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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Its better moments vastly overshadows its worst moments imho.
:x
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.
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.
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.
This was a long looking quote post, so just thought I'd to it.....any longer and it may fall over soon. :D
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.
- 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.
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 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?
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!