James Bond : To me, Brosnan was the worst Bond

Don't get me wrong, Brosnan is a very good actor but his Bond was formulaic and boring.
Goldeneye was awesome but then it got sillier and sillier, as they just tried to keep the franchise alive with the good old recipe, without trying anything new.

Some don't like the violence of Craig and Dalton or the campiness of Moore, but at least they added something fresh and new to the series.
Brosnan was a little violent "but not too much", a little emotional "but not too much", a little funny "but not too much" and he ended up being BOOOO-RING !

I disagree, friend. That little bit of everything trait you mentioned, I actually see as a strength.

He could as easily fit into Casino Royale or Licence To Kill as he could Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker.

I dont think you could say that about all the other Bond actors.

---

He could as easily fit into Casino Royale or Licence To Kill as he could Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker.

---

Exactly, You said it all !
Again, he's a very good actor. But what he was asked to do for his 4 films was basically "be a bit of every Bond portrayal", so he could equally fit in any other Bond film.

What I like in other Bond actors is that they had their own personality and own directions for the character. Moore was too campy and cartoonish, but at least they tried something new.
Same for Dalton with the violence, Lazenby for the emotions, etc

Brosnan, you said it, was so bland he could easily be interchangeable in any of the filmsit is a matter of taste, but I personally don't like that.

---

What I like in other Bond actors is they had their own personality

---

Daniel Craig doesn't have a personality either onscreen or in real life Besides, you find personalities BOOOORING!!!!! so stop chatting crap.

Well I am not sure about that. I think Connery or Moore could easily adapt to any if the Bond films too(maybe not Licence To Kill) but could you honestly see Craig, Dalton(and I do like Dalton) or Lazenby in Moonraker or Die Another Day?

Anyway I take your point, but I prefer a Bond actor that can be adaptable.

Connery- From Russia With Love- Diamonds Are Forever

Moore- Moonraker-For Your Eyes Only

Brosnan-Goldeneye- Die Another Day.

There are huge contrasts in those movies, and the way Bond is portrayed. But those three adapted. I respect your opinion, but taking Craig as an example, you pretty much know what type of film he is going to be in. With those three, you would never be quite sure what you are going to get, and that is the magic of Bond to me.

You may get an all out Epic adventure, you may get a straight spy storyor anything inbetween.

---

Some don't like the violence of Craig or Dalton or the campiness Moore

---

Why do idiots keep parroting that violence line when talking about Daniel Craig's critics??? It's nothing to do with the "violence" of Daniel Craig the man is a poor, unemotional, untalented actor with no RANGE!!!! JESUS CHRIST!!!! Why can't you thickos comprehend that And why you needed to create a thread to a reply you made to me last week is so autistic of you.

Verily I say unto thee..Bond fans will not voice their real opinions of Daniel Craig until they see the first movie by his replacement. That is fanboy mentality I'm afraid.

---

That is fanboy mentality I'm afraid

---

You mean fickle.

Brosnan is objectively the weakest Bond to date. Kids who grew up during his time like him for nostalgic and subjective reasons, but informed people know he was all at sea and his films were dung, including the disgustingly overrated GoldenEye, the praise for which is no different to the praise Trump receives from his supporters - idiotic, delusional and without any merit whatsoever.

Daniel Craig is objectively the first, worst roided retard to play Bond, hetrosexual, straight men with girlfriends who aren't retards with attention deficits know he's a robotic Android with the charisma of an unflushed turd.

Well.we understand you don't like Craig. He's not my favorite either.
But this is a board about Brosnan. Could you maybe tell us what you think about Brosnan performances, and see if you convince us.

Calling Craig the worst roided retard to play Bond implies that other roided retards played Bond.

Not quite but nice try.

Um yeah but okay.

Well I wasnt a child when Brosnan was Bond, and I still rated him.

Yeah. +1

For basically the same reasons you give.

Well, I'm going to have to offer that I don't agree with much you say.

One, I don't think he was the worst Bond. Two, I don't think he is a very good actor. Three, I don't find his Bond particularly boring, though it is on the "more formulaic" side of an intentionally extremely formulaic propertyso I can sort of sign on to "formulaic" but not as disparagingly as you might hope.

