A Bond nerd

DarthDimi

Well, I`m afraid to dissapoint you DD, but I am a Bond fan, and I like TWINE a lot, DAD a little. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that if you like this era, you are not a Bond, fan, or don`t read Fleming. Wrong.

You don't disappoint me, Shoreline. But you must have misread my words. I wasn't passing judgement. In fact, I've never had an issue with Brosnan's Bond. I was just remembering how the tone among Bond fans shifted during the Brosnan era and no matter how you and I feel about TWINE or DAD, enthusiasm kept dropping.

BAIN123

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought Pierce AND his films were generally well received during his era. I remember seeing an old thread from 2005 (i think) where people had said they wanted him to stay. It was AFTERWARDS that the backlash began.

jaguar007

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought Pierce AND his films were generally well received during his era. I remember seeing an old thread from 2005 (i think) where people had said they wanted him to stay. It was AFTERWARDS that the backlash began.

You are quite right, I was all for Brosnan doing a fifth film. I enjoyed each of his entries for what they were as they came out even if I still felt TLD was the last truly great Bond film.

It was not until CR came out and I realized that EON was capable of making a great Bond movie once again, they just never did during Brosnan's era.

Shoreline

Well, I`m afraid to dissapoint you DD, but I am a Bond fan, and I like TWINE a lot, DAD a little. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that if you like this era, you are not a Bond, fan, or don`t read Fleming. Wrong.

You don't disappoint me, Shoreline. But you must have misread my words. I wasn't passing judgement. In fact, I've never had an issue with Brosnan's Bond. I was just remembering how the tone among Bond fans shifted during the Brosnan era and no matter how you and I feel about TWINE or DAD, enthusiasm kept dropping.

Really? You mean your enthusiasm kept dropping....
If I`m right in remembering, each Brosnan film bought in more bums on seats than the last, so how do you figure? Oh wait, they weren`t Bond fans?
You are right in the fact that the press certainly didn`t like DAD, but the enthusiasm for Bond was always there. DADs many faults were overlooked by many of the media at the time.
It`s a bit like when Moore was Bond, we overlooked the fact that he was a little creaky at the time, but in retrospect after Dalton come along, it`s easier to stick mud on his Bond. This is what happened to Brosnan after Craig came along.

I suspect that one day, we will be asking why Craigs Bond was so moody, and rough....who knows.
Might I add, I like all the portrayals of Bond, some more than others of course!

timmer

Looks were also a big factor when they signed up George Lazenby. Don't forget he had no other acting credentials to his name at the time so there was little else they could access him by other than his arrogant persona.

But George showed them he could fight too. He clinched the deal when he decked a stuntman during rehearsals. With both Rog and Broz I'm betting on the wet paper bag.

BAIN123

Looks were also a big factor when they signed up George Lazenby. Don't forget he had no other acting credentials to his name at the time so there was little else they could access him by other than his arrogant persona.

But George showed them he could fight too. He clinched the deal when he decked a stuntman during rehearsals. With both Rog and Broz I'm betting on the wet paper bag.

Good point :)

DaltonCraig007

Really? You mean your enthusiasm kept dropping....
If I`m right in remembering, each Brosnan film bought in more bums on seats than the last, so how do you figure? Oh wait, they weren`t Bond fans?

Not entirely true. Brosnan's best attendance was for GE, his only film that made more than 80 millions ticket sales (81 millions). The rest of his movies made around 75/78 millions ticket sales. The attendance went up each film from TND to DAD, but none of his sequels reached the attendance of GE.

Luds

Really? You mean your enthusiasm kept dropping....
If I`m right in remembering, each Brosnan film bought in more bums on seats than the last, so how do you figure? Oh wait, they weren`t Bond fans?
You are right in the fact that the press certainly didn`t like DAD, but the enthusiasm for Bond was always there. DADs many faults were overlooked by many of the media at the time.
It`s a bit like when Moore was Bond, we overlooked the fact that he was a little creaky at the time, but in retrospect after Dalton come along, it`s easier to stick mud on his Bond. This is what happened to Brosnan after Craig came along.

