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
Was it? The likes of @Birdleson seem to suggest the reception was rather muted.
It's quite low down on here:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1987
It's difficult for me to put my finger on exactly why TMWTGG underperformed and what needed to change. Clearly, Cubby felt the script wasn't playing to his lighter strengths, hence the tonal shift in TSWLM. The Saint had been and long gone by 74, and Moore had already appeared in The Persuaders previously, which wasn't a hit in the US, more of a hit in Europe. Moore was unproven as a cinematic leading man, though LALD proved to be a good, strong start. Despite what some want to believe, very few TV actors made the successful transition from the small screen to the large. Clint Eastwood had to go to Italy/Spain and it took years before the Fistful of Dollars movies eventually appeared in the US and reversed that. Even then he still had to convince older audiences that he was no longer Rowdy Yates which took time and perseverance and his own production company to displace that image.
I don't think it has anything to do with the conception time, as TMWTGG had been in script form since the late sixties with Cambodia considered as its shooting location. Tom Mankiewicz was brought in to rewrite it much later, but he wanted a gritty story about an assassin in a big Shane-style face-off and left the production due to creative differences long before the solex agitator became part of the script. I can still recall my dissatisfaction at not seeing Moore do some real kung fu combat scenes in the dojo tournament and afterwards. Maybe they were trying to avoid an X-certificate, as all Kung fu movies were classified as such? Either way, the movie lacked Bond kicking serious butt, which only reinforced his public image as a less-manly 007 to Connery's. The film's poor reception didn't enhance this image and audiences must have stayed away, preferring more adult movies. I think poor word-of-mouth of TMWTGG did it no favors, too.
I remember the movie came out more as a strangled whimper than the usual bombastic fanfare, certainly not helped by a title song that failed to chart, unlike the previous belter from Wings. No offense to Lulu, but if Elvis had sung the title song, the public would have sat up and taken more notice. Elvis was still front page news. LTK also suffered with a performer that had seen better days in the decade before; both a step backwards from their predecessors songs. Though I won't blame both movies lack of success solely on their title song, the power of the the music charts was at its zenith in the 60s and 70s (and still going strong in the 80s), not like today, and would have ensured greater public awareness. Connery's Bond didn't need the dual publicity of a great title song, whereas Moore and Dalton, I believe, benefited.
GoldenEye changed a lot from France's original script, which was intended for Dalton, to the final one we saw up on the screen with Brosnan. However, I did feel that the M and Bond exchange about Bond being a misogynistic dinosaur was written with Dalton in mind. It certainly doesn't sit so well with the Brosnan of TND, TWINE or DAD, unless that little pep-talk had a soul-searching change of character.
I thought the thrust of @bondsum 's post was that Moore had a strong first film and then a tepidly received second one, like Dalton. The implication being that with a third film they might have turned it around.
PPS. I don't know what TLD did in the US, but it was very successful here in the U.K. after the less-than-stellar AVTAK, despite it having a No 1 hit which seemed a little bit at odds with an old grandfather Bond and freshfaced popsters singing about a view and killing.
There was a deathly silence between 89 and 95. That was the scariest time for me as a Bond fan. Pre-Internet days it basically meant absolutely zero information for five years until a few articles in 94 saying bond might be back and dalton was out.
It was an a definitive time period for me. It's one thing If I was 32 years old and then bond returns when I'm 38. Not that much would change in me...but I was 14 in 1989 when bond went away and 20 in 1995 when he returned. A lot of living and changing opinions and interests in those years. So I was in the grip of Dalton's bond and fleming's novels between 12 and 14. And then silence for six years.
When Goldeneye came out I felt that Brosnan had finally got his chance - but I wasn't actually that happy about it. I was always grateful Dalton had got TLD - i thought that Brosnan missing out was a narrow escape. But once GE was announced I was on board for Brosnan. Although he's not troubling my favourite top half of bond actors - I'll always be grateful that he saved the franchise. If GE had failed that could have been curtains for Bond (although in this day and age any name brand gets revived!)
I'm a huge Dalton fan - but there is no way GE would have been as successful with him as with Brosnan. Brozza was familiar to America. That's what they thought Bond should look like.
Yes killer robots didn't sound great.
Wasn't GE conceived originally for Dalton and Hopkins or is that just me wishing for what never was?
I'm pretty sure TLD got pretty solid reviews in the US and did decent BO there. Happy to be disproved though.
Reading that made me reminisce and realize how different we all are as Bond fans. You're a few years older than me ( I was only 10 when I first saw LTK in '89) and I never really took to Dalton. I read my first Fleming in high school sometime in 1993(?), but I still championed Brosnan landing the role in 1994.
I appreciate Dalton much more these days and I sympathize with how you must have felt during the dark ages of the six year gap. And I loved how you noted that speculation was rampant that it was the end of Bond, but little did they know of Hollywood in the 21st century where everything would be remade.
