Moore Era Silliness vs. Brosnan Era Silliness

Absolutely_Cart · February 2015

I feel like in the Moore era, humor was a big part of the films, but it was confined in its place. When it was time to get serious, they put the humor aside and made it happen. With the Brosnan films, I feel like there was less distinction and it kind of all got muddled together into a comic book video game.

Gassy Man · March 2015

There are at least three things different between the two eras:

1) The Moore films did not try to reinvent the persona that Moore had crafted on The Saint. He was in essence the same guy, with the same light, flippant personality and no more or less a sense of adventure. With Brosnan, rather than capitalize on the self-parodying, Cary Grant-ish affectation he'd created for TV's Remington Steele and in commercials, they tried to darken him up and give his characterization a clumsy subtext he never could quite pull off. Moore seems to naturally fit in his films; Brosnan seems uncomfortable or less convincing a lot of the time.

2) The Moore films acknowledged their silliness. They benefited in part from debuting right after the camp craze of the 1960s, so audiences were already primed for it, but they were smart enough to to adapt themselves to the free-wheeling disco 1970s and ultimately to the plastic, vapid 1980s, where except for For Your Eyes Only, the films suffered. The Brosnan films seemed uneven and schizophrenic in that they were never quite sure how seriously they wanted to be taken.

3) The Moore films still had many of the old guard working on them. The writing was slyer, the directing more competent, the pacing more natural, the sets more interesting, and the music more compelling. The Brosnan films were a mixed bag in this regard. There was no one particularly visionary among the directors, though I think that Roger Spottiswoode was the most competent at blending all of the elements together.

Had Brosnan portrayed his Bond more like he did Thomas Crowne, and had the tone of the films been more about being funny and adventurous, they would have been more lasting. As it stands, if I don't watch them, I don't feel like I am missing anything or am somehow not supporting the Bond franchise.

Absolutely_Cart · March 2015

Great analysis.

I really think Brosnan did want to be the suave gentleman like in Remington Steele at first, but the films got more and more absurd, and perhaps he darkened himself to counterbalance the silliness of the films.

I will exempt Goldeneye because it separated the funny and serious moments. Boris, Jack, Xenia had their corner as comic relief. Alec, the Goldeneye project and Natalya's story had their serious corner. Neither side undermined the other.

chrisisall · March 2015

Gassy Man wrote:

I think that Roger Spottiswoode was the most competent at blending all of the elements together.

Ahhh, thank you for that, Gassy. That was a nice bone.

AlphaOmegaSin · March 2015

I've always felt that Brosnans Performance was a Mix of Moore's Silliness and Dalton's darker Edge -{

chrisisall · March 2015

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I've always felt that Brosnans Performance was a Mix of Moore's Silliness and Dalton's darker Edge -{

Yeah, I'd say so, and a pretty good mix at that IMO.

hehadlotsofguts · March 2015

That scene in DAD on the hospital ship with M has to be one of my favourite talking scenes in a Bond film.

Virgil37 · March 2015

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I feel like in the Moore era, humor was a big part of the films, but it was confined in its place. When it was time to get serious, they put the humor aside and made it happen. With the Brosnan films, I feel like there was less distinction and it kind of all got muddled together into a comic book video game.

Very well put. With Moore you knew when it was time to get serious. In OP you have the Tarzan yell, but then you have no humour at all with him dressed as a clown. With Brosnan you don't get anything as obvious as a Tarzan yell for laughs, but you get the montypythonesque fight in a recording studio in TND and you don't know whether to laugh or fear for Bond's life or what. Really unbalanced.

But then again, Brosnan had in him a much better Bond that those weak scripts allowed. Sad.

Jag · March 2015

I'm really surprised at how underestimated Brosnan's era Bond is on this forum.

Spoff · March 2015

I totally agree here.

They had wanted Brosnan to play Bond for years, then it seemed like they kind of did not know what to do with him once they got him.

