What was the Bond fan community's initial reaction when TND came out? More disappointing than QoS?

13»

Comments

  • Posts: 5,634
    I strongly feel (often) Pierce Brosnan was the least Bond-like of all the actors to have portrayed the character. Just seemed so far detached from what Fleming even intended. Simply didn't look the part or have the feel of Bond. Less plausible than even Lazenby to be truthful, and even then George only did the one release and the Irishman had four to his name. I feel like Brosnan is becoming my least favorite of all the Bond actors, slowly but surely, but that's nothing against him as an individual. It's merely his representation of the James Bond character that I take issue with. Brosnan as an overall actor, and person, is good enough
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Simply didn't look the part

    I have a fondness for Brosnan. I've seen a lot of criticism for him on this site and while I'm ambivalent about most of it, I can see why some people didn't take to him. However, this comment just seems absurd to me. Outside Connery he's the most visually stunning Bond. Criticise his interpretation all you want but when it comes to image he's perfect, particularly in TND. I have to ask, does Craig look the part to you? However good his Bond is, he doesn't look anything like the Bond Fleming wrote, and that's not subjective, that's fact.

  • Posts: 15,124
    chrisisall wrote:
    LeSamourai wrote:
    When I first saw TND, I actually preferred it to GE. Brosnan's portrayal of Bond seemed awkward and a bit forced in GE, and I think he seemed more comfortable in the role in TND before finally nailing it in TWINE.

    Currently, I would probably say GE is a better film, but I still think Brosnan gave a better performance in TND.

    And I wasn't at all disappointed in QoS.
    Agreed with all here, and nice to see you here, my friend! Welcome.

    I agree with this too. Brosnan is better as Bond and for some reason he looks more like Bond too.
  • I strongly feel (often) Pierce Brosnan was the least Bond-like of all the actors to have portrayed the character. Just seemed so far detached from what Fleming even intended. Simply didn't look the part or have the feel of Bond. Less plausible than even Lazenby to be truthful, and even then George only did the one release and the Irishman had four to his name. I feel like Brosnan is becoming my least favorite of all the Bond actors, slowly but surely, but that's nothing against him as an individual. It's merely his representation of the James Bond character that I take issue with. Brosnan as an overall actor, and person, is good enough

    My biggest problem with Brosnan (and I do like him) is that he's the one actor who looked like he was "playing at" James Bond instead of "being" James Bond. Even Lazenby, who was quite wooden in some of his scenes (yet incredibly good in others) seemed comfortable inhabiting the role. My guess is that Laz had lived a "Bondian" life, with lots of affairs or one-night stands with models, lots of fighting, and a load of self-confidence. Brosnan had not lived that life (at least to the same extent - can you imagine him being in an army bootcamp or getting in bar fights?) as the other actors so he was projecting what he *thought* a person like that would be like. That's why he comes off almost like a little boy trying to act tough on the playground, trying to live up to the image of his heroes that he's seen on TV.

    A good analogy would be Mark Hammil in Return of the Jedi. An accomplished and respected actor on Broadway, in RotJ he was trying to project Luke as having a wisdom and serene confidence that he himself didn't have. So at times in the film when he's trying to appear in control of a situation it comes off as fake and stagey. Yet Harrison Ford can give a single line and come off as far more commanding.

    Although Moore is my least favourite characterization of Bond, he can come off as convincingly tough when he wants to be (at least in the early films) and has a great presence and confidence. Yet that doesn't take away from his light-hearted take on the character (and vice-versa). To me that's an example of a good actor imbuing a role with characteristics that are complimentary instead of at odds with each other.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    RC7 wrote:
    Simply didn't look the part

    I have a fondness for Brosnan. I've seen a lot of criticism for him on this site and while I'm ambivalent about most of it, I can see why some people didn't take to him. However, this comment just seems absurd to me. Outside Connery he's the most visually stunning Bond. Criticise his interpretation all you want but when it comes to image he's perfect, particularly in TND. I have to ask, does Craig look the part to you? However good his Bond is, he doesn't look anything like the Bond Fleming wrote, and that's not subjective, that's fact.

    I agree with this as well. I would say Dalton also had a striking manner about him in TLD that was close to what Fleming envisioned.
  • Posts: 4,762
    Oh please! Tomorrow Never Dies is a classic! It whoops the pants off of QoS, and in no way is a disappointment. It definitely isn't as good as GoldenEye, but no Bond movie can be, so that's no fault of TND!
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    00Beast wrote:
    Oh please! Tomorrow Never Dies is a classic! It whoops the pants off of QoS, and in no way is a disappointment. It definitely isn't as good as GoldenEye, but no Bond movie can be, so that's no fault of TND!

