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
Moore and Dalton were both given the chance to "be themselves" and put their own spin on Bond but Brosnan was just a good looking male model who dressed in a tux, said "My name is Bond, James Bond." and fired off a crap load of machine guns.
Despite this, he was VERY POPULAR. Many of his diehard fans hated the hiring of Daniel Craig and not since Lazenby had to step into Sean's shoes was a Bond actor so viciously slammed.
I have read posts on this community that has described the Brosnan era as "sew-age," "golden showers era" and other colorful metaphors.
And Lazenby was better? HAHAHAHAHAH! Broz brought a certain depth to the role, like Dalt did (but different). Later Connery through early Moore were mostly superheroes.
Exactly, that's my main point. Brosnan was extremely popular during his era. I remember as a kid going to Target, The Thomas Crown Affair always had like 20-30 copies on the shelf for years; there was a whole section reserved for it, and it sold well! I feel like he was amongst the top movie stars when he was Bond. I just got shocked when I read people's opinions on Brosnan nowadays. It seems like they turned their backs on him when Casino came out (not everyone).
Wait you thought later Connery and Moore were superheroes but Brosnan wasn't? The only thing Brosnan was missing was a cape. That was one of the biggest problems of the Brosnan Era. He was an unstoppable killing machine that wept for Paris' death one second and was having the time of his life during the next.
TND is a Michelle Yeoh movie more than a Bond one (man, she steals the show) and DAD... DAD is another Moonraker: funny romp, stupid film.
I liked Brosnan at the time because there was no alternative. Looking back, his movies are poor. Neither serious nor gritty, they all fall apart after an hour.
He doesn't convince me. Whereas Craig is dangerous. Might not be as traditionally good looking, but so what. He's reenergised people's expectations for the films.
That was his Bond though. A flashy, unstoppable action hero with some depth to him. It was sort of tragic because by this point, Bond was somebody who was so used to death and killing that it no longer affected him. He even said this in Goldeneye. When Natalya asks him how he can be so cold, he says it's what keeps him alive. That was Brosnan's Bond. He killed loads of people but he wasn't affected by it at all because it was his job, he was doing it "for England" and he decided that if he let it affect him then he'd end up dead.
:))
I just think it is harkens too close to the Moore era. I like to see the hero fall and get bruised once in a while. Makes him more believable and human.
I say that as someone who adores the tank chase in GE.
Brosnan's Bond was just extremely lucky because he was reckless but didn't get injured (apart from TWINE, where it does actually affect him). When the baddies shoot at him, bullets just fly around him. Craig's Bond is reckless too but he isn't as lucky. He does get injured, but this makes no difference whatsoever. He's invincible.
Craig is invincible. Brosnan was just incredibly lucky.
And the shoulder injury gets forgotten long before the end. It doesn't impact Bond within the story in any way. That, I'd think, is where the argument comes from.
WTH we just roll with it. Craig does get bruised and bloody (after the fight with Obanno and his henchman). I guess the adranalin keeps him moving.
Brosnan so much like Roger Moore is just downright lucky. Never a hair out of place, bad guys possess many traits save for shooting straight when shooting at him. Driving a tank through St Petersburg and straightening his tie! More Roger Moore crap!
Jumping from a digger to a train carriage and adjusting his cuffs! More Roger Moore crap!
Why can't you do the same with Brosnan? He doesn't get shot or bruised, so what? It's a film, doesn't have to be like real life. Just sit back and enjoy it.
:)) HHahahahahahaha *NAILED*
Moore's show piece was his eye-brow.
Which is my point with the Brosnan age. EON is just too heavily influenced by the Moore era. They should have given Brosnan more leeway and the chance to spread his wings more. Heck, Roger did his thing; Dalton had his way with the part that played to his strengths. Audiences may have loved Brosnan at the time but for me and a few others, we never really knew just who the hell his Bond was.
I love Brosnan's style and take on Bond, I really do. Moore and his unflappability, that eyebrow. All a big YES from me. :) When done just right, it was not OTT or annoying. But that is my taste. I love the solid serious sense of danger that is palpable in Connery's best moments and Craig's; I love Brosnan's coolness (I always sense simmering heat inside of him) and Moore's charm. Each of them have assets, attributes that give us a great Bond. The key is in the balance of those things.
I did not feel that the Brosnan films were heavily copying the Moore films, no. And I was never confused about who Brosnan's Bond was. TND sealed that for me.
Moore's Bond changed a bit over the films...so did Connery's, actually so has Craig's.
Which I like, btw.
Broz had his own thing, and it was great. The tie-staightening under water I could have done without, but absurdity is the cornerstone of Bond.
But... you know who Craig's Bond is... balderdash I say. :D
Each Bond needs his own style. I don't confuse Brosnan with any of the others. His "boyish" charm was never too boyish for me and he seemed to pour enough of his own personality into the role.
If you say Brosnan's Bond did not change, I don't think you are seeing the films as a whole. His GE Bond changed as early as TND, segued into the TWINE Bond (which was up and down for me) and a good older, very decent Bond in a bad film, DAD.
1.GE 3 Stars
2.TND 2.5 Stars
3.TWINE 2 Stars
4. DAD .5 star, UNWATCHABLE
As you can see, for me his films progressively got worst after GE...
:)>-
I've got just the thing.