If you're ever looking for other themes and topics to analyze on this channel, here are a bunch of ideas I'd be interested in: - James Bond as a changing definition of masculinity - Bond Villains adapting to and expressing real dangers in our world - Why Bond kills: For Queen and Country or personal vendetta? - Judy Dench's two Ms: Her different characterization in the Brosnan and Craig years - Why James Bond is always going rogue / Why we want our heroes to defy authority
Great analysis, Ryan! I like the idea of Brosnan as being essentially the "Luxury" Bond. In-touch with his emotions but not at the mercy of them (as Craig's Bond sometimes seems to be), comfortable in his own skin, and basically enjoying life (when on and off the job). Equally capable of being empathetic or flippant depending on the situation. In retrospect, I'm increasingly impressed by how GOLDENEYE managed to update Bond without resorting to a more radical, wholesale reinvention.
His broad emotional spectrum ends up leading to some dramatic incoherence later on (big emotional beats getting sidelined a little *too* easily, etc.), but I appreciate his versatility. I've been revisiting Brosnan's Remington Steele work and I do wish his era had given him more to work with in terms of quality comedic writing. I think he has a natural charm and a real talent for banter that isn't consistently well-served by his Bond run.
Beautifully presented! I think the Brosnissance is well earned and quite overdue. I would argue next to Dr. No, Goldeneye may be the most important Bond film, in terms of how much its success or failure allowed or prevented the future of the franchise. Brosnan's performance really ensured various quintessential aspects of other Bonds would live on, while creating something new in the process. His contribution to that, seen through his choices, deserves all the credit in the world
Goldeneye was the Bond film to highlight the limitations of the "James Bond formula", most notably in the promise laid down in the trailer that Bond has met his intellectual and physical match: 006, "the man who knows him best." The trailer teased that 006 would be his biggest foe, who knows all of Bond's moves, how he thinks, acts, and therefore could spring traps for 007 and counter Bond's decisions and actions. (Trevelyan says at one point: "I've anticipated your every move." But the result is never satisfactory, not even close). Instead Trevelyan quickly becomes a generic Bond villain with a secret base and a satellite weapon. But given the context of 1995, with Goldeneye being the first Bond film since the lukewarm reception of Licence to Kill, I can see why EON decided to essentially modernise the formula so Bond could successfully survive the end of the Cold War. It was a prudent choice at the time, but, in retrospect, Goldeneye does, on rewatch, glaringly show that EON missed the opportunity of having 007 go up against another Double-0 and all the wit, strategy, and cunning both would deploy against each other before their final physical showdown.
I don't think Bond films generally do "battles of wits" types of stories well because they're typically more collections of setpieces than proper thrillers. (This is true of most of Fleming's novels as well, though RUSSIA does skew in a more thriller-y direction.) Because of that expectation, I've never been particularly disappointed that the cat/mouse game between 006 and 007 doesn't have more meat on the bone, but there's still opportunity to build a new Bond movie that is all about an intelligently plotted rivalry between Bond and his foe.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I'm speculating this is the direction the Bond series needs to take to stay relevant. We've already seen this attempted in Skyfall, though it needs to improve beyond that. The Bourne films still loom large over the Bond series, and they managed to combine smart characters outwitting each other with action setpieces. Pre-Casino Royale, in the Brosnan era, there wasn't any spy series that merged both action and espionage thriller into one. Bond is always positioned as a smart character, but the ease in which he discovers information he needs (sometimes it appears almost by coincidence) no longer passes muster in the context of the spy genre post-2000. Blame Bourne for that one, and Nolan too.
