The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

1212224262729

Comments

  • edited November 2021 Posts: 526
    I watched all the Brosnan Bonds at the theatre. Never watched any more than once. So I thought they were pretty good. Then along came Casino Royale and Daniel Craig. From that point on, I have not been able to watch the Brosnan films. They just seem so inferior, and to be honest, plain bad. Especially DAD. I remember telling a friend, “I think the franchise is done after that mess.” Thank goodness for CR and DC.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    I do agree with the sentiment that Brosnan often came off like a clothes horse. Those Brioni suits made him look like a paid model rather than someone living off of a secret service salary.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2021 Posts: 14,792
    AceHole wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    In terms of how he looks, I quite liked that Craig’s run turned down the suits a bit. Brosnan’s Bond seemed to be in a suit the whole time even when he didn’t really need to be.

    Quite so.
    Why the hell was he in suit and tie when he was clearly aiming to covertly sneak into Carver's Hamburg HQ...???

    If we're talking about the scene that precedes the car park BMW chase, then Carver's place is in the middle of town. How silly would Bond look walking through the streets in tactical gear in broad daylight?


    I don’t think that’s the only alternative: just a shirt and Harrington-style jacket is what most of the other Bonds would have worn. Look at what Dalton’s Bond wears for an assassination he knows he’ll have to run from in Tangier in TLD. Or Roger’s Spain look in FYEO, or the climax of OP.
    I can’t help thinking that something like the Miami airport sequence in CR Brosnan’s Bond would have been suited for. Just sort of unnecessary.
    I think the closest he gets to one of those casual action looks is maybe the polar neck in DAD..?

    And if Bond couldn’t walk through Hamburg in that outfit (and all he does is park his car in the road and cross one street), how did Wai Lin manage it in a leather catsuit? :D
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    In terms of how he looks, I quite liked that Craig’s run turned down the suits a bit. Brosnan’s Bond seemed to be in a suit the whole time even when he didn’t really need to be.

    Quite so.
    Why the hell was he in suit and tie when he was clearly aiming to covertly sneak into Carver's Hamburg HQ...???

    If we're talking about the scene that precedes the car park BMW chase, then Carver's place is in the middle of town. How silly would Bond look walking through the streets in tactical gear in broad daylight?


    I don’t think that’s the only alternative: just a shirt and Harrington-style jacket is what most of the other Bonds would have worn. Look at what Dalton’s Bond wears for an assassination he knows he’ll have to run from in Tangier in TLD. Or Roger’s Spain look in FYEO, or the climax of OP.
    I can’t help thinking that something like the Miami airport sequence in CR Brosnan’s Bond would have been suited for. Just sort of unnecessary.
    I think the closest he gets to one of those casual action looks is maybe the polar neck in DAD..?

    And if Bond couldn’t walk through Hamburg in that outfit (and all he does is park his car in the road and cross one street), how did Wai Lin manage it in a leather catsuit? :D

    I see what you're saying. That's a more moderate view than him wearing tactical gear. I suppose he is undercover as a banker, though.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,965
    mtm wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    In terms of how he looks, I quite liked that Craig’s run turned down the suits a bit. Brosnan’s Bond seemed to be in a suit the whole time even when he didn’t really need to be.

    Quite so.
    Why the hell was he in suit and tie when he was clearly aiming to covertly sneak into Carver's Hamburg HQ...???

    If we're talking about the scene that precedes the car park BMW chase, then Carver's place is in the middle of town. How silly would Bond look walking through the streets in tactical gear in broad daylight?


    I don’t think that’s the only alternative: just a shirt and Harrington-style jacket is what most of the other Bonds would have worn. Look at what Dalton’s Bond wears for an assassination he knows he’ll have to run from in Tangier in TLD. Or Roger’s Spain look in FYEO, or the climax of OP.
    I can’t help thinking that something like the Miami airport sequence in CR Brosnan’s Bond would have been suited for. Just sort of unnecessary.
    I think the closest he gets to one of those casual action looks is maybe the polar neck in DAD..?

