519 replies to this topic

[Dekard77]

Zorin must ask the court what world this case is being heard in?

Is it the world that sees John Gavin star as Bond in 1971's DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, Michael Billington in 1979's FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and Pierce Brosnan in 1987's THE LIVING NIGHTLIGHTS and 1999's ELEKTRA (the working title for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH) or is the world where the wider reality of Dalton into Brosnan and Brosnan into Craig has wider factors at play - but sadly for members of the "public" all they have at their disposal is a myriad of cut and pasted statistics about how a film that was not a flop for the people that made it. I am not disputing some might be right. But the manner in which they are being used is becoming ever more convoluted and "I told you so". So there.

Now - the Jury has fallen asleep and so have I. Shall the court convene in twenty years to discuss how SOLACE was a disappointment to the "fans" and "the box office" and that Daniel Craig should have been let go from LICENSE TO DRIVE and not this Brosnan chap?

LOL !!!!!!!!!! HAHHAHHA I honestly can't stop laughing anymore. I can't HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
To be honest Brosnan and Moore have some Bondlike appeal whether they get the part or not people will associate them forever as men most suited to play 007. Naturally people will associate with them .Other actors have to be discovered.

[jaguar007]

It was a catch-22 situation. NBC canceled Remington Steele with a year remaining on Pierce Brosnan's contract, which allowed him to audition for the role of 007. And with Timothy Dalton's unavailability due to a project he was working on, Brosnan quickly became the front runner to become James Bond #4 and he eventually got the part--at least tentatively.

As much as I would like to believe it, I seriously doubt Dalton was really "offered" TLD before Brosnan was, I think that was a PR spin from EON so it did not appear Dalton was second choice. I do know that Dalton was approached to audition for Bond in the past, but in 1986, there were absolutely NO rumors of Dalton being linked to the role until after Brosnan was out of the picture. I think Brosnan was the lead in choice(at least from UA) to replace Moore prior to AVTAK being released.

I also agree that Brosnan may not have actually been Broccoli's top choice, but more the studio's top choice.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I think Brosnan was the lead in choice(at least from UA) to replace Moore prior to AVTAK being released.

Yeah I agree. I also think the story on the documentary 'Inside The Living Daylights' is as close to the truth as we will get. Although having said that, I don't think Dalton was really a substitute (in the true sense of the word) for Brosnan. He had always been considered for the role and I think was initially unavailable for TLD due to shooting Brenda Starr.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 16 July 2009 - 03:53 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

There are surely all sorts of reasons why Dalton made that comment. I could speculate (and I have theories) but my speculation will not resolve the answer to question of why the comment was made. I have long heard about the interview, but don't know its context. I do know Dalton was loyal to Broccoli.
I also remember Dalton being interviewed on UK TV in the early nineties by Jonathan Ross on Channel 4 and James Bond was not mentioned once. There is also an interview with Dalton in "The Incredible World of James Bond 007", again early nineties, where he speaks about where he wants his future Bond films to go and mentions nothing about the series ending.

[Royal Dalton]

I suspect it was because he, like everybody else working on the film, knew that the cash-strapped studio wasn't coughing up enough money for them to continue making the films. As it was they only just scraped home with Licence To Kill.

Dalton also said this in 1989: "We don't know if there will be another one. The reason why they are two years apart is they cost a lot of money. If there's another one I'd be delighted to do it."

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I suspect it was because he, like everybody else working on the film, knew that the cash-strapped studio wasn't coughing up enough money for them to continue making the films. As it was they only just scraped home with Licence To Kill.

Dalton also said this in 1989: "We don't know if there will be another one. The reason why they are two years apart is they cost a lot of money. If there's another one I'd be delighted to do it."

Thankyou for posting that. Did he say any more on the subject?
I don't read that as conclusive that Dalton thought there would never be another Bond or that LTK was going to be the last one - he does not say that.
IMO the comment COULD suggest Dalton knew there was going to be production trouble's ahead that eventually ensued, and no more than that.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 16 July 2009 - 04:44 PM.

[byline]

So you didn't like David Hedison who had been in a Bond before, the Oscar winning actor Benecio Del Toro (who I have talked to about BOND '89 and heard his thoughts on making the film), the son of Bond veteran Pedro Armanderiz......?

And there wasn't a film called LICENSE REVOKED.

I do wish that the producers had decided to bring Hedison back in Dalton's previous Bond film, to lend some continuity and give us a reason to care about him in "Licence to Kill" (I know, the violence he suffers should be reason enough, but I'm talking about the audience's emotional connection with the character that comes through familiarity). For me, casting Hedison didn't really work. I think they either should've kept the same actor from "The Living Daylights" or cast Hedison back then. One way or the other, not either/or. The fact that they didn't do it that way shows a little carelessness, IMO, in the handling of things. As I recall, I heard Dana Broccoli say in an interview that she or someone saw Hedison, thought he looked great (for his age), and said, "Why not?" That sort of capriciousness works well sometimes, and can even be inspired, but in this case it wasn't, IMO.

You've probably posted them elsewhere, but I'd be interested in your recollections of what Del Toro said about his experiences in this film.

And I agree with you about the poster's refusal to call this film by its real name. I get that people don't like how or why it was changed, but the fact remains that it was changed, and that's the title we got.

I agree that its arguable Americans MAY have responded better to Brosnan than Dalton on the basis they were more familiar with him through Remington Steele, and Dalton was less familiar to Americans. However, this is to some extent a logical and safe conclusion to make because it can be predicated on how Brosnan was actually received in '95. But there is no guarantee Brosnan would have been any different in terms of box office returns to Dalton in '87, had he been given the role then.

