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
Me too. They could have changed the script to add that bit in I suppose. If it's not a direct reference to 9/11 then what on Earth is it a reference to?!
Perceived medical wisdom on how best to treat blast victims who got hit by diamond shrapnel.
Previously doctors used to remove as much as possible but in the time Bond had been away pioneering surgeons decided it was better to leave the diamonds embedded in the victim's face.
Yes, that was rather odd but I suppose that all Bond villains are!
"I've missed your sparking personality."
If they did that, how else would they work this gem into the script?!
Yes, I agree. We wouldn't want to lose that line. :D
I must say I enjoy the Broz films much more as a group, than I do the angst and drama ridden reboot films.
The Brosnan films were really a celebration of the cinematic James Bond with the right guy at the time in the part. I kind of miss the reliability of that era, in the sense, we always knew another film was coming and it would be fun.
I vehemently agree that Pierce deserved to play a Bond like the agent he inhabits in The November Man. A guy who is skilled and cold when it counts, willing to go to places unseen for his principles and job. A man caught in a sea of gray morals that don't paint him as bad or good, but something in between. A blunt instrument when it's required, etc. that is always dependable and near mythic in his skills at survival.
@Timmer and @totheright
I do prefer that lightness of the Bond flicks Pierce made, they made the Bond flicks much more different than the rest unrealistic and sometimes pushed our boundaries of suspension and disbelief but Bond not sweating and being always so cool is part of his uniqueness in film.
I liked Brosnan's Bond even if he himself was begging to do the other Bond.
Now @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7
Yes Die Another Day could have been interesting with the idea of keeping Bond going Rouge and be more of blunt instrument but nooo.
As much as Pierce wanted to be that Bond, i disagree with his insistence many heroes can be blunt instruments and be dark and grity, he was special as Bond because he was a super spy.
why he wanted to be so bad one of the million when he had the chance to be one in a million?
I do like Craig very much and he has made grity Bond work but i much prefer the other one.
Fleming created Bond the way Craig portrayed him but the movie franchise stood out for being different from everyone else and did so by not being faithful to Ian Fleming
I bet Pierce wanted to flex his acting muscles and maybe get an oscar one day but there would be other chances outside of Bond.
I think at moments in his era it feels like the man he's playing could be anyone and nothing would change, which exactly makes his Bond one of the million in many respects and not very exemplary. I'll be doing a review of Brosnan's era in an upcoming run through of the films, but as of now I do understand what people say when they remark that he didn't really bring anything of his own to the role or spin it to make his Bond stand out or feel iconic and memorable. Of course, it's also possible to presume that he wasn't allowed, and his remarks on his Bond work since seem to point to a bit of that restriction.
Alas, we're past it now, and what we've got, we've got.
Even if he didn't add anything new to the role and just took the best of his predecessors I think it made him standout more against other action than playing the Bond he wanted so bad to be.
I love Pierce's portrayal and his films, its just sad he didn't like them, it was for the better to be that Bond. Maybe he didn't add anything but its more of a stsnd out against other franchises than playing the Flemlingesque blunt instrument.
It just frustrates me Pierce is one of those who felt the grass is greener on the other side when it comes to the Bond he got vs Craig.
Even if the scripts weren't that great i prefer his version of Bond.i don't care sometimes it looked a little implausible.
He exuded a standard click the boxes image of Bond and at times did seems to be posing especially with his PPK/P9. But other than that, I never had any problem with his actual performance as Bond.
At last some sense. It warms my heart to see there are members on this forum who can make a reasonable assessment of the Brosnan years.
SPOT-ON
Yes, it is very rare to see this and I concur.
Truth has been spoken.
I thought i was the only one noticing he seemed like he was posing sometimes, a very Modelesque attitude of im sexy and I know it but still love him and i like the posing thing
He was no dour sourpuss. He was very glib, charming. But he was also very focused on duty and Mission. He had both a focused dangerous side, and a lighter more smooth charming side.
The duality is to a large degree what accounts for the Bond appeal.
Terrence Young didn't reinvent Bond for cinema.
The DN FRWL Bond persona is extrapolated from Fleming, maybe amped up a bit for cinema.
The Connery-Lazenby Bonds are as close as we've seen to Fleming's Bond on screen IMO.
I think Broz was next closest, but Broz wasn't able to bring the natural danger element as effortlessly as Sean and Laz were able to. Broz at least made effort, but Sean and Laz were just more convincing physically.
Take for example the scene in the bankers office in the TWINE pts. That scene is classic Bond and Broz does a decent job, but I think either Sean or Laz pull that scene off (the fighting part) with more convincing authority.
But yes Broz did, as @totheright explains, get Bond centred again between the Rog and Dalts portrayals.
So I've always liked what he was trying to do, even if the pain face could be a bit much, but I think what he was trying to do was Fleming worthy.
I feel a bitt ashamed to admit so but what I know about Fleming's Bond is reading on Bond forums. So my references come from shat i know from what other fans say so thanks for explaining me about this duality.
Im a fan of the Film franchise Bond and know a bitt of Fleming thanks to all of you but im not that interested in the novels. i guess its because i have not much patience to finish a story in less than a few hours (4 hours is usually my max level of patience ) so that's why i prefer film over TV series though i will have to get used to tv series because most of the great screen writers are on the small screen even for CW standards.
Im right now watching Reign which is a series loosely based on Mary Queen of Scots life.
I mean yes they use the real names of the characters and have a few accurate moments but they add a lot of fanatsy like ghots, black magic and human sacrifices
Its a nice mix between Game of Thrones, The Tudors and Gossip Girl.
But going back to Bond.
Pierce was a great Bond in my opinion with the right balance with all the attributes the character needed but i agree with you a little weak on the fighting and action department hehe but at least he did it fine, not Great like Craig but he was able to defend himself.
The typical weakness people cliam against Pierce that he was an amalgam of his predecessors i see it more as a strength.
By the time we got to Tim, the late '80s were so far removed from that world, it's hard to picture him as being anything but an updated version.
Brosnan, especially in GE, kept his performance simple and basically went with his instincts. There was a lot riding on the success of GE, and had he tried to change the character, or update it, it would defeat the purpose of bring Bond back to his glory days. LTK, with it's Miami Vice tone, and by departing from formula, had alienated many fans. Brosnan was smart to keep things simple. He's pretty timeless. In some ways you could almost pluck Brosnan's Bond out of a 90s film and place him in the mid 60s.
Possibly. It is mentioned indirectly, though.
M: "While you were away, the world changed."
Bond: "Not for me."
I think they (incorrectly) felt that the anti-dote to the horrible troubles the world was experiencing at that time was a film that ignored those problems and amped up the fantasy factor. It didn't pay off, creatively at least.
Absolutely. I'm not saying the plot should have had any ties to 9/11 or any other event current at the time as it automatically puts a timestamp on the film which never does well for its longevity. Just look at TLD with the Mujahaddin.
They definitely could have anticipated the mood of the 00's in the aftermath of the attacks, though. The franchise used to be ahead of the game in these types of things.
True,maybe a SP or SF would have been better...
Of course. 5 years later is not "ahead of the game" though.
To stop and reassess the whole thing with a new premise and tone probably was difficult. Also, it was a 40th anniversary film, and they perhaps decided to go for the 'homage' lighter tone, which they may have felt fit Brosnan better.
The long gap was on account of MGM's troubles. Otherwise, the tonal shift may have appeared earlier (they had CR's rights by 1999).