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
Fair enough. I was primarily disputing the argument made above that the Brosnan era was some kind of creative rebirth. Whether you like them or not, I think it's hard to argue that they took the series into interesting new territory. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes the old ways are the best, after all. But I think it's nonsense to claim that the 6 year gap gave EON the opportunity to think afresh. What they did is just go back to a tried and tested formula.
I have no doubt. I have always been one of those who've said that Brosnan was capable of a much more interesting take on the character. He showed in the Tailor of Panama that he can act, when given a decent script and direction. I personally never felt the screen depiction of Bond that he/EON pursued during his era, suited his own strengths. He would have been a lot better as someone who was a bit nastier and more morally ambiguous. His Bond is too clean cut and straight down the line - there's no edge, no danger. He should have been a bit more twisted. Who is his Bond? Who cares? I don't think Brosnan ever really knew what he or EON were after. Despite all the nice talk from Barbara, I have no doubt in my mind that EON felt Brosnan had not delivered the complexity and range they wanted and that this is one of the reasons they got rid of him. He is after all the only Bond actor to have ever been effectively sacked - I think that is a sign of how bad things were from EON's perspective. Yes EON are interested in making money, but Bond is more than just that for them - it's something they're passionate about and they want to make quality movies. A Tarantino-directed Brosnan film would have been something I'd like to have seen. I just think Tarantino could have gotten something out of him that no one else could - a really different and original take on the character.
Fair enough. I can't argue with that. I do think Dalton was an attempt to make things fresh and relevant again though. Perhaps he failed in doing that in the US (although, as I say, the contemporary US reviews for LTK are actually, despite what you'd think, generally very positive).
:))
And Moore came directly from The Persuaders....
I agree that Brosnan was very effective in bringing Bond back in GE. It was a masterpiece of a movie on a shoestring budget that holds up very well even today (one of my favourite Bond films on entertainment value and acting alone). However, in my view, he started to lose that 'cool' factor in the very next film. I can't quite put my finger on it, but GE was such a great start that was never capitalized on imho - which is so sad. It's like Brosnan's Bond was caught in this twilight zone from the past - not knowing who he wanted to be.
Having said that, I don't think he could have given us a really great Bond without going to the edge and the extremes - like he did in Tailor of Panama. Daniel Craig can do 'cool' but disturbed Bond much better than Brosnan can. Brosnan to me can play it all cool (like in GE) or all crazy (like ToP) - but not in between imho. Craig can do both in the same movie more convincingly. So for a great Brosnan Bond performance we needed Tarrantino to take it to the edge. Brosnan knew that I think - which is why he wanted Quentin. EON probably did not want that.
I have to say though that when I first saw TLD in the theatre in 1987, I was amazed with Tim's take on the character and the movie itself, which was great to me from the opening Bondian reel - apart from the lack of babes which as a fairly young fella I was disappointed with. Kara was quite underwhelming to a boy with raging hormones who preferred to see the likes of Anya's wholesome chest (Ringo is a lucky man) to Kara's slightly matronly clothed character in TLD. LTK, as I've said before, came too soon in Tim's reign. They should have had one more under their belt to establish his Bond before taking such a creative tangent.
Ironically, as Brosnan proved in ToP, he could do an LTK-crazy type movie in 2001 (but certainly not in 1989) - it's just that EON never game him that chance.
They were always on the top shelf in my local corner shop, sadly, and my id was not good enough. I have to admit, if I'd seen that photo earlier, my opinion might have changed considerably. I always preferred her cousin from the Wonder Years, though. Olivia.
As ( I suppose) one of the "Originals" being referenced here, I'll corroborate that. The folks who nit pick GF and TB really ought to keep this point in mind. Without the immense goodwill generated in the mind of the general public by those two films in particular, it is entirely possible that the Bond franchise may not have survived the damage wrought by some of the later, lesser films (whichever you perceive those to be.)
That's too bad. I'm proud to proclaim that each Bond actor has at least l film in my own Top 10. Brosnan gets 1 for GE, Dalton gets 1 for TLD, and the Lazenator gets his solo offering in there as well. This leaves 2 for Moore (TMWTGG and FYEO), 2 for Craig (CR and SF) and 3 for Connery (FRWL, GF and TB.)
Indeed I feel the same way. I'm not at all shy about saying the Brosnan area is my least favored, and not because of Brosnan himself, but rather because the whole arc of his tenure I somewhat tongue-in-cheek refer to as "the machine gun era": almost generic action movies with little to no "spy" feel at all.
By ME, anyway.
