› ›

Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

1…8990929495…104

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    GE seems like it went through a focus group of people who never saw a Bond movie but read about the series in a magazine. The difference between GE and LTK -- which goes for the throat regardless of audience expectations -- is startling.

    But it did make a sh*tload of money, so what do I know.
    I think this was critical for EON/UA. The Bond films had been in terminal box office decline during the 80s while production costs were simultaneously increasing. It was becoming a niche old man's product. They had to bring it back to the public consciousness in a big way, and that's why they went in the direction they did. It was a necessary evil in a way.

    Perhaps controversially, I contend that there would have been no place for Craig experimentation in the 00's without the financial box office foundation which was established during the Brosnan years, and most notably with GE.
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    edited May 2018 Posts: 628
    bondjames wrote: »
    Perhaps controversially, I contend that there would have been no place for Craig experimentation in the 00's without the financial box office foundation which was established during the Brosnan years, and most notably with GE.

    Agreed.

    I've been a bit perplexed as to how general audiences have taken to Craig's interpretation, which is far closer to Dalton's than any others, but the public was probably more accepting of it coming after the success of the Brosnan era and the Bourne films. Dalton was ahead of his time.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Perhaps controversially, I contend that there would have been no place for Craig experimentation in the 00's without the financial box office foundation which was established during the Brosnan years, and most notably with GE.

    Agreed.

    I've been a bit perplexed as to how general audiences have taken to Craig's interpretation, which is far closer to Dalton's than any others, but the public was probably more accepting of it coming after the success of the Brosnan era and the Bourne films. Dalton was ahead of his time.
    There were a number of factors that played into the public's acceptance of Craig, and not all of it was down to him. As you said, Bourne was all the rage and had reinvented the spy template in a way that Die Hard had done the action one decades prior. Nolan had brilliantly shown the power of the reboot with the gritty and near perfect Batman Begins. Austin Powers had exposed the limitations of the fun Bond. Finally, with DAD, EON had shown themselves and the world that they had lost the plot. So in a way it was a perfect storm.

    Dalton didn't have that luxury imho. I believe the market still wanted a light hearted jovial Bond in the mid to late 80s. Moreover as Connery himself once said, and I'm paraphrasing, Dalton sort of forgot the humour mix.

    He was definitely ahead of his time though.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    Dalton also fought against the ghost of Brosnan during his whole tenure. He would have fought it in GE. Brosnan didn't have to of course and neither did Craig.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited May 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    GE seems like it went through a focus group of people who never saw a Bond movie but read about the series in a magazine. The difference between GE and LTK -- which goes for the throat regardless of audience expectations -- is startling.

    But it did make a sh*tload of money, so what do I know.

    I like your succinct summation of GE. I felt exactly the same way at the time - I just saw it as a nasty cheap rip off of Bond.

    As you say it felt like it had been made by people who'd read about what a Bond film should be but never actually watched one themselves.

    If the main character didn't happen to be called Bond it would have been seen as the generic 90s action flick that it is.

    I had a recurring dream after first seeing GE where Bond had been reduced to TV-movie status.

    However you and @bondjames correctly point out that Brosnan left Bond in a sound financial position. And yes indeed Craig sort of went back to Dalton territory but probably wouldn't have had that opportunity without the Brosnan commercial success.

    I still contend that the Brosnan films didn't have to be as bad as they were though to make money.

    Kathryn Bigelow was around. Even perhaps James Cameron or Ridley Scott. I know EON has this absurd thing about not using American directors but it seems a shame they didn't seemingly even try to up the quality.

    Was Ridley Scott ever considered? I always feel the 90s were just this lost decade for Bond. So much good music around as well and we got mainly mediocre and forgettable title songs.

  • RevelatorRevelator
    edited May 2018 Posts: 2,918
    Getafix wrote: »
    Kathryn Bigelow was around. Even perhaps James Cameron or Ridley Scott...Was Ridley Scott ever considered?

    I'm not sure if those directors would even be an option today. The producers of the Bond films have always insisted on ultimate control and have always hired directors who knew their place. They would never hire someone who already knew everything about making a great action film, had made their name doing so, and thus expected a measure of creative autonomy. Instead they hire folks who either got their start on Bond and are team players (John Glen, Peter Hunt), skilled journeymen (Martin Campbell, Terence Young), or middlebrow drama directors who are unfamiliar with action films and therefore prone to rely on the producers' guidance (Michael Apted, Marc Forster, Sam Mendes).

    Strong-willed directors like Bigelow, Cameron, and Scott would insist on doing everything their way and expect the producers to do nothing more than cut checks. And we all know that the Bond producers like to be hands-on. For better or worse they have always been that way, and one could argue that the series wouldn't have survived without being controlled and guided by strong-willed producers.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2018 Posts: 11,189
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've said it many times; GOLDENEYE was apparently the GOLDFINGER for those who came of age in the '90s. For me, and other fans I know of, who grew up through Connery and Moore, GE was an enjoyable Bond film, but also felt like Bond's greatest hits (checked all of the traditional boxes). But in truth, that is exactly what the franchise needed at the time. After a decade of relatively cheap looking 007 films (compared to the Ken Adam years), capped by the comparatively dry Dalton films, followed by the six year gap, we needed a fun, fast, slick looking reminder of what made the Bond films so much fun through those first two decades (Post-FRWL). No way could Dalton have pulled that off. Much as he is beloved by the hardcore fans, he lacked the charisma and wit to carry a traditional, big-budget Bond epic.

    Yes he does. I'm wondering if on a fundimental level he maybe lacks warmth.

