The Pierce Brosnan period was a definite low in the entire run, but that one eats the poisonous cake.
Picard is 007?
- Thread starter Starborn Dragon
- Start date
The Pierce Brosnan period was a definite low in the entire run, but that one eats the poisonous cake.
To be fair that might be more a case of not wanting to use the villain in sequels, or get bugged about using the villain in sequels.
Brosnan was a major disappointment IMHO. He totally looked the part yet he was wooden as hell. He didn't have the toughness of Connery, the wit and charm of Moore or the intelligence and determination of Dalton.
He just kind of blandly went through the motions. I'll grant that after Goldeneye the films were pretty lame, Die Another Day is the only Bond film I haven't seen.
But even in lamer films like Moonraker or Diamonds are Forever Moore and Connery were still entertaining. Brosnan was just a brick.
If Shatner is some people's standard for going over the top, Brosnan's Bond was the other end of the scale, almost lifeless.
I thought that back in the day, the consensus was that Dalton had been disappointing as Bond and Brosnan was a more ideal choice. After all, Dalton was let go after two films and Brosnan did, what, four? But maybe that's been reassessed in retrospect?
Not to hijack the thread, and I'm no Bond expert, but I think the general feeling amongst Bond fans is that Dalton was under appreciated and has grown in stature and Brosnan was overrated and has fallen a bit.
When Dalton took over from more he brought a darker and more edgier style to the character. He could be a badass like Connery, but he didn't seem to get the personal pleasure our of killing the bad guys like Connery did.....he was witty at times, but it was far more subdued than Moore's charm was.
So in short he had both qualities that Connery and Moore did, but they were far more subtle and he was much more business like in general, but he was still great at the way he played his character. Ironically the best comparison to make was he played the character much the same way that Daniel Craig does....and Craig is widely praised for making 007 a more edgier and believable character than the silliness that the series had become after Die Another Day.
Plus it was a weird timein the 007 franchise. Moore clearly should have hung it up after "Octopussy" but did "A View to a Kill" which was panned (Despite the fact Chris Walken was in it and they just let him go completely over the top as the villian) and he looked way too old. Brosnan was slated to replace Moore but at the last minute his TV show "Remington Steele" which looked like it was getting cancelled for sure, got renewed for another season, and Brosnan couldn't get out of his contract. This disappointed a lot of Bond fans who had been expecting him to star in the next film because he really looked the part and apparently was lauded for his acting on "Steele" (Never saw the show so I can't comment on that)
So Dalton was given the role late in the process. And aside from people who saw "Flash Gordon" most people didn't know who Dalton was because he did smaller films and stage acting. So he was kind of behind the gun from the go, plus his two films weren't really heavily marketed in comparison to the earlier films and his last film "License to Kill" also faced brutal competetion when it was released in 1989 including "Batman" "Indiana Jones, Last Crusade" "Lethal Weapon 2" so it didn't do very well.
He was slated to do a 3rd film but it got delayed for various reasons and Dalton decided to bow out. It's too bad really because I think "The Living Daylights" is one of the best Bond films." and "License to Kill" even though it's a little too violent for my tastes at times, is still very good and Robert Davi as Sanchez is a great villian.
So there was a 6 year gap and by the time Goldeneye was made Brosnan was available and got the role. I think many people were excited because the felt it was justice since he was denied it years before and I think that feeling helped carry his popularity.
Of the 4 films I think Goldeneye is good, TWINE and TND are average and never saw Die Another Day, but since it consistently ranks as one of the 2 or 3 worst Bond films and let to the franchise being rebooted with a completely different tone, I don't think I missed much.
I think with hindsight and the original excitement that justice was finally served with Brosnan getting the role having faded that, even with the films being mostly subpar, people feel more and more that Brosnan just wasn't that good. He never got very angry, passionate, wasn't overly charming and witty and just seemed to deliver most of his dialogue in a very flat and expressionless way. It's kind of like Spock being 007.
I think time has tipped the original thought that Dalton was a letdown and Brosnan was better to the opposite. Of course not everyone feels that way but in general Dalton's stature has seemed to grow and Brosnan's has diminished.
Last edited:
^Good analysis, thanks.
My pleasure.
