140 replies to this topic

[Santa]

idiot talking down to me who do you think you are?

If you don't want people to talk down to you, maybe you shouldn't make yourself so small?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Did I mention that there was no bond movie for five years after license to kill,you think they did that because license to kill was a good movie? NO,because it's crap!

No, because there was ongoing litigation over the Bond film archives; you, sir, are poorly-advised.

[Cruiserweight]

The Brosnan era is by far one of the best why?.....because before brosnan we had dalton who nearly killed the James Bond movie franchise.....so the worst era's would be the Lazenby era and the Dalton era.

The Lazenby era one of the worst????????? OHMSS is up with FRWL as one of the BEST Bond movies.

There was also an era called the Connery era - you may not be familiar with it, but it is definetly better than the Brosnan era(especially the first 4 films). There was also a Moore era that had its highs and its lows, buts its highs were certiainly better than Brosnans.

The only reason that the Dalton movies did not do well is because the Bond movies were dragging in popularitity prior to Dalton taking the mantle.

Did I stutter? OHMSS is good BUT Thunderball is way better. Lazenby,who has no charm or sophistication sucks at playing James Bond!
Are you blind and cannot see that I know there was a Connery era,Connery is my Bond image on these forums,idiot talking down to me who do you think you are?The Moore era except for two or three movies, is pathetic and most are considered the weakest Bond movies with exception of The Spy who Loved me and for your eyes only, moore plays Bond like an old grandfather.Then Dalton, I still to this day cannot watch a Dalton bond movie all the way through, I fall asleep in the middle of both the living daylights and license to kill. Did I mention that there was no bond movie for five years after license to kill,you think they did that because license to kill was a good movie? NO,because it's crap!

You're being way to defensive & rude in your argument and are basically shooting down everyone elses opinion.Speaking of opinions.

OHMSS>TB

[007Bond]

[quote name='Bond Maniac' post='744311' date='4 June 2007 - 20:39']Looking Back at all the Brosnan Era i feel kind of Sad. Pierce is a good Actor, not the best but good. His movies as Bond, for me, were the worst of the Series. Let

[jaguar007]

There are two ways to look at how the Brosnan film will be remembered.

A - with the general public
B- with the die hard BOnd fans

Pierce will most likely be remembered in better light with the general public and not forgotten(ie known as that other guy) like Lazenby and Dalton have become.

He will probably be less favorabily remembered by die hard fans due to poor scripts and being sandwiched between the die hard fan loved Dalton and Craig.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, Roger is to Pierce as Dalton is to Lazenby, I guess.

[connery&dalton]

The Brosnan Era was quite flawed. I don't feel any kind of serious connection to them as I do with the Connery and Moore pictures. Here is what I think went wrong with each picture.

GoldenEye: Not a horrible movie, but kind of dull. I do not like how it takes so long to get started. It doesn't even get going until Bond discovers that Alec is still alive. I also do not like the visual style which is dark and bleak. The action is not very exciting. The tank scene is the best action sequence. However, the scene where Bond and Natalia are in the helicopter ejector seat is copied from Die Hard 2, and and the pre-title sequence where Bond rides off the cliff with the motorcycle and flies like Superman to catch the nearly crashing plane is flat out ridiculous. Most of the action scenes are not very spectacular; it isn't exciting to watch an army of Russian soldiers fire their machine guns at Bond. The strength of the film is its cast who are all excellent.

Tomorrow Never Dies: I think Jonathan Pryce is a good villain and his scheme to dominate the world through the media is one of the most clever and fun. I do think the second half is less interesting than the first. The action scenes are too big. Overall, TND feels shallow.

The World Is Not Enough: It is nice when a Bond movie tries to be something better than the average Bond movie, which TWINE attempts to do. The characters and their relationships are among the series most complex and interesting. Unfortunately, the film falls apart. Denise Richards really was not necessary. It would have been a great story had it ended with Bond having to shoot his lover and not get any girl. They played it safe and had Bond end up with a girl in the end, which takes away its opportunity to have a strong dramatic effect on the viewer. Another problem is the action. Since Apted could not handle action scenes, they brought in a second unit director to do them; one would think a second unit director would not have much experience with action either and TWINE clearly shows this to be the case. The action is dull. It also has the worst visual style in the series. Never has a Bond movie looked so bleak, dreary, and depressing.

