The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

1235729

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    Yeah, Renard would have to be in a very different film to fit in as a main villain. The whole reason he goes on a suicide mission was for her.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 979
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    JamesCraig, how is Carver one of the worst villains? He's literally one of the most entertaining, relevant in today's time and is a throwback to villains like Drax who had a lot of power due to owning a company and wanted to start destruction for their own gains but were cowards who hid behind strong henchmen (for Drax it was Chang and Jaws and for Carver it was Stamper). As for Renard he wasn't even the Villain, he was basically someone who was manipulated by Elektra and made into her personal playtoy, Bond even says "You Turned Renard" while on the torture chair. Renard imo is great because he's the jerk villain who literally exists to push Bond's buttons and get under his skin as well as assist in giving Elektra the power she needs because she's the only thing he cares about anymore in his highway road to Death and it's the only thing he feels, it's care for Elektra. Imo it's a really great and deep plotline that gets glossed over. As for Graves, he wasn't meant to menacing, he's meant to be like an Evil James Bond of sorts, even saying he "Modeled the Disgusting Gustav Graves after you" to Bond at one point. Graves is also kinda like Drax, a villain with lots of wealth and power who wants to use it for his own selfish gains and rule the world but unlike Drax, Graves isn't a coward and has no problems throwing down hands (he's a Korean Colonel after all) so he stands on his own 2 legs imo. But yeah like you said it comes down to personal taste, I myself love all 4 Brosnan movies and find each of em to be entertaining even if they have some flaws (GE has no major flaws imo) but if you don't that's fine, different opinions are what make things more interesting anyway.

    Carver is a totally forgettable wimpy, limp wristed, ‘wet blanket’ of a villain. Tomorrow Never Dies' Elliot Carver was truly a product of his time. He was played by a fantastic actor, yet Jonathan Pryce's villain failed to show any real menace at all in the film. He was a media mogul hellbent on ruling the news world, and it was obvious they loosely based him on Rupert Murdoch. There was also his rather embarrassing Kung-fu display towards the end of the film which is better left forgotten. He is totally unbelievable as Paris Carvers lover....in fact his portrayal seems gay IMO. He’s not as poor as Gustav Graves but he’s up there with the worst in the series.

    The Kung-Fu stuff was risible, but other than that, I rather enjoyed Carver. He was a fun throwback to the Stromberg's and Drax's, but rather than underplay it like those two, Pryce decided to chew the scenery. That was a good choice in my opinion and fit the film well.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    edited February 2020 Posts: 210
    That's exactly what he was Roadphil and that's why I like him. As for that Kung fu bit, it's supposed to be embarrassing, he's mocking Wai Lin so I don't see why it's a problem that the villain who's not meant to be menacing is making a fool of himself for the sake of mocking an enemy of his, it's quite humorous imo
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 979
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    That's exactly what he was Roadphil and that's why I like him. As for that Kung fu bit, it's supposed to be embarrassing, he's mocking Wai Lin so I don't see why it's a problem that the villain who's not meant to be menacing is making a fool of himself for the sake of mocking an enemy of his, it's quite humorous imo

    Agreed. I think TND is a pretty solid film.

    Admittedly, this may be my own take, but I rather think that Bonds naval connection being touched on here, for the first time in awhile, feeds into the climax. Like I said I am probably adding my own subtext, but the much hated two gun rampage at the end, to me, is Bond getting cold revenge for fallen comrades on The Devonshire.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 2,898
    The 90's Brosnan era is easily the worst time being a Bond fan. GE was ok, then it all went drastically downhill, with DAD being the worst film in the franchise.

    For me the best time being a Bond fan was 1987 to 1989 when Dalton came on the scene, then again in 2005 with the release of CR, although again like the Brosnan era, I've become gradually more disappointed with each new film since CR.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Yeah, Renard would have to be in a very different film to fit in as a main villain. The whole reason he goes on a suicide mission was for her.

    Indeed, and there Carlyle could've shined.

    He does not at all now.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e il momento che verrà
    edited February 2020 Posts: 6,158
    I still think GE is absolutely marvellous. TWINE definitely has some greatness in it as well and DAD, while far from a masterpiece, entertains fairly well despite some very obvious flaws. TND is the weakest of them imo, wasting a very interesting premise in favour of run-of-the-mill action.

    None of them comes close to Timmy D’s films though ;)
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I still think GE is absolutely marvellous. TWINE definitely has some greatness in it as well and DAD, while far from a masterpiece, entertains fairly well despite some very obvious flaws. TND is the weakest of them imo, wasting a very interesting premise in favour of run-of-the-mill action.

