Why the Brosnan backlash?
LOO7K OUT
United KingdomPosts: 474MI6 Agent
Can anyone explain to me where all the current anti-Pierce stuff has come from? I'm asking this from the perspective of a devoted but general James Bond fan. I enjoy the whole world of Bond, be it Fleming, Gardner, Benson, Daily Express, Cubby & Harry - and at a push McClory and Kersh. During his time, PB was hailed as the saviour of the franchise and post D.A.D Babs & Mike the devil incarnate for sacking him and hiring Daniel. Now I know PB didn't endear himself by whinging publicly for months about losing the role and it didn't help him that Dan was so damn good in the part and that CR was a bloody good Bond film. But it seems that most people actually dislike Brozza these days. Is this right? If so, why?
Comments
Personally I'd have been quite happy to have seen Brosnan do at least one more.
Duncan
Err, just about every Bond forum, sorry if you missed it, but it's all over the 007 internet base. The General public has nothing to to with this, that's why I'm asking the fan community. Not trying to be funny here, but it seems that everywhere you go you hear about how rubbish Brozza / the 90's films were or hear him called old woodentop etc etc. All I wondered is why, that's all.
Like I said before, I love all bond and the intention for this thread isn't a debate, just opinions on why there was such an anti Brozza vibe these days.
Duncan
This is exactly what mean, Thank you Walther P99.
I mean it can't be anything personal otherwise we'd all hate Connery. The out with the old in with the new doesn't wash either.
In my view, Goldeneye was good enough, the first half of TND ws amazing, TWINE was Brozzas Goldfinger/TSWLM to me, only DAD which I still enjoy, was the duff one if there has to be one, but still only the same type of film as YOLT and MR. I understand the critisicms of the films, but in the last few months, things seemed to have turned personal against Pierce. Whereas, although his performance somtimes seemed a bit affected / trying too hard, he WAS James Bond and loved it. Nowt wrong with that.
Duncan
Interesting how the CR DVD extra "Making Bond For Real" (or something like that), off the bat states that the Producers wanted to replace Pierce Brosnan with a younger, more athletic actor to play Bond ...yeouch! That's probably is the most "official" statement of EON's actual promotional M.O. whenever they have a new actor to present, except before, they allowed the new actor to voice how they were going to improve over their predecessors; as a side on that note, I think it's classy how Craig himself did not do that and took the high road by acknowledging Brosnan's senior authority over the role.
Among the fanbase too, I think it's common to develop a mutually exclusive stance on preference by putting in direct opposition whatever isn't your favorite, like Star Trek vs. Star Wars, or Marvel vs. DC (a passionate subject for my son at school).
I've actually warmed a lot towards CR and Craig since those most contentious days within the fanbase and learned to appreciate DC's contributions on many levels, though he's not among my top 3 favorite Bond actors. I guess my biggest mistake was to ignore one of the more common please from the DC defenders then, to keep in mind that CR is first and foremost a Bond film, which I now know is the clincher. I don't think it's healthy to reduce one Bond to utter nothingness when stacked against your favorite. Surely there are degrees, but to borrow a line from still the bestest Bond ever, in the end these guys are just different like the way Peking Duck is different from Russian Caviar...but I love them both.
ps - Rog was the best!:D
Live & Let Die - 1973
I think Pierce was a fine actor and a worthy Bond, but the films themselves were flawed, basically being cut 'n' paste rehashes of material from earlier films, or simply too outlandish in comic-book fashion (glacier surfing, for instance). I suspect that most people aren't bashing the Brozzer so much as they are saying 'good riddance' to that era in general.
There wasn't a Bond internet community before Brosnan, so makes sense that until Craig it was peopled almost exclusively with Brosnan Bond fans, no? I certainly never felt the need to seek out the online Bond forums during Brosnan's tenure, I only piped up when he was canned, and EON hired Craig--very happy days from my POV. But I've been grumpy about Bond since they hired Moore (actually since they asked Connery back and he showed up bored and out of shape), so I'm perhaps not the most even-keeled fan to ask, lol.
For many, a generation even, Brosnan is Bond, much like Moore was before him, and Connery at the beginning. For the most part, I don't see that changing. New Bond with Craig, new voices, that's all.
I myself tend not to bash Brozzers. I liked all of his films, even DAD to some extent and think he did very well in the role. he is not my favourite Bond by any stretch of the imagination but he was still a good Bond, as all of the six actors who have played him have been.
Excellent points. We tend to forget that the internet as a mass medium is still barely half a generation old. Had there been an internet when George took over for Sean, or Rog for Sean, or Tim for Rog, or Pierce for Tim, we would have multiple actor changes as context. Instead, we have a new forum for people like blueman whose beliefs have been consistent, and for others who jump on the "out with the old, in with the new" bandwagon. This is especially the case given the sharp contrast between Craig's and Brosnan's portrayal and between the tone of CR vs. the previous four films.
Good post, Cap. Personally, I think that whatever "Brosnan backlash" there's been is indeed owing to other forums and to other news sources. The prime culprit, I believe, is the founder of that anti-Craig website, who couldn't just protest Craig getting the role. . .she had to elevate Brosnan to the position of saint and martyr, howling about his poor treatment and going on and on about his goodness, honesty, and purity; and she turned Craig into an ugly, backstabbing monster who got the part because of his "relationship" (wink wink) with Babs Broccoli. I think there was a natural reaction of, "Come on--Brosnan isn't THAT good and Craig isn't THAT bad."
I also think Brosnan didn't do himself any favors. Long before he was given his walking papers, I was bothered by his tendency to promote his latest Bond effort as the best film since Citizen Kane; and then, a few months later, whine about how the producers wouldn't listen to him, what a chore the film was, and demanding more of a say in the next production. That he made statements like "F___ them" about the producers after he lost the role made him look childish and unprofessional.
