Does anyone know the real reason why Bond went into hibernation from 1989 to 1995?
I've read that EON were battling some court case about money for TV rights, but why couldn't they have continued to make the movies whilst this was going on?
It just seems a bit odd that with LTK being a poor box office performer that a rest was taken and then they return without Dalton. It seems to point to EON really wanting to give the series a break and to change stars.
Is the court case thing just a smokescreen?
6 Year Hiatus For 007
Started by
Victor Zokas
, Apr 11 2002 09:22 PM
2 replies to this topic
#2
General Koskov
-
- Veterans
-
- 1862 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 11 April 2002 - 09:30 PM
Of course no one knew for sure that there was a SIS for 80-odd years, so this legal-driven hiatus might be a phoney too.
However I think there is enough evidence to believe in the litigations being the sole reason for Bond's absence. Timothy Dalton himself quit the role in 1994 because he said he'd been in the role for eight years and that was enough.
Though GoldenEye's PTS brought us back to 1986 to show either: a) Brosnan's Bond is the same guy (hence the 'wild hair' in the dam-running shots!), or
Dalton's Bond never was.
The latter is an example those Licence to Kill haters wish us to believe so that they can say the producers are on their side. ;D
However I think there is enough evidence to believe in the litigations being the sole reason for Bond's absence. Timothy Dalton himself quit the role in 1994 because he said he'd been in the role for eight years and that was enough.
Though GoldenEye's PTS brought us back to 1986 to show either: a) Brosnan's Bond is the same guy (hence the 'wild hair' in the dam-running shots!), or
Dalton's Bond never was.The latter is an example those Licence to Kill haters wish us to believe so that they can say the producers are on their side. ;D
#3
Turn
-
- Veterans
-
- 6837 posts
Commander
- Location:Ohio
Posted 12 April 2002 - 01:52 AM
I think one day years from now we'll know whether there was more than just the legal actions preventing a new Bond film being made in the early 90s. Eon did release John Glen and Richard Maibaum during that time, so there was evidence that they wanted to take a new direction.
But to wait 6 years seems very extreme. If replacing Dalton was the sole reason for the delay, don't you think they would have signed him a lot quicker? His career wasn't exactly on fire at the time, doing mostly cheap action films and supporting parts in bigger films.
As for the Dalton bashers, there is an article that said MGM wanted to replace Dalton, but Cubby Broccoli refused to relent. He stepped down on his own. At least as far as we know. All I know is it was one long wait from '89 to '95.
But to wait 6 years seems very extreme. If replacing Dalton was the sole reason for the delay, don't you think they would have signed him a lot quicker? His career wasn't exactly on fire at the time, doing mostly cheap action films and supporting parts in bigger films.
As for the Dalton bashers, there is an article that said MGM wanted to replace Dalton, but Cubby Broccoli refused to relent. He stepped down on his own. At least as far as we know. All I know is it was one long wait from '89 to '95.