18 replies to this topic

[jrdoo7]

i have read the posts on here why people don't understand why dalton was so unpopular. your ideas are good ones, and are in the right place but i think you all are wrong. if you look st the total admissions of every bond film from otc to ltk inlcuding nsna. Ohmmss did better than all of those films. they all went down. i think just got tired of them. it was bond fatigue. they did so many films in such a short time. it need a couple of years off. It took about 6 years off to give this series a much deserved break. That is why goldeneye had such a huge box office. It wasn't because of brosnan. he was a t the right time. It is that simple. Dalton was in the wrong time. It wasn't how he played bond it was out of his control. Ld did slightly better than avatak mainly because was the new bond factor. Plus you have factor in the huge 89 summer for ltk. it just got crushed by the summer movies that year. if they had waited until 1990 to put ltk out i think it would have done better. Bond fatigue. Pure and simple.
total admissions
oct-59.5
nsna-50.8
avtak-44.5
ld-48.9
ltk-39.1

Edited by jrdoo7, 02 November 2007 - 01:35 AM.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

i have read the posts on here why people don't understand why dalton was so unpopular. your ideas are good ones, and are in the right place but i think you all are wrong. if you look st the total admissions of every bond film from otc to ltk inlcuding nsna. Ohmmss did better than all of those films. they all went down. i think just got tired of them. it was bond fatigue. they did so many films in such a short time. it need a couple of years off. It took about 6 years off to give this series a much deserved break. That is why goldeneye had such a huge box office. It wasn't because of brosnan. he was a t the right time. It is that simple. Dalton was in the wrong time. It wasn't how he played bond it was out of his control. Ld did slightly better than avatak mainly because was the new bond factor. Plus you have factor in the huge 89 summer for ltk. it just got crushed by the summer movies that year. if they had waited until 1990 to put ltk out i think it would have done better. Bond fatigue. Pure and simple.
total admissions
oct-59.5
nsna-50.8
avtak-44.5
ld-48.9
ltk-39.1

ITA. By the time GE was released, Bond had been away for a while and got a chance to become "new" in the minds of the general public again. Also, no Bond film since LTK has had a summer release.

The public could handle a tougher, more Fleming-ish Bond. Dalton was the right man at the wrong time. He was 20 years ahead of his time(see my sig).

[Royal Dalton]

Sounds good to me.

[Bondian]

The public could handle a tougher, more Fleming-ish Bond. Dalton was the right man at the wrong time. He was 20 years ahead of his time(see my sig).

Agreed.

[MissDalton99]

it was bond fatigue. they did so many films in such a short time. it need a couple of years off. It took about 6 years off to give this series a much deserved break. That is why goldeneye had such a huge box office. It wasn't because of brosnan. he was at the right time. It is that simple. Dalton was in the wrong time.

I agree. Let's look at the timeline:

1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989

1995

They were making Bond movies every two years for over a decade. The public knew when to expect them, and I agree that the whole thing may have been just very tiring and way too predictable. For example:

1991: "When is Dalton's next film coming out? Oh, there isn't going to be one? Gee, how about that!"

1995: "Wow, they've started making Bond movies again!"

[PrinceKamalKhan]

The public could handle a tougher, more Fleming-ish Bond. Dalton was the right man at the wrong time. He was 20 years ahead of his time(see my sig).

Agreed.

In some ways, CR was the Bond film I've been waiting 19 years to see. After I first saw TLD I was very excited about the future of Bond. Too bad it took so long(despite some entertaining if lesser Bond films in between) to come up with a worthy sequel to Dalton's debut. I hope it's not another 19 years and 3 lead actor wait to see a TLD/CR type Bond film again.

[Bondian]

In some ways, CR was the Bond film I've been waiting 19 years to see. After I first saw TLD I was very excited about the future of Bond. Too bad it took so long(despite some entertaining if lesser Bond films in between) to come up with a worthy sequel to Dalton's debut. I hope it's not another 19 years and 3 lead actor wait to see a TLD/CR type Bond film again.

Same here. In fact although I love the Rog Bond's, Casino Royale is the first Bond since 1977 (not forgetting Licence to Kill in 1989) that grabs my attention, and reminds me why I love Bond.

I hate to say it, but I very much doubt Bond 22 will give me the same feelings. Not saying that it will be worse that Casino Royale, but there's never really been two consecutive films that have been of similar quality.

I sincerely hope I can be proven wrong.

Cheers,


Ian

[Publius]

Yeah, when you consider that five of the seven (or six of the eight, if you count NSNA) worst-performing Bond films were released in the 80s, and that three of them starred the extremely popular Moore (and another starred Connery, if you count NSNA), and that the only Bond film to gross more than its predecessor between 1979 and 1989 was Dalton's debut in The Living Daylights, and that the only break between Bond films since the series began in 1962 to exceed two years was the two-and-a-half years before TSWLM... I am indeed tempted to say Bond fatigue was a huge factor in Dalton's apparent lack of success.

