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
Just no...
Wow. What an excellent and well thought out argument. You've sure shown me. You're absolutely right. About everything. The Bond series has never made an attempt to be serious. As a matter of fact no movie has. Jason Bourne invented serious. And Pierce Brosnan was far and away the best James Bond. I used to think of his pain face and constant pressing of lips to be lazy acting but up until now I've never seen the genius in it. Thankyou @Craigisnotbond (still the worst username on this site). I'll never know how this website functioned without your genius. What fools we were. ^:)^
I like Pierce's Bond. A lot. And the first two films were great.
As if my opinion were news to anyone.
:D
Though, while I'm watching Pierce as Bond, I am tempted to agree with you...
I think that the Bourne-movies did show how to do a spectacular series in a different way than EON was doing at the time.
xXx wanted to compete with 007 but was too similar.
the Mission Impossible movies especially the 4th one did give us a spectacular movie like FYEO with a macguffin as target and walked the road of the previous Bonds before Brosnan and did it very well imho.
I like the Brosnan movies perhaps because they are entertaining, and for me the Bondseries was never a serie of movies that required a brain to really think out what the heck the director was trying to tell.
While I do like Craig I am not sure that his movies are all that great.
I agree. I'm not sure why people are in denial about these things, Bond has been cashing in on genres, fads and styles for decades - some more noticeably than others.
Exactly. The series had to imitate some of the trends to stay relevant for 50 years. Moonraker imitated Star Wars, Daniel Craig era imitated Jason Bourne, etc. I'm not saying it's wrong. The imitation was needed to survive and bring in new fans.
With that said, I don't get why some of you think the Brosnan era made some of the worst movies of all time. They were original, even if they were as some of you guys say, generic. Everyone has their own opinion, but why would you bash Brosnan on a Bronsan popularity thread.
While I think its extreme to say Brosnan's era bore some of the worse films OF ALL TIME (I can sit through them fairly easily and even enjoy them) Its probably fair to say most were mediocre to bad. Even the man himself has said he's not satisfied with his films.
I say that as someone who grew up with him. Most of the films don't hold up well. Go back and watch the second half of DAD.
EVERY Bond actor has at least one GREAT Bond to their name. Deal w/it. B-)
I too got through the second half of DAD...but its hardly a top class production. It seems odd that people can have a go at Dans films and accept the genuinely poor moments that happened in Brosnan's run.
I think it's the other way around. For example people constantly have a go at the Brosnan era for using CGI when the Craig films are guilty of this too (entirely CGI Komodo dragons for Bond to step on are fine apparently but adding CGI helicopter blades when they're jumping a motorbike over it is too far).
Another example: everybody slags off TWINE, saying that it has moments of depth but then just goes back to having "super Bond". But QOS is apparently an underrated gem even though it has exactly that problem: moments of depth but they're lost in a see of action scenes (which in QOS' case aren't even very good).
Another example: people slag off TND because Bond gets over Paris' death in five minutes but doesn't SF have exactly the same problem? Bond gets over Severine's death pretty quickly.
Another example: Brosnan's Bond was too invincible, too "super Bond" but Craig is allowed to get shot and still manage to jump onto a moving train, land perfectly, adjust his cuffs and make a quip about changing carriages (again, just after he's been shot).
I could go on but you get my point. I'm not trying to bash the Craig films by the way, I really like CR and SF and I think Craig, while not my favourite Bond, is without a doubt the best actor to ever play the part. I just think that they're not as perfect as some fans make out.
Every actor that played Bond really played a superhero; Brosnan is not the exception.
Lazenby's Bond was the terminator beating everyone in his path.
Moore fell off a cliff and snagged on his line yet still managed to crawl back up.
Daltonator and so own.
Every Bond was a superhero.
I don't think Halle Berry is a bad actress. She's just been in some crap films. She's good when she's given good material and I can see why they cast her (she's fit and she's an Oscar winning actress).
Yes it is. I usually hate sarcasm but this warranted it. I'll explain something. We're here to discuss the Bond films and history. Answering like a troll with "just no" is not only childish but is a waste of time. That could fly on IMDB or something but I'd like to think we're better than that here at MI6. As of matter I've never seen an answer like that on this site until now. Before that members usually have the decency to, you know, explain themselves and provide valid points and arguments. Not "just no".
How is that? I was with you up until their third films. Skyfall was lauded as not only one of the best Bond films of all times but by some critics as one of the best films of the year. I'd like to think audiences reacted well too with the 1.1 billion dollars they spent seeing it. TWINE on the other hand didn't equal up to half of the success of Skyfall no matter how you want to measure it (critical, financial, awards,etc). This isn't more Brosnan bashing but just looking at the facts. Skyfall brought things back up to CR levels of quality of QOS while TWINE was a continuation of a downward trajectory or, at best, maintaining the status quo.
I don't give a rat's walk in the pipeline what dollar amount any film ever makes. Pierce & Dan's first films were mostly great, their seconds were excellent for what they were trying to do/able to achieve, their thirds were practically narrative clones of each other, with SF the more arty-seeming, and TWINE the more adventurous- both a slight comedown from the first two, but still very good. These are not facts, these are my artistic judgements combined with my subjective enjoyment levels.
There ARE no facts when we do this with competently made movies that feature un-reality such as Bond movies do. There are opinions only.
You like Silva & his plot to kill M, fine, then SF is better than TWINE for you. Not for me. IMO TWINE & SF have equal plot issues, but since I don't hate Brosnan's pain face, and I LIKE Sophie Marceau, it comes out onantopp of SF for me.
