Brosnan, Pierce Brosnan & Craig?

Chela · January 2007

Hello All-

New to the forum. May write some spoilers so thought I would warn you now.

I grew up w/Brosnan as Remington Steele. I loved that show and was quite disappointed when PB lost out on Bond in favor or Dalton.

My JOY when PB was case knew no bounds and I liked each of his films (but hated all of the ladies, w/the exception of Michelle Yeoh and Halle Berry who weren't total drips.)

I was NOT happy w/the choice of Craig and dragged my feet b4 going to see CR (I didn't want my bucks to count towards his first week's haul.)

Well, when I finally saw the film, I understood WHY he had been chosen (or, more correctly, why PB was retired.)

The only way to show Bond as a rogue spy, new to the game, was to begin again (and frankly, CR felt more like Bourne, which I also love, than Bond). I actually thought Craig acquitted himself quite well (but I still LOVE tall, DARK, and handsome...PB!)

While I am glad the franchise will continue, b/c I am at heart a Bond fan, I really wish people (reviewers, posters, etc) would stop acting as if PB was a TERRIBLE Bond. Remember that HE saved the franchise in 95 when it was on the cusp of going under. I went back to all of my mags from that time (I kept everything PB Bond): Total Film, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, Time, Newsweek, First, etc. To a reviewer, people were calling PB the BEST Bond since Connery. I admit that Craig is also tops, but please, stop the PB bashing?

For me, it's Connery, PB, Craig/Dalton, Lazenby, Moore (the only truly horrific Bond to see the light of day.)

Just my thoughts, and no spoilers actually.

Cheers to all,

Che

S_P_E_C_T_R_E · January 2007

BRAVO {[]

Loeffelholz · January 2007

Welcome to AJB, Chela...you and I are not so far apart in opinion. I, too, enjoyed Brozzer's Bond, but I'm also thrilled with the tack they're taking with Craig...

And I completely understand your frustration with the slagging Pierce is suffering now that a New Guy is playing the part, but that's the way of things. Sir Roger Moore recently observed that he gets a new round of 'bad reviews' every time a new Bond takes over

Take comfort in the fact that Brosnan's place in Bond history is assured. He had some great moments in the role :007)

Once again...welcome to the best Bond site on the net... -{

Lazenby880 · January 2007

Chela wrote:

I really wish people (reviewers, posters, etc) would stop acting as if PB was a TERRIBLE Bond. Remember that HE saved the franchise in 95 when it was on the cusp of going under. ... I admit that Craig is also tops, but please, stop the PB bashing?

I must confess that I do think there were many creative missteps during the Brosnan era, however to place the blame on Mr Brosnan personally is unfair: the failures were collective failures for the most part. On the other hand, I also think that to credit him *solely* with 'saving' the Bond pictures is something of a stretch.

I do have issues with the way in which Mr Brosnan played Bond much of the time, and his portrayal of the character was one I sometimes had difficulty warming to: among other things he lacked depth and resorted too quickly to a glib look. That said, to blame him for poor CGI work, odd direction and poor writing is bizarre and I concur that this is something that seems to be taking root in many discussions. This sort of 'bashing'—the harsh criticism of Mr Brosnan for decisions in which he played no part—*is* unfair. Still, Mr Brosnan did get to play James Bond four times and made rather a lot of money from the character: he was very lucky indeed and it is difficult to feel much sympathy just because some Bond fans do not feel the films in which he starred were up to much—even though in placing all responsibility on Mr Brosnan said fans are being somewhat unjust.

I must also take issue with your contention that Casino Royale felt like a Bourne picture. This is something I see argued often and I cannot understand it: I enjoy both Bond and Bourne immensely but the two are rather divergent. Yes, Craig's debut does have a greater sense of realism about it than previous Bond efforts, however the glamour, exoticism and romanticism of Casino Royale are nowhere to be found in Bourne. The indulgence of the second act during the casino scenes is a level of sumptuous high-living completely non-existent in the Damon pictures, and the fact that the casino scenes are complemented by a harder, grittier edge (the fight in the stairwell, the poisining) does not detract from this. Then there is the whole internal conspiracy element in Bourne which is an entirely different cul-de-sac from Craig's Bond.

On another note, welcome to AJB Chela; it is nice to read posts with context and open-mindedness.

blueman · January 2007

Can those of us who never liked Brosnan all that much as Bond still keep our opinions?

