What substancial can I give to a "Point" where it comes down to something that you or I believe?
I am sure that the producers want Bond 24 to outperform Skyfall and are doing everything necessary to get this done.
They certainly would not want to get back to the BO numbers from LTK or TLD - no matter of the cost/gross ratio.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
As such, the argument is that - however much money was taken - fewer people were watching Dalton than were watching Moore.
That much is certain.
But it's still a stretch to say that fewer people watched The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill was because of Dalton. That is an assertion which is as yet unsupported by evidence.
It has been reported Dalton was approached for the role of James Bond twice - once to play Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and second, in For Your Eyes Only. He refused the first time because he was too young, and didn't want to be that guy who took over from Connery; and the second time because he didn't like the direction that the producers have taken Bond, and didn't believe they were serious in looking for a replacement for Moore.
Dalton was immensely sought after by the producers. If it wasn't for the six year hiatus during which the bitter dispute between EON and McClory were being played out in court, there would have been a Bond film in the early 1990s and Dalton would have played the role as he was contracted to do.
As far as I'm concerned, box office figures don't carry a lot of weight, given that a lot of people that watch Bond films probably don't even know who Ian Fleming is, let alone read his books.
2. Myth 1: "Daltons movies where so successfully because their cost/BO ratio was so great":
Well, let's take Broccoli's chair for a moment You have one movie giving you a profit (after all cost) of 116 million (LTK) and another one that gives you 296 million (GE). Which one do you like more?
Or let's take TND which only returned it's cost "only" by the factor of 3:
It gave a profit of 229 million and people try to tell me that the producers prefer LTK because of the better ratio??
Here's another myth: producers only care about money.
3. Growth: Franchises like all companies have to grow! Otherwise taxes will eat them up.
So producers had to stop the decreasing box office numbers due to Dalton's unpolularity. Everything else is sandbox-economy!
Myth 2: the producers didn't want Dalton to play Bond for a third time.
3. Myth 2: "LTK grossed so badly because the competition was so strong":
Yes, the competition was strong. But the Batman people never complained about the strong competition that season. Batman grossed 411 million! Same with Indiana Jones (474 million) , Lethal weapon 2( 277 million).
So it seems that LTK was the most unpopular choice for moviegoers when they had it!
Myth 3: believing that James Bond is anywhere near as popular worldwide as Batman, or Indiana Jones.
And please don't start by comparing "casual audiences" with "serious Bond fans" - we had that already 8-)
Casual audiences don't care about a film's fidelity to Fleming's work, which is, or at the very least, should be, the primary aim of any film that purports to be a Bond film. They don't "get" the Bond character as he is written by Fleming, because they've never read the books. That's why Dalton has been so misunderstood by many.
Casual audiences don't care about a film's fidelity to Fleming's work, which is, or at the very least, should be, the primary aim of any film that purports to be a Bond film. They don't "get" the Bond character as he is written by Fleming, because they've never read the books. That's why Dalton has been so misunderstood by many.
So the same "casual audiences" that liked Craig's performance so much and honored it on the BO did not understand Dalton's case? And it has nothing to do with the main actor?
They don't "get" the Bond character as he is written by Fleming, because they've never read the books. That's why Dalton has been so misunderstood by many.
Yes and these "many" so much better understand Craig's (similar to same) approach?
I say that Craig convinces much more with the same approach ---> success in BO numbers
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
What substancial can I give to a "Point" where it comes down to something that you or I believe?
So, is your knowledge of real world economics is less actual knowledge based on empirical evidence or first-hand experience but rather an unexplainable set of beliefs??
How about this:
Dalton's movies made less money than most; growth is desirable.
So, is your knowledge of real world economics is less actual knowledge based on empirical evidence or first-hand experience but rather an unexplainable set of beliefs??
Well, it's you who denies simple rules and goals of economy - just because you don't believe in them
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well, it's you who denies simple rules and goals of economy - just because you don't believe in them
Do you see my avatar?
Yeah, tell me about "rules". )
I deal in what WORKS, not what experts TELL us to believe.
And goals aren't definable in an overall way.