FWIW (and it's probably not much), I was living in a small town in western Kentucky at the time, so we're talking not in the mainstream of the entertainment world here. And I can clearly recall people -- women, especially -- saying that the powers that be blew it by not going with Brosnan, who -- in their words -- was "perfect" for the role. So I think there was a lot of widespread expectation that Brosnan would be cast as Bond, and when he wasn't, Dalton paid the price with backlash from at least some of the general public (in the U.S., anyway).

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Dalton also said this in 1989: "We don't know if there will be another one. The reason why they are two years apart is they cost a lot of money. If there's another one I'd be delighted to do it."

A thought that just occurred to me is that maybe Dalton was trying to "out" MGM's stingy, penny-pinchers by forcing their hand with these public comments.

Well that is at least a possibility. I don't think the comment should necessarily be taken at face value.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Well that is at least a possibility. I don't think the comment should necessarily be taken at face value.

Even though it essentially came true...?!?

Precisely because it came essentially true!

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

But I think the best person to ask about whether or not LTKR was flopping or going to be a flop was Dalton himself, and he stated he thought LICENSE TO KILL REVOKED would be the last Bond film ever. It was his "gut feeling".

Well that is at least a possibility. I don't think the comment should necessarily be taken at face value.

Even though it essentially came true...?!?

Precisely because it came essentially true!

I'm He said it. It came true. And yet I'm supposed to discount his comments?

What would have happened if he had not said it, and it didn't come true? Would I then discount those things he hadn't said as well as an event that never took place? Or, what about if he did say it, but it didn't come true? Or what about if he didn't say it, but it did come true? Then what?

Stop the world I want to get off.

OK, I think its suggestive he MAY have been alluding to what was going to be a difficult time for the series when he said "we don't know if there will be another one". It could also be simply that Dalton was saying that Bond 17 was not greenlit at the time, or some other reason. Anyhow I don't think it should be taken at the face value that was suggested earlier in this thread (that is that Dalton was saying LTK was going to be the last Bond film ever).

The statement came true in the respect that if Dalton was indeed alluding that future events may prohibit another Bond production, he was right. Events did happen that threatened production. This is based not on the face value interpretation as suggested earlier - but because of what Dalton may have been alluding to, and then the fact his sentiments became essentially true! Hence my admittedly confusing words when I said precisely because it came essentially true should it not be taken at its face value!

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 16 July 2009 - 10:14 PM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

It was a catch-22 situation. NBC canceled Remington Steele with a year remaining on Pierce Brosnan's contract, which allowed him to audition for the role of 007. And with Timothy Dalton's unavailability due to a project he was working on, Brosnan quickly became the front runner to become James Bond #4 and he eventually got the part--at least tentatively.

As much as I would like to believe it, I seriously doubt Dalton was really "offered" TLD before Brosnan was, I think that was a PR spin from EON so it did not appear Dalton was second choice. I do know that Dalton was approached to audition for Bond in the past, but in 1986, there were absolutely NO rumors of Dalton being linked to the role until after Brosnan was out of the picture. I think Brosnan was the lead in choice(at least from UA) to replace Moore prior to AVTAK being released.

I also agree that Brosnan may not have actually been Broccoli's top choice, but more the studio's top choice.

Oh, I don't think Timothy Dalton was offered the role of James Bond 007 before Pierce Brosnan. But I think it is very plausible, as EON has claimed, that they looked at Dalton first because of the aforementioned audition approaches they had made to him in the past. However, I can equally buy this scenario as an EON cover up for Dalton being their second choice. (I suppose for Dalton's sake and Broccoli's determination to hire him and support him over the years makes me more willing to lean toward EON's post-1986 version of events.)

I do agree with you that Brosnan was definitely United Artists' top choice for the Bond role whereas Broccoli preferred Dalton, although I believe Broccoli was quite content with Brosnan too (must have been since he signed him--twice).

Would be interesting if we could look back at an alternate timeline and see who Broccoli/UA would have chosen had both Dalton and Brosnan been available for the 007 role in 1986.

[Dekard77]

It was a catch-22 situation. NBC canceled Remington Steele with a year remaining on Pierce Brosnan's contract, which allowed him to audition for the role of 007. And with Timothy Dalton's unavailability due to a project he was working on, Brosnan quickly became the front runner to become James Bond #4 and he eventually got the part--at least tentatively.

As much as I would like to believe it, I seriously doubt Dalton was really "offered" TLD before Brosnan was, I think that was a PR spin from EON so it did not appear Dalton was second choice. I do know that Dalton was approached to audition for Bond in the past, but in 1986, there were absolutely NO rumors of Dalton being linked to the role until after Brosnan was out of the picture. I think Brosnan was the lead in choice(at least from UA) to replace Moore prior to AVTAK being released.

I also agree that Brosnan may not have actually been Broccoli's top choice, but more the studio's top choice.

Oh, I don't think Timothy Dalton was offered the role of James Bond 007 before Pierce Brosnan. But I think it is very plausible, as EON has claimed, that they looked at Dalton first because of the aforementioned audition approaches they had made to him in the past. However, I can equally buy this scenario as an EON cover up for Dalton being their second choice. (I suppose for Dalton's sake and Broccoli's determination to hire him and support him over the years makes me more willing to lean toward EON's post-1986 version of events.)

I do agree with you that Brosnan was definitely United Artists' top choice for the Bond role whereas Broccoli preferred Dalton, although I believe Broccoli was quite content with Brosnan too (must have been since he signed him--twice).

Would be interesting if we could look back at an alternate timeline and see who Broccoli/UA would have chosen had both Dalton and Brosnan been available for the 007 role in 1986.

