109 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Brosnan was the only actor I can think of who was already Bond in the minds of many people before he even got the role. I doubt there were too many people sitting there saying: "You know, Dalton would be a great James Bond." And back in the 60s, I doubt people were even thinking of Connery being replaced. So when Brosnan was cast as James Bond, there was a collective: "Finally!" said many of his supporters.

So bearing that in mind, why are his films such a mixed bag? Brosnan did have everything it took to play Bond, he had, the looks, the charisma, and even the acting chops. Sure he wasn't the greatest actor in the world, but he was in no way bad either. Was it because Broccoli and Wilson were relatively new to the game? In the past Cubby was always there to butt heads with the studio, but this time around it seemed the studio was able to push the producers around. I recall many mandates the studio wanted in order to let the Broccoli's make the films. Sure Brosnan was one of those mandates, but I also recall hearing that the studio was behind Brosnans "not quite clean shaven" image. They were also (supposedly) behind Bond dressing down for most of TND. And, and this is a big one, they tried to have Bond on a snowboard in TWINE, rather than his iconic skis.

There's also another school of thought though. Namely that no matter how bad the scripts became, a good actor could have elevated the material. A argument I hear a lot is that Moore was saddled with much of the same inane dialogue and scripts, yet he was able to turn it into gold. Sure on the surface Moonraker and DAD share many similarities. Both are overblown Bond adventures with outrageous plots larger than life villians, and finales that stretch the bounds of plausibility. And yet Moonraker is considered the better film (not by everyone mind you, but it is a train of thought).

I'm on the fence about this one. I think it's a mixture of both; I feel that the producers should have pushed harder to come up with better scripts for Brosnan. Sure they were doing pastiches, but even then they could have striven for higher quality. And on the other hand, Brosnan could have tried harder with what he was given. I'm not saying he didn't put in good performances, but there are times (in all his films) where he's really struggling with certain puns. Puns that I feel Moore would have made worked.

[DamnCoffee]

I've always said, and I always will say that the reason Brosnan was the worst James Bond in my eyes is because of the writing. I think the producers went through a phase on not being bothered about the quality of their script writing, and just wanted to have Brosnan on screen. The most annoying thing is, that I really want to embrace Brosnan, and I do to an extent, because I have a lot of sympathy for him. Merely because of the that that his last 3 movies are so badly written, fully of hammy dialogue and embarrasing. For one, I think Brosnan should've pushed harder and demanded better script writing, and not just did what was on the page. If you look at GoldenEye, it's a fantastic film, and I think the producers got too confident over it, and thought "Hey, I know, they love Brosnan lets just do whatever.".

I think he was in with a bunch of people who couldn't make up their minds about who Brosnan's Bond was. As proved with how different his portrayal is with each film. Shame really, since he could've been brilliant.

Edited by Mharkin, 23 June 2012 - 01:07 AM.

[Double-0-Seven]

I think a bit of both. Brosnan was never given particularly great material to work with, which makes me feel bad for him because back when he was Bond he seemed so keen to do a Bond in the style of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Unfortunately, he never got a film of that quality. The World Is Not Enough tried and it remains my favorite of the Brosnan films, but even then it seems like the studio was too afraid to push the envelope and therefore shoehorned a bunch of action and Bond clichés into the film. Thus, Brosnan's films, in my view anyways, are sort of "greatest hits" Bond films.

Brosnan is a good actor. Maybe not on par with Craig or Dalton (and the great Sir Sean) but still pretty good. However, by Die Another Day he seems bored. Perhaps his boredom stems from disappointment that his contract was running out and he never quite got to do the Bond film he wanted. As much as he wanted to continue in the role, I think he probably felt that EON wanted to move on.

What I really like about say Craig's casting is that it was unexpected yet totally brilliant. Pierce seemed more like the studio's choice. A "play it safe" kind of Bond.

