Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

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


109 replies to this topic

#31 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:56 PM

We have Georges everywhere...

Even Saints in Valletta.

I can't rate 007 by percentages, as I was never dissatisfied with any of Connery's and only with one of Moore's (his last). That makes their count equal, in my eyes (whether or not you include NSNA).

I personally value TLD over LTK, and when it comes to Pierce I like DAD best of all without disliking the other three, so there goes my credibility right there.

Perhaps it's because I'm a parent, and could never be expected to choose one of my children over another, that I refuse to rank the actors or their films in any sort of carved-in-stone order of preference.

BTW, if the next Bond actor proves to be even better than Craig, that doesn't mean I'll start hating Craig the way so many have turned their backs on Brosnan. Thanks for yours, Mr. B - I'm sorry you didn't get one more in.

#32 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 28 June 2012 - 02:53 AM

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?


Not at all. People are free to think what they want. I merely put forth the question for people to discuss something. The Brosnan forum has been quite dead as of late.

#33 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:10 AM

As much as I am somewhat dissapointed by the direction the Bond movies took towards the end of the 90's and into the early 00's, I felt Brosnan was doing what he was told, but also was becoming disjointed from 'James Bond' as a whole, almost like he forgot what the roots of the character were that he tapped into in 'GoldenEye'.

I do enjoy Brosnan in his films, and even in most of his 007 films but his portrayal of the character doesn't always sit right with me - he starts to lean towards an action hero rather than mild-mannered spy and sometimes he seems to look more worse for wear with age than, I have to say, Moore did in his latter films.

But, he was doing his job and he brought in new fans and big bucks at the box-office, but it's a shame the producers were getting wrapped up with Brosnan and the current cinema trends to take Bond into new direction that he just wouldn't fit in. Bigger is not always better, and I think at least we had the fun few Brosnan films before it got de-railed and we had our new image with Daniel Craig, because I guess without Brosnan - who knows if Bond would be around now?

#34 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 29 June 2012 - 10:01 AM

The Brosnan films didn't let general audiences down, they were what most expected out of a Bond film and as a result Brosnan was quite popular in the role. I agree with most that his scripts should have been a lot better though.

I think GE and TND are great when compared to numerous other films in the series. TWINE and DAD certainly have their major faults though I don't think they're anywhere near as bad as QoS (Craig's only other released film besides the excellent CR).

I'm sure people were thinking the same types of things and having the same discussions, comparing, and looking back when Dalton was let go for Brosnan or when Moore was let go for Dalton. Who knows what people will look back and think of Craig's films in 10-15 years when this "gritty realistic" direction isn't the modern trend anymore. Brosnan's films are clearly the style of most 1990s action films, you can't fault anyone for that...it's what the general public wanted.

sometimes he seems to look more worse for wear with age than, I have to say, Moore did in his latter films.


I don't agree with this at all. GE - TWINE, it hardly looks like he's aged at all. He only looks noticeably older to me in DAD, but still nowhere near as old as Moore looks by the time Octopussy rolled out.

#35 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 29 June 2012 - 04:10 PM

Brosnan's films are clearly the style of most 1990s action films, you can't fault anyone for that...it's what the general public wanted.


This may be the key to why the Brosnan films didn't work well for me. They more or less complete the progression (digression?) from trend-setting films to trend-following films. When the series began, there was nothing else like it and everyone tried to copy it. By the Moore era -- as noted endlessly by pretty much everyone -- there was a tendency to lift elements from popular trends like blaxploitation, sci-fi and kung fu films, but even then they retained their basic "Bond-ness," whatever element it was that made them different from other films.

By the time Brosnan came along, the genre of "action franchise" had become so cluttered (where once Bond had it virtually to himself), that inevitably there crept in a tendency to copy the imitators ("This is an action film, so we better stick in X". Which is to say, where before we might have had a Bond film with some kung-fu fightin' gratuitously squeezed in, or a Bond film where the final reel takes place in space, by the 90s we had more or less generic action films with a guy named James Bond inserted into them. For my money, the 90s Bond often came off as a less-mucled, better-coiffed (though not necessarily more eloquent) Schwarzenneger, which no doubt resonated with a generation raised on that sort of thing, and devoted to first-person-shooter games, but largely left me cold.

