105 replies to this topic

[Colonel Moon]

when bond is kissing vepers fingers... its so pathetic

[BoogieBond]

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.

Couldn't have put it better. Although I did not have quite as much of an extreme reaction.
I really liked Goldeneye, and the general buzz around was positive.
Then TND came out. I was very disappointed with that film, machine guns, explosions, very generic, I also found Pierce's portrayal a little more smarmy.
By TWINE, I thought was OK, I really liked the PTS, the ending and the line about Christmas Jones is pure sleazebag Brosnan.
DAD is the only film that is more disappointing than TND in my book, and I watch it, as I watch them all, as they are after all Bond films, but TND and DAD are my least favourites and may get a watch every couple of years or so.
Brosnan as Bond, as you said, started off great, and I still think he was a fairly good Bond overall, but as the films went on, I felt more and more disappointed, and ended on the low point that was DAD.
So yes, my opinion did change as the Brozza Bonds went on(from Good to in the end Above Average). But Brozza was never in Sean Connery's or Roger Moore's league in my eyes to start with.

Edited by BoogieBond, 23 October 2008 - 06:20 PM.

[JimmyBond]

when bond is kissing vepers fingers... its so pathetic

A tad off topic, no?

I'm never one to butt in and ask a threat stay on topic but this tangent you brought up is so wildly "left field" like that I think it should be avoided. You want to start a thread about how Craig's Bond can be pathetic, do it (in the Craig forum no less), but it doesnt belong in a thread talking about Bond fandom durin the Brosnan era.

[Mister E]

when bond is kissing vepers fingers... its so pathetic

He wasn't kissing her fingers, he was licking the blood off genius.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

For me the thing with Brosnan is that he mainly appealed, especially in the nineties, to the average action moviegoer not really to the harcore Bondfan (with I suppose some exceptions). Because fulfilled all the expectation for the OO7's clichss, he seemed like the archetypical Bond, but he never acted like the real characther.

In my case, in that decade I've already liked Bond movies (in fact my first Bond flick in theaters was TND), but I was't such a fan, hence I didn't knew that much about the series, and of I didn't see it all of the movies at that time. I became a big fan just in 2004 and in that time I didn't want that PB returned for Bond 21.

Anyway, I have to say that I did try to like PB as Bond through the 90's, just because I considerate him as the OO7 of my generation, but I never acomplished that.

I don't think Brosnan is such a lame actor (I actually like him in The Matador and Remington Steele), but I don't see him as good Bond acting material.

[broadshoulder]

While I was not part of any Bond site I was contributing wholeheartedly to Eopinions and several writing websites. I can tell you the reviews following DAD in 2002 absolutely stank. To a man.

As to the earlier efforts. I tended to think abit of Tim bashing went in the media. Brosnan was seen as the "perfect" Bond with Goldeneye (I wasnt sold) and I went back and had a look at the reviews for TWINE and TND on Eopinions. Both had very mixed reviews.

If you really want to go back a long way I used to get the James Bond British fanclub magazine which I have articles submitted for. I go back as far as 1985 with that.

The only way you could get your views published back in 1985 was by sending in a lstter. I remember a letter about AVTAK saying "Not as good as Thunderball but I enjoyed it" and "Although I wish for the serious Connerys of the sixties it doesnt stop me watching the Roger Moore films immensely"

Daltn got the thumbs up with JBBFC magazine in 1987 and Licence to Kill got mixed reviews.

Interesting revisiting all this.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I didn't really pay attention to Bond fandom during the Brosnan years, but, then again, that may well be the whole point...

[broadshoulder]

I have a ton of '007' Magazines, plus, I think, every issue of BONDAGE and GOLDENEYE ever produced. Those magazines help me remember my childhood when we didn't have the Internet and the mags and the fan clubs were one of the few ways for us to keep in touch, and they are among my most prized and treasured collectibles.

I've never felt there was any problem with Bond fandom during the Brosnan years. Brosnan totally rejuvenated the series and brought in many new fans, as well as some older ones. But there was still a contingent of critics and fans who never got over Connery, and never will, and for them every actor since has been a heretic.

I kind of miss those days.To get published you had to do a very good letter reviewing the film and explaining your reason. On the internet nowadays any idiot can type "Brosnan sucks!" and get away with it.

