Brosnan or Craig?

Post by **James** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:11 pm

Might as well do this one. I left the cinema in 1995 much happier with the new Bond than I did in 2006.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:26 am

That's funny, because when I left the cinema in '95 I felt let down and cheated. That was not the James Bond I'd grown up with. I got used to Brosnan in Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough, and then reminded why I disliked his Bond again with Die Another Day.
Not the best when half your films don't measure up. But I gave him a chance, unlike some people I know.
As for Daniel Craig, brilliant debut, and obviously well received by the general public. All he has to do now is make a great follow up and he'll be set to become one of the best Bonds.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:17 am

Brosnan is easily the worst Bond of the entire series.

Post by **Skywalker** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:40 pm

The Sweeney wrote:Craig is easily the worst Bond of the entire series.

I realised your mistake Sweeney so have rectified it for you.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:59 pm

Skywalker wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:Craig is easily the best Bond of the entire series. After Connery.
I realised your mistake Sweeney so have rectified it for you.

What mistake?

Moore · Post by **Moore** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:51 pm

I think the matter is out of a question. Brosnan is imo one of the best bond's and Craig... Well, Craig isn't bond...

Post by **Kristatos** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:17 pm

Brosnan. I think he had one more film in him, and would have liked to see him in a more realistic Bond film in the OHMSS/FYEO/LTK mould. I know he wanted to do it, and it's a shame he's the only Bond actor who never got the chance.

Post by **Skywalker** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:36 pm

Captain Nash wrote:
Skywalker wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:Craig is easily the best Bond after David Niven and the other 5.
I realised your mistake Sweeney so have rectified it for you.
What mistake?

My mistake. Bob Holness is better than Craig. Sorry for the misunderstanding folks.

Post by **carl stromberg** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:10 pm

People used to say that Brosnan was a mixture of Connery and Moore. I agree.

Post by **Dr. No** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Brosnan hands down.

His acting in DAD was some of the best of the series. His reaction to the torture was very realistic and in keeping with James Bond.

When I left the movies in 1995 there was excitement all of my friends were talking about it. How many z3 roadsters were sold because of that movie?

Leaving the movies in 2006 it was not the same, it wasn't a fun movie experience. It was dower and depressing.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:42 pm

Dr. No wrote:Brosnan hands down.
His reaction to the torture was very realistic and in keeping with James Bond.

Been tortured alot have you Doctor?
Of course you have you come on here.

Jedi007 · Post by **Jedi007** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:40 am

Brosnan is easily the worst Bond of the entire series

How? Why?

Post by **FormerBondFan** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:09 am

I think this topic is getting too much here.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:09 am

Jedi007 wrote:
Brosnan is easily the worst Bond of the entire series
How? Why?

Tried too hard to play it cool, looked false, couldn't act sincerely, overacted when it wasn't required, one minute tried to pull off a Roger Moore one-liner, the next trying to be all deep and reflective, pondering pose with stroking chins, didn't really try and use the novels for inspiration, looked too pretty-boy, too smarmy, not tough enough, tried to give us a `greatest hits' Bond with his performance (a blend of all previous actors) but failed on every level, etc. etc.

That's Brosnan. As for his films, well. Laughable CGI effects, messy plots, silly, embarassing one-liners, unrealistic storylines, OTT sequences, and of course - DAD (need I say more).

Post by **carl stromberg** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:50 am

Tried too hard to play it cool, looked false, couldn't act sincerely, overacted when it wasn't required, one minute tried to pull off a Roger Moore one-liner, the next trying to be all deep and reflective

That's what I thought about Daniel Craig!

You could argue that Brosnan had some rather muddled material to work with. But then, CR was rather muddled. Tacked onto the excellent source material were generic action scenes and awful soap-opera scenes of Craig overacting "trying to be all deep and reflective".

I think the Brosnan films are due for a reappraisal. Brosnan was popular. Now some quarters feel it is fashionable to have a dig at him. I feel he appeared in an enjoyable selection of Bond films.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:45 am

carl stromberg wrote: I think the Brosnan films are due for a reappraisal. Brosnan was popular. Now some quarters feel it is fashionable to have a dig at him. I feel he appeared in an enjoyable selection of Bond films.

What a poor misguided person you are carl.
Brosnan tried to be everything, but copied two popualr Bonds along the way.
He wasn't original, he wasn't as good as the two he copied (Connery and Moore) and his movies may have been popular, but they were B grade Bond films at best. How quickly did Die Another Day become the most loathed of all Bond films?
Easily as soon as I left the cinema I know that.

Post by **007** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:33 pm

I prefer Brosnan. I think he had more panache and humour, which I like in the cinematic character. I'm not sure he was well served by the scripts though.

ID · Post by ID » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:47 pm

I'll take the Brozzer over our gloomy new 'Bond'.

