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
From the above, the relevent option is whether LTK or TLD would have been successes with Brosnan.
I think Brosnan could have potentially pulled off TLD but I think Dalton was the better choice, due to his age/maturity when he got the role and his acting abilities (and yes, I realize Bond does not need a theatrically trained actor, but Dalton was good in the dramatic scenes, if not so good in the lighter ones).
However, I personally don't think Brosnan could have done LTK convincingly at all in 1989. That movie needed a mature brooder like Dalts.
\m/
The question is so relevant because Cubby and Babs had no desire to recast at the time. The studio forced them to get rid of Dalton. It is unique in Bond history. GE should have been a Dalton movie but we were robbed of it.
1. He had no intention of playing Bond at 50+.
2. He had no intention of being tied down to the character exclusively for a decade.
NO ONE wanted Dalton to continue more than I (in retrospect), but at the time Tim made the best choice possible...
sadly.
LTK would have needed serious rewrites. My other bet is that while the movies would not have been as good, they would have been more popular. And Brosnan would have got along better with the director.
I know what you mean about the plot holes, but I've never ever worried about logic in Bond films. It's not always just about plot holes, it can be about character motivation, villains intensions, or the sheer ridiculous nature of Bond's life. Nothing in Bond films really makes much sense.
I love CR but I think the fact it has about 3 endings tends to make it appear to drag towards the end. It loses some impetus. Whereas I don't get that sense with SF and the Scottish scenes seem to wrap it all neatly up rather than bog it down. The film is easy on the eye and I can re-watch it quite easily which isn't always the case with Bond films.
I'm not saying I necessarily prefer SF to CR, but I certainly get as much from it and place it on equal footing at the very least.
What I like about Craig is he has thought the character through and we see Bond subtly change film by film (Brosnan played four different versions of Bond). So the thing I love about the last 3 films most of all is Daniel Craig.
And can I apologise for this post as I have just realised it has nothing to do with the thread in question.
I disagree with the statement that Nothing in Bond films really makes much sense.
This is a comment that I often hear in defence of Skyfall, and I think it shows just what a poor story it has.
Most Bond films make total sense. They might be OTT, push the limits of plausibility, but they have their own (sometimes crazy) internal logic. They make sense. Bond has not lasted 50 years on screen by not making any sense.
Skyfall on the other hand is riddled with nonsensical character behaviour and essentially inexplicable stuff that just makes no sense whatsoever. It's one of the main reasons that a small minority consider it much less than the sum of its parts, and definitely not the greatest Bond movie ever made.
I've no intention of setting you up for another post about the lack of logic in SF's plot, I've read the others enough times, but I will say that if you think SF is the only Bond films with plot holes then you need to study them as closely as you have studied SF.
And yes, when I say (many) Bond films don't make much sense I stick by it. These films are made for a specific market, they make no sense, and have lasted 50 years because they are great big, entertaining slabs of nonsense. Had they stuck to FRWL's formula (as great a film as it is), the series would've been dead before the 70s had popped it's head over the horizon.
So I'm not defending SF for making sense, I simply don't care enough to let it hamper my enjoyment of the film.
But that's just me. I don't care if you like it or not, I really don't. We can still be friends.
I know. Sometimes they have to go with gut instinct and give the public what they THINK they want. It isn't always on the nose, but there you go. No series can last this long without a bit of variety ;)
Oh, and to answer the question from a non-Dalton fan, yes I believe it would have been a success, just not as big as it was. Simply because Brozzer resonated with US audiences and Dalts didn't.......but I bet that's been said many times in this thread.
This is the biggest change within TV/Cinema that we've seen over the last decade or so, perhaps even longer. It was reasonable in the era of Cubby and Harry to second guess the whims of an audience as the audience was to all extents and purposes pretty limited in the scope of breadth of content they could enjoy. It was almost a case of put up, or shut up, and if the content was ticking enough boxes it would inevitably be watched by enough people. Nowadays I think the makers have to rely on a Director who is delivering what he/she wants to see, rather than trying to please a changing audience who have access to such wide-ranging content, across multiple platforms. The audience now is also more savvy, even non-film buffs dissect films in a manner historically reserved for critics and TV has piqued people's interest in 'character' more than I think has been the case in the past. With Mendes he seems to fusing character with box-ticking, which is an interesting experiment, but I think Mendes definitely does what 'he' wants, so I have to give him credit for that, even if it's not necessarily what 'I' would want.
Very good post RC7.
And I want it right in the middle. Just kidding.
Maybe someone should start a specific thread, looking at plot holes in different Bond films and possible explanations?
Not necessary. There is only one Bond film with glaring plotholes! ;)
There is a big difference between something being OTT and silly, and something that makes no sense. Yes FRWL makes sense, but so does DAD. One may be a masterpiece, and the other a total abomination, but even the latter has its own internal logic that makes sense.
Trashing all the other movies just in order to make the case that they're all as nonsensical as SF is a weak argument. I've heard this defence of SF - saying all the Bond films are nonsense - many times and to me, like the film, it doesn't convince.
Tell me which parts of TLD and LTK don't 'really make much sense'.
The question thread is the ideal place for that.
Fair point! That part really made no sense at all. ;)
I cleverly qualified my point by saying 'many' of the Bond films don't make sense, because I know some do.
