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
Haha. When/where was that taken?
Just seems the odd Bond out sometimes, I never really took to him
Moore in fact looks good as Bond, has most of the necessary attributes as well as being a top womanizer. Only Dalton and Connery truly looked and acted as to what Fleming originally intended above all else. The others quite couldn't manage that
But he is, and no other can be, Dalton.
"Ye meant nothing... thho me!"
"Even his FAATHER knew about it!"
"I'm going agghhftah him!"
Connery was light years ahead of him in terms of believability or caliber and Dalton also, but they simply didn't kill nowhere near as much, but simply the kills they did do, were effective enough. Both great Bond's that Brosnan can't get close to, but Mr Brosnan goes through his movies racking up kills and all of a sudden he's the best thing since electricity in some eyes, or makes for a very good Bond ?
Brosnan didn't even have that killer instinct so essential for the Bond character I go as far to say. Just a big haired charlatan in the Bond role with all due respect to his fans and supporters at times. I don't want to be too harsh on him, as he did in fact do well here and there, but the longer I remain on this thread, the more berating I find myself becoming
Maybe he worked for Remington Steele, but in the part of James Bond, was found lacking all too often
On first watching GE I actually really enjoyed it, and Brozza in the role. I guess I was just trying to make sure I liked it, for the sake of the franchise and hoping more would be made.
TND came out, and I thought that was ok too, likewise the same with TWINE.
It wasn't until viewing DAD at the cinema did the full force of how bad Brozza really was hit me in that movie. I had never been more ashamed of the franchise at that point, almost walking out of the cinema halfway through in disgust.
Since then, all the glaring faults in DAD suddenly started to show themselves in his first 3 movies too. I had never really noticed them before, or maybe I just tried my hardest to ignore them on first viewing.
Now I judge all 4 of his movies in the same light, yes even the massively over-rated GE. They all bear the same DNA, they are all cut from the same cloth, and bear the same hallmarks, the same tacky, cheesy moments. Once you start to see the irritation of Brozza, then it is almost impossible to watch any of his films again after that.
Moore had cheese too, but his films were from a different, bygone, nostalgic era that reminds me of my childhood, and many of his moments were made for laughs. Therefore I can look on his movies with fondness.
Brozza was easily the worst Bond, and appeared in the worst films of the franchise.
As an opinion this is to be respected. As a factual statement... well, umm...
FAIL. :)>-
As time went by, his acting couln't lift the franchise, he coudn't make weak script look good by his own presence. He completely fall over the cliff in DAD (and I'm not only referring to the awful CGI surf abobination). Overall, there's nothing special for me in either TND, TWINE or DAD.
Yes, he did kept the franchise alive, but on a respirator. Daniel Craig took a seriously wounded franchise, and made it whole again.
Having watched GE and TND over the last couple of days, I can say he did a decent job and these were a couple of really good Bond films, Haven't see TWINE for a while but I do believe that DAD is responsible for a lot of the Brosnan hate. Even though having read a lot of the reviews for this film at the time, a lot were fairly positive, the hatred for this pile of dung has built up over the last 5 years or so.
Craig has two Criticial and commercially sucessful Bond films which have made Bond Cool again and his thid offering is about to hit a billion. Yes he will have a few naysayers just to be different but as long as he doesn't have an outright downfall Craig will leave the Bond frachise in the best Condition its been since Connery's Peak. Brosnan left the franchise with a massive meh and his other films weren't anywhere in the greatest Bond films imo. He was just a average actor who was the chosen one in many Bond fan's eyes who sadly never lived up to the hype.
Please stop saying that.
It's true, by the way. I say preach it loud and proud.
The films have always been popular and it's why they've lasted 50 years. Craigs films have made lots of money and are the most successful films since the 60s but saying "he made Bond cool again" makes it sound like the franchise was some dying old series that had been terrible since the 60s, until Craig came along and saved it. When really the series has always been fine.
When I see some of the films, I don't think "cool" at all. In some I can barely stomach to watch a character so two dimensional and lacking in anything special. You all know the era I mean, too! Dan has simply (in my point of view) had the coolest Bond since Sean.
Its a fact. Bond films weren't getting anywhere near the critical acclaim like they were before Casino royale and tell me when was the last time a actor playing Bond get a Bafta nod for Best actor. Craig bought the coolness back not seen since Connery and during the Brosnan peroid film franchise's like Mission impossible were making Bond look old hat. Now Bond is now at the level hehasn't been since that 60's peroid.
