Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

1959698100101104

Comments

  • edited June 2018 Posts: 1,661
    In a new Pierce Brosnan interview (Mail On Sunday 'Event' magazine) he says Goldeneye is the only Bond film in which he felt he was his own Bond and not copying the other actors.
    Brosnan took over from Timothy Dalton as the world’s most famous secret agent in 1995 and has said that – bar GoldenEye – his Bond was ‘never good enough’. ‘I was caught between Sean Connery’s Bond and Roger Moore’s Bond,’ he explains, ‘and it was only really in GoldenEye that I did my Bond.’

    An interesting observation. I'm sure fans will agree/disagree with his comments! Goldeneye is probably my fave Brosnan Bond performance.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    In a new Pierce Brosnan interview (Mail On Sunday 'Event' magazine) he says Goldeneye is the only Bond film in which he felt he was his own Bond and not copying the other actors.
    Brosnan took over from Timothy Dalton as the world’s most famous secret agent in 1995 and has said that – bar GoldenEye – his Bond was ‘never good enough’. ‘I was caught between Sean Connery’s Bond and Roger Moore’s Bond,’ he explains, ‘and it was only really in GoldenEye that I did my Bond.’

    An interesting observation. I'm sure fans will agree/disagree with his comments! Goldeneye is probably my fave Brosnan Bond performance.
    I'm quite certain he made these same comments previously about his other performances, but the bit about him doing 'his Bond' in GE is new to me.

    I'm not sure if I agree with him. I think he was very much a composite Bond in GE. It's just that Campbell brought the best out of him by capturing the essence of the character despite this.

    In the following two entries (TND and TWINE) I saw more Brosnan than Bond to be honest .

    DAD is where I felt he married the two most seamlessly and confidently.

    GE is easily my favourite Bond film of his however, and a top 3 from the last 35 years. I'm glad he did this one rather than Dalton. It's what the series needed at that time imho.
  • Posts: 15,114
    bondjames wrote: »
    The other transitions were more orderly though. I think it's the somewhat truncated nature of Dalton's tenure that causes this discussion to endure. I'm surprised that there isn't one for CR with Brosnan to be honest.

    If Craig had jumped ship after SP I'm pretty sure someone (I can take guesses on potential creators) would have started one for whether he would have been a success in B25.

    I'm fairly sure there's one thread about Brosnan and CR. Not the same title but same kind of question : would it work with him? My answer is a resounding no.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The other transitions were more orderly though. I think it's the somewhat truncated nature of Dalton's tenure that causes this discussion to endure. I'm surprised that there isn't one for CR with Brosnan to be honest.

    If Craig had jumped ship after SP I'm pretty sure someone (I can take guesses on potential creators) would have started one for whether he would have been a success in B25.

    I'm fairly sure there's one thread about Brosnan and CR. Not the same title but same kind of question : would it work with him? My answer is a resounding no.


    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/8662/how-close-where-we-to-seeing-brosnan-in-casino-royale#latest
  • Posts: 11,425
    Dalton in CR = even more awesome
  • Posts: 15,114
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The other transitions were more orderly though. I think it's the somewhat truncated nature of Dalton's tenure that causes this discussion to endure. I'm surprised that there isn't one for CR with Brosnan to be honest.

    If Craig had jumped ship after SP I'm pretty sure someone (I can take guesses on potential creators) would have started one for whether he would have been a success in B25.

    I'm fairly sure there's one thread about Brosnan and CR. Not the same title but same kind of question : would it work with him? My answer is a resounding no.


    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/8662/how-close-where-we-to-seeing-brosnan-in-casino-royale#latest

    That's the one.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Getafix wrote: »
    Dalton in CR = even more awesome

    Would have made for a great anniversary film in 1992.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 11,425
    I would have loved a 3rd Dalton film in 91/92 but I also fear that EON were struggling with where to take the series. Still, more Dalton Bond would have been great. 4 more ideally in 91, 93, 95 and 97 - would have been awesome.

    There is this underlying issue though that the old guard were on the way out. They were already planning to ditch John Glen in 91 and when did Maibaum die - again I think they were using a different writer any way. So the whole look and feel would have been different.

    Regardless of who was in the lead role it was the end of an era and Bond has had serious quality issues ever since.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's just odd that we don't do this with any other transition; at least not to this degree. Even the more discussed changes; Sean/George/Sean/Roger. You'd think we'd have one thread to encompass all of the possibilities.

