It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Sorry but your argument is pointless. There were better all round films made in every year a Bond movie came out. Being a Bond fan is not about being a film snob.
When a new Bond movies comes out, what do you expect? Action and stunts of course, but there is also so much more. Globe-trotting to exotic locals, sexy women, exciting cars, gadgets... When I was a kid and got into the Bond world, of course I thought only about the kick-ass action scenes. But now, there's so much more I expect from a Bond movie.
Indy and Die Hard pretty much out Bonded Bond although they owe a lot to Bond. The 80s Jack Ryan out thrilled Bond. I don't see anything from bond as a thriller.
Having said that I am a hugh bond fan even then. Bond was and is bond ..in his own genre.
Agree completely.
I found in the 90s and 00s Bond lost some of its relevance to me. It almost became a caricature & too action oriented, despite the movies becoming more and more successful.
If I'm being honest, I was more thrilled, and more intrigued, by Jack Ryan (played by both Harrison Ford & Alec Baldwin), Bourne & MI than I was by Bond. They seemed more mature, more serious, compared to Bond (villains like Bullion and Mr. Kill were particularly cartoonish).
That has changed 360 degrees now. I'm more intrigued by Bond again compared to his so called competitors (Jack Ryan as played by Chris Pine, Bourne & MI). That's a testament to two things IMO:
1. Craig being an excellent actor, bringing talent into the fold
2. Bond going back to basics rather than trying so hard to compete on a body count action count level with its competitors. I enjoyed SF more than MI4 despite MI4 having the better stunts. SF seemed more atmospheric & dangerous too me. More spy oriented.
(shrug)
I'm comparing the '80's Bond films with the best action films of the decade and simply saying that those Bond films don't measure up. Using the Bond series IN GENERAL is a side-step. Of course the aggregate of the series is the most successful film franchise in cinema history, but that does not push aside my point that for nearly a couple of decades, the franchise, which had been at the forefront of inventing the blockbuster action/adventure film, had fallen behind as other pictures and studios tried to play catch up.
Nothing to be ashamed of, just saying that the yo-yo in Ocotopussy is nowhere as cool as any of the action sequences in Raiders of the Lost Ark, to give another example.
The yo-yo. lol. What a HORRIBLE idea.
At last! A reasonable perspective!
Don't agree entirely, but respect the thoughtful, critical-thinking filled opinion.
EON produced that trailer. You saying you don't like what EON is telling you?
And AGAIN, I'm contrasting the Bond films of the '80's with the best action films ofthat decade, and stating that those bonds had lost a step.
The franchise did catch up, after the Bros films were completely and utterly humiliated by the Bourne films.
But the point is, that here is NO comparison between the 80s Bond films and the action films of the same decade! Different breeds of film altogether! And why are you comparing a ingenious weapon from "Ocotopussy" with action scenes from an Indiana Jones movie?
The 80s Bond films were a financial success! Put together, the worldwide box office total for all five films released in the 80s (excluding NASA, and adjusted for inflation) is $1,900 131,923! The total for the five Die Hard films? $803,974,200!!
That's how trailers work. Show all the action scenes from the film to entice the average action-reveller, popcorn in hand movie-goer.
And why are you comparing the Bourne films to the Brosnan films, which were released (apart from DAD) years before they were made? How can you compare the 2012 Bourne film to Goldeneye (1995)?
That's a pretty unfair comparison any way you look at it. Comparing a film series that was made in a cinematically advanced era to a series of films made in the 90s is obsolete.
EON took a look, thought, "Oh, THAT'S how you do it," and rebooted.
They had to. The BRos Bonds had become Moore 2, self-parodies.
Intense, interesting spy story vs windsurfing tsunamis.
Game over.
By contrast I think the 80s Bond films were doing their own thing. And as stated above, they were commercially still very successful.
I found the 90s Brosnan era an embarrassment and do remember seeing the first Bourne and just thinking it was so far ahead of what EON were doing. The debt that the Craig era owes Bourne and now Nolan is huge.
Yes, Die Another Day. It's sh*te, we all know it, I'm not even defending it. That's why Barbara and MGW decided to reboot (because it's poor film, not just a poor Bond film), not because of the Bourne series (which, in fact, had a greater influence on Quantum of Solace!!) But I will defend Brosnan's first three instalments, which are all very much rooted in the 90s, in a complete different era of cinema.
