Why did Craig succeed when Dalton failed?

1121315171820

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @TripAces, I think Dalton was actually quite successful (at least in box office terms) in his debut as Bond. I'm including some statistics below (non-inflation adjusted so please keep this in mind since the movies span many years)

    If we compare his first outing with Moore's last, he trounces his predecessor.

    1987 TLD
    Domestic US: $51,185,000
    Worldwide: $191,200,000
    US rank in 1987 - 19

    1985 AVTAK
    Domestic US: $50,327,960
    Worldwide: $152,627,960
    US rank in 1985 - 13
    Now admittedly OP did better, but only in the US:
    1983 OP
    Domestic US: $67,900,000
    Worldwide: $187,500,000
    US rank in 1983 - 6

    Compare that with CR vs DAD:

    2006 CR
    Domestic US: $167,365,000
    Worldwide: $594,420,283
    US rank in 2006 - 9

    2002 DAD
    Domestic US: $160,942,139
    Worldwide: $431,942,139
    US rank in 2002 - 12

    So both Craig and Dalton had great debuts (although it's true that Craig debuted better in the all important US market, where Dalton suffered relative to Moore). It's with the sophomore LTK that things went terribly wrong:

    1989 LTK
    Domestic US: $34,667,015
    Worldwide: $156,167,015
    US rank in 1989 - 36
    Keep in mind that Batman released in the same yr made more in the US on opening night ($40m) than LTK did in its entire run

    Even in 'Everything or Nothing', BB and Co. acknowledge that LTK did not deliver as expected. I personally love the film, but like some fine art, it has only begun to be really appreciated with time, and after it's protaganist (or artist) is dead (or at least no longer in the role) sadly.
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 686
    (million dollars , US Market - 2015 dollars) - This doesn't include per ticket or per theatre.

    2002 DAD - $210.43 (Fall release)
    2006 CR - $196.0 (Fall release)
    1983 OP - $159.16
    1985 AVTAK - $110.6 (summer release)
    1987 TLD - $106.7 (summer release)
    1989 LTK - $66.21 (summer release)

    So, applying the logic of the this board, DAD was better than CR because it made more money in the US. And OP and ATAK were better than the two Dalton Bond movies.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Perdogg wrote: »
    (million dollars , US Market - 2015 dollars) - This doesn't include per ticket or per theatre.

    2002 DAD - $210.43 (Fall release)
    2006 CR - $196.0 (Fall release)
    1983 OP - $159.16
    1985 AVTAK - $110.6 (summer release)
    1987 TLD - $106.7 (summer release)
    1989 LTK - $66.21 (summer release)

    So, applying the logic of the this board, DAD was better than CR because it made more money in the US. And OP and ATAK were better than the two Dalton Bond movies.

    The trouble with 'inflation adjustment' is that it applies a CPI adjustment % to ticket prices. This is a generalization that is misleading, because ticket prices in reality do not necessarily track the CPI (which is an average basket of goods). Ticket prices move due to many factors, including technological changes such as IMAX, or Ultra AVX or 3D as well as competing avenues such as the internet, LCD screens, Blu ray etc.

    Bottom line, it's tragic that DAD is on the top of that list you posted, but that was the only thing the movie was designed for imho - to get the bums in the seats. It succeeded in that respect, but at great cost in other areas, including credibility of the franchise, resulting in the reboot.

    EON had grander creative goals with LTK, CR, TLD etc. The fact that they (except for LTK) were relatively successful financially also is a testament to their quality. LTK's comparative commercial failure (despite the fact that I now retrospectively love the movie) to some extent ironically also necessitated a reboot, albeit a soft one, 6 yrs later with GE.
  • Posts: 686
    bondjames wrote: »
    Perdogg wrote: »
    (million dollars , US Market - 2015 dollars) - This doesn't include per ticket or per theatre.

    2002 DAD - $210.43 (Fall release)
    2006 CR - $196.0 (Fall release)
    1983 OP - $159.16
    1985 AVTAK - $110.6 (summer release)
    1987 TLD - $106.7 (summer release)
    1989 LTK - $66.21 (summer release)

    So, applying the logic of the this board, DAD was better than CR because it made more money in the US. And OP and ATAK were better than the two Dalton Bond movies.

    The trouble with 'inflation adjustment' is that it applies a CPI adjustment % to ticket prices. This is a generalization that is misleading, because ticket prices in reality do not necessarily track the CPI (which is an average basket of goods). Ticket prices move due to many factors, including technological changes such as IMAX, or Ultra AVX or 3D as well as competing avenues such as the internet, LCD screens, Blu ray etc.