A few points I'd like to make:
1. Time is a key element here. Once a certain amount of time has passed, it's then appropriate to recast in order to reignite public interest in a product. I don't personally believe that GE would have been anywhere near as successful with Dalton as opposed to Brosnan. Part of that is because LTK was a darker film in comparison of course, but part of that is because after 6 years (and 8 since TLD), it was time for someone new. Also, see 2. below.
2. Dalton did not blast out of the blocks box office wise in comparison to his predecessors (Lazenby excepted) or successors. Normally, a new Bond actor's first film is a roaring success globally. TLD certainly did better than AVTAK, but it wasn't explosive. Part of that could be down to the more Fleming based reset, part of it could have been D'Abo, part of it could have been the relative lack of tropes, one liners and skin, part of it could have been Glen (perhaps his style of direction was getting tired in comparison to the contemporary fare), and part of it could have been changing tastes. Many possible factors at play here in addition to Dalton.
I think perhaps the Bond brand was at its weakest during the 80's (in terms of box office pull) as tastes seemed to have changed rapidly during this time and new credible action heroes came to the fore. In an era where macho megawatt charisma stars like Arnie, Bruce, Mel and Sly were chewing it up on the big screen, EON perhaps needed to take a different, suaver approach, rather than take them head on in a battle it couldn't win. A question of approach and timing.
3. I've seen many attribute the success or failure of a Bond film on an actor's feet. I think we have enough evidence to suggest that this is not necessarily the case. I believe that ultimately if the film resonates for some reason (plot, characters, visuals, sound, performances, and yes, even timing), then it will be successful because the Bond brand is rock solid. The actor is perhaps secondary. The trick is to provide the public with something which most viewers find compelling and cohesive. Something unique for the year. Something fresh (and part of that is also actor tenure imho). Those are the films that tend to do best at the box office.
As for the OP's question, probably yes. I don't think Dalton was so lacking in charisma that he'd make the rest of the production fall flat on its feet. I think Brosnan was more suited for GoldenEye, however. With Dalton, it'd likely be less of a success, but still a success, and probably moreso than his other two. It might've been his Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me, even.
Whether it would have been as successful commercially is another question. Probably not. From a fan perspective I don't really care about that too much though. BO only matters to me to the extent that you want the show to stay on the road. I have no doubt it would have made enough money for EON to make another film.
If there was just one thing I'd change about the series it is that Dalton gets at least two more films
1991 - Property of a Lady
1993 - Risico
Having those two would make me ecstatic.
Dalton was a good Bond and could have been a great one but without a fresh and strong vision I think they'd have struggled. I like to imagine his Property of a Lady being directed by Ridley Scott in 91 with a 'dark' Tokyo or Hong Kong location. Bit of a 'Dark Rain' vibe. Never would have happened how I imagine it tho.
As i stated before, Ted (First Blood, Wake in Fright) was down to direct Bond 17! So i think it at least had a solid helmer. Script though was the big question. But Getafix nailed it. Dalton in tbe lead for GE would have made for better viewing. Regarding box office, likewise i dont jugde quality on financial success. And as Cubby always stated "No Bond movie ever lost money!" Certainly GE had better publicity than LTK (Which apparently tested better than any previous Bond film, but had lousy promo material, even John Glen stated that after!)
Proof was in the pudding LTK is far and away superior to GE, which hasnt aged well at all!
Haven't heard of Wake in Fright either but sounds good. 100% on RT!
Now, I'm afraid Dalton would have chewed the scenery ever so slightly. His eyes would have flown open above the rim of the glass, he would have pursed the old lips, flared the old nostrils, and given none of the subtlety the scene demanded, and with Brosnan, actually got.
But, as ever, it's just an opinion.
:))
That's the way it goes.
I thought Brosnan sometimes mugged for the camera a little too enthusiastically. He looks Q up and down about three times in TND when he sees the colour of the old fellows coat. Three times in a two minute scene! We got the gag the first time.
However I thought his acting in the M scene in GE was first rate. His cockiness completely deflated by M.
Brosnan was excellent in GE, I must admit. He underplayed the scene with Alec at the statues and the final kill scene as well.
Sadly, he decided to bring more of his own take to the character from TND onwards, and that's where he lost me. It was like Dalton 'redux', but 'Brozza style' for the next two films, culminating in the Baku debacle. He dialed back a little for DAD but by then I was just ready for someone new unfortunately.
This is absolutely spot on.
I think Brosnan is good in that office scene.
I particularly like his delivery of "the thought had occurred to me" with that determined look he gives Dench and the way he gets up and walks out. There I think he "nails it" and that's always a moment where I instinctively think "Bond" in my head.
If he is guilty of "staring into space" i think it's in the scene beforehand when he's with M and Tanner in the computer room. He seems to have a blank expression as he's listening to them talk about the GoldenEye.
People talk about Glen being a journeyman but Campbell fits thIs description as well. With CR he was given a Fleming story, very good new Bond and great cast. Fortunately Campbell can tell a story simply and well, like Glen, so of course it worked.
There are a number of bits in CR that drag or are superfluous and/or the script is very ropey. Craig holds it together in a way that Brosnan or Cavill never would have been able to.