    Still waiting for that to happen
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 628
    Interesting interview with Dalton from August 1991:

    https://www.deseretnews.com/article/177678/DALTON-IS-NOT-IN-BOND-AGE.html

    His comments on what was supposed to be his third Bond film (presumably the script by Will Osborne & Will Davies):

    "The script isn't finished, but what I've seen is outrageous. It's a formative script that obviously needs some work, but when it's finished it'll combine the best of `Daylights' and `Licence,' with some good tough humor."

    He also talks a lot about CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: THE DISCOVERY (Dalton was originally cast as Columbus with George P. Cosmatos directing).

  • Posts: 1,680
    Dalton probably deserved a third more then craig should get a fifth imo
  • Posts: 2,917
    Thanks Escalus--this section of the interview is also worth quoting:

    '"We were the victim of a not particularly good advertising campaign on `Licence,"' Dalton says. "Then, too, we opened whilst `Batman,' `Honey, I Shrunk the Kids' and `Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' were still going strong. We were like the sixth or seventh big movie. It was a very bad time to open, but worldwide `Licence' did better than `The Living Daylights' (Dalton's first Bond outing), which was the biggest grossing Bond movie for 10 or 12 years."'
  • Posts: 11,425
    Much needed balanced view on LTK. It may have faired badly in the all important US market, but everywhere else people were lapping it up. It underlines the different tastes in different markets and shows that Europe was more than ready for a more hard hitting Bond way back in the late 80s.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I'm sure Goldeneye would have been successful with Dalton. Would it have been as successful as it was? Probably not. I don't think the casual movie goer took to Dalton as much as dyed in the wool Bond fans. A new actor taking over as Bond also usually generates more interest by itself.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It would have been better with Dalton though
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    @Getafix we don't know that. It probably would have been a different film entirely. And it was a cracking film as it was. I wish Dalton had got a third film in say, 91/92, but he didn't.
  • Posts: 7,415
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would have liked a third Dalton film in that gap, but honestly (and I have no dog in that race; I have about equal love for Pierce and Timothy, neither a Top Three Bond for me), I don’t think Dalton could have pulled GE off as written. It would have to have been an entirely different film to have worked.

    I would have to disagree, being a Dalton fan and I don't want to get into a Brossa bashing, but I just think so many scenes, as written, would have been so much better had Dalton been Bond. Especially those with Dench and Bean (though the latter would have to get rid of that irritating accent he adopts!)
    Scorupco too, would have had better chemistry with Tim than she does with Pierce (though that beach scene would have to be rewritten, awful dialogue there)
  • Posts: 11,425
    100% agree.

    Dalton in GE = better film
  • Posts: 19,339
    Getafix wrote: »
    Dalton in CR = even more awesome

    Than Craig in CR ??

    No ******* way !!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Typo! I meant GE.

    But hell, why not?!
  • Posts: 1,165
    As much as I would have loved a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Dalton movie, GE would not have been a success for him. That’s completely Pierce’s movie. His finest hour and I wouldn’t want to take that from him.
  • Posts: 3,333
    It's interesting to see this thread being kept alive by the occasional post. Clearly one cannot take away from Pierce's contribution to the success of GE because it's there as irrefutable proof. The question that's being asked is whether GE would've been a success had Dalton played 007 instead. No one truly knows the answer, but because of John Calley and Jeff Kleeman (at MGM/UA), both of whom wanted to go in a new direction with a new actor, we the audience were never given the opportunity to find out.

    There's no question that Dalton has now gained a marked increase in popularity since Craig shook up the franchise. The same could be said of the forgotten Bond, Lazenby. The major difference being that Lazenby's OHMSS was a far bigger hit back in 1970 than either of Dalton's movies were on their own initial release dates. Going on BO stats alone, I'd have to say that Dalton (as much as I liked him as Bond) would've had an uphill struggle pulling in the US crowd with his third movie. To put it mildly, Dalton still had a lot of work to do to win over North America. In order to do this UA/MGM would've had to have pulled out a colossal marketing campaign the likes the world had never seen before. The big question, if you were the production chief of the studio, would be why throwaway needless money on a campaign that might not reverse that tide? It made logistical and financial sense to replace Dalton with an actor that American audiences wanted to go see instead. From what I've gleaned reading various comments by American adults that were actually there in the early Nineties with boots on the ground, is that the vast majority hadn't quite warmed to Dalton the way Cubby had originally planned. I'm not an American so I cannot give you the reasons why. That's better left to our American cousins who were paying cinemagoers at that time to answer. I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that Dalton had been well-received here in the UK, so it wasn't a problem at our end.

