The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

1151618202129

Comments

  • Posts: 12,439
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I can only say once more that I only consider GE and TND as "good" films (to a different degree, though neither as "great") while TWINE and especially DAD are (at least) somewhere between bad and disastrous. My take is still that the so-called "Brosnan Era" started promising with GE, and then descended down with every further instalment, ending with the utter desaster that was DAD.

    Close to my feelings. Definitely agreed on descending quality - to me, GE’s a classic, TND has some issues but is largely good, TWINE has its moments but is mostly wasted potential, and DAD goes totally off the rails around halfway, with some issues in the first half too.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,575
    It's not Brosnan's fault that the period of 1995-2002 was not a good one for me, personally. While I think his work was quite good--and I also think he got better in the role with each outing--I bring too much baggage into those films.

    But I rewatched them in the early months of the pandemic, and I have gained a greater admiration for TWINE. I now think it is his best Bond film.
  • I’ll be one odd guys out in here and say that I actually think Brosnan’s a better Bond than Craig, and that GE, TND, and TWINE are superior to the majority of Craig’s era (minus CR). I realize that a lot of peoples knives might be out after saying that, but I feel like Brosnan has become a bit of an easy target for a large majority of fans for things that were not completely within his control. Brosnan had all the elements in spades, right from the first few minutes of GE, and that remained throughout his four films. Yes, there are moments that are cringeworthy, but there are cringeworthy moments in the Craig era as well. The only time I felt as if Craig had all the elements in spades was in SPECTRE, and fair enough I love his performance in SPECTRE, but that’s only one film where I felt he truly was the Classic Bond Ive been waiting for since the closing of Casino Royale. I’d also argue that because of the inter connectivity of the Craig era, the failures of a film like SPECTRE unfortunately bring down the brilliance of a film like Skyfall in a retroactive way. At least with the Brosnan era, I didn’t end up going back and enjoying one film less because of the plot developments of its follow up, and I’ll forever hold that against SPECTRE, and the attempt to make everything seem connected. Finally, and this is a point I think a lot of people tend to forget, but the Brosnan films were every bit as willing to experiment with the formula as the Craig era was. I leave the quality of the experimentation down to each individual’s tastes and preferences, but for some people to claim the Brosnan era was as generic as it gets is completely dumbfounding to me, because if it wasn’t for the risks the Brosnan era was willing to take, the Craig era wouldn’t have taken the amount of risks that it took. Basically, I feel like people are too harsh on Brosnan when his era, and the mistakes made during his era, allowed so many of you to enjoy the Craig era and the risks it took. Not to mention, DAD is crap, but it never manages to sink as low as QOS and SPECTRE, and that is something I’ll stand by.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,157
    For some reason I was checked out of Bond when TWINE and DAD came out, but GE made me a fan (probably similar for lots of Bond fans of my generation). What I usually say, is that GE filled the room with gas, and CR lit the match. I'd say the Brosnan era is a lot of fun for sure.

    TND and TWINE were the first films I watched but at the time I saw them as a kid I felt they were too dull and generic to be enjoyable that they didn’t make me want to see any more Bond movies.

    Later on, I would play the GE64 which made me want to check out the actual film and to my surprise if felt like breath of fresh air in comparison. THAT was when I actually wanted to seek out more Bond films.
  • Posts: 131
    I’ll be one odd guys out in here and say that I actually think Brosnan’s a better Bond than Craig, and that GE, TND, and TWINE are superior to the majority of Craig’s era (minus CR).
    Strike off TWINE, and substitute SF for CR, and you pretty much get my take.
    I realize that a lot of peoples knives might be out after saying that, but I feel like Brosnan has become a bit of an easy target for a large majority of fans for things that were not completely within his control. Brosnan had all the elements in spades, right from the first few minutes of GE, and that remained throughout his four films. Yes, there are moments that are cringeworthy, but there are cringeworthy moments in the Craig era as well.
    My favourite Bond is Dalton, but Brosnan is next.
    Finally, and this is a point I think a lot of people tend to forget, but the Brosnan films were every bit as willing to experiment with the formula as the Craig era was. I leave the quality of the experimentation down to each individual’s tastes and preferences, but for some people to claim the Brosnan era was as generic as it gets is completely dumbfounding to me, because if it wasn’t for the risks the Brosnan era was willing to take, the Craig era wouldn’t have taken the amount of risks that it took.
    You have a point. It may in fact be that the declining quality of Brosnan's films was driven by increasingly unsuccessful experimentation... but maybe I am babbling here ;)

