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
One thing I'd also love to know is what Dalton thought of DAD :O I think we can guess but it would be good to actually hear it from his mouth.
that would be interesting, as we already heard Sir Rog's opinion of it - which I thought funny....
after now watching this guy's other videos, namely the ones for "The Dalton Phase".. i really feel more badly for Timothy than before... approached as early as 69 for OHMSS, turned it down - then I believe he was offered it again at some point, maybe after MR, and again turned it down... then when he's available, Cubby began lusting after Pierce, and Tim was an after thought - that is until Pierce was lasso'd back into Remmington Steele, and they settled back on Dalton...... i think what gets me, is how for years, the public wanted Brosnan - and when it was announced that Dalton would be 007, he hinted at their might have been a slight backlash from the public who were so adamant about wanting Pierce, that they might not have been as receptive towards Dalton because of that.... it's an interesting thought - one that could hold some weight....
and he also sheds a little more light on Brosnan too - that after he couldn't get the role, he had refused, or reportedly no interest in seeing the Dalton films, namely The Living Daylights (i think it came on during a flight or something, and he turned it off, refusing to watch it) - and I remember during the James Bond Story documentary, when he's saying in the Bond world, it seems every fan has their guy - and he brings up Connery, Moore, and Lazenby - but conveniently leaves out Dalton.. it's probably nothing, but still interesting.... but that refusal to watch Dalton's films, and his refusal to acknowledge Craig's films..... i dare say, what a salty man.
Who knows for certain.
Just found the quote:
"I thought that what Timothy Dalton did was very corageous in making him the hard edge, dark character that Fleming had put down. But it is what the punters want. If they want brown shoes then give them brown shoes, but give them polished brown shoes. Give them what they want but with a bit of sparkle".
i know... i wasn't try to read too much into it - but found it interesting nonetheless... besides, I believe him and Craig are friends - maybe not drinking buddies, but they do have a good relationship with one another, so i heard...
But this man's reviews are pretty good - i've started to go through The Brosnan Era... I'm 50/50 with his review of Goldeneye, some things I agree with, some things I don't.... I started to watch the Tomorrow Never Dies review last night, but fell asleep. lol.
Ha, I don't think PB has anything against Craig. Why would he? It wasn't Craig that let him go.
Heres quite an amusing interview where, at 3.15, Pierce refers to Craig. The interview was to promote Mamma Mia:
(ol' Danny Boy)
(maybe because i don't have a critisism point yet)
he does nitpick a lot of the minute details, even in the DAD review.... but, in fairness - it seems to be the way the modern internet blogging movie goer reviews films anymore... so it's no different than say, the way people nitpick other things to death... the only difference between most people's reviews, and his reviews - is that he actually makes very good points on the majority of the stuff he critiques... he doesn't just make a comment, and not back it up... he seems to really know, and understand his stuff - especially when it comes to Bond...
but i feel ya, his reviews have made me go back and really start to reevaluate Brosnan's tenure as Bond - for the most part, I didn't mind Brosnan - the films (on average) were entertaining, but became more about the action, than the actual plot of the film as they progressed.... a couple points he made that I understand, and now agree with - is that typically, each actor brought unique to the role of Bond - but with Brosnan, it's like he was trying to be too much of everything, that he really had no identity, and it made his characterization rather bland - and played it more like Remmingston Steele as James Bond.. that i do now see, and agree with...... the other point he mentioned was the directing style - and how the producers sought different directors in each of Brosnan's films, to try and bring a new style to each film - but the styles all seemed to blend together, and the films really did nothing to artistically stand out from one another..... that i can definitely see, especially in comparison to a lot of older films - and even in comparison to CR and QOS.
The thing I've never seen an episode of Remington Steele so that argument doesn't really apply in my eyes. I suppose I can kind of see what he means though. One could say the same about Moore in relation to his Simon Templar (i.e. smirky and a little smug on occasions).
