Brosnan films: low point in Bond series

Andy007

Now i realise there will be many Brosnan fans out there, but as a true Bond fan I've always felt the Brosnan era a low point in the Bond legacy. For me the 60's films & 80's films were brilliant, unfortunately 'The Spy who loved me' aside - the 70's was a flop. Roger Moore can never be voted best Bond imo but i did enjoy the majority of his films and actually there was a lot more grit & tension in his tenure than people give credit for. Moore's best performance is in 'For Your Eyes Only' followed by The Spy who loved me, Octopusy & Moonraker. So despite Moore's preference for light-hearted films, it's a shame he didn't do more films like FYEO. Dalton was great and a shame he only did 2 films.
But then the 90's & Brosnan:- where to start. ok after a 6-year gap i guess hi-tech stories were going to feature more being mid-90s, but the films just lack the tension & realism of the pre 90s. I mean the opening of Goldeneye with Bond off the motorbike into the plane is stupid. Luckily the rest of the film didn't quite follow as such. It's a shame because the film does have a hard-edge to it & i liked Alec Trevelyan as a villain. i still find Goldeneye a little boring though. TND potentially had a good cast but Jonathan Pryce is more amusing than menacing. The bond girl is disappointing too in this. Die Another Die was a farce, which leaves TWINE as a quite decent Bond film but even this is disliked by many. Overall i just don't see what the Brosnan films have done for the series. Other than gung-ho action scenes, hi-tech themes which didn't work. Brosnan himself looked a good Bond & i think he is a blend of Connery & Moore. He had Moore's humour albeit trying to be funny too much but also Connery's toughness at times, but for me he doesn't add anything to the role. He is a mixture of Connery & Moore. He certainly lacks the tension & toughness which Dalton & Craig brought to the role & films. Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air & welcome change to the series, bringing Bond back to basics in a tough spy thriller. Shame QOS was a poor follow-up.
I just feel the Bond series was never the same after Dalton left. 1989 for me was the last of the real Bond movies.. it just never felt the same after 95, despite Brosnan's efforts. The musical scores CR apart are not as good as the previous movies either. For the record I enjoy watching most Bond films & know them all very well. For me Dalton & Connery are the 2 best Bonds.

thesecretagent

Andy007 wrote:

Now i realise there will be many Brosnan fans out there, but as a true Bond fan I've always felt the Brosnan era a low point in the Bond legacy. For me the 60's films & 80's films were brilliant, unfortunately 'The Spy who loved me' aside - the 70's was a flop. Roger Moore can never be voted best Bond imo but i did enjoy the majority of his films and actually there was a lot more grit & tension in his tenure than people give credit for. Moore's best performance is in 'For Your Eyes Only' followed by The Spy who loved me, Octopusy & Moonraker. So despite Moore's preference for light-hearted films, it's a shame he didn't do more films like FYEO. Dalton was great and a shame he only did 2 films.
But then the 90's & Brosnan:- where to start. ok after a 6-year gap i guess hi-tech stories were going to feature more being mid-90s, but the films just lack the tension & realism of the pre 90s. I mean the opening of Goldeneye with Bond off the motorbike into the plane is stupid. Luckily the rest of the film didn't quite follow as such. It's a shame because the film does have a hard-edge to it & i liked Alec Trevelyan as a villain. i still find Goldeneye a little boring though. TND potentially had a good cast but Jonathan Pryce is more amusing than menacing. The bond girl is disappointing too in this. Die Another Die was a farce, which leaves TWINE as a quite decent Bond film but even this is disliked by many. Overall i just don't see what the Brosnan films have done for the series. Other than gung-ho action scenes, hi-tech themes which didn't work. Brosnan himself looked a good Bond & i think he is a blend of Connery & Moore. He had Moore's humour albeit trying to be funny too much but also Connery's toughness at times, but for me he doesn't add anything to the role. He is a mixture of Connery & Moore. He certainly lacks the tension & toughness which Dalton & Craig brought to the role & films. Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air & welcome change to the series, bringing Bond back to basics in a tough spy thriller. Shame QOS was a poor follow-up.
I just feel the Bond series was never the same after Dalton left. 1989 for me was the last of the real Bond movies.. it just never felt the same after 95, despite Brosnan's efforts. The musical scores CR apart are not as good as the previous movies either. For the record I enjoy watching most Bond films & know them all very well. For me Dalton & Connery are the 2 best Bonds.