That said, Pierce certainly did have his moments. His films aren't entirely bad, nor is his acting as Bond. One of my favorite moments is in Tomorrow Never Dies when we see Bond drinking vodka alone in his hotel. I could list many more, but that's one example.

Pierce was my favorite Bond as I grew up with him. I still enjoy his films. Perhaps not as much as I used to, but he was a great Bond.

[Double-Oh Agent]

By no means did Pierce Brosnan let the producers down. He did everything that was asked of him and did a great job doing it. He was a fantastic Bond.

If you have to choose one side or the other, then the producers let him down. Nowhere during his tenure--except for maybe GoldenEye--did they try to do as much for him as they have for Daniel Craig. They've put out a much more concerted effort (successfully or not in regards to Quantum Of Solace) to improve and/or provide more "quality" for Craig's films via directors, scripts, acting talent, et al than for Brosnan's films. Whether that is because Brosnan was so popular as 007 that they didn't feel the need to strive harder to make his films better or that Craig was such a good actor that they wanted to further enhance his performance with more quality options around him is open to debate.

But most importantly, I feel, in regards to this question is that Brosnan is the only James Bond not to have a film based on a story penned by Ian Fleming. Sean Connery, George Lazenby, and Roger Moore each had all of their films at least partially penned by Fleming. Even Timothy Dalton (The Living Daylights) and Craig (Casino Royale) had Fleming stories. Brosnan? Zilch. And I, for one, do feel his tenure lacks a little something for it, a factor which I don't think can be underestimated. However, that feeling does not pertain to Brosnan himself, rather to other aspects of the various productions. His performances in the series are solid and fun, and despite the lack of direct Fleming input, he managed to have two great films during his run (GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies) along with two decent ones.

Regardless, I will forever be grateful that he was James Bond. I just wish he would have been given a fifth and final film in 2004. Oh, what could have been.

[SecretAgentFan]

IMO, this is hindsight criticism.

The Brosnan era brought in big bucks, huge audiences and established "James Bond" for a new generation - at a time when almost nobody thought that this could be done again, with the Cold War ending and other action franchises stealing Bondian elements and mixing them with new things.

To say that Brosnan was not a good Bond depends only on personal preferences. To say EON was not interested in developing good scripts is absurd - they always have been very interested and tried to re-establish Bond (GOLDENEYE), to consolidate that success (TND), to experiment with the character´s inner life (TWINE) and to develop this further (first half of DAD) and still give the audience the outrageous Bond from earlier times (second half of DAD).

Nowadays, with every pop franchise having to be dark, gritty and grounded in some kind of reality (haha...) the Brosnan era might appear like playing it safe as a greatest hits-phase. But this is like criticizing your dad for wearing that kind of trousers or that kind of glasses - at the time it was exactly that kind of hip that you now think is the real deal. In a few years people will re-evaluate the Craig era and shake their heads why some of it had to be that serious. Or why it wasn´t made in "6 D interactional with sniffing cards".

So, IMO, nobody let anybody down during the Brosnan era creatively. EON might think that Brosnan let them down by asking for too much money - and Brosnan might think that EON let him down for not granting him more bucks (Connery had the same problem).

The more interesting question to me is this: what would have happened if CASINO ROYALE had flopped and Craig had not been accepted as Bond?

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 23 June 2012 - 07:07 AM.

[PPK_19]

IMO, this is hindsight criticism.

This.

He was terrific at the time, looked the part, a good actor, not outstanding. He slid into the role with consummate ease and did the best he could with increasingly bad scripts. The blame lies with the producers. Their decision to reboot the franchise and gamble with Craig was very, very risky. But it paid off.

They've recognised that DC is a fantastic actor and seem to put in a lot of effort into their scripts nowadays (barring QOS, which was unfortunate).

In answer to your last question... who the hell knows. Who the hell even cares?

[JimmyBond]

I don't see it as criticism. Especially not if it's something I felt at the time.

