16 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Comparing James Bond back in the 90's to James Bond now is an interesting experience. As you all know on here I don't really find the last three Brosnan films remotely decent, but GoldenEye I find a near masterpiece. Why you ask? Because GoldenEye actually tried to do something different. Not only just a Bond film, but a film in it's own right. 

 

Sadly, the Brosnan era suffered a lot in terms of story development and realism. Pierce isn't the problem, he's just an actor stuck in the CGI phenomenon, good in his own right, but doesn't get to truly flex his muscles. James Bond has been applauded for staying fresh, and moving with the times. I feel that post 1995, the Brosnan era moved badly. That's why I find Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough complete made-for-tv-style tosh. As a massive Bond fan, looking back now, it's rather sad seeing a franchise going further and further into disrepair. (then Casino Royale saved us, and we were fine.)

 

My question could prove for some rather fun discussion. Just what if the Brosnan era had balls? Instead of staying in a safe bubble of money making absurdity. The thing I love most about the first 18 Bond films, as well as the Daniel Craig era, is seeing the franchise take risks. (OHMSS, LTK, GE, CR etc), the Brosnan era completely stayed clear of this, and it showed. 

 

Lets just say Mendes or Fincher or whoever, replaced Michael Apted, Lee Tamahori or Roger Spottiswood. Could the Brosnan era have been a near masterpiece? What risks would you have liked to see with Brosnans Bond? An actor who I think could've shone if he only got the chance too. A professionally directed The World Is Not Enough could've been fantastic. It could've even outdone Skyfall in terms of emotional complexity. What about a proper exit for Q? Death scene and all. What about ending Die Another Day with Bond being tortured and imprisoned, cracking under torture, and bookending the first 20 films for the 40th Anniversary, then working on the reboot. 

 

If the Brosnan era referred more to continuity and emotion rather than superhero silliness, it could've been a real winner. 

Edited by DamnCoffee, 19 February 2013 - 05:39 PM.

[plankattack]

I'm not sure 90s EON was capable of what's suggested. I'm on-record as being dubious of Brozza's "acting" talent. Matador-aside, he's basically done the same thing every time out (and even Matador is a familiar character), and while he's successful at that, I'm not sure range is his thing. I like TWINE alot, but I've heard many of these boards criticize it's soap-opera plotting, and acting, and unfortunately Brozza has to carry some of that can.

That being said, he was the perfect Bond to hang his era of films around, and any failings of the series 95-02 should not be laid at his door. I just think that both EON and the studio were more concerned with Bonds that delivered good-great box office numbers, and if one film is a success, it takes a brave executive to green-light a shift of direction for a franchise.

EON made a stack of cash successfully mixing it up in a more traditional action-flick marketplace, so it was natural to keep churning out variations on a theme; that has always been their m.o.

Damn - I do have to agree/disagree on one thing - I too have always enjoyed it when EON has tried to break ranks with that m.o - unfortunately I feel that they never did it enough. Each of the films mentioned above, are sandwiched by 5 or 6 in a row which were all just the same thing underneath.

The Brozza era could have been a series-defining one - I'm just not convinced there was the desire or the ability to do so.

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess there´s the fan´s idea of what a Bond film should be like - and there´s the expectation of a world wide audience that makes or breaks any film.

 

I would argue that LTK was pretty much trying to do what fans would have loved to see in Bond (these days) - but audiences rejected it.

 

Audiences did not reject, however, the Brosnan movies - they loved them.

 

Granted, these days audiences love the Craig movies, too. But audiences have a different taste now. For the Zeitgeist of the 90´s the Brosnan Bonds were perfect.