What do you mean? Have you never ridden a motorbike over a cliff to free-fall into an empty plane? Call yourself a Bond fan? I often go to work that way - it's a darn sight quicker than taking the bus!

Denzil2222

I would have no interest in watching his 4 movies again but i dont think his movies were the worst. The thing i dont understand is way do many bond fans consider goldeneye a reboot? I saw it as a follow up to licence to kill with jack wade taking over from felix leiter, i also could picture dalton in goldeneye.

Napoleon Plural

Brosnan saved the movies commercially but like David Beckham as England captain, he mostly promised more than he delivered. Not his fault, it became more about marketing than execution.

Ricardo C.

It was the low point of the series IMO. I can't enjoy a single Brosnan Bond film because they don't even have the distinction between the average action films out at the time. As bad as Moore movies were, at least they had something unique about them.

ics

For me it is spot on – I never ever pots a Brosnan Bond movie on… I simply don’t like him as Bond

Blackleiter

I think Brosnan was a fine Bond with mostly weak scripts. There are parts of each of his movies that I found very enjoyable and absolutely Bondian. Pierce might not have been the best Bond, but in my opinion he was FAR better than Roger Moore.

THORNYBUSH

Brosnan brought back the Bond movie as 'an event', he was a great ambassador for the franchise and maintained it's commercial success during his tenure. Sure, each actor has brought his own interpretation of the character - but to 'not watch his movies'? When I left the cinema having watched QOS - it was the first time I really questioned whether I would ever watch it again, as a bond fan I had felt let down. I watched Craigs movies back to back just recently with my sons and CR was always going to be a tough act to follow but I now have a new albeit mild appreciation for QOS.

And full credit to David Arnold for keeping the British end up by rejuvenating and giving us the scores worthy of a bond film.

Ricardo C.

THORNYBUSH wrote:

And full credit to David Arnold for keeping the British end up by rejuvenating and giving us the scores worthy of a bond film.

I thought his scores were pretty much generic action scores littered with Barry-lite music.

mrbain007

Andy007 wrote:

Now i realise there will be many Brosnan fans out there, but as a true Bond fan I've always felt the Brosnan era a low point in the Bond legacy. For me the 60's films & 80's films were brilliant, unfortunately 'The Spy who loved me' aside - the 70's was a flop. Roger Moore can never be voted best Bond imo but i did enjoy the majority of his films and actually there was a lot more grit & tension in his tenure than people give credit for. Moore's best performance is in 'For Your Eyes Only' followed by The Spy who loved me, Octopusy & Moonraker. So despite Moore's preference for light-hearted films, it's a shame he didn't do more films like FYEO. Dalton was great and a shame he only did 2 films.
But then the 90's & Brosnan:- where to start. ok after a 6-year gap i guess hi-tech stories were going to feature more being mid-90s, but the films just lack the tension & realism of the pre 90s. I mean the opening of Goldeneye with Bond off the motorbike into the plane is stupid. Luckily the rest of the film didn't quite follow as such. It's a shame because the film does have a hard-edge to it & i liked Alec Trevelyan as a villain. i still find Goldeneye a little boring though. TND potentially had a good cast but Jonathan Pryce is more amusing than menacing. The bond girl is disappointing too in this. Die Another Die was a farce, which leaves TWINE as a quite decent Bond film but even this is disliked by many. Overall i just don't see what the Brosnan films have done for the series. Other than gung-ho action scenes, hi-tech themes which didn't work. Brosnan himself looked a good Bond & i think he is a blend of Connery & Moore. He had Moore's humour albeit trying to be funny too much but also Connery's toughness at times, but for me he doesn't add anything to the role. He is a mixture of Connery & Moore. He certainly lacks the tension & toughness which Dalton & Craig brought to the role & films. Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air & welcome change to the series, bringing Bond back to basics in a tough spy thriller. Shame QOS was a poor follow-up.
I just feel the Bond series was never the same after Dalton left. 1989 for me was the last of the real Bond movies.. it just never felt the same after 95, despite Brosnan's efforts. The musical scores CR apart are not as good as the previous movies either. For the record I enjoy watching most Bond films & know them all very well. For me Dalton & Connery are the 2 best Bonds.

