24 replies to this topic

[Chaotician]

I think Pierce Brosnan's films have become more and more successful (in terms of box-office) because he is arguably the Bond with the most mainstream appeal in the history of the franchise.
He has that certain X-factor that allows him to be popular with all ages and genders.
I feel his secret is taking a little piece from his 007 predecessors, and combining them into a cohesive whole.
Pierce has Connery's power and prescence, the one-liners of Moore, and the vulnerability and depth of Dalton. It is his tremendous ability to balance all these elements that makes his Bond appeal to everyone.

[Sir James]

Very true. Brosnan and his films sit highly on many fans lists of preferences because of their mainstream appeal, which coiencidently is the one that really revies the spirit of Fleming and the original films. Well said, and welcome to CBn!

[1q2w3e4r]

I think Pierce Brosnan's films have become more and more successful (in terms of box-office) because he is arguably the Bond with the most mainstream appeal in the history of the franchise.
He has that certain X-factor that allows him to be popular with all ages and genders.
I feel his secret is taking a little piece from his 007 predecessors, and combining them into a cohesive whole.
Pierce has Connery's power and prescence, the one-liners of Moore, and the vulnerability and depth of Dalton. It is his tremendous ability to balance all these elements that makes his Bond appeal to everyone.

Adjust for inflation since '95 and no not really have Brosnan's films been more and more successful in terms of box office. DAD made 10 million more in adjusted gross than GE... But cost nearly 2.5 times the budget to make. Not exactly a huge mark up.

He's certianly also not the actor with the most mainstream appeal. I might be wrong in the future. But when he's been a leading man, and a successful one at that for over forty years let me know (connery).

He does a capable job. Nothing spectacular compared to the others who went before. Probably due to short sighted directing and poor writing. DAD was full of dreadful one liners (much like GE). I don't know why if the writers and EON insist on them they don't watch Thunderball which is full of one liners from start to finish that don't hamper but rather inhance the script.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

"GENIUS" ???????


Hahah LOL.

"Adequate" or "Tolerable" is more like it. I like Brosnan, but seriously what has he brought to the role or series that Roger or Sean didn't bring or inject previously? Brosnan's approach to the role offers nothing new whatsoever (minus his fetish for kissing dead women ). His acting range is limited as he seems to alternate between only two real different emotions: smug smamrminess and nostril-flaring anger or indignation.
Sometimes unoriginality is a good thing. There is always a demand for flavorless bland, comfort food. So, it comes as no suprise that people want Pierce to stay. Personally, I'd rather see someone new come in. Someone with the potential to really shake things up a bit. Someone who possibly would leave their own personal stamp on the role and alternate the face of the series forever straight from the very begining (i.e. alot like the way dalton did).

Will Pierce actually leave his own unique mark on the series? One would hope so. Only time will tell. As for now, I'll do my best to leave a smile on my face as I sit down at the table and am served yet another steaming heap of bland, gray, flavorless comfort food.

[Tarl_Cabot]

"Pierce has Connery's power and prescence"


LOL in his dreams maybe! He's a good JB but he aint no Sean Connery!!!(62-67 model)!

[BONDFINESSE 007]

brosnan is the best thing we have had in 17years

[Sir James]

I respectfully disagree. The momentum and hype that came with DAD seemed to rival that of the old days of GF and TB. And I would bet that Brosnans Bond is going to be the base point for the next set of 007's. Will Connery always have a shadow, yes. But Brosnan will take the limelight. He has urshered in a whole new generation of fans that only identify him as Bond, and will see it that way. Thus they will look to the Brosnan Bond and films as their base point of comparason. But thats not to say the past is gone, far from it.

Yea, its true Brosnan's success is partly do in fact to his effortless ability to combine the best aspects of all previous Bonds before him, and the most accurate Bond to Ian Fleming. However, he also adds some new pieces to the bit that make the character probably the most dead on approach to Bond yet. Brosnan has thus far shown us a more consistently ruthless, deadly James Bond than any of his predecessors. And through that ruthlessness, a certain mortality about Bond, his life, and his surroundings, has really come into play with the Brosnan Bond. And the great stories his era bring this point out in a way that mirrors Flemings Bond, and the way he shaped his world.

The stories approach, aside from having all the devolped yet exotic characters, intense locations, and unique stand out action scenes, also have a "Put him through it. Hurt him. Test him. Let him shine" quality to the Bond character that empahsizes what Fleming put in him; his more romantic attiude on life, using his martinis to burn away the cares of his job, and his tuxedo to cover the layered personality of 007. The world is of people living the high life, and the show of spectacle is always apparent. Yet the latest stories use it to enhance the flow of largely character driven pieces.

