19 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Pierce Brosnan is getting slack lately (some unfairly) for being a poor Bond, even more now that he's out of the role than before, mostly by Bond fans. As casual movie goers are still singing his praises (which would explain the backlash that Craig is getting).

However, is this really different than Roger Moore and his films? Sure they're Bond's in a different mould: Roger's Bond was more like a comedian and Pierce is closer to Rambo, but the way fans reacted to them appears to be similar, in some ways.

Now I wasnt alive during Roger's heyday, nor was I really a Bond fan during while he was still making films (I was born in 1981, so the only Roger film I could have concievably saw in theaters was AVTAK, though I would have been just four), I have read a lot of James Bond source books on the films and done research, and it's all come back to one thing: Roger's Bond was a mixed bag, a lot of people liked him (mostly casual moviegoers) and a lot of people hated the way the empasis was being put on humor and the films were becoming more family friendly. Roger's films made a lot of money and he was (and still is) a really popular Bond, and even the fans who disliked him then I imagine are looking back on his era with fondness.

Ok, jump forward ten years and we get Pierce as Bond. Now since I am a fan around this time and the internet is here, it's easier to get a pulse on what the fan community thinks of his Bond. Well, I ran into the same thing I imagine those of the Moore era did, while Pierce's films were pretty popular with the masses, ranking in the dough and such, the hardcore fans were still uneasy. Some felt the emphasis on action was taking the place of mature storytelling, indeed Tomorrow Never Dies just jump from one action scene to the other, and it's not hard to see that the last half of all of Pierce's Bond films rely more on action than storytelling. I don't think we've gotten a good perspective here yet, as Pierce's last film was only 4 years ago. Perhaps in ten or so years, when we're finishing up with Craig (or perhaps Craig will be gone by then) people will look back on Brosnan's four films and look at them with a certain fondness too, perhaps thinking: Well it's not Fleming's Bond, but they're fun rides nevertheless.

[Publius]

I agree. The more time passes, the more I think Brosnan will be looked upon as the closest thing to Moore. A sort of second coming, if you will, except that Pierce was not quite as goofy and did do more serious stuff here and there. Which goes right back to the Brosnan as every-Bond debate.

Nevertheless, I believe history will smile as favorably on Pierce as it has on Roger, which is to say he'll be widely loved, but significantly more so among the general populace, as his films were mostly harmless (and pointless) fun. For me, I'll always wonder what could have been, just as I do for Roger in light of some of his darker moments.

But no biggie, that's what Craig is here for now anyway.

[Turn]

I don't think Pierce was enough like Roger and that has been what's prevented his Bond from being better in retrospect for me. He wanted to play up all the "let's peel back the layers and see what's underneath the man" angle Dalton began and the films just weren't really better for it.

Pierce was an immediate hit as Remington Steele because he gave a Roger Saint/Brett Sinclair/Bond vibe -- a suave, handsome guy who got involved in capers and used his wits and sometimes fists to get out out situations and was quick with a quip and wooing the ladies. People in turn immediately thought of him as Bond at the beginning of his second season of Steele when Roger was getting ready to leave the Bond role, even voting him the natural successor in an US Magazine poll in 1983.

Who knows how his Bond may have been different should he have originally succeeded Roger. A popular yet bland description many applied to Brosnan's Bond was he was a combination of Sean and Roger, which I don't agree with.

When I look back at his films, I'd have liked less of the angsty brooding on the beach, mourning old girlfriends, feeling duped by psychotic women and feeling put upon. That was forced Bond. Had he used the natural charms he used to make Steele a hit, he may not have looked like he was trying too hard, which I think comes across too often.

Pierce was a good Bond, but his wanting to explore the whole sensitive Bond thing was noble, but ultimately didn't work.

[Flash1087]

I'm with both of you guys. Pierce thought he could do an angsty brooding Bond...while his real talent lay with playing a suave, wisecracking, playboy, Moore-esq Bond. And I already look fondly at Brosnan's days, but he's the first Bond whose run I was old enough to be aware of. Yes, they're not Fleming...but great fun nontheless.

