The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

145791029

Comments

  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330

    Love that scene.
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Craig has Charisma? HAHAHAHAHAHHA that's the funniest joke I've heard today. Anyway I missed lots of replies so I'll quickly delve into em. Jetsetwilly: I have tried to read Casino Royale the Novel and it was the most boring and uninteresting book I've read in my life and I couldn't finish it, same with any other one I've tried to read, they're a borefest at best, sure times were different but I'd say they're as exciting as a root canal in today's time. Also Dalton very much had charisma in his performance as Bond, No Bond really lacked Charisma besides Craig and Lazenby even though Lazenby does try.

    Octopussy: If you're trying to imply that they rebooted Bond because people were tired of Brosnan's Bond isn't exactly correct, in fact I'm pretty sure DAD was the highest grossing Bond film when it released and it's reviews from the time weren't overly negative as they are now.

    Getafix: didn't you say you haven't seen GE in full since it came out on VHS? Not to be rude but how does your 20 year old opinion hold up if you haven't revisited the film to think your thoughts again? Maybe I'm wrong about that but I'm quite certain you've said that a number of times. Also TWINE is unwatchable? Bruh no Bond film is unwatchable, as much as I may despise Skyfall even Skyfall isn't unwatchable, it's totally watchable and I'll even watch it to see if my opinion changes as much as I don't enjoy it, where as you can't even watch one film? Yeah I find that hard to believe, I think you're just grasping for straws to come up with complaints broski.

    Revelator: yes I agree with this, you're absolutely right that the best era would really be now since everything is available to us at the current moment and surely everyone can find a Bond movie or Bond actor that suits their taste with so many options.

    That's a shame, while I am a fan of the films first and foremost, I have come to appreciate the novels; it's hard to pass up more Bond adventures. You should really check out Moonraker, easily my favourite of the Fleming novels. I also highly recommend Icebreaker by John Gardner.

    P.S. I warned you, the vitriol surrounding the Brosnan ers on these boards is staggering.

  • edited February 2020 Posts: 11,425
    The current Bond is usually highly rated at the time and then goes out of favour when replaced. I think Craig will fall out of favour quickly with the general public. The media will refer to him as the miserable Bond who never had any fun and the new guy will steal all the limelight.

    It takes time for things to settle down and for people to get a perspective on each actor. Dalton is never going to be regarded as a great Bond by casual film goers but he's definitely had a reappraisal amongst critics and hardcore fans who tend to rate him highly.

    Maybe the same thing will happen to Brosnan over time but I doubt it.

    At least Pierce got to enjoy being a popular Bond at the time. All the talk of "best since Connery" must have been really satisfying.


  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Revelator wrote: »
    I think the most fun era for Bond fans is right now, because every Bond film and novel is almost instantly available. And there are more books, studies, and documentaries about Bond than ever before--all of which be discussed online with fans across the world in places like this. I would not define the Brosnan era as great--I was never into video games and I regard getting a mediocre film every two years as a triumph of quantity over quality.

    As for the most exciting era to be a Bond fan, no doubt the early 1960s. Imagine the excitement of being a Bond fan in an era when Fleming was still alive and interest was building in the upcoming adaptations of his books. Now imagine seeing Dr. No in the theater and being blown away by Sean Connery and the very first Bond film and wanting more. Now imagine seeing FRWL build upon and surpass its predecessor and make waves, followed by GF and TB setting the world on fire and creating a Bondmania that has never been equaled, an era when the entire planet was crazy for Bond, when the series was something new and tremendously exciting. Next to this era, when Bond became a supernova, everything that followed almost seems like an anticlimax.

    +1.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Getafix wrote: »
    The current Bond is usually highly rated at the time and then goes out of favour when replaced. I think Craig will fall out of favour quickly with the general public. The media will refer to him as the miserable Bond who never had any fun and the new guy will steal all the limelight.

    I think it will largely depend on how well NTTD turns out. Brosnan’s run became less regarded over time because GE was his only real standout film and his run ended with DAD. Craig has had two highly acclaimed films with CR and SF, and if NTTD turns out great that not only enriches his era but more importantly leaves it on a high note. Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan all ended their run with what were arguably their weakest installments (DAF, AVTAK, LTK, DAD). So it’s not surprising after those films that audiences are eager to see the new guy. But if Craig’s final film turns out to be amazing, that puts even more pressure on the new guy to live up to his predecessor.

    But we won’t really know until it all happens.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Fair points. I think Craig will fall from favour though regardless.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2020 Posts: 3,497
    Getafix wrote: »
    Fair points. I think Craig will fall from favour though regardless.