This sharpley contrasts the attiudes shown in past Bond outings where Bond, inappropriately IMO, had nothing to prove. Pehraps because the latest entries want a more fast paced story in which the characters flow faster as well, we dont get to take in as much of the slow luxiours aspects of life, but we still get the spectacle, and the entertainment value of Bond.

The Bond of the 60's was unconditionally cool, and had a sense of establishment to him. Where as this Bond, more fittingly to the times, is one who has had to prove something, and fight hard for his "cool" stature. Wether or not this is because that Bond actually needed to compete to get back on top of the action movie genre in the Brosnan era is uncertain, but in effect it has brought the films, character, and stories of 007 to the heart of their roots and their core.

[Jim]

[quote name='Sir James' date='14 February 2004 - 18:57']

[/quote]
[quote] Thus they will look to the Brosnan Bond and films as their base point of comparason.[/quote]

They are rather base, aren't they?

[quote] But thats not to say the past is gone, far from it.[/quote]

You write in cliche. Of course the past is gone. That is why it is the past. "Clue in the name" sorta thingy.


[quote]Yea, its true Brosnan's success is partly do in fact to his effortless ability to combine the best aspects of all previous Bonds before him, and the most accurate Bond to Ian Fleming. [/quote]

That's not true. That may be your truthfully held opinion, and this I do not doubt, but please don't be so conceited to expect that what you crave to be true is, accordingly, true. And can you really raise a comment like "the most accurate Bond to Ian Fleming" and then not explain it - and expect to be taken seriously?

[quote]Brosnan has thus far shown us a more consistently ruthless, deadly James Bond than any of his predecessors. [/quote]

Where? This reads like advertising copy, some ten-cent words without any genuine analysis of what you have written. If you can justify the comment by direct example rather than hyperbolic rephrashing of (what boils down to) "Brosnan's great!", then do. That you haven't is itself damaging to your point.


[quote]And the great stories his era bring this point out in a way that mirrors Flemings Bond, and the way he shaped his world. [/quote]

Yes, Fleming's Bond was an entirely gullible idiot who would not have identified the number one suspect in the murder of her father but instead have informed his boss that "your terrorist is back" for no readily explicable reason. That's a great story.

If by "mirrors" you mean it is a copy but in being a mirror image it is a direct opposite to Fleming's world, then I happen to agree with you. NB Bond films shouldn't have to "mirror" Fleming. They should BE Fleming.

[quote]a certain mortality about Bond, his life, and his surroundings, has really come into play with the Brosnan Bond. [/quote]

Again, either justify this with example, not hollow special effects of language. Funny how this piece is turning out to be some much like the films it advocates.

[quote]...all the devolped yet exotic characters...[/quote]

What does this actually mean? Is "devolped" somehow at odds with exotic? How are the "devolped" then. Again - state examples, otherwise, yet again, this looks like PR exaggeration and cannot be taken seriously.

[quote]"...intense locations..."[/quote]

New one to me. What is an "intense" location. What international system of weights and measures makes a location "intense". What do you mean? And even if (which I doubt) this is a justifiable or coherent word to choose, what's so intense about the Pinewood back lot, then?

[quote]"...unique stand out action scenes..."[/quote]

GoldenEye. Have a tricked up car. Drive another vehicle in a destructive manner (tank). Boom bang go some pretty explosions. At the end of your drive in that vehicle, destroy at least one more vehicle (train) Tomorrow Never Dies. Have a tricked up car. Drive another vehicle in a destructive manner (motorbike). Boom bang go some pretty explosions. At the end of your drive in that vehicle, destroy at least one more vehicle (helicopter). The World is not Enough. Have a tricked up car. Drive another vehicle in a destructive manner (Q boat). Boom bang go some pretty explosions. At the end of your drive in that vehicle, destroy at least one more vehicle (boat). Die Another Day. Have a tricked up car. Drive another vehicle in a destructive manner (hovercraft). Boom bang go some pretty explosions. At the end of your drive in that vehicle, destroy at least one more vehicle (another hovercraft)

Yeah...unique. Not even unique within themselves. Tired, reheated, mostly filmed from about a month away...