#36 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:38 PM


Brosnan's films are clearly the style of most 1990s action films, you can't fault anyone for that...it's what the general public wanted.


This may be the key to why the Brosnan films didn't work well for me. They more or less complete the progression (digression?) from trend-setting films to trend-following films. When the series began, there was nothing else like it and everyone tried to copy it. By the Moore era -- as noted endlessly by pretty much everyone -- there was a tendency to lift elements from popular trends like blaxploitation, sci-fi and kung fu films, but even then they retained their basic "Bond-ness," whatever element it was that made them different from other films.

By the time Brosnan came along, the genre of "action franchise" had become so cluttered (where once Bond had it virtually to himself), that inevitably there crept in a tendency to copy the imitators ("This is an action film, so we better stick in X". Which is to say, where before we might have had a Bond film with some kung-fu fightin' gratuitously squeezed in, or a Bond film where the final reel takes place in space, by the 90s we had more or less generic action films with a guy named James Bond inserted into them.


I can understand where you are coming from, but I can easily apply that same "trend-following" label to LTK, which couldn't be anymore "typical 1980s action movie." To me, it plays out like any number of Steven Segal's 80s action films almost exactly...there just happens to be some guy named Bond.

I can say the same thing about Quantim of Solace....completely typical modern spy film with almost no familiar Bond elements and some guy named Bond. Could easily be re-tooled w/o much work and called something else entirely.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 30 June 2012 - 07:22 AM.


#37 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 29 June 2012 - 08:35 PM

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

No... just the LAST one.

#38 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:39 AM

Wot, you mean my favorite of the four?

#39 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 30 June 2012 - 07:32 AM

GE and TND are pretty top notch Bond to me, while DAD is pure entertainment until about the last 20 minutes or so (when they leave Iceland).

TWINE is a different story, I like a lot of the sequences in the film (the boat chase, escaping the nuclear blast, etc) and I think Brosnan and Sophie Marceau gave great performances, but the story just wasn't that interesting in the end.

Still each actor has had their "misses" in my opinion. Craig had QoS, Dalton had LTK, Moore had AVTAK, and Connery had DAF. Not that these are awful films, but they just don't quite make the grade.

#40 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:14 AM

If there is one Brosnan movie that can put me to sleep, it is TND. Okay, I admit that it's not dull. But I find it to be one of the most unoriginal Bond movies I have ever seen, hands down . . . and the worst of his tenure.

#41 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 30 June 2012 - 02:48 PM

I can understand where you are coming from, but I can easily apply that same "trend-following" label to LTK, which couldn't be anymore "typical 1980s action movie." To me, it plays out like any number of Steven Segal's 80s action films almost exactly...there just happens to be some guy named Bond.


You won't get an argument from me, there. "License to Kill" even sounds like a Steven Segal movie title. At the time, though, I thought it was more like Miami Vice, only without the nice clothes, cool cars and decent music. And apparently on half the budget.

#42 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 03:27 PM

Still each actor has had their "misses" in my opinion. Craig had QoS, Dalton had LTK, Moore had AVTAK, and Connery had DAF. Not that these are awful films, but they just don't quite make the grade.

You just named each actor's last (or most recent) film for EON.

Had they not made those films, would that a ) automatically make their previous entries the 'worst' - or b ) would their next one - had they each made one more - inherit that honour? Or would c ) their scores be perfect without those entries or d ) would the next one be better?

...Or e ) have I gone to far with my comparison into the realm of pointless speculation?

#43 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 04:07 PM


Still each actor has had their "misses" in my opinion. Craig had QoS, Dalton had LTK, Moore had AVTAK, and Connery had DAF. Not that these are awful films, but they just don't quite make the grade.