Many of the criticisms being heard were criticisms that were voiced back when he was in the role, I think all that's changed is that Craig's take on the character has highlighted just how thin Brosnan's protrayal was, and with that contrast now extant a lot more people are seeing it and saying it.

I had high hopes for Brosnan in the role, just like with Craig. Brosnan did have his moments, but IMHO and on the whole he was a weak Bond. Is that bashing? Feels pretty balanced to me...but to each their own. If Brosnan floats yer boat, that's swell. But the "negative" comments have always been out there, and likely aren't going anywhere soon.

Chela · January 2007

Thanks to all who replied (and I appreciate the welcome from all)...a few thoughts in response to a couple of the items mentioned:

1. I agree that some of the Brosnan gadgets were over the top. They did need to go.
2. I don't feel that Brosnan's portrayal was "thin"; but, I will submit to you that as a female of a certain age, as soon as I see PB, my thoughts tend to wander...not being "sexist" or anything, but the man is, IMHO, gorgeous and that goes a long way in helping him "look" like Bond for me (even though PB does not actually fit the description provided in Fleming's books.)
3. I always felt that Dalton also got a "bum rap" for his portrayal, when in fact, he was as good as PB and Craig...the scripts simply stunk.
4. Poor Roger Moore, I do feel for the man. As noted in my OG post, he's my least favorite Bond, and he does keep getting pushed down as time goes by.
5. Yes. Those of you who never liked PB do have a right to your opinion. I pride myself on not being part of the "Craig NOT BOND" group. Frankly, what I want is for Bond to keep saving the world...that HE lasts is more important than an actor continuing in the role. Ultimately, I live for Bond (um, well, I live for movies, but that's a whole 'nother story.)
6. I'm sorry. But Craig's Bond really feels like Bourne to me. The person who posted re: this topic was quite thoughtful and I concede that your points are valid; but when watching Casino Royale, I FEEL the same adrenalin rush I feel whenever I watch Bourne. So, it's not so much that I am comparing setting, but tone. The overall vibe I have when leaving the theater is the same. W/other Bonds, I had a thrilling time watching the film, but the rush wore off b/c I felt that it was,well, a film.
7. Finally, I went to see Casino Royale a 2nd time (I missed the first 20 minutes when I went before.) This time, I went with friends and their kids. I was sitting next to the 11 year old and I wasn't sure he understood what was going on (he kept asking me questions in a QUIET whisper.) My thanks to the makers of the film for supplying me with lots of teaching material (who is really the bad "guy"...use inference to figure this out; what city in Europe is full of canals/waterways; can you actually give CPR to someone who has no pulse...you get the idea.)

Sorry for the long post. Will try not to be so wordy next time.

Glad to have found the site. Best of week-ends to all.

Che

highhopes · January 2007

Lazenby880 wrote:

Chela wrote:

I really wish people (reviewers, posters, etc) would stop acting as if PB was a TERRIBLE Bond. Remember that HE saved the franchise in 95 when it was on the cusp of going under. ... I admit that Craig is also tops, but please, stop the PB bashing?

I must confess that I do think there were many creative missteps during the Brosnan era, however to place the blame on Mr Brosnan personally is unfair: the failures were collective failures for the most part. On the other hand, I also think that to credit him *solely* with 'saving' the Bond pictures is something of a stretch.

I do have issues with the way in which Mr Brosnan played Bond much of the time, and his portrayal of the character was one I sometimes had difficulty warming to: among other things he lacked depth and resorted too quickly to a glib look. That said, to blame him for poor CGI work, odd direction and poor writing is bizarre and I concur that this is something that seems to be taking root in many discussions. This sort of 'bashing'—the harsh criticism of Mr Brosnan for decisions in which he played no part—*is* unfair. Still, Mr Brosnan did get to play James Bond four times and made rather a lot of money from the character: he was very lucky indeed and it is difficult to feel much sympathy just because some Bond fans do not feel the films in which he starred were up to much—even though in placing all responsibility on Mr Brosnan said fans are being somewhat unjust.

I must also take issue with your contention that Casino Royale felt like a Bourne picture. This is something I see argued often and I cannot understand it: I enjoy both Bond and Bourne immensely but the two are rather divergent. Yes, Craig's debut does have a greater sense of realism about it than previous Bond efforts, however the glamour, exoticism and romanticism of Casino Royale are nowhere to be found in Bourne. The indulgence of the second act during the casino scenes is a level of sumptuous high-living completely non-existent in the Damon pictures, and the fact that the casino scenes are complemented by a harder, grittier edge (the fight in the stairwell, the poisining) does not detract from this. Then there is the whole internal conspiracy element in Bourne which is an entirely different cul-de-sac from Craig's Bond.