    It's a personal wish of yours. You, and the tabloids.

    Brosnan's movies were seen as "DIS IS HOW ALL BONDMOVIES WERE AND SHOULD BE".
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 12,242
    I think when the dust settles Craig will be mostly fondly remembered. CR and SF are huge favorites with the general public, and I’d argue no other Bond actor besides Connery has two or more Bond films that are quite as widely loved by the public. NTTD may have a huge say in Craig’s legacy though. Leaving on a bad note never helps, but there’s also the possibility it could be a classic that further strengthens his standing as Bond. Who knows - maybe even QOS and/or SP could be looked back on fondly in retrospect someday too.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 623
    I loved Dalton's Bond, but when people talk about him as 'Fleming's Bond' I have to admit I only really get that feeling with the early Connery movies. I think the first four were easily closest to what Fleming had in mind, and Fleming gave his portrayal the seal of approval with the Scottish ancestry in the YOLT book.
    When I watch Dalton he's an eighties Bond, and the styles and time period clash with what I read in my Fleming books, where I find a man of his time. And that time's the late fifties, early sixties.
    That's nothing to take it away from Dalton, who admitted reading the books whilst filming, something I don't think the other actors did.
    But I remember the Brosnan era as being seen as a 'Bond for everyone'. He was certainly more serious than Rog, the daftness of the pigeons/Tarzan yells/silly sound effects had no place in the Brosnan era, and most fans of the books (like me) certainly welcomed that. I'm glad someone mentioned the first hour of TND on this thread the other day. It was very much my kind of Bond movie in that first hour. A real fun ride. Not exactly Fleming-like, but still a classy romp in the spirit of the best of the Moore era.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Roger Moore's few "cold hearted" moments were more convincing than Pierce's imo: shooting Stromberg & pushing Locque off the cliff are actually two of my favorite moments in the entire series.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I think when the dust settles Craig will be mostly fondly remembered. CR and SF are huge favorites with the general public, and I’d argue no other Bond actor besides Connery has two or more Bond films that are quite as widely loved by the public. NTTD may have a huge say in Craig’s legacy though. Leaving on a bad note never helps, but there’s also the possibility it could be a classic that further strengthens his standing as Bond. Who knows - maybe even QOS and/or SP could be looked back on fondly in retrospect someday too.

    Certainly. Even with QOS and SP, it's not like no Bond actor ever had a flawless run prior to Craig. If NTTD turns out great, that makes three solid entries out of five films for Craig, which I'd consider a pretty very good run. Comparable to Moore's run who arguably had a solid good four films under him out of seven.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2020 Posts: 3,497
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I think when the dust settles Craig will be mostly fondly remembered. CR and SF are huge favorites with the general public, and I’d argue no other Bond actor besides Connery has two or more Bond films that are quite as widely loved by the public. NTTD may have a huge say in Craig’s legacy though. Leaving on a bad note never helps, but there’s also the possibility it could be a classic that further strengthens his standing as Bond. Who knows - maybe even QOS and/or SP could be looked back on fondly in retrospect someday too.

    Certainly. Even with QOS and SP, it's not like no Bond actor ever had a flawless run prior to Craig. If NTTD turns out great, that makes three solid entries out of five films for Craig, which I'd consider a pretty very good run. Comparable to Moore's run who arguably had a solid good four films under him out of seven.

    Sir Roger made the role his own and I've always found it cool that Sean recommended him.

    Edit:

    Jesus, Connery was offered 5,5 million dollars to return one more time! (which would be something like 30 million today...)

    :-O
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    JamesCraig: Yes Roger definitely made the role his own and made a very unique change to the style at a time when the character needed to change (you can actually see DAF as a sort of beta to the Moore era if you really analyze it). Sure Roger is over the top and very humourous which may be a turnoff for some who want a more serious Bond endeavor, but tbh that wacky nature combined with Moore's just Excellent skill, charisma and range as an Actor just make up what makes him so charming and fun to watch pin my eyes and imo he was a worthy successor to Connery. I'm glad they didn't have him try to imitate Connery's style because it probably wouldn't have suited Moore all too well (he could've done it no doubt in my mind) and besides like I mentioned: times were changing and Bond needed a few extra layers added and Moore did just that.



    Shamanimal: Yes!! Exactly your exactly correct, the first few Connery films (mainly Dr. No and From Russia With Love, mostly the latter though) definitely felt like more Fleming style and tbh they felt more like a typical grounded Spy movie and imo were pulled off very well. I've also heard FRWL is very much close to it's Novel in terms of being faithful. Makes me wanna read the Novel myself tbh as I've heard it's good.