Making money is the best way to make money. Making more money is the best way to make more money. It's really not very complicated, but they have to have a bunch of stuff to talk about in college, right? Theories and such.
How about this, since you believe franchises need to grow to survive, then the Bond franchise must be dead right now, correct? I mean there have already been many instances of non-growth and decline... is the Bond franchise a zombie franchise, dead but still walking? Do they purchase brains with the profits ? ?:)
Personally, I think FYEO needed to be Moore's. It's more serious take would have served as both letting him go out on a high note, and setting the stage for Dalton taking over in Octopussy. Then, OP would have been a bit more serious, and AVTAK would have rocked. He would have had a good run of four, instead of two. The legal stuff still would have happened & caused the inevitable delay, and Brosnan would still have picked up where he did.
Your last point may be one factor but from what I have discussed with all kind of people back then - Dalton simply did not look the role.
He did not convince with his looks, with his approach and with his performance.
He's just the guy that says that he's cool but he's not.
You know my feelings about Dalton and there's no need for me to join the fray. However, I am curious about your thoughts on why EON was planning a third Bond filming starring Dalton if they thought he was such a bust?
why EON was planning a third Bond filming starring Dalton if they thought he was such a bust?
Well, I think EON liked him as Bond, and were prepared for a warm-up period with the public. I think they genuinely LIKE making Bond movies, it's not purely business to them, if it WAS we'd be getting a string of mindless commercial crap, like MR & DAD over & over again.
Hello M'nM--Thanks for the civilized reply. Trouble with old and new movie grosses is that you are comparing totally different eras of how movies are shown and distributed, the number of screens, the mall chain theater approach besides the task of accounting for inflation and the new system of "worldwide distribution patterns" pioneered by Lord of the Rings and those who followed. Hope you'll tolerate some movie biz econ analysis.
Bond in 1960s even into the 90s played largely in single screen theaters all over the world for ticket prices ranging from a dollar to five or less. Mall theaters were in their infancy with 2 or 4 screens which were often lousy and small. So there 3 or 4 screenings a night and matinees on weekends, maybe during week on limited basis. In 90s it all started to pivot when Cinemark and others sought to deep six the local one screen "movie house" by opening an 8 or 12 plex that would pulverize the one screen and even the old 2 and 4 plexes with more offerings, screenings, key mall locations for constant traffic. United Artists especially was preyed upon by Cinemark. Now even small rural areas with a few movies houses or maybe just one in yesteryear have a cineplex near them.
Now do today's math. Iron Man plays in 5 theaters at a 16 plex on the hour at 11-12 bucks a pop--on up to 4000 screens in the usa alone. Don't forget Russia, China, India were not the movie buying behemoths they are now. They eat up big budget Iron Man, Thor in 3d etc. That's a buying power that did not exist in previous eras--so that's why today's grosses are so astronomical. It is no big deal to gross 100 mil or more because of these super inflationary and worldwide patterns. That's why Craig's figures may one day be dwarfed by his successor as this pattern shows no signs of letting up.
I've read surveys that say Gone with the Wind is still #1 after they filter its numbers. GWTW and others like it made money on re-releases before home video market existed, but nothing compared to the mega cash machines of today's theater system. Dalton's Living Daylights beat Moore head to head in the economics of that time period too, since LD grossed more than View and you can make that simple comparison since Daylights came out just 2 years after View.
Despite all this, there will always be people who do not like Tim Dalton--task him on style points if you don't like what he did in the role. But to say he nearly doomed the franchise just does not seem accurate given the econ evidence.
You know my feelings about Dalton and there's no need for me to join the fray. However, I am curious about your thoughts on why EON was planning a third Bond filming starring Dalton if they thought he was such a bust?
Hey, old pal!
Frankly, I can't give you a proper reply on it.
My interest for Bond at that time was cooled down and the press here sticked on speculations and announcemwnts which never became reality.
I am not sure if they really wanted him for another one or - if they'd just tried to fulfil the contract on their end.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You raise up some good points but let's not forget that there have been 14 Bonds prior to TLD and with the exception of AVTAK they did much better than the 2 movies that followed.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
You know my feelings about Dalton and there's no need for me to join the fray. However, I am curious about your thoughts on why EON was planning a third Bond filming starring Dalton if they thought he was such a bust?