Brosnan for sure. That's the issue with Dalton, when people saw this very serious guy as opposed to what Brosnan would have done then some would have been disappointed with Dalton. However the bigger issue with LTK would have been the fact the writer not being present full time, a director who clearly didn't understand Dalton's strengths but rather went along with it. Eon needed a shake up. LTK was that. Maybe MGW knew this from the start but would have waited for the public to react rather than lock horns with Cubby who was still calling the shots. Either way flop or no flop it was a rude awakening in USA for 007 in '89. Glen and Dalton not a good combo. If he had someone like Tony Scott or Peter Hunt things would have been better .
When I saw Dalton in Beautician and Beast I was pleasantly shocked as to how he comedic he can be if he wanted to, also the scene where he is shown shaved with a new hairstyle he still looked cool enough to play Bond then and there!!!!!!
AWTAK performance still standing it was a disappointment to Eon with their new star and new approach. A lot of ppl don't really like QOS but I think it's a very good Bond movie. At the end of the day the average Bond audience/casual fans expect the thrill ride.

[Zorin Industries]

It was a catch-22 situation. NBC canceled Remington Steele with a year remaining on Pierce Brosnan's contract, which allowed him to audition for the role of 007. And with Timothy Dalton's unavailability due to a project he was working on, Brosnan quickly became the front runner to become James Bond #4 and he eventually got the part--at least tentatively.

As much as I would like to believe it, I seriously doubt Dalton was really "offered" TLD before Brosnan was, I think that was a PR spin from EON so it did not appear Dalton was second choice. I do know that Dalton was approached to audition for Bond in the past, but in 1986, there were absolutely NO rumors of Dalton being linked to the role until after Brosnan was out of the picture. I think Brosnan was the lead in choice(at least from UA) to replace Moore prior to AVTAK being released.

I also agree that Brosnan may not have actually been Broccoli's top choice, but more the studio's top choice.

Oh, I don't think Timothy Dalton was offered the role of James Bond 007 before Pierce Brosnan. But I think it is very plausible, as EON has claimed, that they looked at Dalton first because of the aforementioned audition approaches they had made to him in the past. However, I can equally buy this scenario as an EON cover up for Dalton being their second choice. (I suppose for Dalton's sake and Broccoli's determination to hire him and support him over the years makes me more willing to lean toward EON's post-1986 version of events.)

I do agree with you that Brosnan was definitely United Artists' top choice for the Bond role whereas Broccoli preferred Dalton, although I believe Broccoli was quite content with Brosnan too (must have been since he signed him--twice).

Would be interesting if we could look back at an alternate timeline and see who Broccoli/UA would have chosen had both Dalton and Brosnan been available for the 007 role in 1986.

Brosnan for sure. That's the issue with Dalton, when people saw this very serious guy as opposed to what Brosnan would have done then some would have been disappointed with Dalton. However the bigger issue with LTK would have been the fact the writer not being present full time, a director who clearly didn't understand Dalton's strengths but rather went along with it. Eon needed a shake up. LTK was that. Maybe MGW knew this from the start but would have waited for the public to react rather than lock horns with Cubby who was still calling the shots. Either way flop or no flop it was a rude awakening in USA for 007 in '89. Glen and Dalton not a good combo. If he had someone like Tony Scott or Peter Hunt things would have been better .
When I saw Dalton in Beautician and Beast I was pleasantly shocked as to how he comedic he can be if he wanted to, also the scene where he is shown shaved with a new hairstyle he still looked cool enough to play Bond then and there!!!!!!
AWTAK performance still standing it was a disappointment to Eon with their new star and new approach. A lot of ppl don't really like QOS but I think it's a very good Bond movie. At the end of the day the average Bond audience/casual fans expect the thrill ride.

Your opinions aside (!), where could you have put more thrills for this "average Bond audience". I have had to study cinema spectatorship and audience trends and one of the first things you are told is that there is no such thing as an "average audience" and that the "general public" as used in discussions like this has never existed.

Was Brosnan an all out wit in GOLDENEYE? I am not sure he was. Is it telling that the most successful Brosnan Bond film (even in America...!) was the least tonally light film of his tenure? To claim the "American audiences" (who are not all made up of action-seeking jocks) wanted Brosnan's lighter tone and that Dalton should have been lighter in his delivery is surely just undermining the American audiences intelligence.

In 1987/89 Cubby Broccoli and Michael Wilson had been father and (step) son for nearly thirty years. "Locking horns" was not in their style. Someone like Cubby Broccoli does not "lock horns" with family. And certainly doesn't choose to work with a character he may do down the line.

Yo mention how : However the bigger issue with LTK would have been the fact the writer not being present full time, a director who clearly didn't understand Dalton's strengths but rather went along with it. Eon needed a shake up.

Writers are not present all the time on most projects. Every film is different but Maibaum "not being present" doesn't mean much. Besides, his trusted co-writer of quite a few films and years was producing the film. It is not like the script of the film was high and dry. It is telling how both SOLACE and KILL have had folk throw the "Writers Strike" reason for a film that not everyone liked. Opinion or not - the "Strike" had nothing to do with either film as both strikes were seen a long way off and prepared for and worked around. They didn't just stall the films mid-shoot. I disagree about John Glen and Dalton too. How can a director who had been in the Bond loop for nearly 15 years, had been around when Dalton was properly considered in the late 1960's and seen how Bond films work (via their casting choices) "not understand" any Bond actor's strengths? It doesn't make sense. Glen had worked on countless Bond films and even THE THIRD MAN. You don't drift/live/work through those experiences without realisin what an actors strengths are.

Just my thoughts...