    Agent 47: I'll add that Novel to my list of ones to get to, I did read John Gardner's GoldenEye novelization and liked it, wasn't as good as the movie but I still found it to be quite good, interested to see his other stories as I have heard good things about them.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I think when the dust settles Craig will be mostly fondly remembered. CR and SF are huge favorites with the general public, and I’d argue no other Bond actor besides Connery has two or more Bond films that are quite as widely loved by the public. NTTD may have a huge say in Craig’s legacy though. Leaving on a bad note never helps, but there’s also the possibility it could be a classic that further strengthens his standing as Bond. Who knows - maybe even QOS and/or SP could be looked back on fondly in retrospect someday too.

    Good points. CR was critically acclaimed and SF made £1b at the box office (ie most successful ever so far). Only Connery and Moore had those “All time highs” (pun intended).
  • Brosnan was ok but nowhere near as good an actor as Craig.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Brosnan was ok but nowhere near as good an actor as Craig.

    TBH, the scripts didn't help much.

    His best performances were in TWINE & DAD. Not a joke.
  • I agree Craig displays the better acting 'chops' in the role as Bond. But going back to the original point of this thread, are the films and the era as much fun as when Brozza wore the tux?

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I agree Craig displays the better acting 'chops' in the role as Bond. But going back to the original point of this thread, are the films and the era as much fun as when Brozza wore the tux?

    You can "overdo" fun. Which was too often the case.

    But he did look good in a tux.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Octopussy: If you're trying to imply that they rebooted Bond because people were tired of Brosnan's Bond isn't exactly correct, in fact I'm pretty sure DAD was the highest grossing Bond film when it released and it's reviews from the time weren't overly negative as they are now.

    I'm stating that when they wanted to reboot the franchise there's a reason why they made the conscious decision to return to Fleming. The reality is that the films based upon the original source material to one extent or another are considered the best in the franchise and Casino Royale is no different. The Craig era on the whole has been largely favoured over that of Brosnan for it's realism and the fact that Craig has at least attempted to bring elements of Fleming's Bond back to the big screen. You can't relate to Brosnan's Bond in any way as he's a superman, whereas at least with Craig you can empathize with him to a degree. Public audiences may have whetted to Brosnan for pure entertainment value, but they like Craig because he portrays a more relatable and grounded figure.

    I remember as a child being excited by the Brosnan era, but they were always popcorn entertainment rather then being classic Bond films. While I don't rate the Craig era highly (with the exception of CR which ranks among my favourite) I still prefer them well over anything that was produced while Brosnan was in the role.


    JamesCraig wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I agree Craig displays the better acting 'chops' in the role as Bond. But going back to the original point of this thread, are the films and the era as much fun as when Brozza wore the tux?

    You can "overdo" fun. Which was too often the case.

    But he did look good in a tux.

    +1

    I feel like everything following Goldeneye that they dialed up every element to 11. The amount of action, innuendo and outlandish gadgetry was off the charts to a point where it became really rather stupid. You never feared for Bond's life during Brosnans tenure because you knew that he would suddenly have a gadget or gimmick to escape the situation. Boring.
  • Looks like they're going to ramp up the Bond suffrage for the next one anyway.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    I don't think you can overdo fun per say unless you go and break actual physics (Skyfall did that with Bond surviving the fall with 0 explanation as it's very unlikely he'd survive given how he fell) which thankfully no Bond film really goes that far. I guess what "goes to far" in a Bond movie is as subjective as who's the best Bond or what everyone's personal favorite movie is tbh. My stance has always been As long as you have fun watching then that's what matters at the end of the day. Different strokes for different people as they say.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    I don't think you can overdo fun per say unless you go and break actual physics (Skyfall did that with Bond surviving the fall with 0 explanation as it's very unlikely he'd survive given how he fell) which thankfully no Bond film really goes that far. I guess what "goes to far" in a Bond movie is as subjective as who's the best Bond or what everyone's personal favorite movie is tbh. My stance has always been As long as you have fun watching then that's what matters at the end of the day. Different strokes for different people as they say.

    The beauty of the thing called opinions
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Yep pretty much
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I agree Craig displays the better acting 'chops' in the role as Bond. But going back to the original point of this thread, are the films and the era as much fun as when Brozza wore the tux?