  • Posts: 6,709
    @NeverSayNever, you're clearly a person with good taste. Cheers.
  • Posts: 131
    Univex wrote: »
    @NeverSayNever, you're clearly a person with good taste. Cheers.

    :) :) :)
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,249
    I’ll be one odd guys out in here and say that I actually think Brosnan’s a better Bond than Craig, and that GE, TND, and TWINE are superior to the majority of Craig’s era (minus CR).
    Strike off TWINE, and substitute SF for CR, and you pretty much get my take.

    I’m too easy on TWINE, I admit that hahaha. Just have such a soft spot for that film and what it tries to do.
    My favourite Bond is Dalton, but Brosnan is next.

    Love Dalton. Just wish he did more, I always latch onto his performance whenever I watch his films, and even whenever I read the books it’s nearly impossible to shake his image from my mind.

    One could certainly make that argument about the decline of the Brosnan era however! It’s an issue I have with the Craig era, but I can also understand that many people prefer those expierments done within the Craig era than the Brosnan era. I just think some people like to call Brosnan’s era the most bland because it’s an incredibly easy thing to do. But everyone’s opinions are different!
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 682
    The Brosnan movies coming out every 2-3 years around the holidays gave them an almost festive quality, and since the movies weren't all that serious, you didn't ever leave the theater feeling glum. They were almost like part of the holidays themselves. You went to Bond movies to have fun. Treating them like epic dramas would have seemed absurd back then. How times have changed.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Szonana wrote: »
    My only true issue probably his Bond girls they lacked that Bond girl poise and sophistication and it’s all because they weren’t Europeans.
    Craig got better looking Bond girls because they were exotic European women.

    Brosnan sadly got generic American beauties.

    I too really like Brosnan's Bond, and love the first two of his Bond films, but what you say is factually incorrect, not to mention a big generalisation, and IMO not a fair one.

    GE's Izabella Scorupco is Polish; Famke Janssen (I am including "bad" girls here for completeness' sake) is Dutch. Both are fun to watch.

    TND's Teri Hatcher is American, but IMO she holds up well as a Bond girl looks-wise. Michelle Yeoh is Malaysian-Chinese, and she gave a first-rate performance.

    TWINE's Sophie Marceau is as "exotic European" as it gets, though I'll grant you that Denise Richards looked and acted like a cookie-cutter cheerleader, completely out of place.

    DAD's Halle Berry's character was poorly written and, yes, she is American, but Brit Rosamund Pike did not fare much better, also, IMO, due to poor writing.

    I think that on balance, the only obviously miscast Brosnan-era Bond girl was Denise Richards.

    And Ana De Armas is originally Cuban ;)


    Yes his bad girls and Isabella did look like your classic Bond girls from Sean Connery era but Halley Berry, Teri Hatcher and Denise Richards didn’t have that elegance you associate with a Bond girl.

    I know Ana is Cuban and American I meant from the continent. Not US sorry for creating confusion here.

    Anyway probably I did make a generalization but I do prefer for Bond girls to be European, no time to die is the only exception where I thought the non European girl was better than the European one.

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 131
    I can also understand that many people prefer those experiments done within the Craig era than the Brosnan era.

    You got me thinking...
    I tried to list the Brosnan-era experiments I could recall off the top of my head. I did not list repeated experiments of the same kind (as in, I did not list Wai Lin as occasionally outsmarting Bond as Natalia did it first), and I did not list innovative stunts and gadgets (each film had its share, but so did all Bond films).

