Who Misses Pierce Brosnan As 007?

[DACrowe]

I enjoyed Brosnan emmnsley as Bond. He only had two good entries though. But hey no one *****es that at least 2 (arguably 3) of Connery's movies were duds (Diamonds Are Forever, You Only Live Twice and the questionable Thunderball).

Craig was a tougher son of a *****, but Brosnan was smoother and gave the most complex Bond to date when he performed the role. He wanted to go deeper but hte producers wouldn't let him. I wish they had given him one more back in 2004 to go out on in a much darker tone. He obviously wanted to go there in all his movies and gave a great performance.

Some may dislike Brosnan, but I find it is mostly because he was too handsome and not enough about his performance. I think he nailed James Bond for his interpretation and is the best since Connery. Craig may top him, but he hasn't yet in my opinion though.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. Brosnan was amazing in a film just as good as CR in GE. Now imgaine (though I hop;e this is not the case) Craig does 3 more Bond movies. One is decent with poorly shot action (TWINE) but a good story. However the other two are mindless shoot 'em ups that are way over the top.

Would y'all stil lbe praising how good of an actor Craig was through the thick and thin or would you turn on him as quickly as Brosnan went from "Best since Connery" to "pretty boy metrosexual who was never convincing."

It isn't the preference of Craig it is the sheer fanboy bandwagonism that annoys me now.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

P.S. Brosnan was amazing in a film just as good as CR in GE. Now imgaine (though I hop;e this is not the case) Craig does 3 more Bond movies. One is decent with poorly shot action (TWINE) but a good story. However the other two are mindless shoot 'em ups that are way over the top.

Would y'all stil lbe praising how good of an actor Craig was through the thick and thin or would you turn on him as quickly as Brosnan went from "Best since Connery" to "pretty boy metrosexual who was never convincing."

It isn't the preference of Craig it is the sheer fanboy bandwagonism that annoys me now.

Sounds to be you're bitter about those having a difference of opinion.

I'll say it again. CRAIG IS BOND. In MY opinion, he is better than Connery and Brosnan combined.

 

[Warhammer]

P.S. Brosnan was amazing in a film just as good as CR in GE. Now imgaine (though I hop;e this is not the case) Craig does 3 more Bond movies. One is decent with poorly shot action (TWINE) but a good story. However the other two are mindless shoot 'em ups that are way over the top.

Would y'all stil lbe praising how good of an actor Craig was through the thick and thin or would you turn on him as quickly as Brosnan went from "Best since Connery" to "pretty boy metrosexual who was never convincing."

It isn't the preference of Craig it is the sheer fanboy bandwagonism that annoys me now.

Some people do judge Brosnan based on the movie he was in, not his performance. IMO, Brosnan was an amazing Bond. He was just playing the right role in the wrong movies, except for Goldeneye.

I actually did like TWINE, and the car sequence in TND was great.

 

[regwec]

P.S. Brosnan was amazing in a film just as good as CR in GE. Now imgaine (though I hop;e this is not the case) Craig does 3 more Bond movies. One is decent with poorly shot action (TWINE) but a good story. However the other two are mindless shoot 'em ups that are way over the top.

Would y'all stil lbe praising how good of an actor Craig was through the thick and thin or would you turn on him as quickly as Brosnan went from "Best since Connery" to "pretty boy metrosexual who was never convincing."

It isn't the preference of Craig it is the sheer fanboy bandwagonism that annoys me now.

I have liked Daniel as an actor for years and years. That's why I always saw his potential in the role. I am not on a bandwagon; I already arrived in Craigtown on the Left-field Express, several years ago.

I must say that I find the assertion that Brosnan played the "most complex" Bond rather strange. His approach was clearly more two dimensional than not only Craig's, but Lazenby's and Dalton's. They both portrayed a cold but vulnerable orphan. Brosnan just played a kind of blank-canvas that was adorned with suits, gadgets and other paraphernalia. He had potential for a dramatic tour-de-force on the occassion of Paris Carver's death, but it didn't come accross at all.

 

[jaydawg]

I liked Craig, but I just couldn't get past the fact that he looks nothing like any Bond before. The thing about Brosnan was that he got the short end of the stick in terms of movies. They never knew what to do with him aside from pimp out some brand, like Erickson mobile or BMW.

 

[Golgo-13]

After seeing Caino Royale, i don't really miss Brosnon, although he is one of my favorite Bonds in looks and style, his movies sucked.

 

[The Last Meatbag]

Appearance wise, I don't look at Craig as Bond...however, I'm going to give him a chance to wow me in Casino Royale...

 

[Cinemaman]

I didn't like him.

He was too pretty and I didn't find there anything close to real agent 007.

Bond shoul look like a man, who saw a lot in his life. He should always look good, but with some wounds and effective look of very mysterious character.

Only Connery and Craig (even if I was disappointed in CR) showed me this.

 

[TheVileOne]

I certainly don't miss the smarmy bed-hopper.

 

[BloodyWolverine]

Sounds to be you're bitter about those having a difference of opinion.

I'll say it again. CRAIG IS BOND. In MY opinion, he is better than Connery and Brosnan combined.