    No, because some of elements of the era were bordering on parody. Which wasn't 'fun' for a Bond fan to watch. Roger could carry such films like MR. But, Brosnan was rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – with less charm, screen presence and a natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades.
  • Posts: 11,425
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I loved Dalton's Bond, but when people talk about him as 'Fleming's Bond' I have to admit I only really get that feeling with the early Connery movies. I think the first four were easily closest to what Fleming had in mind, and Fleming gave his portrayal the seal of approval with the Scottish ancestry in the YOLT book.
    When I watch Dalton he's an eighties Bond, and the styles and time period clash with what I read in my Fleming books, where I find a man of his time. And that time's the late fifties, early sixties.
    That's nothing to take it away from Dalton, who admitted reading the books whilst filming, something I don't think the other actors did.
    But I remember the Brosnan era as being seen as a 'Bond for everyone'. He was certainly more serious than Rog, the daftness of the pigeons/Tarzan yells/silly sound effects had no place in the Brosnan era, and most fans of the books (like me) certainly welcomed that. I'm glad someone mentioned the first hour of TND on this thread the other day. It was very much my kind of Bond movie in that first hour. A real fun ride. Not exactly Fleming-like, but still a classy romp in the spirit of the best of the Moore era.

    That was me. The first half of TND has always stood out for me in the Brosnan era. If his tenure had been like that I could have handled it. Not that it was what I was looking for, but as you say it's a solid hour of Moore-esque entertainment and works well enough.

    I don't agree that Moore was less serious though. Moore switches between drama and laughs constantly and some of his tenser moments are amongst the best dramatic scenes in the series.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 2,436
    I recently watched a video on YouTube from one of the GoldenEye premieres and Brosnan was asked how he approached the role. Paraphrasing: I took a bit of Connery, a bit of Moore and a bit of myself. That pretty much sums up Brosnan in the role for better and for worse.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    I don't think you can overdo fun per say unless you go and break actual physics (Skyfall did that with Bond surviving the fall with 0 explanation as it's very unlikely he'd survive given how he fell) which thankfully no Bond film really goes that far. I guess what "goes to far" in a Bond movie is as subjective as who's the best Bond or what everyone's personal favorite movie is tbh. My stance has always been As long as you have fun watching then that's what matters at the end of the day. Different strokes for different people as they say.

    The implausible fake "stunt" in the PTS reminds me of GE with Brozza flying to catch up with the falling plane. Daft and totally takes you out of the film in both instances. Yes the invisible car was dire but these 2 examples are just as bad IMO.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Roger Moore's few "cold hearted" moments were more convincing than Pierce's imo: shooting Stromberg & pushing Locque off the cliff are actually two of my favorite moments in the entire series.

    I like the Stromberg scene but the Locque moment is ruined for me by its build up, consisting of a ridiculously unfit looking Rog / Stuntman combo attempting to catch up with that car. It's one of the reasons why the cold blooded moments of his era never landed with me - the proceeding scraps were almost always unconvincing.

    Pierce, to his credit, at least had some grace and looked convincing throwing a punch or a kick. Just look at the fight with Trevelyan in GoldenEye, which made the "No, for me" line even more satisfying. Not as good as Laz or Craig, but still good.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Roger Moore's few "cold hearted" moments were more convincing than Pierce's imo: shooting Stromberg & pushing Locque off the cliff are actually two of my favorite moments in the entire series.

    I like the Stromberg scene but the Locque moment is ruined for me by its build up, consisting of a ridiculously unfit looking Rog / Stuntman combo attempting to catch up with that car. It's one of the reasons why the cold blooded moments of his era never landed with me - the proceeding scraps were almost always unconvincing.

    Pierce, to his credit, at least had some grace and looked convincing throwing a punch or a kick. Just look at the fight with Trevelyan in GoldenEye, which made the "No, for me" line even more satisfying. Not as good as Laz or Craig, but still good.

    To me, Pierce his "coldest" moment was shooting Elektra.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Roger Moore's few "cold hearted" moments were more convincing than Pierce's imo: shooting Stromberg & pushing Locque off the cliff are actually two of my favorite moments in the entire series.

    I like the Stromberg scene but the Locque moment is ruined for me by its build up, consisting of a ridiculously unfit looking Rog / Stuntman combo attempting to catch up with that car. It's one of the reasons why the cold blooded moments of his era never landed with me - the proceeding scraps were almost always unconvincing.

    Pierce, to his credit, at least had some grace and looked convincing throwing a punch or a kick. Just look at the fight with Trevelyan in GoldenEye, which made the "No, for me" line even more satisfying. Not as good as Laz or Craig, but still good.

    To me, Pierce his "coldest" moment was shooting Elektra.

    Yeah, shooting a woman (villain or not) in cold blood is pretty hardcore by any standard.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    "I never Miss" I love that bit
Sign In or Register to comment.