Overview of Brosnan's time as Bond

[Kevin Roegele]

In retrospect, I think Brosnan's time is notable for the following reasons; It bought 007 back to extreme popularity as one of cinema's most popular heroes. It embraced the mainstream to be succesful, to such an extent the essential Bond flavour of the previous movies is sometimes lacking - Brosnan's movies sometimes become simply Hollywood actioners..

From these foundations, EON can now go on and really create something special rather than what they did with Brosnan; half-heartedly explore 007's emotions with an eye on the next action scene.

 

[Furious Styles]

One cannot deny Brosnan's legacy and what he did for Bond. It's amazing, I read an interview with Timothy Dalton, and he was asked about his reaction driving down Sunset Blvd. and seeing a billboard of Connery, Moore and Brosnan. Obviously absent from the billboard was Dalton. And I just sat there reading that, thinking wow, the public's view of Bond is very different from diehard fans who may consider Dalton a great Bond.

I suppose, fans could debate Brosnan's take on Bond and his films more indepth, but overall, I think the public will look on favourably at Brosnan's Bond.

 

[doctorwho12]

One cannot deny Brosnan's legacy and what he did for Bond. It's amazing, I read an interview with Timothy Dalton, and he was asked about his reaction driving down Sunset Blvd. and seeing a billboard of Connery, Moore and Brosnan. Obviously absent from the billboard was Dalton. And I just sat there reading that, thinking wow, the public's view of Bond is very different from diehard fans who may consider Dalton a great Bond.

I suppose, fans could debate Brosnan's take on Bond and his films more indepth, but overall, I think the public will look on favourably at Brosnan's Bond.

Yes I agree Brosan's films are the best! It is sad to see him go but then again it is time for fresh blood!.

 

[Furious Styles]

I also think Brosnan proved one thing for sure; regardless of the quality of film, if the actor who portrays Bond is likable, the film has a great chance to be a success. The general audience enjoyed Brosnan and therefore were willing to go along for the ride, even if it got a little convoluted or ridiculous along the way.

 

[Dr. Fate]

I also think Brosnan proved one thing for sure; regardless of the quality of film, if the actor who portrays Bond is likable, the film has a great chance to be a success. The general audience enjoyed Brosnan and therefore were willing to go along for the ride, even if it got a little convoluted or ridiculous along the way.

Indeed.

 

[The Chairman]

Brosnan is the only Bond able to match up to Connery. And while his films weren't always the strongest (though Goldeneye is a masterpiece), they were very entertaining (though DAD wasn't as good as I was hoping).

 

[Clouseau]

the problem with Brosnan's Bond, to me, was that Brosnan never really brought anything new to the character... each actor before seemed to explore Bond's character in a certain way, but Brosnan brought nothing new with him, that i can tell... what he did, instead, was to try and take the previous actors' contributions and mesh them together in an eclectic way... sometimes it worked well, but often it didn't, IMO...

i also agree with the above statement that Brosnan's films became too much in the way of Hollywood action films, and it'd be nice to see the Bond films go back to their roots a bit more with CR... from all we've heard, that seems to be the plan, but i've heard it before, so i'll wait and see before i get too excited...

 

[Everyman]

I think that we cannot blame Brosnan for Bond getting Hollywoodised. It started before his time as Bond, in entries such as AVTAK (with a Hollywood actor as the leading villain) and LTK (the plot is typical of 80s action movies). Although Brosnan's Bonds did contribute to it, I don't think he owns much responsibility for it, if any. Casting of star actors/actresses in key roles and having younger villains was very atypical of Bond, but Brosnan had no influence over this.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Brosnan is surely the most American of the Bonds.

 

[Clouseau]

Brosnan is surely the most American of the Bonds.

that may be true... especially since he's now even an American citizen...

 

[Everyman]

Brosnan is surely the most American of the Bonds.

I think Dalton in LTK was much more American than Brosnan ever was.

 

[BobJM]

Brosnan was by far the best James Bond! He's got the charm and wit of each actor and portrayal before him and he lead the franchise to places it had never been before.

I think he brought human to the character, especially in GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough. And I don't care what you all say about Die Another Day; I find it to be one of the best of the 20 Bond films.

A smile still spreads across my face everytime I hear one of Brosnan's quips. And, his likability factor added a lot to his run. That's something that I think Craig may be lacking in. I will, however, save judgement until I see Casino Royale, but if Craig is going to be as gritty and edgier as he is said to be in reports and reviews, the general audience, I believe, will be wishing their "old" Bond would be back.

The general public would much rather, in my honest opinion, prefer a Brosnan-type Bond (charming, witty, human) opposed to a Craig-type
Bond (dark, edgy, realistic).

