Why did Craig succeed when Dalton failed?

1246720

Comments

  • Dalton certainly didn't bomb as Bond, but his movies were very low-grossing by Bond standards, as you can see here: http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php

    The Living Daylights did do slightly better than A View to A Kill, and Bond had been on a steady decline at the box office since Moonraker, but Dalton still didn't do as well as the producers certainly hoped.

    TLD was defiantly going to outgross AVTAK merely due to the curiosity factor of there being a new Bond for the first time since 1973. I'm sure the producers thought Dalton and TLD would be a rebirth for the franchise but instead being more of a shot in the arm in an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory. The 80s suffered from a Bond overload. 6 films (including NSNA) inside of 8 years. Obviously fans loved it but for the general movie going audience it might've been too much. I understand EON wanted to capitalize on the 25th Anniversary of Bond but if I were them I would've pushed TLD back an additional year and have it open in 1988. This would've given the audiences a bit of a break (at least longer than usual) from the series and let anticipation for the new James Bond build up.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    I'm sure the producers thought Dalton and TLD would be a rebirth for the franchise but instead being more of a shot in the arm in an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory.
    That's because the public at large wants nonsense. If we fans get an occasional LTK or QOS we should count ourselves lucky.
  • Posts: 11
    DC is successful because he is similar to Sutherland (Bauer) and Damon(Bourne). Dalton was an excellent Bond and IMO took more acting chances than DC.
  • Posts: 7,653
    chrisisall wrote:
    That's because the public at large wants nonsense. If we fans get an occasional LTK or QOS we should count ourselves lucky.

    If we do not get another QoB like piece of sh&tefor the next 20 years we should count ourselves lucky indeed.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    SaintMark wrote:
    If we do not get another QoB like piece of sh&tefor the next 20 years we should count ourselves lucky indeed.

    If I had said CR instead would that be better? It'd still make my point.
  • Posts: 4,622
    QoS is a candidate to be removed from the official Bond canon, IMHO. It barely resembles a Bond film. CR and SF at least are more easily recognizable as Bond films.
  • timmer wrote:
    QoS is a candidate to be removed from the official Bond canon, IMHO. It barely resembles a Bond film. CR and SF at least are more easily recognizable as Bond films.

    See, that was one criticism for the likes of LTK and QoS I never quite understood. The plot revolves around 007, so What other characteristics does a film need? If anything, I often have more respect for the films criticized for being "un-Bond like" because they take risks and try something new rather than stick to the "safety" of Bonds like GF, TSWLM, and GE.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    I think regarding LTK and QoS, both were a departure from the norm and both don't have that normal Bond feel to them. However LTK had a stronger story and a stronger villain so that doesn't get quite the same level of flack QoS does.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    I often have more respect for the films criticized for being "un-Bond like" because they take risks and try something new rather than stick to the "safety" of Bonds like GF, TSWLM, and GE.
    I agree. And I love both LTK and QOS for that reason, among others.
  • Posts: 15,127
    timmer wrote:
    QoS is a candidate to be removed from the official Bond canon, IMHO. It barely resembles a Bond film. CR and SF at least are more easily recognizable as Bond films.

    See, that was one criticism for the likes of LTK and QoS I never quite understood. The plot revolves around 007, so What other characteristics does a film need? If anything, I often have more respect for the films criticized for being "un-Bond like" because they take risks and try something new rather than stick to the "safety" of Bonds like GF, TSWLM, and GE.

    I'd go further than this: how is QOS any less canon than the scifi fests that are YOLT, TSWLM, MR and DAD? They were science fiction adventures and only superfucially espionage stories. Even LTK, which I am not a fan of (an heresy here, I know) had many elements from the literary canon, so if some things were yes, a bit too close to Miami Vice and 80s action movies clichés, that keeps it, to a degree, in the espionage genre.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I don't understand some people. LTK and QoS should be removed because they're the least recognisable Bond films? How so? QoS was artistically flawed which imo hurt the movie more than anything else but we all know it was and isn't a stand alone movie. It's essentially an epilogue to CR and yet everything is there, every classic trope, typical to all Bond movies are there except for Q and MP. The placement of such tropes are irrelevant but they're there to be identified clearly as Bond films.

