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 my book, IF HE was the one quitting, it was the right thing to do. Trust me - if 24 goes wrong, DC will be the first to take his hat and say Good Bye and then its the right thing, too. (Great way to get rid of me, too, as I will drown in an ocean of tears :(( )
It feels a bit like you're rewriting history. TLD was well received, got good reviews and was a commercial success. LTK less so, but it wasn't as if the series hadn't been there before. Who was thrilled by TMWTGG then or now? Not many. Had Roger left at that point the series would probably have died, so a little stubborness is sometimes required, otherwise there'd be no Bond. How many times have critics and reviewers written off the series and claimed it's dead/ irrelevant/morribund over the years, only for a big new movie to revive things. Look at TSWLM and CR.
However, after 6 years away it made total sense to completely rekit the franchise: new writers, new director, new Bond, new M, new Moneypenny, new MI6, etc. Making such a clean departure was and still is the best idea considering the circumstances. Much like Dr Who back in 2005.
Timothy Dalton did still look like James Bond back in 1995 time as well just to rub salt in these wounds:
If you look here, for example, you can see, that your claim is not right. 65% is hardly well received and even some of the fresh reviews sound rather rotten. You can like him all you want, but stick to reality, please.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/living_daylights/
Here some comparison from Box Office Mojo - just to name a few. It even had the most theaters.
The Living Daylights
UA $51,185,897 1,728 $11,051,284 1,728 7/31/1987
Dirty Dancing
Vest $63,954,274 1,012 $3,900,000 975 multiple
Showtimes
Fatal Attraction
Par. $156,645,693 1,401 $7,602,740 758 9/18/1987
Lethal Weapon
WB $65,207,127 1,420 $6,829,949 1,256 3/6/1987
The Untouchables
Par. $76,270,454 1,501 $10,023,094 1,012 6/5/1987
Take a look at TND at 54%, TWINE at 50%, DAD at 42% and QoS at 59%. Suddenly 65% seems quite good, doesn't it, or do you use a different type of mathematics to the rest of us? The critics' ratings are even worse.
You really need to check your stats first.
This is just going over old territory and no real need to debate anymore on this issue but one final time, Dalton wouldn't have been appropriate by the time of release, and even then, as a favorite Bond actor of all those that played the part
Brosnan made his debut, did a fine job of it, the Irishman wasn't the greatest James Bond we ever saw, but it was a very good performance, although not quite on par with TWINE. As unfortunate as it was with the legal issues of the time, Dalton would appear too old for the Fleming character by the mid-90s and the best we could of hoped for was three of four years previous, but what's done is done
Argue amongst yourselves by all means, but there's a life outside these pages. Good day
What the....?
You quoted the audience ratings for TLD, which are 65%.
Then you suddenly start quoting the critic's rating for QoS, which are 64%, but somehow overlook the audience rating of 59%.
The critics rating for TLD, which you also 'somehow ignore', is 75% - way above any of the other films I mentioned, and one of the most highly ranked films in the entire series. As I said, the critic's rating for the Brosnan films are even worse than the fan ratings, so on every front TLD comes out top.
Damned lies and statistics! Still I only have my self to blame for referencing these damn websites in the first place.
I have to say that your skills as a wind up merchant GL are pretty much unsurpassed. The funny and even slightly endearing thing is I don't think you even mean to be quite so annoying.
Any way, as others have rightly stated, these online polls are meaningless and hardly 'fact' based. Which is why I don't rate the Bond actors according to their supposed popularity with the film going audience but rather upon my appreciation of their performance.
However, your facts - if you could only read properly - do speak for themselves on this one.
What is it you dislike so much about his films @Germanlady? Why are you so bothered that whenever anyone praises him, you turn up to tell us how everyone hated him?
From The Essential Bond by Lee Pfeiffer and Dave Worrall, a book I trust, as opposed to the semi-literate "posters" on Rotten Tomatoes
"Box office grosses for The Living Daylights were far superior to those of A View To A Kill with a worldwide total of more than $191 million. The results cheered EON productions because it proved there was still an enthusiastic audience for Bond....
.... (regarding the critics viewpoint) Most gave the film respectable, if unenthusiastic, reviews...