Interesting view but I simply can't agree. For me PB got me into the series. GE was the first Bond film I ever watched and he was James Bond during my youth. True DAD wasn't great (although it did have a few decent moments IMO) but I really don't think Pierce can take the blame. I'm going to go flat out and say this but he is - and always has been - my favourite Bond (and yes, I've read several of Fleming's books).

I have fond memories of his era: looking forward to his films, booking tickets for the first night and coming out satisfied. Maybe it was because I was younger and more impressionable then but oh well/ I hate to say this but I really can't say I feel the same way about Craig - despite liking CR. Funnily enough QoS left me the least satisfied out of all the recent films. I'd say it was one of the worst in the series - worse than ANY of the Pierce Brosnan entries. The plot was weak, the villain was boring and the glamour was virtually gone.

IMO Brosnan was a virtually perfect Bond who only competes with Connery. True he isn't as "tough" as Connery or Craig BUT I think he did have some moments (the 006 fight being the best).

Bottom line, when I see Brosnan I see Bond. I think if he made any contribution to the series, it was that he restored the glamour and made them "event" movies and "fairytales for adults" again.

Also I think Brosnan, certainly on a physical basis, would have been closer to Fleming's choice for Bond (as was Dalton). Ironically I don't think Ian Fleming ever envisioned a "brute" like character. Athletic yes, but not a brute. He disliked Connery to begin with for that very reason.

Moore funnily enough I like very much (he's witty and amusing) but I can see why people - particularly fans of Fleming's books - might not. In terms of reflecting Fleming's character he's the furthest away you could get, despite having the old "gentlemanly" look.

Dalton I thought was actually a fine Bond and I certainly appreciate him more now. He certainly is much closer to the literary character than someone like RM. However I still think he lacked that "verve" factor. For me, whilst he was certainly dangerous he didn't always seem to enjoy the high life - something Fleming's character did do and what made him so popular back in the 50s. Ive put this up before, its an interview with Connery (the only person to talk to Fleming) in which he comments on Dalton.

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/the-icon-sean-connery

I'll shut up now. I just hate the way people have gone from calling Brosnan "the best since Connery" to the Bond that almost ruined the franchise. Shows what a fickle bunch the public really are.

Napoleon Plural

True, but then Brosnan was pre-internet so the party line got adhered to more. The internet allows all opinions, so Craig takes a bashing from some quarters and so in fact does everyone, though I'd argue Lazenby gets overrated now.

mrbain007

Hmm true but I think the consensus as a whole has changed. Undoubtably when Craig goes and another actor takes his place (should that ever happen) he will be "the best Bond since Connery".

Blackleiter

I agree with much of what you said, especially concerning Brosnan's tenure as Bond. He did very well at capturing many of the essential elements of the character. I especially appreciate the way you compared him to Timothy Dlaton, who I also enjoyed, but not as much. That's primarily because, as you stated, Dalton never seemed to enjoy the perks and high life that go along with the danger and intrigue of being a "00". Since you already acknowledged that you can understand why many Bond fans are not crazy about Roger Moore's take, I will spare you my usual anti-Moore diatribe. I'll just sum up by saying that for me Connery stands heads and shoulders above the rest, but Pierce Brosnan was a very worthy successor. Too bad about the generally poor scripts for his Bond films.

mrbain007 wrote:

Andy007 wrote:

