158 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

They might as well have put Samantha Bond in the lead and cast Pierce as Mr. Moneypenny.

Considerably.

[British Chap]

It still seems to me that people are re-evalutating Brosnan in light of their own changing attitude's rather than some unforced mistake made at the time of casting. The reception, both commercial and critical, to Brosnan as Bond was positive at the time of GE and certainly reawakened interest in Bond, whether he played it 'retro' or not it really seems it was the right descision for that time. Indeed, though it pains me to think it, as someone who believes Dalton was head and shoulders better in the role (and deserved a GE of his own), the reception of Dalton tends to indicate that the public of the time weren't ready for a more serious take and might well have been happier if Brosnan had been cast for TLD as per the producers first choice.

As fans we love to retrospectively revisit and often wish we could rewrite history in our own image but the ongoing success of Bond has really been down to shrewd and responsive descisions by a production team (whether we individually like them or not) that was cleary in tune with the needs of the audiences of the day.

Likewise, I'm a huge Dalton fan. That being said, Brosnan was the guy the public wanted in the 90's. Moreover, Brosnan was the guy they desperately wanted in the 80's. I think Brosnan would have been unbelievably huge had he gotten the role for TLD and, assuming for some strange reason the legal crisis didn't cause such a big hold up, it would have dramatically changed Bond fandom to this day. Just look at some of the posts when Die Another Day was out: Brosnan mania was huge around here. He had everyone convinced he was the perfect blend of the best parts of Bond, regardless if we cant see it now. Now just imagine if Brosnan was coming off a seven film tenure. Like Moore, Brosnan had the power to be a seven film Bond because the public really wanted him in the role.

Even to this day, there seems to be that underlying dissent against Craig by the mass public. They like him on the merit of his performances,where they always saw Brosnan as Bond for whatever reason. I loath to think of the post-Craig era backlash, even amongst Bond fans. "He was never quite right for the role." There is a reason the average joe, beit in your class, or at work, always says they still think of Brpsnan, or they like Craig but liked Brosnan a lot, much to a hardened Bond fans dismay: Brosnan as Bond clicked with the public, no matter what serious fans think of the era now. I know I can't speak for everyone, but in general I really think this is true.

Edited by British Chap, 16 November 2011 - 06:59 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

I do believe that Craig will be dissed by many after he has stepped down.

Unjustly, of course.

The point is: the public image of James Bond was fulfilled perfectly by Pierce Brosnan. Craig proved that this image can be readjusted and stripped of some clichés that had accumulated through the years. Those who cling to these stereotypical qualities will always have a problem with him.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I do believe that Craig will be dissed by many after he has stepped down.

Unjustly, of course.

The point is: the public image of James Bond was fulfilled perfectly by Pierce Brosnan.

I think it's more like the public (Hollywood) cliché of James Bond was fulfilled perfectely by Pierce Brosnan.

[Pussfeller]

I predict that Craig, like Moore and Dalton, will go down as a prototype, upheld by some and derided by others, but generally understood as a distinct "take" on the character. And that's precisely what Brosnan's Bond isn't. Plenty of people like him, plenty of people dislike him, but both positions are vague and based on intuition. Supporters say that he "was" Bond, that he "made the role his own", and other mystical things. Detractors can be vehement, but they articulate only a slew of petty complaints: He did that angry thing with his nostrils, he ran like a dork, he was too handsome, some of his line readings sounded American, his chest hair was effeminate, etc. There's no overarching polemic behind these objections, just as there was never any conscious philosophy behind Brosnan's portrayal of Bond. He was just playing James Bond, as understood by the movie-going public, and doing it with panache and success.

[Trevelyan 006]

Forgive Me.. I Just Couldn't Resist.

[Jim]

his chest hair was effeminate

You've met my mother-in-law, then?

[Santa]

Brosnan wasn't as manly as Jim, that's the problem. He is the standard by which I judge all others.

[MrKidd]

his chest hair was effeminate

You've met my mother-in-law, then?

And a stranger will come. He will ride a black horse. He will call himself Les. The angel of Dawson. And may Bob Monkhouse have mercy on our souls..

They just don't make 'em like they used to.