[JimmyBond]

I don't think Pierce was enough like Roger and that has been what's prevented his Bond from being better in retrospect for me.

I was more trying to compare their respective era's and how audiences percieved the films rather than compare their performances. Both Pierce and Roger got criticized for having films that were too far removed from Fleming: Roger for being too "funny" and Pierce for having too much action. That's the comparison I was going for.

But I can't help but agree that Pierce might have been more successful had he played the character more light-heartedly...hell he even has a passing resemblance to Moore!

[Tarl_Cabot]

I don't think Pierce was enough like Roger and that has been what's prevented his Bond from being better in retrospect for me. He wanted to play up all the "let's peel back the layers and see what's underneath the man" angle Dalton began and the films just weren't really better for it.

Pierce was an immediate hit as Remington Steele because he gave a Roger Saint/Brett Sinclair/Bond vibe -- a suave, handsome guy who got involved in capers and used his wits and sometimes fists to get out out situations and was quick with a quip and wooing the ladies. People in turn immediately thought of him as Bond at the beginning of his second season of Steele when Roger was getting ready to leave the Bond role, even voting him the natural successor in an US Magazine poll in 1983.

Who knows how his Bond may have been different should he have originally succeeded Roger. A popular yet bland description many applied to Brosnan's Bond was he was a combination of Sean and Roger, which I don't agree with.

When I look back at his films, I'd have liked less of the angsty brooding on the beach, mourning old girlfriends, feeling duped by psychotic women and feeling put upon. That was forced Bond. Had he used the natural charms he used to make Steele a hit, he may not have looked like he was trying too hard, which I think comes across too often.

Pierce was a good Bond, but his wanting to explore the whole sensitive Bond thing was noble, but ultimately didn't work.

Can't do better than that.

[JimmyBond]

I really cant either, what a well put together post. As much as I liked TWINE when it first came out (it was the first film where Pierce's Bond actually talked to people, rather than shooting at them ), looking back, Pierce's performance is really awkward. It just doenst seem natural when he gets pissed, he's forcing it. All Dalton needed was a steely gaze and you knew he was pissed, with Pierce it just didnt work.

[stamper]

I'd wish we could drop all Pierce and Moore Bond movies into a precipice and forget it. Nothing against the actors, I love them, but those movies really have nothing going on apart from light entertainment, when compared to the Sean/Laz/Dalton trio.
If it's not worth viewing twice, it's not worth viewing once.

[JimmyBond]

If it's not worth viewing twice, it's not worth viewing once.

Well, I respectively disagree Many of Moore's films are rewatchable for me, notably: AVTAK, MR, and FYEO. In that regard Brosnan's TND, GE, and DAD are fun films that can be watched over and over again.

[stamper]

I hate Boris in Goldeneye.

[JimmyBond]

I hate Boris in Goldeneye.

That's not much of a rebuttal there. Just a random thought that really has no bearing on your feelings of the film. Unless of course you hate Goldeneye becasue Alan Cumming's is in it, of course that would be a rather shallow reason. No more shallow I suppose than the folks who don't want to see any future Bond films with Craig in the role.

[stamper]

Sorry I forgot the smiley. No what I meant is, I can"t stand the bad parts in the movie, including Boris the nerd and his small pen. I actually probably did watch GE at least 4 times over the years. I think in Spy all the suspense is telephoned, you can see it all coming miles away. But I do like the music and the sets. I actually did probably watch every Moore movie at least 3 times, thought nowadays, I will probably only ever watch them again for the commentaries, not the movie. Just my humble Bond opinon. My idea of a good night at home is not watching LALD or MWGG while drinking beer, however, give me any Sean or Laz or Dalton anytime !

Edited by stamper, 07 March 2006 - 05:59 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Fair enough, I myself prefer the more down to Earth serious films as well. However I don't mind popping in a Roger film or a Pierce film either, it's all about personal preference.

