StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Oh for god's sake, I like the Brosnan Bond too. I like Craig best overall (because he makes the best fugging movies and has actual emotional range), but I think Brosnan fits the "Bond" look and physical presence better. Sean Connery is Sean Connery. I think I might be too young to take him entirely seriously, I just picture him harassing Alex Trebek.

The point is, everyone who's played Bond is someone's favorite Bond, so let go of Connery's cock. It's got 22078 other places to be today.

Anguirus wrote:Oh for god's sake, I like the Brosnan Bond too. I like Craig best overall (because he makes the best fugging movies and has actual emotional range), but I think Brosnan fits the "Bond" look and physical presence better. Sean Connery is Sean Connery. I think I might be too young to take him entirely seriously, I just picture him harassing Alex Trebek.

The point is, everyone who's played Bond is someone's favorite Bond, so let go of Connery's cock. It's got 22078 other places to be today.

So mocking someone for going their Bond is the true Bond because...they say so is a bad thing? I keep forgetting these things in my old age. I always thought if a person gives a reason they enjoy a particular opinion then it can be a matter of debate but if they blither their opinion with the same ability a five year declare chocolate is the best, we tended to mock them.

^ I'm honestly confused what point you're trying to make here. This entire thread is nothing but commentary on the news item, some critiques of QoS, and then random dickery back and forth.

Can I second AV here - "Brosnan better than Connery" = fruitloop alert.

I didn't mind Brosnan - he was a decent, if safe, choice. But, he was no where near the level of Connery or Dalton

Brosnan a better Bond than Connery? Fucking LOL!

This thread is not a debate thread. No one's given one goddamn reason for Connery to be grandfathered in as the greatest Bond or for any Bond actor to be superior in any objective dimension to any other Bond actor. If a debate were to start, I wouldn't be commenting on the random shouting back and forth. The point is that Bond actors are usually judged on extremely subjective terms, in my experience.

Anguirus wrote:^ I'm honestly confused what point you're trying to make here. This entire thread is nothing but commentary on the news item, some critiques of QoS, and then random dickery back and forth.

Can I second AV here - "Brosnan better than Connery" = fruitloop alert.

I didn't mind Brosnan - he was a decent, if safe, choice. But, he was no where near the level of Connery or Dalton

Brosnan a better Bond than Connery? Fucking LOL!

This thread is not a debate thread. No one's given one goddamn reason for Connery to be grandfathered in as the greatest Bond or for any Bond actor to be superior in any objective dimension to any other Bond actor. If a debate were to start, I wouldn't be commenting on the random shouting back and forth. The point is that Bond actors are usually judged on extremely subjective terms, in my experience.

Yet you're not giving any definition to those, and in fact coming after two such statements gives an appearence of what you are being condescending towards are those statements rather then the ones you just quoted. If you want to complain of cock-sucking which and who for the sake of it, it helps to point out to which items rather then laying a large blanket since you wanted to give a high horse approach to all of this.

I agree with angurius. I have seen people argue that roger moore was too old for the role, or about how dalton lacked connery's suave style. Brosnan was good in that he resembled the sean connery minus the accent. Craig is not the utter perfect individual connery and brosnan played. He's violent, moody at times, and he fucks up a lot at points (the opera scene, his tendency to kill people he needs to talk to). He's also not a total mysoginist. He does seduce chicks, but he also views them as more then sex toys (his respect for camille and the karmically appropriate retribution taken out on green by giving him only motor oil to drink). I think people wanted the utterly absolutely competant brosnan bond and didn't like a bond who was both violent and prone to making major mistakes.

Pretty bad news for the Bond franchise, it could put it on a significant hiatus similar to the ones that followed Licence to Kill and Die Another Day. Quantum of Solace was clearly not as good as Casino Royale, though I still think it gets criticized a little too heavily (especially in relation to Die Another Day). Pierce Brosnan was likable and GoldenEye spawned a great video game spin-off, but his scripts were largely mediocre (including GoldenEye's) and he was saddled with awful Bond women in his last two films (I liked Michelle Yeoh and Famke Janssen though).

Yet you're not giving any definition to those

Doing so was never my goal.

If you want to complain of cock-sucking which and who for the sake of it, it helps to point out to which items rather then laying a large blanket since you wanted to give a high horse approach to all of this.

The only thing I'm complaining about is the tone of the pro-Connery statements I quoted, as if there existed objective truth in this matter and ShadowDragon was just being stupid. Keep in mind, his least favorite Bond (who he insulted) is my favorite Bond, but if no one is going to give any detailed reasons for any of their opinions of the actors (which they haven't) then I don't mind laughing at everyone else's high horses.