    And if Bond couldn’t walk through Hamburg in that outfit (and all he does is park his car in the road and cross one street), how did Wai Lin manage it in a leather catsuit? :D

    I see what you're saying. That's a more moderate view than him wearing tactical gear. I suppose he is undercover as a banker, though.

    Currencies are off, his stock is soaring.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2021 Posts: 14,792
    mtm wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    In terms of how he looks, I quite liked that Craig’s run turned down the suits a bit. Brosnan’s Bond seemed to be in a suit the whole time even when he didn’t really need to be.

    Quite so.
    Why the hell was he in suit and tie when he was clearly aiming to covertly sneak into Carver's Hamburg HQ...???

    If we're talking about the scene that precedes the car park BMW chase, then Carver's place is in the middle of town. How silly would Bond look walking through the streets in tactical gear in broad daylight?


    I don’t think that’s the only alternative: just a shirt and Harrington-style jacket is what most of the other Bonds would have worn. Look at what Dalton’s Bond wears for an assassination he knows he’ll have to run from in Tangier in TLD. Or Roger’s Spain look in FYEO, or the climax of OP.
    I can’t help thinking that something like the Miami airport sequence in CR Brosnan’s Bond would have been suited for. Just sort of unnecessary.
    I think the closest he gets to one of those casual action looks is maybe the polar neck in DAD..?

    And if Bond couldn’t walk through Hamburg in that outfit (and all he does is park his car in the road and cross one street), how did Wai Lin manage it in a leather catsuit? :D

    I see what you're saying. That's a more moderate view than him wearing tactical gear. I suppose he is undercover as a banker, though.

    Sure, but bankers don't really climb on roofs! :) And he knew he'd be doing that when he left the hotel room because Paris told him that's where he'd be going.
    I get what you mean: he could be discovered and try to style it out by pretending he's supposed to be there, but given there are guys with guns everywhere I'm not sure that would work anyway. Plus he's already beaten up a load of Carver's goons at this point (at the party) so his banker cover is pretty blown.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,723
    To be fair to poor old Pierce who seems to get a lot of flack that was out of his control.
    In GE during the climax he doesn't wear a suit, and the same can be said for TND, even DAD has him in army fatigues.
    I don't think we can blame the actor for the wardrobe he's been asked to wear.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    In terms of how he looks, I quite liked that Craig’s run turned down the suits a bit. Brosnan’s Bond seemed to be in a suit the whole time even when he didn’t really need to be.

    Quite so.
    Why the hell was he in suit and tie when he was clearly aiming to covertly sneak into Carver's Hamburg HQ...???

    If we're talking about the scene that precedes the car park BMW chase, then Carver's place is in the middle of town. How silly would Bond look walking through the streets in tactical gear in broad daylight?


    I don’t think that’s the only alternative: just a shirt and Harrington-style jacket is what most of the other Bonds would have worn. Look at what Dalton’s Bond wears for an assassination he knows he’ll have to run from in Tangier in TLD. Or Roger’s Spain look in FYEO, or the climax of OP.
    I can’t help thinking that something like the Miami airport sequence in CR Brosnan’s Bond would have been suited for. Just sort of unnecessary.
    I think the closest he gets to one of those casual action looks is maybe the polar neck in DAD..?

    And if Bond couldn’t walk through Hamburg in that outfit (and all he does is park his car in the road and cross one street), how did Wai Lin manage it in a leather catsuit? :D

    I see what you're saying. That's a more moderate view than him wearing tactical gear. I suppose he is undercover as a banker, though.

    Sure, but bankers don't really climb on roofs! :) And he knew he'd be doing that when he left the hotel room because Paris told him that's where he'd be going.
    I get what you mean: he could be discovered and try to style it out by pretending he's supposed to be there, but given there are guys with guns everywhere I'm not sure that would work anyway. Plus he's already beaten up a load of Carver's goons at this point (at the party) so his banker cover is pretty blown.

