They stripped away some (not all, but some) of these unnecessary stereotypes of Bond for Casino Royale, which has been regarded a large section of the fanbase, as well as non-fans as well, as being one of the best films in the franchise. I think people would find that, if change was just embraced for once, that the public at large might actually embrace it as opposed to thumbing their noses at it. It’s largely the already existing fanbase, which I’ve been told repeatedly on this forum isn’t enough to sustain the franchise on its own, that doesn’t want to see anything change.
If the franchise is going to continue on for another 60+ years, it’s going to have to evolve at some point. The stress of continuing to run it back with the same old tired tropes will eventually cause the franchise to just collapse on itself. We’re already starting to see that with the last two entries. Bond is becoming a stale franchise because it’s just doing the same thing over and over again, largely because it’s fans demand that it follow a formula to the point where it’s just basically a Bond edition of Mad Libs. Just fill in the blanks here and then erase it all and start over again with the next film on the same template.
Easier said that done in my view. Does Bond still work for MI6? Does he come with the racism, sexism, disdain for America, despair over the loss of Empire , diminishing physical capacities, etc. that Fleming imbued him with? If not, what are his qualities? Is he still St. George in contemporary guise?
Fleming’s Bond was a product of the moment of his creation, and EON, wisely in my view, continued the practice of making Bond of his moment. Sometimes this approach is dismissed as worrying if Bond is relevant, but it is much subtler.
Bond must avoid nostalgia, but still show his connection to the/his past; must demonstrate a universal appeal without becoming anachronistic/ahistorical; must embody a male ideal that is upheld/critiqued within the same film. Bond must be more than relevant–he must contain a multitutde of relevancies.
The fans, sure, and they all have their preferences.
And a youngish mass audience which needs to be lured in by shiny, flashy things (cars, stunts, explosions).
But the casual audience members who started watching Bond films with Craig now are in their twenties or thirties. They are aware of the tropes and will consider them as necessary. I would even argue that the tropes are what connects the audience to Bond. The box office of the Craig era did signal that tropes and formula are working better than stripping it all away.
I believe the success of CR was as overrated as the success of GE. Audiences just were happy to see a new Bond film with a new Bond actor. I don’t think they were relieved that the gun barrel was reworked or that a black and white sequence and the beginning was chosen or that a classic Fleming novel was finally adapted by EON.
The response was provoked by the action and a main actor who made Bond rougher and more similar to action heroes of that time,
The next era will have to look at the current climate (difficult for action heroes) and an actor who can bring something new to the table. Even those who dislike Brosnan have to admit that he was different from his predecessors, and EON never cast a successor who looked or acted like those who came before them.
I can’t account for the success of CR overall, but in terms of why it appealed to me, there were two factors: first, it was built on the bones of a Fleming plot, which gave it a more solid foundation than any Bond in…well…eons, and second, it represented an unexpected burst of creativity at a time when I thought the series was on life support, creatively. IMHO it eventually proved to be just a momentary spike before flatlining again, but it was exciting at the time.
I know this isn’t directed at me per se, but I want to clarify given some of my comments that I don’t actively dislike Brosnan as a performer and I enjoy several of his moments as Bond, and a lot of what he’s done outside of the series. I agree he didn’t look or act exactly like his predecessors (I never understood, for instance, the fan support for Adrian Paul based largely on his strong resemblance to Connery), but he borrowed enough from them that I don’t feel he really dominates or defines his run in the way they did theirs. To me, there’s the “Connery Era” and the “Moore Era” and then there are “those four films with Brosnan.” He’s “different” from his predecessors in the way that a cover band is different from the band whose works they’re interpreting. What you hear is technically new to your ears and may even offer some novel changes in tempo, phrasing or instrumentation, but it keeps reminding you of the original.
I believe the impression that Brosnan brought a mix of Connery and Moore is impossible to prove.
Which scenes has Brosnan played like Connery, which ones like Moore? Is that even possible without imitation and consequently persiflage?
I guess his Bond who could be sardonic and tough and amused and light on his feet with oneliners reminded one of both, but one would have to consider the ability to play Bond like that as the special quality of Brosnan.
I remember how critics during the Moore era lamented that he never could play Bond like Connery. Well, if Brosnan could do both, would those critics have preferred him?
When Dalton took over from Moore, critics either said „oh, finally one who is more like Connery“ or chastised him for not being light-hearted enough, you know, like Moore.
And when Craig began critics were so ecstatic that his Bond was more in the vein of Connery, while later on wishing for more fun like… You know.
In any event, Connery and Moore are and will remain the two orientation marks future actors will be judged on and also gravitate in between.
Craig was more on the Connery wavelength - but did he bring something different and new to Bond? He seems like a mix of Connery and Dalton to me, but I can’t see something really original in his portrayal, and I would even say nobody can bring out anything original in that role because the predecessors already have marked the territory.
I guess where I’m going is: Connery (via Young) took the bones of Fleming’s Bond and added some wit, sartorial style, machismo and a voracious libido to establish the original template of movie Bond. Moore ramped up a lot of those elements and eased off on the machismo to double down on the style and wit and a sort of “wealthy playboy” angle. Between them, they established all the tropes and trademarks the world associates with James Bond: he looks good, dresses well, enjoys his wine and women, drives cool cars and is cool under pressure.
Brosnan embodied all of those traits to the point where his casting can’t have surprised anyone. He looked the part, he oozed style and God help him he tried to sell the by-then hopelessly juvenile double-entendres. But what did he bring that was uniquely his? What about him helped further define the Bond image or set him apart from the pack? There were a lot more machine guns in his films, does that count? He leaned into the “this time it’s personal” angle which persists to this day, so maybe that’s it (except it started with Dalton and LTK)? He favored Italian suits and BMWs, but that’s superficial stuff that didn’t stick. He did “the Bond thing” exactly as required in the job description, but what did he ADD? Maybe there is something and I’m just missing it.
