amp316 said:
I was actually not poking fun at Roger Moore at all. I was doing it with Brosnan. If you look at the thread, I made three comparisons between Brosnan and Moore with me taking Moore's side every time. I am sick and tired of hearing about how Brosnan is such a good Bond and that he has the positive characteristics of both Connery and Moore because he doesn't. Roger was very good at playing the lighter and humorous side of 007. My point was that Brosnan also tries to do so and fails miserably in my opinion. The only time that I poke fun at Roger was becasue he was far too old at the end of his run. Truth be told, I think that The Spy Who Loved Me is one of the best Bond films ever. |
I know that you took Moore's side when making the comparisons between him and Brosnan. But you have mentioned that Moore wasn't your most favourite Bond, so I wasn't too sure what you meant by the whole "Roger Moore Lite" thing. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
I'm not saying that Brosnan is the best Bond, or that he's exactly like Sean Connery and Roger Moore. For me, Brosnan just sits in the middle of my list, because he never really filled the shoes of Moore or Connery properly. I did like him in GoldenEye, and wish that the producers would have built up from that film. But instead, they just decided to tinker and experiment with Brosnan, and as a result, he would never really reach his full potential. Brosnan himself even admitted that he never hit the nail on the head with his approach to Bond. While he may be at fault for certain things, I would still put a large part of the blame on the producers, because of the reasons I mentioned before.
GoldenEye brought the Moore/Connery or classic Bond feel back, with a modern twist. This is why I felt that Brosnan could have been good/balanced Bond.