    Bottom line, it's tragic that DAD is on the top of that list you posted, but that was the only thing the movie was designed for imho - to get the bums in the seats. It succeeded in that respect, but at great cost in other areas, including credibility of the franchise, resulting in the reboot.

    EON had grander creative goals with LTK, CR, TLD etc. The fact that they (except for LTK) were relatively successful financially also is a testament to their quality. LTK's comparative commercial failure (despite the fact that I now retrospectively love the movie) to some extent ironically also necessitated a reboot, albeit a soft one, 6 yrs later with GE.

    It also does not take into account tickets or theatres showing it, but LTK hit the dollar theatre only 2 weeks after it was released. But, money does not lie according to some here, DAD was the best James Bond Movie.
  • Posts: 15,125
    You are building a huge strawman here @Perdogg. I also said over and over again that Craig has been critically more successful, something you refused to acknowledge until people confronted you with reality.... which you decided to ignore all together and you go back talking strictly about money... accusing us of thinking only about it.
  • Posts: 15,125
    You are building a huge strawman here @Perdogg. I also said over and over again that Craig has been critically more successful, something you refused to acknowledge until people confronted you with reality.... which you decided to ignore all together and you go back talking strictly about money... accusing us of thinking only about it.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Give it up. Leave him to it. He wants to believe, what he chooses and doesnt let facts interfer with that.
  • Will_OnceWill_Once Surrey, England
    Posts: 22
    For me, James Bond needs to both smooth and brutal. He needs to be immaculate in a
    DJ, but then have no qualms about strangling a man to death with his own tie. He should be equally at home in an expensive casino or roughing it in the jungle.

    Rough and smooth at the same time.

    Connery could do both, and so can Craig. But Roger always struck me as more smooth than rough, and Timothy as more rough than smooth.

    Personal preferences only. Don't understand high finance.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Dalton deserved a better ..or a real director. We just expected more from our films. Dalton needed to relax and not be so stiff theatrical in his acting true..but yeah he deserved better.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I think the topic is mis-named. Dalton did not fail, the studio issues stopped the continious production of the movies, Tim could not commit further due to the issues. I think Tim did well and I think had he done another he would have been more fondly remembered and seen as a stronger association with the charachter. I love DC he is a joint 1st with Connery in my opinion now, but imagine if Dan quit after QOS. I think he would have only been remembered as fondly as Dalton.
  • Posts: 832
    Less fondly, I think. Craig felt less established in the role until skyfall than Dalton did in his two in my opinion.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Less fondly, I think. Craig felt less established in the role until skyfall than Dalton did in his two in my opinion.

    I would agree with that.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Not really, CR was a critical success that pretty much proved Craig's detractors wrong. He didn't become a popular Bond with SF, SF merely confirmed his status. Even QOS which received lukewarm reviews, nobody blamed his acting for it. Or asked for his replacement. Dalton was never praised as much when he was Bond. That may be unfair but that's true. Hence my title.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Not really, CR was a critical success that pretty much proved Craig's detractors wrong. He didn't become a popular Bond with SF, SF merely confirmed his status. Even QOS which received lukewarm reviews, nobody blamed his acting for it. Or asked for his replacement. Dalton was never praised as much when he was Bond. That may be unfair but that's true. Hence my title.

    This is true, but that is not Dalton's fault. Dalton followed Moore, who is one of the great Bonds (in the public's mind) and who had a stellar run (the quality of the movies he was in did not follow a straight line trajectory downwards). If age hadn't caught up with him, I reckon a lot of the public would have wanted him to continue - he was so well accepted. Craig on the other hand followed Brosnan, who whether by his own fault or not, was in worse films each time out and who did not live up to expectations for many, even though he put rears in cinema seats.

    The times are also different, and a Dalton style Bond is much more acceptable now (nearly every hero sulks and broods these days and arguably Tim was one of the first to do this).

    As I said before, the man gets a bad rap. True, his run was not that successful financially, but that is not his fault. Craig owes a lot to Dalton, because he had the opportunity to study Dalton and see what worked and what did not work. Dalton did not have that luxury.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Oh I agree it is not Dalton's fault! The hostility of the public, or at least part of the public, towards him from the beginning was unfair, but it was there and it did cause trouble. Many were hostile to Craig's casting, but there was no heir apparent to Brosnan and Brosnan himself had ceased to be the best thing since Connery in people's mind.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Brosnan himself had ceased to be the best thing since Connery in people's mind.

    I believe that a fifth Brosnan 007 movie would have been a commercial sound and succesfull movie nonetheless, even if some "fans" do not like him or his run.

    Dalton never caught the general audiences pleasure and in a then dominant US market that was his fatal flaw and difficult to defend when a studio wants you out.

