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
In Cubby's book When The Snow Melts, he does speak of the intense competition faced in the summer of '89. And Bond was up against many successful franchises that year.
And he also mentions the issues with the studio falling apart during production. And Cubby was overuled like with the Bob Peak artwork that the studio management scrapped. That artwork was phenomenal and far better than the photo style they used.
Bob Peak did TSWLM and his artwork sells the image so well.
And to boot, the film title was changed after filming began from Licence Revoked to LTK. That certainly caused confusion. There is a photo of Cubby with the clapperboard saying Licence Revoked on it.
Bond like you say was thought indestructible at the time and the studio just assumed the film's more violent aspects would sell it to modern audiences. The studio was stupidly complacent and John Glen in his book says he hardly saw any real promotion like had gone on before.
I think the studio's complacency was spurred by the fact that LTK had scored the highest rankings with test audiences in Bond history and they assumed it was a hit anyway. They could not be more wrong.
Plus according to Cubby many had departed the studios management and it was in the hands of accountants who had no clue about promotion and were penny pinching to the point where they even would question if real alcohol was used in scenes in the bar in LTK.
SF has definitely got a boost from a Bond feature in the Olympics opening ceremony which was watched by billions. That is a clear example of putting the idea of the forthcoming film before the real promotion starts.
May be...
No question @Getafix LTK was and is a fine film in the canon. It could easily have done way better with the right promotion and right being the operative word. QOS was also hated but got a massive marketing budget.
Many forget that Dalts had firm belief in him by Cubby and there were plans to learn from the mistakes of LTK's bad marketing.
Ah...missed opportunities!
I don't think it's ever going to stop.
I was suprised when I joined this site how much of a bad rap Brosnan got because he is still a popular Bond.
No, Broz is not the 'best' Bond, but he put in some hard work, and IMO was a solid 007. This continued bashing will not stand.
(M ref there)
This is a site for Bond fans so the fact Dalton had an underwhelming run as Bond means his fans (or Bond fans) need to redress the balance with endless threads about how great he was (is).
I'm no Dalton fan I know, but I can see how his fans need to keep preaching the man's virtues. It will never alter the fact that history will rightly or wrongly recall Brosnan as a successful Bond and Dalton as a failed Bond (the same footing as Lazenby - who I like)
No amount of goodwill towards him (even some critics who have revised their opinions) will alter this. My opinion is absolutely objective. It's a shame because I truly believe all the actors gave something to this exclusive club with 6 members.
BUT the truth is, trying to turn Dalton into a Bond greater than Connery or Moore in the annals of history will be a huge and unforgiving task.
I don't personally place him above Sean and Rog but that is partly because he only got to make 2 films, not because I don't think he was an excellent Bond.
Not all the Bond fans.
BUT somewhere along the line he lost that. EON pretty much admit that Dalton didn't get the reception they wanted in their recent documentary and hardcore Bond fans like Graham Rye have been quoted as saying he wasn't that popular with the masses.
While Dalts has had something of a re-prieve in a few highbrow newspapers I highly doubt he will ever reach the levels of popularity that Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig all managed.
TLD was well received. LTK was badly marketed and didn't perform as well as it should have. The studio did not properly prepare people for the change of tone. Plus I don't think Dalton was entirely happy with the direction LTK had gone in and he wanted to go back to something more along the lines of TLD. Any way, then along came the legal dispute and the rest is history. I agree that Dalton will never be perceived as on a level with Connery and Moore and I think the popular media will continue to imply that he was a failure, but that doesn't tie with the facts. It's all a moot point, but I don't think we can judge Tim fairly because he only made 2. Had his 3rd been a classic or a stinker that would have helped cement his status - either way. As it is there's not really enough to make a full comparison. I think he showed in his 2 films that he was an excellent Bond. I would never say he was better than Sean or Rog, because they sustained the series over years in a way that Tim never demonstrated that he could. But in terms of performance TLD and LTK are enough IMO to demonstrate what we missed out on by having Tim's tenure cut short.
Personally I much prefer him to Craig. But I think the box office figures and the fact DC is likely to do 5 mean that DC will always be seen as more successful than Dalts.
EON said in the documentary that Dalton was critcised unfairly and was ahead of his time. It is no secret that they wanted the films to go in a more realistic violent direction as it was in fashion.
Davi's casting makes it obvious. He pretty much was cast in R rated films. The more violent direction was because Schwarzenegger, Stalone as well as Willis films with the accent on violence were huge box office draws making Bond seem tame.
