70 replies to this topic

[bondfisher007]

what do you think the new generation will think of brosnan such as the fans that grew up with daniel craig as bond?

[The sniper was a woman]

Probably the same thing about the generation who had grown with Brosnan's Bond, when they look at a Moore film. The point is "Did they read the books ?" If you know the original material, you can made your thought more accurate.
There's no a "good approach" or a bad one about the cinematographic 007. It's more a question of era.
James Bond could be darker in 2006 but in 1988, everybody knows what happened to Dalton's Bond and his dark side...
But Fleming's Bond in Goldfinger (the novel) is most of the time suave and friendly, very confident in him and his skills. Quite the opposite in the novel The living daylights...and in the film. Daniel Craig hasn't shown yet that he could be a relaxed and suave James Bond as Pierce was. That's another point. Bond isn't a permanent killer after his prey !

[Safari Suit]

It's hard to say. There's no denying Brosnan's Bond stock plummeted dramatically the day Casino Royale was released, but I think that was mostly with existing fans who either had always been unsatisfied with his tenure, or felt that it began to appear woefully inandequate, rather than "da kidz". At the time something like DAD looked very prematurely old fashioned, but I think the pendulum has already began to swing away from "dark, gritty" reboots and the like (not that it ever goes all one way or the other). How do I think he'll fare with "the Craig generation"? Not any worse than Moore is currently fairing at least.

[sharpshooter]

I think the generation that grew up with Brosnan will always value his contribution. As for the new generation, they will most likely jump aboard the Craig bus even if it’s not their ideal cup of tea. It’s human nature. New is fresh, and where things are at. Once Craig leaves, I'm sure that will be the case as well.

Brosnan put down his take, and if it’s unpopular now, it may not be in a few years. Moods and times change. As Safari Suit says, the gritty darkness may be starting to wear a bit thin for some. It’s unfair to watch the Craig era and label Brosnan posh and light and use it as a criticism. It’s like calling Looney Tunes unrealistic.

[Matt_13]

Every Bond has had something to offer. There is no "Bad" Bond, it all comes down to age. These films tend to age relatively well, so though Craig will likely be lamented by the next generation of fans (weird that we'll all be like the old timers here who grew up with Moore ) fondness toward him will grow with time. He has been undoubtedly one of the most charismatic Bonds, and I do think history will be good to him.

[jamie00007]

I dont personally think the movies will age well and I think that will greatly affect how Brosnan himself is seen.

The same thing happened with Moore. I grew up in the Dalton/Brosnan era and back then you couldnt mention James Bond without someone mentioning how bad the Moore movies were. In the early days of the internet Moore and his films were reviled amongst many, even most, fans. Things have changed a lot since then, the Moore era has been re-evaluated, people mostly love it for all the good things in it and nostalgia and charm have covered up the bad and Roger Moore the person is probably the most popular figure associated with Bond. There was a time not all that long ago when Moonraker was met with constant hate by fans, now many of those same fans have developed a certain fondness for it and it doesnt receive anywhere near the negativity it once did.

I dont think Brosnan will be so lucky. I find it very hard to believe that movies like Die Another Day or The World Is Not Enough will ever be re-evaluated in years to come and become loved members of the Bond family by existing fans who dislike them and even harder to imagine that new fans will ever take much to them. They were just too empty and hollow to ever really gain much following outside existing fans. If anything I can only see the Brosnan films looking worse and worse over time, with little in them that will ever be redeemed by nostalgia.

This is of course totally biased based on my opinions I have now on the films, but I just dont ever see them improving with age, and as a result I cant see Brosnan ever being seen in a really good light in years to come.

[JimmyBond]

The same thing happened with Moore. I grew up in the Dalton/Brosnan era and back then you couldnt mention James Bond without someone mentioning how bad the Moore movies were. In the early days of the internet Moore and his films were reviled amongst many, even most, fans. Things have changed a lot since then, the Moore era has been re-evaluated, people mostly love it for all the good things in it and nostalgia and charm have covered up the bad and Roger Moore the person is probably the most popular figure associated with Bond. There was a time not all that long ago when Moonraker was met with constant hate by fans, now many of those same fans have developed a certain fondness for it and it doesnt receive anywhere near the negativity it once did.

What websites were you visiting back in the day? I never saw any negative opinions about Moore or his films (well, except maybe Moonraker). All the sites I used to visit it was the general consensus that Connery and Moore were the best Bond's.

