knocking Brosnan

thesecretagent

Since I fed this growing Bond adiction by joining this site, I have become amazed, almost perplexed at the negative attitude towards Pearce Brosnan. Before I had an insight into the world of Bond - by communicating with other fans - I always thought Brosnan was well thought of. I enjoyed all of his films - although there are a fair few segments of DAD that I don't like (although I did enjoy it first time round at the cinema), and thought he brought many good attributes to the role. He was smooth (but not too corney), tough, good-looking, handled the action scenes well, was part of the new era of Bond films, had a great chemistry with the new M, and the films were big budget with great effects, cinematography, great lines and characters.
Brosnan isn't my favourite Bond, that goes to Connery and I do like the new films with Craig. But I don't hate any of the Bond actors. I like them all for different reasons. I enjoy almost all the films (sorry Moonraker excepted) and watch them according to my mood. To hate a Bond actor so vehemently as some seem to hate Brosnan is to have a huge unfulfilled gap in their obsession with the genre.
It makes me wonder if some people have over-analised this whole Bond thing too much.
To make any use of this post, and to help me understand Brosnan's apparent lack of appeal, I welcome your comments.

Thunderpussy

I have to agree with you secretagent since joining,I've never read so much abuse and hatred directed to the various actors who have played Bond over the years. I've enjoyed all the actors they've all highlighted a diffrent aspect of Bonds character In the same way I've enjoyed all The films even the less regarded ones of the series,Many times I've watched AVTAK and enjoyed it faults and all. the same goes for TMWTGG and even DAF.
It's got to the stage that I don't look at the forum as much as I did as it seems to be full of negative posts,far from being a place for fans to discuss the many diffrences of an actors performance in an adult way and not simply a place to say" Isn't Brosnan crap" or the like.
Untill joining AJB I'd never ranked the Bond films I regarded them all as great. I simply enjoy the films and Books as escapist fun.
I hated QOS when it came out but after many viewings I've warmed to it and thats down to the points made by others here on the good points of the movie, little things I'd missed from my only Cinematic viewing.
I have to think that I'm one of a very small band of fans who have liked all the Bonds.
Brosnan IMHO was let down after Goldeneye by lackluster scripts, Hopefully this will not happen to D Craig. Who knows mabey after he leaves Bond He'll be Hated too.

Loeffelholz

Well, people hold strong opinions about things they value, and I think that's particularly true when it comes to pop culture. When it comes to commentary about James Bond on various fansites---here and elsewhere---hyperbole has been elevated to a veritable art form ) Therefore, people tend to 'pile on' a bit when slamming their least favourite actor, whomever it may be, and I think it often comes off as more vitriolic than it actually is. Nothing exceeds like cathartic internet fandom excess... Exhibit A: The Craig Wars^TM, as fought on this site from October '05 through November '06

I'm guilty of this in some of my remarks about Roger Moore, to be sure...but in reality I'm quite a fan of Moore himself---as an actor, personality and humanitarian---I just didn't care all that much for his interpretation of Fleming's literary hero as a 'Dinner Theatre'-style comedy figure, which IMO he became. But hate? Never. He was James Bond, such as it was, and I love James Bond :007)

I think it's fundamentally the same with Brozzer, whose overall reputation is, I feel, unfairly tarnished by DAD---especially the second half---but then again, his "Greatest Hits"-style Bond, which is sort of an amalgam of what came before, might be viewed as too "safe," by some fans, when viewed through a post-Daniel Craig prism. To Brosnan's credit, I think he remains disappointed that he wasn't able to do fresh things with the character, which ironically Craig has been allowed/able to do. Add to that the natural slagging that the Last Guy gets whenever a New Guy takes over, and I think that largely explains the perceived low ebb in Brosnan's popularity. But be assured: the same thing will happen to Craig when Bond #7 steps forward.

