Brosnan = 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.
That's my single biggest complaint about the Brosnan era, and unfortunately CR had such a scene as well (the embassy shootout). After the trend toward ultraviolent heroes in the 1980's and early 90's, like Rambo and Die Hard, they turned Bond into a one-man army commando, {:) leaving trails of dozens of bodies in his wake.
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 completely agree. I can understand how there are some people who have never liked or loved Brosnan, but what annoys me is that during his stint, the same people (often critics) who expressed admiration of him are now very anti-him. It's like with Moore. Twenty years on, alot of people are raving about how unMoore-like Craig is, yet Moore was one of the most popular Bonds of all time. There's nothing wrong with criticising someone if one genuinely doesn't like them. However sadly it seems to me that for many people, they can't appreciate a new actor without dumping on the old.
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.
Me too. Brosnan holds a very special place in my heart and I will forever be grateful to him for donning the tux. -{ In fact, as a measure of how much I love Brosnan, I thought he was terrific in DAD, even though I loathed that film. )
but at least if no one else appreciates him, I do.
As I said earlier, I also appreciate him. {[]
BTW, in response to the idea that CR has brought about a revision of Brosnan's era, I question if that is true. For some people it may be true, but I wonder how many of these people are big Brosnan fans in the first place. That is, if they are big fans of his films, why would their views be changed by CR (no matter how good they think it is) unless they didn't love his films? Anyway, I personally love Brosnan and I think he was alot better than Craig and I think two of Brosnan's films (GE and TWINE) were superior to CR, however for me, though, the quality of the Brosnan era can not really be affected by the quality of the films of his successor.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I think I'm in a minority of people who didn't think TWINE was any better than TND. The plot is convoluted and the villians were actually weaker than TND's. They built up this idea of Renard, who was a very un-scary villian, being unable to feel pain - and didn't use it for anything. There are scenes, such as when Bond clubs him on the forehead with his gun, where he very much appears to be in pain. Stamper from TND seemed to be tougher.
Oh I know you do Dan! I was just being funny. There are lots of people here who respect and like Pierce like us.
I actually meant earlier in my post. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
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. ) Oh well. Now that's dedication, (some might even call it stalking!) ) but at least if no one else appreciates him, I do.
I just hope you didn't leave any simmering pots on his back porch, Mo. . . B-)
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. ) Oh well. Now that's dedication, (some might even call it stalking!) ) but at least if no one else appreciates him, I do.
I just hope you didn't leave any simmering pots on his back porch, Mo. . . B-)
BTW, in response to the idea that CR has brought about a revision of Brosnan's era, I question if that is true. For some people it may be true, but I wonder how many of these people are big Brosnan fans in the first place.
.
Its not just on this forum. On MI6 and CommanderBond.net there have all been retrospectives on the Brosnan era. Retrospection is good. Why can GF and TB be reappraised by a new generation and the Brosnan era be not?
Alot of people bit their tongue durig the Brosnan era. GE succeeded partly because it was the first for many years and wasnt an embarassment. But the other three were a law of diminishing returns culminating in the embarassment of DAD.
Even the most ardent Brozzer fan must agree that his films wernt always the best in the series...
however for me, though, the quality of the Brosnan era can not really be affected by the quality of the films of his successor.
it shold do - its called history. It reviewing a period from a safe distance. Maybe some people are too wedded to the Brosnan era to look at it objectively..
Alot of people bit their tongue durig the Brosnan era.
) ) )
Paranoia can be very funny to an outside observer! Why did you bite your tongue, steve, and who are the legions of others who did so as well? I get that the Brosnan era holds little/nothing dear for you. But the notion that anti-Brosnan opinions were somehow stifled during his era? Like I said, very funny!
I love PB as Bond. If SC was 100% then PB was 99.5%.
Can't understand why there is a PB backlash. His four movies have taken somewhere over $1.5 billion at the box office, and while box office receipts cannot be the only criteria for accessing a Bond actor he has to be credited with kick starting the franchise after the lack lustre box office performance of LTK (don't get me wrong I'm a TD fan as well).
Maybe it is because the excellent CR followed the less than excellent DAD. Maybe because DC got such a bashing in the newspapers some fans are feeling sorry for him and taking it out on poor Pierce.
