April is the cruellest month: a day-by-day game

Special Interest Games
382

I agree, the Aston Martin DB5 should be given a rest. We’ve gotten WAAAAAAYYYY too much nostalgia baiting this century. It was ok for Die Another Day to do it because they were doing it for the series’ 40th anniversary, which was a celebration of the entire series. Additionally, it had never really been done before–certainly to that extent-- so it was palatable going down. However, almost every film since then has doubled down, even tripled down, on nostalgia and nowhere was that more evident than in the beloved DB5.

Pierce Brosnan drove a DB5 in GoldenEye, but that was simply a nod to the series’ past and to reinforce the idea that he was James Bond, particularly after the six-year gap in films. The DB5 returned in Tomorrow Never Dies but was only in a cameo–and even less in The World Is Not Enough.

Then came the Daniel Craig years. Casino Royale wanted to show how its universe Bond got the DB5. Fine, another little nod to the past, and again, a reinforcement that this “controversial” 007 is really James Bond. But then the car returns gadget-laden in Skyfall. All well and good I suppose. It was nice to see it tricked out with gadgets again, but then it is promptly destroyed–only to have it revived in SPECTRE, albeit in a cameo, and later a return to gadget-laden action in No Time To Die. Again, the filming of it in NTTD was entertaining, but all these continued call backs to previous Bond films, such as the oil-covered Strawberry Fields in Quantum Of Solace, got tedious.

Where is the originality? Why are we now always looking back with tips of the cap to the past or subverting expectations of it, instead of looking forward and carrying the series into the future? Roger Moore didn’t need all those continued callbacks. Neither did Timothy Dalton.

No matter how much Craig used it or any future 007 does, the Aston Martin DB5 WAS, IS, and ALWAYS WILL BE Sean Connery’s car. It’s time to put the beloved icon in the garage and come up with something new for Bond #7.

As for the aggressive Omega wristwatch selling ads, I have no opinion, since I rarely, if ever, see them.

3 Likes
383

I would agree with that. I last watched TWINE in the run up to No Time To Die and I enjoyed it more than I had since probably the first time I saw it. Denise Richards’ acting certainly isn’t all bad. In fact, she’s decent for much of it. The biggest glaring issues are when she has to recite a lot of gobbledegook like when she’s on the tram in the pipeline and in the flooding submarine. Personally, I give her props for acting in and dealing with all that water pouring inside the sinking submarine. But I agree with those earlier who mentioned that her name, her costume at the nuclear site, and a large chunk of her dialogue have negatively impacted others’ opinions of her in the film.

But if I had to go for the worst thing about TWINE, it is what they do with the Renard character. They set him up as this Uber-bad terrorist, one who can feel no pain, and who will get tougher and stronger until he dies. When you first see him deal with Sasha Davidov and Mikhail Arkov at the fiery rock place, he’s suitably dangerous there. He still works that way in the bunker, particularly when he faces Bond behind the bullet-proof glass door. But from there on, he’s a shell of himself.

Renard becomes a mopey puppy in the liaison with Elektra King, which loses a lot of his dangerous persona. And then, in the final battle aboard the submarine, where is the guy who feels no pain? Where is the guy getting tougher and stronger? He’s gone, and you are left with just a generic henchman. There is one shot where Bond hits him in the jaw with the plutonic rod. They should have had Bond hit him like four or five times in a row and not have Renard phased by it one bit. They could have had him chuckle at Bond’s uselessness or laugh maniacally at his increasing power, but no, they don’t do that. They could have had Renard pick up something exceedingly heavy that he wouldn’t have been able to lift normally and hurl it at Bond to show his increasing strength. They could have had him aggravate Bond’s shoulder again or squeeze it till his collarbone broke to all but incapacitate him. But no, they don’t do that either.

Someone, somewhere, once wrote (I don’t remember who but it could have been on this board) that Renard should have been about to kill Bond when 009’s bullet finally breaks through the medulla oblongata and kills Renard. (Whether Bond makes a final weak punch to Renard’s jaw or he’s just laying helpless when the bullet finishes the terrorist doesn’t matter. Either way could work.) Anyway, when Renard dies, the person then had Bond say something like, “Thanks, 009.”

