Oh, I just realised that you are from Scotland (like me)! ) Apologies, for some reason I assumed that it was in response to an American member. I think you are right that the picture will go straight to DVD here, although I do recall seeing an advert for it while at the cinema a while ago, unless I am completely mistaken. A cursory look at IMDB suggests that it will be released in some other places later this year (April through June).
All this talk of Brosnan's other films makes me want to watch The Tailor of Panama again. Or The Thomas Crown Affair, which I neglected to mention previously; a very entertaining film with a strong performance from Brosnan (with the exception of the horrendous Glasgow accent on the plane at the end).
{[] I was a bit baffled by that. I thought you were seriously giving me a row for not crossing the Atlantic to see a movie. )
Agree about 'The Thomas Crown Affair.' Brosnan's best film IMO. But that Glasgow accent is a bit more 'Donald, Where's yer troosers,' than 'Taggart.' Terrible attempt. John McTiernan seems to delight in giving Brosnan a stupid accent. I saw 'Nomads,' an 80's film they made together and Pierce is playing a Frenchman and giving it the full Inspector Clouseau. )
John McTiernan seems to delight in giving Brosnan a stupid accent. I saw 'Nomads,' an 80's film they made together and Pierce is playing a Frenchman and giving it the full Inspector Clouseau. )
After listening to various actors make complete idiots of themselves, there's a lot be said about the Sean Connery approach to accents .... )
Unfortunately what was an interesting discussion has been taken wildly off topic, something I thought would end once the film had been released. I dislike seeing one member being browbeaten for expressing a perfectly legitimate opinion; surely we can take one another to task without becoming personally insulting?
Been the case around here at times: express an unpopular (particularly anti-Brosnan) opinion, get personally attacked. Hilly, not sure where I attacked anybody's motivations in my last post (not the one in response to supes, I admit I got ungraciously defensive in that post, apologies, you're absolutely right it is old and dull), and holy crimeny Monique what's arrogant about having an opinion??? I think it's pretty fair (to say the least) to point out there's less Fleming in most of Glen era Bond, or Brosnan era Bond, than in CR. And that I prefer the latter, and consider the less-Fleming Bond films as lesser Bonds, precisely because of the less-Fleming part. I realize Moore/Brosnan Bond is the bees knees for some, just talking about what I consider Bond, on a Bond fan forum. Not seeing the arrogance in liking more Fleming in my cinematic Bond. Or lamenting a fan base that initially blasted (to put it kindly) the Craig casting when he's proven to be a popular (going on box office) and successful (critically) and very Fleming (IMHO) Bond. I am seeing a big difference in what folks see and like in their Bond, and think that's pretty okay. Believe me, I get the appeal of the whole TSWLM-style Bond that's been developed and refined over the decades, it can be very entertaining when done well, it doesn't rely on too much Fleming, and it's very graceful and fun and light and provides one with a couple hours of delightful escapism. And I don't mind typing all that, just find it odd that other perfectly reasonable and valid opinions can't be expressed without any personal backlash coming into play. Hopefully, it's okay to debate all this Bond stuff, on a Bond forum, and leave out what we think of each other's character.
(with the exception of the horrendous Glasgow accent on the plane at the end).
I remember the collective groan and shudder, and much reaching for the popcorn buckets to vomit in, when I saw that in the Odeon Springfield Quay. )
I hasten to ask what your reaction was to Harrison Ford's bizarre attempt in 'Last Crusade'! And to think that Sean Connery couldn't have been far away...
Isn't the point that another member said he was looking forward to watching Seraphim Falls, even though it has already been released in cinemas (at the end of January I believe)? Moreover, did the picture get good reviews?
Uh no...the point was that he said it came and went, when some US cities aren't getting it until April. Regardless of you trying to point out a negative one of the film, reviews of Pierce's performance weren't mixed. They were great, even in most of the negative or lukewarm reviews. But thanks for yet again, being a staunch watch guard on everything I say.
Unfortunately what was an interesting discussion has been taken wildly off topic, something I thought would end once the film had been released. I dislike seeing one member being browbeaten for expressing a perfectly legitimate opinion; surely we can take one another to task without becoming personally insulting?
Been the case around here at times: express an unpopular (particularly anti-Brosnan) opinion, get personally attacked. Hilly, not sure where I attacked anybody's motivations in my last post (not the one in response to supes, I admit I got ungraciously defensive in that post, apologies, you're absolutely right it is old and dull), and holy crimeny Monique what's arrogant about having an opinion??? I think it's pretty fair (to say the least) to point out there's less Fleming in most of Glen era Bond, or Brosnan era Bond, than in CR. And that I prefer the latter, and consider the less-Fleming Bond films as lesser Bonds, precisely because of the less-Fleming part. I realize Moore/Brosnan Bond is the bees knees for some, just talking about what I consider Bond, on a Bond fan forum. Not seeing the arrogance in liking more Fleming in my cinematic Bond. Or lamenting a fan base that initially blasted (to put it kindly) the Craig casting when he's proven to be a popular (going on box office) and successful (critically) and very Fleming (IMHO) Bond. I am seeing a big difference in what folks see and like in their Bond, and think that's pretty okay. Believe me, I get the appeal of the whole TSWLM-style Bond that's been developed and refined over the decades, it can be very entertaining when done well, it doesn't rely on too much Fleming, and it's very graceful and fun and light and provides one with a couple hours of delightful escapism. And I don't mind typing all that, just find it odd that other perfectly reasonable and valid opinions can't be expressed without any personal backlash coming into play. Hopefully, it's okay to debate all this Bond stuff, on a Bond forum, and leave out what we think of each other's character.
blueman, I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. I happen to share your love of Craig's performance and certainly feel that his film is far superior to any of Brosnan's films. How much of that is due to performance as the character, to raw acting ability, to script, to direction, to editing, or to shoe size for that matter, is beyond my powers of observation. In my opinion, threads like this start to run off the rails when people assert too strongly that one of these (or other) factors is basically the sole reason for something being "better" that something else. We're all guilty of that from time to time. I am with Fish1941 100% on this subject of actor vs. actor. The debate is silly, too often mean-spirited and oh so been-there-done-that.
Threads like this definitely run off the rails (for me at least) when they turn into long-winded unintelligible debates on personal motivations -- debates that tend to dredge up some old dispute from a thread long ago. Honestly, I have reread the posts over and over, but I still don't know WTF you and supes were talking about -- you guys are so far over my head you're in the stratosphere. This started as a simple question -- Brosnan or Craig. How did it morph into a thread with multi-paragraph responses and nested quotes galore (which I of course am perpetuating)?
