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
=))
Ha! Never let Tim see you bleed!
The days of brilliant stuntwork ended with Bond setting fire to Sanchez in LTK.
It wasnt just Sanchez that went up in smoke.
In 6 years the abilities in filmmaking did improve a hellofalot and as moviemaker you would be amiss to fail and not use any improvements.
That said I still wonder who gave the greenlight for that awefull CGI in DAD. And more to the point why have they not retroactively improved upon that horrible scene with some new CGI just to wipe out that poor piece of film. And I do not advertise changing movies or as George Lucas did improve them, but even at the time DAD hit the theaters that special bit of CGI was poorer than anything possible those days. So not changing but actually fixing the scene so that upon watching you are not pulled out of the story due to the poorest CGI.
Surely they wouldnt have gone 'on the cheap' with it,this was Bond's 40th Anniversary !!
You would wonder about that, wouldn't you?
I know I'm a little late with this but you're absolutely right. Only that's not only the case in America. It's the whole world. The days of an actor relying on their star power alone to sell a movie are long gone. Nowadays it's all about franchises (sequels, reboots, etc). Gone are the days where you could slap Tom Cruise's or Will Smith's name on a movie poster and let it make a fortune just based on their popularity like Jerry Maguire or Hitch.
That CGI was so awful. Very strange they let it through.
In general I think CGI is best avoided. The helicopters over Silva's island in SF also look awful IMO, although not as bad as DAD.
CGI just wrecks serious movies in my view. Hope Mendes stays well away from it in the next movie. I don't want my Bond films looking like computer games.
Makes you wonder where all those millions go on a Bond picture.
In SF all the salaries would make it more acceptable???
No. I'm just saying that it may be partly explains the not entirely brilliant CGI .
Some of us will bemoan the "good old days" ie, the crocodile farm in LALD, the ski jump in TSWLM, the PTS of MR, Bond fighting the drug traffickers on the plane in LTK, those explosive scenes on the airbase in TLD...etc.
Back on topic, GE was on UK TV last week. I watched the first 5 minutes and then had to turn it off. It is as bad, if not worse, than I remember. The early exchanges between Brosnan and Bean are cringeworthy.
I agree the dialogue about pints and all is such crapola. I hated the scene where we first see his face: dropping in on a guy taking a dump. I doubt that Dalton would have done this scene and he might have come off more believable in exchanges with Bean.
It was as if from the get go EON was not going to take Brosnan serious.
Some of you Brosnan haters sound like a bloody stuck record.
@Bain123 I know you probably expected more from someone with my education and culture but "shitty" is the best I can come up with. :0 :)
Brosnan was good in the final fight scene and theres always the scene with Kaufman in TND that Brosnanites can hang their hats on but for me: the number of his "really nailing it as Bond" can be counted on one hand.
If I cut off five thunderfingers.
I am very late answering this but I don't think so. Dalton being much older than Bean and looking it, Trevelyan would have come up as far less menacing. It is one of the rare instances when I think Brosnan's youthful look served him and the role. Even though Sean Bean is younger, he looks at least as seasoned and mature as Bond, if not more. I don't think it would have worked nearly as well with Dalton.
Bean is not a great Bond villain, IMO, any way.
Yes, originally 006 was meant to be Bond's mentor. I believe Trevelyan was also supposed to be the current M's predecessor, not a fellow 00. I am of two minds about a former M as a Bond villain, but Hopkins playing the mentor of Dalton's 007 would have worked very well. But then you would have had an entirely different movie. As GE is, casting and all, you replace Brosnan with Dalton and the movie is not as good, ironically enough because of Brosnan's shortcomings (see my thread the weakness that becomes an asset).
I love Bean as an actor and I think he was a very good villain, although he is overrated. He would have been far weaker opposite to Dalton.
This is why I think that with the film as it stands, casting and all, Brosnan fitted the bill better than Dalton. To make GE a Dalton movie it would have needed to be considerably different: an older actor playing Trevelyan, Trevelyan having another function than a 00, etc. Would it have been a better movie I don't know, but it would have been a very different movie.
B-)