Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Another View of LTK's "Flopping"


519 replies to this topic

#451 Rufus Ffolkes

Rufus Ffolkes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 297 posts

Posted 24 July 2009 - 09:13 PM

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.


The thing is, it's hard to play disinterest and make it interesting. Dalton's performance is too often at odds with the material, I feel. That scene with the girl at the beginning of TLD is a good example. He's playing Fleming-Bond in a situation that only cinema-Bond would find himself in. And the way he abruptly tosses off the "Bond, James Bond" line almost comes across as a challenge to the audience. Craig's "Do I look like a give a damn?" response is kind of similar, but it's funny, surprising and, most importantly, in sync with the material.

Where Craig was able to bring to life Fleming's Bond more realistically and with style and panache...Dalton wasn't, and that's the difference between being a two-and-out film actor, and doing 3, 4, or more. Obviously Craig the actor brought something more to the role than what Dalton was able or willing to.


Craig also had the advantage of producers and filmmakers who were fully committed to shaking up a stale formula, and the backing of a studio willing to pony up sufficient funds to properly produce and market his films - something the neither-here-nor-there LTK lacked.

To this day I can't find a single woman that found Roger Moore sexually appealing. I mean, I defy you to find me one scene where Roger is even remotely sexy, or where he shows of a tight, muscular body. It's like his sexiness didn't exist. That's the mark of a truly great actor.


It's a blessing that Moore never stripped to his shorts, don't you think? Moore understood the fundamental absurdity of the entire Bond universe. He knew that the sight of a 50-something Bond clinging to the tail of an airplane - or being lustfully leered at by 20-something women - was inherently ridiculous, and his performance acknowledged that.

Moore played up the humour and fantasy of Bond, and I can understand why a lot of people dislike that approach. Personally, I miss it. We seem to be in an era where audiences prefer psychologically damaged, inward-looking heroes, like Craig's Bond, Bourne and The Dark Night.

But I think a big part of the appeal of Bond over the years has been the fantasy - the desire to be Bond. I always wanted to be Moore's Bond, and Connery's Bond, maybe even Brosnan's Bond. Can't say that I'd want to be Dalton or Craig's, though. As The Joker says: "Why so serious?"

#452 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 24 July 2009 - 10:32 PM

But let's also be realistic about something....Craig wasn't above flashing "the goods" in order to sell the film. Pictures of him emerging from the water in a tight pair of swim trunks hit the Internet massively hard, and seemed to turn around some of the bad buzz in the early months of the CASINO ROYALE shoot. Craig was willing to sell sex appeal in a way Dalton wouldn't or couldn't.

Connery sold the sex-appeal, but to Roger's credit he never tried to sell his sex appeal or manly ruggedness in order to cash in a few extra dollars at the box office. Roger made a concerted effort to keep his sex appeal in check. To this day I can't find a single woman that found Roger Moore sexually appealing. I mean, I defy you to find me one scene where Roger is even remotely sexy, or where he shows of a tight, muscular body. It's like his sexiness didn't exist. That's the mark of a truly great actor.


Yeah that comes across as another aspect of Dalton's stiffness; his refusal to get his kit off (we saw his bare chest, for what, five seconds in LTK) probably didn't help in attracting female fans. Thinking about it, all the other Bonds put their goods on display in their first Bond outing, some more than others, obviously, whereas the only way Dalton could have showed less skin in TLD is if he wore a burka. For some reason he's even wearing a jacket in the tropical climates of Tangiers and Key West. Instead of the masculine, sexual James Bond he's more of a stiff-assed, repressed Brit who goes on holiday and wears his inappropriate British clothing. Though weirdly enough, he's wearing a pair of Converse/Vans in LTK. Presumably he stopped off at the mall for those? I don't think they sell 'em at Saville Row!

#453 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 24 July 2009 - 10:53 PM

For some reason he's even wearing a jacket in the tropical climates of Tangiers and Key West.



I don't know how that James Bond gets away with it! I mean, even Roger wore a suit in the middle of India in Octopussy. B)

In Daltons defense though, The Living Daylights was released during the world-wide aids panic, maybe that has something to do with it?

I see The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill as two of the most unsexy Bond outings in the franchise. Though they are both romantic, weird that.

#454 Rufus Ffolkes

Rufus Ffolkes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 297 posts

Posted 27 July 2009 - 01:49 PM

I actually kind of prefer Dalton's more casually-dressed look to some of Brosnan's costume choices.

Whose idea was it to stick him in tailored suit in the middle of an oil field in Kazakhstan (or wherever it was)?

#455 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 27 July 2009 - 02:05 PM

Brosnan could pull of the suit. His over confidence in playing 007 in TWINE is what I mostly hated.
Dalton looked very youthful in LDL but LTK he looked a real mess. Please before anyone mentions the revenge mode think of the fact it doesn't bore well. I am watching it on Blu Ray and TD looks very very messy.