You just named each actor's last (or most recent) film for EON.

Had they not made those films, would that a ) automatically make their previous entries the 'worst' - or b ) would their next one - had they each made one more - inherit that honour? Or would c ) their scores be perfect without those entries or d ) would the next one be better?

...Or e ) have I gone to far with my comparison into the realm of pointless speculation?


"e" with a touch of "c" and "d", though I personally liked LTK and AVTAK. Of course DAF isn't truly Connery's final Bond film.

#44 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 01 July 2012 - 04:10 AM


Still each actor has had their "misses" in my opinion. Craig had QoS, Dalton had LTK, Moore had AVTAK, and Connery had DAF. Not that these are awful films, but they just don't quite make the grade.

You just named each actor's last (or most recent) film for EON.

Had they not made those films, would that a ) automatically make their previous entries the 'worst' - or b ) would their next one - had they each made one more - inherit that honour? Or would c ) their scores be perfect without those entries or d ) would the next one be better?

...Or e ) have I gone to far with my comparison into the realm of pointless speculation?


I think you're just digging too much into what I said. Those are my honest opinions.

- Licence to Kill: It's just nowhere near as good as TLD, it just happens that Dalton only shot two films and that was his last.
- DAF: Besides the silly plot, It bothers me somewhat that Connery is very obviously older and heavier, that's just time, nothing more.
- AVTAK: Again, a big part of my dislike of the film goes back to age. Moore is clearly too old and the Bond Girl was one of the worst in the series.
- QoS: This is a no brainer. CR was excellent, while QoS was very generic "modern spy film" and the ending seems rushed. SkyFall is looking great so far though.
- TWINE: The third of Brosnan's four, I've already explained my reasoning in my previous posts.

#45 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 01 July 2012 - 06:48 PM

- QoS: This is a no brainer. CR was excellent, while QoS was very generic "modern spy film" and the ending seems rushed.


Is it though? I enjoy QoS's pace over that of Casino Royale. And feel it includes more Bondian tropes than the previous film as well.

#46 Double-0-Seven

Double-0-Seven

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2710 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:00 PM

To go along with the last few posts, I disagree with The World Is Not Enough being his worst. I think it's his best film. With that in mind, I think it's fair to say that Pierce was a very appealing Bond in that his movies offer something for everyone. Fans of the classic film Bond seem to rank GoldenEye quite highly whereas fans of the more fun Bond might favor Tomorrow Never Dies or Die Another Day. While The World Is Not Enough has its flaws, I enjoy its story and action sequences (except the caviar factory scene, which is quite dull and unneeded). Therefore, while Brosnan never had the most tightly written scripts, he had a lot to offer for the general public and kept Bond alive throughout the nineties. His films truly offered something for everyone.

#47 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:20 PM

If there is one Brosnan movie that can put me to sleep, it is TND. Okay, I admit that it's not dull. But I find it to be one of the most unoriginal Bond movies I have ever seen, hands down . . . and the worst of his tenure.


To a point, you might be right. Stamper was a completely uninspired, generic bad guy, Terri Hatcher was just well... baggage. The motorcycle/helicopter sequence just pi$$ed me off.

However the film redeems itself in certain areas. I thought M's briefing in the middle of a police motorcade was a nice touch. Michelle Yeoh was, quite possibly, the best of Brosnan's Bond women. The STEALTH boat was conceptually cool. And, as far as villain's go, Jonathan Pryce was just plain NUTS!!! I loved that guy.

#48 Mickeba

Mickeba

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 27 posts
  • Location:SoCal

Posted 02 July 2012 - 11:53 PM

People run the Brosnan era down for many reasons. Despite the negatives we read, these films were very popular. If I'm not mistaken, each film made more at the box office than the previous film, so people really did enjoy Pierce as 007. I liked them all. "TND" was probably my least favorite of all four. Goldeneye is, for me, just short of the upper tier of Bond films. If I have a criticism of the Brosnan era, it has to do with the invasion of product placements into the films. The reality of modern moviemaking is that product placements are going to be in any big budget, mass audience film, of which Bond certainly qualifies. I've read about the amount of product placement planned for "Skyfall" and I know I'll hate that aspect of it. Nonetheless, Pierce Brosnan was a great choice as Bond, and definitely the right man to bring 007 back after the long post-Dalton hiatus.

