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
Ditto.
While the boat chase may seem relatively tame to us today, I'm sure most 1960s moviegoing audiences who were the primary target audience for FRWL found this quite exciting. I also think it was a good idea to "open up" the action a little after the sequence aboard the Orient Express. It's true it wasn't in the novel but books and cinema are two distinctly different mediums.
This looking back and retrospectical talking about the 007 movies how it could have been better, is a bit of a farce. It is due to all the spectacle of those days that we still enjoy our 007 today.
I remember having a discussion with somebody who didn't like the movie Alien because the effects looked so dated when compared to the SW prequel. He was all about the spectacle compared how much better it could be done today that he forgot the most important part that it is the story that gives us the journey.
Well, I think it could have gone two ways. Either one, scrap the whole thing and make more out of the Klebb showdown, or two, make it more action-filled and more explosive. It's not that I minded it all that much, but I do agree that it isn't the most exciting of scenes. By the way, has anybody noticed that the music played during the ending of this scene is the same as in Dr. No when Bond is looking for Honey before No's base blows?
DISAGREE
<font color=blue size=7> <b>Whatever the reason to let Brosnan go after DAD, he still had at least one more Bond film in him.</b></font>
Thesis #30: Disagree.
Well I remember fans and non-fans being sad that he left in 2005.
Yes, Brosnan had further films in him (Matador, Ghost) but they weren't Bond films.
THEN pave way for Craig.
This I fully agree with.
Let us remember that in '95 - '96, almost everybody seemed convinced of Brosnan's potential as Bond. Then the films got progressively worse. Scripts turned from 'meh' into downright awful; big breasted Hollywood actresses were featured unconvincingly in cartoonish roles; CGI improperly invaded a franchise thusfar always proud of its everything-you-see-was-done-and-built-for-real reputation... And Brosnan, labouring feverishly to somehow keep Ian Fleming's James Bond upright in all of this, takes all the heat. It is well documented that Brosnan wanted a CR-ish film, with a good script for once and the opportunity to submit the surroundings to Bond - not vice versa.
*prepares himself for the retaliation*
Here's what the "number one fan" Graham Rye said after DAD:
"If MGM/SONY are currently trying to make James Bond a character that will appeal to younger audiences, I personally think they’re flogging a dead horse. I’m still not convinced that we’ve seen the last of Brosnan regardless of what’s been said or reportedly said and printed in newspapers, websites etc. I certainly hope he’ll return because he’s still the only man for the job! He has no natural successor. And as for the short list that’s been dragged out in various publications and on websites—it’s laughable. But when you consider the filmmakers and United Artists nearly ran with John Gavin as James Bond in 1971, and have tested James Brolin, Sam Neill, and Lambert Wilson for the 007 role in the past (shakes head in amazement and laughs demonically)—anything could happen! If they do eventually recast the role with the wrong actor (if indeed there is a right actor—and I really doubt there is after Brosnan) it could prove the death knell for the series. But anyway—how much longer can it really last? MGM/SONY need Bond—he’s their cash cow. And with Die Another Day tipping the box-office scales over the $400 million dollar mark worldwide they’re hardly going to shunt it off to the abattoir. Eon? Who knows? Do they really need the entire hassle? Personally, I’d have sooner stayed in Tunbridge Wells".
And this is coming from a hard-core Bond fan. NOT a Mr Joe Public.
Had DAD never existed and the new 'Bond 20' film was a much more well-recieved by the critics and the fans, Craig would never have been Bond, and It's almost certain that Bond #6 would debute this year... without DAD, Brosnan could have equalled Moore's 7 films.
No, don't really think so. There is a craze about "youth" in Hollywood and Brosnan wouldn't have survived after a DAD+1. One more film perhaps but not two or three.
Brosnan concievably probably had at least one more Bond film in him, but the direction of the franchise dictated that it was time for someone else to take a crack at Bond.
No. No. No.
Brozza sucked from his first abysmal and soul sapping appearance in GE. Would have preferred it if they'd brought Roger back from the golf course than see another woeful catastrophe from Brosnan. Also, as others have noted, he looked like sh*t in DUD. He should have gone earlier, but the idea he could have done another is beyond belief.