YOLT: All style and no substance?

1234568

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    Not really as the films mark the weakest era for me. Not entirely Brosnan’s fault though, he never lived up to his potential shown in GE.....an average Bond film which was actually his best by far.
  • suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    Not really as the films mark the weakest era for me. Not entirely Brosnan’s fault though, he never lived up to his potential shown in GE.....an average Bond film which was actually his best by far.

    I can see why you’d think that. Like I said I’m a huge Brosnan fan, he’s my 2nd favorite after Connery (my personal opinion), but his era does have a lot of problems. I think the issue with his era are bad scripts for the most part (GE withstanding), they ask him to do vulnerable, and emotional scenes, only for those scenes to be undercut by him doing some ridiculous thing immediately after wards. Like DAD, having Bond tortured was an element I loved, having him stop his own heart? F*ck that.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 984
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,266
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    I kind of love TWINE, in fact I’d say that it sneaks it’s way into my Top 10 Favorite Bond films (purely my opinion), I found the only off putting element of that film was Denise Richards. It’s one of those films where I can recognize it’s faults and excesses, yet still enjoy it either way.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    I can’t say I agree, I personally love 2 of the 4 Brosnan Bond films, but I’d be lying if I said that his era was flawless, it’s not like any Bond actors era has been 100% completely flawless. I just find GE and TWINE to be amongst the best efforts of the series, TND is fairly middle of the road for me, and DAD is an abomination. But that’s just me.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    Not really as the films mark the weakest era for me. Not entirely Brosnan’s fault though, he never lived up to his potential shown in GE.....an average Bond film which was actually his best by far.

    I can see why you’d think that. Like I said I’m a huge Brosnan fan, he’s my 2nd favorite after Connery (my personal opinion), but his era does have a lot of problems. I think the issue with his era are bad scripts for the most part (GE withstanding), they ask him to do vulnerable, and emotional scenes, only for those scenes to be undercut by him doing some ridiculous thing immediately after wards. Like DAD, having Bond tortured was an element I loved, having him stop his own heart? F*ck that.

    Agreed on the scripts mate.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.
  • Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I absolutely love Goldeneye. It was my first Bond film, and it sits within my Top 3. I think another issue with the Brosnan era was they all felt like the directors had very little control (Campbell withstanding). It all seemed very producer driven.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I absolutely love Goldeneye. It was my first Bond film, and it sits within my Top 3. I think another issue with the Brosnan era was they all felt like the directors had very little control (Campbell withstanding). It all seemed very producer driven.

    Yes, I'm sure that's the case. You could probably argue that for all the pre-Craig Bond films. I think the big difference being, that Cubby and Harry knew what they where doing, far better than Babs and Wilson. They have grown into the role now, but it took them awhile.
  • Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I absolutely love Goldeneye. It was my first Bond film, and it sits within my Top 3. I think another issue with the Brosnan era was they all felt like the directors had very little control (Campbell withstanding). It all seemed very producer driven.

    Yes, I'm sure that's the case. You could probably argue that for all the pre-Craig Bond films. I think the big difference being, that Cubby and Harry knew what they where doing, far better than Babs and Wilson. They have grown into the role now, but it took them awhile.

    They have most definitely, but even then I think the quality of the Craig era is uneven as well. CR is amazing, SF is great as well. But QOS and SP are pretty weak in my opinion. It just seems like Babs and Wilson struggle with the ability to be at least somewhat consistent with their films. That’s where Cubby and Harry succeeded, even if they didn’t make the best films all the time either.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.

    I agree with you regarding most of the Brosnan era, but disagree with your opinion on GE. It's a fine film that at least gave a bit of a spark to the then floundering franchise.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.

    I agree with you regarding most of the Brosnan era, but disagree with your opinion on GE. It's a fine film that at least gave a bit of a spark to the then floundering franchise.

    It was certainly popular, but I honestly think GE is inferior to TLD and LTK. Which I loved as a Fleming purist.

    I watched GE as an underwhelmed 13 year old, who had watched all the Bond films on Video/ TV/ SKY and expected more from the first Bond film I was able to watch at the Cinema.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Sucks for you.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 113
    I cannot stand the modern Craig era at all so I suppose there's always differing opinions. (That's what makes it more exciting.) Personally CR 06 destroyed me in the theater and has been an open gaping wound in my life ever since...but that's just me.

    One can read more into the Brosnan films than the original 16 because there is less distancing of time, more production information readily available and you can see the pitfalls they fell into more easily.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.