In terms of "style" I never really thought about that. I suppose the most "stylishly different" of the Brosnan films was DAD with the sudden speeding up of filming. To me that seemed rather pointless and, as as HH said, was more of a superficial attempt to make Bond more "hip". One could argue the exact same thing about QoS though in regard to its editing techniques.
Yes, what happened to Chanandler Bong ??
I just think his priorities changed.
Yep, you have to take these modern internet/blogger reviews with a grain of salt. At the end of the day, it's still just their opinion on the matter. This reviewer, does provide convincing argeuments that he backs up, but they are still his opinions. I agree mostly with what he says, but if you are entertained by the film, that's what matters most. I could rip apart FRWL or OHMSS or TB if I wanted to make that case. But it's really what YOU get out of it. Each film can speak to you in a certain way.
As far as Brosnan not bringing anything new to the role (I actually kind of agree, but for devil's advocate's sake lets say this): first off going back to the other actor's: did Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton really bring anything new that Connery hadn't already done? Connery had plenty of moments of physicality with his fights like Lazenby. There were also many puns/double entendres throughout Connery's movies long before Moore's era. And lastly, Connery certainly had moments of 'intensity' the way Dalton did: just think of the scene of Bond killing Red Grant and following with the Old Man line, or the look on his face beating up the driver in DN. The point is, you can argue, that none of the actor's necessarily brought anything 'new' to the character that hadn't already been developed before, they just played up their particular strength: be it physicality, humor, or intensity a little better. For Brosnan, you could make the case, that he brought a certain debonair quality to Bond: a real sophisticated, high class look and style. Sure, this had been done before, but no Bond before looked better in a suit than Pierce.
As I say, I sort of lean towards his argument on Brosnan. I think the other 3 mentioned actor's put more of a stamp on their character. But this all opinion and you could make the case both ways.
Of course you're not, many Bond fans and general public included are in a unanimous agreement that it's the bottomless pit of the franchise, anybody who's seen it can put up a list of undefendable deficincies and castigating moments, or on more simpler terms it's an overall horror show, give or take one or two genuine good and exciting bits
That's Connery, Moore and Brosnan now who's Bond tenure went out like a damp squib
Can't really include Dalton and Lazenby in this and Craig, well, he's not done yet
The arguments he puts forward however are convincing.
While I didn't really feel it myself so to speak, Brosnan was probably a hybrid of the other actors. Shallow? Perhaps but it was what people wanted for the time. The Bond's that have been most sucessful have been so because they came along at the right period. Connery - the swinging 60s, Moore the lighter 70s, Brosnan the flashy 90s, Craig the darker 2000s.
One thing that entertained me with Brosnan was his "boyish charm". The smirks he gave, the generally quite cocky attitude. Thats ultimately what he brought to the role. Perhaps it wasn't original but I suppose it was part of his own personality.
I'm not saying he's the best so to speak (in fact I now think Connery, Moore, Craig and Dalton are probably stronger) but it annoys me that people who liked him (and continue to do so) are pretty much shouted down nowadays. The fact that he got me into 007 means I will always love him a bit.
You're getting off easy! As a kid, DAF and TMWTGG were two of my favorite Bond films. It was really tough facing the big scary world wide web for the first time with all it's scathing opinions and vitriol, ripping to shreds cherished childhood memories. I had no concept of these being bad Bond films. But you gotta stick to your guns, at the same time be open minded to different opinions, because those too can inform your own opinions.
Haha I know. :)
I agree... as will I.... Goldeneye was the first Bond movie I had patience to sit through as as a young kid - and Tomorrow Never Dies was my first Bond in theaters, so I understand where you are coming from... I'll always have that soft spot for his films... for a long time, up until DAD, I considered him one of the best Bonds (until I viewed more of the originals with time)... but it's with that time, that I found repeated viewings of his Bond character more and more shallow and faceless... i never got that sense with other actors because right out of the gate, they took command of the role... and after a lot of watching of the originals, going back to Brosnan (sans GE) just didn't have the same effect for me.... i can still watch his Bond movies, and find some level of enjoyment out of them, but in repeated viewings, you can tell there is just something missing from his that the older ones had..