Finally, blue, methinks you doth protest too much. You're way too smart to expect that the old "I'm a persecuted minority, woe is me!" dodge will sway an intelligent audience. You're not being castigated for having an opinion -- you're being castigated for the way you express it. Surely you don't expect to use terms like "blatant forgeries" and not get at least some annoyed responses. Are there some folks on this board who seem like charter members of the Defend Pierce Club? Yes there are, so why do you seem so surprised when they respond heatedly to your posts?
I suppose the easy solution for me would be not to read these threads and certainly not to respond to them. I apologize for my lack of resolve in this regard. I am cranky as hell today, and there are probably people far more deserving of my ****iness than you and the others on the board.
Yeah, me and supes, what a wacky pair, I don't even know what we're going on about sometimes, lol.
Guess I don't see anything wrong with some people not seeing this Bond as Bond, some people not seeing that Bond as Bond. And, it's what this thread is about, right? One versus the other. I think there are valid points to be made on both sides, if Craig doesn't look enough like Bond for somebody (too short, blond, stocky), fine. If he's too ugly, that's a different opinion and one to counter IMO. I generally don't have issue with the former (see my massive lack of replies on the subject of late to Dan Same, Arthur Pringle, Barry Nelson who all have a very different opinion than mine and who all post quite a bit about it--to usually deafening silence from me). To my amatuer eye, Brosnan's acting left a lot to be desired, and was a big part of my not liking him as Bond. So I post on that. No biggee, and if somebody thinks he's the greatest actor since acting was invented, fine. Craig OTOH is nails as an actor, and a big reason why he works so well as Bond IMO. But he can just as much a forgery to somebody else as Moore/Brosnan are to me, for the above reasons. As you say, it's not what one expresses but how.
Sorry my debating skills have put you off, I do tend to get hung up on form. But it is hard to not think of Craig's Bond in comparison to past Bonds, especially the guy he replaced, and make assessments that don't jive with somebody else's assessments.
Finally, blue, methinks you doth protest too much. You're way too smart to expect that the old "I'm a persecuted minority, woe is me!" dodge will sway an intelligent audience. You're not being castigated for having an opinion -- you're being castigated for the way you express it. Surely you don't expect to use terms like "blatant forgeries" and not get at least some annoyed responses. Are there some folks on this board who seem like charter members of the Defend Pierce Club? Yes there are, so why do you seem so surprised when they respond heatedly to your posts?
Very well said Sir Hilly! That is exactly what I meant, you just expressed it far better than me.
As Mo said, Seraphim Falls has been distributed oddly, which many independant films are. But, to say it has come and gone, would be wrong. As for reviews, here is one from Ebert and Roeper (without the ailing Ebert). Take note of Roepers comment concerning Brosnan's performance. It's a video so I hope it plays for everyone. The movie also won some award at the Toronto film fest. It is on DVD May 15th.
Edit - OK i just tested the link and it defaults to the Ebert and Roeper welcome page. To see the Seraphim falls review click on Archive reviews which is on the lower left hand side. An alphabetical list will pop up, under S you will find Seraphim Falls.
Are there some folks on this board who seem like charter members of the Defend Pierce Club? Yes there are, so why do you seem so surprised when they respond heatedly to your posts?
Surely this is more a problem of the 'Defend Pierce Club' members than anyone else. If these people insist upon responding in a personally insulting manner that reflects on them, not anyone else.
I just cannot see the difficulty in disagreeing agreeably. One member stated his *opinion* that certain Bonds were 'obvious forgeries'. Fair enough. Why do some people find that so dreadful? Why do people care enough to get all excited at someone conveying an opinion contrary to their own? I disagree vehemently with some opinions on Craig *and* the way in which those opinions are expressed (often expressed in a way I think unfortunate at best), and I may perhaps post my disagreement. However, I would not accuse the holder of that opinion as being arrogant / not a Bond fan / the spawn of Satan. For instance, some may think Craig's Bond is a working-class slob. Again, fair enough. I may think those people are talking cobblers, but I don't feel the need to start insulting them as people.
I share the lamentation at threads that end up deep discussions referring to fallings out in other threads from months ago. I also lament a member being harried on the basis of a perfectly justifiable opinion, even if some (for whatever reason) object to the manner in which it was expressed. Had the opinion been based on Mr Brosnan as a person I could sort of understand. As it is, I think some people take all this a bit too seriously. After all, this is about a fictional character and actors whom we do not know. It is all just a bit of a laugh.
Then again, this is the internet...
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,989Quartermasters
edited March 2007
I haven't yet seen Seraphim Falls...but I'm looking forward to it. I love The Matador...really enjoyed Thomas Crown, Tailor of Panama---even After the Sunset---and look forward to Topkapi.
Saint Pierce, The Martyr*, was a fine Bond, my third favourite overall (I'm a big fan of vanilla ice cream as well), and I wish him great success in his post-Bond years, {[] but I'm happy with the current state of 007 affairs :007)
* I figure if poor Danny has to be a 'thug' and a 'slob,' the least we can do is canonize the Brozzer B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Are there some folks on this board who seem like charter members of the Defend Pierce Club? Yes there are, so why do you seem so surprised when they respond heatedly to your posts?
Surely this is more a problem of the 'Defend Pierce Club' members than anyone else. If these people insist upon responding in a personally insulting manner that reflects on them, not anyone else.
I just cannot see the difficulty in disagreeing agreeably. One member stated his *opinion* that certain Bonds were 'obvious forgeries'. Fair enough. Why do some people find that so dreadful? Why do people care enough to get all excited at someone conveying an opinion contrary to their own? I disagree vehemently with some opinions on Craig *and* the way in which those opinions are expressed (often expressed in a way I think unfortunate at best), and I may perhaps post my disagreement. However, I would not accuse the holder of that opinion as being arrogant / not a Bond fan / the spawn of Satan. For instance, some may think Craig's Bond is a working-class slob. Again, fair enough. I may think those people are talking cobblers, but I don't feel the need to start insulting them as people.
I share the lamentation at threads that end up deep discussions referring to fallings out in other threads from months ago. I also lament at a member being harried on the basis of a perfectly justifiable opinion, even if some (for whatever reason) object to the manner in which it was expressed. Had the opinion been based on Mr Brosnan as a person I could sort of understand. As it is, I think some people take all this a bit too seriously. After all, this is about a fictional character and actors whom we do not know. It is all just a bit of a laugh.
Then again, this is the internet...
You seem willing to defend the poster of the comment which precipitated a couple vehement responses, yet you want to chastise the responses. Seems to me, if you wish to defend the right for Blueman to make his comments, which I believe were meant to illicite a response, then you also need to defend those that respond. A remark labeling certain Bonds "obvious forgeries" is going to generate a response. Mo responded and I will defend her right to respond.
I have been around long enough to know that Blueman is a smart guy and he knew when he made that remark that is was going to get a response. I thought Mo's response was proper and within bounds. Just my opinion.
I love The Matador, really enjoyed Thomas Crown and look forward to Topkapi.