Start with DAD which you say 'makes sense'. Ever seen a man come out of nowhere with no background, no history, and within a year he is knighted by the Queen? I haven't - it's nonsense (but I don't care). And not only nonsense it's a plot hole (and I still don't care).
Bond is tortured for 14 months and comes out looking fatter than when he went in.
I would need to see it again but everything Graves manages to accomplish in less than a year including turning a British spy (Frost) makes little sense. However, like I say it's a long time since I've watched it.
LTK is ok, but I always had issues with the fact that Chinese agents spend months (or is it years) staking out Sanchez's operation only for Bond to waltz in and in about 2 days flat destroy the Chinese operation but also bring down Sanchez's multi million $ operation by infiltrating the set up, winning |Sanchez's trust, turning him against 2 of his loyal subjects (who paid the price) and blowing everything up. It was ridiculous.
Also, when M stops his men from shooting Bond it's because there are too many people about. So, if they weren't about would he let Bond be shot? If so why does he wish Bond God's protection?
The much mentioned last scene where Leiter, recently chewed up by a shark and widowed on his wedding day is sitting up in bed (3 days later?) chirpy as hell and planning a fishing trip with Bond! It's ridiculous because Bond doesn't fish!!
TLD - Oh I like TLD, won't have a word said against it.
BTW I'm not trashing the Bond films. I'm older than most on here and have seen all but 2 of the films at the cinema. I've collected Bond since I was a kid and it has always been my major passion, so I won't let anyone suggest I don't know Bond films or that my arguments are 'weak'. I call the films nonsense because they are not supposed to be taken as high art, they are not 'serious' spy films. They are action/adventure movies about a 'spy' who seems to be known at every 5 star hotel in the world. He is a world class skier, driver, surfer, marksman, wine connoisseur as well as knowing everything about butterflies and poisonous fish etc etc etc etc.
If you have heard this argument about the films in defense of SF 'many many times' what does that tell you? That maybe there is something you have failed to understand about the Bond films.
So please don't patronise me @Getafix. I don't mean that in an argumentative way, I have loads of respect for you, but I won't be questioned about my knowledge or understanding or this series of films.
I was attacking your argument because I don't think it stands up and I don't think the examples you've given are comparable to what we see in SF. How does Bond survive being shot twice, falling from the viaduct, floating away down a river unconcious etc? I honestly can't think of anything in the rest of the series that compares to this in terms of pure lack of explanation. Extreme, important stuff just happens to the central character and we're just expected to accept it because hey, 'Bond survives everything and cannot die, so duh, of course he survives'.
As I said before, pretty much all the other Bond films have crazy, sometimes daft, and often plausibility-stretching elements, but they do make sense. DAD is probably not the best example, but as you know, the Graves character is a pretty direct lift from the MR novel, so to the Bond officianado such as yourself, the reference should be clear. Grave's sudden appearance and rise to prominence is noted in the film (I think) and acknoweldged as one of the elements that makes him suspicious to MI6 in the first place. We know he's got money, from all his dodgy dealings previously. He changes his identity through some crazy gene therapy treatment. Yes it's utterly implausible, sci-fi type stuff, but everything is explained within the film - therefore, within the self-contained world of DAD, everything makes sense.
That's not to say it is good, but there is an internal logic to it.
By contrast, there are parts of SF which simply offer no explanation. Bond's 'death' and Silva's utterly nonsensical plan and actions throughout the movie are the prime examples.
I actually prefer SF to DAD, so this is not about saying which one is better. I can usually accept the odd leap of logic and suspension of disbelief, but SF requires this so regularly throughout the film that it loses coherency. I end up just not believing in what people are doing on the screen. And it's not even because the basic story is implausible, it's because of the way that it's told. I can watch something much crazier - say the latest X-Men movie - and suspend my disbelief quite happily, just because the film is put together better.
As for Bond doing a better job than the Chinese agents in LTK, that's because he's putting his life on the line to infiltrate and destroy the organisation from inside. It's central to the whole plot. He doesn't care what happens to himself - he's out for revenge for Felix and his wife. He is not carrying out surveillance and gathering a case to make prosecutions, he's out to destroy Sanchez and all his cronies. I.e. - it all makes sense.
Apologies if you diagree with this, bust to recap, your agument above was essentially that 'yes, SF often doesn't make any sense, but then neither do many of the other films either'. I just disagree and can't think of another film in the series that lacks internal coherence and logic in the way that SF does.
All I am saying is that you can like SF as much as you want, but you don't need to defend it by saying that most of the other Bond films don't make any sense, because it's not necessary - there are plenty of other ways to defend SF (nice camerawork, good cast etc.) - and because I just don't think what you're saying about the other movies is true. Yes a lot of them have crazy plots, but that is different from saying they don't make sense.
I think we can agree to disagree on this one though, as it's admitedly very well trodden ground.
Crazy Cuban gene therapy and lots of money. It's made pretty clear in the film. I agree that it's total garbage as a story, but it is explained to a degree that allows me to not have to ponder it too long.
The implausbility of DAD is something it shares with the original MR movie, but from my perspective, although they stretch credulity, they do give sufficient explanation so that within the terms of each film, there is an internal logic.
This is really the point I am making - that there is a difference between a crazy but internally coherent story, and one that just doesn't make sense, even on its own terms.