73 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Thought I'd ask a few questions of CBners old enough to remember the 1989-1995 interregnum:

- At what point did you realise that the Bond franchise was in serious jeopardy/that Dalton was not going to return?

- Did you ever feel that there would never be another Bond film? If so, how did you feel about that? (Which sounds a silly question since this is a forum full of hardcore Bond geeks, but it would have all hinged on your level of addic----, sorry, fandom at the time.)

- Did you switch your allegiance to another series of films, such as the DIE HARDs, the Jack Ryans....?

- Did you have strong views on who ought to replace Dalton?

- How did you feel when you learned that Brosnan had been cast?

May think of other questions later, but hopefully the above will suffice to get a discussion going.

[ChandlerBing]

First off, Loomis, I don't know if I am an old-timer or not ( I am 27 now) but I do remember those days very well. I knew Bond was in trouble when LTK did not do well in America. The media really played up that Bond had just gotten a fork stuck in him, and was done. I had no idea who would replace Dalton. Hell, I had no idea if there would even be another Bond. 1991 came and went without another Bond, as did 1993. I went with Die Hard and Jack Ryan. I am a huge Harrison Ford fan, and hope he can make a comeback.

[Loomis]

I went with Die Hard and Jack Ryan.

Same here. I loved the DIE HARDs and had high hopes for the Ryan franchise, which in retrospect seems to have been every bit as troubled as Bond was - two terrific films (THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER and CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, IMO) and two so-so ones, and now it seems in limbo again. Somehow Ryan never really took off.

Anyway, to answer my own questions:

- At what point did you realise that the Bond franchise was in serious jeopardy/that Dalton was not going to return?

Probably 1992/93. But I guess I knew that something was up as early as 1990, when I read reports that John Glen would not be asked back for the followup to LTK.

Did you ever feel that there would never be another Bond film?

Yes. I vividly remember reading articles claiming that Jack Ryan would be "the James Bond of the 90s". I was surprised when I learned in 1994 that a new Bond flick was going into production.

If so, how did you feel about that?

Didn't care. I thought Bond had had his day. I felt that the LETHAL WEAPONs, DIE HARDs, T2, TRUE LIES, etc., with their colossal budgets, incredible action scenes and stunning special effects, had rendered 007 totally dated and irrelevant. They made the Dalton-era Bond flicks look incredibly cheap and old-fashioned.

With hindsight, it's obvious that MGM/Eon really took notice of how high the bar had been set by those other franchises, and rose to the challenge splendidly with GOLDENEYE, with its impressive production values and excellent stunts.

Did you switch your allegiance to another series of films, such as the DIE HARDs, the Jack Ryans....?

Yep.

Did you have strong views on who ought to replace Dalton?

No, although I remember a number of commentators stating that if they wanted to revive James Bond they'd have to cast someone of the stature of Mel Gibson, and I often thought he'd be a pretty good choice.

How did you feel when you learned that Brosnan had been cast?

Unsurprised, since I knew he'd been a "Bond-in-waiting" for some years. But I had a bad feeling from his early publicity shots (in which he had plenty of stubble) and promises that he was going to explore 007's "darker side". I wasn't a Dalton fan at the time, and I didn't have any desire to see a "dark", "adult", "character-driven", etc. Bond.

[ChandlerBing]

The worst speculation back then was when people thought Bond should be a woman or be black or be gay to make it in the 21st century. Ugh.

I, too, recall Mel as Bond. Apparently, Joel Silver wanted to buy Bond and cast Mel.

Hell, at one time, I thought both Bond AND classic Star Trek were dead and gone after 89. Of course, classic Trek came back one more time, but when Bond stayed on the sidelines, I knew it was not good.

[Moore Not Less]

I never felt that the Bond series was in jeopardy between 1989-1995. I was always certain in my own mind that it was just a matter of time before Bond returned. Having said that, if the same thing had happened after The Man With The Golden Gun I would have been a lot less sure of myself because of my feelings for Roger Moore. I doubt very much that he would have returned after a six year gap. I do have sympathy for Timothy Dalton and his Bond fans. In my mind Dalton did nothing wrong, I thought he was a terrific James Bond. He just happened to be the right man at the wrong time.

I didn't switch my allegiance, but I really enjoyed (and still do) the Jack Ryan films. I am also a big fan of Harrison Ford so I was pleased to see him in Patriot Games and Clear And Present Danger.

When Pierce Brosnan was announced as the new James Bond I wasn't surprised, happy or disappointed. He seemed the obvious choice at the time, he was the clear fan favourite. My attitude was let's wait and see him in the role before judging him.

[TheSaint]

I never thought the franchise was in serious jeopardy. I was kept hoping the lawsuits would be resolved soon so that Eon could get back to the business of making Bond films. It didn't even occur to me that Dalton wouldn't be back until he stepped down.

I, too, didn't switch my allegiance. You can enjoy Jack Ryan & John McClane movies and still be a Bond film. That said, the Ryan films did fill the void left by the absence of a new Bond film, as did Gardner's last few books.

Once Dalton stepped down, I hoped that Brosnan would get a second bite at the apple, especially since his star was on the rise due to lawnmower Man & Mrs.Doubtfire. Once he was signed, I started to get excited again.

