70 replies to this topic

[DR76]

Laz brought a slightly more sensitive aspect to the role but that was more due to the storyline than to the actor himself.

If Lazenby was really that mediocre an actor, not even a good script could have saved his performance. I've seen too many actors and actresses incapable of rising to the occasion, due to a good script. But Lazenby rose to the occasion and gave a good performance, regardless of the quality of the script.


I grew up with watching Moore in the movie theaters and Connery on television. And I've learned to appreciate all of the six actors who have portrayed Bond. I never wanted them to portray Bond in any particular way . . . only in a way that suited them. Which is what they did.

[Messervy]

Laz brought a slightly more sensitive aspect to the role but that was more due to the storyline than to the actor himself.

If Lazenby was really that mediocre an actor, not even a good script could have saved his performance. I've seen too many actors and actresses incapable of rising to the occasion, due to a good script. But Lazenby rose to the occasion and gave a good performance, regardless of the quality of the script.

I agree. Obviously, the script and plot gave the movie its overall quality, but the actor's performance is also very impressive.
He brought some very welcome fragility.

[Virgosy]

As I said it on a French website, I think Brosnan's period will age badly. Both movies of that period have very doubtful special effects, such as the "tsunami" in Die another day for instance. Moreover, there are too much unrealistic scenes (in my opinion).

The "new" generation and Brosnan... I wonder if they are really noticed by Craig firstly. There are only two movies with him... Then, everybody have an idea of James Bond, even if they didn't see one movie : the British spy, seductor, the world savior, the laser watch, the Aston Martin and the gadgets. Everybody knows that (I suppose) ; and with Daniel Craig, boom ! Everything is "formatted", no gadget anymore, Bond is still not a Superman...

So I think Brosnan's period will be seen as a bit ridiculous if people who discovered Bond with Daniel Craig have "understood" James Bond's psychology. If they didn't see all the movies, it's a nonsense question...

[Messervy]

As I said it on a French website, I think Brosnan's period will age badly. Both movies of that period have very doubtful special effects, such as the "tsunami" in Die another day for instance. Moreover, there are too much unrealistic scenes (in my opinion).

The "new" generation and Brosnan... I wonder if they are really noticed by Craig firstly. There are only two movies with him... Then, everybody have an idea of James Bond, even if they didn't see one movie : the British spy, seductor, the world savior, the laser watch, the Aston Martin and the gadgets. Everybody knows that (I suppose) ; and with Daniel Craig, boom ! Everything is "formatted", no gadget anymore, Bond is still not a Superman...

So I think Brosnan's period will be seen as a bit ridiculous if people who discovered Bond with Daniel Craig have "understood" James Bond's psychology. If they didn't see all the movies, it's a nonsense question...

The thing I would disagree with you on is the "ridiculous" bit you mention: in all honesty, we have to admit that TSWLM may also seem "ridiculous" to some extent (submarine car, surfacing underwater lair, Bond succeeding in anything without even trying too hard, etc.). What makes the difference between TSWLM and, say, TWINE, is the sheer actor's performance; Moore's being very subtle and quite brilliant.
In the end, I think it clearly is down to Brosnan's acting skills as such if we think of him as the generic average pointless Bond.

[Liparus]

Agree with Messervy.

[James Bond Jr]

I find Brosnan to be the WELL-ROUNDED James Bond, instead of the unoriginal Bond. He really is a perfect mix of the 4 previous Eon Bonds. I do think his films are unique as he really played Bond as a superhero with futuristic gadgets, completely devious villains with very large schemes and an obvious moral compass. His films show Bond having many moments of introspection and fierce emotional irritation. Very vulnerable actor.

I disagree that no one will look back on his films with nostalgia for bad CGI. As I grew up seeing Brosnan's films in theatres first and falling in love with his video games (as a child of the 1990s), I find a campy joy in his vulgar sexual puns, excessive special effects and "pretty boy" flippant style. I love all of his films because they are close to me and none of them are bad and they all have a different "gimmick". I appreciate that his Bond films had to face satire from Austin Powers films and competition from XXX and Mission Impossible. So I totally understand the expensive stunts, cheesy scripts and balance of cheeky humor and melodrama.

In many ways, I think his films are the most balanced since Sean Connery's. Moore's films lacked realistic drama and played up entertainment and fantasy. Dalton's films focused on mature, real world politics and hard-boiled, violent action over charm, fantasy, humor and sexuality. Brosnan really really returned the series to light meets dark.

Edited by James Bond Jr, 16 December 2010 - 05:05 PM.

[Achille Aubergine]

What, no small-talk? No chit-chat? That's the trouble with the world today. No one takes the time to do a really PRESENTATION BEFORE posting. It's a lost art...