[jamie00007]

Back then it was news groups. Im sure on Bond forums with a lot of older fans they werent so harsh but anywhere where there were fans of the Dalton/Brosnan generation Moore was continually bashed, which annoyed me no end.

[Lachesis]

In the long run I think he will be reasonably well regarded by the masses. I think since TWINE the films have suffered from a Poe-faced pretention that works to make you less charitable when elements don't quite work. It's not really really a problem attributable to Brosnan himself, but one his films usher into the series and imo escalates sharply to this day.

[Safari Suit]

I find it very hard to believe that movies like Die Another Day or The World Is Not Enough will ever be re-evaluated in years to come and become loved members of the Bond family by existing fans who dislike them and even harder to imagine that new fans will ever take much to them. They were just too empty and hollow to ever really gain much following outside existing fans. If anything I can only see the Brosnan films looking worse and worse over time, with little in them that will ever be redeemed by nostalgia.

Just to play devil's advocate here, though I don't like them as much I don't feel TWINE or DAD are really any more empty or hollow than pretty much any of the Moore films. I feel they aren't as well crafted, or perhaps as timeless as films like MR or OP or even AVTAK, but I don't feel they are any more inconsequential, really. If anything TWINE most collapses under the weight of its own pretentions.

Also, notslgia has show the ability to revive any old rubbish

[plankattack]

I think Brozza will join SC and Sir Rog as the men unconditionally remembered as James Bond. All three had long tenures and in Brozza's case he was the man at the wheel when the franchise resurrected itself. I do tend to think of EON as having two very distinct periods, with '95 on being the second.

I say unconditionally, in that Laz is remembered as "the other guy" and TD unfortunately is almost forgotten in some quarters outside of fandom, so instead of being James Bond, they're almost James Bond with an asterix.

I'm with Safari Suit when it comes to the films of Brozza's tenure. I think GE will always be remembered as the "comeback" film for the franchise (I'm not a "gamer" but I also know how it's a brand within that very sizable constituency), but I'm not sure that the other three have anything about them that rise them to particularly memorable/iconic status. They are part of a long series, nothing more, nothing less. I suppose there is some argument for DAD, though if Bond 23 comes out in 2012, the fifty-year anniversary will eclipse the forty-year one. It may well obtain status as the basis for some sort of drinking game though............

Edited by plankattack, 11 December 2010 - 05:22 PM.

[jamie00007]

Just to play devil's advocate here, though I don't like them as much I don't feel TWINE or DAD are really any more empty or hollow than pretty much any of the Moore films. I feel they aren't as well crafted, or perhaps as timeless as films like MR or OP or even AVTAK, but I don't feel they are any more inconsequential, really. If anything TWINE most collapses under the weight of its own pretentions.

Also, notslgia has show the ability to revive any old rubbish

Its true that the Moore films weren't deep but theres still a lot to love about those movies that I find lacking in the Brosnan movies, particularly the last two. The stunts and special effects for example. I cant see there EVER being any nostalgic fondness for bad CGI. I already find the entire climax of DAD cringe inducing to watch and the movie is only eight years old. But big stunts performed by real stuntmen of the type peppered throughout the Moore era never age. And only become more appreciated over time as CGI replaces them in films. Same with practical special effects. The Lotus submarine, Stromberg's lair etc. dont look all that convincing today, but I think there is an appreciation still for the work and ingenuity that went into them. I dont see the same thing happening with an invisible car. Then theres the location shooting, the Moore films always seemed to be out there in beautiful and exotic locations all over the world, some that dont even really exist anymore. Thats actually the thing I love most about that era. It put you there in India, Thailand, Rio, Egypt, Hong Kong etc. The locations weren't window dressing. That kind of thing never ages. But with the Brosnan films, particularly TWINE and DAD I never got that feeling. Everything felt like it was just done on a stage with some brief establishing shots. And it might just be my own pro-Roger bias speaking, but I just dont see Brosnan himself having the kind of popularity and following Moore does now in thirty years time.

Edited by jamie00007, 12 December 2010 - 12:09 AM.

[JimmyBond]

I'm not sure what people will think of his latter two films in the years to come. But I think both Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies will be viewed upon fondly by newcomers to the Bond fold.