[Dekard77]

It was a catch-22 situation. NBC canceled Remington Steele with a year remaining on Pierce Brosnan's contract, which allowed him to audition for the role of 007. And with Timothy Dalton's unavailability due to a project he was working on, Brosnan quickly became the front runner to become James Bond #4 and he eventually got the part--at least tentatively.

As much as I would like to believe it, I seriously doubt Dalton was really "offered" TLD before Brosnan was, I think that was a PR spin from EON so it did not appear Dalton was second choice. I do know that Dalton was approached to audition for Bond in the past, but in 1986, there were absolutely NO rumors of Dalton being linked to the role until after Brosnan was out of the picture. I think Brosnan was the lead in choice(at least from UA) to replace Moore prior to AVTAK being released.

I also agree that Brosnan may not have actually been Broccoli's top choice, but more the studio's top choice.

Oh, I don't think Timothy Dalton was offered the role of James Bond 007 before Pierce Brosnan. But I think it is very plausible, as EON has claimed, that they looked at Dalton first because of the aforementioned audition approaches they had made to him in the past. However, I can equally buy this scenario as an EON cover up for Dalton being their second choice. (I suppose for Dalton's sake and Broccoli's determination to hire him and support him over the years makes me more willing to lean toward EON's post-1986 version of events.)

I do agree with you that Brosnan was definitely United Artists' top choice for the Bond role whereas Broccoli preferred Dalton, although I believe Broccoli was quite content with Brosnan too (must have been since he signed him--twice).

Would be interesting if we could look back at an alternate timeline and see who Broccoli/UA would have chosen had both Dalton and Brosnan been available for the 007 role in 1986.

Brosnan for sure. That's the issue with Dalton, when people saw this very serious guy as opposed to what Brosnan would have done then some would have been disappointed with Dalton. However the bigger issue with LTK would have been the fact the writer not being present full time, a director who clearly didn't understand Dalton's strengths but rather went along with it. Eon needed a shake up. LTK was that. Maybe MGW knew this from the start but would have waited for the public to react rather than lock horns with Cubby who was still calling the shots. Either way flop or no flop it was a rude awakening in USA for 007 in '89. Glen and Dalton not a good combo. If he had someone like Tony Scott or Peter Hunt things would have been better .
When I saw Dalton in Beautician and Beast I was pleasantly shocked as to how he comedic he can be if he wanted to, also the scene where he is shown shaved with a new hairstyle he still looked cool enough to play Bond then and there!!!!!!
AWTAK performance still standing it was a disappointment to Eon with their new star and new approach. A lot of ppl don't really like QOS but I think it's a very good Bond movie. At the end of the day the average Bond audience/casual fans expect the thrill ride.

Your opinions aside (!), where could you have put more thrills for this "average Bond audience". I have had to study cinema spectatorship and audience trends and one of the first things you are told is that there is no such thing as an "average audience" and that the "general public" as used in discussions like this has never existed.

Was Brosnan an all out wit in GOLDENEYE? I am not sure he was. Is it telling that the most successful Brosnan Bond film (even in America...!) was the least tonally light film of his tenure? To claim the "American audiences" (who are not all made up of action-seeking jocks) wanted Brosnan's lighter tone and that Dalton should have been lighter in his delivery is surely just undermining the American audiences intelligence.

In 1987/89 Cubby Broccoli and Michael Wilson had been father and (step) son for nearly thirty years. "Locking horns" was not in their style. Someone like Cubby Broccoli does not "lock horns" with family. And certainly doesn't choose to work with a character he may do down the line.

Yo mention how : However the bigger issue with LTK would have been the fact the writer not being present full time, a director who clearly didn't understand Dalton's strengths but rather went along with it. Eon needed a shake up.

Writers are not present all the time on most projects. Every film is different but Maibaum "not being present" doesn't mean much. Besides, his trusted co-writer of quite a few films and years was producing the film. It is not like the script of the film was high and dry. It is telling how both SOLACE and KILL have had folk throw the "Writers Strike" reason for a film that not everyone liked. Opinion or not - the "Strike" had nothing to do with either film as both strikes were seen a long way off and prepared for and worked around. They didn't just stall the films mid-shoot. I disagree about John Glen and Dalton too. How can a director who had been in the Bond loop for nearly 15 years, had been around when Dalton was properly considered in the late 1960's and seen how Bond films work (via their casting choices) "not understand" any Bond actor's strengths? It doesn't make sense. Glen had worked on countless Bond films and even THE THIRD MAN. You don't drift/live/work through those experiences without realisin what an actors strengths are.

Just my thoughts...

HMMMM ok , maybe. I just get this vibe between Dalton and Glen. Anyways on of the Bond Books written after LTK discusses about the duo's relationship on the set not being smooth. That aside my beef is with John Glen for not being able to bring out Dalton's full potential. Same way I felt about Guy Hamilton with Moore. He is great with characters but somehow never got the full Moore Bond till SPWLM.
MGW wanted to go back to the beginning of Bond something Cubby wasn't so interested in . I doubt they fought.
I did feel Brosnan was all out in a good way to create awareness to Bond and given the X mas release date he had enough time to do so. That time the film was released most people I knew was talking about the movie and promotional tie-ins like Omega and BMW. You can't deny Brosnan's ability to work up media. He was a player. He looked the part as well.
Of course Americans love action films ! Most films are action oriented or fantasy based . Last few years it's been more comedy but again I feel action films will make a big come back or at least I hope so. I am not talking about Super Hero movies.
When I mean general audience I mean people who go to watch movies based on the hype or media surrouding them. They are not film buffs but like a good flick.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Was Brosnan an all out wit in GOLDENEYE? I am not sure he was. Is it telling that the most successful Brosnan Bond film (even in America...!) was the least tonally light film of his tenure? To claim the "American audiences" (who are not all made up of action-seeking jocks) wanted Brosnan's lighter tone and that Dalton should have been lighter in his delivery is surely just undermining the American audiences intelligence.