I enjoyed Brosnan and his films, but even back then I felt they could be better, that maybe something was missing. People critique Moore all the time. Lazenby often gets lambasted for being terrible. And yet when someone brings up Brosnan around here people automatically jump to the conclusion that he's being unfairly treated.

If the other actors are not above criticism, then neither is Brosnan. I've never understood this mentality that believes he's being unfairly treated around here.

[S K Y F A L L]

Pierce Brosnan got a bad rap ? Here there is an interesting 7 page thread on the topic. I hadn't posted anything cause I don't know where to start.

Ultimately I'm a Brosnan fan because he was Bond when I was getting into the 007 series and I would have liked to have him back in 2004 cause 4 years is a long wait for a Bond film, I would hate to know what it was like for fans from the Dalton era during the 6 year hiatus. Anyway since DC starred in 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' I have come up with a conspiracy theory of my own.

THE 007 MILLENNIUM SERIES CONSPIRACY

THE GIRL WITH THE 007 FRANCHISE
After DC joined the Bond family he quickly learns about dark secrets of the franchise but is unable to share it with the world without destroying the franchise he has become part of.
Just like the 'Vanger' family from 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo', DC learns that the Broccoli family is also;
"(...) thieves, misers, bullies. The most detestable collection of people that you will ever meet - my family."
The truth about the Broccoli family goes back to were it all starred, Ian Fleming. Ian was planning on killing off Bond before his untimely death in 1966, however the Broccoli family could not allow this and had him murdered!
Now the only thing in the Broccoli families way was Harry Saltzman whom they were able to force out of the 007 series, when his luck ran out.

THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH BOND FANS HEARTS
When the 007 series was on 'hiatus' from 89-95 the truth was they simply wanted to replace Dalton with a more profitable lead actor. One that fit with the times and didn't smoke.

THE GIRL WHO KICKED BROSNAN OUT
When the Broccoli's were re-casting for GE and didn't get who they wanted (Sean Bean) they decided to run the franchise to the ground in order to get rid of Brosnan, since after all Brosnan and Broccoli didn't get along.
There was no reason the franchise had to go on hiatus, just like when it was from 89-95 other then the fact the producers were unhappy with Brosnan as they were with Dalton's profitability.
When DC finished QOS and found out there wouldn't be a Bond film until SF for the 50th Anniversary he learned the producers are more interested in counting their money then making Bond films for a world of Bond fans and his career would be on hold as it comes second to the profitability of the 007 franchise.
After all it is a multi-million dollar bu$ine$$.

[perdogg]

Brosnan was the only actor I can think of who was already Bond in the minds of many people before he even got the role. I doubt there were too many people sitting there saying: "You know, Dalton would be a great James Bond." And back in the 60s, I doubt people were even thinking of Connery being replaced. So when Brosnan was cast as James Bond, there was a collective: "Finally!" said many of his supporters.

So bearing that in mind, why are his films such a mixed bag? Brosnan did have everything it took to play Bond, he had, the looks, the charisma, and even the acting chops. Sure he wasn't the greatest actor in the world, but he was in no way bad either. Was it because Broccoli and Wilson were relatively new to the game? In the past Cubby was always there to butt heads with the studio, but this time around it seemed the studio was able to push the producers around. I recall many mandates the studio wanted in order to let the Broccoli's make the films. Sure Brosnan was one of those mandates, but I also recall hearing that the studio was behind Brosnans "not quite clean shaven" image. They were also (supposedly) behind Bond dressing down for most of TND. And, and this is a big one, they tried to have Bond on a snowboard in TWINE, rather than his iconic skis.

There's also another school of thought though. Namely that no matter how bad the scripts became, a good actor could have elevated the material. A argument I hear a lot is that Moore was saddled with much of the same inane dialogue and scripts, yet he was able to turn it into gold. Sure on the surface Moonraker and DAD share many similarities. Both are overblown Bond adventures with outrageous plots larger than life villians, and finales that stretch the bounds of plausibility. And yet Moonraker is considered the better film (not by everyone mind you, but it is a train of thought).

