› ›

Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig (poll added)

1…1112141617…21

Comments

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    edited November 2012 Posts: 803
    Ali wrote:
    If you were going to take over the world, or even South America, the last country you'd start with is Bolivia.....
    Why's that? Doesn't it make sense to take gains where they are available?

  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    It has no real political advantage to global megalomaniacs that I can see. If I were a despotic sociopathic leader of a worldwide conspiracy, I'd be after Brazil, Venezuela, Peru or Chile. Heck, if you have Chile, you practically have Bolivia as Bolivia pays Chile for rights to use it's coastline for import/export cargo.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    Ali wrote:
    It has no real political advantage to global megalomaniacs that I can see. If I were a despotic sociopathic leader of a worldwide conspiracy, I'd be after Brazil, Venezuela, Peru or Chile. Heck, if you have Chile, you practically have Bolivia as Bolivia pays Chile for rights to use it's coastline for import/export cargo.
    You create instability or openings and a region and move from there. Happens all the time.

  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    But it's a bit like starting with Shetland to take over the UK!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Personally it wasn't so much a case of "not following" the plot for QoS. It was more like not really being interested by it.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    Ali wrote:
    But it's a bit like starting with Shetland to take over the UK!
    You want to destabilize the UK, you start by getting them to extend themselves throughout the world, and by cutting them off from allies. Which, coincidentally, that movie pointed out.



  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Personally it wasn't so much a case of "not following" the plot for QoS. It was more like not really being interested by it.
    Yeah, I can understand why it wouldn't work for people.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Personally it wasn't so much a case of "not following" the plot for QoS. It was more like not really being interested by it.
    Yeah, I can understand why it wouldn't work for people.

    Its weird, it kind of feels a bit "second fiddle" compared to other elements of the film to me (like Bond's struggle to get over Vesper).
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Its weird, it kind of feels a bit "second fiddle" to other elements of the film to me.

    It's an underlying element, I'd agree.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Its weird, it kind of feels a bit "second fiddle" to other elements of the film to me.

    It's an underlying element, I'd agree.

    With SF a lot of people may call the "Mcguffin" plot generic but it works better at setting up a threat and being the catalyst for the REAL story (M's downfall).
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    BAIN123 wrote:
    With SF a lot of people may call the "Mcguffin" plot generic but it works better at setting up a threat and being the catalyst for the REAL story (M's downfall).
    Story, generally, is a means of structure so a character or group of characters can be explored, I think.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    With SF a lot of people may call the "Mcguffin" plot generic but it works better at setting up a threat and being the catalyst for the REAL story (M's downfall).
    Story, generally, is a means of structure so a character or group of characters can be explored, I think.

    True. I suppose what I mean was that some people complain that the "list" plot wasn't really followed through when that wasn't in itself the main story. It does however set the main story up well.

    I'm probably not making much sense now :(
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    BAIN123 wrote:
    True. I suppose what I mean was that some people complain that the "list" plot wasn't really followed through when that wasn't in itself the main story. It does however set the main story up well.

    I'm probably not making much sense now :(
    I don't know what this says about me, but I think I completely understand where you're coming from.

    :\">
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    You missed half of it there and didn't even bother explaining Greene's plan. So I think my argument still stands here.
    You mean the plan to control the water supply of a nation so his organization could effectively control that region of the world?

    Yeah. But @Mr_Sterling just skipped over Greenes plan even though he was pointing out how simple the film was, so I think my argument still stands, lots of people had trouble following the story (which to be honest didn't really intrest me anyway).
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Yeah. But @Mr_Sterling just skipped over Greene's plan even though he was pointing out how simple the film was, so I think my argument still stands, lots of people had trouble following the story (which to be honest didn't really interest me anyway).
    Well, I do agree with you some people got confused; some people said they were confused by the plot of Mission Impossible, too, though I found that to be a pretty linear story as well.

