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
Ah, definitely revisit it. These craig films have proved bond can get gritty and real. Retroactively making LTK great
Considering that I don't like that Bond has gotten gritty and real, I don't think that will help LTK's case.
I can see why you would think that. And compared to other Bond films, it doesn't have the 'money on screen' feel.
I guess it's a late 80's film, shot largely on location, Key West and Mexico. Very few studio shots, and when it is, it's all in Mexico. It's a very outdoors type of Bond film. Some excellent action set pieces, and an unique storyline to put Bond as a rogue agent seeking revenge. At least it was unique at the time. ;)
Gritty realism can look cheap. Perhaps that was the point of the thing?
In Nightfire, the lorry you can jump into to entre Drake's castle says to the guard:
"Ich habe 6 Stunden gefahren."
Why would you have your wine for your party delivered by a guy who has to drive for 6 hours?
Also, 6 hours? Did he buy his wine from someone in Italy or Germany? A 6 hour drive would take you further than Austria, right?
Always wondered what that was about. Used to amuse me everytime though.
Very true, and I hear its more expensive to shoot on location in the long run.
"We had the script. They were interviewing directors. We were really rolling forward, ready to start. It was actually quite a good story, I thought."
http://theweek.com/articles/447045/timothy-dalton-opens-about-penny-dreadful-leaving-james-bond-demon-all
What's also interesting about that interview, which I didn't know before, was ol' Cubby Broccoli apparently offered TD a 4-to-5-film contract when EON's legal disputes were resolved. All this time I thought Tim got canned by the producers to get a fresh face for Goldeneye, but it actually sounds like the decision to not return was his.
"When [the next movie] did come about, it was probably four or five years later," he explains. "[Broccoli] asked if I would come back, and I said, 'Well, I've actually changed my mind a little bit. I think that I'd love to do one. Try and take the best of the two that I have done, and consolidate them into a third.' And he said, quite rightly, 'Look, Tim. You can't do one. There's no way, after a five-year gap between movies that you can come back and just do one. You'd have to plan on four or five.' And I thought, oh, no, that would be the rest of my life. Too much. Too long. So I respectfully declined." When Goldeneye hit theaters in 1995, it was Pierce Brosnan in the starring role.
I always thought United Artists president John Calley had pressured EON to recast, and that was that. Timothy Dalton's words paint a different picture, though it's not necessarily incompatible with the Calley situation. If Cubby Broccoli wanted Dalton back, he probably knew he needed to have him on board for several films, if he hoped to have a least a chance of convincing UA to keep him in the role, not to mention it was important for the Bond brand to have a stable actor associated with the role. It seems that was not to be. I have to respect Timothy Dalton's decision, but how I wish things hadn't turned out that way. Of all the Bond actors, he's the one I most wish had made another film.
I'm not sure he could've played Bond for that many movies, though. He was almost fifty when GoldenEye was released. If he had played the role three more times, he would've entered Roger Moore territory, in terms of age.
Considering how well Dalton looked in Hot Fuzz a decade ago I would have to agree that Dalts could have done Brosnans run, though the freshness of a new Bond in 1995 would always have been a bigger impact. I prefer Dalton greatly to Brosnan, though Brosnan fit the 90's well.
It would have been DAD times ten and could have destroyed the franchise.
Not just robots, nanobots.
Wouldve said more obviously is the fact that the third act is a shambles.
No. Snooper was bad enough.
Utter bollocks idea and I really can't understand how it even got through a brainstorming session for a Dalton film. Even for a Brozza vehicle it would have been embarrassing.
Yes, everybody salivates over the prospect of a third Dalton and in theory, given the direction they were heading with LTK, that sounds like it should have been a tremendous film. But what they were actually working on would have been a disaster. I really do think we were spared an early 90s Dalton dud that would have tarnished his otherwise quite praiseworthy run of two.
For me, it's as if Brosnan had stopped with GE, TND, and TWINE (though I know others think differently of his various films).
Glad GoldenEye was rewritten with Brosnan in mind.
Sounds pretty laughable now to be honest. The best effects in the world cant make up for a lame concept.
Is there a copy of this script floating around, or just leaked tidbits?