    (GE, the most innovative as it was doing a "mini-reset" for the 1990s)
    - Judi Dench's M, who is shown finding her bearings and initially views Bond as a dinosaur
    - Alec Trevelyan as an ex-agent, and the "frenemy" dynamic it creates with Bond
    - Natalia as a competent ally who (and here is the experimental part) can out-think Bond on occasion and even rescues him after the climactic fight
    - Moneypenny who is not starry-eyed over Bond (that went back to "normal service" in DAD, but still)
    - filming in Russia (admittedly, that was pure zeitgeist and would stand no chance today. It was also the first Bond film to get a simultaneous theatrical release in Russia)
    - large-scale product placement (I am not saying it was good, but it *was* new)

    (TND)
    - a plot featuring an international megalomaniac that strives for plausibility (they never even tried to hide the fact that Carver=Murdoch)
    - a Bond girl who has a history with Bond

    (TWINE; I admit my memory of it is hazy)
    - (mixed result) M being shown as fallible to errors of personal judgement (vis-a-vis Elektra)
    - (failed) attempt to pair Bond with a Bond girl with a superior IQ (who was not plausible in the role)

    (DAD; see "hazy memory" above)
    - plot twist of Bond not being trusted by MI6 and having to go rogue (as distinct from LTK, where he chose to go rogue)
    - (failed, spectacularly) widespread use of CGI

    Where the Brosnan era experiments were discrete and relatively limited in scale, the Craig era experimentation was more profound and comprehensive. It reset Bond to "square one", adopted a uniform gritty-realism tone, linked the films into an overarching story, and deconstructed, subverted and psychoanalysed Bond in a way that had not been imaginable before, showing us all his inner workings. It showed us the immediate origins of Bond's MI6 allies (Mallory's M and Moneypenny), killed off Dench's M onscreen, gave Bond family connections whose effects determined his behaviour, and finally tied up his story to coincide with the actor's exit.

    So I'd say the Craig era wins the experimentation race, but as you say, the foundations that made the Craig-era experiments possible were built by the Brosnan films that took their share of risks. Had DAD not overdosed on CGI, there would have been no CR. Without Trevelyan, there might have been no Silva. Without the intro part of DAD, we might not have had the "AWOL Bond" twist in Skyfall. Dench was so good that they just "borrowed" her.

    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Brosnan movies coming out every 2-3 years around the holidays gave them an almost festive quality, and since the movies weren't all that serious, you didn't ever leave the theater feeling glum. They were almost like part of the holidays themselves. You went to Bond movies to have fun. Treating them like epic dramas would have seemed absurd back then. How times have changed.
    Very true. And yes, quite sad.

  • Posts: 131
    PS
    Love Dalton. Just wish he did more, I always latch onto his performance whenever I watch his films, and even whenever I read the books it’s nearly impossible to shake his image from my mind.

    To continue the parallel, without Dalton there might have been no Craig... it is ironic that back in the late 1980s, Dalton caught a good deal of flak for what became Craig's forte, being more realistic, dispensing with the campy elements, and bringing serious, theatrical-quality acting ability to a role that does not overtly require it.
  • I can also understand that many people prefer those experiments done within the Craig era than the Brosnan era.

    You got me thinking...
    I tried to list the Brosnan-era experiments I could recall off the top of my head. I did not list repeated experiments of the same kind (as in, I did not list Wai Lin as occasionally outsmarting Bond as Natalia did it first), and I did not list innovative stunts and gadgets (each film had its share, but so did all Bond films).

    (GE, the most innovative as it was doing a "mini-reset" for the 1990s)
    - Judi Dench's M, who is shown finding her bearings and initially views Bond as a dinosaur
    - Alec Trevelyan as an ex-agent, and the "frenemy" dynamic it creates with Bond
    - Natalia as a competent ally who (and here is the experimental part) can out-think Bond on occasion and even rescues him after the climactic fight
    - Moneypenny who is not starry-eyed over Bond (that went back to "normal service" in DAD, but still)
    - filming in Russia (admittedly, that was pure zeitgeist and would stand no chance today. It was also the first Bond film to get a simultaneous theatrical release in Russia)
    - large-scale product placement (I am not saying it was good, but it *was* new)

