Pierce Brosnan: "Daniel Craig is One Great Bond"

13

Comments

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,716
    Started what?!


    Started BAIN's love for the franchise, I guess.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ... the ruthlessness? Well that was evident in the others; the more "realistic" take came in a bigger dose from Dalton first.

    Ruthless? Brosnan? Nah. After seeing Dan, Tim, AND Dan Pierce is like a rubber ducky in the tub.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    that's right, keep quacking. It doesn't change things. ;)
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Pierce Brosnan: "Daniel Craig is One Great Bond...to be compared too because I make him look like a wooden chair'

    Too true ! =))

    Mcfly, hello? I think Brosnan was infering that he's the wooden chair. DC would kick his arse

    Nah. Brosnan is better :P

    Hmm...I was a Brosnan era bloke but as much as I love him (metaphorically) Craig is probably better. More compelling, more physical, more rutheless yet just as charming.

    Brosnan was the Bond that started it all though so I can't dislike him.

    Started what?!

    My Bond fandom...duh! :p

    I don't know about Dalton...sometimes it was good...sometimes it was stagey

    "Well...FIND HIM" :)) Ooooh scary. Davi completely out "ruthlessised" Bond in LTK with his laid back persona and soothing voice when he was ordering the most horrific of acts. He was the real star in many ways and the one I'd be (frankly) more scared of.

    Having said that Dalt's "make a sound...and you're dead" was good.
  • Posts: 7,653
    ... the ruthlessness? Well that was evident in the others; the more "realistic" take came in a bigger dose from Dalton first.

    Ruthless? Brosnan? Nah. After seeing Dan, Tim, AND Dan Pierce is like a rubber ducky in the tub.

    Well at least when the rubber ducks tips over in the bath you actually see what happens. And there is no fantasy needed to correct a bad scene and stupid actionscenes.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    that's right, keep quacking. It doesn't change things. ;)

    I meant to toss Sean in there too, but got Dan twice. That's what watching Munich gets me.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, watching Munich, you say? Good man, great film. Were you the one that hadn't gotten around to it yet, and just have, or was that someone else?

    Oh, and 2,000 posts! Feels excellent.
  • Posts: 2,341
    @Bain123 :
    You killing me bro! LOL. When I called the two of us "oldsters".
    The first one I ever saw was DR NO. It was on a return double bill with GOLDFINGER...
    No home video or TNT Bond weeks then. I saw the first five on return engagements.
    The first one I saw newly released was OHMSS
    That makes me one old M@therf*cker. :))
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 1,497
    Started what?!


    Started BAIN's love for the franchise, I guess.

    ...And a generation of kids from the 80's and 90's who were introduced to Bond for the first time via GE and the N64 game.

    Let's face it Bond would have quite possibly ended quietly after LTK if it weren't for Brosnan's Goldeneye. Sure, it wasn't all Brosnan and perhaps another actor could have pulled it off. But could they? Piece had the "look", and that's all he needed. I've heard the argument that Sean Bean would have been a better Bond. I think Pierce however was more suave. It was all the right factors at the right time.

    What did Brosnan start? I would argue the commercial revival of the series!



  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, watching Munich, you say? Good man, great film. Were you the one that hadn't gotten around to it yet, and just have, or was that someone else?

    Oh, and 2,000 posts! Feels excellent.

    Yes! But I can't find any good pictures to use for Blu-ray fan covers or posters. :(
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 3,494
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    @Bain123 :
    You killing me bro! LOL. When I called the two of us "oldsters".
    The first one I ever saw was DR NO. It was on a return double bill with GOLDFINGER...
    No home video or TNT Bond weeks then. I saw the first five on return engagements.
    The first one I saw newly released was OHMSS
    That makes me one old M@therf*cker. :))

    Speak for yourself fellow original, you only got 5 years on me and I ain't that old no matter what my kids say! I run circles around them, 14 and 11 and I can still beat both of them in a short sprint even with a head start!

    What us "oldster Connery original fans" need is a thread of our own. First, let's see how many of us are out there. Seriously, not a put down of the younger fans who I am grateful for because they keep the series going while we get fewer in number every year, but we can tell them a lot about the original "golden age of Bond" and what things were like then in ways that the UDVD footage doesn't cover.

    Who wants to get one going?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, watching Munich, you say? Good man, great film. Were you the one that hadn't gotten around to it yet, and just have, or was that someone else?

    Oh, and 2,000 posts! Feels excellent.