    But who am I to argue with Calley, the man who'd green-light such hit movies as A Clockwork Orange, The Towering Inferno, The Exorcist, Dog Day Afternoon, Dirty Harry, All the President's Men, Blazing Saddles, Superman and Chariots of Fire? The very reason why Calley was drafted in from WB was give a major boost to UA/MGM's flagging profits.

    Personally, I'd have rather seen another Dalton Bond movie back in the Nineties. But I cannot lie, there would still have been a part of me with that nagging "what if" question mark at the back of mind on whether the BO numbers would have been far better had Brosnan made GE in-place of Dalton. The same question can be levelled at TLD. Would that movie have been a monster BO success had Brosnan been 007 and not a movie that took over 10 years to break-even or go into profit? Again, I'd say yes. I do believe TLD would've been a much bigger hit had Brosnan been in TLD. Now if you're asking me whether I think TLD would've been a better movie, I'd say no. I know it comes down to personal taste, but I always found Brosnan too smug and too self-conscious in the role, and as a result, his performances always felt phoney to me. I've heard some people here say that Dalton is sometimes too over-theatrical, though it's odd that it's Brosnan who is the one that comes over the most hammy. Take another look at TWINE, which was meant to show us his acting chops, and it's everything Dalton has been accused of and more. Just how Brosnan manged to avoid the 19th Golden Raspberry Awards was testament to his popularity in the States.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 628
    Good post, @bondsum, and I agree with your points.

    One other thing about John Calley that some fans here may not know: Calley later defected to Sony Pictures and then, as president, tried to get a competing Bond franchise going with Kevin McClory! It's so weird that he was instrumental in reviving the series and then, within a decade, had turned on EON and MGM/UA, sparking a massive legal battle.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Yes, good post @bondsum. I concur, particularly on your hypothetical about GE without Brosnan and also TLD with him.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Thank you @Escalus5. Yes, as you rightly mentioned, Calley wanted to start up his own rival Bond franchise business. That just goes to show just how huge and important 007 is still seen within the movie industry. Though casting the wrong choice as the lead can still have a detrimental effect on the BO numbers. Over to you Bond 26.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    Thank you @Escalus5. Yes, as you rightly mentioned, Calley wanted to start up his own rival Bond franchise business. That just goes to show just how huge and important 007 is still seen within the movie industry. Though casting the wrong choice as the lead can still have a detrimental effect on the BO numbers. Over to you Bond 26.
    I can imagine why the US market was critically important in the 80s.

    I think it still is important, as the single largest box office generator, and the home of many of these studios (including MGM and Universal). If I'm not mistaken, costs are also measured in US $ and the profitability per theatre chain is higher. Moreover, the cultural impact of a successful film stateside drives ticket sales elsewhere, due to the media push.

    Therefore, I can imagine the next actor will be selected with a view to how he would perform there. However, the growing importance of the Asian and Latin American markets cannot be downplayed either. I mentioned this on the Bond Actor thread, but I wouldn't be surprised if EON, MGM and Universal (assuming they will distribute B26) are likely to seriously consider an actor's viability in that market.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    .
  • Posts: 15,114
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would have liked a third Dalton film in that gap, but honestly (and I have no dog in that race; I have about equal love for Pierce and Timothy, neither a Top Three Bond for me), I don’t think Dalton could have pulled GE off as written. It would have to have been an entirely different film to have worked.

    I would have to disagree, being a Dalton fan and I don't want to get into a Brossa bashing, but I just think so many scenes, as written, would have been so much better had Dalton been Bond. Especially those with Dench and Bean (though the latter would have to get rid of that irritating accent he adopts!)
    Scorupco too, would have had better chemistry with Tim than she does with Pierce (though that beach scene would have to be rewritten, awful dialogue there)

    I actually think the opposite, especially regarding Bean and Scorupco. In both cases, I think Brosnan's youthful look was an asset. He didn't look older than Bean, if anything he looked younger, so the menace Trevelyan represented would have been lost somewhat with a more seasoned Bond. And while I have become very critical of Brosnan's tenure overall, I have to admit that his looks alone made him a more believable seducer than Dalton, especially with someone youthful and sexy like Scorupco. Dalton would have placed the relationship close to Roger Moore territory. For GE to work with Dalton, both villain and Bond girls would have needed to be older (which was the case for the villain in the early script if I'm not mistaken).
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 3,333
    I agree @bondjames that today is a very different landscape to the 80s and 90s. For one thing, movies are mostly aimed at the teen market. Even horror movies are now being cut to garner a PG-13 certificate rather than the traditional R.

