The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

1356729

Comments

  • edited April 2018 Posts: 1,162
    It always left room to dream. Just as it should be with James Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,523
    Hmmm...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    The most pure 'fun' I ever had in the theatre (and I've seen most Bonds that way) was seeing YOLT & TND.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,487
    My greatest theatrical experiences were GF, OHMSS, FYEO and CR. Only the two latter on release-I am young.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me, in the theatre, nothing will top TSWLM for fun, excitement and audience reaction.
    I guess that'd be #3 for me. The movie was nuts!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2018 Posts: 23,883
    The Brosnan era was indeed more fun than the Craig era has been to date. No question about that from my perspective. The films had a nice light touch to them. There was a lot wrong with them though and it's my worst 'era' for many reasons, but I can't deny that they were fun outings.

    I'd greatly appreciate a return to that lighter tone once the recast arrives, but executed better. I've truly been worn down by all this angst, moping about and family rubbish. It actually began infamously with TWINE but the film makers decided to drop it for the 40th, thankfully.

    We've had 10+ years of it in succession now. Enough please.
  • It was mostly just disappointing.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 2,998
    If the current era keeps going in the same vein and develops the tone for the next era, I'd be losing my interest in the franchise sometime in the future. The Brosnan era was what was needed to entertain and maintain the formula, but here we are, dealing with daft family relations and emotional shortcomings with the protagonist. Royale was a terrific start. But, everything afterwards that tried to repeat the same tone and story structure fell flat and dare I say utmost dull, monotonous and a bore. At least with the Brosnan era we lived through the glory of the Sean Connery and Roger Moore templates combined into one, adding to that the excitement of action and adventure coming into play, that's what I long for when I watch a Bond film. Not learn more about trust issues, current politics, characters fondling with their "inner demons" and their personal lives dealing with "blasts from the past". No thank you. Give me my Brosnan era back, any day of the week, twice on the weekends.

    Excellent post! Once again you prove to be my duplicate in all things Bond.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    If the current era keeps going in the same vein and develops the tone for the next era, I'd be losing my interest in the franchise sometime in the future. The Brosnan era was what was needed to entertain and maintain the formula, but here we are, dealing with daft family relations and emotional shortcomings with the protagonist. Royale was a terrific start. But, everything afterwards that tried to repeat the same tone and story structure fell flat and dare I say utmost dull, monotonous and a bore. At least with the Brosnan era we lived through the glory of the Sean Connery and Roger Moore templates combined into one, adding to that the excitement of action and adventure coming into play, that's what I long for when I watch a Bond film. Not learn more about trust issues, current politics, characters fondling with their "inner demons" and their personal lives dealing with "blasts from the past". No thank you. Give me my Brosnan era back, any day of the week, twice on the weekends.
    Excellent post! Once again you prove to be my duplicate in all things Bond.
    Yes, sir! :D
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,190
    Highlight of Bond for me between 1996-2003. But Roger Moore be my favorite Bond.

    Missing of the Brosnan era:

    Les time between movies. Made it easier. Get more movies in short time.
    With his first three movies i have feeling i whant to see them a lot.
    Outside fun. I mis the good interviews and promotion. Daniel Craig playing games.
    All his movies there no discussion or i should go to the cinema or buy the soundtrack and dvd when it released.
    The posters in 100x70.
    Title song on CD. Only QOS have it.
    Doing more in les screentime. Skyfall and Spectre are to long.
    Charles Robinson (Colin Salmon)
    Straight. Entertainment and fun and no analyzing.

    But Daniel Craig era is a challenge. Analyzing.
    Feels like bored kid get something to think about.

    connect1204illo.jpg
    It's always been me. The author of all your pain.

    But only 4 movies in 13 years (2002-2015). Of course 1989-2002 is 13 years too. But Daniel Craig made 4 movies in 10,5 years and Brosnan in 8 years.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    M_Balje wrote: »
    Highlight of Bond for me between 1996-2003. But Roger Moore be my favorite Bond.

    Missing of the Brosnan era:

    Les time between movies. Made it easier. Get more movies in short time.
    With his first three movies i have feeling i whant to see them a lot.
    Outside fun. I mis the good interviews and promotion. Daniel Craig playing games.
    All his movies there no discussion or i should go to the cinema or buy the soundtrack and dvd when it released.
    The posters in 100x70.
    Title song on CD. Only QOS have it.
    Doing more in les screentime. Skyfall and Spectre are to long.
    Charles Robinson (Colin Salmon)
    Straight. Entertainment and fun and no analyzing.

    But Daniel Craig era is a challenge. Analyzing.
    Feels like bored kid get something to think about.

    connect1204illo.jpg
    It's always been me. The author of all your pain.