Actually, according to both box office take and ticket admissions, each of the Brosnan Bonds did better than its predecessor in North America:

Goldeneye -
US Box Office: $106.4m
US Admissions: 24.45 million

Tomorrow Never Dies -
US Box Office: $125.3m
US Admissions: 26.7 million

The World is Not Enough -
US Box Office: $126.93m
US Admissions: N/A

Die Another Day -
US Box Office: $160m
US Admissions: 27.8 million

So obviously North Americans responded positively to Brosnan's Bond. Whether they would have responded the same way if Dalton had stayed in the role is anyone's guess.

[Zorin Industries]

Was Brosnan an all out wit in GOLDENEYE? I am not sure he was. Is it telling that the most successful Brosnan Bond film (even in America...!) was the least tonally light film of his tenure? To claim the "American audiences" (who are not all made up of action-seeking jocks) wanted Brosnan's lighter tone and that Dalton should have been lighter in his delivery is surely just undermining the American audiences intelligence.

Actually, according to both box office take and ticket admissions, each of the Brosnan Bonds did better than its predecessor in North America:

Which supports what I have said.

[Dekard77]

With the exception of TWINE I liked the Brosnan Bonds. Americans want a Bond they know is fun to watch I guess. DAD had some pretty outright silly moments, but Brosnan did give us a glimpse into rouge Bond (nice welcome since LTK) and Miranda Frost was excellent.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I can only imagine how poorly Dalton's third film would have done if that nonsense about robot assassins had been made.

Honestly, what was Cubby Broccoli thinking in the 80s? Allowing Glen, who had never made a real before, to direct five consecutive films. Allowing Wilson, who is not a professional writer, to script five consecutive films.

And then trying to revive the franchise with "talent" like Alfonse M. Ruggiero Jr. (whose only work of note to that point was writing for "miami Vice"), John Landis (chiefly a comic writer/director whose best days were long behind him at that point), Willard Huyck & Gloria Katz (the brains behind "Howard the Duck") Richard Smith (who had written Stallone's B-movie actioner "Lock Up") and John Byrum (Bill Murray's version of "The Razor's Edge").

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Honestly, what was Cubby Broccoli thinking in the 80s? Allowing Glen, who had never made a real before, to direct five consecutive films. Allowing Wilson, who is not a professional writer, to script five consecutive films.

And then trying to revive the franchise with "talent" like Alfonse M. Ruggiero Jr. (whose only work of note to that point was writing for "miami Vice"), John Landis (chiefly a comic writer/director whose best days were long behind him at that point), Willard Huyck & Gloria Katz (the brains behind "Howard the Duck") Richard Smith (who had written Stallone's B-movie actioner "Lock Up") and John Byrum (Bill Murray's version of "The Razor's Edge").

So do you think Glen was a bad director and Wilson a bad writer?
If that is where you are coming from I disagree. I think (maybe LTK aside) Wilson together with Maibaum (and his requisite experience and guideance no doubt) delivered great scripts in the eighties. They were well constructed with good ideas, interesting elements and characters.

I think EON regard making their Bond films as something totally unique in the industry. They look for film makers who really understand the series to preserve its sensibility and retain the sense of a Bond film feeling like a Bond film.
Looking at things this way puts someone like John Glen at the top of the list as a Bond director. OK, if you don't like what he did fair enough, but I think he had a CV that made him a perfect choice for director on Bond - he knew and understood the Bond universe. Every time he is interviewed about making Bond he smiles and radiates a passion for making the films, which I don't see coming from some of the directors that followed him.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't think any of those writers you mention actually ended up contributing to the completed GE script in the literal sense. Again I maybe wrong but weren't a lot of those names were banded about by the studio during the six year hiatus, and was more of a reflection of media hunger for news about Bond 17 than anything else?
Is it not the case that producers consult with various writers for ideas when they are developing a new script. Some of the ideas get used, some don't. Broccoli did the same thing for TSWLM did he not.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 23 July 2009 - 03:00 PM.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

So do you think Glen was a bad director and Wilson a bad writer?
If that is where you are coming from I disagree. I think (maybe LTK aside) Wilson together with Maibaum (and his requisite experience and guideance no doubt) delivered great scripts in the eighties. They were well constructed with good ideas, interesting elements and characters.

I think EON regard making their Bond films as something totally unique in the industry. They look for film makers who really understand the series to preserve its sensibility and retain the sense of a Bond film feeling like a Bond film.
Looking at things this way puts someone like John Glen at the top of the list as a Bond director. OK, if you don't like what he did fair enough, but I think he had a CV that made him a perfect choice for director on Bond - he knew and understood the Bond universe. Every time he is interviewed about making Bond he smiles and radiates a passion for making the films, which I don't see coming from some of the directors that followed him.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't think any of those writers you mention actually ended up contributing to the completed GE script in the literal sense. Again I maybe wrong but weren't a lot of those names were banded about by the studio during the six year hiatus, and was more of a reflection of media hunger for news about Bond 17 than anything else?
Is it not the case that producers consult with various writers for ideas when they are developing a new script. Some of the ideas get used, some don't. Broccoli did the same thing for TSWLM did he not.

I'm fairly certain that Ruggiero and Richard Smith did indeed do work for Eon (though not on what ultimately became "Goldeneye"). I also believe that Landis and Byrum were in negotiations to direct a third Dalton picture.

