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
What I means is if EON had done a different film instead of DAD, which would be more well received by the critics and the fans, Brosnan wouldn't have left. What reason could EON have to change actors if Brosnan's 4th film was a big success to the critics, fans and box office ?
I suppose there would have been pressure by the moneymen to cast a younger actor anyway. Either that or a young sidekick, makes me sick to think of it. Even a super-duper successful DAD would have gone only so far in securing Brosnan's job with EON. Could be that younger=better assumption is already in play with Craig now. I don't remember seeing so many whathisnamethis/whatshisnamethat-for-next-Bond back in Moore's tenure. Now it looks as if the job is vacant every month. Sure, some of that's due to the rags pushing newcomers like hell. But some of it's maybe due to the publicity branch testing the waters.
Brosnan's films still did well. He brought the series out of mothballs. Unlike OHMSS or LTK, DAD was not a flop at the box office. And he hadn't aged as much as Moore had by OP and AVTAK. The closest analogy is to MR, but this time the producers decided to scrap their main actor along with their approach.
On the other hand, M makes reference to the "world having changed" while Brosnan's Bond was in North Korea. And while they supposedly made changes to DAD after 9/11, the fact was that his lighter approach was not going to fly when the world was on edge about terrorism.
So on balance, I think it was time for Brosnan to go.
But i am not disappointed with how things have turned out! Loving DC's tenure as 007! Hope to see him in atleast a couple more after Skyfall!
We get it alright. Don't know how it's possible to think that or how your hate of Babs has elevated you to such hate that you dislike CR outright, but if you think it's the worst film ever made you must not have seen many.
At least it would have lessened upon the moaning about his last movie.
Yes, Pierce should have done one more toned down spy-orientated 007 movie.
Just out of interest what does make DAD better than Royale?
So breathtakingly groundbreaking.... 8-|
Trendsetting has already been achieved a long time ago like you have said. The only person Bond is competing with is himself!
Oh please. We'll compare Bourne to Bond all day, but now we're throwing Batman into the mix to try and fail at servicing an opinion on CR. You may not like CR, but at least it made advances in the character of Bond instead of having years of ruined potential that was the Brosnan era, culminating in a final shotgun in the mouth suicide in the form of DAD. Some don't like a serious Bond, and that's fine, but the times we are in demand it. People praise Sean's films only to hate on Dan's, when Dan's era is a throwback to Sean, the closest we've had since Tim left. CR and QoS explore Bond and his physical and emotional pain, while DAD had a chance to toy with Bond psychologically affected by his 14 months of torture that he should have been able to escape from anyway! The film had the chance to see Bond freeze up on the job from his impaired psyche, but no no no. The Brosnan era never branched out or took risks up until then, so why bloody start now?!
Great, who wants to take a turn explaining that CR is a rookie start for Bond, who is turning into the Bond that we know and love?! I'm sick of trying to get people to open their eyes. No, the full fledged Bond wouldn't do what he did in the start of CR, that's the point. His mistakes are turning into lessons and he is growing to learn from them.
I actually did like that it tried to give him some sort of depth, but the way it did it was bad. I also liked that QoS tried to have some continuity with CR.
Yeah, but he was just promoted. Why would M not have him demoted or killed for breaking into her flat, and breaking into an embassy? Also, 2 kills seems a bit low for promotion to 00 agent status.
Bond and villain jumping from crane to crane not escapism? Oh it is as that's why they were wired up for safety! Its all great adventure fun. Sometimes its pushed too far to the unbelievable and then there are the films that are alot grittier! But its all fictional escapism.
I think what annoys people is not so much that but how Daniel Craig in CR is compared to Fleming's Bond. Personally, I can't see that character breaking into M's flat.
For me Royale got that balance between the serious and the fun. Quantum fell short.
Anyway, back on topic.
I liked that scene. Yeah it was silly (esp Bond in the bulldozer) but it was fun - much like the tank chase in GE.
Are you suggesting that the ice berg para surfing was not stupid in DAD? That scene destroyed that film for me sadly.
In fairness thats been an ongoing thing - especially since TND.
2 kills a bit low? Sorry, but have you ever killed someone in the line of duty? Have you ever felt the recoil of a gun entering someone's flesh or felt the guilt of it all afterwards? It wouldn't be that easy of a requirement at all in my opinion.
From what I remember it was 2 kills in the book aswell. The messy one was actually the one that happened second aswell.
He did indeed have one more left him in that could of been feasibly made but it would simply be a variation of having Connery in 1973 or Moore in 1987 to an extent, point being, Brosnan had come on somewhat since his previous outing at the end of the last century and I just think didn't seem appropriate as 007 anymore, definite signs of ageing, and it certainly didn't help being a major part in a picture that was an unmitigated disaster although Brosnan can only take a slice of the blame for that
It's all water under the bridge now but Craig came in, got the part and it was refreshing to get Bond back to how it should be, tough, serious etc, Craig was in his late 30s at the time and made for a very feasible 007, something I would of had trouble accepting had Brosnan remained any longer
Whether he was pushed or jumped, the fact remains it was for the good of the series