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
Please try to rise above it, @Ludovico. You are highly valued as a member here, so don't fall into any traps.
Fair enough, but I'd be surprised if any new criticisms came up that people haven't already discussed. I'm sure when the next actor comes along it will be in praise of him as being better, but the motivations for that are already obvious.
Unfortunately, DCINB is now in it's second incarnation. Trust me, you're missing nothing. They eject anyone, immediately, who would dare to say anything positive.
Yes, well I suppose that Craig Bond was the first of the real Internet Age. Things weren't as big online back in 1994 when Brosnan was announced as the new Bond. I think this is another, perhaps overlooked (?) factor here.
NO financially successful major motion picture threatens the end of a franchise, ever.
If you dislike Brosnan, just say you dislike Brosnan, no need to go to the "almost killed the franchise" stuff. That's the drama thing I'm referring to.
Oh and for the record, I don't disagree with what you are saying. You are correct that DAD did not kill the franchise. I was merely trying to point out that if anyone is going to suggest that it did, then they may as well look towards LTK on the basis that it under performed at the box office!
I am not being dramatic, I am stating an opinion which I do think is backed up by some evidence. I mentioned earlier that a number of financially successful movies did mark a drop in quality in their respective franchise and contributed to its demise. Batman & Robin WAS financially successful. DAD obviously was not critically panned as the Batman movie, but on the long run it became a subject of ridicule. And I don't praise B&R for the Nolan movies.
And I do NOT dislike Brosnan. I said that he was overall disappointing. And I don't even think he was the cause of DAD, or even part of what was wrong with the movie. At worst he was symptomatic of what was wrong in the franchise at that time. I said before, and I think on this very thread, that casting him for GE was the right move. I never, ever, ever even implied that he nearly killed the franchise.
And my foot is off the confrontation accelerator now. And, sir, I did not say you did.
But... this is a little too heated right now, and I can't deny my involvement in the miscommunication.
I hereby sentence myself to watch Batman & Robin....
;)
NOBODY deserves that sentence as punishment! ;-)
It was crap, but it was necessary crap. Without that one crap film we wouldn't be celebrating the great film we got last year.
Couple that with financial success and the reviews not being bad (just mixed), and you've in no way nearly killed the franchise.
The only downside is that Brosnan ended up as collateral damage and didn't get the great send off he deserved.
I think because it was so poorly executed (despite high box office), and criticism did mount, that DAD did force a definite change to a far more realistic, serious, and carefully thought out (minus the obvious winks, too) of the film we got next, Casino Royale.
If DAD were not so much crap, as @thelivingroyale pointed out, it would not have forced such a strong change so quickly. Brosnan was all for a more serious film. Who are we to say how hard he pushed for changes? Do we really know? I don't think so, unless you were in on the meetings with him and the producers.
We are all only guessing in hindsight here, but I think probably the next Bond film after DAD would not have been so completely, utterly different than DAD if DAD were even a moderately better film. Nor would CR have been as carefully made. I am so pleased with the Casino Royale we got. I do think the push that came from DAD turning out the way it did, did help CR to be made just the way it was.
And having said all that, I do say that Brosnan certainly had one more good Bond film left in him and it is a shame he had to go out with DAD. I wanted another fine one from him, closer to TND than TWINE. It could have happened, but as we all know, it didn't and life - and the Bond series - marches on.
I still rank him above Moore and Lazenby thanks to GoldenEye being exceptional, and TND and TWINE (the latter especially) being effective and well made. DAD is the only major damp squib on his Bond CV, and even Connery has one of those too.
It disapointed me at the time, and that was pretty difficult as I was enamoured with everything Bond at that point.
I admit that the change in course was due to fan reaction but I can't agree that DAD was a necessary evil. It's great that they learned from their mistakes but it didn't have to reach rock bottom like that before they decided to make it better. In that regard I do think that Brosnan was short changed.
Nobody should be subjected to B&R @chrisisall! Think of your sanity! :O
It had to be Brosnan,it had to be a revamp,it had to be explosive,it had to be witty with Moore-esque oneliners,and Bond had to be back,suave as ever.
It was a tried and trusted formula and GE had to work or the franchise was finished.
People can say what they like about Brosnan but it was his star quality that brought in the crowds worldwide,he was a familiar household name,the same as Moore was in 1973,in a very similar situation.
Brosnan and Moore were very similar and necessary to save the franchise,so for people to say DAD nearly killed the franchise need to look at the amount of revenue it brought in,as with all of Brosnan's Bond films.
DAD was meant to be an OTT spectacular adventure to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Bond and is still popular with non-Bond enthusiasts as their idea of a Bond film .
Brosnan needs a bit more respect on here...mind you it has always been this way since i joined 7 years ago !!
Agreed completely i have never seen a forum dedicated to bashing brosnan more than this website..
As for 'killing the franchise' I'd agree with that, but it's not meant literally. Sure, it was a big hit. It's just that creatively, once you have invisible cars and naff CGI, there's nowhere else to go, you can't turn back the clock. Yes, MR you could say was a tad similar - but only DAD killed the presumed timeline so that only a reboot was viable, starting from scratch. Admittedly I guess I'm factoring in the sheer hate that DAD amassed from fans since its release, which makes the 'killing franchise' stance a bit stronger.
I disagree. It's not Brosnan that gets a kicking on here, it's the films that are pretty disliked (with the exception of GE perhaps). I think most members here agree that it's not his fault the other films were poorly written. In fact he's pretty much the only reason I watch TND, TWINE and DAD (which is regarded as crap because it is crap).
You should head over to dcinb.com. You'll find Craig gets more of a battering on there then Brosnan does on here.
I couldn't agree more on this topic ! Thank you for showing DAD's strengths and usefulness in the franchise. And definitely more respect for Pierce Brosnan.
Brosnan did act like a prima dona in this interview and he does deserve criticism for it. I think no other Bond actor clung on the role as much as he did.
What are you referring to here? It sailed over my head.
To be honest, I like the Moore films better. I rate FYEO and LALD higher than GE and TND- and MR over DAD. But the latter is like comparing Limburger and Fomunda cheese ;)
@Willy- like I've said ad nauseum, Brozzer gets more of a fair shake here because at the very least we don't throw his fans out the door for defending what they like about him.