[Professor Pi]

I just made a similar post in the "here's to Pierce Brosnan" thread about the quality of directors:

 

http://debrief.comma...-brosnan/page-2

 

But I think EON tried to gamble and tweak the formula much more in TWINE than in GoldenEye.  A lot of what they tried in both films pop ups later, and more polished, in CR and Skyfall.  It's just that with TWINE they fell flat on their face.  Compare the two chair torture scenes from TWINE and CR.  Granted, Craig has the Fleming source material to work with, but his dialogue and delivery far outshines Brosnan's while Elektra is torturing him.  In both TWINE and SF they blow up MI6, but in SF they completely commit to making major changes.  In TWINE they set up shop in Scotland, but in Skyfall they make the ballsy choice to explore Scotland and Bond's youth.  Imagine if Connery played Kincade!

 

In both first halves of TND and DAD, they're on their way to making pretty good Bond movies.  Old flame shows up, Bond gets captured.  There's a moment in the TND pre-title sequence where the screens go blank and you think Bond is dead.  They should have started the title song right there as in Skyfall.  But they only flirted with change.  In DAD, the scenes in China and Cuba work pretty well invoking old Bond of Connery and Fleming.  Then they blow it with gene therapy, Jinx, invisible cars, and CGI.  Moonraker at least looked real!

 

In the Craig era, they've learned they can make successful Bond films without him ending up with the girl.  Wouldn't TWINE be so much better without the Christmas Jones character?  Bond dispatches Elektra and Renard and then has a dramatic moment with M like Craig has in CR or QoS.  But they felt obligated to follow formula during Pierce's time.

 

And actually, I think GoldenEye is the most formulaic, best of Brosnan though it may be.  Other than a female M, what's so new about it?  Sure, former double 0 agent goes bad, but then reverts to master plan of stealing billions like Bond villains of old.  The part of Felix Leiter is now played by Jack Wade.  The EMP plot device was first mentioned in AVTAK.  Bond ejecting from the soon to be exploded helicopter was lifted from Die Hard 2.  Onatopp is another Fiona, Fatima, Helga Brandt type femme fatale.  The risks the producers took was with the dark tone of LTK, not GoldenEye.

 

So yes, they played it safe with Brosnan for the most part.  But I think they knew he couldn't have pulled off what they've done with Daniel Craig.  That was obvious after TWINE so they did DAD even though they had the rights to Casino Royale by then.

[marktmurphy]

Comparing James Bond back in the 90's to James Bond now is an interesting experience. As you all know on here I don't really find the last three Brosnan films remotely decent, but GoldenEye I find a near masterpiece. Why you ask? Because GoldenEye actually tried to do something different. Not only just a Bond film, but a film in it's own right. 

 

I don't really know why you say that. I remember walking out after seeing it and thinking, yeah, it was great: but it was a Bond film. A pretty standard Bond film, albeit a good one.

 

 

 

 

 

My question could prove for some rather fun discussion. Just what if the Brosnan era had balls? Instead of staying in a safe bubble of money making absurdity. The thing I love most about the first 18 Bond films, as well as the Daniel Craig era, is seeing the franchise take risks. (OHMSS, LTK, GE, CR etc), the Brosnan era completely stayed clear of this, and it showed. 

 

 

 

I'd say they clearly tried to take Bond places he hadn't been before: an old flame, a serious recurring injury, the girl turns out to be the no. 1 baddie, M is kidnapped, Bond is captured and held for months etc. All of these were brand new and felt like big departures.

They were trying different things; it's probably having done all that that convinced them they could go further and push it as far as Casino Royale (which itself plays it a bit too safe in places- that unneeded final action scene, for example).

 

 

If the Brosnan era referred more to continuity and emotion rather than superhero silliness, it could've been a real winner. 

 

I'd have preferred fewer attempts at emotion (such as Pierce practically licking the screen when he sees Electra crying on the news) and more bits of superhero silliness: give him a scene like the hotel lobby entrance in DAD and he's James bloody Bond.

[tdalton]

Comparing James Bond back in the 90's to James Bond now is an interesting experience. As you all know on here I don't really find the last three Brosnan films remotely decent, but GoldenEye I find a near masterpiece. Why you ask? Because GoldenEye actually tried to do something different. Not only just a Bond film, but a film in it's own right. 

 

I don't really know why you say that. I remember walking out after seeing it and thinking, yeah, it was great: but it was a Bond film. A pretty standard Bond film, albeit a good one.