Whatever the reason PB is one of the best Bonds there has been and I am glad he finally landed the part he was born to play.
Retrospection is good. Why can GF and TB be reappraised by a new generation and the Brosnan era be not?
Of course it can. But GF and TB were released 40 years ago. We're talking about reappraising the Brosnan films 5 years after which makes me question whether most people wouldn't simply be confirming their views. I mean, take you. You keep on talking about how the Brosnan era disappointed you. Well, you didn't reappraise the era; if anything your views were confirmed. Basically what I'm saying is that while some people may have different view now than they did 5 years ago, my hunch is that most people who now don't love Brosnan were never really big fans of him in the first place.
Alot of people bit their tongue durig the Brosnan era.
Don't be ridiculous. Nothing prevented you from speaking up 10 years ago any more than prevents me from speaking up now. As Sir Hillary noted, the idea that anti-Brosnan opinions were stiffled is ludicrous.
GE succeeded partly because it was the first for many years and wasnt an embarassment. But the other three were a law of diminishing returns culminating in the embarassment of DAD.
I don't exactly agree with that. While I do think that GE was Brosnan's best film (and the best Bond film since TSWLM), I think that TWINE was Brosnan's second best film (and the third best Bond film since TSWLM after GE and FYEO.)
Even the most ardent Brozzer fan must agree that his films wernt always the best in the series....
Perhaps, but one could have that opinion during his stint. I mean one could say the same thing about Connery, yet it surely wouldn't have taken people 30 years to realise that DAF or perhaps YOLT weren't the two greatest Bond films of all time (not that some people don't think that they were.) All I'm saying is, and you're yet to really address this, is that if someone was a big Brosnan fan, I doubt their views would change a mere 5 years after his last film.
Maybe some people are too wedded to the Brosnan era to look at it objectively..
Objectively as defined by you? I have no desire to enter into another Brosnan versus Craig discussion with you, but I hope that you don't think that the objective quality of Bond films is set by you alone.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I lurked around the Bond forums for several years before I joined AJB and I don't remember Brosnan being slagged off when he had the role. Maybe the fans who decided he wasn't their cup of tea stayed away.
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. ) Oh well. Now that's dedication, (some might even call it stalking!) ) but at least if no one else appreciates him, I do.
That's MBE-level dedication, Monique, and I meant it as a compliment.
BTW, there are plenty of people who appreciate Brosnan and what he did for the franchise. I, for one, am grateful for the financial successes of GE and TND, since they helped see MGM and the Bond series through a turbulent time. Without them, it's arguable whether the later films, including CR, could have been made.
Alot of people bit their tongue durig the Brosnan era.
) ) )
Paranoia can be very funny to an outside observer! Why did you bite your tongue, steve, and who are the legions of others who did so as well? I get that the Brosnan era holds little/nothing dear for you. But the notion that anti-Brosnan opinions were somehow stifled during his era? Like I said, very funny!
Don't know if, like actonsteve and myself, there are legions of Bond fans who sat idly by during the Brosnan years, waiting for the dude to age out of the role. But I still--STILL--haven't ever actually met someone in person who liked Brosnan in the role, every Bond conversation I've ever had with anybody had "yeah, I didn't like Brosnan as Bond" in it, and not from me (at least not first to say it, lol). Guess I don't hang out with the right sort of people...
And just a general observation, most people don't go out of their way to join a forum to comment on something they don't have a very strong opinion about, makes sense there's never been much of luke-warm anything fanbase on the web--why bother? Fans comment, non-fans find something that interests them. Anti-fans sometimes will pop up, but not for long unless there's a positive to capture their interest. Or they're CNBers.
If Craig/CR had not done well at the box office, the critical backlash that's been going on would undoubtably have not happened, and instead a wistful yearning for the good old Brosnan days would be headlining reviews of CR. That's what critics do. Of the Brosnan era "fanbase," other than the true Brosnan lovers like Monique (glad you made it back over those bridges ) I've always thought people went to Brosnan's Bond films kinda like they went to the last three Star Wars films: they were Star Wars films more than they were good films, they had all the bells and whistles yet were still missing Han Solo. I could be wrong about that, just doesn't seem anything lasting from that era other than missed opportunities, TND's affectionate throwback take on the 60s Bond films notwithstanding. Perhaps the perceived fan backlash is about the comparison with Craig, and fans feeling there was really no sizzle to go with Brosnan's flash? A hindsight tastes great/less filling, like?