    With regards to China, I'm not entirely convinced Hollywood should try and engineer its own movies aimed at that particular market. It reminds me of McDonalds in the 80s trying to chase the pizza market by producing its own brand of pizzas which ultimately failed. It's one thing to have a movie that's popular in China because it's a good movie in its own right, but it's another thing entirely to try and manufacture popularity. Lucasfilm tried to boost Star Wars' appeal in China by casting Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang in Rogue One but it didn't pay off. Just look at The Last Jedi, which bombed in Chinese theatres and was pulled early. Despite the studio thinking by casting Kelly Marie Tran would somehow please the Chinese markets. It didn't. So much so, that there's now even talk of the studio saving money in distribution costs by skipping China altogether with the next SW instalment. I wish they'd skip the UK also.

    Thing is, it's still possible for genre pictures to be massive hits without Chinese ticket sales. I give you Deadpool for example. As of last year, the 3 biggest US movies in China were Avengers: Infinity War by quite some margin, followed by Jurassic World 2 then Ready Player One. The latter had Win Morisaki somewhere lowdown the cast and Jurassic had BD Wong in there somewhere. Now, I don't for one minute think that casting either of these two actors was a major contributing factor into both these 2 movies success stories. Principally, it was the special effects that drew the crowds. Crazy Rich Asians bombed in China and that starred Constance Wu, Michelle Yeoh, Lisa Lu and host of other Chinese actors because it endorsed Western stereotypes of Asians. Besides, anyone in China who really wanted to see it had already pirated it months ago.

    Which brings me to my other point. Chinese theatres have been under-reporting ticket sales of Hollywood movies, resulting in short-changing the big US studios. So just how reliable are they?

    Personally, I believe Bond should play to its strengths by providing a good action-orientated movie. If the action is well-executed, as it should be, then the Chinese will go see it. If it's a dull plodding affair, then it won't be a success. Skyfall was heavily censored by the Chinese Government, and as it came out there last, which I'm sure was already pirated by those who wanted to see it first, it's sale would've been dented. Correct me if I'm wrong, but SF was still a success in China despite those counterproductive factors.

    Hey, I still wish that Dalton had got to zip along the Great Wall of China on a motorbike in the original LTK movie, before they decided to shoot it low-budget in Mexico. But to reply your other question: How can you exactly cater for both Asian and Latin markets when casting the next Bond actor when they are both so fundamentally different? I don't think you can.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @bondsum, I'm definitely with you on not pandering to the fast growing Chinese market via deliberate casting of Asian actors. I am aware of the failure of such blatant attempts in both Rogue One and The Last Jedi, and I'm glad.

    However, as you note, action and spectacle seem to be large drivers of success over there, at least as evidenced by the largest box office winners. I'm not sure if that's cultural (they have a lot of high octane local action films) or it's due to the audience skewing younger.

    I've always been curious about how EON/MGM will approach Asia going forward. The Craig films haven't really done all that well there in relative comparison to how they've performed in Europe. This is contrast to MI for instance, that does proportionately better in the Asian markets (and increasingly so) in comparison to Europe. In North America they are both roughly equal, with SF being a positive anomaly for Bond.

    I agree that Bond should play to its strengths. I believe the viewing audience tends to skew a bit older, and I'd like to think is a bit more culturally refined. I hope that the films continue to satiate those viewers who appreciate the finer things in life, like good dialogue and subtle humour. I realize that some of this may be lost on a foreign audience after translation and therefore may be simplified on a go-forward basis to accommodate, but I hope not.

    Regarding catering to Asian and Latin American markets at the same time - it's an interesting question because what is attractive in one market is likely to be different from what works in the other. Honestly, I don't have an answer. I suppose the only thing they can do is ensure that their actor is known to these audiences in both markets and has been in some successful films there. The other solution is to make sure that whatever is delivered is top of class (including the action). That seems to work with the other franchises, and so it likely will work with Bond also.

    I believe the risks are a little greater with casting Bond #007 due to the wide swathe of the world that must be catered to. That's why it wouldn't surprise me if they go with a slightly better known name next time out.
Sign In or Register to comment.