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
I'll go a step further. I have to give credit to Barbara and Michael. In 2002-03, they recognized that their franchise was hitting a crossroads. The Bourne series had shown a grittier take on the spy genre, while their own series was getting wildly satirized by Mike Myers. Bourne premiered the same summer as Goldmember, and it's no coincidence that Brosnan's final Bond film was released a few months later. Barbara and Michael knew they had to go in a new direction.
They were right.
I'll go so far as to say that (gaining the rights to) CR may have saved the franchise. A fifth Brosnan film might have been a disaster, looking at the road the films were going down.
By all accounts, Barbara knew she wanted Craig for the role and she wouldn't take no for an answer. What led Craig to finally accepting it was knowing that the character was no longer going to be a caricature. They went back to the drawing board.
I think the overall casting of Bond movies improved with the Brosnan considerably, at least in his first three, whatever one may think of the movies themselves. And in spite of a few odd decisions (Teri Hatcher for instance). During the Daniel Craig era, it improved tremendously. I think Robert Davi was commendable as Sanchez, but he is no Javier Bardem or Christoph Waltz. And it did help the Craig era a lot, I think, to be accepted by the public.
Craig never had any obvious real competition.
And to be honest I could currently not for the life of me picture the next candidate after Craig.
This is completely, utterly off topic, but while I do not hate BB, I feel your pain: I had to go through the whole series because my wife enjoyed it far more than I did. By the end, I was sickened. I loved the first season, as a good dark comedy. Then it dragged on and on and on and started taking itself far too seriously. Like its fans too. I still think it is enjoyable as dark comedy slash thriller. But some of the dialogues are abysmally weak and laughable, as drama or comedy. Putting emphasis on a line does not give it more strength, or more intelligence. In the end, I think it may be the most overrated show on Earth.
Eh? Did you miss the part where Bond is sucking on vesper's fingers whilst sat in the shower...in a dinner suit? Bond all loved - up in Venice and quitting his job via email effective immediately; sod the 4 weeks notice.
The audience don't what to think, right I'm out for revenge dead serious but then look Q's turned up with all sorts of silly gadgets to help me and now he's becoming a field operative, Skyfall plot holes might be unforgivable for some but at least it didn't get this silly. Fine in a Moore film but not a film supposedly with the most Fleming like Bond of the series.
Dalton didn't get the films his Bond deserved granted but Craig just looks more confident on screen, he managed to balance the cinematic Bond with the literary version, Dalton just went for literary, you need both to win the audience over and Craig managed this. No he wasn't as Fleming as Dalton but the general audience couldn't give a hoot if he does something in the books or not. Craig echoed that swagger of Connery but played the role with an uncertainty of the Fleming Bond as part of his portrayal.
Bond needs some humour and lightness of touch, Dalton could never do this, Craig can. Audiences want Bond to crack the one liners and Craig has delivered. Dalton just sounded stilted and awkward doing the ones they gave him.
Dalton was never going to be a universally loved Bond, Craig has his detractors but on a whole a won people over, look Dalton just gets referred to as the Welsh one or in some cases northern. Yes fans will support him to the point of tedium and slag off Skyfall for it's plot holes but the rest couldn't care less and lapped up Skyfall and wait with baited breath for SPECTRE.
But as a fan who read the novels I'll say thank EON for letting Dalton do his stuff. I'll always have my favourite Bond now. I enjoy Craig, and I'm sure I'll like the next actor & his films, but the Daltonator was the pinnacle Bond for me.
And, @Shardlake, I slag SF for its bad script; CR was great & QOS was awesome. SF was the obligatory half-baked tale where M got the boot.
I remember talking with some casual fan friends after TWINE about the movie and one of them said "they keep getting worse each time" and the others agreed right away. That was in 1999. I thought it was telling. Sure the films were making more money, and my friends all went to see them, but I think the general excitement factor with him was declining. He wasn't a fallen king so much as people were somewhat apathetic about him after GE.
When Craig was cast, I was completely shocked. Especially when seeing him at the introduction on the boat. I thought - who is this tosser?
Then I saw that first photo they put out of him holding the walther with the long hair, read about what Babs saw in him and quickly watched Layer Cake to see if it was justified. I got it now. I knew he could bring something new to the role. He did.
