EON Blew it

2»

Comments

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    We all love the Bond franchise but there have been times over the past half century when EON really effed up. Here are a few examples:
    1. The decision to make DAF a silly campy film rather than a revenge film more like the book YOLT following the events in OHMSS
    2. squeezing one more out of Moore, AVTAK he should have gone after OP and left on a positive note.
    3. Allowing Dalton to slip away and not star in GE
    4. DAD
    5. The energy crises plot of TMWTGG, they should have stuck with the Scaramanga v. Bond storyline, keep it simple stupid!
    6. The convoluted subplots of QoS. they should have stuck with Quantum and made Mr. White the principal bad guy and done some closure with the loose ends from CR
    7. The decision to resort to "stunt casting" of popular leading ladies with TND onwards. DAD got a lot of milage out of casting Halle Berry but WTF the movie would have still make a crap load of money without her bad as the film was.


    Agree with all your points except:

    3. The public didnt want another Dalton film and whatever you think about Brozza he delivered a big hit which I'm not sure TD would have done. LTK, then a 6 year gap then another lacklustre result at the box office and the series might have been in serious trouble. Although Dalton is a great Fleming Bond the public want film Bond and never really liked him.

    6. Lets always remember in CR Mr White is just a lackey. Please can people stop elevating him above his station like hes Blofeld. Hes barely even middle management in Quantum. Hes the bloke they send into the jungle to set up deals with warlords or take out untrustworthy employees. Although he might seem intelligent hes much more brawn than brains within Quantum (that said hes got a pretty decent house for just being hired help - who says crime doesnt pay?)
    Jusef should have been the main bad guy and much more made of him rather than just a tagged on scene at the end.


    I think we forget the six year legal battle is what killed Dalton's tenure. Yes, LTK underperformed in the USA but did great everywhere else. He would have stayed on as Bond for '91 and '93 had there been no legal case.

    Moore's second Bond took half the box office of LALD which caused speculation that his days were numbered. But EON smartly came back bolder and the rest is history.

    They were going to change the approach for Dalton's third film and he even said he wanted it to be more traditional.

    He himself just said recently he was asked to stay on for GE, but did not want another 3 film contract making his tenure end in 1999.

    Dalton would not have hung on until '94 unless there was a good prospect of them wanting him as Bond. He was close to Cubby and had Cubby wanted him to quit, he would have done it after LTK.

    The Dalton backlash came after Brosnan arrived. Just like Brosnan was popular until fans changed their tune to Craig's style.

    I think GE would have done great anyway after 6 years of no Bond.

    Fair points. Perhaps if EON had pulled out the stops a la TSWLM then Dalton would have been accepted by the public and delivered similar box office to Brozza. We will never know.
    And I suppose LTK was up against probably the strongest competition ever so never stood a chance and we should remember this. GE had a Oct/Nov slot all to itself so had Dalton GE had this slot theres no reason to expect it wouldnt have done good business. LTKs numbers worldwide were fine so without the stiff competition it would have done fine domestically as well so probably there wasnt really a need for change of actor if Dalton had wanted to go on.

    Thanks for the reasonableness @TheWizard Indeed, EON and MGM learned that it was foolish to put a Bond out at the same time that the biggest movie ever at the time Batman opened. And for good measure, they underestimated the legendary pull of Indiana Jones. Duh!

    The studio management at the time of LTK were according to Cubby's book mostly accountants who knew little of marketing. Imagine the fools who refused the Bob Peak artwork which was to me the best poster since Apocalypse Now also drawn by him.

    I think Brosnan owes a thank you to Dalton who by relinquishing the role gave him the chance to do Bond. Because had Dalton signed on for three more in '94 then Brosnan would have lost out.

    And like you noticed too, no Bond since LTK has had a summer release like many Bonds had before. The industry changed and so did the competition.

    Imagine if SF was released the same time as The Hobbit and Twilight. Goodbye to the billion dollar box office for sure!:)

    Unfortunately the USA isn't the best place to underperform if you are going to do so.

    I genuinely get the feeling that the perception of how popular an actor is as Bond comes partly from how they are received in the US. Sadly Dalton just wasn't popular with the Yanks and, given how big the place is, thats a massive audience.

    True MWTGG underperformed there too but at least Moore had shown he was well liked across the pond via The Saint/Persuaders. I just don't get the sense the Americans ever really took to Tim. Maybe its because they wanted Brosnan, maybe not. We don't know for sure.

    But I'm not sure a third Dalton film would have changed that.

    It was bad marketing. I remember American magazines and press giving Dalton good write ups. I really think the marketing was screwed and the studio was a ship going into financial sh*t creek. No one on the inside cared enough.

    A third Dalton would have turned around. Brosnan's GE had a mega marketing push and the ad campaign was expensive. They sure hyped it very well and got the curiosity set in. LTK was the sh*ttest promotion in the franchise's history. I was a Dalton fan and did not hear much about the film until weeks after release. That says it all.

    I remember many at the time saying Dalton was a return to the toughness of Connery and glad the Moore goofiness was a thing of the past. Piers Morgan I believe called Dalton the best Bond ever at the time.