FourI don't agree with the notion that all the others "added something fresh" compared to Brosnan. Rather, I think each actor added something fresh to the canon, and one of Brosnan's strengths is that his era was a drastic refreshening of the franchise, under new production, management, style, etcwhich was actually the very first time a Bond "refresh" drove the franchise to more popularity than its predecessor rather than drove to diminishing returns.

I can sign on that Brosnan's era wasn't and couldn't be nearly as iconic and definitive as Connery's, and I don't actually think such an achievement is possible primarily due to precedence, though Connery bolsters his "untouchable" (heh) status by not only being first to do most everything, but also he did many if not most Bond things exceptionally well. So, yeah, compared to Connery Bond, Brosnan is "worse" to me. Then again, so is essentially everyone and everything else in the universe, to me, so that's hardly a fault moreso a mere axiom. (Hyperbole? Perhaps but it does illustrate my position.)

Moore's Bond was more distinct than Brosnan's, not only in his most British style, but also his most playful/caddish execution, and his most spoofy tone, and honestly, his most "aged/gentlemanly/unswaggering" demeanor. Moore is also the least like Ian Fleming's Bond, the least physically inclined, and to my eyes, neither Moore nor Brosnan is much of an actor, both seem to have less range or at least are less successful at range than Connery, Dalton, or Craig. Still, I enjoy most Moore Bond films more than most Bond films, and I don't pantybunch about his lack of Flemingness rather celebrate it. He's also "my" Bond in that he imprinted on my young mind who Bond was first, and simply never seems wholly wrong, accordingly (though I can see how a prior Connery fan or Fleming reader simply cannot "get" what I "see" in Moore's Bond.)

Lazenby's Bond is subtantially worse than Brosnan's on many fronts, not the least of which would be his comedy and charisma. He's also the Bond that makes Brosnan look like a skilled actor, as George seems simply awkward with the role throughout OHMSS, at least until the denoument when for whatever reason I think he finally nails it behind the bullet-shattered windshield. Also, George is exquisitely physical in the role, and luckily saddled with an exceptional story, production, and supporting cast that are all saving graces but do not lift him up to Brosnan's level overall. On reason why would be that I see Brosnan often underappreciated physically; to my eyes Pierce is always quite athletic and graceful both, substantially more than Moore, Dalton, or old Sean. So George strong suit is not all that much stronger than Pierce.

Tim's Bond is roughly in a three-way-tie for me with Pierce and Daniel, due to his impressive dramatic intensity and what I see as the most faithful/Flemingesque turn as James. Still, Tim isn't as funny, nor as charismatic as Pierce and his movies seem substantially budget-hobbled and a bit "out-of-touch" compared to Pierce's glossier, more fun efforts. I do think there's a good chance I would have preferred Tim's Bond to at least Daniel and Piercehad he tried more shots at it and with a bigger splash and more modern sensibility to explore. But, we got what we got, and it included Tim's ill-fitting suits, his occasionally strange hair, his palpable awkwardness with some of the ladies, etcwhich actually make him seem more like Ian's Bond than a moviestar but it doesn't mean I enjoy him as a movie star more. Though not exactly less. So, depending on my moodit is best said to be a tie.

And Daniel benefits from being given three good stories to work with rather than Pierce's one-and-a-half. And definitely has a frowny "grit" about him at times that Pierce either eschewed or failed to convince me when attempting. On the other hand, I don't find Pierce to be as funny nor as charismatic as Pierce, and to my eyes his "physicality" lands as overrated to me. Call me picky, but to my eyes he's a gym-built poser moreso than the "natural" athletes that I sense in the movements of Sean (before he got sloppy) George and yes, Pierce. Daniel does definitely work out and that's nice but he actually seems like he'd prefer to be playing card games in the trailer with Roger more than getting sweaty. And he doesn't seem to really have great "chemistry" with his girls compared to Pierce, though that might be a function of his stories which have really emphasized Bond's tribulations with women moreso than his breeziness. At any rate, Daniel and Pierce are different but similarly in a neck-and-neck depending on my mood, like Tim.