[Zorin Industries]

The actors will age and come back in vogue as much as each other but never at the same time. Nostalgia ia a clever thing, but cannot be pre-determined. And as every Bond film is and should be about the time it comes out, how can they or the Bonds age badly? For every MAD MEN lover who is discovering FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, there is a retro Atari loving fan-boy finding value in A VIEW TO A KILL and a 1970's NY-on-film fan lapping up LIVE AND LET DIE.

[James Bond Jr]

The actors will age and come back in vogue as much as each other but never at the same time. Nostalgia ia a clever thing, but cannot be pre-determined. And as every Bond film is and should be about the time it comes out, how can they or the Bonds age badly? For every MAD MEN lover who is discovering FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, there is a retro Atari loving fan-boy finding value in A VIEW TO A KILL and a 1970's NY-on-film fan lapping up LIVE AND LET DIE.

So true, my friend. Every one has their own tastes. I value the Fleminq-esque Bond films, but some of my favorites are the ones that take the biggest liberties with the character. Why can't I love to the militant, hulking, cold killer that Craig is AND the gadget-loving, smirking, ladies' man that Brosnan was.

[Virgosy]

I disagree that no one will look back on his films with nostalgia for bad CGI. As I grew up seeing Brosnan's films in theatres first and falling in love with his video games (as a child of the 1990s), I find a campy joy in his vulgar sexual puns, excessive special effects and "pretty boy" flippant style. I love all of his films because they are close to me and none of them are bad and they all have a different "gimmick". I appreciate that his Bond films had to face satire from Austin Powers films and competition from XXX and Mission Impossible. So I totally understand the expensive stunts, cheesy scripts and balance of cheeky humor and melodrama.

Brosnan is also the Bond of my generation. I was born in 1992. I've also played Goldeneye (and I'm still), I've also loved the movie... But now, the more I watch Brosnan's period's movies, the less I like those. Not because they are bad, but because there are some many movies better... I'm eighteen years old, do you considere me as a member of the "new generation" or an older ? I precise that I'm a James Bond fan since around two years.

Sorry for replying late, but I need to traduce before posting. I've still problems with James Bond's language

[Achille Aubergine]

Brosnan is also the Bond of my generation. I was born in 1992. do you considere me as a member of the "new generation" or an older ? I precise that I'm a James Bond fan since around two years.

And you've never read the books of Ian Fleming if I remember ? So there's no question about it, you're from the new generation (18 years old what else ?) AND a learner about James Bond and his whole world.

[DR76]

As I said it on a French website, I think Brosnan's period will age badly. Both movies of that period have very doubtful special effects, such as the "tsunami" in Die another day for instance. Moreover, there are too much unrealistic scenes (in my opinion).

Ironically, I began to appreciate Brosnan's period as Bond . . . after he left the series. My opinion of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY certainly improved. However, I cannot say the same for TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

[Jack Rapace]

The same for me. Curiously TND was my favorite of his era. But now, it's the last on my list.

[Virgosy]

Brosnan is also the Bond of my generation. I was born in 1992. do you considere me as a member of the "new generation" or an older ? I precise that I'm a James Bond fan since around two years.

And you've never read the books of Ian Fleming if I remember ? So there's no question about it, you're from the new generation (18 years old what else ?) AND a learner about James Bond and his whole world.

Yes, and I'm on this website to learn, you're right. I'll read Moonraker in January after the exams. Sorry, I thought the "new generation" were people who discovered Bond with Daniel Craig, not young people at large. Sorry !

[Messervy]

Yes, and I'm on this website to learn, you're right. I'll read Moonraker in January after the exams. Sorry, I thought the "new generation" were people who discovered Bond with Daniel Craig, not young people at large. Sorry !

It's a bit off-topic, I know, but if you never read any Fleming Bond I would suggest to start with Casino Royale. You'll see that, apart from the obvious fact that it's best to start from the beginning, it really makes sense, since the books follow one another. Of course, you can read MR without having read the previous one and you'd still understand; but I trust you'd miss some edge.

[JimmyBond]

Yes definitely start with Casino Royale. I can't recall if my first Fleming was Casino Royale or Moonraker, but they are both excellent books.

[00 Brosnan]

I don't think he'll be remembered any different than previous Bonds. It'll just come down to personal preferance.

Roger Moore for example, it seems like people were sick of his style of Bond by the time he was done, yet today he still remains a popular Bond.

Brosnan during his tenure was a very popular Bond. All 4 of his movies were wildly successful and like all previous Bonds certain films are better than the others. He was a perfect fit for Bond in the 1990s (I wish he would have gotten the role in 1986), but the overall movie landscape and the spy genre in particular changed in the early 2000s. That said, Brosnan did have a lot of public and fan support to do a fifth film, but in the end they made the right choice by updating the series with the new landscape/times.

