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
I know you are dedicated, the more disappointing it is to read such statements which usually come from typical trolls. That's why I chose to use that word in that context.
I'm not overemotional but I can't stand primitive behaviour and the original statement is primitive and I would expect someone like you not to even underline it.
The QOS PTS is one of the best in the series. Its a brilliantly fast chase that sets the tone of the film we are about to watch. Its not hard to work out what is going on. However if I remember correctly the end of the PTS is when James Bond tells Mr White "its time to get out"...followed by the atrocious title song. On the subject of DC and his contract. I hope he stays for a good few more after SP. BB is correct in wanting him to stay for a few more. However, in the end it will be up to DC if he stays or not.
The original statement referred to the 'Brosnan era' rather than the man himself. On that point, I wholeheartedly agree. That 'era' was definitely a low point for the series, imho, and best forgotten. The definition of pastiche.
I agree on the QoS pts. Stunning opening visuals in that film (I did not miss the gunbarrel one bit) and it is extremely visceral & kinetic. I believe it's so good, it's almost a work of art. Everyone should be congratulated on it
Apart from that, Brozz' era lacked good writing, but the movies were entertaining and the stunts were amazing. Then it's usually the era that predates the current that get most of the backlash.
This era was a continuation of the series. EON played it safe back then, which was understandable given the 6-year gap with LTK.
I'm personally not so sure on TND (again I've not seen it in ages). I enjoyed it a lot in the theatre and on rewatches (although I always put it below GE, and will try to determine why during the Bondathon), but it will never match TSWLM in my book, and as mentioned elsewhere, I'm big on 'not being derivative' in the creative field unless you're better than the original (I thought TSWLM aced YOLT, which it definitely cribbed from).
True, his era suffered from bad writing. However, I didn't see it as a continuation of the previous era. I saw it as 'by the numbers', 'checkbox attempts' at making a Bond film. Almost like an impressionable (but not so bright or artistic) student was shown all the previous films and then given 15 minutes to capture Bond in a new film. Inevitably, he/she would start with a handsome lead, nice suits, nice cars, nice watch, big stunts, bigger than life villains, brassy score, bond theme etc. etc. ..... check, check, check.
Again, it's just my take and how I felt during that period. I always thought even I personally could have done it so much better (in terms of capturing what was Bond that is) than EON did during that time. It was not all about walking around in a suit looking cool. Bond is so much more than that, and always has been...
Love your point of view, as always @bondjames.
You've just arrived and you throw your weight around like you've been here for years, I'm no troll matey, you cheeky bloody sod!
In the interim, maybe we can work on a locked steel cage match of some of these internet toughies here. In this corner, it's the 'cheeky bloody sod' vs. the 'nubile virgin from Liverpool'....
So Daniel Craig is Bond for the forseeable future (more then likely at least 2-3 more films remember Moore played bond till 58 and craig is what 48 himself now so he could have another 10 year as 007) Personally I wont say much except i figured he would be back for bond 25. so can we close this thread and move on to how excited we all are at Spectre and Craig returning for Bond 25.
And they succeeded in a big way. Except for forums the Brosnan era is still loved by many and with GE there's a classic that will always be viewed as one of the best.
Well, I have enjoyed TND since I saw it on the big screen back in 1997. So the Brosnan era has that film going for it.
While you're right that I do like to make broad statements now and then, others do as well, especially when it comes to bash the Brosnan-era.
Sometimes I just try to counterbalance the many obvious attempts to ridicule or even insult that era in the franchise.
You are well immersed in humanity outside of these boards. So am I.
I have explained in great detail several times how I perceive reality in my surroundings.
Practically everybody in my surroundings (all around 40 years old), be it in my football-club, work-place, colleagues always have and still love the Brosnan-era. The Craig era comes a close second or equals that love.
I find it rather peculiar that some people only let their view on reality count. I have explained several times, that this is a complex matter, depending on which generation we are talking of, which region etc.
Brosnan was HUGE in the German-language region and had no opposition at all.
But I'll stop now at defending that era. Obviously I am in a minority here, respectively the loudest are those that put Craig on a pedestal and constantly bash Brosnan or his movies.
I'll let them continue being sometimes even ill-mannered (and getting no opposition at all for it). But Woe! if someone does the same to Craig or his era.....
I thank you for your words and advice. I'll try to reduce the broad statements I see that they are not helpful.
Me too, I love every era. They all belong to the franchise.
It is a big difference to be critical about something or simply bash it, sometimes even with insults or primitive remarks.
Well, time to go back to topic of this thread (I wasn't the one that derailed this to another Brosnan bashing festival)
That's because he talks from both sides of his mouth to suit his little agenda of being victimised when the reality is, he often has no clue what he's speaking about and often contradicts himself when caught up in the haze of his own generalised bs. He claims he loves all eras and yet has been incredibly vocal about how much of a disaster the Craig era is and that post 2006 the producers have been running the Bond movies into the ground and yet somehow the Brosnan era in his mind is without any legitimate fault. It's one thing to be a blind fanboy but he just comes off as overzealous in his delusions.
