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
Now I love Roger Moore, I really do. He is a role model of how to treat people in real life and is in alot of my favourite films..
but...
He didn't really use his intelligence in some films. MR was following a paper trail across the continents - or labelled crate trail. Nothing wrong with that. So maybe the less intelligent Bond happened before Brosnan Just a thought.
And as for Bond never regaining his intelligence. Just listen to Craig justify his reasons for losing to Le Chiffre first so he can flush out his hand. Bond hasnt lost his brain cells.
Moore had some moments in FYEO, OP, and ATAK where he legitimately had to figure something out, or put 2 and 2 together, instead of following the ol' bread crumb trail...
Brosnan's tenure felt more dumbed down than any of the films before it, or after it... as i said before - they turned Bond from spy into a wrecking ball.. they felt it necessary to blow everything up on screen, rather than focus on telling a good story... the only film out of Pierce's run where it feels like he does actual work to uncover the plot is in TWINE.. the others just seem to hand it all over without much effort.
I saw it last night and I enjoyed it more than I have before.
Bond was created by Fleming as a blunt instrument! That's one thing that doesn't bother me at all.
Sorry Sandy, I just don´t see it that way, and I adore the Fleming novels. Never, at any point, does he convey that Bond is simply a blunt instrument. He is far more complex than that. One thing is for Bond to see himself as a blunt instrument in a racionalized movement of disapointment towards his service, another is him just being a tool for the government. The man has wits and brains and a very complex chip on his shoulder. He is not a terminator. He says: So you want me to be half monk, half hitman, because he knows he isn´t. The guy is emotional and smart, or should be. Not a machine driven by rage. The St. George "duty" motivation is there, sure, but there is far more to the game of cowboys and indians than that. Just the way I see though.
Okay, I'm getting one incredibly bad joke out of the way, and then I'm getting serious: Are you sure you don't mean Cowboys and Aliens?
Anyway, yes, the Fleming Bond is more than a blunt instrument, but he realizes that being that is his job. The Craig Bond is the same way: he wants to be more than "half monk, half hitman", but he knows that it is his job to be "half monk, half hitman". A line from Gardner's License Renewed sums it up perfectly: "There are moments when this country needs a troubleshooter - a blunt instrument - and by heaven it's going to have one." Bond's not a blunt instrument because he wants to be, he's one because it's his job.
To put it in a sports analogy: Pierce was a 5 star recruit coming out of high school that ended up having a good career in College, but he never led his team to the national championship. He had a great freshman season (Goldeneye), but he never took that next step, plus, his teammates and coaches (producers, writers, Directors) wernt as good as they should have been.
On the Brosnan-era villain issue, OO6 and Elliot Carver are, in my opinion, possibly the most conceptually perfect villains in the *entire series*, but both are badly written and fatally miscast.
On TND, TWINE and DAD in general, I think the producers were just happy that Bond had been accepted in GE after *years* of Bond being thought of as out of date, and were afraid to deviate from the most general idea of what Bond films were. And then when DAD came out, 9/11 had already happened and suddenly Brosnan's tsunami-sking, invisible-car driving agent was totally at odds with the public mood.
I've always found it strange that when times are gloomy people don't crave escapism?
Surely in the current climate, something like TSWLM would be the perfect antidote to doom and gloom, or maybe it's just me?
In general, I like Pierce as Bond. He always (also in DAD) did a great job. The only problem is maybe... that I never felt he really made the role his own or gave it a new spin. He was a cliche Bond if you want to put it like that. Though that sounds more negative than I wanted it to.
Overall, my problems are mainly with DAD and the second half of TND.
TND is actually pretty good and has some very strong scenes before turning into a typical 90's action flick. DAD starts out pretty good and has many cool moments but weak writing, Halle Berry, CGI and some stupid ideas really make the movie quite an embarrassment. However, I haven't seen it for years, and I am really looking forward to it when the blue rays arrive. Maybe it got a bit better?
What I however never really got is why TWINE is soo hated around here. It's very high on my list and imo a great Bond movie. It (or especially it's characters) deserved better exploration and wirting but still, a good movie. Will be also interessting what I think of it, when I finally watch it again....
Why has this been bumped, can't we give Brosnan a break? He gets enough hate on here as it is.
