To the eyes of this fan, it´s not a question of WILL he go down... I think he already IS. His legacy is safe.
He could be as cool and suave as Connery, but without the mysogyny; as funny and charming and good with the quips as Moore, but without the fatuousness; as close to the Ian Fleming´s novels as Dalton, but without losing the charm. And he mixed it all seamlessly, creating an all-around GREAT Bond... James Bond.
Oh, and, with the exception of DAD, I loved all his movies too!
Pierce Brosnan will go down as a great Bond (if he hasn't already), but his series of films will be remembered as very inconsistent. GOLDENEYE was good, as was TWINE, TND had potential but was not done very well, and DAD was terrible. Brosnan played the part very well, but unfortunately, he was not given the best of scripts to work with.
I think he already is known as a great bond! As an actor you have to work with what is on the page and to bad for Pierce the writing was very weak on the last couple of movies! But overall i think He was a great bond second only to Sean! He deserved a much better swansong than DAD!
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
I think that PB left a memorable impression as 007. He won't unseat Connery even from the next generation of Bond fans IMO. This doesn't mean that I don't like him.
That being said, I feel like he wasn't given a chance with the forthcoming installment to actually show his wares on a broader scale of James Bond. His stint was overshadowed by mediorce plots at best, CGI and pyrotechnics...
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
What has this thread turned into... I've been silent for far too long (or not?) .
I have a HUGE problem, people. I can't make a difference between a good Bond and a good film. I'm not able to pick out a best Bond either. Given time, all of them produce good or mediocre films. I can't even name bad ones, because even the worse ones are just campy, flashy or uninspired, but not BAD. Even the bottom of the barrel spans many good moments until 1989.
The movies of Brosnan are a whole different case. I can't say anything new in this department, Brosnan is a mixture of all the best elements of Bond yak yak yak... Than how come his movies make my life miserable, risk my living and are constantly hanging above my head like Damocles' sword? Sorry, no matter how good Brosnan is, these movies actually HURT me, so I can't agree with the general notion. In fact, I can't even say who the best Bond is, because that's a pretty pointless argument. All I can say is which movies I enjoy and which I don't. And there's a huge break there...
If God helps us, I'll be here to see what would be said on a thread like this 10-15 years later.
Quoting The Cat:
What has this thread turned into... I've been silent for far too long (or not?) .
I knew you would give in eventually Cat and for the most part I agree with your whole opinion of the Brosnan movies.Unfortunately the title of this thread is 'Will Brosnan Go Down As A Great Bond?' and I think he will.Soooooo many people think he is fabulous as Bond and he did help reintroduce a whole generation to the franchise.Dont forget there has been no other Bond for 16 years and for casual fans he provides everything they need.
He's not for me and the Brosnan films are not ones I grab when I want to watch a Bond dvd but to many he is great.He is the 'easy listening' Bond nothing exciting or innovative but nothing too radical either.
Quoting Lady Rose:
Unfortunately the title of this thread is 'Will Brosnan Go Down As A Great Bond?' and I think he will.Soooooo many people think he is fabulous as Bond and he did help reintroduce a whole generation to the franchise.Dont forget there has been no other Bond for 16 years and for casual fans he provides everything they need.
Ah, but there'll be new Bond(s) with new movies for new(?) generations... I'll want to see the thread after the next Bond comes in... Will HE go down as a great Bond?
Quoting The Cat:
Ah, but there'll be new Bond(s) with new movies for new(?) generations... I'll want to see the thread after the next Bond comes in... Will HE go down as a great Bond?
I think he will.He is VERY popular.Roger Moore was very popular but he wasn't a great Bond IMO.He was very entertaining and he introduced me to Bond but he wasn't great but that is still how he is generally regarded.I think PB will have a similar effect.
Quoting Lady Rose:
I think he will.He is VERY popular.Roger Moore was very popular but he wasn't a great Bond IMO.He was very entertaining and he introduced me to Bond but he wasn't great but that is still how he is generally regarded. I think PB will have a similar effect.
As for PB... Ditto here, except for the 'he introduced me' and the 'entertaining part.' )
Boy, I wish I could travel in time to see the future of the era!
I'm sorry you think so. I think Moore was a great Bond. I'm afraid that it also means that I like his comical and thus entertaining films very much (I really do love TSWLM and MR, even thou I somestimes feel I'm alone with the latter one). Roger was far better than Brosnan in all sorts of ways.
