105 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I read these posts on here that criticize Brosnan's films (some are very well thought out too) and it appears there will always be one or two people who come in and cry foul for it. Saying that Brosnan is only being dogged because he's the most recent Bond, well that may be true...but were any of you around the net during Brosnan's tenure?

I'm not just talking about here either. When I first entered the online Bond community (shortly after TND came out), I joined a really good Bond forum called "Bond is Back," ran by a fellow by the name of Ben Zimmerman (whatever became of him? I'd like to know). While by no means a consensus, a majority of the members were becoming disilusioned with the series, citing GE and TND as weak entries and not seeing it becoming any better. I myself was very put off with TND at the time (now it's my favorite Brosnan, natch), we were all very curious to see how "Bond 19" would turn out. Unfortanately the site shut down before the film came out and I was once again on the outside looking in (when you are part of a really great community such as that most others can't compare).

I do recall the film was met with great enthusiasm from the fanbase at first (people are talking to each other? In a Brosnan Bond? Who knew?), after a while I did notice the tide turn (this was before DAD mind you), then when I finally signed up here I took notice that the Brosnan films were dogged even more. After that the rest is history.

What I'm really trying to say (and if you're still reading I'll buy you a drink, I've gone on far too long) is that this "new" wave of Brosnan bashing (if you want to call it that) is nothing new. It's been around ever since Brosnan was Bond, even after Goldeneye came out a lot of people really disliked it, sure they werent in the vocal majority (at the time) but as a new film becomes old, people look at it for what it is, and not as a "New Bond film."

[DamnCoffee]

Actually, I thought Brosnans Bond movies were really well recieved. I certainly liked him.

It would be quite interesting to see what it would be like if CBn existed in 1994, then fans would be able to discuss Brosnans tenure as Bond, from his announcment right up to his departure.

No one will know really, since the internet wasn't as popular back then for people to discuss it with other Bond fans around the world in great detail.

[mccartney007]

I remember Bond is Back quite well -- it was an excellent site.

Anyway, I remember there being a few Brosnan haters during his tenure, but nothing quite like what has gone on in recent years. I think it happened for two reasons: 1. the way he left the role and the continued whining about it, and 2. The film following DIE ANOTHER DAY was CASINO ROYALE, the latter of which being so dramatically different and miles better than DAD that it sort of "tarnished" Brosnan's films.

[Santa]

JimmyBond, you don't belong here, you're making far too much sense. A few of us have tried to make this point before but for some reason, other people insist we did like Brosnan back then and only changed our minds later . OK, if you say so.
While I wasn't keen then any more than I am now, I do seem to remember the films being well-received at the time by most. It baffled me then as it does now, but it doesn't change the fact that they were popular at the time. But then so were SClub7. And Five Star.

[zencat]

I remember Bond is Back quite well -- it was an excellent site.

Anyway, I remember there being a few Brosnan haters during his tenure, but nothing quite like what has gone on in recent years. I think it happened for two reasons: 1. the way he left the role and the continued whining about it, and 2. The film following DIE ANOTHER DAY was CASINO ROYALE, the latter of which being so dramatically different and miles better than DAD that it sort of "tarnished" Brosnan's films.

What Mcca said.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, there were fans here - some very intelligent female ones - like Xenobia and Mourning Becomes Electra that were big Brosnan supporters.

But some on here [not me, I may add] had extreme views on PB that rubbed Mourning Becomes Electra and Xenobia the wrong way that drove them away from CBn.

It is our collective loss that these thoughful fans were pushed out by the mean-spirited ones.

My ex LOVED Brosnan as Bond and we went out to see all four of his movies on opening night. I would have seen ANY Bond on opening night, mind you. It's that she - and many like her - liked Brosnan.

Funnily, her, and other females, seem to have connected with Craig as Bond too.

Younger, fresher meat closer to their age, I spose.

[bondrules]

I remember Bond is Back quite well -- it was an excellent site.

Anyway, I remember there being a few Brosnan haters during his tenure, but nothing quite like what has gone on in recent years. I think it happened for two reasons: 1. the way he left the role and the continued whining about it, and 2. The film following DIE ANOTHER DAY was CASINO ROYALE, the latter of which being so dramatically different and miles better than DAD that it sort of "tarnished" Brosnan's films.

Agree 10000%

The whining seems to be even going on to this day in one way or another, all that crap about finding peace with the fact. (Brosnan should just grow up, he is like a million years old, yet he whines like a 10 year old schoolgirl)

Yes, DAD and CR where literally Night vs Day

Edited by bondrules, 22 October 2008 - 08:24 PM.