    Hear, hear! And yes, my friends and I still concur. One of my fav Bond movies and dear to my enjoyment of Bond.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    I think Roger Ebert summed it up best when he said that ''Tomorrow Never Dies'' gets the job done, sometimes excitingly, often with style.''

    I think QOS falls short of getting the job done and is the more disappointing of the two.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 4,622
    One thing that distinguishes the Brozzer era is all the gun-play. Machine gun Brozza. Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat. He blasts away with a machine gun in each of his films. And he also gives the hand-gun, which is far more Bondian, a good workout several times too.
    Broz could really bring Bond to life in the action scenes, and sometime he looked real good as Bond. The way he played Bond in TND, could almost be a Mac Bolan film. He was certainly an active Bond.
    Broz though, just seemed a little "off" sometimes with his facial expressions and reaction shots. He also seemed to do a lot of wheezing and laboured breathing, which was a little offputting. The others seemed to hold their gasping and grimacing together better
    Basically he didn't seem quite natural to Bond at times, which is kinda of what lordflashheart was saying I guess.
    I do like Brozzer's work for the most part. I just think it could have been better. He didn't quite convincingly find the whole character, so that it came naturally to him in every scene.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 3,494
    RC7 wrote:
    Simply didn't look the part

    I have a fondness for Brosnan. I've seen a lot of criticism for him on this site and while I'm ambivalent about most of it, I can see why some people didn't take to him. However, this comment just seems absurd to me. Outside Connery he's the most visually stunning Bond. Criticise his interpretation all you want but when it comes to image he's perfect, particularly in TND. I have to ask, does Craig look the part to you? However good his Bond is, he doesn't look anything like the Bond Fleming wrote, and that's not subjective, that's fact.

    I have to agree, Brosnan absolutely does look the part compared to Craig, after Connery of course the second best. This is undeniable. Otherwise, Craig pretty much mops the floor with him in every other area, just my opinion of course.

    Sent you a PM.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Otherwise, Craig pretty much mops the floor with him in every other area, just my opinion of course.

    I think Craig is a better actor who can handle the more dramatic and darker scenes better, and he's more physical and believeable in the action scenes.

    But I think Brosnan looked better, handled the humour better and had more charm and style about him. He always seemed really cool.

    Personally I prefer Brosnan but I admit that Craig's movies are probably (overall) objectively better. I reckon both are great Bonds though.
  • Otherwise, Craig pretty much mops the floor with him in every other area, just my opinion of course.

    I think Craig is a better actor who can handle the more dramatic and darker scenes better, and he's more physical and believeable in the action scenes.

    But I think Brosnan looked better, handled the humour better and had more charm and style about him. He always seemed really cool.

    Personally I prefer Brosnan but I admit that Craig's movies are probably (overall) objectively better. I reckon both are great Bonds though.

    I don't think that Brosnan handled the humour better, I think that he handled the type of humour in the Brosnan films more naturally than the other Bond actors would have, with the exception of Moore.

    And the flip side of that is that Craig handles the humour in the Craig films far better than Brosnan would have - because it's a different type of humour. I find some similarities to the humour in the Connery films. While Craig usually doesn't have the mischievous twinkle in his eye that Connery does the same dry, droll, understated delivery is there.

    Likewise Craig and Brosnan have their own strengths in different areas. Both are charming, but in very different ways. Both have style, but very different kinds. Both are attractive to women but again in very different ways.

    So I guess that makes Brosnan the caviar and Craig the Peking duck..?

  • Otherwise, Craig pretty much mops the floor with him in every other area, just my opinion of course.

    I think Craig is a better actor who can handle the more dramatic and darker scenes better, and he's more physical and believeable in the action scenes.

    But I think Brosnan looked better, handled the humour better and had more charm and style about him. He always seemed really cool.

    Personally I prefer Brosnan but I admit that Craig's movies are probably (overall) objectively better. I reckon both are great Bonds though.

    I don't think that Brosnan handled the humour better, I think that he handled the type of humour in the Brosnan films more naturally than the other Bond actors would have, with the exception of Moore.

    And the flip side of that is that Craig handles the humour in the Craig films far better than Brosnan would have - because it's a different type of humour. I find some similarities to the humour in the Connery films. While Craig usually doesn't have the mischievous twinkle in his eye that Connery does the same dry, droll, understated delivery is there.

