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
@thelivingroyale, I said there was a lack of emphasis on fully formed characters, not that there weren't any. I also said that the change occurred post-GE, so half of those you listed aren't in my running. Renard was little more than a poorly executed guy who could've been used more interestingly (even though the pain idea is rather limp for me), and Paris was extremely wooden, such that you never really feel she and Bond shared anything but a peck on the cheek. Wai Lin in the same film is a much better choice for you to support your argument.
I'll say this then, in correction: GE is the only Brosnan film where strong characters are a consistent quality and focus.
Renard is brilliant imo. I love the dynamic him and Elektra share, the twist may have been predictable but the way it played out wasn't (you'd expect stockholm syndrome, her falling in love with Renard, but instead she's manipulated him and turned the menacing invincible terrorist into a glorified henchman). The pain gimmick was underused but I love how tragic and oddly sympathetic the character is. I love the scene with him and Elektra in bed where he's just unbelieveably frustrated that he can't feel anything and she's almost mocking him. Elektra is one of the best villains of the series imo. Shockingly underrated. A manipulative evil psycho but again, sort of a sympathetic one. I think TWINE in general doesn't get enough praise for how original it is.
Even DAD has a couple of interesting characters and dynamics (Graves is an interesting villain on paper, the no sleep gimmick is interesting and I especially like the idea of him modelling his personality on Bond, the relationship with his dad is also an interestig idea) but that film completely squanders them so to be fair I see your point there. I really think you're doing TND and (especially) TWINE a disservice though. I really do hope that when you rewatch TWINE you'll see it the way I do because while it does get bogged down in cliches at times I think it really is right up your street, the precursor to the Craig era in many ways.
I'm a very open-minded Bond fan, and I do look at things beyond the surface, so I will definitely have my feelers re-engaged whenever I embark back to the Brosnan era. For better or worse, honesty is what you'll get.
At this stage I just don't view any of that as a precursor to the Craig era. When I think of Craig's films, I think of clever, rich, artistic and layered products that built a new Bond just as much as they deconstructed who he's been. The Brosnan films are fun, and that's often all I can say. But it's clear they weren't made with any of the vision or intention to be more than entertainment like the Craig films have produced with in mind. Nothing wrong with that at all, mind, but we wouldn't be able to call Moore's films the precursor to earnest Dalton's Bond without getting a slapping, and the same must be said for the Brosnan and Craig crossover.
I definitely think TWINE is rich and layered, and was intended to be so too (I seem to remember that everyone involved said as much at the time). They just did that while sticking to the tropes. For me that isn't a huge issue, because the tropes always work, but I do understand why others think that they bogged the film down (personally I think Bond should have rejected Christmas at the end because he was still sore over Elektra, would have made a nice subversion). I don't think it's the same as Moore to Dalton because there isn't such a clear difference in tone and direction. In fact it's the opposite imo, in TWINE you can see that they really did have similar intentions to now. They just weren't afforded the luxury of a clean break at the time as they were with CR. Purvis and Wade seemed to recycle a lot of the ideas and themes from that one in SF too, so it's definitely proto-Craig imo.
@thelivingroyale, I just don't see these connectors between Brosnan and Craig's films. There could be some carry over of coincidence or otherwise, but it's like trying to rate Connery and Moore on equal terms; they're so fundamentally different there's no point. Craig's films are actual films and feel that way, all while completely deconstructing and rebuilding Bond as we know him in a contemporary context. There's an intense measure of thought and work visible above and below the surface, and from CR to SP there's a powerful sense of development for each character. No disrespect, but Brosnan's era was never that and could never have been within those specific parameters without a lot of daring. There was never a worry of TND, TWINE or DAD shaking it up and changing the perception of Bond forever.
Craig's films have been more capable of such a feat by simply having a higher class of talent, with the ability to really chip away at character and theme. I think more mileage would be derived from comparing the era to Dalton's, but even then, those films, not unlike Brosnan's run, were riddled with inconsistency and an unwillingness to settle on a vision. Dan's era is really the first one since Roger where the Bond actor got to have a say on what the tone of the films should be, and that has kept true throughout. Dan has also been able to play the frivolity, danger, darkness and depth of the character and his world in equal measures with the kind of reality and resonance everybody since Sean has lacked, and his leadership in those movies raises them all the more because of it.