I'm on the fence about this one. I think it's a mixture of both; I feel that the producers should have pushed harder to come up with better scripts for Brosnan. Sure they were doing pastiches, but even then they could have striven for higher quality. And on the other hand, Brosnan could have tried harder with what he was given. I'm not saying he didn't put in good performances, but there are times (in all his films) where he's really struggling with certain puns. Puns that I feel Moore would have made worked.

Brosnan was given horrible scripts and poor directors.

[Mr_Wint]

I don't see it as criticism. Especially not if it's something I felt at the time.

I enjoyed Brosnan and his films, but even back then I felt they could be better, that maybe something was missing.

Sure.

They've recognised that DC is a fantastic actor and seem to put in a lot of effort into their scripts nowadays (barring QOS, which was unfortunate).

You mention DC and the scripts "nowadays". Then you remove QOS, so there is only one film left. Not much data to analyse.

I have a feeling that the producers have always (1962-2012) been interested in making as successful films as possible... both in terms of critical reception and finance. Who wouldn't?

[AMC Hornet]

If Brosnan's performance from film to film seemed uneven, perhaps it was because he had a different director each time?

No stable of regulars to call back in, as Connery, Moore and Dalton had.

Although people (myself included) often complain that John Glen - who helmed an unmatched five (consecutive) films - was too by-the-numbers and that his films all had the same pacing. Shaking up was what the series needed in 1994, but it seems that no one is interested in challenging even Martin Campbell's count - or perhaps Miccoli have never been satisfied with anyone else.

Fortunately Craig and Mendes seem to be cut from the same cloth, so I'm confident that Skyfall will please (initially, anyway - we'll see how contemptous everyone becomes in ten years, when Bond #7's introduction is a hit).

[genuinefelixleiter]

There's no conspiracy. Remember, Pierce Brosnan was the Broccoli camp's preferred candidate to play Bond during Dalton's tenure. He was obligated to continue on as Remington Steele as per his contractual restrictions with the television series producers. Many objected to Dalton's "hard" portrayal of Bond in his brief tenure, post Roger Moore. The Broccoli's set out to find a more charismatic Bond. One that would win mass audience approval, as Dalton clearly hadn't. Michael Wilson is on record as having said (paraphrasing) that in Pearce they had found an interesting combination of an actor that possessed some of Connery's characteristics, and Roger's as well.
In retrospect, it seems that perhaps the Broccoli/ Wilson camp didn't know which direction to take the series. Golden Eye was conceived differently than the other Brosnan Bonds, as it was written in different stages, prior to Pearce's confirmation as Bond and briefly after it. This is important to note because the other Brosnan Bonds were written with the Broccoli's oversight (as they all are) with a strong bend towards their perceived notion of Brosnan's persona as Bond.

Both John Barry and Ken Adam had felt that the Cubby's two kids were bound to turn what had been presented to them on a "silver" platter into a dish of .
Brosnan has openly stated that he was dismayed by the lack of substantive writing, the staid lackadaisical caricature that the Bond of that era had become. However, we should bear in mind that Pearce was hugely popular amongst movie goers at the time. It's difficult to say that the series would have had staying power, if it wasn't for Brosnan's mass appeal to help rake in the ticket sales. I too regret that Brosnan's films aren't as whole more memorable and often appear to be the most cliche ridden and quite frankly boring of the lot.

[Dustin]

Both John Barry and Ken Adam had felt that the Cubby's two kids were bound to turn what had been presented to them on a "silver" platter into a dish of .

I agree with most of the above, with the exception of the quoted part. To me it seems obvious enough the series first pair of producers wasn't at all averse to turning their own product in said dish. There's plenty of that to be found in the 'classics' too. And that is because simply put the first priority always was to produce successful films. That hasn't changed with the change of guard to Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson; their box office record since GE attests to that. We tend to blame EON for what perceived failings the films offer. But EON only sails with the winds, nothing else. They try to put out decent products but the only real benchmark is the box-office result. It's always been this way.

