114 replies to this topic

[iBond]

I love Pierce Brosnan as James Bond and I don't think that it was the weakest era. Honestly, I don't think there was any weak era in the James Bond series. It's all up to the person's opinion. But at the same time, I heard that the late 80s were the best era for the Bonds. But, the person that started this is obviously not a Brosnan fan or else they wouldn't have posted this.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Schizophrenic in tone - a quality which has been a hallmark of all Bond films since 97.

I'd say since '81.

[Mickeba]

Goldeeneye is great, no doubt. The other 3 were good in the theater but don't translate so well on television. The thing about the Brosnan films is that at the box office, each one did better than the one before it, so people liked them on first run. I think the last 3 Moore films could be seen as just as weak.

[The Shark]

Schizophrenic in tone - a quality which has been a hallmark of all Bond films since 97.

I'd say since '81.

To a lesser extent, yeah.

[jrcjohnny99]

I believe Moonraker is the second all time grossing Bond movie behind Thunderball when adjusted for inflation.

no, GF would be #2 with (I believe) LALD at #3 and CR at #4 as far as worldwide admissions.

This all depends on whose numbers you use;
unquestionably TB and GF are head and shoulders above all others with FRWL probably in 3rd then LALD, Spy and MR all pretty close for 4th, I've seen various sources quote either LALD or MR in 4th, TSWLM generally comes in 6th. CR fits somewhere in that same area as LALD & MR, however, by the time of the Brosnan/Craig films, a much bigger gloabl audience was able to be counted (SE Asia in particular); territory by territory CR would fall well below those 3 Moore films (especially Europe).

[Capsule in Space]

I believe Moonraker is the second all time grossing Bond movie behind Thunderball when adjusted for inflation.

no, GF would be #2 with (I believe) LALD at #3 and CR at #4 as far as worldwide admissions.

This all depends on whose numbers you use;
unquestionably TB and GF are head and shoulders above all others with FRWL probably in 3rd then LALD, Spy and MR all pretty close for 4th, I've seen various sources quote either LALD or MR in 4th, TSWLM generally comes in 6th.

Jaguar and I have discussed this topic before, and one thing we can agree on (yes we do agree on some things folks) is the empirical evidence shows what you stated above, that Thunderball was the biggest when it comes to admissions. That was without most of Asia except for Japan. It is remarkable how big Bond was in the 1960's, and Jaguar is right that there was a "mini" Bondmania in the 1970's.

CR fits somewhere in that same area as LALD & MR, however, by the time of the Brosnan/Craig films, a much bigger gloabl audience was able to be counted (SE Asia in particular); territory by territory CR would fall well below those 3 Moore films (especially Europe).

Yes, great point jrcjohnny. The Brosnan era had more open markets compared to the Moore and Dalton era of the 1980's. China recently opened up within the last decade and that has helped the Craig era's numbers.

[Professor Pi]

Just looked up a few of those lists. Glad to see Goldfinger was higher than I remembered. Always find it curious how high Moonraker is on those lists (top 6?) given where it resides on most people's personal rankings. One list had MR beating TSWLM in raw numbers, but not in inflation adjusted dollars!? But the 80s movies were surprisingly flat in their earnings; otherwise, Bond tends to gross more with each release.

[Guy Haines]

Schizophrenic in tone - a quality which has been a hallmark of all Bond films since 97.

I'd say since '81.

To a lesser extent, yeah.

Much as like the last two Bond films - a lot, as it happens - I'm inclined to agree. If you consider the Bond films up to, say YOLT, just how much "action" - as in explosions or stunts - were there in them? Not as much as some of the films in the decades that followed. Yet FRWL, GF and the likes are the "classic" templates the film makers claimed to have used for the later movies. Some of the later action scenes seemed to be in for no obvious reason, to me at least. Surely "less, but better and more memorable action" is often "more", in films such as these?

[DaveBond21]

I love all the eras

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Are we going to bash the Craig era ten years on?

