It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The biggest Brosnan fans I know are @Murdock and @Creasy47, two tested and cemented Bond fans across the board, and they just so happen to have Pierce as their favorites. I have never seen them or any other Brosnan supporters on this forum ever ignore Pierce's comments or try to lie their way out of an argument or deny anything, period, because it wouldn't matter to them.
It's simple: they just love Pierce's portrayal, and I know for both Murdock and Creasy, he was their Bond because he was in the role as they grew up, and he brought them into the franchise as a whole, and because of that, he holds a special place in their hearts. What he did, no matter how unimpressive you find his efforts, spoke to them, and nothing anyone thinks, even Pierce himself, will sway that love they have for the era.
I don't see what the big conspiracy is here, or why you imagine the Brosnan fans all getting together to deny Pierce's comments on the role or play dumb to avoid arguments. When you love something, you never make excuses for it, as you are implying some Brosnan fans do, because that love blinds you to negatives and anything that would have to be excused in the first place, regardless of if they're there or not, as it's all subjective.
They're all just trying to enjoy their favorite Bond without doing anything to anyone else, and for some reason, that seems to really irk you. I wonder how it would feel if a member on the forum posted each day a diatribe about how Dalton was the worst casting decision EON ever made, how he belittled Fleming's creation and was a sorry excuse for a Bond, citing the greatest moment in the franchise's history as when the hiatus happened and flushed him out.
It's different to be on the other side of the firing line, to have the sights aimed at you, and by far and away Brosnan's fans get attacked more than anyone else here, when they do the least to deserve it, and the attackers use every opportunity to rub their personal truths about the man's work in their faces. How about we just let them enjoy Pierce and his work? Is that really so hard to do? Because at this point, it feels less like you're trying to have a discourse and more like you simply want to get your jollies off smiting Pierce for the thousandth time. If you're worried that your voice isn't heard by the Brosnan fans (or any of us, for that matter), don't, because we have known your feelings about Pierce for years and years now.
But for the general audience as a whole, then yes, Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig are the definitive Bond's.
I'm quite vocal in my anti-Dalton stance, because I know so many here love him. If everyone hated him I would probably defend him!
As we've discussed before, I don't feel he got a grip on the role properly (probably the closest he got was DAD, which strangely was the film that showed me he could have pulled it off all along if he wanted to). So I don't agree with the excuses that it was primarily a fault of his films. Yes, 3 out of 4 (TND, TWINE & DAD) of his films were poor in my view, but DAD showed he could have still lifted the films. In fact, I personally much prefer Brosnan as Bond in DAD & GE to Craig in SP.
Having said that, there is no doubting the man's popularity in the role, especially stateside. He is definitely responsible for rejuvenating the franchise in the 90's and introducing Bond to a whole new legion of fans. He is one of the more recognizable Bond actors, along with Connery, Moore & Craig. That is what this thread is referring to mainly.
Agreed. Though I think the scripts were worse than Brosnan. GE proves this in his best film and performance.
I don't know why Brosnan is being brought up. He is part of that group of 4 Bonds, but his popularity has waned, as Craig's will, when the next actor takes over. Brosnan is still a popular Bond, just not as much as he was.
As I said, it's open and shut, the thread title says it all.
And honestly all four films had good flemingesque plots and borrow from Fleming's pen...
Goldeneye- is an adaption of Moonraker
Tomorrow never dies is actually a subtle adaption of the spy who loved me. Before people ask if I am high no I am not sure they couldn't use character names but Vivinene is definitly The inspiration for Paris Carver. And Elliot is Kurt the paper boy Viviene got married to and lost her virginity to. And the script tells us hard core bond fans exactly that
(Paraphrasing from the novel)
Many asked why did I sleep and marry Kurt well simply because he said he loved me
(From the film)
Why did you marry Elliot
He told me he love me
(Paraphrase from the novel)
Goodbye my English gentlemen the man who stole my heart and sleeps with a gun under his pillow
(From the movie)
Tell me James do you still sleep with a gun under your pillow
Again I could go all day on this but to me the writer (I think Bruce fernstien still) took he spy who loved me read it and built his script on that novel (which for a novel they legally could only use the title and nothing else a large portion of the book is actually in film already and like Moonraker and Live and let die has been adapted in part in three films)
The world is not enough takes from for your eyes only (the whole M asking bond to privatly look into the murder of a friend)
Die another day- brosnan's tenure began and ended with an updated version of Moonraker (seriously if one more person asks for Moonraker to be adapted I will be pissed we got the book adapted three times can we move on to another novel like Diamonds are forever...)