    Yeah, his cover lasts about two seconds. Though that is a Bondian trope I very much enjoy. Like in the novel of LALD where he spends ages getting togged up as an American and then gets rumbled pretty much the instant he goes to Harlem (from what I recall).

    Brosnan's Bond tries to style it out in Hamburg in the moment when he is casually walking through the print factory before they start shooting at him again.

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    edited November 2021 Posts: 737
    Benny wrote: »
    I don't think we can blame the actor for the wardrobe he's been asked to wear.

    Where's the fun in that?
  • Posts: 7,492
    Benny wrote: »
    To be fair to poor old Pierce who seems to get a lot of flack that was out of his control.
    In GE during the climax he doesn't wear a suit, and the same can be said for TND, even DAD has him in army fatigues.
    I don't think we can blame the actor for the wardrobe he's been asked to wear.


    Has anyone here blamed Brosnan for that though?
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    I watched all the Brosnan Bonds at the theatre. Never watched any more than once. So I thought they were pretty good. Then along came Casino Royale and Daniel Craig. From that point on, I have not been able to watch the Brosnan films. They just seem so inferior, and to be honest, plain bad. Especially DAD. I remember telling a friend, “I think the franchise is done after that mess.” Thank goodness for CR and DC.

    This.
    Much of it has, for me at least, to do with Brosnan simply being such an inferior actor to Daniel Craig. Craig did have better writing, true, but Brosnan was never an actor to lift the material he was given. Dalton, and Craig, could both do this.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Moore and Brosnan were born to play Bond.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,727
    Seen as this is a pro-Pierce thread I suppose I should also say smth positive about him & his tenure:

    The man re-invigorated an almost dead franchise. The movie going public was not ready for a literary, serious interpretation of 007 (as much as I prefer Dalton and DC's take) and Brosnan was the perfect antidote to the lukewarm aftermath of LTK and the legal wrangling.

    Pierce's love for the character is obvious and oozes from the screen - the man LOVES this role and he gives his heart and soul.
    He was never athletic but he flung himself into the action with gusto, and of course he truly shone when he was allowed to turn on the style, both in charm and sartorially - because my word Pierce had that and then some..!

    I loved the escapism he brought to GE and TND, even though once I passed 25 and saw CR I started to dismiss Brosnan's light-hearted approach.

    So yes - Brosnan's era was good fun. Kudos to him for helping Cubby & Babs re-launch James Bond on the silver screen.
  • Posts: 6,519
    AceHole wrote: »
    Pierce's love for the character is obvious and oozes from the screen - the man LOVES this role and he gives his heart and soul.
    He was never athletic but he flung himself into the action with gusto, and of course he truly shone when he was allowed to turn on the style, both in charm and sartorially - because my word Pierce had that and then some..!

    Very well said!
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 1,955
    I’ve seen several posts made not only on this thread, but on others as well where Brosnan’s acting is unfairly compared to Daniel Craig’s and Timothy Dalton’s, and I’ll touch more on that specific comparison later on, but here’s my attempt at a rebuttal towards those remarks.

    I agree with Craig and Dalton being better actors than Brosnan, and I would even go so far as to say their abilities even exceed Connery and Moore, but that doesn’t mean that there performances as Bond in the films are better than Brosnan’s. Craig and Dalton really succeed where others don’t at bringing Fleming’s version of Bond to the screen (save for maybe Connery in Dr. No, and FRWL), and that’s wonderful for those who love that type of Bond (I include myself in that category), but in terms of the mainstream audience, both actors have faced some kind of criticism in regards for how serious, dark, and moody their portrayals are. Again, depending on your type of Bond, that’s not a bad thing, but this series was not built off of faithfully adapting each novel and each character down to the exact detail, if it was, it would’ve ended long ago. To the mainstream audience, they don’t care about how rooted in Fleming each portrayal of Bond is, which is why Dalton and Craig have their naysayers and detractors, if some of you could believe that.