    But only 4 movies in 13 years (2002-2015). Of course 1989-2002 is 13 years too. But Daniel Craig made 4 movies in 10,5 years and Brosnan in 8 years.
    I can sympathize with a lot of your thoughts. I don't agree with everything you've said, but I understand where you're coming from. You're right in many ways imho.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 623
    When I started this thread I made the point that we'd never had a time when there were the same amount of Bond movies from two actors. An ideal time for an appraisal. That'll change very soon, won't it?
    I re-watched Die Another Day this afternoon, and really enjoyed it, despite its faults. In a way, I think it has parallels with SPECTRE in that it's trying a bit too hard to be a Bond film. Die Another Day really is a film that makes me think it's maligned despite the director trying really hard to deliver the best Bond ever.
    Bond certainly had more fun in the Brosnan era. I miss that Moore-like flippancy. Someone on here posted an out-take from TWINE the other day, where Bond walks out the room after shagging the doctor and says "the things I do for England", then says "carry on" to the suit of armour. That's Bond class for me. Like when Lazenby says "Hilly, you old devil" in the mirror. I suppose these days you're not allowed to show a man showing post-coital glee.
    I'm excited for the new film, but I can't be the only Bond follower who misses the dashing womaniser. Was the Brosnan era more fun for Bond fans? I think so. It was certainly more fun for Bond. And the next movie seems to make that fact even more so.
  • Oh yes, the most 'fun' movies were the 70's Moore ones. I think the one that got the balance between fun and drama right was The Spy Who Loved Me. I found MR and OP a little too daft to join in with, (I know they're loved these days). But LALD, TSWLM, are perhaps the most fun movies.
    It's funny. I think the last Bond film that was in the tradition of the Moore era I grew up with, was TND. A rollocking romp. Ialways said it'd be interesting when Craig gets a stand-alone mission. But that never happened.
    The old Brosnan DVDs I have say 'Initiate Mission' instead of 'Play Movie' on the menu. You couldn't put that on a Craid DVD could you?
    But the Craig era has been great, I'm not moaning.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    I think audiences have enjoyed Brosnan and Craig eras equally but on different wavelengths. Where the Brosnan films leaned towards fun, the Craig films leaned toward compelling.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 623
    Good points. I'm glad we've got both eras. I'm not entirely convinced Craig is 'more Fleming' as people say though. Brozza had many Fleming moments.
    Watching DAD today, the last part of the film (which is the most derided) actually reminded me more of the current Mission Impossible films. Particularly the action at the end, trying to prevent disaster, everything going on at once. I know the film is a lemon, but you can see a lot of work went into trying to make it entertaining. It's not a lazy film.
  • Posts: 11,493
    The Moore era is a blast. I used to not have as high of an opinion about it, but I’m enjoying all the films in it more than ever, and though it’s not on as high of a level as Connery and Craig for me, it’s filled with entertainment and comedy. If I had to make a choice to take that or the Dalton + Brosnan eras combined, I’d probably take Moore.
  • Posts: 9,400
    I miss the video games
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2020 Posts: 6,846
    I always felt the video games were consistently disappointing. GE should have remained an exception rather than set the template for most games. First person shooter is just wrong for Bond. And I never felt much of an urge to finish EVERYTHING OR NOTHING.

    I even have BLOOD STONE which came in a bundle pack. Never even touched it.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Moderator
    Posts: 13,105
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I miss the video games

    I will say this for the Brosnan era, it did give us the best games. You can't not talk about GoldenEye 007. Like the Connery Bond films did for films, GoldenEye 007 did for games. Those of us around at the time, know just how much of an impact that game had on the industry at large. That said, and I know this might sound a little unfair, but turn of the millenium, technology in games came of age, and were were given my top 3 Bond games in Agent Under Fire, Nightfire (my personal favourite) and Everything Or Nothing (technically the best, and closest to blurring the lines between the films and games).
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,180
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I miss the video games

    I will say this for the Brosnan era, it did give us the best games. You can't not talk about GoldenEye 007. Like the Connery Bond films did for films, GoldenEye 007 did for games. Those of us around at the time, know just how much of an impact that game had on the industry at large. That said, and I know this might sound a little unfair, but turn of the millenium, technology in games came of age, and were were given my top 3 Bond games in Agent Under Fire, Nightfire (my personal favourite) and Everything Or Nothing (technically the best, and closest to blurring the lines between the films and games).

    =D> I love that thought.