Dalton was not attempting to emulate his predecessors and was determined to create his own unique interpretation of the role. Judging by the box-office returns, he succeeded admirably."
@ Livingroyale - its been ages, that I was here. So what you say is a bit unfair. But like I said, I am on my way out. If i stick to my rhythm, it will be another year or so until I bore you again. ;)
That's funny, as it's been a while since I logged on as well. I just assumed that you never leave GL!
Yeah (oops, still here :\"> ). I haven't been around much and you were pretty much gone for a while. Can't say, I missed you though :P
I feel compelled to argue here.
Germanlady you are very wrong. Contemporary reviews of the Dalton films may have been slightly spiteful but that was because back in 1987 the Bond brad was very different to what it was today. The audiences of the 70's and 80's had grew up with Roger Moore. The films had ran so far away from the novels and TLD was an attempt to reclaim some of the Fleming spirit.
Critics and audiences at the time didn't respond well that is true, but fans ate it up. Dalton has always been a fan-favourite despite his perceived unpopularity with the public. Contemporary reviews really don't hold much weight in Dalton's case. A lot of reviews I have read disliked TLD and LTK for taking themselves too seriously. These were critics who were used to seeing cars turning into submarines, circus chases, essentially pastiches of the Connery era.
If you look back on reflective reviews it is very clear that Dalton was well ahead of his time, you only need to look at the Craig era to see that.
I think Robert Davi explains it beautifully here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0108zj1
You only need to do a quick google search to see he is right:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2006/nov/03/timothydalton
You have a point about the hair. Dalton was in a film called Possessed, which was released in 2000. In it, Dalton has a short hairstyle, and if (that is a BIG IF), he were still Bond by 2000, it would have been a good look for him. That said, I do like his hairstyle in TLD. Here is a shot from Possessed:
Also, I would have liked to have seen Henry Czerny in a Bond film.
As far as TMWTGG goes, yes that was another example of a Bond film underperforming but remember LALD was the highest grossing Bond film since YOLT. Adjusted for inflation LADL grossed an impressive $661,412 mil in 2013 dollars. SO EON knew Moore clearly had a following and was popular in the role. TMWTGG's disappointing grosses were not his fault.
Like the article says though, LTK's abysmal Ad campaign really hurt it's chances. I'm not saying it would've done Connery numbers at the box office but I believe it would've at least had a good chance of matching TLD's grosses.
I like Sean Bean but like @Ludovico said when you look at it Bean doesn't suit the character. Stripped down GE is a story about 2 middle-aged Cold War spies who once work closely together as best friends and allies but have contrasting ideals in this new world both must live in. It's harder to accept that when both Brosnan and Bean don't look a day over 35. Yes Brosnan was 42 but with his baby face features I could buy him being 7 to 10 years younger. And as a crazy as it is to believe in the story Trevellyn is supposed to be 56 as he lived through the final days of WW2. This is not a film about 2 young men. It would've benefitted from Dalton as Bond and possibly someone like Alan Rickman as 006. Two worn-out veterans clearly around 50.
Well said! =D>
When GE was written did they know Brosnan had been cast or did they still think Dalts might return? I've always thought it felt as if it was written with Dalton in mind.
It was confirmed that the few first few drafts of GE were written with the idea that Dalton would be fulfilling his 3 film contract with EON and returning as 007. Dalton didn't officially retire until March or April 1994. By that point they must've went thru at least a few drafts of what would become GE.
Very true. That's why in some ways TND was the actual start of the Brosnan era. Afterall like I said before GE has alot more in common with TLD and LTK than TND, TWINE, or DAD, which were the true Brosnan films.
That makes perfect sense. To me GE can be awkward as it's a Timothy Dalton Bond film starring Pierce Brosnan. Much like how Diamonds Are Forever was basically a Roger Moore Bond film starring Sean Connery. The gravitas of GE's story, themes, and cast were far above the talents of the lightweight Mr. Brosnan. Maybe that's why he looks so uncomfortable in the film. He's much more suited for big over-the-top spectacle Bond movies were little acting is required rather than the more character-driven films like GE.