    The Literary Bond, and the Cinematic Bond are two very different characters. The Cinematic Bond, which I would say was born in Goldfinger, has elements to his character not present in Fleming’s Literary version. Cinematic Bond is other worldly in so many ways, each defined below;

    1. He’s impossibly handsome,
    2. He has strong sense of style
    3. He has near superhuman physical abilities and feats
    4. He’s effortlessly charming and sophisticated
    5. He has strong, solid sense of Humor
    6. He always manages to win and find a way, despite the circumstances

    When you look at that criteria, Brosnan clearly demonstrates that he was going more for a portrayal of Bond rooted in his cinematic history, rather than literary, and in doing so, successfully nails all of those elements far more than Daniel Craig, and Timothy Dalton do, both of whom fall short in at least one of those categories.

    So I pose this question, since it’s established that the literary Bond, and Cinematic Bond are two different beasts entirely, why are so many (unfair and unflattering) comparisons being made to just Dalton and Craig, if it’s obvious that the type of Bond those two were playing were much different than the type Pierce was playing? If I’m being completely blunt, I notice a vast majority of these unflattering comparisons are being made by Dalton/Craig fans, so I’m not sure if it’s because Brosnan is sandwiched in between both of them, but to me that does confirm so kind of bias in making those comparisons.

    It makes much more sense, and frankly is far more appropriate to compare Brosnan to Connery/Moore than Dalton/Craig, as both Connery and Moore are the two portrayels that define the Cinematic Bond. In the end, it’s all tastes and preferences, and unfortunately that means that sometimes, others favorites are the ones with the short end of the stick. I’m glad the Bond community can come and have these types of discussions, but I just don’t any valid point, nor any valid criticism in bashing Brosnan’s acting abilities and calling them “inferior” when it’s obvious he wasn’t going for a Fleming type Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2021 Posts: 14,792
    Benny wrote: »
    To be fair to poor old Pierce who seems to get a lot of flack that was out of his control.
    In GE during the climax he doesn't wear a suit, and the same can be said for TND, even DAD has him in army fatigues.
    I don't think we can blame the actor for the wardrobe he's been asked to wear.

    Well I don't think anyone is, are they? I think it was Lindy Hemming wasn't it? Who I think worked on CR as well but seemed to change her approach to Bond himself for the better I'd say (although I was watching it the other day and his arrival suit to the Bahamas actually looked surprisingly dated I thought)
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    In terms of how he looks, I quite liked that Craig’s run turned down the suits a bit. Brosnan’s Bond seemed to be in a suit the whole time even when he didn’t really need to be.

    Quite so.
    Why the hell was he in suit and tie when he was clearly aiming to covertly sneak into Carver's Hamburg HQ...???

    If we're talking about the scene that precedes the car park BMW chase, then Carver's place is in the middle of town. How silly would Bond look walking through the streets in tactical gear in broad daylight?


    I don’t think that’s the only alternative: just a shirt and Harrington-style jacket is what most of the other Bonds would have worn. Look at what Dalton’s Bond wears for an assassination he knows he’ll have to run from in Tangier in TLD. Or Roger’s Spain look in FYEO, or the climax of OP.
    I can’t help thinking that something like the Miami airport sequence in CR Brosnan’s Bond would have been suited for. Just sort of unnecessary.
    I think the closest he gets to one of those casual action looks is maybe the polar neck in DAD..?

    And if Bond couldn’t walk through Hamburg in that outfit (and all he does is park his car in the road and cross one street), how did Wai Lin manage it in a leather catsuit? :D

    I see what you're saying. That's a more moderate view than him wearing tactical gear. I suppose he is undercover as a banker, though.