I look forward to Topkapi to see what they do with the source material. As I mentioned previously, I thoroughly enjoyed The Thomas Crown Affair as a film and Brosnan's performance in it, so I hope this sequel matches the entertainment of the 1999 picture.
Incidentally, I recently saw The Fourth Protocol. I had some issues with the film but thought that both Caine and Brosnan delivered fine performances.
. . . you want to chastise the responses. Seems to me, if you wish to defend the right for Blueman to make his comments, which I believe were meant to illicite a response, then you also need to defend those that respond. A remark labeling certain Bonds "obvious forgeries" is going to generate a response. Mo responded and I will defend her right to respond.
I have been around long enough to know that Blueman is a smart guy and he knew when he made that remark that is was going to get a response. I thought Mo's response was proper and within bounds. Just my opinion.
Fair enough. My opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
I feel that certain responses were ludicrous, aggressive and personally insulting considering that this is all over a *fictional character*. Even if you do think someone is trying to wind you up (which is debatable in the extreme), why allow yourself to get wound up to that extent? I just wish it was possible to debate and discuss points without resorting to the old "you're arrogant", "you're passive-aggressive" and a multitude of other silly things.
Some people dislike Brosnan's Bond. This might be hard to accept but it is just a fact of life. If, for whatever absurd reason, someone finds this intolerable, or the manner that disliking has been expressed intolerable, why not ignore it? That would certainly save all this guff.
On topic, as I say I far prefer Daniel Craig as an actor and Craig's approach to the role. Nevertheless, I rather enjoyed aspects of Brosnan's performances as Bond as well as several of his non-Bond performances.
I love The Matador, really enjoyed Thomas Crown and look forward to Topkapi.
I look forward to Topkapi to see what they do with the source material. As I mentioned previously, I thoroughly enjoyed The Thomas Crown Affair as a film and Brosnan's performance in it, so I hope this sequel matches the entertainment of the 1999 picture.
Incidentally, I recently saw The Fourth Protocol. I had some issues with the film but thought that both Caine and Brosnan delivered fine performances.
. . . you want to chastise the responses. Seems to me, if you wish to defend the right for Blueman to make his comments, which I believe were meant to illicite a response, then you also need to defend those that respond. A remark labeling certain Bonds "obvious forgeries" is going to generate a response. Mo responded and I will defend her right to respond.
I have been around long enough to know that Blueman is a smart guy and he knew when he made that remark that is was going to get a response. I thought Mo's response was proper and within bounds. Just my opinion.
Fair enough. My opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
I feel that certain responses were ludicrous, aggressive and personally insulting considering that this is all over a *fictional character*. Even if you do think someone is trying to wind you up (which is debatable in the extreme), why allow yourself to get wound up to that extent? I just wish it was possible to debate and discuss points without resorting to the old "you're arrogant", "you're passive-aggressive" and a multitude of other silly things.
Some people dislike Brosnan's Bond. This might be hard to accept but it is just a fact of life. If, for whatever absurd reason, someone finds this intolerable, or the manner that disliking has been expressed intolerable, why not ignore it? That would certainly save all this guff.
On topic, as I say I far prefer Daniel Craig as an actor and Craig's approach to the role. Nevertheless, I rather enjoyed aspects of Brosnan's performances as Bond as well as several of his non-Bond performances.
I am not wound up at all, just making a point about your initial post about Mo's response. The fact that you and others prefer Craig is fine by me.
I am not wound up at all, just making a point about your initial post about Mo's response. The fact that you and others prefer Craig is fine by me.
Sorry, I must not have expressed myself clearly. I did not mean that you were wound up, I meant those who posted personally insulting remarks were evidently wound up. Apologies for the confusion; communication over the internet can certainly be fraught with misunderstandings!
The fact that you and others prefer Brosnan, incidentally, is fine by me.
I am not wound up at all, just making a point about your initial post about Mo's response. The fact that you and others prefer Craig is fine by me.
Sorry, I must not have expressed myself clearly. I did not mean that you were wound up, I meant those who posted personally insulting remarks were evidently wound up. Apologies for the confusion; communication over the internet can certainly be fraught with misunderstandings!
The fact that you and others prefer Brosnan, incidentally, is fine by me.
Are there some folks on this board who seem like charter members of the Defend Pierce Club? Yes there are, so why do you seem so surprised when they respond heatedly to your posts?
Surely this is more a problem of the 'Defend Pierce Club' members than anyone else. If these people insist upon responding in a personally insulting manner that reflects on them, not anyone else.
Perhaps so. The war of words between the parties involved goes way back. I'm not in a position to judge on who threw the first insult, and neither are you. What struck me, however, was the disingenuousness of the "what did I say so wrong?" protest of innocence.
I just cannot see the difficulty in disagreeing agreeably. One member stated his *opinion* that certain Bonds were 'obvious forgeries'. Fair enough. Why do some people find that so dreadful? Why do people care enough to get all excited at someone conveying an opinion contrary to their own? I disagree vehemently with some opinions on Craig *and* the way in which those opinions are expressed (often expressed in a way I think unfortunate at best), and I may perhaps post my disagreement. However, I would not accuse the holder of that opinion as being arrogant / not a Bond fan / the spawn of Satan. For instance, some may think Craig's Bond is a working-class slob. Again, fair enough. I may think those people are talking cobblers, but I don't feel the need to start insulting them as people.
You seem to be a close reader of the boards, and your consistently thoughtful posts portray you as a smart guy, so it cannot have escaped you that blueman and Monique & MBE have been sparring for months over the Craig v. Brosnan issue, and he was sparring with supes over the same thing (I think -- like I posted earlier, it was all a bit cerebral for me). In that light, it's hard to view the use of terms like "obvious forgeries" as anything other than a provocation.
And you know what? That would be just fine -- as long as the provocation is acknowledged, not disavowed. It's like (as an illustrative example) the Dixie Chicks making strong statements a few years ago, and then acting surprised that there were predictable reactions and repercussions. If you're gonna stir up the drink, I have no problem with that -- but hold the straw up proudly instead of pretending you didn't know what you were doing. You can't have it both ways.
After all, this is about a fictional character and actors whom we do not know. It is all just a bit of a laugh.
Then again, this is the internet...
And so we're all far more brave than we would be otherwise. Look at me...I originally weighed in on this thread because the whole debate bored me, and now I'm the worst offender. Time to look in the mirror again... )
You seem to be a close reader of the boards, and your consistently thoughtful posts portray you as a smart guy
That is *far* too generous Hilly! There are many other people here who can articulate what I think far more eloquently and succinctly (including yourself).
. . .so it cannot have escaped you that blueman and Monique & MBE have been sparring for months over the Craig v. Brosnan issue, and he was sparring with supes over the same thing (I think -- like I posted earlier, it was all a bit cerebral for me). In that light, it's hard to view the use of terms like "obvious forgeries" as anything other than a provocation.