Brosnan's best film was his first, and IMRO they went downhill from there, one step at a time. But this is a James Bond discussion...so opinions (and mileage) will vary

Rick Roberts

Sorry, I just hate Brosnan as an actor and his Bond films. He was just a tool for EON to showboat films that were under the name of James Bond but in reality were nothing more then insipid, generic, action films. Any radical ideas that appeared during his tenure were just gimmicks that drowned out by loud explosions and horrible dialogue. I am really glad he is gone and Craig took over.

00SEVEN

Dainel Craig is a great bond but he doesnt have as much style and grace as pearce did.

Rick Roberts

00SEVEN wrote:

Dainel Craig is a great bond but he doesnt have as much style and grace as pearce did.

Pierce was just a rehash of what we had before. Making sure he says all the sterotypical lines, corny puns, and wearing a suit 24/7.

Craig feels like an actual human being with his effortless delivery dry-adult-humor. Stuff like tossing away his cell phone after a talk with M and knocking that guy off his bike in Quantum of Solace. Seducing Solange in CR and Feilds in QOS. That was genuine style and grace.

00SEVEN

well ya but like you said that all was dry adult humer, Dainel Craig never orders a drink fasonably or gets the women fasonably Dainel is just a badass where Peirce has syle and ediquette

Higgins

I have to agree with the previous 3 posts.

I feel, that Pierce did a good job to lead 007 into and thru the 90s. After Rogers very own interpretation of 007 (which has been strongly supported by John Glen and Cubby Broccoli), he put 007 a bit more to the ground without loosing the focus on the mass compatibility for the franchise.
I am also of the opinion, that a reboot in GE with an unknown actor(or James Brolin!!) may have turned into a desaster, so, he has been the perfect choice for the role then. Not to mention the eyes of my wife, everytime when she sees him.

I also feel, that he has not been treated in a good way by the producers, when the decision has been done to go with a reboot and another actor. From what I have learnt, Pierce behaved very gentleman-like after his contract has not been repeated.
However, it will take time for me to forgive him the participation in Mamma Mia

What also bothers me more and more on AJB, that we are going a way into very immature and simple "discussions" about movies and actors recently, majorly by new members with the 157th thread for "your favourite bond" or "What would have been if Blofeld's cat was black" or "Dalton is the best" and so on.

We always had fanboys here (good old JFF) but all this has been done with style and a good portion of self-irony, god; I miss the old AJB times 8-)

And what the hell is pearce ?:)

urhash

Actually Pierce wasn't entirely gentlemanly about it... I think his initial response for the first few months was polite acceptance and dejectedness, but let's not forget in a playboy interview he later called the producers "f*ckers" for pulling the rug from out under him rudely and disrespectfully.

Not that I disagree with his comment at all - I think the transition was handled extremely poorly. Brosnan had been a good ambassador as Bond. It would've been nice if there had been a press conference called to announce a change, instead of dumping him unceremoniously. Looking back, I'm sure that didn't help the public reaction to Craig's announcement.

Higgins

knowing Pierce a little, I would assume, that the mentioned Playboy interview may not have been 100% accurate to what he really said, or he probably had a very bad day if he really said this.

But I agree, after some time, his reactions for being dumped that way became a bit bitter, which I understand totally...

Rick Roberts

00SEVEN wrote:

well ya but like you said that all was dry adult humer, Dainel Craig never orders a drink fasonably or gets the women fasonably Dainel is just a badass where Peirce has syle and ediquette

Yeesh 00SEVEN, spell check buddy. He dosen't deliver corny ass one liners, that was the point. This isn't the Brosnan era were a few puns are spew and the woman is in bed, Craig has actual charisma. Also how should he order his drink ? That's the most obtuse complaint I have heard.

Rick Roberts

Bondtoys wrote:

I am also of the opinion, that a reboot in GE with an unknown actor(or James Brolin!!) may have turned into a desaster)

I don't think a reboot would have been feasible either but a solid film with a good actor would have been fair demand. I always thought Sean Bean was the Bond we should have gotten in the 90's. Bean outclassed Brosnan effortlessly in Goldeneye, though I thought his role of Trevelyan was terribly written. My personal secound choice would have been Liam Neeson.

