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 never heard that M rumor but I did hear that Anthony Hopkins as 006 was supposed to be Bond's mentor.
This is true. In the Michael France draft of the script Trevelyan was Bond's old mentor and also the old M before Messervy.
In the original script Bond goes to Russia and is confronted by Trevelyan at a party despite 007 presuming him dead. Later in the script when Bond is being taken to Trevelyan's lair we see a flashback of an earlier mission. In this flashback, Trevelyan has been kidnapped and Bond a few other 00s have to rescue him. Soon after Trevelyan betrays the other 00s and it is revealed as a set-up.
I wrote a review of the script you can read here:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7698/bond-scripts/p3
just think with Dalton in the film a lot of performances would have been better. Cummings might have been less annoying and I can really see Famke Jensen responding to Dalton in an entirely different way - less cartoon Cruella Deville and more of a fleshed out villain.
Let's not forget that there were some pretty poor performances in parts of LTK despite the presence of Dalton. The bloke who plays Kelifer - Felix's trusted DEA friend who betrays him - is laughably bad, David Hedison is dodgy in a few scenes, Caroline Bliss is crap yet again and Talisa Soto has become fairly infamous for her "I love James so much" scene. Heck, even Dalton at times at least didn't convince me with his blatantly fake laugh and overly dramatic mannerisms in a few scenes.
Rickman and Irons. The Gruber Brothers. Bond might need to call John McClane for backup. ;)
Bond's one-liner when he dispatches them probably couldn't be as colourful as Bruce's ;)
I like the trilogy feel of TLD, LTK & GE...
Yeah, that would have been nice. I could have lived with Brosnan only making three. Or less... how about two ? One?
I see. I don't like the huge role that M's been given in recent years, but it sounds like it would have made more sense if Trevelyan's grudge was actually with M... If Hopkins had been the old bitter MI6 agent with an axe to grind over some past betrayal it might have worked better. But I think we've flogged that particular horse to death.
Funny how you can see the kernals of an idea developing over several movies.
I look at TLD, LTK, and GE as the unofficial Timothy Dalton Trilogy. It gives the character a nice arc. Afterall the writers went into GE knowing it would be the final film in Dalton's 3 film contract. When I went to see the Bond films on the big screen at MoMA throughout October of 2012 (an amazing experience) they screened those 3 films thru one Sat. They're defiantly a good triple-feature.
I like fact that we've pretty much gotten that trilogy with the Daniel Craig "Bond Begins" trilogy, as some fans call it. The similarities are uncanny.
The Living Daylights/Casino Royale-Both grittier revamps of the iconic series after years of light-hearted adventures with a lightweight actor. Both also feature a more intimate relationship with the Bond girl.
License to Kill/Quantum of Solace-Both are character-driven revenge stories that are the two most violent and intense Bond films in the series. And both got mixed reactions and similar criticisms as a result.
Goldeneye/Skyfall-Both have very similar themes of Bond being a relic of a bygone era. Both feature an ex-MI6 agent thought to be dead as a villain with a grudge against the British government.
It's a shame that we never got that Dalton trilogy but then again maybe then we never would've gotten the exquisite Daniel Craig as 007. Things need to get better before they get worse.
Seeing him playing opposite Sean Bean (who shoulld have played Bond instead of Brosnan). the big reveal in the monument graveyard, the beach scene with Natalya, the fight on the satellite; the conflict of having to go against his one time friend... all would have been a tour de force for Dalton.
Dalton is a better actor than Brozza and could have really brought it in this film.
But not so much if it was Anthony Hopkins.
I've often wondered the same thing. Many say that Dalton was simply ahead of his time and audiences weren't ready for such a gritty world-weary James Bond. Others say Craig succeeds where Dalton failed due to him being cooler and more appealing to women. Like you said this could be it's own thread. I'm not sure if it's been done though.
I'd hate to see you leave @Germanlady. I'm a fan of Dalton but I appreciate it when someone challenges the popular opinion. It'd be boring if we all just agreed with one another.
