The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

11718202223190

Comments

  • Posts: 12,526
    Boat chase didn't bother me too much neither.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    I could take it or leave it. The boat battle was nice because it gave Bond another obstacle to overcome and a way to eliminate another SPECTRE member (Morezny). Other than that, I think the boat battle could have been skipped and perhaps allotted more time for the final showdown against Klebb.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Honestly, the boat battle has never bothered me.

    Thesis #29: Disagree.

    Ditto.

    While the boat chase may seem relatively tame to us today, I'm sure most 1960s moviegoing audiences who were the primary target audience for FRWL found this quite exciting. I also think it was a good idea to "open up" the action a little after the sequence aboard the Orient Express. It's true it wasn't in the novel but books and cinema are two distinctly different mediums.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I enjoyed the boatbattle, and do so every time. I am quite sure it must have been amazing at the time of its premiere.

    This looking back and retrospectical talking about the 007 movies how it could have been better, is a bit of a farce. It is due to all the spectacle of those days that we still enjoy our 007 today.

    I remember having a discussion with somebody who didn't like the movie Alien because the effects looked so dated when compared to the SW prequel. He was all about the spectacle compared how much better it could be done today that he forgot the most important part that it is the story that gives us the journey.
  • Posts: 11,425
    plus the SW prequels look awful! give me models over cgi any day
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,380
    Yes, it is silly and I don't like the music in this scene. Cut it!
  • Posts: 4,762
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 029</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>FRWL didn't need the SPECTRE boat battle at the end.</b></font>

    Well, I think it could have gone two ways. Either one, scrap the whole thing and make more out of the Klebb showdown, or two, make it more action-filled and more explosive. It's not that I minded it all that much, but I do agree that it isn't the most exciting of scenes. By the way, has anybody noticed that the music played during the ending of this scene is the same as in Dr. No when Bond is looking for Honey before No's base blows?
  • Posts: 1,856
    Never thought it was tagged on

    DISAGREE
  • Posts: 1,407
    No I like it. It's not as good as some other things in the film but I think it adds to the overall film
  • Posts: 11,189
    I like it. Although why "General Gogol" ordered his fleet to slow down amidst a load of petrol tankers i'll never know.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    It didn't NEED to be there, a lot of action pieces in Bond films don't need to be there. But it was still a cool scene which was a small part of a brilliant film. I don't hold that against it. FRWL is tops for the 60s.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Agreed, it doesn't need to be there but its presence does not fatally undermine the movie.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,254
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 030</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Whatever the reason to let Brosnan go after DAD, he still had at least one more Bond film in him.</b></font>
  • Posts: 1,856
    Let's see: the producers saying that the bath PB's film was taking was impossible to continue, The gut developing, prone to injury, getting old, Pain face, the ability of repatition in the films, gradual over use of CGI, NO!!!!!!!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    No way. Pierce looked old and decrepit in DAD, and the whole act was getting old(no pun intended). Horrid scripts sped his demise.
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 1,778
    If anything he stayed one too many. He was getting too old and alittle too fat around the midsection.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think had he slimmed down after DAD he could have done one more movie. Whatever you think of Brosnan he didn't deserve that as his swangsong. I still feel that a big reason he gets the flack he does now is because DAD was his last film.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 13,999
    Looking at him in DAD, he was starting to look old. A 5th film could have taken him into AVTAK territory. I don't see why he deserves a better swansong, it's not as if he did anything with the charater, and I think he gets flack beause of that, not DAD. Just my opinion.

    Thesis #30: Disagree.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Looking at him in DAD, he was starting to look old. A 5th film could have taken him into AVTAK territory. I don't see why he deserves a better swansong, it's not as if he did anything with the charater, and I think he gets flack beause of that, not DAD. Just my opinion.

    Thesis #30: Disagree.

    Well I remember fans and non-fans being sad that he left in 2005.
  • Posts: 297
    I remember a few fans of Moore arguing he could have done another one after AVTAK. I suppose it was better the way things happend in the end with Brosnan going after DAD. I'm not sure he would have been the right guy for a fresh start, would have meant he'd have alienated some of his sworn fans while still not convincing those never getting warm with him.

    Yes, Brosnan had further films in him (Matador, Ghost) but they weren't Bond films.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I'm not saying it would have been a "re-start" but at least a more grounded, more dignified Bond film.

    THEN pave way for Craig.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,254
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I still feel that a big reason he gets the flack he does now is because DAD was his last film.

    This I fully agree with.