One question you should've asked was if we would've seen the rival Bond projects that McClory was rumored to be developing during the lean times. I had heard he was trying to do an animated Bond film film & a series of Bond tv-movies. Had either come to fruition, I would've watched them.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I loved the Dalton films but when I first saw LTK I counted 5 people who walked out of the movie and did not return!!! So, it was at that point after the first viewing that the series was at a crossroads...either continue in the fascinating(for me anyway) direction of the unconventional or dump Dalton and hire the now available populist choice of Brosnan and give the public a more generic Bond series, which is what they have done, imho...I first heard the rumour in late '89-early '90 that Brosnan was going to star in the next film...I was horrifed. I wanted to see Dalton get his 'third time's a charm' outing like Roger had...etc. Back then there was no inet so the news sources were scarce...I must have gone to various book stores a hundred times specifically looking for magazine articles about Bond...I was really concerned in fall '90 when there was no mention anywhere of Bond 17 filming...Btw, the Brosnan rumours sort of made me watch all his films so I could get used to him as 007...


I never switched my allegiance; I was very excited by occasional Star Wars prequel news(groan) but I never left Bond...I was always a hardcore Bond geek.

[Triton]

I guess I would have to say that I was surprised that the hiatus lasted as long as it did since I would hear various rumors during this period that a new James Bond movie would soon be in production.

I remember attending an air show at Paine Field in Everett, Washington in 1992, if memory serves, in which an Acrostar Minijet appeared in an acrobatic demonstration and the announcer mentioned that the pilot, who wasn't Corky Farnoff and whose name escapes me, was going to be featured in the next James Bond film.

Then we would hear the various rumors that Joel Silver intended to buy Eon Productions or that Mel Gibson would be cast as the next James Bond or that Timothy Dalton would soon return as James Bond.

So in 1994 when I started to hear the rumors about the project that would become GoldenEye, I was naturally skeptical if this project would result in a new James Bond film. But I always hoped that a new James Bond film would soon be produced. In the meantime, I still watched the films on video tape and the movie marathons on WTBS Superstation.

After the announcement that Timothy Dalton had decided not to reprise the James Bond role and that Pierce Brosnan had been cast, I welcomed the news because I felt that MGM/UA and Eon Productions were serious about bringing James Bond back to the big screen. Although I thought that Timothy Dalton was a great James Bond, the perception that I had from reading the press at the time, and the comments of friends, was that he was box office poison and was a hindrance to the future success of the James Bond series. My opinion of Pierce Brosnan also changed during this period since Pierce was able to play other characters besides Remington Steele during the 1987 to 1994 period and I was no longer concerned that Pierce's Bond would be an extension of the Roger Moore James Bond persona. I believe that the hiatus allowed Pierce to play a James Bond persona that was a mixture of both Sean Connery and Roger Moore. I am convinced that if Pierce had gotten the role in 1987, The Living Daylights would have been another of the James Bond action comedies.

I don't know what you mean by switching allegiances Loomis. I have always enjoyed the James Bond films for what they were and are. My affection for the Bond films has never prevented me from enjoying other films or television series.

Although I distinctly remember while watching the beginning of True Lies in the movie theater in 1994 when Arnold Schwarzennegger, wearing a drysuit and night vision equipment over his SCUBA mask, emerged from an ice-covered lake, I was suddenly hit by how much I missed the James Bond series.

[Gabe Vieira]

The thing is this: Of course there was going to be another Bond film. The only reason why there was a five year haitis, is because of the global revolution at the time; fall o' communism, Gorbachev, New World Order, Berlin Wall and so on. And that could happen right now, in fact, I think it is; New Iraqi government, Terrorist threats, half the middle east wants the US of the map, North Korea, Wepons of Mass destruction (even though there never was any, and Bush used them an as excuse to go into Iraq to avenge daddy) and so on. We might not see Bond for a while. And when we do, if my theory is true, the world may be very different.

[Jim]

- At what point did you realise that the Bond franchise was in serious jeopardy/that Dalton was not going to return?

1992. I had a feeling that there would be rethinking after Licence to Kill and we might meet another gap as between The Man with the Golden Gun and The Spy who Loved Me. But there was nothing, but deafeningly deathly silence. Nothing at all. People were saying Licence to Kill had been the last one and I believed them. I also think it was sometime during Terminator 2 that it dawned on me that the stakes had just been raised considerably. It was half way through True Lies that it dawned on me that James Bond could work again, but they'd have to spend a shedload and make it equally as bombastically moronic. Accordingly, Timothy Dalton wouldn't return, or the Dalton style wouldn't. I appreciate that GoldenEye was up and running by the time I saw True Lies, and Mr Brosnan had been cast, but I had considerable doubts about GoldenEye (see below). The progress made with Dalton's performance was bound to be abandoned. Was. So, rather oddly, James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger, by way of two very different films of theirs, gave me the insight into what GoldenEye would be like, not the previous 16 films. I still think its some way distant from being a Bond film, but closer in tone to something like that.

- Did you ever feel that there would never be another Bond film? If so, how did you feel about that? (Which sounds a silly question since this is a forum full of hardcore Bond geeks, but it would have all hinged on your level of addic----, sorry, fandom at the time.)

Yes, yes I did think it was over. And after Licence to Kill, even though I did enjoy it the first time around, on further reflection I realised that the whole premise, save Dalton's performance, was worthless, so I didn't at the time see it as any great loss.

- Did you switch your allegiance to another series of films, such as the DIE HARDs, the Jack Ryans....?