    Sure, but bankers don't really climb on roofs! :) And he knew he'd be doing that when he left the hotel room because Paris told him that's where he'd be going.
    I get what you mean: he could be discovered and try to style it out by pretending he's supposed to be there, but given there are guys with guns everywhere I'm not sure that would work anyway. Plus he's already beaten up a load of Carver's goons at this point (at the party) so his banker cover is pretty blown.

    Yeah, his cover lasts about two seconds. Though that is a Bondian trope I very much enjoy. Like in the novel of LALD where he spends ages getting togged up as an American and then gets rumbled pretty much the instant he goes to Harlem (from what I recall).

    Ha! Yeah I love it when he basically walks right up to Carver and effectively says 'I'm a spy and I think you're bad. Are you bad? Beat me up if you are' :D
    He's only got 48 hours to solve the whole thing, and a good proportion of that must be spent sleeping with Paris and taking a plane to Japan, so I guess he's just got to go in without the subtlety! :)
    Brosnan's Bond tries to style it out in Hamburg in the moment when he is casually walking through the print factory before they start shooting at him again.

    Yes, always enjoyed that little bit. There's lots to TND I like.

    AceHole wrote: »

    Pierce's love for the character is obvious and oozes from the screen - the man LOVES this role and he gives his heart and soul.

    I always think it's fascinating that before GoldenEye, and after when he thought he'd lost the role to Dalton forever, he actually approached Kevin McClory to try and get a rival Bond film/series of his own going. So no-one could deny that he was hungry for it, and given how it eventually turned his career around you can't blame him.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    @mtm your quote game is always so strong. TND might have to be my next Bond film; I promised my gf we wouldn't watch any more Bond films until NTTD comes out on Bluray; I'm dragging her along to it again on Wednesday night, should be the final showing in theatres I'll catch.
    But after that, TND!
  • Posts: 1,394
    As poor as DAD is,at least that films ending didn’t leave me depressed like NTTD did.
  • AstonLotus wrote: »
    As poor as DAD is,at least that films ending didn’t leave me depressed like NTTD did.

    Agreed.
  • Which all goes back to the original poster's point of 'fun'. Shamanimal didn't say the Brosnan era had better movies, his point was it was more fun. And for me, it undoubtedly was. I'd rather not see the cinematic James Bond being put through an emotional wringer every film. I want to see him enjoying his work.
  • Posts: 6,519
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    As poor as DAD is,at least that films ending didn’t leave me depressed like NTTD did.

    Agreed.

    Actually, I hadn't been that depressed since DAD.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    As poor as DAD is,at least that films ending didn’t leave me depressed like NTTD did.

    Softie.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2021 Posts: 17,655
    I’ve seen several posts made not only on this thread, but on others as well where Brosnan’s acting is unfairly compared to Daniel Craig’s and Timothy Dalton’s, and I’ll touch more on that specific comparison later on, but here’s my attempt at a rebuttal towards those remarks.

    I agree with Craig and Dalton being better actors than Brosnan, and I would even go so far as to say their abilities even exceed Connery and Moore, but that doesn’t mean that there performances as Bond in the films are better than Brosnan’s. Craig and Dalton really succeed where others don’t at bringing Fleming’s version of Bond to the screen (save for maybe Connery in Dr. No, and FRWL), and that’s wonderful for those who love that type of Bond (I include myself in that category), but in terms of the mainstream audience, both actors have faced some kind of criticism in regards for how serious, dark, and moody their portrayals are. Again, depending on your type of Bond, that’s not a bad thing, but this series was not built off of faithfully adapting each novel and each character down to the exact detail, if it was, it would’ve ended long ago. To the mainstream audience, they don’t care about how rooted in Fleming each portrayal of Bond is, which is why Dalton and Craig have their naysayers and detractors, if some of you could believe that.

