› ›

Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

1…5657596162…104

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    Getafix wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »

    Even now on these threads people seem to imply that it was Dalton's unpopularity that was the reason he only did two. But the truth is that if there hadn't been the legal disputes going on then we would have had at least three and probably more. That's a fact.

    Cubby had been trying to get Dalton since the 60s and wouldn't have ditched him after the minor box office blip in the US with LTK - which everyone at EON blamed on the studio anyway.

    But you never get a sense EON pulled out all the stops to keep him either.

    No sign of the studio weighing in with a wheelbarrow full of money as they did to get Sean back either.

    Picture this. It's 1980 and they haven't made a Bond movie since The Man With the Golden Gun. Rog has been waiting 6 years for another crack at Bond but legal wrangling has prevented EON going into production. Gun was a commercial success but nowhere near as big as previous Bonds. Audiences don't seem to have taken to him in the same way as Sean. Suddenly everything drops into place and its go. Do EON pull out all the stops to keep Rog? Will the studio produce a wheelbarrow of cash? Or do they recast? There's no easy answer.

    Point being that if Rog hadn't been able to make Spy, history might have been very different.

    Similar legal issues could have hit Connery before he'd barely started. Imagine a six year break after FRWL. No GF, no TB. How would Connery be regarded now? Two very good movies, but would a cinematic legend have been established?

    According to Dalton (who doesn't strike me as a liar), EON wanted him to sign on for three films in 1994, but he felt he was too old. So despite the break, EON felt invested in him and wanted him to stay. After all CuBby had been trying to get Dalton since the 60s. That's a pretty big vote of confidence.

    I doubt even Rog could have survived a six years break but that's the point: I say EVEN Rog, an already popular actor before he was cast as Bond. Compare to an actor perceived as second choice when cast. Yes Dalton never had his TSWLM. But he didn't have his LALD to begin with either.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Similarly, Tom Cruise did 2 Mission Impossible films in 1996 and 2000, the 2nd being widely regarded as the worst of the bunch. Now that series had a 6 years gap before the 3rd one, which largely underperformed. Cue another 5 years gap, and Cruise stunned the world with 'Ghost Protocol', regarded as one of the finest action/adventure films of the last 10 years, and he was then the same age Dalton would have been in GE.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited July 2016 Posts: 11,189
    Once again, I think the main link between Roger and Tom Cruise was their popularity in the United States.

    The achilles heel for Dalton seemed to be his "meh" reception over there.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Similarly, Tom Cruise did 2 Mission Impossible films in 1996 and 2000, the 2nd being widely regarded as the worst of the bunch. Now that series had a 6 years gap before the 3rd one, which largely underperformed. Cue another 5 years gap, and Cruise stunned the world with 'Ghost Protocol', regarded as one of the finest action/adventure films of the last 10 years, and he was then the same age Dalton would have been in GE.

    Why is GP regarded so highly? I thought it was pretty mediocre, apart from the bit hanging on the building. I like MI3 much better. That on IS one of the best action films this century if you ask me. :-<
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Similarly, Tom Cruise did 2 Mission Impossible films in 1996 and 2000, the 2nd being widely regarded as the worst of the bunch. Now that series had a 6 years gap before the 3rd one, which largely underperformed. Cue another 5 years gap, and Cruise stunned the world with 'Ghost Protocol', regarded as one of the finest action/adventure films of the last 10 years, and he was then the same age Dalton would have been in GE.

    Why is GP regarded so highly? I thought it was pretty mediocre, apart from the bit hanging on the building. I like MI3 much better. That on IS one of the best action films this century if you ask me. :-<

    RN was better than GP in my view.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Similarly, Tom Cruise did 2 Mission Impossible films in 1996 and 2000, the 2nd being widely regarded as the worst of the bunch. Now that series had a 6 years gap before the 3rd one, which largely underperformed. Cue another 5 years gap, and Cruise stunned the world with 'Ghost Protocol', regarded as one of the finest action/adventure films of the last 10 years, and he was then the same age Dalton would have been in GE.

    Why is GP regarded so highly? I thought it was pretty mediocre, apart from the bit hanging on the building. I like MI3 much better. That on IS one of the best action films this century if you ask me. :-<

    RN was better than GP in my view.

    Yes! My second favourite besides MI3. :)>-
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    The last one - was it RN - is the best.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    The other MI movies are mainly pretty dire
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Getafix wrote: »
    The other MI movies are mainly pretty dire

    Philip Seymour Hoffman Plays a great villain in 3. Some great acting/action in that one.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I did like the first one. Remember watching that in the cinema in the summer of 1996.

    I enjoyed #3 aswell.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    The first one was okay
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Similarly, Tom Cruise did 2 Mission Impossible films in 1996 and 2000, the 2nd being widely regarded as the worst of the bunch. Now that series had a 6 years gap before the 3rd one, which largely underperformed. Cue another 5 years gap, and Cruise stunned the world with 'Ghost Protocol', regarded as one of the finest action/adventure films of the last 10 years, and he was then the same age Dalton would have been in GE.

