Would Daltons Bond 17 ruined bond?
heartbroken_mr_drax
New Zealand Posts: 2,073MI6 Agent
Even though im sure it would have been fantastic, did the 6 year break between 1989 and 1995 do bond good?
What if Dalton did a third?
Because Goldeneye is vastly different to the earlier bonds in terms of post cold war ideaology.
Thoughts?
What if Dalton did a third?
Because Goldeneye is vastly different to the earlier bonds in terms of post cold war ideaology.
Thoughts?
1. TWINE 2. FYEO 3. MR 4. TLD 5. TSWLM 6. OHMSS 7. DN 8. OP 9. AVTAK 10. TMWTGG 11. QoS 12. GE 13. CR 14. TB 15. FRWL 16. TND 17. LTK 18. GF 19. SF 20. LaLD 21. YOLT 22. NTTD 23. DAD 24. DAF. 25. SP
"Better make that two."
"Better make that two."
Comments
Obviously Eon would have learned a thing or two from their failures, and taken a new approach...lighten the tone, organize better promotion, and avoiding incredibly tough competing films like Batman and Lethal Weapon, maybe even bring in a fresh director. I think the film would have been better than LTK, but possibly not perform as well as GE actually did 95, which benefited from a longer absence and notably a new Bond.
Also, Bond 17 would have been another movie completely different to GoldenEye - GoldenEye has to take place after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
and thats stopped you before when?
Dalton would have been fine in Goldeneye but I don't think it would have scored as strongly in the States without Brosnan.
Hmm... you have a point. I don't know, I'll say it now. I think the general public wasn't very pleased with LTK and the public really wanted Brosnan so I think Dalton's third would've added salt to the wound.
It wasn't until around 1991, when no new Bond film had appeared and one didn't even seem to be on the horizon, that people began saying that the problem was either Dalton or that the Cold War was over. Neither was true--there was still a huge audience for Bond who would have been happy to see him return, whether played by Dalton or not.
So, I know you can't stand Dalton or his two Bond films, but that's no excuse to revise history!
In 1989 no-one was even remotely calling for Dalton to be replaced - he was the Bond of choice, and that was it. No-one was calling for Brosnan to replace him - it was 3 years since he had nearly got the part, and his profile wasn't exactly high. In the UK and Europe he was a virtual unknown until The Lawnmower Man (which was sold on its special effects, not its star).
In the UK, LTK was the seventh most popular film of the year, and the perception at the time was that it had been harmed by its "15" certificate, restricting Bond's traditional family audience from attending. There were grumblings about the direction the films had taken, but there had been those ever since Goldfinger.
What's more, judging by the various rumours and synopses floating around, Dalton's Bond 17 would have been a return to a more fantastical Bond, involving robot assassins and nuclear threats.
The hiatus did enable a clearing of the decks and made people clamour for a new Bond - a bit of "you don't know what you've got till it's gone". By the time GoldenEye arrived, people were again chomping at the bit for the new 007 epic.
@merseytart
so yea....
"Better make that two."
Not to mention that, internationally, LTK was very successful financially.
No Bond film has been a flop but LTK was certainly a financial dissapointment for the series. They'd hoped to build on the audience of TLD and Dalton as Bond.
At 39.1 million worldwide admissions LTK was the lowest attended Bond worldwide as well. It dropped off 25% from TLD which is the third lowest attended Bond in the series. AVTAK is the 2nd lowest attended. It was not a great period for the franchise as regards popularity.
Dalton was brought in to reinvigorate the franchise as AVTAK was Roger's worst worldwide grosser but the modest uptick with TLD (still lower than TMWTGG- Roger's second lowest grosser) was lost with LTK. A 6 year break no doubt helped but I don't think that accounted for why GE had more than twice as many admissions worldwide as LTK and almost 3 times as many in the U.S.
As for the proposed fantastical 1991 film with assassin robots and the rumored Whoopi Goldberg I think it's best that it was never made, for Dalton and the series. It sounds not only awful but a very ill fitting match with Dalton's strengths as Bond. I believe that a TLD style film in the interim or even Dalton in GE after a 6 year gap would have done better financially than LTK though I sincerely doubt it would have approached the level of success GE had with a revamped approach and Brosnan.
MBE
As for LTK, the movie did actually do quite well in countries outside the US (as others have said before) - so before being called a failure people should state that they are only talking about its reception in one country.
And JFF - I knew youd respond with a little pushing.:p
Well, you certainly know how to push my buttons taity.
EON apparently decided that the summer blockn=buster season was not the place for Bond anymore. Attendance to Bond films was slipping. Notice that EON has not dared to venture into the summer cinema season since? Moving the release date to the "Christmas" season is just one of the many ideas that EON implemented which would have benefited a Dalton Bond 17.
Goldeneye was planned for the summer but delays with the script and start of filming pushed it back to Nov. It worked there and it stayed but that wasn't the plan. Regardless, the last 4 Bond films have had far more competition than LTK did. The Nov/Dec season has become as crowded for large films now as the summer. And LTK came in the middle of July, after all the larger blockbusters had already opened. There was nothing in it's path. The films that opened after it in the next month were: Shag: The Movie, Friday the 13th Part VIII, Turner & Hooch, Lock Up, Parenthood and Young Einstein, The Abyss, A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child. Not exactly Lord of The Rings.
