Although Bond decided to take a hiatus for the first half of the nineties, the rest of the world did not. The introduction of Glasnost, the advent of the internet and the fall of both the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall all took place during Bond’s break. This made the transition for Pierce Brosnan more difficult than the previous changes in actors. Brosnan had to incorporate the modern landscape into his films and Bond, without completely departing from the Bond formula and tone of six years prior.

This attempt to transition into the modern age also gave the Bond team an opportunity. The Bond series had been producing sequels at an astonishing rate since the character’s introduction on screen in the 60s. This gave the current series consistency, but limited the ability to update the formula in any meaningful way. Now that a larger break had been taken, major changes could be made from the framework devised in the sixties.

From a cursory glance, the Brosnan films appear to have fixed many of problems plaguing the character. M is now played by veteran actress Judi Dench (mirroring real life appointment of Stella Rimington to MI5), the first time a female has been cast as a role that is not love interest or a secretary; a female is cast as the main villain for the only time in the entire franchise and the film even confronts Bond with his politically incorrect foundations:

These changes coincided with the sudden rise of globalization. Countries, which had been former subsidiaries of empirical states, were elevated to the world stage and given a voice (‘Hong Kong’s Handover’). As Bond was given the opportunity to reflect upon his previous actions, Britain and the US were forced to reflect on their imperialistic pasts. This would make Bond a perfect representation of the global superpowers’ attempts to address their former failings.

Unfortunately, upon deeper inspection, Brosnan’s Bond is simply a reintroduction of the classic character in a modern context. The changes made to the series were all made to the exterior elements of the franchise, and those, too, were shallow. Judi Dench’s M is relegated to either the nagging mother to Brosnan’s Bond or the damsel in distress in need of saving, the singular main villainess of the series is the only main villain of the franchise to die before the climactic final battle and Judi Dench’s condemnation of Bond amounts to nothing throughout the film as Bond’s misogynistic, dinosaur-like values still result in another day saved.

Bond had not changed. He was still the patriarchal, conservative hero he had been since the 1960s. Coincidentally, this resistance to change still resulted in a Bond that perfectly represented the global superpowers’ attempts to address their former failings. The effects of Colonialism are long-lasting and devastating. A European economic review even proposed that the massive economic inequality experienced today is a result of the colonialism of the past (Acemoğlu). A genuine acknowledgement of the past misdeeds of these former superpowers has yet to come, and a recent poll found that the majority of Brits are proud of their colonialist roots (Stone).

Brosnan’s Bond further enforces this British-first ideology through confronting the enemies of the past and defeating them by employing the same sexist, bigoted attitude of his country’s past.

The villains of this era represent the failures of Bond or MI6 that have come back to haunt him. Two of the villains even die on screen and are resurrected through movie magic to enact revenge for the mistakes of Bond; however, that revenge never comes to pass. Bond succeeds in every adventure, he beds the girl in every outing and he makes Universal Artists boatloads of cash. He didn’t need to change.

That is, until 9/11. 9/11 caused a massive shift in the direction of the world (Villemez). A feeling of uncertainty and fear crept into the social milieu of the times. Previous conceptions of safety and a globalized world became replaced with hostility and isolationism. The social, political and cultural worlds all demanded a response. Bond did not want to give one.

Instead, Brosnan’s Bond retreated into the goofier, more humorous elements of the series; ignored the cultural climate and maintained the same tone and agenda as the last three films. Unsurprisingly, this was Brosnan’s final Bond. Despite making the most money of any Bond film at the time, Brosnan’s final entry betrayed the core identity of the character. The populous wanted a Bond that defeated corruption both inside and outside of government, that was able to protect them from the threat of terrorism, that didn’t need gadgets or sex appeal or a sense of humour. The populous wanted a Post-9/11 Insurgent, and Daniel Craig gave it to them.