Deathmatch 2023 - Sideswipes

Special Interest Games
548

Despite enjoying Brosnan as Bond and recognizing his box office appeal during a critical phase, I spontaneously thought Binder´s designs were more important, at least during the first 10-12 years.

Then I accidentally/stupidly hit the wrong vote button.

But afterwards I do feel comfortable with that mistaken choice, too. Binder was not the only main title designer during that time coming up with great ideas. And quite frankly, after LALD I thought he repeated himself - more than the films repeated themselves.

549

Ah… now I understand the question. Thanks.
By the way you can undo your answer and vote again.

I also choose Binder, because his last title designs I didn’t thought were as good as the ones from the sixties and seventies. The last one I realy like is the one from Eyes Only.

For me Brosnan’s performance as Bond improved per film, which says nothing about the quality of the films themselves.

1 Like
550

It’s a vote out, rather than a vote for.

1 Like
551

This is hard for me, but…

When Brosnan took over as Bond, the Franchise had an uncertain future, after a 3 year hiatus, legal battles and the last Bond film that performed poorly in the box office (LTK), I do say that Brosnan’s casting was a miracle really.

He’s popular at the time and people do know him and were familiar with him.

Goldeneye as a film and the direction they’ve took at the time was really a gamble, it’s a risk they’ve taken, so, their only hope lies on Brosnan, because there’s no assurance that these films would become successful, so they need to rely on Brosnan, no one knew at the time that these films would’ve became successful, thanks to Brosnan, he’d carried it.

Is it on the film? No, the direction? No, because both of those are a gamble that the Franchise had no assurance of gaining success.

The success of the Franchise at the time was on Brosnan, he’s the success, his casting made the might’ve been the impossible, possible.

Are there any actors at the time who could’ve saved the Franchise if Brosnan wasn’t cast? I doubt it, that’s why I’m keep telling that Dalton continuing in the 90’s would’ve probably killed the Franchise (especially with his previous outing failed at the box office), and add to that was the people not liking his Bond wouldn’t probably helped either (I don’t think Dalton’s iteration of Bond would’ve lasted for as long as how many years Brosnan lasted into the role, if we’re talking the popularity, and I don’t also think that Dalton’s version of Bond would’ve survived the 90’s either, the Franchise needs a new Bond that would’ve fit for the new era), so it’s kinda blessing in disguise that he walked away from the role.

I think Brosnan was the right man at the time, he, along with Campbell, reivented Bond for the modern audiences, when at the time, there’s a belief that Bond was already outdated, as Judi Dench’s said: “A Relic of Cold War”, that a character like Bond wouldn’t have fit into the modern world, but Brosnan and the entries that he’d starred in (despite or regardless of the quality) debunked that common belief and proved that Bond could survive into the 90’s.

Brosnan’s Bond fit into the modern world of 90’s, just like how Craig fit into the 2000’s, and so on.

On the other hand, nothing much to be said of Binder, really, I admire the man’s work, I do, but he’s not that particularly big when it comes to his contribution, I mean compared to John Barry, where the sounds and scores are essentially an aspect of a Bond film, and what many people are also looking into, with Binder, I don’t think many people cared about his outputs, let’s admit it, when we’re reviewing a Bond film, one of the things that we tend to overlook are the title sequences, they’re not even a part of the majority of the criterias when looking into the quality of a Bond film, it makes for things: (Cast/Acting, Bond, Villain, Bond Girl, Score, Cinematography, Plot, Story/Script, the dialogues, and directing), but the title sequences is not always a part of that, because it’s not what makes a Bond film, that’s the truth for most in the Bond Fandom.

I appreciate Binder and his efforts, but his contribution was not that much essential compared to how Brosnan made the Franchise survived into the modern era.

So, I’m voting out Binder, Brosnan needs to remain.

2 Likes
552

Binder’s approach to the titles is as iconic as any other element in the series. He created a whole visual language for “spy film titles” that continues to this day. I can’t count how many films I’ve seen that have echoed his approach but the most recent was the (lame) “Heart of Stone” with Gal Gadot which I think was made this very year. Everyone knows what a Bond title sequence looks like – and when it’s being ripped off – even if they don’t know Binder by name. I’ll concede that towards the end of his run it felt like even he was working from a “what Bond titles look like” instruction manual rather than any real inspiration or enthusiasm, but the importance of his overall contribution remains.

Brozza’s run was occasionally fun but for me hardly indispensable. Thus, I’m dispensing with it.

2 Likes
553

This one is a lot tougher than I originally had thought.

For me, Binder last “original” was TSWLM - every one since felt like a facsimile of the one before, but like a copy, losing sharpness and clarity with each reproduction.

But then Brozza…who surpassed my expectations with GE, and as I’ve said was often the best part of the films he was in. Which says something about those films, I suppose, as tenures evolve to reflect the strengths of their lead.