#49 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 03 July 2012 - 08:34 AM

Terri Hatcher was just well... baggage. The motorcycle/helicopter sequence just pi$$ed me off.

And, as far as villain's go, Jonathan Pryce was just plain NUTS!!! I loved that guy.


I was never sold on Terri Hatcher either, I think they could have done much better. I do like the motorcycle/helicopter chase, it's just mindless fun. Jonathan Pryce is definitely underrated in terms of Bond villains in my opinion.

#50 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 02:07 AM

Still each actor has had their "misses" in my opinion. Craig had QoS, Dalton had LTK, Moore had AVTAK, and Connery had DAF. Not that these are awful films, but they just don't quite make the grade.


I had no problems with QoS, aside from the pacing in the movie's first half. I had no problems with LTK, even if it felt like MIAMI VICE 2.O. Moore had TMWTGG and probably LALD. Brosnan had TND. And Connery had DAF, DN, and GF.

#51 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 05 July 2012 - 01:38 AM

IMO its just sad we didn't get a Bond film in 2004 like we didn't get a 3rd Dalton film in 1992 and a 3rd Craig film in 2010, but what can you do.

#52 Double-0-Seven

Double-0-Seven

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2710 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 05 July 2012 - 03:05 AM

IMO its just sad we didn't get a Bond film in 2004 like we didn't get a 3rd Dalton film in 1992 and a 3rd Craig film in 2010, but what can you do.

While I'd agree about Dalton and Brosnan, I wouldn't say the same for Craig. We aren't too far off track for his third film. Even if MGM didn't have those financial troubles we wouldn't have seen a film until 2011, at least that's what Michael Wilson said after Quantum (he needed a break). I think it worked out in our favor. One year off but now we have a film for the anniversary and Craig is only 44 so we still have a few more Bond films in him.

#53 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 04:20 AM

The producers didn't let Brozza down, and he didn't let them down. Brozza proved in GE that he was a good enough Bond to put in the middle of the type of films that would make Eon a bag of money, and Eon rewarded their star by offering him the option on the fourth film of his original three-with-an-option-for-a-fourth contract. Everyone goes home happy, right?

Now from a writing perspective, the 90s were probably not Eon's most creative spell, but let's be truly honest with ourselves, Eon stopped pushing the envelope about forty years ago - the series has, with a few exceptions, done little more than cannibalize or retread itself when it comes to putting bums on seats. Babs and Mike then, were really only following the company playbook during Brozza's tenure.

Did Brozza deserve more? I've consistently said that Brozza is the best thing about his films, but I'm not sure that his full resume would fill you with confidence that he could have done much more - all his roles are variations of a theme, and when he's tried to break that mould (the Irish movie with the kid, and the western) he's not been that great and the films have bombed. So from a producer perspective, on what basis do you take a creative risk, when every film from GE on made more money than the one before it?

Brozza did want to do more with the role after TND, and he approved when they brought in Apted who remember did not have an action background. And long time members know, I have always defended TWINE when it frequently takes a pounding in these parts! We hate how Bond behaves, the interaction with Marceau, too much M, the action is just dropped in etc, etc, but then conveniently forget that script and choice of director was all to assuage Brozza's desire to "peel the layers" (ooh, haven't typed that one in awhile!!!).
we can't have it both ways - we can't say Brozza was owed more, and then give him a pass when TWINE takes a beating.

Again, I think Brozza did a great job with what he was given but I'm unconvinced he was capable of more, and more importantly, Eon and MGM (and everyone on the payroll, including actors) were making too much money to care.