I wonder what BrosnanBond's motivation was for becoming a killer. In Spectre, when Craig was asked about it by Madeleine, he answered: "I'm not sure I ever had a choice." That fits with his incarnation's tormented soul, looking for some identity to cling onto. It also seems like he has a sadistic tendency, especially prominent in Quantum of Solace. Brosnan's Bond on the other hand... does he enjoy killing? I kind of get the feeling that he does it out of a feeling of moral righteousness. As you said, he's defined as a holdover from the Cold War, when the world was more black and white. So I think BrosnanBond has little to no doubts that he is a good guy. He's not really tormented by his job, since he's very sure that he's on the good side of history, fulfilling missions for the correct reasons. He's not looking for identity, since he's already fully-formed. You mentioned his aristocratic behaviour, the general ease with which he conducts himself. I think that's all an expression of total confidence. Even though the world around him is changing, he's convinced that he knows his place in it. I really need to rewatch his run. It's been years. Glad you're covering him! 😊
Thanks very much for doing this and all the Brosnan movies :) Yes I feel GOLDENEYE really needed to be a hit and be alot more up to date not just in politics and culture, but certanly in terms of movie making innovation for the series. Mainly because the others before (while I like them) were seen as some assembly line and being made roughly by the same old people again and again. While this movie had a lot of thought and energy, new cast and crew and writers put into it . 2:45 sure, I mean after 30 years its certainly reflecting on how time has changed and how his role may or may not fit in this new era. Action heroes from the 80's certanly had a little weakness to them and an ark in those movies which the Brosnan movies certanly took up on that audiences were keen to see a lot more in. 7:39 how Pierce opens that door on the yacht always seemed fluid but a bit off to me haha. 11:03 well I feel with all the actors playing Bond theres certanly a sense of them selves that they put into the roles which certanly plays to their strenghs. But sometimes it doesnt I feel with certain actors. 14:07 mmm I think Red Grant was the first really. Cheers as always, I cant wait to see all your videos :)
I think Red Grant is a kind of mirror of 007, but not in the way that the movie makes a big deal out of it as an element of drama. GE really makes that a big throughline.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond There was cheering and clapping and people on their feet at the climax of the pre-title sequence. My gf, though, didn't get it and said of the skydiving-into-a-crashing-airplane scene, "Are they making fun of James Bond?" ;)
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I look forward your video on my second favorite James Bond movie in the pierce brosnan James bond era tomorrow never dies favorite James Bond movie adventure entry the world is not enough favorite guilty pleasure James bond movie adventure entry die a another day 😊😊😊😊😊
I believe Zukovsky was originally meant to be Pushkin, explicitly tying PB's JB to TD's JB. I think they got a little confused about the bit in TLD when Bond fakes Pushkin's death, and thought Bond actually shot him. Could be wrong, though.
Greatness of my childhood life personal favorite James bond era pierce brosnan James bond era saga I love all his four bond movie adventure entry goldeneye favorite tomorrow never dies favorite Bond movie the world is not enough underrated favorite bond movie die a another day guilty pleasure James bond movie adventure
Trevelyan was an adaptation of the tolstoi revelations about operation keelhaul not britains finest hour Two points if he is anything close to sean beans age he would be too young to have remembered his parents fate Also the emp against the london markets would have global effects
Maybe Pierce was 'born' to portray Bond. Having said that... - His first wife, Cassandra, was cast as one of the ladies dallying with Roger Moore in an earlier film; - Remington Steele was arguably a double-edged sword in terms of attaining the iconic role; - Timothy Dalton was unwilling to portray Bond in _three additional films_ , after having to wait and wait for the legal machinations to be resolved ~ On balance, GE is an 'upper tier' Brosnan 007 film - along with TWINE (both with Robbie Coltrane in a memorable supporting role; coincidence?!).
The recent revelations from Jeff Kleeman re: Dalton and GoldenEye (on the Spyhards podcast) suggest that the narrative that Dalton would only do one more wasn't entirely correct...
@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Unless more definitive information is confirmed I for one am strongly inclined to believe that "Tim" was not willing to be a 'hanger-on' of the Bond series (as much as I like his portrayal, I respect his decision to move on after his initial contract expired). Indeed, he had been willing to _decline_ prior offers (formal or not) - in the late 1960s and early '80s.
The perfect Bond...he was James Bond the day he was born!
If you're ever looking for other themes and topics to analyze on this channel, here are a bunch of ideas I'd be interested in:
- James Bond as a changing definition of masculinity
- Bond Villains adapting to and expressing real dangers in our world
- Why Bond kills: For Queen and Country or personal vendetta?
