›

The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

1…2325272829

Comments

  • kyawsawaungkyawsawaung
    Posts: 94
    After watching NTTD I began to appreciate Pierce more and his films.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,004
    Now that the Craig era has ended on such an, erm, 'high' note, I'm really starting to look back even more fondly on the 'popcorn' Bond movies of the Brosnan era. I suppose it's because I was bought up on the Moore Bonds. I like to cheer him, rather than feel sorry for him.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    chrisisall wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan 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.

    Of course there is.
    And it often comes down to how old & where you were when you saw a Bondfilm that particularly resonated with you. For many people born in the late 80's Pierce Brosnan IS James Bond.
    I suppose I don't rate him as much as others who perhaps never saw anyone as bond before 1995.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Born in 1994 brosnan is my bond.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,688
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Born in 1994 brosnan is my bond.

    In which case your weren't even old enough to legally see any Brosnan movie except maybe DAD at a cinema during its first run, right? At least in Germany, no single Bond film is rated less than "12", some of them even "16".

    But regardless, to each one's own. Born in 1956, Craig has been my latest Bond...and Connery the eternal one.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Born in 1994 brosnan is my bond.

    In which case your weren't even old enough to legally see any Brosnan movie except maybe DAD at a cinema during its first run, right? At least in Germany, no single Bond film is rated less than "12", some of them even "16".

    But regardless, to each one's own. Born in 1956, Craig has been my latest Bond...and Connery the eternal one.

    Born in 88 and I'd say Brosnan is my Bond as well, despite never seeing a Bond film in theatres until Casino Royale. GE was just the first Bond film that was introduced to me on VHS by my dad.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    I was born in 1992 and my dad took me to see TWINE in theatres at the rather impressionable age of 7 where I quickly discovered that there is nothing quite like Bond on the big screen. I do prefer Craig and his era, but Pierce was a fun Bond to grow up with in that regard. Despite all but GoldenEye ranking somewhat lower on my list these days, I do have a special fondness for TWINE. I saw it twice and have vivid memories of both occasions.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,688
    Ryan wrote: »
    I was born in 1992 and my dad took me to see TWINE in theatres at the rather impressionable age of 7 where I quickly discovered that there is nothing quite like Bond on the big screen. I do prefer Craig and his era, but Pierce was a fun Bond to grow up with in that regard. Despite all but GoldenEye ranking somewhat lower on my list these days, I do have a special fondness for TWINE. I saw it twice and have vivid memories of both occasions.

    Sounds to me like my love for LALD. If I hadn't seen it (IIRC) four times at different cinemas in early 1974 when I was 17, I probably wouldn't have such fond memories marring my good judgment, which lead me to willfully ignore its shortcomings, and to make it possibly my favourite Roger Moore Bond film (although close together with MR and TSWLM...while I find the rest definitely inferior).

    Just saying all this is never objective.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    I saw TND in the cinema when I was four. It was my first cinema trip.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,500
    My first Bond film was TWINE when I was six. Watched it on a plane. When I was a kid I adored both TWINE and DAD. Now they are 24th and 25th in my ranking... :))
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 652
    Regardless of the declining quality of his films, Brosnan created an entire new generation of Bond fans in the 90s. If EON had gone the "Craig" route back then making more gritty movies and turning Bond into a blue collar action hero it would've been too much like other heroes at the time like Riggs, McLane, and the various characters Arnold and Sly played. Bond was unique because he was totally unlike those characters. The Brosnan movies definitely have an element of pastiche (thanks for that word, Dalton) but it's also what makes them unapologetically Bondian. Say what you want about TND and TWINE, you definitely come away with them knowing you've just watched a Bond movie that cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else. I've been missing that feeling for a long time now with the last few Craig entries.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,498
    I hardly think one would ever consider Craig Bond as blue collar or resembling anything close to Riggs, McLean, or characters played by Sly or Arnold, @slide_99 … Last time I checked, those characters didn’t really care about classic British cars, the style of ones watches and suits with a taste for scotch, red wine and exotic martinis.

    I’m glad you enjoy the Brozz era.