I don't know what happens to people here. Millions of fans seemed to love Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is not Enough and even Die Another Day during their releasing years. Now Brosnan and his era is pure .

[Mr. Blofeld]

Are we going to bash the Craig era ten years on?

I hope not... but I'm sure you will.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

No, not at all. Maybe just Quantum of Solace, but not Casino Royale.

Oh, BTW, I have to put up with all the Brosnan haters here. But you all are entitled to give your own opinion. We live in democracy boys! Sleep well everybody, I'm not gonna lower your reputation score just because you think different than me.

[Mr. Blofeld]

No, not at all. Maybe just Quantum of Solace, but not Casino Royale.

You'll lump them together and glorify Brosnan... and not just because you distinctly resemble him, I'm sure.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I really haven't bashed any era actually. Roger had his weak points, but he's my second favourite Bond. I didn't liked Sean at the beggining, but now I like him (and his era). But I can see beyond the actor who plays Bond - I won't tell you EVERYTHING in the Brosnan era was great (Die Another Day, let's say). And you can't take my word for it. I won't be bashing Casino Royale, because not only Dan was great, but also the rest of the cast and crew... Phil Meheux, Alex Witt, David Arnold, Stuart Baird, and Campbell.
And that's just what doesn't happen with Quantum of Solace: Dan is great, so are some actors (Giannini, Christensen). But most of the crew fails: Frogley's costumes don't reach the sexyness of Hemming's designs, Gassner can't settle the score with Lamont, and of course, your beloved Forster forgot ge was supposed to do "Quantum of Solace.... directed by Marc Forster" instead of "MARC FORSTER'S quantum of solace directed by MARC FORSTER"

[dogmanstar]

TLD suffered too much from 'political correctness'

How so?

Perhaps the poster is referring to Dalton's bedding of only one woman (other than the pre-title sequence). A big deal was made when TLD came out that Bond was changing his sexual habits in light of the AIDS crisis.

Edited by dogmanstar, 06 July 2011 - 09:34 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Gassner can't settle the score with Lamont

Huh? I don't mind Lamont's production design on CR, but you have to admit that Gassner's work on QOS completely trumps it...

[JimmyBond]

I don't know what happens to people here. Millions of fans seemed to love Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is not Enough and even Die Another Day during their releasing years. Now Brosnan and his era is pure .

I would say you're partly right. Yes the Brosnan films didn make lots of money and were enjoyed by millions. But what you have to remember is that CB.net only represents a very small portion of the fanbase. Just because the people who down the Brosnan era are more vocal doesn't mean that's how everybody feels.

I'm willing to bet that at least half of the people who are dogging on Brosnan and his films are people who always felt that way, even when he was the Bond of record.

[TQB]

I personally believe Moore's era was the worst. I know a lot of people liked him and his movies, but I personally feel like he's the laughing stock of the series.

[iBond]

It started to get predictable with Moore's films after FYEO. Nothing was out of the ordinary and it was all just on a safe ground. Basically just a new adventure with Moore and the family. Nothing harsh, deep or too violent for young children. So, I'm sure when families took their kids to see Licence, it was a big blow. But at the same time, I think the era got weaker from '83 to '85.

[elizabeth]

Brosnan's era wasn't the best, but it certainly wasn't the worst. If you want to know the worst era, it's Craig's.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Thank you Elizabeth! I'll bet you'll join my evil scheme of bashing the Craig Era lumping Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace together!*
We're two now, Mr Blofeld


*to the "traditional" Bond fans, I don't hate the Craig era, and I don't plan to 'hate' it.. I'm just being sarcastic with my ol' pal Mr. Blofeld.

[Mr_Wint]

In fact if you were to remove him from the canon, it seems like a much more natural transition to go from Dalton to Craig.

Yes, but you can say this about all actors. Don't you think Moore to Brosnan would have been a more natural transition? How about Connery to Dalton? My guess is that they don't want natural transitions, and that is why Bond #7 will probably enjoy his work a little bit more.

