|
Post by harrypalmer on Jul 11, 2007 7:47:21 GMT -5
It seems surprising to me that people take the films really seriously, taking them to task for betraying the source material and falling short of certain artistic standards.
Isn't Bond supposed to fun? Casino Royale wasn;'t a great serious film was it? It was still a little silly, although it wasn't as much fun as the others as they tried to tone down the usual ond style entertainment and cast someone who took Bond too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Jul 11, 2007 11:36:59 GMT -5
It seems surprising to me that people take the films really seriously, taking them to task for betraying the source material and falling short of certain artistic standards. Isn't Bond supposed to fun? Casino Royale wasn;'t a great serious film was it? It was still a little silly, although it wasn't as much fun as the others as they tried to tone down the usual ond style entertainment and cast someone who took Bond too seriously. I guess it all depends on why you became a Bond fan and what your favorite aspects are. For me the cinematic Bond was my first memory and the reason I am still a fan today. Like you mentioned above, the comedic elements have for the majority of the time been evident in all Bond films and are generally considered to be essential.
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Jul 16, 2007 17:14:08 GMT -5
I also find it surprising, especially since Die Another Day was such a huge hit. If the current line is to be believed, then DAD should've been the biggest flop of the series. Yet critics and audiences alike rewarded it- despite the Rotten Tomatoes that have since been thrown online.
I think it stems from the fact that Fleming's novels appear so down-to-earth by today's standards. Kids read them and think, "Wow, Bond is actually supposed to be really serious!"- completely oblivious to the element of fantasy the stories presented at the time.
People make a big deal about the Bourne films being closer in tone, yet there have always been "anti-Bonds" in response to Bond. This is true whether you're talking about a John Le Carre novel or a film such as Saltzman's own Ipcress File. The mere fact that serious spies have traditionally been dubbed "anti-Bonds" should provide a hint as to Bond's true role in pop culture.
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Jul 16, 2007 18:48:50 GMT -5
I also find it surprising, especially since Die Another Day was such a huge hit. If the current line is to be believed, then DAD should've been the biggest flop of the series. Yet critics and audiences alike rewarded it- despite the Rotten Tomatoes that have since been thrown online. I think it stems from the fact that Fleming's novels appear so down-to-earth by today's standards. Kids read them and think, "Wow, Bond is actually supposed to be really serious!"- completely oblivious to the element of fantasy the stories presented at the time. People make a big deal about the Bourne films being closer in tone, yet there have always been "anti-Bonds" in response to Bond. This is true whether you're talking about a John Le Carre novel or a film such as Saltzman's own Ipcress File. The mere fact that serious spies have traditionally been dubbed "anti-Bonds" should provide a hint as to Bond's true role in pop culture. Nice to see you here poirot. Very interesting as usual.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Haugen on Jul 17, 2007 15:13:28 GMT -5
I also find it surprising, especially since Die Another Day was such a huge hit. If the current line is to be believed, then DAD should've been the biggest flop of the series. Yet critics and audiences alike rewarded it- despite the Rotten Tomatoes that have since been thrown online. I think it stems from the fact that Fleming's novels appear so down-to-earth by today's standards. Kids read them and think, "Wow, Bond is actually supposed to be really serious!"- completely oblivious to the element of fantasy the stories presented at the time. People make a big deal about the Bourne films being closer in tone, yet there have always been "anti-Bonds" in response to Bond. This is true whether you're talking about a John Le Carre novel or a film such as Saltzman's own Ipcress File. The mere fact that serious spies have traditionally been dubbed "anti-Bonds" should provide a hint as to Bond's true role in pop culture. I think if Daniel Craig had turned up in a spy film playing secret agent Kenny Onions (or whatever) he would have been labelled a counter-point to Bond or even an anti-Bond.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Jul 17, 2007 15:44:05 GMT -5
I also find it surprising, especially since Die Another Day was such a huge hit. If the current line is to be believed, then DAD should've been the biggest flop of the series. Yet critics and audiences alike rewarded it- despite the Rotten Tomatoes that have since been thrown online. I think it stems from the fact that Fleming's novels appear so down-to-earth by today's standards. Kids read them and think, "Wow, Bond is actually supposed to be really serious!"- completely oblivious to the element of fantasy the stories presented at the time. People make a big deal about the Bourne films being closer in tone, yet there have always been "anti-Bonds" in response to Bond. This is true whether you're talking about a John Le Carre novel or a film such as Saltzman's own Ipcress File. The mere fact that serious spies have traditionally been dubbed "anti-Bonds" should provide a hint as to Bond's true role in pop culture. Great point Poirot. Nice to have you aboard.