Hey, old pal!
Frankly, I can't give you a proper reply on it.
My interest for Bond at that time was cooled down and the press here sticked on speculations and announcemwnts which never became reality.
I am not sure if they really wanted him for another one or - if they'd just tried to fulfil the contract on their end.
Hahahaha....you confused Bondtots with LOGIC - how dastardly of you )
From what I can gather, Dalton was on a standard contract 3 picture deal with an optional 4th, there was a treatment in the works for Daltons 4th, basically he wanted to step down from the contract, not sure if it was a mutual agreement as he had had enough of Bond and EON wanted to re boot with GE and Brosnan, but definitely a script treatment was down in black and white for Dalton.
All i can say is that Dalton is still good friends with the producers and use to turn up to EON to visit, can't say that about any of the other Bonds though they visit the building when under contract.
the thing that killed it for Dalton was the legal thing that was going on at the time between EON and MGM if I remember rightly ?
the thing that killed it for Dalton was the legal thing that was going on at the time between EON and MGM if I remember rightly ?
And I think you do
He said that he had had his time as Bond, that the six year gap was too long for him to come back and do another film for him to, possibly, then leave and for Eon to have to search for another Bond...he said he thought it better for them to start afresh...
You know my feelings about Dalton and there's no need for me to join the fray. However, I am curious about your thoughts on why EON was planning a third Bond filming starring Dalton if they thought he was such a bust?
Hey, old pal!
Frankly, I can't give you a proper reply on it.
My interest for Bond at that time was cooled down and the press here sticked on speculations and announcemwnts which never became reality.
I am not sure if they really wanted him for another one or - if they'd just tried to fulfil the contract on their end.
I'll give you this, my friend - you are a man of conviction and you don't let go! I may disagree with you, but I certainly admire your gumption! -{
You raise up some good points but let's not forget that there have been 14 Bonds prior to TLD and with the exception of AVTAK they did much better than the 2 movies that followed.
Hello Bondtoys, well ok, that was one of the more pleasant posts you have made all day. i will say discretion is the better part of valor and shall sheathe my blade in its scabbard. This is one of those bizarre arguments that reminds me of sports bar brawls over the matter of whether Babe Ruth was better than Alex Rodriguez, could Joe Louis beat Muhummad Ali, or for you UK folks on this Brit-dominated board, is some current cricket or rugby star so great now that everyone who played decades ago under different rules and conditions, challenges is inferior and not fit to be his towel and water boy. Sort of fun in a strange way.
If you want one more perspective on movie economics, one of the smartest genius SOB's is Eli Roth creator of the Hostel slasher flicks and others. He makes it for under 5 million paying a pittance to desperate young actors who need a break and will work for cheap and it grosses 80 million--he doesn't watch 100s of millions sucked off by AMC, Regal, Mann, Cinemark, Pacific-Arclight megal mall distributors who have such power in this equation it's not funny. He retains a ton of creative, production and econ control and walks off to the bank a happy man. 80 million against 5 million--now that's a ratio!!!!
Enough of this rot as UK folks would say. We will argue about Dalton til the proverbial cows come home. One thing is certain: You dislike Tim Dalton and will not send him a Xmas card this year or any other, and I am sure he feels his life will go on in bitterness and ashes because of these slights.
On that sarcastic note, meant with the best good spirits possible, thanks regards,
Felix the Leiter Cat X-(
Licence to Kill wasn't supposed to be his final James Bond movie; a third 007 movie, which would have starred Dalton, entered preproduction in 1990. "We had the script. They were interviewing directors. We were really rolling forward, ready to start. It was actually quite a good story, I thought," says Dalton. But a lengthy legal dispute between Eon Productions and MGM delayed the film indefinitely — and gave Dalton an out. "Because of the lawsuit, I was free of the contract," Dalton explains. "And [producer] Mr. Broccoli, who I really respected as a producer and as a friend, asked me what I was going to do when it was resolved. I said, 'Look, in all honesty, I don't think that I will continue.' He asked me for my support during that time, which of course, I gave him."