    The Literary Bond, and the Cinematic Bond are two very different characters. The Cinematic Bond, which I would say was born in Goldfinger, has elements to his character not present in Fleming’s Literary version. Cinematic Bond is other worldly in so many ways, each defined below;

    1. He’s impossibly handsome,
    2. He has strong sense of style
    3. He has near superhuman physical abilities and feats
    4. He’s effortlessly charming and sophisticated
    5. He has strong, solid sense of Humor
    6. He always manages to win and find a way, despite the circumstances

    When you look at that criteria, Brosnan clearly demonstrates that he was going more for a portrayal of Bond rooted in his cinematic history, rather than literary, and in doing so, successfully nails all of those elements far more than Daniel Craig, and Timothy Dalton do, both of whom fall short in at least one of those categories.

    So I pose this question, since it’s established that the literary Bond, and Cinematic Bond are two different beasts entirely, why are so many (unfair and unflattering) comparisons being made to just Dalton and Craig, if it’s obvious that the type of Bond those two were playing were much different than the type Pierce was playing? If I’m being completely blunt, I notice a vast majority of these unflattering comparisons are being made by Dalton/Craig fans, so I’m not sure if it’s because Brosnan is sandwiched in between both of them, but to me that does confirm so kind of bias in making those comparisons.

    It makes much more sense, and frankly is far more appropriate to compare Brosnan to Connery/Moore than Dalton/Craig, as both Connery and Moore are the two portrayels that define the Cinematic Bond. In the end, it’s all tastes and preferences, and unfortunately that means that sometimes, others favorites are the ones with the short end of the stick. I’m glad the Bond community can come and have these types of discussions, but I just don’t any valid point, nor any valid criticism in bashing Brosnan’s acting abilities and calling them “inferior” when it’s obvious he wasn’t going for a Fleming type Bond.

    THANK YOU!!!!!
    Dalton is my favourite Bond, but Brosnan was in my 2nd favourite Bond movie (TND). There is room for appreciation for all the actor's movies IMHO.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    I’ve seen several posts made not only on this thread, but on others as well where Brosnan’s acting is unfairly compared to Daniel Craig’s and Timothy Dalton’s, and I’ll touch more on that specific comparison later on, but here’s my attempt at a rebuttal towards those remarks.

    I agree with Craig and Dalton being better actors than Brosnan, and I would even go so far as to say their abilities even exceed Connery and Moore, but that doesn’t mean that there performances as Bond in the films are better than Brosnan’s. Craig and Dalton really succeed where others don’t at bringing Fleming’s version of Bond to the screen (save for maybe Connery in Dr. No, and FRWL), and that’s wonderful for those who love that type of Bond (I include myself in that category), but in terms of the mainstream audience, both actors have faced some kind of criticism in regards for how serious, dark, and moody their portrayals are. Again, depending on your type of Bond, that’s not a bad thing, but this series was not built off of faithfully adapting each novel and each character down to the exact detail, if it was, it would’ve ended long ago. To the mainstream audience, they don’t care about how rooted in Fleming each portrayal of Bond is, which is why Dalton and Craig have their naysayers and detractors, if some of you could believe that.

    The Literary Bond, and the Cinematic Bond are two very different characters. The Cinematic Bond, which I would say was born in Goldfinger, has elements to his character not present in Fleming’s Literary version. Cinematic Bond is other worldly in so many ways, each defined below;

    1. He’s impossibly handsome,
    2. He has strong sense of style
    3. He has near superhuman physical abilities and feats
    4. He’s effortlessly charming and sophisticated
    5. He has strong, solid sense of Humor
    6. He always manages to win and find a way, despite the circumstances

    When you look at that criteria, Brosnan clearly demonstrates that he was going more for a portrayal of Bond rooted in his cinematic history, rather than literary, and in doing so, successfully nails all of those elements far more than Daniel Craig, and Timothy Dalton do, both of whom fall short in at least one of those categories.

