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
Bond needs balance. A series of Moonrakers and Die Another Days would collapse under its own weight, even though they did well at the box office. A series of Licence to Kills and From Russia With Loves lacks the incredible, fantastic imagery that pulls people in. And as great as ones like Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, GoldenEye, and Skyfall are, they lose some of their meaning without the other adventures.
As the White / Quantum angle is still unfinished and we broke away for a standalone release last year, guessing they'll make a return to that - although "try" to divorce myself from all talk Bond 24 and what will occur in a next release, but really, can't see any more business with Skyfall this time. Would seem a dead issue - along with a great many other things
That stairwell fight in Casino. Just bada$$.
And the Broz films are growing on me too. They all have an epic Bond vibe, that ages well IMO. Bond films that put the gun barrel at the front are the best!
Someday though, I may even develop a nostalgic appeal for the Craig films.
May do a Craigathon this year. ie all three films in one big blu-ray sitting. That could be good. Olga is actually one of my favourite Bond girls and I do like the QoS music.
All Bond is good when its big and loud. Must get a 60 inch TV one of these days. Still making due with hi-def 40 inch.
Well said. Dalton was a great Bond, just too slender and not hyper-masculine enough for a late 80s audience. I also found this chart interesting:
http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.
I didn't realize how popular Skyfall was, even surpassing Thunderball, with inflation taken into consideration. I guess QOS didn't turn any fans away from seeing a follow-up.
It should be 'Why did Craig fail when Dalton succeeded'?!
Except that would not reflect reality: Dalton was not accepted as Bond the way Craig has been and if his tenure is now more appreciated it is after the fact. This has nothing to do with his intrinsic qualities as an actor.
I'm just having a bit of a laugh!
But I do actually personally think Dalton was better at doing what Craig is doing now. Apart from the fighting stuff. But then I don't think Bond needs to be a hard man type character necessarily. If he is going to be tough, I think Connery and Laz did that side much better then Craig - they looked like they could take care of themselves in a fight, without being beefcakes.
That makes him the toughest Bond since Connery.
Brosnan killed a lot of people but many were faceless henchmen/guards picked off by his machine gun.
(I love the machine gun action in GE incidently but in TND its tedious and not as well made).
Yeah - Brosnan was handy with a machinegun! No secret agent should be without one.
Yeah. I guess because of the story arc they've gone down, Dan hasn't had much chance for romance. The big romance was in CR, which he handled well, I think. Then in QoS because it was set up as a direct sequel, it was inappropriate that he act soppy. SF didn't really allow for any of that girly nonsence either. Will be interesting to see how they handle all this in SP.
The late 80's were dominated by Willis, Sly & Arnie. Tough guys with attitude. Batman also came out and took things over the top, and Indie was still going strong.
The serious take Dalton brought was just not welcome by a public used to over a decade of Roger Moore (who defined Bond for a generation -even now casual fans tell me their favourite Bond is 70's Bond - and we know who they're talking about).
If Dalton was a younger man (circa TLD or even earlier) and he made CR, I think the movie would have been as successful if not more successful than it was with Craig. Dalton is just as good an actor as Craig, EON was ready for someone like him in 2006 (and not in 1987), and the public definitely was ready for him in 2006 (And not in 1987).
While TLD fit the times quite well and transitioned to Dalton very well, I think they jumped too quickly to the LTK premise when no one was asking for it - so it was a shock and came out of left field for a lot of people in 1989, myself included. It was an answer to a question no one asked. CR, in contrast, was an answer to a question the public was craving for in 2006 -i.e. please show me why Bond is relevent in this day and age.....
It also did not hurt that the reboot craze was already in full effect by the time CR came out (epitomised brilliantly by Batman Begins).
So the answer, quite simply, is timing.
Good point about LTK being an answer to a question no one was asking.
Are you saying EON wasn't ready for Dalton in 87? Clearly they were though. It was EON as much as Dalton driving the new direction. I think it was Cubby as much as any one who wanted to mix it up a bit.
Like you say, may be they needed to transition more slowly into LTK territory. Also, I think it's the location and look and feel of LTK that adds to its shockingness. If they'd set it in China (i.e. somewhere more conventionally exotic) I think the audience would have taken the change in tone better. I've never liked Bond in the US - it always feels a little bland. And Central America is hardly a location that sets the pulse racing. Take the LTK story, but add in a bit of old Europe and some Asian locations and it would have felt a lot more like a classic Bond and avoided the obvious Miami Vice comparisons.
I think you're right that EON was ready, but I think only in a half-way sort of way.
I think Cubby realized Bond was losing relevancy in the 1980's compared to other action fare out at the time. In both the 80's and the 90's there was a relative loss of box office appeal (as measured by Bond's relative positioning on the global top 10 lists). The movies were still successful but they weren't defining the times like they used to.
So Cubby knew he needed to change direction, but I think the timing was wrong, and he was unsure about how to do it properly. Keep in mind that the successful movies of that time (except for Batman/Indie) were much more brutal/bloody than Bond and had higher age ratings. So he was sort of boxed in, because Bond had to keep its PG family rating and still try to pull in the hard action crowd. Also, he was a victim of his history and success with Bond (arguably that hampered how much he could tamper with the formula). LTK had some pretty schmaltzy bits (especially with Bouvier) that seem very 80's now (and have dated far more than Moore's 70's interactions with XXX and Goodhead for example). This is an example of Cubby trying to dial back Bond's seducer element to make him more relevent but sadly delving into schmaltz as a result. So I just think the times were not right for Cubby to redefine Bond the way he wanted to. He put his toe in the water, but he wasn't so sure how to do it.
I completely agree with you on the use of locations. When I saw the movie for the first time, I was really disappointed with the locations. I used to watch Miami Vice, and this seemed like Miami Vice on the big screen. There was no glamour. That was problematic, especially in a year like 1989 with Indie and Bat. An exotic location would have really helped. Also the supporting cast in Miami was just too TV movie like (Sharky/Killifer/Hawkins?).
Craig just lucked out, as did EON, in that the timing for a CR remake was perfect in 2006. Batman had just shown how to do it and that it could be done in a very mature and serious way. They could go for broke now, rather than just tiptoe around it, and the public was likely to embrace it, as they did. They also had the benefit of experience, and were careful not to get to schmaltzy (which allowed Bond to still retain his manliness in a relatively tender story).
Strange, I find Daniel Craig far more believable as a seducer than Dalton ever was.
They made a conscious decision with Dalton to dial back the seducer aspect (I remember reading that then) - it was an overreaction when trying to define Bond for the late 80's imo. That was an EON decision. That is why he only had Kara in TLD, and did not sleep with Lupe in LTK (they made Lupe want him, not the other way round).
If they had Dalton do Bond today, they would have toughened up his approach a bit.
I agree though that Craig has more machismo on screen than Dalton. Seems more alpha-manly.
For some reason I thought he does bed Lupe, or at least that's one way of reading it. Surely he has to bed the gangster's moll - perfect way of getting back at Sanchez?
I always thought he did bed Lupe too.
I saw it recently and I don't recall seeing this. I know she helps him escape Sanchez's lair for bit but I don't recall anything more.
Totally agree. Every time I watch this film (which is not often because I like to keep it special) I'm impressed with that whole bit, along with the b/s that he feeds Sanchez on the fly to save his hide.
I don't think so. I think that's why Bouvier's accusations seem so stupid in the movie, because Dalt's Bond didn't do what she thought he did. I may be wrong, but that's my recollection.