    (TND)
    - a plot featuring an international megalomaniac that strives for plausibility (they never even tried to hide the fact that Carver=Murdoch)
    - a Bond girl who has a history with Bond

    (TWINE; I admit my memory of it is hazy)
    - (mixed result) M being shown as fallible to errors of personal judgement (vis-a-vis Elektra)
    - (failed) attempt to pair Bond with a Bond girl with a superior IQ (who was not plausible in the role)

    (DAD; see "hazy memory" above)
    - plot twist of Bond not being trusted by MI6 and having to go rogue (as distinct from LTK, where he chose to go rogue)
    - (failed, spectacularly) widespread use of CGI

    Where the Brosnan era experiments were discrete and relatively limited in scale, the Craig era experimentation was more profound and comprehensive. It reset Bond to "square one", adopted a uniform gritty-realism tone, linked the films into an overarching story, and deconstructed, subverted and psychoanalysed Bond in a way that had not been imaginable before, showing us all his inner workings. It showed us the immediate origins of Bond's MI6 allies (Mallory's M and Moneypenny), killed off Dench's M onscreen, gave Bond family connections whose effects determined his behaviour, and finally tied up his story to coincide with the actor's exit.

    So I'd say the Craig era wins the experimentation race, but as you say, the foundations that made the Craig-era experiments possible were built by the Brosnan films that took their share of risks. Had DAD not overdosed on CGI, there would have been no CR. Without Trevelyan, there might have been no Silva. Without the intro part of DAD, we might not have had the "AWOL Bond" twist in Skyfall. Dench was so good that they just "borrowed" her.

    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Brosnan movies coming out every 2-3 years around the holidays gave them an almost festive quality, and since the movies weren't all that serious, you didn't ever leave the theater feeling glum. They were almost like part of the holidays themselves. You went to Bond movies to have fun. Treating them like epic dramas would have seemed absurd back then. How times have changed.
    Very true. And yes, quite sad.

    To me, I find the experimentation within the Craig era to be a bit hit and miss, perhaps even more so than Brosnan, because of the connected nature of his entire era. Casino Royale is the exception to this rule, as it essentially had to do such a hard reset on the series that they could get away with it. But Quantum of Solace’s attempts to craft a story criticizing imperialism, and the nature of those who we do international business falls completely flat on its face for me, as does its attempt to update the plot of “Chinatown” to fit Bolivia. Skyfall’s meta commentary on the fading relevance of the franchise/character of Bond makes even less since now then it did back in 2012. I mean, Casino Royale was the film the successfully brought the character into the post 911 world, and it was a huge phenomenon, so I don’t get the point of that entire plot line. Was it because of QOS’s shortcomings? Because it’s not like a bad Bond film has ever stirred EON enough to where they question the relevance of the series within the next film. SPECTRE’s flaws are something that I’ve got into over and over again, and it mainly goes back to the forced retroactive connection of the previous films, as well as the distracting Easter eggs. I’ll reserve NTTD for when I see it again, but as of right now, I find the experimentation in NTTD is perfectly executed. Not sure why, but I enjoyed it more than Craig’s other films (minus CR)
  • Posts: 131
    Szonana wrote: »
    Yes his bad girls and Isabella did look like your classic Bond girls from Sean Connery era but Halley Berry, Teri Hatcher and Denise Richards didn’t have that elegance you associate with a Bond girl.

    I would still debate the point on Teri Hatcher... to me she looked good and played her part quite well. I thought they had decided to mix their metaphors and have her channel Jane Fonda to Carver's Murdoch instead of Ted Turner ;) ...but in the end it is a matter of preference.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,911
    So I'd say the Craig era wins the experimentation race, but as you say, the foundations that made the Craig-era experiments possible were built by the Brosnan films that took their share of risks. Had DAD not overdosed on CGI, there would have been no CR. Without Trevelyan, there might have been no Silva. Without the intro part of DAD, we might not have had the "AWOL Bond" twist in Skyfall. Dench was so good that they just "borrowed" her.