    Had Craig done as poor as the nay-sayers predicted we would not have seen QoS or even SF, he would have been lost even after one movie. I guess with CR doing as well he got the chance to do what he wanted, and with SF doing even better I am afraid we might get some vanity project that is more Craig than Fleming.
  • Posts: 15,125
    A fifth Brosnan might have been a commercial success, but he did not have the aura he had in 1995... Or 1987 for that matter. And I think this also played a role in the way things turned out for both Dalton and Craig.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Not really, CR was a critical success that pretty much proved Craig's detractors wrong. He didn't become a popular Bond with SF, SF merely confirmed his status. Even QOS which received lukewarm reviews, nobody blamed his acting for it. Or asked for his replacement. Dalton was never praised as much when he was Bond. That may be unfair but that's true. Hence my title.

    This is very true. Craig and CR created an impact that Dalton and his movies never achieved and can be argued still hasn't achieved. Whatever the details are it's just unfortunate Dalton's era wasn't properly realised or appreciated.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Ludovico wrote: »
    A fifth Brosnan might have been a commercial success, but he did not have the aura he had in 1995... Or 1987 for that matter. And I think this also played a role in the way things turned out for both Dalton and Craig.

    Brosnan 'peaked' early. He found his ideal (albeit simplistic) take on 007 in TND, which did not require him to do much in the way of subtle acting. He was fine as the popcorn Bond. Downhill all the way after that.

    Dalton tried to do too much with the role, perhaps that is why DC has fared better - he did approach it as an actor, but not quite as monochrome and serious as Dalton did...
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Not really, CR was a critical success that pretty much proved Craig's detractors wrong. He didn't become a popular Bond with SF, SF merely confirmed his status. Even QOS which received lukewarm reviews, nobody blamed his acting for it. Or asked for his replacement. Dalton was never praised as much when he was Bond. That may be unfair but that's true. Hence my title.

    This is a fair summery, but maybe the title should be 'Why did Craig, Connery, Moore and Brosnan succeed when Dalton failed'. Because financially, and critically they all did well (I deliberately didn't say artistically) but Dalton didn't do as well.

    I'm a long standing ney sayer as far as Dalton goes, and I have my well worn theories about him, but his hard boiled approach was not exactly ground breaking ( I don't think his 'serious' Bond was any more serious than Connery in DN and FRWL for example).

    Dalton tried to make Bond three dimensional, I can see that, but you can't account for good old fashioned screen charisma, sex appeal and good film acting (different to any other kind). The other actors ticked more boxes than Dalton, which is why he sort of failed, in comparison.



  • Posts: 6,601
    NicNac wrote: »

    Dalton tried to make Bond three dimensional, I can see that, but you can't account for good old fashioned screen charisma, sex appeal and good film acting (different to any other kind). The other actors ticked more boxes than Dalton, which is why he sort of failed, in comparison.


    =D>
    Yes, all of that and its been said over and over. We will never come to an aggreement here though. For his fans he probably has all that in spades, just not for the majority and that's what makes the difference.
  • Posts: 6,601
    To me, a good example of that are Sam Worthington and Chris Pratt. To me, they look very much the same, but from what I read and think myself, SW is considered a terribly bland actor with zero charisma whereas CP MIGHT make it big. Its all a matter what goes with the looks.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    It's a matter of record Dan watched the box sets of the movies on a cycle prior to CR I think he took elements from each of those before him. Dalton was the one who gave 007 a heart below the old British front underneath was compassion and warmth. I agree with the prior comments that Dalton tried to make Bond multi layered and 3 dimensional. I think Dan saw that too and was key to him agreeing to become Bond as he knew the character could be played more complex allowing him to use a variety of skills in the role. But possibly Dalton also took this from Lazenby in OHMSS. All those who have played the role have added a layer I have over time learned to appreciate them all for what they put in.
  • Posts: 15,125
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Not really, CR was a critical success that pretty much proved Craig's detractors wrong. He didn't become a popular Bond with SF, SF merely confirmed his status. Even QOS which received lukewarm reviews, nobody blamed his acting for it. Or asked for his replacement. Dalton was never praised as much when he was Bond. That may be unfair but that's true. Hence my title.

    This is a fair summery, but maybe the title should be 'Why did Craig, Connery, Moore and Brosnan succeed when Dalton failed'. Because financially, and critically they all did well (I deliberately didn't say artistically) but Dalton didn't do as well.

    I'm a long standing ney sayer as far as Dalton goes, and I have my well worn theories about him, but his hard boiled approach was not exactly ground breaking ( I don't think his 'serious' Bond was any more serious than Connery in DN and FRWL for example).

    Dalton tried to make Bond three dimensional, I can see that, but you can't account for good old fashioned screen charisma, sex appeal and good film acting (different to any other kind). The other actors ticked more boxes than Dalton, which is why he sort of failed, in comparison.



