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
Despite his best efforts I don't think it would be all that different with Dalton to be honest.
Whether or not GE is atrocious or could have improved the script is beside the point. Brosnan was hailed as the best since Connery before he said his very first line on the set. GE might have been a success with Dalton but let's not remake history: Brosnan was part of the reasons the movie was a huge success. Dalton would not have brought the novelty factor, let alone the projection many viewers, myself included, did on Brosnan.
At the time? In the state the franchise was in? I'd take GE as it stands, not as it would have been with Dalton. Whether it would have been a better movie or not. Which is debatable, by the way.
Granted that last one wasn't Serra's work but it's still good none the less.
:))
Plus: I take exception to that remark that GE is highly flawed. IMHO the only REAL flaw is watching Russian dudes in the Kremlin speaking English to each other, which I am pretty certain rarely ever occurs.
I often hear TND described as an OTTO entry but for me it's more of a down to earth (sort of) fast paced action thriller. I see it as similar to QoS in many ways - just rips along, had script issues, and turned out better than it probably deserved to. Oh, and I enjoyed them both when I first saw them at the cinema, which is a critical test for me.
=D>
The main reason "GoldenEye" was such a huge success, was because it featured the return of James Bond 007 after a 6 year long hiatus. And also, looking at the PTS of "GoldenEye", which is set in 1986, it could have been a good continuation of "The Living Daylights". Perhaps John-Rhys Davies could have returned as Defense Minister Pushkin....
Now we're talking!
Interestingly, like Lazenby, hardcore fan's impression of Dalton has improved with time.
However, the general public has almost forgotten both of them, sadly.
Just shows the GP know nothing! That's not to say that box office is not important - of course it is - but that the real fans views count for more, especially on these threads. OHMSS is one of the best in the series and anyone who says that's got nothing to do with Laz is kidding themselves. He brought the vulnerability that film needed. Sean at that point would not have worked - he would have ruined OHMSS quite possibly. Rog? Ditto. Laz is great in that film and as it's one of the best Bond movies I maintain that that makes Laz one of the best Bonds.
I'd make a similar argument in defence of the Daltonator.
He is absolutely brilliant in it, as is Eva Green and Rory Kinnear. It's an amazing show imho.
When I was watching it, what really struck me was how good Dalton looks for his age (including his stance, posture etc.). I felt he could still play Bond now (an older one) and actually my mind wandered to contemplate what it could have been like if he had in fact continued with GE all the way up to now as Bond.....aging gracefully in the role. No CR then, and no reboot, but it would have been interesting to see Bond age in the role and with the times.