Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Did 9/11 influence the direction of DAD and the demise of Brosnan's time as Bond ?
Controversial i know,being this is the weekend that disgusting,cowardly act happened,but,having watched comments from BB and PB on 'Everything or Nothing',did this influence the sudden change of direction from TWINE to DAD ,from PB's OHMSS to MR ?
The world was changing,PB had a 4 film contract,so did they choose to make a lighthearted,feelgood Bond film,because of events,and then,once PB's contract was up,decide to move away from that area,and have a clean break,a new start,in other words a re-boot ? ..would PB have stayed on as Bond if things hadn't happened as they did ?
We are all hurting this weekend due to the damage that scum caused,but i think this is an interesting point ..up to you whether you reply or not.
And we all feel the pain,but my thoughts are with our American members this weekend,we are hurting and angry with you.
The world was changing,PB had a 4 film contract,so did they choose to make a lighthearted,feelgood Bond film,because of events,and then,once PB's contract was up,decide to move away from that area,and have a clean break,a new start,in other words a re-boot ? ..would PB have stayed on as Bond if things hadn't happened as they did ?
We are all hurting this weekend due to the damage that scum caused,but i think this is an interesting point ..up to you whether you reply or not.
And we all feel the pain,but my thoughts are with our American members this weekend,we are hurting and angry with you.
^ 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
But I understood the Everything or Nothing documentary a bitt different: and that was Die Another Day was made before the 9/11 incident hence the very lighthearted tone but released afterwards so when it was in theaters they just begged being a bitt behind any other spy franchise for not being on time for the realistic approach could stilk worked and get away with just safe.
While it did comercially very well still Barbara Broccoli Felt the pressure to jump the more realistic bandwagon and Pierce agreed it was the fate of the franchise to go in that more serious direction.
Or I should say it was the other way around since it was Pierce who insisted first to go darker and i can imagine Barbara with the release of the film right after 24 and Jason Bourne finally thinking wholly shitt we are so outdated with Die Another Day well to late we find out, lets jist pray people still buy into oyr formula and we go the dark stuff i. The next film.
And their sacrificial lamb was Pierce who was out because they didn't find a way to do dark Bond without rebooting the franchise.
They were all looking for a way to go into the realistc and darker appraoch Barbara and company got the rights for Casino Royale and thought it couldn't have Happened this with Pierce as Bond and the call to tell him goodbye happened.
I don't know when the interviews for Everything or Nothing took place but gave me the feeling Pierce finally understood the producers and his hard feelings for them were gone..
Yes you got it. Perfect summary of how things went down. I'm glad some people at least get it.
I just checked @szonana ,it was in 2012...
I think it's sort of reminiscent of the 70's, when films took a more dour/serious turn in comparison to the uplifting/colourful fare of the prior decade. I'm not sure what triggered that change. It could have been all the assassinations in the US, the Manson murders, Watergate. etc.etc. Who knows?
So I'm sure 911 had an influence on the direction that the series took. However, I don't believe that it had any effect on DAD. That film was an attempt to correct for the flaws in TWINE, where EON took a change in direction of sorts, but very unsuccessfully imho. In concept, TWINE was a 'film ahead'. In execution, it was a disgrace, at least in my view. EON therefore went back to what they knew best for the 40th anniversary, which was OTT action. This is the tone that seemed to fit their lead actor best, and what they thought would make them more money at the box office (since TWINE and TND had both not done as well as GE globally on an inflation adjusted basis).
I have always contended that DAD was EON's answer to the overwhelming global success of the Austin Powers films, and other action fare of the era, including XXX etc. That's what they thought the public wanted at the time.
Bourne showed them that there was a market out there for a more down to earth, questioning, realistic spy thriller. When they saw this alternative approach being commercially and critically viable, they jumped at it. The fact that it fit the mood of the times was a bonus.
@BondJasonBond
Thanks, i tried my best to summarize what Happened and why thereboot looked like the only choice, i now think they got too scared and threatened for other franchises. They had a choice to continue and just tone down the gadgets a bit instead of the drastic turn they made.
I understand their choice for the reboot and i liked the Craig films, but I don't think they did the right thing not after i noticed its closest rival MI continued with their Formula and succeded. They weren't as obligated as they felt they were.
They could have still going with the more fantasy super human Bond and still be successful. Their desicion to change was too harsh and overdramatic.
But it's their choice and I don't blame them much.
I don't agree with it but i don't judge either.
@Barryt007
Thanks so much for the data on the interviews for the documentary, i guess by that time Pierce finally forgave them and a year after that he praised Skyfall.
Play time was over, so to speak.
I'm sure Barbara or Michael have spoke on this somehow, somewhere at one time or another. I'd be shocked if they haven't.
