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
There are certainly many incarnations of the character. That's why I don't particularly agree with those who feel every aspect of every film should be judged primarily against the Fleming yardstick. I think it was inevitable the character would become his own beast on the big screen. Whether one feels it should or shouldn't have happened, Bond grew beyond Fleming and established an additional set of tropes that would become synonymous with the cinematic iteration. A lot of people define James Bond by these criteria and while I desperately wish more people would tackle the novels, I understand that for a good deal of the general viewing audience, what they want from Bond is not necessarily in line with what Fleming had originally intended. For that reason I can understand the trajectory of the Brosnan run.
As it happens, they've attempted to adhere more to the Fleming ethos in recent years and it has paid off handsomely, but I still think a lot of those early cinematic tropes are needed and wanted by movie-goers around the world. The current Bond works for me when they strike a balance and while the balance of the Brosnan run was slanted in favour of the 'cinematic', I don't think it was without reverence to Fleming.
You wouldn't like to live the life of the literary Bond?
My point was that Bond was portrayed as a fairly ordinary somewhat bland man who happened to go on wild adventures. The characters around Bond are the ones who are colourful and flamboyant.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Quite an interesting topic regards the literary and cinematic incarnations. The films on the whole have little time for the mundanity of every day life, but it was always this element of the novels that acted as a beautiful foil for the impending adventure. It would be lovely for them to introduce a little more of this light and shade into the films.
On the subject and out of interest - would you rather live your life like the literary or cinematic Bond?
I guess I tend to live my life closer to the literary Bond. I've no interest in being a playboy, but I like wild adventures and meeting unusual characters - because I know I can always escape back to normality and exist, for a moment, within my own insular world. There's also the small matter of everyday life. But intermittently puncture this with a taste and readiness for the high-life and it's a decent existence. I'm not sure I'd welcome the slightly more accelerated and breathless lifestyle of the cinematic Bond.
Hmm, interesting question. I'll PM you as I don't want to de-rail this thread.
Indeed, that is why there will probably never be another Bond film like Dr. No or From Russia With Love after Goldfinger. Even the serious Bonds that came afterward will still have to maintain a level of camp, fantasy and the tropes established by Goldfinger.
It always gets me because it's not subtle or hidden whatsoever once you spot it and it doesn't make sense at all because it wasn't even a shot that required a double.
I'm pretty sure that's a double. I've seen that too.
With him, it was decided to return to formula: multiple girls, outrageous villains, world domination plots, etc.
Perhaps the problem is that all four of his film do not take that much chances except with its female characters (female M, lead female villain, multi-ethnic lead Bond girls).
World domination was never part of the formula, it was a twisted road the formula sometimes took. And it was not really part of even the most outrageous of Brosnan's movies.
Wint/Kidd were flamboyant (pun very much intended) ;)
It's the same thing with Tintin , He-Man and numerous other main heroes , they're pretty cookie cutter 2D characters......it's the guest characters that make it work.
No disagreement from me.......as said they were playing it safe when they prolly should've been more bold.
Of course Brosnan gets a lot of criticism for DAD; DAD is a very poor Bond film with major and annoying flaws. I liked him in it for the most part. However, it was Brosnan's misfortune to go out on that stinker.
Because it was his final film he gets more flak; that is a factor, as far as the perception of his whole era is. I love GE and TND; fine Bond films. I am in the minority here for really enjoying Brosnan's Bond, but I do. I have issues with TWINE and DAD was a huge disappointment, to put it mildly.
The general public, I am guessing, have warm and good feelings about Brosnan as Bond. But ending with DAD hurt him, and the series. I sincerely wish Pierce had one more film as Bond, a better one for his final outing in the role.
For pure entertainment, I enjoy TSWLM, TND, FRWL, TLD, FYEO, GE, CR and SF. There is a range of tone in those films for sure. But I return to them again and again.
Sometimes people need to read the content of the thread before being God...and show some respect.
Comparing criticism of Roger's era to Brosnan's? Looking at your (closed) thread's title, you are asking if Pierce was judged because of DAD. Yes, he was. But I think you mean to discuss more, other things; and I'm just unclear of your full intention, that's all.
Disappointment is bad in the context of a Bond movie. At least for me. All the Brosnan films 'disappointed' me. Ergo, they are also 'bad' Bond films.
Craig though, his films come across as a sort of watered down Moore adventure.
Why is it that so many Bond fans only seem to have realised how bad the Brosnan era was after the fact?
I feel sorry for him in a way - once acclaimed as the 'new Connery' and now widely derided as a poor man's Roger Moore.
I was happy with standard def, until I saw High def. :))
that's your prerogative. But would you take any of the Brosnans over Spy?
Think carefully, or forever hold your piece...
I know a guy with metal teeth who says he can help you to see things differently!
Hmm...no, Spy is classy BUT parts of it are quite laughable and its not a perfect film itself. I'm thinking of the goon fight on the roof. That's just BAD even if Roger's quip at the end redeems things.
Would I take the Bond girl in GE over the Bond girl in Spy? Absolutely!!
Apart from the weird bear-hug, I reckon that's a decent little scene.
I think Spy is about as close to a perfect post-Connery Bond movie as you're ever going to get.