  • Dalton12Dalton12
    Posts: 1,107
    To me Brosnan was like a 1990s version of the Moore era.
    I have nothing against them but I find the two very similar.So i vote for Craig
  • JamesBondJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    406861_4871156815189_757811050_n.jpg
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    (sigh). It seems someone is still living in 2006
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    From what I've read I think it was Saltzaman who casted Connery, Flemings choices seemed mostly toffs. Connery was the best choice by a mile.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    From what I've read I think it was Saltzaman who casted Connery, Flemings choices seemed mostly toffs. Connery was the best choice by a mile.

    I can understand why a snob like Fleming would be critical of Connery. He was too working class to reflect the troubled but "gentlemanly" Etonian of the books. I suppose same goes for Craig but what they may lack in terms of looks they make up for in terms of screen charisma.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Regarding that pic, I don't see anything even remotely like the literary Bond in Craigs Bond. And that has nothing to do with his hair colour (which also is not the reason that Craig is my least liked Bond), hell i'd be open to Rupert Penry Jones as Bond, but that is unlikely to happen.
  • lorenloren
    Posts: 1
    Daniel Craig. His Bond is more realistic and the stories are better and make more sense.
  • JamesBondJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    Bond doesn't need to be realistic. If I want a Bond film, I want to watch over-the-fantasy adventure with dozens of MANLY action sequences and lots of humour planted into it. If I want something realistic, I'd go and turn on the BBC News channel.
  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    Pierce Brosnan ! Total class, total charm, total Bond act (perfect medley of all his predecessors), best one-liners, best films. But those, may not have been serious enough. At the opposite of Craig's films. These last, too serious (CR and QoS) ; Brosnan's ones sometimes not enough (DAD like a Moore's era tribute).

    Let's say Connery then Dalton had the right feel about the films. They were more and most believable as "Agent 007", while Craig in his 2 first, slightly in "Skyfall" ; was and now is more "A British secret agent acting like a Russian one". It's my opinion.

    I agree 100% with "Thelivingroyale" and "OO7RogerMoore" analyses ! Sorry, but I don't see neither feel Craig is themix of all the Bonds. ?!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    LicencedToKilt69007 wrote:
    I agree 100% with "Thelivingroyale" and "OO7RogerMoore" analyses ! Sorry, but I don't see neither feel Craig is themix of all the Bonds. ?!
    Craig's is unique. Like Dalton's. Moore's as well. Brosnan was the only 'blend' of those that came before, and a good one at that IMO.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I'd say Craig is a bit of a blend too, I just don't think he's like Connery.

    But at the end of the day there's only so much that can be done, by the time Brosnan became Bond they'd had the all rounder, the comedic Bond, the dark Bond, etc. So I think Brosnan and Craig are like past Bonds but that's fine.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I think Brosnan and Craig are like past Bonds but that's fine.
    Hmmm, I guess there are only so many takes on one character. There is a case to be made that Dalton's was the last original one possible, so any after would necessarily be seen as 'blends' of some kind.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    chrisisall wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I think Brosnan and Craig are like past Bonds but that's fine.
    Hmmm, I guess there are only so many takes on one character. There is a case to be made that Dalton's was the last original one possible, so any after would necessarily be seen as 'blends' of some kind.

    That's what I think. People keep going on about how every Bond should do something different but really there's only so much you can do.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    That's what I think. People keep going on about how every Bond should do something different but really there's only so much you can do.

    I think we've defined a reality here.
  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    Well, it's true. Pierce Brosnan is a blend of some kinds and such the best one ! On the other hand, I still think he brought some irony that wasn't before, and caracteristic that shines in "The Tailor Of Panama", just tastefully entertaining. Therefore, in Bond, you can feel "connected" with him and the character thanks to the connivance he created.

    Connery was cynic, Moore a joker, Dalton had some punching lines too in his way, quite arrogant indeed, while to me, Craig tried to be cynic but became arrogant. Lazenby just different...
Sign In or Register to comment.