I’m binning Binder. Brozza’s tenure was successful enough in resurrecting (slightly too strong a word perhaps) the franchise and for allowing for what followed, and while that tenure on its own is artistically unremarkable, it’s very presence is its innate value.

4 Likes
554

Binder did create the gunbarrel sequence… so bye bye Pierce for me.

2 Likes
555

Honest question: Did he come up with that or did he “just” do what EON told him to do?

1 Like
556

It’s a question that people here thought Moore was an important Bond and even binned Harry Saltzman in favor of Moore.

But Brosnan was also an important Bond, especially coming after the 3 year hiatus, legal battles, and the box office failure of LTK which caused a financial shortage in the Franchise at the time, but Brosnan did a lot more than what Moore did in 1973 (well, because DAF before him was successful), but Brosnan was given a hard task to deal of how to revive the Franchise after its long sleep and to also introduce Bond (whom believed to be outdated) to the modern audiences.

Yet many people here are binning Brosnan in favor of Binder (whom, for me wasn’t as much as important as Harry Saltzman, whom these people binned before).

This binpolling is really driving me crazy now, @Jim

Possibly the latter, it’s not like Monty Norman composing the Bond theme by his own idea (due to him getting that idea from a tone of a song that I’ve forgotten too).

557

Well, ultimately it’s all opinion and as I noted upthread, the real revelation at the end of it all may be a better understanding of how much this community leans toward the Cubby era as opposed to the Barbara one.

That said, earlier in this thread, you suggested Roger’s Bond success was mostly (or entirely) based on his pre-existing fame and that any famous face could’ve done as well as he did. If that criticism doesn’t apply equally to Pierce Brosnan, I’m not sure what would.

2 Likes
558

I love these tough eliminations.

Cuts right down to what one really wants from these films.

1 Like
559

Try thinking them up, my lovey.

Wait until you see tomorrow’s.

4 Likes
560

It’s like “Squid Game” without the money.

2 Likes
561

What’s saving me is thinking about it not so much as “who do I like better” as “who’s absence breaks the whole thing?”

Certain contributors basically DEFINED movie Bond and without them it’s not Bond any more. Others may have made some fun additions, added some cool twists or kept the ball rolling, but in the end their absence wouldn’t have undone the whole ball of yarn. Brosnan, for instance, was a good caretaker of the series but he didn’t invent it.

Of course then you throw in something like Harry vs Roger and it basically boils down to, “Wanna save Abe Lincoln? Easy; just shoot your puppy.” Curse you. I had to abstain from that one, but otherwise I’m getting depressingly good at turning off my humanity and getting in touch with my inner Putin.

1 Like
562

In the early days of this site of web, the latter view - that he did - did seem to have traction.

I have probably enough of these left for the end of the month; I think. It might come down to Double-taking pigeon vs. Surprised drunk, however.

2 Likes
563

That’s a good question

564

Noooo! That one’s impossible! Have you no heart?

Here’s some references on the subject:

"Our brief to Maurice was to capture the essence of Bond’s – the so called “sex and death” – persona in the few brief seconds of the title logo. I remember we gave him about 15 minutes to come up with the idea before calling him into a production meeting."

  • Cubby Broccoli, When the Snow Melts, 1998

"What happened was I had a meeting with the producers at 11 o’clock, so at 9 o’clock I had to do a storyboard for Dr No. I didn’t know what I was going to do, but I did like the idea of gunshots across the screen, so I felt that if we had gunshots, maybe we should have a gunbarrel…I had price tags (you know, those little white sticky things that stick down?) and I stuck them down fast – bang, bang, bang – and I drew a circle for the gun."

  • Maurice Binder lecture: Museum of Modern Art, New York, June 30, 1979

Apparently the circles in DN served a double duty as “bullet holes” and “computer lights” to bring together the elements of “high tech” and danger in the film. And it went over well enough that they just repeated the gunbarrel part for the sequels, dropping the “computer lights.”

Anyway, the implication seems to be that Eon’s input didn’t go further than “come up with something cool,” so I’m giving this one to Maurice.

4 Likes
565

Then I must keep Binder from the bin.

1 Like
566

Aai! I completely forgot about “the gunbarrel”! Only thought about the titles designing of Binder.
I changed my mind and went for Brosnan out!

567

When thinking about the question, I forgot the gun barrel too, and that is VERY significant. However, Robert Brownjohn followed Maurice Binder’s Dr. No with two important and innovative main titles sequences before Binder really got going with them starting with Thunderball.

Meanwhile, without Pierce Brosnan and his VERY successful turn as James Bond after a prolonged series hiatus, we very well may not have the 007 series continuing today. So while Binder’s gun barrel IS iconic and his contribution IS important, I have to lean toward the man on the screen who saved and revitalized the series, so Brosnan stays and Binder unfortunately and cruelly goes.

3 Likes