It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I'd miss any of them, but dalton, brosnan and connery are the ones I'd miss most.
Sorry to back this up from the first page but it's ridiculous to believe any actor would kill this franchise. EVERY Bond film has been a huge hit financially. Even LTK made around four times its cost. Plus with DVD sales, TV money, cable, etc. There are so many avenues for a film to make a profit, it's very short sighted to believe the series would have ended entirely with another Dalton film. If anything, they would have let him go and we'd still get GE just like normal. Nothing would have changed except we'd have an extra Dalts.
exactly. GE would still have been succesful with dalton
At that point, I'm not even sure they were thinking in terms of longevity. I think they wanted a success without Connery and they'd worry about it more later. (I think this was the beginning of signing an actor to a 3-picture deal with an option for a fourth.)
Exactly. At that point the only Bond other than Connery was George Lazenby. And although OHMSS was a financial success it didn't do Connery numbers and public reaction to Lazenby was negative. After Connery offcially retired after DAF Im sure EON was more worried about the future than they let on. They didn't want a repeat of Lazenby so they had to hire a known actor to stand up next to Connery's image. And Moore was the perfect choice as he practically was the television version of James Bond during the 60s with The Saint. It was a matter of re-establishing themselves. Longevity came second. Plus I'm not entirly sure if they saw the Bond series as going on much longer than the 70s, if even that. After all TMWTGG was almost the last Bond film.
i am happy somehow that Lazenby did sort of returned as "JB" in The Return of The Man From UNCLE in 1983 as a cameo so thats a sort of relief
i think that Brosnan should have had atleast had one (maybe 2) more bond movies- a redemption for the product placement Die Another Day- well Everything or Nothing would have made an excellent film.
i do believe that Timothy should have made atleast 2 more films- from what i heard about the original Bond 17 it would have been terrific to see him against androids in Shanghai.
How's that?
TMWTGG's less than impressive gross (with inflation taken into account the lowest grossing Bond film until LTK) combined with Harry Saltzman having to sell his shares of EON put the series in jeporady. Ending it all was considered as United Artists were questioning if the series had finally run it's course. Why do you think it took 3 years to release TSWLM as opposed to the usual 2 years or even year and a half at the time. But fan support was vey high and Cubby was tenacious to make sure the series continued.
There was a big decline in box office receipts between Live And Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun.
LALD had a worldwide box office gross of almost $162 million worldwide -- the first Bond film to exceed Thunderball (LALD's U.S. nubers still trailled Thunderball). TMWTGG had a worldwide gross of $97.6 million. (And in the U.S., it did less business than On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which had been considered disappointing at the time.)
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php
In retrospect, you can ask what were they worried about? At the time, the future of James Bond seemed less than secure, and *then* you had the Broccoli and Saltzman separation.
LTK had catastrophic ticket sales. 39.10 millions world wide only, compared to 85 millions world wide for MR only 10 years prior. What would have happened if Dalton had made another ? Would the ticket sales be below 35 millions for Bond 17 ?
@DaltonCraig you should now that ticket sales for the Bond series don't follow a downward trend. The notion of Dalton's next film having lesser success just for that reason is ridiculous. TMWTGG had pitiful ticket sales by Bond standards. By your logic shouldn't have TSWLM grossed even less? It didn't and ended up being a huge success that re-establised the franchise. Who knows. Maybe Dalton's third would've been his equivalent of TSWLM.
The ticket sales was going down steadily since FYEO in 1981. I don't see what could have changed the trend in 1991.
Octopussy was a bigger hit than For Your Eyes Only. The Living Daylights was a much bigger hit than A View To A Kill. I didn't see this as going down. No the grosses weren't as good as the 60s films but that was hardly Dalton's fault. If they just gave the series a longer gap than usual, like they did with TSWLM, I believe public interest would have been gained.
I'm not sure why LTK didn't do that well, I don't think the fact that a lot of other big films came out that summer, because would still have watched LTK if they really wanted to. Maybe the masses just didn't take to Dalton that much, does anyone remeber the general feeling at the time?
A bigger gap? By what a few weeks. All four films were released during the summer months of their respective years. Had Dalton's third film taken a 3 or 4 year break it would've enjoyed the Goldeneye effect of making a comeback.
And Im pretty sure OP outgrossed FYEO.
OP sold 11 million less tickets than FYEO.
TLD only sold 6 million more tickets than AVTAK.
I stand corrected. But if the actors are to blame than it's just as much Roger Moore's fault. But I don't blame the actors. The series needed a break and was dealing with some very stiff competition.
And damn I didn't realise how much of a drop YOLT suffered after TB.
It was actually only two and a half years. Some other Bond films by that time had had just over two year gaps, so it wasn't that bigger deal, the wait between The Man With The Golden Gun and The Spy Who Loved Me, though it was the longest yet.
The 2.5 year gap between Gun and Spy was the same as the 2.5 year gap between TB and OHMSS
Production ran almost a year on OHMSS: a long time in those days, due to replacing the entire 2nd unit midway through filming. They probably could have had OHMSS out for summer '69, instead of December '69, if things ran on a normal schedule. Whereas the Golden Gun-Spy gap probably had more to do with the studio-beurocratic wranglings mentioned above: still impressive though in hindsight, that Cubby was able to crank Spy out a mere 2.5 years later despite those issues.
It's almost a certainty we will never again see a Bond actor reach 57 years of age again for a Bond picture as Moore did in 1985 or anywhere near it even, it was a Bond movie mainly played for laughs, as with Octopussy, and while I appreciate some may have liked it or found it somewhat enthralling for me it's usually a release or two to overlook, simply on the basis for one thing, that Moore was too old and it certainly showed at times
Actually thinking about it now, maybe I wouldn't have wanted Brosnan as Bond any time during the 1980s, if Dalton could of made it and he was able to, I would of liked to have seen him about three releases before his debut, as he said OHMSS in 1969 he felt he was too young and I quite agree on that, I think the advent of the 1980s would of been more appropriate and not any time sooner
I don't think I've directly answered this either...and I must say I agree with Luds here. Honestly I thought Moore actually looked too boyish in LALD. Connery was more creased and weathered in 1962 by comparison. I think Moore looked better and more believable the more he aged. He was in his prime from Spy through FYEO as far as looks and agility is concerned. He was still convincing in OP, but that should have been his last one.
Moore was, what, 14 years older in LALD than Connery in DN ?
Yup, Rog always looked five-ten years younger than his age until he hit his fifties and then age caught up with him. It's middle-aged-man syndrome. Following MR, Rog started to look his age, unquestionably.
Same thing happened to Brosnan. He never looked quite as young as Moore when younger, but may've looked younger than he was and always looked damn good for his age. As soon as he hit his fifties, though (arguably in DAD, but definitely after it), he physically couldn't hold back the years any longer. His body just started to age. Meh, it comes/ will come to us all... ;)
Same as with Moore, he suddenly went from tangible Bond actor in his first two or so 007 adventures to 'Motorized cart' Bond in just the ten years or so later after his debut in his final appearances, I guess some people age quicker than others is all I can add
i mean look at Never Say Never Agian- Connery was awesome despite being older and besides the idea of an older bond is cool...i can imagine Dalton now back as Bond- look at him in Chuck and he still has the moves even Brosnan could still be Bond but he would have to have the Harrison Ford diet- what ford did to get back in the role of Indiana Jones 4 (exercise relentelessly and eat egg whites) and before you know it he would be back shaken but no disturbed
Totally agree with you. I think a Bond with some age and weather adds character. Bond comes across more of a seasoned vet in this way.