    None of them comes close to Timmy D’s films though ;)

    GE is good. TWINE is my second favorite Brosnan Bond, mind you. ;)
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    I've always felt that Tomorrow Never Dies feels like a generic action film (something directed by Michael Bay) as does Die Another Day despite being Brosnan's best performance, IMO. The World Is Not Enough attempted to add a depth and vulnerability of Brosnans's portrayal, but failed miserably, IMO. It's more like The Bond & The Beautiful rather then a classic James Bond film. I'll give credit to the opening sequence, but following the boat chase this movie falls apart. I will always feel that Goldeneye is Brosnan's best film and perhaps that's because it feels connected to the Dalton era. I personally think that for general audiences that the Brosnan era was more fun for Bond fans because much like Brosnan's portrayal, the films themselves tried to have everything for everyone. The Craig films (while being far from my favourite) are at least a return to some level of reality. Casino Royale remains one of the best films in the franchise and while those that followed weren't as good in terms of quality, they are definitely better then anything post GR that came out of the Brosnan era. They are at least grounded in reality and attempt to bring some vulnerability to the character, rather then portray a superman who's got all the gadgets needed to escape any situation.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    If Brosnan had only made GE & TND. I'd regard him as a much better Bond.

    GE & the first hour of TND are decent Bond films.

    Despite the above, I count myself a fan of Tomorrow Never Dies. It’s a lesser film than Goldeneye but a more rounded one.

    Goldeneye was effectively a modern homage. After six years away, the series needed to update, not reboot. You had to reassure the audiences that, Cold War or no Cold War, this was essentially the same gig. Cue femme fatales, stunts, gadgets, multiple escapes, fast cars, seductions, casinos, etc etc. The problem? Trying to emerge fully formed didn’t leave much space to evolve. The debuts of Connery and Moore, while fine films, were actually fairly atypical of their stars. Dalton had two, very different, but you can see the seeds of Licence To Kill in The Living Daylights.

    For many, Tomorrow Never Dies is the forgotten middle child of the Brosnan era. Neither as loved as Goldeneye, nor reviled as Die Another Day, and it doesn’t have Christmas Jones. A muscular, accomplished outing that certainly deserves the prefix 'action' before any mention of 'thriller', Tomorrow Never Dies is the moment Brosnan hit his stride and simultaneously fell over. Great chases, an amazing score and one of the brightest of Bond’s flames in Paris Carver keep this viewer happy. The over-explosive climax and reluctance to experiment hint at trouble ahead.

    I doubt many people hate it, I doubt it’s the favourite of many people. A good, solid two hours of entertainment. Had Brosnan produced a great third film, I expect Tomorrow Never Dies would be viewed more kindly; instead, despite its many virtues, it seems to be either overlooked or pinpointed as the moment Things Went Wrong. Poor Pierce. A decent Bond searching for that great film. It seems so close! But the wave has crested. He’s barely arrived and already he’s halfway out the door into TWINE & DAD.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Not for me they are not.

    With exception of Goldeneye they felt like Bond tribute acts desperately trying to convince you they are the real thing.

    The one era that I have no problem in almost totally ignoring.
  • Shardlake wrote: »
    Not for me they are not.

    With exception of Goldeneye they felt like Bond tribute acts desperately trying to convince you they are the real thing.

    The one era that I have no problem in almost totally ignoring.

    Spot-on, sir... Couldn't agree more.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2020 Posts: 3,497
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Not for me they are not.

    With exception of Goldeneye they felt like Bond tribute acts desperately trying to convince you they are the real thing.

    The one era that I have no problem in almost totally ignoring.

    Wow, that's harsh. :-O

    The "tribue to all gadgets" scene in DAD was so goddamn awful (not helped by John Cleese's irritating "R"). It's much worse than including the DB5 again imho.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    His tenure was a blast; A shot of nostalgia with some extra fire power and a dash of crude humor.

    It was (for me that is) a golden era of Bond. Every two years another movie, music videos for every film, tie in novels, continuation novels, constant news and updates, and let us not forget the video games, special edition DVD's and so on. It was the perfect time to introduce new fans to the series.

    I miss those days.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,586
    I never got why people rag on the TND finale so much. Each Bond has had an overblown military style, shoot out, soldiering finale in one of their films. It goes pretty well with the similarly explosive ending sequences of TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TSWLM, etc. Granted, it's not as iconic as any of those, but that doesn't make it ill-fitting for a Bond film. Never had an issue with it myself. Looks like Craig will have a similar "Bond vs. Army" finale in NTTD in Safin's lair.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    His tenure was a blast; A shot of nostalgia with some extra fire power and a dash of crude humor.