    If Moore was so famous in the USA, then the massive drop in box office there for TMWTGG also would point to not being liked. But his third film proved it untrue.

    TMTGG came out at a time when there was serious tension within EON as in Cubby and Harry coming to the end of the road.

    They actually started pre-production on his third in '90 and then suddenly a legal case meant everything had to cease. Cubby's book says that they had no choice but to fight over the rights of who owned Bond and a lot of issues were at stake.

    As for audiences, no offence but most people follow what the mainstream media tells them to like. That is the way it is and always has been. If the mainstream media continued saying Craig was bad, then many would follow it. People are weak and not always the brightest creatures.

    I've heard Americans on here and on other forums saying they were in the minority for liking Dalton at the time.

    If you read the previous posts I put on this thread it will help me not cover old ground.

    For your information are you aware that LTK scored the highest marks of any Bond in history with American test audiences. And it partially made the studio complacent thinking it would do well with little push.

    I keep saying that the third film would have changed that. Also Craig benefitted from a 4 year gap from Brosnan. Had Craig taken over in 2003 for a 2004 release then he would have been the most hated Bond. There would have been protests as Pierce was supremely liked in the role.

    Why? Because it was the American audiences who loved Brosnan hailing him as the best or as good as Connery. Wow, they changed their minds.

    Dalton had a mountain to climb after 12 years of Moore's style and people needed more time to get used to him. Cubby knew that and plans were put in place. Cubby knew that LTK was for the time too hard and heavy.

    I did not know that. Interesting.

    Despite that I feel Dalton himself was 100% satisfied with how LTK turned out. He saw flaws in the film and seems to virtually admit that it was too dark.

    Lets face it, to this day, LTK is a controversial entry and extremely divisive amongst fans. Personally I can see why some didn' take to it. Its too...American. At least something like FYEO or TLD has a bit more class.

    I do think it's a shame Dalton didn't get a third - but I love the GE we have and it ultimately worked for the time.
  • Posts: 7,653
    EON has never made any big mistakes as their franchise who is firing on all cilenders currently proves. Certain fanboys think they know better and confuse their own views and taste for truth. EON has so far given 007 5 decades of succes which is more than any other producer can claim ever.
    All actors are a great product of their times and represent their period in time excellently. I might not like all the actors equally but that is no biggie. INSTEAD of any blowing done by EON.
  • There have been big missed opportunities, but to keep a film franchise going 50 years is incredible. As much of a joke of a film that DAF is I really enjoy it. Even though the films may have been better I think that the levity provided by DAF and the Moore era really helped to keep Bond going through the years.

    If I were to go back and edit the timeline of the series I'd have had:

    - Connery leave after TB
    - Lazenby do OHMSS ('67) and then YOLT ('69)
    - Moore play Bond more like his Saint character from '71-'83
    - Dalton play Bond in 5 movies from '85-'93
    - Brosnan do GE in '95 and then get better casts and scripts in his films until '03
    - Craig take over with CR in '06 and the script of QoS actually gets finished before production.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    SaintMark wrote:
    EON has never made any big mistakes as their franchise who is firing on all cilenders currently proves. Certain fanboys think they know better and confuse their own views and taste for truth. EON has so far given 007 5 decades of succes which is more than any other producer can claim ever.
    All actors are a great product of their times and represent their period in time excellently. I might not like all the actors equally but that is no biggie. INSTEAD of any blowing done by EON.

    Are you MGW in disguise (although with his education I would imagine he would be able to have better stab at spelling 'cylinders' correctly)?

    I dont just think I know better; I do know better than thinking an invisible car, a CGI shambles and the character Jinx are anything other than pissing all over the character Ian Fleming created.

    To say EON has never made mistakes is a frankly laughable position to take as even they themselves would admit that some things in the past were not perfect. EON have actually made some disastrous mistakes over the years but they have always rectified them and it is this recognition of when they get things wrong that has kept the series alive.
    DAD made tons of cash and they could easily have continued down that route but by now the series would probably be dying on its arse, a sad parody of Austin Powers. EON should be given credit for having the bottle to completely change everything with CR when they didnt really need to but they should also be criticised when they get things wrong - which they have done.

    Just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'EON are great la la la I cant hear you' is the act of a petulant toddler to be honest.
  • Posts: 15,106
    JBFan626 wrote:
    To me, the only real misfire of the entire series was Quantum of Solace. It was such an underwhelming follow up to CR. That said, I still think there are some good moments in it. But rushing to crank it out with an unpolished script, losing Martin Campbell as director, completely changing the 'style' that was set in CR, not giving a proper story to Quantum and instead focusing on some arbitrary water shortage issue, not diving deeper into Bond's psychological turmoil after CR, using cheap Goldfinger tribute moment, canning Amy Winehouse and hiring Jack White/Alicia Keys, letting Forster use MKII instead of Daniel Kleinman, having an akward title (it doesn't matter that it's a Flemming ti.

    QOS isn't as bad as some make it out to be, but as a follow up to CR, EON blew it big time.