[genuinefelixleiter]

I'm in full agreement that the producers priority was to provide quality entertainment. For the record, I don't believe Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson never intentionally set out to produce a caricature of Bond or to dumb down Cubby and Harry Saltzman's screen portrayal of Bond. What Adam and Barry said was that these two fledgling ceo's had all but to muck it up. Therefore they had no interest in continuing their journey with the cinematic Bond because Barbara and Michael lacked the inherent talent and ingenuity of Saltzman & Broccoli. It took time for them to become seasoned full fledged creative producers. The result is as that many true fans both of the novels and the films are pleased with the casting of Daniel Craig in the lead role and the toughening of Bond in the last two installments. Apparently, The general movie going audience approves as well. I'm hopeful that Skyfall will be both entertaining and otherwise worthy entry for cinema Bond's fiftieth anniversary.

[Skudor]

I think the producers just wanted to go in a new direction and felt that a new Bond would achieve this best. Ruthless to some degree, but having paid Brozza millions over the years and made him a bona fide moive star, I can't say they let him down (other than by giving him some very poor material to work with).

[Messervy]

I never thought Brosnan was very good in the part. He acted too much in a "hey! look how cool I am! I'm Bond!" self-congratulating kind of way. He seemed more interested in himself and in having gotten the part than in actually delivering a good performance and trying to be a convincing Bond.

But, to be honest, one must admit that he was clearly hampered by disastrous scripts (TND) and/or poor directors (except Campbell).

So all in all I think that eventhough he could have been a more decent Bond with better writers/directors, he would never have been an excellent one.

[Miles Miservy]

This one is definately on Michael & Barbara.

I think Pierce Brosnan did as well as he could with what he had to work with. There were several things wrong with DAD's script. I don't mind so much, the implausibility. We expect it as part of the price of the ticket. However in this one, the one aspect that worked against the film was that virtually EVERYONE else in the picture seemed to upstage Bond. From Jinx to Zao to Frost to M... Bond's constantly at odds w/all of his co-stars which made his own struggle even harder to bear.. It did not escape my attention that this was the ONLY dvd on which OO7 shares billing w/his leading lady.

As far as the Wilson/Broccoli siblings are concerned, I thought they handled the transition of leading actors rather poorly. Once the rights to Casino Royale were acquired, so excited were they, that they hastily quashed any hopes for Pierce to renew his contract. They hadn't even hedged their bets by making sure a replacement was already set. I can remember the hype frenzy over the likes of Daniel Craig, Hugh Jackman, Clive Owen & others that ensued even before P. Brosnan had time to delete his voice mail.

And that's another sore point. After a relationship that lasted over 8 years, you'd think they'd have called him into a meeting, if nothing else but to just say, "Look, we're thinking of going in a different direction..." If I recall correctly, he'd actually found out 2nd hand that the role was no longer his. In a much more primal scope, It's not that dissimilar than breaking up with someone via text message. I wonder how D. Craig will get the news if & when they begin to tire of him?

Edited by Miles Miservy, 25 June 2012 - 04:47 PM.

[Darth Prefect]

This entire discussion is anchored in the notion that someone was let down somewhere. The audience numbers belie that notion. Yes, I know we're all supposed to not like him now, but (as has been pointed out) his portrayal saved the franchise. He inherited a franchise that was dead and his performance (and the production team) revivied it. Daniel Craig inherited a fully thriving franchise and has coasted along since then.

Both Brosnan and Craig came out of the gate with films that were both critical and financial successes that made more than the previous entry. (Though in Craig's case this was mostly due to ticket price increases, while Brosnan actually got larger audiences, as well.) Both had their second films be critical "disappointments" while still financial successes.

Let's reconvene after two more Craigs and see if we are discussing just what went wrong with the lastest "best Bond since Connery". (They said it about Brosnan, too.)