So in conclusion I believe he will be viewed like Connery and Moore... who both had at one time or always have had detractors, yet were publicly popular for a reason.

[JimmyBond]

I remember after seeing Goldeneye that I initially enjoyed it. But I had felt a lot of the aspects of the older films I liked were lacking. The travelogue feel for one is no where in Goldeneye, and I thought that they sacrificed neat innovative action sequences for the standard run and gun stuff you could get in any standard action movie at the time.

I imagine people getting into the series for the first time, watching the films in order, will come across Goldeneye and be put off by it's sudden shift in style. Not everyone I'm sure, but I have a feeling there will be people out there who will adopt this view that I had of his films at the time.

[The Shark]

I remember after seeing Goldeneye that I initially enjoyed it. But I had felt a lot of the aspects of the older films I liked were lacking.

Monte Carlo? Trip to Cuba? Flying through the hills?

[sharpshooter]

I remember after seeing Goldeneye that I initially enjoyed it. But I had felt a lot of the aspects of the older films I liked were lacking.

Monte Carlo? Trip to Cuba? Flying through the hills?

Agreed. The tone is different, thanks to Serra’s great score. But I don’t see any “shift in style” from the classic films. There are a plethora of examples of the traditional formula. The first half of GoldenEye feels like a condensed best of Bond. Gadgets. Crazy stunts – bungee and motorbike jumps. The coastal road race. Casino. Femme fatal. And all of the middle content aside, we end with a YOLT style lair assault.

[JimmyBond]

Shark may have got me on that one point. But I still feel that it was lacking in really innovative action.

Edited to add: Thinking about it a bit, I'll concede on Goldeneye, it really is a decent Bond film. My complaints about the action notwithstanding, it was the last of the Bond films (at least during the Brosnan era) to really "get it right," as it were.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

I still hold Goldeneye in high regard, despite what the naysayers think about that film. Broz's legacy was that he lifted the Bond franchise to being relevant again. He didn't bring anything new, or that he was not particulary charismatic as Bond most of the time. But I blame that on hack writing and that the filmmakers played it safe on Broz's films entirely.

[Sir Timothy Craig]

I still hold Goldeneye in high regard, despite what the naysayers think about that film. Broz's legacy was that he lifted the Bond franchise to being relevant again. He didn't bring anything new, or that he was not particulary charismatic as Bond most of the time. But I blame that on hack writing and that the filmmakers played it safe on Broz's films entirely.

I totally agree with that sentiment. I always think Goldeneye gets it entirely right, it manages to mix big Bond style thrills that many of the general public think off when they think about the series, but with a sense of story and character that made Licence to Kill such a joy, plus the public took to Pierce in a manner that ensured the continuation of the series, unfortunately in a way they never did with Timothy, especially in his second film, but I feel for Pierce because instead of capitalising on this, they went on some strange direction. Tomorrow Never Dies is great fun admittedly and I adore it, The World is Not Enough seems to be an attempt to go in a serious direction, but is flawed thanks to its inability to have to strike the balance of character driven drama and action packed thrills in the manner of Goldeneye whilst Die Another Day is a mess.

[Biggy1954]

Although I favor Craig over Brosnan, it is important to realize that an entire generation was introduced to Bond with Brosnan, considering that the gap between LTK and GE was large. When GoldenEye came out, an entire generation had never seen a Bond movie. GoldenEye was their first Bond movie. They will always have nostalglic feelings for Brosnan and will most likely call him their favorite Bond until the day they die.

Daniel Craig is not as lucky. The gap between Die Another Day and Casino Royale was not as big and Brosnan was more popular with the general public than Dalton. I'm sure some younger people were introduced to Bond with Casino Royale, but many young people had already seen Brosnan's films before Casino Royale was released. Brosnan was still a huge part of popular culture by the time Casino Royale came out, and he probably still is. I am also sure that many younger people had older siblings who grew up with Brosnan and introduced them to James Bond with GoldenEye. More importantly, those who were in high school when Casino Royale was released had been in elementary school when Brosnan was Bond, and I'm sure they saw The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day. Despite being younger, they would still have nostalgic feelings for Brosnan. I myself was introduced to Bond at the age of 6 with For Your Eyes Only in 1981. Even though I was in Junior High when Dalton was Bond, I don't feel close to Dalton's films as i do with For Your Eyes Only.

[DR76]

Agreed. The tone is different, thanks to Serra’s great score. But I don’t see any “shift in style” from the classic films.

What classic films are you talking about???

[James Bond Jr]

Although I favor Craig over Brosnan, it is important to realize that an entire generation was introduced to Bond with Brosnan, considering that the gap between LTK and GE was large. When GoldenEye came out, an entire generation had never seen a Bond movie. GoldenEye was their first Bond movie. They will always have nostalglic feelings for Brosnan and will most likely call him their favorite Bond until the day they die.