    Yes! But I can't find any good pictures to use for Blu-ray fan covers or posters. :(

    What about the scene where
    they detonate the bomb under the target's bed; you could use the shot of Carl getting out of the car and running toward the hotel. It's one of the most widely used 'Munich' production stills, that I see, anyway, on Google images.

  • edited June 2012 Posts: 12,837
    but we can tell them a lot about the original "golden age of Bond"

    I think the late 80s were the golden age. Imo nobody will ever come close to Dalton. I also really liked the 90s Bond films though.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited June 2012 Posts: 28,694
    The Golden Age (of Bond) was the 60s.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    The Golden Age (of Bond) was the 60s.

    Duh!! :p (But 1995 and 2006 were pretty grand years for Bond too)

    ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ Pierce Brosnan Martin Campbell
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Nah, Golden Age 1987-1999.

    ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, John Glen, Martin Campbell, and, erm... (I forget who directed TND and TWINE).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    In the 60s there lay the best Bond decade, where the only stinker was YOLT. We got the origin of Bond, the masterpiece that is FRWL, the trend-setting GF, the entertaining high risk romp that is TB, and a compelling look at Bond as a married man in OHMSS, and the tragedy that comes from a man like him trying to settle down. No other decade can top that.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 1,492
    As much as I love the eighties and Craig..

    nothing..

    nothing....

    tops the sixties Bonds. They are like seventies Dr Who - utterly perfect.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I don't think YOLT was a stinker. I actually rate it higher than DN and FRWL (ducks for cover).

    Anyway I like the 60s, buuuuttt... They didn't have Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan (Sean was awesome though), they didn't have the great cold war thriller that was TLD, they didn't have the dark, gritty tail of Bond on revenge that was LTK, the great story of Bond struggling to fit in post cold war, and his past coming back to haunt him (GE), or the story of how he found himself facing an insane terrorist who can't die while he was tricked by the girl he was meant to be protecting (TWINE).

    I love the 60s films, most are in my top 10 (GF and TB are even in my top 5), but I like the 80s, and some of the 90s better.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    where the only stinker was YOLT.

    YOLT wasn't the best film of the 60s but I'd hardly call it a stinker. Donald Pleasence? Ken Adam's awesomeness? Nancy Sinatra, killer pirahna's and Nancy Sinatra?

    It's not (IMO) one of the very best but I don't get the hostility it gets now.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I don't think YOLT was a stinker. I actually rate it higher than DN and FRWL (ducks for cover).

    Anyway I like the 60s, buuuuttt... They didn't have Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan (Sean was awesome though), they didn't have the great cold war thriller that was TLD, they didn't have the dark, gritty tail of Bond on revenge that was LTK, or the great story of Bond struggling to fit in post cold war, and his past coming back to haunt him (GE).

    I love the 60s films, most are in my top 10 (some my top 5), but I like the 80s, and some of the 90s better.

    The 60s had FRWL, one of the greatest Cold War thrillers ever, made in the heat of the Cold War.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    where the only stinker was YOLT.

    YOLT wasn't the best film of the 60s but I'd hardly call it a stinker. Donald Pleasence? Ken Adam's awesomeness? Nancy Sinatra, killer pirahna's and Nancy Sinatra?

    It's not (IMO) one of the very best but I don't get the hostility it gets now.

    It doesn't stack up to the other films Connery blessed us with. At all.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I don't think YOLT was a stinker. I actually rate it higher than DN and FRWL (ducks for cover).

    Anyway I like the 60s, buuuuttt... They didn't have Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan (Sean was awesome though), they didn't have the great cold war thriller that was TLD, they didn't have the dark, gritty tail of Bond on revenge that was LTK, or the great story of Bond struggling to fit in post cold war, and his past coming back to haunt him (GE).

    I love the 60s films, most are in my top 10 (some my top 5), but I like the 80s, and some of the 90s better.

    The 60s had FRWL, one of the greatest Cold War thrillers ever, made in the heat of the Cold War.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    where the only stinker was YOLT.

    YOLT wasn't the best film of the 60s but I'd hardly call it a stinker. Donald Pleasence? Ken Adam's awesomeness? Nancy Sinatra, killer pirahna's and Nancy Sinatra?

    It's not (IMO) one of the very best but I don't get the hostility it gets now.

    It doesn't stack up to the other films Connery blessed us with. At all.