    A couple of people in the mission impossible thread voiced that they hope the next MI film is the last because get this, they don't want the series to get stale. In 18 years we've had 4 MI films, each doing well and each giving us something different. Yet, the Bond films notorious for repackaging the same old formula over and over and over again people are happy to have shoved down their throats. LTK and QoS may not be everyone's favourite cup of tea but the creative team behind those movies get points for the fact that they dared and had the balls to be different and take risks while still implementing most if not all typical Bond cliches. I get the impression that many people here act as though they want something new and different but really they want business as usual box-ticking. "The gunbarrel's not at the front?! OMG heresy! The film will fail" Yet, SF ends up breaking records, winning Oscars, is the biggest film to date in UK history and in total grossed over $1billion worldwide and oh yeah was largely praised by fans and critics for being at the very least a good film, many claiming it to be the best Bond film ever; and yet, we have a film like DAD despite pulling in over $400million and including EVERYTHING that makes a Bond film "recognisable" was one of the biggest if not the biggest detriment to the series at least much more so than QoS was by far.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I think that Dalton not getting to do a third film really hurt his legacy. If we compare the timeline of Dalton and Craig it's really quite interesting. Both of their debuts were well received and were attempts to bring the character back to his roots. Their second films are quite controversial and many people considered them to be a disappointment at the time. Then, after a somewhat lengthy hiatus, the next film in the series was a huge box office success. The difference of course being that Dalton never starred in a third film.

    It's not an exact science. There are differences but perhaps the public just needed more time to connect with Dalton. If he had starred in GE and had gotten his big box office moment in the sun then perhaps things might have turned out better for him. What if Moore had only done two films? Imagine if the series had gone on a hiatus or had been cancelled after the disappointing revenues from TMWTGG? If he had never had his big "moment" in TSWLM? How would he be looked at now?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    chrisisall wrote:
    Personally, I resent the title of this thread.
    "Dalton Failed"?

    How about looking at it another way:
    Why did Craig's movies fail when Dalton's succeeded?
    Especially Skyfall. Yeah, let's go on about how much money it made, and meanwhile I'd like to point out that The Phantom Menace, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and Titanic all made similar money. Also remember that DAD was a huge hit for EON. Big box office usually means a film isn't too good IMO.
    CR was damn good. QOS was better. SF is adequate.
    None of them are better than Dalton's two. As BOND movies, that is. As a giant generic action blockbuster designed to make one weep at the end, SF is fairly peerless.

    End of counter-rant.

    Artistically you mean?
    I guess it's all subjective. Artistically LTK was the worst of the five, IMHO. Bland, functional, generic. that would be my description. I could easily pull it to pieces as easily as some do SF if I had to, when it comes to plotting.

    TLD was lively, exciting, entertaining so I have no issues with it and I prefer it to QOS. I prefer it to lots of Bond films if I'm honest.

    I just think that all the ingredients of CR make it a worthy Bond film, and SF moves along so deftly, and the feel of the film overcomes it's plot shortcomings so well that I think it deserves it's reputation.

    Taking them as 'Bond' movies as you say I still think LTK is barely a Bond film at all in the traditional sense, but it doesn't matter. Where would we be if we didn't have variation and differing styles in the series? You can't have this many films made over 50 years without different directors imposing their styles and visions.

  • Posts: 15,127
    One thing that may have played a role: the last entry of their respective predecessor. AVTAK was not a masterpiece, but it never went down into the abysmal stupidity of DAD and people may have forgiven Moore more easily than Brosnan. Brosnan had his fans, but my bet is that they were far less numerous after DAD than after GE.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    NicNac wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Personally, I resent the title of this thread.
    "Dalton Failed"?

    How about looking at it another way:
    Why did Craig's movies fail when Dalton's succeeded?
    Especially Skyfall. Yeah, let's go on about how much money it made, and meanwhile I'd like to point out that The Phantom Menace, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and Titanic all made similar money. Also remember that DAD was a huge hit for EON. Big box office usually means a film isn't too good IMO.
    CR was damn good. QOS was better. SF is adequate.
    None of them are better than Dalton's two. As BOND movies, that is. As a giant generic action blockbuster designed to make one weep at the end, SF is fairly peerless.

