Would you rather watch CR 67 OR NSNA?

13334363839152

Comments

  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    edited September 2023 Posts: 1,103
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Am indifferent about NTTD, but a fifth Brossa effort is the stuff of nightmares for me! He did four too many imo!

    As much i like Brosnan, i think that the real problem with his portrayal was that he tried so hard to emane Connery and Moore vibes that forgot to make the role his own.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,218
    thedove wrote: »
    Brosnan's FYEO is certainly a tempting prospect. But I remember feeling that Craig's arc wasn't quite finished at the time. I didn't envisage it ending up the way it did, but I admire the big swings it took.

    I think these are both eras that didn't capitalise on their potential, so this is a very hard decision for me.

    I shall wait for you to make that decision!

    Lets assume @FoxRox that Pierce staying on didn't touch or change CR.

    I think I would have preferred a fifth Brosnan over NTTD. Brosnan films, for all their faults entertained. Craig's Bond started so strongly and by the end became more of a melodrama then an entertaining yarn.

    So give me a Brosnan send off that gives him a proper ride off into the sunset.

    SP for its considerable faults does have a finality to it. It would have also served as a bridge to the new guy with Blofeld still alive and SPECTRE still a threat.

    If that's the case, then I agree. Fifth Brozza film it is!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,983
    Just squeeze in this fifth Brosnan installment in 2004 and keep Craig's timeline unaltered. Success!

    Meanwhile, in a perfect world, we also would've gotten two more Dalton films in '91 and '93.
  • Posts: 12,479
    I would much rather have an extra Dalton film than Brosnan.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I would much rather have an extra Dalton film than Brosnan.

    I'm not a greedy person, I want 2 extra Dalton films.

    Between a 5th Brosnan, and Craig stopping at 4, i'm going with Craig stopping at 4/ending his run with SP.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,218
    I'd have taken a Dalton AVTAK and a fourth Dalton film in '91 in a heartbeat. Purely from a creative standpoint.
  • I'd like any scenario that means Dire 'Nother Day doesn't exist. It's an utter embarrassment to the franchise. That film has zero redeeming features. It's Bond for mouth breathers.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,218
    I'd like any scenario that means Dire 'Nother Day doesn't exist. It's an utter embarrassment to the franchise. That film has zero redeeming features. It's Bond for mouth breathers.

    I do find myself drooling while enjoying the PTS.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,221
    Absolutely a 5th, more grounded, back to basics from Brosnan.
  • Posts: 7,510
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I would much rather have an extra Dalton film than Brosnan.

    Yep!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,983
    I'd like any scenario that means Dire 'Nother Day doesn't exist. It's an utter embarrassment to the franchise. That film has zero redeeming features. It's Bond for mouth breathers.

    I'd definitely disagree with that. It's one of the weakest by far (not the worst to me) but it has its moments, particularly the PTS, a large portion of the Cuba sequences, the fight at Blades, and that blazing ice chase between Bond and Zao, along with some other smaller moments. I've always really loved Bond's re-introduction to MI6 via the virtual reality shootout.
  • edited September 2023 Posts: 6,709
    talos7 wrote: »
    Absolutely a 5th, more grounded, back to basics from Brosnan.

    Yep, for me too. I can always not watch Dan’s last, even though I love its first third and will always come back to watch it up until Bond goes to London. But Pierce would’ve been great in a 5th more grounded film, with his matador hair, TTOP swagger and TCA flair.
    thedove wrote: »
    Brosnan's FYEO is certainly a tempting prospect. But I remember feeling that Craig's arc wasn't quite finished at the time. I didn't envisage it ending up the way it did, but I admire the big swings it took.

    I think these are both eras that didn't capitalise on their potential, so this is a very hard decision for me.

    I shall wait for you to make that decision!

    Lets assume @FoxRox that Pierce staying on didn't touch or change CR.

    I think I would have preferred a fifth Brosnan over NTTD. Brosnan films, for all their faults entertained. Craig's Bond started so strongly and by the end became more of a melodrama then an entertaining yarn.

    So give me a Brosnan send off that gives him a proper ride off into the sunset.

    SP for its considerable faults does have a finality to it. It would have also served as a bridge to the new guy with Blofeld still alive and SPECTRE still a threat.

    If that's the case, then I agree. Fifth Brozza film it is!

    I couldn’t agree more.
  • I’m actually a bit surprised by how many people voted Pierce. Glad to see that!
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,440
    I wasn't sure how this was going to go, it has been interesting to see the rationale and thoughts behind some of the answers.

    I am always proud of myself when I can pose a tricky one for these would you rathers!
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,638
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Just squeeze in this fifth Brosnan installment in 2004 and keep Craig's timeline unaltered. Success!

    Meanwhile, in a perfect world, we also would've gotten two more Dalton films in '91 and '93.