On another note, welcome to AJB Chela; it is nice to read posts with context and open-mindedness.

Hi Chela, and welcome.

Well said Lazeny880. I would go a step further than your Brosnan analysis and say that all the films' problems after, say, Thunderball, were more the result of the formulaic, hokey scripts than any real deficiency in the actors. CR's on the other hand had some real nail-biting moments and some real laughs as well. It also had an actual plot that the audience had to pay attention to -- such a rarity in a Bond film that some of us forgot to the first time.

I also completely agree on your Bourne comments. If anything, Bourne is a James Bond knock-off, but devoid of personality, romance and exoticism. Good stunts, though, and enjoyable films. But saying that CR is more like Bourne is putting the cart before the horse IMO.

Dan Same · January 2007

Here are some of my own random thoughts:

Blue, my problem with this whole Brosnan-bashing thing is not with people (such as yourself) who may not like Brosnan, but with critics (who are not exactly huge Bond fans) who, with the release of CR, are attacking Brosnan (and Moore) as if he destroyed the franchise or something. The one good thing about you is that you're at least consistent.

You never liked Brosnan. I do agree with you though, that Craig's Bond does make the difference between him and Brosnan all the more clear; although IMO it highlights just how good a Bond Brosnan truly was.

Chela, I agree with you completely that "Frankly, what I want is for Bond to keep saving the world...that HE lasts is more important than an actor continuing in the role." I couldn't have said it better myself. {[]

In regards to the comparison to Bourne, I agree to a degree as I found CR to be a gadgetless, at times dour film. This wasn't the case the entire film, but I can definitely see why someone would compare it to Bourne.

Lazenby880, I don't agree that Brosnan lacked depth. While the scripts weren't wonderful, I think he showed amazing depth, for example in his relationship with Electra.

My problem with Brosnan's films came down to the scripts. Even the best written of his films (GE/TWINE) had script problems. However this isn't unique to his films as IMO the last Bond film to have a truly great and pretty flawless script was TSWLM, one of the five best written Bond films of all time IMO. Although several films post-TSWLM (FYEO, OP, GE, TWINE, CR) did have quite good scripts, none of them were completely satisfying IMO and all of them had problems which lessened the films. I consider Brosnan to have been the second best Bond of all time. Unfortunately, he wasn't given a film with a script with the quality of DN-TB/TSWLM.

(However GE and TWINE, the two best written Bond films in years IMO, were pretty good.)

Lazenby880 · January 2007

Chela wrote:

6. I'm sorry. But Craig's Bond really feels like Bourne to me. The person who posted re: this topic was quite thoughtful and I concede that your points are valid; but when watching Casino Royale, I FEEL the same adrenalin rush I feel whenever I watch Bourne. So, it's not so much that I am comparing setting, but tone. The overall vibe I have when leaving the theater is the same. W/other Bonds, I had a thrilling time watching the film, but the rush wore off b/c I felt that it was,well, a film.

Thank you for expanding on that Chela. I still disagree—Martin Campbell's direction is rather different from Liman's or Greengrass'—however I now understand your point about feeling a similar 'vibe' on leaving the cinema.

highhopes wrote:

Well said Lazeny880. I would go a step further than your Brosnan analysis and say that all the films' problems after, say, Thunderball, were more the result of the formulaic, hokey scripts than any real deficiency in the actors. CR's on the other hand had some real nail-biting moments and some real laughs as well. It also had an actual plot that the audience had to pay attention to -- such a rarity in a Bond film that some of us forgot to the first time.

I also completely agree on your Bourne comments. If anything, Bourne is a James Bond knock-off, but devoid of personality, romance and exoticism. Good stunts, though, and enjoyable films. But saying that CR is more like Bourne is putting the cart before the horse IMO.

Thank you highhopes. I should say that *some* of the post-Thunderball pictures are good, even though there exist some substantial flaws (depending on the picture). I would absolutely agree that Casino Royale is a colossal step upwards and really in another league: the plot you mention, as well as the acting, the writing, the cinematography, the lack of formula, the expertly crafted tension and suspense, the travelogue feel and a myriad of other factors combine to produce the most satisfying of Eon's many enterprises.

