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'd greatly appreciate a return to that lighter tone once the recast arrives, but executed better. I've truly been worn down by all this angst, moping about and family rubbish. It actually began infamously with TWINE but the film makers decided to drop it for the 40th, thankfully.
We've had 10+ years of it in succession now. Enough please.
Excellent post! Once again you prove to be my duplicate in all things Bond.
Missing of the Brosnan era:
Les time between movies. Made it easier. Get more movies in short time.
With his first three movies i have feeling i whant to see them a lot.
Outside fun. I mis the good interviews and promotion. Daniel Craig playing games.
All his movies there no discussion or i should go to the cinema or buy the soundtrack and dvd when it released.
The posters in 100x70.
Title song on CD. Only QOS have it.
Doing more in les screentime. Skyfall and Spectre are to long.
Charles Robinson (Colin Salmon)
Straight. Entertainment and fun and no analyzing.
But Daniel Craig era is a challenge. Analyzing.
Feels like bored kid get something to think about.
It's always been me. The author of all your pain.
But only 4 movies in 13 years (2002-2015). Of course 1989-2002 is 13 years too. But Daniel Craig made 4 movies in 10,5 years and Brosnan in 8 years.
I re-watched Die Another Day this afternoon, and really enjoyed it, despite its faults. In a way, I think it has parallels with SPECTRE in that it's trying a bit too hard to be a Bond film. Die Another Day really is a film that makes me think it's maligned despite the director trying really hard to deliver the best Bond ever.
Bond certainly had more fun in the Brosnan era. I miss that Moore-like flippancy. Someone on here posted an out-take from TWINE the other day, where Bond walks out the room after shagging the doctor and says "the things I do for England", then says "carry on" to the suit of armour. That's Bond class for me. Like when Lazenby says "Hilly, you old devil" in the mirror. I suppose these days you're not allowed to show a man showing post-coital glee.
I'm excited for the new film, but I can't be the only Bond follower who misses the dashing womaniser. Was the Brosnan era more fun for Bond fans? I think so. It was certainly more fun for Bond. And the next movie seems to make that fact even more so.
It's funny. I think the last Bond film that was in the tradition of the Moore era I grew up with, was TND. A rollocking romp. Ialways said it'd be interesting when Craig gets a stand-alone mission. But that never happened.
The old Brosnan DVDs I have say 'Initiate Mission' instead of 'Play Movie' on the menu. You couldn't put that on a Craid DVD could you?
But the Craig era has been great, I'm not moaning.
Watching DAD today, the last part of the film (which is the most derided) actually reminded me more of the current Mission Impossible films. Particularly the action at the end, trying to prevent disaster, everything going on at once. I know the film is a lemon, but you can see a lot of work went into trying to make it entertaining. It's not a lazy film.
I even have BLOOD STONE which came in a bundle pack. Never even touched it.
I will say this for the Brosnan era, it did give us the best games. You can't not talk about GoldenEye 007. Like the Connery Bond films did for films, GoldenEye 007 did for games. Those of us around at the time, know just how much of an impact that game had on the industry at large. That said, and I know this might sound a little unfair, but turn of the millenium, technology in games came of age, and were were given my top 3 Bond games in Agent Under Fire, Nightfire (my personal favourite) and Everything Or Nothing (technically the best, and closest to blurring the lines between the films and games).
=D> I love that thought.
The Brosnan era easily edges out any other in terms of fun for me, and that has all to do with games. That level of immersion and interactivity into the Bond world that the games provided for month and years (for me mainly through Goldeney64 and Nightfire, but also EoN later), has not existed before that time. Only with Craig i discovered all the Books so that added another level later.
I think Brosnan became a victim of his own success. TND held it's own against Titanic for crying out loud. It was a fun movie, though not at the level of GE. TWINE was an attempt to add some character while also being Bond. Then DAD which was just excess and a rather over the top ending to the era.
Fun? Yes! All masterpieces of cinema? Nope! But then no Bond actor has had all his movies be masterpieces. Connery comes closest.
If you've ever seen the Bond films on VHS during the 90's than you might remember the promo they played before the movie...
This is basically the Brosnan era in a nutshell; The highlight reel Bond.
001. A new Bond adventure every couple of years. Lots more to discuss, enjoy, and moan about. Four movies in seven years. Loads of Bond!
002. Bond on proper missions. No family baggage. Those were the days!
003. Everything in the right place. Pre-credit, gun barrel, Moneypenny and M (mostly) in the office.
004. Bad villains with proper plans, (what was Greene going to do again?)
005. All the films had novelizations. Why did that stop? When a film came out, you got the full package. The movie at the cinema, the soundtrack, the book, (and later, the Widescreen VHS videocassette!) What bliss!
006. Gadgets were still cool back then.
007. James Bond will Return."
001. Agreed.
002. Agreed.
003. Agreed.
004. Disagree. The Brosnan era villains weren't the best, Carver was a pantomime wimp, Renard was forgettable, Electra was un-threatening, Graves was just appalling and too comic.
005. Agreed.
006. Disagree. The were too comic and cheesy.
007. Agreed.
On merit your case is sound and yes, the Brosnan era was more fun, but I don't think it was better for fans as 2x of the films were the worst in the franchise (DAD & TWINE).
The rest is personal taste. I can no longer watch TND & DAD, and I don't say that about too many other Bondmovies.
About the villains: Carver is one of the worst in the series, who is Renard again? , Graves was not menacing at all. It feels like they tried too hard to include a "stylish, olde skool" villain. Rosamund Pike as Miranda was ok, but she is a terrific actress anyway.