While yes, it does it's share of faults, you can't deny that Goldeneye has a certain freshness to it that the other Brosnan films lacked. After the run of Bond films in the 80s which were directed by the same director and thus all felt similar to each other. It was really refreshing to see a Bond film that finally felt a product of it's time. Plus, it will always have the novelty of being Brosnan's debut film.

[Guy Haines]

One of the least pleasant aspects of the transition between one Bond actor and another is the media "backlash" against the outgoing Bond, as film critics and others in the press suddenly discover that the new man in the role is the best thing since sliced bread. (Craig was unusual in this respect in that he had to endure a "backlash" before he had even been seen in the role - then, with CR released, the critics suddenly rallied around. Victim of a "frontlash" perhaps?)

Film critics and members of the wider media who were in favour of the previous Bond fall away, and even reverse their opinions once the new man is place. It happened with every previous Bond actor, I think, except perhaps Connery. My guess is it will happen to Daniel Craig once his successor has talen over.

[Achille Aubergine]

One of the least pleasant aspects of the transition between one Bond actor and another is the media "backlash" against the outgoing Bond, as film critics and others in the press suddenly discover that the new man in the role is the best thing since sliced bread. (Craig was unusual in this respect in that he had to endure a "backlash" before he had even been seen in the role - then, with CR released, the critics suddenly rallied around. Victim of a "frontlash" perhaps?)

Film critics and members of the wider media who were in favour of the previous Bond fall away, and even reverse their opinions once the new man is place. It happened with every previous Bond actor, I think, except perhaps Connery. My guess is it will happen to Daniel Craig once his successor has talen over.

Excellent, sir ! And allow me to add George Lazenby.
Before he was just "the other guy, that model..." and now he's "an interesting unusual approach of Bond"...

[jaguar007]

One of the least pleasant aspects of the transition between one Bond actor and another is the media "backlash" against the outgoing Bond, as film critics and others in the press suddenly discover that the new man in the role is the best thing since sliced bread. (Craig was unusual in this respect in that he had to endure a "backlash" before he had even been seen in the role - then, with CR released, the critics suddenly rallied around. Victim of a "frontlash" perhaps?)

Film critics and members of the wider media who were in favour of the previous Bond fall away, and even reverse their opinions once the new man is place. It happened with every previous Bond actor, I think, except perhaps Connery. My guess is it will happen to Daniel Craig once his successor has talen over.

I think Brosnan is probably the worst victim of "backlash" of any of the former 007s. There was never much backlash against Roger Moore after he retired. What backlash he had was during his tenure (especially during AVTAK where every critic complained that he was just too old). As for Laz and Dalton they were never fully excepted publicly during their tenure like the other 4 actors have been.

[SecretAgentFan]

I can remember a LOT of backlash against Sir Roger for years after AVTAK. He was always blamed for taking down the franchise, not being serious and tough enough. His reappraisal only started a few years ago IMO.

[dinovelvet]

Here's the problem : Bros is the only Bond actor to date who didn't bring anything new to the table. Connery is of course the original classic model, Laz brought some youthful vigor and physicality to the role, Moore brought a lighter touch, Dalton took it darker, and Craig has established a turn of the century tough/sensitive 'modern man' approach.
Compared to those, Bros has no "thing" that he's done with Bond. We can see bits of Connery, Rog, and Dalton in his portrayal, but ultimately he's the generic Bond. He doesn't take it in any particular direction, and he isn't helped by his four films all being wildly inconsistent in tone and style, with hand-me-down greatest hits plots photocopied from YOLT. This is why I don't think he's going to appeal to future generations too much. As Dalton gets more appreciated, and Casino Royale is cemented as a classic Bond film up there with the best, going in a bold new direction, Bros is going to be that guy sandwiched in between the two more 'authentic' Bonds.

[jamie00007]

Im not so sure I agree with this thing about backlash over the outgoing Bond. Yeah, it does happen but hasn't it been somewhat deserved? And usually the backlash begins before the actor even leaves the role. I remember after TWINE and DAD many fans weren't happy with the films and the direction the series was going, the backlash definitely started when Brosnan was still Bond. And the media/internet backlash started pretty much as soon as the Bourne Identity came out. Licence To Kill (though I love it) wasnt a success and the Dalton movies were definitely coming under fire for the movies being too serious and not gritty, Bond being irrelevant etc long before Dalton officially left the role. The last couple of Moore films weren't great and its easy to dig up old reviews lambasting the series for over staying its welcome, Moore being too old etc. I can only see Craig getting the same backlash if his films also end on a sour note, not just because theres someone new.

