Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

1969799101102104

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    Didn't Cubby decide to make YOLT before OHMSS precisely to cash in on the Asian market?
  • Posts: 2,917
    Getafix wrote: »
    Didn't Cubby decide to make YOLT before OHMSS precisely to cash in on the Asian market?

    That was one of the reasons for the decision--the Japanese were crazy about Bond. China of course was not part of the market at the time (neither was Vietnam). I suspect box office from Thailand and Cambodia would have been negligible.
  • Posts: 3,333
    We're on the same page @bondjames. As you rightly pointed out, the Chinese and other Asian markets have their own action movies, which is why I believe Bond needs to up its game to compete there. Of course, SF was hindered by being released last on the international circuit. The majority of Chinese would've already seen a pirated copy by its release date there. This has now been rectified with the likes of Aquaman being launched and released there first. With the success of another superhero movie this alludes to the Chinese liking spectacle above solid narrative. They don't go to see a Hollywood movie to be wowed by great acting or masterclass storytelling. They appear to favour the fantastical above anything else when it comes to US movies.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Didn't Cubby decide to make YOLT before OHMSS precisely to cash in on the Asian market?
    I believe you're correct about the Japanese Bond craze having an influence. Though OHMSS was put aside due to the lack of snow forecast for 1967, I think it was an obvious choice to switch the two around and capitalise on Bond's huge popularity in Japan instead.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    @bondsum, I agree that an advance release in Asia for Aquaman may have helped that film, but I don't necessarily believe that the staggered release of SF and SP were responsible for the lower relative grosses for these films in that market. There are several examples of tentpole releases that get their Chinese debut long after their North American one, and they clean up over there anyway as long as it meets with the local tastes. Just a few examples include Venom, JW2, and Cruise's last three MI releases.

    It's interesting that you brought up the SW franchise earlier, because to an extent, Bond plays like SW in the Chinese market on a relative basis (in comparison to its gross elsewhere). Coincidentally, these are both older franchises with an established history in the US and Europe. For some reason they haven't quite found their groove over there yet. Probably both a bit slow going for local tastes.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 3,333
    I'm not too sure of the reception of Bond in China @bondjames. I assumed it was heavily censored, just like it used to be in Soviet Russia and never got the opportunity to flourish there. But I think you're right about the modern Bonds being seen as too slow for Chinese tastes. Not so much QoS, which was too early to take advantage of the Chinese market, but most definitely the stodgy Mendes Bonds.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited January 2019 Posts: 5,419
    Getafix wrote: »
    Didn't Cubby decide to make YOLT before OHMSS precisely to cash in on the Asian market?

    That may have been a factor. If I recall some prints of GF stated the next film was to be OHMSS then McClory came along and TB became the next film. Then OHMSS was to be the next film after TB but it was felt that OHMSS was TB on skis, plus it was doubtful that Connery would go with the long shooting schedule. So it was shelved again.

    Back to the point of the thread, I agree with those that say engineering a movie, or the people who act in the movie to appeal to a market isn't the way to go about the creative process. Better to be who you are and play to your strengths.

    Could I see Dalton in GE? Yes I could, I think it was written with him in mind. Some scenes would play to his strengths. I think the death of 006 would have been a better moment for Dalton. Would the movie have been as much of a box office success? Not sure on that one. The buzz and publicity they scored from having Brosnan and the story of his long journey to get the role was HUGE. Some was also pent up demand from not having a Bond film in a number of years was also a factor. Were people clamouring for Dalton to come back? I would say that group was rather small.

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Getafix wrote: »
    Didn't Cubby decide to make YOLT before OHMSS precisely to cash in on the Asian market?

    It may have informed his decision somewhat, but he really couldn't have made YOLT anywhere else. I know the story was changed from the novel dramatically, but Japan was a character itself in the Fleming plot.
  • Posts: 15,114
    thedove wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Didn't Cubby decide to make YOLT before OHMSS precisely to cash in on the Asian market?

    That may have been a factor. If I recall some prints of GF stated the next film was to be OHMSS then McClory came along and TB became the next film. Then OHMSS was to be the next film after TB but it was felt that OHMSS was TB on skis, plus it was doubtful that Connery would go with the long shooting schedule. So it was shelved again.

    Back to the point of the thread, I agree with those that say engineering a movie, or the people who act in the movie to appeal to a market isn't the way to go about the creative process. Better to be who you are and play to your strengths.

    Could I see Dalton in GE? Yes I could, I think it was written with him in mind. Some scenes would play to his strengths. I think the death of 006 would have been a better moment for Dalton. Would the movie have been as much of a box office success? Not sure on that one. The buzz and publicity they scored from having Brosnan and the story of his long journey to get the role was HUGE. Some was also pent up demand from not having a Bond film in a number of years was also a factor. Were people clamouring for Dalton to come back? I would say that group was rather small.

