No damage done at all. DAD was a major box office winner.
Never.
It‘s all about vantage points.
5 Likes
I was 13 when DAD came out and it was a surprise for my younger self to later learn people didn’t just dislike it, but outright hate it. I can see where they’re coming from now, but still think the commentary is a tad overblown. At the time audiences wanted big explosions, and the Brosnan era gave them that. It was a big deal for EON to include that North Korea segment at the time even if it was fleeting.
I distinctly remember seeing photos of the bearded, bloodied Bond on the CBn front page and being shocked. It was so different. DAD ultimately became a victim of not going far enough with that ordeal and going too far with the invisible car and ice wave. It can be seen as a transitionary film where the studio decided what tone to continue with four years later, and the first half won out. I love NTTD but can also see how it went too far with its chosen approach to the point it rubbed people the wrong way.
Connery and Moore are my top two and always will be. Having Craig as my third favourite is a massive compliment to him. I think he has the most presence compared to the others that remain.
3 Likes
DAD was laughed at in the theaters I went to. Obviously, it had issues or there wouldn’t have been the pivot from Brosnan to Craig.
I bet with younger viewers Moore isn’t even in the Top 3.
Again, vantage points.
The theatres I watched DAD in had people cheering and outright loving the film.
Who‘s right? No one.
But I imagine DAD getting a similar reaction as MOONRAKER, with massive box office and delighted audiences but some shocked by the way it differed from their vantage point.
4 Likes
I suppose what is actually looked at is Craig’s impact on fashion, on watercooler conversations, on relevance.
Popular as Moore and Brosnan were, they weren’t relevant in the way Connery was to the 60s and Craig to the 2010s.
Mass audiences didn’t want to copy Moore or Brosnan. Doesn’t make their tenures less successful.
3 Likes
I’m always amazed, and honestly a bit saddened, at how Brosnan and his tenure is now framed.
A major reason for the whole “Craig not Bond” response to the casting was that in the 90s/00s, Brosnan was huge - culturally, critically and commercially, and was often lauded with the “best since Connery” tag by the media and public.
He rejuvenated and refeeshed the series in '95 as much as Craig did in '06. How successful it was is subjective, but his era tried to add emotional layers to the character. His box office returns were great, including the now-much-maligned DAD. Brosnan was very much influential on fashion, and appeared in Omega ads and Brioni suit ads, so when Craig did it for Omega and Tom Ford it was nothing new. In fact, I’d say the only difference in terms of fashion impact is that social media wasnt around, so what was worn etc wasnt disected by various accounts. Culturally, he was ingrained in public consciousness as Bond, in no small part because he relished being Bond and always seemed to embody the role in his appearances and interviews. And again, purely subjective as I know Criag has a lot of fans in this regards, but all my female friends, when speaking about Bond actors, prefer Brosnan’s Bond’s looks and style.
Now none of this is to detract from Craig at all, as he is/was undoubtedly huge as Bond - commercially, critically and cultrally. But it is to point out that everything that is said about Craig’s tenure, sucess and impact can, has and should, be said about Brosnan’s, right down to “best since Connery”. It is a real shame that the success of Craig’s era (and Eon’s reverence of him) has somehow cast a negative shadow over Brosnan’s impact and legacy. Again, his impact and ownership of the role was a major reason people didn’t want him to leave, and for the response to Craig’s casting.
9 Likes
Most famous British protagonist ever being killed by British cruse missles with a pink bunny in his pocket = ice wave/invisible car
At the time Brosnan helped making Brioni suits popular - so much so the then German chancellor posed for a profile feature in Brioni and with cigar.
But, in my view, that’s also the difference between Brosnan of the 90s and Craig since 2006: the former model inspired politicians and business figures - the latter ordinary men who wouldn’t be seen dead in a suit, but are willing enough to try on cardigans, jumpers, desert boots, wind cheaters and waxed canvas.
Insofar I’d argue Craig’s influence on fashion, as Bond as well as in his off-screen persona, goes a bit further, has a broader appeal beyond the business uniform.
As with all Bonds, not everything works on a character level - that odd combination of Henley shirt and light coat in Norway, where it’s either too cold or too light to brave the elements, but in any case too fussy and impractical - but this Bond certainly dresses much more as if he lived in our world. Which in turn invites us to try and dress as if we lived in his.
5 Likes
No, no, you are all wrong!
Moore in his safari suits is still the king of fashion… after Connery with his pink tie, but that goes without saying. 
6 Likes
Brosnan was a model who could fight and kill, which provided a cool contrast - even if audiences didn’t believe he had it in him. Craig was a thug in a suit who used the tuxedo to blend in to an upper class setting, as was the case during the Quantum opera meeting. I also remember Craig saying how good clothes are designed to last, and thus sustain wear and tear in the field.
3 Likes
I wonder whether this perception was caused by a few social media posts (getting repeated) and some reviewers who never liked Brosnan in the first place.
One could also have distributed the opinion that some audiences never believed CraigBond would have lasted in the service for more than one mission because his defiance and rogue-ism would have immediately led to a dishonorable discharge.
3 Likes
It’s a different philosophy of stage fight. Brosnan’s were mostly tailored after The Saint/Avengers-tv template: moderately exciting but never overly brutal. Rarely is his Bond forced to go all-in.
In contrast, Craig’s fights, especially his defining ones in CASINO ROYALE, mostly follow the TORN CURTAIN school, sparing neither his Bond nor the audience. His kills are nasty, violent and sweaty affairs and afterwards he’s got the stink of death and burnt adrenaline all over him along with the blood.
That’s something that just wouldn’t work with Brosnan because this part of violence, the horrific repulsiveness of it, just isn’t in his range. Evidence is Craig’s part in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO where he’s the victim at the climax. Hard to see Brosnan in that part.
3 Likes
That‘s exactly what I think: every actor has certain abilities, and some might never be displayed because audiences come with preconceived notions.
The pretty boy cannot fight dirty or be ruthless.
The hard-edged menacing thug cannot be light hearted and romantic.
Could Brosnan have delivered what the Craig era offered? Could Craig have mastered what Moore delivered?
Even if, actors have to go with what audiences think of them. Only rarely they can escape that.
As for Bond, no actor, IMO, is better than the other. They just bring different flavors.
5 Likes
Of course they are also cast that way, the pretty boy for the romantic lover, the skinny guy for the substance abuser, the beefy unkempt one as the geek.
Side note for German tv fans: When they rebooted Ein Fall für Zwei some years ago I would have given the solicitor part to Wanja Mues and made Antoine Munot the tough alleycat PI. Would have been the much more interesting chemistry.
1 Like
That would have been a great choice!
1 Like
But alas, it needs to be said regularly, even here.
5 Likes
46.59
3 Likes
So, the milk chocolate vs. dark chocolate is light vs. serious?
1 Like
I sort of agree on break, but definitely change in tone. It’s a chasing for repeat or inviting competition if they don’t.
1 Like
It’s been a while since we had a Sun “exclusive”
2 Likes