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
There are some things we'd already seen in previous films, like nerve gas, Bond's belt filled with plastic explosives and hang gliding over waterfalls. A flying wing backpack would be cooler. I take it all of these ideas would've been substituted for something similar. Lots of dialogue parroted from earlier films too.
Would be great to see the character of Sir Henry appear in future. With him dealing arms you could probably combine this story with Hammerhead (Hunt Engineering), which also saw a car being operated remotely by the enemy - Bond's Mustang hacked with a chip and attacking him before launching off a cliff.
Interesting that in Bond17 the DB5 dropped mines behind it and they bounce along the road. That's one for the NTTD winks & nods thread.
All in all, the thought of not getting GoldenEye as we know it has me painfacing like hell.
My idea of a nightmare, mate 🫣
That could have meant 5 or 6 movies with Ol Brossa, instead of 4!!! 🥶
Hahaha! I remember actively reading the 007 magazine newsletter during those days being re-assured that Tim was indeed coming back for B17 , so I wasn't too worried.
Oh, well.
What if Max The Parrot couldn't speak and didn't gave Bond and Melina the location of Kristatos and his group?
Presumably Bond would've gone to Columbo and search every possible hideout Kristatos would've gone to. Since St. Cyril's was a place they had used before, it's a good bet that they would've found him eventually, though probably not in time.
Agreed 100%!
Disagree 100%
So I suppose agree 50% but disagree 50%!
That’s why I think Brosnan’s era is one of the best.
For me with DAD it’s when he stops his own heart! It’s a strange but fascinating film though. One of those misfires in Bond films.
To be fair I think the Brosnan era hasn’t always been kindly looked on (unfairly - no Bond era is perfect and long term they’re always subject to shifts of tone and even quality, and it was certainly the case with Craig, Connery and Moore). But for video games it’s a great era.
I’ve learned to conveniently ignore the heart stopping sequence haha. Yes it’s incredibly stupid but tame compared to some of the stuff Bond is doing later on in the film. In fact I’ve lightened up on DAD recently; I think if you go into it not trying to compare it to what came before or after, and accept the fact that is a film riddled to the brim with flaws - you can have a good time with it and Brosnan makes the whole thing worth watching imo.
The video games are great - made with a sort of passion that I found missed in a lot of Activision’s titles (Blood Stone withstanding - the last great Bond game) which made up for some of their technical flaws. I think they may have suffered from issues with release dates. Goldeneye Rogue Agent was infamously rushed and a lot of the initial ideas were scrapped and it severely impacted the final product. But EA delivered the best era of Bond games. I’m hoping IOI will give them a run for their money though.
Really on a whole, it looks like the Brosnan era is undergoing a sort of renaissance with many people going back and appreciating TND/TWINE. If you looked over to the James Bond Reddit page you’ll find hundreds of posts by people proclaiming their love for those 90’s films and those posts getting hundreds (sometimes thousands) of upvotes and as somebody whose always been a Brosnan fan - that’s gratifying to see. He’s become the definitive Bond for an entire generation much like Connery and Moore were and despite the mixed reactions to those films - the fact so many people immediately think of Brosnan when they hear James Bond is a testament to the work he did with the character.
Avatar infringement?! This is my reaction:
I always wonder what DAD would have looked like with a darker, more mature approach but pretty much the same story (I feel it’d be not dissimilar to NTTD in many ways - still polarising for fans in many ways, certainly unusual, but ultimately more satisfying).
Yes, I think Brosnan’s looked on more favourably nowadays. Dalton had a similar renaissance too I feel. But for sure, so many people grew up with Brosnan as Bond, and if his films (and video games) didn’t have any merit he wouldn’t be as popular.
Not being Dalton (or Craig) was always part of his appeal. This is how his Bond was sold.
This is why I think Brosnan's return is complicated. The tone of his films is very difficult to recreate now, 25 years later, and I don't think fans want to see Brosnan making a Craig movie.
I always get the sense they were trying to add a bit more seriousness to Brosnan's films by TWINE though. Even DAD has ideas in there that skew a bit darker and on paper wouldn't look out of place in the Craig era (hell, SF recycles broad elements of TWINE).
I don't think it's as much to do with any Brosnan formula. I think he could have easily starred in a more serious Bond film and done it well (GE definitely feels more mature and has its darker moments). I think the issue with a film like DAD comes down to a few things, a major one being they didn't have the right director to balance the thrills of a Bond film with what they were trying to do story-wise (Tamahori's certainly no Sam Mendes or Martin Campbell).
