Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

19394969899104

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brozza certainly left with his tail between his legs, that's for sure.

    Has any of the actors left on a high though? Craig is hoping that's what will happen for him but we will have to wait and see.
    It's an interesting point which I alluded to a few days ago. The last two actors to depart did so under somewhat questionable and less than ideal circumstances. EON/MGM can be ruthless when they have to be. It may be best for an actor to cut the cord before it's cut for them. In a curious way, it would be poetic justice if something unexpected were to occur going forward.
  • Posts: 15,124
    It might be for the controversial thread but I'd say Brosnan's departure was more humiliating than Dalton's.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It might be for the controversial thread but I'd say Brosnan's departure was more humiliating than Dalton's.
    I agree, but to a degree he brought it on himself by venting and negotiating in the media. If he'd just have played along and agreed that it was time for someone new (and mutually agreed) due to a change of direction then it wouldn't have seemed so embarrassing.
  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It might be for the controversial thread but I'd say Brosnan's departure was more humiliating than Dalton's.
    I agree, but to a degree he brought it on himself by venting and negotiating in the media. If he'd just have played along and agreed that it was time for someone new (and mutually agreed) due to a change of direction then it wouldn't have seemed so embarrassing.

    That's partially why it was so humiliating: he thought he had a far better hand than he had. He trusted his good fortune far too much. He was the only Bond actor plebiscited in the role which I think made him complacent.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I remember Brosnan somewhat endorsing a “younger Bond” if they ever adapted Casino Royale. I remember reading it on MI6.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    In a way the Brosnan situation proves Sam Mendes's point from a few years. It's not a democracy. The people don't choose the next Bond. Babs does.
  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    In a way the Brosnan situation proves Sam Mendes's point from a few years. It's not a democracy. The people don't choose the next Bond. Babs does.

    Thankfully! Or we'd have had Robbie Williams and Hugh Grant as Bond!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In a way the Brosnan situation proves Sam Mendes's point from a few years. It's not a democracy. The people don't choose the next Bond. Babs does.

    Thankfully! Or we'd have had Robbie Williams and Hugh Grant as Bond!
    I'm not sure if there was a consensus on Robbie or Hugh for the role though. That was just the media drumming it up as they normally do.

    I was more commenting in the context of Brosnan, who was a very popular Bond at the time of his dismissal. The fact that EON burdened him with third rate rubbish during most of his tenure due to their own incompetence post-Cubby wasn't really his fault and even though he's my least favourite Bond I think he got a raw deal, unlike Craig.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 11,425
    As time passes my attitude to Brozza softens. I always actually liked him but couldn't stand his take on Bond or his Bond films.

    I would have liked to see him directed as Bond by a decent director. He should have been pushing for John Boorman to direct him as Bond after TTOP.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Getafix wrote: »
    As time passes my attitude to Brozza softens. I always actually liked him but couldn't stand his take on Bond or his Bond films.

    I would have liked to see him directed as Bond by a decent director. He should have been pushing for John Boorman to direct him as Bond after TTOP.

    Really? I don't think you mention this enough. You should put yourself about more on the Brosnan threads and tell us some more. ;)
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 11,425
    great suggestion - I will take heed
  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In a way the Brosnan situation proves Sam Mendes's point from a few years. It's not a democracy. The people don't choose the next Bond. Babs does.

    Thankfully! Or we'd have had Robbie Williams and Hugh Grant as Bond!
    I'm not sure if there was a consensus on Robbie or Hugh for the role though. That was just the media drumming it up as they normally do.

    I was more commenting in the context of Brosnan, who was a very popular Bond at the time of his dismissal. The fact that EON burdened him with third rate rubbish during most of his tenure due to their own incompetence post-Cubby wasn't really his fault and even though he's my least favourite Bond I think he got a raw deal, unlike Craig.

    Brosnan's popularity was not nearly as high though. He was no longer untouchable.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In a way the Brosnan situation proves Sam Mendes's point from a few years. It's not a democracy. The people don't choose the next Bond. Babs does.

    Thankfully! Or we'd have had Robbie Williams and Hugh Grant as Bond!
    I'm not sure if there was a consensus on Robbie or Hugh for the role though. That was just the media drumming it up as they normally do.

