RISE OF THE EMPIRE - Pierce Brosnan WAS James Bond
"Pierce Brosnan has perfected the role to become the best and most
popular Bond since Sean Connery. With a mixture of suave arrogance,
offhandedly jocular and unexpected brutality he remains endlessly
On October 14, 2005, something changed in the world of James Bond, and
it was Daniel Craig, who became the 6th James Bond. Controversially as
we all know, he is the first blond actor to play the British superspy
and Ian Fleming's James Bond is not blond. All these complaints led to
some fans saying "give Craig a chance", and soon after the casting,
more and more fickle fans suddenly started bashing Brosnan (although he
had been popular in the role when he had it) not only as Bond but also
as actor as well. These bashers are still doing it to this day not only
on traditional James Bond forums but general movie forums as well.
These bashings of the films and actors of Cubby's series made fans with
contrary opinions about the new era stop posting on the forums and/or
delete their accounts altogether. You see a lot of Brosnan bashing and
Craig worshipping in these forums. These Craig worshippers opine that
Brosnan is worst actor in the whole world, and one of them (from IMDB)
thinks that he's even worse than both Vin Diesel and Steven Seagal!
Unlike Batman and Star Trek, these fans don't seem to blame the
problems on the studios or those who are in charge; instead, they blame
it on the actor playing the lead.
When Brosnan got "fired" as Bond, fans quickly started to move on to
other potential actors to take over the role. The numbers kept on
growing as time passed by with many actors rumored to be taking the
Bond role. Take Clive Owen for example. He was possibly the most
popular candidate to replace Pierce so they bashed Brosnan when it
looked like Clive was on the cusp of taking the part. When Owen didn't
get the role, they bashed him! I didn't like the idea of Clive as Bond
myself and would rather have had Brosnan stay to redeem his legacy as
his Bond films - except GoldenEye, which was considered by many as one
of the best of the series - suffered from banal scripts and storylines
supplied by Eon. This may have stopped someone who helped save the
franchise from the unfair retrospective criticism that followed his
departure from a role he had put so much into.
Now let's move on to Daniel Craig and Casino Royale. When Craig was
cast in 2005 as the new Bond, people bashed him because he was short,
craggy and blond, and they thought Casino Royale was going to suck big
time - possibly because of him. It seems that they underestimated his
acting abilities to play James Bond even before filming started. It is
true that certain movies do end up being a flop as widely expected, and
one example is 2009's Dragonball Evolution. Everyone knew that it was
going to be bad from the trailers. However, this is not always the
case. Take Star Wars and Titanic, for example. People thought these
films were going to be bad during production, but those films ended up
as huge box office gold. As a Brosnan Bond fan myself, was I against
Craig primarily because of his lack of classic Bond looks? The answer
is yes although I do admit that he did a commendable job in terms of
acting. I still didn't bother seeing Casino Royale though.
Why? My reason for not going to see the movie goes beyond Daniel
Craig's casting. It's all to do with the removal of Brosnan. Eon was
supposed to give him a great Bond movie with a darker and gritty feel
like he wanted and a good director but instead they wasted his time
with weak and uninspiring scripts and storylines during his tenure.
Rather than giving him a better Bond story, Eon gave it to Daniel Craig
instead, leaving Pierce with nothing to be remembered as classics (with
the exception of GoldenEye). It's pitiful that GoldenEye is the only
classic Bond he had as he was available to be James Bond from 1994 to
2005. This annoying fact is why I didn't bother to see Casino Royale
despite the reviews although with Quantum of Solace it seems that Eon
have plucked defeat from the jaws of victory and I'm glad they did.
Craig's Bond films may not be bad (except for Quantum of Solace which I
wanted to do worse than Casino Royale) but are certainly annoying. Bond
is stylish, handsome, if sometimes gritty as written by Ian Fleming. If
Fleming's concept of Bond is to be used, it needs be done correctly by
casting the right actor. But Eon did the opposite by hiring Daniel
Craig and had to boost him up with a gargantuan marketing campaign.
Then you got all this media manipulation. All the talk about Daniel
Craig as the "best Bond ever since Sean Connery" is exactly what they
said about Brosnan and will probably say about the next Bond. I'm not a
fan anymore. Those who believe Craig is the "Best Bond Ever Since Sean
Connery" as well as a "Classic Bond" I disagree with.
If James Bond is going to be Daniel Craig for the foreseeable future we
can hopefully always have other more inventive franchises to escape
into. Indiana Jones, Batman, Star Trek, Iron Man, Jason Bourne, Harry
Potter, Chronicles of Narnia...you name them. It's a good thing that
there are a lot of alternative franchises out there. In these
franchises there are no deep divisions amongst fans as there is with
Bond now because of the reboot and the casting of Daniel Craig. Star
Trek may have divided some fans with the recent movie but it patently
needed a reboot much more than Bond. Though it divided some fans, Star
Trek did the right thing Casino Royale didn't by casting younger actors
to portray the early Enterprise crew. The Cubby/Harry template has been
changed by people who don't even seem to like James Bond films very
much. The James Bond of today is not James Bond.
Let's face it...Bond is dead but The Dark Knight lives on!
- by Dan