I agree whole heartedly JakeL.I have a very soft spot for RM.As I said,that was were I started, with LALD.I think his portrayal was excellent.It was only when I discovered Sean and the books that I realised RM was never Bond as was intended but he was extremely good in what he did.He knew his cababilites and what he was good at and played to those strengths.Pierce seems to have tried to be all things to all men and IMO never pulled it off,quite often appearing to not know what he was.Personally I think he should have been more like RM as that suited him better.
But,that is my opinion and on the whole a minority one,which is why I think he will still be regarded as a great Bond.
Quoting Lady Rose:
Pierce seems to have tried to be all things to all men and IMO never pulled it off,quite often appearing to not know what he was.Personally I think he should have been more like RM as that suited him better.
Pierce Brosnan never really left his own impression on the role of Bond in the way that Sean Connery and Roger Moore did before him. It seems he wanted to be more like Connery, but didn't have the same screen presence, physical presence or charisma that Connery portrayed. He also did not have the same screen presence, charisma, charm or humour that Moore portrayed, IMO.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited March 2005
Quoting Moore Not Less:
Quoting Moore Not Less: Quoting Lady Rose:
Pierce seems to have tried to be all things to all men and IMO never pulled it off,quite often appearing to not know what he was.Personally I think he should have been more like RM as that suited him better.
Pierce Brosnan never really left his own impression on the role of Bond in the way that Sean Connery and Roger Moore did before him. It seems he wanted to be more like Connery, but didn't have the same screen presence, physical presence or charisma that Connery portrayed. He also did not have the same screen presence, charisma, charm or humour that Moore portrayed, IMO.
*Although this is just about what I said, I don't put the blame on PB but more on the producers and writers (although from some I've heard they're the same person) failing to play to Pierce's strengths. I think he played the role in articulate and suave fashion just not Connery/Moore. He had something there but for whatever reason, it just wasn't shown.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I think he was an excellent actor for playing the part of Bond. It's a shame he won't be doing any more films, but I'd rank him up there with Connery, Moore, and Dalton (who also should have had the chance to play Bond in a few more films).
How's this for a crackpot theory (and I'm trying to give the public impression, not what us fans think):
Connery was loved and respected.
Lazenby was not loved and not respected.
Moore was loved but not respected.
Dalton was respected but not loved.
Brosnan was/is loved and respected.
(Crouches behind sandbags awaiting being shot down in flames.)
Quoting Barbel:
How's this for a crackpot theory (and I'm trying to give the public impression, not what us fans think):
Connery was loved and respected.
Lazenby was not loved and not respected.
Moore was loved but not respected.
Dalton was respected but not loved.
Brosnan was/is loved and respected.
(Crouches behind sandbags awaiting being shot down in flames.)
You wont get shot down in flames by me.I think you just about summed them up barbel.Though it galls me to think Connery and Brosnan are falling into the same category.
Brosnan had the iconic looks but was never allowed to develop an upbeat personality because the jokes just weren't there. Closest he came was in TWINE because I thought the dialogue in that was quite witty and real.
Quoting The Sly Fox: Quoting Willie Garvin:
I agree with Asio.Brosnan was often better than his material.That said,he was a terrific 007.
That's true. The best thing about Die Another Day was that Brosnan was in it. He was an excellent asset to the Bond franchise. This is just my opinion, but GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough were two of the best Bond Films ever made, yet what really made them shine were Brosnan's performances in them. He added the perfect touch to what were already excellent films. I think they just wouldn't have been the same without him. Therefore, though my opinions on Bond Films and the actors who starred in them tend to change every now and then, Pierce Brosnan will always be my favorite Bond (or at least one of my favorites ).
I would say the same too about TWINE and GE being his best films. Even though it has been said many of time about what would have happened with Timothy Dalton in GE,but I think that it was a better start for Bronsan. I can't say that TND and DAD were the best Bond films,but he did shine as Bond in these films even though the plot might have been off key. I do think that Pierce Bronsan will be remember. I will say that he was a better Bond than George Lazenby,maybe Timothy Dalton.
Brosnan,is my Bond.Not just because i've grown up with him as Bond, but he has the "feel" of Bond.He and Connery, in my oppinion ARE Bond.I love Moore's comedy and Dalton's serious takes on 007, but Brosnan and Connery have everything.Brosnan saved the franchise in the 90's and introduced Bond to a new audience, ie, people my age (22).
In my oppinion, Brosnan's films are good (GE and TWINE, better) and were/are right for the times.He has to go down as a great Bond!