    I was more commenting in the context of Brosnan, who was a very popular Bond at the time of his dismissal. The fact that EON burdened him with third rate rubbish during most of his tenure due to their own incompetence post-Cubby wasn't really his fault and even though he's my least favourite Bond I think he got a raw deal, unlike Craig.

    Brosnan's popularity was not nearly as high though. He was no longer untouchable.
    True. It had declined somewhat on account of the films he was saddled with, courtesy of the brass who didn't know their head from other body parts imho. If I'm being fair, he should shoulder some of the blame too, on account of his inconsistent performances.

    Still, his popularity was much higher than Craig's at the time of the switch, and as Brosnan himself said, the films were making money and doing better box office as they went along. I don't blame him for thinking he was in a strong negotiating position. I don't think he saw the change in approach and reboot coming in the context of Bond. After all, they had never done that before. The time was right to jump on the bandwagon, thanks to Nolan.
  • Posts: 15,124
    He was still overestimating his popularity, regardless of the reboot: he was in his fifties, names were already circulating to succeed him, etc.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He was still overestimating his popularity, regardless of the reboot: he was in his fifties, names were already circulating to succeed him, etc.
    Similar situation today in my humble view. The difference? Babs, as per my earlier point.
  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He was still overestimating his popularity, regardless of the reboot: he was in his fifties, names were already circulating to succeed him, etc.
    Similar situation today in my humble view. The difference? Babs, as per my earlier point.

    I think Craig has been overall more rational about it. Even cynical. Him carrying on with Bond 25 is due to a number of factors, not only Babs. And it's exceptional that he's doing one more.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He was still overestimating his popularity, regardless of the reboot: he was in his fifties, names were already circulating to succeed him, etc.
    Similar situation today in my humble view. The difference? Babs, as per my earlier point.

    I think Craig has been overall more rational about it. Even cynical. Him carrying on with Bond 25 is due to a number of factors, not only Babs. And it's exceptional that he's doing one more.
    Perhaps. He may have played the game better having learned from Brosnan's mistakes, but there's no doubt in my mind that having the unwavering and committed (gushing even) support of your boss goes a long way towards whether you remain employed or not. In the end, that's what it really came down to.
  • Posts: 15,124
    I think he certainly played the game better. He also did not overestimate himself. And I think his tenure has been stronger overall, while Brosnan's diminished with every film (regardless of personal preferences) which gave Craig a bit of an edge too.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think he certainly played the game better. He also did not overestimate himself. And I think his tenure has been stronger overall, while Brosnan's diminished with every film (regardless of personal preferences) which gave Craig a bit of an edge too.
    It certainly has been a stronger tenure, but then again he had more support and investment from his bosses to make it that way too. I'm not taking anything away from his efforts to shape the franchise and bring in talent. He should be commended for that. However, one distinctly feels that he has always had a leg up, while Brosnan, despite being perhaps anointed, always had an uphill struggle due to circumstances in the 90's and an evidently less strong rapport with Ms. Broccoli.
  • Posts: 11,425
    may be Craig is better than Brosnan and Babs knows and respects that.

    didn't Cubby take some convincing from Campbell and MGW to accept Brosnan in 94? I have always felt Babs shared that scepticism.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    didn't Cubby take some convincing from Campbell and MGW to accept Brosnan in 94? I have always felt Babs shared that scepticism.
    Apparently, given there is a rumour out there that she preferred Bean for GE. So much so that he got the role as chief baddie.

    I'm not sure about Cubby needing convincing though. I was always under the impression that he and Wilson were in favour of Brosnan.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 11,189
    We never seem to know what actually goes on behind closed doors. I've recently spoken to someone who worked as part of the crew in several Bond films and I asked him directly "did Barbara actually like Brosnan?". His answer was yes without any hesitation.

    Having said that even he acknowledged Brosnan became bitter when he was dropped.
  • Posts: 11,425
    she dated Dalton so must have been sad to see him go. and he was pallbarer at cubby's funeral. must have been hard when the studio forced EON to ditch Tim.

