I therefore disagree that Brosnan's Bond got more emotionally involved with his leading ladies as his stint progressed.
What I really meant to say that excluding GE, Brosnan's Bond was way too emotional about relationships, not necessarily that he was progressively more emotional as each film went on.
Well there are some factors that did really screw up the scripts.
First of all, it was the producers desperate ideas to move back to the classic cinema-Bond. Or what the audience were expecting of a Bond-film. Because after the then considered "failed Dalton films" EoN just wanted to play it safe. And after GE which is a very safe film in terms of how a Bond film is conceived they continued down the road of jokes, outlandish sets, gadgets that are shoe-horned in and ridiculous villains.
The other factor is the desperate strive for appeal to the younger and broader audiences. They wrote the scripts around certain actors that could produce PR (i.e Halle Berry and Denise Richards) they made the plots thin as ice so that even the youngest in a family could understand. There is no room for subtlety or characterizations. And it is a pity, because after the experimental and highly intresting Dalton-era and before the absolutely brillaint Craig-era. The Brosnan era falls flat with it's actions and it's thin plots.
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Well there are some factors that did really screw up the scripts.
First of all, it was the producers desperate ideas to move back to the classic cinema-Bond. Or what the audience were expecting of a Bond-film. Because after the then considered "failed Dalton films" EoN just wanted to play it safe. And after GE which is a very safe film in terms of how a Bond film is conceived they continued down the road of jokes, outlandish sets, gadgets that are shoe-horned in and ridiculous villains.
The other factor is the desperate strive for appeal to the younger and broader audiences. They wrote the scripts around certain actors that could produce PR (i.e Halle Berry and Denise Richards) they made the plots thin as ice so that even the youngest in a family could understand. There is no room for subtlety or characterizations. And it is a pity, because after the experimental and highly intresting Dalton-era and before the absolutely brillaint Craig-era. The Brosnan era falls flat with it's actions and it's thin plots.
I don't think thats what screwed it up..those movies were successful so as far as the producers were concerned job well done. Other than that all the points you made are why I love James Bond movies because they are different from everything else. The Craig & Dalton era which I think are great are the least creative of the bunch..following the Zeitgeist which is what the Roger Moore films at the beginning were criticized for..except Roger had Voodoo & the supernatural & awesome sets..Craig has action scenes. Pierce's performance screwed up his movies and some bad execution and editing choices..he was trying to be something more than what Bond is but Pierce is limited as an actor and didn't know it..so he couldn't achieve the work.
How cool! But that does mean that we're all going to hold you personally responsible for the fact that Brosnan's last film was slightly weaker than his others and led to a 4 year hiatus in the franchise. Clearly they just trumped up some story about financial troubles to cover it all up. )
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
Well there are some factors that did really screw up the scripts.
First of all, it was the producers desperate ideas to move back to the classic cinema-Bond. Or what the audience were expecting of a Bond-film. Because after the then considered "failed Dalton films" EoN just wanted to play it safe. And after GE which is a very safe film in terms of how a Bond film is conceived they continued down the road of jokes, outlandish sets, gadgets that are shoe-horned in and ridiculous villains.
The other factor is the desperate strive for appeal to the younger and broader audiences. They wrote the scripts around certain actors that could produce PR (i.e Halle Berry and Denise Richards) they made the plots thin as ice so that even the youngest in a family could understand. There is no room for subtlety or characterizations. And it is a pity, because after the experimental and highly intresting Dalton-era and before the absolutely brillaint Craig-era. The Brosnan era falls flat with it's actions and it's thin plots.
I don't think thats what screwed it up..those movies were successful so as far as the producers were concerned job well done. Other than that all the points you made are why I love James Bond movies because they are different from everything else. The Craig & Dalton era which I think are great are the least creative of the bunch..following the Zeitgeist which is what the Roger Moore films at the beginning were criticized for..except Roger had Voodoo & the supernatural & awesome sets..Craig has action scenes. Pierce's performance screwed up his movies and some bad execution and editing choices..he was trying to be something more than what Bond is but Pierce is limited as an actor and didn't know it..so he couldn't achieve the work.
Craig's movies may not be "unique" in terms of the films that are released now a days. But in terms of the Bond franchise they are highly unique and highly creative. The last thre films has all been different from eachother, compared to Brosnans films that all were alike. It became stale when the filmmakers went into the films with the setting of "make this one bigger than the last one".