So that's what I think.

Also, the "Pierce was too much of a mixture, nothing distinct" doesn't ever even make sense to me. It implies that to be more one dimensional is an improvement but that's the opposite of what I like. Sean's not my favorite because he was monochromaticnor because he eschewed violence or comedy or camp or romance or drama (though Sean and Rog did avoid melodrama unlike Pierce and Daniel, though today's stories are for today's higher-estrogen bearing boys and that's not necessarily the actor's fault.) Anyways, Sean and Rog and any/all of them are better because they are mixtures, and this deft mixing is a strength of Pierce, too.

---

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

---

---

less successful at range than Connery, Dalton or Craig

---

How has Daniel Craig shown any range in any of his films he's a glorified stuntman and you're being a tasteless fool.

*shown

As our resident language tutor, you really must raise your game. How else will the foreigners learn their lessons?

---

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

---

It's both, you guys need to wake up pretty early in the morning to get one over on me.

Not when used in past participle form, as you specifically did. Show is only "shown" in that case.

You're obviously thinking (googling) for the secondary, obscure past perfect form of show, which not only did you not use in context, but is also never considered appropriate modern English today only archaic. A poor lesson to give to any new to the mother tongue, I'm sure we all agree. Of course, I'm sure you don't need to be reminded how to distinguish between past participle and past perfect forms; My intention is that I haven't shown you up. If you've ever been showed up, it can sting (archaic).

But other than that, do feel free to get up earlier; it could not hurt your demeanor, at least.

---

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

---

I have to know this before putting you on ignore because this has been killing me How on Earth do you think Daniel Craig has displayed range as an actor? In any of his films???? I ask because even though you're dumber than a bucket of rocks that's still a stunning error to make.

I'm glad to see you ran spell check before clicking "Post Reply."

I'd rather be on ignore than engage anyone about Bond, if they cannot produce honest conversation. Thanks for the interest, though.

---

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

---

We have different points of view on the same things. What makes Brosnan's Bond good to you is what makes it boring to me.
Nobody 's wrong, nobody's right, but it was nice to read your very well detailed answer.

Then why start this garbage thread if you already knew that, dumbass.

---

Two, I don't think he is a very good actor

---

I don't think Pierce is all that good in terms of range, but I do think he's a good actor in certain aspects. And that's part of the reason his "mixture" Bond doesn't work with me. He's great with certain character traits and moments but not so much in others. It's kind of like how I'm not so big on Moore's more serious ventures, like FYEO and portions of TMWTGG. Or like how TLD sometimes forces humor on Dalton that is more suited to Rog territory or how George has to sling a one-liner more suited for the Great Scot or how SP sometimes awkwardly forced Danny to bounce from Dalton to Moore from scene to scene, which he wasn't really able to keep up with or really didn't even care to try. It's not that they are "bad", but I'd much rather have things play around their strengths. And Broz's Bond strikes me as having the most trouble focusing on what he does well. As I've mentioned many times before, it's not his fault, it's the hand he was dealt. GoldenEye is great and Pierce is very good in it. It's a shame he was never given another shot at something like it.

Really, the only one who handily and convincingly took care of every style thrown at him was Sean. Even when he didn't care a la YOLT or DAF.

Well you think Daniel Craig had sombre moments and was "emotional" Donald Trump would be a better judge of acting then you would ever be

What

Daniel Craig can't act, he's a male model.

Don't feed the troll !!!! :-)

What a justified post.
I disagree, but I'm so glad you voiced it in a well detailed manner.
I loved Brosnan as Bond, he was an incredible choice. That being said, I think he suffered through the rings of cringeworthy stuff that the writers thought would pass as entertaining in his last film as Bond.
I mean his last three may have had things here and there that were eye rolling and that may have worked in the Moore era, but sadly they were moving into an Era that was over it, they just didn't get the memo until Casino Royals.

You lot are the most fickle bastards known to mankind!! my contribution to this RETARDED thread is over!!!!