Despite a very strong Brosnan fanbase, I wouldn't discount the many (how many?) Bond fans who bit their tongues at Brosnan's Bond. Or that CR/Craig struck a Bond nerve with the public that had pretty much atrophied over the past few decades. It's kinda like the old Connery/Moore debates from that changeover, just two very different Bonds and some fans like both and some pick sides.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
The dynamics at play go back to what I posted earlier and has to do with trends and preferences, and those aren't always the same. Brosnan certainly was "the trend," i.e., mass public appeal during his tenure, which could not be said for Lazenby and Dalton, though as blue noted, the Brozzer wasn't his and other likeminded ones' "preference." So, because of these obvious differences, do "trends" neccesarily validate "preference"? I tried to use that logic to support my anti-Craig argument before CR premiered, so I can't fairly say no out of conveniece of hindsight.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Alot of people bit their tongue durig the Brosnan era.
) ) )
Paranoia can be very funny to an outside observer! Why did you bite your tongue, steve, and who are the legions of others who did so as well? I get that the Brosnan era holds little/nothing dear for you. But the notion that anti-Brosnan opinions were somehow stifled during his era? Like I said, very funny!
Don't know if, like actonsteve and myself, there are legions of Bond fans who sat idly by during the Brosnan years, waiting for the dude to age out of the role. But I still--STILL--haven't ever actually met someone in person who liked Brosnan in the role, every Bond conversation I've ever had with anybody had "yeah, I didn't like Brosnan as Bond" in it, and not from me (at least not first to say it, lol). Guess I don't hang out with the right sort of people...
And just a general observation, most people don't go out of their way to join a forum to comment on something they don't have a very strong opinion about, makes sense there's never been much of luke-warm anything fanbase on the web--why bother? Fans comment, non-fans find something that interests them. Anti-fans sometimes will pop up, but not for long unless there's a positive to capture their interest. Or they're CNBers.
If Craig/CR had not done well at the box office, the critical backlash that's been going on would undoubtably have not happened, and instead a wistful yearning for the good old Brosnan days would be headlining reviews of CR. That's what critics do. Of the Brosnan era "fanbase," other than the true Brosnan lovers like Monique (glad you made it back over those bridges ) I've always thought people went to Brosnan's Bond films kinda like they went to the last three Star Wars films: they were Star Wars films more than they were good films, they had all the bells and whistles yet were still missing Han Solo. I could be wrong about that, just doesn't seem anything lasting from that era other than missed opportunities, TND's affectionate throwback take on the 60s Bond films notwithstanding. Perhaps the perceived fan backlash is about the comparison with Craig, and fans feeling there was really no sizzle to go with Brosnan's flash? A hindsight tastes great/less filling, like?
Despite a very strong Brosnan fanbase, I wouldn't discount the many (how many?) Bond fans who bit their tongues at Brosnan's Bond. Or that CR/Craig struck a Bond nerve with the public that had pretty much atrophied over the past few decades. It's kinda like the old Connery/Moore debates from that changeover, just two very different Bonds and some fans like both and some pick sides.
I'm always puzzled when people who don't like Brosnan as Bond, like blueman, often cite TND as the exception, or the only film where PB was acceptable to them as Bond. What did Brosnan do in TND that made that performance different than the others that he gave as Bond? He did well in TND's action sequences, but IMO, he did even better in that regard in GE's great fight on the satellite, or in DAD's sword fight. He delivered some one-liners very well in TND (I love the scene between him and Q when the latter delivered the BMW), but he handled the quips well in all 4 films (I'm not talking about the quality of the zingers, but rather just Brosnan's delivery). As far as showcasing his acting ability, I would say that TWINE, not TND, was the film where he excelled. The more complex and emotional plot of TWINE gave Brosnan more chance to give a multi-layered performance, and he took it. I particularly love his scenes with Elektra, and his first confrontation with Renard. To me, Brosnan's peak, as far as portraying Bond, occurred in TWINE.
