› ›

Revolution Against Bourne! Who wants classic Bond back?!!

1234689

Comments

  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited November 2016 Posts: 2,722
    I'm already looking forward to the next reboot of Bond, I hope DC does one more and then hangs up the Walther. I'd like an embracing of the FRWL style. An out and out spy thriller. Bond on a mission - no personal story, no doomed romance, no cuckoo foster brother megalomaniacs.

    SP was on the right track - just take away the 'i love you' aspect of Madeline and the personal connection with Blofeld - then fix that third act and SP would have been so much better. I was ready for a straight forward thriller after the first three Craig films wrapped up the personal character arc perfectly finishing 'with pleasure sir'. My heart sank when I saw the trailer and 'personal effects recovered from Skyfall' was front and centre to the plot mechanics.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    "Classic Bond" is overrated.

    For me, there are only a handful of classic Bond films that are actually great. The majority, however, are mediocre to kind of bad. As far as I'm concerned we'd be blessed if we got more films like CR; a film that obviously has its flaws but it still feels like a legit thriller that subverts classic tropes and delivers something fresh and authentic.

    SP maybe the closest to "Classic Bond" of the Craig era but I see it as the weakest and the laziest attempt at making a Bond film in a very long time. Any more Bond films made like this and I'll soon be disillusioned.

    People have issues with QoS but I regard it as the second best of the Craig era and you know what it's biggest flaw is? Not the writer's strike, nor the editing and not even the state of the screenplay. It's biggest flaw was the budget. QoS is the Bond film that is the biggest departure from classic Bond and is creatively the most experimental. However, when being so artistically liberal that's when the budget needs to plummet. QoS had that free artistic license and had to deal with the various handixaps that plagued preproduction and it turned out better than it probably should have. I'd definitely take QoS over many of the so called classic Bond films and I'm sure I'm in a very small minority group with this perspective.

    This is spot on. I don't get people on here sometimes. Spectre gets so much flak on here for being derivative and relying on references to other Bonds and now everyone wants a box-ticking 'classic'. If the series goes down that road it will become boring, stale, cliche and full of self-parody as it progressively did in the Brosnan era.
    I tend to agree. Well said.

    I liked SF too though, and precisely because it was so different from the rest of them, and yet very polished and entertaining. I realize some folks found it a bit heavy, but I didn't get any of that.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    I'm already looking forward to the next reboot of Bond, I hope DC does one more and then hangs up the Walther. I'd like an embracing of the FRWL style. An out and out spy thriller. Bond on a mission - no personal story, no doomed romance, no cuckoo foster brother megalomaniacs.
    That would be nice. The pressure would then be on them to deliver a tight story with narrative cohesiveness. I've always believed the personal emphasis to be a cheap 'parlour trick' designed to tug at the emotions and pull in more sentimental viewers. CR's critical success has led them in that direction, imho.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
    And in my circle, too many people have had seen it and loved it. I still know some people who heartily worship Die Another Day. I guess it was the Fleming purists that hated the Brosnan era because it was too action-packed and OTT for them. But, to say it was lacking in quality and uninspiring? Many subsidiary branches of the film business had made a great use out of it during the era. And MGM did profit from them.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited November 2016 Posts: 4,325
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
    And in my circle, too many people have had seen it and loved it. I still know some people who heartily worship Die Another Day. I guess it was the Fleming purists that hated the Brosnan era because it was too action-packed and OTT for them. But, to say it was lacking in quality and uninspiring? Many subsidiary branches of the film business had made a great use out of it during the era. And MGM did profit from them.

    TND, TWINE and DAD effectively have the exact same scores and PTS. Profit does not always = quality. I don't know anyone to be positive about DAD. It's not so over being OTT ( well maybe with DAD) or too action-packed - it's just that they're so formulaic.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
    Your description of your friends' interest in the films coincidentally completely mirrors my own.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
    And in my circle, too many people have had seen it and loved it. I still know some people who heartily worship Die Another Day. I guess it was the Fleming purists that hated the Brosnan era because it was too action-packed and OTT for them. But, to say it was lacking in quality and uninspiring? Many subsidiary branches of the film business had made a great use out of it during the era. And MGM did profit from them.

