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
Disagree. Dench held the series (up untill & including Skyfall) back as the producers got more and more focused on 'her M' (all stern motherliness and lacking credibility as chief of MI6) whilst forcing the character into the stories more and more.
I for one am glad to see the back of her (her M that is - Judi Dench herself is a darling)
I think during the first two Brosnans she wasn't too bad, but as time went on the producers' obsession with shoe-horning her into every other scene became a real issue. I think it's part of Bab's feminist agenda. I don't have anything against feminism, but the world of Bond should not be dominated by M (male or female) to the extent that it became while Dench was in the role. Good riddance, I say.
And Renard turned out to be a sissy...
Doesn't Craig's Bond have exactly the same exchange with Severine in SF?
Good old Purvis and Wade!
Well said. Nothing against Dench at all.
Dench is a very good actor. In GE I thought she was one of the few redeeming features. But by SF I couldn't wait for her character to die.
Bit of an understatement there.
She's a great actress and a real national treasure for Britain.
Yes. He never made it his own.
Dalton resisted taking the part for almost two decades, and when he did accept, he wanted to do it on his own terms. He pretty much succeeded as well. But he was never desperate for the role - same as Craig.
But Brosnan wanted it too badly in my view - he was overwhelmed by the legacy of Connery and Moore and unable to escape their shadow.
Unfortunatly for Severine, she turned out to be right...
I loved Pierce as James Bond, TWINE is my favorite Bond film ever. I really wish they had given Pierce a 5th Bond film to do. I feel like he deserved it with how successful his films were.
In your opinion. ;)
Goldeneye is the exception. It's a film they clearly spent their time on and the themes and ideas are by far the strongest of Brosnan's era. The film perfectly drags the Bond kicking and screaming into the '90's while fully embracing his Cold War roots. Furthermore, the film has a well-crafted villain and great performances and stand-out action and stunt sequences.
TND was clearly a film made in a rush. There is little new or creative in the film and instead what we have is a rather 'by numbers' Bond films and as far as formulaic Bond movies go it's a good'un. From my understanding the producers had a tight deadline with the film and therefore had to hit their marks as quick as possible. The film is hardly a flop but it's just a tad soulless.
I personally love TWINE but understand other people's issues with it. Despite a great initial premise, the film does not quite have the courage of it's convictions and soon descends into formula (eg Christmas Jones is a totally unnesesery character and detracts more than adds to the film). It's a shame because Michael Apted is an interesting and more cerebral choice of director.
DAD was clearly intended to be a more character-driven story that payed homage to Bond's legacy after 40 years onscreen. The choice of Lee Tamahori, the man who made 'Once Were Warriors', was a genuinely exciting choice. However, the film is a mess and really grabbed all the more risible elements from Brosnan's earlier films and slopped them into one movie.
The producers should have had the balls to do what they did with CR earlier. The Brosnan films are far too reverent and respectful to Cubby Broccoli's legacy. So instead of anything new or exciting we got some rather derivative films.
But I agree that EON lost confidence during the Brosnan era. Commercially Dalton's last film was not a huge success, so they needed to address that and also work out how Bond could be relevant post-Cold War. Their approach was to do it by the numbers. I think the Brosnan films are clearly a (very poor) attempt to regain the magic of the Moore era. Which is understandable. However, by TWINE and DAD, they really should have had more confidence to do things differently. May be that's thought they were doing by appointing Tamahori, but it didn't work out how they'd hoped.
I think ultimately they realised they were never going to be able make that break into new territory with Brosnan, and CR gave them a convenient way to get rid of him.
Wasn't it during that "magical" Moore era that the original Broccolli/Saltzman partnership deteriorated and eventually broke up? Yes it was. The Moore era had it's moments but I REALLY wouldn't call it "magical" either. Very hit-and-miss I think despite the fact the films made money and Moore was a popular Bond. The producers and filmmakers were certainly having something of an identity crisis then too.
LALD is okay but a bit boring IMO. Gun is actually underrated. Lots to enjoy when I saw it recently. Spy is an outright classic. MR has a good first half and very good production design and special effects (more than can be said for the remake, DAD), FYEO - nice back to basics entry, OP is a minor classic IMO. AVTAK has some great bits but is overall perhaps not a great entry. So yes, hit and miss, but some very strong entries in there.
which is my problem with the recent 007 outings.
For me, Bond is the man who slapped Anders around in TMWTGG. The man who throws out the sexist one liners. The thug in a suit. the rogue. The unabashed misogynist.
Brosnan brought a soap opera element to the whole thing (best captured by the slap he received from Paris in TND) that I did not like.
When he portrayed the harder edged Bond (as he did in parts of DAD) or the Moore/ConneryDalton impression (as he did in GE), I enjoyed him immensely.
BB supposedly did not want Hugh Jackman for Bond because he was too fey. I felt Brozza was too fey as Bond. DC is anything but that, which is why I prefer him as Bond, despite him not being as handsome (conventionally speaking), not as tall, and blonde.