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
As an example, early Connery, early Moore, Dalton in TLD & early Craig are all the same character. To me it's clear.
No matter who was playing him, Bond was back after 6 years in a well-produced action thriller that finally felt modern and big-scale after the lackluster John Glen films. Add the buzz about the film addressing the fall of the Soviet Union, as well as a female M, and people would have definitely bought tickets.
I won't pretend Brosnan wasn't one of the film's draws, but I don't think he was the deciding factor in its success. He was a bland, inoffensive, safe choice. I would have much preferred to see Dalton, who was an intriguing choice for Bond, with a clear, modern take on the character. Or even Sean Bean.
Dalton's take on Bond - the vulnerable, dangerous, burnt-out secret agent - was 007 for the 21st century. TLD, LTK and GE (which was developed for Dalton) laid out a clear trajectory towards that idea. But the series got off track thanks to Brosnan's "greatest hits" portrayal, before it was dragged kicking and screaming back to the 21st century in the Craig films. Basically, Dalton's portrayal became the series' future, and Brosnan would end up just a detour.
TLD isn't top notch, it's possibly one of the worst bond, and the one i found the most boring, Afghanistan such an exotic location! I always wanted to go there! Oh and Dalton never seemed much in control. He was rather bland during his bond tenure.
Brosnan on the other hand, was totally in control. Granted he was a bit smug and some of his movies are a bit silly, but that's partly what bond is about. We don't want a Jason Bourne or a Jack ryan do we? Brosnan back then was the only man popular to do it, the other odds were like 1/25 like arnold or stalone, christ's sake even Sharon Stone had a rumour floating around she would be the next bond.
He did the job remarkably well even with his over-the-top scripts.
Goldeneye wouldn't have been a success as much as it was with Brosnan, we all saw how badly the Dalton movies did financially in comparison with Sir rog!
-- No matter what, 007 can have doubts about the intentions of a mission, but he is always loyal to the mission. He is always right of center, and gives benefit of the doubt to the "old man" that sends him on his missions... For right or wrong...
+1
GE has been a film that I genuinely used to find hard to enjoy. From the first time I saw it back in '95 it never appealed to me as it seemed to for many other fans. Though over time I've gradually found myself liking it more and more. In my last Bondathon toward the end of last year, it had risen to 11th in my overall ranking of the series.
After this viewing, I dare say it could rise even higher up the list. Truth be told, GE is a fantastic Bond film, and Pierce Brosnan completely owns the film. I'm a big fan of the Timothy Dalton entries, especially TLD which has consistently remained in my top ten if not top five since '87. However, I don't think Dalton would've handled GE as well as Brosnan did. GE feels like a 60's Bond film, thrown into the 90's. It has the over the top villains and scheme. Even has an underground lair from which the villain tries to throw the world into chaos. I just don't feel that Daltons Bond would've been as comfortable in the scenario as Brosnan Bond is. Brosnan is fantastic in the film, he reinvigorates the series, at a time when it needed a shot in the arm. Had GE been a flop, then I think Bond would've been off screens for a very long time. If not altogether. Pierce was a massive reason why Bond became a popular screen character in the 90's and continued into the present day with Daniel Craig. He may not have been the best actor, or even best Bond. But he was an everyman Bond, who appealed to fans and more importantly, the general audience. It's hard not to like Pierce.
So to answer the question, no GE wouldn't have been as successful with Dalton is my feeling.
The people wanted Brosnan not Dalton. And theres proof in that with LTK. I know some will say GE would of been successful with Dalton. I don't think so. I give Brosnan 90% of the credit for bringing the Bond series back from the dead. People wanted him.
You don't like it? Wow, you've never said that before :O
I think Dalton would of had 1 more. It be hard to see him getting another one after that
If Dalton had played GE like he played the earlier parts of TLD (particularly Koskov's escape in Bratislava), I think he would have been excellent in it. However, there's no doubt that he would have been older in 1995 vs. 1987, and so I don't know if he could have come across as youthfully energetic as he did in his first film.
That youthful vigor from Brosnan is part of what gave GE its energy, & the same applies to Craig in CR.
Hmm...no. Craig's excellent in it.
Not even then.
I think it could of worked
True SPECTRE is a very Brosnan bond film
Definitely