Agreed, and it's not just you! I think we all crave escapism, and DAD made a helluva lot of money, LOL! However, I also think - even if they hadn't decided to change Bonds - it may have made it harder to bring Brosnan back when even escapist movies were becoming harder-edged. We crave escapism not only to avoid the gloomy times but also to make sense of them at a safe distance, if you know what I mean. To clarify my remark about DAD, it seemed to be a film developed for a pre 9/11 audience that found itself released to an audience that had changed. That didn't stop people going to see it, but most of us didn't love what we saw, and Brosnan's Bond felt suddenly behind the times
Why was this bumped? because I felt like expressing my opinion, and I didnt want to get busted for a duplicate thread ! lol man, I get flack even when I do it the right way!!
sorry double post how do I delete this?
I wasnt mad, man
Somehow the energetic Bond of Goldeneye just dissapeared.
The fencing scene? That was the highlight of Die Another Day. As for the casting decisions, there were only three real mishaps for me. Richards, Toby Stephens, and Halle Berry. The rest were all well casted. The directors though, yeah, I'll give you that one, especially Tamahori and Apted.
Agreed. The question of the '90s was: is Bond still relevant in the post Cold War-world? Brosnan answered that question in the affirmative, but largely by serving up more of the retro sameness. GE is to a large extent a "greatest hits" Bond film.
Also agreed. Bean is too young and Pryce is too old.
Agreed, and I'd add that the fictional spy world had suddenly gotten a lot more serious. It was the era of Jack Bauer.
Both TWINE and DAD suffer from a certain schizophrenia, caught between moving boldly forward and looking fondly backward (a sympathetic female villain! No, a larger than life villain who doesn't feel pain!) and (a gritty MI6 betrayal! No, a larger than life villain who has his face changed!)
I suspect that Babs and MGW had conflicting, even warring, views with TWINE and DAD. By the time of CR and QoS, Babs had won.
World is Not enough really was a good idea for a story, but I think the idea of a female villain could have been really ratcheted up quite a bit more, and somehow the story lost its bad guy identity and direction when she did not CLEARLY become a menace.
And the gene therapy angle idea for DAD. Another cool idea, but I just hated the way the film turned into a bloated attempt at spectacle completely devoid of tension.
I thought Alex Travelyan (sic) was the best idea for a villain in the modern era. Other than a few gags that were more of a wink to Moore's Bond, I thought Goldeneye was the best Bond film in at least a generation until Casino Royale.
Tomorrow Never Dies, again full of good ideas at the conceptual stage that just crumble apart. I think that these latter three films actually start well, but have the same lack of focus as the story goes on.
One of the things that bothered me about those films were that after Goldeneye,, Bond became a character that lost all of the motion that made him cool in Goldeneye. The impressive opening sequence and the final fight. Great stuff. That steam room scene was really well-done, and with a great, kinky villainess. Actually, compare Xenia to the Sophie Marceau in TWINE. Just not the same level as energy and vitriol.
And to me much of this stuff falls to direction, and these latter three guys seem to be either mailing it in or did not have the respect of the crew or production that Martin Campbell had. Campbell really has done this twice, and I have no idea why EON just doesn't throw the franchise at him and let him do as he would will.
Another miss opportunity: DAD. We would all remember the very good PTS and credit from DAD (Bond being tortured) but all we talk about is Madonna and the ridicoulus GCI...
Yes, Brosnan was not entirely responsible for the steady downfall...
exactly... as an audience, we all love escapism, and Bond has always reflected that in varying degrees - but as much as Bond films are about escapism, they are about reflecting the real world in which Bond exists at the time, FRWL is a perfect example of that.... @Risico hit the nail on the head, audience expectations and perceptions seemed to change, not only because of 9/11 - but because the way films were being made in general - and even especially after the success of a film like The Bourne Identity, and a TV series like 24, suddenly a CGI Bond parasailing over a CGI tidal wave in CGI Iceland and battling a villain in a videogame suit isn't what they wanted anymore - .... as much as I feel Brosnan was the weakest out of all the Bonds, i do feel like he more a victim of circumstance than anything - which in a way, kind of makes me feel bad for him.... but not too much lol..
im sorry, but.... =))
a parallel move does not make it better or more faithful - whatever it took from MR, they shat all over it.
I think it sunk Brosnan's ship. Perhaps he would've been more motivated to act if he actually had a character to play.