    Likewise Craig and Brosnan have their own strengths in different areas. Both are charming, but in very different ways. Both have style, but very different kinds. Both are attractive to women but again in very different ways.

    So I guess that makes Brosnan the caviar and Craig the Peking duck..?

    I agree with your statements on humor. It really isn't a fair comparison because the humor is indeed different. Probably more fair to compare Craig to Connery as you did because it is in a similar vein, Brosnan to Moore is also an obvious comparison.
  • My biggest problem with Brosnan (and I do like him) is that he's the one actor who looked like he was "playing at" James Bond instead of "being" James Bond. Even Lazenby, who was quite wooden in some of his scenes (yet incredibly good in others) seemed comfortable inhabiting the role. My guess is that Laz had lived a "Bondian" life, with lots of affairs or one-night stands with models, lots of fighting, and a load of self-confidence. Brosnan had not lived that life (at least to the same extent - can you imagine him being in an army bootcamp or getting in bar fights?) as the other actors so he was projecting what he *thought* a person like that would be like. That's why he comes off almost like a little boy trying to act tough on the playground, trying to live up to the image of his heroes that he's seen on TV.

    A good analogy would be Mark Hammil in Return of the Jedi. An accomplished and respected actor on Broadway, in RotJ he was trying to project Luke as having a wisdom and serene confidence that he himself didn't have. So at times in the film when he's trying to appear in control of a situation it comes off as fake and stagey. Yet Harrison Ford can give a single line and come off as far more commanding.

    Although Moore is my least favourite characterization of Bond, he can come off as convincingly tough when he wants to be (at least in the early films) and has a great presence and confidence. Yet that doesn't take away from his light-hearted take on the character (and vice-versa). To me that's an example of a good actor imbuing a role with characteristics that are complimentary instead of at odds with each other.

    I'm not a Brosnan-basher, but your point about Brosnan "playing at" James Bond instead of "being" James Bond is spot-on. That's exactly how I feel about his portrayal. He often seemed to be trying just a bit too hard. As I mentioned earlier, I think he had really grown into the role by TWINE, though there was still that slight element of playacting.

    I also think that Moore, despite his flaws, did really inhabit the role. Perhaps it was his natural charisma, but I saw him as Bond more than I saw Brosnan as Bond, which is paradoxical because in many ways I prefer Brosnan's approach to the character.
  • LeSamourai wrote:



    I'm not a Brosnan-basher, but your point about Brosnan "playing at" James Bond instead of "being" James Bond is spot-on. That's exactly how I feel about his portrayal. He often seemed to be trying just a bit too hard. As I mentioned earlier, I think he had really grown into the role by TWINE, though there was still that slight element of playacting.

    I also think that Moore, despite his flaws, did really inhabit the role. Perhaps it was his natural charisma, but I saw him as Bond more than I saw Brosnan as Bond, which is paradoxical because in many ways I prefer Brosnan's approach to the character.

    In acting it's called "conviction" - the ability for an actor to sell to an audience that he truly believes in what he's doing and feeling what he's feeling. Great actors can do this with any role, no matter ridiculous the premise is. Poor actors can't even do it properly with natural, every-day emotions.

    One of the things that I admire about Lazenby was how he was this rough, womanizing tough guy who had never acted before yet his most sincere moments in OHMSS were the romantic ones. I do appreciate that he was quite literally learning how to act as filming went on; it's great to see how despite being so wooden and monotone in some scenes (such as first meeting Draco) he gave a good performance in others. For this reason I really do believe he could have grown into a great Bond given a second film.

    With Brosnan, well, he had loads of acting experience over years prior to Bond so it was just a case of either over-reaching his abilities or being intimidated by the part as it was a life-long dream for him. I've seen him give good performances outside of Bond so I think that it's a combination of the two factors.

    One thing that I appreciate about Craig is how he's very much playing a role. With Connery you almost get the sense that as Bond he's just being "Sean Connery", yet Craig is apparently much less macho and tough in real life than his characterization of Bond. So the fact that he's such a manly, two-fisted agent who has such great presence and is so convincing as "a bit of a bastard" in the films is even more impressive when you think that he's a "sensitive new-age guy" who has a "girl-ish giggle" in interviews and talks about how he has the soundtrack to the movie Grease on his iPod..!