[Dustin]

I suppose it's very much about what kind of market the respective films have to deal with. While Craig could follow on Dalton quite smoothly in some respects the market of the mid-nineties demanded a stretch of films as the Brosnan Bonds. There probably was only very little alternative to this approach and surely no chance for a Craig effort at the time.

[Miles Miservy]

Brosnan had the weakest era. I watched the 4 bond films yesterday and the only one I enjoyed is Goldeneye. It's crazy how our opinion changes when we grow older. Anyone else agree that he had the weakest era?

Pierce Brosnan was exactly what the 90's needed. I'd always hoped that Timoty Dalton could've done at least one more. I feel that the early to mid 80's was the weekest era. After FYEO, Bond was getting really... REALLY stale. Octopussy had a great premise... right up until the clown suit; and the love scenes in AVTAK were down right awkward.

[coco1997]

Brosnan's era wasn't the best, but it certainly wasn't the worst. If you want to know the worst era, it's Craig's.

It's far too early to be grading Craig's "Era" like that. Given how universally hailed "CR" is and how polarizing of a film "QOS" has become (you need not look any further than any "QOS"-related thread in which Mr. Blofeld has posted), "BOND 23" could very well make or break Craig's tenure as Bond in many fans' eyes, assuming it is his last hurrah in the role.

I grew up on Brosnan but even as a kid I identified him as the worst Bond. A memorable debut followed by two of the most forgettable (but not worst) films in the series and ending with perhaps the most embarrassing, trashy film in the franchise. I'll pass.

[Chief of SIS]

I grew up with Brosnan too. For the most part I loved him, but my issue was always the hyper-sensitivity I have to Bond films when they first come out. For example, when 'Die Another Day' was coming out, I was a Bond fan that needed to have his fix. When that hit doesn't do it for you, it's not easy to bounce back. It was easy to watch DAF and be disappointed then just throw in FRWL to lift one's spirits but with Brosnan, I waited a couple years only to be underwhelmed. I remember being super critical after seeing DAD. Yes, I still think DAD is an abomination but I actually really enjoy the first hour-ish. But I remember how harsh on I was on Brosnan after seeing it the first time. Brosnan the worst era? No. For me, it is the era clouded in the most grey area. It's forced me to re-evaluate QoS.

[blueman]

TLD suffered too much from 'political correctness'

How so?

Isn't Bond teaming up with Mujahedin seen by many today as being politically incorrect?

the current Craig films are probably the most enjoyable since they are couched in reality and don't come across as live action cartoons.

For me, the Madagascar, Miami Airport, Venice, Sienna art gallery, boat chase, dogfight etc. set-pieces, come off as cartoonish, and strangely at odds with the more adult, dry stretches of dialogue.

Schizophrenic in tone - a quality which has been a hallmark of all Bond films since 62.

Fixed.

Radar toppling, nerve gassing Fort Knox, landing a bomber on the Atlantic, hollow rocket-launching volcano craters... yeah, stark reality there even with crisp and realistic dialogue (which sometimes lapsed into tongue-in-cheek but never went into Flint territory, at least in the 60s).

The best of Bond has always been about serving up the fantastic and making it "feel" like it could be. The current mix doesn't work for you, oh well but it feels like good Bond to me.

[Harmsway]

Brosnan's era is "weakest" in some respects. Brosnan never really made Bond his own, not really. His Bond was more of an image than a presence (which, incidentally, works quite well in GOLDENEYE), and he had only really settled into the part by the time of DIE ANOTHER DAY. His run also has two of the worst Bond films: TOMORROW NEVER DIES, which is generic 90s action fare that lacks the wit and color that makes the Bond series worthwhile, and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, which is the series at its lousiest.

That said, GOLDENEYE is truly classic Bond, and DIE ANOTHER DAY has its moments (and in the wake of the thoroughly dreary QUANTUM OF SOLACE, those moments seem to shine even brighter).

[JimmyBond]

Nothing was out of the ordinary and it was all just on a safe ground. Basically just a new adventure with Moore and the family. Nothing harsh, deep or too violent for young children.

