210 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

From memory, most CBners loved DIE ANOTHER DAY when it opened. Not everyone, obviously, but it did meet with a lot of enthusiasm (and rightly so). Of course, nowadays it's very fashionable in Bond fandom to hate it, but, trust me, there was quite a bit of enthusiasm about it at the time.

This can never be repeated enough. But the Brosnan/DAD bashing will go out of fashion eventually.

Do people really think that particular Bond films are only loved/hated because it's "fashionable" to do so?

Yes. Well, they're not only loved/hated because it's "fashionable", but, yes, I do think a lot of people follow the herd in terms of their opinions.

[Pete]

From memory, most CBners loved DIE ANOTHER DAY when it opened. Not everyone, obviously, but it did meet with a lot of enthusiasm (and rightly so). Of course, nowadays it's very fashionable in Bond fandom to hate it, but, trust me, there was quite a bit of enthusiasm about it at the time.

This can never be repeated enough. But the Brosnan/DAD bashing will go out of fashion eventually.

Do people really think that particular Bond films are only loved/hated because it's "fashionable" to do so?

"Oh, hating DIE ANTHONER DAY. That is so last summer"

Only since the advent of the internet. Until then I thought I was the only one who didn't like Roger Moore as Bond and found Timothy Dalton refreshing. With forums such as this I found that my views on Bond (films books actors etc)were shared with others. Of course my views differed as well.

I don't think it's fahionable as it's good to know after all these years that others also liked OHMSS. It's not what I would call Brosnan bashing but I think that one film by Lazenby is better than any of the four that Brosnan did and better than all of Moores. For effects and excitment Brosnans films were better than OHMSS but as a story OHMSS was a better film.

[Judo chop]

It's midnight and Judo is sleeping, as are the other ten elves who hate Broz.

I slip beneath the Christmas tree that is the gift of Bond--and kick back to watch Goldeneye, with the great score turned on high.

Now how does that famous Bond line go again?

Christmas comes only but once a year, Dodge, and you’re full of it.

[Janus Assassin]

From memory, most CBners loved DIE ANOTHER DAY when it opened. Not everyone, obviously, but it did meet with a lot of enthusiasm (and rightly so). Of course, nowadays it's very fashionable in Bond fandom to hate it, but, trust me, there was quite a bit of enthusiasm about it at the time.

I can agree with that. I remember people loving DAD when it opened too. Maybe because we were sitting in front of a new Bond adventure and it didnt matter how bad the film was at the time. I know I wasn't paying attention to that. I was 14 when it came out and I loved every moment of it. Fast forward 6 years and I really can't sit through it anymore.

[Judo chop]

From memory, most CBners loved DIE ANOTHER DAY when it opened. Not everyone, obviously, but it did meet with a lot of enthusiasm (and rightly so). Of course, nowadays it's very fashionable in Bond fandom to hate it, but, trust me, there was quite a bit of enthusiasm about it at the time.

I can agree with that. I remember people loving DAD when it opened too. Maybe because we were sitting in front of a new Bond adventure and it didnt matter how bad the film was at the time. I know I wasn't paying attention to that. I was 14 when it came out and I loved every moment of it. Fast forward 6 years and I really can't sit through it anymore.

If all of those people who first loved it, then hated it, ALL come to like it again and at roughly the same time, then you’ve got evidence of the herd mentality at work.

As it stands, what I see is not herd mentality. I see people reacting to a film that doesn’t stand up so well over time. That looks like a convergence from illusion to reality, not the other way around. Just as Janus Assassin’s testifies.

What I do think, is that some folks over-emphasize particular flaws in DAD and deride the entire film for those flaws. I think the awful dialogue in DAD, in conjunction with a single very unfortunate use of graphics, has consumed so many with rage for the film entire, the baby goes out with the bath water, so to speak.

That is probably a result of the wounds still being fresh, and anti-sentiments may taper over time and we'll see DAD climb a few notches in fan opinion. But I still wouldn’t attribute that to the power of influence from the masses. I think that is the weakest, most speculative theory of them all. “It’s just popular to hate this film, and that’s why you hate it.” In fact, I’ve heard this argument actually going more like this: “Thank goodness there are only a handful of you people who succumb to the popular pressure that convinces you to hate this film/actor.”