Now i realise there will be many Brosnan fans out there, but as a true Bond fan I've always felt the Brosnan era a low point in the Bond legacy. For me the 60's films & 80's films were brilliant, unfortunately 'The Spy who loved me' aside - the 70's was a flop. Roger Moore can never be voted best Bond imo but i did enjoy the majority of his films and actually there was a lot more grit & tension in his tenure than people give credit for. Moore's best performance is in 'For Your Eyes Only' followed by The Spy who loved me, Octopusy & Moonraker. So despite Moore's preference for light-hearted films, it's a shame he didn't do more films like FYEO. Dalton was great and a shame he only did 2 films.
But then the 90's & Brosnan:- where to start. ok after a 6-year gap i guess hi-tech stories were going to feature more being mid-90s, but the films just lack the tension & realism of the pre 90s. I mean the opening of Goldeneye with Bond off the motorbike into the plane is stupid. Luckily the rest of the film didn't quite follow as such. It's a shame because the film does have a hard-edge to it & i liked Alec Trevelyan as a villain. i still find Goldeneye a little boring though. TND potentially had a good cast but Jonathan Pryce is more amusing than menacing. The bond girl is disappointing too in this. Die Another Die was a farce, which leaves TWINE as a quite decent Bond film but even this is disliked by many. Overall i just don't see what the Brosnan films have done for the series. Other than gung-ho action scenes, hi-tech themes which didn't work. Brosnan himself looked a good Bond & i think he is a blend of Connery & Moore. He had Moore's humour albeit trying to be funny too much but also Connery's toughness at times, but for me he doesn't add anything to the role. He is a mixture of Connery & Moore. He certainly lacks the tension & toughness which Dalton & Craig brought to the role & films. Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air & welcome change to the series, bringing Bond back to basics in a tough spy thriller. Shame QOS was a poor follow-up.
I just feel the Bond series was never the same after Dalton left. 1989 for me was the last of the real Bond movies.. it just never felt the same after 95, despite Brosnan's efforts. The musical scores CR apart are not as good as the previous movies either. For the record I enjoy watching most Bond films & know them all very well. For me Dalton & Connery are the 2 best Bonds.

Interesting view but I simply can't agree. For me PB got me into the series. GE was the first Bond film I ever watched and he was James Bond during my youth. True DAD wasn't great (although it did have a few decent moments IMO) but I really don't think Pierce can take the blame. I'm going to go flat out and say this but he is - and always has been - my favourite Bond (and yes, I've read several of Fleming's books).

I have fond memories of his era: looking forward to his films, booking tickets for the first night and coming out satisfied. Maybe it was because I was younger and more impressionable then but oh well/ I hate to say this but I really can't say I feel the same way about Craig - despite liking CR. Funnily enough QoS left me the least satisfied out of all the recent films. I'd say it was one of the worst in the series - worse than ANY of the Pierce Brosnan entries. The plot was weak, the villain was boring and the glamour was virtually gone.

IMO Brosnan was a virtually perfect Bond who only competes with Connery. True he isn't as "tough" as Connery or Craig BUT I think he did have some moments (the 006 fight being the best).

Bottom line, when I see Brosnan I see Bond. I think if he made any contribution to the series, it was that he restored the glamour and made them "event" movies and "fairytales for adults" again.

Also I think Brosnan, certainly on a physical basis, would have been closer to Fleming's choice for Bond (as was Dalton). Ironically I don't think Ian Fleming ever envisioned a "brute" like character. Athletic yes, but not a brute. He disliked Connery to begin with for that very reason.

Moore funnily enough I like very much (he's witty and amusing) but I can see why people - particularly fans of Fleming's books - might not. In terms of reflecting Fleming's character he's the furthest away you could get, despite having the old "gentlemanly" look.

Dalton I thought was actually a fine Bond and I certainly appreciate him more now. He certainly is much closer to the literary character than someone like RM. However I still think he lacked that "verve" factor. For me, whilst he was certainly dangerous he didn't always seem to enjoy the high life - something Fleming's character did do and what made him so popular back in the 50s. Ive put this up before, its an interview with Connery (the only person to talk to Fleming) in which he comments on Dalton.

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/the-icon-sean-connery

I'll shut up now. I just hate the way people have gone from calling Brosnan "the best since Connery" to the Bond that almost ruined the franchise. Shows what a fickle bunch the public really are.

thesecretagent

Brosnan was a brilliant Bond. He had style in bucket-loads, handled himself well in the role and was born to wear a suit. I'd argue that possible only Connery in his grey Goldfinger suit looked as good. The scripts were average, the last half of DAD stunk. I don't think Brosnan deserves the bashing he gets. Moore should take twice as much.