As for my cock gag, it was more of a good-natured mocking of Connery than of anyone in particular, so I should have added a ";)"

Alright, let's see... What do I like about the Brosnan Bond?

I was born in 1985, so the first Bond movie I saw and really comprehended was GoldenEye. I'd seen License to Kill previously (the night before I saw GoldenEye, in fact,) but it just failed to sink in, whereas GoldenEye started with a classic; nay, timeless, Bond activity; sneaking into a Soviet chemical weapons facility. Then it spins forward to the modern day; the Soviet Union has collapsed, and Bond goes on a big romp through the remains of it, chasing a woman he saw from a spy satellite and a stolen EMP-proof helicoptor.

It was a tremendous mix of old-school that even I recognized as old-school back then, and new and modern, even if the soundtrack was more elevator music than real Bond music.


As for the character, I like the fact that the Brosnan Bond has been through the ringer so many times that he's seemingly unflappable, and he's been trained at doing so many things that he's seemingly never without a plan, even when he's been captured at gunpoint or whatever.

I like those attributes, whereas the Craig Bond is an ill-tempered, idiotic hothead who does ridiculous things like breaking into M's apartment, gunning an ultimately-unimportant man down in an embassy, and nonsense like that. I haven't even watched Quantum of Solace; Casino Royale was enough to convince me I didn't like him.

I mean, his action sequences are good, but so were Brosnan's; the difference is that when Craig Bond does an action sequence, half the time I'm cringing and thinking "how is the idiot not dead yet..."

It's...

Okay, the Brosnan Bond is Micheal Westen from Burn Notice with the addition of MI6 backing, Q-Branch gadgetry, and a healthy dose of the Stormtrooper Effect. The Craig Bond is the Brosnan Bond, minus the Micheal Westen. It's as if all there is to him is a license to kill which he doesn't really seem to have the maturity and mental faculty to excercize appropriately, gadgetry without a real brain of his own, and he gets into stupid stunts where none are really called for. He doesn't have the wit, he doesn't have the brain, and he doesn't have the charisma that I want to see from 007. Honestly, he acts like an American (I'm American; I can say that,) and an ill-tempered shitheaded one at that.

That is why I don't like the Craig Bond, and why I do like the Brosnan Bond.

Did you take into account the fact that he's basically at the start of his career in Casino Royale, unlike Brosnan's experienced, "unflappable" Bond? And that there is a chance for him to grow into that refined, suave, unflappable Bond that doesn't make mistakes and always has the right watch for the occasion?

Phantasee wrote:Did you take into account the fact that he's basically at the start of his career in Casino Royale, unlike Brosnan's experienced, "unflappable" Bond? And that there is a chance for him to grow into that refined, suave, unflappable Bond that doesn't make mistakes and always has the right watch for the occasion?

I might buy this, if they go and canonize the fact that "James Bond" is a code name given to the new 007, and either have a funeral for the Brosnan Bond, or at least have the Brosnan Bond giving pointers to the Craig Bond, or at least mention "the last 007 would never have done something ridiculous like this. You're a disgrace."

As it is, I just don't like it.

It's a complete reboot. All the Bond movies prior to Casino Royale don't exist in the new continuity. Brosnan's Bond never existed, and neither did Connery's. Are you really that dense?

Phantasee wrote:It's a complete reboot. All the Bond movies prior to Casino Royale don't exist in the new continuity. Brosnan's Bond never existed, and neither did Connery's. Are you really that dense?

No, you are.

I'm saying I don't care for it being a reboot at all. If they were making it a continuation, I might be able to choke it down, but as-is, I find it to be crap.

Shadow, a reboot is functionally identical to a "Hey, this is the new trainee Bond." They have the exact same consequences. Either way, you get a Bond who is new to the whole "suave charismatic assassin who can infiltrate anything from high society to an Afghan warlord's camp." At this point, all he's really got the hang of is "assassin."

There are a lot of aspects to the Bond character, so there are a lot of different ways to present him. Just out of curiosity, why do you consider Brosnan's portrayal to be superior to Connery's, when Connery is classically thought to be the best?

Simon_Jester wrote:Shadow, a reboot is functionally identical to a "Hey, this is the new trainee Bond." They have the exact same consequences. Either way, you get a Bond who is new to the whole "suave charismatic assassin who can infiltrate anything from high society to an Afghan warlord's camp." At this point, all he's really got the hang of is "assassin."

