Brosnan not Bond

[carl stromberg]

Someone should set up a website called Brosnanwasnot Bond?

I'm sure you'd make a lots of money from ads with all those visitors you'd get from CommanderBond, MI6, the pro-Craigers here, and all the other Bond fans who hate him.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Someone should set up a website called Brosnanwasnot Bond?

I'm sure you'd make a lots of money from ads with all those visitors you'd get from CommanderBond, MI6, the pro-Craigers here, and all the other Bond fans who hate him.

I would not visit.

[Kristatos]

Someone should set up a website called Brosnanwasnot Bond?

I'm sure you'd make a lots of money from ads with all those visitors you'd get from CommanderBond, MI6, the pro-Craigers here, and all the other Bond fans who hate him.

I would not visit.

I'd visit and then demand a Brosnan avatar, a Brosnan fan forum and get a fit of the vapours any time anyone says anything negative about Brosnan. Let's see how the Church of Craig reacts when the boot's on the other foot.

[stockslivevan]

You don't need a website for BrosnanWasNotBond, because he was that bad.

Although, it might bring back Deanna Brayton from the basement she has been hiding since Craig's success as Bond.

[Captain Nash]

I wouldn't join, because I don't hate Brosnan.
The only reason I might join would be for a little fun. Too wind the members up that seem not too like the idea that a James Bond fan can be happy with all aspects or directions he takes.

Be like deja vu I guess.

[007]

I saw Brosnan in an advert on television tonight. He still looks about ten billion times classier and more Bond than Daniel Craig.

[Summer Breeze]

Brosnan was a good Bond. Brought the series new life.

I like him better in The Thomas Crown Affair more than any of his Bond movies though. He just didn't seem tough or rough enough as James Bond.

[English Agent]

One of the great misconceptions here is that us pro-craigers are listed as Brosnan haters..................but in my case this isn't true.
When i saw him in Goldeneye i thought he suited the role very well, and i also enjoyed TND.
I remember during TND that he complained about the script, and that he wanted a meatier role............so it was therefore unfortunate that his next two Bonds were somewhat dissapointing in the script department.
As many have said here before, DAD started off well showing Brosnan as a man who had been beaten and tortured for a long spell, but rather than capitalize on this positive start, the film ended up in a sort of Moonraker
territory.
I know people here were upset when Craig was offered the role of Bond and was subsequently given a film with more meatier dialogue.........and i also wandered what Brosnan would of been like in a better film.........but at the end of the day, it was the producers call.

AB

[Kristatos]

I know people here were upset when Craig was offered the role of Bond and was subsequently given a film with more meatier dialogue.........and i also wandered what Brosnan would of been like in a better film.........but at the end of the day, it was the producers call.

I think Brosnan was a good Bond who could have been a great Bond had he been given a great Bond film to star in. Unfortunately, he was Bond at a time when actionactionaction was in vogue, before the Bourne trilogy showed that there was a market for a more cerebral style of spy movie. I actually think Purvis and Wade (who get a lot of flak from fans of Craig and CR) have been trying to make more Flemingesque Bond films since TWINE, but have been constrained by the demands of the studios. They finally got their wish with CR - for which Paul Haggis seems to have taken all the credit!

[katied]

I don't hate Pierce..I just think he made some bad choices,Bond-wise

[Kristatos]

I don't hate Pierce..I just think he made some bad choices,Bond-wise

I don't think they were his choices, though. I think that EON, sensing that the wind was changing, basically threw him under the bus and then tried to blame him for the now-unfashionable excesses of the 90's. I think he could have pulled off a non-reboot CR with aplomb, but that wouldn't fit the narrative that EON wanted us to believe, namely that Brosnan=camp, whereas Craig signifies a new Bond for the post 9/11 world, or something.

[katied]

Saying they threw Pierce under the bus is the perfect description.

[stockslivevan]

It was Brosnan's choice Kris. He's allowed to portray the character how he wants just as his predecessors. Moore was allowed to make Bond lighthearted. Dalton was allowed to use the novels as a source. Brosnan had the opportunity but chose what he thought was the ideal Bond by combining the traits of Connery and Moore, while primarily using Moore.