Jedi007 · Post by **Jedi007** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:27 am

Tried too hard to play it cool, looked false, couldn't act sincerely, overacted when it wasn't required, one minute tried to pull off a Roger Moore one-liner, the next trying to be all deep and reflective, pondering pose with stroking chins, didn't really try and use the novels for inspiration, looked too pretty-boy, too smarmy, not tough enough, tried to give us a `greatest hits' Bond with his performance (a blend of all previous actors) but failed on every level, etc. etc.

That's Brosnan. As for his films, well. Laughable CGI effects, messy plots, silly, embarassing one-liners, unrealistic storylines, OTT sequences, and of course - DAD (need I say more).

Whoa. I never heard anyone yet complaining about Brosnan's acting until people began questioning Craig being cast as Bond.

I said the blame still points toward EON, not Brosnan. We know Brosnan wants his Bond more humane. But EON has limited Brosnan's acting capabilities with bad direction and poor scripts. Oh, and DAD again! As if it were the only film that Brosnan made.

It was EON who made the "laughable CGI effects, messy plots, silly, embarassing one-liners, unrealistic storylines and OTT sequences."

And "greatest hits" Bond? I think Brosnan wants only to show the old versions of Bond (Connery & Moore) for new generation. And what about "Terminator-like, egoistic, reckless" Craig Bond?

As said by Double O on the "Best Bond film" thread

Brosnan-had he been given a fighting chance-i.e. story,script, and direction -could have been the best Bond ever. Unfortunately, his arrival coincided with the decent of the franchises' storylines, and the (over done) ascent of the computer effects era. He was the right guy at the wrong time. One might argue that Brosnan was wasted as Remington Steele, and by the time he arrived, he had to prop the franchise. This meant that not only did the producers have to play up Brosnan (to his detriment), but tried to go well "over the top" to make his film as fantastic as possible. "Keep It Simple Stupid is a well used remark and it applies here. The opening sequence was a great introduction for Brosnan--the film was O.K. and brought the franchise back to the fore.

.

EON's to blame, not Brosnan.

And if you're assuming that by defending Brosnan, I am saying that Craig isn't a good actor, as most of pro-Craig boys think, you're wrong. In fact my top Bond would be Dalton. I was just defending Brosnan who thinks he sucks just because Craig took over. I think you're just doing the same thing for Craig.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:44 pm

Jedi007 wrote:
Tried too hard to play it cool, looked false, couldn't act sincerely, overacted when it wasn't required, one minute tried to pull off a Roger Moore one-liner, the next trying to be all deep and reflective, pondering pose with stroking chins, didn't really try and use the novels for inspiration, looked too pretty-boy, too smarmy, not tough enough, tried to give us a `greatest hits' Bond with his performance (a blend of all previous actors) but failed on every level, etc. etc.

That's Brosnan. As for his films, well. Laughable CGI effects, messy plots, silly, embarassing one-liners, unrealistic storylines, OTT sequences, and of course - DAD (need I say more).
Whoa. I never heard anyone yet complaining about Brosnan's acting until people began questioning Craig being cast as Bond.

I said the blame still points toward EON, not Brosnan. We know Brosnan wants his Bond more humane. But EON has limited Brosnan's acting capabilities with bad direction and poor scripts. Oh, and DAD again! As if it were the only film that Brosnan made.

It was EON who made the "laughable CGI effects, messy plots, silly, embarassing one-liners, unrealistic storylines and OTT sequences."

And "greatest hits" Bond? I think Brosnan wants only to show the old versions of Bond (Connery & Moore) for new generation. And what about "Terminator-like, egoistic, reckless" Craig Bond?

As said by Double O on the "Best Bond film" thread
Brosnan-had he been given a fighting chance-i.e. story,script, and direction -could have been the best Bond ever. Unfortunately, his arrival coincided with the decent of the franchises' storylines, and the (over done) ascent of the computer effects era. He was the right guy at the wrong time. One might argue that Brosnan was wasted as Remington Steele, and by the time he arrived, he had to prop the franchise. This meant that not only did the producers have to play up Brosnan (to his detriment), but tried to go well "over the top" to make his film as fantastic as possible. "Keep It Simple Stupid is a well used remark and it applies here. The opening sequence was a great introduction for Brosnan--the film was O.K. and brought the franchise back to the fore.
.

EON's to blame, not Brosnan.

And if you're assuming that by defending Brosnan, I am saying that Craig isn't a good actor, as most of pro-Craig boys think, you're wrong. In fact my top Bond would be Dalton. I was just defending Brosnan who thinks he sucks just because Craig took over. I think you're just doing the same thing for Craig.

I more or less agree with what you saying. Brosnan was unfortunate to star in the worst films of the series, and the blame really lies with EON. To be honest, I had pretty much given up on them until I saw CR.

I think maybe had Brosnan been given a different script, different direction (which I think he wanted to) then perhaps I wouldn't dislike him as Bond so much. Unfortunately, the poor quality of his films does cloud my judgement somewhat when it comes to my opinion on Brozza.