 

[Agentsands77]

Brosnan was by far the best James Bond! He's got the charm and wit of each actor and portrayal before him and he lead the franchise to places it had never been before.

Uh, the wit in the Brosnan films was awful (not Brosnan's fault, but he was given absolutely absolutely atrocious dialogue). And he still had none of the raw masculinity or sex appeal of Connery. Or the deadliness of Dalton. Or the pure elegance of Roger. Or even the physical prowess of Lazenby.

And what places did Brosnan's go that no Bond had gone before?

I think he brought human to the character, especially in GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough.

The humanity he was trying to bring to the character was cancelled out by ridiculous dialogue and/or silly moments (ala Bond straightening his tie underwater in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH). You can't really have it both ways - you either humanize Bond, or you play him as a superhero. Brosnan's Bond attempted to be both and that really can't be done. Even Brosnan himself acknowledged that in interviews.

And the humanity he brought to the role was certainly nothing really new - just look at Lazenby or Dalton.

The general public would much rather, in my honest opinion, prefer a Brosnan-type Bond (charming, witty, human) opposed to a Craig-type
Bond (dark, edgy, realistic).

Judging by the screenplay, Craig's Bond will be genuinely charming, witty (the dialogue of CASINO ROYALE is far better than anything Brosnan got to say), and human, as well as dark, edgy, and menacing.

 

[Agentsands77]

I think Dalton in LTK was much more American than Brosnan ever was.

How so?

LICENCE TO KILL feels very Americanized as a film, but I don't find much that feels American about Dalton's Bond in particular.

 

[Everyman]

How so?

LICENCE TO KILL feels very Americanized as a film, but I don't find much that feels American about Dalton's Bond in particular.

I said that because Dalton played in the most American Bond movie (maybe even more American than DAF) and because Bond's motivations (revenge for a dead/hurted friend)were already a cliche back then, a cliche common to probably half of the Americana ction heroes of the time. In LTK, there is not much British feel, and barely any Bond feel.

 

[Furious Styles]

When you consider EON changed the title of the film from "Licence Revoked" to "Licence To Kill" because the American audience did not understand the term, "revoked," it shows you the frame of mind EON was in...

 

[James"007"Bond]

Brosnan was by far the best James Bond! He's got the charm and wit of each actor and portrayal before him and he lead the franchise to places it had never been before.

I think he brought human to the character, especially in GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough. And I don't care what you all say about Die Another Day; I find it to be one of the best of the 20 Bond films.

A smile still spreads across my face everytime I hear one of Brosnan's quips. And, his likability factor added a lot to his run. That's something that I think Craig may be lacking in. I will, however, save judgement until I see Casino Royale, but if Craig is going to be as gritty and edgier as he is said to be in reports and reviews, the general audience, I believe, will be wishing their "old" Bond would be back.

The general public would much rather, in my honest opinion, prefer a Brosnan-type Bond (charming, witty, human) opposed to a Craig-type
Bond (dark, edgy, realistic).

Uh, how old are you? Just for the record, I'm 21 and I can honestly say that I disagree with most of what you said. Brosnan's Bond taken the movies to never before places? Please, Connery took the franchise to places that not even Brosnan has been decades earlier. Furthermore, I dont think there's been a single Bond movie that Brosnan has done that comes close to the hype,promotion and overall excitement that Connery had with thunderball.

As for Craig, I'm convinced he'll be close to a contemporary portrayal of Connery's Bond, something the die hard fans and casual audiences will love and appreciate.

 

[Furious Styles]

What does age have to do with anything "007"?

I highly doubt most of us were even alive when Connery starred in "NSNA" let alone any of his official Bond films. So who cares if you grew up with Connery, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan. Modern technology allows us to revisit all of the Bond films whenever we please. And history gives us to the ability to put the films into context.

And no one has come close to Thunderball. Not Moore, not Lazenby, not Dalton, not Brosnan and definitely not Craig. Even Connery's later installments failed to compare to TB. It was the equivalent of B'89, Jurassic Park or The Phantom Menace.

 

[Agentsands77]

And no one has come close to Thunderball. Not Moore, not Lazenby, not Dalton, not Brosnan and definitely not Craig.

True. And none shall ever come close to THUNDERBALL again, I think. It was an epic level of frenzy that is quite untouchable.

It was the equivalent of B'89, Jurassic Park or The Phantom Menace.

THUNDERBALL was substantially bigger than those, even.

 

[DACrowe]

Well I really liked Brosnan as Bond. I would argue that he did bring something new to Bond. He brought a freshness not seen since Connery. His Bond felt like a breath of fresh air and took Bond into the 21st century with no apologies while all the previous films felt like they still had one leg stuck in the '60s.