THAT is how the film’s threat should have ended. THAT is how Renard’s character SHOULD have been done. That would have made him a memorable villain. Instead, we are left with a what could have been scenario and stuck with a lovesick henchman whose once promising entrance falls flat, leaving him one of the lesser henchmen in the series. Bummer. :disappointed:

7 Likes
384

That would have been an interesting occurrence, and I will say yes to the idea. Raymond Benson had some great plots–and, yes, I said great. High Time To Kill and Doubleshot are terrific plots. His weakness, however, was in the prose. So I think he could have, at the very least, come up with a script with great ideas in terms of characters and plot. It likely would have needed some more work in regards to dialogue and some descriptions, so the producers could have brought other writers in to polish it off. But scripts are written by multiple writers nowadays anyway, so why not? And with what we ended up with at the end of the Daniel Craig era, I say they should have given Benson a go.

4 Likes
385

A very good point. Despite Bond being the best and “senior 00” Most films don’t acknowledge other 00’s roles in SIS. Notable exception No Time to Die

386

Four words–No and HELL NO!

The Codename Theory to put it simply is stupid and makes no sense. As David_M said, if James Bond is a codename, then Moneypenny is a codename, Felix Leiter is a codename, Bill Tanner is a codename, Maj. Boothroyd is a codename, and even Miles Messervy is a codename (yes I believe Robert Brown is Messervy). That’s a lot of codenames going on, many of which would be totally unnecessary for those not in the field.

What makes more sense is that you have different actors playing the role of James Bond or Moneypenny or Felix Leiter or Bill Tanner or Maj. Boothroyd or Miles Messervy–with each of those actors playing their particular versions of the character.

Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan all played the same character. Daniel Craig was different. His was a rebooted James Bond.

Certainly after Spider-Man: No Way Home, audiences are now used to the idea of the same character but from different universes. Thanks to the Craig era, for better or worse, the Bond series now falls into that category too. We know the new James Bond actor will definitely not carry on from Craig’s timeline. He’s his own universe. But the new guy can either pick up where Brosnan left off or be another rebooted James Bond.

But the codename theory is complete and utter…baloney. :face_vomiting:

4 Likes
387

Once again, I largely agree with David_M’s sentiments. Barbara Broccoli knows her stuff, but ultimately she (and Michael G. Wilson) is just carrying on her father’s well-deserved legacy. He–along with Harry Saltzman–built up the most successful movie series of all time up from the ground up. They hired top quality people who revolutionized the film industry, particularly in the action genre. You could even make a case that they created it.

Cubby, first and foremost, put everything up on the screen with the ultimate goal being to entertain the masses. (You knew you were going to have a great time–at the very least you knew the production team was trying their best to entertain you.) I don’t necessarily get that from Barbara. Seems to me that her focus is more on earning respect from her peers and awards.

Now don’t get me wrong, her films DO have quality and in many ways have improved on Cubby’s efforts. Case in point some really good cinematography work. However, particularly in the Daniel Craig era, the films don’t entertain as much–certainly not like the series’ entries did in the past. Those Craig films, while technically being well done, don’t have the sense of fun that Cubby’s do. (Casino Royale doesn’t fall in that category, though. It is fun.) As for her Pierce Brosnan efforts, two were great (GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies) and two were ok. But I’d still take them over Craig’s films except Casino Royale.

As a result, Barbara’s production parts may be better in some individual qualities, but Cubby’s production whole was–and is–more satisfying, so give me Cubby.

2 Likes
388

Times and fashion have changed, however. To compare BB and MGW with her father would only truly work if they had produced the Bond films in the same time frame.

4 Likes
389

Came across this the other day, on a day out / day release. Special Operations Executive - didn’t know this chap had been involved. Writing Goldfinger or training real spies? Probably the latter, tbh.

P2410450
P24104501920×1471 214 KB

4 Likes
390

I’m with dalton on this one. Licence To Kill with Bond going on a personal mission of revenge is good as it is. There are a few items here or there that could be improved upon, but the only major problem is the jovial Felix Leiter at the end of the film. He should have been sad and in emotional pain.