    End of counter-rant.

    I just think that all the ingredients of CR make it a worthy Bond film, and SF moves along so deftly, and the feel of the film overcomes it's plot shortcomings so well that I think it deserves it's reputation.

    I'd have to agree. I really like the colour that's in both films, they have an epic feel that hasn't been seen in Bond for a long time. Lets not forget that neither SF nor CR (as far as I remember anyway) feature any really genuinely weak/horrendous performances. TLD has Terry and Bliss, Kill has Bliss and a few others.

    I enjoy both of Dalton's films but IMO CR and SF are better than either.

    I've noticed incidently that LTK, CR and SF have all faced the same criticism from some quarters (i.e. they are good thrillers but not good Bond movies).
  • Posts: 15,127
    Strange, I could say TSWLM or MR, heck even YOLT are good scifi adventures but no Bond movies.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Personally, I resent the title of this thread.
    "Dalton Failed"?

    How about looking at it another way:
    Why did Craig's movies fail when Dalton's succeeded?
    Especially Skyfall. Yeah, let's go on about how much money it made, and meanwhile I'd like to point out that The Phantom Menace, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and Titanic all made similar money. Also remember that DAD was a huge hit for EON. Big box office usually means a film isn't too good IMO.
    CR was damn good. QOS was better. SF is adequate.
    None of them are better than Dalton's two. As BOND movies, that is. As a giant generic action blockbuster designed to make one weep at the end, SF is fairly peerless.

    End of counter-rant.

    I just think that all the ingredients of CR make it a worthy Bond film, and SF moves along so deftly, and the feel of the film overcomes it's plot shortcomings so well that I think it deserves it's reputation.

    I'd have to agree. I really like the colour that's in both films, they have an epic feel that hasn't been seen in Bond for a long time. Lets not forget that neither SF nor CR (as far as I remember anyway) feature any really genuinely weak/horrendous performances. TLD has Terry and Bliss, Kill has Bliss and a few others.

    I enjoy both of Dalton's films but IMO CR and SF are better than either.

    I've noticed incidently that LTK, CR and SF have all faced the same criticism from some quarters (i.e. they are good thrillers but not good Bond movies).

    I always found that to be a really senseless criticism. If an entry doesn't follow the "Bond formula" precisely than it's not a true Bond movie. Do people really want the exact same film over and over again? I think that's one of the reasons Craig's films are so refreshing. They don't follow the Bond blueprint and aren't afraid to throw us for a loop. Technically I guess DN isn't a true Bond movie either. I'll take the likes of CR, Skyfall, LTK, OHMSS, and DN over the likes of DAD, TND, MR, DAF, and YOLT (all of which stick to the formula) any day.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    I too am more likely to go for the more serious Bond films these days (although I do enjoy YOLT and never felt it deserved the criticism it gets)

    I suppose "escapism" and charm are the key words. Kill, CR and SF all have that more brutal feel that doesn't go well with the idea of escapism. The latter 2 though have truely beautiful cinematography and an effective dose of humour that make them each top tier Bond films IMO .You can have the serious tone but you need to have some glamour and spectacle to balance it out. That's why OHMSS is so well regarded, it has everything but doesn't feel like they are ticking off a checklist.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Hard-core Bond fans tend to be dismissive of the very factors that made Bond films successful in the first place - gadgets, stunts and those audience-satisfying moments such as the ejector seat on the AM.

    So, the series has grown on the back of films like YOLT and LALD yet the hard-core dislike the 'epic' feel of these films, the cheap laughs, the absurd villains etc. Yet, without these elements we wouldn't have a series. And whilst everyone in the world remembers the volcano lair and Blofeld from YOLT, no one outside of Bond fandome really remembers LTK. Yet we cry out for serious Bond films which have no gadgets, stunts, laughs or outrageous villains - the very things that made Bond unique and popular.

    We are, fundamentally, crying out for the series to end.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    I suppose "escapism" is the key word. Kill, CR and SF all have that more brutal feel that doesn't go well with the idea of escapism. CR and SF though have truely beautiful cinematography that make them each top tier Bond films IMO. You can have the serious but you need to have some glamour and spectacle to balance it out.