Not to other action movies, no. But Licence to Kill coincided with me being 16 and GoldenEye came out when I was 22, in between which ages I had been through university, got married, produced a child, had my accident and amongst all these things, interested myself in other films - other frankly better films than the Bond series. I don't wish to sound churlish - it was actually for news of "new Bond" that I started buying film magazines way back when, but kept buying them when there was no Bond news about to read about other films, other directors, spread my interest wider. So I always had a soft spot for Bond but was, by 22, able to put it into a bit more relief than my exuberance at (say) 15 had misled me. In short, Martin Scorcese is a visionary. John Glen isn't. At 15 I would have ignored Mean Streets for the opportunity to watch A View to a Kill. I grew up.

- Did you have strong views on who ought to replace Dalton?

No; as suggested above, after about 1992 I became reconciled to there being no more Bond films, appreciative of what had been past, appreciative of it introducing me to "wider" cinema, but turning my interests elsewhere.

- How did you feel when you learned that Brosnan had been cast?

In all honesty I'd never seen him in anything; he was just another name in the Bond reference works, as meaningful to me at the time as John Gavin and Finlay Light; i.e. not meaningful at all. To me, he was a practical unknown. This isn't to say that Timothy Dalton had been a household name in my...um...household when he was cast, but I was only 13 then; I was 21 when Brosnan got the job, and I still had only a vague idea of who he was. When I heard he was cast - the events of 1986 passed me by completely because Remington Steele just wasn't big news over here - I really had no feelings either way, just interested - but probably no more than that, to be truthful, more a curiosity than a desperation - to see the Bond series reawakened, James Bond being the important issue, not the person playing him. I rented a few of Pierce Brosnan's films - quite hard to find - and they weren't very good and he wasn't all that good in them. I approached GoldenEye with substantial caution as a result. I couldn't help feeling that, although he undoubtedly looked the part at the time, they had made a poor artistic decision given the strengths of Timothy Dalton's performances, and the weaknesses in Pierce Brosnan's performances in his other output. I've not been convinced otherwise. But I still go and see them, because as I say, James Bond is the issue. And that, surely, is evidence of an addiction - even though I know they're no good and no good for me, I still take them in.

Thank you for those questions Loomis; exceedingly thought-provoking.

[Turn]

- At what point did you realise that the Bond franchise was in serious jeopardy/that Dalton was not going to return?

Back before the Internet or any serious access to a lot of film news, I didn't find out until Dec. 1990. I bought a long-running film magazine called Cinefantastique that had an article about the possible end of the franchise. It didn't mention much about the trouble with the rights to the films and legal trouble, but more about the failure of LTK and Dalton's Bond. And no annoucements of the starting of a new film didn't help either, this just solidified it.

- Did you ever feel that there would never be another Bond film? If so, how did you feel about that? (Which sounds a silly question since this is a forum full of hardcore Bond geeks, but it would have all hinged on your level of addic----, sorry, fandom at the time.)

I never had a feeling there wouldn't be any more. The films were always available on video which seemed a good sign, and they were always on television during that period too. I just thought there was a retooling going on.

- Did you switch your allegiance to another series of films, such as the DIE HARDs, the Jack Ryans....?

I always liked all kinds of films, so it was never a question of switching allegiance, wo those films were a welcome distraction from no Bond. At the time, I was really focused into taping spy television shows such as Man From UNCLE, The Avengers and The Persuaders and such. That kept me occupied.

- Did you have strong views on who ought to replace Dalton?

I always felt in the back of my mind that Brosnan would be the go-to guy. I never believed it would be Mel Gibson or any high profile actors.

- How did you feel when you learned that Brosnan had been cast?

As I said in another thread, I was managing a shop at the time and my uncle brought me in the USA Today carrying the announcement. I had mixed feelings as I was sad Dalton was gone and was never a huge fan of Brosnan, feeling he would be too close to Moore. That and the fact so many people began talking about his being saviour of the series and Dalton's era was now viewed as a death knell to the series I didn't like.

But I had a gut feeling Brosnan was the right guy due to his recognition factor to help kick start the series again. So I would take him with open arms to bring that horrid period of no Bond films to an end.

[B007GLE]

This is a great thread.

Remember there was no internet and the only way one new about what movies were comingout etc was through magazines and old time media. In 1991 when no magazines had anything on a new Bond movie I realized somehting was wrong. Over the next few years I heard all sorts of things Brocoli had sold it, lawsuits etc. I had no idea if there wouod ever be another Bond. I figured eventually but not with the regularity we had enjoyed. Of course the lack of a Bond film left a void in my life that I tried to fill with alcohol and casual sex (As there are no Bond films in Bond's world perhaps that explains his desire for alcohol and casual sex.)

I really enjoyed the 1st three Jack Ryan movies. I then read a number of CLancy books. I guess in a way he was filling my time while I waited for the return.

I loved Dalton and wanted him to return as Bond. If not Dalton then I felt I should play Bond an idea that was not shared by MGM, EON or anyone who has ever met me.

Wqhen Brosnan was cast I thought "Uh oh, here comes Moonraker 2" but once I read some articles I thought "this guy gets it." Despite my dread of his taking over I have come to like him more than Dalton.

[Loomis]

Thank you for those questions Loomis; exceedingly thought-provoking.

I'm learning quite a bit here.