I'm sorry he is not a Connery for he has done one film. Lets see if he can further do Bond justice in Bond 22. This producers need to wake up. The characters worked in Casino Royale but the fans will boycott if they leave out Q and Moneypenny in all the Craig movies. I'm sorry but Bond's banter with Q and Moneypenny was part of Bond. They can get a younger Q and M. Although Samantha Bond was a great Moneypenny.

 

[TheVileOne]

Q and Moneypenny are not essential to Bond and Casino Royale was fine without it. The story did not call for them.

 

[Morgoth]

Brosnan was a great Bond. He's right up there with Connery.

Roger's okay, the more campy Bond, and the other two were meh, especially since one only did it once.

This new Bond looks more like Bond Villian than Bond himself, but I'm growing to like him just because the more I see the commercials the more I want to see it, and because I love Bond, and I have to go see it when I'm off Wednesday.

I've seen them all but, I haven't ever seen one in the theater, except for the last one with Pierce, I saw it in a cheap theater in the mall, and that doesn't count. I need to go see it in a first run theater with a huge screen and a theater that doesn't feel like I'm sitting ina hallway with a tv on.t:

 

[Mentok]

Brosnan was good in GOLDENEYE... Everything after that was just bad.

 

[regwec]

It was definately his best film. The problem was that his career as 007 started with Timothy Brosnan and ended with Pierce Moore.

 

[Fanticon]

his time was up...I liked him as Bond...Goldeneye was one of my all time faves...but Craig was...is amazing...and he'll be appearing in Bond movies for the next decade. Get used to it.

 

[BloodyWolverine]

Q and Moneypenny are not essential to Bond and Casino Royale was fine without it. The story did not call for them.

I was meaning for one film it is fine to exclude them but you can't do 3 Craig Bond movies without parts of every single Bond from Connery to Brosnan. You can exclude them once. You may not agree and that is fine but for the 22nd and 23rd Bond films they have to have Q and Moneypenny. They are a part of Bond. Even though the guy who payed Q is dead.

 

[green]

Eh I never really liked Brosnan as Bond, this stems back from never really liking Remington Steele, so no I dont miss him at all.

 

[Chaos Bringer]

I certainly don't miss the smarmy bed-hopper.

me neither.
or the gadgets, or the uber thick one liners that winked at us with hopes we're as dumb as the script. CR was so tight on every level I cringe at previous Bond films just like I cringe at Burton's Batman.

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

burtons batman was awesome.

 

[Fran]

Brosnan was too much of a pansy for me.

Craig owns all except Connery.

 

[XwolverineX]

After seeing Craig as Bond, I could never see Pierce portray him again.

 

[DACrowe]

I like Craig as Bond A LOT. I was just mocking how quickly disfavor falls on the old. There was a time when many called Brosnan the best since Connery and now it's as if he was terrible in the role. There is a word for this.

With that said, I do not miss Brosnan and think it is fine Craig has taken over, I just want to see if Craig produces a few duds and is replaced in 10 years if he'll stil lbe popular. And yes, when GE came out I would say that is the most complex portrayal of Bond since OHMSS (which suffered from a poor Bond in Lazenby). Sure CR has taken it to the next level, I was merely stating what Brosnan brought to the role has been uncermoniously forgotten in some respects.

I like Craig in the role, it is just odd how a year ago everyone liked Brosnan here and now we see posts mostly say "Brosnan was too much of a sissy/metrosexual/pansy/[insert insult] to play Bond."

Whatever. The same people will most likely be bad mouthing Craig for hte new Bond in a decade then.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I like Craig as Bond A LOT. I was just mocking how quickly disfavor falls on the old. There was a time when many called Brosnan the best since Connery and now it's as if he was terrible in the role. There is a word for this.

With that said, I do not miss Brosnan and think it is fine Craig has taken over, I just want to see if Craig produces a few duds and is replaced in 10 years if he'll stil lbe popular. And yes, when GE came out I would say that is the most complex portrayal of Bond since OHMSS (which suffered from a poor Bond in Lazenby). Sure CR has taken it to the next level, I was merely stating what Brosnan brought to the role has been uncermoniously forgotten in some respects.

I like Craig in the role, it is just odd how a year ago everyone liked Brosnan here and now we see posts mostly say "Brosnan was too much of a sissy/metrosexual/pansy/[insert insult] to play Bond."

Whatever. The same people will most likely be bad mouthing Craig for hte new Bond in a decade then.

Why are you bitter because someone prefers Craig over Connery?

I happened to LOVE the Connery, Moore, Dalton, Lazenby, and well, Pierce's only good Bond film was Goldeneye and the rest weren't his fault. So I'm not going to bash him because the material was given sucked.

But in MY OPINION, Craig surpasses Connery in everyway. If you don't like the difference of opinion, don't come to the forums or open that particular thread that may have a different thought.

No one is forgetting Brosnan. People are saying that as good as he was, his potential wasn't realized because the sequels after GE sucked horribly.

 

[Backdrifter]

DaD just left a bad taste in people's mouths. If DaD had never happed, I doubt Brosnan would not be getting this much undeserved ****. He had a good run, at least his Bond wasn't a complete joke like Roger Moore.