Higgins

I am afraid, with Sean Bean in the main role and the 007 franchise would have been dead!
I can't imagine him attracting 50% of the audience than Pierce did. He may be a good actor but for 007 in the 90s ?:)

What about Leslie Nielsen in the tux?

Thunderpussy

In another post the question was asked what if C Grant had played Bond,IMHO with P Brosnan we got a 90's version of him, wher R Moore gave us the 70's verson

walther p99

I dont know why fans bash their least favorite Bond so harshly, i can understand comments like "ya hes not my favorite Bond" but i seem to be seeing comments more and more like "(insert Bond here) was absolutely horrible as James Bond", in the end,it doesnt mean anything,they will still have played James Bond so why be bitter about them now? Brosnan hasnt been Bond for over 7 years and he still gets crap, like i said, he played Bond, and nothing you say/do will ever change that, just accept it and move on.

Rick Roberts

Bondtoys wrote:

I am afraid, with Sean Bean in the main role and the 007 franchise would have been dead!
I can't imagine him attracting 50% of the audience than Pierce did. He may be a good actor but for 007 in the 90s ?:)

I really don't think pierce did much to attract any audience anyway. He just followed the check list and he had the looks. I really don't doubt Sean Bean could have done very well as Bond. With the right promotion, anything is possible.

Higgins

Rick Roberts wrote:

I really don't think pierce did much to attract any audience anyway.

Box office figures don't lie:
I would say, that the Brosnan Bonds did pretty well, with the exception of Casino Royale., all the Bonds in the first positions are pretty old and pre-DVD/Napster/etc age.


1) Thunderball: $989,798,019
2) Goldfinger: $950,851,612
3) You Only Live Twice: $658,440,000
4) From Russia With Love: $657,190,588
5) Live And Let Die: $647,200,000
6) Casino Royale: $642,322,532
7) Dr. No: $602,478,011
8) Moonraker: $593,196,812
9) The Spy Who Loved Me: $588,624,215
10) GoldenEye: $580,608,243
11) Quantum Of Solace: $576,336,563
12) Die Another Day: $526,359,783
13) Tomorrow Never Dies: $523,679,798
14) The World Is Not Enough: $504,144,305
15) Diamonds Are Forever: $497,745,454
16) For Your Eyes Only: $497,382,733
17) Octopussy: $421,428,571
18) On Her Majesty's Secret Service: $408,845,070
19) The Man With The Golden Gun: $369,522,994
20) The Living Daylights: $346,213,810
21) A View To A Kill: $304,396,044
22) Licence To Kill: $278,504,399

Rick Roberts

Bondtoys wrote:

Rick Roberts wrote:

I really don't think pierce did much to attract any audience anyway.

Box office figures don't lie:
I would say, that the Brosnan Bonds did pretty well, with the exception of Casino Royale., all the Bonds in the first positions are pretty old and pre-DVD/Napster/etc age.


1) Thunderball: $989,798,019
2) Goldfinger: $950,851,612
3) You Only Live Twice: $658,440,000
4) From Russia With Love: $657,190,588
5) Live And Let Die: $647,200,000
6) Casino Royale: $642,322,532
7) Dr. No: $602,478,011
8) Moonraker: $593,196,812
9) The Spy Who Loved Me: $588,624,215
10) GoldenEye: $580,608,243
11) Quantum Of Solace: $576,336,563
12) Die Another Day: $526,359,783
13) Tomorrow Never Dies: $523,679,798
14) The World Is Not Enough: $504,144,305
15) Diamonds Are Forever: $497,745,454
16) For Your Eyes Only: $497,382,733
17) Octopussy: $421,428,571
18) On Her Majesty's Secret Service: $408,845,070
19) The Man With The Golden Gun: $369,522,994
20) The Living Daylights: $346,213,810
21) A View To A Kill: $304,396,044
22) Licence To Kill: $278,504,399

You mis-understood. I am saying he didn't do much to be attractive. He knew all the Bond stuff and he had the looks, he was nice and bland for mass marketing.