    I think there's still plenty of escapism in the more serious Bond films. Just because Bond doesn't act like a cartoon character doesn't mean they aren't fun movies.

    And you're right the series truly has picked up their game in terms of cinematography. None is a better example than Skyfall. Roger Deakins should have fun the Oscar for his work. It was the most beautifully shot film of the year IMO. But alas the oscars hate franchise movies.

    That's one of the reasons I'm so glad Mendes is returning for Bond 24. Not just for the talent he brings but for the crew he brings with him (Deakins, Logan, Newman).
  • NicNac wrote:
    Hard-core Bond fans tend to be dismissive of the very factors that made Bond films successful in the first place - gadgets, stunts and those audience-satisfying moments such as the ejector seat on the AM.

    So, the series has grown on the back of films like YOLT and LALD yet the hard-core dislike the 'epic' feel of these films, the cheap laughs, the absurd villains etc. Yet, without these elements we wouldn't have a series. And whilst everyone in the world remembers the volcano lair and Blofeld from YOLT, no one outside of Bond fandome really remembers LTK. Yet we cry out for serious Bond films which have no gadgets, stunts, laughs or outrageous villains - the very things that made Bond unique and popular.

    We are, fundamentally, crying out for the series to end.

    While I understand what your saying, but by that logic fans would want Batman to return to it's campy Adam West days, which is what made Batman popular in the first place. Before that TV show Batman wasn't really a pop culture icon. There are many facets to these iconic characters. Yes Bond films could get away with a campy tone back in the 60s, 70s, etc but we live in a very different world today. I don't think people would accept another YOLT, MR, or DAD in 2014.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    NicNac wrote:
    Hard-core Bond fans tend to be dismissive of the very factors that made Bond films successful in the first place - gadgets, stunts and those audience-satisfying moments such as the ejector seat on the AM.

    So, the series has grown on the back of films like YOLT and LALD yet the hard-core dislike the 'epic' feel of these films, the cheap laughs, the absurd villains etc. Yet, without these elements we wouldn't have a series. And whilst everyone in the world remembers the volcano lair and Blofeld from YOLT, no one outside of Bond fandome really remembers LTK. Yet we cry out for serious Bond films which have no gadgets, stunts, laughs or outrageous villains - the very things that made Bond unique and popular.

    We are, fundamentally, crying out for the series to end.

    You are right to an extent. I think there has often has been an element of the absurd in Bond films, that's what makes them fun - but its when these things are taken too far that I have a bit of an issue. It's when too much humour gets in the way of a good fun story. I've never really been a massive fan of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG for instance. For me the humour is too overt and there's little tension as a result. At the same time though I really enjoy Octopussy because despite its sillier moments it has some really suspensful scenes and a great villain. I'm probably being a little hypocritical.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,052
    pachazo wrote:
    I think that Dalton not getting to do a third film really hurt his legacy. If we compare the timeline of Dalton and Craig it's really quite interesting. Both of their debuts were well received and were attempts to bring the character back to his roots. Their second films are quite controversial and many people considered them to be a disappointment at the time. Then, after a somewhat lengthy hiatus, the next film in the series was a huge box office success. The difference of course being that Dalton never starred in a third film.

    It's not an exact science. There are differences but perhaps the public just needed more time to connect with Dalton. If he had starred in GE and had gotten his big box office moment in the sun then perhaps things might have turned out better for him. What if Moore had only done two films? Imagine if the series had gone on a hiatus or had been cancelled after the disappointing revenues from TMWTGG? If he had never had his big "moment" in TSWLM? How would he be looked at now?

    The thing is though LALD was a massive hit, whereas TLD was only a bit more succesful than AVTAK, despite the curiosity factor of a new actor, I guess Timbo just didn't connect with audiences at the time and I say this as a big Dalton fan.

    I always say though, Craig got a total reboot whereas as Dalton was trying to be different with all the familiar elements still in place.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    BAIN123 wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Hard-core Bond fans tend to be dismissive of the very factors that made Bond films successful in the first place - gadgets, stunts and those audience-satisfying moments such as the ejector seat on the AM.