[AMC Hornet]

Let's reconvene after two more Craigs and see if we are discussing just what went wrong with the lastest "best Bond since Connery". (They said it about Brosnan, too.)

They'll be saying it after Craig, as well.

[David_M]

As noted, whether anyone failed anyone is a matter of taste, but for my part the Brosnan era was a disappointment. I don't know that it does much good to offer post-mortems at this point, and in general I'm not that interested in revisiting the era even to complain about it, but I will say that a big factor for me -- and easily the most surprising one, then and now -- is that I thought Brosnan's Bond was totally lacking in charisma. This was something I never expected after enjoying him so much in "Remington Steele" and the few feature films I'd seen him in up to then (most notably "The Fourth Protocol.") Indeed even after he got the Bond gig, I still liked him better in other projects (especially "Tailor of Panama") and that's not entirely down to the scripts and direction.

As a side note, it's interesting how someone always brings up box office in these discussions, as in "how can anything that makes so much money be a failure"? I can tell you that argument wouldn't have helped us Roger Moore fans much back in the 1970s and 80s ("But he brings in more money than Sean, so he must be better, right?"), but interestingly by 2012 audiences seem to have adopted the same thinking as producers: as long as it makes money, it must be good.

[Dustin]

As a side note, it's interesting how someone always brings up box office in these discussions, as in "how can anything that makes so much money be a failure"? I can tell you that argument wouldn't have helped us Roger Moore fans much back in the 1970s and 80s ("But he brings in more money than Sean, so he must be better, right?"), but interestingly by 2012 audiences seem to have adopted the same thinking as producers: as long as it makes money, it must be good.

I'm afraid I'm the one guilty of bringing in box-office figures. But that is not meant as an excuse or a cop-out. My point is, Brosnan's films did not disappoint or let down the general audience. To the contrary, they were what the general audience expected and liked about Bond films - a safe mix of heavy but mindless action and light but equally mindless comedy, all wrapped in numerous 007 clichés that later got the 'classic' moniker, once CR didn't employ them any more. At the time the films from GE to DAD used to be what the vast majority of film-goers expected and hoped for when buying the ticket. And I say this as somebody who grew tired of the "safe" approach by the time of TND.

In my view neither side was let down by the other, Brosnan not by EON, EON not by Brosnan, and the audience in their majority not by the Bond films.

[DR76]

Was Brosnan let down by the producers? Or did he let them down?

Are you assuming that everyone agrees with this opinion that all of the Brosnan Bond films were seriously flawed?

[blueman]

Is what it is: Brosnan approached Bond not like he was playing a man on a mission, but a superhero (his words) carved from cinematic history. Good scripts or bad (the ones he got were really more uneven than one way or the other, I think), his approach consistently torpedoed his protrayal of Bond. Made his Bond a pretty good - i.e. uneven - representation of his 4 rather forgettable films.

When he was cast, I was excited not by his turn on TV as Remington Steele, but by his icy cold killer in "The 4th Protocol" film, that was the performance that convinced me he could play Bond. Shame he only ever gave us a few minutes here and there of such a Bond (and don't kid yourselves, the better the actor the more they can do even with a crummy script, Brosnan left a lot of opportunities to do more unhatched). I appreciate the moments he gave us as Bond, but 90% of his screen time in his combined 4 films is mush, and at least 50% of that is solely on him. If he could've done more, he would've, he's simply a limited actor who stayed well within his limitations as Bond. Happens.

[AMC Hornet]

Good point, DR76. It's like the old challenge: "have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no."

Were the suits at EON disappointed with the billion dollars that Brosnan's four films brought in? Probably not. Was Pierce disappointed that EON didn't accept his $20m salary demand and invite Quentin Tarantino to direct his own vision of CR? Very probably. Were any of Pierce's films universally panned for being inauthentic? Depends on who you ask.