So my point is Brosnan like all other bonds before and since played Fleming bond and there were plots and story ideas that came from the man himself and the lunacy that his films some how weren't connected to Fleming is ridiculous.
Is Brosnan my favorite no honestly as much as I love Craig in Royale and Solace (the former being number 1 in my bond movie ranking list and number 3 or 2 in my over all film ranking list) his last two films were weak to me and honestly I might have to put Dalton at number one
Though had the property of a lady happened I genuninly wonder where I would put Dalton as his bond against robots? Really?
Chillax. I personally enjoy hearing people take a swipe at Dalton. Or any of the actors. It's always amusing seeing what people think. Especially when they say GF is rubbish or Connery looks bored in YOLT - crazy stuff like that. If this site was just people droning on about how much they loved Dan's speedos and his amazing acting it would be utterly tedious.
Sorry some don't like to hear the truth about Brosnan but I'm not going to stop just because a few people get their knickers in a twist about how great Pierce was.
I have to say there's only one thing I find more absurd than the claim 'everything is subjective' and that's when members on here try and tell each other what they should or should not be posting about.
Any way, I took a long break from spreading the truth about Brosnan in order to tell people how bad SF was. Now I hear quite a lot of people saying the same about SF as I've been saying from the start - I.e. overrated, incoherent plot hole ridden mess.
As I say, I utterly disagree with the thread title and thesis that Brosnan's Bond was 'definitive' in any way whatsoever. Popular yes. Definitive no. They are very different things.
@Getafix, there's no way you dislike SF as much as I do, but even I know when to pump the brakes and give it a rest every now and then. There's only so many times we can say the exact same thing. You don't like Brosnan, and that's fine. I was introduced to the series via GE, so I have some bias toward him and his portrayal, and that's fine, too.
Dialing it back to the simplicity of the thread title: yes, those are the four definitive actors in the series, for sure. Whether you love or hate their take on the series is an entirely different question.
Also, I don't remotely buy this guff that Brosnan wanted to play it completely differently. It's absurd these attempts to absolve him of all responsibility for his own acting.
He did it how he did it. You can't just blame the scripts and directors. Imagine Dalton or Craig with Sophie Marceau - we'd have had something amazing.
Have Craig's scripts all been amazing? No. But that doesn't obscure the fact he has a clear and distinct take on the character - arguably a definitive take, although only time will tell.
Definition of definitive:
"Complete, accurate, and considered to be the best of its kind"
I've always liked Brosnan. He's still probably my second favourite behind Dalton. I think in terms of looks and just general manner, he's the most bang on in terms of what I picture Bond to be. I think he bought a swagger to it, a sense of effortless coolness. Like the bit in Goldeneye when he's at the base. Runs, hops over some pipes, drops three guys with his ppk, slides into cover and sets the explosive up, casually flicking his head to the side as bullets slam next to him. I can't imagine any other Bond doing that as well as he did. He was perfect as the cool, flashy action hero type but he also gave glimpses of a ruthless but vulnerable assassin hidden beneath all the charm and one liners.
I know we're vert off topic but just wanted to add this. I stumbled across these while seeking out reviews of Spectre and the whole series of retrospectives is worth reading, but I particuarly like what he has to say about Brosnan at the end of his DAD one
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/die-another-day/37190/james-bond-007-revisiting-die-another-day
"But there exist many caveats. Brosnan carried his films in a way no other Bond has had to do. With a weak Bond, none of his films, including Goldeneye, are strong enough to work regardless - in the way On Her Majesty’s Secret Service transcends the game but miscast George Lazenby. Meanwhile both Dalton and Moore required scripts that played to their very different strengths. In some ways Brosnan was too good a fit. The writers could shun Bond the character and focus on the fripperies because they knew Brosnan would shine regardless. Perhaps this is merely the fanboy talking…
But while it’s easy to scorn all the whizzbang in the cold light of Craig, remember that Craig only exists due to Brosnan. All four of his films were huge box office - giving the franchise the creative freedom to experiment with Casino Royale. If Casino Royale failed, well, back we go to the gadgets. But if Goldeneye failed, after a six year hiatus, after the commercial and critical failure of Dalton (posterity has been kind to Timothy, rightly, but it wasn’t always thus), nearly 30 years since the last genuine blockbuster that was The Spy Who Loved Me, if the first post-Cold War Bond fell flat on its arse - well, the future would have looked pretty bleak.