It indeed has not escaped my notice. For a very long period of time I was a 'reader' of AJB and not a 'poster', and this period of time included the casting of Daniel Craig. The sparring was lamentable, and very off-putting to outsiders. Sometimes it could, admittedly, be amusing; sometimes it could be vicious. I often read opinions on Daniel Craig that I felt were wildly provocative but I just ignored them, or posted a disagreement. I certainly didn't start flinging personal insults at those people on the basis of their opinion, or even what I felt was an inappropriate expression of that opinion.
As an example, I read a topic in the Off-topic forum ( http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=26412 ) in which I feel a snide comment was made about Daniel Craig's looks. However, I didn't feel the need to respond as I really don't care that much and these things usually say more about the person making the comment. I didn't find it too difficult to refrain from posting anything and I cannot fathom why others find it so difficult to not only refrain from posting but to refrain from posting a particularly personal and negative comment.
Neither, incidentally, did I bother to post a response to a (far less offensive, although I have had worse in an unsolicited PM last year) comment about me: "Regardless of you trying to point out a negative one of the film. . .But thanks for yet again, being a staunch watch guard on everything I say". Again, this is because I just don't feel the need to respond this sort of thing. I come here for enjoyment, nothing else.
And I really don't see the fuss over this 'obvious forgeries' point anyway. That's his opinion. So what? Is that really something to get so upset over? *Even* if you think that provoactive, and *even* if you think that deliverately provocative, why be provoked? I just don't understand the need for the ludicrously personal reaction.
And so we're all far more brave than we would be otherwise. Look at me...I originally weighed in on this thread because the whole debate bored me, and now I'm the worst offender. Time to look in the mirror again... )
I think you are absolutely correct here Hilly. I often get the feeling that people behave in a manner here that is completely different from real life. The persona adopted by a lot of people, I would suggest, does not reflect what they are like in face-to-face contact. That is my feeling, anyway, which could be completely untrue!
Anyhoo, back on topic I prefer Craig as Bond to Brosnan.
Neither, incidentally, did I bother to post a response to a (far less offensive, although I have had worse in an unsolicited PM last year) comment about me: "Regardless of you trying to point out a negative one of the film. . .But thanks for yet again, being a staunch watch guard on everything I say". Again, this is because I just don't feel the need to respond this sort of thing. I come here for enjoyment, nothing else.
Yeah I guess by repeating it, and commenting on it, is in fact responding to it! Glad you uh...took the high road? You even took the time to search for whatever disparaging comment you could find I made about Craig's looks, which in that particular thread, I said nothing about him. THAT is the worst thing you could come up with? After ALL the nasty, cruel comments people have made about Craig's looks you find a photo where I didn't even mention him? Good detective work there.
Seriously I'm flattered you pay me such attention. But enough is enough. Clearly you have a problem with me Lazenby880, but TAKE IT OFF THE FORUMS! It's not something you should be taking up miles of thread about. PM me if you've been stewing for months over something, although why you involve yourself in my battles that have nothing to do with you, is beyond me! If you dislike me so, do what you ask me to do with blueman, IGNORE ME.
For the record, I don't say things to incite anybody, I think it's too easy (not to mention inciting) to simply say Brosnan/Moore/Dalton sucks. Also, that kind of simplification just isn't how I see things. So I try (most of the time...) to put however I feel in some meaningful context, because this is a forum after all (and I actually DO care about what others think about all this stuff--believe it or not). If all someone got from my post is the word "forgery," then interpreted that as an attack on them (inciting), how is that my issue when there was so much more I wrote to (hopefully) clarify my position? And how is my pointing this out a cry of "woe is me"? There's more there, really.
What's really really weird about this particular conversation is, yeah I was big Craig backer after he was cast (before even), yet these same folks upset about my "inciting" posts flung far, far more anti-Craig crap--just in general, not talking about in response to anything I ever wrote. It was the fashion, dump on Craig excessively, caustically, without remorse. Didn't bother them that it might be considered "inciting" by someone else. And oddly, most of those posts I didn't take as inciting, but merely as their POV on Bond. I argued a lot for Craig, sure, but man was it fast and deep around here, the anti-Craig stuff. Monkey pictures, the death of the series...it was like an anti-Bond site or something. Understandable, as Brosnan has an obviously very strong fanbase. But I do think I've done a pretty good job couching my POV in whys and wherefors, not just taking pot shots (although I admit I've had my share of those, yep). I mean at this point, is there anybody who regularly reads this forum who DOESN'T know what I base my Bond opinions on? I was very clear about that from the get-go, I think my posts in this thread are more of the same. If it's rubbish to you, then so be it. I've always kinda thought what riles folks up is my rather bluntly stated and backed up opinion on what I think makes a good Bond, which is STILL viewed as "inciting." Weird, that double standard bashing Craig v. bashing Brosnan. Barry says he can't stand Ms. Green, that she's not how he envisions Vesper at all...inciting? He's said it enough (more than enough), are we to suppose it's just what he thinks, no ulterior motive to incite those who like Green in the role? He's an insidious dude, that Barry, he must really hate those people and want to see them all jump around like onions on a hot buttered skillet. Yeah, like that.
It's not like I was around here at all DURING the Brosnan years, smacking hell out of the guy to tick people off. I joined when he was done, and it looked like EON was ready to go in a different direction. And yes, a direction I feel is way more BOND (uh, see above posts for why, don't mean to dangle anybody but it's already been stated, altough I'll gladly respond to questions about it...heh). [press Post Reply]
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Neither, incidentally, did I bother to post a response to a (far less offensive, although I have had worse in an unsolicited PM last year) comment about me: "Regardless of you trying to point out a negative one of the film. . .But thanks for yet again, being a staunch watch guard on everything I say". Again, this is because I just don't feel the need to respond this sort of thing. I come here for enjoyment, nothing else.
Yeah I guess by repeating it, and commenting on it, is in fact responding to it! Glad you uh...took the high road? You even took the time to search for whatever disparaging comment you could find I made about Craig's looks, which in that particular thread, I said nothing about him. THAT is the worst thing you could come up with? After ALL the nasty, cruel comments people have made about Craig's looks you find a photo where I didn't even mention him? Good detective work there.
Seriously I'm flattered you pay me such attention. But enough is enough. Clearly you have a problem with me Lazenby880, but TAKE IT OFF THE FORUMS! It's not something you should be taking up miles of thread about. PM me if you've been stewing for months over something, although why you involve yourself in my battles that have nothing to do with you, is beyond me! If you dislike me so, do what you ask me to do with blueman, IGNORE ME.
Or maybe we should try couple's counseling?
8-)
Monique, give the poor guy a break. He's rightly upset that you jumped down his throat when he simply asked how the reviews of Seraphim Falls were.