    I think you're really stretching here to try to find a correlation to the supposed experimentation and risks of the Brosnan era.

    While the CGI was a major complaint against DAD, it wasn't the catalyst that set up the Craig era. It was during that time that Eon actually got the rights to CR and that launched a new Bond and that era.

    All Trevelyan and Silva had in common was they were former Mi6 operatives presumed dead and out for revenge. Trevelyan wanted revenge on the British government for betraying his parents. Silva exclusively had a vendetta against M and wanted to embarrass her by harming the organization and eventually killing her. Traitors in the organization have been a spy trope since there have been spies. GE and Trevelyan didn't invent that.

    AWOL Bond goes back to LTK, not DAD. You could even go as far back as OHMSS when Bond goes with Draco to rescue Tracy and destroy Piz Gloria or DAF when Bond goes after Blofeld in the PTS.

    I'll grant you the Dench thing. Not sure that's experimental, though. Desmond Llewelyn played Q through numerous Bond actor tenures. David Hedison played Felix Leiter for two different Bonds.

  • Posts: 131
    To me, I find the experimentation within the Craig era to be a bit hit and miss, perhaps even more so than Brosnan, because of the connected nature of his entire era.

    ...well, I did not say I liked the purpose or direction of Craig-era experimentation ;)
    ...but who knows, if the Bond evolutionary arc works across actor tenures as it did between Brosnan and Craig, the next films just might build on the Craig-era films to come up with ideas that would pleasantly surprise us. One can hope.
    Skyfall’s meta commentary on the fading relevance of the franchise/character of Bond makes even less sense now then it did back in 2012.

    On first viewing, I enjoyed it so much that I just went along for the ride without analysing the subtext. It became more obvious later, but I took it as being more ironic than serious. it helps that second to Spectre (of which I am not a fan, either), Skyfall has the most upbeat ending among the Craig films, despite M's death.
  • BT3366 wrote: »
    So I'd say the Craig era wins the experimentation race, but as you say, the foundations that made the Craig-era experiments possible were built by the Brosnan films that took their share of risks. Had DAD not overdosed on CGI, there would have been no CR. Without Trevelyan, there might have been no Silva. Without the intro part of DAD, we might not have had the "AWOL Bond" twist in Skyfall. Dench was so good that they just "borrowed" her.

    I think you're really stretching here to try to find a correlation to the supposed experimentation and risks of the Brosnan era.

    I can’t say he is, everything he listed about the Brosnan era was at least some sort of attempt to subvert the formula/expectations. And that’s the point that he and I are making. Again, it’s debatable whether or not it all works, but Brosnan’s tenure was not without its share of risk taking.

    Films like OHMSS and LTK were playing around with the formula long before the Brosnan era was, and those experiments led to two of the highest regarded film’s in the franchise. But the difference is that OHMSS and LTK took decades to get the respect they receive now. Hence the box office takings on those films were lower than some of the other films in the franchise, and audiences were turned off. What made the Brosnan era different was that EON incorporated those risk taking elements, and were able to keep audiences coming back for more. It’s so easy to say the Brosnan era was a failure on a critical level, but damn near impossible to make that argument on a financial level. And yes, money talks. It’s easy to say “Box Office doesn’t determine quality”, which is a true statement, but Brosnan’s Bond was a Pop Cultural Phenomenon, the 2nd biggest the franchise had seen after Connery. It’s hard to argue against that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,157
    One difference between the experimentations of both eras is that Brosnan’s more than not pulled their punches.

    Imagine if Elektra was the only leading woman in TWINE. So when Bond kills her, there’s no Christmas Jones for him to quip with at the end. THAT would have been a bold way to end a Bond film for Brosnan and I would have commended the filmmakers for going there, especially given how the film is reverent of OHMSS.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 54
    It’s funny how things go. At the outset of the Craig era, I was elated with CR and more than happy to put the Brosnan era in the rearview mirror - especially after being mixed on TWINE and extremely disappointed in DAD.

    Now, at the end of all things with NTTD (and not thrilled with it), I’m pretty mixed on the Craig era. I find myself appreciating the tone and fun of the Brosnan films more now than I did at the time (including TWINE, which I’ve really come to like).