[MkB]

I wasn't yet a Bond geek during the Brosnan era, just the average Bond lover (I didn't belong to any fan sites back then - yes, I used to have a life ). But I do remember the Bond is Back, You know the Name, You know the Number stuff! Great times... GE was my first Bond in the cinema, when I was... 18!
So, being out of the strictly speaking Bond fandom then, I remember that we talked about Bond with my mates, and they enjoyed the films too. I don't recall any negative reaction against Brosnan (I mean people around me who didn't like Bond before didn't like him better, but the others didn't seem to have a problem with Brosnan).

[Mr_Wint]

I was following the discussion back then. By the majority, Brosnan was considered to be "perfect" for the role and the only Bond since Connery that "got it right". It was extremely similar to how the majority of fans look at Craig today.

And I feel that Brosnan reached his peak in popularity somewhere between TND and TWINE.

I've saved BondIsBack on my computer. It was a terrific site.

[Judo chop]

I don't care if Brosnan whined and bitched about his cold and unjust dismissal from the Bond family. At most, that would only make me dislike HIM. Which, by the way, I've never said.

But that is something entirely different from why he is my least favorite Bond actor and why as Bond he irks me more than impresses.

And, for the record, I once DID like him as a Bond actor. And my opinion HAS changed, and I can give, and have given, reasons relating to his performances for why that is the case.

[BlackFire]

He was the first Bond actor I saw (Goldeneye) and I thought he was awesome, that's why he is my favourite Bond, I received well his 4 movies.

[bondrules]

I'm really ecstatic that DC is doing Bond right now and Brosnan is doing Mamma Mia

[JimmyBond]

I was following the discussion back then. By the majority, Brosnan was considered to be "perfect" for the role and the only Bond since Connery that "got it right". It was extremely similar to how the majority of fans look at Craig today.

Of course, I felt he was grand in the role as well. But that is only one aspect of Brosnan's tenure. Many fans were put off by the reliance on "shoot em up" action in favor of inventive set pieces or thought out dialogue scenes. Walking out of TND I certainly enjoyed the ride, but ulimately it felt hollow.

[jaguar007]

I was a regular forum member on the old alt.fan-jamesbond usenet back in 95. Most people were excited and approved of Brosnan as Bond. While I had wished Dalton was still Bond, I was just glad for there to be another BOnd movie. I can say after GE, many forum members were increasingly dissapointed with each movie to follow, but I don't recall all the Brosnan bashing that goes on these days. Many people did state a preference toward different actors during his tenure, but I think the real bashing came in retaliation to all the anti-Craig stuff that came about once he was announced (and after CR became the Bond movie that most fans thought they would never see - a Bond film to live up to the best films of the 60s).

[Dell Deaton]

It's not so much the length of the Post that's started this Thread as it is in trying to follow all the tangents that came after that makes your offer of a drink appealing.

Yes, I was around. W/in reach of my desk as I make this entry I could probably pull out any number of issues related to Pierce Brosnan as Bond, becoming Bond, maturing as Bond, et cetera.

Remember that Brosnan took over after what I believe was the longest interval between 007 features to date. Litigation compounded w/ speculation that Timothy Dalton's portrayal of a more true-to-Fleming Bond had killed the franchise. (Untrue, and unfounded, in my opinion.) Hard to recover from that sort of lost momentum. Culture had changed as well; hence the over-emphasis on "relic of the Cold War" in dialogue.

Personally, I think Mr. Brosnan had put at lot into landing Bond. Then did land the part. Then had it pulled per the Remington Steele contract. Wife died. Single dad. Career struggles. Bond comes back.

I also remember when he was injured on the set of Die Another Day. Something like two weeks off, then back again. Ankle, I believe. Nothing like the sling we see on a much younger Daniel Craig, on only his second outing. Yet Brosnan was dogged in a way that Craig won't be.

How did Brosnan learn of his non-invitation to return as 007? Then dumped by Omega as their Ambassador almost as uncermoneously. Maybe he didn't take it as well as folks believe he should have. But I don't think excessively so.

He was a well-liked James Bond at the time; popular. He went in at an uphill climb, with speculation he'd never be a Sean Connery. Proved that wrong. Put his own mark on the franchise. A good one. And that was recognized. So I think a lot of folks are more negative about him now because, frankly, they have to be in order to validate Daniel Craig. I don't. The two are just different. I think it has as much or more to do w/ the fact that Craig was so unpopular that Brosnan had to be put down as incapable and worse (ie, never having been capable) that history is selectively remembered now as it is.