You even took the time to search for whatever disparaging comment you could find I made about Craig's looks, which in that particular thread, I said nothing about him. THAT is the worst thing you could come up with? After ALL the nasty, cruel comments people have made about Craig's looks you find a photo where I didn't even mention him? Good detective work there.
I didn't need to search for it; it is near the top of the off-topic section. I merely used that as an example; I dislike those sorts of comments however I don't hurl personal insults. Where people do make personal insults and browbeat I feel that it is perfectly okay to object; surely if one is to make these points one must also accept that someone else might object.
Seriously I'm flattered you pay me such attention. But enough is enough. Clearly you have a problem with me Lazenby880, but TAKE IT OFF THE FORUMS! It's not something you should be taking up miles of thread about. PM me if you've been stewing for months over something, although why you involve yourself in my battles that have nothing to do with you, is beyond me! If you dislike me so, do what you ask me to do with blueman, IGNORE ME.
Or maybe we should try couple's counseling?
8-)
I just wanted to raise an objection to another harrying of a particular member and more insults. Moreover, I was genuinely unaware of the reaction to Seraphim Falls, looked on Rotten Tomatoes, and asked if the reviews were all that good. Sorry if that upset you as I did not mean to. The general discussion flowed from there. I did not quite expect to incur this sort of thing. If you are going to publicly make the comments you did I do not see why I shouldn't publicly object. I merely objected to the behaviour, behaviour that has been evident before.
I haven't been stewing over anything as I come here only when I have the time to, and I only come for some enjoyment to discuss my favourite fictional character. I don't have a problem with you at all! I'm sure we are all approachable and pleasant people in real life! I just wish everyone could behave similarly on this forum. That is, perhaps, a tall order, however I simply do not understand why some cannot refrain from being personally insulting or launching personal attacks when posting.
That's all. I apologise sincerely if I offended you as that was not my intention. It is just that the lobbing of insults, for whatever absurd reason, makes for a very negative place. I dislike that negativity as it saps my enjoyment of the site, and I query why such insults are necessary, even if you dislike someone else's opinion or the manner in which said opinion is articulated.
Back on topic (again...), I think Pierce Brosnan was excellent in all his scenes with Sophie Marceau in The World Is Not Enough, however Daniel Craig is my favourite Bond overall.
Back on topic (again...), I think Pierce Brosnan was excellent in all his scenes with Sophie Marceau in The World Is Not Enough, however Daniel Craig is my favourite Bond overall.
I think he worked much better with Teri Hatcher in TND than Marceau in TWINE. He always looked a bit confused to me by what Marceau was doing, at least that's my recollection. He and Hatcher, they just had a very nice chemistry IMO.
I think he worked much better with Teri Hatcher in TND than Marceau in TWINE. He always looked a bit confused to me by what Marceau was doing, at least that's my recollection. He and Hatcher, they just had a very nice chemistry IMO.
Interesting; I do think he and Hatcher are very good in the hotel suite in Tomorrow Never Dies. In fact, those are probably the best parts of that picture.
I just think Marceau is an incredible (and gorgeous) actress, and for me Brosnan shares some very good chemistry with her. One of my favourite scenes in that film is when Bond confronts Elektra at Baku (where Elektra slaps Bond) as I think there is an electric dynamic between the two. I also like the effect of the low thunder noise in the backround to accentuate the atmosphere, however I think the two actors are superb there; Brosnan really does convey Bond's uncertainty at Elektra's motives and Marceau is delicious in her faux-anger. It is one of the best scenes in the Brosnan era, in my view.
I think he worked much better with Teri Hatcher in TND than Marceau in TWINE. He always looked a bit confused to me by what Marceau was doing, at least that's my recollection. He and Hatcher, they just had a very nice chemistry IMO.
Interesting; I do think he and Hatcher are very good in the hotel suite in Tomorrow Never Dies. In fact, those are probably the best parts of that picture.
I just think Marceau is an incredible (and gorgeous) actress, and for me Brosnan shares some very good chemistry with her. One of my favourite scenes in that film is when Bond confronts Elektra at Baku (where Elektra slaps Bond) as I think there is an electric dynamic between the two. I also like the effect of the low thunder noise in the backround to accentuate the atmosphere, however I think the two actors are superb there; Brosnan really does convey Bond's uncertainty at Elektra's motives and Marceau is delicious in her faux-anger. It is one of the best scenes in the Brosnan era, in my view.
Okay, I do remember that scene, and the slap yeah, it was effective. I remember wanting to like their dynamic going on, but got distracted by the dodgy dialogue (isn't that the scene with Bond's Stockholm Syndrome 101 lecture? Kinda like the dumb poker info in CR that Bond/Mathis keep mentioning, also rather artlessly IMHO, although dodgy logistical dialogue I can take easier than dodgy character dialogue, lol). Still didn't care for the whole surrogate-father thing I thought was happening between Bond and Elektra, it isn't rare for Bond to have doubts about the birds-with-wings-down he sometimes beds, but lumping that with a daddy complex (what's his name who holds hot rocks fulfilled the same thing for her, seemingly) was a bit too Oprah for my tastes. Would've like the Elektra character better if she was just doing her thing to do it without the drama queen back story, also think the scenes between her and Bond would've come off a whole lot better. Or maybe it's just the way it was written, I realize the point was for her character to be a question mark, but it came off too movie of the week IMHO. The whole Paris thing was very straight-forward in contrast, no pussyfooting around. Liked that better, seemed to fit the two actors better too. JMHO.
The crux of both relationships is that Bond cares, I believed he cared about Paris more than I believed he cared about Elektra, and that's writing, acting, rolling thunder, the works.
I do apologise for seeming to have unintentionally upset you, not for what I wrote. I did not expect *that* sort of reaction for querying the critical reception of Seraphim Falls, or for objecting to your personal insults directed against a particular member. I just like to disagree agreeably and feel entitled to object to that lack of decorum; I have found out that can be rather difficult on the internet!
Still didn't care for the whole surrogate-father thing I thought was happening between Bond and Elektra, it isn't rare for Bond to have doubts about the birds-with-wings-down he sometimes beds, but lumping that with a daddy complex (what's his name who holds hot rocks fulfilled the same thing for her, seemingly) was a bit too Oprah for my tastes. Would've like the Elektra character better if she was just doing her thing to do it without the drama queen back story, also think the scenes between her and Bond would've come off a whole lot better. Or maybe it's just the way it was written, I realize the point was for her character to be a question mark, but it came off too movie of the week IMHO. The whole Paris thing was very straight-forward in contrast, no pussyfooting around. Liked that better, seemed to fit the two actors better too. JMHO.
