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
Like Craig, Dalton needed something darker to really come alive. I'm not saying another LTK revenge tale, but certainly something with a bit more consequence than a regular Bond outing. Perhaps if they had built up the Alec/Bond rivalry a bit more it could have worked with Dalts.
The Lion in Winter all over again.
Would have been awesome.
Of course you'd need a proper script not the drek we actually got in GE.
The others don't even come close in competing.
Like I've said before Dalton is a fine actor but I really don't think he has what it takes on the big screen. I'll be more convinced otherwise when he actually does a main role in a notable film. The likes of Lion in Winter worked for him because they fitted his stage trained acting style and even then he wasn't in the leading role.
Maybe it was a case of him turning down scripts but I can't think why he wouldn't have wanted a more meaty film role given his impressive theatre training.
Quotability is indeed a sign of a film being immensely rewatchable.
It happened to me with SPECTRE, after the third viewing I was able to go through a great part of the dialogue in my mind and by the sixth or seventh I could have spoken every word seconds before they were spoken on screen.
Same goes for GoldenEye naturally. And The Living Daylights and surprisingly for Diamonds Are Forever.
This is one of my favourite threads as well.
Because it constantly challenges me with the internal conflict I have. While you clearly can do without Brosnan I cannot.
GoldenEye has been my No 1 film for 20 years.
But DALTON RULEZ™ is so clearly my No 1 Bond that I indeed can imagine him in GoldenEye.
Naturally the film would have to be adapted to Dalton somewhat.
It's a sad fact that Dalton was unlucky with EON's history. If none of the unfortunate events had occurred, Dalton would have been established by his third film and probably have been Bond until 1997.
I'm not usually in things like "if this, if that" though.
Overall, it's totally ok how the franchise played out like it did. Even if this current era clearly could have been so much better.
Somewhat controversially, the one actor I wouldn't lose sleep over not being in the frame is Dalton, regrettably. The timing of his tenure was not right. The world was not ready for him in 1986, and the films didn't do as well commercially as a result, which had repercussions. Ultimately, this is a business and he had the worst commercial intro of any Bond actor, followed by a film that did even worse (which I enjoy and which is a top 10 for me, mind you).
I would have preferred Brosnan in 1986 and Dalton to take over sometime in the 90's when the world was ready for him. I've always felt that Brosnan had much more of a confident edge to him when he was younger (watch The Noble House to see what I mean. He owns the screen, even when starring with a scene chewer like John Rhys-Davies). This was before his early 90's 'B' movie phase and before his wife passed. He was truly on fire around the time he didn't get Bond. Shame.
TLD is the one film I would fight for with my life.
Dalton was perfect for it and 1987 was the perfect year for it.
It is my belief that in 1987 the public was tired of Bond as never before and even Connery returning for TLD wouldn't have changed the decline in BO.
Both GF & TLD are two films that I most disagree with the general community on. TMWTGG as well, but there I have a positive view in comparison to the community at large.
The only one that term can be applied to obviously is Craig.
Brosnan should and could have stayed on longer.
It's also Craig who I can imagine as the only of the great six to not have been at all.
He was unnecessary if there ever has been an unnecessary choice.
Brosnan elevated the franchise to unknown heights and DAD was his most successful even.
Brosnan in another film in 2006 would have been at least as successful as Craig in CR.
I agree that Brosnan could have brought a financial success to a film in 2006, but I doubt it would have been received well critically. His trajectory in this respect was unfortunately a downward spiral.
You're wrong. At least one person I know admitted to me that she signed a petition backing him to be Bond back in the 80s. Granted he was more popular in the States but he still had his fans over here.
And inflation adjusted is the lame excuse people always bring. Studios and monetary reality couldn't care less about what could have been.
DAD was the most successful Bond film to date. In real monetary terms.
Sure, now, today, things are looked upon differently critic wise. But the same can happen to all the Craig era films once time has passed. CR may be already old enough to be ensured the eternal classic it is.