    Let us remember that in '95 - '96, almost everybody seemed convinced of Brosnan's potential as Bond. Then the films got progressively worse. Scripts turned from 'meh' into downright awful; big breasted Hollywood actresses were featured unconvincingly in cartoonish roles; CGI improperly invaded a franchise thusfar always proud of its everything-you-see-was-done-and-built-for-real reputation... And Brosnan, labouring feverishly to somehow keep Ian Fleming's James Bond upright in all of this, takes all the heat. It is well documented that Brosnan wanted a CR-ish film, with a good script for once and the opportunity to submit the surroundings to Bond - not vice versa.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited February 2012 Posts: 15,723
    I think Brosnan could have played Bond until 2012, judging by how great he was in The Ghost and by how he looks nowadays... so he had about 3 more films in him, if not 4 more films.

    *prepares himself for the retaliation*
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I'm not entirely convinced about Brosnan's knowledge of Fleming as he's made some rather embarrassing gaffs in interviews/commentaries. BUT that doesn't mean he didn't want or deserve a more serious and more grounded Bond film and I'd LIKE to think he at least read a few of the books. Many people argue that "as Brosnan got better, the films got worse" - a scenerio I'd agree with (although I still think TWINE is marginally better than TND).

    Here's what the "number one fan" Graham Rye said after DAD:

    "If MGM/SONY are currently trying to make James Bond a character that will appeal to younger audiences, I personally think they’re flogging a dead horse. I’m still not convinced that we’ve seen the last of Brosnan regardless of what’s been said or reportedly said and printed in newspapers, websites etc. I certainly hope he’ll return because he’s still the only man for the job! He has no natural successor. And as for the short list that’s been dragged out in various publications and on websites—it’s laughable. But when you consider the filmmakers and United Artists nearly ran with John Gavin as James Bond in 1971, and have tested James Brolin, Sam Neill, and Lambert Wilson for the 007 role in the past (shakes head in amazement and laughs demonically)—anything could happen! If they do eventually recast the role with the wrong actor (if indeed there is a right actor—and I really doubt there is after Brosnan) it could prove the death knell for the series. But anyway—how much longer can it really last? MGM/SONY need Bond—he’s their cash cow. And with Die Another Day tipping the box-office scales over the $400 million dollar mark worldwide they’re hardly going to shunt it off to the abattoir. Eon? Who knows? Do they really need the entire hassle? Personally, I’d have sooner stayed in Tunbridge Wells".

    And this is coming from a hard-core Bond fan. NOT a Mr Joe Public.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited February 2012 Posts: 15,723
    Well the point is, the only reason the role was recast after DAD was because EON 'went too far' and that the film wasn't a success to the critics and to many people... if Brosnan's 4th in 2002 was a success at the box office, for the critics and the fans, there is no doubt that Brosnan would have done a 5th, even a 6th outing.

    Had DAD never existed and the new 'Bond 20' film was a much more well-recieved by the critics and the fans, Craig would never have been Bond, and It's almost certain that Bond #6 would debute this year... without DAD, Brosnan could have equalled Moore's 7 films.
  • Posts: 297
    Well, Graham sure was convinced of his assessment of the Bond situation at the time. Wonder what he'd say today. Personally I think another Brosnan would have been possible but pointless. From today's POV! At the time I certainly didn't expect him to be replaced. But I doubt I would have bothered to see him again as 007. For me he's been through everything that was ever in the cards at the time.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,537
    030. Agree. I have liked to see him as Bond again in 2004.
  • Posts: 297
    Well the point is, the only reason the role was recast after DAD was because EON 'went too far' and that the film wasn't a success to the critics and to many people... if Brosnan's 4th in 2002 was a success at the box office, for the critics and the fans, there is no doubt that Brosnan would have done a 5th, even a 6th outing.

    Had DAD never existed and the new 'Bond 20' film was a much more well-recieved by the critics and the fans, Craig would never have been Bond, and It's almost certain that Bond #6 would debute this year... without DAD, Brosnan could have equalled Moore's 7 films.

    No, don't really think so. There is a craze about "youth" in Hollywood and Brosnan wouldn't have survived after a DAD+1. One more film perhaps but not two or three.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    edited February 2012 Posts: 2,629
    Four was more than enough from Brosnan. After GE, we experienced a run of three of the worst films in the franchise, which got progressively worse. Craig in CR was the breath of fresh air the franchise and the fans deserved.

    Brosnan concievably probably had at least one more Bond film in him, but the direction of the franchise dictated that it was time for someone else to take a crack at Bond.
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 11,425
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 030</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Whatever the reason to let Brosnan go after DAD, he still had at least one more Bond film in him.</b></font>

    No. No. No.

    Brozza sucked from his first abysmal and soul sapping appearance in GE. Would have preferred it if they'd brought Roger back from the golf course than see another woeful catastrophe from Brosnan. Also, as others have noted, he looked like sh*t in DUD. He should have gone earlier, but the idea he could have done another is beyond belief.
Sign In or Register to comment.