Die Another Day: Probably the best of Brosnan's films and a nice upbeat and colorful change of pace after the dreariness of TWINE. The problem is that it's not very well written and feels lazy at times. The action is more memorable than the previous Brosnan outings, but the invisible car was not where near as fun as the Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger and the Lotus in TSWLM. It is evident from this film and TWINE, that Brosnan was getting tired and bored of the role.

[00Twelve]

Ironically, the 2nd unit director for TWINE (as well as DAD) was Vic Armstrong, who had been the head stunt coordinator on all the Bonds since TLD and had done many action films. Perhaps the directing aspect wasn't his forte.

Also, I disagree that Broz got tired of the role. I do think he got tired of having dramatically interesting ideas get diluted down over and over. But no, I think he loved playing Bond and would have stayed as long as they would have had him.

[HH007]

Ironically, the 2nd unit director for TWINE (as well as DAD) was Vic Armstrong, who had been the head stunt coordinator on all the Bonds since TLD and had done many action films. Perhaps the directing aspect wasn't his forte.

Also, I disagree that Broz got tired of the role. I do think he got tired of having dramatically interesting ideas get diluted down over and over. But no, I think he loved playing Bond and would have stayed as long as they would have had him.

Reportedly he was very upset when he found out he was not going to be invited back for Casino Royale. I get the sense that he's a little bitter that he never got a shot at doing a great Bond film (he complained about the stupid one-liners and whatnot). But I think it was evident after DAD that it was time for him to go. It is kind of a shame that he went out on such a low note (imho).

[00Twelve]

I agree; he could have done much more than what we wound up with, and the loss of an opportunity to see him play Bond with some good writing is one of those sad mistakes that goes down in the "Missed Bondian Opportunities" archive after Tim's third Bond film and Laz' DAF.

[Bond James Bond 007]

Did I mention that there was no bond movie for five years after license to kill,you think they did that because license to kill was a good movie? NO,because it's crap!

It was six years. Genius.

sorry i am not a nerd like you mr. perfect, you probably don't have anything better to do than sit on here.

idiot talking down to me who do you think you are?

If you don't want people to talk down to you, maybe you shouldn't make yourself so small?

If you don't want people to think your a pathetic nerd that sits on here and has time to do over 4000 posts then don't act like you do!

[Skudor]

Charming.

The gap between LTK and GE was due to litigation, not LTK being poorly received.

[Bond James Bond 007]

Charming.

The gap between LTK and GE was due to litigation, not LTK being poorly received.

so your saying LTK is the best bond movie ever and your favorite?

[Royal Dalton]

An excellent question. And one which will be hanging on the lips of the world quite soon. If I were to break the news to anyone, it would be you first, Mr. Bond. You know that. But it's late, I'm tired, and there's so much left to do.

[Skudor]

Charming.

The gap between LTK and GE was due to litigation, not LTK being poorly received.

so your saying LTK is the best bond movie ever and your favorite?

No. It hangs out somewhere in the bottom half when I bother to rank the movies.

It wasn't the most popular Bond movie ever - I think that's pretty obvious - but that wasn't the reason for the six year gap.

The reason for the gap was litigation.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I've mentioned the subject before in this thread; I don't see why it must be dragged out.

[Jim]

Did I mention that there was no bond movie for five years after license to kill,you think they did that because license to kill was a good movie? NO,because it's crap!

It was six years. Genius.

sorry i am not a nerd like you mr. perfect, you probably don't have anything better to do than sit on here.

idiot talking down to me who do you think you are?

If you don't want people to talk down to you, maybe you shouldn't make yourself so small?

If you don't want people to think your a pathetic nerd that sits on here and has time to do over 4000 posts then don't act like you do!

Oh, what to do, what to do?

I know.

[Santa]

Did I mention that there was no bond movie for five years after license to kill,you think they did that because license to kill was a good movie? NO,because it's crap!

It was six years. Genius.

sorry i am not a nerd like you mr. perfect, you probably don't have anything better to do than sit on here.

idiot talking down to me who do you think you are?

If you don't want people to talk down to you, maybe you shouldn't make yourself so small?

If you don't want people to think your a pathetic nerd that sits on here and has time to do over 4000 posts then don't act like you do!

Aaaaand there you go, doing it again.

[Pete]

I think it's hard to define the best or worst era as there only thre actors who have played the part long enough to call it an era. Taking this into account I'd say "no" Brosnan's wasn't the worst, IMO it was Moore's. I feel that Brosnan made three good films out of four where Moore made three out of seven and Connery three out of five. It's the strengh of the films that count, so far I reckon that Connery, Lazenby, Dalton & Craig (so far) have all made one excellent film each, whereas Moore and Brosnan only made average flims in comparison.

