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
On reflection, this might be my coming out post as a closet Brosnan fan.
It was inevitable, really. Take solace in knowing that you probably didn't have a choice. ;)
Signed sincerely,
A fan of all 6 actors as Bond.
DAD came out after 9/11, and the reason it was a hit was people needed that bit of fresh Bond air.
You know the funny thing is, 24 defined post 9/11 action, and the pilot and lot of the first seasons was directed by Stephen Hopkins. (Predator 2). He was actually in talks to direct DAD, imagine what would have happened if he did?
Brosnan might have had a different film, and maybe had done a fifth with CR.
If Brosnan did come back for a 5th film, I doubt it would’ve been Casino Royale. From what I hear, EON wanted to wait for the perfect opportunity to do that one. I’d imagine a 5th Brosnan film would be something similar to FYEO. A down to earth, Fleming based plot featuring a colder, brutal take on Bond from Brosnan. Sadly, we never got that, which leads me back to my previous point; Brosnan needed a Flemingesque film.
But watching them recently, I really enjoy them for what they are. Very easy viewing. Unpretentious Comfort Bond if you like...
His first three have moved considerably up my rankings of late. They're certainly better than the bloated pretentious mess SP offered up.
Can't believe I'm bigging up Brosnan....I'll go and have a lie down...😁
Please do, mate! Am worried about your mental state!
I recall being excited by his casting at the time and then they add the scars for effect and make him unable to feel pain. All the signs were there for a potentially great villain and nothing interesting is done with it. He holds hot rocks and punches a table to demonstrate his pain problem and is turned into a sexually frustrated schoolboy. All this results in one of the most disappointing and least memorable villains of the series.
To clarify what I meant was I've seen many fans express Brosnan was somehow robbed because he didn't get a Fleming title or more Fleming- Tinfluenced story and that's always felt like an excuse. And by saying that doesn't jibe with what many of you say made the era fun - tank chases, caviar factory action, half-comic boat chases, comedy characters like Zukovsky and Wade -- I was saying wouldn't something like CR that takes those types of scenarios out make that less fun in your case had they made a Brosnan film like that? Saying it's hard to see having it both ways.
I hate using the phrase it is what it is, but that actually, at least for me, applies to what the Brosnan era was: it made good box office, gave people what they thought they wanted in a Bond with a popular actor, stuck to the formula and threw in a few half-hearted attempts to make it seem more current or more Fleminesque but ultimately played it safe.
The Craig era was a chance to go further in creating a more serious take on the character and taking chances with his adventures and proved it could work on all levels. Some people don't take to that as much as reflected by the enthusiasm for the Brosnan era and that's fine if that's what works for you as a fan. Ultimately, there's a lot Bond fandom offers.
So no, I don't think it's really an excuse myself. It's a pretty fair assessment. All the things you say about the era playing it safe can also be true, though (and in my opinion, you're not wrong).
It's my age....a nap will make everything alright 😆
Have to say I agree with this. If Roger Moore could go from a film like Moonraker, to a film like FYEO, I see no reason why Brosnan couldn’t.
Well I guess in TWINE they're at least barely in Istanbul: all we get that's real is a couple of wide shots of the water. Phuket looks okay, but I know what you mean.
TND at least has an overall look of steels and reds and blacks which is quite nice and coherent, TWINE's palette is my mind is sort of brown, over all. Lots of brown.
What reception to Dalton’s era? TLD was a commercial success.
Do you mean to say that the Brosnan era was EoN’s reaction to LTK’s mediocre box office take, ie. to from then onwards play is safe (bland) and do generic Bond by numbers..?
What's worse is the opening when they make a point of going to Bilbao in Spain for no other apparent reason than to get a glimpse of the then-new Guggenheim Museum.
Thanks, I enjoy yours as well. As you can guess, I have a complicated with that era. I'm a fan from way back and just as we were getting something fresh with Dalton, that went away and Brosnan coming in seemed safe. It was fashionable not just in fan circles but for critics to downgrade the Dalton era in favor of the comfortable fit. You had a few new things to account for the times but as I mention they just never committed to really making it different and played it mostly safe. It was just an unsatisfying mix.
As we know, Craig's portrayal has led to new appreciation for Dalton. Craig's announcement got hammered from a lot of people before CR ever debuted, and one of the often-heard comments was it was unfair to Brosnan that he never got the Fleming-type film. It's just hard to believe it would've made a difference, just my opinion.
It's always fashionable to bash the previous era, but fact is I wasn't enamored of the Brosnan era when we were in it and communicated that on boards like this. Now it seems to be extending to Craig and NTTD is still in theaters. So when there are threads like this where other fans offer opinions it makes for good discussion and I try to make, what I hope are, valid counters. We're not all going to agree but that's what makes being fans and discussing it here fun.