Daniel Craig is not as lucky. The gap between Die Another Day and Casino Royale was not as big and Brosnan was more popular with the general public than Dalton. I'm sure some younger people were introduced to Bond with Casino Royale, but many young people had already seen Brosnan's films before Casino Royale was released. Brosnan was still a huge part of popular culture by the time Casino Royale came out, and he probably still is. I am also sure that many younger people had older siblings who grew up with Brosnan and introduced them to James Bond with GoldenEye. More importantly, those who were in high school when Casino Royale was released had been in elementary school when Brosnan was Bond, and I'm sure they saw The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day. Despite being younger, they would still have nostalgic feelings for Brosnan. I myself was introduced to Bond at the age of 6 with For Your Eyes Only in 1981. Even though I was in Junior High when Dalton was Bond, I don't feel close to Dalton's films as i do with For Your Eyes Only.

My first Bond's were Sean, Roger, Timothy and George thanks to TV reruns. But I was in elementary school when Pierce premiered. He has a special place in my heart because he was so well-rounded and his films were so broad in scope and style.

Craig is very special to me as he debuted right as I approached manhood. Its very ironic that he sort of epitomizes the masculinity and sense of duty from the books.

I really think, once Craig has had his time and becomes just another Bond in the history books, people will realize Brosnan was far from a bad Bond and his films are far from bad IMO. GE is worthy of its praise, TND is my favorite of his films, TWIN is better than average to me and DAD is half-incredible, half-schlock. Bros has a great track record!

[DR76]

Personally, I have no idea what future generations will think of Brosnan in the role. I don't think any of us can answer this question. If we try, we'll only be doing so, based upon our own perceptions and opinions of the actor. The whole matter is too subjective to form any solid answer.

[SecretAgentFan]

Personally, I have no idea what future generations will think of Brosnan in the role. I don't think any of us can answer this question. If we try, we'll only be doing so, based upon our own perceptions and opinions of the actor. The whole matter is too subjective to form any solid answer.

Too subjective for a solid answer? We´re on a message board. Also, isn´t everything subjective?

Regarding Brosnan - he will always be considered an entertaining Bond but not a very special one. Simply because he did a mix of Connery & Moore without really bringing something new to the table. Wait for it: I like him nevertheless.

Also, every generation has their Bond. My nephews definitely prefer him, since they grew up with him in the role and he was the first one they saw as Bond.

I grew up with Moore - so he will always have a special place in my heart.

[Publius]

The Bond of my generation is Brosnan, yet Dalton and Craig are my favorites. I know A LOT of people for whom that's the case.

That said, in Brosnan's defense, I think the fact that he didn't have a claim to fame is fine. There are only so many extremes to explore, and maybe it's not the best that an actor's entire tenure could be boiled down to a caricature.

What will hurt his legacy most is the quality of his movies, not necessarily his performance. Goldeneye is a classic, but at least two of the others are widely hated even now, and I don't see how they could be "reevaluated" for the better by very many people. Tomorrow Never Dies might, given that it's closest to other "reevaluated" Bond movies like Moonraker.

Goldeneye will always have a place in Bond history, even if future generations can't appreciate how big it was to have Bond back after six years of wondering if the franchise was finally dead. It may not be the best Bond movie, but a great villain, some colorful supporting characters, and a plot that takes Bond into Russia before unraveling the dark secret of what he thought was a fallen comrade, will always make it a solid entry, and Brosnan's legacy will benefit from it (even if I think he nailed the role better later on in worse movies).

In short, Brosnan will be seen as someone who tried to be Connery + Moore, but was more like Lazenby + Moore, with some Dalton elements thrown in for good measure. He'll have his fans, but a catalog that only consists of one or two good movies with the others being absolute dogs, will keep him from a greater legacy.

[DR76]

Personally, I have no idea what future generations will think of Brosnan in the role. I don't think any of us can answer this question. If we try, we'll only be doing so, based upon our own perceptions and opinions of the actor. The whole matter is too subjective to form any solid answer.

Too subjective for a solid answer? We´re on a message board. Also, isn´t everything subjective?

Regarding Brosnan - he will always be considered an entertaining Bond but not a very special one. Simply because he did a mix of Connery & Moore without really bringing something new to the table. Wait for it: I like him nevertheless.

Also, every generation has their Bond. My nephews definitely prefer him, since they grew up with him in the role and he was the first one they saw as Bond.

I grew up with Moore - so he will always have a special place in my heart.

All you're telling me is that you don't really know the answer to this thread's question. You're simply giving me an opinion formed by your likes and dislikes, not an answer.