    This! With an adult Bond novel between 2002 and 2008. However, I consider Everything or Nothing PB's fifth and final adventure, while considering it canon with the movie's floating timeline. Same with DC and Bloodstone, between QOS and SF. So just narrowly PB's TRUE 5th movie.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,262
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I would much rather have an extra Dalton film than Brosnan.

    I'm not a greedy person, I want 2 extra Dalton films.

    Between a 5th Brosnan, and Craig stopping at 4, i'm going with Craig stopping at 4/ending his run with SP.

    +1. Great minds think alike, Major. I would've been content to have Craig's tenure end with his Bond driving out of MI6 HQ in the Aston Martin with Madeleine and leaving what happened next to them and Blofeld/Oberhauser to the imagination of the viewer.
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    MR, unfortunately, is just a Dean Martin-Matt Helm movie -- albeit one with a bigger budget, higher production values, and Roger Moore instead of Dean Martin.

    I think of MR(and for that matter its fellow Lewis Gilbert-directed outer-space themed film YOLT also) as more Derek Flint than Matt Helm since Flint did go into outer space and battled enemy HQ located inside a volcano:

    in+like+flint+3.jpg

    in+like+flint+1.PNG

    6a00d8341d6d8d53ef01a3fcb03b29970b-450wi

    Flint_kaboom.jpg


    thedove wrote: »
    When I think about it I can't believe that they sent Bond to space! The sheer balls and chutzpah of that is mind-boggling to me.

    Blame(or credit?) George Lucas for that one. Which brings a potential future question to mind: would critics of Bond going into outer space in MR be willing to sacrifice the existence of Star Wars to prevent Bond's traveling into outer space from ever having happened?

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,790
    I'd like any scenario that means Dire 'Nother Day doesn't exist. It's an utter embarrassment to the franchise. That film has zero redeeming features. It's Bond for mouth breathers.

    I disagree with that, while yes, it's one of the lesser Bond films (also not a fan of it), but it's still had redeeming qualities (well, as any of the Bond films are), there's the PTS, Zao, Miranda Frost, and there are elements of the Moonraker book/novel in it, and Brosnan was still in top form.
  • edited September 2023 Posts: 4,176
    Well, for what it's worth we did get the video game Everything or Nothing, which is in effect a fifth Brosnan adventure. And one can always stop watching the Craig films after they've finished SP.

    Personally, I'd rather a fifth Brosnan film, but it really depends on what we would have gotten. If I'm honest the idea of some sort of 'course correction' after DAD involving him doesn't particularly sound appealing, especially if it was intended to be more 'grounded' and 'serious'. I'd argue the Brosnan era fell apart during TWINE when they tried to lean into the more drama heavy ideas (I like Brosnan, but to be honest compared to Craig he wasn't anywhere near strong enough an actor to carry that, and the writers were never able to effectively hone these ideas during his tenure). When we did get interesting character moments from his Bond it was within an ultimately quite fantastical adventure, and there was definitely a sense that his performances worked better when he was understated. If we got something along the lines of EoN it could have worked I guess - enough character drama to hold audience interest, an understated Brosnan performance (not the bizarre soap opera rubbish he's doing in TWINE), a strong supporting cast, but something ultimately fantastical with enough escapism to hold it together.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,044
    I'm not sure if everyone registered that preferring a fifth Brosnan movie over just having four Craig films means that each of them would have five films, while the other way 'round they'd only have four each. So choosing a fifth Brosnan means we would have had two more Bond films than deciding we want only four with Craig. While I find at least one or two of each disposable (TWINE, DAD, SP), no Bond fan should vote for having fewer Bond movies than we have been getting in the last 25 years. (That being said, of course, three of Craig's movies are in my top five - CR, SF and NTTD - while none of the Pierced ones are close to being among my favourites. But another mid-field Bond film would have been welcome nonetheless.)
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 97
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I'm not sure if everyone registered that preferring a fifth Brosnan movie over just having four Craig films means that each of them would have five films, while the other way 'round they'd only have four each. So choosing a fifth Brosnan means we would have had two more Bond films than deciding we want only four with Craig. While I find at least one or two of each disposable (TWINE, DAD, SP), no Bond fan should vote for having fewer Bond movies than we have been getting in the last 25 years. (That being said, of course, three of Craig's movies are in my top five - CR, SF and NTTD - while none of the Pierced ones are close to being among my favourites. But another mid-field Bond film would have been welcome nonetheless.)

    +1. It seems most users here read it as "either a fifth Brosnan film or No Time To Die", which really speaks about people's reading comprehension.

    I can't see any reason to ask for fewer Bond films. Even the worst Bond movies still offer something good and a reason to exist. Die Another Day is mostly awful and I skip it during most of my Bondathons, but there's some really good scenes in there (sometimes I just watch it until Bond reaches Iceland and turn it off just before the Ice Palace).

