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
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.
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.
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.
I would agree with that.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
=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.
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.
I agree. Certainly Dalton took something from Lazenby (there are some similarities), and Craig from Dalton and Lazenby, as well as Connery mostly.
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.
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
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.
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.