Dalton I find more memorable for his having largely turned his back on the Connery/Moore approach to focus more on Fleming’s Bond. It was an interesting experiment but – in my opinion – it ultimately just proved that the literary Bond is a fairly flat figure on film. Craig meanwhile I can’t connect to any earlier performer any more than I can connect his version of “James Bond” to the classic model, or Fleming. It’s an interesting character up to a point, but for me a separate one. I may not find Brosnan’s take in any way crucial to the Bond mythos or image, but I actively hope Craig’s is left behind in its own little pocket universe with no impact on what comes next.
I think he tried (whether or not he succeeded is down to individual opinions) to bring more vulnerability to the character.
GE he felt the betrayal by his friend (and had that melancholic scene on the beach); TND with his relationship with Paris; TWINE he fell for Electra, was protective and struggled with the betrayal; DAD he was betrayed, captured, disavowed and helpless.
Again, it’s a matter of opinion how well he (/the writers/directors) achieved it, but I would say that vulnerability was what his run added to the character.
Agree about the Connery/Dalton mix, but I definitely think there’s enough character in there to distinguish Craig from the others. It’s his roughness that was prominently displayed during CR but still lingered afterwards. Throwing down the PPK in anger during the Skyfall PTS. Drinking the martini during the NTTD Cuba meeting and tossing the glass to the ground. Ripping off the door handle with the unconscious guard inside during QoS. This was a Bond that had real strength underneath his tuxedo and that brutish side would reveal itself.
This weekend I watched Octopussy and A View To A Kill, so I did completely the opposite as what I promised myself and didn’t watch the usual subjects, but some of the not so often watched Bondmovies.
Not just vulnerability but I’d also add introspection. Like you mentioned with the beach scene in GoldenEye as well as his drinking alone in his hotel room while he waited for Carver’s goons to appear only to have it be Paris in Tomorrow Never Dies. Pierce Brosnan did well in both those scenes–particularly the one in TND.
But I don’t buy into the idea that Brosnan didn’t bring anything (or anything new) to the role or that by being a hybrid version of the best that came before him is such a bad thing. If anything, I appreciate it and applaud it. At some point (if we’re not there already), there’s going to come a time where there is nothing new to offer and the new Bond actor will have to portray shades of other 007s. George Lazenby was a Connery-lite, Timothy Dalton was literary Bond mixed with a little bit of Connery, and Daniel Craig was more of a combination of Connery and Dalton.
Brosnan, meanwhile, was perfectly able to mix a lot of the good stuff that Connery brought to the role with a lot of the good stuff Roger Moore was able to bring to it and meld it all together cohesively, which is no small feat. His problem was that after TND the scripts and directors (and EON?) let him down to a certain extent. But no other 007 actor is a better cross between what most people consider the best Bond actors–Connery and Moore. Not Lazenby, not Dalton, and certainly not Craig. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Fantastic to see it again after a while. It’s cheeky and irreverent. Moore is unflappable in the role and such a youthful 46.
The Rosie Carver scenes are fantastic and no tux no car really marks his Bond differently.
It’s production values are impeccable and it’s probably the best dressed Moore has been as Bond.
Interesting watching it again and seeing stuff like ’ Oh Cult’ voodoo shop. It does continue the narrative of DAF in that it embraces the bankruptcy of consumer capitalism, what could be more that, than a Disneyesque Voodoo store, a hotel show of a voodoo ritual.
Yaphet Koho does well in the dual roles. I would have preferred a more accomplished actor as Solitaire but that’s a minor quibble. It has rejoined Moonraker as my favourite of Sir Rogers Bond films.
Thunderball – My least favorite of the Connery movies and typically one I find a slog to get through (especially goes for the underwater climax). But it’s been a while so I’m due for a re-watch. Curious to see if I’ll enjoy it more next time, but I’m skeptical.
For Your Eyes Only – After Topol passed away last year I re-watched the dock/opium factory raid and damn, what a great scene. For Your Eyes Only isn’t my typical go-to Moore entry but I enjoy it a great deal.
Licence to Kill – I’m sort of lukewarm on Licence to Kill (don’t particularly like the ultra-violence and there are some elements which I find a bit unsatisfying) but I’ve been really itching to revisit it for whatever reason. Same goes for Quantum of Solace.
The World is Not Enough – Possibly the Brosnan film I’m most indifferent towards, which is odd considering it was also the first Bond I ever saw in theaters. Like Thunderball I feel well overdue for a re-watch.
Quantum of Solace – This was my least favorite Craig entry until No Time to Die came along. I have a feeling it might improve upon re-watch.
The films I really need to re-watch are the Brosnan ones. I have not seen them (other than GE) in a very long time. Those, and AVTK (for the same reasons), are the ones I will re-watch this year.
Looking forward to the Brosnan films. As a teenager in the 80s I was dying to see him become Bond and was disappointed when Dalton got the gig (though now it’s a toss up between him or Craig for my favourite). I enjoyed him during his run but have not really watched them much other than GE.
My own take was always that Brosnan got better as Bond with each film while the films got progressively worse (though I have always loved the first 40 minutes or so of DAD). I will be interested to see if that is still my perception after a re-watch. Also curious to see if my assessment of a View to Kill improves as was the case with Octopussy.
I’m OK with him dying again, but they need to plan it out and have it at the hands of a worthy villain, not the worst villain this franchise has seen…ever. And don’t bathe it in nostalgia and references and then undercut it with a triumphant JAMES BOND WILL RETURN immediately after. I didn’t think they could do worse than SP, and they did make a better picture with NTTD, but only just so and boy did it give SP a run for its money as the franchise’s worst.
