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
Love that scene.
That's a shame, while I am a fan of the films first and foremost, I have come to appreciate the novels; it's hard to pass up more Bond adventures. You should really check out Moonraker, easily my favourite of the Fleming novels. I also highly recommend Icebreaker by John Gardner.
P.S. I warned you, the vitriol surrounding the Brosnan ers on these boards is staggering.
It takes time for things to settle down and for people to get a perspective on each actor. Dalton is never going to be regarded as a great Bond by casual film goers but he's definitely had a reappraisal amongst critics and hardcore fans who tend to rate him highly.
Maybe the same thing will happen to Brosnan over time but I doubt it.
At least Pierce got to enjoy being a popular Bond at the time. All the talk of "best since Connery" must have been really satisfying.
+1.
I think it will largely depend on how well NTTD turns out. Brosnan’s run became less regarded over time because GE was his only real standout film and his run ended with DAD. Craig has had two highly acclaimed films with CR and SF, and if NTTD turns out great that not only enriches his era but more importantly leaves it on a high note. Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan all ended their run with what were arguably their weakest installments (DAF, AVTAK, LTK, DAD). So it’s not surprising after those films that audiences are eager to see the new guy. But if Craig’s final film turns out to be amazing, that puts even more pressure on the new guy to live up to his predecessor.
But we won’t really know until it all happens.
It's a personal wish of yours. You, and the tabloids.
Brosnan's movies were seen as "DIS IS HOW ALL BONDMOVIES WERE AND SHOULD BE".
When I watch Dalton he's an eighties Bond, and the styles and time period clash with what I read in my Fleming books, where I find a man of his time. And that time's the late fifties, early sixties.
That's nothing to take it away from Dalton, who admitted reading the books whilst filming, something I don't think the other actors did.
But I remember the Brosnan era as being seen as a 'Bond for everyone'. He was certainly more serious than Rog, the daftness of the pigeons/Tarzan yells/silly sound effects had no place in the Brosnan era, and most fans of the books (like me) certainly welcomed that. I'm glad someone mentioned the first hour of TND on this thread the other day. It was very much my kind of Bond movie in that first hour. A real fun ride. Not exactly Fleming-like, but still a classy romp in the spirit of the best of the Moore era.
Certainly. Even with QOS and SP, it's not like no Bond actor ever had a flawless run prior to Craig. If NTTD turns out great, that makes three solid entries out of five films for Craig, which I'd consider a pretty very good run. Comparable to Moore's run who arguably had a solid good four films under him out of seven.
Sir Roger made the role his own and I've always found it cool that Sean recommended him.
Edit:
Jesus, Connery was offered 5,5 million dollars to return one more time! (which would be something like 30 million today...)
:-O
Shamanimal: Yes!! Exactly your exactly correct, the first few Connery films (mainly Dr. No and From Russia With Love, mostly the latter though) definitely felt like more Fleming style and tbh they felt more like a typical grounded Spy movie and imo were pulled off very well. I've also heard FRWL is very much close to it's Novel in terms of being faithful. Makes me wanna read the Novel myself tbh as I've heard it's good.
Agent 47: I'll add that Novel to my list of ones to get to, I did read John Gardner's GoldenEye novelization and liked it, wasn't as good as the movie but I still found it to be quite good, interested to see his other stories as I have heard good things about them.
Good points. CR was critically acclaimed and SF made £1b at the box office (ie most successful ever so far). Only Connery and Moore had those “All time highs” (pun intended).
TBH, the scripts didn't help much.
His best performances were in TWINE & DAD. Not a joke.
You can "overdo" fun. Which was too often the case.
But he did look good in a tux.
I'm stating that when they wanted to reboot the franchise there's a reason why they made the conscious decision to return to Fleming. The reality is that the films based upon the original source material to one extent or another are considered the best in the franchise and Casino Royale is no different. The Craig era on the whole has been largely favoured over that of Brosnan for it's realism and the fact that Craig has at least attempted to bring elements of Fleming's Bond back to the big screen. You can't relate to Brosnan's Bond in any way as he's a superman, whereas at least with Craig you can empathize with him to a degree. Public audiences may have whetted to Brosnan for pure entertainment value, but they like Craig because he portrays a more relatable and grounded figure.
I remember as a child being excited by the Brosnan era, but they were always popcorn entertainment rather then being classic Bond films. While I don't rate the Craig era highly (with the exception of CR which ranks among my favourite) I still prefer them well over anything that was produced while Brosnan was in the role.
+1
I feel like everything following Goldeneye that they dialed up every element to 11. The amount of action, innuendo and outlandish gadgetry was off the charts to a point where it became really rather stupid. You never feared for Bond's life during Brosnans tenure because you knew that he would suddenly have a gadget or gimmick to escape the situation. Boring.
The beauty of the thing called opinions
No, because some of elements of the era were bordering on parody. Which wasn't 'fun' for a Bond fan to watch. Roger could carry such films like MR. But, Brosnan was rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – with less charm, screen presence and a natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades.
That was me. The first half of TND has always stood out for me in the Brosnan era. If his tenure had been like that I could have handled it. Not that it was what I was looking for, but as you say it's a solid hour of Moore-esque entertainment and works well enough.
I don't agree that Moore was less serious though. Moore switches between drama and laughs constantly and some of his tenser moments are amongst the best dramatic scenes in the series.
The implausible fake "stunt" in the PTS reminds me of GE with Brozza flying to catch up with the falling plane. Daft and totally takes you out of the film in both instances. Yes the invisible car was dire but these 2 examples are just as bad IMO.
I like the Stromberg scene but the Locque moment is ruined for me by its build up, consisting of a ridiculously unfit looking Rog / Stuntman combo attempting to catch up with that car. It's one of the reasons why the cold blooded moments of his era never landed with me - the proceeding scraps were almost always unconvincing.
Pierce, to his credit, at least had some grace and looked convincing throwing a punch or a kick. Just look at the fight with Trevelyan in GoldenEye, which made the "No, for me" line even more satisfying. Not as good as Laz or Craig, but still good.
To me, Pierce his "coldest" moment was shooting Elektra.
Yeah, shooting a woman (villain or not) in cold blood is pretty hardcore by any standard.