    I agree with you regarding most of the Brosnan era, but disagree with your opinion on GE. It's a fine film that at least gave a bit of a spark to the then floundering franchise.

    It was certainly popular, but I honestly think GE is inferior to TLD and LTK. Which I loved as a Fleming purist.

    I watched GE as an underwhelmed 13 year old, who had watched all the Bond films on Video/ TV/ SKY and expected more from the first Bond film I was able to watch at the Cinema.

    Experts say it is one of the worst.
  • Posts: 7,507
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.

    I agree with you regarding most of the Brosnan era, but disagree with your opinion on GE. It's a fine film that at least gave a bit of a spark to the then floundering franchise.

    It was certainly popular, but I honestly think GE is inferior to TLD and LTK. Which I loved as a Fleming purist.

    I watched GE as an underwhelmed 13 year old, who had watched all the Bond films on Video/ TV/ SKY and expected more from the first Bond film I was able to watch at the Cinema.

    Experts say it is one of the worst.

    Depends which "expert" you ask...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    jobo wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.

    I agree with you regarding most of the Brosnan era, but disagree with your opinion on GE. It's a fine film that at least gave a bit of a spark to the then floundering franchise.

    It was certainly popular, but I honestly think GE is inferior to TLD and LTK. Which I loved as a Fleming purist.

    I watched GE as an underwhelmed 13 year old, who had watched all the Bond films on Video/ TV/ SKY and expected more from the first Bond film I was able to watch at the Cinema.

    Experts say it is one of the worst.

    Depends which "expert" you ask...

    Doesn t it always? I was just using a very common, very abused expression. Anyway, those are the "experts" I agree with, which is just another dishonest way of stating my own opinion.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    For some fans it’s not enough to just say they have an opinion, they have to pretend it’s an “objective fact”.
  • Posts: 7,507
    jobo wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.

    I agree with you regarding most of the Brosnan era, but disagree with your opinion on GE. It's a fine film that at least gave a bit of a spark to the then floundering franchise.

    It was certainly popular, but I honestly think GE is inferior to TLD and LTK. Which I loved as a Fleming purist.

    I watched GE as an underwhelmed 13 year old, who had watched all the Bond films on Video/ TV/ SKY and expected more from the first Bond film I was able to watch at the Cinema.

    Experts say it is one of the worst.

    Depends which "expert" you ask...

    Doesn t it always? I was just using a very common, very abused expression. Anyway, those are the "experts" I agree with, which is just another dishonest way of stating my own opinion.

    They are the experts I agree with too...
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited December 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Sucks for you.

    Not anymore, I got CR 06 at the cinema. The best Bond film since the 60’s.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    I’d give that to SF.

    CR was only the best entry since the 80s.
  • Posts: 3,327
    For some fans it’s not enough to just say they have an opinion, they have to pretend it’s an “objective fact”.

    The only fact regarding the Bond films is that DAD is the worst film in the franchise. That is definitely a fact and not an opinion..... ;)
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,266
    I cannot stand the modern Craig era at all so I suppose there's always differing opinions. (That's what makes it more exciting.) Personally CR 06 destroyed me in the theater and has been an open gaping wound in my life ever since...but that's just me.

    One can read more into the Brosnan films than the original 16 because there is less distancing of time, more production information readily available and you can see the pitfalls they fell into more easily.

    I appreciate your opinion. Personally I love Casino Royale, and enjoy Skyfall. My issues with the Craig Era is that it suffers as many inconsistencies as the Brosnan era with regards to films. Perhaps on a larger scale, because the perceived “Good, Bad, Good, Bad” nature of those films is incredibly infuriating. I rank both Quantum of Solace and SPECTRE at the bottom of my list because I just heavily dislike both of those films.

    My “theory” on Bond films is that every incumbent actor in the role is always declared as “The Best since Sean Connery”, then once their era is over, and we’ve moved onto a new actor, there seems to be a lot of retroactive criticism, at least that’s what I’ve seen. The Brosnan era was loved back (by the fandom, and by the mainstream audience) in its day, but it seems like ever since the Craig era started, it seems to be the case that more and more people find flaws with Brosnan’s films. I can’t bring myself to “hate” the era like some others do, because he was my first Bond. I suppose my love of Brosnan comes heavily rooted in Nostalgia, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Like I mentioned, I love Goldeneye. It sits comfortably at #3 in my rankings. Tomorrow Never Dies is decent. I personally love The World Is Not Enough despite its flaws. While I agree that Die Another Day is a terrible misfire.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I cannot stand the modern Craig era at all so I suppose there's always differing opinions. (That's what makes it more exciting.) Personally CR 06 destroyed me in the theater and has been an open gaping wound in my life ever since...but that's just me.