I do remember how the general consensus was that Brosnan "should have" been Bond all along, and that might've been part of the reason Dalton was judged harshly as well as the reason audiences were so glad to see Brosnan take over at last. I guess there were some rose-colored glasses toward him at the time.
While I've never been that much of a Bond fan, I did see all the movies when they showed up on TV (though I haven't seen any since Craig's first), and I always liked Dalton better than most did, and thought Brosnan was a lightweight in comparison. I thought Dalton brought more gravitas and depth to the role, and what you say about how he didn't seem to enjoy the violence like Connery did was part of that. As I said, I don't relate to protagonists who are casual killers. Really, I think Bond's a pretty reprehensible character on the whole. But Dalton's version was one of the more palatable ones.
And really, Timothy Dalton is a better actor in general than most of the other Bonds. He's done terrific work in other roles, though for me, his most memorable roles have been villains: Neville Sinclair in The Rocketeer and Rassilon in Doctor Who: "The End of Time." Maybe he would've been better remembered if he'd been cast as a Bond villain rather than as Bond himself.
While I've never been that much of a Bond fan, I did see all the movies when they showed up on TV (though I haven't seen any since Craig's first), and I always liked Dalton better than most did, and thought Brosnan was a lightweight in comparison. I thought Dalton brought more gravitas and depth to the role, and what you say about how he didn't seem to enjoy the violence like Connery did was part of that. As I said, I don't relate to protagonists who are casual killers. Really, I think Bond's a pretty reprehensible character on the whole. But Dalton's version was one of the more palatable ones.
And really, Timothy Dalton is a better actor in general than most of the other Bonds. He's done terrific work in other roles, though for me, his most memorable roles have been villains: Neville Sinclair in The Rocketeer and Rassilon in Doctor Who: "The End of Time." Maybe he would've been better remembered if he'd been cast as a Bond villain rather than as Bond himself.
I think many people would agree that, as a complete actor, Timothy Dalton is the best of all the Bonds.
You're right though about Brosnan. I don't remember the specifics but he was tagged as the heir apparent some time before the first post Roger Moore Bond was named and it came as a real surprise to everyone, including Brosnan himself, when "Remington Steele" was renewed for another season (its last) at 11th hour and NBC wouldn't let him out of his contract.
Moore and Connery had played Bond mainly alternating being a tough ass, with being witty and smooth. Generally Connery showed his bad ass side more often than Moore and Moore vice versa with the witty side, but both actors possessed both traits to a decent degree.
I think people though Brosnan was going to continue that kind of character based on his role in "Remington Steele" (again never saw the show so I can't make any personal opinions) and he sure LOOKED the part.
Then suddenly Brosnan is out as an option and this somewhat unknown actor to a lot of people is in and instead of doing the combo of tough guy/charming he plays the role much more serious and is a deeper and more complex Bond overall. He could be tough and funny but it was more subdued than Moore or Connery.
Plus, and I'm not saying Dalton is not a good looking guy, but he has a what I would say is a "rougher" handsomeness about him than Brosnan who comes off as very suave and dashing, much like Moore and Connery did in their younger days. So that was another factor.
So Dalton had two strikes against him from the beginning IMHO and many people either weren't going to give him a chance because they were upset Brosnan wasn't Bond when it looked like it was a sure bet for so long. Others gave him a chance but were thrown when he wasn't in the same mold as Connery and Moore and was edgier and more serious. Which were, ironically, the exact same things Craig got praised for bringing to the role after things had gotten ridiculous in "Die Another Day"
I like him a lot and think Living Daylights and License to Kill are both some of the better Bond films. I also think Brosnan was a big disappointment overall because he was just bland. His tough guy act wasn't that tough and, surprisingly, his charming smooth guy side wasn't that good either.
So I don't pretend to speak for the Bond fan community but I think the general feeling is that, with time and hindsight, Dalton has become more appreciated his Bond and more people have come to see Brosnan as just kind of average.
And just to make clear I'm no Brosnan hater. I really thought he was a can't miss for the role and he'd be a natural at it. I remember being very surprised after seeing him in 2 films and realizing he just wasn't that strong in the role.