(I was behind Brosnan ten years ago in a mini-mart in Malibu. Thoroughly trying not to look at him as I carried coke, crisps, beer and bread, almost dropping an item every few seconds and wishing I had a basket. He was charming to everyone in the line, then offered me to go before him as he saw me struggling. The guy's a star. )

Thunderpussy

I too liked PB as Bond and agree with many he just got some weak scripts.

chrisno1

You don't really ahve to be a great actor to play James Bond (Roger Moore? Lazenby?) just competent, and Brosnan is more than competent.
I agree with everyone above who says he wasn't given great scripts, but he still managed to be quite affecting in TWINE.
Crucially, for me, he actually looks the part.
He wasn't a flabby, greying Bond, he wasn't disinterested, and he always looked comfortable in a suit (unlike TD who seemed to want to throw the tux off as soon as possible in LTK and looked hardly less comfy in the leather jackets).
He also understood the razzamatazz that surrounds a Bond movie and was always willing to promote it with interviews etc. He comes across as very likable and in that respect he injected so much more into the series than Moore (old fashioned) or Dalton (a bit grumpy).
The Bond's of the '90s stand up very well against other thrillers and adventure flicks of the decade. I don't think commercially or artistically they are a low point. I still feel (sorry '80s fans) that the insipid period from 1983 - 89 is by far the least interesting time for 007, IMO.

Ricardo C.

chrisno1 wrote:

You don't really ahve to be a great actor to play James Bond (Roger Moore? Lazenby?) just competent, and Brosnan is more than competent.
I agree with everyone above who says he wasn't given great scripts, but he still managed to be quite affecting in TWINE.
Crucially, for me, he actually looks the part.
He wasn't a flabby, greying Bond, he wasn't disinterested, and he always looked comfortable in a suit (unlike TD who seemed to want to throw the tux off as soon as possible in LTK and looked hardly less comfy in the leather jackets).
He also understood the razzamatazz that surrounds a Bond movie and was always willing to promote it with interviews etc. He comes across as very likable and in that respect he injected so much more into the series than Moore (old fashioned) or Dalton (a bit grumpy).
The Bond's of the '90s stand up very well against other thrillers and adventure flicks of the decade. I don't think commercially or artistically they are a low point. I still feel (sorry '80s fans) that the insipid period from 1983 - 89 is by far the least interesting time for 007, IMO.

I have disagree. They really do pale in comparison of what was making money at the box office. The Fugitive, In The Line of Fire, James Cameron films, Face Off, The Mask of Zorro, Clear and Present Danger, The Hunt For Red October, and probably some more I can't even remember right now.

chrisno1

Well, look, there were 4 Bond films in 10 years, compared to how many thrillers?
Of course there may be other films which are better, all I said is they "stand up very well against other thrillers". They do. And the Bond films made money too, dont forget, possibly more than some of the titles you mentioned.

Ricardo C.

chrisno1 wrote:

Well, look, there were 4 Bond films in 10 years, compared to how many thrillers?
Of course there may be other films which are better, all I said is they "stand up very well against other thrillers". They do. And the Bond films made money too, dont forget, possibly more than some of the titles you mentioned.

I am talking about the quality and compared to just one of those films, the Bond films of the 90's don't stand up. As for the box office take, yeah they made money probably more than the Tom Clancy films but as for the others, I doubt that. Especially not a James Cameron film. I will admit the same thing about the 1980's as well; All the Indiana Jones, Batman, Lethal Weapon films were better and more financially successful.

thesecretagent

Surely Bond fans go to see a Bond film? This may suprise you Ricardo C, but general films appeal to the general public, and will always have a larger fan base. I know loads of people who won't pay to see a Bond film, but will go to see all kinds of cr*p at the cinema.

blueman

I rank the five films Glen directed in the 80s lower than Brosnan's four films - heck, I don't even rank them. Each Brosnan Bond had a moment or two that made me think, yeah, this could be a Bond film, whereas Glen's are simply write-offs.

THORNYBUSH

thesecretagent wrote:

Surely Bond fans go to see a Bond film? This may suprise you Ricardo C, but general films appeal to the general public, and will always have a larger fan base. I know loads of people who won't pay to see a Bond film, but will go to see all kinds of cr*p at the cinema.

Bravo.

Being a bond fan used to be easy, we all accepted that Lazenby was a poor choice and that Moore was the bees knees, that Dalton was too moody and Brosnan was the DB's (dogs b*******s). Nowadays it seems to be acceptable to sing the praises of Lazenby & Dalton far and beyond their worth and slag off Moore & Brosnan dismissing them as comic reprobates. I realize that there are many fans with strong views here but there seem to be some that are too quick to dismiss the views of others - that seem to be SO critical of the Bond movies that you wonder why they contribute at all. All the Bonds have had their good points and bad. I enjoy watching ALL the Bond movies and can appreciate them all in different ways - even QOS (lol). That's my rant over.

mrbain007

THORNYBUSH wrote:

thesecretagent wrote:

Surely Bond fans go to see a Bond film? This may suprise you Ricardo C, but general films appeal to the general public, and will always have a larger fan base. I know loads of people who won't pay to see a Bond film, but will go to see all kinds of cr*p at the cinema.