As for what the fans will say about Craig after he leaves the role. . .well, it can't be much worse than what they said when he first got it!
Funny, I was about to respond to walther p99 with "off course..." So, yes, "off course," but my short answer is that it takes a certain level of open-mindedness. Even criteria is subjective and can be conditioned by bias. Seeing how some have conditioned themselve to like "either or," the personal process of defining preference makes a liking for both PB and DC difficult, if not impossible, to do.
I speak about the difficulty of this process from my own experience, that I hated the thought of Craig as Bond but at a point decided to consider what the more sensible bretheren and sisteren here have been pleading for, particularly to consider the essential qualities of the source story that were effectively infused into the film, which is a credit to the whole CR production since the film's premise was wholely dependent on Bond's origin story as laid out by Fleming himself.
I imagine most fans like both Brosnan and Craig. I know I do. A fan might like one more than the other, but that does not mean you have to be anti-anybody. All the actors have their strengths and weaknesses.
Absolutely right.
This is more an unfortunate byproduct of the online 'debate' format than anything else, IMRO.
Well said, supes {[] It's always the 'fresh ingredients'---which the New GuyTM of the moment brings to the dance---that enable him to charm the fans, whilst causing a degree of dismissal to enshroud his predecessor...but as you said, the production any given film, as a whole, figures into the equation.
For my own part, I happen to enjoy both Brozzer and Craig, but my preference is for the latter, because of the way Craigger's strengths play to 'old school' Fleming (in my own previously-discussed 'gut' estimation
At the same time, I was one of those grinning from ear to ear, during the PTS of GE, where Brosnan unhesitatingly jumped on the motorcycle and followed the plane off the cliff B-) Brosnan took complete ownership of the role at that moment :007)
Similarly, I was thrilled by Dalton's infinitely more kinetic Bond (by comparison :v ) when the rip-roaring PTS of TLD unfolded for me on the big screen...
Then we have Sir Roger's escape across the backs of the alligators, in LALD...
George's kick-ass physicality, and surprising command of Majesty's final scene...
And Connery...from his first "Bond...James Bond" onward :007)
If one chooses to focus on what each Bond actor does well (versus his weaknesses), there really is something to like about them all...but those who've been left feeling disenfranchised by the 'Brosnan Backlash' can take comfort in the certainty that Craig will take his place in the fishbarrel when it's time for Bond #7 to wear the tux -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Are there Bond fans who were really fond of Brosnan, but now revile him in the role? If there are, I suspect they are in quite the minority, hence my opinion that there really isn't that much backlash, just new (and old
This was the main problem I had with Brosnan and I think it did detract from his films. The irony being now he is no longer in the role I'm looking at him more favourably.
As others have said.I think the 'backlash' is par for the course. Its happened to them all apart from Connery at some stage. Sir Roger being a prime example. The guy was obviously one of the most successful Bonds ever yet reading about him in the press now you would think he nearly ruined the franchise with his 'silly' films.
Moore = 2 good Bond movies, 3 mediocre and 2 bad
I personally don't understand the enormous hatred against Brosnan. As Bond, I thought he was great. He is charming, he knows how to pull of the emotional scenes and he handles the action sequences quite well.
He had to deal some with poor screenwriting. TND was just a rehash of TSWLM and YOLT, while DAD was just utter crap. I've also never cared for the shooting sequences in the Brosnan era. It seemed he just ran through bullets and killed bad guys without even looking at them.
I think Craig is great as Bond and that CR is superior the Brosnan films. But I still enjoy him as Bond and he has made a great contribution to the series.
So who really hates him?
Brosnan was a Bond for a generation but his films were pretty poor and a Bond is only as good as the material they give him (of course material is tailored to his strengths).Even the lauded Goldeney which was credited with garnering a new generation of Bond fans looks pretty weak compared with the tour de force of Casino Royale.
I was one of those who bit his lip duing the Brosnan tenure. By the final reel of DAD I genuinely wanted Bond to end if this was the road they were going down.Leave me to my happy memories of thirty years but if we were going down the DAD route it was time to say goodbye.
Yes, there is a generic backlash for each Bond. And Lazenby suffered immesasurably being after the lauded Sean Connery. But when an era is weak it is weak.
And Casino Royale and Daniel Craig threw that into sharp relief. So, yes, sorry to say - I think the backlash is justified.
Bronan, and more over his movies felt like that - they never gave you something you hadnt seen before, and they gave you everything you had seen before.
Then in walks Casino Royale, and we have a Bond who we have never seen before, and a movie that we have never seen before.
All of a sudden Brosnan's movies paled in comparison - and lets face it DAD does pale in comparison to CR.
I think though that's the problem: many people compare CB to DAD, not the Brosnan films as a whole. I think if people look to GE and TWINE, then that would be a fairer comparison.
Really?
From my time on the boards, Ive often gathered that TWINE and TND seem pretty much either loved or hated - and more often the former. There isnt a gernal agreement that they are good movies (similar to how CR is deemed good by practically everybody, and DAD is deemed bad by practically everybody)
I think GoldenEye is the only Brosnan that most people who you talk to say they really liked it.
Exactly. And that to me is shameful. The way we love them one minute and tear then down the next. It's a fickle, fickle world.
I love Pierce. I always will. Some of his Bond films are maybe not my favorites in the series, but it has nothing to do with his portrayal, and I for one, am very glad he was Bond. I'm grateful for all that he brought to it.
I just got back from Hawaii, I was in Kauai, and spent a risky afternoon in a very rugged and remote area, crossing 7 very rickety and narrow one way bridges with lots of traffic, just to get a glimpse of his house there. I knew he was in London, but still since I was there I had to try. The gates were closed, and I just missed his garbage cans being out with his name on them.