Don't know if, like actonsteve and myself, there are legions of Bond fans who sat idly by during the Brosnan years, waiting for the dude to age out of the role. But I still--STILL--haven't ever actually met someone in person who liked Brosnan in the role, every Bond conversation I've ever had with anybody had "yeah, I didn't like Brosnan as Bond" in it, and not from me (at least not first to say it, lol). Guess I don't hang out with the right sort of people...
"Right, wrong -- just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other."
And just a general observation, most people don't go out of their way to join a forum to comment on something they don't have a very strong opinion about, makes sense there's never been much of luke-warm anything fanbase on the web--why bother?
True. This is the only online community I have ever posted on. (Probably speaks to my lack of diverse interests than anything else. ))
If Craig/CR had not done well at the box office, the critical backlash that's been going on would undoubtably have not happened, and instead a wistful yearning for the good old Brosnan days would be headlining reviews of CR. That's what critics do. Of the Brosnan era "fanbase," other than the true Brosnan lovers like Monique (glad you made it back over those bridges ) I've always thought people went to Brosnan's Bond films kinda like they went to the last three Star Wars films: they were Star Wars films more than they were good films, they had all the bells and whistles yet were still missing Han Solo. I could be wrong about that, just doesn't seem anything lasting from that era other than missed opportunities, TND's affectionate throwback take on the 60s Bond films notwithstanding. Perhaps the perceived fan backlash is about the comparison with Craig, and fans feeling there was really no sizzle to go with Brosnan's flash? A hindsight tastes great/less filling, like?
Despite a very strong Brosnan fanbase, I wouldn't discount the many (how many?) Bond fans who bit their tongues at Brosnan's Bond. Or that CR/Craig struck a Bond nerve with the public that had pretty much atrophied over the past few decades. It's kinda like the old Connery/Moore debates from that changeover, just two very different Bonds and some fans like both and some pick sides.
Could indeed be the case. In any event, it's difficult to comment on a position based purely on supposition, so not much more can be said.
Like backers of political candidates, I always thought many folks around here bashed the other guy to build their guy up.
They certainly did...and poor Danny didn't get a break for months.
:v
Now, (Formerly) Poor DannyTM gets some acclaim, and Brozzer's the beleaguered predecessor. It's just the circle of life manifesting itself---only more acute in the age of rampant internet fandom. Dalton wasn't mourned by the masses when GE premiered; neither was Moore when Timothy rode that jeep off Gibraltar in the PTS of TLD.
The pre-CR resistance movement mounted against Daniel Craig, as witnessed during the Craig Wars, was unprecedented in its vitriol, fueled by internet trolls (and tabloid writers) riding atop 'Road Warrior'-style vehicles, spraying gasoline on the fires from Mega Super-Soakers. Such attacks spawned aggressive defensive measures, as 'Give Craig A Chancers' mounted their own post-apocalyptic dune buggies and expertly returned fire...as a result, excesses occurred on both sides of the debate, on every Bond site---such is the case during all historic conflicts---but I don't see the so-called 'Brosnan backlash' as anything even remotely comparable.
Brozzer will always have a core of loyal fans---as he should---and a few fans saying they weren't happy during his tenure shouldn't (and won't!) change anything. Speaking only for myself, I thought Brosnan was quite good. I just happen to like his successor a bit more.
Craigger's turn in the fishbarrel is coming. Keep those long knives sharpened; he won't be in the tux forever B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm always puzzled when people who don't like Brosnan as Bond, like blueman, often cite TND as the exception, or the only film where PB was acceptable to them as Bond. What did Brosnan do in TND that made that performance different than the others that he gave as Bond? He did well in TND's action sequences, but IMO, he did even better in that regard in GE's great fight on the satellite, or in DAD's sword fight. He delivered some one-liners very well in TND (I love the scene between him and Q when the latter delivered the BMW), but he handled the quips well in all 4 films (I'm not talking about the quality of the zingers, but rather just Brosnan's delivery). As far as showcasing his acting ability, I would say that TWINE, not TND, was the film where he excelled. The more complex and emotional plot of TWINE gave Brosnan more chance to give a multi-layered performance, and he took it. I particularly love his scenes with Elektra, and his first confrontation with Renard. To me, Brosnan's peak, as far as portraying Bond, occurred in TWINE.