    So I pose this question, since it’s established that the literary Bond, and Cinematic Bond are two different beasts entirely, why are so many (unfair and unflattering) comparisons being made to just Dalton and Craig, if it’s obvious that the type of Bond those two were playing were much different than the type Pierce was playing? If I’m being completely blunt, I notice a vast majority of these unflattering comparisons are being made by Dalton/Craig fans, so I’m not sure if it’s because Brosnan is sandwiched in between both of them, but to me that does confirm so kind of bias in making those comparisons.

    It makes much more sense, and frankly is far more appropriate to compare Brosnan to Connery/Moore than Dalton/Craig, as both Connery and Moore are the two portrayels that define the Cinematic Bond. In the end, it’s all tastes and preferences, and unfortunately that means that sometimes, others favorites are the ones with the short end of the stick. I’m glad the Bond community can come and have these types of discussions, but I just don’t any valid point, nor any valid criticism in bashing Brosnan’s acting abilities and calling them “inferior” when it’s obvious he wasn’t going for a Fleming type Bond.

    THANK YOU!!!!!
    Dalton is my favourite Bond, but Brosnan was in my 2nd favourite Bond movie (TND). There is room for appreciation for all the actor's movies IMHO.

    I just love all the actors and what they each bring to the role. Dalton’s my automatic go to for that darker, more Fleming based Bond film, and in saying that, LTK is one of my most revisited films in the series, and TLD sits in my Top 5 Favorite Bond films. Comparing films is one thing, and it’s also perfectly acceptable to rank your favorites and talk about why their your favorites, but I just don’t see the need to drag down the other actors who’ve played Bond in order to prop one up, at least not in a mean spirited way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I’ve seen several posts made not only on this thread, but on others as well where Brosnan’s acting is unfairly compared to Daniel Craig’s and Timothy Dalton’s, and I’ll touch more on that specific comparison later on, but here’s my attempt at a rebuttal towards those remarks.

    I agree with Craig and Dalton being better actors than Brosnan, and I would even go so far as to say their abilities even exceed Connery and Moore, but that doesn’t mean that there performances as Bond in the films are better than Brosnan’s. Craig and Dalton really succeed where others don’t at bringing Fleming’s version of Bond to the screen (save for maybe Connery in Dr. No, and FRWL), and that’s wonderful for those who love that type of Bond (I include myself in that category), but in terms of the mainstream audience, both actors have faced some kind of criticism in regards for how serious, dark, and moody their portrayals are. Again, depending on your type of Bond, that’s not a bad thing, but this series was not built off of faithfully adapting each novel and each character down to the exact detail, if it was, it would’ve ended long ago. To the mainstream audience, they don’t care about how rooted in Fleming each portrayal of Bond is, which is why Dalton and Craig have their naysayers and detractors, if some of you could believe that.

    The Literary Bond, and the Cinematic Bond are two very different characters. The Cinematic Bond, which I would say was born in Goldfinger, has elements to his character not present in Fleming’s Literary version. Cinematic Bond is other worldly in so many ways, each defined below;

    1. He’s impossibly handsome,
    2. He has strong sense of style
    3. He has near superhuman physical abilities and feats
    4. He’s effortlessly charming and sophisticated
    5. He has strong, solid sense of Humor
    6. He always manages to win and find a way, despite the circumstances

    When you look at that criteria, Brosnan clearly demonstrates that he was going more for a portrayal of Bond rooted in his cinematic history, rather than literary, and in doing so, successfully nails all of those elements far more than Daniel Craig, and Timothy Dalton do, both of whom fall short in at least one of those categories.

    So I pose this question, since it’s established that the literary Bond, and Cinematic Bond are two different beasts entirely, why are so many (unfair and unflattering) comparisons being made to just Dalton and Craig, if it’s obvious that the type of Bond those two were playing were much different than the type Pierce was playing? If I’m being completely blunt, I notice a vast majority of these unflattering comparisons are being made by Dalton/Craig fans, so I’m not sure if it’s because Brosnan is sandwiched in between both of them, but to me that does confirm so kind of bias in making those comparisons.

