    That was one of the biggest problems of the Brosnan Era. He was an unstoppable killing machine
    And Craig isn't? In TWINE Renard knew just where to huuuuuurt him late into the flick; in SF a bullet, a fall, possible drowning & alcohol poisoning kind of gets forgotten by the end.
    :))
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    I too have a problem with the invincibility of Craig.
    chrisisall wrote:
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    That was one of the biggest problems of the Brosnan Era. He was an unstoppable killing machine
    And Craig isn't? In TWINE Renard knew just where to huuuuuurt him late into the flick; in SF a bullet, a fall, possible drowning & alcohol poisoning kind of gets forgotten by the end.
    :))

    I just think it is harkens too close to the Moore era. I like to see the hero fall and get bruised once in a while. Makes him more believable and human.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2014 Posts: 11,189
    I suppose things in the Craig era are a bit more...restrained....shall we say. Action is balanced out with drama and isn't quite as over-the-top. We haven't yet seen Craig driving a rocket like vehicle avoiding a space laser have we? ;)

    I say that as someone who adores the tank chase in GE.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2014 Posts: 12,837
    Craig gets injured more than Brosnan but the difference is that Craig doesn't seem affected by his injuries. It's all well and good to show him bleeding, bruised, etc, but he this doesn't stop him, he carries on, which makes him seem invincible. Look at SF: Patrice shoots him when he's using the digger but Bond doesn't seem injured at all He carries on like nothings happened. Now if that was Brosnan, Patrice wouldn't have hit him, but I think I prefer that.

    Brosnan's Bond was just extremely lucky because he was reckless but didn't get injured (apart from TWINE, where it does actually affect him). When the baddies shoot at him, bullets just fly around him. Craig's Bond is reckless too but he isn't as lucky. He does get injured, but this makes no difference whatsoever. He's invincible.

    Craig is invincible. Brosnan was just incredibly lucky.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    chrisisall wrote:
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    That was one of the biggest problems of the Brosnan Era. He was an unstoppable killing machine
    And Craig isn't? In TWINE Renard knew just where to huuuuuurt him late into the flick; in SF a bullet, a fall, possible drowning & alcohol poisoning kind of gets forgotten by the end.
    :))

    And the shoulder injury gets forgotten long before the end. It doesn't impact Bond within the story in any way. That, I'd think, is where the argument comes from.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    edited February 2014 Posts: 2,341
    About being shot in SF, they explain it away by saying that had Patrice's bullet hit him head on it would have cut him in half. Even fragmented slugs are traveling at a high rate of speed and penetrating a human body it would in all liklihood keep traveling severing blood vessels and maybe causing bone fragments....

    WTH we just roll with it. Craig does get bruised and bloody (after the fight with Obanno and his henchman). I guess the adranalin keeps him moving.

    Brosnan so much like Roger Moore is just downright lucky. Never a hair out of place, bad guys possess many traits save for shooting straight when shooting at him. Driving a tank through St Petersburg and straightening his tie! More Roger Moore crap!
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2014 Posts: 12,837
    The tie straightening is a Brosnan thing, Moore never did anything like that, but lets go along with this for a second:

    Jumping from a digger to a train carriage and adjusting his cuffs! More Roger Moore crap!
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    WTH we just roll with it.

    Why can't you do the same with Brosnan? He doesn't get shot or bruised, so what? It's a film, doesn't have to be like real life. Just sit back and enjoy it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    The tie straightening is a Brosnan thing, Moore never did anything like that, but lets go along with this for a second:

    Jumping from a digger to a train carriage and adjusting his cuffs! More Roger Moore crap!

    :)) HHahahahahahaha *NAILED*
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Rog did straighten his tie a couple of times, but he didn't do it in the showy way Broz did.

    Moore's show piece was his eye-brow.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Rog did straighten his tie a couple of times, but he didn't do it in the showy way Broz did.

    Moore's show piece was his eye-brow.

    Which is my point with the Brosnan age. EON is just too heavily influenced by the Moore era. They should have given Brosnan more leeway and the chance to spread his wings more. Heck, Roger did his thing; Dalton had his way with the part that played to his strengths. Audiences may have loved Brosnan at the time but for me and a few others, we never really knew just who the hell his Bond was.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited February 2014 Posts: 12,459
    Personally, I love the tie straigtening, cuffs straigtening moments.
    I love Brosnan's style and take on Bond, I really do. Moore and his unflappability, that eyebrow. All a big YES from me. :) When done just right, it was not OTT or annoying. But that is my taste. I love the solid serious sense of danger that is palpable in Connery's best moments and Craig's; I love Brosnan's coolness (I always sense simmering heat inside of him) and Moore's charm. Each of them have assets, attributes that give us a great Bond. The key is in the balance of those things.

    I did not feel that the Brosnan films were heavily copying the Moore films, no. And I was never confused about who Brosnan's Bond was. TND sealed that for me.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    His Bond was meant to be a bit of everything with a bit of "boyish charm" thrown in.

    Moore's Bond changed a bit over the films...so did Connery's, actually so has Craig's.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Moore's show piece was his eye-brow.
    Craig's thing is cracking a joke but keeping his thousand yard stare on.
    Which I like, btw.

    Broz had his own thing, and it was great. The tie-staightening under water I could have done without, but absurdity is the cornerstone of Bond.
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Audiences may have loved Brosnan at the time but for me and a few others, we never really knew just who the hell his Bond was.
    But... you know who Craig's Bond is... balderdash I say. :D
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited February 2014 Posts: 12,459
    Oh I still to this day like the tie straightening under water. ;)

    Each Bond needs his own style. I don't confuse Brosnan with any of the others. His "boyish" charm was never too boyish for me and he seemed to pour enough of his own personality into the role.

    If you say Brosnan's Bond did not change, I don't think you are seeing the films as a whole. His GE Bond changed as early as TND, segued into the TWINE Bond (which was up and down for me) and a good older, very decent Bond in a bad film, DAD.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,270
    I thought Pierce Brosnan was a pretty solid Bond. He managed to be funny, charming, and lethal all when necessary, and also performed very well the action scenes. My only problem is that I found him to be the least innovative of all 6 main actors; Connery was the first and was the most well-rounded, Lazenby was the most human, Moore was the funniest, Dalton was more serious, and Craig was a lot more hard-edged and humorless than the rest. Brosnan's kind of just the characteristics of Bond; I thought he brought the least to the table as a new Bond actor. Regardless, he captures the essence of the already-established Bond quite well, and I don't think he had one bad performance in any of his Bond films (despite the films themselves sometimes being mediocre). Definitely not the best Bond, but a very solid one nonetheless. My ranking of his films too: 1. GE 2. TWINE 3. DAD 4. TND
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    edited February 2014 Posts: 2,341
    My Brosnan films rankings: Out of five stars
    1.GE 3 Stars
    2.TND 2.5 Stars
    3.TWINE 2 Stars
    4. DAD .5 star, UNWATCHABLE

    As you can see, for me his films progressively got worst after GE...
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Yes, and we can agree to disagree nicely. This is, after all, just personal tastes.
    :)>-
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    More Brosnan bashing. What a shame. 8-|
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Murdock wrote:
    More Brosnan bashing. What a shame. 8-|
    I'll take them from the left; you take them from the right. Safety off?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    chrisisall wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    More Brosnan bashing. What a shame. 8-|
    I'll take them from the left; you take them from the right. Safety off?

    I've got just the thing.
    Dark+Knight+Batmobile+1.jpg
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well, in all fairness, this is not the Appreciation thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.