    The Brosnan era easily edges out any other in terms of fun for me, and that has all to do with games. That level of immersion and interactivity into the Bond world that the games provided for month and years (for me mainly through Goldeney64 and Nightfire, but also EoN later), has not existed before that time. Only with Craig i discovered all the Books so that added another level later.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 52
    Yea a large part of it has something to do with the video games. Many of them were above average and a few made a huge impact on the game industry.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    Funny thing, TND was my first Bond film at age 11, but I got so bored of the movie I turned it off after the garage chase and it pretty much killed any interest I had in watching another Bond film. Cut to the summer of 2000 when my cousin brings over the video game for GE, and because I had so much fun with it I decided to give the films another chance.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    GE surprised me too, given how apathetic I was towards TND and TWINE.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    edited February 2020 Posts: 210
    Interesting story there Birdleson, I myself have always viewed Brosnan as Bond ever since O can remember. Like as a kid and even now whenever I'd hear the name James Bond I would think of Brosnan. I know Brosnan's movies don't get the greatest reputation but imo all 4 of his movies are very entertaining and fun to watch and I am really sad he only got 4 movies, imo he still had a good 2 or 3 films left in him and it's a shame he never got to do more than 4. At least he's doing fine for himself after Bond and has done great films Such as The Matador and November Man which only show how good he really is even further. But yeah at the end of the day, Brosnan is the Bond to me (alongside Moore) and I can pop in one of his movies any time, sit back for 2 hours and have a fun time watching a talented Irishman playing a British Spy save the world from colorful villains, getting some hot chicks and being classy and suave as well as witty and being the guy you look at and say you want to be like even if you really shouldn't sometimes 😅.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    I love all Bonds all the time. To different degrees depending upon my mood.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 3,898
    Difficult to compare era's or say this one set of films is better then another. Brosnan's era gets maligned. For those that were alive at the time. Damn I feel old. Brosnan made Bond cool again. From 1985 to 1995 it was a rather dark period. Bond had been replaced as the cool action hero. Lethal Weapon, Indiana Jones, John Mcclane. et al. Really changed the movie landscape and Bond wasn't cool. They neutered him in TLD cause of the AIDS epidemic and then took him to serious territory when others were playing up the fun and escapism. Add in the court stuff and Bond was on life support. Then comes Pierce an actor who embraces the character. He goes out for chats on all the shows, he's on magazine covers and he makes Bond cool again. I remember my feeling leaving GE from the theatre was to want to be Bond. Drove my car fast and blared the Bond theme. Compared to my reaction at the end of LTK which was "meh" it was okay.

    I think Brosnan became a victim of his own success. TND held it's own against Titanic for crying out loud. It was a fun movie, though not at the level of GE. TWINE was an attempt to add some character while also being Bond. Then DAD which was just excess and a rather over the top ending to the era.

    Fun? Yes! All masterpieces of cinema? Nope! But then no Bond actor has had all his movies be masterpieces. Connery comes closest.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Yeah exactly, none of em are masterpieces of Cinema (GoldenEye and From Russia With Love to me are) but they're sure as heck fun to watch. And as for why you "Shouldn't" Birdleson..I actually have no idea, idk why I wrote that bit lol, must be the tiredness sinking in.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    I've always described PB's tenure as this sort of amalgamation of everything that had come before; Jack of all trades and a master of none. It was fun, first and foremost. It wasn't high art, incredible cinema... they were entertaining movies. Always reliable.

    If you've ever seen the Bond films on VHS during the 90's than you might remember the promo they played before the movie...



    This is basically the Brosnan era in a nutshell; The highlight reel Bond.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,131
    "007 reasons why the Brosnan era was actually better for Bond fans.

    001. A new Bond adventure every couple of years. Lots more to discuss, enjoy, and moan about. Four movies in seven years. Loads of Bond!
    002. Bond on proper missions. No family baggage. Those were the days!
    003. Everything in the right place. Pre-credit, gun barrel, Moneypenny and M (mostly) in the office.
    004. Bad villains with proper plans, (what was Greene going to do again?)
    005. All the films had novelizations. Why did that stop? When a film came out, you got the full package. The movie at the cinema, the soundtrack, the book, (and later, the Widescreen VHS videocassette!) What bliss!
    006. Gadgets were still cool back then.
    007. James Bond will Return."

    001. Agreed.
    002. Agreed.
    003. Agreed.
    004. Disagree. The Brosnan era villains weren't the best, Carver was a pantomime wimp, Renard was forgettable, Electra was un-threatening, Graves was just appalling and too comic.
    005. Agreed.
    006. Disagree. The were too comic and cheesy.
    007. Agreed.

    On merit your case is sound and yes, the Brosnan era was more fun, but I don't think it was better for fans as 2x of the films were the worst in the franchise (DAD & TWINE).
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I agree with the family baggage.

    The rest is personal taste. I can no longer watch TND & DAD, and I don't say that about too many other Bondmovies.

    About the villains: Carver is one of the worst in the series, who is Renard again? , Graves was not menacing at all. It feels like they tried too hard to include a "stylish, olde skool" villain. Rosamund Pike as Miranda was ok, but she is a terrific actress anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.