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
Who knows? A third movie in a different tone than LTK could have been the way to go.
Or it would be even worse as the the box office for the second one showed and a serious decline in the US interest which made the studios look away from Dalton. The six years was way too long for an actor that never convinced in the role. These days even Lazenby is rated higher than Dalton perhaps because OHMSS was pure Fleming.
Controversial opinion from me: we are at a similar turning point now.
Not yet as there is no next in line for the part, unless you imply that Bond in SF will be difficult to be followed by himself in the part?
For me EON after the SF/SP movies painted themselves into a corner and have no clue where to go next.
The market has moved on. They need to go younger and fresh. That's just like how it was with Brozz, who was considered more hip than the more staid and serious Dalton.
Obviously it's speculative. I think the tone of the movie had nothing to do with it. The general public did not like him and whatever the tone I doubt they'd have liked him then. DAF was far more popular than OHMSS not because of its intrinsic qualities but because of Sean Connery.
Don't buy that for a minute. According to John Glen LTK tested better with American audiences than any previous Bond Movie!
The marketing had a lot to blame for itz poor showing, that and the appalling decision to grant it a higher cert in UK (Same as Lethal Weapon 2 which was far more violent )
A third Dalton movie I firmly believe would have been a success.
Agree entirely. LTK is one of the few Bond films where the climax is also the high point of the film.
I think this reasonably fair. We get a quick shot of Fishermans Wharf and a fine climax on the Golden Gate Bridge but City hall could just be any office block and the fire truck chase could take place in any city and doesn't make the most of the location like the chases in Bullit and The Rock.
My own personal (not sure if it's controversial) opinion is that Bond never really works in America for some reason.
GF - The film grinds to a halt once we arrive in Kentucky and even though picks up at the end that is a Ken Adam 'set' piece (see what I did there?). Although seeing a glimpse of kitsch 60s Americana is fun a character in a Bond film should never end up at KFC.
DAF - Again starts off reasonably then gets worse as it moves to America and is one of the dullest films both visually and narratively. And Circus Circus is spectacularly naff.
LALD - Probably pulls it off the best as it goes off the beaten track slightly with Harlem and the Bayou but another far from stellar film.
MR - I'm barely counting this as an establishing shot of LAX hardly gives us the feeling we are in California.
AVTAK - As already mentioned, ok but far from great.
LTK - A very TV movie feel in the early scenes particularly. Not sure if that's down to the lacklustre photography or the location but still underwhelms when set against the fabulous cold war feel of the first half of TLD.
Overall when you look at the films that have been stateside it's hardly a spectacular CV with only GF being what could potentially be classed as top tier (and even with that the weakest part is set in America). Is it just a coincidence? I don't really know the answer, and this isn't meant to be a slagging off of the USA (we have other threads for that), but it just seems to me that when Bond crosses the pond the results are largely 'meh'.
I don't think it's necessarily the locations as NBNW nails it in spades and also makes excellent use of its locations (the UN building, the crop dusting sequence, Mt Rushmore) but personally my own preference for a Bond film is it shmostly Europe with a sojourn to somewhere a bit exotic if you must.
I think I'd agree with you both there. I have serious misgivings over what sort of box office a third Dalton film would have done stateside either in 91 or 95. Wouldn't have sunk the series as they could've still reset with Brosnan in 93 or 97 but even without the delay I can't envisage Dalton having the popularity to do 6 or 7 films.
Sad to say I agree here too. It just seems like since the spectacular adrenaline shot of CR ever since has been a slow decline and the Mendes era (despite the fact I don't despise either of them like some) has just descended into fan fiction to the point where we are now Ina narrative cul de sac that can surely only be best resolved with starting afresh?
Despite him being excellent in the role (not so much as exec producer - but that's a different debate) I'm just not feeling a lot of enthusiasm for another Craig Bond film from either the public, people her or, indeed, myself.