    But Tom Cruise is a huge star, he could take a six years gap easily. One could say MI is now more his vehicle than the cinematic adaptation of the old TV series. James Bond has always been bigger than the actor playing him (even with Connery and Moore).
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    RN and De Palma's original are the two best in the franchise running away. The others, despite GP having possibly the best team around Cruise, have been pretty forgettable, especially 2 and 3.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    dalton wrote: »
    RN and De Palma's original are the two best in the franchise running away. The others, despite GP having possibly the best team around Cruise, have been pretty forgettable, especially 2 and 3.
    RN is the one I enjoy the most, followed closely by GP (which was far superior to the third one). These two remind me so much of the Roger Moore Bond era (which I'm a big fan of). Just pure action fun.

    Then I rank the original De Palma MI (which arguably is critically the best of the bunch and very forward looking for its time) followed by MI3 and finally MI2 (great action, but pretty sloppy otherwise imho).
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    The problem with MI3, for me, is that it very much feels like it's just a lengthier episode of Alias, which JJ Abrams was mostly known for at the time he directed the film, along with Lost. It works OK on the small screen, and I remember being reasonably entertained by it when I saw it in the theater, but it's a footnote in the history of the action genre of the last decade or two. Certainly not one of the best, even if Cruise is, as always, in fine form.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Similarly, Tom Cruise did 2 Mission Impossible films in 1996 and 2000, the 2nd being widely regarded as the worst of the bunch. Now that series had a 6 years gap before the 3rd one, which largely underperformed. Cue another 5 years gap, and Cruise stunned the world with 'Ghost Protocol', regarded as one of the finest action/adventure films of the last 10 years, and he was then the same age Dalton would have been in GE.

    Why is GP regarded so highly? I thought it was pretty mediocre, apart from the bit hanging on the building. I like MI3 much better. That on IS one of the best action films this century if you ask me. :-<

    Ghost prototype for me is the worst of the MI franchise even the crazy iver the top Mi 2 was better. I was really hesitant about Rouge Nation because of that one, but it was a huge improvement.

    This is how i rank the Mi films

    Rouge Nation
    Misssion Impossible
    Mission Impossible III
    Mission Impossible II


    Ghost Protocol
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited July 2016 Posts: 11,425
    Rogue Nation? I like the idea of Rouge Nation though - undertones of the Cold War?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Szonana wrote: »
    Ghost prototype for me is the worst of the MI franchise even the crazy iver the top Mi 2 was better.
    What's wrong with Ghost Proto...type...col?

    One of the best action films of the past 10 yrs imho and seriously better than the last Bond entry in my view.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    GP was pretty dire.

    RN however did give Bond a bit of a run for its money.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Sheesh, this thread sure is missing its target lately.

    "You missed. Deliberately."

    tld_banne1-1080x675.png

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I did prefer RN to GP, but I still thought they were both excellent. That 'irony' that they said they wanted to inject back into Bond was all over both of these films, and beautifully interspersed with the narrative.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    Ghost prototype for me is the worst of the MI franchise even the crazy iver the top Mi 2 was better.
    What's wrong with Ghost Proto...type...col?

    One of the best action films of the past 10 yrs imho and seriously better than the last Bond entry in my view.

    Woow, stupid typos didn't realise i wrote prototype instead of protocol but i thought protocol was really slow. It took forever till the real started.


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Szonana wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    Ghost prototype for me is the worst of the MI franchise even the crazy iver the top Mi 2 was better.
    What's wrong with Ghost Proto...type...col?

    One of the best action films of the past 10 yrs imho and seriously better than the last Bond entry in my view.

    Woow, stupid typos didn't realise i wrote prototype instead of protocol but i thought protocol was really slow. It took forever till the real started.
    Fair enough. I watched it back to back with RN a few months back, and I agree that the later film is much faster paced.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Ghost Protocol too slow? If anything it's almost too fast paced. There's almost no breathing space between Cruise breaking out of prison to breaking into the Kremlin to the Dubai sequence to the India climax.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    Ghost prototype for me is the worst of the MI franchise even the crazy iver the top Mi 2 was better.
    What's wrong with Ghost Proto...type...col?

    One of the best action films of the past 10 yrs imho and seriously better than the last Bond entry in my view.

    Woow, stupid typos didn't realise i wrote prototype instead of protocol but i thought protocol was really slow. It took forever till the real started.
    Fair enough. I watched it back to back with RN a few months back, and I agree that the later film is much faster paced.

    Maybe ill give it another chance since i have learned to enjoy the more slower peaced Bond films like From Russia with Love and loved The world is not enough since the first time ghost protocol needs a re watch

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Wow, FRWL and GP in the same breath.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    I only saw the 1st three MI films. can't tell them apart except Tom has long rock star hair in one.



    Tim should have done GoldenEye. We were deprived of what could have been a GREAT Bond film.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited August 2016 Posts: 11,425
    Totally agree.

    As made, GE is shockingly poor.

    I remember watching IT at the cinema and thinking how has Bond sunk this low?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I felt that way about the cello case sled scene. ;)
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    The cello case sequence is a cinematic masterpiece! It will echo through the ages!
Sign In or Register to comment.