Yeah, that makes a whole lotta sense. My opinion is nothing more than a spellbound compulsion to fall in line with the gravitational powers of the herd. A herd consisting of less than a percentage of the population.

Prove to me that disliking Brosnan is, in fact, the “popular” thing to do please. I love the argument from Brosnan defenders that he deserves more respect for raking in the mass dollars and bringing Bond back to popularity. Do you hear yourselves? POPULARITY. If there’s a herd on this matter at all, evidence suggests that I’m not in it.

And can we stop using the word ‘hate’ too? That’s a deliberate misquote. I still own all of the DVDs and I bet I support Die Another Day more than the average Brosnan fan.

No doubt I’ll get zinged for bringing this up AGAIN, even though it’s in a thread created by the other side of the argument.

[dodge]

It's midnight and Judo is sleeping, as are the other ten elves who hate Broz.

I slip beneath the Christmas tree that is the gift of Bond--and kick back to watch Goldeneye, with the great score turned on high.

Now how does that famous Bond line go again?

Christmas comes only but once a year, Dodge, and you’re full of it.

Yes, Judo, perhaps you're right. But at least I'm as cute as a button, with six-pack abs and buns of steel, and humble as a Hindu. What do you bring to the table?

[Judo chop]

It's midnight and Judo is sleeping, as are the other ten elves who hate Broz.

I slip beneath the Christmas tree that is the gift of Bond--and kick back to watch Goldeneye, with the great score turned on high.

Now how does that famous Bond line go again?

Christmas comes only but once a year, Dodge, and you’re full of it.

Yes, Judo, perhaps you're right. But at least I'm as cute as a button, with six-pack abs and buns of steel, and humble as a Hindu. What do you bring to the table?

Just the six-pack. And you can't have any.

[Santa]

It's midnight and Judo is sleeping, as are the other ten elves who hate Broz.

I slip beneath the Christmas tree that is the gift of Bond--and kick back to watch Goldeneye, with the great score turned on high.

Now how does that famous Bond line go again?

Christmas comes only but once a year, Dodge, and you’re full of it.

Yes, Judo, perhaps you're right. But at least I'm as cute as a button, with six-pack abs and buns of steel, and humble as a Hindu. What do you bring to the table?

He looks like Arnold's broadsword.

[Turn]

From memory, most CBners loved DIE ANOTHER DAY when it opened. Not everyone, obviously, but it did meet with a lot of enthusiasm (and rightly so). Of course, nowadays it's very fashionable in Bond fandom to hate it, but, trust me, there was quite a bit of enthusiasm about it at the time.

I can agree with that. I remember people loving DAD when it opened too. Maybe because we were sitting in front of a new Bond adventure and it didnt matter how bad the film was at the time. I know I wasn't paying attention to that. I was 14 when it came out and I loved every moment of it. Fast forward 6 years and I really can't sit through it anymore.

If all of those people who first loved it, then hated it, ALL come to like it again and at roughly the same time, then you’ve got evidence of the herd mentality at work.

As it stands, what I see is not herd mentality. I see people reacting to a film that doesn’t stand up so well over time. That looks like a convergence from illusion to reality, not the other way around. Just as Janus Assassin’s testifies.

What I do think, is that some folks over-emphasize particular flaws in DAD and deride the entire film for those flaws. I think the awful dialogue in DAD, in conjunction with a single very unfortunate use of graphics, has consumed so many with rage for the film entire, the baby goes out with the bath water, so to speak.

That is probably a result of the wounds still being fresh, and anti-sentiments may taper over time and we'll see DAD climb a few notches in fan opinion. But I still wouldn’t attribute that to the power of influence from the masses. I think that is the weakest, most speculative theory of them all. “It’s just popular to hate this film, and that’s why you hate it.” In fact, I’ve heard this argument actually going more like this: “Thank goodness there are only a handful of you people who succumb to the popular pressure that convinces you to hate this film/actor.”

Yeah, that makes a whole lotta sense. My opinion is nothing more than a spellbound compulsion to fall in line with the gravitational powers of the herd. A herd consisting of less than a percentage of the population.