As regards Bourne, I am a *huge* fan of those two films (though not of the Ludlum books—they are *awful*). I don't think that Bourne is a Bond knock-off; the two characters are completely different and develop from divergent points of reference: one is an anonymous and amnesiac and supremely proficient professional while the other is a high-living and quite complex agent (ruthless at times, munificent at others) defined by his relationship with a traitor. I write, of course, specifically of Craig's Bond as opposed to the other interpretations of the character. But taking the Bourne films, they are man-on-the-run thrillers steeped in internal conspiracy with a dark and dingy and almost 70s atmosphere. They take *far* more inspiration, in my view, from earlier gritty spy thrillers and characters such as the neurotic Quiller and the office-politicking and mole-hunting of many a spy novel from the 60s and 70s. Frankly I cannot see *anything*, really, that would suggest that Bond and Bourne have in common to any substantial degree.

Dan Same wrote:

Lazenby880, I don't agree that Bond lacked depth. While the scripts weren't wonderful, I think he showed amazing depth, for example in his relationship with Electra.

Is there a Freudian slip in there (Brosnan=Bond)?

I struggle to see how Brosnan could be described as displaying 'amazing depth', but that is just me. For my money he is out of his depth in the scenes that require greater grounding, such as in the beach scene in GoldenEye or some of the Paris Carver scenes in Tomorrow Never Dies. I would agree that Bond's relationship with Elektra is the best defined of the Brosnan era, and Sophie Marceau does a wonderful job in fleshing out her tragically flawed character. Brosnan is, quite often, very good in The World Is Not Enough, showing surprising intensity when Bond confronts Elektra at Baku (a great scene) and when Bond's neck is almost snapped. That said, there is still a tendency towards melodrama and over-dramatisation in my opinion, even though some elements of the script were not exactly superb. (I should emphasis that scripting was more of an issue in the likes of the dreadful Die Another Day).

However, this is all just subjective of course and the world would be rather a boring place were we all to agree.

Dan Same · January 2007

Lazenby880 wrote:

Is there a Freudian slip in there (Brosnan=Bond)?

No, more like a lack of attention to detail.

Thanks, though, for pointing it out.

I have now changed it.

Lazenby880 wrote:

I struggle to see how Brosnan could be described as displaying 'amazing depth', but that is just me. For my money he is out of his depth in the scenes that require greater grounding, such as in the beach scene in GoldenEye or some of the Paris Carver scenes in Tomorrow Never Dies.

My view on Brosnan's depth is that many of the scenes you identify are IMO quite terribly written (I didn't appreciate the "It's why you're alone" "It's what keeps me alive") yet he goes beyond them and delivers a very convincing performance. Writing strong emotional scenes has IMO never been a major strength of the Bond films in general, and the Bond films of the past decade in particular. Much of it goes down to underdevelopment (why are we really expected to care about Paris when we barely know her?) but nonetheless these scenes aren't IMO always ideal. Brosnan IMO rose above this and really never failed to convince me. That's not to say that I think he's perfect, but rather I don't think he ever had anything but a terrific day at the office. In fact, I became convinced that Brosnan was a great Bond (including his handling of dramatic scenes) when I saw DAD. It had a terrible script yet Brosnan IMO was still very impressive.

Lazenby880 wrote:

However, this is all just subjective of course and the world would be rather a boring place were we all to agree.

Absolutely. In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm 'addicted' to this site; the amount of debate. -{

delliott101 · January 2007

I have to say that Pierce isn't my favorite Bond, but now after getting the movies on DVD and rewatching them, there are some good BrosnoBond moments. TWINE is probably my favorite of his films.

The thing is that he didn't live up to the expectations I had for him. He tried, but there were pure Moore moments (straightening his tie in GF and TWINE... unbelieveable and comic fight scene in TND and ALL of DAD after he gets "cleaned up").

To say "he saved the series" is rubbish. The series was caught up in some legal stuff in the early '90's. Anyone could have been Bond in GoldenEye and it would have been a smash, since it was the first new James Bond film in 6 years.

As far as CR being a Bourne film... I don't see it at ll that way. Maybe since Bond came first, is Bourne a copy of Bond? They share the same initials, after all and Bond was created in the early '50's (in Casino Royale) so Bourne is a ripoff, not Bond.

blueman · January 2007

Great thread Chela, and I can totally get your Brosnan reaction: the dude is a hottie.