Moving onward let's have a look at a list honoring the contributions of the other gritty badass James Bond (one that I just so happen to believe is better than Timothy Dalton). The man that saved the Bond franchise from the plague that was the Brosnan Age. Daniel Craig.
3) 10 reasons why we can't get enough of Daniel Craig
http://whatculture.com/film/bond-24-10-reasons-why-we-cant-get-enough-of-daniel-craig.php
Thanks, its nice to not be attacked or ignored for once ;)
My leaving was just referring to the Dalton thread though.
Thanks for changing the subject to the one, who is my favourite actor in general but as I said many times, I still prefer Moore as Bond. Guess its always those, you grow up with (that's Connery, too, but Moore is just a tad more MY Bond).
He has saved the franchise, but going by the outrage back in 2006, people seemed not really ready to let Brosnan go. Why was that? DAD was viewed mostly as a rather bad Bond film, but if EON had decided to continue with Brosnan and just take another route, it might not have been a success like CR but probably had been accepted by the general audience and done ok. I think, this speaks for Brosnan, that many fans seemed to be able and willing to forgive DAD.
Opinions?
"Daniel Craig has left his mark playing James Bond."
I think it's more like a stain, than a mark.
Judging by the vast majority of both critics with their reviews and audiences with the over 2 billions dollars they've put into Craig's 3 movies, that stain must to be made of gold. Most actors wish they could make that kind of stain.
Moore was actually the Bond I grew up on. It was the 90s and Brosnan was the current Bond but I was exposed to 4 or 5 of Moore's films on VHS before I saw Connery, Dalton, or Lazenby. He's the face that comes to mind when someone says James Bond.
I think people were unwilling to let Brosnan go simply because they got comfortable. That and the fact that he pretty much represented the caricature of James Bond. Casual audiences loved him but I think the real fans wanted him out. Either way as soon as Craig debuted everyone pretty much forgot about Brosnan and the fact that Craig had blonde hair (still one of the stupidest casting gripes I've ever heard) due to the simple fact that they got something out of Casino Royale they hadn't gotten from the Brosnan Era. A good movie.
I can only really speak for myself here, but I "forgave" him because he was one of the good things about DAD. The script was utter bollocks but it wasn't his fault. Brosnan gave what I thought was his best performance as Bond. He didn't overact like in TWINE, he was more comfortable than in GE and he had more meaty material to work with than in TND. He had the chance to do what he was best at (the charismatic, flashy action hero Bond) as well as a couple of scenes that were more dramatic and emotional.
He was a nice bloke and a great Bond that gave the films success they needed at the time and he deserved a better send off than Die Another Day (I wouldn't have put him in CR though, I'd have given him one more in 2004).
This is one of the most arrogant posts I've ever read on here. I quite like Brosnan, so I suppose I'm not a real fan? And yeah Brosnan didn't make a single good film. That's why GE is in most peoples top ten and is always near the top in polls for the best Bond films.
The critical reviews, I find baffling. And though Craig's character has been financially successful, that just means that a lot of people have gone to see his films. I've seen all 3 of his films on the big screen, and I am certainly not a fan.
It is an opinion, no more.
When I visit the various 007 websites and I read up on what people think of Craigs era there seems to be a growing undercurrent of irritation towards the character played by Craig. There seems to be a feeling that it would be nice to have a straigthforward action-adventure without any personal issues as that has been done over and over and becomes a bit annoying.
GE was a great Bondmovie, an opinion, and CR was mostly a great Bondmovie it did fail in the last part with the sinking house instead of some less action and more acting by the likes of Green and Craig. Another opinion.
Craig might be financial succesfull, which like Brosnan means a lot of bums in the seats, but I cannot be called a great fan of the Craig era. Another SF will probably have me gagging for another director and actor.
I think that GE is a great Bond movie and that Brosnan's track record is 3-1 but what do I know? I'm not a real fan (because I happen to like films and an actor that you didn't).
For once, I agree with you,that this is what people want now. But I also believe, that the last scene in SF sets up exactly this.