    Not to be too negative though - the first hour of NTTD was a blast, and an improvement over the strangely tepid Spectre. Hopefully for Bond 26 BB and MGW take note of all the positive press Ana De Armas’s scene has been getting and take their cues from that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,211
    Finally, and this is a point I think a lot of people tend to forget, but the Brosnan films were every bit as willing to experiment with the formula as the Craig era was. I leave the quality of the experimentation down to each individual’s tastes and preferences, but for some people to claim the Brosnan era was as generic as it gets is completely dumbfounding to me, because if it wasn’t for the risks the Brosnan era was willing to take, the Craig era wouldn’t have taken the amount of risks that it took.

    Yes I think that's a fair point. Before TWINE was released and the information came out that Bond would actually be seriously injured it was actually quite a big 'oh wow' moment as a Bond fan - that actually felt quite a bold step. Of course nowadays we don't even think of it as 'the one where Bond gets injured' but any step outside the formula was a big step at the time. Exactly the same with DAD's plot of Bond being captured and held prisoner for an extended time: that was a massive new narrative thing for Bond fans at the time and felt very striking. But nowadays it's not really something anyone comments on.
    Which is why I tend to feel that a lot of reactions to more recent films like NTTD where people say 'But Bond can't do X !!!?' are more shock of the new rather than actually there actually being anything wrong with the films, and the sort of objections which fade in time just like those Brosnan experiments did.
    PS
    Love Dalton. Just wish he did more, I always latch onto his performance whenever I watch his films, and even whenever I read the books it’s nearly impossible to shake his image from my mind.

    To continue the parallel, without Dalton there might have been no Craig... it is ironic that back in the late 1980s, Dalton caught a good deal of flak for what became Craig's forte, being more realistic, dispensing with the campy elements, and bringing serious, theatrical-quality acting ability to a role that does not overtly require it.

    I think you could perhaps say that Dalton's perceived failure made Craig's job tougher. But he made it work by remembering that arrogance and swagger which audiences respond to in Bond and which Dalton missed.
    Craig's version didn't require Dalton's to have existed prior to that.
  • Posts: 131
    BT3366 wrote: »
    While the CGI was a major complaint against DAD, it wasn't the catalyst that set up the Craig era. It was during that time that Eon actually got the rights to CR and that launched a new Bond and that era.
    I may have worded it too vaguely. I am not saying they would not have done a reboot at all, but I think it is fair to say that CR's pared-down, no-CGI aesthetic was a reaction to DAD's over-the-top visuals.
    BT3366 wrote: »
    All Trevelyan and Silva had in common was they were former Mi6 operatives presumed dead and out for revenge. Trevelyan wanted revenge on the British government for betraying his parents. Silva exclusively had a vendetta against M and wanted to embarrass her by harming the organization and eventually killing her. Traitors in the organization have been a spy trope since there have been spies. GE and Trevelyan didn't invent that.
    Of course they did not, but Trevelyan was the first such character prominently featured in a Bond film plot. And of course they would not recycle his motivation for Silva, but seeing how Trevelyan worked well, the idea of Bond fighting a traitor agent with a personal agenda might have had more traction when writing Skyfall. Maybe not. If anyone has the Making of Skyfall book, they might have a more conclusive answer.
    BT3366 wrote: »
    AWOL Bond goes back to LTK, not DAD. You could even go as far back as OHMSS when Bond goes with Draco to rescue Tracy and destroy Piz Gloria or DAF when Bond goes after Blofeld in the PTS.
    The difference between LTK and DAD is that in LTK, Bond goes AWOL by choice, as a gesture of protest against being stopped from investigating Sanchez to avenge Felix (OHMSS falls into the same category). In DAD, he is more or less forced to do a runner, as he is considered a risk / potential traitor by MI6, so going after Moon and Zao is his way of proving his innocence. Which, IMO, is a new take.