I don't necessarily agree with all of your points, although I think that there's a kernel of truth to what you're saying.
I was very happy that Brosnan "rescued" the Bond series after thinking that it really was, finally and truly, over (as silly as that sounds now after LTK and the protracted wait for GE it seemed like the Bond films had come to the end of the line). I think that instead of being "in style" to "bash" Brosnan I think that, for people like me, we can let our true feelings be known.
What I mean by that is that back in the 90s there was a bit of an element to being happy that we got ANY Bond at all, whether it was good or not. Now that Bond has been firmly ensconced in pop culture again, especially given the box office take of SF, we don't have to be uncritical cheerleaders of the series - this is, I think, the true reason that a lot of people are more critical of Brosnan now.
When GE came out I loved it for two main reasons - the first is that it seemed a return to classy, classic Bond (loved the obviously fake model shots of the jets crashing in Russia, loved the villain's secret base in the end, loved the sense of timeless glamour in Monte Carlo) and the second that Brosnan wasn't as bad as we feared (we thought he'd be the second coming of Roger Moore). Having watched it again I can see a lot of the flaws but I still love it.
With both TND and TWINE I left the theatre with a feeling of disappointment. My friends felt the same, but as I said we were happy to get any Bond. While not classics, TND and TWINE were...adequate placeholders until a better Bond film could come out. But at the time, after a two year wait between films, they disappointed. But hey, better than no Bond films, right?
With DAD I finally accepted that the series was on the wrong track. I enjoyed seeing it with an audience - they were VERY into it and I suspect that I finally knew what it would be like to see, say, MR on opening night - but watching it on video again was appalling. Again, I was just happy to get any Bond at all, and thought that this was the future of the series - substandard, tick-the-box entries that were a shadow of the glory years.
Obviously, once CR came out I realized that there was no reason to settle for what we used to get.
While the film-making has improved tremendously, Craig's performance has put Brosnan's already visible flaws into stark relief. So I think the combination of better films and a better actor (and of course, those two sentiments may differ among people here) has made it easier to dismiss the last era. I did enjoy Brosnan and am tremendously grateful for what he did for the series' popularity, but I'm glad we're on firmer ground now.
It's not a fact. Maybe you weren't a fan during other eras but Bond films have always been popular.
Like I said, Craig has very successful films, the most successful since the 60s, but saying he made Bond cool again makes it sound like the series hasn't been popular for ages. Which just isn't true.
Bond has always been cool and has always been popular and that's why the series has gone on for so long. There's a difference between making Bond cool again and making you personally happy with the films again.
And btw, there were 2 Mission Impossible films released during the Brosnan era. The first came and went pretty quickly and the 2nd one wasn't very good anway, so I'm not sure where you've got the idea that they were making Bond look old hat from.
I respect your opinion. But for me Moore and Brosnan were never cool and their films (in Moore's case he has done one or two very good Bond films) made Bond look a joke. It wasn't a dying series but it wasn't doing the business it should have been but was left in the tracks by other spy franchises were it shouldn't have been leading the way. Barbara Broccoli and Craig has bought it back to the forefront with an amazing cast of crew and actors and making the films smart spy action thrillers that young and old can enjoy without dumbing it down.
FRWL (not because it's bad, just a bit yawn-inducing for me at this point)
GF
YOLT
DAF
LALD
TMWTGG
TSWLM
FYEO
OP
AVTAK
So, too much auto-fire in Brosnan's movies? Okay, then too much winky-nudgy in the movies from GF on, right?
Brosnan skinny? Isn't that better Connery & Moore's 'chunky-style'?
ONLY someone who did not go to the cinema for Bond during the Moore era can say anything about Brosnan not being cool. See, Moore was getting way too old in the eighties, then Dalton took over, and even though he was a breath of fresh air, he wasn't doing the superspy hero Bond the general public expected. So sorry to break this to the kids, but BROSNAN made Bond cool again, CRAIG just brought back the Dalton/literary vibe (which was great too).
I'm a Dalton fan first & foremost, but if we are to get 'cinema' Bond, Brosnan's was up there with the best of them.
I was around during the Moore era and Bond was always seen as cool. Saying Craig saved the franchise is stretching it. LALD took over 800 million without a 24 hour marketing campaign.
I log into my Yahoo account when SF was coming out and was constantly reminded about the new Bond film. It makes the news and is widely discussed on the net.
Had the Connery era had all the world markets like China, Russia,The Eastern Block, and India like the recent Bonds do than Thunderball may have taken well over 1.5 billion. Perhaps more.