CR- He failed to protect Vesper
SF- He failed to protect M
SP- He failed to kill the main villain (albeit willingly)
I realize that Bond occasionally failing is part of the franchise (his dealings with Blofeld in the 60's), but a 75% failure rate is a bit much.
Thanks @Szonana ,that's very kind of you...actually PB did laugh out loud,say "Water surfing,Oh my God".. and put his hands over his face, when he mentioned the CGI water gliding scene in DAD,but you could feel a little bit of bitterness there as well...can't say i blame him !!
I thought that....i was surprised that he was so candid and frank about it......good on him,it was a pleasant surprise..shame Connery didnt show his arse,but i wont say im surprised...
Definitely. Priceless.
My favourite bit RE Pierce.
(simulating the phone call with his agent):
"This is top secret, you can't tell anyone"
"I won't tell anyone...("mouths* I'm James Bond), I won't tell a soul"
Very funny :))
Yeah, it's a shame about Sean, but as you said, no surprise there. I did tear up however when Barbara related the story of Sean speaking with Cubby on the phone, telling him he loved him right before the man died. There was a lot to their dynamic and working relationship we were never privy to and couldn't begin to understand even if we knew it all, but I'm glad Cubby seemed to pass on with that particular bridge between him and Sean rebuilt, however rickety it still might've felt to cross.
Indeed...Cubby seemed like such a nice man,he only wanted to make Bond films...i think the disintegration of Connery's and Saltzman's relationship made Connery just hate eveyone associated with EON ,which is unfair on Cubby..as Sir Roger said : "i don't know if it's because he is a Scotsman,but Connery was known for holding grudges..but don't bite the hand that feeds you..."
It's a tough business.
Sean and Cubby were two crazy forces of filmmaking brilliance who together made a literary character into a cultural phenomenon and a modern mythical hero of Britain. The money and fame was big from their work together, and with that you'll always have instances where people feel they were given a short end of the stick in deals, or the power that your part in the franchise gives off clouds your judgement at times and egos can flair.
Not saying Sean and Cubby were guilty of any specific things, because again, we'll never know the full story. I'm simply saying that Bond hysteria in the 60s likely created conditions like the above under which even the best of collaborators could feel pressures and break away from one another through a variety of factors, even beyond themselves.
However, Austin Powers and the self assessed failed attempt at raising the drama and quality of Bond with TWINE also lead to the direction taken by DAD.
EoN's tendency to recoil and redefine after DAD and the obtained rights to CR sacrificed Brosnan in the process. Plus I think possible issues with Brosnan, too ..money? Not sure.
I don't know if we're in a similar spot now. Feels eerily like post LTK and post DAD.
Brosnan was the Bond that was destined to take on the role when he was still wrapped up in Remington Steele. The moment he got free from that contract it seemed inevitable to happen, and right when he was ready to jump on the Bond ship, NBC brought it all down the day before and put him back to work on the show, which ended not long after. With Steele canceled so soon after its renewal, it must have felt for Brosnan like it was all for nothing, and Bond could've been his. When he debuted in GE it wasn't about just getting a new Bond, it was about the public seeing the man who should've had it in the first place years previous. Add to that the big hiatus that made many feel Bond was dead post-LTK, and Brosnan was a breath of fresh air and hero to the franchise.
With all this in mind, of Brosnan coveting the role and losing out only to get in years later, then being unceremoniously ousted from the podium must've been a bad business. His feelings afterward were understandable, and it must have been added frustration to see Daniel getting the kind of material he always wanted to play with as Bond instead of the amalgam of Bond styles he was given to play through the script.
It would be interesting to see in a "what if" history what the Brosnan era's films would look like, for better or worse, if Pierce was given the same amount of creative control over the character as Dan has had in his tenure.
This is my top Bond "what if?"
Brosnan always excels when playing morally questionable characters and being told to play Bond as a straight and clean character clearly impacted him later on and especially in DAD.
have been saying this for years!
Great to hear it from someone else on here.
I've always maintained that the producers, directors and even Brosnan himself always got his characterisation wrong.
They treated him like a Roger Moore retread when he needed something much more ambiguous and less clean cut.
It would be foolish to say that he didn't get praise from the general public and I like three out of his four films very much. But in 15-20 years time I would be very surprised if he's not remembered more for stuff like The Tailor Of Panama and The Matador, as well as The Thomas Crown Affair.
And his characters in those films were exactly as stated above (very ambiguous) and in the case of the Boorman film and The Matador, only attractive on the outside.
I always thought M's comment to Bond - "the world changed when you were away" - was a direct reference to 9/11. If it wasn't, it was very fortuitous, wasn't it?
I thought it was a direct reference. Seems to me DAD was very transitional in that it's tone was all over the place. It's dark and gritty in the torture prison scenes, then turns to OTT fantasy.