But when the lawsuit was resolved several years later, Dalton had a change of heart. "When [the next movie] did come about, it was probably four or five years later," he explains. "[Broccoli] asked if I would come back, and I said, 'Well, I've actually changed my mind a little bit. I think that I'd love to do one. Try and take the best of the two that I have done, and consolidate them into a third.' And he said, quite rightly, 'Look, Tim. You can't do one. There's no way, after a five-year gap between movies that you can come back and just do one. You'd have to plan on four or five.' And I thought, oh, no, that would be the rest of my life. Too much. Too long. So I respectfully declined."
You raise up some good points but let's not forget that there have been 14 Bonds prior to TLD and with the exception of AVTAK they did much better than the 2 movies that followed.
Hello Bondtoys, well ok, that was one of the more pleasant posts you have made all day. i will say discretion is the better part of valor and shall sheathe my blade in its scabbard. This is one of those bizarre arguments that reminds me of sports bar brawls over the matter of whether Babe Ruth was better than Alex Rodriguez, could Joe Louis beat Muhummad Ali, or for you UK folks on this Brit-dominated board, is some current cricket or rugby star so great now that everyone who played decades ago under different rules and conditions, challenges is inferior and not fit to be his towel and water boy. Sort of fun in a strange way.
If you want one more perspective on movie economics, one of the smartest genius SOB's is Eli Roth creator of the Hostel slasher flicks and others. He makes it for under 5 million paying a pittance to desperate young actors who need a break and will work for cheap and it grosses 80 million--he doesn't watch 100s of millions sucked off by AMC, Regal, Mann, Cinemark, Pacific-Arclight megal mall distributors who have such power in this equation it's not funny. He retains a ton of creative, production and econ control and walks off to the bank a happy man. 80 million against 5 million--now that's a ratio!!!!
Enough of this rot as UK folks would say. We will argue about Dalton til the proverbial cows come home. One thing is certain: You dislike Tim Dalton and will not send him a Xmas card this year or any other, and I am sure he feels his life will go on in bitterness and ashes because of these slights.
On that sarcastic note, meant with the best good spirits possible, thanks regards,
Felix the Leiter Cat X-(
Ya know FTLC, I may come across unpleasant sometimes but when it comes to Dalton, the fanboys hijack everything and are jumping on everyone who disagrees - often with a lot of made-up stuff (casual audiences anyone?)
I seem to be the only one to widthstand the storm and be the voice of the silent majority and reason may I add
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Ahem, just to wade in and offer my tuppence-worth (another uniquely Brit phrase, apologies).
I can't speak as an economic expert on movies nor on BO grosses so I hope you will forgive me. But I can recall that Roger Moore was incredibly popular as Bond although at the time, both the press and public were saying - pretty much from FYEO onwards - that he was too old for the role. Clearly RM agreed by the time AVTAK came round and departed.
The casting of Dalton was viewed as a breath of fresh air and he was well-enough received, but his style of playing Bond was slightly at odds with the direction films were taking in the late 80s. Ironically his portrayal would have been more resonant in the 60s or nowadays, but in the flamboyant and hedonistic 80s audiences didn't quite get it, and he just appeared to be taking it all a bit too seriously. Conversely, I can clearly remember the premiere of Goldeneye, when audiences cheered Brosnan in a way they hadn't cheered Dalton. Brosnan just appeared to be having fun in the role - a criticism levelled by many against DC now. However the economics of the past few years have done DC a favour - big colourful Bond romps would seem a bit anachronistic now.
Just my opinion but I don't think Bondtoys is being arrogant, although personally I think it's more the producers' fault that Dalton's (apart from the Draco-fro Which Dalton sports in the LTK casino) )
Comments
I am sure that the producers want Bond 24 to outperform Skyfall and are doing everything necessary to get this done.
They certainly would not want to get back to the BO numbers from LTK or TLD - no matter of the cost/gross ratio.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That much is certain.
But it's still a stretch to say that fewer people watched The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill was because of Dalton. That is an assertion which is as yet unsupported by evidence.
It has been reported Dalton was approached for the role of James Bond twice - once to play Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and second, in For Your Eyes Only. He refused the first time because he was too young, and didn't want to be that guy who took over from Connery; and the second time because he didn't like the direction that the producers have taken Bond, and didn't believe they were serious in looking for a replacement for Moore.