Personally, I dont know how fandom was in the Brosnan era because I wasnt a fan of him or his era I backed away. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us.

I can tell you what it was like to be part of eighties fandom and have the excitement of TLD, AVTAK and LTK coming out and they were just as big as QoS is today.

[Dekard77]

Well the way I remembered ........Brosnan was announced at a time that Die Hards, Jurassic Park, Arnie, Stallone and Batman ruled the box office. In the 90's it was all about how big and loud your movies were and Bond seemed like a losing bet. Even though I was waiting for one since LTK I thought people will just laugh at him and will dissepear.
To Brosnan's credit he managed to give a smooth look to Bond even before the film was released with his interviews and pics at various events. He truly built up the hype machine for the movie and gained the attension for Bond again. Next to Batman Forever, Braveheart and Die Hard 3, GE became one of the most successful movies for that year.
TND,TWINE and DAD were all huge with the press,audience and the reviews were positive. Even ACIN liked DAD when it came out. The film hasn't aged well but DAD was needed to be more appealing because he had heavy competition from XXX, Minority Report, Lord of the Rings, MIB 2 and Harry Potter. All these films were tough competition but DAD did excellent business and Bond hype was on huge. The black sheep of the year was Bourne Identity and since the release of that movie all action films followed that trend.
I think it's a bit hard for any actor to accept rejection especially after he made a series of very successful films so what else can he say except he was hurt............etc. The press also have a way of portraying people who are going through a bad time like they are losers. One thing I did not like Brosnan saying was the with the demise of Dana Broccoli they producers were lost. I think that could have angered the producers a bit. The way it was said was not very nice.
DC didn't have it easy either and I remember all of us wanted another Brosnan Bond but with how different CR was its no surprise we had forgotten him. That's life I guess. I still love all of Brosnans flicks except TWINE.
We all should remember that Brosnan was well liked by the media and women which contributed to the success of the series. I think he did want a CR type film but it would have never worked in 90's with the loud films and expensive budgets.

[LazyAmerican24]

I don't undertstand the heat that Brosnan gets, IMO he was the best Bond since Connery right up until Casino Royale. I mean his debut in Goldeneye, GE is really what got Bond back on track after the crap that was Timothy Dalton *shivers*.
For me it's

1. Brosnan/Craig
2. Roger Moore
3. Sean Connery
4. George Lazenby
5. Timothy Dalton

[DR76]

Why do people assume that one particular actor was the best Bond ever? It was Connery . . . it was Moore . . . it was Brosnan . . . it was Craig.

Who cares? There is no definitive answer. It's all subjective. Why must there be an absolute?

All of my favorite Bond films feature all six actors.

[Aris Kristatos]

I think Brosnans problem is 'you're only as good as your last film' and his last film. Die Another Day was the worst of the lot.

I was born in the mid 80s so growing up Brosnan was 'my Bond' he's not my least favourite by all means.

I liked GoldenEye and Brosnan, Tomorrow Never Dies is ok but not a great film. The World Is Not Enough was alright and not great and as I said Die Another Day is terrible.

I do believe Brosnan would be better remembered if he'd been given better films.

[jaguar007]

Brosnan is not a bad actor, he is quite good at light humor. It is drama that he struggles with. I'm in the minority here where I felt as the movies got worse, Brosnan got better in the role of BOnd (although DAD has some really poorly delivered lines). I had an easier time buying him as Bond in his later films as opposed to GE. HE did not seem comfortable and confident in his portrayal of Bond in GE. Sean Bean had a much stronger screen presence.

[SecretAgentFan]

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.

Actually, that is pretty unfair, blaming one´s discontent with the films on the main actor. And illogical, too. Brosnan obviously was not happy with the way the films were targeted in that era, either.

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.

Okay, that´s even more unfair.

There is no plain fact of the matter if you don´t like a particular actor. It´s just your opinion. Other would say (me included) that Brosnan is a very good actor and that he was totally believable as Bond in all his films. The scene in the hotel room was IMO a very strong one. You don´t like it, and that´s fine. But you just can´t state it as a fact.

Basically, Brosnan was a problematic choice for Bond.

Not because he did not appeal to the masses. He did. His films were very successful. And he brought Bond back at the box office.