Brosnan gets too much unfair flack.
Inflation adjusted is relevant to everyone because it reflects and approximates ticket sales (bums in seats). The value of money declines with time (especially these days when it's value is literally going into the toilet) and that's why this measure is quite pertinent. As I said, it's very difficult to measure across 40+ years and across several continents, so the numbers must be taken with a grain of salt.
However, if anyone is trying to suggest that DAD was as successful as films during the height of Bondmania or even during the resurgence of the late 70's, I'm afraid I can't take them seriously. Those films had iconic cultural relevancy, as did SF. DAD is just a money making film, like countless others.
Ticket sales wise the Craig era with CR and QOS was rather disappointing compared to what Brosnan generated. Only SF came nearer to the mark that was once reached TSWLM and before.
It's too complicated and impossible to compare films of the 60s, 70's, 80's, etc.
Because ticket prices skyrocketed and nowadays in this decade a lot of special tickets cost a lot like IMAX for instance.
Brosnan was a huge success for EON from GE to DAD, also critics wise. It wasn't in any way less well received than Dalton's or Moore's.
I never claimed DAD was a classic like TSWLM or even films of the Connery era.
If anything ever came close to the classic standard that TSWLM and films before had, then it's only GE and CR.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/die-another-day-2002
this review stands for a lot of US reviews of that time, I can provide you dozens like that. Also I find that review a very good assessment of the film.
Edit: here is TWINE
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-world-is-not-enough-1999
Spot on.
This from the DAD one:
"The film has been directed by Lee Tamahori (whose credits include "Once Were Warriors" and "Mulholland Falls"), from New Zealand, who has tilted the balance away from humor and toward pure action. With "Austin Powers" breathing down the neck of the franchise, he told Sight & Sound magazine, it seemed like looking for trouble to broaden the traditional farcical elements. "
And this from the TWINE one:
"All of these elements are assembled by director Michael Apted and writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Bruce Feirstein into a Bond picture that for once doesn't seem like set pieces uneasily glued together, but proceeds in a more or less logical way to explain what the problem and solution might be. Bond's one-liners seem more part of his character this time, and Carlyle's villain emerges as more three-dimensional and motivated, less of a caricature, than the evildoers in some of the Bond films."
I couldn't disagree more. I suppose they were those who felt this way in 1999 and 2002. I think we should consider ourselves very lucky that Babs & EON weren't influenced by this, but rather decided to take the franchise in a new direction. I'm hoping they do the same shortly.
I agree in many respects except I find Tim a better Bond. He's far more British than Pierce who for a number of reasons just comes across as a midatlantic type.
I've said many times I'm happier to watch Brosnan in a non Bond movie than Dalton.
I was also quite young at the time but don't think Brosnan had anything like Dalton's profile in the UK. Brosnan was pretty much unknown outside the U.S.
There are some good US reviews of TLD from the time. The press seemed to quite like Dalton at the time.
It's kind of a gamble with Bond films, because the producers have seen a nobody become a superstar (Sean) but the same formula didn't apply to Dalton. Consequentially casting a popular actor worked with Moore but hurt the films quality and acting when casting Pierce.
Hence why the casting process is so difficult.
I will repeat it again as it deserves repeating - LTK only underperformed in the US. Elsewhere, including most European markets it performed well. UA/MGM or whoever the studio were known as at that time seemed to take an active dislike to Dalton, undermining the films release in the US.
Some actors just don't seem to make the leap from tv to film as well as others.
I honestly think it's with hindsight that most people say that Brosnan was better known as he went on to be the more (commercially at least) successful Bond and longer lived.
I get the impression Dalton was moderately well known by the public but perhaps not on the same level as John Geulgud, Richard Harris, Jonathan Pryce etc.
Only Moore had a similar popularity already when he got to Bond.
Both Remington Steele and The Saint were very popular in America too.
RS though didn't seem that well received in the U.K.