[quote]"...using his martinis to burn away the cares of his job..."[/quote]

You didn't write the more dismal teenage analysis elements of GoldenEye, did you? This sort of thing has always been the case; it's just that previously the writers wrote the things for adults intelligent enough to pick up the subtext; they did not have to make the subtext into text.

[quote]"...his tuxedo to cover the layered personality of 007."[/quote]

Perhaps you did write that godawful scene in GoldenEye about "do all those martinis go straight to your liver?" or whatever it was the silly man in the silly film said. What does this mean?

[quote]and the show of spectacle is always apparent.[/quote]

Um...no, don't get that one either. Put the thesaurus away and be honest; use words of one syllable if you must as long as it justifies what you say. There's no need to show off like this; the absence of anything approaching a concrete example suggests that this is simply a surface piece, and it reads as if cribbed from the back of a DVD box.

[quote]This sharpley contrasts the attiudes shown in past Bond outings where Bond, inappropriately IMO, had nothing to prove[/quote].

You might have seen the other films, but have you actually watched them? What do you think Goldfinger is about? Have you missed the pimping for England ideas in from Russia with Love? And as for Licence to Kill...this is the first and last time I will defend it...but it strives to be about something...what the hell is The World is Not Enough about? It is utterly incoherent. The only reason folks suggest TWINE is about something is because it has put all its subtext onto the surface and there is nothing left underneath. It's as hollow as that damned volcano.

[quote]Yet the latest stories use it to enhance the flow of largely character driven pieces. [/quote]

Die Another Day. That character driven piece. Were that only true. If it had been a character driven piece, do you really think it would have descended into the madness of The Glove of Death? The World is not Enough may be a character piece but a) the characters are laughably inconsistent and b ) the James Bond character doesn't stand up to scrutiny as James Bond. James Bond is a sexual predator, not some sort of sentimental (the Q scene is embarassing) easily duped loved-up sap (the basic premise for the plot to try to work)

[quote]Pehraps because the latest entries want a more fast paced story in which the characters flow faster as well, we dont get to take in as much of the slow luxiours aspects of life, but we still get the spectacle, and the entertainment value of Bond.[/quote]

By characters flowing faster (sic) - I have no idea what that concept means, either - it is merely a cover up for the characters being so thin we'd better have another explosion now before anyone notices.

[quote]The Bond of the 60's was unconditionally cool, and had a sense of establishment to him. Where as this Bond, more fittingly to the times, is one who has had to prove something, and fight hard for his "cool" stature. Wether or not this is because that Bond actually needed to compete to get back on top of the action movie genre in the Brosnan era is uncertain, but in effect it has brought the films, character, and stories of 007 to the heart of their roots and their core.[/quote]

Finally, something credible, if not perhaps what you intended (and the end contradicts the first sentence, very odd). But the idea of Bond having to "fight" for his status (even if you gloss over the obvious incidents where this happens before - OHMSS, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill) is interesting.

[doublenoughtspy]

Sir James,

>and the most accurate Bond to Ian Fleming.

You can NOT be talking about Pierce Brosnan!

Pierce himself has commended Timothy Dalton's bravery in going the pure Ian Fleming route.

Brosnan's Bond is a far from the most accurate to Ian Fleming.

Some straight off the bat comparisons:

Fleming's Bond smokes like a chimney - Brosnan's doesn't.

Fleming's Bond uses a Walther PPK - 3/4 of the time Brosnan's hasn't.

Fleming's Bond would not be caught dead with a black woman - Brosnan romances a black woman in DAD.

Fleming's Bond has a male boss - Brosnan's Bond has a female boss.

Fleming's Bond has a best friend named Felix Leiter - the closest male friend to Brosnan was a traitor, and his other friends are either buffons (Jack Wade) or criminals (Zukofsky).

Now I am not saying that Pierce isn't a good Bond and that the 5 points above mean he isn't - but don't claim that Brosnan is the most accuarte portrayal of Ian Fleming's spy because that spot is quite obviously occupied by Timothy Dalton.

You also claim that Brosnan's Bond is the most ruthless.

Huh?

I know this hard to quantify - but I would point to the strangleing deaths at the hands of Connery & Lazenby, and their physical presense and say that those two are the most ruthless Bonds and I would not want to be on their bad side.

Can you give a concrete example of Brosnan's ruthlessness?

An example that points to just the opposite is the scene where he threatens to kill Renard in the nuclear bunker - his hands are shaking like a leaf! What kind of cold, professional killer is that?

Now I do concur with you on the point that Brosnan is Bond in a difficult era. He also has the added responsibility of keeping MGM afloat. But as for the closest to Fleming and the most ruthless? NO WAY.