- Judy Dench's two Ms: Her different characterization in the Brosnan and Craig years
- Why James Bond is always going rogue / Why we want our heroes to defy authority
Great analysis, Ryan! I like the idea of Brosnan as being essentially the "Luxury" Bond. In-touch with his emotions but not at the mercy of them (as Craig's Bond sometimes seems to be), comfortable in his own skin, and basically enjoying life (when on and off the job). Equally capable of being empathetic or flippant depending on the situation. In retrospect, I'm increasingly impressed by how GOLDENEYE managed to update Bond without resorting to a more radical, wholesale reinvention.
His broad emotional spectrum ends up leading to some dramatic incoherence later on (big emotional beats getting sidelined a little *too* easily, etc.), but I appreciate his versatility.
I've been revisiting Brosnan's Remington Steele work and I do wish his era had given him more to work with in terms of quality comedic writing. I think he has a natural charm and a real talent for banter that isn't consistently well-served by his Bond run.
Totally agree!@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond
Just what I was looking for in a Brosnan analysis. Looking forward to the next videos. Awesome work!
Cheers. I'm excited for the next one!
Beautifully presented! I think the Brosnissance is well earned and quite overdue. I would argue next to Dr. No, Goldeneye may be the most important Bond film, in terms of how much its success or failure allowed or prevented the future of the franchise. Brosnan's performance really ensured various quintessential aspects of other Bonds would live on, while creating something new in the process. His contribution to that, seen through his choices, deserves all the credit in the world
I'm also glad to see Brosnan receive some overdue love. He's a wonderful Bond.
Goldeneye was the Bond film to highlight the limitations of the "James Bond formula", most notably in the promise laid down in the trailer that Bond has met his intellectual and physical match: 006, "the man who knows him best." The trailer teased that 006 would be his biggest foe, who knows all of Bond's moves, how he thinks, acts, and therefore could spring traps for 007 and counter Bond's decisions and actions. (Trevelyan says at one point: "I've anticipated your every move." But the result is never satisfactory, not even close). Instead Trevelyan quickly becomes a generic Bond villain with a secret base and a satellite weapon. But given the context of 1995, with Goldeneye being the first Bond film since the lukewarm reception of Licence to Kill, I can see why EON decided to essentially modernise the formula so Bond could successfully survive the end of the Cold War. It was a prudent choice at the time, but, in retrospect, Goldeneye does, on rewatch, glaringly show that EON missed the opportunity of having 007 go up against another Double-0 and all the wit, strategy, and cunning both would deploy against each other before their final physical showdown.
I don't think Bond films generally do "battles of wits" types of stories well because they're typically more collections of setpieces than proper thrillers. (This is true of most of Fleming's novels as well, though RUSSIA does skew in a more thriller-y direction.)
Because of that expectation, I've never been particularly disappointed that the cat/mouse game between 006 and 007 doesn't have more meat on the bone, but there's still opportunity to build a new Bond movie that is all about an intelligently plotted rivalry between Bond and his foe.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I'm speculating this is the direction the Bond series needs to take to stay relevant. We've already seen this attempted in Skyfall, though it needs to improve beyond that. The Bourne films still loom large over the Bond series, and they managed to combine smart characters outwitting each other with action setpieces. Pre-Casino Royale, in the Brosnan era, there wasn't any spy series that merged both action and espionage thriller into one. Bond is always positioned as a smart character, but the ease in which he discovers information he needs (sometimes it appears almost by coincidence) no longer passes muster in the context of the spy genre post-2000. Blame Bourne for that one, and Nolan too.
This is a really good Bond channel 👏
Thank you, Thomas!
I wonder what BrosnanBond's motivation was for becoming a killer. In Spectre, when Craig was asked about it by Madeleine, he answered: "I'm not sure I ever had a choice." That fits with his incarnation's tormented soul, looking for some identity to cling onto. It also seems like he has a sadistic tendency, especially prominent in Quantum of Solace. Brosnan's Bond on the other hand... does he enjoy killing? I kind of get the feeling that he does it out of a feeling of moral righteousness. As you said, he's defined as a holdover from the Cold War, when the world was more black and white. So I think BrosnanBond has little to no doubts that he is a good guy. He's not really tormented by his job, since he's very sure that he's on the good side of history, fulfilling missions for the correct reasons. He's not looking for identity, since he's already fully-formed. You mentioned his aristocratic behaviour, the general ease with which he conducts himself. I think that's all an expression of total confidence. Even though the world around him is changing, he's convinced that he knows his place in it.