I think that Brosnan really should have done a 5th movie. He seems to have succesfully combined the tough qualities of Connery and Dalton with the humour of Moore (but thankfully without the "smarm" of Moore's later films). I disagree with some of the critiques about the stories and direction of Brosnan's films, and feel that Goldeneye, TND, and TWINE were all great. However, Brosnan, along with James Bond fans the world over was BADLY let down by Die Another Day, which apart from the first 40 minutes or so was one of the most ridiculous, pointless and frankly disappointing films I've ever seen, James Bond or not! I fear we've seen the best of the series, the future is ominous!
Quoting JakeL:
I just can't see what was so special about Pierce. He would've been better if he'd just honestly gone for a certain direction, either to the more comical approach like Moore or more serious like Dalton. The others were so much better because they made Bond their own, and brought in what they were great in.
Brosnan sure brought something to the role. He brought completeness. He demonstrated that James Bond could be complete, that he didn´t need to rely on any particular element for the sake of distinguishing himself from the pack
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Personally, I think every James Bond goes down as a great Bond, mostly because they all bring their own something to the role, and there have been so few of them. Brosnan brings a little of everything, therefore giving his own (but not his own) interpretation of the role. For that, he, like the others, will go down as great, even if DAD was a let down (it was Halle Berry's fault!)
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Brosnan will definetly go down as a great Bond, at least Chrisopher Lee things so, lol. Although Brosnan is not my favorite Bond of the series he was still a great Bond, and I hate to see him go. We can't base his whole Bond career on the good yet disappointing final performance in DAD. I was sucked into the Bond series because of Brosnan's GE, and I was very impressed with GE, TND, and TWINE. Brosnan has definetly left his mark in the Bond series, despite whatever you hear from THE CAT. LOL )
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
Quoting Tee Hee:
Brosnan has definetly left his mark in the Bond series, despite whatever you hear from THE CAT. LOL )
I take the challenge, my good man! But believe me, the current mentality of irreplaceable Brosnan will change as soon as EON picks another one and heralds HIM! I'm still wiping up the damage he caused, but for the first time, I see I have a chance.
Tee Hee!
You, me, ten years later on this thread! We'll see how WE change.
Quoting The Cat: Quoting Tee Hee:
Brosnan has definetly left his mark in the Bond series, despite whatever you hear from THE CAT. LOL )
I take the challenge, my good man! But believe me, the current mentality of irreplaceable Brosnan will change as soon as EON picks another one and heralds HIM! I'm still wiping up the damage he caused, but for the first time, I see I have a chance.
Tee Hee!
You, me, ten years later on this thread! We'll see how WE change.
Of course we'll all probably change or at least alter our opinions the longer the series progresses and the more actors play James Bond.That's logical and to be expected.
But exactly what "damage" did Pierce Brosnan do to the role?I'm curious.Because in the end,he was only an actor who did the best he could with what the screenplays said and what the directors told him to do.Each of the 007s is only as good as the material they're given regardless of their respective talents.Yes,Brosnan had some minor input but probably no more than Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton had when they were each 007 and the role was then reshaped to suit their unique personas.And Brosnan probably had a lot less say overall than Sean Connery--who alone among all of the Bonds became an unquestioned international superstar while playing 007, and an actor Eon and United Artists originally considered absolutely irreplacable...
Quoting Willie Garvin:
But exactly what "damage" did Pierce Brosnan do to the role? I'm curious.Because in the end,he was only an actor who did the best he could with what the screenplays said and what the directors told him to do.Each of the 007s is only as good as the material they're given regardless of their respective talents.Yes,Brosnan had some minor input but probably no more than Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton had when they were each 007 and the role was then reshaped to suit their unique personas.And Brosnan probably had a lot less say overall than Sean Connery--who alone among all of the Bonds became an unquestioned international superstar while playing 007, and an actor Eon and United Artists originally considered absolutely irreplacable...
Mea culpa, but it's so hard to distinguish Brosnan's Bond from his movies, so I'll just use my favourite adjective, 'post-Dalton' again. There, no confusion. And when I say that, I speak about the post-Dalton movies, not about post-Dalton actor(s). So the point is that the existence of the era has created a 'James Bond sucks' attitude in my humble country. The non-existence of the pre-Brosnan era and Fleming's novels is a large handicap I have to battle, keeping the Hungarian ends up. To put it mildly, these four movies alone do not justify the existence of the series, so I can't blame anybody for the indifference.