For instance, I never realised quite how loathed Dalton was in certain quarters, and how much of a failure he was considered. As Triton puts it: "Although I thought that Timothy Dalton was a great James Bond, the perception that I had from reading the press at the time, and the comments of friends, was that he was box office poison and was a hindrance to the future success of the James Bond series."

Triton also states: "I don't know what you mean by switching allegiances Loomis. I have always enjoyed the James Bond films for what they were and are. My affection for the Bond films has never prevented me from enjoying other films or television series."

Well, same here. I use the word "allegiance" in my usual over-dramatic way. 'Tis but a figure of speech. Clearly, nowhere is it written that a Bond fan must always remain loyal to the Church of Broccoli and give other franchises a wide berth. Nonetheless, I, along with (I'm sure) many other Bond fans, started "getting into" other film sagas during the years when we were getting nothing new from MGM/Eon. I began "following" the DIE HARDs and the Ryans.

Jim: "Yes, yes I did think it was over. And after Licence to Kill, even though I did enjoy it the first time around, on further reflection I realised that the whole premise, save Dalton's performance, was worthless, so I didn't at the time see it as any great loss."

What do you mean, the whole premise was worthless? Surely the one thing we can all agree on is that the premise is terrific: an enraged James Bond turns rogue agent to avenge an attack on his best friend. That's Fleming, that is (well, kind of) - I'm surprised that such a big fan of the literary Bond as yourself would despise the premise of LTK. Sure, we can quibble about the execution, but isn't the basic idea as sound as a pound? The editor of a film magazine I used to work on (a Bond fan who absolutely loathes LTK) wrote something along the lines of: "This film was evidently made with all the right ideas and intentions and should have worked. It had the potential to be the greatest reinterpretation of a pop culture icon since 'The Dark Knight Returns'." He went on to slate things like woeful dialogue, poor acting, flat cinematography and graphic gore, which for him had ensured that promising material had ended up as a lousy film. But the premise.... well, he liked it. A lot. And how, dammit, can the writer of "Just Another Kill" be against it?!?!

Jim: "I don't wish to sound churlish - it was actually for news of "new Bond" that I started buying film magazines way back when, but kept buying them when there was no Bond news about to read about other films, other directors, spread my interest wider. So I always had a soft spot for Bond but was, by 22, able to put it into a bit more relief than my exuberance at (say) 15 had misled me. In short, Martin Scorcese is a visionary. John Glen isn't. At 15 I would have ignored Mean Streets for the opportunity to watch A View to a Kill. I grew up."

That's funny. I sort of had the same education in reverse (nice little obscure reference to Morrissey there ): at the age of 15/16, I was heavily into foreign "art house" fare (Eisenstein, Fellini, Godard, Herzog, Ray, Resnais, Rohmer, etc. etc.) and Important, chest-beating pictures from the English-speaking world (Lindsay Anderson, Kubrick, Schlesinger, etc. etc.). A right little cineaste I was. And then (as I started having serious relationships, went to university, began building a career, seeing the world and going through various rites of passage, both pleasant and painful, into adulthood and responsibility) I got into Bond, DIE HARD and so on. I realised that there really are moments of tremendous visual beauty and utterly superb filmmaking in things like the Bonds (not all of them, obviously, but gems like the astonishingly ahead-of-its-time and timeless DR. NO and the often lyrical, dammit YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE make it all worthwhile) and McTiernan's original DIE HARD. Which doesn't devalue yer foreign subtitled muck or yer Scorsese, of course - it's all part of cinema's rich pageant.

Not saying my "path" was better than yours, of course, but just remarking on the difference.

[Turn]

Jim: "Yes, yes I did think it was over. And after Licence to Kill, even though I did enjoy it the first time around, on further reflection I realised that the whole premise, save Dalton's performance, was worthless, so I didn't at the time see it as any great loss."

What do you mean, the whole premise was worthless? Surely the one thing we can all agree on is that the premise is terrific: an enraged James Bond turns rogue agent to avenge an attack on his best friend. That's Fleming, that is (well, kind of) - I'm surprised that such a big fan of the literary Bond as yourself would despise the premise of LTK. Sure, we can quibble about the execution, but isn't the basic idea as sound as a pound? The editor of a film magazine I used to work on (a Bond fan who absolutely loathes LTK) wrote something along the lines of: "This film was evidently made with all the right ideas and intentions and should have worked. It had the potential to be the greatest reinterpretation of a pop culture icon since 'The Dark Knight Returns'." He went on to slate things like woeful dialogue, poor acting, flat cinematography and graphic gore, which for him had ensured that promising material had ended up as a lousy film. But the premise.... well, he liked it. A lot. And how, dammit, can the writer of "Just Another Kill" be against it?!?!

Jim: "I don't wish to sound churlish - it was actually for news of "new Bond" that I started buying film magazines way back when, but kept buying them when there was no Bond news about to read about other films, other directors, spread my interest wider. So I always had a soft spot for Bond but was, by 22, able to put it into a bit more relief than my exuberance at (say) 15 had misled me. In short, Martin Scorcese is a visionary. John Glen isn't. At 15 I would have ignored Mean Streets for the opportunity to watch A View to a Kill. I grew up."