All I can say as a fan is that I was not let down by Pierce or EON. I understand that some were, by I don't see why. It was better to have Pierce's four than a bankrupting 17-year gap between LTK and CR.

I know this doesn't address the original question, but like DR76 points out, the original question is too loaded to take seriously.

[David_M]

My point is, Brosnan's films did not disappoint or let down the general audience. To the contrary, they were what the general audience expected and liked about Bond films - a safe mix of heavy but mindless action and light but equally mindless comedy, all wrapped in numerous 007 clichés that later got the 'classic' moniker, once CR didn't employ them any more.

I think you've pretty much nailed it there, for me. The Brosnan films had all the elements you'd expect in a "classic formula" Bond, but somehow that just made them feel kit-built to me, assembled by committee and missing the one element that counts: magic. Now, "magic" is by nature hard to define and I'm willing to concede it's largely subjective. Lots of people in the 70s said the Moore films were similarly lacking in magic, coasting on the formula and cynically geared towards profit at the expense of art. But for me they worked. I have to consider the possibility it's got something to do with the age of the viewer, or their newness to the series; for me as a youngster, Roger was awesome, while for the older crowd he was a pale substitute for "the real deal." And by the time Brosnan showed up I was old enough to have switched camps to the "it used to be better" old-timers' club. Maybe that's it.

But it's also possible it's all down to charisma, or screen-presence, or whatever you want to call that connection an actor makes with a viewer. For me, Roger and Sean both had it; that star quality that made me focus on them no matter what else was on the screen, and had me leaving the theater mimicing (if unconciously) their mannerisms and style. I never felt that with Pierce, not even once. But I recognize that it may have been there for other viewers, and definitely seems to have been for the younger crowd. My point being -- I guess -- that unless the lead actor makes it all work somehow through sheer force of personality, the "classic" Bond formula can come off as flat and unengaging. For some, Brosnan did that, for me he didn't. In fairness, he wasn't helped much by the "humanizing" scripts that just made Bond seem like a hard luck case. Oh no, his old friend has turned against him. Wait, now his old girlfriend is murdered and it's his fault. Oh dear, now his new girlfriend is a villain who played him for a sap. Argh, now even "M" has sold him out. And so on and so on. A lot of the appeal of "classic" Bond for me involved wish-fulfillment, and it's hard to want to be someone who has a life that's even more screwed up than my own.

All I can say as a fan is that I was not let down by Pierce or EON. I understand that some were, by I don't see why. It was better to have Pierce's four than a bankrupting 17-year gap between LTK and CR.

Right on. Let's put that on a t-shirt:

"Brosnan's Bond: Better Than Nothing!"

Edited by David_M, 26 June 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Dustin]

I think you've pretty much nailed it there, for me. The Brosnan films had all the elements you'd expect in a "classic formula" Bond, but somehow that just made them feel kit-built to me, assembled by committee and missing the one element that counts: magic. Now, "magic" is by nature hard to define and I'm willing to concede it's largely subjective. Lots of people in the 70s said the Moore films were similarly lacking in magic, coasting on the formula and cynically geared towards profit at the expense of art. But for me they worked. I have to consider the possibility it's got something to do with the age of the viewer, or their newness to the series; for me as a youngster, Roger was awesome, while for the older crowd he was a pale substitute for "the real deal." And by the time Brosnan showed up I was old enough to have switched camps to the "it used to be better" old-timers' club. Maybe that's it.

But it's also possible it's all down to charisma, or screen-presence, or whatever you want to call that connection an actor makes with a viewer. For me, Roger and Sean both had it; that star quality that made me focus on them no matter what else was on the screen, and had me leaving the theater mimicing (if unconciously) their mannerisms and style. I never felt that with Pierce, not even once. But I recognize that it may have been there for other viewers, and definitely seems to have been for the younger crowd. My point being -- I guess -- that unless the lead actor makes it all work somehow through sheer force of personality, the "classic" Bond formula can come off as flat and unengaging. For some, Brosnan did that, for me he didn't. In fairness, he wasn't helped much by the "humanizing" scripts that just made Bond seem like a hard luck case. Oh no, his old friend has turned against him. Wait, now his old girlfriend is murdered and it's his fault. Oh dear, now his new girlfriend is a villain who played him for a sap. Argh, now even "M" has sold him out. And so on and so on. A lot of the appeal of "classic" Bond for me involved wish-fulfillment, and it's hard to want to be someone who has a life that's even more screwed up than my own.