Now I don't want to repeat myself. In on of my replies on the 3000 thread, I described how DAD have risked my financial support, and I had to make some steps to avoid anything similar on GE's premiere on national television. Good news is, that I might organize a series of lectures next semester on the subject. Since the semester is roughly 16 weeks long, there's one movie each week, and there's a throughout analysis on one particular aspect for each session. Small step I know, but it's the biggest I can make.
Quoting The Cat:
Mea culpa, but it's so hard to distinguish Brosnan's Bond from his movies, so I'll just use my gavourite adjective, 'post-Dalton' again. There, no confusion. And when I say that, I speak about the post-Dalton movies, not about post-Dalton actor(s). So the point is that the existence of the era has created a 'James Bond sucks' attitude in my humble country. The non-existence of the pre-Brosnan era and Fleming's novels is a large handicap I have to battle, keeping the Hungarian ends up.
I have to say, Cat. Hungary is a noble country steeped with tradition, yet you make it sound like the Gulag is operational and electric power hasn't been invented. I'm pretty positive there are fellow countrymen out there, who (gasp) love old school Bond, and even Pierce Brosnan! Are you speaking for the entire population when you say "James Bond sucks" I think you're seriously underestimating your own country. Hell man, be proud of it!
Quoting The Cat:
To put it mildly, these four movies alone do not justify the existence of the series, so I can't blame anybody for the indifference.
The basis for this series was the foundation that it was built upon. Like...obvious dude! I'm also pretty sure that there are Hungarians who know this, and, who Connery is!
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Quoting The Cat:
I take the challenge, my good man! But believe me, the current mentality of irreplaceable Brosnan will change as soon as EON picks another one and heralds HIM! I'm still wiping up the damage he caused, but for the first time, I see I have a chance.
Tee Hee!
You, me, ten years later on this thread! We'll see how WE change.
Alright Cat you're on, but i warn you that you have made a terrible mistake.
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
-Roger Moore
FelixLeiter ♀Staffordshire or a pubPosts: 1,286MI6 Agent
quoting The Cat
Tee Hee!
You, me, ten years later on this thread! We'll see how WE change.
Alright Cat you're on, but i warn you that you have made a terrible mistake.
This should me interesting.
I'll pop in and see what happens.
If I'm not off around the globe staring in the latest Bond great. )
Ahhhh if only...
Comments
He could be as cool and suave as Connery, but without the mysogyny; as funny and charming and good with the quips as Moore, but without the fatuousness; as close to the Ian Fleming´s novels as Dalton, but without losing the charm. And he mixed it all seamlessly, creating an all-around GREAT Bond... James Bond.
Oh, and, with the exception of DAD, I loved all his movies too!
That being said, I feel like he wasn't given a chance with the forthcoming installment to actually show his wares on a broader scale of James Bond. His stint was overshadowed by mediorce plots at best, CGI and pyrotechnics...
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I have a HUGE problem, people. I can't make a difference between a good Bond and a good film. I'm not able to pick out a best Bond either. Given time, all of them produce good or mediocre films. I can't even name bad ones, because even the worse ones are just campy, flashy or uninspired, but not BAD. Even the bottom of the barrel spans many good moments until 1989.
The movies of Brosnan are a whole different case. I can't say anything new in this department, Brosnan is a mixture of all the best elements of Bond yak yak yak... Than how come his movies make my life miserable, risk my living and are constantly hanging above my head like Damocles' sword? Sorry, no matter how good Brosnan is, these movies actually HURT me, so I can't agree with the general notion. In fact, I can't even say who the best Bond is, because that's a pretty pointless argument. All I can say is which movies I enjoy and which I don't. And there's a huge break there...
If God helps us, I'll be here to see what would be said on a thread like this 10-15 years later.
He's not for me and the Brosnan films are not ones I grab when I want to watch a Bond dvd but to many he is great.He is the 'easy listening' Bond nothing exciting or innovative but nothing too radical either.
Ah, but there'll be new Bond(s) with new movies for new(?) generations... I'll want to see the thread after the next Bond comes in... Will HE go down as a great Bond?
I think he will.He is VERY popular.Roger Moore was very popular but he wasn't a great Bond IMO.He was very entertaining and he introduced me to Bond but he wasn't great but that is still how he is generally regarded.I think PB will have a similar effect.
As for PB... Ditto here, except for the 'he introduced me' and the 'entertaining part.'
Boy, I wish I could travel in time to see the future of the era!