In fact the mid of Nov to the end of Dec is often the most packed 6 weeks on the film calendar. When TWINE opened against Sleepy Hollow it was the first time two films had opened over $30m in the same weekend and days later Toy Story II opened. DAD opened the second week of Harry Potter and LOTR was on the way and it competed with them in international markets. But one stat says it all -- TND opened the same day against Titanic, LTK opened against the reissue of Peter Pan. TND wound up with three times the admissions as LTK.
MBE
The things IMO that made GE successful:
- the big gap, like TSWLM
- new bond
- new director
- new crew
- new script idea, i.e. looking at bond itself
- almost everything different lol
Even though i thought that the 2 Dalton Bonds were fantastic, and i really like LTK, it became tired, they needed the 6 year break. Alot changed between 1989 & 1995.
"Better make that two."
Too many variables..."Uncertain, an alternate past is," as Yoda might have said...Surely Eon would have done something more 'status quo' with Dalton for a third turn---perhaps a big soundstage set piece, and a more TSWLM approach, as Hardy indicated, and the ship probably would have righted itself.
A third film, at least, would have been another opportunity to get the balance right with Dalton, which IMRO they never quite managed, despite his acting prowess---LTK, the 'grittiest' Bond movie ever, did feature a wheelie-popping big rig, after all...and Bond defending himself against a mounted swordfish.
I enjoyed Dalton, but (to me) they never figured out how to best utilize what he brought to the table.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Really, I don't see how the styling of the character in GE was very different from that of TLD or LTK. TLD and LTK emphasized a bit more of the darker side of the literary character, but I still found Brosnan's portrayal in GE to be pretty similiar to Dalton's. If you inserted Dalton in GE instead of Brosnan, I think you would have ended up with a very similiar product.
Dalton DID NOT ruin Bond. Nor was he the root of any "weakness" in the franchise at the time, for reasons that posters above have so articulately enumerated. If given a better date with less box office competition and a better marketing campaign (both of which GE was a benefactor in a big way), LTK would have been a much greater success in the US (it was a success internationally, which many seem to conveniently forget), and much of the negative light in which the movie is cast with regards to its impact on the franchise would not exist.
I completely disagree. I really don't think that Brosnan's portrayal in GE was similar to Dalton in the slightest. If anything, Brosnan's portrayal was similar to Connery. The reason why I think Brosann was different to Dalton is that IMO, unlike Dalton, Brosnan was suave, convincingly ruthless, humerous and understood that being Bond also means being a gentleman who smiles from time to time . IMO Brosnan's Bond was more similar to Connery and I believe that if you were to insert Dalton in GE, you would end up with an entirely different product.
It depends in what you define by 'ruin' or 'weakness.' If you mean that LTK's relative lack of success (perhaps only in the US) wasn't due to Dalton, then fine, but if you're talking about quality, then I disagree. In terms of quality, I do believe that Dalton ruined Bond and that he was the root of the weakness in the franchise in the late 80's.
The '80s were not a good decade full stop for Bond. There were obvious problems before Dalton stepped into the breach. I think the Dalton era would have benefited greatly with a different director. John Glen seemed a little too comfortable and stale.
I am surprised that no one, apart from jetset, mentioned the 15 certificate LTK received in the UK.That must have cost a whole demographic and that had to hurt. I am waiting with anticipation to see what CR gets.
As for Bond 17, I think it would have done just fine and Dalton would have been seen in a more favourable light. The producers have a track record for 'fixing' things when they go slightly array and I think it would have been a more generic Bond movie.
TLD always gets favourable reviews , its LTK that the audience seem to have a problem with so the problem wasn't Dalton it was the movies. It is a shame that Tim is only remembered for LTK and the good work of Daylights is largely forgotten.
Still, you are only as good as your last movie.I personally love LTK but it is a shame Tim never got that chance to redress the balance for general audience.
Dalton's edgier performance paved the road ahead for audiences to accept someone other the Moore. If it wasn't for Tim Dalton, Brosnan would've had to change everyone's mind about Roger being Bond single handedly. He never had to worry about that since the Welshman took all the heat. In terms of "Quality" Dalton was an excellent, dapper gentleman with a dangerous flair and maturity which rivalled only Connery.
Read a novel, please.
There is only one definition for "ruined and "weakness" so I've no idea what you're getting at.
1)He may very be an "excellent, dapper gentleman with a dangerous flair and maturity" in real life but on screen he came across to me as anything but that. The description which you used would IMO be best used to describe Moore and Brosnan, not Dalton. I know that will offend some Dalton fans but that's my view.
2)I don't really know what reading a novel has to do with this as I'm basing my views on his performance.
3)When I use the words "ruined" and "weakened" I mean precisely that IMO Dalton's portrayal weakend TLD and ruined LTK, which I believe could have been a great film.
As has been trotted out by the very knowledgable posters above, who were all around to witness it, none of that had to do with Timothy Dalton. Particularly the hiatus, which was caused by a lengthy legal battle that engulfed EON and nothing to do with any film - fact.
So though you may think Dalton's weakened the Bond franchise in the late 80s, that's your view, it is most certainly not fact.
I have never stated that it wasn't fact. I even noted that it was my view in my most recent post.
MR 5, I am perfectly happy to be reprimanded if I did something wrong, but in this case I think there has a big misunderstanding because I never did any of the things that you believe I did.
(Also it seems to me that LR got my meaning exactly.