114 replies to this topic

[bondfisher007]

Brosnan had the weakest era. I watched the 4 bond films yesterday and the only one I enjoyed is Goldeneye. It's crazy how our opinion changes when we grow older. Anyone else agree that he had the weakest era?

[AViewToAPussy]

Probably. He has no charisma.

[Binyamin]

I find the Brosnan films consistently entertaining. The only one I wouldn't care to watch today is Die Another Day, which has its own isolated problems. The 90's films may have struggled with consistency, but I don't think they're "weak."

[dinovelvet]

Yeah, there are a few enjoyable moments but ultimately his four films are disposable. In fact if you were to remove him from the canon, it seems like a much more natural transition to go from Dalton to Craig.

[iBond]

Since I grew up with Brosnan, he will be my favorite 007.

[AMC Hornet]

For me, the weakest era was between 1984 and 1986.

[00 Brosnan]

I think the Dalton era is the weak link. Dalton's era has one of the best Bond films (TLD) and one of the worst (LTK).

Brosnan's era on the other hand had one of the best Bond films (GE), one good film (TND), one mediocre film (TWINE), and one of the worst films (DAD).

[jaguar007]

I think artistically perhaps the Brosnan era is the worst, but commercially the 80s were clearly the weakest era for Bond.

[TCK]

Since I grew up with Brosnan, he will be my favorite 007.

So did I, but he's not my favourite. Dalton is. I don't think it's a general rule.

I think artistically perhaps the Brosnan era is the worst, but commercially the 80s were clearly the weakest era for Bond.

Commercially perhaps, but artistically the eighties are the best decade for Bond, just after the sixties, are not they ? Personally, I prefer the eighties, but movies like From Russia with love or On her majesty's secret service put the sixties above the eighties and both Dalton or For your eyes only for instance, thanks to the soundtracks (thank you John !), the screenplays (with faithful adaptations of Fleming's novels), the productions (thank you Peter and Terence !) and the period closer to Fleming's time in particular.

[TheREAL008]

Sorry, but you're all way off the mark.

The absolute lowest point in Bondom was...and remains... the 1953/54 televised version of Casino Royale. There are absolutely no excuses on why this little program should have been made, or even defended. It's crap from the beginning right down to the final scene. Deplorable and utterly detestable.

The runner up is Never Say Never Again. Which got it's handed to it by Octopussy.

Now pay attention - I'm not an avid fan of Pierce's movies, and nor am I a Bronsan fanboy driven by blind devotion. He's had his good points, and he's had his bad points. Die Another Day remains the 'black spot' of Pierce's tenure.

[univex]

Agreed.
Although I think the worst era in the Bond world was from april 2011 to whenever we´ll get some Bond 23 related news... Sorry, had to say it, these days have been sooooooooo boring

[Mr.Zukovsky]

ALRIGHT! We all know Brosnan had one of the best eras, if anything, Dalton had the worse era. Brosnan's bond actually increased "moore" viewers for the bond franchise "not counting Sean Connery" then any other bond, also if the writers would have written better scripts, Brosnan's movies would of been better.

[jaguar007]

ALRIGHT! We all know Brosnan had one of the best eras, if anything, Dalton had the worse era. Brosnan's bond actually increased "moore" viewers for the bond franchise "not counting Sean Connery" then any other bond,

Not really. Brosnan's film did increase box office sales significantly from the film of the 80s, but none of his films hit the exceeded the ticket sales for LALD, TSWLM or MR.

There is no denying that the Brosnan era was financially successful. IF it was artistically the weakest era is really subjective. They are personally my least favorite era, but I can't bash him for not putting butts in seats.

[blueman]

The Glen films were the weakest, just consistently crappy films writing/directing/acting/cinematography/everything.

[Col. Sun]

The Glen films were the weakest, just consistently crappy films writing/directing/acting/cinematography/everything.

In truth they probably should have replaced John Glen when they cast Dalton. Glen understood Roger Moore and they got on very well, perhaps because Roger just got on with it and was easy to work with because he didn't demand more from the part or his director. Dalton was demanding, he wanted to explore Bond's character, but deeper performance and exploring character was never Mr. Glen's strong point. John Glen was an excellent technician and he knew how to run the huge, complex machine which is a Bond film; so he had many strengths - which is why I think Eon were so loyal to him. He's also a very charming man. It's just he and Dalton didn't gel. It speaks volumes that when John Glen was brought on at the last minute to replace the director on "Columbus: The Discovery", Timothy Dalton, who was signed to play the lead role, immediately dropped out.

