Bond Goldeneye to Die another Day.
Thunderpussy
Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
I was thinking after LTK was a bit of an unsuccessful Bond film, so
Far as Box office goes, I think the Production team decided to play
It safe. By getting P Brosnan, a well known TV star, who perfectly
Fitted the bill as 007. Although his films were enjoyable , they have
The feeling of reusing ideas from older Bonds, and not taking any
Chances.
Whatever changed after DAD, there seems to have been a decision
To gamble everything on a reinvention of the series and Bond himself.
In many ways now, I feel the Brosnan Bonds were Holding films and
Not until CR did we see a return to a confident, revived Production
Team, bringing in new ideas and bringing in a contemporary Bond.
This upset many, but evolution is part of life and perhaps being fans
We were too close to the films to see how stale the old formula was
Becoming.
Now after the shake up, the reintroduction of much loved characters
Bond looks fresh and modern, even the films now have some twists
And surprises for the audience ( if you avoid the spoilers )
After the huge success of SF, it seems Bond is hip and cool again
With Oscar winning crew and actors wanting to be involved with them.
So I think we should all congratulate the Producers for taking that big
Chance of really shaking up the franchise, Bond is back to being number
One at the box office , yet putting out new and inventive high quality films.
Any thoughts ?
Far as Box office goes, I think the Production team decided to play
It safe. By getting P Brosnan, a well known TV star, who perfectly
Fitted the bill as 007. Although his films were enjoyable , they have
The feeling of reusing ideas from older Bonds, and not taking any
Chances.
Whatever changed after DAD, there seems to have been a decision
To gamble everything on a reinvention of the series and Bond himself.
In many ways now, I feel the Brosnan Bonds were Holding films and
Not until CR did we see a return to a confident, revived Production
Team, bringing in new ideas and bringing in a contemporary Bond.
This upset many, but evolution is part of life and perhaps being fans
We were too close to the films to see how stale the old formula was
Becoming.
Now after the shake up, the reintroduction of much loved characters
Bond looks fresh and modern, even the films now have some twists
And surprises for the audience ( if you avoid the spoilers )
After the huge success of SF, it seems Bond is hip and cool again
With Oscar winning crew and actors wanting to be involved with them.
So I think we should all congratulate the Producers for taking that big
Chance of really shaking up the franchise, Bond is back to being number
One at the box office , yet putting out new and inventive high quality films.
Any thoughts ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
There was a strong element of "playing safe" with those films, it can't be denied, but after the underwhelming financial performance of LTK it might have been the right thing to do.
Hey!
Where are you to my aid when I am taking flak from the Timboys over that point?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Why am I always mistaken?
There is a weak and loveable core inside of that rugged shell :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Of build up the funds movies, so they could take the big risk later. I'm
Not saying it was a big conspiracy, just how it worked out. EON's coffers
Were full, so they could afford to take the gamble and with the first Bond
Novel now under their ownership, it was a perfect time for them to try out
Their new ideas.
And one big one: Dalton was not accepted by the audience
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Much harder edge to LTK, and the 15 cert. That cut off a huge
audience from the film.
A third film out of him, they might have had another hit on their
Hands
And yes, lets get back on Topic
but you started it!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yes, and Alec Trevelyan's age in the finished GE script has always been problematic for me, but I intend to write something on that later.
Though Dalton would have been a perfect Bond for the reboot of the series (if he had been at the right age), like Craig he was too close to the sweaty reality of Fleming's Bond for audiences who grew up with the Moore superspy series. They could not mesh the EON superspy scripts with Fleming's brutal 00 enough for Dalton to sell it. LTK was a nice try, but it still had silly scripted scenes from the old films which just jarred with the more vicious ones. Then the studio lawyers started fighting and Dalton had to get out.
Brosnan came in just at the right time and it's obvious from the GE script EON wanted to show the audience their old classic Bond was back with bells on and updated for the new post Soviet world. Brosnan's entries were obviously their way of staying the course by replaying the same old EON/Bond queues through the scripts while trying to adapt to Pierce's style. It worked because the box office returns told them it worked. However, DAD, no matter how geopolitically current it was (using the North Korean military as villains) became irrelevant after the 9/11. The invisible Aston didn't help.