  • edited March 2013 Posts: 4,622
    One thing about Connery, he had some great direction, especally from Terrence Young, in creating the screen-Bond persona. And Alfred Hitchcock even helped him with Bond indirectly.
    If you watch Hitchcock's Marnie, which Sean made just befor GF, it's uncanny how close Connery's portrayal of Mark Rutland, mirrors his GF Bond. He carried over many of the Rutland mannerisms, postures, expressions, you name it, to GF.
    Watch the two films back-to-back. You'd swear Mark Rutland had changed his name to James Bond and was now a secret agent, as opposed to an American businessman.
    Connery does credit Hitchcock for developing his talents and Hitcock as everyone knows really did fuss over his actor's performances.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think in general TND was better recieved than QoS. For starters it had the bloody Bond theme on full force and the movie itself, although flawed, felt like a traditional Bond movie and you could see what was going on in the scenes.
    QoS is a good movie but it should have been infinitely better. I thought Forster included a sense of pretentiousness in his overall directing style and even his "idea" of what the Bond mythology is today is pretty absurd.

    Both films offer and introduce some great ideas and threads that if stuck to and expanded in could have resulted in better efforts but both manage to mess it up and spoil themselves. That being said, Craig is by far the superior actor and a superior Bond but TND as a whole delivers more on what one generally expects and hopes to get from a Bond film.
  • Posts: 15,124
    I agree TND was better received than QOS upon release, because of the expectation of the time. Like many of us said, we were just happy then to see a Bond movie, after the long hiatus between LTK and GE it was reassuring to see Bond movies being made more regularly and that they had found their audiences again. I was worried when I read about the production troubles of TND, I was relieved and happy it was a financial success. My criticism was nowhere to be found.

    That said, I think QOS, for all its flaws, is way superior to TND, or indeed any Brosnan era Bond. The criticism it received is relative to the period it was released and to the movie that came before.
  • I do not particularly care for Daniel Craig's "one note" James Bond, but I very much enjoy QOS. In fact, I enjoy it more than CR and SF. If only Forster used fewer quick-cuts, QOS might rival the early Bonds (imho). My gf -- who isn't particularly a Bond fan -- loved QOS as well.

    TND is a valiant attempt at a follow-up to GE, but a middling film at best. Still, it's watchable.

    The sophomore Bond film that crashed and burned imho was LTK. TLD held so much promise for Dalton's future... Oh well...
  • Posts: 5,634
    @mistersmith License to Kill didn't even feel like a Bond movie, which is maybe my biggest concern, even though Dalton put in another oustanding and memorable performance, but it's chalk and cheese from his debut in The Living Daylights to be truthful. Craig has done very well for the most part as James Bond also, it has to be said. Great improvement on what came directly before
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    TND & LTK both rocked IMO.
    You guys need another occularist.
  • Posts: 5,634
    Tomorrow Never Dies was a poor release. Mundane and uninteresting for at least a good half with few redeeming qualities. License to Kill was so far detached from James Bond at times you were left wondering quite what you were viewing. Ok it had certain qualities but it's nothing like Dalton's first, and was maybe simply a forerunner to the Craig releases, with all action and little substance. You sit there and watch and think to yourself, 'This isn't James Bond'

    and now I'm bored

    goodnight
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    To answer the origianl question, What was the Bond fan community's initial reaction when TND came out? More disappointing than QoS? I cannot speak for the Bond fan community as a whole as the internet and in particular fan forums were not widespread at the time. As a Bond fan I thought TND was an improvement on GE. At the time I felt GE was a made for tv movie, and was not a huge fan. (My opinion of the film has improved over the years, and I now rather enjoy it). The film felt cheap at times, and Brosnan was not at his best here. With TND he appeared more confident in the role. The film moved at a brisk pace, and was filled with more action. You have to remember at this point I would've been in my early twenties. Action and wham bam explosions were a requirement. Over the years TND has lost much of the original appeal, and now fits in as a mediocre entry in the series. Over the top, but for a couple of hours entertainment that requires little thought, it does just fine.
    Fast forward to 2008, and QOS was an immeadiate let down for me after the wonderful CR. The story is weak, the villains un-memorable and un-threatening. Dizzying editing, that though appeals to some, does not appeal to me. The film felt like a step backwards. As Bond fans it seems you either love it or hate it. For me, it has grown on me, but there are alot of Bond films I'd pop on before this.
    So afterall is said and done, I'd say that TND was the more popular amongst fans (at least the ones I knew back in '97) compared to QOS. But then without Bond forums (you only need turn to Mi6 ;) )it's impossible to answer fully.
  • samainsysamainsy Suspended
    Posts: 199
    . no i wasnt i've been a bond fans since i was 7 (2007) and i was my first film so dont diss
Sign In or Register to comment.