Fair enough blueman. I actually like the complexity of Elektra's character, and the background, although I do feel that aspect of The World Is Not Enough is well-written. I do understand the complaint of the Oprah-style histrionics, however I can only disagree. There was, of course, background to Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies; I actually find this more irritating. The scene is good overall, but I hate that bit when she says 'Did I get too close?' or something. If they are going to allude to a deep and meaningful past between the two characters I think it incumbent upon them to flesh it out a bit more. As it is the backstory is just a convient way to add a personal motive to the whole thing.
Although Brosnan does not appear in the scene, my favourite scene from the Brosnan era overall is with Elektra and Renard in Istanbul ('Remember. . . Pleasure). Poignant and disturbing; Carlyle and Marceau are excellent.
You even took the time to search for whatever disparaging comment you could find I made about Craig's looks, which in that particular thread, I said nothing about him. THAT is the worst thing you could come up with? After ALL the nasty, cruel comments people have made about Craig's looks you find a photo where I didn't even mention him? Good detective work there.
It's just an example of you being snide (as he said) and more than a little catty. You know what you were trying to say; there's no point in pretending to be stupid unless you want people to think even less of you. And look; there's even a bit of nasty sarcasm in that post to round it off.
Back on topic (again...), I think Pierce Brosnan was excellent in all his scenes with Sophie Marceau in The World Is Not Enough, however Daniel Craig is my favourite Bond overall.
I think he worked much better with Teri Hatcher in TND than Marceau in TWINE. He always looked a bit confused to me by what Marceau was doing, at least that's my recollection. He and Hatcher, they just had a very nice chemistry IMO.
Yes; odd that considering how badly they got on offscreen. I do agree though- Marceau and him don't quite work; if she'd been convincing as the love of his life the film might have been a bit more interesting. For me, Michelle Yeoh was his best girl- the one you could see him going off with.
You even took the time to search for whatever disparaging comment you could find I made about Craig's looks, which in that particular thread, I said nothing about him. THAT is the worst thing you could come up with? After ALL the nasty, cruel comments people have made about Craig's looks you find a photo where I didn't even mention him? Good detective work there.
It's just an example of you being snide (as he said) and more than a little catty. You know what you were trying to say; there's no point in pretending to be stupid unless you want people to think even less of you. And look; there's even a bit of nasty sarcasm in that post to round it off.
Rather sanctimonious of you to call someone "snide" and "catty" while passing judgment on the appropriateness of their post.
Comments
{[] I was a bit baffled by that. I thought you were seriously giving me a row for not crossing the Atlantic to see a movie.
Agree about 'The Thomas Crown Affair.' Brosnan's best film IMO. But that Glasgow accent is a bit more 'Donald, Where's yer troosers,' than 'Taggart.' Terrible attempt.
After listening to various actors make complete idiots of themselves, there's a lot be said about the Sean Connery approach to accents ....
Been the case around here at times: express an unpopular (particularly anti-Brosnan) opinion, get personally attacked. Hilly, not sure where I attacked anybody's motivations in my last post (not the one in response to supes, I admit I got ungraciously defensive in that post, apologies, you're absolutely right it is old and dull), and holy crimeny Monique what's arrogant about having an opinion??? I think it's pretty fair (to say the least) to point out there's less Fleming in most of Glen era Bond, or Brosnan era Bond, than in CR. And that I prefer the latter, and consider the less-Fleming Bond films as lesser Bonds, precisely because of the less-Fleming part. I realize Moore/Brosnan Bond is the bees knees for some, just talking about what I consider Bond, on a Bond fan forum. Not seeing the arrogance in liking more Fleming in my cinematic Bond. Or lamenting a fan base that initially blasted (to put it kindly) the Craig casting when he's proven to be a popular (going on box office) and successful (critically) and very Fleming (IMHO) Bond. I am seeing a big difference in what folks see and like in their Bond, and think that's pretty okay. Believe me, I get the appeal of the whole TSWLM-style Bond that's been developed and refined over the decades, it can be very entertaining when done well, it doesn't rely on too much Fleming, and it's very graceful and fun and light and provides one with a couple hours of delightful escapism. And I don't mind typing all that, just find it odd that other perfectly reasonable and valid opinions can't be expressed without any personal backlash coming into play. Hopefully, it's okay to debate all this Bond stuff, on a Bond forum, and leave out what we think of each other's character.
I hasten to ask what your reaction was to Harrison Ford's bizarre attempt in 'Last Crusade'! And to think that Sean Connery couldn't have been far away...
Uh no...the point was that he said it came and went, when some US cities aren't getting it until April. Regardless of you trying to point out a negative one of the film, reviews of Pierce's performance weren't mixed. They were great, even in most of the negative or lukewarm reviews. But thanks for yet again, being a staunch watch guard on everything I say.
Threads like this definitely run off the rails (for me at least) when they turn into long-winded unintelligible debates on personal motivations -- debates that tend to dredge up some old dispute from a thread long ago. Honestly, I have reread the posts over and over, but I still don't know WTF you and supes were talking about -- you guys are so far over my head you're in the stratosphere. This started as a simple question -- Brosnan or Craig. How did it morph into a thread with multi-paragraph responses and nested quotes galore (which I of course am perpetuating)?
Finally, blue, methinks you doth protest too much. You're way too smart to expect that the old "I'm a persecuted minority, woe is me!" dodge will sway an intelligent audience. You're not being castigated for having an opinion -- you're being castigated for the way you express it. Surely you don't expect to use terms like "blatant forgeries" and not get at least some annoyed responses. Are there some folks on this board who seem like charter members of the Defend Pierce Club? Yes there are, so why do you seem so surprised when they respond heatedly to your posts?
I suppose the easy solution for me would be not to read these threads and certainly not to respond to them. I apologize for my lack of resolve in this regard. I am cranky as hell today, and there are probably people far more deserving of my ****iness than you and the others on the board.
However, that said...[presses Post Reply]
Guess I don't see anything wrong with some people not seeing this Bond as Bond, some people not seeing that Bond as Bond. And, it's what this thread is about, right? One versus the other. I think there are valid points to be made on both sides, if Craig doesn't look enough like Bond for somebody (too short, blond, stocky), fine. If he's too ugly, that's a different opinion and one to counter IMO. I generally don't have issue with the former (see my massive lack of replies on the subject of late to Dan Same, Arthur Pringle, Barry Nelson who all have a very different opinion than mine and who all post quite a bit about it--to usually deafening silence from me). To my amatuer eye, Brosnan's acting left a lot to be desired, and was a big part of my not liking him as Bond. So I post on that. No biggee, and if somebody thinks he's the greatest actor since acting was invented, fine. Craig OTOH is nails as an actor, and a big reason why he works so well as Bond IMO. But he can just as much a forgery to somebody else as Moore/Brosnan are to me, for the above reasons. As you say, it's not what one expresses but how.
Sorry my debating skills have put you off, I do tend to get hung up on form. But it is hard to not think of Craig's Bond in comparison to past Bonds, especially the guy he replaced, and make assessments that don't jive with somebody else's assessments.