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Jul 18, 2007 7:09:11 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum Poirot. It's interesting about Die Another Day. I seem to remember that it was a hit when it came out. Brosnan was always cited as being the best Bond since Sean Connery. I was surprised to say the least that Brosnan as Bond and his last outing took such a battering. Who cares if it was a little eccentric?
Fleming's novels were daft escapist thrillers. I can imagine what people thought when reading those when they first came out! I'm not sure why people treat the Fleming canon like Shakespeare. Like Chandler, Fleming's Bond novels are above the level of a pulp potbolier but many some people take them far too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Jul 18, 2007 7:35:44 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum Poirot. It's interesting about Die Another Day. I seem to remember that it was a hit when it came out. Brosnan was always cited as being the best Bond since Sean Connery. I was surprised to say the least that Brosnan as Bond and his last outing took such a battering. Who cares if it was a little eccentric? Fleming's novels were daft escapist thrillers. I can imagine what people thought when reading those when they first came out! I'm not sure why people treat the Fleming canon like Shakespeare. Like Chandler, Fleming's Bond novels are above the level of a pulp potbolier but many some people take them far too seriously. It seems cool to diss the Broz now and on many forums this is the case. Brosnan although not my favourite is an excellent Bond and we have to remember his final outing as 007 had more admissions than his previous. All this 'The franchise needed saving' CR*P annoys me. DAD is not great IMO, but it wasn't PB's fault and he can feel proud in the knowledge that he left the franchise in a better state than when he inherited it.
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Jul 18, 2007 11:47:41 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome, guys.
DAD presents another problem for the anti-Brosnan campaign. His detractors like to point out that while DAD may have been a financial success, it was creatively bankrupt.
But then, if it truly was the worst Bond script ever, it speaks volumes about Brosnan that he was able to sell it so effectively. Just imagine if he had been working from a great script.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Haugen on Jul 19, 2007 12:08:00 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome, guys. DAD presents another problem for the anti-Brosnan campaign. His detractors like to point out that while DAD may have been a financial success, it was creatively bankrupt. But then, if it truly was the worst Bond script ever, it speaks volumes about Brosnan that he was able to sell it so effectively. Just imagine if he had been working from a great script. You'd think sometimes that Brosnan wrote, directed, produced and did all the special-effects for his films. He seems to get the blame for everything.
|
|
FormerBondFan
00 Agent
Posts: 5,455
Favourite James Bond Films: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible and any upcoming action films starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good because he'll need it to expand his reputation as an actor, especially in the action realm)
Favourite Films: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Harry Potter, Middle-Earth, The Matrix, Mission: Impossible
|
Post by FormerBondFan on Jul 21, 2007 12:38:23 GMT -5
To get away from their mistakes during Brosnan's era, I think EON tries to have him blamed for everything.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jul 22, 2007 16:49:18 GMT -5
Brosnan was the best thing about the 'Brosnan' era. If you think those films weren't good enough then you have to look at the writers and producers.
|
|
FormerBondFan
00 Agent
Posts: 5,455
Favourite James Bond Films: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible and any upcoming action films starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good because he'll need it to expand his reputation as an actor, especially in the action realm)
Favourite Films: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Harry Potter, Middle-Earth, The Matrix, Mission: Impossible
|
Post by FormerBondFan on Jul 23, 2007 9:52:41 GMT -5
If it wasn't for Brosnan, the series would be no longer exist. Barbara Broccoli is the reason Pierce gets blamed.
|
|
|
Post by 009 on Aug 1, 2007 14:26:38 GMT -5
I could not believe the abuse that Pierce Brosnan got from many people after Daniel Craig was cast as Bond. From being regarded as the best Bond since Connery and a popular Bond who relaunched Bond and made a popular last film in Die Another Day, he was suddenly a laughing stock who nearly killed James Bond.
Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli try to distance themselves from the last few Brosnan James Bond films. But they made the F****S!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Aug 1, 2007 16:44:56 GMT -5
The irony is that when the Craig backlash first appeared, his supporters immediately said, "Don't blame the actor!" (Of course, they themselves had no problem blaming Brosnan.) It's well documented that Brosnan wanted Bond films that were closer in tone to Fleming, yet EON continued to go in the opposite direction every time. And these are the people everyone now has complete faith in?
|
|