#456 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 10 August 2009 - 06:51 PM

Whose idea was it to stick him in tailored suit in the middle of an oil field in Kazakhstan (or wherever it was)?

The costume designer, perhaps? Let's look her name up... B)

#457 O.H.M.S.S.

O.H.M.S.S.

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1162 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 11 August 2009 - 09:43 AM

Whose idea was it to stick him in tailored suit in the middle of an oil field in Kazakhstan (or wherever it was)?

The costume designer, perhaps? Let's look her name up... B)


Lindy Hemming, costume designer for GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and CR. Apart from that she was also the costume designer for Nolan's Batman movies and the second Harry Potter.

#458 Stephen Spotswood

Stephen Spotswood

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:25 PM

The next James Bond?

http://weblogs.newsd...ncowell_lgl.jpg

#459 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 03:05 PM

I think Dalton appeals primarily to the Fleming purists, but his films are a hard sell outside of core Bond-fandom.


I think you've hit the nail firmly on the head, there. And I think that's why the Fleming purist finds it hard to be objective about the Dalton era. I was a passionate supporter/defender of Dalton at the time he was in the role because of my love of Fleming. And I still appreciate him as an actor (as I've said elsewhere, I have seen him on stage and believe he's a better stage actor than a screen actor; on stage he is bloody fantastic). I also appreciate what he tried to do with the role and still believe he deserves the credit he gets for it. But...

...as the years have passed, I do see that he didn't engage the general audience. People will dump on me for saying this but before they do I would hope they would stop and recognize that I am not making a criticism of him for this. I liked what he tried to do with Bond but, alas, some of the general audience didn't warm to him. And we can argue back and forwards between ourselves about how successful or otherwise LTK was, and the Dalton devotees can claim (possibly with some justification) that he was casting pearls before swine. But the elephant in the room for all of us who really liked Dalton is that a proportion of the general audience - the ones who really matter - found him a tad dull, earnest and theatrical. And no amount of posts on CBn claiming he wasn't can alter that perception. Alas..

#460 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 11 August 2009 - 03:13 PM

Whose idea was it to stick him in tailored suit in the middle of an oil field in Kazakhstan (or wherever it was)?

The costume designer, perhaps? Let's look her name up... B)

Lindy Hemming, costume designer for GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and CR. Apart from that she was also the costume designer for Nolan's Batman movies and the second Harry Potter.

Well, at least when Louise Frogley had Craig walking through the desert in a suit, she made sure to have a perfectly good reason behind it.

#461 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 11 August 2009 - 03:47 PM

I think Dalton appeals primarily to the Fleming purists, but his films are a hard sell outside of core Bond-fandom.


I think you've hit the nail firmly on the head, there. And I think that's why the Fleming purist finds it hard to be objective about the Dalton era. I was a passionate supporter/defender of Dalton at the time he was in the role because of my love of Fleming. And I still appreciate him as an actor (as I've said elsewhere, I have seen him on stage and believe he's a better stage actor than a screen actor; on stage he is bloody fantastic). I also appreciate what he tried to do with the role and still believe he deserves the credit he gets for it. But...

...as the years have passed, I do see that he didn't engage the general audience. People will dump on me for saying this but before they do I would hope they would stop and recognize that I am not making a criticism of him for this. I liked what he tried to do with Bond but, alas, some of the general audience didn't warm to him. And we can argue back and forwards between ourselves about how successful or otherwise LTK was, and the Dalton devotees can claim (possibly with some justification) that he was casting pearls before swine. But the elephant in the room for all of us who really liked Dalton is that a proportion of the general audience - the ones who really matter - found him a tad dull, earnest and theatrical. And no amount of posts on CBn claiming he wasn't can alter that perception. Alas..


Thats why they wanted a new actor who can carry the franchise.

#462 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 03:52 PM

"They" didn't. John Calley did. If GoldenEye had been shot a year earlier, it would have starred Dalton.

#463 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 11 August 2009 - 03:54 PM

It would have never happened with Dalton again.

#464 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 03:58 PM

Wrong.

#465 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 11 August 2009 - 04:10 PM

Right! If the studio wanted the actor they would have got the actor. If they didn't want they will get Brosnan.

#466 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 04:16 PM

But the elephant in the room for all of us who really liked Dalton is that a proportion of the general audience - the ones who really matter - found him a tad dull, earnest and theatrical. And no amount of posts on CBn claiming he wasn't can alter that perception. Alas..

Yes I think that's true (although I would argue this was more the case with American than British audiences) inasmuch that Dalton was probably never going to match the popularity of Connery or Moore. That is not to say he was an unpopular choice either though. Equally I still think UK audiences would have been interested to see the next film with Dalton (and I will always argue that in the UK LTK was no flop).