Yet, his male model looks are to his disadvantage whenever his acting is judged on. The same thing happens to every good-looking actor (Depp, Clooney, Redford etc.). So Brosnan actually had the problem of looking too much like the cliché of James Bond. Therefore people criticized him for being too bland.

I guess that´s one reason why EON chose Daniel Craig. He does not look like a male model or even the cliché of James Bond. He really has to approach the character from other angles and has to work against his "un-Bondian" looks.

Coming back to the question: How was Bond fandom during the Brosnan era? I think it was just fine. People were introduced to Bond through Brosnan and they liked what they saw. The Brosnan Bonds re-established the character as a popular film franchise hero. DAD was the most popular Brosnan film with the mass audience.

Was it the James Bond from the Ian Fleming novels?

No, it was rather the Bond from the Moore era, mixed with a bit of Connery.

Does anybody have to like it?

Of course, not. But stating one´s dislike as a fact is just plain silly.

[staveoffzombies]

I actually can remember NOT getting into Bond much in the nineties...simply because of Brosnan. I remember seeing parts of The World Is Not Enough; and seeing this pretty boy who's hair never got messed up running around all dressed up and spouting off one-liners....at the time I was a big Indiana Jones fan and Bond just didn't appeal to me.

It wasn't until a couple years later that I saw some of the Connery and Moore era films and it started to really click with me, and I became a casual Bond film. Casino Royale pushed me the rest of the way into becoming a rabid Bond fan.

Now I go back and while I enjoy the Brosnan films for the most part, he still remains my least favorite Bond.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Most everybody loved the choice of Pierce Brosnan when he took over the role of James Bond and liked him as 007 throughout his tenure with many thinking that he was the best Bond since Sean Connery. Likewise, each of his films were, if not enthusiastically accepted, then greeted favorably by fans and critics, which was proven by very solid box office revenues. It wasn't until after Brosnan's departure from the role and the hiring of Daniel Craig that the Brosnan bashing began in earnest.

I agree with many points that have been stated already as the reasons for the bashing. 1) his all too public unhappiness/whining at not being rehired, 2) his final film Die Another Day pales in comparison to Craig's "rebooted" Casino Royale, and as someone mentioned earlier "you're only as good as your last film", 3) the prior Bond is bashed by lovers of the new 007 (see Lazenby-Moore, Moore-Dalton, Dalton-Brosnan), 4) and I think Gravity's Silhouette is onto something when he talks about pro-Daltonists being jealous of Brosnan's success when their guy didn't get the opportunity and/or (in the eyes of the general public) wasn't accepted as Bond; and of pro-Craigers, who in their zeal to defend their man against craignotbond.com bashers and their ilk feel that they have to put down Brosnan in order to build their man up--a situation that consciously or not continues to this day despite Craig's and Casino Royale's success, and 5) I will also posit that people also hold the scripts of Brosnan's films against him even though he didn't write them and made the best of them.

In the end, Brosnan is the only 007 not to leave on his terms (Dalton was a mutual agreement with the studio to leave) and the only one not to have a film based on an Ian Fleming story (a sad fact that likely explains why some of his scripts may not have been as good as other Bonds.

Fortunately, Brosnan seems to have largely gotten over how he left the role and will undoubtedly be seen as a great Bond--maybe not number one, but certainly a successful and popular 007--indeed he is now by the general public, if not by a vocal segment in the CBn forums. As for me, I love Brosnan and thoroughly enjoyed his tenure as 007. If only he had gotten the opportunity to do one more film.

[HildebrandRarity]

I have a ton of '007' Magazines, plus, I think, every issue of BONDAGE and GOLDENEYE ever produced. Those magazines help me remember my childhood when we didn't have the Internet and the mags and the fan clubs were one of the few ways for us to keep in touch, and they are among my most prized and treasured collectibles.

I've never felt there was any problem with Bond fandom during the Brosnan years. Brosnan totally rejuvenated the series and brought in many new fans, as well as some older ones. But there was still a contingent of critics and fans who never got over Connery, and never will, and for them every actor since has been a heretic.

Off topic, but there are two Connerys and the one from Dr No bears little resemblance to the one in Diamonds Are Forver. There are hints of the former...but...