He probably did prefer to go deeper with something close to the novels, but it doesn't look like he really spoke out about it too much and thought "this is cenematic Bond and Connery and Moore were popular, guess I'll do the popular one." By the time he expressed his feelings about wanting do something deeper it was already ten years later and the producers were moving on.

[Dcbn]

I wouldn't join, because I don't hate Brosnan.
The only reason I might join would be for a little fun. Too wind the members up that seem not too like the idea that a James Bond fan can be happy with all aspects or directions he takes.

Be like deja vu I guess.

I'd be with ya there Cap'n. But you know us Bond fans, we're all so sensitive.

[Milton Krest]

Brosnan was a good Bond. Brought the series new life.

I like him better in The Thomas Crown Affair more than any of his Bond movies though. He just didn't seem tough or rough enough as James Bond.

I disagree with that slightly, i thought he was tough when needed and ruthless i dont think the scripts were really tailored to him. Watch the film The forth Protocol, not the best movie but Brosnan plays the villian and is quite chilling and cold blooded.

[Milton Krest]

I don't hate Pierce..I just think he made some bad choices,Bond-wise

I don't think they were his choices, though. I think that EON, sensing that the wind was changing, basically threw him under the bus and then tried to blame him for the now-unfashionable excesses of the 90's. I think he could have pulled off a non-reboot CR with aplomb, but that wouldn't fit the narrative that EON wanted us to believe, namely that Brosnan=camp, whereas Craig signifies a new Bond for the post 9/11 world, or something.

I think this is the problem with the reboot idea, they were not just tweaking the Bond character they completly raped it so any semblence of who Bond is and was is completly gone. In my opinion Casino Royale is a seperate entity from the more classical previous 20 odd films

[Dcbn]

Well I don't think Eon blamed anyone for anything. I think they acknowledge that it was time for a change, and Brosnan was not to be a part of it.

I will agree Brosnan did revitalise Bond. It's my belief that Every successful Bond film was always a reflection of the mood of the time. The Bond character has been changing from generation to generation.

People wanted gratuitous sex and violence in the 1960's as well as a good thrilling experience. connery delivered that. By the 1970's the world lightened up a little, and the cold war wasn't a serious issue on audiences minds anymore. they wanted to have fun and they wanted a fun Bond. In the 1980's Bond took a new serious approach. I love the Dalton films but I don't think it's what audiences wanted at the time, they weren't ready for serious.

By the 1990's Brosnan brought Bond into the action movie era. Had another actor been chosen, would Bond have been so successful? Maybe, maybe not. the fact is Brosnan was the one who did it. Back in the early 90's people thought his movies were cool. I think by the new millenium the general audience may have grown tired of the action OTT genre of the 90's and looked forward to a more serious, Dalton approach. The producers then took Bond in that direction.

Moore's films were not a mistake and neither were Brosnans. They reflected the mood of the people at the time they were made. People's moods change with the times, and so does bond.

That's why he's the only cinematic character to have survived over 40 years without becoming stale IMO .

[James1090]

Dcbn, you make a good point. Bond is usually tweaked to fit its era. Most of the people who grew up with Roger Moore as Bond probably would like to see his style implimented again. Just like myself who grew up in the Brosnan era. I liked him as Bond, not a fan of Craig but am willing to give Craig a chance to win me over in the next film.

[katied]

I don't disagree with DCBN on this one..Bond is a product of whatever decade it is.Pierce's Bond fit the era/decade he was in.Daniel Craig..it's a bit wait and see, yet.I mean,I liked CR but a classic?Not exactly.

[Skywalker]

I don't disagree with DCBN on this one..Bond is a product of whatever decade it is.Pierce's Bond fit the era/decade he was in.Daniel Craig..it's a bit wait and see, yet.I mean,I liked CR but a classic?Not exactly.

I think the other JB's had a distinct influence on Craig's Bond. Not Connery/Moore etc...but Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne. Whether this style will still be popular in 2 movies time is debatable, but like always EON will adapt to the times.

Just think, one day we'll have refinement, gadgets and one-liners again.