Brosnan not Bond

[katied]

Probably not in Craig's time,no.But EON will go back to the old formula.

I see it happening years from now,when Craig hasn't been Bond for a long time-when Mike Wilson's kids have taken over,perhaps.

[The Sweeney]

Probably not in Craig's time,no.But EON will go back to the old formula.

I see it happening years from now,when Craig hasn't been Bond for a long time-when Mike Wilson's kids have taken over,perhaps.

I guess it all depends on the trends of cinema. Styles have evolved and changed over the years. 50's were tame, by the early 60's Bond changed the style of action, late 60's we started seeing directors becoming creative, experimental, hippyfied (on drugs) with films like Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider, etc. and early 70's we saw controversial violence hit the screens (Dirty Harry, Clockwork Orange).

Mid 70's saw the beginning of the summer blockbuster with Jaws, and late 70's had a trend of sci-fi or tongue-in-cheek (Star Wars, Close Encounters, Superman, Any Which Way but Loose, Cannonball Run), or films filled with conspiracy (All the President's Men, Parallax View) due to Nixon and Watergate.

By the 80's we were in OTT soundtrack territory, with slick, tacky, cheesy, sunset storylines (Beverly Hills Cop, Top Gun, Rocky IV).

The trend for the noughties has been realistic, documentary style action, back-to-basic stunts and a more grounded approach - most likely brought on with a sobering reaction to 9/11.

Trends evolve, but fashions sometimes return. Will the film trends ever go back to the style of the 70's, or 80's. I seriously doubt it, but you never know.

[Jermaine76]

Its funny how people are saying that Brosnan was only a pretty boy, not hardcore enough and was soft. They don't remember The World is Not Enough when he shot Elektra King in the chest at point blank range without remorse? What about in Tomorrow Never Dies when he shot an assassin in the head for trying to kill him first? I remember hearing three people in theater say that was "hard" or "gangtsa".

[stockslivevan]

I acknowledged this in another thread (or possibly on the first page of this?) and while they were good, they aren't representations of his character. I mean those two scenes were only two minutes each at best while the rest of those 8 hours of the Brosnan era was all cheese with Brosnan using gadgets galore with winks while straightening his tie.

Brosnan's Bond was recklessly out of control, constantly always blowing crap up without showing concern for innocent bystanders and there were never any kind of consequences for those kind of actions. The scene with M berating Craig for doing something like that was not only a nice change but also a sort of metaphor for Bond fans' resentment of the Brosnan era's recklessness.

[Kristatos]

Brosnan's Bond was recklessly out of control, constantly always blowing crap up without showing concern for innocent bystanders and there were never any kind of consequences for those kind of actions. The scene with M berating Craig for doing something like that was not only a nice change but also a sort of metaphor for Bond fans' resentment of the Brosnan era's recklessness.

Sounds like wanting to eat your cake and have it too. It's OK for XXXX to blow up an embassy "without showing concern for innocent bystanders" as long as M tells him off for it afterwards?

[FormerBondFan]

By the 1990's Brosnan brought Bond into the action movie era. Had another actor been chosen, would Bond have been so successful? Maybe, maybe not. the fact is Brosnan was the one who did it. Back in the early 90's people thought his movies were cool. I think by the new millenium the general audience may have grown tired of the action OTT genre of the 90's and looked forward to a more serious, Dalton approach. The producers then took Bond in that direction.

Brosnan wanted to do gritty Bond for a long time.

[stockslivevan]

Brosnan's Bond was recklessly out of control, constantly always blowing crap up without showing concern for innocent bystanders and there were never any kind of consequences for those kind of actions. The scene with M berating Craig for doing something like that was not only a nice change but also a sort of metaphor for Bond fans' resentment of the Brosnan era's recklessness.

Sounds like wanting to eat your cake and have it too. It's OK for XXXX to blow up an embassy "without showing concern for innocent bystanders" as long as M tells him off for it afterwards?

Except Craig's Bond was more precise, hence never shooting a soldier but instead targeting gas pipes to throw them off. The only people who got killed were by bomber. Granted he still caused a scene but from what the whole point of it is not just for Bond to find a lead but also learn from the mistakes of his actions.

[Jermaine76]

Brosnan's Bond was recklessly out of control, constantly always blowing crap up without showing concern for innocent bystanders and there were never any kind of consequences for those kind of actions. The scene with M berating Craig for doing something like that was not only a nice change but also a sort of metaphor for Bond fans' resentment of the Brosnan era's recklessness.

The only one I remember was when in TND, he controlled the BMW with his cell phone to crash into the Avis Rental office. Other than that...nothing crazy like blowing things up.

[stockslivevan]

Crashing through the streets of St. Petersburg with a tank ring a bell? But yes, I do think that BMW delivery to Avis bit was the worst of all reckless acts, especially when he's smiling as it crashes down.