Except it isn't. It just isn't; it's not identical, it just snips off what I felt was the best chapters of Bond, without so much as a fare-thee-well. It also doesn't help that, while they've replaced a lot of Bonds, they've only had two Qs and three Ms, and they often outlast their Bonds...

There are a lot of aspects to the Bond character, so there are a lot of different ways to present him. Just out of curiosity, why do you consider Brosnan's portrayal to be superior to Connery's, when Connery is classically thought to be the best?

Perhaps because the first real Connery epic I internalized was as the Russian submarine commander in The Hunt for Red October. Connery is great, don't get me wrong, I just can't see him as James Bond; as a nobleman, sure. As Indiana Jones's father, absolutely. As Alan Quatremain, without a problem. It's just a bit hard for me to really see him as James Bond, whereas honestly, I think the Brosnan "Bond. James Bond." is simply definitive.

I don't know, my favorite pet theory is that they used 1950's superscience to overwrite James Bond on the mind of each new agent that picks up the 007 moniker, and once one retires or dies, they copy what's left and overwrite it on the next guy. It explains the difference in demeanor for each one, in the end.

Best way to explain Casino Royale is that, perhaps, Craig's Bond is the first one. Or perhaps the mind-wipe wasn't as effective as intended and a lot more of the original personality bled through than it normally should.

I think "James Bond is a codename used by multiple agents" is good enough by itself. The reason there's so much commonality of personality is that it's assigned to agents with basically similar personality profiles and background each time: Bond needs to be the kind of man who can beat a guy at poker, sleep with his girlfriend, and kill him in a knife fight all in the same evening. And then get up and do it all over again tomorrow.

While being able to do a personality overwrite is desirable, I'm not sure it's necessary.

ShadowDragon8685 wrote: As for the character, I like the fact that the Brosnan Bond has been through the ringer so many times that he's seemingly unflappable, and he's been trained at doing so many things that he's seemingly never without a plan, even when he's been captured at gunpoint or whatever.

I like those attributes, whereas the Craig Bond is an ill-tempered, idiotic hothead who does ridiculous things like breaking into M's apartment, gunning an ultimately-unimportant man down in an embassy, and nonsense like that. I haven't even watched Quantum of Solace; Casino Royale was enough to convince me I didn't like him.

That's because Brosnan Bond is a living,breathing, walking bullshit spy cliche whereas Craig Bond is an attempt at characterizing a semi-believable Bond as a semi-realistic assassin working in the MI6 and doing semi-not-stupid missions involving somewhat-credible villainous schemes as opposed to driving tanks around Leningrad while Caucasianificated North Koreans shoot solar death rays at China so newspaper moguls can make more money of selling stories about daddy-complex villainess whoresluts fight-fucking and Onatop leg-squeezing unfeeling-terrorist shits in invisible cars driving around ice fortresses with EMP swordfights and Eurocopter Madonna cameos.

I mean, his action sequences are good, but so were Brosnan's; the difference is that when Craig Bond does an action sequence, half the time I'm cringing and thinking "how is the idiot not dead yet..."

Like when Bond's evaded the entire Red Army, steals a battle tank and idiotically drives it around Leningrad? Or when he's riding some jet-propelled ice car to evade the solar orbital death ray that's being controlled by a North Korean general who went to Micheal Jackson's surgeon to Caucasianificiate his face so he can restart the Korean War? Or when he rides a moped to avoid getting mince-meated by a helicopter owned by a media mogul who wants to provoke war between China and Britain so he can sell more newspapers?

Man. I don't know about Craig Bond, but "how is that idiot not dead yet..." is certainly a question I'd ask when watching the Brosnan Bond movies. Maybe not to Brosnan Bond himself, but to everyone else involved in those movies...

It's...

Okay, the Brosnan Bond is Micheal Westen from Burn Notice with the addition of MI6 backing, Q-Branch gadgetry, and a healthy dose of the Stormtrooper Effect. The Craig Bond is the Brosnan Bond, minus the Micheal Westen. It's as if all there is to him is a license to kill which he doesn't really seem to have the maturity and mental faculty to excercize appropriately, gadgetry without a real brain of his own, and he gets into stupid stunts where none are really called for. He doesn't have the wit, he doesn't have the brain, and he doesn't have the charisma that I want to see from 007. Honestly, he acts like an American (I'm American; I can say that,) and an ill-tempered shitheaded one at that.

That is why I don't like the Craig Bond, and why I do like the Brosnan Bond.

