› ›

Would you forgo the Brosnan Era to add to the Dalton era?

12467…10

Comments

  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,082
    Thank you again, RogueAgent, it seems to be more action here than there, plus my pals in the swedish forum say this is the better site. This will be great.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,723
    chuck007 wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:

    Yes, but still only a passable improvement over the Brosnan era.

    Passable? Craig era is huge improvement over the Brosnan era, financial term and quality wise IMO.

    Eh ? No it isn't. CR only sold 12 millions more tickets world wide than DAD. LALD sold 19 millions more tickets than DAF, and GE sold 42 millions more tickets than LTK. CR has barely improved financially over the Brosnan era. To be a huge improvement fiancially over the Brosnan era, CR should have grossed over 700 millions dollar world wide, which it didn't come close of. The financial improvement that CR made is mediocre. CR should have sold atleast 100 millions tickets world wide to be a good improvement over the Brosnan era. The fact is Brosnan made very good box office numbers, and Craig's films didn't improve much on them.

    In terms of financial improvements over his direct predecessor, Brosnan wipes the floor with Craig.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    tommychameleon wrote:
    Luds wrote:
    Craig's BO is outstanding, considering the horrendous press he got and him being a nobody in the states. Thanks for strengthening my point ;)

    I think Danny boy's bad press would have only helped CR ticket sales. I'd wager that a lot of viewers were those who wouldn't necessarily have gone to see it, though went along to see if he'd f*** it up or not and see what the fuss was all about.

    Great point! DC's involvement was controversial and as they say there is no bad press. I think it only helped bring people to the box office for CR.

  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited March 2012 Posts: 1,986
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    world_admissions.png

    CR beat DAD by 12 millions, while LALD beat DAF by 21 millions and GE beat LTK be 42 millions.

    All this chart does is prove that Craig was a huge success. This 12 million increase over DAD in ticket sales is phenomenal considering the huge decrease in american viewership.

    Over the series' existance, the magic number, or sweat spot is 33%. If there are 33% of Gross coming from the US and 67% International, we have great numbers at the Box office. In terms of ticket sales, the number is slightly lower since there is a greater revenue per US ticket sales than the worldwide box office.

    Going back to this sweat spot of 33%, if the number is low, under 29%, there are clearly a lack of American viewers which explains the lack of gross revenue. On the other side, if the number heads higher, around 37%, there is a lower number of International viewers but the financial effect isn't nearly as impactful due to the higher percentage of revenue per american viewer.

    Looking at these values, we can identify the unpopular Bond with the American audiance:

    % of Domestic Gross

    Connery's movies starting with GE range 37% to 44.6% (TB)
    OHMSS: 25.2%
    Live And Let Die: 36.7%
    Average Moore movee ~ 28%
    The Living Daylights: 26.8%
    Licence To Kill: 22.2%
    GoldenEye: 30.2%
    Tomorrow Never Dies: 37.6%
    The World Is Not Enough: 35.1%
    Die Another Day: 37.3%
    Casino Royale: 28.2%
    Quantum of Solace: 28.7%

    Similar analysis can be done with adminssion, but not all information can easily be accessible for each movie. This still clearly shows that Craig isn't popular with American audiances. Pierce Brosnan was, and therefore the 12 million hike in admissions shows that he's an absolute phenomenal success for the International market.

    This isn't just passable improvement, it's a huge undertaking, one that they may not heve been able to dream of.
  • licensetoforumlicensetoforum
    Posts: 371
    Personally Dalton I think more Dalton would have been great for the fans but maybe bad for business. When it comes to a majority say Dalton is considered the better actor over Brosnan, and he is the closest Bond to the books. I think us hardcore fans would have loved as he continued his tenure and ventured into paths that other actors did not. However, as many have pointed out, Dalts isn't the most popular fellow. The Shakespearean background, and seriousness he brought was not seen postively by the casual fan who was used to Moore's one liners. Brosnan seems to be that guy at the party who you didn't even talk to but like because he seems nice and is charming. With all that being said, I would have risked the franchise to see Dalton continue.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Thinking about it more, people like to smile when it comes to Bond. Myself included I might add. I like to have a good time and have a bit of a laugh. Perhaps that's where Dalton never quite "got it" and why Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig are more popular amongst the masses.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Shame really - although I sort of see where Connery's coming from when he said Dalton "underestimated the role".