    Re GE: Despite my own nostalgic feelings towards it I'm beginning to see what people mean when they say it looks like a 90s tv film in places - particularly towards the end of the film in Cuba. The cinematography in the film though ok rarely screams epic. I'd say it's a step up though from the rather crummy look of LTK.

    I think where the film works though is in its editing. It's an energetic, lively film and a film I've always subsequently enjoyed.

    And yes...GoldenEye was the Goldfinger of my generation (come to think of it that film never had particularly great cinematography other than Ken Adam's sets of course).
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    James Cameron would be the last person I'd give the direction of a Bond movie. Vastly overrated director.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Cameron had just done True Lies, which was essentially a Bond homage.

    Whatever you may think of the writing in his films he does have panache as a director.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    Eon is on the losing end of their tradition of not hiring American directors
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Cameron had just done True Lies, which was essentially a Bond homage.

    Whatever you may think of the writing in his films he does have panache as a director.

    A Bond homage does not make a Bond movie.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,473
    Oh man yes. That’s a recipe for disaster.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Oh man yes. That’s a recipe for disaster.

    They already tried that twice with Mendes a recipe for disaster. Cameron is far better as an action director.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Cameron is far better as an action director.
    Oh without doubt. There is absolutely no comparison. Cameron is a control freak though and would never have been able to operate within the very tight timelines and relatively strong control which define a Bond film once production begins.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Birdleson wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Cameron is far better as an action director.
    Oh without doubt. There is absolutely no comparison. Cameron is a control freak though and would never have been able to operate within the very tight timelines and relatively strong control which define a Bond film once production begins.

    I just hate his films. The childish dialogue has sunk any one that I've tried to sit through.

    This-- T1 was great. However;

    Alien (by R. Scott) was an exercise in suspense and master-filmmaking; Aliens was awesummmmm porn, dude...

    T2 doesn't compare to its predecessor (just coz it's bigger, don't make it better)...

    TRUE LIES was saved by the leads...

    TITANIC was Disney on steroids (the closest I have ever been to purchasing a gun (to murder my TV) (thank Dog I saw this crap at home))...

    AVATAR was a beautiful cartoon, with terrible characterizations and worse story-telling...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Cameron is far better as an action director.
    Oh without doubt. There is absolutely no comparison. Cameron is a control freak though and would never have been able to operate within the very tight timelines and relatively strong control which define a Bond film once production begins.

    I just hate his films. The childish dialogue has sunk any one that I've tried to sit through.
    Fair enough. I wasn't really commenting on the quality of his films. Just that he's a far better action director than Mendes. It's not even close. True Lies in particular has sequences that put many Bond films to shame.

    Personally I'm a huge fan of T1, T2, Aliens and True Lies. I don't like any of the other films he's made.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondjames -- Cameron didn't do Alien-- that was Ridley Scott...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I caught that slip up just before your post @peter and edited it. Thanks
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Thank Dog, @bondjames — one film was executed by a Master at work; the other is really bastardizing the original film in its coarseness.

    But it’s fun porn, and Weaver elevated Cameron’s childishness.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I actually far prefer the original too @peter. It's a true horror flick executed very well.

    I preferred Cameron's film when I was younger (found Alien boring then) but as I've gotten older I see there's really no comparison. As you say, it's still a lot of fun. Basically an 80's style war movie in space.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Absolutely @bondjames ... Alien is a horror/thriller/suspense... Beautiful work as a contained story, great characters, and visual execution ... a wonderful piece of cinema.

    Cameron doesn’t have the skill to even touch the original film.

    And I know a guy who was a stunt coordinator on TITANIC... Cameron is an abusive megalomaniac (I could almost excuse that behaviour— almost— if he was Kubrick... but Titanic was grade three level story-telling... plus I'm told it’s his brother, John, who is the tech innovator— not James....)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Agreed @ Birdleson, ALIENS was a too simplified “heee-hawwww” type of film. It dumbed down ALIEN for mass consumption.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Glad others can see it, too.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I only saw the original ALIEN and that piece of crap Alien Covenant. Loved the original as well. Not sure if I should bother with the sequels.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited May 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Alien is excellent but so also is Aliens. they're completely different films and genres really only loosely linked under 'sci-fi'.

    I haven't seen True Lies for years but if you're going to do an action flick - which is what the Brozza films we're, then why not get a good action director.

    Any way it's all water under the bridge.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Rather than Michael Apted and Lee Tamahori, the Brosnan era deserved to have John McTiernan and Paul Verhoeven. Those two would've definitely delivered the material everyone would've been satisfied with.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited May 2018 Posts: 11,425
    I agree. Brozza would have worked well with Verhoeven
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2018 Posts: 11,189
    Renny Harlin (a pretty big name in the 90s) was offered GE but turned it down because Eon at that time wouldn’t recast Dalton.

    Re the Alien vs Aliens debate its Alien all the way. Something of a horror classic. Aliens is entertaining but comparitvely lightweight.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I believe he was offered the pre-GE Bond 17. That other script involving robots and whatnot.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited May 2018 Posts: 5,185
    Usually i don't waste my time with these what-could-have-been scenarios, but Verhoeven and Brosnan?! that would have been something else entirely.
    Problem is he would have never agreed to do a PG13 movie.
    Just imagine Verhoevens version of Goldeneye... How would Xenias slaughter of the Severnaja base have looked like? Bond shooting an AK at hordes of russian soldier, or the Tank chase through St. Petersburg lol... I think the dominant color in his movie would have been RED. It would have made Total Recall look like a Disney Production.
    And he would have LOVED Xenia, and made her probably even more crazy and rapey than she already was.
Sign In or Register to comment.