Sir Roger Moore is a Saint, Lazenby had one of the best movies in the franchise nad it is a shame to see how his DAF would have looked like with Hunt directing. Sean Connery is 007 himself and I am glad we got to see his last part of of 007 in NSNA where he got a worthier movie to finish than DAF.
It is Dalton that just does not rock my boat, his acting or 007 personage is just not convincing for me. I am glad he never got to do a third one, and based upon a illustrious script for his third he should be too.
But indeed the franchise has a lot of different styles to offer, and different flavors for different moments.
Absolutely and that's part of the charm of the series thus far. When I go back to watch a Bond film the first question I ask myself is, what am I in the mood for? I may want to watch CR or I may want to watch GE. Tge choice and variety is so diverse and offers enough difference to cater to inn's mood at any given time.
The truth.
Except the rights are held by Eon and MGM which is disheartening ...Sony distributed and coproduced those films true ...but they don't have franchise rights.
Correct? Yes? Any lawyers here?
Yes they did
Amazing stunts? Certainly not from the dull Vic Armstrong sequences surely?
That’s EXACTLY how I felt about the Brosnan era from the very first time I left the Cinema after seeing Goldeneye. It was as if some other Hollywood company had won the rights to the film series and was including all the ingredients from previous Bond films they’d remembered to make an ultimate Bond film and yet never quite showing a proper understanding of it.
Of all the Craig films SPECTRE now looks to be the one to have lots of traditional key elements thrown at it but the difference this time is Craig, the new MI6 team and the last three films all have a new distinct identity from the previous films in the series. Therefore it will be interesting to see how components such as Blofeld, super strong Henchmen and gadget laden Aston Martins play out in this new era.
Sadly for Brosnan he only ever felt like a ‘greatest hits’, or dare I even say ‘cover version’ Bond.
After the failed "experiment" with Dalton to bring a more realistic to other Hollywood blockbusters adapted James Bond to the screen (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon comes to mind) they had to play it by the numbers to make sure the franchise will not die.
Pierce Brosnan was perfect for this. An everybody's darling, still fresh in mind from his incredible international success Remington Steele (outside the US Steele was still going on strong on TV in many regions).
Goldeneye was a celebration of all that Bond was before. An epitome of Bond to the audience of its generation. I was 21 when it hit the screen and EVERYBODY in my age-range was absolutely delighted and excited about Goldeneye and Brosnan. Maybe older generations didn't feel that way in general but those were not the people going to watch it at the cinema anyway. The same applies for today. Bond is popcorn movie stuff and CR and QOS got a young audience, only SF managed to bring in all generations.
The Brosnan-era is not less loved than any other before it, it has different fans as has Connery's or Moore's.
Brosnan and the movies, especially GE and DAD worked big time back then and I think the die-hard Bond fans that especially on forums now tend to bash that era should be thankful it happened. Because without Brosnan there would be no Craig.
EON stopped the Brosnan era at the right moment. DAD was the pinnacle of success, over-the-top fun simple entertainment.
In 2006 CR managed to reinvent Bond exactly at the right time when Christopher Nolan was on the rise practically revolutionising the way how former "brainless" entertainment movies were made now. Throw in a bit of Jason Bourne which also had a great impact on Hollywood and you have the way to go for the future, and that future was CR and the following Bond movies up to SF.
Daniel Craig was the right one and perfect for this era, as was Brosnan for his era.
If Spectre should be his last Bond film, we have another "perfect for its time" Bond era with some strong and some weaker movies that will always have their fans.
If not we can enjoy the last Craig movie in 2018?, Bond 25.
After that it depends on what is going on in Hollywood. At the moment it seems the "Nolan" era (if I may call it that) is coming to an end.
Spy, Kingsman, UNCLE, MI and many other "similar" movies to Bond go already in a different direction.
It seems they are able to combine fun, pure entertainment, some over-the-top action with intelligently written characters and more or less good stories. Hollywood is constantly evolving.
To simply continue with Bond after Craig in the same manner would not be wise.
As for now I'm certain the next Bond (ca 2020 is my guess) will be much more fun, have over-the-top (not too much) elaborate action and character driven stories. It's possible, we see it every day on TV where many TV Shows are already better than movies.
I personally don't believe Spectre will be Craig's last. When Craig steps down in 2018 after five movies he will have served 12 years (the same as Roger) with 2 less movies (which is a crying shame).
Thanks for explaining. Appreciate that.
I wouldn't rule out Walt Disney Corporation. They have distribution rights for certain parts of the world already and I could imagine they'll want to have it for the whole world.
Yup. Me too.
GE felt like a weird, bad copy of a Bond movie to me. And yes, like they didn't understand Bond.
So weird that Campbell made CR, which is in a different league.