    Admittedly, Bond's AWOL stint in Skyfall to protect M is not the best parallel to either. The part I should have referenced instead was the echoes between Craig!Bond's condition upon "coming back from the dead" in SF and Brosnan!Bond's condition when released from North Korea: when it comes to Bond's performance suffering from "wear and tear", Brosnan did it first. (OK, Connery did it first in NSNA, but the conclusion was just the reverse: until the girl stabbed him, he looked set to pass the test with flying colours).

    The experiment with Dench was in giving Bond a female boss who had just taken up the job and had an ex-ante critical view of Bond. They could have just recast M pretending he was the same man, as they had done before with Lee and Brown IIRC. The fact that Dench stayed on for CR et al was proof of its success.
  • Posts: 131
    One difference between the experimentations of both eras is that Brosnan’s more than not pulled their punches.

    Imagine if Elektra was the only leading woman in TWINE. So when Bond kills her, there’s no Christmas Jones for him to quip with at the end. THAT would have been a bold way to end a Bond film for Brosnan and I would have commended the filmmakers for going there, especially given how the film is reverent of OHMSS.

    Absolutely! (though it also has a good deal to do with how implausible and annoying Jones turned out to be)
  • Posts: 131
    Geno wrote: »
    Hopefully for Bond 26 BB and MGW take note of all the positive press Ana De Armas’s scene has been getting and take their cues from that.

    I think that scene is just about the only thing about NTTD that all viewers agree on! Well, that and liking the cinematography ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    The experiment with Dench was in giving Bond a female boss who had just taken up the job and had an ex-ante critical view of Bond. They could have just recast M pretending he was the same man, as they had done before with Lee and Brown IIRC. The fact that Dench stayed on for CR et al was proof of its success.

    And 26 years later we're still yet to have a Bond film she doesn't make an appearance of some kind in! :)
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,138
    mtm wrote: »
    he's exactly what they needed and you laughed and got excited along with him. I did watch DAD again only a few weeks ago and I must say, in such close proximity to NTTD and Craig's amazing performance, Pierce's shortcomings do become very apparent, and it does all seem extremely thin throwaway stuff, but he's doing what's required of him regardless.
    Yeah, exactly. Brosnan's not remotely comparable to Craig, but it doesn't matter - he was the right Bond for those particular films.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 14,489
    Upthread, there was discussion of what made GE so appealing. For some it was the satisfaction of getting a new film after so many years, for some, it was the impact of the game which either led people to, or just enhanced the film.
    I discovered Bond in early 1995, I didn't suffer through six years of waiting for a new Bond film. A large part of GoldenEye's appeal for me, was the post-Cold War angle. The soldiers with their pilotkas and AKs, the missile train, statue park etc. A great character in General Ourumov. The best Bond films tend to feature some exotic island adventure and/or Bond against the Russians, and I'd like to see that Soviet flavour return every now and then.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    QBranch wrote: »
    Upthread, there was discussion of what made GE so appealing. For some it was the satisfaction of getting a new film after so many years, for some, it was the impact of the game which either led people to, or just enhanced the film.
    I discovered Bond in early 1995, I didn't suffer through six years of waiting for a new Bond film. A large part of GoldenEye's appeal for me, was the post-Cold War angle. The soldiers with their pilotkas and AKs, the missile train, statue park etc. A great character in General Ourumov. The best Bond films tend to feature some exotic island adventure and/or Bond against the Russians, and I'd like to see that Soviet flavour return every now and then.

    I do remember seeing GE for the very first time and after anticipating it hugely for months and months I do remember having an ever-so slight deflated feel as it was so much like a standard Bond film with Roger in or whatever, but I still loved it.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,138
    Yes, GE was like a greatest hits festival set - what does a general audience want from a Bond film and how do we ramp it up to 10. It was exactly the right film for that period and for Brosnan's first. Might not have some of the lasting residual effect of some of the others, but if you're going to re-establish the series with a blockbuster, GE was the man for the job. And Famke Janssen - come on!
  • Well, the first half of it was anyway
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,138
    True, it was a bit frontloaded. Sorry, I'm distracted by thoughts of Onatopp now - what a way to go...
Sign In or Register to comment.