[bondrules]

At least for me, and IMHO, couldn't wait to see someone/anyone replace Brosnan....

It's not just his performance as Bond, it's that I found/find Brosnan too wooden to play any role in any movie

[dogmanstar]

Tho I wasn't online when Goldeneye came out, my friends and I all sighed a huuuuuuge sigh of relief upon seeing that movie. Following on after the underwhelmingly promoted (and not oft watched) LTK, we thought there may never be another Bond film. Goldeneye proved Bond would return! And Brosnan received all thumbs up from us.

[Colossus]

It was well received, there was this Bond aura during the 90's i remember very well, Bond mania returning after the glum 80s. There was the normal amount of naysayers like any other Bond but the burning torch mentality really only set in at Casino Royale reaching white-hot levels from CR's opening all the way throughout 2007. 2008 things seem to have cooled and i suspect 2009 will be a lot more even-handed to Brosnan's era.

[Turn]

The '90s will be looked back on as one of the most interesting in Bond franchise history, more so than the '70s and '80s and possibly more than this decade. Maybe not so much for the product, but the times.

You started out with the franchise's future up in the air after LTK underperformed in the U.S. It was all Die Hard and Lethal Weapon and Schwarzenegger at the start of the decade.

I didn't know the extent of the problem until reading an article in Cinefantastique Magazine in late 1990 or so that talked about the series being in trouble. There was no Internet back then and not much was said outside of the trade papers.

The old films were still going strong. In the U.S. you had ABC broadcasting them a lot and then TBS acquiring the rights and playing them in marathons and weekly, keeping them going. The series still sold well on VHS and laserdisc.

You'd get a new Gardner novel every year. But the 30th anniversary came and went and still nothing.

Dalton departs, pushed or of his own accord. Surprise, Brosnan is announced as his replacement a few weeks later. Early '95 was filled with anticipation for a new Bond film. They hype and excitement for GE was among the best. The film was a smash, it inspired one of the biggest video games of all time, old fans were mostly pleased and many new ones came aboard.

The films varied in quality -- a personal revenge story and addressing the post Cold War era with a killer satellite theme, an action epic along the lines of YOLT and TSWLM and a scaled-back story-centered film that didn't work as hoped. But at least they tried doing something different, they were successful and Brosnan was a serviceable Bond.

[Santa]

He went in at an uphill climb, with speculation he'd never be a Sean Connery.

I didn't see this at all - it was all 'born to be Bond' as I remember it. Everyone thought he was the perfect choice - even I thought that, until I actually saw him in the films.

[Jim]

Born to be Bond. The saviour of the franchise. Billion dollar Bond.

[killkenny kid]

Born to be Bond. The saviour of the franchise. Billion dollar Bond.

Indeed.

[Publius]

It's all very simple, really. Brosnan left, and in a not-so-pleasant way, and in the seven years between TWINE and CR only one Bond movie was released. Craig, meanwhile, entered the picture, with the promise of a more realistic and human direction, with the first and never before used Bond novel being used to "reboot" the series.

Thus, there was plenty of time and reason for many in one fan demographic (fans of Brosnan before Bond, fans of flippant Bond, etc.) to leave and many in another (fans of Fleming, fans of the darker Dalton or more physical Connery, etc.) to enter the equation. It might appear as if countless people suddenly changed their opinions (a few people surely did, but that's natural anyway), when in reality the bigger phenomenon was the changing fanbase.

[Santa]

My take on the people who didn't like Brosnan at the time basically came down to two groups of people: Fleming purists and Connery loyalists. The Connery loyalists were always the bigger group, hence the most vocal. Like aging 60's liberal, hippie activists, they've never been able to get over the series' glory days, and everything that has come after Connery has been, in their eyes, a pale imitation. I had the luxury of not being born in the 60's, and not following Bond until 1983, so I never had to compare Bond actors to Connery. I grew up just accepting that there had been different Bonds, so there was no adjustment period for me. It was what it was.

The Fleming purists are the minority group; this is, after all, a movie franchise, and that's what it is best known for. The Fleming purists have hated what the Bond movies had become because they rarely reflected anything from the novels that even vaguely resembled the James Bond that Fleming had written.

You're never going to satisfy either group.

As for the Brosnan bashing though........I think some of it could be attributed to hardcore, neo-Daltonistas who felt that Tim was pushed out of the role too soon, or that he was treated shabbily in the run-up to casting GOLDENEYE. I think some of the Daltonistas felt that if just a fraction of the money, talent, and energy that went into GOLDENEYE had gone into LTK, that maybe, just maybe, Dalton would have been more successful.

