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
Bond would have always come back with or without Brosnan. It would never have been cancelled. If UA didnt want to do it then other studios would have picked it up.
Bond is a cashcow and is forever.
I completely disagree. If they would have used another actor and it didn't work out, Bond would have been done
I agree with this. I'm not saying another actor couldn't have done what Bronsan did. I'm just saying audiences appreciated him so much more than Dalton.
i agree. They played very safe after LTK. The Brosnan era went backwards and the series lost its edge.
Until 2006 that is.
The reason EON 'played it safe' was because LTK was a BIG disappointment
A darker film in 1995 really wouldn't have worked. It was in the middle of the 'cheesey action movie' decade.
There were alot of people saying Brosnan was the best since Connery, and his films weren't popular but he was until Craig arrived. Not as strong as Craig maybe, but he was/is popular.
Bond was more popular in the 70s. And Bonds popularity getting lower wasn't because of Dalton, TLD outgrossed AVTAK, it started in the early 80s with Moore (wasn't his fault either though)
Like you said, the darker direction is more popular now, which is one of the reasons why I think Dalton is so great. He was ahead of his time, and I feel bad for him. Back then, even though the critics liked it, the public didn't like the dark violent direction.
But today, with films like Bourne doing well, people like the more realistic films and that's why I think CR did so well. Like I said, I think Dalton was ahead of his time.
http://www.listal.com/list/my-ultimate-james-bond-timeline
;;)
Daltons weren't as popular in the states and LTK was (I was genuinely surprised at this) 36. That's bad for any Bond film.
I feel bad for dalton but it's clear that a lot of people just didn't like him. I've heard people describe him as dull or boring.
I don't care if the americans didn't like it, I still think LTK is the best film of all time
In theory the Americans should have loved it.
Your doing this again Bain stating other peoples opinions as fact in an argument. So what? My granny never liked Bournemouth. Does this make Bournemouth a bad place? No. Its one or two peoples opinions. You were doing this on another thread.
I still say that Daltons two films are two jewells in the series - mature, edgy and something new. Something that we had not seen before. They had a matureness that we would not see for a very long time after they ended.
Agreed. For good or ill, put the name of James Bond on a film and it's bound to make money.
Perhaps its American setting is why American audiences didn't love it. Part of the appeal of the Bond series to me as an American fan is the armchair traveller bit, i.e., going to exotic places such as Europe and the Far East. It's too bad LTK wasn't made in China as originally intended. That would've been an excellent foreign location for a Bond film.
But Dalton, when compared to Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig IS considered a 'lesser Bond' by and large. Im not saying that's necessarily true but I strongly believe that if u ask people who their favourite Bond was most would say one of the four names above.
Believing is not evidence. Unless you do a survey of everyone who has seen a Bond film then it is conjecture. Its projection.
Just because you dont like him it doesn mean everyone does.
In regard to "evidence" though what about the disappointing US box office takings for his films? What about his appearances in other lightweight films like Looney Tunes: Back in Action (as a co-star). For a man who's meant to be a gifted actor we hardly see him in big, meaty films nowadays. He hasn't had the starring roles the "Big Four" have had on film.
Dalton seems to be happy, I don't think he really wants to be a big film star, he just wants to be an actor. And I think he's doing well enough. He gets work (looney tunes, hotfuzz, the tourist, doctor who), and probably has much more money than most people.
I think he still does some stuff on the stage. And Hot Fuzz was great and made alot of money, and I think Dalton said it was the most fun he'd ever had making a film. Don't really see how that's a step down.
He did. I love him in Hot Fuzz and you can see he's having a ball BUT it's not exactly a high-brow drama is it. I suspect Craig wouldn't be caught dead in a film like that.
No, but it is a very funny, highly praised comedy that was very successful.
Agreed it's a funny film and he easily steals the show but it doesn't really test his abilities as a serious film actor does it? I think part of the reason he's so much fun in HF is because he can play on his theatrical roots and go over-the-top.
I sympathise with your view. I share the feeling that in a way, Dalts was the last proper Bond (as much as I like DC). The end of the Cold War has created a bit of a problem for Bond. The Cold War just set the tone for everything, even though the Commies were rarely, if ever, the actual baddies. In many ways Bourne captured this post-cold war feel much better than Bond - the ambiguity and lack of clear defining ideological lines.
Still, I'm a sucker for them and will still go and see them at the cinema regardless, even when I know they're gonna stink (GE to DUD, inclusive).
GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, and The World is not Enough are just about as classic as you can get! I certainly applause the 1990's for bringing these three legends to the Bond series, and largely due in part to the man himself, Pierce Brosnan. I'd say that 3 dimensional characters in the '90s were Alec Trevelyan, General Ourumov, Xenia Onatopp, Elektra King, Renard, Sir Robert King, and Natalya Simonova. Only the characters in TND were less dimensional, but I still think they're iconic legends, except for Paris Carver, who I can't stand no matter what!
I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone who says there weren't good characters in the nineties is missing something.
You can squeeze a mention for Sylvester McCoy into a Bond thread like no one else I know Major ;)
What better reason is there my friend? ;)
While Brosnan's time was fun - his tenure was anything but classic.... GE is about the only film I would put under the 'classic' category... TND and TWINE weren't that special... in terms of 3 dimensional characters - just because a character has a backstory, doesn't make them 3 dimensional.... when i think of 3 dimensional - they go through a range of emotional growth throughout the film..... Natalya and Elektra are about the only 3 dimensional characters in your list... the one I think I laughed at the most, was Sir Robert King... lol really?.. he has a total of about 40 seconds of screen time and was a sacrificial lamb - and somehow he was a 3 dimensional character??