Prove to me that disliking Brosnan is, in fact, the “popular” thing to do please. I love the argument from Brosnan defenders that he deserves more respect for raking in the mass dollars and bringing Bond back to popularity. Do you hear yourselves? POPULARITY. If there’s a herd on this matter at all, evidence suggests that I’m not in it.

And can we stop using the word ‘hate’ too? That’s a deliberate misquote. I still own all of the DVDs and I bet I support Die Another Day more than the average Brosnan fan.

No doubt I’ll get zinged for bringing this up AGAIN, even though it’s in a thread created by the other side of the argument.

You've supported your case well, Judo and I can identify.

I liked Die Another Day a lot when it came out. I wrote positively somewhere on a thread here back in '02. It was a Bond anniversary film and an improvement over the tepid mess that was TWINE. The second time I saw it in the cinema I wasn't as enthusiastic and it seemed that every time I watched it on DVD it didn't improve and many flaws were exposed. I still don't mind it that much, though.

I was a huge Dalton fan and I was disappointed when he stepped down in favor of everybody's apparent choice for Bond, Brosnan. I'd been watching Brosnan since the first episode of Remington Steele. He had Bondian qualities and I liked him, but I never bought into his being the ultimate Bond successor and nothing he did in the role made him stand out for me.

GE came out and suddenly he was the best Bond since Connery. I didn't agree then and didn't for the following three movies. I watched and enjoyed them to varying degrees because I'm a JAMES BOND fan. I can't say I was disappointed when he was not brought back for another film. He was a great Bond to a number of people. Good for them. If I want to say he wasn't for me, I will. There is no herd mentality about it. Same as I often would have liked Moore to have been done earlier in favor of a more serious portrayal we eventually got from Dalton.

Like Judo, I own all the DVDs, but the Brosnans I just don't spend as much time watching because I just don't them that much as films, although I enjoy TND and feel it's one of the more underrated films of the series. And his performances aren't that interesting considering I've seen most of what he did in his predecessors' performances.

[DaveBond21]

Me, I love all six of 'em! There's something exceptional about each and every one of them.

Me too. Love all the Bond actors.

[Judo chop]

Me, I love all six of 'em! There's something exceptional about each and every one of them.

Me too. Love all the Bond actors.

What do you find exceptional about each one?

[Stephen Spotswood]

The Brosnan Bond movies typifies what Connery said in resigning from the role, that the character is being lost in favor of stunts and effects. I remember leaving TND (the last one I saw with PB), thinking what the hell did I just see? It's like they had so many stunts that you leave the theatre feeling like you seen the form of a movie, but you'd be damned to recall a single favorite scene due to excessive visual business all around the lead.

I think the producers took it to heart that Dalton's movies looked too low budget, especially LTK, and lavished money on PB's. That's what made the movies popular, not Brosnan. Bond could just as well have been played by some CGI. The bloated budgets led to bloated stunts to the detriment of the plots and characters.

[Mister E]

The Brosnan Bond movies typifies what Connery said in resigning from the role, that the character is being lost in favor of stunts and effects. I remember leaving TND (the last one I saw with PB), thinking what the hell did I just see? It's like they had so many stunts that you leave the theatre feeling like you seen the form of a movie, but you'd be damned to recall a single favorite scene due to excessive visual business all around the lead.

Quoting a review of Tommorow Never Dies:

"The filmmakers appear to have started with a series of stunts...and built a script around them."

[mrsbonds_ppk]

All the stuff written on this board is a Matter of Opinion...nope none of it's fact....except to you. So remember whether you hate, like, or love Pierce Brosnan that's your opinion.

Bottom line with me is I loved Pierce Brosnan. He's my favorite Bond. And Daniel Craig will never be my favorite Bond. I appreciate what he's doing for the franchise and he's a really good actor but he will never be my Bond. And that's my opinion . I think all the Brosnan hate is absurd, yes. not fair. But I do understand it's somewhat of a bandwagon mentality.

[Santa]

I see 'gotten' has become 'become'. I'm so pleased I may wet myself .

[dee-bee-five]

All the stuff written on this board is a Matter of Opinion...nope none of it's fact....except to you. So remember whether you hate, like, or love Pierce Brosnan that's your opinion.