Didn't like the Bond/Elektra scenes in TWINE, thought they were way too soap opera-ish (an overall criticism of TWINE from my POV). Thought Brosnan did a much better job in the TND Bond/Paris scenes. Overall, Spottiswoode got the best performance out of Brosnan IMO, mostly because he didn't give him all that much do beyond hitting his mark and saying his line, again JMHO. Don't know why he had such good chemistry with Hatcher as they reportedly clashed off camera, but however it came to be they worked great together on-screen. IMHO. GE, TWINE, and to a slightly lesser extent DAD rely too much on a limited leading man to sell Bond, and for me it just didn't work. They all had their moments, sure, but TND was for me the most fully-realized Brosnan Bond film...maybe because the aim was a bit lower? Whatever, it worked (IMHO) and I'm not ashamed to have the DVD on my bookcase, along with a copy of Feirstein's screenplay. :007)
It's a fun movie and seldom annoying, would be the short answer.
The Editor of 007 Magazine was asked this question on his forum a few weeks ago. His response:
I'm afraid Bond fans can be among the most fickle of human beings at times!
Pierce was more than okay in his four outings as James Bond, he was great! He was just let down for the most part by lacklustre stories and sometimes with scripts that would have even made Sid James and Barbara Windsor cringe! The first 60 minutes of Tomorrow Never Dies still remains Pierce's finest hour as Bond, and almost matches Connery with his physical presence and dashing charm and wit.
You're such a downer, Alex, lol. We're not throwing our feces at each other yet, have a little faith, eh? |) (forgot the monkey smiley)
Definitely not the downer type, blue. I've enjoyed what EON's served my entire existence. (to some degree) In the last decade, both Brosnan and Craig worked above and beyond the call. My friends think I'm as easy to get along with as a sunday morning. There's no lip biting or neurotic fan driven affirmations here.
GE, TWINE, and to a slightly lesser extent DAD rely too much on a limited leading man to sell Bond, and for me it just didn't work.
That's your opinion, and I respect it. However, in my opinion, whatever range Brosnan has as an actor is more than enough to play the character of Bond well (especially since he was a popular choice to play Bond even before he put on the tux).
To use an example that you brought up: Brosnan and Hatcher reportedly didn't like each other off-camera (due to her making the entire crew wait before each take, from what I've heard), but they hit it off beautifully on-screen. If Brosnan's acting skills were so limited, he wouldn't have been able to make the hotel room scene look so convincing
The pre-CR resistance movement mounted against Daniel Craig, as witnessed during the Craig Wars, was unprecedented in its vitriol, fueled by internet trolls (and tabloid writers) riding atop 'Road Warrior'-style vehicles, spraying gasoline on the fires from Mega Super-Soakers. Such attacks spawned aggressive defensive measures, as 'Give Craig A Chancers' mounted their own post-apocalyptic dune buggies and expertly returned fire...as a result, excesses occurred on both sides of the debate, on every Bond site---such is the case during all historic conflicts---but I don't see the so-called 'Brosnan backlash' as anything even remotely comparable.
Nice mix of film genre's there, Loeffs, though blue's imagery of monkeys and feces brought back fond memories of school fieldtrips, and setting off those monkeys was pretty much how it was like in 2006 here, with taut hairy arms cocked and twitching to fling that warm and steamy goodness as the unsuspecting little old lady passes by. |)
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
That's my single biggest complaint about the Brosnan era, and unfortunately CR had such a scene as well (the embassy shootout). After the trend toward ultraviolent heroes in the 1980's and early 90's, like Rambo and Die Hard, they turned Bond into a one-man army commando, {:) leaving trails of dozens of bodies in his wake.
Me too.
