Mapping the world's opinions

<< Previous (2 of 6 Positions) Next >>

A chimaera of Bonds

Pierce Brosnan had all the best bits of the previous four 007s

(1 of 1 Argument)

Context

Brosnan was as handsome as Connery, as tough as Dalton, his films had a smorgasbord of gadgets, and he oozed character and charisma. He encapsulated everything that was good about all the other Bonds individually and rolled them into one.

The Argument

Brosnan maintains the one-liners and quips that Roger Moore had. He has the tough-guy bravado of Dalton (the opening scene in Goldeneye racks up a franchise-leading 47 confirmed kills). He enjoys the company of the female variety, much like Sean Connery, and he retains all the elegance and dignity a Bond needs. He is the ultimate Bond chimaera and, therefore, the ultimate Bond. [1]

Counter arguments

Pierce Brosnan himself said that his Bond wasn’t good enough. If that isn’t a sign that something went amiss, then what is? [2] His performance is flat and lazy at times. He is also smug in a way that the sophisticated Sean Connery and Roger Moore never were. Brosnan piggy-backs on decent storylines and strong, well-rounded villains. His demeanour is also not tough. He doesn’t look physically imposing like Daniel Craig, and as a result, loses credibility.

Premises

[P1] Brosnan has everything the other Bond's have. [P2] He is the best Bond

Rejecting the premises

[P1] He tries to emulate the other Bonds, but lacks authenticity, therefore, losing credibility.

References

  1. https://oneroomwithaview.com/2015/10/22/pierce-brosnan-best-bond/
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/14/pierce-brosnan-james-bond-never-good-enough

Proponents

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

This page was last edited on Tuesday, 8 Jan 2019 at 16:50 UTC