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
No
As to the actual debate at present, I think the character of Carver is quite plausible. The media mogul who has much more control than they probably should is something that exists very much in the modern world. The idea for his villainous scheme is not at all plausible. Infact it wasn't even after I'd seen the film that the plotholes were apparent. It was whilst watching the film.
One thing I don't get.
Stamper videotapes himself shooting the sailors.
Then this footage is broadcast?
Did viewers not raise questions like "Who is filming that? Is it Carver?"
Tomorrow Never Dies?
Brilliant AND bogus.
1. This is not what we are debating.
2. Stamper films himself murdering the sailors for Carver only. No-one else sees it.
That would be as stupid as a member continually returning only to be banned again.
Also: chill out on the rules.
Stop closing threads just because some of the content overlaps with stuff contained in 300-page threads that nobody wants to browse.
This is a place of fun.
If you can point me to another thread where we DEBATE the plot of TND, which is by the way THE CURRENT TOPIC OF DEBATE IN A JAMES BOND DEBATE THREAD, then be my guest.
As Elegant Carver might say, "Pathetic"
The rules are there to make the site more enjoyable for everyone and the moderators do our best to enforce them for the benefit of everyone.
I agree the forum should be a place of fun, but having a go at the mods - who give up their spare time voluntarily to make the forum a better place - isn't the way to make it fun.
The admins created this place in their own time and at their own expense, for fans to have a place to discuss Bond. The moderators work hard to keep the place running smoothly. If you think that's pathetic, you're welcome to make your opinions elsewhere.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Timothy Dalton could have done not only GoldenEye, but ALL of Brosnan's movies.</b></font>
I wish I could go back in time and make this happen! Dalton's presence would have made GE, TND & TWINE great movies- TWINE especially needed an actor like him.
The only thing is, with his style I doubt DAD would have been remotely recognizable-- with Dalton being 55 or 6 by then I'm sure we would have had a more FRWL/ FYEO spy thriller, without so much of a focus on crazy action (which is AWESOME)
But would I want him too? Hmm. As much as I love Dalton I do quite like Brosnan. I think a better alternative is this.
Moore does OP in 1981 then retires. Dalton deubts in 1983 with FYEO (switched the films round on purpose because OP with Moore is brilliant), then does an improved version of AVTAK, then TLD and LTK, then carries on into the early 90s with movies in 91 and 93, then he does Goldeneye and retires after that.
Brosnan debuts with an improved version of TND, then does TWINE, then an improved version of DAD then leaves with after an additional film in 2004.
That way everybody wins! Except the big Moore fanatics but even they seem to accept he was too old by the end.
I don't think so. Yes, in time he could've done so, allthough 56 is mightily old for Bond, and I don't think Timothy aged well as Bond (he has more of an old-professor-look then rough-but-handsome outdoor type). But the thing is, I think he would've gotten bored after about four films. So in that sense he'd have quit anyway, I think.
Here he is in 1994:
1997:
1999:
And 2001:
I definitely think he had the ability to give us four more Bond films, and it is such a shame we didn't get to see it. The biggest missed opportunity in the series this side of George in DAF for me.
Wow what a physique !! Wish I had that body at his age.
I am of the opinion that Brosnan should have done all of Daltons movies as well, it would have saved of the Dalton disaster.
Somehow I think PB would have gotten his more dark approuch towards 007 instead of the scripts he did get. As the 4th Protocol has shown before PB did have a darkness in him that could have been exploited, that combined with a Mooreish charm and the ability to be funny when needed.
And EON was right if the producer of Remington Steele had not been such a bunch of moneygrabbing numbnuts we would never have spoken about Tim Dalton. Unless he would have played a baddie in 007 franchise.
EON has had some succes in chosing the right actor 5 times out of 6 imho, TD does not belong to the succesfull versions.
I loved Dalton's take on Bond. Sir Sean, Sir Roger, Pierce, and Daniel had perfected their take on the role of Bond at their third film and I believe that if he continued, he would've been finally accepted by the public as the James Bond of the Nineties with his third. I would've loved to see the most true take on Fleming's Bond continue his work on the screen. I disagree that the posters above, when they say that Tim wasn't a successful Bond because he was successful in bringing the literary Bond on screen. The main reason of LTK not doing well in the box office was the result of horrible marketing and a last minute title change.
Dalton was inappropriate, in that I merely feel he was too old for the part by the time of Goldeneye. And even if that had occured, another three of the Brosnan releases ?
No, there's little chance it would of worked. It's a real pity that Dalton only got to do the two releases, but the ideal time, if not for the legal disputes, would of been in the early 1990s. Just insist 1995 would of been a little too ahead in time and as for going up to 2002, just not happy about that. Brosnan was far from the best Bond we ever saw, but feel he was a very good choice to take over in 1995. Just feel Tim's time was all but up by that stage
<font color=blue size=7><b>FYEO's climax was too down-to-Earth, even for a more 'serious' Bond film.</b></font>
I'm going to agree. It was really padded out and wasn't very climatic or satisfying, in terms of the Villains death.