Bravo.

Being a bond fan used to be easy, we all accepted that Lazenby was a poor choice and that Moore was the bees knees, that Dalton was too moody and Brosnan was the DB's (dogs b*******s). Nowadays it seems to be acceptable to sing the praises of Lazenby & Dalton far and beyond their worth and slag off Moore & Brosnan dismissing them as comic reprobates. I realize that there are many fans with strong views here but there seem to be some that are too quick to dismiss the views of others - that seem to be SO critical of the Bond movies that you wonder why they contribute at all. All the Bonds have had their good points and bad. I enjoy watching ALL the Bond movies and can appreciate them all in different ways - even QOS (lol). That's my rant over.

Bravo Thornybush. Thats exactly why I'm getting quite frustrated atm. In all honesty I never thought of Pierce as a "comic reprobate" and dislike the way he's being referred to as such.

Ricardo C.

thesecretagent wrote:

Surely Bond fans go to see a Bond film? This may suprise you Ricardo C, but general films appeal to the general public, and will always have a larger fan base. I know loads of people who won't pay to see a Bond film, but will go to see all kinds of cr*p at the cinema.

General films ? What are general films ? What is a specific film ? Every movie has a genre.

Also what is so criminal about saying there are movies better than Bond films ? Possibly better than alot of them ? So that must mean I hate Bond ? I think North by Northwest licks all the films, big deal. That dosen't mean I hate Bond in return. The is problem with fan forums is you get critical and then people pounce all over you. 8-)

Lastly, if anyone dosen't want to hear someone say that Brosnan sucks and Lazenby and Dalton were better then I suggest getting over yourselfs.

thesecretagent

Ricardo C. wrote:

thesecretagent wrote:

Surely Bond fans go to see a Bond film? This may suprise you Ricardo C, but general films appeal to the general public, and will always have a larger fan base. I know loads of people who won't pay to see a Bond film, but will go to see all kinds of cr*p at the cinema.

General films ? What are general films ? What is a specific film ? Every movie has a genre.

Also what is so criminal about saying there are movies better than Bond films ? Possibly better than alot of them ? So that must mean I hate Bond ? I think North by Northwest licks all the films, big deal. That dosen't mean I hate Bond in return. The is problem with fan forums is you get critical and then people pounce all over you. 8-)

Lastly, if anyone dosen't want to hear someone say that Brosnan sucks and Lazenby and Dalton were better then I suggest getting over yourselfs.

Oh dear. You really do like it kept simple, don't you. Perhaps I should have said NON BOND FILMS when I said GENERAL. Genre comes from general, so I will use the term GENRE just for you. Where did I say it was criminal to like other films than Bond? 8-) How did you get that from my post? I just said that Bond will have less fan-base - or that, I am sure is what was implied (I'll let others decide) - and unlike the majority of your posts that people question - leave the post un-edited. And lastly, I for one don't have to get over myself. If you post an opinion, then be prepared for someone to disagree with it - or simply grow up.

Ricardo C.

thesecretagent wrote:

Oh dear. You really do like it kept simple, don't you. Perhaps I should have said NON BOND FILMS when I said GENERAL. Genre comes from general, so I will use the term GENRE just for you. Where did I say it was criminal to like other films than Bond? 8-) How did you get that from my post? I just said that Bond will have less fan-base - or that, I am sure is what was implied (I'll let others decide) - and unlike the majority of your posts that people question - leave the post un-edited.

But there all types of genres...never mind, forget it. Anyway your point still dosen't stand. If anything, you'd be guaranteed a larger fan base with a Bond film because it's a series. A new one-shot film guarantees no audience.

And lastly, I for one don't have to get over myself. If you post an opinion, then be prepared for someone to disagree with it - or simply grow up.

I wasn't nessecarily refering to you. I said "if anyone" not "if you".

blueman

THORNYBUSH wrote:

I realize that there are many fans with strong views

Of course there are, it's the nature of being a fan of a franchise that's been going on for nearly 50 years and had all sorts of actors and directors and writers and etc. making them. Preferences will happen.