    I used this title because both situations were comparable: both "serious" actors willing to take a more serious approach, both seen with skepticism if not hostility at first, both taking on an iconic role while being relatively unknown (Connery did not take an iconic role and Moore a t.v. star), etc.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Well I think we saw warmth and compassion many times in truth. Connery gently squeezing the dead Kerim's shoulder was quiet but powerful; Moore's goodbye to Lisl etc. I believe it's there.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    It's a matter of record Dan watched the box sets of the movies on a cycle prior to CR I think he took elements from each of those before him. Dalton was the one who gave 007 a heart below the old British front underneath was compassion and warmth. I agree with the prior comments that Dalton tried to make Bond multi layered and 3 dimensional. I think Dan saw that too and was key to him agreeing to become Bond as he knew the character could be played more complex allowing him to use a variety of skills in the role. But possibly Dalton also took this from Lazenby in OHMSS. All those who have played the role have added a layer I have over time learned to appreciate them all for what they put in.

    I agree. Certainly Dalton took something from Lazenby (there are some similarities), and Craig from Dalton and Lazenby, as well as Connery mostly.
    NicNac wrote: »
    Well I think we saw warmth and compassion many times in truth. Connery gently squeezing the dead Kerim's shoulder was quiet but powerful; Moore's goodbye to Lisl etc. I believe it's there.

    That's very true too. It's subtle, but definitely there.
    ----

    I still think Dalton suffered because he was compared to Moore who a lot of people on this thread downplay but who really defined film Bond after Connery in an acceptable (and imitated - by Willis, Arnie etc.) wisecracking, philandering way. Craig did not have to contend with this, because Brosnan went out with one of the worst movies in the franchise's history, and the one before that was a debacle as well. That, combined with a very focused EON in 2006 (who had it all to lose if they screwed it up - similar to 1995, and so they threw the kitchen sink at it) and a little sex appeal (courtesy of a swimsuit photo) were all it took to make the difference. As is oft-mentioned on here, the times were different too.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Not sure about that @bondjames. You may be right, but in the view of the public Brosnan was incredibly popular, DAD included. They didn't necessarily pull the film apart as fans did. He was very, very popular and would have remained so.

    Dalton had more of an advantage (IMHO). I was very excited that Moore had finally left (far too old) and we had a younger, more serious Bond, and a fresh face after so many years. It was hugely exciting. I enjoyed TLD and was so glad to see a more serious interpretation.

    I think Eon threw the kitchen sink at CR because they had to - Craig was getting all the negative press and the craigsnotbond brigade. So much to overcome. Dalton on the other hand had no such negativity
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I agree @NicNac. I'm not suggesting Brosnan was not popular. More that the Bond films he was in (particularly the last two) were not moving the needle forward creatively and EON was falling behind relative to other big budget actioners at the time. It was almost becoming banal. I think many of us felt it, even if we accepted it because we love the franchise. The excitement was gone for many of us (certainly for me....).

    I did not feel that way in 1985.....I just felt that Moore was well past it and we needed a new Bond. Ironically, at the time, I, like many, was hoping it would be chosen one Brosnan, which is one reason why I did not really take to Dalton.

    Having said that, I agree on TLD. I loved it when I first saw it. Edgy for Bond and a throwback to classic 60's Bond (especially the first half...it went a little downhill at the end).

    RE: EON - certainly the creative decline with DAD helped them to up their game, but the long break also helped imho. It raised the stakes - similarly with GE following the commercial failure that was LTK, CR followed the critical failure that was DAD. EON seems to rise from the ashes whenever the stakes are high. Failure is good for them it seems and good for the longevity of the franchise.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Brosnan was still popular after DAD but not nearly as much as after GE. Or even when Dalton was cast as Bond. I do think he contributed to both the unpopularity of Dalton and ultimately the success of Craig. Dalton was perceived as an usurper. But Brosnan was getting old and had no clear successor.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Brosnan was still popular after DAD but not nearly as much as after GE. Or even when Dalton was cast as Bond. I do think he contributed to both the unpopularity of Dalton and ultimately the success of Craig. Dalton was perceived as an usurper. But Brosnan was getting old and had no clear successor.

    Well said. I agree. Brosnan did contribute to the unpopularity of Dalton, but he also contributed to the success of Craig, at least for me.....

    It is true also that he did not have a clear successor, unlike Moore, who did, ironically in Brosnan rather than Dalton (if one was looking for someone to carry on the Moore style legacy - and many were at the time).

    Creatively, Dalton brought answers to questions no one was asking at the time. Craig brought answers to creative questions that many of us were demanding after DAD/TWINE.
This discussion has been closed.