  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think he certainly played the game better. He also did not overestimate himself. And I think his tenure has been stronger overall, while Brosnan's diminished with every film (regardless of personal preferences) which gave Craig a bit of an edge too.
    It certainly has been a stronger tenure, but then again he had more support and investment from his bosses to make it that way too. I'm not taking anything away from his efforts to shape the franchise and bring in talent. He should be commended for that. However, one distinctly feels that he has always had a leg up, while Brosnan, despite being perhaps anointed, always had an uphill struggle due to circumstances in the 90's and an evidently less strong rapport with Ms. Broccoli.

    If Brosnan fought an uphill battle it was his own doing: he's the Bond who had it easiest upon casting. Granted, they didn't know what to do after GE, but Brosnan had a huge capital starting his tenure.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think he certainly played the game better. He also did not overestimate himself. And I think his tenure has been stronger overall, while Brosnan's diminished with every film (regardless of personal preferences) which gave Craig a bit of an edge too.
    It certainly has been a stronger tenure, but then again he had more support and investment from his bosses to make it that way too. I'm not taking anything away from his efforts to shape the franchise and bring in talent. He should be commended for that. However, one distinctly feels that he has always had a leg up, while Brosnan, despite being perhaps anointed, always had an uphill struggle due to circumstances in the 90's and an evidently less strong rapport with Ms. Broccoli.

    If Brosnan fought an uphill battle it was his own doing: he's the Bond who had it easiest upon casting. Granted, they didn't know what to do after GE, but Brosnan had a huge capital starting his tenure.
    I'm not sure I agree with you. If you have producers in a state of confusion as to direction then an actor can only do so much, particularly when to a degree he must rely on them for guidance and expertise. Craig has had it much easier because, with the benefit of experience, they had a clearer vision when he was cast. In fact, they sought him out in order to execute on that vision. Brosnan suffered on account of both unreasonably raised expectations from the audience (particularly after 'greatest hits' package GE delivered for many), and shoddy vision and execution from the production team, at least in my opinion. I will go further and say he may also have suffered because he may have not been the first choice of the big decision maker.

    Dalton conversely suffered because he lived in the shadow of another actor during his tenure (a terrible place to be for anyone) and because the producers didn't go all in with a vision that suited his portrayal. Rather, they hedged, which never really works (witness SP).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    bondjames wrote: »
    Should Brosnan have gotten his chance at CR?
    Perhaps, but they would have had to make it differently. It could have worked with the ending like the book, but not with the way it was done in 2006. Brozz would have overacted and blown it imho.

    A corpse can't kiss itself.
  • Posts: 628
    Getafix wrote: »
    didn't Cubby take some convincing from Campbell and MGW to accept Brosnan in 94? I have always felt Babs shared that scepticism.

    Cubby was pressured (or, if you prefer, convinced) by MGM/UA to cast Brosnan. My sense of it is, all three of them -- Cubby, Barbara, and MGW -- preferred Dalton.

    I doubt Campbell had any say in the matter. At that point in his career, he probably would have considered himself lucky to even get a Bond film and would not have wanted to rock the boat.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 12,837
    My favourite quote about the Brosnan era, seems relevant to the current conversation

    "Pierce Brosnan will always be the 'what if' Bond. What if his tenure had built on Goldeneye rather than fallen away from it? What if he was gifted a script such as Licence To Kill or Casino Royale, the two films that came immediately before and after him? What if Pierce was placed, just once, at the centre of proceedings; rather than playing second fiddle to cars, action and gadgets. Pierce made one much loved film, Goldeneye - but every other Bond made a better one. Considering the talent of the man that’s a sobering thought. But there exist many caveats. Brosnan carried his films in a way no other Bond has had to do. With a weak Bond, none of his films, including Goldeneye, are strong enough to work regardless - in the way On Her Majesty’s Secret Service transcends the game but miscast George Lazenby. Meanwhile both Dalton and Moore required scripts that played to their very different strengths. In some ways Brosnan was too good a fit. The writers could shun Bond the character and focus on the fripperies because they knew Brosnan would shine regardless. Perhaps this is merely the fanboy talking.