 

I also don't see much in GoldenEye that is really all that different or outside the box from what we'd seen before at that point.  It is a good Bond film, though, and it does a decent job of blending some of the more classic elements from the Connery films and hints of the humor from Moore's tenure into a more modern context.  But, at its core, it's a standard Bond film.

Edited by tdalton, 19 February 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

If we're talking about risks, then Tarantino's Casino Royale with Brosnan is the ticket.  The only downside is that it would deprive us of Craig's CR, but it would've been a great ride, i think!

[freemo]

If the Brosnan era had "had balls" they'd have persisted with Timothy Dalton.

Not intended as a flip answer. That was first compromise, really, and once you start making those, it's all downhill.

[marktmurphy]

If the Brosnan era had "had balls" they'd have persisted with Timothy Dalton.

Not intended as a flip answer. That was first compromise, really, and once you start making those, it's all downhill.

 

I think you can make any decision and say 'it took balls'; that wouldn't stop it being a bad decision, though.

 

To come back after a hiatus you need to send a message that Bond is back, and getting the same actor back doesn't really send that message.

[Odd Jobbies]

If the Brosnan era had "had balls" they'd have persisted with Timothy Dalton.

Not intended as a flip answer. That was first compromise, really, and once you start making those, it's all downhill.

 

I think you can make any decision and say 'it took balls'; that wouldn't stop it being a bad decision, though.

 

To come back after a hiatus you need to send a message that Bond is back, and getting the same actor back doesn't really send that message.

I was under the impression that Dalton wasn't fired, but had quit, due to the long hiatus.

[trevanian]

If the Brosnan era had "had balls" they'd have persisted with Timothy Dalton.

Not intended as a flip answer. That was first compromise, really, and once you start making those, it's all downhill.

 

I think you can make any decision and say 'it took balls'; that wouldn't stop it being a bad decision, though.

 

To come back after a hiatus you need to send a message that Bond is back, and getting the same actor back doesn't really send that message.

Going by that logic, then Craig shouldn't have been back for SKYFALL, and the movie shouldn't have been an attempt (I use the word charitably) at character drama, but instead a back-to-basics by then numbers biggest/best type 007 flick.

 

QUANTUM pretty much finished the ludicrously cast rookieBond notion anyway, starting with somebody else (anybody even remotely in the traditionally handsome mode) would have worked better to say Bond is back.

 

As to the original topic ... TAILOR OF PANAMA should be all the proof anybody needs to show that Brosnan with the proper direction was capable of delivering badassery on par with anybody, and delivering a textured layered performance. In that case you have a fine script and John Boorman knowing what he is doing directing, and such a combo on the Broz era followups would certainly have turned out better than any of what we got. Compare the embarrassing Harrison Ford-style yelling Broz does in the PTS in TWINE with the genuine work in PANAMA. 

 

I'm still of the opinion that Dalton did it all right on his pics -- something I've spent the last quarter century explaining in vain. It's Connery for the magic, Dalton for the character. 

 

and now Craig to show me that 21st century Bond has almost nothing to do with Fleming or what I liked about the series. I still don't understand how CR or SF pulled the wool over everybody's eyes into thinking they were smart or well-plotted movies. Just because there's a surface approach to grounding the movies in reality doesn't mean much, because they're still cheating like crazy as if it is Moore-like escapist fare, and yet these two movies pull all sorts of crap that would be inducing eye-rolls in a traditional thriller. 

[marktmurphy]

 

If the Brosnan era had "had balls" they'd have persisted with Timothy Dalton.

Not intended as a flip answer. That was first compromise, really, and once you start making those, it's all downhill.

 

I think you can make any decision and say 'it took balls'; that wouldn't stop it being a bad decision, though.

 

To come back after a hiatus you need to send a message that Bond is back, and getting the same actor back doesn't really send that message.

Going by that logic, then Craig shouldn't have been back for SKYFALL, and the movie shouldn't have been an attempt (I use the word charitably) at character drama, but instead a back-to-basics by then numbers biggest/best type 007 flick.