    I think the water plot was the high point of QOS, personally. Not entirely unseen (Chinatown, Once Upon a Time int he West), but still original enough. I do think the movie would have been better with Martin Campbell as director. As for Amy WInehouse, she was not exactly manageable at that time.

  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    I have to say I disagree with most of the topic but then give even though my opinion ; EON Productions did an exceptionally outstanding job ! I thank them for giving us the best film serie ever, the longest and most entertaining to date. Period.

    On the other hand, it's true they did "mistakes" , here are mines :

    About the actors :
    - Connery : He should have acted in TB then in DAF and let George play in YOLT and OHMSS. DAF was a great Bond but they could have made it one of the best to focus more on the revenge thema as written before... That'd have been plenty of times more interesting ! (Imagine Lazenby's 2 then Connery revenges with a kick ass outing)

    - Lazenby : Let him play in YOLT because he would have suited more that film and Connery was tired in it. Then, OHMSS as a second film, he'd have been more experienced and may have given just a better perf. (not saying his one is bad...quite the opposite)

    - Moore : Make LALD more Bond ; it was great but too much "The Saint" styled. And his ending film must have been Octopussy, not AVTAK...Plus, more punch in his action scenes.

    - Dalton : Starring in AVTAK, that sounded brilliant, TLD, and finishing with LTK. Perhaps also giving us the definite closest interpretation to Fleming's character in a early 90's but with original script CR. Unfortunately, they didn't have the rights about it...Maybe more real fights to add in his tenure.

    - Brosnan : Nothing special more. Giving a better outing maybe ? After DAD. Or taking him earlier and make CR early 90's as I've typed above for Tim. Less joking more serious, but not grave (sorry Daniel Craig). Quite similar to his GoldenEye perf, indeed. That seemed perfect to me !

    - Craig : CR 2006 was a great action/spy film with a Craig's correct perf but I honestly think another actor (presentable as the character in the very original plot) would have been just better. Jackman, IMO. Best outing with Skyfall. NO QOS at all... keep it in literary.

    ... (Films, music and other castings later). That's my whole point of view.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Are you MGW in disguise (although with his education I would imagine he would be able to have better stab at spelling 'cylinders' correctly)?

    I dont just think I know better; I do know better than thinking an invisible car, a CGI shambles and the character Jinx are anything other than pissing all over the character Ian Fleming created.

    To say EON has never made mistakes is a frankly laughable position to take as even they themselves would admit that some things in the past were not perfect. EON have actually made some disastrous mistakes over the years but they have always rectified them and it is this recognition of when they get things wrong that has kept the series alive.
    DAD made tons of cash and they could easily have continued down that route but by now the series would probably be dying on its arse, a sad parody of Austin Powers. EON should be given credit for having the bottle to completely change everything with CR when they didnt really need to but they should also be criticised when they get things wrong - which they have done.

    Just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'EON are great la la la I cant hear you' is the act of a petulant toddler to be honest.

    Sure EON has made mistakes I never said that, I stated that they made no big mistakes. the franchise is still rolling ahead. It is only the petulant toddlerish fanboys that want to tell you what is wrong with the franchise. There is enough I am sure about it. But they always reinvented the series when it seemed they started slipping down a slope of no return. NO disasterous mistakes as you claim just repraisals on the right time. DAD as you mentioned did swell business, and then they decided to take their business a different direction and did not take the road you claim they could have chosen, As a matter of fact they changed direction. And overal the franchise has done so several times and it is still around these days. The franchise will survive DC as well as the next 007 actor I would bet.

    There have been things that have annoyed me in the franchise, but one thing will never annoy me namely that I get to see another movie in a few years.

    Critism is all good but so far I have only read pet peeves and personal grievences towards the franchise. And that is coming from me who thinks that SF is vastly overrated when called a classic.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    SaintMark wrote:
    Critism is all good but so far I have only read pet peeves and personal grievences towards the franchise. And that is coming from me who thinks that SF is vastly overrated when called a classic.
    Yeah, overall EON rocks.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 7,653
    chrisisall wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    Critism is all good but so far I have only read pet peeves and personal grievences towards the franchise. And that is coming from me who thinks that SF is vastly overrated when called a classic.
    Yeah, overall EON rocks.

    Its better moments vastly overshadows its worst moments imho.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    Critism is all good but so far I have only read pet peeves and personal grievences towards the franchise. And that is coming from me who thinks that SF is vastly overrated when called a classic.
    Yeah, overall EON rocks.

    Its better moments vastly overshadows its worst moments imho.
    Indeed, and that is important to note. EON, if you read these forums, we all have our issues with you, but deep down at the end of the day...we're smitten with you.
    :x
  • Posts: 1,548
    The Daniel Craig era has righted alot of wrongs after the shambles of the later Brosnan years. Skyfall is classic Bond IMO. Sits easily alongside early Connery. EON have done me proud!
  • SaintMark wrote:
    EON has never made any big mistakes as their franchise who is firing on all cilenders currently proves. Certain fanboys think they know better and confuse their own views and taste for truth. EON has so far given 007 5 decades of succes which is more than any other producer can claim ever.
    All actors are a great product of their times and represent their period in time excellently. I might not like all the actors equally but that is no biggie. INSTEAD of any blowing done by EON.