I can understand the decision to hire Glen once - he was a solid editor (though not quite in the same league as Peter Hunt) and a very good second unit director.

But his work as director proper is is flat and bland. There's no style. And Bond - at least cinema Bond - must have style. He has no visual sense - look at the shot compositions and camera moves in the Lewis Gilbert and Martin Campbell films and compare them to anything Glen did. And look at what other action directors were doing around the same time - the truck chase in "Licence to Kill" pales in comparison to the ones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Road Warrior", and both of those films were made several years earlier.

Glen shoots in classic television style - master shot, over-the-shoulder shot, close-up, insert. He does nothing interesting with the blocking of the actors, and he doesn't seem to have a knack to elicit strong performances from them.

Some of the worst performances of the series (Lynn Holly Johnson in "For Your Eyes Only", Kristina Wayborn and Steven Berkoff in "Octopussy", Tanya Roberts in "A View to a Kill", Joe Don Baker and John Terry in "The Living Daylights" and just about everyone in "Licence to Kill" save Dalton, Davi and Del Toro) came on his watch.

Glen shot the script in a generic, competent fashion - and sometimes not even competent. That warehouse fight in AVTAK is truly inept - the way it's been edited suggests there wasn't enough coverage to cut it properly.

I imagine he stuck to the budget and the schedule and the films continued to make money, so they kept him on.

And Wilson isn't a dreadful writer, but he's not a particularly good one. All of the 80s films have structural and pacing issues - their needlessly convoluted plots with some of the weakest villains of the series. There's no sparkle and wit to the dialogue - Mankiewicz and Christopher Wood weren't so hot with plot either, but they wrote some terrific lines. Though to be fair, the writing in the Brosnan films wasn't really any better.


But I wonder how much better the 80s films could have been had they sought out stronger writers and directors like Spielberg, George Miller, John McTiernan, or Paul Verhoeven.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

But I wonder how much better the 80s films could have been had they sought out stronger writers and directors like Spielberg, George Miller, John McTiernan, or Paul Verhoeven.

When you mention names like Spielberg (who I imagine after Indiana Jones would never have done a Bond anyway even if Broccoli had wanted him) it goes too much into the territory of 'letting someone else screw it up' for me. Obviously I don't mean Speilberg would screw up the series - he would probably have done a good job. But his presence would have overpowered 007.
I don't honestly believe at the time any of the others you mention would have made a better MOORE 007 FILM than say OP. They may have made a better FILM than OP but not a better 007 film starring Moore. When Roger was Bond the people went to see him because he was making films that were pure entertainment in the traditional sense - that was the brief and the public loved it. The Bonds in the early 80's were not character driven pieces delving into Bonds emotional journey (ala Dalton and Craig or perhaps TWINE) - FYEO was about as far as Moore wanted to go with character I imagine. Bring someone else in be it writer or director and they may have messed with that. Glen understood it, and so did the other key film makers.
I personally don't think there was any stronger writer than Maibaum around in the eighties who could have written a Bond. Not saying another writer should not perhaps have co-authored with him and Wilson (ala OP) but there was no substitute for a good Maibuam script IMO. I think he was on fire writing TLD when he had the opportunity to go back to Fleming. I think some of the dialogue in TLD was the best of the series in terms of character. My thoughts.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 23 July 2009 - 05:02 PM.

[Dekard77]

But I wonder how much better the 80s films could have been had they sought out stronger writers and directors like Spielberg, George Miller, John McTiernan, or Paul Verhoeven.

When you mention names like Spielberg (who I imagine after Indiana Jones would never have done a Bond anyway even if Broccoli had wanted him) it goes too much into the territory of 'letting someone else screw it up' for me. Obviously I don't mean Speilberg would screw up the series - he would probably have done a good job. But his presence would have overpowered 007.
I don't honestly believe at the time any of the others you mention would have made a better MOORE 007 FILM than say OP. They may have made a better FILM than OP but not a better 007 film starring Moore. When Roger was Bond the people went to see him because he was making films that were pure entertainment in the traditional sense - that was the brief and the public loved it. The Bonds in the early 80's were not character driven pieces delving into Bonds emotional journey (ala Dalton and Craig or perhaps TWINE) - FYEO was about as far as Moore wanted to go with character I imagine. Bring someone else in be it writer or director and they may have messed with that. Glen understood it, and so did the other key film makers.
I personally don't think there was any stronger writer than Maibaum around in the eighties who could have written a Bond. Not saying another writer should not perhaps have co-authored with him and Wilson (ala OP) but there was no substitute for a good Maibuam script IMO. I think he was on fire writing TLD when he had the opportunity to go back to Fleming. I think some of the dialogue in TLD was the best of the series in terms of character. My thoughts.

True to some extent. Wish they brought in a few writers to change the films a bit. Glen is an efficient filmmaker and certainly understood the Bond team better but he did tone down the flamboyance/out of this world look Bond was used to. He didn't have an eye for that. FYEO being an exception to the rule . I could also be finding fault with fact I hate Peter Lamont's bland sets.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I don't honestly believe at the time any of the others you mention would have made a better MOORE 007 FILM than say OP. They may have made a better FILM than OP but not a better 007 film starring Moore.

"Octopussy" is my favourite Glen film, by far. I think it has the most consistent tone of all of his efforts, and I can still feel the influence of George Macdonald Fraser (now why didn't they use him more as a writer, particularly on the Moore Bonds?) in it.

GE, on the other hand looks (with some exceptions) like a cheap 90s TV drama. Especially the St. Petersburg scenes all scream Pinewood to me, they have no exotic flair whatsoever.