So farewell, Pierce. You gifted us one of the most loved Bond films of all. The other three films mixed qualified success and entertaining failure - in time I suspect we shall look more kindly on your era. As I hope will you; and I hope you appreciate the massive contribution you made to the series you loved so much. You let Bond become the behemoth of today. If nothing else, you’ll always be my favourite Bond, my Bond. And all that’s left to say is thank you.
Define it how you want, but you'd be hard pressed to find the general public recognizing the likes of Timothy Dalton or George Lazenby over Pierce Brosnan. Perhaps "definitive" may not be the word, then - "renown" would be a more suitable word.
"Perhaps this is merely the fanboy talking"... You reckon?!
Awesome suggestion!
We'll turn this thread into the same state as the Production Diary thread in no time.
@Birdleson
However, the author is guilty of overreach too. GE could have easily been played by any of the Bond actors. It was just an excellent film in my view, with a superior cast. Brosnan just showed up with a nice haircut and didn't screw up, which is all that was asked.
The last blockbuster before GE was MR, and not TSWLM. I know many like to forget that film, but it was by far the largest domestic grossing Bond since Connery's heyday, and I think may actually have grossed more globally than GE on an inflation adjusted basis. It was the #1 film worldwide in 1979.
I don't agree that Brosnan carried his films. I think he could have, but failed to do it in a way that Craig did in QoS.
Agree that Brosnan didn't carry his films. The Brosnan films failed to launch IMO - they're so turgid I literally cannot bear to watch them.
Inincreasigly feel the only one with any residual entertainment value is DAD - in a 'it's so bad it's good' kind of a way.
"I'm still not quite sure...how good you are."
"I am so good."
"Especially when you're bad."
Love it!
Subjectively speaking DAD is a masterpiece!
I would say Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Craig to a certain extent these days, as he is the present Bond with a somewhat personal spin.
I agree. Sean and Rog definitely. Craig perhaps but I think his star may wane and his long term reputation will be strong but not on the same level as those two.
The others in all fairness, as much as I like Laz and Dalton, probably not.
Yes i know Pierce lost popularity when Craig just got in but has regained some of it back and with Craig will happen again.
Craig at first was like the new version of your favorite toy but then time passed while he still one of the big favorites his treatment is a little more balanced.
At the end all the Bonds have cemented their fan basses and no matter who goes in or out they will always prefer that guy.
Your number 1 will always be yor number one but we can all the others as well.
In that respect Sean and Rog are light years ahead of anyone else.
If the question 'Name an actor who played James Bond?' appeared on a game show I would still expect Sean and Rog to be top answer and Dan coming in third because he is the incumbent and neither of them have played Bond for over 30 years.
The only thing Pierce really has going for him is he's recent. In another 30 years Sean will still be remembered and probably Rog. Dan and Pierce? Not so sure.
But then as the older generation die off will people who grew up with Pierce and Dan forget Sean? Possibly I suppose.
But currently I would have them in this order of resonance with the public:
1. Sean - he was definitive.
2. Rog - Did it his way to the extent that created a new definitive of his own.
3. Dan - The current holder which works strongly in his favour but also a pair of films (CR and SF) that are highly regarded by the public at large.
4. Pierce - 2nd most recent which means most people remember him and GE ticked all the Bond boxes the public like but the rest of his films have been forgotten. Don't think time will be kind to him.
5. Laz - Remembered for the novelty factors of doing only one, following Sean and Bond getting married.
6. Dalts - A lot of the public have already forgotten him and his films which were hardly spectacularly received at the time. Only well regarded amongst the fandom.