    But while it’s easy to scorn all the whizzbang in the cold light of Craig, remember that Craig only exists due to Brosnan. All four of his films were huge box office - giving the franchise the creative freedom to experiment with Casino Royale. If Casino Royale failed, well, back we go to the gadgets. But if Goldeneye failed, after a six year hiatus, after the commercial and critical failure of Dalton (posterity has been kind to Timothy, rightly, but it wasn’t always thus), nearly 30 years since the last genuine blockbuster that was The Spy Who Loved Me, if the first post-Cold War Bond fell flat on its arse - well, the future would have looked pretty bleak.

    So farewell, Pierce. You gifted us one of the most loved Bond films of all. The other three films mixed qualified success and entertaining failure - in time I suspect we shall look more kindly on your era. As I hope will you; and I hope you appreciate the massive contribution you made to the series you loved so much. You let Bond become the behemoth of today. If nothing else, you’ll always be my favourite Bond, my Bond. And all that’s left to say is thank you."

    It's from the denofgeek series of reviews which are well worth reading by the way. Never seen them mentioned on here but they're great. Funny (in one of them he describes the rules of baccarat as "both players turn over their cards and Bond wins"), insightful, he clearly knows/understands his Bond, and even when I don't agree with him he's always fair and balanced (even with his favourites he isn't biased, I was actually really surprised when I got to the end of the GE one and he said it was his personal favourite because he'd been quite critical of all its flaws).
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited June 2018 Posts: 5,185
    My favourite quote about the Brosnan era, seems relevant to the current conversation

    "Pierce Brosnan will always be the 'what if' Bond. What if his tenure had built on Goldeneye rather than fallen away from it? What if he was gifted a script such as Licence To Kill or Casino Royale, the two films that came immediately before and after him? What if Pierce was placed, just once, at the centre of proceedings; rather than playing second fiddle to cars, action and gadgets. Pierce made one much loved film, Goldeneye - but every other Bond made a better one. Considering the talent of the man that’s a sobering thought. But there exist many caveats. Brosnan carried his films in a way no other Bond has had to do. With a weak Bond, none of his films, including Goldeneye, are strong enough to work regardless - in the way On Her Majesty’s Secret Service transcends the game but miscast George Lazenby. Meanwhile both Dalton and Moore required scripts that played to their very different strengths. In some ways Brosnan was too good a fit. The writers could shun Bond the character and focus on the fripperies because they knew Brosnan would shine regardless. Perhaps this is merely the fanboy talking.

    But while it’s easy to scorn all the whizzbang in the cold light of Craig, remember that Craig only exists due to Brosnan. All four of his films were huge box office - giving the franchise the creative freedom to experiment with Casino Royale. If Casino Royale failed, well, back we go to the gadgets. But if Goldeneye failed, after a six year hiatus, after the commercial and critical failure of Dalton (posterity has been kind to Timothy, rightly, but it wasn’t always thus), nearly 30 years since the last genuine blockbuster that was The Spy Who Loved Me, if the first post-Cold War Bond fell flat on its arse - well, the future would have looked pretty bleak.

    So farewell, Pierce. You gifted us one of the most loved Bond films of all. The other three films mixed qualified success and entertaining failure - in time I suspect we shall look more kindly on your era. As I hope will you; and I hope you appreciate the massive contribution you made to the series you loved so much. You let Bond become the behemoth of today. If nothing else, you’ll always be my favourite Bond, my Bond. And all that’s left to say is thank you."

    It's from the denofgeek series of reviews which are well worth reading by the way. Never seen them mentioned on here but they're great. Funny (in one of them he describes the rules of baccarat as "both players turn over their cards and Bond wins"), insightful, he clearly knows/understands his Bond, and even when I don't agree with him he's always fair and balanced (even with his favourites he isn't biased, I was actually really surprised when I got to the end of the GE one and he said it was his personal favourite because he'd been quite critical of all its flaws).

    Thanks for making me spill soda all over my monitor... but maybe i misread that and this was supposed to be a worst case scenario of how bad things trully could have gone?

    But other than that, i can actually agree with a lot of what has been said in that review. He is my favorite Bond as well and i do hope that he will appreciate his contributions more (he still seems to hold a grudge, or maybe i am just imagining that) also i am pretty sure his tenure will be remembered more kindly in the future, just like with Roger.
  • Posts: 1,970
    This thread is 6 years old. WTF?
Sign In or Register to comment.