[Dr. No]

Crashing through the streets of St. Petersburg with a tank ring a bell? But yes, I do think that BMW delivery to Avis bit was the worst of all reckless acts, especially when he's smiling as it crashes down.

I think the recklessness of Brosnan's and Connery's eras were a controlled demolition which were guilty pleasure but acceptable because hte bad guy forced the situation. Bond didn't want to cause a meltdown of poor Dr No's laboratory he just didn't have another option.
I'm singling out SC and PB because I've been rewatching those movies. I'm sure 20 other examples could be made to back up my point. OHMSS final fight, TLD escape.

The classic swath of destruction in contrast to Craig's thug about town, its no contest the classic was a thinking mans demolition and Craig's spy is haze of social unrest-riot-looting spree rage. No reason behind it. And it wasn't unavoidable.

I'll admit the AVIS car return could have ended up like one of those horror stories about old folks driving at the farmer market.

[stockslivevan]

Thing about the firefight in GE was that Bond was fighting against good guys who were fooled by the bad guy (Orumov). Brosnan's Bond could have at best injured them as an alternative to killing them. At least the filmmakers were more careful about this when they brought Bond to a similar delima in TWINE where they had him actually trying to avoid a conflict with good guys in the Nuclear test site.

I don't see why you're singling out Connery as well. Everyone involved in the scheme by Dr. No were working to throw off a missile carrying American astronauts. Heck almost everyone he killed were working for SPECTRE. But then again there's that bit in YOLT with Connery shooting a man holding a kitchen knife 30 feet away.

[Dr. No]

But then again there's that bit in YOLT with Connery shooting a man holding a kitchen knife 30 feet away.

that's legal in Texas, Right?
What's it called? stand your ground or somthing.

Goons always get in the way but it's not been like a d**n Rambo movie before now. God Rambo 4, what a gore fest. Film footage from real battles are less graphic.

[stockslivevan]

I don't see what would make Craig's Bond Rambo, especially after Brosnan's. The closest Bond has ever gotten to becoming Rambo (besides Brosnan incidents) was in Dr. No when he's in the jungle river sneaking behind that soldier then snapping his neck, who already passed by their hideout anyway.

[007]

All the Bond actors have had ludicrous moments, including DC. QOS doesn't exactly look like it's shaping up to be a kitchen sink drama either.

[Dr. No]

I don't see what would make Craig's Bond Rambo, especially after Brosnan's. The closest Bond has ever gotten to becoming Rambo (besides Brosnan incidents) was in Dr. No when he's in the jungle river sneaking behind that soldier then snapping his neck, who already passed by their hideout anyway.

If you want Rambo V Bond read skywalker's review comparing the old Rambo to Craig's Spy. Craig is the closest to an American action movie Bond has ever gotten, there was action sure but not unthinking thuggish bruit grunting for his meal.

binging up Connery's killing in YOLT, Dr No or Brosnan in St. Petersburg
What a crock, those incidents nor the entire 20 movie history is nothing like the reckless jackass seen in CR. A ape that jerks a nail out of his back unflinching, sounds like Rambo to me.

no body complained about Connery or Brosnan's killing becasue there was a purpose and reasoning behind those actions. Even when everything goes pear shaped for the bad guys there wasn't an alternative where Mr bond could have called in the marines.
There were and always will be cold moments to Bond, Moore, Connery, Dalton, Brosnan (maybe lazenby) all had pretty cold kills.

M lecturing Bond isn''t refreshing it a disaster, he blew his cover his first day out, his face is spread about world wide, M has to disavow him to parliament, all before he get the key to the 00 bathroom. Declaring war on construction site was pointless as was driving bulldozer. Jason Bourne is lower key than this soccer rioter running amok.

In teh Book Cr Bond was a seasoned profession and had been since the 2end world war, not bing up WWII because of the age it was but because of how many years at the time of CR Bond was a 00. Bond wasn't learning how to spy he was a spy. Destruction follows him but now because he seeks it or is careless to cause it.
Craig's brutish spy is more american than british . Vin Diesel, Stallone, Schwarzenegger, van Damme all could have pulled off the story Cr turned out to be.

[stockslivevan]

Like I said earlier, that was Bond making a mistake and learning from it. This is the beginning of his career as a 00 and he's not exactly the perfect agent we see in Dr. No YET. The filmmakers did state that before the film was released but everyone is acting like this is supposed to be Craig's Bond's prime as 007 which I can now see is where all the accusations of Rambo are coming from.

[Dr. No]

No rambo is from teh action and attitude. Not the 'I am a wet behind the ears newbie' a ginger looking fifty years old as a rooky with no skills, social or professional (or women ).

if they wanted to show "young" Bond making mistakes they really should have gone with a young actor. Craig's spy doesn't show Beginner's.... anything more a indifferent generic Stallone styled action hero.

[stockslivevan]

I never said anything about a "young" Bond. I'm glad they abandoned that premise, having that kid from The Count of Monty Cristo would drove me making a "notbond.com" site.