That's funny. I sort of had the same education in reverse (nice little obscure reference to Morrissey there ): at the age of 15/16, I was heavily into foreign "art house" fare (Eisenstein, Fellini, Godard, Herzog, Ray, Resnais, Rohmer, etc. etc.) and Important, chest-beating pictures from the English-speaking world (Lindsay Anderson, Kubrick, Schlesinger, etc. etc.). A right little cineaste I was. And then (as I started having serious relationships, went to university, began building a career, seeing the world and going through various rites of passage, both pleasant and painful, into adulthood and responsibility) I got into Bond, DIE HARD and so on. I realised that there really are moments of tremendous visual beauty and utterly superb filmmaking in things like the Bonds (not all of them, obviously, but gems like the astonishingly ahead-of-its-time and timeless DR. NO and the often lyrical, dammit YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE make it all worthwhile) and McTiernan's original DIE HARD. Which doesn't devalue yer foreign subtitled muck or yer Scorsese, of course - it's all part of cinema's rich pageant.

Not saying my "path" was better than yours, of course, but just remarking on the difference.

It doesn't seem like LTK's reputation will get any better anytime in the future due to the creative team now wanting to put a personal spin on all subsequent films. Fortunately, there seem to be a lot of fans who think it stands out. I remember getting chills seeing the trailers before it was released as it was the Bond I'd wanted to see return in full force after a great start in TLD.

I've never had a problem saying I'm equally a fan of Bond films and Scorsese or Godard. I was in film school for a while, but that didn't prevent me from doing plenty of papers on Bond. But it did lead me to wanting to explore other types of films just a little deeper. It's easy to dismiss some action films, but you are right on Loomis in saying these shouldn't be discounted. It's what makes film such an accessible art form.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I went through my 'film snob' phase around the time Bond was on hold...from 91 to about 95 I watched all the foreign films and classics...the movies I felt I needed to see to be considered an eduacated man.


So, maybe the Broccoli's did us all a favor and got us to watch important films until they got thier crap together...

I'm still waiting...

[Tarl_Cabot]

I bought a 30th anniversary Bond movie book in 1992 that gave the first mention of the lawsuit. It was very pro-Dalton;the last chapter was about LTK and the closing senteance was "Bond 17 should have been filmed already but a legal dispute between Danjaq and MGM has kept it on hold. But JAMES BOND WILL RETURN and Cubby Broccolli never breaks a promise" so the company seemed to think at the time that Dalton and 007 would indeed be back after the matter was settled. The book seemed to be like a reaffirmation that Dalton was still Bond and he "was here to stay"...

[Loomis]

I seem to remember a post by Jaelle in which she stated that it was not until 1993 that Dalton made an official announcement that he would not be playing James Bond again. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that negotiations continued on and off between Dalton and The Powers That Be between 1989 and 1993 (and we know that a third Dalton Bond flick was in pre-production for a while - wasn't there a massive billboard advertising it at Cannes in 1991?).

However, MGM did not wish to see Dalton return after LICENCE TO KILL, and put a great deal of pressure on Albert R. Broccoli to drop him. Evidently, Broccoli supported his Bond actor for quite a while (a good three or four years, it would seem), but he eventually caved in to MGM's demands for new blood. Dalton was (according to a member of CBn, Simon, who has this on very good authority) finally told that he was no longer wanted. He got the boot, but was permitted to save face by telling the media that he was walking away from Bond to pursue other challenges, etc. etc.

What seems extraordinary is that Dalton still appears to maintain a firm friendship with the Broccoli family (he was a pallbearer at "Cubby"'s funeral, I believe, and is even now seen with his old flame Babs at premieres, etc.) and takes part in Bond-related events (if I'm not mistaken, he was at the premiere of DIE ANOTHER DAY, and then there was the recent John Barry thing in New York - of course, the latter event was not totally or even mainly about Bond, but there was certainly a strong 007 connection). It's obvious that he was treated very shabbily by certain members of the, er, "Bond establishment" (and I'm not necessarily referring to Albert R. Broccoli, here - I'm thinking more of the MGM mob), yet he's never displayed any bitterness or washed his dirty linen in public. Not wishing to cause all hell to break loose here by implicitly criticising other Bond actors, but he's never (to my knowledge, anyway) aired Connery-style complaints ("lean actors .... fat producers"), or mimed being stabbed in the back while appearing on a talkshow. His attitude seems to have been: "They want another actor for the part? Okay, well, that's fair enough, that's part and parcel of the acting game." A class act, that Dalton.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Great thread Loomis. here are answers to those Qs:

- At what point did you realise that the Bond franchise was in serious jeopardy/that Dalton was not going to return?

I felt the public was definately not behind him but the same could be said about Roger after his first two films.If he had a top notch film in '91 he would have been more popular I'm sure.

- Did you ever feel that there would never be another Bond film? If so, how did you feel about that? (Which sounds a silly question since this is a forum full of hardcore Bond geeks, but it would have all hinged on your level of addic----, sorry, fandom at the time.)

No. Everything that goes away comes back in fashion, example: Right now we have a sword and sandle epic in theaters, the second in 4 years and there have been many TV productions since Gladiator...I knew Bond would make it back eventually. I think most of Brosnan's success was attributed to the public's appetite for Bond being wet as rain.

- Did you switch your allegiance to another series of films, such as the DIE HARDs, the Jack Ryans....?

I enjoyed other action franchises but Bond was always #1. In fact, after Living daylights I was more eager to see LTK than the third Indy film. And 'Raiders' was my favorite movie. I hated Indy 3. If LTK was a letdown for some people than Indy 3 was a disaster for me...