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
All of the Brosnan films had scripting that suffered from being pastiches of many earlier Bond stories and having vague plotting, with GoldenEye arguably coming out on top due to a strong ensemble and directing, with TND coming in alongside GE due to it having the most coherent of the Brosnan scripts and being much more of its era (instead of being rooted too much in the Cold War, it concentrated more on the rapidly growing electronic media era and the rise of China). TWINE suffered from inexperienced directing, unfocused plotting, a laughable Bond girl, a weak villain (Robert Carlyle is a million times better in Once Upon a Time), and lots of key scenes cut (from what I've heard). And the Brosnan era became a virtual parody when DAD rolled round.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
I gave it some more thoughts. I think Brosnan was great, but what makes the movies so less memorable?
The answer is: Lack of great locations. Lets face it: Goldeneye started well with Monaco, which is of course pure glamour, but than? Russia, St Petersburg, a fake Cuba. Nothing remarkable there.
Than TND: Hamburg (Boring), Vietnam (a bit better) but nothing else stands out.
TWINE: Locations where all the romantic holiday spots as Bond said. Only Istanbul is a nice city but underused.
DAD: North Korea, a fake Cuba, Iceland (boring)
There were no 'wow' locations there. No locations that I want to particularly see for myself, no memorable hotels, except for the Atlantic hotel in Hamburg.
Compare that to Moore's locations. The island of the man with the golden gun is now a hot location spot, where the movie is being played 24 hours a day every day. The Lake palace hotel in India, The peninsula hotel in Hong Kong. I was there this week and had to visit it. Sadly the Dragon Garden, hai fat's residence, was closed! But again, it shows that the locations where more exotic, more glamorous than poor Pierce had to deal with.
Yeah, I agree that the overseas locations in Brosnan movies seemed a bit washed out and bland, with the German segments in TND reminding me of the British segments in SF.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
Perhaps it's just me, but I'm having hard time seeing how the locations of the Brosnan films are somehow responsible for the lackluster scripts,
Nothing of course But the scripts of the Moore films were never great either. However, somehow the movies are more memorable. I say locations have a big influence on this.
Perhaps it's just me, but I'm having hard time seeing how the locations of the Brosnan films are somehow responsible for the lackluster scripts,
Nothing of course But the scripts of the Moore films were never great either. However, somehow the movies are more memorable. I say locations have a big influence on this.
I agree that the scripts of the Moore films weren't that great, but I disagree with the notion that those movies were more memorable than Brosnan's. Goldeneye and The World is Not Enough, for example, are much more entertaining and memorable than Moore's films to me.
I think they were good movies, but I do miss a lot the Bond glamour in Brosnan's flicks. Which is strange, because Brosnan is probably the most glamorous looking Bond actor.
What's weak about his scripts? The same thing that's weak about many of the series scripts - lack of Fleming's writing. The man really did have a unique mind and a way of looking at the world and describing it and it's been a bitch for the screenwriters who have none of his novels left to cover and only a smattering of scenes yet to be pieced into their scripts. Brosnan's films really suffered from a lack of Fleming's touch and on top of that the writers were still trying to keep the cliches of the series to maintain continuity from the change of actors (need tuxedo/casino scene, martini order scene, Q gadget scene, weak one-liners, wall to wall stunt sequences - logical or not, etc.)
It's really a shame, because Dalton and Brosnan could have benefited from the change the series has gone through since Craig stepped in. They were both good actors and good in the role and deserved at least one film that had Fleming's take on the hard, dark side of spying. They gave it a shot with Dalton's, but they were still trying to maintain all the cliches of the series and so he got saddled with the bad puns and actors chewing the scenery. I still like Goldeneye - it has style and at least Brosnan could handle the throw away humor and though I hate the whole "not another satellite weapon" plot, I enjoyed how they played with the death of the Soviet empire/Cold War problems and brought in the rise of Russian organized crime with renegade soldiers and spies. TND had a silly plot and weak villain (Rupert Murdock vs. 007!) and a female spy stealing his scenes. TWINE was better, but what was Richards doing in this? DAD started out okay, but they went to the "satellite weapon" again and brought in the invisible Aston.
Craig got Fleming's first novel (and his writing) and the writer's threw out all the juvenile schtick. QOS had nothing of Fleming (though the third act had somewhat of a smell of smoke from the cabins burning in TSWLM) and suffered from last minute rewrites. SF used Fleming's novels TMWTGG and YOLT combined with a straight revenge story and Bond's resurrection.
I still enjoy Brosan's films (GEYE/TWINE fine, have to squirm a bit through the other two). Just a pity he (along with us) got let down many times by the writing.
I know everyone says Moore was the 'light hearted' Bond and his movies were borderline comedies, and in many ways these people are right, but to me I kind of think of the Brosnan era as the 'light hearted' era.
So was most of the Connery era - between "GOLDFINGER" and "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER".
TND had a silly plot and weak villain (Rupert Murdock vs. 007!) and a female spy stealing his scenes.