There's differences though: 1)no heir apparent, 2)Craig has had at least two very popular Bond movies, 3)overall his Bond movies have been far more popular and 4)Brosnan's shadow was cast away from CR and there's no equivalent now.
So it can be done with the right director and cinematographer. In fact, if any series can do it justice it should be a Bond entry given their reputation, and perhaps that would be a suitable challenge to take on one day.
The location that I think they could do wonders with if they really wanted to is Washington DC. National Treasure did a pretty good job of it.
I can attest the 11 times I saw LTK in the cinema, the seats were pretty much empty. What few people who were in the auditorium did cheer in several scenes, though. Certainly LTK had the most dismal marketing campaign, and audiences were pretty much luke-warm to Tim's Bond. Most casual fans and movies goers I spoke with almost always said "it still should have been Brosnan", when referring to one of Tim's films.
So the planned 3rd Dalton really would have needed some clever strategy to get audiences back in.
During the lead up to SP, there seemed to be an anti- Danial vibe going on. In addition to the wrist slashing comment, countless articles and blurbs on social media stating that Elba should have been playing Bond or should be the next 007. So the general public were slowly moving away from Daniel.
After watching TLD last night, I realized that I would have loved him in a third film. Perhaps a late 1992 release, people may have forgotten about LTK
Quite. The US posters in particular are an abomination. If EON can't be arsed to put inany effort then why would you expect the audience to bother to turn out?
It's particularly galling given just 2 years earlier we had the sublime TLD poster which 31 long years later has yet to be equalled let alone bettered.
It seemed, other than die hard Bond fans, most were sadly indifferent to Tim.
I'd say LTK under performed for all those reasons. Perhaps a later summer release might have helped, but it most certainly needed a stronger campaign. The television spots were few and far between, there was very little Bond merchandise, only a couple new books, and most magazine coverage focused on BATMAN, INDY 3 and LETHAL WEAPON 2. It was the "summer of sequels", and Bond, just like The Karate Kid and latest Star Trek film was one of those sequels that got buried by the rest of the blockbusters.
I do think, though by 1991/92 a 3rd film could have gotten things right, though. One of the biggest complaints was that LTK didn't feel like a Bond film. Most thought it steered too far away from what made the cinematic Bond popular.
Also many griped that the film wasn't fun. Even though LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD were more intense, and violent than a typical PG Bond, those films brought a lot of humor, which audiences loved. LTK probably seemed just a bit too dour.
I think it's because we expect Bond to go to exotic and glamorous places. While the US can be glamorous it is rarely if ever exotic. Even it's most spectacular settings have a familiar feel. The United States pretty much define what is common. In NBNW it worked because part of the appeal of the film was watching this everyman discovering a hidden, sinister to the environment he was used to and thought he knew. Not unlike supernatural stories in fact. You want James Bond to evolve in a more baroque environment.
First, the Bond films had been on a downward trajectory, box office-wise, since Moonraker. TLD didn't underperform really at all. Bond probably just needed a break.
Second, and again, I love Tim, but Dalton was not the best promoter of movies. He actually got better later, but for his Bond tenure, Tim was not the kind of talk show guest you would want as your leading man. And I think for American audiences (and these are really the only people who didn't turn out for LTK), it makes a difference.
It's so good and the way it's built up to through the film is perfect. The final showdown in the desert and Bond collapsing exhausted afterwards is my favourite scene of the series.
The most odious culprit is Diamonds are Forever. The pandemonium of dubbed American voices is grating! I am sure I sustained permanent dental damage gritting them left and right, because I couldn't stand them.
No America ever again. Let's drink to that!
Im American, I love America, I do the pledge and what not, but, BOND DOES NOT BELONG IN THE USA. It’s just bad everytime. CR gets away because it’s just a short airport sequence that could be anywhere but the other films really drag in America.
But they have the amazing moment where bond gets arrested and 6 American cops have their shotguns pointed at his head at the same time which is maybe the most American thing I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s a cartoon.