Yes? I acknowledged this here-
Huh?
Kinda.
They were certainly not trying to emulate the Bourne films with Casino Royale (which blows any Bourne film out of the water). The darker, more intense tone was in response to the 9/11 attacks and to repair the damage done by Die Another Day.
But Quantum of Solace was very much like a Bourne film solely because of Marc Forster's casting choices. And for a lot of people (not myself), QOS was a huge disappointment and labelled as one of the worst Bond films of all time.
So in short, the reboot was NOT because of the Bourne series (which is insignificant compared with the Bond series, and the Brosnan films were a greater financial success than the Bourne films, btw), but QOS, and only QOS, was influenced somewhat by the Bourne films.
In your opinion.
Still, I'm not sure why you are comparing those films with the Bourne films. Surely QOS is a much better example?
An opinion, not fact.
I'll happily take both over The Boring Identity.
You'll take bad stories over good ones? You'll take ugh dialogue over snappy, smart dialogue? You'll take self-parody Bond villains over really good ones?
Wait, you're saying CR is better than the Bourne films? How can you say that when you've clearly stated on other threads that you don't like Craig as Bond?
Huh?
Please! Bourne is dull and lifeless. It's like watching paint dry. I watch movies to be entertained and Brosnan's films deliver the goods. Hell Death Wish 3 is high art compared to Bourne. Brosnan's films are only bad to you. Maybe if you stopped passing your opinions off as facts you wouldn't receive as much heat as you do.
I'd take both over Bourne, but then I'm a Bond fan.
What a load of crap. When have I ever stated that "I don't like Craig as Bond"? Stop putting words in my mouth. I love all Bond actors to have helmed the role of James Bond. Craig my not by my favourite, but that's far from "not liking him as Bond"! I'm actually exasperated with your comment. Yes, I'll take any Bond film over the Bourne films. They are not my cup of tea, as they say. That's why I'm a member of this forum: I LOVE James Bond and I would watch them over any other film.
@doubleohdad, I'm afraid we're are clogging up @Gustav's thread, so if you are intent on continuing this rather tiring debate, then please move it to another thread.
It's true that Bond was financially successful in the 80's (although less so on a relative scale to the 60s/70s), but it was no longer all that relevant. It just pulled along with its fan base without really adding to it in any meaningful way, nor did it move the barometer (for whatever you want to call these movies....action....spy....whatever) forward at all. Part of that may have been an ageing Moore who was so affixed to the part by then, part of it might have been a lack of ambition or fear on EON's part (post-Moore with Dalton, although we'll never truly know since we did not see where they were headed after the excellent & brave LTK), part of it might have been the HE-MAN action contemporaries of that time (Arnie/Bruce/Sly) that were making it difficult for Bond to compete on a purely 'action' basis. Who knows.
Bond also chugged along in the 90s. No one can reasonably look back at that era with too much respect or adulation, regardless of the financial successes. I didn't see too much difference in quality between DAD & TWINE (CGI notwithstanding). They both had overacting, poorly developed henchmen/villains (Bullion/Kill), badly delivered one-liners & ridiculous, machine gun totting 'action' with gadgets all over the place. At least TND was a pastiche (in particular to Moore's TSWLM & MR, as well as Connery's YOLT). Brosnan himself made the point of emphasizing that the movies were getting more financially successful as a selling point when he was publicly having his spat with EON (post DAD when he was hoping to come back) which to me was quite telling in terms of his lack of understanding of what Bond had become under his tenure, namely, a caricature without credibility. Whose fault that was I'll leave to more knowledgeable people, but there is no denying that fact.
I contend that Bond is culturally relevant again. It has done that by returning 'integrity' to the franchise. It is no longer a caricature. It is credible again. It is adding to the fan base considerably (I dislike pulling rottentomato or boxofficmojo stats, but check how Craig's Bonds have performed relative to the top grossing movies of that year vs. Brosnan and you willl see that new fans are coming into the fold - heck, SF took out TDKR globally for pete's sake).
I welcome the relevancy. I welcome the credibility. I welcome the integrity. Combined with the financial success. Whoever is responsible for that (Bourne, EON, Bab's, Craig, Nolan), thank you. Welcome back, Mr. Bond. We missed you.
For some people, he never left.
I forgot to mention that Austin Powers was just as relevant to showing up the Brosnan era as Bourne. They had to go another route after Powers, and even Craig has publicly stated that.