Bottom line with me is I loved Pierce Brosnan. He's my favorite Bond. And Daniel Craig will never be my favorite Bond. I appreciate what he's doing for the franchise and he's a really good actor but he will never be my Bond. And that's my opinion . I think all the Brosnan hate is absurd, yes. not fair. But I do understand it's somewhat of a bandwagon mentality.

What a sensible post. Pierce Brosnan isn't my favourite Bond, Daniel Craig is. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate his performance (better than many on here will allow), or enjoy his films. I've stated on many occasions previously that for my money TWINE is the most underrated film of the series and, like DAD and PB himself, there's a rather tiresome bandwagon about the PB era among some, by no means all, vocal posters. But, like all bandwagons, it will eventually roll itself out.

Quoting a review of Tommorow Never Dies:

"The filmmakers appear to have started with a series of stunts...and built a script around them."

To which a cynical old ex-journalist like myself would reply: "The reviewer appears to have decided his opinion before seeing the film...and written his review around it."

But, then, that happens all the time amongst critics who, in my experience, write to entertain their fellow critics not to inform their readers.

[avl]

No bandwagon here. PB was, is and always will be (I reasonably expect) my least favourite Bond. I don't hate him, but I like him the least as Bond, and his films are the ones I like to watch the least.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Is it me or has the Brosnan hate become absurd?

Did anyone ever create a Brosnannotbond.com?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Really it's the numbers that have people thinking Brosnan's films are more sucessful and technically they didn't, what counts is the multiple of making said films' money back. Take the THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS vs. DIE ANOTHER DAY as an example. TLD's budget was $40 million and it took 190 mil worldwide. That is nearly five times it's money back. DAD's budget was $142 million and it took 431.9 mil worldwide. That is only a little more then three times it's money back. So the logical conclusion is, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was actually more sucessful then DIE ANOTHER DAY.

What also has to be remembered is that in the mid to late eighties with the emergence of the VCR, people were not going to the cinema in droves to see films period. Lots of people were renting instead. It took until the early mid nineties for cinema audiences to increase again. This must surely be accounted for when considering box office revenues.
If you look at lists of all time top grossing films, very little films (apart from ET) show up that were made in the eighties, and this was due to age of the VCR when people could rent at home.

[Judo chop]

All the stuff written on this board is a Matter of Opinion...nope none of it's fact....except to you. So remember whether you hate, like, or love Pierce Brosnan that's your opinion...
...I think all the Brosnan hate is absurd, yes. not fair. But I do understand it's somewhat of a bandwagon mentality.

What a sensible post. Pierce Brosnan isn't my favourite Bond, Daniel Craig is. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate his performance (better than many on here will allow), or enjoy his films. I've stated on many occasions previously that for my money TWINE is the most underrated film of the series and, like DAD and PB himself, there's a rather tiresome bandwagon about the PB era among some, by no means all, vocal posters. But, like all bandwagons, it will eventually roll itself out.

It was a sensible post until the mention of an insidious mind-altering plot at work. I could not agree more that whether you like or dislike Brosnan is entirely one’s opinion. (Do we agree so far?) What I think is completely NOT sensible, is the psychological diagnoses you and Mrsbonds_ppk and a few others are assigning. ie. “Bandwagon Syndrome”.

We all agree that the pro-Bros/anti-Broz sentiments are opinion. But why do you not stop there? Why must you push the matter one step further into complete speculation and attempt to EXPLAIN WHY these folks have their opinions? (Made even more ridiculous when you choose to substitute their reasons with your own.) And why must your new fangled explanation be one that completely undermines their opinion? Is it so that your opinion appears to be the only sensible one? Are you so sure that your opinion is closer to the truth? And if so… who’s the closed-minded, audaciously opinionated villain now? (I’d appreciate an answer here.)

Please read the following, dee-bee-five, and let me know if you think THIS is sensible:

To investigate the matter I would look at the “Broz-Hater's” posts for supporting facts. If there were none to be found – if the poster simply claimed over and over again that “BROSNAN SUCKS BECASE HES TO PRETTYBOY!!” – then I would discredit that person as someone who hasn’t thought carefully about why they feel the way they do. They may very well have a genuine dislike for Brosnan’s Bond, but I do not have any evidence as to why. I would dismiss their opinion as being reactionary and uninformed until they proved otherwise.