- Did you have strong views on who ought to replace Dalton?

I felt that Brosnan should get the part he was originally signed to play. I wasn't convinced he could do it until I saw him in "The Fourth Protocal". He had aged into it by 94.

- How did you feel when you learned that Brosnan had been cast?

I was happy for him but I wasn't doing summersaults. I liked Ralph Fiennes alot but I realized his talent demanded a higher calling... I was just happy to know a new Bond film was on the way...finally!

[Tarl_Cabot]

That first trailor to Goldneye was great..Seeing the Aston,Monte carlo finally in an offical entry... I was salivating over it...You can think that age or priorities can make you not care as much about silly James bond films but when those white dots rolled across the screen for the first time in 6 1/2 years...well it was just unmitigated joy!

[Loomis]

I hated Indy 3.

I liked it well enough initially, but as time passes it just seems crappier and crappier (I think it's worse than the STAR WARS prequels). RAIDERS is a terrific movie, but my personal fave is (and I know I'm in a minority here) TEMPLE OF DOOM.

Back to "the interregnum"....

"That first trailor to Goldneye was great"

Oh, absolutely. You mean the "It's a new world ... but you can still depend on one man" one? Fantastic stuff. Fair blew me away when I saw it in a cinema, and made me for the first time look forward to GOLDENEYE and revisit the Bonds on video. Bond had become a joke for anyone interested in film, and all I'd read about the production of GOLDENEYE had convinced me that it would be a cheapskate crapfest, a sad and sorry last ditch attempt to revive a franchise that ought to have been put out of its misery years earlier. (Remember the rumour that Anna Nicole Smith was going to play the main Bond girl? *Shudder*) That trailer, though, made it appear that GOLDENEYE would actually be very good indeed. A proper comeback for 007. And it was.

[Moore Not Less]

I seem to remember a post by Jaelle in which she stated that it was not until 1993 that Dalton made an official announcement that he would not be playing James Bond again. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that negotiations continued on and off between Dalton and The Powers That Be between 1989 and 1993 (and we know that a third Dalton Bond flick was in pre-production for a while - wasn't there a massive billboard advertising it at Cannes in 1991?).

However, MGM did not wish to see Dalton return after LICENCE TO KILL, and put a great deal of pressure on Albert R. Broccoli to drop him. Evidently, Broccoli supported his Bond actor for quite a while (a good three or four years, it would seem), but he eventually caved in to MGM's demands for new blood. Dalton was (according to a member of CBn, Simon, who has this on very good authority) finally told that he was no longer wanted. He got the boot, but was permitted to save face by telling the media that he was walking away from Bond to pursue other challenges, etc. etc.

What seems extraordinary is that Dalton still appears to maintain a firm friendship with the Broccoli family (he was a pallbearer at "Cubby"'s funeral, I believe, and is even now seen with his old flame Babs at premieres, etc.) and takes part in Bond-related events (if I'm not mistaken, he was at the premiere of DIE ANOTHER DAY, and then there was the recent John Barry thing in New York - of course, the latter event was not totally or even mainly about Bond, but there was certainly a strong 007 connection). It's obvious that he was treated very shabbily by certain members of the, er, "Bond establishment" (and I'm not necessarily referring to Albert R. Broccoli, here - I'm thinking more of the MGM mob), yet he's never displayed any bitterness or washed his dirty linen in public. Not wishing to cause all hell to break loose here by implicitly criticising other Bond actors, but he's never (to my knowledge, anyway) aired Connery-style complaints ("lean actors .... fat producers"), or mimed being stabbed in the back while appearing on a talkshow. His attitude seems to have been: "They want another actor for the part? Okay, well, that's fair enough, that's part and parcel of the acting game." A class act, that Dalton.

My understanding is that Timothy Dalton was initially enthusiastic about making another Bond film, but as the legal wrangles dragged on his enthusiasm began to wane. I can understand this point of view, he is an actor, he want's to work and he has a career away from Bond.

I don't know for sure whether Dalton left because he walked or because he was given the option to jump before he was pushed. My feeling is that Cubby Broccoli told Dalton in no uncertain terms that MGM were not in favour of him returning, but that he (Cubby) would back him and fight for him if he wanted to return (this may explain why Dalton remains on good terms with the Broccoli's). With his ailing enthusiasm for Bond and the fact that he knew that he was not wanted by MGM, Dalton decided to walk.

To my knowledge. Like Roger Moore before him, Dalton has always been happy to talk about his experiences as James Bond without any bitterness. He was indeed at the premiere of Die Another Day. He also spoke very enthusiastically about his time as 007 and the people he worked with when he appeared on the BAFTA tribute to James Bond. A class act indeed.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I hated Indy 3.

I liked it well enough initially, but as time passes it just seems crappier and crappier (I think it's worse than the STAR WARS prequels).

ouch!

I do also love Temple of Doom but I wish Speilberg would have spared us of childrenin just one of his films! They have a way of ruining things, like Episode I!

Raiders is still tops for me, hands down. A perfect action/adventure movie.It should have won best picture!

[Loomis]

Sat through LICENCE TO KILL yesterday (for the umpteenth time, obviously), and tried to figure out whether it's a film with "Gonna Throw A Massive Great Big Spanner In The Works, To The Point Of Threatening The Survival Of The Series" written all over every frame; or whether it was simply a case of Right Film, Wrong (For Whatever Reasons) Time.