    Are you MGW in disguise (although with his education I would imagine he would be able to have better stab at spelling 'cylinders' correctly)?

    I dont just think I know better; I do know better than thinking an invisible car, a CGI shambles and the character Jinx are anything other than pissing all over the character Ian Fleming created.

    To say EON has never made mistakes is a frankly laughable position to take as even they themselves would admit that some things in the past were not perfect. EON have actually made some disastrous mistakes over the years but they have always rectified them and it is this recognition of when they get things wrong that has kept the series alive.
    DAD made tons of cash and they could easily have continued down that route but by now the series would probably be dying on its arse, a sad parody of Austin Powers. EON should be given credit for having the bottle to completely change everything with CR when they didnt really need to but they should also be criticised when they get things wrong - which they have done.

    Just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'EON are great la la la I cant hear you' is the act of a petulant toddler to be honest.

    I don't think any of the mistakes they've made have been 'disastrous' though, have they? As you point out, even a film like DAD, which has fanboys howling with derision, made a ton of cash at the box office and was generally well received by audiences. Producing a series of 23 films over 50 years is incredible, unrivalled and unique. That every one of those films has made money at the box office is amazing. And for a guy sitting at home on an internet forum to claim that he knows better than those producers is just as laughable as the guys saying they've never made a mistake ever.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    We all love the Bond franchise but there have been times over the past half century when EON really effed up. Here are a few examples:
    1. The decision to make DAF a silly campy film rather than a revenge film more like the book YOLT following the events in OHMSS
    2. squeezing one more out of Moore, AVTAK he should have gone after OP and left on a positive note.
    3. Allowing Dalton to slip away and not star in GE
    4. DAD
    5. The energy crises plot of TMWTGG, they should have stuck with the Scaramanga v. Bond storyline, keep it simple stupid!
    6. The convoluted subplots of QoS. they should have stuck with Quantum and made Mr. White the principal bad guy and done some closure with the loose ends from CR
    7. The decision to resort to "stunt casting" of popular leading ladies with TND onwards. DAD got a lot of milage out of casting Halle Berry but WTF the movie would have still make a crap load of money without her bad as the film was.


    Agree with all your points except:

    3. The public didnt want another Dalton film and whatever you think about Brozza he delivered a big hit which I'm not sure TD would have done. LTK, then a 6 year gap then another lacklustre result at the box office and the series might have been in serious trouble. Although Dalton is a great Fleming Bond the public want film Bond and never really liked him.

    6. Lets always remember in CR Mr White is just a lackey. Please can people stop elevating him above his station like hes Blofeld. Hes barely even middle management in Quantum. Hes the bloke they send into the jungle to set up deals with warlords or take out untrustworthy employees. Although he might seem intelligent hes much more brawn than brains within Quantum (that said hes got a pretty decent house for just being hired help - who says crime doesnt pay?)
    Jusef should have been the main bad guy and much more made of him rather than just a tagged on scene at the end.


    I think we forget the six year legal battle is what killed Dalton's tenure. Yes, LTK underperformed in the USA but did great everywhere else. He would have stayed on as Bond for '91 and '93 had there been no legal case.

    Moore's second Bond took half the box office of LALD which caused speculation that his days were numbered. But EON smartly came back bolder and the rest is history.

    They were going to change the approach for Dalton's third film and he even said he wanted it to be more traditional.

    He himself just said recently he was asked to stay on for GE, but did not want another 3 film contract making his tenure end in 1999.

    Dalton would not have hung on until '94 unless there was a good prospect of them wanting him as Bond. He was close to Cubby and had Cubby wanted him to quit, he would have done it after LTK.

    The Dalton backlash came after Brosnan arrived. Just like Brosnan was popular until fans changed their tune to Craig's style.

    I think GE would have done great anyway after 6 years of no Bond.

    Fair points. Perhaps if EON had pulled out the stops a la TSWLM then Dalton would have been accepted by the public and delivered similar box office to Brozza. We will never know.
    And I suppose LTK was up against probably the strongest competition ever so never stood a chance and we should remember this. GE had a Oct/Nov slot all to itself so had Dalton GE had this slot theres no reason to expect it wouldnt have done good business. LTKs numbers worldwide were fine so without the stiff competition it would have done fine domestically as well so probably there wasnt really a need for change of actor if Dalton had wanted to go on.

    Thanks for the reasonableness @TheWizard Indeed, EON and MGM learned that it was foolish to put a Bond out at the same time that the biggest movie ever at the time Batman opened. And for good measure, they underestimated the legendary pull of Indiana Jones. Duh!

    The studio management at the time of LTK were according to Cubby's book mostly accountants who knew little of marketing. Imagine the fools who refused the Bob Peak artwork which was to me the best poster since Apocalypse Now also drawn by him.