I like it for the same reasons you dislike it (except for how Jonathan Pryce's villain was a bit simplistic, despite a solid performance and misunderstood plan really). )
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
Comments
I just didn't see anything special about her and Bond's relationship compared to Bond's other flings.
What I really meant to say that excluding GE, Brosnan's Bond was way too emotional about relationships, not necessarily that he was progressively more emotional as each film went on.
First of all, it was the producers desperate ideas to move back to the classic cinema-Bond. Or what the audience were expecting of a Bond-film. Because after the then considered "failed Dalton films" EoN just wanted to play it safe. And after GE which is a very safe film in terms of how a Bond film is conceived they continued down the road of jokes, outlandish sets, gadgets that are shoe-horned in and ridiculous villains.
The other factor is the desperate strive for appeal to the younger and broader audiences. They wrote the scripts around certain actors that could produce PR (i.e Halle Berry and Denise Richards) they made the plots thin as ice so that even the youngest in a family could understand. There is no room for subtlety or characterizations. And it is a pity, because after the experimental and highly intresting Dalton-era and before the absolutely brillaint Craig-era. The Brosnan era falls flat with it's actions and it's thin plots.
I don't think thats what screwed it up..those movies were successful so as far as the producers were concerned job well done. Other than that all the points you made are why I love James Bond movies because they are different from everything else. The Craig & Dalton era which I think are great are the least creative of the bunch..following the Zeitgeist which is what the Roger Moore films at the beginning were criticized for..except Roger had Voodoo & the supernatural & awesome sets..Craig has action scenes. Pierce's performance screwed up his movies and some bad execution and editing choices..he was trying to be something more than what Bond is but Pierce is limited as an actor and didn't know it..so he couldn't achieve the work.
Craig's movies may not be "unique" in terms of the films that are released now a days. But in terms of the Bond franchise they are highly unique and highly creative. The last thre films has all been different from eachother, compared to Brosnans films that all were alike. It became stale when the filmmakers went into the films with the setting of "make this one bigger than the last one".
The answer is: Lack of great locations. Lets face it: Goldeneye started well with Monaco, which is of course pure glamour, but than? Russia, St Petersburg, a fake Cuba. Nothing remarkable there.
Than TND: Hamburg (Boring), Vietnam (a bit better) but nothing else stands out.
TWINE: Locations where all the romantic holiday spots as Bond said. Only Istanbul is a nice city but underused.
DAD: North Korea, a fake Cuba, Iceland (boring)
There were no 'wow' locations there. No locations that I want to particularly see for myself, no memorable hotels, except for the Atlantic hotel in Hamburg.
Compare that to Moore's locations. The island of the man with the golden gun is now a hot location spot, where the movie is being played 24 hours a day every day. The Lake palace hotel in India, The peninsula hotel in Hong Kong. I was there this week and had to visit it. Sadly the Dragon Garden, hai fat's residence, was closed! But again, it shows that the locations where more exotic, more glamorous than poor Pierce had to deal with.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
Nothing of course
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
I agree that the scripts of the Moore films weren't that great, but I disagree with the notion that those movies were more memorable than Brosnan's. Goldeneye and The World is Not Enough, for example, are much more entertaining and memorable than Moore's films to me.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
It's really a shame, because Dalton and Brosnan could have benefited from the change the series has gone through since Craig stepped in. They were both good actors and good in the role and deserved at least one film that had Fleming's take on the hard, dark side of spying. They gave it a shot with Dalton's, but they were still trying to maintain all the cliches of the series and so he got saddled with the bad puns and actors chewing the scenery. I still like Goldeneye - it has style and at least Brosnan could handle the throw away humor and though I hate the whole "not another satellite weapon" plot, I enjoyed how they played with the death of the Soviet empire/Cold War problems and brought in the rise of Russian organized crime with renegade soldiers and spies. TND had a silly plot and weak villain (Rupert Murdock vs. 007!) and a female spy stealing his scenes. TWINE was better, but what was Richards doing in this? DAD started out okay, but they went to the "satellite weapon" again and brought in the invisible Aston.
Craig got Fleming's first novel (and his writing) and the writer's threw out all the juvenile schtick. QOS had nothing of Fleming (though the third act had somewhat of a smell of smoke from the cabins burning in TSWLM) and suffered from last minute rewrites. SF used Fleming's novels TMWTGG and YOLT combined with a straight revenge story and Bond's resurrection.
I still enjoy Brosan's films (GEYE/TWINE fine, have to squirm a bit through the other two). Just a pity he (along with us) got let down many times by the writing.
So was most of the Connery era - between "GOLDFINGER" and "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER".
I like it for the same reasons you dislike it (except for how Jonathan Pryce's villain was a bit simplistic, despite a solid performance and misunderstood plan really).