However pertaining to the sucess of Brosnan, they weren't as successful as you think. The way to measure a film's success is budget to profit ratio. Brosnan's Bonds made some of the lowest returns in Bond history, hence the decision for the reboot. The most successful Bonds in history still remain the majority of 60's films.

Higgins

yes, that was before everybody could see 007 on TV/Video/DVD/Internet.

Aren't we comparing apples with pears?
And if you take the return of budget ratio, Daniel Craig with QoS sucks totally 8-)

And this ratio may be very interesting, but I as a producer would prefer a movie

- with a budget of 300.00.000 and a box office of 400.000.00

over a movie

- with a budget of 50.000.000 and a box office of 120.000.000 even, the return of investment is not better...

Rick Roberts

Bondtoys wrote:

yes, that was before everybody could see 007 on TV/Video/DVD/Internet.

Aren't we comparing apples with pears?
And if you take the return of budget, Daniel Craig with QoS sucks totally 8-)

It's not comparing apples to pears, it's a valid argument. The huge dip in audience began in the late 60's, long before other media to watch films. That wasn't Eon's fault though, the spy genre bubble burst.

Higgins

...and very long before Pierce Brosnan's days.

Honestly, I don't understand, what you are trying to tell us here....
I thought, that your point was, that Pierce did not do much to attract the audience.
Ok, but he attracted masses of audience for whatever.
Then his movies did not return enough compared to the investment, what's next?

Rick Roberts

Bondtoys wrote:

...and very long before Pierce Brosnan's days.

Honestly, I don't understand, what you are trying to tell us here....

That Pierce wasn't that sucessful of a Bond. Yes you can factor in other variables but he wasn't big of an audience grabber.

Rick Roberts

Bondtoys wrote:

..that Pierce did not attract enough audience

I didn't even say that in the first place.

Higgins

Rick Roberts wrote:

s but he wasn't big of an audience grabber.

according to the figures, Daniel Craig in QoS was worst, followed by Tim Dalton, then Lazenby, followed by a tie between Roger and Pierce, so, I can't follow your argument. Sorry.

Rick Roberts

Bondtoys wrote:

Rick Roberts wrote:

s but he wasn't big of an audience grabber.

according to the figures, Daniel Craig in QoS was worst, followed by Tim Dalton, followed by a tie between Roger and Pierce, so, I can't follow your argument. Sorry.

Why are you only factoring Daniel Craig in QOS ? Anyway, he shouldn't even compared as of yet because he isn't even finished. And Tim's TLD and LTK was actually more successful then Pierce's last three.

walther p99

Brosnan's not an audience grabber at all.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4zQCnM2J0c

Rick Roberts

walther p99 wrote:

Brosnan's not an audience grabber at all.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4zQCnM2J0c

What does this have to do with anything ?

Thunderpussy

Great post walther p99, seems Brosnan has a few fans. -{

urhash

Some of the stuff in this thread is so silly. If you want to knock Brosnan for spewing lame lines to seduce women into bed, let's be fair and include Craig seducing Agent Fields by asking her to help him find hotel stationary. 8-)

Rick Roberts

urhash wrote:

Some of the stuff in this thread is so silly. If you want to knock Brosnan for spewing lame lines to seduce women into bed, let's be fair and include Craig seducing Agent Fields by asking her to help him find hotel stationary. 8-)

I admit Craig had his boners. I really, really hated his "little finger" line.

Rick Roberts

Thunderpussy wrote:

Great post walther p99, seems Brosnan has a few fans. -{

Showing a primere party is arbitrary to this discussion about box office takes and attendance. The parties are all organized for massive turn-outs to show something for the press.