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
;)
Yes but in that interview Brosnan spoke exactly about this, his time as Bond.
Surely it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact,that the very Concept of a reboot wasn't known at all. Hell,at this Time People were only learning, that that was how starting a PC was called. These days reboots are almost as common as sunrise, so it wasn't neither a very desperate,nor original move from EON ( but then again what has ever been?).
Fair enough, but I still must insist that what he does say supports some of the criticisms people have had regarding his performances and attitude as fair ones, that's all.
@Willy- sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut! The most galling defense of DAD is saying it's better than any other Bond film save MR. That much is at least debatable. QOS is the more recent whipping boy around here, but I watched it again in it's entirety last night and even with all it's flaws in copying Bourne's action scenes and it's plot holes with Mathis and Fields, it is so much more Bondian in style and relevant in the real world. It makes me think, whereas camp and cartoon makes me groan and says "Matt Helm and Austin Powers, yes, Bond, no".
I'd go further. I don't think DAD is anywhere near the film MR is.
Yes both are incredibly stupid but at least MR was well directed by Gilbert, great cinematography, Ken Adam's sets are stunning and Barry's score is wonderful. Plus it never takes itself seriously and remains tongue in cheek.
DAD on the other hand had Tamahori at the helm, Halle Berry (who was billed as Brosnan's equal) and an ice palace that looked like it was made out of plastic.
Those points about MR are indeed why I find more value personally in the film. It's funny though, because in the odd scenes where both films are serious and I maintain a few are to be found in DAD, they are enjoyable to that extent.
And I'll take the film that was directed by someone who knows his craft and not some third rate hack, thank you.
Quality of character dialogue at least, yes, Lonsdale had some great lines to say. Actual actor performance, for me it's back to Limburger vs Fomunda cheese.
Touche. :)>-
I'm guessing that's a reference I'd understand if I was American ;-)
I can put it another way- is there a difference between day old and 2 day old shit? Both stink pretty bad.
I agree, there are parts of DAD I like but a lot of it is flatout incompetent in terms of its execution. MR maybe a lot of things but I wouldn't describe it as incompetent.
The thing with Brozzer is, does anyone really know what he actually said when being interviewed by Playboy, we all know that what gets printed isn't neccesarily the truth.
As irrelevant as it all is I think he could have done a fith and final film, which may have repaired the damage. I think if you take DAD out of the equation the other 3 films are not bad.
I feel that Mickey and Babs are good at the money and marketing but don't have a vision of movie making. Babs had the nouse to hire Craig when a good many wouldn't - she took a gamble and it paid off, but that's almost good business sense rather than 20/20 movie vision. Once Craig was hired, we got no sustained vision of where the franchise was heading. No six-year plan. I mean, we have Villiers in CR - what became of him? He was a bona fide Fleming character, portrayed as a lanky chinless wonder. Ditto Mathis, bumped off movie 2 for no real reason. Ditto Tanner - sure Rory Kinnear is a big name of sorts, but he's been given nothing in his two films to make him memorable - you compare that with Moneypenny or Q after two films back in the day.
Really? I'd say by Moore's last film things were getting a bit lazy too. Moore had proved himself with audiences so the films started to feel more formulaic.
Connery : DAF (23rd on my list)
Moore : AVTAK (11th on my list)
Brosnan : DAD (17th on my list)
The patterns seem to be that the longer the actor goes on it seems to get a bit formulaic and lazy all round.
Last night I watched this interview he gave as part of the promotion for TWINE and his answers to some of the questions to me showed that Brosnan was a "yes"man and that the producers didn't hold the same respect for him the way they did with his predecessors and Craig especially. All Brosnan had to do was show up, say the lines, look the part and Voila!
That being said, I think Brosnan fulfilled the criteria of what the producers wanted at the time and believed to be comfortable with, and where this may look as though Brosnan shoulders any blame that maybe found in the eyes of the fans I think creatively, the producers should suffer the wrath instead or at least most of it. Brosnan was just too much of a fanboy who IMO lacked the artistic credibility as an actor to really inhabit the role and take the character and the series to new heights. This is evidenced by many of the interviews he gave where it was clear as to why Brosnan didn't have a voice behind the scenes or any sort of creative worth that the producers could seriously acknowledge. I don't think Brosnan deserved the nonsense the producers felt nevessary to dish out but as mentioned I think he did the job that was asked of him, it just so happens that the job didn't require anything particularly special.
Lots of members, like yourself, give fair criticisms but then there are others who just seem desperate to slag him off.
There are times it doesn't seem that far above CraigisnotBond. I once read a post on here (can't remember who, probably Getafix or someone) saying that they used to have his face pinned up on a dartboard.
I think he fell out with Babs on the shambolic making of TND, or so I read once. He did try to go behind their backs by talking to Tarantino about CR, and that would have done it for him frankly... He also amiably griped about how they could have gone for bigger name directors like Ang Lee at the time, admitting 'I'm just the hired hand though...' There wasn't much he could do, he had no leverage.
As for Moore, I meant they pushed the boat out for his early films, and also for OP which competed with NSNA. It's like they knew he wasn't the real Bond (that was Connery) so they gave it more to compensate, an enjoyable outcome for Moore fans who liked him anyway.
Oh. Fair enough then :)