One thing EON has always got right IMO, is casting the right guy for the times. I can't helping thinking, how would Purefoy have been in the role back in '95, but hard to argue Brosnan's success. {[]

Onatopp · January 2007

1) The first Bond movie I ever saw happens to be a Moore movie, but I don't care for the way Moore played Bond. Loved him in the Saint, but not as Bond.
2) In 1982 when Brosnan came on the t.v as "Remington Steele", I fell in "love" with the man. (Mind you I was in my early teens). I have been a fan of his since that time and own almost every movie he has done.
3) But, I don't belive Pierce should of done CR because of the fact that CR is Bond's first 00 mission. Which means that Bond would be in his 30's. I don't belive that Pierce could pull-off being in his 30's anymore. Also, the way Pierce betray's Bond is not right for CR. I have read the book eight time's. I belive that Daniel has gotten it right. Daniel is a wonderful actor and I am looking very forward to having him as Bond in the next movie.
4) I don't care if Daniel has bold hair. Hell Mr. Connery has brown eyes and Mr. Dalton has green eyes. I have looked pass the fact the Bond has blue and this actors did not. So I can look pass the fact that Mr. Craig has blode hair. I may don't have if he was bleach blode, but he doesn't and he is a very good actor. Just watch "LayerCake"

Moore Not Less · January 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

I had been a major fan of Brosnan before he started playing Bond and was thrilled when he finally got the role. But I ended up being slightly disappointed by his performances. Granted, he had his moments, but I never could pinpoint his personal style as Bond, unlike the other actors.

Indeed, Pierce Brosnan did not put his own stamp on the role in the same way as Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. He's often referred to as the good all rounder and I think that's a fair assessment. I certainly wasn't disappointed by any of his performances.

blueman · January 2007

I think both Dalton and Brosnan had the greatest number of (proportionately, per film) dissappointing moments of all the Bond actors, scenes where they each seemed to just not have a clue, and ended up looking like total dufuses. Comes from playing the myth instead of the man IMHO, something Brosnan copped to and Dalton (IMHO) got trapped in...the trying-to-fill-them-there-shoes syndrome. Took Moore a couple films even to lose that (again, IMHO). To be fair, I think Dalton had the character down, he just had too many badly written/directed scenes to overcome. Brosnan, however, had the annoying habit of being a scene-killer regardless of script/direction. IMHO, he comes across as the most lost Bond, which is weird as he showed he could really attack a role in other similar-type films (THE FOURTH PROTOCOL, THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR stand out--MATADOR too by all the reviews, haven't seen it yet myself). Glen's hubris robbed Dalton, and Brosnan's robbed himself. IMHO. If there were two people who really killed Bond for me it was first Glen and then Brosnan--and oddly both were Cubby's guys.

Ah well, moving on. -{ Babs sure seems to have a firm grasp on what makes Bond Bond. About time somebody did and hope it sticks around for a few films.

Dan Same · January 2007

I don't know wether Brosnan did indeed cop to playing the myth rather than the man, but IMO he played the man in the same way that Connery and Moore did; as a ruthless yet suave gentlemanly killer. I guess this is one time in which I don't agree with Mr Brosnan.

Dan Same · January 2007

Moore Not Less wrote:

Indeed, Pierce Brosnan did not put his own stamp on the role in the same way as Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. He's often referred to as the good all rounder and I think that's a fair assessment. I certainly wasn't disappointed by any of his performances.

I agree that Brosnan did not put his own stamp on the role in the same way as the above mentioned actors and was really an all-rounder but I don't think that's a bad thing. While I consider Connery to be the best of the Bonds (and Moore the third best), I hated Dalton (IMO the worst of the Bonds) so really I'm delighted that Brosnan didn't leave his own personal mark in the same way as Dalton.

Plus, being an all-rounder can be pretty good. Afterall, arguably the second greatest cricketer of all time was Gary Sobers, an all-rounder.

Truth be told, I don't think either of the Bonds post-Dalton will have left their personal stamp on the series (which is not always such a good thing, as IMO it wasn't with Dalton); so the question is, did they do what they did well? IMO Brosnan did what he did extraordinarily well, and so was the second greatest Bond of all time; and it was through being a magnificent Bond (surpassed only by Connery IMO) that I think Brosnan did leave his own mark on the series. -{

Moore Not Less · January 2007

Dan Same wrote:

Moore Not Less wrote:

Indeed, Pierce Brosnan did not put his own stamp on the role in the same way as Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. He's often referred to as the good all rounder and I think that's a fair assessment. I certainly wasn't disappointed by any of his performances.