With that said he did four Bond movies, one of which I think is among the top 2 or 3 in the franchise (Goldeneye), one that was damn good and a top 10 if not a great movie (The World is Not Enough) and two forgettable pieces of bland fare that had a few good moments but overall were mediocre (TND and DAD).

But with that said I would easily argue that over half of Moore's Bond movies were crap and that half of Connery's was bland or mediocre. Brosnan did bring in ew fans and made Bond click again and Goldeneye proved he could work without the Soviet Union (though it looks as the franchise grows he will be fighting terrorism more and more now, TWINE being his first real encounter with it but hardly the last).

And he did add a sense of regret to his Bond. His Bond was much more cynical and somewhat bitter about his past. But perhaps he wasn't regretfull as he was not sorry for his past he merely buried it in women and booze. Connery just didn't give a damn and it was all a joke to Moore (Dalton I suppose cared too much and was always firey angry) but Brosnan acknowledged the stupidity of it all or the senslessness or even futility but he accepted it and moved on.

Some people argue therefore Brosnan was too self-aware but I think that is what made his Bond work. He saw the problems with the world he lived in and his life but just buried it. I think we'll get a more emotional and grittier version of this from Craig in his upcoming run in 007's tux (provided of course he can make it a full 3 films which given the UNFAIR buzz, I have some doubts about).

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. Thunderball may have been the mosth yped film of its day (a '60s blockbuster before the summer blockbuster existed) but that movie was mediocre at best. A bland, boring piece of crap so I would definetly say Brosnan has topped it with GE and TWINE.

As for the Americanization of Bond movies, well I definetly think DAD was Americanized (Halle Berry for starters) as were all of his to a degree, I think the process had long been happening. Let's take a look back at how Bond WENT INTO SPACE just because Star Wars came out the previous year in the wretched Moonraker (far worse than even DAD) and in it got in space battles and with a good Jaws and all that awful crap.

Then take dAlton. Yes he was always angry and on edge (kind of like the '80s action hero such as Riggs, Bruce Willis, etc.) but in LTK he has a boss that genuinely hates him and he fights with (though he got along relatively well with Bernard Lee's M) who he quits from and is the '80s cop movie cliche, goes and battles drug lords in Miami Vice settings and works with an American agent while going low-tech and generally is out for cold revenge, again like Riggs, Ahnold, Rambo and most '80s action heroes. In both movies he even only has sex with one or two women and when he does have sex with two women in LTK and "cheats" on Pam he feels guilty and wants to make it up to her. He is overly romantic in both his movies and plays more of a romantic hero than a womanizer.

I'd say as much as fans love Dalton (the diehards anyway) they seem to forget just how polltically correct his Bond was and how much it tried to blend into the '80s (as Moore's tried to blend into '70s pop culture and how TND was basically a '90s shooter actioner and DAD was very futuristic, albeit so were Connery's and Moore's for their days).

 

[Furious Styles]

In both movies he even only has sex with one or two women and when he does have sex with two women in LTK and "cheats" on Pam he feels guilty and wants to make it up to her. He is overly romantic in both his movies and plays more of a romantic hero than a womanizer.

I'd say as much as fans love Dalton (the diehards anyway) they seem to forget just how polltically correct his Bond was and how much it tried to blend into the '80s

In the 1980's, I truly believe Timothy Dalton turning Bond into a romantic hero was done out of tact, moreso than reshaping the idiosyncracies of the character for American audiences.

AIDS was a new and scary epidemic running rampant in the 80's, and the general public, for the most part, were not well educated on the matter.
However, for a cinematic hero like Bond to go around and openly have sex with many partners was definitely the wrong message to send at the time.

 

[DACrowe]

I have to agree that it was a political correctness decision due to AIDS but point is that it was still the most P.C. Bond we got and between that and fighting drug dealers and going renegade from his condscending authoritarian boss that that was the most Americanized Bond we ever got.

He was a romantic hero who felt guilty about cheating and fought drug dealers and was hated by his boss to the point he spat in his face, a very '80s action movie, really.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I have to agree that it was a political correctness decision due to AIDS but point is that it was still the most P.C. Bond we got and between that and fighting drug dealers and going renegade from his condscending authoritarian boss that that was the most Americanized Bond we ever got.

He was a romantic hero who felt guilty about cheating and fought drug dealers and was hated by his boss to the point he spat in his face, a very '80s action movie, really.

True - but then Octopussy is a very Indiana Jones movie, Moonraker obviously Star Wars influenced, Tomorrow Never Dies John Woo, The Man with the Golden Gun Bruce Lee, and so on and so forth.

 

[CConn]

Live and Let Die = Blacula