    I think Brosnan owes a thank you to Dalton who by relinquishing the role gave him the chance to do Bond. Because had Dalton signed on for three more in '94 then Brosnan would have lost out.

    And like you noticed too, no Bond since LTK has had a summer release like many Bonds had before. The industry changed and so did the competition.

    Imagine if SF was released the same time as The Hobbit and Twilight. Goodbye to the billion dollar box office for sure!:)

    Unfortunately the USA isn't the best place to underperform if you are going to do so.

    I genuinely get the feeling that the perception of how popular an actor is as Bond comes partly from how they are received in the US. Sadly Dalton just wasn't popular with the Yanks and, given how big the place is, thats a massive audience.

    True MWTGG underperformed there too but at least Moore had shown he was well liked across the pond via The Saint/Persuaders. I just don't get the sense the Americans ever really took to Tim. Maybe its because they wanted Brosnan, maybe not. We don't know for sure.

    But I'm not sure a third Dalton film would have changed that.

    It was bad marketing. I remember American magazines and press giving Dalton good write ups. I really think the marketing was screwed and the studio was a ship going into financial sh*t creek. No one on the inside cared enough.

    A third Dalton would have turned around. Brosnan's GE had a mega marketing push and the ad campaign was expensive. They sure hyped it very well and got the curiosity set in. LTK was the sh*ttest promotion in the franchise's history. I was a Dalton fan and did not hear much about the film until weeks after release. That says it all.

    I remember many at the time saying Dalton was a return to the toughness of Connery and glad the Moore goofiness was a thing of the past. Piers Morgan I believe called Dalton the best Bond ever at the time.

    If Moore was so famous in the USA, then the massive drop in box office there for TMWTGG also would point to not being liked. But his third film proved it untrue.

    TMTGG came out at a time when there was serious tension within EON as in Cubby and Harry coming to the end of the road.

    They actually started pre-production on his third in '90 and then suddenly a legal case meant everything had to cease. Cubby's book says that they had no choice but to fight over the rights of who owned Bond and a lot of issues were at stake.

    As for audiences, no offence but most people follow what the mainstream media tells them to like. That is the way it is and always has been. If the mainstream media continued saying Craig was bad, then many would follow it. People are weak and not always the brightest creatures.

    I've heard Americans on here and on other forums saying they were in the minority for liking Dalton at the time.

    If you read the previous posts I put on this thread it will help me not cover old ground.

    For your information are you aware that LTK scored the highest marks of any Bond in history with American test audiences. And it partially made the studio complacent thinking it would do well with little push.

    I keep saying that the third film would have changed that. Also Craig benefitted from a 4 year gap from Brosnan. Had Craig taken over in 2003 for a 2004 release then he would have been the most hated Bond. There would have been protests as Pierce was supremely liked in the role.

    Why? Because it was the American audiences who loved Brosnan hailing him as the best or as good as Connery. Wow, they changed their minds.

    Dalton had a mountain to climb after 12 years of Moore's style and people needed more time to get used to him. Cubby knew that and plans were put in place. Cubby knew that LTK was for the time too hard and heavy.

    I did not know that. Interesting.

    Despite that I feel Dalton himself was 100% satisfied with how LTK turned out. He saw flaws in the film and seems to virtually admit that it was too dark.

    Lets face it, to this day, LTK is a controversial entry and extremely divisive amongst fans. Personally I can see why some didn' take to it. Its too...American. At least something like FYEO or TLD has a bit more class.

    I do think it's a shame Dalton didn't get a third - but I love the GE we have and it ultimately worked for the time.

    Dalton did great in the movie and him as well as Davi make it what it is. It covers a lot of ground. But I would agree that they should have stayed traditional for his second film and introduce the dark element maybe on the third or fourth.

    It does have the Bond class like the casino scenes where it shows Bond loves the finer things in life. But it was a hard boiled revenge movie that was so personal to Bond that it would be hard to veer off into appeasing all fans. It is stand alone just like CR would become years later.

    But LTK will always be controversial and that keeps the film's fame strong. I remember 20 years ago OHMSS being seen as a weak entry but now it is almost at the top amongst fans.

    I actually think LTK has one of the best villains in the entire series. I do not think any Brosnan or Craig era villain comes close to the richness of Sanchez. They were all fine mind you, but Sanchez supremely fascinating and perversely likeable.

    I mean Silva was very good in SF, but not as distinctive as Franz Sanchez. Davi is the man.

    And Sanchez's true medallion man with severe black humour has not dated. Davi is a brilliant actor and it was Dalton who was keenest on his casting. Them two would hang out at night and get pissed on the town. Both had done theatre and both were passionate about their craft.

    Davi himself said recently that LTK is more popular now than when it came out. That is the power of the Bond franchise.



  • I agree with the post, hindsight is a wonderful thing!
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,243
    I agree with the post, hindsight is a wonderful thing!

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing indeed. DAD is a perfect example of a Bond film trying to please all fans and ironically that being the reason the film falls flat and to me fails to satisfy.

    Many assume Bond is a formula, but it never has been. That is a media influenced perception and a over simplified as well as wrong assessment. Bond is oneof the most complex roles if the actor is prepared to delve into the less savoury aspects of the character.