#54 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 07:48 PM

Now from a writing perspective, the 90s were probably not Eon's most creative spell, but let's be truly honest with ourselves, Eon stopped pushing the envelope about forty years ago - the series has, with a few exceptions, done little more than cannibalize or retread itself when it comes to putting bums on seats.



When it comes to the Bond series, EON Productions have been a hit-and-miss since the first movie, as far as I'm concerned.

#55 AStupidPoliceman

AStupidPoliceman

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 8 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 07:53 PM

My interpretation of this thread is that Brosnan's tenure is rather poorly thought of. I'm certain that for quite a few people that's an accurate reflection of their feelings, but I can also assure you that for quite a few people that's not true at all. Brosnan was my first Bond. To me, he still is James Bond, and always will be...to a certain extent. I grew up watching Goldeneye, and Tomorrow Never Dies, and I liked The World Is Not Enough, but didn't enjoy Die Another Day nearly as much. I left thinking it was rather silly. So count me in as one of the "generic" Bond fans at the time. I enjoyed his movies and thought he was a cool Bond.

Ten years later, my feelings have changed....a little. I don't play video games any longer, and I don't think all or Brosnan's films are great any longer. I still love Goldeneye and think it gave the series a desperately needed kick in the pants. I think Tomorrow Never Dies just has to much action, and lacks substance. Not awful, but constantly shooting or blowing something up. Just seems pointless. I still enjoy The World Is Not Enough in a "maybe it's a little too cheesy, but I still enjoy it" sort of way. The scene where Pierce puts the supressor on his Walther and prepares to execute Renard shows a pretty B.A. Bond that I loved. The first half of Die Another Day is rather good, but the final half really kills it for me. It's just so silly; too silly.

All in all, I think Brosnan's films can be rated similarly to the other actors who have done at least four films. He has good, average, and poor performances. Poor writing? Possibly. Poor acting? Plausible. An entire decade of mistakes? Surely not. I can find plenty to criticize in Moore's films, but I certainly can't write him off as a twelve year waste of time until we got The Living Daylights. At times I cringe, and times I'm with him, shouting "Get 'em Roger!"

#56 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:00 AM

I was worried I was going to get a lashing out for this one. Anyway here it is again, a little revised:

THE 007 MILLENNIUM SERIES CONSPIRACY
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 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.
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.

THE GIRL WHO KICKED BROSNAN OUT
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$$.



#57 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 06 July 2012 - 03:36 AM

Perhaps you could have just reedited your first post? Seems a little excessive to post the whole thing again, no?

#58 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 07:43 PM

BTW, if the next Bond actor proves to be even better than Craig, that doesn't mean I'll start hating Craig the way so many have turned their backs on Brosnan. Thanks for yours, Mr. B - I'm sorry you didn't get one more in.


I have noticed that many Bond fans tend to praise the current Bond actor at the expense of the previous one. The only time this didn't happen was when Moore replaced Connery. Then again, I have come across a good number of Bond fans who preferred Moore over Bond. And this happened when Moore was still portraying the role.

#59 Gothamite

Gothamite

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 409 posts
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:04 PM

If you ask me, the argument of whether or not Brosnan and his films were any good is hugely a generational one. LEGIONS of people I know, on both sides of the Atlantic cite GoldenEye as either their absolute favourite, or one of the very best. Many regard Brosnan and Connery as the best suited to the role, etc, etc.

Personally I never quite fell in love with GE as much as others did (but I LOVE TND and I still think DAD is better entertainment than DAF), but you have to respect the nostalgia-factor. I've heard far too many people on this site say things that basically amount to "I grew up with Moore, so he's great, but Brosnan did a similar thing for the 90s and that's bad."

#60 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 13 October 2012 - 09:05 PM

Brosnan was my first theater Bond, so in a way I did grow up with him. Especailly when you consider I was still edging into Bond fandom when Goldeneye came out.

I'm working on a Brosnan retrospective for this site (shameless plug alert!). Look for it to pop up on the main page sometime next month.