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
I thought Christmas only comes once a year. I still hear the whole theater Groan.
A curiously uninteresting little conversation you've got going there with yourself, @BigGayIsland and @MarshallODubleOSeven.
I think that there is much expedient Brosnan-bashing and sheer revisionism that does not accurately tally with the facts by the bigger of the Craig nuts. I suppose something similar happened to Tim Dalton once Brosnan became Bond, but I for one can't remember it (and I suppose that the Internet was not around in as big a way then, either). Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is great too, but does this greatness have to be at the expense of another actor in the role, namely Pierce Brosnan? I think not, but others have their views as I know from a tour of all the main Bond forums, and I must say I find it all a little bit showy and bandwagon clambering in intent and style.
I have always meant to write a lengthy defence of Pierce Brosnan and in so doing tell the story of his loss of the role in 2004-2005 and I may indeed do that yet.
And, I'm not a Brosnan fan-boy by any stretch!
I will look forward to your story, although I have a pretty good idea what went down as there is a lot of press on the subject.
Oh, I wasn't getting at you or anyone in particular, Sir Henry. It was just a general observation, really. I find all the Brosnan bashing just seemingly for the sake of it very unbecoming and I merely thought that it was high time that I stood up and made myself counted as a closet Brosnan defender, cricket bat in hand:
Yes, and that was of course a point that I made in the post you quoted. What was discussed at the office water cooler regarding the Brosnan versus Dalton debate is another matter altogether, of which there is by necessity very little record.
In '95, Brosnan was our saviour!
Well, I was young then, for sure. Just started primary school in 1989! So forgive my old water cooler cliché, there. I rank Dalton as the best Bond, by the way.
*ducks the coming onslaught of virtual arrows from the C&C crowd*
No, I think that is quite sound as a judgement, actually. You've nothing to fear from me, anyway. ;)
So the backlash toward Brosnan's tenure really started because we were at first so enthusiastic about it and it ended up in disappointment.
Great points well made, @Ludovico. That about wraps that one up as they say on detective shows.
But seriously, I loved Brosnan as Bond back then, and I love him as Bond now.
No, he's not Tim or Sean, but neither is Craig, now is he?
Some on here would certainly disagree with that, @chrisisall!
I should have said audiences. But I know I was enthusiastic about Brosnan. I had wanted him to play Bond since the 80s. It is only later that I grew disappointed, in fact it took me DAD. My point is that unlike Tim or Craig, his casting was generally received positively, if not enthusiasm, and this was before shooting started. He had a free pass no actor after Connery ever had and maybe never will have. Modern criticism is also a reaction to this initial positive attitude towards him.
On topic, I don't bash Brosnan to praise Craig. I bash Brosnan because I think he was terrible as Bond.
I know the feeling, but please stick around and don't let the trolls drive you away. That's what they want so don't give them the pleasure.
I would definitely be one of those who would disagree with that remark. Craig is the only Bond actor who is in the rarified air of Sir Sean and Dalton as far as what Bond should mostly be as a character and how he is portrayed. That's it in a nutshell for me.
Just report the spammers and they'll be dealt with.
As much as it may seem otherwise to certain people out there, my criticisms are different than what I consider to be outright bashing. Every single actor who has played Bond has had their good points. It's when one is so obsessed with being critical of an actor or era that they will not acknowledge what was right that the line gets crossed. I'll keep saying it- a true Bond fan doesn't take that stance. That's what will perpetually make me a large thorn in the side of certain regulars here and those who visit from DCINB to stir up nonsense.
Otherwise I'm not really sure who these "theories" that Brosnan bashing is fashionable exactly apply to? It seems to me that Craig gets unreasonably bashed far worse, I don't see any websites set up to bash Brosnan out there. I was never, ever in my life a bandwagon person. If I happened to be on one or not was simply me marching to my own drum beat. I'm a difficult person to control like that. I question everything that's supposed to be "the norm" unless I happen to agree. I definitely don't see any of my views as "well, I like Craig so I'll backlash against Brosnan fans who don't". I was very disappointed with Brosnan's poor performance in TWINE, for me the worst of his tenure. I blame him equally with the script for the film being so poor. I'd actually agree that he was better in DAD, and the film's utter failure save for a very few scenes wasn't something I fault him for, but at that point what I did blame him for was not being a game changer with a clue where he wanted the character to be. It's fairly clear to me based on interviews and the like that he was entirely too passive and content with the money and notoriety being Bond brought him. Which is why he didn't deserve a 5th chance IMHO and why I was pleased that he was terminated. He set a precedent that should never be repeated. His one seeming goal of presenting a emotionally sensitive and vulnerable Bond failed because he didn't seem to have the acting chops to pull it off. How do you kiss someone like Elektra after you killed her? The bitch was trying to kill him because she couldn't enlist him. "I never miss" should have been all that was required. Compare that scene to CR and the difference in quality of acting should be extremely evident. The rest told me that this was something Connery nor Dalton would have ever done, and Craig follows in that mold. I don't see this stance as misogynistic, the ladies here in this Forum who know me at all know me better than that, so much of what Brosnan does is antithetical to Fleming and prior portrayals, or just plainly rehashes what was done before.
A few years ago I'd have agreed with you. But now, especially on this site, it's definitely Brosnan who's the most hard done to.
You can't say a bad word about Danny boy, he's being called the best Bond ever by tons of people, but start slagging off Brosnan and half the forum will join in with you.
I get a bit sick of it to be honest. I thought he did a good job and I don't think he gets enough credit for helping to revive the series. If it wasn't for Brosnans success the series could've died in the 90s.
Perhaps there is a reason for this that has everything to do with genuine, considered opinions about Brozzer's lack of acting chops and originality as Bond and less to do with mostly unreasoned blathering on and on about blond hair, height, Golem ears, and lack of facial expression? I still don't see anti-Brosnan sites, all things considered he's gotten the benefit of the doubt most everywhere except here, where the most intelligent Bond fans appear to reside. I think it's perfectly reasonable and natural for people who favor Craig and see all the great things he's done in the role to be bothered a bit.
That said, I'm still a Connery man despite all his chauvinistic warts and so no, Craig hasn't proven to be the very best Bond. But when it comes to your last statement about Brosnan, short of continuing with Dalton I very much agree. Brosnan was the acknowledged heir apparent and the only logical choice for the role. History should see him in a favorable light as being the right man for the times. He was a popular figure and monetarily the series was revived and prospered in his tenure. Artistically speaking, I find many of the criticisms to be fair ones when presented reasonably.
$-)
Oh, don't spoil the fun! :)