Very well said Sir Hilly! That is exactly what I meant, you just expressed it far better than me.
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/
Edit - OK i just tested the link and it defaults to the Ebert and Roeper welcome page. To see the Seraphim falls review click on Archive reviews which is on the lower left hand side. An alphabetical list will pop up, under S you will find Seraphim Falls.
I just cannot see the difficulty in disagreeing agreeably. One member stated his *opinion* that certain Bonds were 'obvious forgeries'. Fair enough. Why do some people find that so dreadful? Why do people care enough to get all excited at someone conveying an opinion contrary to their own? I disagree vehemently with some opinions on Craig *and* the way in which those opinions are expressed (often expressed in a way I think unfortunate at best), and I may perhaps post my disagreement. However, I would not accuse the holder of that opinion as being arrogant / not a Bond fan / the spawn of Satan. For instance, some may think Craig's Bond is a working-class slob. Again, fair enough. I may think those people are talking cobblers, but I don't feel the need to start insulting them as people.
I share the lamentation at threads that end up deep discussions referring to fallings out in other threads from months ago. I also lament a member being harried on the basis of a perfectly justifiable opinion, even if some (for whatever reason) object to the manner in which it was expressed. Had the opinion been based on Mr Brosnan as a person I could sort of understand. As it is, I think some people take all this a bit too seriously. After all, this is about a fictional character and actors whom we do not know. It is all just a bit of a laugh.
Then again, this is the internet...
Saint Pierce, The Martyr*, was a fine Bond, my third favourite overall (I'm a big fan of vanilla ice cream as well), and I wish him great success in his post-Bond years, {[] but I'm happy with the current state of 007 affairs :007)
* I figure if poor Danny has to be a 'thug' and a 'slob,' the least we can do is canonize the Brozzer B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You seem willing to defend the poster of the comment which precipitated a couple vehement responses, yet you want to chastise the responses. Seems to me, if you wish to defend the right for Blueman to make his comments, which I believe were meant to illicite a response, then you also need to defend those that respond. A remark labeling certain Bonds "obvious forgeries" is going to generate a response. Mo responded and I will defend her right to respond.
I have been around long enough to know that Blueman is a smart guy and he knew when he made that remark that is was going to get a response. I thought Mo's response was proper and within bounds. Just my opinion.
Incidentally, I recently saw The Fourth Protocol. I had some issues with the film but thought that both Caine and Brosnan delivered fine performances.
Fair enough.
I feel that certain responses were ludicrous, aggressive and personally insulting considering that this is all over a *fictional character*. Even if you do think someone is trying to wind you up (which is debatable in the extreme), why allow yourself to get wound up to that extent? I just wish it was possible to debate and discuss points without resorting to the old "you're arrogant", "you're passive-aggressive" and a multitude of other silly things.
Some people dislike Brosnan's Bond. This might be hard to accept but it is just a fact of life. If, for whatever absurd reason, someone finds this intolerable, or the manner that disliking has been expressed intolerable, why not ignore it? That would certainly save all this guff.
On topic, as I say I far prefer Daniel Craig as an actor and Craig's approach to the role. Nevertheless, I rather enjoyed aspects of Brosnan's performances as Bond as well as several of his non-Bond performances.
I am not wound up at all, just making a point about your initial post about Mo's response. The fact that you and others prefer Craig is fine by me.
The fact that you and others prefer Brosnan, incidentally, is fine by me.
{[]
You seem to be a close reader of the boards, and your consistently thoughtful posts portray you as a smart guy, so it cannot have escaped you that blueman and Monique & MBE have been sparring for months over the Craig v. Brosnan issue, and he was sparring with supes over the same thing (I think -- like I posted earlier, it was all a bit cerebral for me). In that light, it's hard to view the use of terms like "obvious forgeries" as anything other than a provocation.
And you know what? That would be just fine -- as long as the provocation is acknowledged, not disavowed. It's like (as an illustrative example) the Dixie Chicks making strong statements a few years ago, and then acting surprised that there were predictable reactions and repercussions. If you're gonna stir up the drink, I have no problem with that -- but hold the straw up proudly instead of pretending you didn't know what you were doing. You can't have it both ways.
Gee, ya think?? [Hilly said after a rare onset of self-awareness]
And so we're all far more brave than we would be otherwise. Look at me...I originally weighed in on this thread because the whole debate bored me, and now I'm the worst offender. Time to look in the mirror again...
It indeed has not escaped my notice. For a very long period of time I was a 'reader' of AJB and not a 'poster', and this period of time included the casting of Daniel Craig. The sparring was lamentable, and very off-putting to outsiders. Sometimes it could, admittedly, be amusing; sometimes it could be vicious. I often read opinions on Daniel Craig that I felt were wildly provocative but I just ignored them, or posted a disagreement. I certainly didn't start flinging personal insults at those people on the basis of their opinion, or even what I felt was an inappropriate expression of that opinion.
As an example, I read a topic in the Off-topic forum ( http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=26412 ) in which I feel a snide comment was made about Daniel Craig's looks. However, I didn't feel the need to respond as I really don't care that much and these things usually say more about the person making the comment. I didn't find it too difficult to refrain from posting anything and I cannot fathom why others find it so difficult to not only refrain from posting but to refrain from posting a particularly personal and negative comment.
Neither, incidentally, did I bother to post a response to a (far less offensive, although I have had worse in an unsolicited PM last year) comment about me: "Regardless of you trying to point out a negative one of the film. . .But thanks for yet again, being a staunch watch guard on everything I say". Again, this is because I just don't feel the need to respond this sort of thing. I come here for enjoyment, nothing else.
And I really don't see the fuss over this 'obvious forgeries' point anyway. That's his opinion. So what? Is that really something to get so upset over? *Even* if you think that provoactive, and *even* if you think that deliverately provocative, why be provoked? I just don't understand the need for the ludicrously personal reaction.
I know, that was a bit of a statement of the obvious!
I think you are absolutely correct here Hilly. I often get the feeling that people behave in a manner here that is completely different from real life. The persona adopted by a lot of people, I would suggest, does not reflect what they are like in face-to-face contact. That is my feeling, anyway, which could be completely untrue!
Anyhoo, back on topic I prefer Craig as Bond to Brosnan.
Yeah I guess by repeating it, and commenting on it, is in fact responding to it! Glad you uh...took the high road?
Seriously I'm flattered you pay me such attention. But enough is enough. Clearly you have a problem with me Lazenby880, but TAKE IT OFF THE FORUMS! It's not something you should be taking up miles of thread about. PM me if you've been stewing for months over something, although why you involve yourself in my battles that have nothing to do with you, is beyond me! If you dislike me so, do what you ask me to do with blueman, IGNORE ME.
Or maybe we should try couple's counseling?