    TND, TWINE and DAD effectively have the exact same scores and PTS. Profit does not always = quality. I don't know anyone to be positive about DAD.
    Well, I do. Way too many of them. Opinions change in time as do the views. And I don't think I agree about the scores being completely the same. There are some cues used in TWINE that was originated in TND, the "suspense motif" that Arnold composed and that's about it. The "exact same scores" are SF and SP. Both recycled each other.

    I also believe there will be time when the Brosnan era will be seen as something "ahead of its time" not far from the future.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
    And in my circle, too many people have had seen it and loved it. I still know some people who heartily worship Die Another Day. I guess it was the Fleming purists that hated the Brosnan era because it was too action-packed and OTT for them. But, to say it was lacking in quality and uninspiring? Many subsidiary branches of the film business had made a great use out of it during the era. And MGM did profit from them.

    TND, TWINE and DAD effectively have the exact same scores and PTS. Profit does not always = quality. I don't know anyone to be positive about DAD.
    Well, I do. Way too many of them. Opinions change in time as do the views. And I don't think I agree about the scores being completely the same. There are some cues used in TWINE that was originated in TND, the "suspense motif" that Arnold composed and that's about it. The "exact same scores" are SF and SP. Both recycled each other.

    I also believe there will be time when the Brosnan era will be seen as something "ahead of its time" not far from the future.

    I don't know. I loved the Brosnan era when it was happening (got into Bond in 1997 when I was 11), even thought TWINE was great, but that's probably down to my age and it being the first Bond I saw in the cinema. But even then I was very disappointed with DAD, in fact I lost a lot of interest in Bond after it. I think the Brosnan era seems to have diminished in retropect - even watching the Everything or Nothing doc there seems to be an acknowledgement that they went a bit over the top with it all.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
    And in my circle, too many people have had seen it and loved it. I still know some people who heartily worship Die Another Day. I guess it was the Fleming purists that hated the Brosnan era because it was too action-packed and OTT for them. But, to say it was lacking in quality and uninspiring? Many subsidiary branches of the film business had made a great use out of it during the era. And MGM did profit from them.

    TND, TWINE and DAD effectively have the exact same scores and PTS. Profit does not always = quality. I don't know anyone to be positive about DAD.
    Well, I do. Way too many of them. Opinions change in time as do the views. And I don't think I agree about the scores being completely the same. There are some cues used in TWINE that was originated in TND, the "suspense motif" that Arnold composed and that's about it. The "exact same scores" are SF and SP. Both recycled each other.

    I also believe there will be time when the Brosnan era will be seen as something "ahead of its time" not far from the future.

    I don't know. I loved the Brosnan era when it was happening (got into Bond in 1997 when I was 11), even thought TWINE was great, but that's probably down to my age and it being the first Bond I saw in the cinema. But even then I was very disappointed with DAD, in fact I lost a lot of interest in Bond after it. I think the Brosnan era seems to have diminished in retropect - even watching the Everything or Nothing doc there seems to be an acknowledgement that they went a bit over the top with it all.
    I was quite young, slightly below the age of 10 when DAD came out and I've seen it once back then. I saw it again two years later, and I still liked it, save for the North Korean torture segment and the dreadful main title sequence. And of course, the video game industry also profited largely from it the entire thing was on everyone's mouth. What came afterwards changed the public view on Bond, but also went down the well. Skyfall almost lost me as a Bond fan... Too many felt that way that are not here on this forums. But, the producers will say anything anytime as long as their word benefits their needs and agendas. I remember back then reading Babs was insistent on keeping Pierce in the role, and then things happened... We know where this leads, right?
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
    And in my circle, too many people have had seen it and loved it. I still know some people who heartily worship Die Another Day. I guess it was the Fleming purists that hated the Brosnan era because it was too action-packed and OTT for them. But, to say it was lacking in quality and uninspiring? Many subsidiary branches of the film business had made a great use out of it during the era. And MGM did profit from them.