On the other hand, if the person continually provided objective reasons for their opinion, then I would have to give their opinion credit for that. They are a person who has considered the facts, and developed a personal perspective based on those facts. I would have to respect their opinion, even if it was not one I shared, as something founded.

Even in the first case, however, I am not able to determine whether herd mentality is at play. Such a thing may exist! I am not denying that. In fact, YOU, my friend, may be the one caught up in the herd; in this case the theoretical herd which claims that because a man has played Bond, he must therefore have been good at it. But I am not a psychologist/psychiatrist, and if I were, I’m sure I would have to know a whole lot more about my subject’s medical history and mental background before I could make such a diagnosis.

What you do have are, very generally speaking, two types of opinions; one from a person who has not provided supporting evidence, and the other from a person who has. Both opinions are just opinions we all agree, but the latter is backed with substance. Who knows… start an intelligent conversation with the second person around those pieces of evidence, and you might find your own opinion shifting as well!

I realize that what I propose threatens to revoke your psychiatric license on CBn, but do you find it to be sensible? If not, please explain why for I am eager to have a discussion on this matter. Take your time. No rush. Get back to me whenever you are ready.

[dee-bee-five]

All the stuff written on this board is a Matter of Opinion...nope none of it's fact....except to you. So remember whether you hate, like, or love Pierce Brosnan that's your opinion...
...I think all the Brosnan hate is absurd, yes. not fair. But I do understand it's somewhat of a bandwagon mentality.

What a sensible post. Pierce Brosnan isn't my favourite Bond, Daniel Craig is. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate his performance (better than many on here will allow), or enjoy his films. I've stated on many occasions previously that for my money TWINE is the most underrated film of the series and, like DAD and PB himself, there's a rather tiresome bandwagon about the PB era among some, by no means all, vocal posters. But, like all bandwagons, it will eventually roll itself out.

It was a sensible post until the mention of an insidious mind-altering plot at work. I could not agree more that whether you like or dislike Brosnan is entirely one’s opinion. (Do we agree so far?) What I think is completely NOT sensible, is the psychological diagnoses you and Mrsbonds_ppk and a few others are assigning. ie. “Bandwagon Syndrome”.

We all agree that the pro-Bros/anti-Broz sentiments are opinion. But why do you not stop there? Why must you push the matter one step further into complete speculation and attempt to EXPLAIN WHY these folks have their opinions? (Made even more ridiculous when you choose to substitute their reasons with your own.) And why must your new fangled explanation be one that completely undermines their opinion? Is it so that your opinion appears to be the only sensible one? Are you so sure that your opinion is closer to the truth? And if so… who’s the closed-minded, audaciously opinionated villain now? (I’d appreciate an answer here.)

Please read the following, dee-bee-five, and let me know if you think THIS is sensible:

To investigate the matter I would look at the “Broz-Hater's” posts for supporting facts. If there were none to be found – if the poster simply claimed over and over again that “BROSNAN SUCKS BECASE HES TO PRETTYBOY!!” – then I would discredit that person as someone who hasn’t thought carefully about why they feel the way they do. They may very well have a genuine dislike for Brosnan’s Bond, but I do not have any evidence as to why. I would dismiss their opinion as being reactionary and uninformed until they proved otherwise.

On the other hand, if the person continually provided objective reasons for their opinion, then I would have to give their opinion credit for that. They are a person who has considered the facts, and developed a personal perspective based on those facts. I would have to respect their opinion, even if it was not one I shared, as something founded.

Even in the first case, however, I am not able to determine whether herd mentality is at play. Such a thing may exist! I am not denying that. In fact, YOU, my friend, may be the one caught up in the herd; in this case the theoretical herd which claims that because a man has played Bond, he must therefore have been good at it. But I am not a psychologist/psychiatrist, and if I were, I’m sure I would have to know a whole lot more about my subject’s medical history and mental background before I could make such a diagnosis.

What you do have are, very generally speaking, two types of opinions; one from a person who has not provided supporting evidence, and the other from a person who has. Both opinions are just opinions we all agree, but the latter is backed with substance. Who knows… start an intelligent conversation with the second person around those pieces of evidence, and you might find your own opinion shifting as well!