I suspect that one day, we will be asking why Craigs Bond was so moody, and rough....who knows.
Might I add, I like all the portrayals of Bond, some more than others of course

Don't assume that higher gross revenue also implies more net revenue and more ticket sales. They don't. Admissions were higher for GoldenEye, surely caused by the curiosity of a new Bond film and a new Bond actor after a 6 year drought with about 81 millions worldwide, followed by a stalemate around 75 for the other 3. Brosnan did well maintaining his attendance but didn't raise it. Gross revenue is a highly misleading metric given that higher ticket prices over the years and the higher production cost, net revenue is better way to understand real revenue. However, perception by the general fan and media is a big thing and that's where Gross revenue is still important. I see now that DC provided some figures.

As far as I remember, GE was almost unanimously praised, TND was highly praised in the states and had less positive but still decent reviews overseas. TWINE was a mixed bag but generally favourable, whereas DAD was slightly negative without being considered a terrible film, most reviewer called it a popcorn flick or equivalent. Upon reconsideration, perception by many fans and media was that the Brosnan period was well received but aged badly, kinda like 70s fashion.

DaltonCraig007

Brosnan himself was the most popular aspect of his tenure during the 1995/2002 period. If the old posts of MI6Forums were still available, you'd see nearly every member were wanting a 5th Brosnan film after DAD. Even Luds, prefered a 5th Brosnan outing than a new Bond for Bond 21. It took nearly 1.5 years after DAD for the want of a 5th Brosnan film to die down, and for Brosnan to officially bow out of Bond 21. I remember clearly - There was still massive Brosnan love well into late 2004. It wasn't Hugh Jackman, Clive Owen, Henry Cavill rumours in 2004 that made the want of a 5th Brosnan film go away.

Luds

Brosnan himself was the most popular aspect of his tenure during the 1995/2002 period. If the old posts of MI6Forums were still available, you'd see nearly every member were wanting a 5th Brosnan film after DAD. Even Luds, prefered a 5th Brosnan outing than a new Bond for Bond 21. It took nearly 1.5 years after DAD for the want of a 5th Brosnan film to die down, and for Brosnan to officially bow out of Bond 21. I remember clearly - There was still massive Brosnan love well into late 2004. It wasn't Hugh Jackman, Clive Owen, Henry Cavill rumours in 2004 that made the want of a 5th Brosnan film go away.

To correct this a bit, I may preferred a 5th Brosnan outing over Hugh Jackman as Bond, possibly. That's about it ;) I think that a lot of things changed over 2000-2005. Other film series became popular, Bourne/MI being one of them, people grew tired of popcorn flicks. Hollwood saturates the market with what's "in" and what was good for a period gets old and bad really quickly. Perhaps people watched the DVDs a bit and realized that just because movies from this period sucked didn't mean Bond had to follow trend. Actually Bond used to set trends. People started to want a good actor portraying Bond, something which seemed possible from those other competing series, and wanted darker, more believable spy stories and pace. No more playboy popcorn flicks. This is something to be thankful about Tom Cruise and Matt Damon, their portrayal of Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne certainly played a role in shifting the expectations of a spy flick and out-Bond'ed Bond. The final nail on the coffin must have been Brosnan's attitude during Bond #6 negotiations, asking for ridiculous amounts of money thinking he was irreplaceable, all the way to his childish and despicable tirades throwing F-bombs in every interview for 6 months about being fired (or simply not re-signed which really means the same thing). His ego took a major hit from the Bond rejection, he had previously said he really wanted to film CR, that was likely yet another thing that lead to his constant blasting of the series that made him so rich and famous. But by the time Craig was officially signed, most people were happy and excited a new Bond was cast and ready to move on. Well everyone except some nasty bitch who was PMSing over Brosnan's pink check over at DCNB ;)

DaltonCraig007

People started to want a good actor portraying Bond, something which seemed possible from those other competing series, and wanted darker, more believable spy stories and pace. No more playboy popcorn flicks

I actually would have prefered more TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, DAF, YOLT, TB than more Brosnan or Craig films. For me, Bond movies =/= Brosnan films, but they also =/= dark, moody, cold films like Craig films. For me Bond = Connery/Moore, followed by Lazenby/Dalton. Brosnan/Craig I can live without.

Luds

I agree that Craig's dark Bond is a bit too dark for my taste. You know I love Moore too, but if I had my call, I'd have a slightly less dark Bond, followed by a lighter one. A 3 movie Craig era would be nice, followed by a 2-3 year lighter tenure. But one has to find the proper actor.