    I don't think Connery is an any possition to comment on the other Bonds. That glass house of his was built well.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Well, whether you agree with him or not, he is Sean Connery. The man who defined the role and the man who's still regarded as the best Bond by 95% of the population. I don't think that many people will argue with him.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Well, whether you agree with him or not, he is Sean Connery. The man who defined the role and the man who's still regarded as the best Bond by 95% of the population. I don't think that many people will argue with him.

    More's the pitty. It must do wonders for his ego.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Well, whether you agree with him or not, he is Sean Connery. The man who defined the role and the man who's still regarded as the best Bond by 95% of the population. I don't think that many people will argue with him.

    More's the pitty. It must do wonders for his ego.

    I forgot to mention being voted the SEXIEST MAN ALIVE :p
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    BAIN123 wrote:
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Well, whether you agree with him or not, he is Sean Connery. The man who defined the role and the man who's still regarded as the best Bond by 95% of the population. I don't think that many people will argue with him.

    More's the pitty. It must do wonders for his ego.

    I forgot to mention being voted the SEXIEST MAN ALIVE :p

    Only because I asked to be left out of the poll. :-\"
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Well, whether you agree with him or not, he is Sean Connery. The man who defined the role and the man who's still regarded as the best Bond by 95% of the population. I don't think that many people will argue with him.

    More's the pitty. It must do wonders for his ego.

    I forgot to mention being voted the SEXIEST MAN ALIVE :p

    Only because I asked to be left out of the poll. :-\"

    =)) =))

    I think I have a good chance ;)

    http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=4619807836&set=t.509922836&type=3&theater
  • licensetoforumlicensetoforum
    Posts: 371
    I think I need to add this to the controversial thoughts thread, but I think Dalts was fun. He didn't have the quips the other Bonds did, but he had some great action scenes. The barefoot watersking, holding onto the jeep, fighting a henchman while holding on for life, and driving the truck with half its wheels. That's good stuff.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I never liked the tanker chase with the Kenworth trucks at the end of License To Kill, it all gets a bit silly sometimes on an otherwise serious and straight faced adventure

    Best thing about Dalton was the seriousness of the part, there was a drastic minimum on the campy humor of his predecessor, Bond became agressive again, Dalton brought some steel and teeth back to the role. Some people think he was too cardboard, or dull, uninteresting etc, I can see where they're coming from, but some are honest enough to see his qualities and what a good Bond he was
  • licensetoforumlicensetoforum
    Posts: 371
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    I never liked the tanker chase with the Kenworth trucks at the end of License To Kill, it all gets a bit silly sometimes on an otherwise serious and straight faced adventure

    Best thing about Dalton was the seriousness of the part, there was a drastic minimum on the campy humor of his predecessor, Bond became agressive again, Dalton brought some steel and teeth back to the role. Some people think he was too cardboard, or dull, uninteresting etc, I can see where they're coming from, but some are honest enough to see his qualities and what a good Bond he was
    Agree 100% with the second paragraph.

  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,082
    I wouldn´t mind seing Connery being Bond from 62-67 (he later is Bond in NSNA in 1983). Then he is replaced by Moore. The script is changed as to fit Moore, so the love stuff and marriage is left out, and the film turns out more like YOLT. Moore is Bond until AVTAK. Pierce Brosnan takes over in 1987, and TLD turns out the way it does, but is less serious. LTK is a normal Bond film, Leiter isn´t hurt and Bond doesn´t go rogue.
    Brosnan makes Bond 17 in 91 and Bond 18 in 93. The next four movies are what they are for real, but Brosnan makes a movie 2004 and a Bondian rendition of CR in 2006. After that he is replaced by Craig.

