All this doesn't change the fact, Bond made less and less an impact in cinema from 1981 on.
Imho, no actor could have stopped that.
The 6 year gap was paramount in the renewal of interest in Bond. Brosnan in 1987 wouldn't have worked much better.
1987 saw films like Lethal Weapon, 1988 films like Die Hard. LTK was a try to jump on that genre but the remaining Bond fans didn't buy it back then, it was too much of a change too fast.
GoldenEye was the perfect film in 1995. Getting Brosnan for it was one of the best decisions ever.
All this doesn't change the fact, Bond made less and less an impact in cinema from 1981 on.
Imho, no actor could have stopped that.
The 6 year gap was paramount in the renewal of interest in Bond. Brosnan in 1987 wouldn't have worked much better.
1987 saw films like Lethal Weapon, 1988 films like Die Hard. LTK was a try to jump on that genre but the remaining Bond fans didn't buy it back then, it was too much of a change too fast.
GoldenEye was the perfect film in 1995. Getting Brosnan for it was one of the best decisions ever.
I sometimes wish that the Timboys would be only 10% as forgiving with Sir Roger as Bond than they are with Dalton.
The excuses for Dalton we have heard them all - seems that they come from Trump's "Alternative Facts" factory )
Brosnan was highly popular in 1987 - everybody was expecting him to become Bond.
He's had the starpower to keep the franchise well afloat!
I doubt strongly almost everything what you've said above - all wishful thinking and distracting from the fact that audiences did not accept Dalton.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dirty Harry
Deathwish
Magnum Force
Deliverance
The Getaway
The Enforcer
Thanks!!!
Imo that only strengthens my point. The mentioned movies were much earlier (early - mid 1970) then First Blood and imo only ranked high because of the old well-known battleships (Eastwood, Reynolds etc) pulled those movies up.
Imagine their success without a male lead.
First Blood was something completely new and a gamechanger in action movies in the cinema though Stallone was also well known from Rocky I admit.
Apocalypse now? Ranked #8 in UK and # 14 war movie of all time, released 1979
I find myself with a foot in both camps. I love Dalton as Bond
And wish he'd got to do more, but I do accept that for
Whatever reason, the movie audiences didn't warm to him.
I think Roger was simply too established in the role for many.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Whatever reason, the movie audiences didn't warm to him.
You should have stopped there
I think, that it's wide consensus, that after AVTAK Moore was too old and everybody wanted a younger Bond.
I give you that many people were comparing Dalton with Moore and that Dalton could not win this battle, but large parts were tired of an old Bond like Moore was.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
There are no arguments that will convince the anti thesis to a Daltonite.
Just when I told you not pulling the trigger too early...
The argument was, that back in 1987 - the cinema audiences were not ready for a more serious Bond *
I keep on saying that before 1982 (First Blood) action movies had to be witty in parts and have some spectacular and humorous ingredients to be successful. And that's why the Moore Bonds are like they are and they've been very successful!
That all changed with FIRST BLOOD in 1982.
So, evidently cinema audiences where ready for action movies with a more realistic and serious approach!
In 1987!
Now I was asking for action movies with a serious approach before 1982 and some came up with early 70s movies with old farts like Reynolds and Eastwood who could have played anything to pull audiences and a war movie.
But even if my thesis is proven to be wrong, it weakens the point that the movie audiences where not ready for a more serios action movie (such as a more serious Bond-movie) in 1987 even more! Because they where ready! And much eariler!
See what happens? Just because some not really convincing attempts to counter my thesis are here, you are starting to defend Dalton because you see an anti thesis for Dalton behind any random bush?
*however I will never understand how a misty-eyed Bond would have a more serious approach
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But still well-proven action stars who were not in their 30s anymore
And they were able to pull people in the cinemas no matter what they've played back then. Their name on the poster was enough.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
still the mentioned movies would have not been successful with non-known main actors?
So it's not the realistic approach that made them successful, it was starpower! :v
Hell, now I am sounding like a Timboy refusing to accept that there were serious action movies before First Blood and that audiences were not ready for it.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
All this doesn't change the fact, Bond made less and less an impact in cinema from 1981 on.
Imho, no actor could have stopped that.
The 6 year gap was paramount in the renewal of interest in Bond. Brosnan in 1987 wouldn't have worked much better.
1987 saw films like Lethal Weapon, 1988 films like Die Hard. LTK was a try to jump on that genre but the remaining Bond fans didn't buy it back then, it was too much of a change too fast.
GoldenEye was the perfect film in 1995. Getting Brosnan for it was one of the best decisions ever.
I think that it went deeper than that. Maybe going as far back to The Man With The Golden Gun, even if I love the film.
Moonraker tried to catch the Star Wars hype but IMHO it was better, it was different for the Bond films but I don't think it made much of an impact to movies as much as Spy did.
As for movies before First Blood, my vote also goes to Dirty Harry and Magnum Force. It wasn't soft violence but it was still brutal.
The pimp assassination in Magnum Force comes to mind. Higgins, I'm sure the old fart could bust a cap in your green trainers .
Dalton should've been rookie Bond. That's the only way people wouldn't make comparisons to Moore and Connery and I don't think he would've flopped, box office wise. Now that we have that out of the way, Dalton is the definitive Bond. Nobody can come close. Craig, albeit good, isn't as good. Side note, I could never make a ranking because I like all of the Bonds so much.