I watched TLD a few days back and it reminded me just how good Dalton was - certainly ahead of his time in terms of the direction he wanted to push Bond. He was, IMO, far better than Brosnan. So for me the weakest era is the Brosnan films because they could and should have been so much better.

[jamie00007]

Yeah, I remember when they were still being made even though I was generally disappointed with each movie I never really thought of it being a bad era. Its only looking back at it now that I see the movies for the dreck they are. They arent terrible films (well, DAD is), theyre just so utterly generic and forgettable. If not for a pre-existing Bond fanbase with an interest in them they would all have faded into obscurity years ago with all the other generic 90's action movies.

[Mr.Zukovsky]

I did not say Brosnan's films did better financially, i said Brosnan's bond attracted more people to the bond series, I think Brosnan's best films were Goldeneye, TND, and TWINE. The first best era was Connery's, the 2nd best was Brosnan's. If it wasn't for Brosnan's bond the bond franchise wouldn't be as big as it is. I think Brosnan did one hell of a job as Bond!

[iBond]

It would have been interesting to see if Dalton came after Brosnan in an alternate reality...I wonder if Dalton would have been more accepted as 007 after Brosnan stepped down. This is of course, not only an obvious rhetorical question, but also in terms of if Dalton was significantly younger than Brosnan.

[jaguar007]

But what films today can exceed ticket sales from the 70's? Just a hunch, but I'd guess that REVENGE OF THE SITH probably didn't sell as many tickets as STAR WARS did in in 1977. With a home entertainment market in place now that didn't exist then, it's the rare film that is going to sell 50 million tickets.

I don't disagree with you at all here Gravity. However you are close to my age so you probably remember Bond mania in the late 70s - I personally think it was stronger in 77-79 than it was in 95 with GE.

i said Brosnan's bond attracted more people to the bond series

Brosnan certainly did have the biggest increase in viewers from his predecessor (or would the jump from Laz back to Connery be bigger?)

[blueman]

The Glen films were the weakest, just consistently crappy films writing/directing/acting/cinematography/everything.

In truth they probably should have replaced John Glen when they cast Dalton. Glen understood Roger Moore and they got on very well, perhaps because Roger just got on with it and was easy to work with because he didn't demand more from the part or his director. Dalton was demanding, he wanted to explore Bond's character, but deeper performance and exploring character was never Mr. Glen's strong point. John Glen was an excellent technician and he knew how to run the huge, complex machine which is a Bond film; so he had many strengths - which is why I think Eon were so loyal to him. He's also a very charming man. It's just he and Dalton didn't gel. It speaks volumes that when John Glen was brought on at the last minute to replace the director on "Columbus: The Discovery", Timothy Dalton, who was signed to play the lead role, immediately dropped out.

I watched TLD a few days back and it reminded me just how good Dalton was - certainly ahead of his time in terms of the direction he wanted to push Bond. He was, IMO, far better than Brosnan. So for me the weakest era is the Brosnan films because they could and should have been so much better.

Nah, they never should've hired him (or brought back Moore) for FYEO to begin with. Yeah EON made money riding old Moore Bonds into the ground, but they are crap films, take away the name "Bond" and you have some old dude in a lot of preposterous stunts and some really bad "guest star" actors - hell, Glen even made Walken look like a doofus! Agree about the Dalton thing, that was very obvious back then. They're just bad films and an embarrassment to the brand IMHO.

But then Cubby was always about making bank first, and he did make a reasonably good money decision keeping Moore/Glen on, I'm sure he was thinking of how tough of a time he had with Laz and wanted anything but to repeat that scenario. So yeah running scared he kept EON afloat, but that was one hella leaky life raft back then, glad that era didn't kill the series (the 6 year hiatus till GE was likely a godsend in that respect, allowed audiences to forget the crappy 80s details and enjoy the nice enough popcorn Bond Brosnan/Campbell came up with ).

[iBond]

The Glen films were the weakest, just consistently crappy films writing/directing/acting/cinematography/everything.