It couldn't have gotten more glaring when I watched them on back to back nights a couple of weeks ago.

[CM007]

It wasn't until after Brosnan's departure from the role and the hiring of Daniel Craig that the Brosnan bashing began in earnest.

4) and I think Gravity's Silhouette is onto something when he talks about pro-Daltonists being jealous of Brosnan's success when their guy didn't get the opportunity and/or (in the eyes of the general public) wasn't accepted as Bond; and of pro-Craigers, who in their zeal to defend their man against craignotbond.com bashers and their ilk feel that they have to put down Brosnan in order to build their man up--a situation that consciously or not continues to this day despite Craig's and Casino Royale's success,

In the end, Brosnan is the only 007 not to leave on his terms (Dalton was a mutual agreement with the studio to leave) and the only one not to have a film based on an Ian Fleming story (a sad fact that likely explains why some of his scripts may not have been as good as other Bonds.

Fortunately, Brosnan seems to have largely gotten over how he left the role and will undoubtedly be seen as a great Bond--maybe not number one, but certainly a successful and popular 007--indeed he is now by the general public, if not by a vocal segment in the CBn forums. As for me, I love Brosnan and thoroughly enjoyed his tenure as 007. If only he had gotten the opportunity to do one more film.

Well, I just don't see the sense in having Brosnan do CASINO ROYALE when he's not going to be around to finish what that film would've started.

There was Brosnan-bashing as soon as he was hired. I remember the alt.fan.james-bond comments: arms "too skinny", face "too pretty"....Though I totally enjoyed the Brosnan films and purchased all the merchandise that would come out with each film's debut, I never thought he was a deep actor. He was good with the light comedy, the sort-of-raised-eyebrow (like when Christmas told Bond she had to get the nuke back or 'someone will have my '), or the silent jokes (like adjusting his tie after his military tanks is rammed from behind). Where he failed in the series was with the awful sex-puns (not his fault) and the dramatic bits (Sophie Marceau, Judi Dench, and Robert Carlyle chewed scenery and left Brosnan in the dust; a veritable supporting actor in his own film).

There's been a contingent of Dalton apologists over the years that have vigorously defended his films (particularly LTK) while simultaneously trashing the studio, the marketplace, the fans, the critics, etc....and while it probably hurt some of these Daltonistas to see Brosnan do well and resurrect the series, they were ultimately always going to complain about how MGM handled LTK no matter which actor replaced Dalton. Dalton was viewed by the uninformed public as having nearly killed the series, so to see Dalton get all the unfair blame and then Brosnan get all the credit must've seemed like a knife to the back for many of them, not to mention the fact that Dalton was under the gun the entire time he was 007, with reporters brazenly questioning his status after just one film (and with Brosnan then able to take the role back in 1988) and eventually losing the series to Brosnan after all. You can see why Dalton doesn't like to talk about 007; it's a painful subject for him.

Dalton, though, was a horrible media personality. He hated, hated, hated having to do publicity. He was always very serious during these press junkets, seemed to have trouble relaxing, and really tried to get out of as much publicity as possible. Brosnan, on the other hand, knew how to work the system and gladly did all the talk shows and magazines and helped promote the crap out of his movies.

Finally, I just think Dalton didn't have the same sex appeal that Craig does/did. Personally, I loved Dalton's performance in TLD; I think it's the best Bond performance of any actor of any Bond film. I liked his sort of perpetually annoyed, pissed-off look, but I think a lot of women didn't go for that, and in LTK his romantic scene with Talisa Soto was flat. I think Craig has managed to combine the performance and tone of 007 that Dalton was going for, with a more robust sex appeal. Craig basically took 1 part Dalton's performance and mixed it with 1 part sex appeal and came out with a grand slam on his first "at bat". I think it's fair to say that audiences were willing to go for this type of storyline back in 1987, but needed a more dynamic personality to interpret it.

This is without one of the greatest post I´ve ever read by anyone and a post that hits the nail perfectly on the head.