You could say the same thing about Brosnan. Nothing in his string of films could qualify as being risky. It was all safe and formulaic. It worked for many people, I'll grant you that. But it was still safe and formulaic.

[right idea, wrong pussy]

A few years ago, I would have said yes - that Brosnan's era was indeed the weakest. I had the fortune and misfortune of being 14 when the excellent GE came out. It was the first new Bond film in forever. I was at just the right age for Bond films to make their full impression on me in a way they didn't when I was, say, 10 (and boy did Xenia make an impression on this 14 year old! ).

So . . . I bought the whole, "Brosnan is the best Bond since Connery" line wholesale. As a consequence, I was thoroughly disappointed when TND came out and didn't meet my greatly inflated expectations. I became fairly bitter regarding Mssr. Brosnan, and I rejoiced when he was not retained in the role.

However, I was recently inspired by Zencat to rewatch all of the Bond films in order and in a short time span (not over three days though, thanks heavens). I found myself liking a lot of stuff more than I had previously (and still found myself liking my old favorites). I appreciated the 60s Connery films for their drive and style (even TB, which I had formerly hated). I liked the more tongue and cheek approach of 70s and the more realistic approach of the 80s. I'm bullish about Craig too. But what surprised me was how well Brosnan's films held up (well, aside from the parts of DAD that involved Halle Berry ). The later films aren't as good as GE, certainly, but they manage to be stylish blockbuster films that were not mindless in the way most 90s blockbusters were. We need to keep in mind the mileu these films were made in. The 90s was an era where the blockbuster became almighty, and they were generally crappy blockbusters. "Jurassic Park" had great special effects and Sam Neill, and was otherwise completely soulless. Zillions of action movies had plenty of gunplay and stupid one-liners. Then there was commercıalıst dreck as varied as "The Phantom Menace" and "Titanic", which clearly was meant solely to make as much money in as manipulative a fashion as possible - never mind about filmmaking craft or real human interest, show us some more cgi/totally implausible villain/couple who are in love because the script says they are/pointless but well choreographed fight scene!

The Brosnan films all managed to have bits of these blockbuster elements, but they still had enough craft and thought behind them that they hold up surprisingly well. Let's take TND, for instance, since it's widely regarded as a blockbuster wannabe. There are elements to the film that do indeed fit in to the stereotype of the Brosnan era as creatively stale - Stamper, the overuse of machine guns, the blatent reuse of the YOLT/TSWLM plotline, to name a few. But there are lots of things that you wouldn't have found in most blockbusters in the 90s or perhaps even in most Bond films: 1. Bond's relationship with Paris Carver, where he's actually ORDERED by his boss to seduce her but is reluctant to do so. 2. Elliot Carver, who might have seemed implausible in 1997 but looks much more prescient in the aftermath of the Iraq War (heck the whole angle on the media had depth to it). 3. The motorcycle chase, which managed to be more effective than any 90s chase scene I've come across outside of "Ronin". 4. The constant byplay between M and Admiral Roebuck, who is a minor character but is allowed a measure of depth. 5. The parking garage scene, simply for the inventiveness of the concept. And so on. And I'm not even a very big fan of TND.

The Craig era will probably come in for some hard lumps in ten years or so. That just seems to be the nature of fashion. What now is praised as depth will in time be critisized as part of a 2000s fad involving self-loathing superheroes and fake moral seriousness post-9/11. Then people will calm down and be more fair in their appraisals, as I think many will regarding Brosnan in a few years' time.

Oh, and the one era that went down in my estimations after my marathon? Lazenby's! The greatly overpraised OHMSS lacks motivations for most of its characters. The goons in the begining have no reason to want to kill Bond. Unlike in the novel, Bond has no reason to fall in love with Tracy (or she with him, come to think of it). Blofeld has little motivation for his intricate and expensive plot (all that for a pardon and a title!!?!?!). Lazenby comes across as wooden and characterless. I found myself thankful for the return of Connery in the next film.

Compared to the Lazenby era, the Brosnan era is plenty strong.