In truth they probably should have replaced John Glen when they cast Dalton. Glen understood Roger Moore and they got on very well, perhaps because Roger just got on with it and was easy to work with because he didn't demand more from the part or his director. Dalton was demanding, he wanted to explore Bond's character, but deeper performance and exploring character was never Mr. Glen's strong point. John Glen was an excellent technician and he knew how to run the huge, complex machine which is a Bond film; so he had many strengths - which is why I think Eon were so loyal to him. He's also a very charming man. It's just he and Dalton didn't gel. It speaks volumes that when John Glen was brought on at the last minute to replace the director on "Columbus: The Discovery", Timothy Dalton, who was signed to play the lead role, immediately dropped out.

I watched TLD a few days back and it reminded me just how good Dalton was - certainly ahead of his time in terms of the direction he wanted to push Bond. He was, IMO, far better than Brosnan. So for me the weakest era is the Brosnan films because they could and should have been so much better.

Nah, they never should've hired him (or brought back Moore) for FYEO to begin with. Yeah EON made money riding old Moore Bonds into the ground, but they are crap films, take away the name "Bond" and you have some old dude in a lot of preposterous stunts and some really bad "guest star" actors - hell, Glen even made Walken look like a doofus! Agree about the Dalton thing, that was very obvious back then. They're just bad films and an embarrassment to the brand IMHO.

But then Cubby was always about making bank first, and he did make a reasonably good money decision keeping Moore/Glen on, I'm sure he was thinking of how tough of a time he had with Laz and wanted anything but to repeat that scenario. So yeah running scared he kept EON afloat, but that was one hella leaky life raft back then, glad that era didn't kill the series (the 6 year hiatus till GE was likely a godsend in that respect, allowed audiences to forget the crappy 80s details and enjoy the nice enough popcorn Bond Brosnan/Campbell came up with ).

I can agree with you party there. I mean, yes the 80s weren't the best time for Bond...with the exception of NSNA, TDS and LTK. And yeah, you're right about the films becoming too focused on humor rather than what James Bond is all about. But I'm not going to trash Moore here for the sake of argument. Back to Brosnan, what they did with GoldenEye was great! It was basically a Bond that we remembered him all about. The mission and how he has to deal with something Bond never delt with before...a former partner-turned-enemy which I thought was pretty cool and original. Imagine having someone like Felix turn against Bond? Wouldn't that be something...

[Tony_w]

I think the Dalton era is the weak link. Dalton's era has one of the best Bond films (TLD) and one of the worst (LTK).

Brosnan's era on the other hand had one of the best Bond films (GE), one good film (TND), one mediocre film (TWINE), and one of the worst films (DAD).

Agreed, although i prefer TWINE over TND, and i love LTK.

Edited by Tony_w, 29 May 2011 - 04:55 PM.

[Professor Pi]

You have to look at the 70s as a weak era. Those Bond movies are derivative of blaxpoitation, kung gu, and sci fi movies (I'd have included mobster films too, but Diamonds Are Forever came before The Godfather.) Even The Spy Who Loved Me is an anthology/homage/ripoff/parody of the Bond genre itself. But I grew up with Moore and credit Roger for making those films watchable (imagine if a J.W. Pepper were in today's Bond movies!) and keeping the series alive. Indeed, I believe Moonraker is the second all time grossing Bond movie behind Thunderball when adjusted for inflation.

Brosnan's movies always tried very hard to be Bond films at least, though GoldenEye is a commentary on action-buddy movies--e.g. "I work alone." Then each successive Pierce outing got a little worse. Still, give him credit for commercially rejuvenating the franchise.

However, I'd give Glen's 80s canon a slight edge over the 90s here. If you think about it, you can go from the end of 1969's OHMSS right into 1981's FYEO without missing much. Skip AVTAK too with its Temple of Doom and Superman ripoffs.

Personally, I find the long layoffs between films the hardest to bear--1989 to 1995, 2002 to 2006, and now.

[Matt_13]