    From experience, that number was indeed very small. People seem to underestimate how popular was Brosnan and GE when the movie was released. As unfair as it was, Dalton was seen as the usurper and Brosnan could do no wrong.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Funny. I'd never even heard of Brosnan before 95. Think he had a low profile in the UK.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 19,339
    Getafix wrote: »
    Funny. I'd never even heard of Brosnan before 95. Think he had a low profile in the UK.

    He was well known here for sure,mainly for Remington Steele,The 4th Protocol,Taffin,Mrs Doubtfire and some average budget films,but not as much as in the US.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I knew of him even though I hadn't seen Remington Steele. He was most famous for being the nearly man in 1986.

    Years later I remember watching him in Mrs Doubtfire and thinking how good he was as a light comedian. He did well, playing foil to Robin Williams and never trying to upstage him.

  • edited January 2019 Posts: 3,333
    thedove wrote: »
    Could I see Dalton in GE? Yes I could, I think it was written with him in mind. Some scenes would play to his strengths. I think the death of 006 would have been a better moment for Dalton. Would the movie have been as much of a box office success? Not sure on that one. The buzz and publicity they scored from having Brosnan and the story of his long journey to get the role was HUGE. Some was also pent up demand from not having a Bond film in a number of years was also a factor. Were people clamouring for Dalton to come back? I would say that group was rather small.
    This is a very good point, @thedove, when you say the relationship between 006 would have been better served with Dalton as 007 and was evidently written with his Bond in mind. I was thinking the very same thing. I honestly didn't want to put myself through the torture of rewatching GE to remind myself of those factors simply because I cannot abide watching Cummings ham it up to the point of feeling nauseous. For the record, I still think this is Brosnan's best performance as Bond.

    In saying that, I do think the success of GE was a necessity at the time, so I'm willing to swallow some of its kid-friendly foibles. In a way, I could say the very same thing about TSWLM. Not a favourite of mine as I much preferred Moore's two previous Bond outings to the kid-friendly silliness of TSWLM. But again, character continuity had to be sacrificed to deliver a surefire hit. Gone was the sardonic sadism of Connery and in its place roguish schoolboy charm was the order of the day, which of course played to Moore's strengths. One can almost see a parallel between Dalton and Brosnan, and Connery and Moore. I think the main criticism of Dalton from America was that he was too serious and lacked a playfulness to the character that audiences of that time had come to expect. Brosnan brought back that roguish schoolboy charm which obviously appealed to US audiences. Coupled with the fact that the US always saw Brosnan as the "real Bond" who'd been denied his rightful chance to play the character due to the contract shenanigans of Remington Steele, it was therefore always a foregone conclusion that Brosnan takeover if Dalton failed to ignite the box office. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this unilateral support and critical acclaim on his first movie might have been contributing factors as to why Brosnan came over as too smug in his subsequent performances.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Dalton wasn't a typical movie Bond. His dress sense seemed a little off the peg, his hair a bit unkempt, his build slight. He seemed uncomfortable in a dinner jacket, and equally uncomfortable when engaging Moneypenny in the 007 innuendo-driven banter. (Comparing Craig to Dalton is wrong, because Craig ticked the boxes which Dalton didn't. And Craig's Bond had a cockiness about him and a more flippant attitude to the job than Dalton.)

    On the plus side he was earnest and moody. He was the Bond who looked like he did the job because no one else would or could do it. You can imagine he didn't sleep well, not because he spent all night at the casino like Connery's Bond, but because the job troubled him.

    Anyways, Bond fans who love the books love Dalton (even though in many books Bond is more gentlemanly and would often call the ladies 'darling' which is more in tune with Roger Moore). Casual movie goers who make up the vast majority of cinema goers, prefer Brosnan, because he comes over better on the big screen as a more typical handsome, well dressed, easy going leading man.

    So, if Dalton had made GE it would have been successful because there is a huge market for Bond driving the films over the line. However It would not have been as successful as it eventually was.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I knew of the show (REMINGTON STEELE), and Pierce, in the early ‘80s, but I didn’t watch it (I was in college, not watching much TV amidst my drinking and whoring, and that’s not the kind of idiocy I would have been watching regardless). To me he seemed a joke, a lightweight, and I definitely didn’t want him playing Bond. A lame television Bond imitation playing the real thing? Insulting!

    I was quite shocked at how well he did when he actually took the role?

    I was ecstatic when Tim got the role, having liked his work for many years (THE LION IN WINTER particularly; obviously to anyone whose seen it).