    TND, TWINE and DAD effectively have the exact same scores and PTS. Profit does not always = quality. I don't know anyone to be positive about DAD.
    Well, I do. Way too many of them. Opinions change in time as do the views. And I don't think I agree about the scores being completely the same. There are some cues used in TWINE that was originated in TND, the "suspense motif" that Arnold composed and that's about it. The "exact same scores" are SF and SP. Both recycled each other.

    I also believe there will be time when the Brosnan era will be seen as something "ahead of its time" not far from the future.

    I don't know. I loved the Brosnan era when it was happening (got into Bond in 1997 when I was 11), even thought TWINE was great, but that's probably down to my age and it being the first Bond I saw in the cinema. But even then I was very disappointed with DAD, in fact I lost a lot of interest in Bond after it. I think the Brosnan era seems to have diminished in retropect - even watching the Everything or Nothing doc there seems to be an acknowledgement that they went a bit over the top with it all.
    I was quite young, slightly below the age of 10 when DAD came out and I've seen it once back then. I saw it again two years later, and I still liked it, save for the North Korean torture segment and the dreadful main title sequence. And of course, the video game industry also profited largely from it the entire thing was on everyone's mouth. What came afterwards changed the public view on Bond, but also went down the well. Skyfall almost lost me as a Bond fan... Too many felt that way that are not here on this forums. But, the producers will say anything anytime as long as their word benefits their needs and agendas. I remember back then reading Babs was insistent on keeping Pierce in the role, and then things happened... We know where this leads, right?

    Wow, we really are polar opposites. The North Korean segment and the title sequence are the best bits of DAD. The problem with DAD is wants to be one type of Bond film then tries to be another. I thought the plot holes in Skyfall were very wide open, but otherwise loved it. It was overrated though, I was a little bit underwhelmed actually on first viewing.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2016 Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
    And in my circle, too many people have had seen it and loved it. I still know some people who heartily worship Die Another Day. I guess it was the Fleming purists that hated the Brosnan era because it was too action-packed and OTT for them. But, to say it was lacking in quality and uninspiring? Many subsidiary branches of the film business had made a great use out of it during the era. And MGM did profit from them.

    TND, TWINE and DAD effectively have the exact same scores and PTS. Profit does not always = quality. I don't know anyone to be positive about DAD.
    Well, I do. Way too many of them. Opinions change in time as do the views. And I don't think I agree about the scores being completely the same. There are some cues used in TWINE that was originated in TND, the "suspense motif" that Arnold composed and that's about it. The "exact same scores" are SF and SP. Both recycled each other.

    I also believe there will be time when the Brosnan era will be seen as something "ahead of its time" not far from the future.

    I don't know. I loved the Brosnan era when it was happening (got into Bond in 1997 when I was 11), even thought TWINE was great, but that's probably down to my age and it being the first Bond I saw in the cinema. But even then I was very disappointed with DAD, in fact I lost a lot of interest in Bond after it. I think the Brosnan era seems to have diminished in retropect - even watching the Everything or Nothing doc there seems to be an acknowledgement that they went a bit over the top with it all.
    I was quite young, slightly below the age of 10 when DAD came out and I've seen it once back then. I saw it again two years later, and I still liked it, save for the North Korean torture segment and the dreadful main title sequence. And of course, the video game industry also profited largely from it the entire thing was on everyone's mouth. What came afterwards changed the public view on Bond, but also went down the well. Skyfall almost lost me as a Bond fan... Too many felt that way that are not here on this forums. But, the producers will say anything anytime as long as their word benefits their needs and agendas. I remember back then reading Babs was insistent on keeping Pierce in the role, and then things happened... We know where this leads, right?