And I'm still scratching my head.

What a strange little movie it is. Truly the black sheep of the franchise. Probably the least-seen and least-discussed (by fans, regular people and critics alike) Bond film of them all. Why the likes of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (with action scenes much more outlandish than anything in LTK) are routinely praised as back-to-basics returns to Fleming when there's this is anyone's guess.

Let's be clear: LTK is not a great film. Too much obligatory, "audience-pleasing" silliness sees to that (everything from the guy swinging the swordfish at Bond in the bar fight to Q dressed as a South American peasant just casually chucking his walkie-talkie broom into a bush once he's finished with it), as do elements like often rubbish dialogue, cheesy McTiernan-lite slo-mo in the pre-credits action sequence, and a cluster of terrible performances (Talisa Soto is often slammed, and with some justification, but Carey Lowell is often awful, and even the great Dalton's work is a very mixed bag here [check out his dreadful eye-popping and grinning during the Barrelhead Bar scrap]).

And yet, and yet. Robert Davi and his crew seem more and more impressive as the years pass (could Davi have had a De Niro-style career, one wonders? I really think he's that talented), and a number of scenes are just pure magic: Bond's "job interview" and his assassination attempt on Sanchez spring most readily to mind.

In some ways, LTK seems a natural followup to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. In others, it seems the strangest effort the Bond franchise has ever spawned. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's the only Bond film I have to keep reminding myself is a Bond film as I watch it.

I love it, of course, but the kindest thing to call it is "an acquired taste". It's a slick, exciting action thriller of the sort that was all the rage in 1989 (taking evident inspiration from LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD), and must have seemed a total and utter Sure Thing.... and heaven knows there's more than a large dollop of Fleming.... but it isn't a Bond film, at least not in the generally accepted sense. The fact that it was the second followup to A VIEW TO A KILL just beggars belief. No wonder there was a huge crisis of confidence in the Bond series for quite a while after LTK.

But what sort of Bond film, exactly, would have gone through the roof at the box office in 1989? Would fun-for-all-the-family pantomime have succeeded? Blofeld-style supervillains in underwater lairs? HQs in volcanoes? Seven-foot henchmen with steel teeth? Space weapon shenanigans? Wouldn't that sort of thing have been seen as dated tat and derided mercilessly?

Perhaps, for reasons that will forever remain "opaque", the door to public acclaim was simply closed to James Bond, in all forms, in 1989. Perhaps audiences had (whisper it) finally had enough.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Well, at least two Bond fans had a good time!


excellent poit Loomis. I think Goldenye starring Brosnan would have been a disaster summer '89. I still think LTK was the best movie of that summer! But it doesn't really feel like a Bond movie until he gets to Isthmus(Mexico City)...it's the only Bond film that has a third act that is actually better than the previous two!

[SnakeEyes]

I don't know how you can forget LTK is a Bond film Loomis: that's the whole problem with it. They don't let you forget. The pointless inclusion of Q and the other antics you mention harken back to previous Bonds in a worthless 'effort' to appease the whiners after they had a field-day over TLD.

Infact, I wish LTK wasn't a Bond film; I wish it was just Dalton as a hard edge spy going out for revenge for his friend in the service. How much better would it have been then. I can only dream.

[Loomis]

I don't know how you can forget LTK is a Bond film Loomis: that's the whole problem with it. They don't let you forget. The pointless inclusion of Q and the other antics you mention harken back to previous Bonds in a worthless 'effort' to appease the whiners after they had a field-day over TLD.

True, but Q, etc. notwithstanding, I don't think LTK looks or feels like a Bond film, and Dalton's performance most certainly ain't yer usual turn as 007, and therefore I find it easy to forget it's a Bond film. In fact, for me it plays exactly like another movie with, as you put it, "Dalton as a hard edge spy going out for revenge for his friend in the service". Rather in the same way as THOMAS CROWN and TAILOR OF PANAMA strike me as films with certain Bondian elements that are nonetheless not Bond films.

[Moore Not Less]

Sat through LICENCE TO KILL yesterday (for the umpteenth time, obviously), and tried to figure out whether it's a film with "Gonna Throw A Massive Great Big Spanner In The Works, To The Point Of Threatening The Survival Of The Series" written all over every frame; or whether it was simply a case of Right Film, Wrong (For Whatever Reasons) Time.

And I'm still scratching my head.

What a strange little movie it is. Truly the black sheep of the franchise. Probably the least-seen and least-discussed (by fans, regular people and critics alike) Bond film of them all. Why the likes of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (with action scenes much more outlandish than anything in LTK) are routinely praised as back-to-basics returns to Fleming when there's this is anyone's guess.

Let's be clear: LTK is not a great film. Too much obligatory, "audience-pleasing" silliness sees to that (everything from the guy swinging the swordfish at Bond in the bar fight to Q dressed as a South American peasant just casually chucking his walkie-talkie broom into a bush once he's finished with it), as do elements like often rubbish dialogue, cheesy McTiernan-lite slo-mo in the pre-credits action sequence, and a cluster of terrible performances (Talisa Soto is often slammed, and with some justification, but Carey Lowell is often awful, and even the great Dalton's work is a very mixed bag here [check out his dreadful eye-popping and grinning during the Barrelhead Bar scrap]).