THORNYBUSH wrote:

... but there seem to be some that are too quick to dismiss the views of others

If by presenting one's opinion you feel yours has been dismissed, don't know what to say to that, maybe stay away from places likely to have others posting thoughts not in line with yours? Safest choice I guess.

THORNYBUSH wrote:

- that seem to be SO critical of the Bond movies that you wonder why they contribute at all.

Why so quick to dismiss the views of others?

THORNYBUSH wrote:

All the Bonds have had their good points and bad.

Very debatable point.

mrbain007

Now now people lol. I think a lot of us have been guilty of dismissing the views of others, thats just what happens when you mix conflicting opinions and forums like these.

In regard to which period was "the low point in the series" I personally think it was the early 70s. This wasn't so much to do with Moore, more the slightly stale nature of the films. DAF was a bit of a duff with a rather bored lead, LALD was entertaining but nothing really special and MWTGG was mediocre at best despite Moore and Lee. MWTGG also marked the end of the Brocolli/Saltzman partnership which, by 1974, was reaching breaking point.

mrbain007

Ricardo C. wrote:

chrisno1 wrote:

You don't really ahve to be a great actor to play James Bond (Roger Moore? Lazenby?) just competent, and Brosnan is more than competent.
I agree with everyone above who says he wasn't given great scripts, but he still managed to be quite affecting in TWINE.
Crucially, for me, he actually looks the part.
He wasn't a flabby, greying Bond, he wasn't disinterested, and he always looked comfortable in a suit (unlike TD who seemed to want to throw the tux off as soon as possible in LTK and looked hardly less comfy in the leather jackets).
He also understood the razzamatazz that surrounds a Bond movie and was always willing to promote it with interviews etc. He comes across as very likable and in that respect he injected so much more into the series than Moore (old fashioned) or Dalton (a bit grumpy).
The Bond's of the '90s stand up very well against other thrillers and adventure flicks of the decade. I don't think commercially or artistically they are a low point. I still feel (sorry '80s fans) that the insipid period from 1983 - 89 is by far the least interesting time for 007, IMO.

I have disagree. They really do pale in comparison of what was making money at the box office. The Fugitive, In The Line of Fire, James Cameron films, Face Off, The Mask of Zorro, Clear and Present Danger, The Hunt For Red October, and probably some more I can't even remember right now.

Also, I felt that the Bond films of 70s especially were trying too hard to emulate what was popular at the time. The 90s in comparison were pretty mild IMO. When you look most of the films of that period, the similarities were obvious:

LALD - Blaxploitation ("names is for tomb-stones baby")
TMWTGG - Kung-fu, Bruce Lee films
MR - Star Wars

IMO the Bond films of the 70s suffer far more from an identity crisis than those of the 90s.

Ricardo C.

mrbain007 wrote:

Now now people lol. I think a lot of us have been guilty of dismissing the views of others, thats just what happens when you mix conflicting opinions and forums like these.

In regard to which period was "the low point in the series" I personally think it was the early 70s. This wasn't so much to do with Moore, more the slightly stale nature of the films. DAF was a bit of a duff with a rather bored lead, LALD was entertaining but nothing really special and MWTGG was mediocre at best despite Moore and Lee. MWTGG also marked the end of the Brocolli/Saltzman partnership which, by 1974, was reaching breaking point.

I love the early 70's films, especially DAF and GG.

mrbain007

Ricardo C. wrote:

mrbain007 wrote:

Now now people lol. I think a lot of us have been guilty of dismissing the views of others, thats just what happens when you mix conflicting opinions and forums like these.

In regard to which period was "the low point in the series" I personally think it was the early 70s. This wasn't so much to do with Moore, more the slightly stale nature of the films. DAF was a bit of a duff with a rather bored lead, LALD was entertaining but nothing really special and MWTGG was mediocre at best despite Moore and Lee. MWTGG also marked the end of the Brocolli/Saltzman partnership which, by 1974, was reaching breaking point.

I love the early 70's films, especially DAF and GG.

I just don't think they have aged very well in relation to many of the others. For instance you couldn't picture a character like Sheriff Pepper in todays Bond films, or even in the Bond films of the 90s.