I don't think "Goldeneye" is all that great, overall, and I agree that it's pretty drab visually (so is TWINE, for that matter). But I still feel that it's better directed in terms of camera work, performances, the shaping of scenes and so forth than Glen's efforts.

To be fair, Glen was hampered by lower or static budgets - FYEO was slightly cheaper than "Moonraker" and I believe all of his subsequent films were in the $30 million range, at a time when film budgets were skyrocketing.

I could also be finding fault with fact I hate Peter Lamont's bland sets.

I agree. Ken Adam's departure was a huge loss to the series, in my opinion. Lamont is a solid designer, but he has none of Adam's flair or imagination.

[Tybre]

Never understood the hate for that character.

Amongst hard core fans, hell if I know. When it comes to the general populace, I can venture I guess based upon my experiences with other people. The sort of people who say Connery was the best and Goldfinger was the best, perhaps because they feel they're supposed to or perhaps because they've got only limited exposure, what with being "casual fans" and all, they expect big over-the-top schemes, absurd lairs, megalomaniacal villains with schemes that could likely never be executed in the real world, etc. Again, speaking from experiences I've had with other fans outside of the group of people like ourselves, and of course there are exceptions to this. But when you look at Whitaker, what was he? An arms dealer. An arms dealer who took the Russian military's payment, purchased large amounts of opium using diamonds, and intended to sell the opium at a price high enough to turn a clean profit and still be able to buy the Russians their arms. It's a significantly scaled back and more realistic plot than the likes of Moonraker, You Only Live Twice, or Goldfinger, which is what these people seem to expect.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I think Cubby thought he was being bold and "shaking things up" by bringing Dalton on board, "going back to Fleming", and being a bit more ruthless and violent with the storyline, but I think he just didn't know how to make a film that was *BOTH* different *AND* very good. LICENSE REVOKED was different, but it wasn't good-different; it was bad-different, and thus the audience became INdifferent.

If LICENSE REVOKED had been allowed to percolate for an extra year....had they opted to go with 3 year intervals instead of one film every two years...if they'd waited to go with a script with more input from more writers and not proceeded with a script that had no WGA(?) or relevant Maibaum input....maybe LICENSE REVOKED would have been a better film. The movie dies a death of a thousand paper cuts. It's just bad on every level; it's not just one thing that dooms the film.

LTK failed because it tried to go in two directions at the same time. On the one hand, it's supposed to be a tougher, harder-edged, more violent thriller that at once harkens back to the Fleming of LALD and then-contemporary action fare like "Lethal Weapon" and "Die Hard". On the other, it's still saddled with ill-advised Moore-style slapstick (swordfish as weapons, wheelie-popping big rigs) and ham-handed comic relief (Q's appearance, the whole bit with Wayne Newton). The result is a wildly inconsistent tone.

On top of that, you've got some poor casting choices (now that we've got a younger Bond, let's bring back a 60 year old Leiter and have him marry Suzanne Somers' replacement from "Three's Company"), an insufficient budget, uninspired design and photography and a sour, charmless performance from the film's lead.

It's no wonder it's the least successful Bond picture.

[Dekard77]

Looking back there are some good points to LTK but the rogue agent bit seems a bit forced and I agree with the fact that film had two directions as mentioned before. However it's still better than most Bond films.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

So do you think Glen was a bad director and Wilson a bad writer?
If that is where you are coming from I disagree. I think (maybe LTK aside) Wilson together with Maibaum (and his requisite experience and guideance no doubt) delivered great scripts in the eighties. They were well constructed with good ideas, interesting elements and characters.

I think EON regard making their Bond films as something totally unique in the industry. They look for film makers who really understand the series to preserve its sensibility and retain the sense of a Bond film feeling like a Bond film.

Well, I think you've hit upon something, which is that EON, under Cubby's supervision, never really tried to stray too far from established formula until it was probably too late (late 80's). Because of that, they never had a need for directors who would come in and shake things up with a signature sense of style. Same goes for the writers; I think Maibaum and Wilson were not only great together at times, but they filled the basic parameters that Cubby was looking for.

I wasn't really thinking about formula when I wrote that post. It was in reference to the 80's as a decade and a response to a suggestion of bringing in bigger name film makers in (ala Spielberg) at that time over Glen Wilson and Maibaum. I just think that that kind of move could potentially over power a Bond film. If that happens I think you risk loosing the essence of a Bond film feeling like a Bond film and then you have lost your audience. What then is the reason to go and see a Bond if it does not feel like a Bond film?
That's why the best films IMO are all made by the film makers who understand what Bond is about, and Glen ticks this box in spades and so does Maibaum.
I think its a powerful argument that there was room for fresh talent by the time LTK was released. I would loved to have seen what a new director (but the right director in the EON mould) and another writer could have done with Dalton. In some ways I wish Glen had left after his excellent TLD. However, I think some of this is because Dalton only did two. Had he continued with different writers and directors (ala Moore and Connery) and got his TSWLM or GF so to speak I may not have this opinion.

And I disagree that the 80's had the worst villains and the worst women. Lynn Holly Johnson did the role as written. It's like saying Alan Cumming was the worst supporting character ever because he was so aggravating; well, yeah, he was aggravating but he was supposed to be. Let's not confuse intended performance with director's capability. I think Zorin, May Day, Brad Whittaker, Necros, Magda, Octopussy, Kamran Shah, and Kara were all great characters and ably played by their actors. In fact, Brad Whittaker gets some very quotable quotes. Never understood the hate for that character.

I agree.