    One can read more into the Brosnan films than the original 16 because there is less distancing of time, more production information readily available and you can see the pitfalls they fell into more easily.

    I appreciate your opinion. Personally I love Casino Royale, and enjoy Skyfall. My issues with the Craig Era is that it suffers as many inconsistencies as the Brosnan era with regards to films. Perhaps on a larger scale, because the perceived “Good, Bad, Good, Bad” nature of those films is incredibly infuriating. I rank both Quantum of Solace and SPECTRE at the bottom of my list because I just heavily dislike both of those films.

    My “theory” on Bond films is that every incumbent actor in the role is always declared as “The Best since Sean Connery”, then once their era is over, and we’ve moved onto a new actor, there seems to be a lot of retroactive criticism, at least that’s what I’ve seen. The Brosnan era was loved back (by the fandom, and by the mainstream audience) in its day, but it seems like ever since the Craig era started, it seems to be the case that more and more people find flaws with Brosnan’s films. I can’t bring myself to “hate” the era like some others do, because he was my first Bond. I suppose my love of Brosnan comes heavily rooted in Nostalgia, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Like I mentioned, I love Goldeneye. It sits comfortably at #3 in my rankings. Tomorrow Never Dies is decent. I personally love The World Is Not Enough despite its flaws. While I agree that Die Another Day is a terrible misfire.

    I say the Craig era went.....Amazing/ Excellent/ Good/ Bad personally.

    Whereas the Brosnan era was Average/ Average/ Bad/ Pathetic IMO.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,266
    Well we all have our favorites and least favorites. I’ll disagree that Casino Royale is just amazing.

    It’s more than amazing, it’s phenomenal ;)
  • Posts: 113
    I cannot stand the modern Craig era at all so I suppose there's always differing opinions. (That's what makes it more exciting.) Personally CR 06 destroyed me in the theater and has been an open gaping wound in my life ever since...but that's just me.

    One can read more into the Brosnan films than the original 16 because there is less distancing of time, more production information readily available and you can see the pitfalls they fell into more easily.

    I appreciate your opinion. Personally I love Casino Royale, and enjoy Skyfall. My issues with the Craig Era is that it suffers as many inconsistencies as the Brosnan era with regards to films. Perhaps on a larger scale, because the perceived “Good, Bad, Good, Bad” nature of those films is incredibly infuriating. I rank both Quantum of Solace and SPECTRE at the bottom of my list because I just heavily dislike both of those films.

    My “theory” on Bond films is that every incumbent actor in the role is always declared as “The Best since Sean Connery”, then once their era is over, and we’ve moved onto a new actor, there seems to be a lot of retroactive criticism, at least that’s what I’ve seen. The Brosnan era was loved back (by the fandom, and by the mainstream audience) in its day, but it seems like ever since the Craig era started, it seems to be the case that more and more people find flaws with Brosnan’s films. I can’t bring myself to “hate” the era like some others do, because he was my first Bond. I suppose my love of Brosnan comes heavily rooted in Nostalgia, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Like I mentioned, I love Goldeneye. It sits comfortably at #3 in my rankings. Tomorrow Never Dies is decent. I personally love The World Is Not Enough despite its flaws. While I agree that Die Another Day is a terrible misfire.

    Your theory is absolutely correct. I was surprised to see the amount of backlash pop up so suddenly for the Brosnan era when it did to be honest.
    Then you have the "pick the black sheep" film that for some reason most decide to hate on for a time before switching to another. It's usually TMWTGG or MR, sometimes AVTAK and sometimes DAF. Now it seems to be DAD universally.
  • Posts: 2,917
    This thread seems to have diverged a bit from discussion of YOLT...
  • DaltonFanDaltonFan California
    edited December 2020 Posts: 69
    You Only Live Twice is one of my favorite Bond movies. I just love all of it (with the exception of Aki dying). And my favorite part of the film is how Japanese Secret Service Agent Aki, who is at least a foot shorter than Bond, rescues him twice. It's usually Bond who saves the Bond girl, not the other way around.
  • This is a Bond film that I really loved as a kid but not so much as an adult. Having said that both the music and cinematography are superb.
Sign In or Register to comment.