    In fact sometimes adhering to formula is what endangers the series development. OHMSS and LTK were two films that took decades to get the real respect they deserved. But they were great entries from day one and only crime was that they did not hold the audience by the hand.

    But film fans these days are more sophisticated and appreciate them exactly for the things that the critics hated at the time.

  • bond50bond50 Banned
    Posts: 42
    Well that's what happens when kids take over daddy's business they always blow it.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    I completely agree with all of your points - except for #6; QOS was very well written, especially considering how it was patched together on set in the midst of the writer's strike.
  • Posts: 3,327
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    We all love the Bond franchise but there have been times over the past half century when EON really effed up. Here are a few examples:
    1. The decision to make DAF a silly campy film rather than a revenge film more like the book YOLT following the events in OHMSS
    2. squeezing one more out of Moore, AVTAK he should have gone after OP and left on a positive note.
    3. Allowing Dalton to slip away and not star in GE
    4. DAD
    5. The energy crises plot of TMWTGG, they should have stuck with the Scaramanga v. Bond storyline, keep it simple stupid!
    6. The convoluted subplots of QoS. they should have stuck with Quantum and made Mr. White the principal bad guy and done some closure with the loose ends from CR
    7. The decision to resort to "stunt casting" of popular leading ladies with TND onwards. DAD got a lot of milage out of casting Halle Berry but WTF the movie would have still make a crap load of money without her bad as the film was.


    Agree with all your points except:

    3. The public didnt want another Dalton film and whatever you think about Brozza he delivered a big hit which I'm not sure TD would have done. LTK, then a 6 year gap then another lacklustre result at the box office and the series might have been in serious trouble. Although Dalton is a great Fleming Bond the public want film Bond and never really liked him.

    6. Lets always remember in CR Mr White is just a lackey. Please can people stop elevating him above his station like hes Blofeld. Hes barely even middle management in Quantum. Hes the bloke they send into the jungle to set up deals with warlords or take out untrustworthy employees. Although he might seem intelligent hes much more brawn than brains within Quantum (that said hes got a pretty decent house for just being hired help - who says crime doesnt pay?)
    Jusef should have been the main bad guy and much more made of him rather than just a tagged on scene at the end.


    I think we forget the six year legal battle is what killed Dalton's tenure. Yes, LTK underperformed in the USA but did great everywhere else. He would have stayed on as Bond for '91 and '93 had there been no legal case.

    Moore's second Bond took half the box office of LALD which caused speculation that his days were numbered. But EON smartly came back bolder and the rest is history.

    They were going to change the approach for Dalton's third film and he even said he wanted it to be more traditional.

    He himself just said recently he was asked to stay on for GE, but did not want another 3 film contract making his tenure end in 1999.

    Dalton would not have hung on until '94 unless there was a good prospect of them wanting him as Bond. He was close to Cubby and had Cubby wanted him to quit, he would have done it after LTK.

    The Dalton backlash came after Brosnan arrived. Just like Brosnan was popular until fans changed their tune to Craig's style.

    I think GE would have done great anyway after 6 years of no Bond.

    Fair points. Perhaps if EON had pulled out the stops a la TSWLM then Dalton would have been accepted by the public and delivered similar box office to Brozza. We will never know.
    And I suppose LTK was up against probably the strongest competition ever so never stood a chance and we should remember this. GE had a Oct/Nov slot all to itself so had Dalton GE had this slot theres no reason to expect it wouldnt have done good business. LTKs numbers worldwide were fine so without the stiff competition it would have done fine domestically as well so probably there wasnt really a need for change of actor if Dalton had wanted to go on.

    Thanks for the reasonableness @TheWizard Indeed, EON and MGM learned that it was foolish to put a Bond out at the same time that the biggest movie ever at the time Batman opened. And for good measure, they underestimated the legendary pull of Indiana Jones. Duh!

    The studio management at the time of LTK were according to Cubby's book mostly accountants who knew little of marketing. Imagine the fools who refused the Bob Peak artwork which was to me the best poster since Apocalypse Now also drawn by him.

    I think Brosnan owes a thank you to Dalton who by relinquishing the role gave him the chance to do Bond. Because had Dalton signed on for three more in '94 then Brosnan would have lost out.

    And like you noticed too, no Bond since LTK has had a summer release like many Bonds had before. The industry changed and so did the competition.

    Imagine if SF was released the same time as The Hobbit and Twilight. Goodbye to the billion dollar box office for sure!:)

    Unfortunately the USA isn't the best place to underperform if you are going to do so.

    I genuinely get the feeling that the perception of how popular an actor is as Bond comes partly from how they are received in the US. Sadly Dalton just wasn't popular with the Yanks and, given how big the place is, thats a massive audience.

    True MWTGG underperformed there too but at least Moore had shown he was well liked across the pond via The Saint/Persuaders. I just don't get the sense the Americans ever really took to Tim. Maybe its because they wanted Brosnan, maybe not. We don't know for sure.

    But I'm not sure a third Dalton film would have changed that.