Dalton was immensely sought after by the producers. If it wasn't for the six year hiatus during which the bitter dispute between EON and McClory were being played out in court, there would have been a Bond film in the early 1990s and Dalton would have played the role as he was contracted to do.
As far as I'm concerned, box office figures don't carry a lot of weight, given that a lot of people that watch Bond films probably don't even know who Ian Fleming is, let alone read his books.
Here's another myth: producers only care about money.
Myth 2: the producers didn't want Dalton to play Bond for a third time.
Myth 3: believing that James Bond is anywhere near as popular worldwide as Batman, or Indiana Jones.
Casual audiences don't care about a film's fidelity to Fleming's work, which is, or at the very least, should be, the primary aim of any film that purports to be a Bond film. They don't "get" the Bond character as he is written by Fleming, because they've never read the books. That's why Dalton has been so misunderstood by many.
He looks more like Bond than Daniel Craig or Roger Moore, and he's far more convincing than both of them.
Myth??
Last Indie Movie: WW gross = $ 786 million
Last Batman Movie: WW gross = $ 1040 Million
Last Bond movie: WW gross = $ 1108 Million!
So the same "casual audiences" that liked Craig's performance so much and honored it on the BO did not understand Dalton's case? And it has nothing to do with the main actor?
Yes and these "many" so much better understand Craig's (similar to same) approach?
I say that Craig convinces much more with the same approach ---> success in BO numbers
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
How about this:
Dalton's movies made less money than most; growth is desirable.
I am content to leave it at this. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Well, it's you who denies simple rules and goals of economy - just because you don't believe in them
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yeah, tell me about "rules".
I deal in what WORKS, not what experts TELL us to believe.
And goals aren't definable in an overall way.
Making money is the best way to make money. Making more money is the best way to make more money. It's really not very complicated, but they have to have a bunch of stuff to talk about in college, right? Theories and such.
How about this, since you believe franchises need to grow to survive, then the Bond franchise must be dead right now, correct? I mean there have already been many instances of non-growth and decline... is the Bond franchise a zombie franchise, dead but still walking? Do they purchase brains with the profits ? ?:)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
You know my feelings about Dalton and there's no need for me to join the fray. However, I am curious about your thoughts on why EON was planning a third Bond filming starring Dalton if they thought he was such a bust?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Bond in 1960s even into the 90s played largely in single screen theaters all over the world for ticket prices ranging from a dollar to five or less. Mall theaters were in their infancy with 2 or 4 screens which were often lousy and small. So there 3 or 4 screenings a night and matinees on weekends, maybe during week on limited basis. In 90s it all started to pivot when Cinemark and others sought to deep six the local one screen "movie house" by opening an 8 or 12 plex that would pulverize the one screen and even the old 2 and 4 plexes with more offerings, screenings, key mall locations for constant traffic. United Artists especially was preyed upon by Cinemark. Now even small rural areas with a few movies houses or maybe just one in yesteryear have a cineplex near them.
Now do today's math. Iron Man plays in 5 theaters at a 16 plex on the hour at 11-12 bucks a pop--on up to 4000 screens in the usa alone. Don't forget Russia, China, India were not the movie buying behemoths they are now. They eat up big budget Iron Man, Thor in 3d etc. That's a buying power that did not exist in previous eras--so that's why today's grosses are so astronomical. It is no big deal to gross 100 mil or more because of these super inflationary and worldwide patterns. That's why Craig's figures may one day be dwarfed by his successor as this pattern shows no signs of letting up.
I've read surveys that say Gone with the Wind is still #1 after they filter its numbers. GWTW and others like it made money on re-releases before home video market existed, but nothing compared to the mega cash machines of today's theater system. Dalton's Living Daylights beat Moore head to head in the economics of that time period too, since LD grossed more than View and you can make that simple comparison since Daylights came out just 2 years after View.
Despite all this, there will always be people who do not like Tim Dalton--task him on style points if you don't like what he did in the role. But to say he nearly doomed the franchise just does not seem accurate given the econ evidence.
Felix the Leiter Cat, regards -{
Hey, old pal!