When this was going on, I couldn't believe that the 007 producers were seriously interested in Bronson. He certainly looked the part, but "Remington Steele" was more of a comedic character, a parody of a James Bond superspy, a phony in a tuxedo, a himbo.
(I haven't watched the show since it was originally aired, but my memory is that he would invariably screw-up the investigation, and force the female lead to fix everything while of course receiving no credit.)
So I think it actually benefitted both Bronson and the 007 franchise that he didn't go directly from Remington Steele to James Bond. The later Rodger Moore films were far too light, and they probably would have continued that comedy direction with Bronson. The Dalton films allowed them to reset the franchise on a more serious note. And by the time Bronson took over, Remington Steele was a distant memory for most.
I knew Remington Steele was a lighthearted spy show even though I never watched it, but I didn't know Brosnan's range as an actor.
I think For Your Eyes Only was the most serious of the Moore films and Octopussy was good too. But he clearly should have hung it up after that. He was boarder line age wise in Octopussy, but he just looked way too old in A View to a Kill. Even Moore himself says he shouldn't have made it and was embarrassed in his love scenes with Tania Roberts who was like 30 years younger.
It was a silly film though, even though Walken is always entertaining even when he goes way over the top. But it was just a dumb film and Tania Roberts is possibly the worst actress ever.
So Dalton's two films were a welcome return to a more serious tone. The timing was just bad for the films. Especially for "License to Kill" which faced murderous box office competition in 1989.
It's too bad because LTK was a unique Bond film because instead of Bond trying figure out the bad guys intentions. Bond is the one who actually cons the bad guy and Sanchez comes to the realization he's been being played. It also had the most personal final scene between Bond and a bad guy where Bond reveals his motive before killing him, instead of making some bad pun.
Only thing I don't like is the violence is too graphic at times. It is really a unique film in the series.
I think For Your Eyes Only was the most serious of the Moore films and Octopussy was good too. But he clearly should have hung it up after that. He was boarder line age wise in Octopussy, but he just looked way too old in A View to a Kill. Even Moore himself says he shouldn't have made it and was embarrassed in his love scenes with Tania Roberts who was like 30 years younger.
It was a silly film though, even though Walken is always entertaining even when he goes way over the top. But it was just a dumb film and Tania Roberts is possibly the worst actress ever.
So Dalton's two films were a welcome return to a more serious tone. The timing was just bad for the films. Especially for "License to Kill" which faced murderous box office competition in 1989.
It's too bad because LTK was a unique Bond film because instead of Bond trying figure out the bad guys intentions. Bond is the one who actually cons the bad guy and Sanchez comes to the realization he's been being played. It also had the most personal final scene between Bond and a bad guy where Bond reveals his motive before killing him, instead of making some bad pun.
Only thing I don't like is the violence is too graphic at times. It is really a unique film in the series.
Starborn Dragon
Captain
Heroes are supposed to be better than villains.
Superman, at least the previous incarnations until Man of Steel, had a code against killing.
Even Batman, at least until the two animated Justice league DVDs, didn't kill either. but for him he feared that he would go down a dark place that he couldn't climb out of.
in short, there is only one real way to take the moral high road. That is to not be like the people you are fighting. If you do the same action, but just use a different reasoning for a justification, well then, how different are you from them really?
Ideally, yes. The shows I was shaped by as a kid were big on the idea of wholesome heroes who preferred to avoid violence. A lot of that was the result of network censorship, but still, it gave me heroes I could admire for their principles.
Well, there were earlier exceptions to both of those. In his first year, Batman did kill on a few infamous occasions -- shooting vampires with silver bullets, shooting down a truck carrying monsters, snapping a guy's neck with a kick -- but by his second year, the editors had toned him down and established a strict no-killing policy to make him more kid-friendly.
As for Superman, he was generally nonlethal, but the radio Superman during WWII occasionally cut loose with startlingly violent counterattacks against Axis or other armies, singlehandedly killing thousands of enemy soldiers without a hint of remorse. It's interesting -- in the couple of years before Pearl Harbor, the characters on the radio show often spoke of war as a horrible crime against humanity that must be rejected at all costs, but once the US entered WWII, the rhetoric changed to focus on the patriotic duty of Americans to fight for freedom and justice. Yet once the war was over, the radio show's rhetoric focused more on the urgency of supporting international and interracial harmony to make sure that the horror of war never fell upon the Earth again.