    It was bad marketing. I remember American magazines and press giving Dalton good write ups. I really think the marketing was screwed and the studio was a ship going into financial sh*t creek. No one on the inside cared enough.

    A third Dalton would have turned around. Brosnan's GE had a mega marketing push and the ad campaign was expensive. They sure hyped it very well and got the curiosity set in. LTK was the sh*ttest promotion in the franchise's history. I was a Dalton fan and did not hear much about the film until weeks after release. That says it all.

    I remember many at the time saying Dalton was a return to the toughness of Connery and glad the Moore goofiness was a thing of the past. Piers Morgan I believe called Dalton the best Bond ever at the time.

    If Moore was so famous in the USA, then the massive drop in box office there for TMWTGG also would point to not being liked. But his third film proved it untrue.

    TMTGG came out at a time when there was serious tension within EON as in Cubby and Harry coming to the end of the road.

    They actually started pre-production on his third in '90 and then suddenly a legal case meant everything had to cease. Cubby's book says that they had no choice but to fight over the rights of who owned Bond and a lot of issues were at stake.

    As for audiences, no offence but most people follow what the mainstream media tells them to like. That is the way it is and always has been. If the mainstream media continued saying Craig was bad, then many would follow it. People are weak and not always the brightest creatures.

    I've heard Americans on here and on other forums saying they were in the minority for liking Dalton at the time.

    If you read the previous posts I put on this thread it will help me not cover old ground.

    For your information are you aware that LTK scored the highest marks of any Bond in history with American test audiences. And it partially made the studio complacent thinking it would do well with little push.

    I keep saying that the third film would have changed that. Also Craig benefitted from a 4 year gap from Brosnan. Had Craig taken over in 2003 for a 2004 release then he would have been the most hated Bond. There would have been protests as Pierce was supremely liked in the role.

    Why? Because it was the American audiences who loved Brosnan hailing him as the best or as good as Connery. Wow, they changed their minds.

    Dalton had a mountain to climb after 12 years of Moore's style and people needed more time to get used to him. Cubby knew that and plans were put in place. Cubby knew that LTK was for the time too hard and heavy.

    I did not know that. Interesting.

    Despite that I feel Dalton himself was 100% satisfied with how LTK turned out. He saw flaws in the film and seems to virtually admit that it was too dark.

    Lets face it, to this day, LTK is a controversial entry and extremely divisive amongst fans. Personally I can see why some didn' take to it. Its too...American. At least something like FYEO or TLD has a bit more class.

    I do think it's a shame Dalton didn't get a third - but I love the GE we have and it ultimately worked for the time.

    Dalton did great in the movie and him as well as Davi make it what it is. It covers a lot of ground. But I would agree that they should have stayed traditional for his second film and introduce the dark element maybe on the third or fourth.

    It does have the Bond class like the casino scenes where it shows Bond loves the finer things in life. But it was a hard boiled revenge movie that was so personal to Bond that it would be hard to veer off into appeasing all fans. It is stand alone just like CR would become years later.

    But LTK will always be controversial and that keeps the film's fame strong. I remember 20 years ago OHMSS being seen as a weak entry but now it is almost at the top amongst fans.

    I actually think LTK has one of the best villains in the entire series. I do not think any Brosnan or Craig era villain comes close to the richness of Sanchez. They were all fine mind you, but Sanchez supremely fascinating and perversely likeable.

    I mean Silva was very good in SF, but not as distinctive as Franz Sanchez. Davi is the man.

    And Sanchez's true medallion man with severe black humour has not dated. Davi is a brilliant actor and it was Dalton who was keenest on his casting. Them two would hang out at night and get pissed on the town. Both had done theatre and both were passionate about their craft.

    Davi himself said recently that LTK is more popular now than when it came out. That is the power of the Bond franchise.



    This was a long looking quote post, so just thought I'd to it.....any longer and it may fall over soon. :D
  • It may have been a good thing if they franchised the rights out to someone new at somepoint just to see how clean a new broom would sweep.
  • bond50 wrote:
    Well that's what happens when kids take over daddy's business they always blow it.

    Are you serious?

    The Bond films had been attractive fewer and fewer audiences throughout the eighties. Since Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli took over, they've been attracting more and more.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    EoN did one mistake, and that mistake was necessary. And that is spelled Diamonds Are Forever. After OHMSS almost anything would look like a dissapointment quality-wise. But, without DAF. Who would knows how the Bond-series would look like now?
  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    At least, what I didn't enjoy about the films :

    - TB : Make the action scenes more interesting. Except Jacques Bouvar, the water fights there's no great highlights in actions.

    - YOLT : The volcano hiding was one of the silliest moment in a 007. The asian James Bond Girls weren't showed attractive enough as before. Little Nellie is great but awkward.

    - DAF : as posted before, more revenge in the mission and that would have been one of the best Bond film. Less silly again (buggee in desert). More hate against Blofeld.

    - LALD : more Bond. More fights.

    - TMWTGG : Poor scene with a handmade flying car... the rest is great.

