70 replies to this topic

[Jim]

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.

You're going to become very disillusioned if you expect anything else on a fan forum, Lady Sylv.

The nature of the question invites assumption and subjectivity. Did you really anticipate that you would be factually informed? Let me manage your expectations in that regard - it's not going to happen, nor should it.

[James Bond Jr]

Can I just say that I don't see Pierce as Roger/Sean mix. I think he's sort of a Roger/Dalton/George mix. And I see Daniel Craig as a Sean/Dalton mix. I really want the next Bond to be an original.

[Safari Suit]

Deleted

[DR76]

You're going to become very disillusioned if you expect anything else on a fan forum, Lady Sylv.

I'm already disillusioned. I'm simply expressing it whenever I can.

Can I just say that I don't see Pierce as Roger/Sean mix. I think he's sort of a Roger/Dalton/George mix.

I see Pierce Brosnan as Pierce Brosnan.

[waslah]

Having just completed a Bond marathon - yes going through all the films one right after another - and getting to see all the actors and how their performances and films stack up against one another I think I can apply that knowledge to this question and say that Brosnan will more than likely ultimately end up as the "serviceable Bond." There's nothing particularly outstanding about how he played the role in any of this films, in fact I found his performances to be fairly lack luster. That coupled with the fact that the vast majority of his movies just aren't that good - which was revelation to me as I remembered the first 3 quite fondly, shows just how influential that hazy shadow of nostalgia really can be on one's opinion - leads me to believe people will view Pierce as a guy who happened to play the role during a particular period of time and really nothing more than that. There's just nothing, not performance, not quality of film, consistently impressive stunts, and certainly not quality of SFX, or anything like that to really cement Brosnan's films as anything but serviceable checklist Bond pictures. There will of course be a section of people who see these movies and Brosnan through the Nostalgia goggles and hold him up as THE Bond, but I don't see the vast majority agreeing with that.

[JimmyBond]

Having just completed a Bond marathon - yes going through all the films one right after another - and getting to see all the actors and how their performances and films stack up against one another I think I can apply that knowledge to this question and say that Brosnan will more than likely ultimately end up as the "serviceable Bond." There's nothing particularly outstanding about how he played the role in any of this films, in fact I found his performances to be fairly lack luster. That coupled with the fact that the vast majority of his movies just aren't that good - which was revelation to me as I remembered the first 3 quite fondly, shows just how influential that hazy shadow of nostalgia really can be on one's opinion - leads me to believe people will view Pierce as a guy who happened to play the role during a particular period of time and really nothing more than that. There's just nothing, not performance, not quality of film, consistently impressive stunts, and certainly not quality of SFX, or anything like that to really cement Brosnan's films as anything but serviceable checklist Bond pictures. There will of course be a section of people who see these movies and Brosnan through the Nostalgia goggles and hold him up as THE Bond, but I don't see the vast majority agreeing with that.

I agree with that!

Brosnan came around at a weird time for me in Bond fandom. I was already a Bond fan, hadn't seen all the films yet though, but Brosnan's was the first Bond films I had seen on the big screen. So in a way he does have that going for him. I'll never forget the energy that was in the theater that night as I watched Goldeneye for the first time, it was like nothing else I had felt before.

But nostalgia can only do so much, and while I still consider Goldeneye a good film, his other films really don't hold up well for me. Though I do have a fondness for DAD.

[waslah]

Honestly, as much as it's probably a very minority opinion, I don't even think GoldenEye holds up that well. Often times the music is very, very out of place and decidedly un-rousing (admittedly when listened to on it's own the music is quite good, there's just a lot of moments where it absolutely does not fit the movie), the story only has the one unique aspect of a double-oh turning traitor and other than that it's just another evil world dominating machine movie without much new to bring to the table, the Boris stuff just comes across as kind of annoying in my opinion, and I still can't for the life of me figure out why everybody loves Famke Janssen's character so much in that movie. I find her performance EMBARRASSINGLY over the top and grating. The movie is shot well, mostly acted well with the exceptions that I pointed out already, but even so there's a lot of bad in that movie. Maybe it wasn't seen as bad when it came out but time has not been good to it in my humble opinion. So even with a first movie that, seen without the nostalgia goggles, I don't think stands out as particularly outstanding Brosnan just doesn't have a lot you can point to and say "Wow that was outstanding, he'll be remembered as one of the greats!"