I agree whole heartedly JakeL.I have a very soft spot for RM.As I said,that was were I started, with LALD.I think his portrayal was excellent.It was only when I discovered Sean and the books that I realised RM was never Bond as was intended but he was extremely good in what he did.He knew his cababilites and what he was good at and played to those strengths.Pierce seems to have tried to be all things to all men and IMO never pulled it off,quite often appearing to not know what he was.Personally I think he should have been more like RM as that suited him better.
But,that is my opinion and on the whole a minority one,which is why I think he will still be regarded as a great Bond.
(ps I love MR ...but dont tell anyone
Pierce Brosnan never really left his own impression on the role of Bond in the way that Sean Connery and Roger Moore did before him. It seems he wanted to be more like Connery, but didn't have the same screen presence, physical presence or charisma that Connery portrayed. He also did not have the same screen presence, charisma, charm or humour that Moore portrayed, IMO.
*Although this is just about what I said, I don't put the blame on PB but more on the producers and writers (although from some I've heard they're the same person) failing to play to Pierce's strengths. I think he played the role in articulate and suave fashion just not Connery/Moore. He had something there but for whatever reason, it just wasn't shown.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
Connery was loved and respected.
Lazenby was not loved and not respected.
Moore was loved but not respected.
Dalton was respected but not loved.
Brosnan was/is loved and respected.
(Crouches behind sandbags awaiting being shot down in flames.)
You wont get shot down in flames by me.I think you just about summed them up barbel.Though it galls me to think Connery and Brosnan are falling into the same category.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I would say the same too about TWINE and GE being his best films. Even though it has been said many of time about what would have happened with Timothy Dalton in GE,but I think that it was a better start for Bronsan. I can't say that TND and DAD were the best Bond films,but he did shine as Bond in these films even though the plot might have been off key. I do think that Pierce Bronsan will be remember. I will say that he was a better Bond than George Lazenby,maybe Timothy Dalton.
In my oppinion, Brosnan's films are good (GE and TWINE, better) and were/are right for the times.He has to go down as a great Bond!
Brosnan sure brought something to the role. He brought completeness. He demonstrated that James Bond could be complete, that he didn´t need to rely on any particular element for the sake of distinguishing himself from the pack
-Roger Moore
I take the challenge, my good man! But believe me, the current mentality of irreplaceable Brosnan will change as soon as EON picks another one and heralds HIM! I'm still wiping up the damage he caused, but for the first time, I see I have a chance.
Tee Hee!
You, me, ten years later on this thread! We'll see how WE change.
Of course we'll all probably change or at least alter our opinions the longer the series progresses and the more actors play James Bond.That's logical and to be expected.
But exactly what "damage" did Pierce Brosnan do to the role?I'm curious.Because in the end,he was only an actor who did the best he could with what the screenplays said and what the directors told him to do.Each of the 007s is only as good as the material they're given regardless of their respective talents.Yes,Brosnan had some minor input but probably no more than Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton had when they were each 007 and the role was then reshaped to suit their unique personas.And Brosnan probably had a lot less say overall than Sean Connery--who alone among all of the Bonds became an unquestioned international superstar while playing 007, and an actor Eon and United Artists originally considered absolutely irreplacable...
Mea culpa, but it's so hard to distinguish Brosnan's Bond from his movies, so I'll just use my favourite adjective, 'post-Dalton' again. There, no confusion. And when I say that, I speak about the post-Dalton movies, not about post-Dalton actor(s). So the point is that the existence of the era has created a 'James Bond sucks' attitude in my humble country. The non-existence of the pre-Brosnan era and Fleming's novels is a large handicap I have to battle, keeping the Hungarian ends up. To put it mildly, these four movies alone do not justify the existence of the series, so I can't blame anybody for the indifference.
Now I don't want to repeat myself. In on of my replies on the 3000 thread, I described how DAD have risked my financial support, and I had to make some steps to avoid anything similar on GE's premiere on national television. Good news is, that I might organize a series of lectures next semester on the subject. Since the semester is roughly 16 weeks long, there's one movie each week, and there's a throughout analysis on one particular aspect for each session. Small step I know, but it's the biggest I can make.
The basis for this series was the foundation that it was built upon. Like...obvious dude! I'm also pretty sure that there are Hungarians who know this, and, who Connery is!
Alright Cat you're on, but i warn you that you have made a terrible mistake.
-Roger Moore
Tee Hee!
You, me, ten years later on this thread! We'll see how WE change.
Alright Cat you're on, but i warn you that you have made a terrible mistake.