    Wow, we really are polar opposites. The North Korean segment and the title sequence are the best bits of DAD. The problem with DAD is wants to be one type of Bond film then tries to be another. I thought the plot holes in Skyfall were very wide open, but otherwise loved it. It was overrated though, I was a little bit underwhelmed actually on first viewing.
    I like DAD as an entertainment piece, something that doesn't take its self too seriously. It was more of a film being adapted from a 90s comic book, which I like for myself. But, as the film culture at the time were being anything OTT, something impacted on the cinema industry since Rambo and Terminator happened in the 80s. DAD, along with many slightly later products, were leftovers of that. And believe me, compared to a hundred materials of the similar action genre at the time, DAD is pretty much an intellectual film. Cough, xXx, cough. However it tried to take every celebrated aspect from previous films and merged them all together to celebrate the 40th Anniversary... The problem with it was the incompetence of some of the crew... And Lee Tamahori.

    SF on the other hand, borrowed too many things from Bourne, Christopher Nolan's Bat, and the tone of its time, which I don't blame them for, because that's what people demanded. Some still do. It also borrowed some other iconic segments from the past of the franchise to point it out its Bond's 50th Anniversary in the film universe. It went on to gross a billion dollars. SP tried to replicate it, but the story was a bore. That's why it fell flat. Even though I like it miles better than SF personally.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    I can't imagine the Brosnan era ever being seen as ahead of it's time, because it did nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe people turned against Brosnan, in light of Craig, but will then go back to liking Brosnan. But the Brosnan era will never be ahead of it's time, because it played it so safe. It has been said about Dalton, but it will never be said about Brosnan. I like TND & TWINE, but they hardly took a leap into the unknown.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Oh it's not about playing it safe. They did. But, not as much as everyone else thinks. They introduced the blast from the past angle both in GE and TND, an aspect almost used in every Craig film. TWINE adopted the darker tone which the Craig era made use of and used properly later on. That's where CR succeeds and TWINE fails. Experimental model.

    In the wake of the Over The Top Marvel films, I won't put it past them if Bond goes against villains who are ready to launch nuclear rockets from silos and control rooms with countless goons in commando gears defending the lair, for instance. And the gadgets are bound to return sometime in the future. That's why the Brosnan era will be seen "ahead of its time." by some critics in their reviews of that certain future film.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Oh it's not about playing it safe. They did. But, not as much as everyone else thinks. They introduced the blast from the past angle both in GE and TND, an aspect almost used in every Craig film. TWINE adopted the darker tone which the Craig era made use of and used properly later on. That's where CR succeeds and TWINE fails. Experimental model.

    In the wake of the Over The Top Marvel films, I won't put it past them if Bond goes against villains who are ready to launch nuclear rockets from silos and control rooms with countless goons in commando gears defending the lair, for instance. And the gadgets are bound to return sometime in the future. That's why the Brosnan era will be seen "ahead of its time." by some critics in their reviews of that certain future film.

    Sounds like the 60s Bonds to me.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    TWINE wasn't dark it was quite middle of the road. the Brosnan era will never be ahead of it's time, because it played it so safe.....it's a bit of a throw back actually, just very poorly executed. GE was solid but safe.....the rest, the low point of the series. Bland, James Bland.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.
    And in my circle, too many people have had seen it and loved it. I still know some people who heartily worship Die Another Day. I guess it was the Fleming purists that hated the Brosnan era because it was too action-packed and OTT for them. But, to say it was lacking in quality and uninspiring? Many subsidiary branches of the film business had made a great use out of it during the era. And MGM did profit from them.

    TND, TWINE and DAD effectively have the exact same scores and PTS. Profit does not always = quality. I don't know anyone to be positive about DAD.
    Well, I do. Way too many of them. Opinions change in time as do the views. And I don't think I agree about the scores being completely the same. There are some cues used in TWINE that was originated in TND, the "suspense motif" that Arnold composed and that's about it. The "exact same scores" are SF and SP. Both recycled each other.

    I also believe there will be time when the Brosnan era will be seen as something "ahead of its time" not far from the future.