LTK failed because it tried to go in two directions at the same time. On the one hand, it's supposed to be a tougher, harder-edged, more violent thriller that at once harkens back to the Fleming of LALD and then-contemporary action fare like "Lethal Weapon" and "Die Hard". On the other, it's still saddled with ill-advised Moore-style slapstick (swordfish as weapons, wheelie-popping big rigs) and ham-handed comic relief (Q's appearance, the whole bit with Wayne Newton). The result is a wildly inconsistent tone.

On top of that, you've got some poor casting choices (now that we've got a younger Bond, let's bring back a 60 year old Leiter and have him marry Suzanne Somers' replacement from "Three's Company"), an insufficient budget, uninspired design and photography and a sour, charmless performance from the film's lead.

It's no wonder it's the least successful Bond picture.

I think you have a point about some of the casting. But as far as the UK goes I do not accept that LTK failed.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 24 July 2009 - 02:46 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

So do you think Glen was a bad director and Wilson a bad writer?
If that is where you are coming from I disagree. I think (maybe LTK aside) Wilson together with Maibaum (and his requisite experience and guideance no doubt) delivered great scripts in the eighties. They were well constructed with good ideas, interesting elements and characters.

I think EON regard making their Bond films as something totally unique in the industry. They look for film makers who really understand the series to preserve its sensibility and retain the sense of a Bond film feeling like a Bond film.

Well, I think you've hit upon something, which is that EON, under Cubby's supervision, never really tried to stray too far from established formula until it was probably too late (late 80's). Because of that, they never had a need for directors who would come in and shake things up with a signature sense of style. Same goes for the writers; I think Maibaum and Wilson were not only great together at times, but they filled the basic parameters that Cubby was looking for.

I think Cubby thought he was being bold and "shaking things up" by bringing Dalton on board, "going back to Fleming", and being a bit more ruthless and violent with the storyline, but I think he just didn't know how to make a film that was *BOTH* different *AND* very good.

Imagine that.... a producer wanting to make the 16th entry in his series of very successful films and want to do it exactly as he planned - i.e. HIS way.

Again, this is merely YOUR reaction to a film you clearly have problems with. So the way of it is that if you don't like a Bond film, then the directors and producers are losing their way and don't know what they are doing....? Interesting yet a tad flawed way of discussing Bond films, if you ask me.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I get those words "sour" and "charmless" from casual fans of the series when describing Dalton...a lot. Personally, I liked his slightly exasperated, impatient, and annoyed looks...But there were other times when I think his interpretation of Bond did him and the series a disservice...Dalton's Bond almost seemed, at times, to be ashamed to be doing the stanky legg with a hot woman.

Agreed completely. I have somewhat mixed feelings about Dalton. I think he had the potential to become an excellent Bond, but I don't feel he really nailed the role in either of his two outings. My biggest problem with his performances is that he never seems to be enjoying himself in the role. He doesn't seem to take any pleasure in the girls, cars or exotic surroundings - it's almost as if he feels embarrassed by the part. He always seems a little bit annoyed, peeved. There are actors who can play cranky and charming simultaneously - Harrison Ford does it a lot as Indiana Jones - but Dalton couldn't - or wouldn't.

I think he had it in him - he displayed great comic timing in "Hot Fuzz", and brought a real dangerous charm to the mini-series "Framed", but his Bond performances left me cold. I'd like to see how he would have fared with less schizophrenic material and a different director.

Again, this is merely YOUR reaction to a film you clearly have problems with. So the way of it is that if you don't like a Bond film, then the directors and producers are losing their way and don't know what they are doing....? Interesting yet a tad flawed way of discussing Bond films, if you ask me.

Of course this is all subjective, but how else is it possible to discuss why LTK was a box-office disappointment? There are no incontrovertible facts as to why it didn't do as well as its predecessors

It isn't so much that I don't like the film (though I don't much like it), as it is that it seemed second-rate compared to similar fare at the time - "Die Hard" and Indiana Jones were doing the same sort of thing, and doing it better.

I don't think GE or TWINE are all that much better than LTK, but both those films seem more comparable, in terms of scope and production values, to other action-adventure films released around the same time.

Strictly speaking from my own perspective, the mid-to-late 80s was a rough time to be a Bond fan. There was a real sense that the series had become stale by this point and EON's complacent, business-as-usual approach to the film didn't help matters.

[Tybre]

Agreed completely. I have somewhat mixed feelings about Dalton. I think he had the potential to become an excellent Bond, but I don't feel he really nailed the role in either of his two outings. My biggest problem with his performances is that he never seems to be enjoying himself in the role. He doesn't seem to take any pleasure in the girls, cars or exotic surroundings - it's almost as if he feels embarrassed by the part. He always seems a little bit annoyed, peeved.

Bear in mind Timothy was trying to accurately portray the Bond Ian Fleming wrote, an oft-irritable man who, particularly in the latter end of the novels, tended not to give much of a damn about where he was, he was only concerned with doing his work. In Dr No and TMWTGG, Jamaica is of little consequence to Bond. It's just where he happens to be. Live and Let Die is the only time he seems to really be taking pleasure in Jamaica. I don't recall Bond ever giggling like some sort of school girl because he was in a new car. Hell, in Goldfinger Bond takes a DB3, a damn nice car most of us would probably be tearing up the streets in, and behaves as if he's driving his Bentley or any other old car.

I can certainly see where people would have problems with this approach, and hey, if you don't like him, you don't like him, but it's not as if Timothy just had a stick up his . Dalton did a lot of romance films and miniseries before and after Bond. In quite a few of them he displayed his was quite capable of being charming. Do I think Timothy isn't all that charming as James Bond? Yes, and I think part of it comes more from the writing than Dalton himself. However, I think it's wise of it not to be there regardless. I think if the charm factor had been upped, Dalton's portrayal would be considerably weaker.