Oh please. Brosnan played the role as nothing more than a poor combination of the way it had been played by other actors before him. At least with all the other actors you could say they brought something of themselves to the role. Brosnan was Bond by Numbers.
BTW, there were another two actors you have failed to mention who have played the role, one of whom IMO was far better than Moore and just about as good Connery and both of whom Brosnan couldn't hold a candle to.
Where does Brosnan get off as well with constantly criticising the producers? He was "only getting into his stride" and they decided to let him go. Oh bless! What? After 4 films? If he honestly believes that, maybe it's just a measure of what a very mediocre actor he is.
Ironic that this guy who thinks he was born to play the role should become the first Bond to be shown the door. He was never anything more than a good stand-in while they found another actor who could play the role the way the writer intended (though I think Craig is the first Bond not to look the part, I think he can definitely play the part). It's not for no reason that he failed the audition in 1985 (he was the third not first choice like he keeps trying to get people to believe) and had to audition again in 1995 (when again he wasn't the first choice). The producers must be ecstatic to once again be able to get the actor they want and not have to make do.
As for Brosnan's perceived success in the role, the amount of money his films have made is only down to inflation. Allowing for inflation, his films have not performed that brilliantly. When you take into consideration the production costs of Brosnan's Bond films, their return on investment hasn't been wonderful either. Wakey wakey, Mr Brosnan. we haven't all fallen for your PR's 20 years of hype and lies.