I can remember watching TLD in the cinema back in ´87 and leaving the cinema totaly disappointed.Why,well simply I had been raised on Moore Bond films which I love but somehow that effected my view of Dalton.Now 20yrs later I love Dalton,I get were he wanted to take Bond and I enjoy watching his films although LTK really is an awful film but Dalton is a joy to watch.Also I believe people seem to forget that TLD opened big on opening weekend but had the biggest 2nd week drop off than any other Bond film so that in it´s self is self expanitory.
You are 100percent right in what you say about Craig.Craig is such a powerhouse of an actor that I believe he can take all aspects of Bond,for example I think Craig could pull off A DAD type Bond movie,Fun and not serious film and be fantastic the reason for this is because the successful actors that played Bond could do both eq,Connery FRWL-YOLT,a serious bond film to a over the top Bond film eq,Moore TMWTGG-MR and Brosnan GE-DAD,these 3 actors without doubt are the most popular Bond amongst the general public unlike Dalton who seemed to be a very one note type of Bond who would be completley out of place in these type of films whereas Craig wouldn´t although I will say that if Craig remains the same Bond as he is in QOS I think the public will tire of him very quickly IMO

I always wondered what Brosnan would´ve been like in TLD.I had heard that his screentest in ´86 was amazing.

[jaguar007]

Gravity,
I could not have said it better myself so I won't even try.

[CM007]

Also didn´t Dalton say in an Interview that he didn´t think Bond would continue after LTK.I remember reading that in a Magazine or something which he was dead right only the studio refused to make a Bond film with Dalton in it so it was upto Brosnan to save the franchise....my god when you think about the task that Brosnan had and the pressure that he must off been under as with Martin Campbell.What I love about the Daltonistas is that they claim that GE is fantastic not because it saved the Franchise and that Brosnan was awesome but the fact that it was written for Dalton.Talk about Sour Grapes...

[Mister E]

Also didn´t Dalton say in an Interview that he didn´t think Bond would continue after LTK.I remember reading that in a Magazine or something which he was dead right only the studio refused to make a Bond film with Dalton in it so it was upto Brosnan to save the franchise....my god when you think about the task that Brosnan had and the pressure that he must off been under as with Martin Campbell.

Brosnan didn't save franchise just like Craig didn't save the franchise. The people who kept the franchise going are the people who work behind the scenes, namely Micheal G. Wilson and Barbra Brocolli.

[HildebrandRarity]

Q: What to make of the following (?):

Also didn´t Dalton say in an Interview that he didn´t think Bond would continue after LTK.I remember reading that in a Magazine or something which he was dead right only the studio refused to make a Bond film with Dalton in it so it was upto Brosnan to save the franchise....my god when you think about the task that Brosnan had and the pressure that he must off been under as with Martin Campbell.What I love about the Daltonistas is that they claim that GE is fantastic not because it saved the Franchise and that Brosnan was awesome but the fact that it was written for Dalton.Talk about Sour Grapes...

A:

I think as long as movies continue to be made, there will always be room for a James Bond film. It may go on hiatus for 6, 10 even 15 years...but you can see that properties always come back.

Batman Begins and the new Star Trek are prime examples...And LTK was better than Batman and Robin and the last Star Trek.

But yes, the hubris of the Daltonistas is not lost on us very long time James Bond fans...but neither is the hubris of the Pierce Brosan As Saviour believers.

[Double-Oh Agent]

If only he had gotten the opportunity to do one more film.

Well, I just don't see the sense in having Brosnan do CASINO ROYALE when he's not going to be around to finish what that film would've started.

There's been a contingent of Dalton apologists over the years that have vigorously defended his films (particularly LTK) while simultaneously trashing the studio, the marketplace, the fans, the critics, etc....and while it probably hurt some of these Daltonistas to see Brosnan do well and resurrect the series, they were ultimately always going to complain about how MGM handled LTK no matter which actor replaced Dalton. Dalton was viewed by the uninformed public as having nearly killed the series, so to see Dalton get all the unfair blame and then Brosnan get all the credit must've seemed like a knife to the back for many of them, not to mention the fact that Dalton was under the gun the entire time he was 007, with reporters brazenly questioning his status after just one film (and with Brosnan then able to take the role back in 1988) and eventually losing the series to Brosnan after all. You can see why Dalton doesn't like to talk about 007; it's a painful subject for him.