So... you're saying that if you give Craig Bond some bullshit special effects action scenes, a tank to drive around Leningrad on, some bullshit gadgets like a truth-serum equipped dildo to help him seduce whores better, and some contrived plot story involving Caucasianificated North Korean generals or media moguls who want to provoke war between China and the UK to sell more stories as villains... because these utterly stupid characters totally made Brosnan Bond look cleverer... then Craig Bond would be totally fine, yeah? Just ditch the whole emotional angst and drama and whatever involving Craig Bond's initiation into the world of a 00, fuck off the characterization, replace Eva Green as a totally functional and decent Bond girl and swap her with some vapid whore with a sexual-innuendo name just for the sole purposes of eyecandy and fucking, maybe add some Famke Xenia Onatopp for some sexy fight-fucking scenes and leggy-novelty deaths, make Bond mouth off some more innuendos himself and partake in some bullshit plot, and yeah have him do this "unflippantly" or whatever, and viola! Perfect Bond movie!

Personally I'd prefer ditching the tank through Leningrad and replacing it with laser-armed space shuttle attacking a laser-armed space station with laser-armed astronauts having a laser-armed firefight, with JAWS and some dorky bespectacled cute chick hanging around the space station module, and some awesome laser-armed space shuttle space chasing after a canister of space nerve gas! With a laser-armed Moore Bond and a laser-armed Bond girl! FRICKIN' LASERS!

This is why Moore beats the fuck out of Brosnan Bond easily. Moore is the Bond Brosnan so badly wants to be! But all the stupid special effects and dumb plot can't help Brosnan match Moore's LASER-ARMS and OCTOPUSSIES! Oh man, Moore!

Shroom Man 777 wrote:That's because Brosnan Bond is a living,breathing, walking bullshit spy cliche whereas Craig Bond is an attempt at characterizing a semi-believable Bond as a semi-realistic assassin working in the MI6 and doing semi-not-stupid missions involving somewhat-credible villainous schemes as opposed to driving tanks around Leningrad while Caucasianificated North Koreans shoot solar death rays at China so newspaper moguls can make more money of selling stories about daddy-complex villainess whoresluts fight-fucking and Onatop leg-squeezing unfeeling-terrorist shits in invisible cars driving around ice fortresses with EMP swordfights and Eurocopter Madonna cameos.

Nice pastiche, Shroomy, you're in rare form today.

On the other hand, Bond was always a living, breathing, walking bullshit spy cliche. The cliche is "spies are like James Bond" for a reason; James Bond is much cooler than real spies. Brosnan did a very good job of being that cool, at the expense of plausibility. Moore had problems with this too.

Personally I'd prefer ditching the tank through Leningrad and replacing it with laser-armed space shuttle attacking a laser-armed space station with laser-armed astronauts having a laser-armed firefight, with JAWS and some dorky bespectacled cute chick hanging around the space station module, and some awesome laser-armed space shuttle space chasing after a canister of space nerve gas! With a laser-armed Moore Bond and a laser-armed Bond girl! FRICKIN' LASERS!

This is why Moore beats the fuck out of Brosnan Bond easily. Moore is the Bond Brosnan so badly wants to be! But all the stupid special effects and dumb plot can't help Brosnan match Moore's LASER-ARMS and OCTOPUSSIES! Oh man, Moore!

Brosnan is kind of a toned-down Moore. To you, that's probably bad, because you favor toning everything up as much as possible, then cranking the dial to eleven on a scale of one to ten and snapping off the controls. But there are reasonable people who liked a little of Moore (the gadgets, the weirdness)... but didn't want it to be quite so comedic or disco-riddled.

Simon_Jester wrote:]Nice pastiche, Shroomy, you're in rare form today.

Thank you. I just woke up in the afternoon and ShadowDragon's thinggy was the first thing I decided to rib because, man, Brosnan Bond is ridiculous!

On the other hand, Bond was always a living, breathing, walking bullshit spy cliche. The cliche is "spies are like James Bond" for a reason; James Bond is much cooler than real spies. Brosnan did a very good job of being that cool, at the expense of plausibility. Moore had problems with this too.

Was this the case even with the Connery Bonds (that I haven't seen much of)? If that's the case, then maybe Craig Bond does suffer from being NOT a living, breathing walking bullshit spy cliche. But I still think that despite being a brutal murderkillfuckmachine, Craig Bond still had an element of suaveness to him - because, face it, Daniel Craig is a smooth actor (even in Munich, where they DID bleed a whore's breasts with BLOOD FROM THE MILKBAGS!) - and despite all the toned down "realistic" grimdarkgrittygrim approach, we still get some high-falooting fancy-shamncy scenes. Deciding the fate of global terrorism on a high-stakes poker game? Fancy European scenery? Yes, there's less stupid-ass explosions and SFX, and more shooting people in the face. But I for one enjoyed the characterization of Bond in Casino Royale and how it made him human, as opposed to a living, breathing, walking bullshit spy cliche. And, fuck it, it was totally NOT Bourne-shtick either. Bourne is totally different.