I realize that what I propose threatens to revoke your psychiatric license on CBn, but do you find it to be sensible? If not, please explain why for I am eager to have a discussion on this matter. Take your time. No rush. Get back to me whenever you are ready.

Forgive me if I don't bother. I believe there's a herd mentality at work. You don't. End of.

[Judo chop]

All the stuff written on this board is a Matter of Opinion...nope none of it's fact....except to you. So remember whether you hate, like, or love Pierce Brosnan that's your opinion...
...I think all the Brosnan hate is absurd, yes. not fair. But I do understand it's somewhat of a bandwagon mentality.

What a sensible post. Pierce Brosnan isn't my favourite Bond, Daniel Craig is. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate his performance (better than many on here will allow), or enjoy his films. I've stated on many occasions previously that for my money TWINE is the most underrated film of the series and, like DAD and PB himself, there's a rather tiresome bandwagon about the PB era among some, by no means all, vocal posters. But, like all bandwagons, it will eventually roll itself out.

It was a sensible post until the mention of an insidious mind-altering plot at work. I could not agree more that whether you like or dislike Brosnan is entirely one’s opinion. (Do we agree so far?) What I think is completely NOT sensible, is the psychological diagnoses you and Mrsbonds_ppk and a few others are assigning. ie. “Bandwagon Syndrome”.

We all agree that the pro-Bros/anti-Broz sentiments are opinion. But why do you not stop there? Why must you push the matter one step further into complete speculation and attempt to EXPLAIN WHY these folks have their opinions? (Made even more ridiculous when you choose to substitute their reasons with your own.) And why must your new fangled explanation be one that completely undermines their opinion? Is it so that your opinion appears to be the only sensible one? Are you so sure that your opinion is closer to the truth? And if so… who’s the closed-minded, audaciously opinionated villain now? (I’d appreciate an answer here.)

Please read the following, dee-bee-five, and let me know if you think THIS is sensible:

To investigate the matter I would look at the “Broz-Hater's” posts for supporting facts. If there were none to be found – if the poster simply claimed over and over again that “BROSNAN SUCKS BECASE HES TO PRETTYBOY!!” – then I would discredit that person as someone who hasn’t thought carefully about why they feel the way they do. They may very well have a genuine dislike for Brosnan’s Bond, but I do not have any evidence as to why. I would dismiss their opinion as being reactionary and uninformed until they proved otherwise.

On the other hand, if the person continually provided objective reasons for their opinion, then I would have to give their opinion credit for that. They are a person who has considered the facts, and developed a personal perspective based on those facts. I would have to respect their opinion, even if it was not one I shared, as something founded.

Even in the first case, however, I am not able to determine whether herd mentality is at play. Such a thing may exist! I am not denying that. In fact, YOU, my friend, may be the one caught up in the herd; in this case the theoretical herd which claims that because a man has played Bond, he must therefore have been good at it. But I am not a psychologist/psychiatrist, and if I were, I’m sure I would have to know a whole lot more about my subject’s medical history and mental background before I could make such a diagnosis.

What you do have are, very generally speaking, two types of opinions; one from a person who has not provided supporting evidence, and the other from a person who has. Both opinions are just opinions we all agree, but the latter is backed with substance. Who knows… start an intelligent conversation with the second person around those pieces of evidence, and you might find your own opinion shifting as well!

I realize that what I propose threatens to revoke your psychiatric license on CBn, but do you find it to be sensible? If not, please explain why for I am eager to have a discussion on this matter. Take your time. No rush. Get back to me whenever you are ready.

Forgive me if I don't bother. I believe there's a herd mentality at work. You don't. End of.

Very well, Dr. DB5. End of.

(this thread?)

[Stephen Spotswood]

How would he have been in a Brosnan Bond film,

Maybe as a dangerous Russian?

[Mister E]

To which a cynical old ex-journalist like myself would reply: "The reviewer appears to have decided his opinion before seeing the film...and written his review around it."

Really ? Well I have seen the film and he is dead right. TOMMOROW NEVER DIES was just one explosion after another and someone slapped a story around it.