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,688
    jobo wrote: »
    My first Bond film was TWINE when I was six. Watched it on a plane. When I was a kid I adored both TWINE and DAD. Now they are 24th and 25th in my ranking... :))
    If you watched it on a plane it was probably a truncated version devoid of anything controversial or violent, just interesting to the six-year old that you were. Given your present rating, you learned your lesson afterwards. Both films are also at my own bottom of the list.
  • jobojobo
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,500
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    My first Bond film was TWINE when I was six. Watched it on a plane. When I was a kid I adored both TWINE and DAD. Now they are 24th and 25th in my ranking... :))
    If you watched it on a plane it was probably a truncated version devoid of anything controversial or violent, just interesting to the six-year old that you were. Given your present rating, you learned your lesson afterwards. Both films are also at my own bottom of the list.


    My first watch was on a plane, yes, but I saw it at least a dozen times on video during the following years. 6-10 year old me loved the spectacle, the action, the music... I am a bit more refined in my tastes now, and unlike then I can actually follow the story and dialogue... ;)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I was born in 1987, so you think growing up during the 90s that Brosnan would be my Bond like so many other millennials. Not the case. I didn’t see GE-TWINE in theaters, and while I did eventually see TND and TWINE soon after rental availability, they didn’t capture my imagination. I even turned TND off after the garage chase. It just felt generic to me. It’s only after playing the video game for GE that it made me want to see the film version, and watching that film made me want to seek out more Bond films.

    So by the time I actually did become a Bond fan, Brosnan was already on his way out with DAD (though we didn’t know at the time). When it was announced that he was out of the role, I thought it was a surprise for sure, but quickly got excited at the prospect of seeing a new Bond. Bye bye Brosnan.

    Perhaps if I had seen him as Bond from the start in theaters in 1995 at the impressionable age of 8, I would have grown more fond of him. Maybe. We’ll never know.

    I do know if I saw Connery Bond at age 8 I probably would have responded more to his interpretation strongly. He just fits that mold of what I considered movie heroes like Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. By comparison, they make Brosnan look effeminate.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2021 Posts: 17,691
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I even turned TND off after the garage chase. It just felt generic to me.
    "Generic" is a word used by people who can't really find the problem with what they are watching. It's not new & stimulating to me, so it must be 'generic'- 'Comfortable' doesn't do it for me.
    I *HATE* these stupid easy words generic, woke, etc....

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2021 Posts: 8,025
    To elaborate on “generic”, it didn’t feel unique from any other 90s actioner at the time. That’s kind of an issue I have with Vic Armstrong’s second unit directing. Lots of emphasis on machine gun fire. It could have been another Jerry Bruckheimer production if I didn’t know any better.

    That’s why I wish John Woo would have done TND. He would have added a lot more flair and style to the proceedings more so than the director of TURNER & HOOCH.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    I must not be a Bond fan, then. There were times when it was fun, but they were far, far overshadowed by the times when the movies were loud and stupid.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Univex wrote: »
    I take it some people around here don't wear suits that often

    L-)

    Fleming's Bond had a fancy for good and practical suit tailoring. And British made products and clothing. Other than that, he had an array of casual clothes, of course. As all of us stylish people do.

    But I maintain that Bond is a creature of style. That's why Craig nailed it in CR and QOS, with the Prince of wales patterned trousers and shawl collared cardigans with Crocket and Jones shoes or desert boots. Connery also rocked that TB ensemble when in the clinic.

    But I do love it when Bond wears a perfectly fitted suit in a situation where Ethan Hunt, for example, would wear tactical. That's what sets it apart.

    But I guess we can't please anyone. Some people are not pleasant or pleasable.

    I'd have never looked at a shawl collared cardigan twice before Craig wore them in CR and QoS. I now own three of them....😏
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    To elaborate on “generic”, it didn’t feel unique from any other 90s actioner at the time. That’s kind of an issue I have with Vic Armstrong’s second unit directing. Lots of emphasis on machine gun fire. It could have been another Jerry Bruckheimer production if I didn’t know any better.

    That’s why I wish John Woo would have done TND. He would have added a lot more flair and style to the proceedings more so than the director of TURNER & HOOCH.