[dinovelvet]

Honestly, as much as it's probably a very minority opinion, I don't even think GoldenEye holds up that well. Often times the music is very, very out of place and decidedly un-rousing (admittedly when listened to on it's own the music is quite good, there's just a lot of moments where it absolutely does not fit the movie), the story only has the one unique aspect of a double-oh turning traitor and other than that it's just another evil world dominating machine movie without much new to bring to the table, the Boris stuff just comes across as kind of annoying in my opinion, and I still can't for the life of me figure out why everybody loves Famke Janssen's character so much in that movie. I find her performance EMBARRASSINGLY over the top and grating. The movie is shot well, mostly acted well with the exceptions that I pointed out already, but even so there's a lot of bad in that movie. Maybe it wasn't seen as bad when it came out but time has not been good to it in my humble opinion. So even with a first movie that, seen without the nostalgia goggles, I don't think stands out as particularly outstanding Brosnan just doesn't have a lot you can point to and say "Wow that was outstanding, he'll be remembered as one of the greats!"

Waslah, you read my mind. Onatopp is my least favorite character in the entire series, I do find her really embarrassing to watch (though I like Famke in plenty of her other roles). The whole character is a misfire, IMHO. Does anyone actually find her sexy/funny? It's like they asked a 13 year old boy to come up with a female villain. I see plenty of people complaining about Christmas Jones and Jinx, but THIS gets acceptance from the fans?

Good call on the music being "un-rousing". It's like a plane that speeds along the runway but never actually takes off!

The idea of 006 turning traitor was new for the series, but it was already an overused action movie cliche, the idea of the partner/friend going bad. Add to that the main plot basically being the same old YOLT/TSWLM villain with a secret base, and you've pretty much got nothing new. I've said this on other threads, but I think a lot of the nostalgia people of a certain age have for Goldeneye is tied in with the videogame, which WAS a big step forward for its particular medium, unlike its film counterpart.

[TheREAL008]

I never wanted Bronsan in the role in the first place.

I have nothing against him or the movies he made as Bond. But as others have said, he brought nothing special to the role and to me at the time Pierce was just handed Bond because almost everyone was thinking at the same time "This guy should be Bond." Just because you look the part and can probably act the part shouldn't necessarily mean that you should get the part.

My only favorite Pierce entry is TWINE, but I can't even bear to watch it sometimes because I notice the flaws or 'nitpicks' that others point out. Pierce's movies lose the plot and are way off kilter.

[waslah]

in judging him I don't think a new generation will care what is and is not his fault, at least not your average movie watcher. I just don't think people tend to look at what is and is not an actor's fault in a mediocre or bad movie - unless perhaps a good portion of the fault lies in an actors awful performance - instead they tend to look at it as a whole, which is how Brosnan will ultimately be judged in my opinion. He's that guy who stared as Bond in some less than stellar movies.

[Gt Munn]

Every Bond has had something to offer. There is no "Bad" Bond, it all comes down to age. These films tend to age relatively well, so though Craig will likely be lamented by the next generation of fans (weird that we'll all be like the old timers here who grew up with Moore ) fondness toward him will grow with time. He has been undoubtedly one of the most charismatic Bonds, and I do think history will be good to him.

I'm in complete agreement. Since I was little I had always shunned Moore's Bond a bit for the silliness, corniness, and clown suit that accompanied his films. Recently though, I have found myself desiring to watch his films more and more and returning more and more to watch him. I would say Bond preference may change with age, though I will probably always has Connery as my absolute favorite Bond. Craig is going to have to loosen up a little if he is to gain ranking on my list. He needs to at least pretend he is having a little fun. As well as try to be a gentleman and somewhat charming.