I'm no Fleming purist - I just like the Bond movies and really admire the creative talent behind them. However, still defending Dalton its POSSIBLE he could have grown on audiences but sadly he was never given that opportunity. Certainly Moore and Connery reached full swing with their third film. I know there is no guarantee Dalton would have made that mark with audiences - his third entry may have done worse than LTK, but the fact his tenure was cut short is something to bear in mind.

I have been watching loads of my old UK documentaries from the early Brosnan era recently (uploaded to youtube). What struck me was most of them blamed Dalton for the six year gap and the (then) end of the series. Only one documentary mentioned the legal issues that delayed production of Bond films. To me it felt as though people were being shunned away from Dalton in the wake of Brosnan admiration. I think this belief still holds in the minds of most today - ie the shakespearean actor that misfired with audiences. And now we have a slightly similar situation where Brosnan is being shunned in favour of Craig.

#467 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 11 August 2009 - 04:22 PM

Legal problems aside they didn't want Dalton to be Bond again! Brosnan is more accessible to the audience. Brosnan got shunned mainly due DAD otherwise he would have had a graceful exit, that added with his premature comments about Eon at a time when Dana Broccoli passed away would have made it seem worse.

#468 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 August 2009 - 05:17 PM

Legal problems aside they didn't want Dalton to be Bond again! Brosnan is more accessible to the audience. Brosnan got shunned mainly due DAD otherwise he would have had a graceful exit, that added with his premature comments about Eon at a time when Dana Broccoli passed away would have made it seem worse.


Why do so many people suppose Brosnan was such a safe bet as Bond? Of course, given the success his films were, that's only reasonable. But that's what we know now. Brosnan was far from a safe bet in '95. The series all and everybody seemed to rave about him being ideal for Bond, 'Remington Steele', already was pretty old hat, its last episodes flmed as late as '87. And the films Brosnan did since weren't exactly blockbusters. There were some decent works amongst them, certainly. But overall there was nothing that would have suggested to me Brosnan would have been 'the ideal Bond period' ™. Brosnan had the career of a thousand other actors in the business, slightly below his abilities, a lot below his aspirations.

So in effect, had I been in a position to decide back in those years I'd have asked myself this:
Here is a talented actor, already familiar with the role and established as Bond. He's had his problems with a part of audiences, but this is in no way new, Moore faced similar problems till TSWLM.

On the other hand there's an actor who looks the part, granted, but who also hasn't had that big a career. And whose tv show, that sparked many fanboys to clamour for him in the first place, has been canceled for a whole eight years.

In my opinion it was a bigger gamble to go with Brosnan, regardless of how some seem to percieve that time in hindsight. I don't think prior to Goldeneye there was any substantial evidence indicating that Brosnan would fare much better than Dalton has done.

#469 Rufus Ffolkes

Rufus Ffolkes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 297 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 05:54 PM

Brosnan was far from a safe bet in '95. The series all and everybody seemed to rave about him being ideal for Bond, 'Remington Steele', already was pretty old hat, its last episodes flmed as late as '87. And the films Brosnan did since weren't exactly blockbusters. There were some decent works amongst them, certainly. But overall there was nothing that would have suggested to me Brosnan would have been 'the ideal Bond period' ™.


Brosnan represented a clean slate in 1995, a chance to 'reboot' the series before that term came into vogue. It wouldn't have been possible to market "Goldeneye" in the same way had Dalton returned to the role.

Rightly or wrongly, there was a perception at the time that audiences hadn't warmed to Dalton and that the Bond series in general was tired and antiquated compared to modern blockbusters.

A change of lead offered a fresh start. And unlike Mel Gibson or some of the other big names that were being bandied about, Brosnan was cheap, which meant more money could be spent on the production and marketing of the film. And as a bonus, there were still enough people who remembered him as the guy who should have got the role back in 1986.

So from the studio's perspective, Brosnan was a pretty safe bet.

#470 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 11 August 2009 - 06:06 PM

Sad but true, much as I hate to admit it. Although there certainly is a degree of Calley behind it as opposed to EON. I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of EON wanted Dalton out of the role, but one gets the sense they would have honored Dalton's 3-film deal had he not bowed out. Calley on the other hand was very anti-Dalton. Of course this is all a man looking back on it retrospectively rather than with knowledge of at-the-time (hell, I was 3 when GoldenEye was in theatres), but that's what I get from looking over everything available to me about that point in time. Brosnan was the safer bet, and the studio was more willing to gamble on where the house advantage was significantly less. Pierce was the blackjack of the cinema casino.

Okay, knocking off the casino references now. You get the point.

