Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

12021232526104

Comments

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    I actually really like Pepper in LALD, he has some hilarious lines. It's just in TMWTGG where his appearance was unnecessary.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think one of the unfortunate things is that during the Moore era actors stoPped taking Bond seroiusly.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    Getafix wrote:
    The shadow of Dalton is all over GE though.
    I agree. And it was a good thing. Brosnan got to do his best work.
  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    The shadow of Dalton is all over GE though.
    I agree. And it was a good thing. Brosnan got to do his best work.

    I think he improved in TND.
  • Posts: 11,425
    ... And then took a step backawards with TWINE.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    In my opinion, to answer the question posed by the thread title, yes, absolutely it would have been a success with Dalton. For the following reasons, imo:

    1. the public was craving Bond as he had been away for the longest period in his film history. The pent up demand was huge

    2. Goldeneye was a film with a superb charismatic supporting cast, excellent use of locations and amazing traditional Bond elements that were to some extent missing from LTK. The public would have embraced the film regardless of the lead star

    3. If there's one thing 50+ years of movie Bond should have shown us, it is that Bond is the hero. Bond is what people come to see. The Bond universe. Some more successful than others. The actor can enhance and add to that - but ultimately people come to see Bond. When a movie does not do as well at the Box office, it is because the premise of the movie has been rejected (relatively speaking) rather than a slight on the actor.

    4. Dalton all dressed up and looking smart (circa TLD) would have perfect for GE. In fact, there are scenes in TLD (particularly in the briefing with Q) that eerily echo similar MI6 briefing scenes with M and Tanner in GE.

    5. The public has shown that is willing to forgive a movie that is not so successful if the succeeding movie brings back elements that they like, even if the same actor is playing the role (i.e. TMWTGG to TSWLM). So even though some blame Dalton for LTK (I'm not one of them) I'm sure he would have been embraced in a GE type adventure, especially after the long 6 year wait for Bond.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Would have loved to see Dalts in GE. Only evil MGM and their nasty suits prevented us getting the classic third Dalton movie the world deserved! Cubby and Babs were completely committed to bringing him back.

    It's so funny how Dalton is 'blamed' for LTK. He only got the script a week or two before shooting. Sure, he wanted to go back to the literary Bond, but the tone and direction of LTK was very much down to EON. MGW even worked on the script! A third, more light-hearted movie, along the lines of GE, would have nicely topped and tailed his era. Three would have been enough probably and I think that third one would have cemented Dalton's status in the eyes of Joe Public. I'm sure they would have done a few things differently in GE as well if Dalton had been in it _ undoubtedly it would have been a much better movie.

    Imagine GE with Dalton and John Barry back for the score...
  • Posts: 11,189
    No way. Goldeneye is a fine movie as it is.

    I haven't gone back to it literally hundreds of times over the years for nothing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    ........Three would have been enough probably and I think that third one would have cemented Dalton's status in the eyes of Joe Public. I'm sure they would have done a few things differently in GE as well if Dalton had been in it _ undoubtedly it would have been a much better movie.

    Imagine GE with Dalton and John Barry back for the score...

    Your last statement is particularly difficult for me to think about. We were truly robbed of a second Dalton/Barry collaboration due to that MGM mess.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    No way. Goldeneye is a fine movie as it is.

    I haven't gone back to it literally hundreds of times over the years for nothing.

    Actually, I think you may been doing just that - it was all for nothing! ;)
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    ........Three would have been enough probably and I think that third one would have cemented Dalton's status in the eyes of Joe Public. I'm sure they would have done a few things differently in GE as well if Dalton had been in it _ undoubtedly it would have been a much better movie.

    Imagine GE with Dalton and John Barry back for the score...

    Your last statement is particularly difficult for me to think about. We were truly robbed of a second Dalton/Barry collaboration due to that MGM mess.

    I know. I don't know why I torture myself like this. Must learn to let go of the past.......

    May be we should blame Harry for his rather petty and unpleasant act of selling his share to the studio, instead of Cubby. Wonder what direction the films would have gone in if EON had retained complete control.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    I wish dalton had been accepted by the American public. He truly played James Bond, but there were no Death Stars or death rays or idiot villains with steel teeth and he didn't play it for laughs. He was great, but the box office and admissions just didn't pan out
  • Posts: 11,425
    I wish dalton had been accepted by the American public. He truly played James Bond, but there were no Death Stars or death rays or idiot villains with steel teeth and he didn't play it for laughs. He was great, but the box office and admissions just didn't pan out

    These days that wouldn't have mattered so much, as the global market is more important. Back in LTK's time the film did perfectly well outside the US.

  • Posts: 11,189
    What was your reaction after the film @Getafix?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Agreed @Birdleson. I think Connery and Moore were very assured in their debuts. I think the same about Craig as well (very assured debut in CR imo).
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Both films did great worldwide:) daylights did just about what moores last bond did in the us, right around 50 mil, but the American public just did not show up for licence to kill
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Both films did great worldwide:) daylights did just about what moores last bond did in the us, right around 50 mil, but the American public just did not show up for licence to kill

    1989 was a blockbuster year and crowded (a bit like 2015 imo). I think LTK just got lost in the hype for the Bat & Indie.

  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    That movie poster for licence to kill absolutely sucked!!
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    What was your reaction after the film @Getafix?