Dalton, though, was a horrible media personality. He hated, hated, hated having to do publicity. He was always very serious during these press junkets, seemed to have trouble relaxing, and really tried to get out of as much publicity as possible. Brosnan, on the other hand, knew how to work the system and gladly did all the talk shows and magazines and helped promote the crap out of his movies.

Finally, I just think Dalton didn't have the same sex appeal that Craig does/did. Personally, I loved Dalton's performance in TLD; I think it's the best Bond performance of any actor of any Bond film. I liked his sort of perpetually annoyed, pissed-off look, but I think a lot of women didn't go for that, and in LTK his romantic scene with Talisa Soto was flat. I think Craig has managed to combine the performance and tone of 007 that Dalton was going for, with a more robust sex appeal. Craig basically took 1 part Dalton's performance and mixed it with 1 part sex appeal and came out with a grand slam on his first "at bat". I think it's fair to say that audiences were willing to go for this type of storyline back in 1987, but needed a more dynamic personality to interpret it.

Just to be clear, if EON had wanted to make Casino Royale as an origin story, I would not have cast Brosnan in the role for his fifth film. Instead, I would have come up with a different story and had Casino Royale be the debut film of Bond #6 two years later. If Casino Royale wasn't to be an origin story, and just another film in the series, then I would have made it Brosnan's fifth. It all depended on how EON wanted to film Casino Royale.

As for your final three paragraphs, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. I also think that part of his perceived failure in regards to the public and press is that he was so much different, perhaps too different, from Moore's long-established light-hearted Bond (and of course the six-year break didn't help). Instead of being, say, 90 degrees different from Moore's Bond, he was close to 180 degrees different. That's quite a change. I'm not saying that was a wrong way for him and EON to go, just that it was perhaps a bit jarring to the average movie-goer, and, as a result, they had a harder time accepting him in the role despite the quality of his films. Additionally, he was the closest to Ian Fleming's version, which they hadn't seen on screen or read about either so they were unused to it at the time.

It is a shame that we didn't get to see a third Dalton film in 1991 and see if he could have really established himself in the role a la Connery in Goldfinger and Moore in The Spy Who Loved Me. But alas, it was not to be thanks to MGM's crooked owner at the time and the legal shennanigans he was trying to pull over on EON.

Oh, and one last thing about Dalton's romances in the films. I get a bit peeved when the press describes his 007 as a monogamous Bond which is completely untrue. (Another possible reason for his perceived failure?) He had sex with two women in both films. How is that monogamous? Granted, Linda in TLD was implied, but it was clearly evident that they were going to have sex. Only Connery in Diamonds Are Forever and Craig in Casino Royale (and Quantum Of Solace?) are one-woman Bonds. Maybe Craig is the real monogamous Bond!

[Colossus]

Also didn´t Dalton say in an Interview that he didn´t think Bond would continue after LTK.I remember reading that in a Magazine or something which he was dead right only the studio refused to make a Bond film with Dalton in it so it was upto Brosnan to save the franchise....my god when you think about the task that Brosnan had and the pressure that he must off been under as with Martin Campbell.What I love about the Daltonistas is that they claim that GE is fantastic not because it saved the Franchise and that Brosnan was awesome but the fact that it was written for Dalton.Talk about Sour Grapes...

Something the Daltonites do not understand is that the book and film mediums are two different things. Something which is in text form isn't the same as in film form, it's all well and great Dalton gave such devotion to study the character and be just like him but without adding anything else for screen it transforms into a grim dour individual audiences just don't care for especially after having been exposed to the effortless Connery and Moore performances who basically played themselves which comes off the screen more natural.

A good allusion to book=/=film analogy is The Shining. Kubrick took the average King book and changed it around for cinematic purposes, creating a cinematic masterpiece, something which the book only dreamed of being. King was pissed it wasn't like his book so he had the TV series made which was just like his book but was bland, uninspired, no one gave a about it.

[SecretAgentFan]

Q: What to make of the following (?):

Also didn´t Dalton say in an Interview that he didn´t think Bond would continue after LTK.I remember reading that in a Magazine or something which he was dead right only the studio refused to make a Bond film with Dalton in it so it was upto Brosnan to save the franchise....my god when you think about the task that Brosnan had and the pressure that he must off been under as with Martin Campbell.What I love about the Daltonistas is that they claim that GE is fantastic not because it saved the Franchise and that Brosnan was awesome but the fact that it was written for Dalton.Talk about Sour Grapes...