    It was (for me that is) a golden era of Bond. Every two years another movie, music videos for every film, tie in novels, continuation novels, constant news and updates, and let us not forget the video games, special edition DVD's and so on. It was the perfect time to introduce new fans to the series.

    I miss those days.

    Every two years another movie is not a reason to dislike or like a franchise.

    Just ask George Lucas, Rian Johnson & JJ Abrams.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    His tenure was a blast; A shot of nostalgia with some extra fire power and a dash of crude humor.

    It was (for me that is) a golden era of Bond. Every two years another movie, music videos for every film, tie in novels, continuation novels, constant news and updates, and let us not forget the video games, special edition DVD's and so on. It was the perfect time to introduce new fans to the series.

    I miss those days.

    Every two years another movie is not a reason to dislike or like a franchise.

    Just ask George Lucas, Rian Johnson & JJ Abrams.

    Never said it was the reason to like the series; but it was certainly welcome.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2020 Posts: 3,497
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    His tenure was a blast; A shot of nostalgia with some extra fire power and a dash of crude humor.

    It was (for me that is) a golden era of Bond. Every two years another movie, music videos for every film, tie in novels, continuation novels, constant news and updates, and let us not forget the video games, special edition DVD's and so on. It was the perfect time to introduce new fans to the series.

    I miss those days.

    Every two years another movie is not a reason to dislike or like a franchise.

    Just ask George Lucas, Rian Johnson & JJ Abrams.

    Never said it was the reason to like the series; but it was certainly welcome.

    Yeah but it was all very uneven, even more so than any other "Bondactor era".

    Only in my humble opinion of course.
  • I re-watched TND and DAD this week. I can see what people mean when they say DAD was his best performance, he was super-confident in that. But TND is fantastic I think. The pre-credit is thrilling, brushing up a liitle Danish, the briefing in the car. It's all class. Even the was Bond taunts Carver, ("adrift") is like Largo and Bond. It ends up a bit lame, a bit too generic action flick. But it's still my favourite Brozza Bond. Even the Admiral gear makes a return.
    The Brosnan era's crime, I suppose, is that it's not as clever or 'deep' as the Craig era. But when you grew up with the Moore films, that shouldn't be a problem.

































  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2020 Posts: 3,497
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I re-watched TND and DAD this week. I can see what people mean when they say DAD was his best performance, he was super-confident in that. But TND is fantastic I think. The pre-credit is thrilling, brushing up a liitle Danish, the briefing in the car. It's all class. Even the was Bond taunts Carver, ("adrift") is like Largo and Bond. It ends up a bit lame, a bit too generic action flick. But it's still my favourite Brozza Bond. Even the Admiral gear makes a return.
    The Brosnan era's crime, I suppose, is that it's not as clever or 'deep' as the Craig era. But when you grew up with the Moore films, that shouldn't be a problem.


    The Moore era had it's fair share of silliness but it never pretended to be anything other than that.

  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    edited February 2020 Posts: 52
    A lot of the blame falls on the actor which I think is unfair. Brosnan was excellent for the material they gave him to work with. He didn't have the best relationship with the producers. Brosnan really wanted to portray Bond similar to the character he played in Tailor of Panama with a little mix of Thomas Crown. Producers say no let's keep the formula "safe".

    Even with Daniel Craig he had a great start with Royale and Quantum but the producers decided to go family drama and childhood trauma in the last two films. Baba loves Craig but Craig can't always have his way. Craig was against the whole brothergate thing, even he could not sway Babs to throw that idea out.

    Even the great Connery could not wrestle away for more creative controls from the producers.

    Other than that being a 90s teen, the games, Pierce, etc. It was a great time for me to be a Bond fan.
  • Posts: 2,898
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Not for me they are not.

    With exception of Goldeneye they felt like Bond tribute acts desperately trying to convince you they are the real thing.

    The one era that I have no problem in almost totally ignoring.

    I'm the same. For me the Bond films end in 1989 after LTK, and start again in 2005 after a 16 year gap.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    His tenure was a blast; A shot of nostalgia with some extra fire power and a dash of crude humor.

    It was (for me that is) a golden era of Bond. Every two years another movie, music videos for every film, tie in novels, continuation novels, constant news and updates, and let us not forget the video games, special edition DVD's and so on. It was the perfect time to introduce new fans to the series.

    I miss those days.