[KENDO NAGAZAKI]

To which a cynical old ex-journalist like myself would reply: "The reviewer appears to have decided his opinion before seeing the film...and written his review around it."

Really ? Well I have seen the film and he is dead right. TOMMOROW NEVER DIES was just one explosion after another and someone slapped a story around it.

Yep, I agree. The filmmakers almost admitted as much themselves that the film was pretty much written "on the run" as they went along. The script was still being messed with when shooting was underway. On watching the film, it's mostly action scenes all the way with very short plot dialogues chucked inbetween them. It's a fairly stock Bond plot, the only "fresh" aspect being that the bad guy is a media mogul, not the head of SPECTRE.

With regards to Brosnan "hate", I was never a fan of his Bond to begin with. Havng been raised seeing Moore/Dalton films at the cinema, I'd seen the Moore Bond (which Brosnan pretty much recycled) before, so I hated the fact that the films were going backwards with Brosnan, going over same old ground. I prefered Dalton over Moore, so I was gutted upon seeing Goldeneye and finding Brosnan hugely inferior to Dalton both as an actor and as James Bond. Every time Brosnan comes up against even a half-decent actor in his Bond films (Bean, Dench, Karyo, Coltrane, Pryce, Carlyle), the other actor dominates when James Bond should hold his own. That was never the case with Dalton or Connery (even Lazenby and Moore had scenes where they held their own brilliantly against the likes of Bernard Lee, Steven Berkoff, Walken). Brosnan lacks a convincing intensity as Bond in my opinion, it always feels really forced. In my opinion, the only scenes Brosnan dominates are ones in which he's cast against miscast/looks-over-talent Bond girls. Brosnan's Britishness never had me sold either, he always came across to me as more Irish-American than Irish-British, a generic James Bond to fit in worldwide as a Bruckheimer-style action hero rather than a quintessentially British secret agent.

All of this said though, I have a fair amount of sympathy for Brosnan. He came to the series at a time when it seemed that everything had been done with Bond, so they simply rehashed the old megalomaniac plotlines and chucked in loads of excessive action scenes, heck even the music for three of his four Bond films was John Barry homage rather than genuine progression with new ideas. A couple of nods to political correctness couldn't hide the fact that this was retro-Bond, a nostalgia trip for fans of the Moore era but with enough flashy action chucked in to still win over the new Nintendo generation.

I think Daniel Craig is an approximation of Connery, Lazenby and Dalton in much the same way as Brosnan was an approximation of 70s Connery and Moore. That's almost unavoidable when six different actors have played the part, but I prefer Craig over Brosnan simply because Craig has that intensity and command as an actor that in my opinion Brosnan somewhat lacked. You could put Craig up against anyone and he'll hold his own. The same can't be said for Brosnan in my opinion. He doesn't deserve hate at all though, he sold the hell out of EON's Bond films for them, even when the films weren't up to much, he was a positive and enthusiastic trooper for EON, and the way they dumped him was highly unprofessional to say the least. But I'll understand anybody ranking him at the lower end of Bond actors for the reasons I've already stated.

[Bondian]

To which a cynical old ex-journalist like myself would reply: "The reviewer appears to have decided his opinion before seeing the film...and written his review around it."

Really ? Well I have seen the film and he is dead right. TOMMOROW NEVER DIES was just one explosion after another and someone slapped a story around it.

Yep, I agree. The filmmakers almost admitted as much themselves that the film was pretty much written "on the run" as they went along. The script was still being messed with when shooting was underway. On watching the film, it's mostly action scenes all the way with very short plot dialogues chucked inbetween them. It's a fairly stock Bond plot, the only "fresh" aspect being that the bad guy is a media mogul, not the head of SPECTRE.