He did not have the comedy of Roger, and that would not have suited during the 90's anyway, but he also did not have the cold edge that Dalton had (he tried from time to time but it never convinced me). He was kind of a hybrid that never fully settled into it.

I thought GoldenEye was a pretty good introduction, then they went downhill.

chrisisall · March 2015

Jag wrote:

I'm really surprised at how underestimated Brosnan's era Bond is on this forum.

Yeah, it's actually a defensive reaction to Craig's stone cold take. You see, many people are uneasy deep down with Bond being portrayed SO straight (I have no problem with it myself), and so to make themselves believe they totally love it without reservation they pick on Brosnan whom most used to really like back in the day. So, psychologically speaking, to hate Brosnan is to fully embrace Craig.
I have no use for such mind games myself, I just enjoy the different takes on the character... differently.

)

The Red Kind · March 2015

chrisisall wrote:

I have no use for such mind games myself, I just enjoy the different takes on the character... differently. )

Totally agree. {[]

It would be a bit boring if every film had Bond portrayed in exactly the same way. for example, sometimes I'm in the mood for a Connery, sometimes a Brosnan..

Every film has it's attributes and every actor has brought something different and positive to the role -{

chrisisall · March 2015

The Red Kind wrote:

Every film has it's attributes and every actor has brought something different and positive to the role -{

{[] That's the spirit!

Thunderpussy · March 2015

The Bond films are like having a sumptuous wine collection, there's one
For every mood and occasion !

AlphaOmegaSin · March 2015

I agree {[]

Spoff · March 2015

Thunderpussy wrote:

The Bond films are like having a sumptuous wine collection, there's one
For every mood and occasion !

I like that analogy, very true -{

I uncorked and enjoyed a great View to a Kill last Friday

)

Blackleiter · March 2015

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I will exempt Goldeneye because it separated the funny and serious moments. Boris, Jack, Xenia had their corner as comic relief. Alec, the Goldeneye project and Natalya's story had their serious corner. Neither side undermined the other.

Good point! -{

Gassy Man · March 2015

stag wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

There are at least three things different between the two eras:

1) The Moore films did not try to reinvent the persona that Moore had crafted on The Saint. He was in essence the same guy, with the same light, flippant personality and no more or less a sense of adventure. With Brosnan, rather than capitalize on the self-parodying, Cary Grant-ish affectation he'd created for TV's Remington Steele and in commercials, they tried to darken him up and give his characterization a clumsy subtext he never could quite pull off. Moore seems to naturally fit in his films; Brosnan seems uncomfortable or less convincing a lot of the time.

2) The Moore films acknowledged their silliness. They benefited in part from debuting right after the camp craze of the 1960s, so audiences were already primed for it, but they were smart enough to to adapt themselves to the free-wheeling disco 1970s and ultimately to the plastic, vapid 1980s, where except for For Your Eyes Only, the films suffered. The Brosnan films seemed uneven and schizophrenic in that they were never quite sure how seriously they wanted to be taken.

3) The Moore films still had many of the old guard working on them. The writing was slyer, the directing more competent, the pacing more natural, the sets more interesting, and the music more compelling. The Brosnan films were a mixed bag in this regard. There was no one particularly visionary among the directors, though I think that Roger Spottiswoode was the most competent at blending all of the elements together.

Had Brosnan portrayed his Bond more like he did Thomas Crowne, and had the tone of the films been more about being funny and adventurous, they would have been more lasting. As it stands, if I don't watch them, I don't feel like I am missing anything or am somehow not supporting the Bond franchise.

This is a big statement but I'm going to say that was one of the best posts I've read on the whole forum. You've put into words what I never could & summed up why I could never take to Brosnan as Bond. As it stands I have only seen one Brosnan film &, to quote you 'I don't feel like I am missing anything or am somehow not supporting the Bond franchise.'

{[]

Moore Era Silliness vs. Brosnan Era Silliness

Comments