As I said earlier, I also appreciate him. {[]
BTW, in response to the idea that CR has brought about a revision of Brosnan's era, I question if that is true. For some people it may be true, but I wonder how many of these people are big Brosnan fans in the first place. That is, if they are big fans of his films, why would their views be changed by CR (no matter how good they think it is) unless they didn't love his films? Anyway, I personally love Brosnan and I think he was alot better than Craig and I think two of Brosnan's films (GE and TWINE) were superior to CR, however for me, though, the quality of the Brosnan era can not really be affected by the quality of the films of his successor.
Oh I know you do Dan!
I just hope you didn't leave any simmering pots on his back porch, Mo. . . B-)
Glad I'm not a bunny in Hawaii
Its not just on this forum. On MI6 and CommanderBond.net there have all been retrospectives on the Brosnan era. Retrospection is good. Why can GF and TB be reappraised by a new generation and the Brosnan era be not?
Alot of people bit their tongue durig the Brosnan era. GE succeeded partly because it was the first for many years and wasnt an embarassment. But the other three were a law of diminishing returns culminating in the embarassment of DAD.
Even the most ardent Brozzer fan must agree that his films wernt always the best in the series...
,
it shold do - its called history. It reviewing a period from a safe distance. Maybe some people are too wedded to the Brosnan era to look at it objectively..
Paranoia can be very funny to an outside observer! Why did you bite your tongue, steve, and who are the legions of others who did so as well? I get that the Brosnan era holds little/nothing dear for you. But the notion that anti-Brosnan opinions were somehow stifled during his era? Like I said, very funny!
Can't understand why there is a PB backlash. His four movies have taken somewhere over $1.5 billion at the box office, and while box office receipts cannot be the only criteria for accessing a Bond actor he has to be credited with kick starting the franchise after the lack lustre box office performance of LTK (don't get me wrong I'm a TD fan as well).
Maybe it is because the excellent CR followed the less than excellent DAD. Maybe because DC got such a bashing in the newspapers some fans are feeling sorry for him and taking it out on poor Pierce.
Whatever the reason PB is one of the best Bonds there has been and I am glad he finally landed the part he was born to play.
Don't be ridiculous. Nothing prevented you from speaking up 10 years ago any more than prevents me from speaking up now. As Sir Hillary noted, the idea that anti-Brosnan opinions were stiffled is ludicrous.
I don't exactly agree with that. While I do think that GE was Brosnan's best film (and the best Bond film since TSWLM), I think that TWINE was Brosnan's second best film (and the third best Bond film since TSWLM after GE and FYEO.)
Perhaps, but one could have that opinion during his stint. I mean one could say the same thing about Connery, yet it surely wouldn't have taken people 30 years to realise that DAF or perhaps YOLT weren't the two greatest Bond films of all time (not that some people don't think that they were.) All I'm saying is, and you're yet to really address this, is that if someone was a big Brosnan fan, I doubt their views would change a mere 5 years after his last film.
Objectively as defined by you? I have no desire to enter into another Brosnan versus Craig discussion with you, but I hope that you don't think that the objective quality of Bond films is set by you alone.
That's MBE-level dedication, Monique, and I meant it as a compliment.
BTW, there are plenty of people who appreciate Brosnan and what he did for the franchise. I, for one, am grateful for the financial successes of GE and TND, since they helped see MGM and the Bond series through a turbulent time. Without them, it's arguable whether the later films, including CR, could have been made.
Who do you think gave me the directions to his house?
I'm honored to be in her league!
And just a general observation, most people don't go out of their way to join a forum to comment on something they don't have a very strong opinion about, makes sense there's never been much of luke-warm anything fanbase on the web--why bother? Fans comment, non-fans find something that interests them. Anti-fans sometimes will pop up, but not for long unless there's a positive to capture their interest. Or they're CNBers.
If Craig/CR had not done well at the box office, the critical backlash that's been going on would undoubtably have not happened, and instead a wistful yearning for the good old Brosnan days would be headlining reviews of CR. That's what critics do. Of the Brosnan era "fanbase," other than the true Brosnan lovers like Monique (glad you made it back over those bridges
Despite a very strong Brosnan fanbase, I wouldn't discount the many (how many?) Bond fans who bit their tongues at Brosnan's Bond. Or that CR/Craig struck a Bond nerve with the public that had pretty much atrophied over the past few decades. It's kinda like the old Connery/Moore debates from that changeover, just two very different Bonds and some fans like both and some pick sides.