Recently I sat through a double bill of TB and TND (the first Bond film I saw in the cinema too). I've never been as fond of Dies as I have of GE (the first one I saw EVER) so I suppose I can be a bit more objective about it.
Anyway after seeing the double bill TB, while still flawed in a few places, EASILY came out as the better film. It had a class and a more leasurible pace that Dies just...didn't have. One thing I do think is interesting is how most of Brosnan's films went through re-writes either before or during production and with Dies you can really see that. As HH said it just sacrifices the story and relies on pure machine gun fire throughout the second half of the film.
TWINE I think is ok, and personally I think its better than TND. Its not great but at least it tries harder to tell a story.
Then there's DAD. Brosnan seemed a lot more confident than he did in GE and there some bits of the film that work well...but as a whole...yuck.
Actually there is a part of Bondfans who strongly dislike Brosnan & Moore. But Brosnan is doing actually quite well among the general public. A lot of people that regard a 007 movie as a nice outing to the cinema have turned away from the 007 series because of the violence and the find DC not as good.
A generalisation about PB's popularity in the part is mostly Fanboyish. Brosnan was very popular and did good business in the cinema 4 movies long. And a fifth movie would have been very profitable as well. Brosnan was not denied a 5th movie because he was bad.
EON decided something else and if Bond23 is anything as bad as QoS, the series will be in trouble. How great the actor DC is. And the general audience will be the judge and not the fans.
is this a quote about fans, or the general public?
because if this is about the general public, i would have to say that that statement is a very broad and inaccurate generalization...... in fact, I dare say it was the opposite....
CR out performed DAD at the box office both domestically and world wide - and that was against that awful penguin movie here in the states.. QOS out performed CR domestically but fell a couple million short of CR's mark world wide.... so, financially the films made more.... even if QOS was not on par with CR, the style in which these films are made (currently) seem to be universally accepted by the general movie going public.
Really? Considering the buzz around Craig at the moment I would say the opposite is true. He's on the cover of every magazine, his non-Bond films are big hits and the general buzz is he is the best Bond since Connery. Skyfall will probably be a monster hit.
There will always be a vocal minority who dont like him and pining for the good old Pierce Brosnan days...
But Craig just gets bigger and bigger.
Though I am in the vocal minority, I certainly am not pining for Brosnan.
i didn't see Brosnan smashing box office totals outside of Bond either during his tenure.
I do not mind Craig, have strong dislike against QoS the arty farty mistake of an director that should bever have been put in the saddle. While Mendes should be able to make a difference I am still not convinced that the current EON direction will be the 007 I will want to watch in cinema.
ANd undoubtely there will be a new audience for 007 it is strange that they want to alienate a large crowd that is suspicious after QoS. A movie that does divide the Bondfans too.
I tell you that when Craig walks or gets his marching papers, the next version will be a return to a lighter version. Simply because the world is in a crisis and folks want to be entertained don't need grim actioners.
And as always EON will adapt as they did with Moore & Brosnan.
thats again, a broad generalization based on your personal opinion - and maybe the opinion of 5 of your friends..... i'll believe that once you conduct a scientific poll of every person who goes to see these movies outside this website..
<b>IMO</b> .... Craig's Bond is perfect for this time period, because his Bond is more believable in this current setting... i don't think you could easily transplant him into the 90s or 70s when the tone of the world was vastly different - and vice versa.... audiences want to be entertained surely - but I personally couldn't see a tongue-in-cheek Moore style Bond being as accepted or believable at this very moment... simply because the world is a lot different now....
yes, QOS split a lot of Bond fans... but if you look at the overall ratings of the film on IMDB and other websites outside of Mi6, and your friends.. it falls into the "average" category.... QOS had it's problems, but I don't think it was Craig - if anything, most reviewers of the film count him as the one shining spot of the film.
True, but neither did Dalton, though it makes no difference to me. He's still (imho) a better Bond & actor than Brosnan and Craig. If I had to choose between them, i'd pick Brosnan, but that's between him and Craig.