The plot reworks the Kurosawa classic Yojimbo to great effect with Bond working within the villain’s organization to take him down. That is a different take for the series. Bond had gone undercover before in the films, but not to ingratiate himself into villain’s inner circle as he does here. Capping it off is a driven and serious Timothy Dalton along with a fantastic performance by Robert Davi as Franz Sanchez, a career-making turn by Benicio Del Toro as Dario, an engaging performance by Carey Lowell as a truly independent Bond girl who is never presented as “Bond’s equal”, and a terrific effort by the stunt and special effects teams who arguably were never better.

Licence To Kill is truly underrated.

4 Likes
391

I don’t have the issues with Die Another Day that many others do. Yes, it is a far from perfect film. To name a few problems, Bond stopping his heart is not believable, Graves becoming a knight after less than a couple of years in the public’s eye is not realistic, and the CGI could easily have been better. (Although I’m not completely turned off by the tsunami scene. In fact, I think it COULD have worked–had the CGI team done a better job.)

Nevertheless, DAD sits near the middle of the pack for me. It is silly and cartoonish and over the top, and, as I said, it’s got a number of issues, BUT it sets out with the intent to give you a good time. It’s heart is in the right place even if its execution (or even brains) isn’t. As a result, I enjoy it for what it is.

Having said that, Bond’s arrival in Iceland and beyond is NOT the better half of DAD. The movie is motoring right along perfectly fine up until Iceland, and then the cracks start showing–some deeper than others–that go on to undermine the film. For some, it’s too much to bear. For others, we take it for what it is. Unfortunately, they can’t all be home runs, but to me, DAD is an entertaining, if flawed, double.

2 Likes
392

Depressingly more realistic than you’d think with a man who trades in diamonds, as the current government has made (ab)use of.

4 Likes
393

I disagree with this premise. Colonel Sun did have a great set up with the abduction of M, AND it did manage to keep up the tension through to the end. Here we have a place (Greece) where Bond has never been before and on a mission that he has never encountered before. Sun is great villain–very thoughtful and sadistic. He is cold and calculating and yet reasonable when things don’t work out quite the way they were planned. He also enjoys inflicting torture–and a unique one at that–on Bond. M gets to show his supreme faith in his best agent despite the threat of imminent death that hovers over the both of them. And Bond proves once again that no matter the odds stacked against him, or the pain that is inflicted on him, he will find a way to overcome them and save the day for Great Britain like St. George vs. the dragon.

Colonel Sun is not my favorite continuation novel, but it is a solidly entertaining one.

4 Likes
394

Albert R. Broccoli has to take some blame for Pierce Brosnan not being James Bond in The Living Daylights, but the primary blame has to go to NBC president Brandon Tartikoff.

Brosnan’s great TV series Remington Steele had recently been canceled by NBC after its fourth season seemingly freeing him up to become the next James Bond. He was already the public’s number one choice for the role, and ever since the beginning of the show, everyone thought he would be the perfect man to replace Roger Moore. As press coverage of the day made the situation fairly well known (for its time), interest in Brosnan and, consequently, the show increased and Remington Steele’s ratings picked up significantly.

As this was going down, Broccoli made the decision to name Brosnan the fourth 007. However, NBC had a 60-day option from the initial date of cancelation to change their mind and renew the series. Tartikoff, then decided to play “poker” with Broccoli and said that they might renew Remington Steele in the hopes that both NBC and EON could have “James Bond”. Broccoli, stated that he felt people would be more reluctant to see James Bond on the big screen every couple of years when they could watch “him” every week on the TV. As a result, he said NBC could have Brosnan for 6 episodes and 6 episodes only. After that, Brosnan was all his. If NBC wanted Brosnan for more episodes, they could have him, and Broccoli would go with someone else.

Well, Tartikoff and NBC called Broccoli’s bluff, and on THE VERY LAST DAY of NBC’s option to renew Remington Steele, Tartikoff picked up the show for its fifth season. Only to learn that Broccoli wasn’t bluffing when he tore up Brosnan’s contract and soon went with Timothy Dalton.