;)
Fair enough. What I don't understand though is that in my mind, the 80s were the heyday of the mindless action flick and Bond managed to ignore that and steer its own course. By the mid 90s, hadn't things begun to move on? Why hark back to the previous decade. It seemed pointless.
She might have had exceptional feet. If you ask me, beauty is more than just boobies.
Don't read that the wrong way, I do not have a foot fetish.
Perfectly put! Yes.
May be. May be EON's marketing just improved, after the catastophe surrounding LTK's launch in the US? After GE (which was keenly anticipated) I don't remember any particularly great excitement around the Brosnan era movies. They seemed to be just regular, well promoted movies. Of course, it's Bond, so for the fans it's a bigger deal. But not sure TND, TWINE or DAD registered as major 'event movies'. I think SF is definitely the one that's had the biggest buzz around it in recent times, largely due to Adele's song, I think.
But yes, there's been a consistent and solid approach to the marketing since the start of the Brosnan era, which is definitely a good thing.
Agreed. GE had the most buzz by far of the Brozz era due to a new Bond and the return after so many years (the teaser - "You were expecting someone else" was brilliant). The others were just regular action movies. In fact, TND was eclipsed by the juggernaut that was Titanic for most of its run.
For Craig, CR had a reasonable amount of buzz just because of the new Bond and the swimtrunk marketing which was very smartly done.....and of course excellent word of mouth. SF was off the chart due to the jubilee and 50th anniversary.
I agree about the 80's though - the John Glen era that started with the toned down FYEO was the most underwhelming (in terms of overall box office appeal and event marketing), although 1983 was an exception due to the Battle of the Bonds.
I don't think people praise him for inventing a hard edged Bond, just for being one. I think his Bond is more rounded and three dimensional than previously seen, and although Dalton attempted the same it was Craig who gave Bond a more considered and thoughtful persona. Dalts did all the emotional expressions to help us understand his inner feelings, but it never felt real, not to me anyway.
And this idea that he was ahead of his time. I don't buy that. I was there and the audience was ready to see the jokes and pratfalls put away believe you me. We were ready for a serious minded Bond. I was really happy with TD when I first saw TLD, but I was less convinced by the vigilante he gave us in LTK.
Over the years I've cooled towards him, but what he did give us that no one had before and no one would again, was a Bond who couldn't rest, probably couldn't sleep. He was consumed by the job, and he hated it. He did it because he couldn't think of anyone who would do it better. That was Dalts unique contribution.
Fair comments. I do think he gave a lot with his two performances. I am not quite the ardent Daltonite I used to be either though, partly because I think the job is largely done, in the sense that he has the respect that he deserves. Had he done a couple more I think we'd have a more balanced view of his contribution. He wouldn't just be pigeon-holed as the 'serious' Bond.
Yeeeea, mmm, I know but when he does the flirty, amused Bond it was a sort of goofy self conscious grin that made him look a bit simple. He was at his best when he threw himself into the action scenes, and maybe his two finest moments book ended his Bond career - the PTS in TLD and the tanker chase in LTK. He was very good in both of those.
As to why he didn't make it in USA, the mid to late 80s saw the rise of self mocking beef cake heroes like Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford. Maybe a skinny, slightly grumpy English hero didn't fit.
Yes. Dalton does perhaps have a bit of the air of a man out of place. I think it works quite well, but can see where you're coming from.
Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis majored in grumpyness though, so not sure that's all that relevant.
I think the whole opening sequence in Bratislava in TLD is excellent, as is most of the film upto Afghanistan. The TLD PTS is obviously a triumph. One of the best in the series. Perhaps my favourite after GF and TSWLM.
Dalton may have been technically sound, but he was relatively uncharismatic compared to the 80's crowd - relatively uncool as well.
When you had Willis take action heroes to a new level in Die Hard (1988) the benchmark moved tremendously for everyone imho. From my personal perspective he was like a younger, tougher, American version of wise-cracking, charismatic Roger Moore. The intensity of the close quarters action was also something totally new at that time. It had the same impact as Bourne did in 2002 but for different reasons (for many years after 1988 many movies aped Die Hard). Coincidentally, in both cases (post-DH & post-Bourne) the incumbent Bond exited thereafter, although for completely different reasons.
I agree with the view that has been expressed here before that Dalton's formidable contributions to Bond can only be appreciated in hindsight and retrospect. So in a way, his star is brighter precisely because he only did two - and also because Brosnan who followed did not take the role any further during his 7 yr run - and also because of 911's impact on what we expect from a spy.