    Brosnan's films were plagued by generic machine gun battles (especially TND) - no other era of Bond has more of these.

    Bond's movie action-sequences need to have some element of novelty - otherwise it isn't (cinematic) 'Bond'
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Brosnan should have been bond from tld.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,060
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Brosnan should have been bond from tld.

    As much of a Brosnan fanboy as I am, I could never trade Tim. Dalton in TLD is one of my favorite Bond performances, and I love both of his films.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Brosnan should have been bond from tld.

    As much of a Brosnan fanboy as I am, I could never trade Tim. Dalton in TLD is one of my favorite Bond performances, and I love both of his films.

    Me too. Dalton in TLD is one of my favourite performances from any actor as Bond.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,060
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Brosnan should have been bond from tld.

    As much of a Brosnan fanboy as I am, I could never trade Tim. Dalton in TLD is one of my favorite Bond performances, and I love both of his films.

    Me too. Dalton in TLD is one of my favourite performances from any actor as Bond.

    Well Dalton is just a great actor in general, probably tied with Craig as being the most talented (acting abilities wise) actor to have played Bond. I’m always impressed whenever I go back and watch any interview with Timothy Dalton at just how much he studied Fleming’s books, how he could go on and on about the character of Bond as written by Fleming, and then how it counters to the various screen portrayals. Yeah he isn’t the best with humor, and one liners, but he wasn’t going for that type of Bond, he knows his own strengths as an actor, and whether it’s the scene where Bond confronts Pushkin, or the scene in LTK where he kills Killifer in cold blood, that is Fleming’s Bond, and nobody has done, or probably will do a better job of faithfully adapting the character more than Dalton, imho.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,500
    I know this might be the wrong thread to say it, but I wish Dalton had continued and made Goldeneye as well. Another film based on the same themes, but more in the style of TLD and with a stronger lead (sorry again...) could potentially have made Goldeneye a real classic!
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,813
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Brosnan should have been bond from tld.

    Nope!
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 2,928
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,421
    chrisisall wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I even turned TND off after the garage chase. It just felt generic to me.
    "Generic" is a word used by people who can't really find the problem with what they are watching. It's not new & stimulating to me, so it must be 'generic'- 'Comfortable' doesn't do it for me.
    I *HATE* these stupid easy words generic, woke, etc....

    @chrisisall good to see you again!

    Generic, maybe people use that term in the context of "generic, vanilla 90's actioners"?

    Being a late 80's baby, I feel a bit dirty when criticising Brosnan. Brosnan has gone on record over having never really nailed the part. Part of that has to do with the script, the direction and Brosnan himself, unfortunately. GE gave Brosnan a good script and was helmed by Campbell, yet I think Brosnan was too nervous and came off lightweight in comparison to Connery, Moore and Dalton.

    Yet when Brosnan reached DAD, he had an ownership to the role. But the general crapiness of that movie overshadowed him.

    Having said all that, I really enjoy Brosnan in the role. Both contemporary and retroactively. Obviously he was having a lot of fun in the role. He seemed honoured to be put down by Q.

    The Brosnan era was helmed in by the formula. Yet there was air of teenage-ization about the films, more pronounced as the series when on. EON did try to shake up the formula, giving Bond an ex flame in TND or having a female main villain in TWINE, but they never really committed.

    The Brosnan era was a place holder. Fun and formulaic films, with good box office. Allowing EON to branch out with the Craig era, stretching and breaking said formula.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,813
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,498
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The first time I even saw a photo of Dalton in the papers, I knew immediately that he was Bond. Don't think they could've found anyone else at that time who embodied it so completely.

    Completely agree! When I sat in the cinema in Summer 1987 watching TLD , and that first dramatic shot of Dalton as he turned to camera, I knew I was in for something special! Was elated coming out at the end!
    He is still, ( Sorry Daniel!) James Bond to me!

    One helluva PTS…. And a great intro.

    I think he did nail so many parts of Bond and I still, to this day, love when he spies on Pushkin from his car, and then when he confronts him in the hotel room. Just a perfect sequence.
Sign In or Register to comment.