With regards to Brosnan "hate", I was never a fan of his Bond to begin with. Havng been raised seeing Moore/Dalton films at the cinema, I'd seen the Moore Bond (which Brosnan pretty much recycled) before, so I hated the fact that the films were going backwards with Brosnan, going over same old ground. I prefered Dalton over Moore, so I was gutted upon seeing Goldeneye and finding Brosnan hugely inferior to Dalton both as an actor and as James Bond. Every time Brosnan comes up against even a half-decent actor in his Bond films (Bean, Dench, Karyo, Coltrane, Pryce, Carlyle), the other actor dominates when James Bond should hold his own. That was never the case with Dalton or Connery (even Lazenby and Moore had scenes where they held their own brilliantly against the likes of Bernard Lee, Steven Berkoff, Walken). Brosnan lacks a convincing intensity as Bond in my opinion, it always feels really forced. In my opinion, the only scenes Brosnan dominates are ones in which he's cast against miscast/looks-over-talent Bond girls. Brosnan's Britishness never had me sold either, he always came across to me as more Irish-American than Irish-British, a generic James Bond to fit in worldwide as a Bruckheimer-style action hero rather than a quintessentially British secret agent.

All of this said though, I have a fair amount of sympathy for Brosnan. He came to the series at a time when it seemed that everything had been done with Bond, so they simply rehashed the old megalomaniac plotlines and chucked in loads of excessive action scenes, heck even the music for three of his four Bond films was John Barry homage rather than genuine progression with new ideas. A couple of nods to political correctness couldn't hide the fact that this was retro-Bond, a nostalgia trip for fans of the Moore era but with enough flashy action chucked in to still win over the new Nintendo generation.

I think Daniel Craig is an approximation of Connery, Lazenby and Dalton in much the same way as Brosnan was an approximation of 70s Connery and Moore. That's almost unavoidable when six different actors have played the part, but I prefer Craig over Brosnan simply because Craig has that intensity and command as an actor that in my opinion Brosnan somewhat lacked. You could put Craig up against anyone and he'll hold his own. The same can't be said for Brosnan in my opinion. He doesn't deserve hate at all though, he sold the hell out of EON's Bond films for them, even when the films weren't up to much, he was a positive and enthusiastic trooper for EON, and the way they dumped him was highly unprofessional to say the least. But I'll understand anybody ranking him at the lower end of Bond actors for the reasons I've already stated.

Brilliant post.

Have to say that I'm a Moore freak, though.

[KENDO NAGAZAKI]

Have to say that I'm a Moore freak, though.

Me too. He was his own Bond, and it worked great for me at the time, I still enjoy his films for what they are.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I think my main reaction to Brosnan was disappointment. Dalton was bringing back a darker Bond, but it seemed the producers had some trepidition with that approach, with the Abbott and Costello routines of villains Koskov and Whittaker. They also gave Desmond Llewelyn a more active part in LTK for laughs, and Huey Newton as well. LTK even ended with a besmirched Bond in a torn suit, bleeding from the forehead, torching the gas soaked bad guy with a lighter given to him at the marriage in the beginning of the movie. That of course was the marriage of Felix and Daria (?)

Then the next thing we know Brosnan is parachuting into a scene, greeting a man in a toilet upside down, driving a car with so many gadgets it was practically the Bondmobile. They even swiped the scene from Batman (1989), where the hero's car stops on a dime in front of him. This was Bond as comic book hero.

My fear is that Craig will continue with Bond as practically invulnerable. They had some neat scenes like him having to give himself a shot in the leg, and then be given cardioschock. But the whipping scene in the book set your teeth on edge; he was essentially being slowly killed. In the movie, it was an opportunity for a dirty joke.

And of course Craig's Bond would never need a Quarrel to help him get back into shape for a mission.

[golrush007]

I think Brosnan was a very good Bond, but in the current Daniel Craig era (which most people seem to be enjoying) it is easy to forget the good work that has gone before. I wouldn't say that Brosnan is as good as Craig, but his turn as Bond was good. I rate him 3rd, behind Connery and Craig. He is a 'greatest hits' Bond, but he is good in all the different aspects of the character. If some of the Brosnan films are substandard, it certainly wasn't Brosnan's fault. GE is one of my favourite Bond films, and TWINE is very good as well. TND and DAD are both good (IMO all Bond films are good) but they just don't look so good when compared to some of the classic Bonds. So I would say that the anti-Pierce vibe on internet forums is a bit silly - he was a good Bond, but some people seem to have forgotten already!

[Turn]

They also gave Desmond Llewelyn a more active part in LTK for laughs, and Huey Newton as well.

I'm sure this was a typo, but it amused me. I'm sure you meant Wayne Newton. Huey Newton was one of the founding members of the '60s counterculture group Black Panthers.