    Pierce Brosnan's revelation that he doesn't rate his own performances as Bond, ought to be shocking stuff. Here is an actor who throughout his seven-year run as the suave British sleuth was regularly voted the public's second-favourite 007 after Sean Connery. Occasionally, he even came out ahead.

    But it is not just Craig's portrayal of the secret agent that has cast 1990s Bond into shadow. Rewatching the films now, Brosnan's performance is flat and lackadaisical to the point of blandness. What once appeared to be insouciant cool now comes across as sheer laziness.

    Even in GoldenEye, generally considered to be the best of Brosnan's films, his 007 is smug and smarmy in a way Connery and Roger Moore never were. The movie is only saved by a decent storyline, strong direction from Martin Campbell (later to take the reins for Casino Royale) and a decent villain in Sean Bean's multi-layered Alec Trevelyan.

    Worse still, in an era where adult themes had re-permeated mainstream Hollywood to the greatest extent since the 1970s, the Brosnan Bond carries little or no physical threat. Even early Roger Moore was steely and cold-blooded enough to threaten Gloria Hendry's double-crossing Rosie Carver with her life in the underrated Live and Let Die. Brosnan 007 is a purring pussycat by comparison.

    By the time 2002's Die Another Day had rolled around, with its ridiculous invisible car, video-game style special effects and terrible Madonna cameo, Bond had lost all credibility. Other crimes of the Brosnan era include The World Is Not Enough's Christmas Jones, Denise Richards' crop-topped nuclear physicist, or the not-so terrifying threat in 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies: a media baron (played by Jonathan Pryce) who mounts a cunning scheme to provoke world war three using the power of newspapers and GPS. Even Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice had a better plan than that.

    The sad thing is that Brosnan has proven himself a more than capable actor over the years, turning in a Cary Grant-esque performance as a gentlemanly art thief in the 1999 remake of The Thomas Crown Affair and a bravura turn as a Blair-like former British PM in Roman Polanski's The Ghost in 2010. As he himself partially admits, maybe he struggled to work out why anyone was still making Bond movies long, long after the initial thrill of the series' 1960s success had dissipated.

    Rewatching the films, even Brosnan fans must surely accept that he was never the new Connery, but rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – without even the charm, screen presence and natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    WhyBond wrote: »
    A lot of the blame falls on the actor which I think is unfair. Brisbane was excellent for the material they gave him to work with. He didn't have the best relationship with the producers. Brosnab really wanted to portray Bond similar to the character he played in Tailor of Panama with a little mix of Thomas Crown. Producers say no let's keep the formula "safe".

    Even with Daniel Craig he had a great start with Royale and Quantum but the producers decided to go family drama and childhood trauma in the last two films. Baba loves Craig but Craig can't always have his way. Craig was against the whole brothergate thing, even he could not sway Babs to throw that idea out.

    Even the great Connery could not wrestle away for more creative controls from the producers.

    Other than that being a 90s teen, the games, Pierce, etc. It was a great time for me to be a Bond fan.

    Pierce Canberra was the better choice.

  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    edited February 2020 Posts: 210
    Meh, I think Brosnan was a Perfect choice in all honesty, he just screams Bond. I mean say what you want but when a lot of people hear the Name James Bond, Brosnan is who usually comes to mind if it's not Sean Connery. Brosnan was fine, yeah sure it was played Safe but as the famous saying goes "Don't fix what's not broken" if it works why make a radical change that's unlike what makes the series what it is? I mean as long as something is entertaining that's what counts right?
  • Posts: 2,898
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    His tenure was a blast; A shot of nostalgia with some extra fire power and a dash of crude humor.

    It was (for me that is) a golden era of Bond. Every two years another movie, music videos for every film, tie in novels, continuation novels, constant news and updates, and let us not forget the video games, special edition DVD's and so on. It was the perfect time to introduce new fans to the series.

    I miss those days.

    Pierce Brosnan's revelation that he doesn't rate his own performances as Bond, ought to be shocking stuff. Here is an actor who throughout his seven-year run as the suave British sleuth was regularly voted the public's second-favourite 007 after Sean Connery. Occasionally, he even came out ahead.

    But it is not just Craig's portrayal of the secret agent that has cast 1990s Bond into shadow. Rewatching the films now, Brosnan's performance is flat and lackadaisical to the point of blandness. What once appeared to be insouciant cool now comes across as sheer laziness.

    Even in GoldenEye, generally considered to be the best of Brosnan's films, his 007 is smug and smarmy in a way Connery and Roger Moore never were. The movie is only saved by a decent storyline, strong direction from Martin Campbell (later to take the reins for Casino Royale) and a decent villain in Sean Bean's multi-layered Alec Trevelyan.