Brosnan is kind of a toned-down Moore. To you, that's probably bad, because you favor toning everything up as much as possible, then cranking the dial to eleven on a scale of one to ten and snapping off the controls. But there are reasonable people who liked a little of Moore (the gadgets, the weirdness)... but didn't want it to be quite so comedic or disco-riddled.

Octopussy is one of the greatest Bond films ever! James Bond in a gorilla suit! And THEN James Bond in a clown suit, defusing a nuclear bomb in West Germany! Oh man! And James Bond swinging from tree to tree while hollering like fucking Tarzan! And ANGRY INDIANS with stupid-looking blunderblusses! RUPEEES! Everyone has GOT to watch Octopussy!

To be fair, Brosnan isn't actually bad-bad. It's just ridiculous nonsense that's totally fun to watch, but doesn't really make it a "good" good movie. Casino Royale, with the characterization and the Craig-acting and stuff, was pretty good. Brosnan Bonds are more into the mindless ridiculous explosion-fests, but with more suave and sexual innuendo and tuxedos rather than oiled up naked men wrestling each other (ala the 80s), but pretty much in the same category. Well, if that's what folks like and what ShadowDragons like, no problem - I can certainly relate, since I like mindless ridiculous explosion-fests, both with suave sexual-innuendo tuxedos AND oiled up naked men wrestling each other ala the 80s.

Thinking about it, man. Brosnan Bond isn't that much different from any other bullshit 80s-style action movie. Man!

Oh, man. Now that reminds me! Of another, even AWESOMER, living, breathing, walking bullshit spy cliche!

TRUE LIES!

The last movie James Cameron made before he hit menopause!

I don't understand how Bond being different is somehow MORE acceptable if it is a continuation instead of a reboot. It being a reboot instantly means comparisons are WORTHLESS.

Frankly, I find anyone who automatically prefers the first version of something they ever saw tragic. There's this 'learning' thing people do with new ideas.

How can it be a reboot anyway? None of the Bond movies in the Brosnan films ever seemed to have anything to do with each other.

You could say that people complaining that 007 must be a 'code name' for different people over time when the franchise is based on FORTY YEARS and HALF A DOZEN DIFFERENT GUYS going from camp slapstick to gritty thriller to cartoon techno nonsense. But that was al REALLY the same person, you have to suspend disbelief!

Craig is clearly totally different and irreconcilable, and how DARE they?!

Clearly James Bond is merely a movie franchise with different actors portraying 007, and with various movies done by various casts and crews and different directors at the behest of the MGM studio over a period of decades, accumulating nearly two dozen movies, done in different eras with different styles and so on and so forth, becoming over time a beloved series not only to the British but also to a worldwide audience for its now genre-standard depictions of popular spy fiction. am i rite STRAK?

To me the 'code name' theory just flat out doesn't work because there are some continuity issues, the main and most obvious one being that Bond married Teresa di Vicenzo AKA Tracy Bond in On Her Majestys Secret Service when played by Lazenby. Moore visits her graveside in For Your Eyes Only, and its mentioned in Licence to Kill (Dalton) at Leiters wedding that he was married and it ended badly.

The only codename idea I'd subscribe to is M and Q.

Or for those that are pushing the Codename theory are you going to say the same about Felix Leiter as he has been portrayed by seven actors onscreen.

The simple thing is that you're not meant to overanalyse things. The only codename is 007. I believe there have been other 00's that have been used multiple times, though I'm not sure about that.

Connery's Bond is good, but the cliche really started with him. Take Thunderball for instance, in the book Bond is told to go to the Bahamas by M who has a theory that he wants Bond to check out, in the movie M's about to send him to Canada when he requests to go to the Bahamas because he sees that the pilots sister is in the Bahamas. Book Bond is an assassin who is extremely lucky, getting clues almost handed to him, while Movie Bond always figures out everything himself with almost no help from his allies.

Jade Falcon wrote: The only codename is 007. I believe there have been other 00's that have been used multiple times, though I'm not sure about that.

Both the books and the movies have multiple 00's, AFAIK the only canonical evidence for the codename theory is Lazenby's quip at the beginning of OHMSS.