It certainly was a gut punch to Brosnan, and NBC was left with egg on its face. To top it off, NBC went on to do only 6 more episodes of Remington Steele–the same number Broccoli had originally suggested–before pulling the plug and ending the show. People Magazine had a famous picture and article about the whole fiasco with Brosnan on the cover beside the title “Take this job and shove it”.

If Broccoli had just waited until the 60-day option was over before announcing Brosnan as Bond, none of this likely would have happened. But he jumped the gun, which allowed Tartikoff to make a boneheaded decision that made he and Broccoli look stupid, and which left Brosnan and Dalton having to deal with the consequences.

Ultimately, and ironically, things probably worked out for the best for Brosnan and EON as they actually happened, but it certainly didn’t start out that way.

Here’s another what if about this time that I haven’t seen: everyone seems to assume the 6-year hiatus is a given. But what if it wasn’t? Brosnan was the popular pick to replace Moore, certainly in America, and Dalton was not well known there either. If Brosnan had done The Living Daylights, it is very conceivable that it would have done better theatrically than Dalton’s version. There also likely would have been a different second film instead of Licence To Kill–a more traditional outing–and, with Brosnan, it probably would have done better theatrically than LTK–certainly in America. If that were the case, would MGM/UA have been up for sale in 1990? And would the buyer Kirk Kerkorian have actually tried to sell off pieces of the Bond property to make extra cash that led to the six-year legal hiatus? Maybe, maybe not. But if not, we might have actually have gotten a third Brosnan film in 1991.

Not sure any of that would have actually happened, but it is something to think about.

4 Likes
395

I like that it’s generally accepted as canon across continuation authors, too. I think being written roughly around the time of Fleming also helps the sense of authenticity.

396

Whoever is actually to “blame” for Brosnan not getting the gig in 1987, please let me extend my most sincere and heartfelt thanks to them.

Whatever films Brosnan might have ultimately made in the eighties and early nineties, and I have no doubt he would have made more than the two Dalton did, it would have most likely been a case of putting a bandaid on the wound that Bond was suffering from with the general public that was seeing diminished returns each time out. The franchise almost certainly wouldn’t be at its current financial heights, as Brosnan wouldn’t have been able to lead the comeback for Bond after more than a half decade of legal wrangling over the future of the franchise which provided Bond with its biggest shot in the arm in a long time.

3 Likes
397

…your avatar and handle did make the argument.

image

I would make the argument that Dalton had a much better post Bond career than Brosnan. Pull up his cv of even just the last 15 years and you have a list of brilliant film and tv.

4 Likes
398

Great gif.

1 Like
399

If GoldenEye had been Pierce Brosnan’s only film it probably would be regarded better as it would leave people thinking of what could have been. If only Brosnan had been able to do more he would be on the stratospheric level of Sean Connery and Roger Moore–the ideal Bonds. Now I already rank him on their level already, but I think Brosnan would be looked on even better and appreciated more by the public and Bond fans, and GoldenEye would be considered a top three Bond film. The video game no doubt has helped in GoldenEye’s estimation among the public, but even before that, the film was considered among Bond’s best films. Still, I’m glad we got four Brosnan films and wish we would have had a fifth. He deserved a fifth.

2 Likes
400

It‘s kind of like Craig being replaced after SPECTRE.

401

Have to say, I struggle to imagine whether a fifth film for Brosnan would have shown anything worthwhile. I consider his run a mostly safe, formulaic approach that didn’t have much use for boldness. The corporate Bond approach was galvanised, a square sum of DB5, Omeeegah, BMW, Brioni, Bogner spelling out 007.

In spite of a few innovative elements - M abducted, headquarter blown up, Bond taken prisoner and considered having spilled secrets - the films themselves played it safe. Which happened to be just what audiences wanted then. I’m sceptic if one more time for Brosnan would have produced a vastly different result. Brosnan’s films did what they had to do, restart the series with a number of reliably crowd pleasing productions. Relaunched it was with Craig then.

4 Likes