    So, the series has grown on the back of films like YOLT and LALD yet the hard-core dislike the 'epic' feel of these films, the cheap laughs, the absurd villains etc. Yet, without these elements we wouldn't have a series. And whilst everyone in the world remembers the volcano lair and Blofeld from YOLT, no one outside of Bond fandome really remembers LTK. Yet we cry out for serious Bond films which have no gadgets, stunts, laughs or outrageous villains - the very things that made Bond unique and popular.

    We are, fundamentally, crying out for the series to end.

    You are right to an extent. I think there has often has been an element of the absurd in Bond films, that's what makes them fun - but its when these things are taken too far that I have a bit of an issue. It's when too much humour gets in the way of a good fun story. I've never really been a massive fan of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG for instance. For me the humour is too overt and there's little tension as a result. At the same time though I really enjoy Octopussy because despite its sillier moments it has some really suspensful scenes and a great villain. I'm probably being a little hypocritical.

    Certainly when it goes too far in a direction, they will pull the series back, and rightly so. TMWTGG was an example of Eon taking it's audience for granted.

    Maybe I should say that the movie going public tend to love the outrageous moments more than any other, rightly or wrongly. And Bond should never totally leave that aspect behind.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    BAIN123 wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Personally, I resent the title of this thread.
    "Dalton Failed"?

    How about looking at it another way:
    Why did Craig's movies fail when Dalton's succeeded?
    Especially Skyfall. Yeah, let's go on about how much money it made, and meanwhile I'd like to point out that The Phantom Menace, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and Titanic all made similar money. Also remember that DAD was a huge hit for EON. Big box office usually means a film isn't too good IMO.
    CR was damn good. QOS was better. SF is adequate.
    None of them are better than Dalton's two. As BOND movies, that is. As a giant generic action blockbuster designed to make one weep at the end, SF is fairly peerless.

    End of counter-rant.

    I just think that all the ingredients of CR make it a worthy Bond film, and SF moves along so deftly, and the feel of the film overcomes it's plot shortcomings so well that I think it deserves it's reputation.

    I'd have to agree. I really like the colour that's in both films, they have an epic feel that hasn't been seen in Bond for a long time. Lets not forget that neither SF nor CR (as far as I remember anyway) feature any really genuinely weak/horrendous performances. TLD has Terry and Bliss, Kill has Bliss and a few others.

    I enjoy both of Dalton's films but IMO CR and SF are better than either.

    I've noticed incidently that LTK, CR and SF have all faced the same criticism from some quarters (i.e. they are good thrillers but not good Bond movies).

    I always found that to be a really senseless criticism. If an entry doesn't follow the "Bond formula" precisely than it's not a true Bond movie. Do people really want the exact same film over and over again? I think that's one of the reasons Craig's films are so refreshing. They don't follow the Bond blueprint and aren't afraid to throw us for a loop. Technically I guess DN isn't a true Bond movie either. I'll take the likes of CR, Skyfall, LTK, OHMSS, and DN over the likes of DAD, TND, MR, DAF, and YOLT (all of which stick to the formula) any day.

    Finally, someone who speaks English. Well said, my good man.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    NicNac wrote:
    Yet we cry out for serious Bond films which have no gadgets, stunts, laughs or outrageous villains -

    What you mean 'we', white man?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    chrisisall wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Yet we cry out for serious Bond films which have no gadgets, stunts, laughs or outrageous villains -

    What you mean 'we', white man?

    What you mean 'white' tall guy?

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited January 2014 Posts: 17,804
    NicNac wrote:
    What you mean 'white' tall guy?
    Ha ha, just an old Tonto line... and don't call me tall!

    TLD is my favourite Bond in part because it has gadgets, stunts, laughs & outrageous villains whilst treating Bond himself perfectly and seriously straight. The best of both worlds, for the cinema.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    chrisisall wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    What you mean 'white' tall guy?
    Ha ha, just an old Tonto line... and don't call me tall!

    TLD is my favourite Bond in part because it has gadgets, stunts, laughs & outrageous villains whilst treating Bond himself perfectly and seriously straight. The best of both worlds, for the cinema.

    I'll go with that :)>-
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    I like TLD. It has a sense of old fashioned espionage as well as some excellent action. It's just the rather bland plot and (some) supporting characters that bring it down from top to mid tier for me. In all honesty I prefer FYEO and OP.
This discussion has been closed.