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
So you must hate Craig and CR then, because without DAD, Craig would never have been cast.
The only reason they rebooted/recasted the role was that DAD was quite badly received by the press and fans... Brosnan didn't however get bashed for the film, and most fans wanted Brosnan back for a 5th. But it was deemed impossible for him to return by EON, so they recasted the role. Had the 40th anniversary film been well received by fans and critics, there would be absolutly no reason for EON to not keep Brosnan, their very popular Bond and cash-cow. Brosnan was the collateral damage of DAD. He was still popular, DAD was not... but EON thought an actor change was neccessary so Brosnan was sacrificed.
I beg to differ here. As I recall most critics seemed to give it good reviews at the time. Pretty sure Empire gave it 4 stars (although on their website it now says 3 but perhaps some airbrushing of history has gone on. Mind you 3 is still a joke) and I think there were penty of posters that had 4 and 5 stars with quotes from critics saying it was classic Bond etc.
And I think the box office suggests that fans still loved Brozza so financially there was no need to change actor.
The fact is in the cold light of day EON realised what a monumental turd DAD was and realised they needed a serious shake up. As you say unlucky for Pierce that he was a victim of that.
But its incorrect to say that EONs hand was forced by poor reviews and box office. They could have easily continued down the DAD road and made a lot of money. I give Babs and MGW as much credit for realising theyd nearly destroyed the series as I do for them being the ones whose fault it was that DAD was such a pile of shit. At least they made up for their mistakes. Even Cubby made some mistakes but he rectified them to keep the series going. Hopefully Babs and MGW have learnt their lesson from DAD.
1) David Arnold does great Bond Scores
2) True though QOS suffered from all action/no plot
3) ofcourse Vesper
4) Blood Stone yes, but Goldeneye 2010 GTFO!!!!
5) Well he is promising but i like Brosnan- would have been better than Craig
6) Well its a bit overhyped but it is enjoyable better paced than FRWL and Dr No
7) thats an interesting thought
8) Seriously? a bunch of Eurodouches that want a couple more $ on a countrys water bill
9) he isnt bald but he might be the 21st century equivilant of Blofeld
10) he was good but he didnt have the meance of Donald P
11) it was still a bond film and it paved the way for CR
12) i did but only a glimpse
DAD was not badly received at all, not by the press or the fans and most certainly bot by the general audience. Considering the BO the franchise was in a healthy place. The backlash from dedicated fans against DAD always tries to rewrite the history and tries to make PB look bad and DC & TD superiour.
Why did EON decide to "reboot" the franchise, probably being influenced by the succes of "the Bourne identity" and the fact that Wilsons previous attempt to push 007 in a more realistic pastiche failed with TD. WHich had probably more to do with the actor playing 007 at that time than the actual films, even if LTK was a halfcocked attempt at something. As history shows a compromise between what they really wanted to do and what they were financially able to do. Like QoS it would have been better to wait for something decent before shooting the movie.
DAD delivered a fairly decent actioner, which has no real competitors at that time even if xXx with Diesel did give it a try and failed. In the future DAD will get more credit, as soon as we have passed Craigs era which is probably 1 or two movies away. Just as CR gets a more realistic review these days as it did before. (less positive)
What EON should not forget is the roots of the popularity of the 007 franchise which is an English secret agent with a lot of class, style & wit doing a seemingly impossible job with some spectacle of the non-CGI variety thrown in for good measure. If Mendes can just forget QoS and gets a decent feeling from the Connery and Bond years and combines that with Craigs strongpoints we might get a halfdecent 50th anniversary movie.
Too much controversial. :)
It was three stars at the time. I remember buying the magazine and reading the review. You're right, the reviews of DAD were generally pretty good.
"Die Another Day" succeeds on many levels and benifits from intriguing characterisations (Jinx) and gripping dialogue ("I think I've got the THRUST of it"). Pierce Brosnan, given more opportunities to show genuine emotion than his predecessors, makes Bond a more vulnerable and interesting hero than we have seen previously and puts to lie the criticism that one need not be an excellent actor to play agent 007
"The film also benifitted from unusually strong reviews, though some dissenters complained, with a degree of justification, that there was an over-emphasis on hi-tech gagetry and CGI effects. However the majority of critics were willing to concentrate on the movie's strengths.
"Die Another Day went on to establish record openings for a Bond film in virtually every major international territory. As James Bond entered the 21st Century producers BB and MGW had ensured a new generation of fans were eagerly embracing the franchise that had been established so many years ago.
Somewhere Cubby was undoubtably smiling"
I wonder what Lee Pfeiffer and Dave Worrall would say now
I like Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. He’s got all the right qualities a good Bond should have: he’s tall dark and handsome, he handles the humour well, he’s believable in the action scenes—and the cinema-going public love him! Unfortunately I don’t think the films measure up to his ability as an actor to do something more with the role than he’s been allowed to show to date. In GoldenEye, a colourless drab looking film, he was given little to do except react to the other characters and situations around him. Tomorrow Never Dies was his finest hour as Bond, and I do mean hour. The first half of the movie is the best Brosnan/Bond to date, with some nice Bondian touches, up until the model of his BMW crashes off the hotel roof through a flurry of polystyrene bricks, then the film just simply rambles until it falls apart. I thoroughly enjoyed The World Is Not Enough, which had the best narrative structure of all the Brosnan/Bond films, and the story unfolded much more in the style of a Sixties’ Bond. Although the film is uneven, it’s about 200% better than the dire Die Another Day—quasi science fiction badly executed and acted by everyone but Brosnan.