    I've said this before, but I don't think FRWL deserves all the praise it gets. Connery wasn't as good imo as he was in GF/TB. And I think TLD (and maybe even FYEO) were better cold war thrillers.
  • Posts: 1,497
    actonsteve wrote:
    As much as I love the eighties and Craig..

    nothing..

    nothing....

    tops the sixties Bonds. They are like seventies Dr Who - utterly perfect.

    I think actonsteve sums it up perfectly.

    Goldeneye and CR were sparks for the franchise, but certainly not anywhere near a golden age.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Would just like to clarify that by "golden age", I was referring to the Connery-like popularity of Daniel Craig combined with huge box office gross and receipts. That is difficult to dispute. As far as an artistic sense, that is a matter of personal opinion and entirely subjective.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Would just like to clarify that by "golden age", I was referring to the Connery-like popularity of Daniel Craig combined with huge box office gross and receipts. That is difficult to dispute. As far as an artistic sense, that is a matter of personal opinion and entirely subjective.

    Brosnan and Moore had the popularity and box office gross too, so did Dalton for TLD.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I don't think YOLT was a stinker. I actually rate it higher than DN and FRWL (ducks for cover).

    Anyway I like the 60s, buuuuttt... They didn't have Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan (Sean was awesome though), they didn't have the great cold war thriller that was TLD, they didn't have the dark, gritty tail of Bond on revenge that was LTK, or the great story of Bond struggling to fit in post cold war, and his past coming back to haunt him (GE).

    I love the 60s films, most are in my top 10 (some my top 5), but I like the 80s, and some of the 90s better.

    The 60s had FRWL, one of the greatest Cold War thrillers ever, made in the heat of the Cold War.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    where the only stinker was YOLT.

    YOLT wasn't the best film of the 60s but I'd hardly call it a stinker. Donald Pleasence? Ken Adam's awesomeness? Nancy Sinatra, killer pirahna's and Nancy Sinatra?

    It's not (IMO) one of the very best but I don't get the hostility it gets now.

    It doesn't stack up to the other films Connery blessed us with. At all.

    Well its definitely more entertaing than Dullmonds are Forever ;)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Would just like to clarify that by "golden age", I was referring to the Connery-like popularity of Daniel Craig combined with huge box office gross and receipts. That is difficult to dispute. As far as an artistic sense, that is a matter of personal opinion and entirely subjective.

    Brosnan and Moore had the popularity and box office gross too, so did Dalton for TLD.

    Not to the level of Connery. Craig is the biggest since Connery. That was the point @SirHenryLeeChaChing made and as he said, you can't argue with that. In fact, Bond may never reach that height again.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I don't think YOLT was a stinker. I actually rate it higher than DN and FRWL (ducks for cover).

    Anyway I like the 60s, buuuuttt... They didn't have Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan (Sean was awesome though), they didn't have the great cold war thriller that was TLD, they didn't have the dark, gritty tail of Bond on revenge that was LTK, or the great story of Bond struggling to fit in post cold war, and his past coming back to haunt him (GE).

    I love the 60s films, most are in my top 10 (some my top 5), but I like the 80s, and some of the 90s better.

    The 60s had FRWL, one of the greatest Cold War thrillers ever, made in the heat of the Cold War.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    where the only stinker was YOLT.

    YOLT wasn't the best film of the 60s but I'd hardly call it a stinker. Donald Pleasence? Ken Adam's awesomeness? Nancy Sinatra, killer pirahna's and Nancy Sinatra?

    It's not (IMO) one of the very best but I don't get the hostility it gets now.

    It doesn't stack up to the other films Connery blessed us with. At all.

    Well its definitely more entertaing than Dullmonds are Forever ;)

    Yes, YOLT beats out DAF, but that is from the 70s. We are speaking 60s exclusively.
  • Thanks Sam!

    Having lived through all the eras and been an observer of everything going on, I'd say only the Moore era approached the level of hype and excitement that each new Connery and Craig release has gotten. Not trying to discount your or anyone else's opinion, but while the other eras have had a little of both hype and solid box office, it wasn't sustained at this level.
  • Posts: 1,497
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Well its definitely more entertaing than Dullmonds are Forever ;)

    Say what you will about DAF, that Connery looks fat and bloated, that the plot is confusing in places, that there is too much cartoonish over-the-top comedy. But Diamonds are Forever is anything but dull. The dialogue alone elevates DAF way way beyond dullness and let's not forget John Barry's score.

    But I don't mind you or anyone slagging off DAF. Really I don't. (Lord knows the Brosnan fans take quite a beating around her, so I sympathize) :)>- I just found that statement to be inaccurate.

Sign In or Register to comment.