    Connery would do 6 movies (counting NSNA).
    Moore would do 9.
    Brosnan would do 10.
    Craig would be working on his third movie in 2012.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I feel dizzy after reading all that :|
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    edited March 2012 Posts: 1,082
    OHMSS, LTK and CR would most likely be more to my liking. The majority of the Bond fans prefer the more realistic and hard edged Bond, however, and those wouldn´t be many in this scenario.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    007RogerMoore wrote:
    I wouldn´t mind seing Connery being Bond from 62-67 (he later is Bond in NSNA in 1983). Then he is replaced by Moore. The script is changed as to fit Moore, so the love stuff and marriage is left out, and the film turns out more like YOLT. Moore is Bond until AVTAK. Pierce Brosnan takes over in 1987, and TLD turns out the way it does, but is less serious. LTK is a normal Bond film, Leiter isn´t hurt and Bond doesn´t go rogue.
    Brosnan makes Bond 17 in 91 and Bond 18 in 93. The next four movies are what they are for real, but Brosnan makes a movie 2004 and a Bondian rendition of CR in 2006. After that he is replaced by Craig.

    Connery would do 6 movies (counting NSNA).
    Moore would do 9.
    Brosnan would do 10.
    Craig would be working on his third movie in 2012.

    Hmm..... I think Moore could have made his final film in 1989, thus making 9 films. Hiatus, then Brosnan starts in 1995 all the way till 2012, with films in '95, '97, '99, '02, '05, '07, '09 and '12, thus a total of 8 films. And Connery making OHMSS... So

    Connery : 7 films 1962-1971
    Moore : 9 films 1973-1989
    Brosnan : 8 films - 1995-2012
    Fassbender : 2014- onwards.

  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited March 2012 Posts: 1,986
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Connery : 7 films 1962-1971
    Moore : 9 films 1973-1989
    Brosnan : 8 films - 1995-2012
    Dalton: 8 films - 1995-2012

    One slight modification and we have a real winner ;)
    Moore's age was never a real problem with me as he really brought his touch to the role. Dalton aged very well too, could have portrayed an older agent very well. But we're in the minority here who enjoy this aspect, I'm sure the critical mass would take a 20 year old Bond over a 55-60 year old one any day. Still nice territory to explore though.


  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,723
    Luds wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Connery : 7 films 1962-1971
    Moore : 9 films 1973-1989
    Brosnan : 8 films - 1995-2012
    Dalton: 8 films - 1995-2012

    One slight modification and we have a real winner ;)
    Moore's age was never a real problem with me as he really brought his touch to the role. Dalton aged very well too, could have portrayed an older agent very well. But we're in the minority here who enjoy this aspect, I'm sure the critical mass would take a 20 year old Bond over a 55-60 year old one any day. Still nice territory to explore though.

    I'd have no problems with a 60+ years old Moore, at 55+ years old Dalton and 57+ years old Brosnan as Bond. I'd actually welcome it in open arms. I think Dalton could have been Bond from 1995 till 2007, and Brosnan could have started in 2009... until when will be based on how well will he age in the upcoming years.
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    edited March 2012 Posts: 1,082
    Moore could have done TLD, but after that he would be too old. He didn´t look to old by 1989, but people would not like it. Brosnan can still look not to old to be Bond when he has black hair. Dalton didn´t look to old even by Hot Fuzz in 2004.
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,082
    When they are 59 it´s time to stop for me. Brosnan could have done his last this year.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    007RogerMoore wrote:
    Moore could have done TLD, but after that he would be too old.

    Moore could have also done a final film in 1989, so the 80's would be the Moore decade.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    Moore up until 1989, Brosnan starting in 1999? To see how the series should have been, just read this:

    http://www.listal.com/list/my-ultimate-james-bond-timeline

    :D
  • tommychameleontommychameleon
    Posts: 132
    There are definitely some "interesting" ideas being thrown around in this thread. Roger continuing until 1989??? That's craaaaazy! He should have bowed out with Octopussy. Brozza from AVTAK to TWINE, scrub out DAD...little hiatus until Danny comes along for CR in 2006.

    Job done, nice :-)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Trust me Tommycham. It would have been bad if Brosnan had done TLD. I like him and find him fun and entertaining but back then it would have been much worse if he got the part.



    People moan about his acting in Bond but its miles better than some of his earlier stuff.
  • tommychameleontommychameleon
    Posts: 132
    Hahahahahahahahahah! Point taken.
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,082
    Haha laughable. So bad it´s good. I´m laughing now. He should have gotten the job in 1987. This only made my opinion stronger.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    007RogerMoore wrote:
    Haha laughable. So bad it´s good. I´m laughing now. He should have gotten the job in 1987. This only made my opinion stronger.

    Really?

    http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/30263230
Sign In or Register to comment.