There's also a small group of people, myself included, who have viewed Brosnan's films in a different light after he left the role. At first I couldn't get enough of Brosnan. I thought he was great (mostly). But, and allow me to say this bluntly, he acted like a petty bitch when the role went to Craig and I immediately soured upon Brosnan. The classless way Brosnan chose to leave the series will always stain and tarnish Brosnan's legacy. DAD was also a weak send-off for the actor, but at the time he couldn't have known that that would be his last film. And juxtaposed with the tone and tenor of CR, suddenly DAD looks a bit more ridiculous than it did when it came out.

And maybe it's nothing to do with alternative allegiances, maybe some people just didn't like the way Brosnan did it? People seem to be very resistant to this idea and constantly trying to come up with justifications for it - you don't hear people saying 'the reason people don't like Roger Moore is because Timothy Dalton came next' or other such crap. Brosnan didn't appeal to everyone anymore than Sean Connery, George, Roger or Timothy Dalton did, that's all, and there's nothing absurd or even unusual about it.

[bondrules]

Brosnan was (still is) just a bad actor.

[Judo chop]

I praise Broz in THE MATADOR. He wasn't just 'good'… I dare say not many others could have done what he did as well as he did. He was UNIQUE.

A fact which should throw a zeppelin-sized monkey wrench in the "I blindly hate Brosnan" diagnosis.

[Ravenstone]

I wasn't keen on Brosnan when he was announced. All I knew him from really was Remington Steele and Mrs. Doubtfire. I didn't like the idea of a Rom Com Bond, but I seem to remember the whole media circus jumping up in the air, because finally there was a 'perfect' Bond.

I saw GE, and I loved it. I thought it was brilliant. All doubts I had about Brosnan disappeared, I was very pleased to report.

Consequently, I was really looking forward to TND. And what a falling down was there. I hate TND; I find it has no redeeming features whatsoever, and I can find something to like in every other Bond film regardless of what other people think about it. TWINE was okay, acceptable, bearable. I quite like it. DAD was half/half; half okay, half trash. I was either enjoying it, or swearing at it.

I wasn't really bothered about the announcement of Craig taking over. I was glad someone else was taking over, though, because one of my biggest cringes in DAD was that Brosnan was just too old for it. It was another AVTAK. I was intrigued at the prospect of a new Bond. The whole thing was more than slightly tarnished by everything I heard telling me that Daniel Craig wasn't Bond, and was going to be terrible. I watched CR, and thought it was fantastic. Sure, there are parts of it I find a bit wrong, but generally, it's great. The more I watch it, the more I love it.

So, in summary, I started off very dubious about Brosnan, went to the complete other end of the spectrum after GE, then went right back to the beginning again with TND. Rather a rollercoaster tenure, all in all.

I would so dearly love to have seen Dalton in GE.

[DLibrasnow]

I really liked Brosnan's freshman effort GoldenEye and thought he showed a lot of promise, but every other entry was a disappointment and I began to despise him as 007 and pray for another actor to take over the role.

The plain fact of the matter is that Brosnan is a poor actor. I never bought him as 007 in his last three James Bond movies. Probably the low point was Bond waiting for Paris in his hotel room, I have rarely viewed such a forced, fake perfomance in my entire life. His terrible delivery of dialogue in almost all of his movies is grimace-inducing.

Brosnan's best performance so far is most likely THE FOURTH PROTOCOL where he did not have to handle much dialogue.

[Mister E]

Most people I knew was aware of Brosnan and generally accepted him. I wasn't much of a Bond fan then so I didn't care so much. I really didn't become a fan until 2005. I enjoyed Brosnan alot at first, he was my favorite after Connery. Then I started reading the books and my opinion started to change. Now he is dead last on my list.

[bondrules]

I really liked Brosnan's freshman effort GoldenEye and thought he showed a lot of promise, but every other entry was a disappointment and I began to despise him as 007 and pray for another actor to take over the role.

The plain fact of the matter is that Brosnan is a poor actor. I never bought him as 007 in his last three James Bond movies. Probably the low point was Bond waiting for Paris in his hotel room, I have rarely viewed such a forced, fake perfomance in my entire life. His terrible delivery of dialogue in almost all of his movies is grimace-inducing.

Brosnan's best performance so far is most likely THE FOURTH PROTOCOL where he did not have to handle much dialogue.

Spoken like a true genius. Agree with every word.