A:

I think as long as movies continue to be made, there will always be room for a James Bond film. It may go on hiatus for 6, 10 even 15 years...but you can see that properties always come back.

Batman Begins and the new Star Trek are prime examples...And LTK was better than Batman and Robin and the last Star Trek.

But yes, the hubris of the Daltonistas is not lost on us very long time James Bond fans...but neither is the hubris of the Pierce Brosan As Saviour believers.

Of course, all of this is just speculation. But imagine a situation where "Goldeneye" is a massive flop. I´m sure that there would have been another Bond film eventually. But after the long hiatus and LTK already being a box office disappointment, it surely would have questioned the validity of the James Bond character as a box office draw.

But "Goldeneye" was a huge hit and put the Bond franchise back on the map. Considering that the next three films also were very successful, I find it strange that some here don´t want to acknowledge that Pierce Brosnan indeed was a major factor for this success. I doubt that Dalton could have pulled off "Goldeneye" with as much popular success. I even doubt that any other actor at that time would have boosted Bond as Brosnan did.

My opinion: Brosnan was the best thing that could happen to the franchise at that time. Why not give him credit for it?

Moore, by the way, was the best thing that could happen to the franchise after DAF. He saved the franchise at that point in time as well.

Dalton was a great Bond for the fans but he was a transitional Bond for the mass audience.

Craig is probably the first since Connery to be a great fan-Bond and a great mass-audience-Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess Brosnan tried to use the press in order to blackmail EON to get him back. He probably even still hoped for it when the press made fun of Daniel Craig. But after the success of CR Brosnan stopped his tirades.

He was just hurt to be let go. Who wouldn´t?

[bondrules]

The B in Brosnan should stand for (B)ig(B)aby.

Doesn't matter how much you hurt, it's a business. And one has to understand that. He should keep his true colors to himself. I don't think anyone has an ear to listen to whiners. People pay shrinks for that kinda stuff.

[DLibrasnow]

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.

I cannot speak for MBE, but Xenobia did not leave the site because of Brosnan bashing. I chatted with her on the phone and in e-mail after she left and it was more complex than that.

The reason a lot of the CBN members left is because they were (for some at least) Brosnan fans first and Bond fans merely by association.

I started my Bond online experience in 1995 and followed all the rumors and news surrounding what was to become Tomorrow Never Dies. I remember that Brosnan was received very well by critics and the general public.

The post Brosnan-era bashing of PB is largely because of the way he left the role. Roger has always spoken well of the Bond producers and even Dalton seems to have remained friendly with EON. Pierce Brosnan showed a lack of professionalism in his behavior. The current actor is always just a temporary custodian of the character and PB seemed to forget that.

[Kristian]

The B in Brosnan should stand for (B)ig(B)aby.

Doesn't matter how much you hurt, it's a business. And one has to understand that. He should keep his true colors to himself. I don't think anyone has an ear to listen to whiners. People pay shrinks for that kinda stuff.

Thank you. I was happy when PB debuted to great(ish) acclaim in '95 with GE. Hell, I was barely 16, and impersonated a journalist and snuck into a press screening in Westwood, CA. I liked him in TND, felt he was more relaxed. Liked him TWINE, thought he was growing into the role. Hated, HATED DAD, and felt he was coasting at that time. Plus he looked like he wasn't taking care of himself. He seriously creeped me out in his love scenes with Rosamund and Halle.

And then he was let go, and he acted worse than my niece Charlotte after being told she couldn't have another snickers bar. The man started to display a sense of entitlement to the role. Wrong. EON fulfilled their end of the bargain and were not obligated to retain him. And whinging to the media and fans in a pathetic effort to keep the role. My. God. I get disgusted just looking at him now.

Besides, he's got the narrowest shoulders. Craig would spank him silly in that "broad-shoulder" department. Pierce is a Girly-Man.

Edited by Kristian, 11 November 2008 - 06:03 PM.

[bondrules]

Besides, he's got the narrowest shoulders. Craig would spank him silly in that "broad-shoulder" department. Pierce is a Girly-Man.

LMAO! so true!