I concur with RogerMoore'sbadfacelift - Brosnan is the comfort food Bond - an amalgam of previous interpretations to please the masses.

[Loomis]

I concur with RogerMoore'sbadfacelift - Brosnan is the comfort food Bond - an amalgam of previous interpretations to please the masses.

And now we have Jackman, who seems to me (okay, we've yet to see him in action as 007, so this may be a little unfair) merely a younger and cheaper Brosnan.

Is the Bond series doomed?

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree Loomis - and other people have said the same thing - Jackman will merely be Brosnan 2.

It's an interesting dilema - do you try to give a slant to the intreptation (humor for Moore, darkness and anger for Dalton) - or do you try to keep it middle of the road?

From a marketing standpoint - middle of the road works. But from an ethusiasts standpoint - I would prefer to see a slant or theme taken and run with.

[Agent 76]

Jackman will merely be Brosnan 2.

LLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL

[DanMan]

Jim's power to pick apart every single sentance truly disturbs me.

[1q2w3e4r]

Yeah I love Jim's posts. Always interesting.

Though I got to say I disagree that while Bond in the 60s was "
cool" he was part of the establishment, while Bond now fights for his "cool stature". It contracdicts the claim that the "hype" for DAD was a huge as Goldfinger or Thunderball. Thunderball incidently was running 24 hours a day when released in the US and over 70 million people along in the States saw it.

Brosnan's Bond is in fact as much apart of the establishment as Connery's was. Probably more so. He takes order's from a woman and shy's away from direct confrontation with her. He fumbles over women, (which Fleming's OO7 did admittedly, but never openly showed it)

Anyways interesting ideas

[Blofeld's Cat]

he the best thing we have had in 17years

Well, at the very least, for 9 years anyway.

[Paris]

Pierce has Connery's power and prescence, the one-liners of Moore, and the vulnerability and depth of Dalton. It is his tremendous ability to balance all these elements that makes his Bond appeal to everyone.

Agreed. And the fact that he's damn sexy doesn't hurt, either. Just what a girl wants.

[007luvchild2]

Sir James,

>and the most accurate Bond to Ian Fleming.

You can NOT be talking about Pierce Brosnan!

Pierce himself has commended Timothy Dalton's bravery in going the pure Ian Fleming route.

Brosnan's Bond is a far from the most accurate to Ian Fleming.

Some straight off the bat comparisons:

Fleming's Bond smokes like a chimney - Brosnan's doesn't.

Fleming's Bond uses a Walther PPK - 3/4 of the time Brosnan's hasn't.

Fleming's Bond would not be caught dead with a black woman - Brosnan romances a black woman in DAD.

Fleming's Bond has a male boss - Brosnan's Bond has a female boss.

Fleming's Bond has a best friend named Felix Leiter - the closest male friend to Brosnan was a traitor, and his other friends are either buffons (Jack Wade) or criminals (Zukofsky).

Now I am not saying that Pierce isn't a good Bond and that the 5 points above mean he isn't - but don't claim that Brosnan is the most accuarte portrayal of Ian Fleming's spy because that spot is quite obviously occupied by Timothy Dalton.

You also claim that Brosnan's Bond is the most ruthless.

Huh?

I know this hard to quantify - but I would point to the strangleing deaths at the hands of Connery & Lazenby, and their physical presense and say that those two are the most ruthless Bonds and I would not want to be on their bad side.

Can you give a concrete example of Brosnan's ruthlessness?

An example that points to just the opposite is the scene where he threatens to kill Renard in the nuclear bunker - his hands are shaking like a leaf! What kind of cold, professional killer is that?

Now I do concur with you on the point that Brosnan is Bond in a difficult era. He also has the added responsibility of keeping MGM afloat. But as for the closest to Fleming and the most ruthless? NO WAY.

I concur with RogerMoore'sbadfacelift - Brosnan is the comfort food Bond - an amalgam of previous interpretations to please the masses.

Considering those comparisons, which are well defined, a few of the points could even suggest that not even Roger Moore was accurate to Fleming's Bond when you take in consideration of most of his films. (ducks!) Brosnan's Bond is not Fleming Bond because the cinematic character is politically correct, and apparently not a xenophobe. Nevertheless, Brosnan Bond does reflects a literary Bond, but of another author, Raymond Benson. Yes, Brosnan no doubtly is accurate to Benson's Bond IMO. Fleming Bond brought to the film screen? The original literary Bond? I hate to admit, but that Bond was world class A**hole, in my perspective he is, and you need a mean old bastard of an crusty old Englishman to play M to bust his cojones once in a while. (Which I miss ) . Brosnan portrays a Bond which easy to swallow (sugarcoating of correctol) as some already pointed out in their posts.