    After GE? I hated it. I was with a group of friends - all Bond fans - and I really was probably the only one who didn't like it. I didn't actually like anything about it, apart perhaps from the theme song. But I was probably the only one who liked Dalton as well - all the others were big Rog fans, so I think for them they felt they had 'their' Bond back. Not that I'm not a Rog fan of course, but I'd really liked the direction they'd taken to Dalton. GE felt like a straight to DVD movie to me. I felt Brosnan just didn't have any gravitas and pretty much everything he did and says was 'wrong' for Bond.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    I know you hated GE. I was talking about LTK.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Ah, ironically I was too young to see LTK in the cinema. I didn't actually see it until a few years later and I really didn't enjoy it on first watching. I thought the whole thing of Bond going awol was a bit out of character. But it's grown on me over the years. It's still not one of my absolute favourites, but I appreciate it a lot more than I used to. What strikes me now are how underneath the change in tone, a lot of the classic ingredients are still there. It's a grower as far as I'm concerned. Dalts himself is obviously legendary. The third one would have been a bonafide classic!
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    You talk about GE being a straight to TV movie yet LTK arguably has even more of that feeling. That's how I felt when I saw it straight after OHMSS a few years back. The sets, the locations, the plot, the cast all seemed fit for the small screen.

    And LTK used to be one of my favourites.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It undoubtedly has its problems. On a recent rewatch I thought it felt 'bigger' than I remembered though. The 80s Bonds all have a little bit of that vibe. I quite like. Something reassuringly familiar about the Glen era.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2015 Posts: 15,722
    Glen is maybe my favorite director. Maybe Bond was becoming stale, but IMO I found it reassuring to know you'll get your Q, M and Moneypenny scene,you knew Gogol and the Minister of Defense was going to be there too. There is a warmth to the films, that may be predictable to some, but reassuring to me. Brosnan's films were also reassuring in that regard, Q/M/Moneypenny scenes, also Charles Robinson, Tanner, Jack Wade...
  • Posts: 11,425
    Glen is unfairly slated. He knew how to make a decent Bond movie.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm pretty sure they will go back to that reassuring feel soon enough with the MI6 team reassembled and especially of Mendes is coaxed back for B25. He's the first one since the 80s to get to do back to back Bonds. A lot of this is due to the prolonged (in terms of time and # of movies) reboot.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Not sure you can ever recpature that vibe. It was the culmination of Cubby's years as head of the frnachise. He'd literally created a Bond family, and that comes out in the films.
  • Posts: 7,653
    bondjames wrote: »
    Both films did great worldwide:) daylights did just about what moores last bond did in the us, right around 50 mil, but the American public just did not show up for licence to kill

    1989 was a blockbuster year and crowded (a bit like 2015 imo). I think LTK just got lost in the hype for the Bat & Indie.

    LTK made less than Batman in its opening weekend, I guess it is safe to say that the US public were just not enamored of Daltons version of 007.

    The movie did not get drowned, there were other far more exiting movies to see than a 007 movie with an actor that did not work at all.

    I dare to say that had Brosnan started with TLD his second would have fared much better than Dalton. He just was not the face people wanted to see as 007.

    Craig was more lucky with no heir apparent being around and having a CR to start with.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    SaintMark wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Both films did great worldwide:) daylights did just about what moores last bond did in the us, right around 50 mil, but the American public just did not show up for licence to kill

    1989 was a blockbuster year and crowded (a bit like 2015 imo). I think LTK just got lost in the hype for the Bat & Indie.

    LTK made less than Batman in its opening weekend, I guess it is safe to say that the US public were just not enamored of Daltons version of 007.

    The movie did not get drowned, there were other far more exiting movies to see than a 007 movie with an actor that did not work at all.

    I dare to say that had Brosnan started with TLD his second would have fared much better than Dalton. He just was not the face people wanted to see as 007.

    Craig was more lucky with no heir apparent being around and having a CR to start with.

    I have to admit I wasn't as excited for LTK as I was for Moore's Bonds, but I did look forward to it (but admit I was most excited for Batman). I was extremely disappointed with it after I saw it though. I thought it was terrible at the time. The problem was I was too young and could not appreciate how good it was then. Now I think it's brilliant, and as I said, I am ashamed that I wanted Dalton out at the time.

    I think you're right - the general public for the most part did not want him - they wanted Broz. I personally had not heard of Dalts when they cast him but I knew who PB was.

    You're probably right that if PB started with TLD his 2nd would have done better box office than LTK, because they probably wouldn't have made LTK the same way. It probably would have been a more bombastic Bond movie imo, similar to TND.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I do wonder if Brosnan would not have gone more dark with his movies, he would probably have been accepted doing it whereas TD was wrongly cast in the eyes of too large a paying audience.
    I think we would have gotten a darker version of Brosnans 007, in trying to make him somewhat different from Rogers tenure.
  • Posts: 15,218
    SaintMark wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Both films did great worldwide:) daylights did just about what moores last bond did in the us, right around 50 mil, but the American public just did not show up for licence to kill

    1989 was a blockbuster year and crowded (a bit like 2015 imo). I think LTK just got lost in the hype for the Bat & Indie.

    LTK made less than Batman in its opening weekend, I guess it is safe to say that the US public were just not enamored of Daltons version of 007.

    The movie did not get drowned, there were other far more exiting movies to see than a 007 movie with an actor that did not work at all.

    I dare to say that had Brosnan started with TLD his second would have fared much better than Dalton. He just was not the face people wanted to see as 007.

    Craig was more lucky with no heir apparent being around and having a CR to start with.

    Did you read my posts in another thread? You say exactly the same thing as I did, especially the "heir apparent" thing. It sank Dalton. I dare to say I think LTK, regardless of its qualities, probably sealed his doom as Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.