I don't think overanalyzing is DAD's problem. Analyzation implies there's actually something there worth pondering. ;)
Exactly: any need to analyze a film like that is useless. We may as well write a thesis on 'Transformers,' too. It's meant to be a fun, OTT installment (like a lot of Brosnan's era), though that doesn't excuse the many sins the film has. Still, I enjoy it a lot.
Exactly: any need to analyze a film like that is useless. We may as well write a thesis on 'Transformers,' too. It's meant to be a fun, OTT installment (like a lot of Brosnan's era), though that doesn't excuse the many sins the film has. Still, I enjoy it a lot.
Remove Berry and the tsunami travesty and it's already 35% better.
DAD is like an artist drawing with ink on a sheet of paper. There's signs of an outline, but no color is ever filled in. So many interesting ideas get thrown out, but only exist at the surface, like Renard in TWINE and Paris Carver in TND. Add to that dialogue that makes porn films seem Shakespearean in comparison and DAD has little footing to stand on, even on an strictly entertainment basis.
Kidding, I actually like him as Bond, he just got stuck with bad films for the most part. I wouldn't really say the problems with his era were his fault.
That's one of my issues with the Brosnan era as well. We start out with intriguing concepts and interesting ideas, but just mishandled. Doesn't make them bad films, I'm sure back when these films were first coming out they were popular w/ fans, but now it's easy to see the flaws in them.
Good point. It is like analyzing kids play.
+1.
I will add......There is nothing in DAD that feels original or fresh (bar the attempt at a darker edge in the pre-title sequence). And the John Woo influenced cinematics have no place in a Bond film. And what's with the use of CGI in place of real stuntmen doing the impossible, as they did in every other film? Sure, it may look "super cool" in concept, but in fact it looks fake and out of place.
Lee Tamahori is a completely bizarre choice for director, and a terrible one at that, seeing how he has never made an especially good film (bar the Devils Double). David Arnold's score is again very good but he can't save the film and the direction the series was going in at this point was truly dangerous and could've resulted in the end for Bond, if allowed to go on. There was no reason to stop- "Die Another Day" was a massive financial success, the highest grossing of Brosnan's films and actually about as well-reviewed by major critics as the last two films in the series, but audience feedback and hopefully common sense led to the reinvigoration of the franchise in "Casino Royale". Thank heavens for that.
Even the marketing was awful!!!
Maybe the separate scenes looked ok, until it was all thrown together and by then it was too late!
On a side note I actually went to see TWINE four times at the cinema and was happy with Brozzer, didn't know anyone who didn't like Brosnan as Bond, so I do feel that he was pretty popular at the time.
The Barbara and MGW I've seen since CR are the ones I love, and I can't believe they were at all attached to DAD. I'd love to get inside their heads from 2001 to 2002, because I know they must've had some crazy thoughts, and didn't like how things progressed. How could anyone? Even Pierce can't speak about the tsunami scene without breaking down into laughter.
+1. I was really confused by the invisible car, Robocop suit, slow mo and CGI at the time. Insane.
I remember picking up the DVD the day of release, and it came with a slipcover that looked very similar to that poster, with diamonds strewn across it that had an embossed texture to them, which was pretty cool.
@suavejmf, it just blows my mind that in ten years we went from DAD to SF. Or perhaps more shocking, four years from DAD to CR. They really got the train back on the rails.
The biggest shift in franchise history. A real Lazarus effect.
2nd Biggest shift I'd say. I still think the transition from Serious Bond to Campy Bond that occurred in the late 60s, early 70s is hard to top.
Nothing tops OHMSS-DAF that's for sure.
DAD - CR was not even that different in tone. People let themselves misguide by their prejudice against DAD because it features like 10 seconds of bad CGI and has a sci-fi-ish ending.
Everything up to getting to Iceland is not so different to Casino Royale if at all. DAD is serious, gritty and quite violent and very classic Bond in the first half. Maybe even more than CR.