As others have stated it seems to come down to what you want from "your" Bond. If you like the "film" Bond then you're more likely to go with Moore & Brosnan. If you like more of a "Fleming" Bond then you'll go for Dalton,Craig, Lazenby and a bit of Connery.

[Skudor]

I think it's hard to define the best or worst era as there only thre actors who have played the part long enough to call it an era. Taking this into account I'd say "no" Brosnan's wasn't the worst, IMO it was Moore's. I feel that Brosnan made three good films out of four where Moore made three out of seven and Connery three out of five. It's the strengh of the films that count, so far I reckon that Connery, Lazenby, Dalton & Craig (so far) have all made one excellent film each, whereas Moore and Brosnan only made average flims in comparison.

As others have stated it seems to come down to what you want from "your" Bond. If you like the "film" Bond then you're more likely to go with Moore & Brosnan. If you like more of a "Fleming" Bond then you'll go for Dalton,Craig, Lazenby and a bit of Connery.

Some good points - very rational

[Santa]

As others have stated it seems to come down to what you want from "your" Bond. If you like the "film" Bond then you're more likely to go with Moore & Brosnan. If you like more of a "Fleming" Bond then you'll go for Dalton,Craig, Lazenby and a bit of Connery.

I'd say that's about spot on. A few years ago I'd probably have said Lazenby was the 'Marmite' Bond (you either love him or hate him), but since Daniel Craig I'd say Brosnan is now the most divisive. I went off Brosnan about halfway through my first viewing of Goldeneye and I know others have developed their opinions for or against in different ways, but I do find it strange that the actor most usually accused of portraying the 'vanilla Bond' is also the one that seems to cause the most passionate disagreements, possibly beaten only by the code-name theory (). As Pierce apparently wanted to bring feeling and emotion to the role I think we can safely say that, at least in one way, he succeeded - even if it's not the way he meant to do it.

[Skudor]

The moment when I first had my doubts about Brosnan was early on during my first viewing of GoldenEye. Once he's entered the research facility he sort of trots down a flight of stairs. The way he does it looks incredibly posey - almost camp.

Before that I was hugely excited by Brosnan - he absolutely looked the part. And I still think he was a good choice for a certain type of Bond -> the superficial, meticulously groomed and dressed, glossy and gadget laden. And at times purely soppy.

It's a bit misleading to draw paralells between Moore and Brosnan - I can see why people do that (the silliest Bond films starred those two) - as I think Brosnan is his own Bond just as much as Moore was.

Those who are not overly fond of Moore's Bond still tend to like Roger Moore and (I think) enjoy his Bond movies. Pierce Brosnan as a person is much easier to dislike.

[Santa]

Pierce Brosnan as a person is much easier to dislike.

I'm glad you say that because I've always found it difficult to warm to him outside Bond too. I tend to put it down to my general dislike of suave men but I'm not sure it's entirely that. He's a bit like Heather Mills, somehow automatically dislikeable at a glance. But why?

[Skudor]

He doesn't come accross as very genuine. He's always posing, always trying to impress. Sounds fake and looks fake. I think there's a hint of smugness there as well.

Compare that to Roger, whom I'd describe as suave as well. He comes accross as a genuinely nice chap.

[Santa]

Anyone who could dislike Roger must be mad, as a person rather than Bond, I mean. That would be my neighbour then...

[Skudor]

Who could possibly dislike the Roge! That's amasing. Do you have a shotgun to take him out with? People like that shouldn't be allowed to live!

[Santa]

People like that shouldn't be allowed to live!

You're absolutely right - these are people whose parents are blood relations...

Rog is a saint.

[Skudor]

I'm pretty sure the Pope has him on a list somewhere.

[Judo chop]

I'm pretty sure the Pope has him on a list somewhere.

Now I'm confused. Are we still saying he's good or back to bad?

Happy Thanksgiving guys! Now I must depart. Must go to gorge myself with food and drink in the spirit of thankfulness!

[Skudor]

I'm pretty sure the Pope has him on a list somewhere.

Now I'm confused. Are we still saying he's good or back to bad?

Happy Thanksgiving guys! Now I must depart. Must go to gorge myself with food and drink in the spirit of thankfulness!

I was refering to Saint Roger the Moore, whom I believe the Pope must have on a list somewhere. Something to do with being a jolly good chap and a sound egg.

Brozza on the otherhand probably just gets an honourable mention for good effort and very shiny hair.