It was a good kick in the creative pants to EON. The series was really showing signs of aging in the current world and it needed a reboot, no matter what other series were rebooted - I don't think it had anything to do with them. Continuing to produce the old series by just changing actors wasn't going to work anymore than the fantasy laden sci fi elements would. They realized the audience was ready for Fleming's real, brutal spy and having a few years to drop below the radar allowed them to put the pieces together. They no longer needed a superspy-fashion model with perfect hair who never bleeds. They needed a gritty actor who could be sardonically charming, ruggedly handsome yet be convincingly cold and brutal like Fleming's spy. For them this was more important than black hair and being over six feet.
Then, as if a sign from fate, they got the rights to CR. They could finally do Fleming's first novel and Bond's first appearance. How could they not reboot the series at this point?
The Bourne Identity and Batman Begins pointed the cinematic way. It was time to go real and dark. No gimmicks - not even an Aston loaded
with firepower. No superspy - Bond would get hurt emotionally and physically as in the novel. No super villain trying to destroy or blackmail the planet - only real life villains - spies, terrorists and those who profit from them and psychotic killers like Silva.
The interesting thing is that Skyfall also borrows heavily from older Bonds, perhaps more in homage than plagiarism. The same can be said for the Q scene in DAD.
The nineties were still an optimistic time, as CmdrAtticus notes. Brosnan's exuberant take on Bond fitted the post-Moore period better perhaps the Dalton, whose take wouldn't be relevant until much later.
Interestingly, in the austere post-2008 crash period, audiences could empathise better with the moodier, pared-down, monochrome-dressed Craig portrayal. By contrast, Brosnan's colourful ties, elegant suits and urbane manner all looked out of date.
Now in 2014 we're still a bit in the balance... The economy(while not fully recovered) is better than it has been since 2008; and for every Imitation Game there is a more colourful, exuberant film like Guardians of The Galaxy. I wonder what Bond 24 will hold in store?
Very perceptive, TP. I agree the folks at EON made the right move at the right time, and I'm pretty happy with the way it has worked out so far.
For ME, Craig's tenure will not top QOS. But that's okay. One ultimate movie from each actor is what makes the series awesome.
Or in the case of Connery & Dalton, more than one...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Agree. Deflecting blame was exactly what they were doing. In regards to the Batman/Keaton comparison I think personally it compares more with TLD. Tim Burton seems to like the humor and silliness of the Adam West series (which is why Nicholson's Joker seems closer to Cesar Romero and light years form Ledger's character) but tried to inject more drama and the personal struggle of the Dark Knight character. It's an entertaining film but seems out of balance. This is how I feel about the Dalton entries.
For me, the reboot approach seems more like the Nolan entries - making the character into a real individual (and even explaining the more real origins of Batman's togs and equipment). As far as trashing the qualities - which ones do you refer to?
Good points, which I agree with when looking at the franchise parallels in terms of seriousness vs. campiness. Yes, like with Nolan's Batman, the reboot attempted to show a realistic perspective on the Bond world, though I would stop there and not automatically equate this version as being the most "literary Bond." What I want to single out in my comparison is that with the Burton Batman, he threw out the more staple traits of the Batman. I've read the comics since the early 70s and got to appreciate the darkness of the character and his world, but I also liked the contrast in how Bruce Wayne was portrayed as a Bond like playboy, with his looks and lifestyle; Burton however portrayed Bruce Wayne as eccentric, and quite frankly against type, which he explained as a conscious decision based on his own experiences and outlook in life. He opted for Michael Keaton because he gave off an internalized vibe of the character's darkness, without letting any overwhelming tall, dark and handsome qualities getting in the way of that.
I liken a similar approach with the Bond reboot, though I don't think it went through the same genesis process as Burton took in his personal vision. Apart from the obvious formula window dressing that were intentionally and obviously missing, e.g., the gunbarrel, placement of Bond theme Q, Moneypenny, the casting of Craig because of his contra-Bond physical attributes, was also obviously meant as invasive palate cleanser for audiences. Was it necessary? Part of me wants to say, "Sure it was," for the sake of the big picture for the franchise and its following, but as a Bond fan, I feel it bordered on a serious violation of the very nature and foundation of the character and this is where I make a solid connection between that and what was done with Burton’s Batman. Another recent example is Robert Downey, Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes, since his version retains the original setting of the original stories.
I think your assessment is correct regarding the general consensus of the reboot. However, I personally find the Brosnan-era formula films to still feel fresh and entertaining. For this fan, the pre-title sequence for Die Another Day is better than all 3 Craig films combined.
(Aided in part by a well-placed gun barrel sequence)
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Find his films entertaining. {[] I'm not a Brosnan hater, I think all
The actors have given 100% -{ I was only making an observation that
Since and including CR, the Producers seem to have found a new
Enthusiasm for the franchise.