I agree that Brosnan did not put his own stamp on the role in the same way as the above mentioned actors and was really an all-rounder but I don't think that's a bad thing. While I consider Connery to be the best of the Bonds (and Moore the third best), I hated Dalton (IMO the worst of the Bonds) so really I'm delighted that Brosnan didn't leave his own personal mark in the same way as Dalton. Plus, being an all-rounder can be pretty good. Afterall, arguably the second greatest cricketer of all time was Gary Sobers, an all-rounder.

Dan, you should get seriously reprimanded for mentioning that sport. It's a very sore subject with us Poms right now.

I agree, Pierce Brosnan as an all-rounder is not a bad thing at all. He had all the Bondian qualities and convinced me whether he was being tough or charming.

Dan Same wrote:

Truth be told, I don't think either of the Bonds post-Dalton will have left their personal stamp on the series (which is not always such a good thing, as IMO it wasn't with Dalton); so the question is, did they do what they did well? IMO Brosnan did what he did extraordinarily well, and so was the second greatest Bond of all time; and it was through being a magnificent Bond (surpassed only by Connery IMO) that I think Brosnan did leave his own mark on the series. -{

Leaving aside your misjudgement regarding your Bond actor rankings.

Surely, Daniel Craig has already left his personal stamp on the series. If only for the fact he was portraying a "rookie" rough round the edges Bond, not the fully refined experienced 007 that his predecessors portrayed.

Dan Same · January 2007

Moore Not Less wrote:

Dan, you should get seriously reprimanded for mentioning that sport. It's a very sore subject with us Poms right now.

Sorry.

I guess I shouldn't ask you for your thoughts on who's going to win the One-Day series.

Moore Not Less wrote:

Leaving aside your misjudgement regarding your Bond actor rankings.

How many times do I have to tell you, I consider Moore to be a saphire!

)

Moore Not Less wrote:

Surely, Daniel Craig has already left his personal stamp on the series. If only for the fact he was portraying a "rookie" rough round the edges Bond, not the fully refined experienced 007 that his predecessors portrayed.

True, Craig did leave his own personal mark, however that doesn't mean that he did a good job. :v (Dalton also left his personal mark but to me his films were a nightmare.

)

Dan Same · January 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

Well that depends upon the individual opinions, doesn't it?

Well, of course. But that's obvious since I was talking solely from my perspective. You know Fish, you can't criticise me for voicing a provocative opinion when you yourself do it all the time. I would therefore hope that the next time you criticise GF or DN, you acknowledge that yours too is an individual opinion.

Fish1941 wrote:

So what is the point in arguing back and forth on whether Craig did a good job or not?

I don't know, because it's a chat site?

Fish, I find it rather odd that you would question the point of arguing about Craig's performance when, 1) it's a chat site, and 2) I was actually talking to MNL.

If you don't see the point, then perhaps you shouldn't have posted.

Dan Same · January 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

Oh Dan, everybody does it. I criticize the opinions of others . . . including yours. You criticize the opinions of others . . . including mine. And others criticize our opinions. We criticize theirs. What did you expect?

I didn't expect anything. However I would have hoped that you would have tackled my opinion full on rather than obviously describing it as an opinion.

Fish1941 wrote:

But now, it's coming to the point where we are simply repeating ourselves. Is that what we're going to do? Repeat our opinions over and over again on a specific topic, until it dangerously becomes a bore?

Then don't post. It's a voluntary chat site, and if you are bored, then stop posting.

Plus, I was responding to MNL who either hasn't seen this post or has made the decision not to respond.

Fish1941 wrote:

I guess so. I'm through on this topic. I've stated my opinion. You can keep repeating your opinions, if you want to.

Fine, if you're through, then stop responding. Fish, nobody forces you to respond. If you find it boring or whatever then stop responding, but don't criticise me if I choose to respond. Especially since I was responding to MNL!

Moore Not Less · January 2007

Dan Same wrote:

I was actually talking to MNL.

Were you, Dan? I wasn't listening.

I did see your post and chose not to respond to it because I didn't feel like it.

More like I couldn't think of anything useful to contribute.

Dan Same · January 2007

Moore Not Less wrote:

Were you, Dan? I wasn't listening.

I did see your post and chose not to respond to it because I didn't feel like it.

Is that really a nice thing to say?

Well, then, I guess I won't point out that I also responded to you in the 'Bond as a Villain' thread. You'll probably ignore me there too.

Brosnan, Pierce Brosnan & Craig?

Comments