I can remember a LOT of backlash against Sir Roger for years after AVTAK. He was always blamed for taking down the franchise, not being serious and tough enough. His reappraisal only started a few years ago IMO.

Yep, that was exactly my experience too. The first decade or so I spent as a Bond fan, from the Dalton films on, I can remember nothing but negativity thrown at Moore. It was only this decade things really turned around.

Edited by jamie00007, 13 December 2010 - 09:25 AM.

[jaguar007]

I can remember a LOT of backlash against Sir Roger for years after AVTAK. He was always blamed for taking down the franchise, not being serious and tough enough. His reappraisal only started a few years ago IMO.

My experience is that backlash started while he was still in the role, not after he left the role.

[Lachesis]

I can remember a LOT of backlash against Sir Roger for years after AVTAK. He was always blamed for taking down the franchise, not being serious and tough enough. His reappraisal only started a few years ago IMO.

My experience is that backlash started while he was still in the role, not after he left the role.

I think the Backlash remains a valid issue, by and large we have two problems, we have the actor that outstayed his welcome and went one film too many (well 2 films imo), and we have the actors that didn't have enough time to convince the general public they were Bond caliber or at least enough time to sell the change of style they were given to deliver (in the end its not so much the actor but the presentation that Eon wanted). You tend to cut some slack to the incumbent because you know there is more to come, although again I feel the poe faced pretention of recent years makes even hardened fans less charitable when things aren't quite firing on all thrusters.

Although Pierce carried 4 films, enough to make an impression and not outstay a welcome one might think, I think its notable that those films flip flop in style and flavour, so much so that getting a handle on the uniqueness of his Bond is more difficult and perhaps even frustrating for some elements of the general film going public effectively leaving him open to both problems.

Long term I think the 'anger' and angst of todays Internet crowd will diminish (and is alwyas apt to elevate and exagerate in any event) and we will have a more balanced and broader appreciation of what are imo variable yet always entertaining films.

[Messervy]

Here's the problem : Bros is the only Bond actor to date who didn't bring anything new to the table. Connery is of course the original classic model, Laz brought some youthful vigor and physicality to the role, Moore brought a lighter touch, Dalton took it darker, and Craig has established a turn of the century tough/sensitive 'modern man' approach.
Compared to those, Bros has no "thing" that he's done with Bond. We can see bits of Connery, Rog, and Dalton in his portrayal, but ultimately he's the generic Bond. He doesn't take it in any particular direction, and he isn't helped by his four films all being wildly inconsistent in tone and style, with hand-me-down greatest hits plots photocopied from YOLT. This is why I don't think he's going to appeal to future generations too much. As Dalton gets more appreciated, and Casino Royale is cemented as a classic Bond film up there with the best, going in a bold new direction, Bros is going to be that guy sandwiched in between the two more 'authentic' Bonds.

That's quite right.
But, and although I'm not especially fond of Bros' performance, we have to admit that he has done one hell of a good thing for Bond: he proved Bond was still relevant and legitimate. I remember, during the long wait after LTK, people stating that Bond was done, wasn't relevant anymore in a post-cold-war world, wouldn't appeal to audiences anymore, etc. Then came GE "You know the name, you know the number, you know the rest", and it proved Bond was still active and attractive.
So, yes, as you say, Pierce didn't really have any "personal" touch to be remembered by: but I guess we precisely needed a generic Bond, at that time, to show that Bond was, is and will be relevant.
For that, I am highly thankful to Bros'.

[Safari Suit]

Does the average person really care about how original the actor's approach is though? A lot of more recent Craig-era converts seem to prefer Broz's generic jack-of-all-trades approach to Moore's jappery. And I don't really think Lazenby brought any more that was new to the role than Broz.

[Messervy]

Does the average person really care about how original the actor's approach is though? A lot of more recent Craig-era converts seem to prefer Broz's generic jack-of-all-trades approach to Moore's jappery. And I don't really think Lazenby brought any more that was new to the role than Broz.

The new thing Laz' brought along was that, well, he was new!

Edited by Messervy, 14 December 2010 - 05:25 PM.

[jaguar007]

Laz brought a slightly more sensitive aspect to the role but that was more due to the storyline than to the actor himself.

