Pierce Brosnan: "Daniel Craig is One Great Bond"

4EverBonded

thelivingroyale 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, 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.

I pretty much agree with this. But I also loved some of Roger's (TSWLM and FYEO) and I do love Craig in CR. I grew up in the 60's, so I have a long term perspective, too, guys.
In terms of making a dent in our culture, being a huge popular icon on the verge of a frenzy in some countries, then it was Sean in the 60's. But I feel to say the Golden Age was the 60's isn't accurate, not for me. Too many other gems in other years. Maybe no one perfect Golden Age.

thelivingroyale

@4EverBonded I love some of Moore's films too. TSWLM is one of my faves.

Samuel001 wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

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.

True I suppose. I think you could maybe still count Moore though.

bondsum

4EverBonded wrote:

But I feel to say the Golden Age was the 60's isn't accurate, not for me. Too many other gems in other years. Maybe no one perfect Golden Age.

Strange that you grew up in the 60s yet you don't recognize the Bond Phenomenon that centered around Goldfinger and Thunderball? Almost everything was spy orientated in those days, and I mean everything. Maybe you were more interested in Thunderbirds and Batman whilst your classmates were into Bond and the whole thing just missed you by? I can't say anything in the 70s was better than what had gone before it, not even TSLM which even as a teenager I recognised as a blatant rip-off of YOLT and a hotchpotch of other better Bonds. Still enjoyed it though.

The 70s Bond was a downward slide by comparison to the dizzying heights of its early years. So much so that they had to lampoon the character in order to continue its survival, which was a shame if you were a Connery or Lazenby fan. It was a long wait but only Dalton offered us a glimpse of what we had been missing since the 60s though these 2 films were less than perfect and still didn't capture the lightening in the bottle moments of FRWL, GF, TB and OHMSS.

But hey... each to their own.

On a good note: I much prefer the DC years to anything between 95 to 02. I call these the Bronze Age of Bond.

doubleohdad

forgotmyusername wrote:

Samuel001 wrote:

actonsteve wrote:

Samuel001 wrote:

I almost get the sense Brosnan says that with the wishing that he could have gone there with the character. See The Bourne Identity reference. Now when was that released...

Why is Bourne being referenced? Is it a big thing in the media over in America? Is it a stick used to beat Bond? Some of us remember Matt Damon slagging off Bond when promoting one of the films.

To be honest it doesnt register on the radar over this side of the pond. Bourne is nearly forgotten while Bond is big news and quite frankly seems to pop up on ITV4 every five minutes or ITV! some Sunday afternoons.

Is Bourne still hovering in the wings over there?

I have no idea. I'm from the UK as well. ;)

The Bourne films are well loved in the UK - because they are so European in the way they've been done. Apart from the last one which had too many 'this is a national security alert...he's driven off the roof, he what?' ham acting in it.

I was listening to a national radio station this morning and they were still lovin' the Bourne films and yes, comparing them to our JB.

I'm not going to go into Bourne again, the comparison is stooooooooooooooopid. There is only one great spy genre film and it's been going 50 years....in your face Jason, in your face.

A good story is a good story, and the Bourne films just embarrass the last three Brosnan films. It's not even close, in my opinion.

Just compare that Tangiers sequence in the third film to Pierce's Tsunami-surfing. I don't know how anyone can say that those two moments don't define the difference between the two.

As a result, the last two Bonds have used those films as inpsiration quite effectively, and the tone of the Bonds changed, but I cringed through some of those Brosnans AFTER Goldeneye, and was impressed with the Bournes.

I'm looking forward to the new Bourne this weekend, but now that the Bonds have re-established themselves in action pieces that are more set in a grounded kind of grit, I enjoy them both, but for a while there was no comparison for me.

doubleohdad

That stuff is going to happen from time to time though. I remember that Die Hard just blew the doors off License to Kill, but the franchise adjusted.
I think it's healthy for outside sources to influence the franchise.