I've had time to re-think about this during my workout, and I think that I've pinpointed the reason I like the Moore popcorn era and didn't want any of it after Brosnan. In short, as much as Connery reeked screen presence and animal magnetism, the absolute believability that on a single look, any girl fell head over heals for him, and that a single Connery karate chop would instantly kill an enemy, Roger Moore reeked gentlemanliness and class, to an extent where every villain liked him. I watch the so called "bad" Moore Bonds, those being AVTAK, MR, and TMWTGG, and I'm loving every minute of it. This is what's missing from the Brosnan period, and why I didn't want tongue-in-cheek, popcorn after Brosnan, because the souvenirs of his attempt left a sour taste. He simply doesn't possess the class that Roger Moore generated every time he smiled, winked, or spoke. You've heard me say this many times, but the best way I have to describe Brosnan is that he's a poser. He looked the part, but didn't pan out. In sports, he'd be the 1st round draft pick rookie who never manages to make the starting lineup.

Another reason may be my general admiration for Connery and Dalton's darker work, evidently a slight contradiction compared to the Moore era, but one can appreciate both styles! Craig is dark indeed, perhaps a bit too dark, but still very much enjoyable.

Shoreline

Each to their own. Good points about Connery and Moore, I agree. No one has come close to Connery, for me. I`d argue he was the most Fleming Bond too, helped by the fact his films were the closest thing to the books.
I`d also argue Lazenby was the greater poser. For a start, the man was posing as an actor, wasn`t he?. Still, must have been good at it, at least in the auditions.
Brosnan I felt was a grand Bond, the right choice for that time period. He looked like Flemings Bond, and aged well. I think it`s wise to look back at the older Bonds in context of the era they were made in. Brosnan was rightly percieved at the time as the best Bond since Connery. He had a good balance of hardness, and humour, which he delivered well. No easy thing, considering some of the lines!
I don`t remember Dalton recieving as good notes from the critics, as good as he was.
Like I said, all the Bonds have aged, and it`s always the era that came before that looks like it has aged the most. Connery now looks classic, but I bet in the late `70`s it was percieved as a little out of fashion.
There will be a time when the next generation may regard Craig as "emo Bond", and question it`s coolness. This is natural....

DarthDimi

I liked Brosnan for what he did but he went a bit downhill for me after TND. I didn't buy his angry faces in TWINE and that talk with M when he still donned the beard in DAD is absolutely substandard for any Bond actor in my book. With his GE acting still thrilling me after 30-ish viewings and his TND acting very solid, I'll never dislike Brosnan's Bond. But in the same way that Connery's acting took a beating somewhere between '65 and '67, I feel Brosnan's developed issues after TND. That said, Connery's two comebacks never fail to entertain me in terms of his acting. Maybe Brosnan still had one more Bond in him. I guess we'll never know. :)

Shoreline

Dimi, you know what I`m gonna do tomorrow? Buy NSNA! Havn`t seen it in aroung 10 years!
DAD was a poor effort all round, but TWINE I really love. One more Brosnan Bond would have been great. One more Campbell/Brosnan Bond would have been genius!

I like the idea of an older, peed off Bond.... B-)

DarthDimi

I'm serious about liking Connery's acting in NSNA so tell me how you feel about that when you've seen the film, friend. ;;)

I think TWINE is Brosnan's absolute low point. Him posing as Dr Arkov, him lecturing Elektra about the sholder, the pain faces while on the chair or strangled by Renard... I find nausea creeping up inside me each time I sit through those moments. Bond's fist confrontation with Renard only slightly compensates that. I find Brosnan much more up to his usual stuff in DAD.

Shoreline

I remember liking it a lot more than DAF. Sorry you don`t like TWINE, I`m not bothered by pain faces, the film is to much fun! A great intro too, infact, one of the best in my book!
The submarine fight is classic Bond stuff, and I find the character of Renard to be real fresh. Carlyle is awesome.

To change the subject, you know what I`d like to see filmed? The John Pearson book "The James Biography".....now that, my friend, would be a fresh take on Bond!

DarthDimi

A JB biopic so to speak? ;;) No, I don't see that happen. It might be great fun for most of us but they'll never do that I think.