    It makes much more sense, and frankly is far more appropriate to compare Brosnan to Connery/Moore than Dalton/Craig, as both Connery and Moore are the two portrayels that define the Cinematic Bond. In the end, it’s all tastes and preferences, and unfortunately that means that sometimes, others favorites are the ones with the short end of the stick. I’m glad the Bond community can come and have these types of discussions, but I just don’t any valid point, nor any valid criticism in bashing Brosnan’s acting abilities and calling them “inferior” when it’s obvious he wasn’t going for a Fleming type Bond.

    THANK YOU!!!!!
    Dalton is my favourite Bond, but Brosnan was in my 2nd favourite Bond movie (TND). There is room for appreciation for all the actor's movies IMHO.

    Funnily enough I can kind of imagine Dalton in TND. It would have been nice for him to be in a Bond film that kind of celebrated Bond as a character as much as TND did. Literally just him doing the 'White Knight to White Rook' bit with the literal rapturous applause for how great he is would have given his portrayal a different spin.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2021 Posts: 17,655
    I just love all the actors and what they each bring to the role. Dalton’s my automatic go to for that darker, more Fleming based Bond film, and in saying that, LTK is one of my most revisited films in the series, and TLD sits in my Top 5 Favorite Bond films.
    If Dalton had never been Bond, Brosnan would be my favourite. Like I said, I love 'em all, but it all boils down to how often you revisit each film. Strangely, my most watched Bond is DAF. But that may just be more a matter of when I was of age to begin watching Bond movies... when I was younger, it was my favourite.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 985
    mtm wrote: »
    Funnily enough I can kind of imagine Dalton in TND. It would have been nice for him to be in a Bond film that kind of celebrated Bond as a character as much as TND did. Literally just him doing the 'White Knight to White Rook' bit with the literal rapturous applause for how great he is would have given his portrayal a different spin.

    The sequence going from from the mad villain's rant, to Bond in bed with the Swedish girl, then the car ride with M and Moneypenny with the police escort is one of my favorite sequences of any Bond film. I suppose it'd be seen as a tired formula now, but I love that cheesy stuff.
    I wonder if it'd have suited Tim?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,655
    mtm wrote: »
    Funnily enough I can kind of imagine Dalton in TND. It would have been nice for him to be in a Bond film that kind of celebrated Bond as a character as much as TND did. Literally just him doing the 'White Knight to White Rook' bit with the literal rapturous applause for how great he is would have given his portrayal a different spin.

    The sequence going from from the mad villain's rant, to Bond in bed with the Swedish girl, then the car ride with M and Moneypenny with the police escort is one of my favorite sequences of any Bond film. I suppose it'd be seen as a tired formula now, but I love that cheesy stuff.
    I wonder if it'd have suited Tim?

    I can easily see how it would have been tweaked slightly for Tim. And it would have worked just as well.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    mtm wrote: »
    Funnily enough I can kind of imagine Dalton in TND. It would have been nice for him to be in a Bond film that kind of celebrated Bond as a character as much as TND did. Literally just him doing the 'White Knight to White Rook' bit with the literal rapturous applause for how great he is would have given his portrayal a different spin.

    The sequence going from from the mad villain's rant, to Bond in bed with the Swedish girl, then the car ride with M and Moneypenny with the police escort is one of my favorite sequences of any Bond film. I suppose it'd be seen as a tired formula now, but I love that cheesy stuff.
    I wonder if it'd have suited Tim?

    I think probably not, but that’s kind of why I wish he’d got something a bit like that to take his performance a different way. I like that sequence too- TND is actually one of my favourites :)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,655
    mtm wrote: »
    that’s kind of why I wish he’d got something a bit like that to take his performance a different way. I like that sequence too- TND is actually one of my favourites :)
    Yeah, a lighter one would have been nice to balance things... like I appreciated the lighter touches in SPECTRE.
Sign In or Register to comment.