    I don't know. I loved the Brosnan era when it was happening (got into Bond in 1997 when I was 11), even thought TWINE was great, but that's probably down to my age and it being the first Bond I saw in the cinema. But even then I was very disappointed with DAD, in fact I lost a lot of interest in Bond after it. I think the Brosnan era seems to have diminished in retropect - even watching the Everything or Nothing doc there seems to be an acknowledgement that they went a bit over the top with it all.
    I was quite young, slightly below the age of 10 when DAD came out and I've seen it once back then. I saw it again two years later, and I still liked it, save for the North Korean torture segment and the dreadful main title sequence. And of course, the video game industry also profited largely from it the entire thing was on everyone's mouth. What came afterwards changed the public view on Bond, but also went down the well. Skyfall almost lost me as a Bond fan... Too many felt that way that are not here on this forums. But, the producers will say anything anytime as long as their word benefits their needs and agendas. I remember back then reading Babs was insistent on keeping Pierce in the role, and then things happened... We know where this leads, right?

    Wow, we really are polar opposites. The North Korean segment and the title sequence are the best bits of DAD. The problem with DAD is wants to be one type of Bond film then tries to be another. I thought the plot holes in Skyfall were very wide open, but otherwise loved it. It was overrated though, I was a little bit underwhelmed actually on first viewing.

    The North Korean segment and the title sequence are the best bits of DAD. Ten fold.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    If you swapped the hovercrafts for speedboats the DAD PTS would be TWINE's
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    It is very much about playing it safe. EON likely felt as though they got their fingers burnt with Dalton, so were too afraid to push the series in any forwards direction.

    As for the second part, that was being done before the Brosnan era, You Only Live Twice & The Spy Who Loved Me both spring to mind. And excluding the Geiger counter, the gadgets have been a part of the Bond recipe since From Russia With Love, and have started to make a return since Skyfall. The Brosnan era got the series up and running again, but break new ground, it did not.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2016 Posts: 5,131
    All true, but it is a shame that after GE the 'playing it safe' was at the cost of quality. That is why CR was brilliant, it went back to source material, pushed boundaries and oozed quality and substance! It annoys me that GE is so universally praised, yet it followed 2x far superior films.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    That's because its audience is bigger than the audience of its previous two films.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    I'm certainly not interested in a return to the joke-filled Bond films. I think that the Bourne films are really good, but the good Bond films take what the Bourne films have offered and add a layer of style that separates the two.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2016 Posts: 16,359
    I just want a non dour Bond film where his superiors aren't questioning his trust every 5 minutes and villains that don't know who the hell Bond is and don't care about who he is and just want him dead for mucking up the works. That's classic Bond.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    I think the camp best be left behind with the arm-flapping Jaws and the slide-whistle silliness of the 1970's. God, that was all awful.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    TellyBlofeld wrote: »
    I think the camp best be left behind with the arm-flapping Jaws and the slide-whistle silliness of the 1970's. God, that was all awful.

    I'm fine with camp in moderation. What I don't like is this "dark" bull that we've been getting.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    Not me. All that stuff undercuts the films. None of the camp 007 films are any good. The camp really demeans the character, in my opinion. No more silliness, please.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Brosnan era was never boring. If anything, it gave the franchise further boost and recruited too many fans along with it.

    GoldenEye was brilliant, each film became more and more average, until Die Another Day which is just shocking with some redeeming features. I was 16 when DAD came out, none of my friends were bothered about seeing it. When Skyfall came out everyone went to see it, all ny colleagues who wouldn't normally watch many films in the cinema went to see it. Never known a vibe like that around a Bond film.

    And I do speak as one who became a fan in the Brosnan era.

    I agree with all this. The Bourne films just EMBARRASSED the last three Bros films.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Oh my sides hurt after that one. :)) Bourne has nothing on Bond.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    TellyBlofeld wrote: »
    Not me. All that stuff undercuts the films. None of the camp 007 films are any good. The camp really demeans the character, in my opinion. No more silliness, please.

    Well I don't consider "arm-flapping" Jaws to be camp in moderation. That was too much. Camp in moderation is Brosnan's first 3 Bond films. A little fun never hurts.
Sign In or Register to comment.