    Worse still, in an era where adult themes had re-permeated mainstream Hollywood to the greatest extent since the 1970s, the Brosnan Bond carries little or no physical threat. Even early Roger Moore was steely and cold-blooded enough to threaten Gloria Hendry's double-crossing Rosie Carver with her life in the underrated Live and Let Die. Brosnan 007 is a purring pussycat by comparison.

    By the time 2002's Die Another Day had rolled around, with its ridiculous invisible car, video-game style special effects and terrible Madonna cameo, Bond had lost all credibility. Other crimes of the Brosnan era include The World Is Not Enough's Christmas Jones, Denise Richards' crop-topped nuclear physicist, or the not-so terrifying threat in 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies: a media baron (played by Jonathan Pryce) who mounts a cunning scheme to provoke world war three using the power of newspapers and GPS. Even Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice had a better plan than that.

    The sad thing is that Brosnan has proven himself a more than capable actor over the years, turning in a Cary Grant-esque performance as a gentlemanly art thief in the 1999 remake of The Thomas Crown Affair and a bravura turn as a Blair-like former British PM in Roman Polanski's The Ghost in 2010. As he himself partially admits, maybe he struggled to work out why anyone was still making Bond movies long, long after the initial thrill of the series' 1960s success had dissipated.

    Rewatching the films, even Brosnan fans must surely accept that he was never the new Connery, but rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – without even the charm, screen presence and natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades.

    100% agree with everything here. Great post.

    I felt Brozza became more like Bond outside of Bond. His performances in Thomas Crown, Tailor of Panama and The Ghost gave us a glimpse of what he could and should have been as 007.

    Dalton and Craig got it right in their performances as they treated the character as a flawed human being, a cold-blooded killer, an introvert.

    Brozza's portrayal was more all-round good guy super hero, yet also too vulnerable, too emotional, too extrovert, which is not really what the Fleming character was.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 52
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    A lot of the blame falls on the actor which I think is unfair. Brosnan was excellent for the material they gave him to work with. He didn't have the best relationship with the producers. Brosnan really wanted to portray Bond similar to the character he played in Tailor of Panama with a little mix of Thomas Crown. Producers say no let's keep the formula "safe".

    Even with Daniel Craig he had a great start with Royale and Quantum but the producers decided to go family drama and childhood trauma in the last two films. Baba loves Craig but Craig can't always have his way. Craig was against the whole brothergate thing, even he could not sway Babs to throw that idea out.

    Even the great Connery could not wrestle away for more creative controls from the producers.

    Other than that being a 90s teen, the games, Pierce, etc. It was a great time for me to be a Bond fan.

    Pierce Canberra was the better choice.
    Probably so. So was Sean Bean, James Purefoy, Sam Neil and Timothy Dalton's continuation after that six year hiatus. But hey so many revered actors don't want the 007 role due to the producers grip on creativity issues back in the day. That grip has loosened up a bit since Craig took over.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Bruh did you seriously use the Fleming argument? Bond hasn't been like the Fleming character since the movies started because if he was then Bond wouldn't last more than 2 movies at best, changes were made to make it more suitable for an on screen presence a lot of fans got into Bond via the on screen character and not the literature counterpart. Not to mention the literature counterpart is quite literally a plank of wood in terms of character and Dalton certainly isn't that, Dalton took the seriousness of the novels sure but to say he's like the Fleming character is not true. Dalton was just like Moore and Connery but with more seriousness added and the wacky stuff removed.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited February 2020 Posts: 7,586
    Dalton is as close to Fleming as we have gotten so far, I think.

    But I disagree with the notion that Brosnan posed no physical threat. He's not the most intimidating looking guy (to say the least) but he was plenty physical. Just look at the Kaufmann scene, or the Bilbao bankers scene. It's just that Craig leaves him for dust in the cold blooded killing department, so he looks inevitably worse as his immediate predecessor.

    In comparison, I didn't buy Moore as a menacing Bond in the slightest. Even some of his more lauded moments where he is a bit more "cold blooded" are still a bit hokey. But that's not what made his Bond fun to watch, so it never bothered me all that much.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Actually I'd say Craig is closest to Fleming tbh, both have the cold and almost emotionless/characterless vibe about them. Yeah Moore didn't have to be intimidating tbh, he was pretty much the super hero Bond and I didn't mind that because he was so charismatic and charming that he made it work, although his fight scenes weren't the best to put it lightly
Sign In or Register to comment.