True. This is the only online community I have ever posted on. (Probably speaks to my lack of diverse interests than anything else.
Could indeed be the case. In any event, it's difficult to comment on a position based purely on supposition, so not much more can be said.
For me, Brosnan was the ideal Bond and if TWINE was on one television channel and CR on the other, I would be watching TWINE.
They certainly did...and poor Danny didn't get a break for months.
:v
Now, (Formerly) Poor DannyTM gets some acclaim, and Brozzer's the beleaguered predecessor. It's just the circle of life manifesting itself---only more acute in the age of rampant internet fandom. Dalton wasn't mourned by the masses when GE premiered; neither was Moore when Timothy rode that jeep off Gibraltar in the PTS of TLD.
The pre-CR resistance movement mounted against Daniel Craig, as witnessed during the Craig Wars, was unprecedented in its vitriol, fueled by internet trolls (and tabloid writers) riding atop 'Road Warrior'-style vehicles, spraying gasoline on the fires from Mega Super-Soakers. Such attacks spawned aggressive defensive measures, as 'Give Craig A Chancers' mounted their own post-apocalyptic dune buggies and expertly returned fire...as a result, excesses occurred on both sides of the debate, on every Bond site---such is the case during all historic conflicts---but I don't see the so-called 'Brosnan backlash' as anything even remotely comparable.
Brozzer will always have a core of loyal fans---as he should---and a few fans saying they weren't happy during his tenure shouldn't (and won't!) change anything. Speaking only for myself, I thought Brosnan was quite good. I just happen to like his successor a bit more.
Craigger's turn in the fishbarrel is coming. Keep those long knives sharpened; he won't be in the tux forever B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Didn't like the Bond/Elektra scenes in TWINE, thought they were way too soap opera-ish (an overall criticism of TWINE from my POV). Thought Brosnan did a much better job in the TND Bond/Paris scenes. Overall, Spottiswoode got the best performance out of Brosnan IMO, mostly because he didn't give him all that much do beyond hitting his mark and saying his line, again JMHO. Don't know why he had such good chemistry with Hatcher as they reportedly clashed off camera, but however it came to be they worked great together on-screen. IMHO. GE, TWINE, and to a slightly lesser extent DAD rely too much on a limited leading man to sell Bond, and for me it just didn't work. They all had their moments, sure, but TND was for me the most fully-realized Brosnan Bond film...maybe because the aim was a bit lower? Whatever, it worked (IMHO) and I'm not ashamed to have the DVD on my bookcase, along with a copy of Feirstein's screenplay.
It's a fun movie and seldom annoying, would be the short answer.
I'm afraid Bond fans can be among the most fickle of human beings at times!
Pierce was more than okay in his four outings as James Bond, he was great! He was just let down for the most part by lacklustre stories and sometimes with scripts that would have even made Sid James and Barbara Windsor cringe! The first 60 minutes of Tomorrow Never Dies still remains Pierce's finest hour as Bond, and almost matches Connery with his physical presence and dashing charm and wit.
That's your opinion, and I respect it. However, in my opinion, whatever range Brosnan has as an actor is more than enough to play the character of Bond well (especially since he was a popular choice to play Bond even before he put on the tux).
To use an example that you brought up: Brosnan and Hatcher reportedly didn't like each other off-camera (due to her making the entire crew wait before each take, from what I've heard), but they hit it off beautifully on-screen. If Brosnan's acting skills were so limited, he wouldn't have been able to make the hotel room scene look so convincing
I think you're easy like Sunday morning too Alex.
Everbody wants me to be
what they want me to be..
Sorry got carried away! Love that song.
Blue, I think he just doesn't want this to turn into the old Brosnan vs. Craig debate we've all heard till we are blue in the face. (No pun intended.)
Nice mix of film genre's there, Loeffs, though blue's imagery of monkeys and feces brought back fond memories of school fieldtrips, and setting off those monkeys was pretty much how it was like in 2006 here, with taut hairy arms cocked and twitching to fling that warm and steamy goodness as the unsuspecting little old lady passes by.
Really appreciate the POVs in this thread, and the way they're all being presented. {[]