Well I certainly respect your opinion, but I’d just like to pose a question to you, or anyone else who’d like to answer. If the tone and style of the Dalton films remained throughout the entirety of the Brosnan era, would you guys find yourself enjoying it more? Or is it more dissatisfaction at Dalton’s decision to leave after 2 movies?
Yes, I guess it is a fairly striking image, but otherwise; just go to Switzerland.
No Bond films haven't been a success, but some are bigger successes than others.
Much of this is down to Brosnan not managing to put his stamp on the character -- that plus vanilla 90s action causes most of his entries to come across as somewhat character-less .
Pierce himself said he never quite managed to flesh out 'his own' take on 007. All the others bar Lazenby did.
This is not an easy thing to do and most actors of Brosnan's ability would have struggled equally.
In the end it comes down to stage craft & acting talent, simple as that.
I’m not sure how much I agree with this, on one hand, I feel like Brosnan fleshes out his Bond quite well throughout his four films, even with the scripts he was given, he still manages to bring somewhat gravitas. Yes he incorporates elements of all his predecessors, but he also adds his own personality and charm, and that’s unique to him. This is something I read into quite a bit, but I think another quality Brosnan brought to the role is his deadly usage of any weapon he’s given. The man is like a force of nature whenever they give him any sort of gun, and I love the 90’s action shoot em up aspect of Brosnan’s Bond. Plus, of all the criticisms I’ve seen about Die Another Day, Brosnan’s never been one of them.
I don’t think Bond as a character was ever really fleshed out to begin with bar Dalton. Directors add hints and flourishes throughout their films, but they’re never given any opportunity to do so beyond one single scene/moment because of the strict adherence to the formula.
In TMWTGG they're trying to (and successfully) sell Phuket as an island paradise. In TND the objective is not the same. Similarly with Istanbul in TWINE, establish the location, but the submarine is the device that drives the story in that locale.
That's a good question and for me it hinges on if you think Dalton left on his own or basically was pushed out by MGM leadership; I feel it's the latter from all I have read. GE seems like such a better fit for Dalton and by most accounts was written with him in mind. It's an awkward fit for another actor's first film considering they gave Bond a colleague he'd supposedly partnered with on other missions.
But I don't see Dalton's version of the character interacting with one like Xenia Onatopp, which makes one wonder if he was still playing it if that would've been modified. I just can't imagine Dalton writhing around in a sauna with her. It's where Brosnan was a better fit with that type of material. But I also think the Natalya character, who I don't like in GE, would've been a good match if paired with Dalton.
It may come as a surprise that my favorite Brosnan film is TND although it's a repeat of the Bond must avert WWIII scenario. I liked it so much because it was that throwback to the classic Connery/Moore style and shouldn't have worked but it did. It moved fast and really toned down the personal stuff and got down to the business of delivering fun and thrills and Brosnan was at his best in it. It was when they tried to half-experiement with TWINE and DAD that it really went south for me.
I think in Bond films they try to make everywhere look nice or impressive, generally. Hence the whole travelogue thing.
Yes, I can imagine Fourth Protocol-era Brosnan doing Living Daylights and being really good in it, but I feel like Dalton would have really struggled in GoldenEye.
It was a very subversive Bond film.
There's one thing though, is that in that same era, True Lies demonstrated how Bond action could be insanely savage, and due to the ratings, I regret that the Brosnan films never went to True Lies level of crazy action (of course James Cameron was a master), despite Goldeneye clearly having some True Lies inspired action scenes like the last fight between 006 & 007.
Nonetheless, it was great Brosnan held the series British end up in that very competitive era. I just wish the last two films would have been bolder, rather than verging on the stupid CGI surfing and badly drawn and acted characters.
Yet even during Brosnan's run, I distinctly remember his films looking a bit cheap and generic, particularly during their third act/climax.
However, I will say that I think he has the most consistent run of PTS in the entire 25 films. Each PTS from GE to DAD is fantastic.
Quite so.
Why the hell was he in suit and tie when he was clearly aiming to covertly sneak into Carver's Hamburg HQ...???
Hamburg is a very corporate town! ;)
Thank you yes, I knew there was something which made me think that and you've reminded me that's the one which stood out to me recently too- when you're going to be crawling over someone's roof then a suit is an odd choice. Note that Wai Lin turned up dressed like Emma Peel! :D
Even Roger's Bond would have just worn a Harrington jacket and a T-Shirt for that.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. They always want to make the Bond films look glamorous and visually impressive, and they spend substantial money and time on scoouting locations and shoot on them. Why on earth would they bother with the fuzz of going all the way to Ha Long Bay if not?