I really need to rewatch his run. It's been years. Glad you're covering him! 😊
Stay tuned for discussion of BrosnanBond's naval career in the Tomorrow Never Dies vid!
Thanks very much for doing this and all the Brosnan movies :)
Yes I feel GOLDENEYE really needed to be a hit and be alot more up to date not just in politics and culture, but certanly in terms of movie making innovation for the series. Mainly because the others before (while I like them) were seen as some assembly line and being made roughly by the same old people again and again. While this movie had a lot of thought and energy, new cast and crew and writers put into it .
2:45 sure, I mean after 30 years its certainly reflecting on how time has changed and how his role may or may not fit in this new era. Action heroes from the 80's certanly had a little weakness to them and an ark in those movies which the Brosnan movies certanly took up on that audiences were keen to see a lot more in.
7:39 how Pierce opens that door on the yacht always seemed fluid but a bit off to me haha. 11:03 well I feel with all the actors playing Bond theres certanly a sense of them selves that they put into the roles which certanly plays to their strenghs. But sometimes it doesnt I feel with certain actors. 14:07 mmm I think Red Grant was the first really.
Cheers as always, I cant wait to see all your videos :)
I think Red Grant is a kind of mirror of 007, but not in the way that the movie makes a big deal out of it as an element of drama.
GE really makes that a big throughline.
First Bond film I saw in theaters
That must've been a great experience.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond There was cheering and clapping and people on their feet at the climax of the pre-title sequence. My gf, though, didn't get it and said of the skydiving-into-a-crashing-airplane scene, "Are they making fun of James Bond?" ;)
Brosnan was peak Bond.
Great video on pierce brosnan James bond era
Thank you!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I look forward your video on my second favorite James Bond movie in the pierce brosnan James bond era tomorrow never dies favorite James Bond movie adventure entry the world is not enough favorite guilty pleasure James bond movie adventure entry die a another day 😊😊😊😊😊
@@lorenzogranger1906 glad your here mate
My second favourite, after Dalton.
GE is a natural follow-up to Dalton's run.
I NEED MY HEROES INCORRIGIBLE
As do we all
I believe Zukovsky was originally meant to be Pushkin, explicitly tying PB's JB to TD's JB. I think they got a little confused about the bit in TLD when Bond fakes Pushkin's death, and thought Bond actually shot him. Could be wrong, though.
Pushkin does appear in the original Michael France draft of GoldenEye.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Ah, well, there ya go.
Greatness of my childhood life personal favorite James bond era pierce brosnan James bond era saga I love all his four bond movie adventure entry goldeneye favorite tomorrow never dies favorite Bond movie the world is not enough underrated favorite bond movie die a another day guilty pleasure James bond movie adventure
Trevelyan was an adaptation of the tolstoi revelations about operation keelhaul not britains finest hour
Two points if he is anything close to sean beans age he would be too young to have remembered his parents fate
Also the emp against the london markets would have global effects
Maybe Pierce was 'born' to portray Bond. Having said that...
- His first wife, Cassandra, was cast as one of the ladies dallying with Roger Moore in an earlier film;
- Remington Steele was arguably a double-edged sword in terms of attaining the iconic role;
- Timothy Dalton was unwilling to portray Bond in _three additional films_ , after having to wait and wait for the legal machinations to be resolved ~
On balance, GE is an 'upper tier' Brosnan 007 film - along with TWINE (both with Robbie Coltrane in a memorable supporting role; coincidence?!).
The recent revelations from Jeff Kleeman re: Dalton and GoldenEye (on the Spyhards podcast) suggest that the narrative that Dalton would only do one more wasn't entirely correct...
@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Unless more definitive information is confirmed I for one am strongly inclined to believe that "Tim" was not willing to be a 'hanger-on' of the Bond series (as much as I like his portrayal, I respect his decision to move on after his initial contract expired). Indeed, he had been willing to _decline_ prior offers (formal or not) - in the late 1960s and early '80s.