    A fifth Brosnan movie AND a fifth Craig movie is a win-win for me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,432
    If I get another Brosnan film then it means I get an extra Bond film: why would I pick the '4 Craigs' option when it means losing a film? I don't really understand the question. What Bond fan would want to have fewer Bond films?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    As much as I have fond nostalgia for Pierce and that era of Bond, I think it stopped at the right point. The series needed new blood and a new direction, to finish on a FYEO or LTK more grounded Bond film with Pierce wouldn't be as special as CR was with Daniel.

    As for having one less Bond film, I'm not so sure. Daniel is my favourite Bond and as much I'm disappointed with NTTD, I was desperate for him to come back after Spectre. I needed at least one more film of him as that version of his Bond. He wasn't a rookie, wasn't past it, he was prime Bond in Spectre. I'd rather NTTD come out sooner and had been a better film, in my opinion.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited September 2023 Posts: 14,606
    I would love to have seen a fifth Brosnan film, he had another in him. It would've likely affected the outcome of EON though, which was already a great send-off for his era.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,983
    In my head canon now, The Matador is Brosnan's outrageously unique and foul-mouthed fifth installment.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,024
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I'm not sure if everyone registered that preferring a fifth Brosnan movie over just having four Craig films means that each of them would have five films, while the other way 'round they'd only have four each. So choosing a fifth Brosnan means we would have had two more Bond films than deciding we want only four with Craig. While I find at least one or two of each disposable (TWINE, DAD, SP), no Bond fan should vote for having fewer Bond movies than we have been getting in the last 25 years. (That being said, of course, three of Craig's movies are in my top five - CR, SF and NTTD - while none of the Pierced ones are close to being among my favourites. But another mid-field Bond film would have been welcome nonetheless.)

    +1. It seems most users here read it as "either a fifth Brosnan film or No Time To Die", which really speaks about people's reading comprehension.

    I can't see any reason to ask for fewer Bond films. Even the worst Bond movies still offer something good and a reason to exist. Die Another Day is mostly awful and I skip it during most of my Bondathons, but there's some really good scenes in there (sometimes I just watch it until Bond reaches Iceland and turn it off just before the Ice Palace).

    A fifth Brosnan movie AND a fifth Craig movie is a win-win for me.

    Yeah, I definitely misunderstood this. jw_pepper lays it out very clearly with the number of films. It's very easy to say then that I would take the fifth Brosnan film. Far preferable to losing NTTD, which I have no particular desire to lose. The more the merrier.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,790
    Why not both?

    Have Brosnan do his fifth film (though preferred it to be a semi adaptation of a Fleming novel, because he had no Fleming material to worked with in his tenure, almost all of his films were original EON scripts, but none came from a Fleming book).

    Have Craig do another Bond film (the film is a sequel of No Time To Die, showing what happened to Bond after the events on Safin's island 😅).
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,044
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Why not both?

    Have Brosnan do his fifth film (though preferred it to be a semi adaptation of a Fleming novel, because he had no Fleming material to worked with in his tenure, almost all of his films were original EON scripts, but none came from a Fleming book).

    Have Craig do another Bond film (the film is a sequel of No Time To Die, showing what happened to Bond after the events on Safin's island 😅).
    I guess that Brosnan is really too old to star in another Bond film (he is about 3 1/2 years older than me, and I surely don't feel like taking over).

    And I doubt a Craig sequel would look in any way credible regarding his survival considering the massive missile attack on Safin's island. He is dead for good, period.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Why not both?

    Have Brosnan do his fifth film (though preferred it to be a semi adaptation of a Fleming novel, because he had no Fleming material to worked with in his tenure, almost all of his films were original EON scripts, but none came from a Fleming book).

    Have Craig do another Bond film (the film is a sequel of No Time To Die, showing what happened to Bond after the events on Safin's island 😅).
    I guess that Brosnan is really too old to star in another Bond film (he is about 3 1/2 years older than me, and I surely don't feel like taking over).

    And I doubt a Craig sequel would look in any way credible regarding his survival considering the massive missile attack on Safin's island. He is dead for good, period.

    (Raises a glass)
    To James......
  • edited September 2023 Posts: 2,001
    I'm not sure why, PB is the least memorable Bond for me. And I like him as an actor. Did A Dud was enough for me. I still can't get over that invisible car. How much better would that film have been without it? Though not a big fan of Dan's last film, I'll take the no longer visible Bond over the invisible car.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,044
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I'm not sure why, PB is the least memorable Bond for me. And I like him as an actor. Did A Dud was enough for me. I still can't get over that invisible car. How much would that film have been without it? Though not a big fan of Dan's last film, I'll take the no longer visible Bond over the invisible car.
    I do too, but this doesn't mean I don't like the "Brosnan Era" entirely. The first two were good, But still I think that his last two films are forgettable (if one is merciful), so it's a fifty/fifty outcome. Full disclosure: I'm a big fan of Dan's last film, unlike Pierce's.
Sign In or Register to comment.