Also back in Connery's, Moore's and Dalton's days, in England you had to queue for hours to get a ticket when the film came out. Once sold out, you were sent home. There was no advance booking facility.
Also you were reminded far less back then than you are now. You would see a film and see a new Bond trailer and maybe a bus poster and a few tv spots. That was it! Compared to now it is nothing. The newer Bonds get a push I have never witnessed before.
Also none of them 3 actors had anything like unlimited access cinema passes. You had to pay each time you went. So to see it 20 times, you had to be well off. No teenager could afford that unlike today with the introduction of the passes. When TWINE came out I saw it over 25 times in a month for the measly cost of £9.99 for a one month pass. I did not have that luxury with TLD. I wish though.
No question, the Connery era will always be the titan of the Bonds. If anyone is to be thanked why Bond is massive now, then thank Connery. He set it up perfectly! And Bond survived because of overall quality though like anything in this world, you get an occasional dip. Nothing is a constant.
Imagine the Connery era with advance booking as well as unlimited viewing with a pass. Are the calculations made on seats sold? Because I am sure a cinema has to pay the distributor each time someone sees the film on a pass. Profit is made on concessions like soda and popcorn.
Brosnan was seen as a super cool Bond in his cinematic day. If anyone had suggested back in 1997 that Mr Craig was to be Mr Brosnan's replacement, it would be accepted with the enthusiasm of Samuel L Jackson playing Abraham Lincoln! :) Probably worse. I think there would have been riots of protest and buildings burning.
That's right, Brosnan was seen as irreplaceable back then.
Of course, now, Dalton & Craig's are clearly on a higher level....
Until Dalton came along, many including myself saw Mr Moore as the personification of cool. Hence why Bond has always in whichever era been seen as cool. There are varying degrees of course.
I agree that by AVTAK, Bond was seen as past it and the last nail had gone into the franchise coffin.
Many I know did not go see Dalton because they thought it would be the same style as AVTAK. The franchise had created this impression that Bond was a wait and see it on tv character. Why pay to see it at the cinema.
Dalton I agree, jumped into the hurricane and seriously re-defined what Bond can be. He was the first to really challenge perceptions way before Craig. Because Brosnan was the expected style of Bond in terms of persona at least.
I got Dalton straight away and had no issue. He was the blueprint of the direction that only now is truly appreciated. Once Batman Begins hit in 2005, it was obvious that three dimensionality was the only way forward. Bourne also showed a conflicted hero that was not necessarily over-playing his nice, amusing side of his personality. These were tormented characters and Dalton was years ahead! :)
Fleming's Bond is a tormented character riddled with guilt and self-disgust at times. No snowboarding against Russian Special Forces with The Beach Boys playing and into a water craft which has a beautiful woman to help the days go by as you head back to England. I loved it when I was 14 I do admit though. I thought women would be so easy when I get older!
As for Mr Brosnan. Had he quit as Bond after TND, then he would have been better off. Because they are strong entries though not my top 5. The myth of the third film being an automatic Goldfinger was not true. I think the producers emphasised too much style with little thought of something called "Substance".
EON going with Craig was a forced decision thrust onto them by the studio accountants who were not responsible for DAD being the way it is. EON allowed DAD to be what it is. They were not thinking of CR as the direction of the next film in 2002.
However, what really turned me around on him was Casino Royale. That movie, and Craig's performance in particular, simply blew me away and in an instant made Brosnan seem ridiculous to me. I remember that's exactly how I felt. I felt like new light was shed on the character, valuable light at that, and what preceeded it simply paled in comparrison. So that is really when the flip occured for me.
It didn't help also that his films have not aged particularly well, especially in light of the Craig era. I am with those who openly criticize the writing in those movies. But in hindsight, I simply also don't think Brosnan is a very good actor. He may have had good intentions and ideas for the character, but looking at his movies now, his performances fall fairly flat. There are so many missed opportunities with regards to subtleties and beats (something that Craig has done wonderfully IMO), that I simply conclude that Brosnan just doesn't have (and never did) the same acting chops.
On a final note I will add that, though I have never met the man personally, I can't help but feel that in interviews he more often than not comes across as crass and vulgar. He has a cheap kind of showmanship about him that none of the other 007 actors have, and that really makes me dislike him. I know it has nothing to do with the movies, but nonetheless, it forms an impression of the man for me.
No actually, he doesn't. In most of the interviews he gives he comes across well-composed and actually grateful and honored to have the job. Brosnan on the other hand more often than not seemed as if he was above it.