Shoreline

A JB biopic so to speak? ;;) No, I don't see that happen. It might be great fun for most of us but they'll never do that I think.

No, they won`t. But it would be a great way of exporing Bonds psyche. I loved that book.
How does Bond go on through life after all the killing and losses...? It`s an interesting idea, dying to be explored.
At the risk of saying the wrong thing, a friend of my Father is ex Mi6, and you wouldn`t believe what he does now!

Luds

@Shoreline & @ Dimi, TWINE may be one of the most polarizing Bond movies in the franchise, along with LTK and a few others. The hardcore Brosnan fans like yourself, Shoreline, seem to feel like it's an ace for him, whereas many others who don't really like Brosnan feel that it's possibly the weakest and most soap opera acted movie of the franchise. Very much the way the LTK/Dalton detractors will call it a 2h long Miami Vice episode and the Daltonites will call it a dark episode of revenge. But this is quite normal with a movie franchise lasting over 40 years, 20 movies, and 6 lead actors.

Shoreline

Good point. It`s not just Brosnan I like about the film, I think it has many good things going for it. It feels big. The cast is great, and the storyline was very contempory.
Submarines, skiing, meglomaniac villains, femme fetales, martinis, and a charming and ruthless Bond, yes, all done before, but these are key ingredients for Bond. I was never bothered that things had been done before, as they always were done with a fresh modern take.....
LTK is a bit tv movieish. It looks a little cheap on tv, although I`m sure on the big screen it worked better. Dalton keeps this film in my top ten!
Hey, if we all agreed on all things Bond, we wouldn`t have much to disscuss here would we? ~O)

DarthDimi

Well said, @Shoreline. And just to stress an important point, I'm not an anti-Brozzer. I merely come down from the middle: some bits of him I like, some bits I don't.

BAIN123

Personally I agree with shoreline regarding TWINE. It's by no means one of the very best Bond movies but I've always enjoyed watching and re-watching it - just my opinion :)

At the mo its #10 on my list.

DarthDimi

I keep watching and re-watching it too. It's a Bond film after all. Saying I like it less than the rest is like saying I like this kind of champagne less than that. Doesn't mean average diet coke is better. So when it comes to TWINE versus most (!) non-Bond films, I will still choose Bond. ;;)

BAIN123

Ha, what I mean is it's one of those films I like to go back to occasionally. It's not one I'll avoid. I think it also has one of the more genuinely interesting, elaborate stories in the series.

Shoreline

I keep watching and re-watching it too. It's a Bond film after all. Saying I like it less than the rest is like saying I like this kind of champagne less than that. Doesn't mean average diet coke is better. So when it comes to TWINE versus most (!) non-Bond films, I will still choose Bond. ;;)

This is classic! Very well put buddy!

SirHenryLeeChaChing

I think it's fair to say we're all nerds here (myself included). :)

:-)) Speak for yourself. I've never been a nerd a day in my life. At least since I became a teenager in the 70's. Well at least that's how I see things.

For me, it will always be Connery ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ (and Young too)

The_Reaper

Connery is tops not just b/c he came first but b/c they stayed closer to Fleming during his run, more so than any other actor's tenure at least.

00Beast

While a lot of peple hold Sean Connery in high regard as the best James Bond 007, I find Roger Moore as the best. He was far more witty, charming, and just had the Bond look. Plus, he held on through AVTAK, and finished strong. Connery kind of fizzled out after Thunderball.

thelordflasheart

Regarding TWINE - this is the Bond film where I think "A for effort".

Some great ideas and some great moments, but they can't just seem to bring it to life. Maybe Brosnan's somewhat out-of-his-depth and overly mawkish performance is an issue (I do like him, but agree with the critic who said he was more of a TV actor than a movie actor) but the direction really sinks it for me. The parahawk attack is one of the least exciting, most poorly filmed action sequences in a Bond film, the fight with Renard should tremendously difficult for Bond but isn't, and M in the field really lessens her character (especially when she's trying to get the clock). Not only that but there are little details that good actors and a good director should have caught - Renard can't feel anything but is able to reach behind him and grab a door without looking at it! And this is after they made a huge point about he doesn't just have a problem feeling pain, he can't feel *anything*.

Having said that, there are lots of great moments and they certainly *tried* to give us a more adult Bond film.