    - Moonraker : The galactic fights were disagreable to watch...in a recent time. But I guess it was like a revolution to do as good as Star Wars 1977 etc...

    - AVTAK : as I posted on the right thread (Let's make it better...)

    - TLD : More fights for Dalton's Bond.

    - LTK : A classier atmosphere would make it upper in my ranking list. It was a typical 80's action. Dalton's Bondwas really great but just lacked of class, even in the Casino. Due to the script I guess.

    - GoldenEye : Better ending, without the small copters. It happened to fast IMOO.

    - TND : As...previously ; Make the end more Bond-ian, it's a kick ass film but the second part of the film wasn't as good as the first part (until the chase bomb in the Devonshire).

    - TWINE : Dr. Jones dialogues and interpretation, the fact Bond commited an error in the submarine. It's a lack of professionalism for a Commander. They should have insisted on that stuff, against a terrorist, that truly tests Bond's abilities.

    - DAD : One of the best scenario except for the clinic scene, Halle Berry's dialogues (it's like a cartoon), the tsunami survivor scene, that dreaming machine..., the ending fights in the plane. Last line doesn't make sense to me. The atmosphere at the begin rocks but totally disappear in the end. It's a classic-modern film and it's disturbing in some way.

    - CR : Should have kept the original story of 1953. And respect it totally. No spying phone, no opening with constructions, no Aston Martin but a Bentley, no Solange, no 00's atmosphere but a 50's or 60's one. A better casting.

    - QoS : do not make it at all. Worst is the word. But the action is one of the best.

    - Skyfall : Less Batman styled, more adventure, no geek Q, a better Severine.

    I cannot really judge the rest about them because it's too deep yet. It's how I feel them in general.

    The rest to follow later.
  • Posts: 161
    This will be controversial but I think they messed up by making CR a reboot/origin story. It's just pointless.

    Nah it saved the franchise, made it important again in the world of Bourne and MI films kicking its ass. It won over the critics, had the best Bond since Connery and has now led to Bond been a A-list Franchise once again.
  • Posts: 7,653
    lahaine wrote:
    This will be controversial but I think they messed up by making CR a reboot/origin story. It's just pointless.

    Nah it saved the franchise, made it important again in the world of Bourne and MI films kicking its ass. It won over the critics, had the best Bond since Connery and has now led to Bond been a A-list Franchise once again.

    It did no such thing as saving the franchise, as it was not in any commercial trouble whatsoever. Artisticly the series did need a reboot, but making CR an origin story was kind of unnecessary as everybody knows that any new Bond actor is the franchise reboot. DC's casting was reboot enough making him a new 00 was silly to be honest.
    And the DB5 in SF was greeted by audiences all over the world as brilliant showed that even EON did a backpedal from the whole reboot business.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,243
    lahaine wrote:
    This will be controversial but I think they messed up by making CR a reboot/origin story. It's just pointless.

    Nah it saved the franchise, made it important again in the world of Bourne and MI films kicking its ass. It won over the critics, had the best Bond since Connery and has now led to Bond been a A-list Franchise once again.

    The franchise was successful and never needed saving. Yes, some Bond films are bigger than others but any series will go through financial highs as well as lows. No Bond film has lost money proportionate to budget in a cinema run.

    Ironically new Bond did get bigger by going in a direction closer to those films you mention with Bourne being the most obvious. The fight scenes alone as well as the toned down less OTT style.

    So yes, the new Bond is good, but EON and Sony cleverly by re-adjusting the character took the audience from those other franchises with them. But they had to dance to the tune of what the other franchises were doing that they were not. Bourne especially kicked EON as well as MGM up the ass firmly.

    Bond was always an A-list franchise. How did it survive 5 decades?.

    Also the longer the wait between Bond films, the higher the earnings. And we did have the 50th anniversary as well as Olympics giving the film a nice boost. How often does that come around?

  • SaintMark wrote:
    lahaine wrote:
    This will be controversial but I think they messed up by making CR a reboot/origin story. It's just pointless.

    Nah it saved the franchise, made it important again in the world of Bourne and MI films kicking its ass. It won over the critics, had the best Bond since Connery and has now led to Bond been a A-list Franchise once again.

    It did no such thing as saving the franchise, as it was not in any commercial trouble whatsoever. Artisticly the series did need a reboot, but making CR an origin story was kind of unnecessary as everybody knows that any new Bond actor is the franchise reboot. DC's casting was reboot enough making him a new 00 was silly to be honest.
    And the DB5 in SF was greeted by audiences all over the world as brilliant showed that even EON did a backpedal from the whole reboot business.

    The idea that CR "saved the franchise" is crazy because, as you point out, the franchise wasn't in trouble. That said, it certainly re-energised the franchise - Craig's Bond films are more popular with the movie going public than they've been since the 1960s.

    I find it very hard to understand how anyone can claim that Skyfall has 'back-pedalled' from the reboot... it's the biggest element of all of the reboot - it introduces Moneypenny, Q, an old school M and the classic Universal Exports office. It's the culmination of the reboot, not a reversal of it!
Sign In or Register to comment.