But remember, Transformers 3 is a better movie than Skyfall since it pulled in more $$$.
wink wink nudge nudge
:))
Okay since we're repeating ourselves. If you read my post you'll notice I said "critical" and "awards" to. Let's take the money out of the equation and pretend both films grossed the same amount. Critical reviews for Skyfall were immensely better than TWINE.
Rotten Tomatoes
Skyfall- 92% (Certified Fresh)
TWINE- 51% (Ouch)
IMDB
Skyfall- 7.8
TWINE- 6.4
Metacritic
Skyfall- 81
TWINE- 51
So no I'm sorry Skyfall was not a step down from QOS. Again this is subjective but according to the vast majority cinema world Skyfall was much better than QOS.
The only thing that the two films share in common is that the villain has a personal vendetta against M. In SF that is Silva's soul purpose while in TWINE Electra seems just as focused on her oil scheme. By the end of the film killing M almost becomes an afterthought. The films 3rd acts are very different. And lets look at Bond. In SF his internal struggle is proving that he isn't a useless relic from a bygone era. In TWINE his struggle has more to do with his feelings for Electra. Hell we didn't even have a proper Bond girls in SF. Your argument would make alot more sense if you were comparing SF and GE.
Though both SF & TWINE are 'objectively' good films for me, I have more fun with TWINE.
SF is certainly better made than QOS, but I prefer short, sweet & brutal to long, drawn out & sometimes silly.
Bottom line, if you groove to the 'return-of-the-hero-loss-of-the-Mum' thing in SF, THAT'S your movie. If you groove to the 'temporarily-lapse-in-judgement-due-to-evil-bitch-posing-as-victim' thing in TWINE, then like me, you'll prefer that.
The actor who portray Bond are only one of the ingredients for the success of the movie. Skyfall and TWINE were not solely dependent on Craig and Brosnan.
Lets see how SF does 10 -12 years later, as for voting on IMdb which is mostly rigged by some fanatic clowns that vote up their favorite of the moment and in doing so actively vote brillinat movies down.
SF is the flavor du jour and its ratings are bound to plummet so I do care very little about the comparisons you show, they are as of yet objective at best.
Nah they're much more similar than that.
TWINE was Brosnan's third Bond film, SF was Craig's third Bond film. In both films the PTS ends with Bond falling from a great height and being injured. In both films Bond also injures his shoulder in the PTS, dislocating it after falling from the balloon in TWINE and getting shot by Patrice in Skyfall.
The plots are also similar. In both films Judi Dench is featured more than usual and it's about M's past coming back to haunt her, and in both films she sort of created the villains. In Skyfall she handed Silva over to the chinese causing him to turn into a psychopath and in TWINE she told King not to pay Elektra's ransom, causing her to become a psychopath. In both films the villains want to kill M because of this.
The main difference here though is that Elektra was more ambitious than Silva. She also had the whole oil plot while Silva just wanted to kill M. Also, in TWINE, Bond managed to save M, while in Skyfall, she died for her "sins".
Also, in both films, M doesn't trust Bond and this comes back to bite her on the arse. In Skyfall, she didn't trust Bond to take out Patrice on the train, she told Eve to fire and she ended up losing the list. In TWINE, she doesn't listen to Bond when he tells her his suspicions about Elektra so Elektra is able to kidnap her.
Another similarity: both films feature a chase through an iconic part of London (the thames boat chase in TWINE, the tube sequence in SF). Also, in both films, the villain blows up MI6, causing them to relocate to a new secret location (the Scottish castle in TWINE, the underground base in Skyfall.
While the villains aren't similar, there is one similarity. Both villains have girls working for them that are scared of them. The assassin is terrified of Renard, when Bond says he can protect her she says "not from him" and blows up the balloon. In Skyfall, Severine is equally terrified of Silva. When Bond says he knows all there is to know about fear she says "not like this, not like him". Even the lines are similar, and both girls end up dead. There is one key difference though: the assassin didn't trust Bond to protect her from Renard. Severine trusted Bond to protect her from Silva and that turned out to be a bad decision as she ended up dead.
And finally, both films feature Istanbul, London and Scotland as locations and both films refer to Bond's family (in TWINE we have the family motto and in Skyfall we have the bit in Scotland).
I agree. That's why I didn't just include IMDB. Skyfall was just flat-out a better received movie than TWINE. I'm not sure how anyone can make an argument against that. And in 10 years I'll bet you anything that Skyfall is still MUCH more fondly remembered than TWINE. I don't recall anyone giving all that much praise to TWINE when it was released. Even less now as we've been reminded how good Bond movies are supposed to be.
I don't really care about your rat or it's walk (as you seem to be fixating on both). Your original argument was that Craig and Brosnan's tenures are similar. In what respect? In their trajectory of quality/success? Their movie's plots? The film's thematic elements? Because none of those things are similar for either actor. Craig had a rousing start, fell into a rut with QOS, and then shot right back to the top with SF. Brosnan had a rousing start, fell into a rut with TND, and never pulled himself out. In terms of plots yes SF and TWINE share some similarities but as I've explained TWINE only uses the "revenge on M" factor to get the movie going. By the end of TWINE its a subplot rather than the plot. But it's not like any of Craig's other 2 films are similar to Brosnan's. In terms of themes both actors debut films couldn't be any more different so the argument is thrown right out the window.