8-)
For the record, I don't say things to incite anybody, I think it's too easy (not to mention inciting) to simply say Brosnan/Moore/Dalton sucks. Also, that kind of simplification just isn't how I see things. So I try (most of the time...) to put however I feel in some meaningful context, because this is a forum after all (and I actually DO care about what others think about all this stuff--believe it or not). If all someone got from my post is the word "forgery," then interpreted that as an attack on them (inciting), how is that my issue when there was so much more I wrote to (hopefully) clarify my position? And how is my pointing this out a cry of "woe is me"? There's more there, really.
What's really really weird about this particular conversation is, yeah I was big Craig backer after he was cast (before even), yet these same folks upset about my "inciting" posts flung far, far more anti-Craig crap--just in general, not talking about in response to anything I ever wrote. It was the fashion, dump on Craig excessively, caustically, without remorse. Didn't bother them that it might be considered "inciting" by someone else. And oddly, most of those posts I didn't take as inciting, but merely as their POV on Bond. I argued a lot for Craig, sure, but man was it fast and deep around here, the anti-Craig stuff. Monkey pictures, the death of the series...it was like an anti-Bond site or something. Understandable, as Brosnan has an obviously very strong fanbase. But I do think I've done a pretty good job couching my POV in whys and wherefors, not just taking pot shots (although I admit I've had my share of those, yep). I mean at this point, is there anybody who regularly reads this forum who DOESN'T know what I base my Bond opinions on? I was very clear about that from the get-go, I think my posts in this thread are more of the same. If it's rubbish to you, then so be it. I've always kinda thought what riles folks up is my rather bluntly stated and backed up opinion on what I think makes a good Bond, which is STILL viewed as "inciting." Weird, that double standard bashing Craig v. bashing Brosnan. Barry says he can't stand Ms. Green, that she's not how he envisions Vesper at all...inciting? He's said it enough (more than enough), are we to suppose it's just what he thinks, no ulterior motive to incite those who like Green in the role? He's an insidious dude, that Barry, he must really hate those people and want to see them all jump around like onions on a hot buttered skillet. Yeah, like that.
It's not like I was around here at all DURING the Brosnan years, smacking hell out of the guy to tick people off. I joined when he was done, and it looked like EON was ready to go in a different direction. And yes, a direction I feel is way more BOND (uh, see above posts for why, don't mean to dangle anybody but it's already been stated, altough I'll gladly respond to questions about it...heh). [press Post Reply]
Monique, give the poor guy a break. He's rightly upset that you jumped down his throat when he simply asked how the reviews of Seraphim Falls were.
I didn't need to search for it; it is near the top of the off-topic section. I merely used that as an example; I dislike those sorts of comments however I don't hurl personal insults. Where people do make personal insults and browbeat I feel that it is perfectly okay to object; surely if one is to make these points one must also accept that someone else might object.
I just wanted to raise an objection to another harrying of a particular member and more insults. Moreover, I was genuinely unaware of the reaction to Seraphim Falls, looked on Rotten Tomatoes, and asked if the reviews were all that good. Sorry if that upset you as I did not mean to. The general discussion flowed from there. I did not quite expect to incur this sort of thing. If you are going to publicly make the comments you did I do not see why I shouldn't publicly object. I merely objected to the behaviour, behaviour that has been evident before.
I haven't been stewing over anything as I come here only when I have the time to, and I only come for some enjoyment to discuss my favourite fictional character. I don't have a problem with you at all! I'm sure we are all approachable and pleasant people in real life! I just wish everyone could behave similarly on this forum. That is, perhaps, a tall order, however I simply do not understand why some cannot refrain from being personally insulting or launching personal attacks when posting.
That's all. I apologise sincerely if I offended you as that was not my intention. It is just that the lobbing of insults, for whatever absurd reason, makes for a very negative place. I dislike that negativity as it saps my enjoyment of the site, and I query why such insults are necessary, even if you dislike someone else's opinion or the manner in which said opinion is articulated.
Back on topic (again...), I think Pierce Brosnan was excellent in all his scenes with Sophie Marceau in The World Is Not Enough, however Daniel Craig is my favourite Bond overall.
I think he worked much better with Teri Hatcher in TND than Marceau in TWINE. He always looked a bit confused to me by what Marceau was doing, at least that's my recollection. He and Hatcher, they just had a very nice chemistry IMO.
I just think Marceau is an incredible (and gorgeous) actress, and for me Brosnan shares some very good chemistry with her. One of my favourite scenes in that film is when Bond confronts Elektra at Baku (where Elektra slaps Bond) as I think there is an electric dynamic between the two. I also like the effect of the low thunder noise in the backround to accentuate the atmosphere, however I think the two actors are superb there; Brosnan really does convey Bond's uncertainty at Elektra's motives and Marceau is delicious in her faux-anger. It is one of the best scenes in the Brosnan era, in my view.
Okay, I do remember that scene, and the slap yeah, it was effective. I remember wanting to like their dynamic going on, but got distracted by the dodgy dialogue (isn't that the scene with Bond's Stockholm Syndrome 101 lecture? Kinda like the dumb poker info in CR that Bond/Mathis keep mentioning, also rather artlessly IMHO, although dodgy logistical dialogue I can take easier than dodgy character dialogue, lol). Still didn't care for the whole surrogate-father thing I thought was happening between Bond and Elektra, it isn't rare for Bond to have doubts about the birds-with-wings-down he sometimes beds, but lumping that with a daddy complex (what's his name who holds hot rocks fulfilled the same thing for her, seemingly) was a bit too Oprah for my tastes. Would've like the Elektra character better if she was just doing her thing to do it without the drama queen back story, also think the scenes between her and Bond would've come off a whole lot better. Or maybe it's just the way it was written, I realize the point was for her character to be a question mark, but it came off too movie of the week IMHO. The whole Paris thing was very straight-forward in contrast, no pussyfooting around. Liked that better, seemed to fit the two actors better too. JMHO.
The crux of both relationships is that Bond cares, I believed he cared about Paris more than I believed he cared about Elektra, and that's writing, acting, rolling thunder, the works.
Fair enough blueman.
Although Brosnan does not appear in the scene, my favourite scene from the Brosnan era overall is with Elektra and Renard in Istanbul ('Remember. . . Pleasure). Poignant and disturbing; Carlyle and Marceau are excellent.
It's just an example of you being snide (as he said) and more than a little catty. You know what you were trying to say; there's no point in pretending to be stupid unless you want people to think even less of you. And look; there's even a bit of nasty sarcasm in that post to round it off.
Yes; odd that considering how badly they got on offscreen. I do agree though- Marceau and him don't quite work; if she'd been convincing as the love of his life the film might have been a bit more interesting. For me, Michelle Yeoh was his best girl- the one you could see him going off with.
Rather sanctimonious of you to call someone "snide" and "catty" while passing judgment on the appropriateness of their post.