Magic is an interesting point there. The word is seldom mentioned in discussions - after all, Bond is a superhero, not a supernatural hero - but magic is definitely involved when we are introduced to the series. My first Bond film, TSWLM, cast a spell on me that remained intact - to varying degrees - over 35 years, keeping me fascinated and occupied with the films and books for the best part of my life now. The films then depicted a Bond that could keep smiling even if the chips were down, that escaped countless threats and dangers nearly unscathed and who displayed all through the adventure a remarkably civilised attitude. As a young guy approaching adolescence this was definitely a role model I wanted to follow.

Sure, the calm confidence was the result of the hero knowing the script was on his side, not the hero simply pushing forward regardless, as the early films and the books depicted Bond. But for me the difference didn't matter much then. The magic of the films was they were still somehow pure fun. Action was one element, not the defining element, not yet. And the hero in effect was two-dimensional and it didn't bother me at all. I suppose the audience was just not ready back then for the third dimension, for the added drama.

I feel Brosnan's films managed to give audiences what they craved in the market at the time, and that was both blessing and curse. Obviously younger audiences meeting Bond for the first time with Brosnan's films fell for a slightly different variety of the Bond magic, but it looks as if the spell is still every bit as strong.

[DR76]

Is what it is: Brosnan approached Bond not like he was playing a man on a mission, but a superhero (his words) carved from cinematic history. Good scripts or bad (the ones he got were really more uneven than one way or the other, I think), his approach consistently torpedoed his protrayal of Bond. Made his Bond a pretty good - i.e. uneven - representation of his 4 rather forgettable films.

"Is what it is" . . . WHAT? What are you implying? That it is a fact that Brosnan's performance as Bond and all of his movies were flawed? Are we expected to accept these views as fact?

I find it ironic that Brosnan and his movies have been lambasted a great deal, lately. Sean Connery made six Bond movies for EON Productions and one outside of the franchise. Of those seven movies, only two of them really impressed me. Roger Moore made seven Bond movies for EON and of those seven, only three impressed me. Brosnan made four movies. Two of them impressed me. In comparison to Connery and Moore, Brosnan isn't looking that bad at all to me.

[Dustin]

I find it ironic that Brosnan and his movies have been lambasted a great deal, lately. Sean Connery made six Bond movies for EON Productions and one outside of the franchise. Of those seven movies, only two of them really impressed me. Roger Moore made seven Bond movies for EON and of those seven, only three impressed me. Brosnan made four movies. Two of them impressed me. In comparison to Connery and Moore, Brosnan isn't looking that bad at all to me.

That's an interesting way to look at it, never occurred to me.

[David_M]

That is indeed interesting; rating by percentages. Never tried it before, so let's see how it works out for me:

Connery: I liked (to one degree or other) 5 out of 7 (if NSNA is factored in). Success rate = 73.43% (rounded). Increases to 83.3 if NSNA is left out
Moore: 5 of 7 = 73.43%
Dalton: 1 of 2 = 50%
Craig: 1 of 2 = 50%
Brosnan: 1 of 4 = 25%

Interestingly, this makes Lazenby the "top Bond" with a 100% success rate. But he's not at all my favorite, so there must be more to it than numbers, after all.

(Incidentally, this system also makes George Harrison the most successful ex-Beatle, rated by albums, and he's not my fave, either. I think it's been rigged to favor Georges).

[Dustin]

We have Georges everywhere...