But overall, as a rule, Superman and Batman, and most other superheroes prior to the '80s or '90s, have been opposed to killing for the majority of their existence. It's something that's rarely been translated well to the big screen, though.
Starborn Dragon
Captain
Now I keep expecting the to have Spider Man kill someone, if it hasn't happened already.
If you're gonna make action movies, then a) there's going to be a villain; and b) they are going to be dispatched violently. That's just how Hollywood action films roll.
Bare in mind that in the original ending of Insurrection, Ru'afo basically brought about his own destruction, willingly walking into the collector while Picard calmly and reasonably tried to talk him out of it, with barely a punch thrown. The ending was refilmed with Picard kicking butt after test screening audiences reacted unfavorably to this original "talky" ending.
Now, as to whether TNG *should- have been making action movies or not... that's a whole other debate.
But nevertheless, that's how the Hollywood production line works. It's as true on today's movies as it ever was before.
Bare in mind that in the original ending of Insurrection, Ru'afo basically brought about his own destruction, willingly walking into the collector while Picard calmly and reasonably tried to talk him out of it, with barely a punch thrown. The ending was refilmed with Picard kicking butt after test screening audiences reacted unfavorably to this original "talky" ending.
Now, as to whether TNG *should- have been making action movies or not... that's a whole other debate.
But nevertheless, that's how the Hollywood production line works. It's as true on today's movies as it ever was before.
There's no doubt that it is. But that doesn't mean it should be. Cliches are not automatically right, nor are they impossible to defy. There certainly are exceptions -- The Dark Knight is a major one, and it works, because the Joker is trying to get Batman to kill him, to sink to his level, and Batman triumphs by not letting the Joker set the terms (which is exactly how Superman fails in Man of Steel). Moreover, the people of Gotham -- even a hardened criminal -- resist his attempt to turn them into killers.
Although the movie does drop the ball afterward by having Batman knock Two-Face off a ledge to his death. It did a great job defying cliche up to then, but then it fell victim to it. And that conformity to convention is its weakness, not its strength.
There's also X-Men: Days of Future Past, where the only way to save the world is to prevent the killing of the villain. And there's Serenity, where the villain is simply misguided and needs to be shown the truth. And no doubt others. So it's hardly mandatory.
I agree. But it's like I said, it can be hard for Hollywood to defy them. As stated, "Insurrection" originally had a different ending, with Ru'afo ignoring Picard's verbal pleas and sealing his own fate, which infamously got nerfed into "Picard and Ru'afo fight, Picard kicks Ru'afo's ass" after test screenings found the original ending not exciting enough. I think if a director cares enough about the vision they'll stand up for scenes like that, but I suspect Frakes probably didn't want to rock the boat when the suits came along and asked for a different ending... even though the original ending was, arguably, more in keeping with TNG as we knew it.
There are exceptions, yes. But exceptions are exceptional because they're exceptions. Which means the norm which isn't exceptional is... instead, unfortunate.
^But I just don't see the point of responding to "This is the way things are and it deserves to be challenged" with a simple assertion that "This is the way things are." That's already been established up front, and it's the very thing being complained about. You're not telling me anything I don't already know. The fact that I know all this is exactly why I'm complaining.
It's always hard to change the status quo. That goes without saying. But that's all the more reason to try anyway.
It's always hard to change the status quo. That goes without saying. But that's all the more reason to try anyway.
IMO, the Bond movie franchise went completely downhill after "From Russia With Love."
And in his earliest appearances, Batman had no qualms about killing villains or letting villains die. He even carried a gun. After all, he was based on pulp antiheroes such as The Shadow and The Spider.
As to the question of double standards about killing... Audiences assume that the villain is a bad person killing good people, and therefore it's an act of heroism and justice to end the villain's life.
Kor
And in his earliest appearances, Batman had no qualms about killing villains or letting villains die. He even carried a gun. After all, he was based on pulp antiheroes such as The Shadow and The Spider.
As to the question of double standards about killing... Audiences assume that the villain is a bad person killing good people, and therefore it's an act of heroism and justice to end the villain's life.
Kor