Brosnan was suave but he had a different kind of suave than Moore. Connery and Dalton had the best balance between fun and death but they were very different interpretations of Bond. Dalton was an killer who hated his job but he continued to do it for Queen and Country, while Connery was someone who wanted to be rid of the bad guys. Dalton was as bad as the bad guys but he happened to work for the good side. Connery was a good guy. Not talking about Lazenby.
In '87 TLD was like watching FRWL (a movie I really wasn't all that fond of back then) - where were the giant overt-the-top action pieces? I wanted Brosnan & they give me THIS guy? I saw TLD & LTK one time only each. When GE came out I think I saw it 3 times in the movies.
Now of course, having read the books, I'm a Timboy.
Watched a bit of LTK a few days ago. I was struck how handsome Timothy Dalton looked as James Bond. Some of the scenes in the casino, planting the explosive, setting up the gun - really striking looking in a Bond kind of way. I think Dalton looked the closest to how I imagine Bond's appearance. There is one shot where Dalton leaves the lift, looks to the left and then walks to the right "stay here" he says - it's like Fleming's Bond coming to life on screen.
I can't think of any modern actor, potential Bond actor, that has such a striking Bond type look.
Comments
Imho, no actor could have stopped that.
The 6 year gap was paramount in the renewal of interest in Bond. Brosnan in 1987 wouldn't have worked much better.
1987 saw films like Lethal Weapon, 1988 films like Die Hard. LTK was a try to jump on that genre but the remaining Bond fans didn't buy it back then, it was too much of a change too fast.
GoldenEye was the perfect film in 1995. Getting Brosnan for it was one of the best decisions ever.
I sometimes wish that the Timboys would be only 10% as forgiving with Sir Roger as Bond than they are with Dalton.
The excuses for Dalton we have heard them all - seems that they come from Trump's "Alternative Facts" factory
Brosnan was highly popular in 1987 - everybody was expecting him to become Bond.
He's had the starpower to keep the franchise well afloat!
I doubt strongly almost everything what you've said above - all wishful thinking and distracting from the fact that audiences did not accept Dalton.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton fanboy I take as a compliment.
And OHMSS is the best film in the series even if it wasn't accepted back then.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The "Timboy" bit: https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/31194/the-ajb-glossary-so-far/page/6/
I'm not any worse than the Craigites.
Apocalypse now? Ranked #8 in UK and # 14 war movie of all time, released 1979
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
And wish he'd got to do more, but I do accept that for
Whatever reason, the movie audiences didn't warm to him.
I think Roger was simply too established in the role for many.
You should have stopped there
I think, that it's wide consensus, that after AVTAK Moore was too old and everybody wanted a younger Bond.
I give you that many people were comparing Dalton with Moore and that Dalton could not win this battle, but large parts were tired of an old Bond like Moore was.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Just when I told you not pulling the trigger too early...
The argument was, that back in 1987 - the cinema audiences were not ready for a more serious Bond *
I keep on saying that before 1982 (First Blood) action movies had to be witty in parts and have some spectacular and humorous ingredients to be successful. And that's why the Moore Bonds are like they are and they've been very successful!
That all changed with FIRST BLOOD in 1982.
So, evidently cinema audiences where ready for action movies with a more realistic and serious approach!
In 1987!
Now I was asking for action movies with a serious approach before 1982 and some came up with early 70s movies with old farts like Reynolds and Eastwood who could have played anything to pull audiences and a war movie.
But even if my thesis is proven to be wrong, it weakens the point that the movie audiences where not ready for a more serios action movie (such as a more serious Bond-movie) in 1987 even more! Because they where ready! And much eariler!
See what happens? Just because some not really convincing attempts to counter my thesis are here, you are starting to defend Dalton because you see an anti thesis for Dalton behind any random bush?
*however I will never understand how a misty-eyed Bond would have a more serious approach
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
And they were able to pull people in the cinemas no matter what they've played back then. Their name on the poster was enough.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Eastwood- born 1930, so early 40s in the early 1970s
Reynolds- born 1936, so in his 30s in the early 1970s
So it's not the realistic approach that made them successful, it was starpower! :v
Hell, now I am sounding like a Timboy refusing to accept that there were serious action movies before First Blood and that audiences were not ready for it.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
/Action
Moonraker tried to catch the Star Wars hype but IMHO it was better, it was different for the Bond films but I don't think it made much of an impact to movies as much as Spy did.
As for movies before First Blood, my vote also goes to Dirty Harry and Magnum Force. It wasn't soft violence but it was still brutal.
The pimp assassination in Magnum Force comes to mind. Higgins, I'm sure the old fart could bust a cap in your green trainers
Dalton should've been rookie Bond. That's the only way people wouldn't make comparisons to Moore and Connery and I don't think he would've flopped, box office wise. Now that we have that out of the way, Dalton is the definitive Bond. Nobody can come close. Craig, albeit good, isn't as good. Side note, I could never make a ranking because I like all of the Bonds so much.
Brosnan was suave but he had a different kind of suave than Moore. Connery and Dalton had the best balance between fun and death but they were very different interpretations of Bond. Dalton was an killer who hated his job but he continued to do it for Queen and Country, while Connery was someone who wanted to be rid of the bad guys. Dalton was as bad as the bad guys but he happened to work for the good side. Connery was a good guy. Not talking about Lazenby.
Are you married? If not will you marry me? I admit I am a man, but I am good-looking
You called it "war movie" yourself
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well...not now, at least.
Now of course, having read the books, I'm a Timboy.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I can't think of any modern actor, potential Bond actor, that has such a striking Bond type look.