[Safari Suit]

Well what he did have was a movie that was better than any of Broz's, which is maybe why he seems to be gaining fans faster than Broz these days (at least around here). Broz is certainly not blameless for that (his histrionics ocassionally knocked his movies down a notch or two)

[David_M]

I don't think Brosnan will stand out one way or the other to future generations.

I understand where people are coming from with the "GE will be remembered for saving the series" remarks, but I think they're off base. How many new Bond fans know or care that TSWLM represented a similar rescue in 1977? You kind of had to be there. Anyone starting out as a new fan tomorrow, let alone 5 years from now, will have a nice tidy pile of movies to watch all in one weekend if they wish, and the gap between 1974 and 1977, or 1989 and 1995 won't mean anything to them beyond a copyright date on the back of the box...for them, the gap does not exist. They weren't there, so they don't care.

Take that away from Brosnan and, IMHO, there's really nothing left. His films don't stand out as anything special; they're generic and unremarkable in the context of the series. I think in the long haul people have shown they're not that concerned with script quality or "faithfulness to Fleming" or even acting talent. What they're looking for in a Bond film is something to wow them, to make a lasting impression, to add to that mental clip reel they all run when they hear the name "James Bond." I really don't think there's anything in the Brosnan era that qualifies.

There will always be people who rate him the best-looking, or whatever. But beyond that I think he'll be after four films what Lazenby was after one...the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question.

[Messervy]

I don't think Brosnan will stand out one way or the other to future generations.

I understand where people are coming from with the "GE will be remembered for saving the series" remarks, but I think they're off base. How many new Bond fans know or care that TSWLM represented a similar rescue in 1977? You kind of had to be there. Anyone starting out as a new fan tomorrow, let alone 5 years from now, will have a nice tidy pile of movies to watch all in one weekend if they wish, and the gap between 1974 and 1977, or 1989 and 1995 won't mean anything to them beyond a copyright date on the back of the box...for them, the gap does not exist. They weren't there, so they don't care.

Take that away from Brosnan and, IMHO, there's really nothing left. His films don't stand out as anything special; they're generic and unremarkable in the context of the series. I think in the long haul people have shown they're not that concerned with script quality or "faithfulness to Fleming" or even acting talent. What they're looking for in a Bond film is something to wow them, to make a lasting impression, to add to that mental clip reel they all run when they hear the name "James Bond." I really don't think there's anything in the Brosnan era that qualifies.

There will always be people who rate him the best-looking, or whatever. But beyond that I think he'll be after four films what Lazenby was after one...the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question.

Yes, very sensible indeed. I do share your view about Bros'. Generic, nothing special, business-as-usual type.
But what you say precisely proves my point: future generations will have Bond movies to watch because in 1 or 2 occasions there have been actors who made Bond movies still relevant at a time when that was challenged. Of course, viewers will not care as such; but still, there will be films for them to enjoy thanks to the fact that the franchise was "saved" (or at least revived). And, in all honesty, part of this is due to the actor portraying Bond. What I mean is that if Bros' had been terrible or disastrous, it may have sunk the franchise.
Paradoxically, he proved to be generic enough to bring back the series. At that time, I guess this type of Bond was what the audience wanted/needed.
Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to see Dalton in GE. It would have been brilliant. Yet that may not be what the large audience would have wanted. To bring back the series, we needed the audience to identify with a stereotyped Bond.
So all in all, although I don't think Bros' was a tremendous Bond (to say the least), he was good enough to make sure that Bond is back.

[David_M]

If your point is that Brosnan's tenure kept the franchise going, thus allowing Craig and whoever succeeds him to do their thing, and beyond, then it's hard to disagree.

The question that started this thread, however, is what will future generations think of him as Bond, and I stick by my answer that he won't make much of an impression one way or the other. He hits all the marks, has all the physical qualities and wears the clothes as well as you'd want a Bond to, but that's about it.

Now if the question is what will future Bond *historians* think of him, yes I'm sure they'll give him credit for keeping the ball rolling. But even then the "praise" such as it is boils down to "He kept the seat warm."

[Messervy]

The question that started this thread, however, is what will future generations think of him as Bond, and I stick by my answer that he won't make much of an impression one way or the other. He hits all the marks, has all the physical qualities and wears the clothes as well as you'd want a Bond to, but that's about it.

Very true.
As they say in TND: "he's crossed every Ts, dotted every Is...too clean to be true"!
Indeed, he's generic and unoriginal. He won't make much of an impression as such.