And yet, and yet. Robert Davi and his crew seem more and more impressive as the years pass (could Davi have had a De Niro-style career, one wonders? I really think he's that talented), and a number of scenes are just pure magic: Bond's job interview" and his assassination attempt on Sanchez spring most readily to mind.

In some ways, LTK seems a natural followup to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. In others, it seems the strangest effort the Bond franchise has ever spawned. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's the only Bond film I have to keep reminding myself is a Bond film as I watch it.

I love it, of course, but the kindest thing to call it is "an acquired taste". It's a slick, exciting action thriller of the sort that was all the rage in 1989 (taking evident inspiration from LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD), and must have seemed a total and utter Sure Thing.... and heaven knows there's more than a large dollop of Fleming.... but it isn't a Bond film, at least not in the generally accepted sense. The fact that it was the second followup to A VIEW TO A KILL just beggars belief. No wonder there was a huge crisis of confidence in the Bond series for quite a while after LTK.

But what sort of Bond film, exactly, would have gone through the roof at the box office in 1989? Would fun-for-all-the-family pantomime have succeeded? Blofeld-style supervillains in underwater lairs? HQs in volcanoes? Seven-foot henchmen with steel teeth? Space weapon shenanigans? Wouldn't that sort of thing have been seen as dated tat and derided mercilessly?

Perhaps, for reasons that will forever remain "opaque", the door to public acclaim was simply closed to James Bond, in all forms, in 1989. Perhaps audiences had (whisper it) finally had enough.

I don't regard LTK as the black sheep of the family, I like it. It may well be the least seen Bond film, but it's certainly not the least discussed, by Bond fans anyway.

It's true that there are moments of "audience-pleasing" silliness. You can add Professor Joe Butcher and the winking fish to those you mentioned. I don't see a cluster of terrible performances. Talisa Soto is indeed often slammed with some justification, but I like Carey Lowell as Pam Bouvier. She's feisty alright and aids Bond immeasurably in his quest to gain revenge on Franz Sanchez. Bond needs Pam despite himself. Lowell works well with Timothy Dalton, who for the most part is very good, e.g. the scenes where Bond discovers the dead body of Della, when Bond throws the suitcase full of money at Ed Killifer, and Bond's job interview with Sanchez. However, there are rare moments where Dalton falters such as the Barrelhead Bar scrap and the scene where Pam walks in on Bond and "Uncle" Q catching them by surprise and Bond draws his weapon in an overly dramatic fashion.

There are some great action scenes in LTK. Bond's underwater escape using the harpoon? gun is outstanding. The tanker sequence is also outstanding apart from the moment where Bond's truck does a wheelie and then drives through the fire.

One area where LTK falls short is that it doesn't look like all the money is up on the screen. This is no doubt due to the production being based in Mexico rather than Pinewood. The look of a Bond film is important and LTK looks like it was made on the cheap by comparison with the vast majority of the other Bond films.

Perhaps it's true that regardless of the nature of LTK it was never going to be big box office in 1989. Maybe the audiences were beginning to believe that Bond's days were numbered. The '15' rating in the U.K. and the PG-13 rating in the U.S. certainly didn't help. The poor marketing campaign had little or no effect, in my opinion. The bottom line is that the audience of 1989 generally didn't like LTK. So, was it a case of Throwing A Massive Great Big Spanner In The Works or simply Right Film, Wrong (For Whatever Reasons) Time? I say Right Film, Wrong (For Whatever Reasons) Time without any real conviction it has to be said.

[Von Hammerstein]

It was astrange sad time. I knew Dalton wasn't for long, but I think that if the entire future of Bond hadn't been in jeopardy in the British Courts and they had made a real Connery style 007 flick like FRWL or Thunderball with Dalton it might have worked. Dalton was a great serious Bond, you believed it when he slugged somebody, but he couldn't drop a quip to save his life. (which is strange cause I've seen him in comedies where his timing is impeccable, Maybe he didn't think Bond would quip. Afterall Fleming's Bond wasn't that flamboyant. But the wisecracks and double entendres had become part of the character.) Anywho I'd have loved to see Dalton in GoldenEye, done the old Bond style with classic OTT villian, and the stainless steel lair. Still it was a shock when dalton called it quits. Even now when I see him in other projects, I think of him as 007.

PS; Who you calling Old-Timer, you young whippersnapper, you! (Just joking )

Edited by Von Hammerstein, 07 June 2004 - 12:57 AM.

[Bryan Harris]

The '15' rating in the U.K. and the PG-13 rating in the U.S. certainly didn't help.

That brings to mind a question I have: Weren't some scenes in LTK trimmed for the U.S. release because the film as presented to the MPAA received the dreaded "R" rating? I can't recall if that was just a rumor or not. I recall reading somewhere or other that Krest's death and Sanchez' beating of Lupe were originally more explicit than the stateside theatrical release would lead one to believe.

I ask because if true, it would seem to lend strength to Loomis' argument that EON's approach to the film may have been one factor in its poor reception. EON's usual desire to play to as broad an audience as possible notwithstanding, more people went to see Lethal Weapon 2 anyway...

[Qwerty]

That brings to mind a question I have: Weren't some scenes in LTK trimmed for the U.S. release because the film as presented to the MPAA received the dreaded "R" rating? I can't recall if that was just a rumor or not. I recall reading somewhere or other that Krest's death and Sanchez' beating of Lupe were originally more explicit than the stateside theatrical release would lead one to believe.

I believe that rumor is indeed true.