 

There wasn't really the impression of Bond being on hiatus in the same way after Quantum. After Licence it really felt like we'd seen the last Bond film.

And people wanted another Craig film; there wasn't much hunger for Dalton.

 

 

I'm still of the opinion that Dalton did it all right on his pics -- something I've spent the last quarter century explaining in vain. It's Connery for the magic, Dalton for the character. 

 

Well you can explain that's how you feel; that's fine. Doesn't make it right, though.

Personally I think we should aim for both magic and character; for me Craig gives Dalton's performance only but adds the swagger, confidence and screen presence that Dalton's Bond sorely lacked.

I'm not even sure Dalton got the character that right; bookBond takes more pleasure in life than DaltonBond did.

 

 

and now Craig to show me that 21st century Bond has almost nothing to do with Fleming or what I liked about the series. I still don't understand how CR or SF pulled the wool over everybody's eyes into thinking they were smart or well-plotted movies. Just because there's a surface approach to grounding the movies in reality doesn't mean much, because they're still cheating like crazy as if it is Moore-like escapist fare, and yet these two movies pull all sorts of crap that would be inducing eye-rolls in a traditional thriller. 

 

I'm not sure anyone thinks they're amazingly-plotted thrillers. CR's main plot (which some bloke called Fleming thought up) is absolute nonsense: Bond is sent to gamble a baddie to death. Wonderful nonsense- Bond can get away with that. They're big and exciting and wild; you'd never get Daniel Craig to say these are realistic because he knows they're not.

[tdalton]

QUANTUM pretty much finished the ludicrously cast rookieBond notion anyway, starting with somebody else (anybody even remotely in the traditionally handsome mode) would have worked better to say Bond is back.

 

I would agree that the whole concept of Bond being a rookie was ridiculous from the get go.  CASINO ROYALE could have been just another Bond movie had they simply removed a few lines of dialogue here and there.  The rookie angle is never really explored in any kind of meaningful way, which renders it pointless. 

 

Aside from the early days of the franchise, when they were just getting started and setting the template for the rest of the series, I'd say that EON has never really taken any real risks with the franchise or done anything to really rock the boat.  They haven't really taken any risks in the Craig Era either.  Bringing on board the likes of Sam Mendes, Marc Forster, Roger Deakins, Thomas Newman, Javier Bardem, Mathieu Amalric, and all the rest of the ridiculously talented people that they've brought in isn't really taking risks.  The franchise would have done it sooner if they could have found similarly talented people who'd be willing to work within the framework of a producer-driven franchise.

 

If EON were really up for taking risks with the franchise, they would have done a proper reboot with CASINO ROYALE and wiped the slate clean and truly started over again.

[00 Brosnan]

Tomorrow Never Dies was highly fitting for the mid to late 1990s. The effect of media and the internet on today's world and politics. Brosnan's playboy style. Not perfect, but it was modern and worked.

 

I find it hilarious you're talking about the Brosnan era not taking risks when the films had become a strict formula many years, eras, and actors ago. Nothing to say about them? LTK for example doesn't exactly stand out from your typical 1980s action film, Moore's entire era was strictly formulaic Bond, and QoS is a pretty typical modern spy/action film that hardly screams "Bond."

[tdalton]

I find it hilarious you're talking about the Brosnan era not taking risks when the films had become a strict formula many years, eras, and actors ago. Nothing to say about them? LTK for example doesn't exactly stand out from your typical 1980s action film, Moore's entire era was strictly formulaic Bond, and QoS is a pretty typical modern spy/action film that hardly screams "Bond."

The same argument could be made for every film post-Connery. They're all formulaic.

[Hockey Mask]

The Brosnan era had balls.  Their names were Dame and Judi.

[Professor Pi]

The Brosnan era had balls.  Their names were Dame and Judi.

 

thanks for that, 00Hockey.

 

"Sometimes I wonder if you have the balls for this job, M."

 

"True.  But the advantage is I don't have to think with them."