    The Lion In Winter is a superb film. I encourage anyone who hasn't watched it, to go watch it. Not just for Dalton's excellent performance, but also for Peter O'Toole, who was denied an Oscar due to Cliff Robertson winning it for Charly that same year. It's an impressive performance when you consider O'Toole was playing a much older man who was married to Katharine Hepburn. There was only 5 years age difference between him and Anthony Hopkins, but in this movie O'Toole is playing his father. And then there's John Barry's score which is sublime.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I wonder if we'd have got Hopkins as villain if Dalton had done GE?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    No reason why. I think Hopkins star was very high at that point. A Bond film wouldn't have been on his radar.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I thought he had been lined up for Dalton's third in the early 90s?

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Getafix wrote: »
    I thought he had been lined up for Dalton's third in the early 90s?

    Oh I see. I didn't know that. Maybe as the Silence Of The Lambs oscar and The Remains Of The Day both came between 1991 and 1995 it would have priced him out of the market.

    I don't know. Unless he and Timbo were good friends?
  • Posts: 11,425
    I might be wrong....
  • Posts: 15,114
    Hopkins would have worked far better opposing Dalton than Bean. Although they'd probably need to have an extra character playing henchman for the last fight because I can't see a fist fight between Hopkins and Dalton being very good or convincing.

    Come to think of it, I don't think a fight between Bean-Trevelyan and Dalton-Bond would have worked either, unless they'd change radically their approach to how Dalton was depicted in a fist fight.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Dalton with Hopkins and Dench would have been epic.

    Sorry I'm one of the few who never liked GE from day one. Feels like a straight to video thing to me. Don't get it at all.
  • Posts: 628
    I've read/heard that Hopkins was offered a Bond villain twice, for GOLDENEYE and TOMORROW NEVER DIES. It still seems a little odd to me that Sir Anthony would turn these offers down, considering that he'll do just about any piece of garbage if the money is right (FREEJACK, INSTINCT, BAD COMPANY, etc.) GE was produced on a shoestring (for a Bond film), but by the time of TND I would have thought MGM could meet his fee. Maybe he didn't like the fact that there was only half a script?
  • Posts: 11,425
    There are lots of online rumours that he was being lined up for SF
  • Posts: 7,415
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    I've read/heard that Hopkins was offered a Bond villain twice, for GOLDENEYE and TOMORROW NEVER DIES. It still seems a little odd to me that Sir Anthony would turn these offers down, considering that he'll do just about any piece of garbage if the money is right (FREEJACK, INSTINCT, BAD COMPANY, etc.) GE was produced on a shoestring (for a Bond film), but by the time of TND I would have thought MGM could meet his fee. Maybe he didn't like the fact that there was only half a script?

    Apparently it was down to the fact that the script wasn't completed, a view shared by Dench and Brossa, who voiced their concerns at the time!
    Getafix wrote: »
    Dalton with Hopkins and Dench would have been epic.

    Sorry I'm one of the few who never liked GE from day one. Feels like a straight to video thing to me. Don't get it at all.

    Agree totally. It's a Bond movie that hasn't aged well either!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Dalton with Hopkins and Dench would have been epic.

    Sorry I'm one of the few who never liked GE from day one. Feels like a straight to video thing to me. Don't get it at all.

    Agree totally. It's a Bond movie that hasn't aged well either!
    It was made on a very tight budget, which may explain the ageing thing. Having said that, it had a bit of a dated look from the outset, and some of that was perhaps deliberate with the cold war callbacks. It's true that it's a bit more pulpy than some of the other films, but the charismatic characters seem to generally connect and resonate. It's a case of less is more.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Less is a bore
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    A Dalton-led GoldenEye film would have not worked at all.

    Biased Dalton fans may want it and would do anything to discredit Brosnan, but I've read the first draft written with him in mind, and it was a load of mess.

    Even if Dalton was to star in the final draft depiction of the screenplay, that statue park scene would've had him overreacting to Alec's betrayal, thus offering a cringeworthy moment rather than what we've seen with Brosnan responding coldly with "the job we're chosen for."
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    A Dalton-led GoldenEye film would have not worked at all.

    Biased Dalton fans may want it and would do anything to discredit Brosnan, but I've read the first draft written with him in mind, and it was a load of mess.

    Even if Dalton was to star in the final draft depiction of the screenplay, that statue park scene would've had him overreacting to Alec's betrayal, thus offering a cringeworthy moment rather than what we've seen with Brosnan responding coldly with "the job we're chosen for."

    Do you think he would have screamed "Aaaleec!!!", then clenched his fists?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    A Dalton-led GoldenEye film would have not worked at all.

    Biased Dalton fans may want it and would do anything to discredit Brosnan, but I've read the first draft written with him in mind, and it was a load of mess.

    Even if Dalton was to star in the final draft depiction of the screenplay, that statue park scene would've had him overreacting to Alec's betrayal, thus offering a cringeworthy moment rather than what we've seen with Brosnan responding coldly with "the job we're chosen for."
    Do you think he would have screamed "Aaaleec!!!", then clenched his fists?
    Or something along the lines of "How could you do this?! I bloody trusted you!"
Sign In or Register to comment.