...personally I'd add Dench and Rosamund Pike to that last bit.
http://commanderbond.net/2834/the-graham-rye-cbn-interview-part-ii.html
DN (1962)
FRWL (1963)
GF (1964)
TB (1965)
CR (1966)
OHMSS (1967)
NSNA (1983)
This way those who want Connery in OHMSS and the ones who want OHMSS to follow TB get what they want. CR and NSNA are unofficial. Feldman actually offered Connery the part in CR. Connery wanted 1 million dollars, and so Feldman withdrew the offer and made a spoof, since he though Connery was the only way to do a real Bond film. CR was intended to be released in 1966, but the production met all sorts of trouble, with many screenwriters, so the movie was delayed and became more expensive than both TB and YOLT. Feldman later told Connery "I should have given you the million, it would have been cheaper".
Then Roger Moore makes 9 movies:
YOLT (1969)
DAF (1971)
LALD (1973)
TMWTGG (1974)
TSWLM (1977)
MR (1979)
FYEO (1981)
OP (1983)
AVTAK (1985)
Moore gets YOLT and DAD. They fit his Bond more than Connery´s, IMO.
After Moore comes Brosnan, who makes 10 movies.
TLD (1987)
LTK (1989)
Bond 17 (1991)
Bond 18 (1993)
GE (1995)
TND (1997)
TWINE (1999)
DAD (2002)
EON (2004)
Bond 22 (2006)
LTK would be very different from the one that exist today. And TLD would be slightly different too, as to fitting Brosnan.
Then comes Craig:
QOS (2008)
Bond 23 (2010)
SF (2012)
Quantum is standalone film, and the reboot stuff is scrapped.
I don´t think it´s that good but it might have an interesting factor to it to many fans, since it´s quite special and different.
Dalton was a good Bond, and by far the best actor who has portrayed 007 IMO. However, I like Brosnan more. He fits my perpective of Bond better than Dalton.
Still I think it´s a shame he didn´t do a third and forth in 1991 and 1993.
Yes, thank you. EON didn't reboot because of DAD, the franchise was in no danger after DAD, they did it to cash in on what was popular (bourne, realistic stuff).
And I'm hoping mendes doesn't forget bonds roots, I want a classic bond film. I'm hoping for the best but expecting the worst though, so I'm not let down. I'm not making up my mind until I've seen the film.
This is a very salient point. Bourne made EON realise that shite like DAD was turning Bond into an anachronism. Whatever the faults of QOS for going too far down the Bourne road, without Bourne you wonder what state Bond would be in today if they had just made another DAD because it was bringing home good box office.
Unbelieveable.The funniest thing I've read for weeks. I used to have respect for these two as I thought they knew their stuff (The Most Famous Car in the World is a fantastic book) but it seems theyve sold out and are now mere corporate arselickers just eager to keep their snouts in the trough.
Now this is an interesting theory to explore. I think you may well be right. If DAD had been on a par (quality wise) with Brozzas other efforts would they have made the change? Pierce was a popular Bond and certainly had another in him. Until DAD the series wasnt really broken so why fix it?
Then again the arrival of Bourne might have forced their hand anyway. Even another GE would have looked cliched next to Bourne so maybe they would have had to face up to the fact that the gadget laden car and the villains lair were just too tired to cut it with audiences any more. That said the box office was holding up fine so they could have just carried on regardless. Never wondered why Babs was scrae dby Bourne as DAD smashed it at the box office.
Its important to note that the reboot was solely for creative reasons not financial ones and once the made the decision the writing was on the wall for Brozza. Harsh on him as he lost the part he loved due to other peoples poor decisions.
Hmmm...42% Rotten Tomato Rating by Top Critics. I wouldn't say DAD was "not badly received at all". Sure, there are few publications that will always give a Bond film at least a 'good' review. But DAD was pretty much panned.
While this is part of it, between the development of DAD and CR, 9/11 happened. Because of that, the filmmakers shied away from frivolity with the next film.
Plenty of people have commented on this already, but I'd like to put in my two bits.
Whether or not a 40th anniversary film other than DAD would have had this, DAD itself just "felt" like an ending. Maybe it was because it did everything that every Bond film before it had done, and then a little more, with Koreans. I don't know. It just had a very "Series Finale" feel to it, and I'm very glad it did. I believed this even in 2003, after the film came out on DVD, and when I still loved the film.
John Cleese revealed on the EON game interview that they decided to not do a bond film in 2004 but to do a video game- which itself was Brosnans Last Appearence as Bond which is a shame as i really wanted EON to be a film
fair enough about it being overrated but imo it keeps me entertained thruout (w/o silly humor constantly mind)
(#3... switching gears.... LALD i believe is underrated by a lot of fans here... is it campy? sure - but it's no more campy than DAF, and is certainly not as gawdy as TSWLM, MR or DAD... it's plot is simple, and no less interesting than the underlying plot of LTK - plus i believe the trio of performances by Moore, Seymour, and Kotto are enough to carry this film..)
Yup , not more campy than DAF.....I'd say *less* campy than DAF. What you mean gawdy , referring to the 70s fashion or the sets ? I found the MR sets wonderful , grandiose. The 3 actors do a fine job , I also find W. Harris pretty good.
Well I've just watched it all, and don't think it's overrated at all, Yes there were some bits and pieces I took issue with, but it's all said a very entertaining watch and I never really got bored with it - You can find plenty of that in Connery's third outing
Also, a lot of people genuinely don't like Live and Let Die, I can maybe appreciate that, it's certainly not for everyone. Moore does very well in his debut performance, we have the lovely Seymour, and Kotto makes for a good villain, although his Mr Big cover up was far more intimidating. I think people take issue with the Voodoo theme, introduction of Sheriff Pepper and to them it doesn't maybe have the feel of a Bond release as 007 goes all exotic, that's all very good as I feel that way with License to Kill
It is undeniably less campy than Diamonds are Forever that's for sure, but it does feel very outdated from it's 1973 release, but still an excellent Bond adventure