[Bondian]

Yeah, when you consider that five of the seven (or six of the eight, if you count NSNA) worst-performing Bond films were released in the 80s, and that three of them starred the extremely popular Moore (and another starred Connery, if you count NSNA), and that the only Bond film to gross more than its predecessor between 1979 and 1989 was Dalton's debut in The Living Daylights, and that the only break between Bond films since the series began in 1962 to exceed two years was the two-and-a-half years before TSWLM... I am indeed tempted to say Bond fatigue was a huge factor in Dalton's apparent lack of success.

Damn. I was just about to say the exact same thing.

See.

Yeah, when you consider that five of the seven (or six of the eight, if you count NSNA) worst-performing Bond films were released in the 80s, and that three of them starred the extremely popular Moore (and another starred Connery, if you count NSNA), and that the only Bond film to gross more than its predecessor between 1979 and 1989 was Dalton's debut in The Living Daylights, and that the only break between Bond films since the series began in 1962 to exceed two years was the two-and-a-half years before TSWLM... I am indeed tempted to say Bond fatigue was a huge factor in Dalton's apparent lack of success.



I agree. Hope we get a rectum kicking Bond 22. Then I'll eat my own words.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I agree; if Octopussy had been delayed and cast with a new Bond, possibly Dalton, it may have done leagues better.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

In some ways, CR was the Bond film I've been waiting 19 years to see. After I first saw TLD I was very excited about the future of Bond. Too bad it took so long(despite some entertaining if lesser Bond films in between) to come up with a worthy sequel to Dalton's debut. I hope it's not another 19 years and 3 lead actor wait to see a TLD/CR type Bond film again.

Same here. In fact although I love the Rog Bond's, Casino Royale is the first Bond since 1977 (not forgetting Licence to Kill in 1989) that grabs my attention, and reminds me why I love Bond.

You mean 1987 don't you Bondian? Although The Spy Who Loved Me is certainly a good movie too.

I hate to say it, but I very much doubt Bond 22 will give me the same feelings. Not saying that it will be worse that Casino Royale, but there's never really been two consecutive films that have been of similar quality.

Good points. Although I'm one of the strange ones who thinks The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are both great(in the sci-fi/"fun" escape type, not Fleming type way) and that Moonraker is even a slight improvement(waiting for reactions of gasp! shock! horror!) over The Spy Who Loved Me. Of course, I saw MR before I saw Spy so that may be a factor in my reasoning.

I sincerely hope I can be proven wrong.

I do too. I hope Bond 22 is great but I figure CR will probably always be Craig's best since it actually had a Fleming source novel to work with.

[LadySylvia]

I agree; if Octopussy had been delayed and cast with a new Bond, possibly Dalton, it may have done leagues better.

How do you know that?

[Jim]

I agree; if Octopussy had been delayed and cast with a new Bond, possibly Dalton, it may have done leagues better.

How do you know that?

It's an opinion, and a harmless piece of speculation and no more than that, and there was a clue in "may have done".

Do we have to go through this every single time?

[jrdoo7]

it would have been james brolin not dalton if moore had not done it.

I agree; if Octopussy had been delayed and cast with a new Bond, possibly Dalton, it may have done leagues better.

[Judo chop]

Do we have to go through this every single time?

<biting tongue and fingers and anything non-toxic within a 5 foot radius of me>

I can believe fatigue was a factor. People were tired of seeing the same ol

[plankattack]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='789325' date='2 November 2007 - 12:11'][

[size=1]*granted, it wasn

Edited by plankattack, 02 November 2007 - 05:32 PM.

[jrdoo7]

well, you still have to make good films that is what killed the orignal batman movie franhcise. Goldeneye was a very good one. best brosnan one. ebverythignw as riding on that. if that movie was bad i don't think the franchise would have been where it is now. every time this franchise take a step back it always finds a way to bounce back. [quote name='plankattack' post='789330' date='2 November 2007 - 11:31'][quote name='Judo chop' post='789325' date='2 November 2007 - 12:11'][

[size=1]*granted, it wasn

[Skudor]

I'm sure both time and quality/renewal help, they are no doubt mutually benefitial, not mutually exclusive.

Having said that, I'm sure quality/renewal is the more important factor. A piece of crap after a four year break will no doubt do better than a piece of crap after two years. But I'm sure something new, fresh and better will always do better - regardless of the time span.

What about the money spent and the amount of spectacle?

A case in point might well be Die Another Day. Three year break (1999 to 2002), fairly poor movie (but entertaining?) still did pretty well at the BO. The great exception?

Should the amount of money spent and the level of spectacle be added to this debate?

[Publius]

But it's true, there is more to Bond fatigue than just the two-year cycle. Because then one would have to explain why Bond fatigue waited until film 16.

But it really started with FYEO, which saw a 17% drop in admissions from MR.

OP saw a 15% drop in admissions from FYEO.

(NSNA saw a 14% drop in admissions from OP.)

AVTAK saw a 27% drop in admissions from OP. (And a 15% drop from NSNA.)

TLD saw a 13% increase in admissions from AVTAK...

...but LTK saw a 20% drop in admissions from TLD.



The only times prior to that stretch that a Bond movie did worse than the one that came before it: TMWTGG, OHMSS, and YOLT. And the latter two are also the only other times two consecutive Bond movies saw a drop in admissions. Since LTK, only TND has been added to the list. The 80s were not a good time for Bond.