Kinda reminds me of Bond trying to hold his own breath and kill himself during the torture scene in GF (the book that is). Not that it works in that instance!
Yeah I think you could easily do a Craig version of DAD, the first half anyway. Bond working for another country's secret service and going on a mission for them to Cuba is something we even saw him do in NTTD.
I think he'd be... okay. He's very mannered and I'd say the dramatic bits aren't his Bond's finest bits, I can see why they went with someone else. He's a great star for the films he did, he's just got limitations.
And yes, I think DAD is an example of the Brosnan formula. The film tries to play both games: not too serious and not too light (it's not MR, after all).
I agree he has his limitations as an actor and often makes... well, interesting performance choices. I think Brosnan was always better at dramatic scenes when he played them in a more understated way (I'm thinking of the beach scene in GE, or the hotel encounter with Paris in TND). With the right director I suspect he could have been pushed in that direction. I always get the sense he's trying too hard in TWINE and DAD to act.
They're both misfires in my opinion. They definitely have confused tones, and it's worth saying even the 'light' stuff in both movies could have been done better (I'd argue Bond films like SF or LTK excels more at the humour and those 'Bondian' moments than TWINE and DAD do).
That said I think he's great in GE and TND, and would go as far to say the former is one of my favourite Bond lead performances.
Huh I have to admit I don’t see it. The only issue I have with Brosnan performance wise are some of those cringey lines of dialogue he’s forced to deliver opposite Halle Berry but that’s more Purvis/Wade than the actors, at least I think.
I was never bothered by that, but I see what you're saying. Brosnan has that dramatic flair in TWINE. Honestly, I wish Connery could have gave a bit more emotion since he's always a cool cat.
Well, it's at least a bit to do with the actors (it's not unusual for actors to have to deliver some ropey lines in those sorts of films, and ultimately a big part of their job is to make it believable - CR has its share of bad dialogue but I'd say Craig's performance on the whole is great and it even detracts from the odd writing).
For me Brosnan feels a lot less natural in TWINE and parts of DAD. There's something less assured about him in parts of TWINE especially. It's like he doesn't quite gel with the material he's given.
I can see that with his later performances. But I think Connery's Bond has his more human moments too.
Not a huge amount though to be fair! I always think Roger gets the unfair rap for being the walking quip machine, whereas I'd say that suits Connery more- you rarely get the impression he feels anything, whereas Roger does. Connery gets to be a bit more of human in FRWL maybe, where he does show a bit of anger towards Grant and sorrow for Kerim Bay's death, but after that his emotion is very fleeting. He's angry about Jill's death for a couple of seconds and M tells him to stop it, Aki's death affects him even less, and after that he's more about the gags and pressing buttons on Q gadgets. That's why I get puzzled when he's sometimes called the closest to Fleming: he's very cool but there's no emotional depth there (and I don't blame Connery: that's the films they were making).
By NSNA (which I do count!) he's kind of like a very charismatic robot just aiming to be as cool as possible in every situation, whereas Rog in OP a couple of months later is actually showing anger, sorrow, desperation and romantic feelings. Not a huge amount of any of those, but it's still a slightly less winking-at-the-camera performance I'd say. It's a weird situation where you can say Octopussy is the more dramatic film than any other one, but in this instance it actually is! :)
Agreed, I think Dr. No and FRWL he has a lot of emotion, standout moments are when he's at the Jamacaian bar with Felix asking about Strangeways, and the action on the train or finding Rosa Kleb in his hotel room. I think the relative lack of it thereafter is just a sign or disinterest in the material, mainly.
I agree that Moore made Bond feel more human (it’s partially because the films leaned into it, but I think the reason they did so was because of Moore’s natural qualities as an actor and their need to play to his strengths). And I get what you mean on the whole. Part of Connery’s appeal as Bond was that sense of cool, detached irony (which in many ways differs from Fleming’s conception of the character or was at least done differently with Connery). But still, those moments are there and I think Connery sells them however fleeting they are. I think the difference between his performances in DN and FRWL particularly is very stark.
Oh come on, Connery in NSNA looks like a real person compared to Tarzan Moore.
More "dramatic" doesn't mean more human.
Don’t get me wrong he’s good in NSNA and does his thing well (although I don’t remember any extraordinary stand out moments but I haven’t seen the film in a while) but it’s far from the best Bond performance and for Connery it’s definitely not his best (in Bond or otherwise!)