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
It still nearly killed it. It was popular because it was a Bond movie, it was at the same time ridiculed and it pictured the franchise as lazy and creatively bankrupt. And CR was created partially in reaction to it.
It made lots of money, got decent enough reviews and inspired them to take a different direction, which gave us CR.
DAD may have been crap but it was good for the franchise.
My opinion on the Brosnan era is, with the exception of GE, it failed on an artistic level. I simply didn't like the three films that followed. (Ok, there were aspects of TWINE I enjoyed and was an improvement over TND).
I disagree strongly with that. If I recall, it got a right kicking by critics at the time of it's release.
Right, the "failure" of the Brosnan era was caused by a lack of genuine creativity.
I'm sure I'd remember if it did that badly.
EDIT- http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/die_another_day/
Quite a few positive reviews. In fact the majority are positive.
Making the money was not the problem. The laziness of it was. It was good the way a venom is good to find its counter-poison.
And I am not debating here whether Brosnan was a popular Bond or not. Of course he was a popular Bond during his tenure. Heck, I absolutely LOVED his take on Bond until DAD. But he did leave with a bitter taste. Because of DAD, yes, but because he also felt frustrated in the role with the material he was given. He said so much in interviews.
It was crap but it helped the franchise more than anything else.
But at the same time only 49% of the audience polled actually liked it, which means the majority didn't!
Oh and there's this from Sir Rog:
"I thought it just went too far – and that’s from me, the first Bond in space! Invisible cars and dodgy CGI footage? Please!"
You know you're in trouble when you get that comment! ;-)
It got mixed reviews. And this was on release. A perspective on a movie can change since its release, when the excitement is gone. Batman Forever was also received with mixed feelings, now it is generally perceived as nearly as bad as B&R, or certainly as a predecessor.
I fail to see how a movie that was in your own words crap can help a franchise, any franchise (unless you have a crap franchise to work on). Because it made money? I already mentioned it was irrelevant. Of course it made money. MR made money. DAF made money. Batman Forever made money. I'm glad they didn't go the same with Bond 21 to make money.
The 'crap' is the irrelevant part here, Ludo.
I actually think Twine is great...action, cheese, style, gadgets, stunts, silly plot but I loved it and I thought PB was his best in that film...über Bond.
Yes he was hard done by in terms of the scripts and certainly production values in DAD.
I think what he's trying to say, as am I, is that despite it's financial success, which did indeed bankroll the next film, the franchise couldn't continue along the same tracks and not expect to see it's popularity and profits dwindle. It's the same reason that Cubby decided to go a different route with FYEO despite the pheonemenal success of MR.
So we can agree, like MR did not come close to killing the franchise, neither did DAD. Both merely heralded change of direction.
I've never said otherwise. If anything, LTK came much closer to killing the franchise more than DAD even though it's the far superior film.
I'm just stating on a personal level, I generally disliked the films during the Brosnan era even though I liked PB as Bond.
Maybe I am too subtle, but I do think quality is relevant if one wants to keep something popular. On short term, of course DAD was popular and made money. A second DAD would have killed it, or certainly jeopardize Bond's future. DAD did in very much the same way as Batman & Robin did for Batman.
I think the Invisible Car went over the line.
It certainly did. It went over the line and then it did doughnuts at the nearest crossroads!
There are differences however: Brosnan was almost universally welcomed when he became Bond, he was plebiscited before the movie even started shooting. Craig was seen with skepticism, sometimes even hostility. He earned his 00 status, so to speak. And QOS, his most heavily criticised Bond movie, it was not directed at its lead. So I am not sure his tenure will be seen with as much disdain as Craig's.
I was not on Bond forums then, but on others I used to go to it was derided as ridiculous and in the Austin Powers territory. I remember the reaction in theaters: those who loved it loved it because it was dumb. And there were very few of them.
But you wouldn't know it crossed the line. It was invisible ;-)
:)) Criticism of Craig has been ongoing before he even started filming, where have you been all the time! Yes he's popular enough now but as has been discussed on other threads, name one Bond other than Lazenby that got blistered like Craig has? Smear websites to start, and even worse for Craig due to the internet and many more television and media outlets. If anything, it can only improve for Craig as far as a historical view.
Let's be fair here. Brosnan had it handed to him on a silver platter, hardly anyone criticized his choice or performances until later when it became obvious to all these "revisionists" that he didn't quite live up to the hype.
My point was you would if you were the one driving it! I think... :) And even then you'd still see the tyre-marks.
And LTK did not come close to killing the franchise either. Drama queen linguistics? See? Again, dramatics. Here, I'll accurize your statement:
"DAD did in very much the same [thing for Bond] as MR did for Bond.
Well in my defence I would state here that what I meant was after the praise Craig mostly currently gets perhaps he will face criticism for some things in his films too in ten to twenty years time, just as Brosnan is castigated now. Obviously the criticisms will be different as Craig is a very different Bond from Brosnan - perhaps Craig's dourness will be mentioned? Anyone who criticised Craig BEFORE they even saw one frame of film of him as Bond is obviously a contemptible idiot not worth considering in any serious debate. That's what they have DCINB for. Sorry if I missed all that - I suspect that I did so deliberately not to be infected with their disease.
You can dismiss it as dramatic all you want, but I will keep my statement as it is, thank you very much. If something is done in reaction to something else, to correct the mistakes of a previous entry in a movie franchise for instance, I don't think said previous movie was very good, useful or relevant. This is why I take Schumacher's contribution to Batman the same way as Tamahori's take on Bond: stupid, ridiculous, retarded, ignorant, cynical efforts. And I see no merit whatsoever in them.
My thoughts exactly. Brosnan had it easier than any other Bond actor at the start. The public wanted Brosnan, the producers wanted Brosnan and Brosnan wanted Brosnan. Craig had to earn it. This will also play a role when one looks back at his time as Bond, just like the early (premature?) approval of Brosnan as Bond did after he left the role.
Yes and thank you for that(!). I never said anything about killing the franchise, I was merely making the point that if DAD is accused of killing the franchise then there would be more of an argument for LTK in that regard due to it being the least successful film!
Perhaps before making "drama queen" accusations, you might want to take your time and read the comments more carefully.
Do you see the problem with this now? Neither did either, so one cannot do it more.