LTK was a gamble for EON that took years to pay off in terms of acceptance. But is was the seed for the Craig era and even Mark Kermode says this. Blueprint even as he said.
As for Graham Rye, he changes his tune like his underpants. He puts his name to the franchises successes but distances himself from any failures.
I have the 007 magazines where it was praising the Dalton era at the time and LTK blew them away. He was the editor and at the time went with the EON direction.
But in the advent of the Brosnan era, they jumped ship to go with where the money was. And they did the same with the Craig era.
I have an acquaintance who dealt with Mr Rye and he said similar to you. The man will change his tune. When Brosnan was cast he said he was "The only actor who could do the part justice!."
And had Bond 23 been cancelled for years, then Craig would also get the same backlash that he was a failed Bond despite the studio finances being the reason the series was cancelled.
What I do not understand with some fans is that quantity of films as opposed to quality cements a Bond actors standing. In my estimation, Dalton did so much in just two films. And when young audiences new to the franchise praise his films, it proves his Bond is relatable and understood better 25 years later.
Christopher Lee once said in an interview that some fans dismiss an actor of Bond if he has done one film. But Lee judged it from the depth of contribution. He praised Lazenby and Dalton. He was a cousin of Fleming's and certainly knew the history of the character.
And neither did Lee say who was the best James Bond as he felt at that point "We have not yet seen a best James Bond."
It amazes me OHMSS was considered a financial failure when it made back I believe 11 times it's budget. Not even SF at a budget of $200 million will make back that proportion.
With the advent of home video, no Bond actor is forgotten. They are show on tv and have evergreen appeal. As a fan, you watch all the films out of curiosity.
But had there been no home video entertainment then absolutely an actor would be forgotten as access to the films would be restricted.
But, it's a different world now, and the internet is a significant tool. Maybe things will alter as you say.
No, of course, not all. It was a generalisation, probably based on these forums ;-). I don't dislike Brosnan myself.
Me neither. I don't dislike any of them. At a push I would argue Lazenby was just too wooden, although I don't think he was helped by the fact he was dubbed by George Baker for a good portion of the film (it irks me). I think the whole thing is cyclical. There are people who never have and never will like Brosnan, however there are a big percentage of fans who are carried along by trend. Craig has now made it 'ok' to like Dalton, the antithesis of these portrayals is Brosnan and to a smaller extent Moore. I think a lot of fans feel they have to sit in a certain camp to give their opinions weight.
On the subject of George Baker dubbing Lazenby. It's a typical example of the lazy journalism I mentioned, whereby some critics are still of the opinion that Baker dubbed his voice throughout because of Lazenby's Australian accent. They never bother to look at the film again to realise the true reason.
However, the point was, Bond was supposed to have been an excellent mimic, copying Bray's voice accurately. Was this because Blofeld knew Bray's voice? Had they spoken previously? It seems the only reason for Bond needing to copy it, otherwise Bond could use his own voice.
I only ask because I can't remember. Haven't seen the film in a couple of years
Shocking!
At any one given day of the week I may say Craig, but then a few days later I may watch GF and say Connery, and then I may watch LTK again for the millionth time and say Dalton.
I think Craig may just win this one, because CR and SF are just so bloody awesome.
They all have elements unique to them as in the three you mention but all have the gravitas as in they are Bond. Moore I like more for the comedy above all. I never buy the competence as a spy. But he was charismatic and very funny.
I watch a Bond of those depending on my mood. I may be a minority but severely enjoyed Connery in DAF even. The funeral parlour dialogue is brilliant.
And not being shallow but loved Dalton's jet black hair as it fits with the Fleming description.
As a film it is kitsch of the highest order. But as a pantomine that knows it is sending itself up from the get go, it is one of the funniest in the series. It does not make the mistake of pretending it is OHMSS or Dr No. A mistake DAD made by starting out po-faced and then being pseudo serious yet not being comfortable with the serious aspects presented and moving away to abject stupidity.
But Connery does the straight face so well. He looks like he is playing it serious but is well aware of the absurdity in his performance. And he is damn interesting to watch. And he does not look like he is trying to please or going out of his way to be funny.
And the supporting cast in DAF know they are over acting but it has this undeniable charm as well as wit. The one liners are super!
I may be a tiny margin here, but I like him better in DAF than Goldfinger.