I was too, but I had been sorely disappointed by DAD and while I did not fault Brosnan I had stopped to overrate him. In the first two years following DAD, I thought he should go back to a fifth one, but I was conscious that it would be/should be his last one. Then when CR was supposed to be Bond 21 and a prequel/reboot, while skeptical at first about the idea of a reboot, I thought nevertheless Brosnan had had his day as Bond.
Of course, this is my own personal thus partial and biased experience. But I am sure it is very similar to the ones of many people. And I think this did play a role too in the way Daniel Craig became accepted in the end. Yes, he first faced hostility. But hostility as the successor, not the usurper. There was no heir apparent to Brosnan, and no potential Bond actor that made consensus among the general public. And yes, there were people thinking Brosnan still had a few Bond in him, but they were far and few.
That was pretty much my experience when Craig was cast. I was hostile, then saying the promo picture I was reassured. I remember seeing him in Elizabeth and while I loved the movie and pretty much everyone in it I never thought the guy playing the killer monk would even be considered for Bond, so I rewatched that movie paying more attention to Craig (every excuse is a good excuse to watch a movie with Cate Blanchett anyway) and then watched Layer Cake. I was pretty much sold by then. Again, it is a personal experience, but I think many had a similar one.
Regarding Brosnan, is it possible as well that his critics and detractors became more vocal as his tenure went on, particularly around TWINE and DAD? I loved TWINE when it came out, more than TND anyway, but I remember people reviews giving faults to Brosnan in the role.
RE: Brosnan and TWINE/DAD - I recall the reviews generally being positive at the time. The media seemed to be quite satisfied with him as Bond.
I personally knew he had limitations......there was something missing about his Bond (the edge was not there. He had to force it rather than it coming naturally). I remember everyone else I knew went to see the films but there wasn't that excitement with him or Bond that was there with the same crowd after GE. The same crowd couldn't wait for the next Bourne film BTW.
It was somewhat similar to how people feel about the new Hobbit movies vs. the older LTR set. One created passion....the other did not.
This 2002 DAD review was fairly typical, though some went the "Best Bond ever" route rather over-enthusiastically.
http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C07E6D81439F931A15752C1A9649C8B63
Plus, I'm not so sure the overall optimistic 80's were ready for a darker Bond.
Too true. Generally it felt like people back then didn't want to let go of the image of Roger Moore as Bond, which is completely unfair for Dalton (now I'm wondering if Moore recieved the same reaction from Connery fans when LALD came out).
Sure it was fair to Dalton, he walked into the job with his eyes open and went for the same issue that Moore and this Aussi fella had been in as well. The difference is that Moore was a big star on his own and had less to fear than Lazenby who was a total unknown. Dalton was not a total unknown actor but not very well known with the big public.
TLD did fairly well simply because a new actor in the part always draws an interested crowd. Only with movie number 2 an important part of the audience decided that TD was not worth their time, that combined with a subject drugs smuggle which Miami Vice had been doing, and doing much better may I add, for some years was simple a big problem for EON and their financial backers.
Some folks blame it on the competition of other movies, with a total BO that was similar to the Batman first weekend you cannot speak about competition as LTK just did not figure alongside them at all.
I doubt that there was ever going to be a third TD 007 outing as the financial backers and EON must have noticed how bad this 007 was received. Lucky for all the 007 franchise got some well earned rest and could reboot some years later successfully with an actor that was a first choice for the audience.
I'm not sure I agree @Kerim. All Bond films have competition (TND did the business despite being head to head with Titanic). Dalton, regardless of his popularity amongst fans, simply didn't have what it took to carry a big budget film. He didn't have the effect on the masses that his predecessors did, nor his replacement. And all this about 'Flemings Bond', so what? That doesn't sell tickets. When he got the role he had gone from being the next big thing in British cinema to costarring with Mae West and Charlie's Angles. After Bond he returned to TV mini series and theatre.
I don't dislike him, and would love to see him in the West End (more than any other Bond star). And I'm glad he did his two because it's all part of the big, swirly whirly history of Bond, but he didn't turn the audiences on, and we can't blame the films or the publicity for that. Bond sells itself. I saw Tim doing tons of interviews before LTK. It made no difference.
Moore had his own fanbase when he became Bond.
After all these years I have found that there is an advantage to DAD thanks for posting.
Ha, yes! Sex change? Do you mean the flowers? :)
I also doubt that TD ever comes too soon ! ;)