For the record though I have a hard time getting through DAF, LALD and TMWTGG. Those are the only three Bond films I really watch the least.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Fair enough, I myself prefer the more down to Earth serious films as well. However I don't mind popping in a Roger film or a Pierce film either, it's all about personal preference.

For the record though I have a hard time getting through DAF, LALD and TMWTGG. Those are the only three Bond films I really watch the least.

Apparently, you don't like Tom Mankiewicz since he is the one major constant in all three films.

Sure you can compare Brosnan and Moore, but you can do that for any James Bond (although the hardest may be Moore and Dalton). Each of the 007s are different and yet similar--largely because they are playing the same character.

As for all the Bond actors (Connery through Brosnan), I like and enjoy every single one of them and their films. They each bring a little something different to their roles, and whatever that is, it works. The Bond series would not be here today without the contributions of EACH actor. Sean Connery created the film 007 and made him a phenomenon, George Lazenby proved that an actor other than Connery could play James Bond successfully, Roger Moore guided the series through the lightweight and comedic '70s and early '80s cinema (possibly the only man who could have), Timothy Dalton brought Bond back to a more realistic spy-like setting, and Pierce Brosnan resurrected 007 in the '90s. And now comes Daniel Craig. Let the fun continue.

[bondrocks14]

Similar in humor...different in style.

[JimmyBond]

Fair enough, I myself prefer the more down to Earth serious films as well. However I don't mind popping in a Roger film or a Pierce film either, it's all about personal preference.

For the record though I have a hard time getting through DAF, LALD and TMWTGG. Those are the only three Bond films I really watch the least.

Apparently, you don't like Tom Mankiewicz since he is the one major constant in all three films.

You hit the nail on the head

[SecretAgentFan]

Fair enough, I myself prefer the more down to Earth serious films as well. However I don't mind popping in a Roger film or a Pierce film either, it's all about personal preference.

For the record though I have a hard time getting through DAF, LALD and TMWTGG. Those are the only three Bond films I really watch the least.

Apparently, you don't like Tom Mankiewicz since he is the one major constant in all three films.

Sure you can compare Brosnan and Moore, but you can do that for any James Bond (although the hardest may be Moore and Dalton). Each of the 007s are different and yet similar--largely because they are playing the same character.

As for all the Bond actors (Connery through Brosnan), I like and enjoy every single one of them and their films. They each bring a little something different to their roles, and whatever that is, it works. The Bond series would not be here today without the contributions of EACH actor. Sean Connery created the film 007 and made him a phenomenon, George Lazenby proved that an actor other than Connery could play James Bond successfully, Roger Moore guided the series through the lightweight and comedic '70s and early '80s cinema (possibly the only man who could have), Timothy Dalton brought Bond back to a more realistic spy-like setting, and Pierce Brosnan resurrected 007 in the '90s. And now comes Daniel Craig. Let the fun continue.

Hear, hear!

[DLibrasnow]

Bond actors always go throughh retrospectives. I remember when Roger Moore was Bond, all my friends loved Roger Moore as 007 whereas people of my parents generation all preferred Sean Connery as James Bond (saying that Roger Moore was the best actor to play Simon Templar).
Then in the Dalton era the knives really came out for Roger Moore and were much more vocal than they had been when he was playing 007. Then in recent years his era has gone through a revisionist period in which his movies are held in higher ragard.

I am sure that there will be a period coming up in which the Pierce Brosnan era will be savaged, but in about 15 years things will calm down and people will be able to view his movies with the perspective of time. For an example I am sure that Brosnans fourth movie (Die Another Day) will be considered as Moore's fourth film (Moonraker) is now - particularly since the two movies have so much in common.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I am sure that there will be a period coming up in which the Pierce Brosnan era will be savaged, but in about 15 years things will calm down and people will be able to view his movies with the perspective of time.

Having read a number of posters on this site, it seems like that time is already here.

[krypt]

For an example I am sure that Brosnans fourth movie (Die Another Day) will be considered as Moore's fourth film (Moonraker) is now - particularly since the two movies have so much in common.

Indeed. I said of DAD at the opening night screening: "It's Pierce's MR and DAF!"