Pierce has Connery's power and prescence.

I can see your point. However, Pierce would even admit, that Connery suprasses him in that department. Don't get me wrong, Pierce has some presence and some power, which I really only saw in the first forty five minutes of Die Another Day, the finale of the satellite dish confrontation, and the mid-section of TND.

[Bon-san]

Jim's power to pick apart every single sentance truly disturbs me.

It's the motivation to do so that annoys me.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I read two paragraphs of Sir James and I'm convinced he works for the studio, MGM. You can't BS an BSer dude. And no one on earth can survive the Wrath of Jim. His genetically engineered intellect will keep all sheep in check for generations...I hope so at least.

[Sir James]

I too enjoy Jims ability to go through a post, nealry sentence by sentence. It shows someone is actually reading this rambling

Ok Let me see,

Allright, Jim. If you wish I will revise my statement on Pierce Brosnan being the closest to Fleming, and combining the elements of the previous actors.

In My Opinion, I believe Pierce Brosnan's major success comes from his ability to so eaisly combine the best traits of the previous men who have followed him. In nearly every moment he is on screen, he is hybriding the actions of his precredessors in similar moments. He is able to capture Connery's trademark physical presence in scenes like the final fight with 006 on the top of the dish, his ability to run with the motion and facial expression of both determination, and confidence. He pinches bits of Roger Moore's smooth, near smug attitude. In the way he is able to deliever even some subpar lines in a way thats both convincing and not so "wink wink - nudge nudge- its all in fun" kind of attitude. The cold hearted brooding attidude Dalton is usually synonmous with is also brought in the Brosnan interpretation but, like the Moore elements, handled in appropriate dosages. Dalton never sold me as Bond because his emotions were like the sine wave (ie: they would go from one extreme low to an extreme high, and back down again) and thats not Bond. For me, Bond has a sense of outer confidence about him, thus able to make him the man everyone "wants him to be. The man of the world, the secret agent. the sillhoutte." (Moonraker novel) Dalton showed it very well in TLD but then seemingly lost it entirely in LTK for me, but thats another topic alltogether. The point being, in many scenes in which the Bonds raw roots of the character come out, the smooth operator is still in appearance while ruthless acts are able to occur.

A good example for me of this is the killing of Elektra, or the Killing of Kaufman. Not only are these some of Bonds coldest acts, he is able to do it in a way that shows his rage, but keeps himself cool and collected at the same time. Look at his face when Kaufman says "wait, im just a professional doing a job." and Bond replies with "me too" and then kills him. You see that Bond is clearly affected by this, but his eyes dont widen, his lips dont start shaking involntarily, and he doesnt shake as if his whole head is going to explode.

At the same time, Brosnan as I said is able to bring a ruthlessness and a fatalism in regards to his own life alive, and very present in the role. It comes out in his response to Xenia's suggestion that he "enjoy it while it lasts

Edited by Sir James, 16 February 2004 - 05:53 PM.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

he the best thing we have had in 17years

Well, at the very least, for 9 years anyway.

no no, he is the best we have had in 17 years

[JimmyBond]

While I like Pierce and all, theres only one definitive Bond in my book. And we all know who that is (Sean Connery)

[BONDFINESSE 007]

While I like Pierce and all, theres only one definitive Bond in my book. And we all know who that is (Sean Connery)

thats ok jimbo, you can think that

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

While I like Pierce and all, theres only one definitive Bond in my book. And we all know who that is

Why of course we do, Jimmy. It's none other than Roger Moore. Wasn't he just the greatest?




PS Nice follow-up post, Sir James. Very well put. Hell, I don't even like Brosnan that much and you have even me convinced.

Edited by Roger_Moore's_Bad_Facelift, 17 February 2004 - 12:09 AM.

[Sir James]

While I like Pierce and all, theres only one definitive Bond in my book. And we all know who that is

Why of course we do, Jimmy. It's none other than Roger Moore. Wasn't he just the greatest?




PS Nice follow-up post, Sir James. Very well put. Hell, I don't even like Brosnan that much and you have even me convinced.

Hey thanks, and I was beginning to think it all went unnoticed.