Frankly, I can't give you a proper reply on it.
My interest for Bond at that time was cooled down and the press here sticked on speculations and announcemwnts which never became reality.
I am not sure if they really wanted him for another one or - if they'd just tried to fulfil the contract on their end.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You raise up some good points but let's not forget that there have been 14 Bonds prior to TLD and with the exception of AVTAK they did much better than the 2 movies that followed.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Hahahaha....you confused Bondtots with LOGIC - how dastardly of you
All i can say is that Dalton is still good friends with the producers and use to turn up to EON to visit, can't say that about any of the other Bonds
the thing that killed it for Dalton was the legal thing that was going on at the time between EON and MGM if I remember rightly ?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
And I think you do
He said that he had had his time as Bond, that the six year gap was too long for him to come back and do another film for him to, possibly, then leave and for Eon to have to search for another Bond...he said he thought it better for them to start afresh...
I'll give you this, my friend - you are a man of conviction and you don't let go! I may disagree with you, but I certainly admire your gumption! -{
Hello Bondtoys, well ok, that was one of the more pleasant posts you have made all day. i will say discretion is the better part of valor and shall sheathe my blade in its scabbard. This is one of those bizarre arguments that reminds me of sports bar brawls over the matter of whether Babe Ruth was better than Alex Rodriguez, could Joe Louis beat Muhummad Ali, or for you UK folks on this Brit-dominated board, is some current cricket or rugby star so great now that everyone who played decades ago under different rules and conditions, challenges is inferior and not fit to be his towel and water boy. Sort of fun in a strange way.
If you want one more perspective on movie economics, one of the smartest genius SOB's is Eli Roth creator of the Hostel slasher flicks and others. He makes it for under 5 million paying a pittance to desperate young actors who need a break and will work for cheap and it grosses 80 million--he doesn't watch 100s of millions sucked off by AMC, Regal, Mann, Cinemark, Pacific-Arclight megal mall distributors who have such power in this equation it's not funny. He retains a ton of creative, production and econ control and walks off to the bank a happy man. 80 million against 5 million--now that's a ratio!!!!
Enough of this rot as UK folks would say. We will argue about Dalton til the proverbial cows come home. One thing is certain: You dislike Tim Dalton and will not send him a Xmas card this year or any other, and I am sure he feels his life will go on in bitterness and ashes because of these slights.
On that sarcastic note, meant with the best good spirits possible, thanks regards,
Felix the Leiter Cat X-(
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
http://theweek.com/article/index/261349/timothy-dalton-opens-up-about-penny-dreadful-leaving-james-bond-and-the-demon-in-all-of-us
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
A real Gentleman. {[]
Ya know FTLC, I may come across unpleasant sometimes but when it comes to Dalton, the fanboys hijack everything and are jumping on everyone who disagrees - often with a lot of made-up stuff (casual audiences anyone?)
I seem to be the only one to widthstand the storm and be the voice of the silent majority and reason may I add
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Magoinfan yourself
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Can anyone Scream Arrogance?
I can't speak as an economic expert on movies nor on BO grosses so I hope you will forgive me. But I can recall that Roger Moore was incredibly popular as Bond although at the time, both the press and public were saying - pretty much from FYEO onwards - that he was too old for the role. Clearly RM agreed by the time AVTAK came round and departed.
The casting of Dalton was viewed as a breath of fresh air and he was well-enough received, but his style of playing Bond was slightly at odds with the direction films were taking in the late 80s. Ironically his portrayal would have been more resonant in the 60s or nowadays, but in the flamboyant and hedonistic 80s audiences didn't quite get it, and he just appeared to be taking it all a bit too seriously. Conversely, I can clearly remember the premiere of Goldeneye, when audiences cheered Brosnan in a way they hadn't cheered Dalton. Brosnan just appeared to be having fun in the role - a criticism levelled by many against DC now. However the economics of the past few years have done DC a favour - big colourful Bond romps would seem a bit anachronistic now.
Just my opinion but I don't think Bondtoys is being arrogant, although personally I think it's more the producers' fault that Dalton's (apart from the Draco-fro Which Dalton sports in the LTK casino)