While I have a hard time enjoying any of Brosnan's films (barring TND and the first 3 minutes of GE) I am grateful for his era, as it no doubt saved the franchise from imminent death. I unfortunately have to echo the sentiments above in saying the the the latter Glen pictures (after FYEO, which was at least a solid attempt) all fall well short of the mark. Terrible direction, cinematography, lighting, writing, all of it. Just a very bland, made-for-TV collection of slapdash "Bond Adventures." There was very little energy to be found in his films. He did a fine job on TLD, but even then, at times, it maintained that same monotonous pace found in the latter Moore efforts. Brosnan's films come across as being made by people who only understood the mainstream perception of Bond (suits, martinis, girls with silly names, etc) and put down every cliche they could imagine on to film in an effort to prolong the lining of their wallets with minimal risk. I also agree that Brosnan exudes little charisma, though I feel that's largely a result of the mediocre material he was constantly fed (we all know he wanted to do more with the character, but never got the chance, though thank goodness Tarantino was never brought on board). The Craig era has made Bond legitimately cool for the first time since probably Thunderball, with an eye on crafting more exciting, contemporary thrillers (much to the chagrin of some), with infinitely more stark color palettes than we ever saw in the past decade and a genuine sense of high octane action and heightened, but not absurd, realism. It'll be a sad day when Craig steps down (or is pushed out), but for now, we are certainly in a golden age. My enjoyment of most of the early films has dimmed as of late, and I can really only find myself taking the time to watch CR and QoS when I'm in the mood for some Bond. At the end of the day, though, the blame doesn't fall on any of the actors. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig all gave it their best shot. If those particular actors hadn't stepped into the role, we may not be waiting for a 23rd installment right now.

[Emma]

I disagree that Pierce's era is the weakest link. I think that the Dalton era is the weakest. I tried to re-watch TLD and LTK a few years back and just ended up stopping the films 30 minutes in. TLD suffered too much from 'political correctness' and Dalton (to be frank) is bland. I agree with Matt_13 above that the current Craig films are probably the most enjoyable since they are couched in reality and don't come across as live action cartoons. But Daniel Craig's 'everyman Bond' is still not how I see the character.

[Loomis]

TLD suffered too much from 'political correctness'

How so?

[The Shark]

TLD suffered too much from 'political correctness'

How so?

Isn't Bond teaming up with Mujahedin seen by many today as being politically incorrect?

the current Craig films are probably the most enjoyable since they are couched in reality and don't come across as live action cartoons.

For me, the Madagascar, Miami Airport, Venice, Sienna art gallery, boat chase, dogfight etc. set-pieces, come off as cartoonish, and strangely at odds with the more adult, dry stretches of dialogue.

Schizophrenic in tone - a quality which has been a hallmark of all Bond films since 97.

[iBond]

I think the Dalton era is the weak link. Dalton's era has one of the best Bond films (TLD) and one of the worst (LTK).

Brosnan's era on the other hand had one of the best Bond films (GE), one good film (TND), one mediocre film (TWINE), and one of the worst films (DAD).

Agreed, although i prefer TWINE over TND, and i love LTK.

I loved Licence to Kill as well.

[jaguar007]

I believe Moonraker is the second all time grossing Bond movie behind Thunderball when adjusted for inflation.

no, GF would be #2 with (I believe) LALD at #3 and CR at #4 as far as worldwide admissions.

[Guy Haines]

The Glen films were the weakest, just consistently crappy films writing/directing/acting/cinematography/everything.

In truth they probably should have replaced John Glen when they cast Dalton. Glen understood Roger Moore and they got on very well, perhaps because Roger just got on with it and was easy to work with because he didn't demand more from the part or his director. Dalton was demanding, he wanted to explore Bond's character, but deeper performance and exploring character was never Mr. Glen's strong point. John Glen was an excellent technician and he knew how to run the huge, complex machine which is a Bond film; so he had many strengths - which is why I think Eon were so loyal to him. He's also a very charming man. It's just he and Dalton didn't gel. It speaks volumes that when John Glen was brought on at the last minute to replace the director on "Columbus: The Discovery", Timothy Dalton, who was signed to play the lead role, immediately dropped out.

I watched TLD a few days back and it reminded me just how good Dalton was - certainly ahead of his time in terms of the direction he wanted to push Bond. He was, IMO, far better than Brosnan. So for me the weakest era is the Brosnan films because they could and should have been so much better.

Agreed. The casting of Timothy Dalton should have been the moment for a wholesale reshuffle of the Bond production team. Not only a new director but new writers as well. TLD was a great success in spite of the fact that it was produced, written and directed by a team who had got into a particular "comfort zone" when it came to creating a Bond film. Dalton forced them out of that zone, but there were moments when you could see the films retreating back into it (plus some moments that, thankfully, ended up on the cutting room floor in the case of TLD). LTK was the same team - weakened by Richard Maibaum's absence for much of the film - trying, perhaps too hard, to prove they could make a "tough" Bond film. I enjoyed both Dalton films very much. But I wonder if they might have been even better if the producers had taken a few risks rather than keeping the faithful retainers in place on the writing and direction side.