Dekard, while there probably is some truth to Brosnan being shunned for DAD, it should be noted that that is not the rule. Not in my experience anyway. Myself, I never cared for Brosnan from the first moment I saw the PTS of TWINE on Spike. Other people I know who never cared for Brosnan didn't care for him from the first moments he appeared in whichever of his films they saw first. I know one person who hates Pierce because they hate his films, as if he were somehow responsible. Okay, well, I'm sure some of it is him, but not going down that road now.

#471 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 06:19 PM

Right! If the studio wanted the actor they would have got the actor. If they didn't want they will get Brosnan.

They did want the actor a year earlier. But things can (and did) change.

Legal problems aside they didn't want Dalton to be Bond again!

Which is why they prepped a script for him in 1990 that would have been made if a crooked British solicitor hadn't brokered a crooked deal to buy MGM for a crooked Italian businessman (the same solicitor that got Ronnie Biggs out of prison last week, as it happens).

GoldenEye was also originally written for Dalton and he was involved in the development process of it.

"They" didn't. John Calley did. If GoldenEye had been shot a year earlier, it would have starred Dalton.


What stopped Dalton from doing the film in 1995? Did it conflict with his shooting schedule for SALT WATER MOOSE?

Alan Ladd left United Artists and John Calley replaced him.

#472 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 August 2009 - 06:22 PM

Brosnan was far from a safe bet in '95. The series all and everybody seemed to rave about him being ideal for Bond, 'Remington Steele', already was pretty old hat, its last episodes flmed as late as '87. And the films Brosnan did since weren't exactly blockbusters. There were some decent works amongst them, certainly. But overall there was nothing that would have suggested to me Brosnan would have been 'the ideal Bond period' ™.


Brosnan represented a clean slate in 1995, a chance to 'reboot' the series before that term came into vogue. It wouldn't have been possible to market "Goldeneye" in the same way had Dalton returned to the role.

Rightly or wrongly, there was a perception at the time that audiences hadn't warmed to Dalton and that the Bond series in general was tired and antiquated compared to modern blockbusters.

A change of lead offered a fresh start. And unlike Mel Gibson or some of the other big names that were being bandied about, Brosnan was cheap, which meant more money could be spent on the production and marketing of the film. And as a bonus, there were still enough people who remembered him as the guy who should have got the role back in 1986.

So from the studio's perspective, Brosnan was a pretty safe bet.


Cannot say I agree here. It's exactly as you said, Brosnan was cheap. So the leading role goes from an acclaimed Shakespeare actor to a former tv and B film star, which is not exactly advertising. And, strangely, it's often forgotten that Dalton had two films and the first one had got a decidedly better start. I see no reason why it wouldn't have been possible to win the nay-sayers over with a third film for Dalton the way they did it with TSWLM.

Apart from a major recasting I don't get the feeling of a reboot with 'Goldeneye'. Yes, M is a woman now and, obviously, Remington Steele now is Bond. But on the whole there has changed remarkably little for a reboot. The tone of the film, the humour, the stunts and so on in their majority stay in character with the EON series. Much more so than 'Casino Royale' did IMHO. I can see no major hindrance that would have prevented filming 'Goldeneye' with Dalton if he had still been available. And he would have been Bond already, whereas Brosnan had first to become him.

#473 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 06:35 PM

Cannot say I agree here. It's exactly as you said, Brosnan was cheap. So the leading role goes from an acclaimed Shakespeare actor to a former tv and B film star, which is not exactly advertising. And, strangely, it's often forgotten that Dalton had two films and the first one had got a decidedly better start. I see no reason why it wouldn't have been possible to win the nay-sayers over with a third film for Dalton the way they did it with TSWLM.

Yes I agree and this was the point I was making in my last post on this thread (although by now this question is purely hypothetical, as we all know Bond 17 with Dalton never happened). I remember personally feeling quite shocked when news of Dalton's resignation was announced.

#474 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 August 2009 - 06:56 PM

Cannot say I agree here. It's exactly as you said, Brosnan was cheap. So the leading role goes from an acclaimed Shakespeare actor to a former tv and B film star, which is not exactly advertising. And, strangely, it's often forgotten that Dalton had two films and the first one had got a decidedly better start. I see no reason why it wouldn't have been possible to win the nay-sayers over with a third film for Dalton the way they did it with TSWLM.

Yes I agree and this was the point I was making in my last post on this thread (although by now this question is purely hypothetical, as we all know Bond 17 with Dalton never happened). I remember personally feeling quite shocked when news of Dalton's resignation was announced.


I remember when I read about Brosnan's casting and I knew about his bad luck back in 87. While shocked about Dalton's resignation I wished Brosnan well, knowing him from 'Remington Steele'. I liked the show and actually thought he wasn't a bad choice. But 'Steele' was far from being a smashing success or anything. It did well in a fierce environment, but it wasn't the next big thing, nowhere near. Of course there are obvious similarities between Moore/The Saint and Brosnan/Remington Steele. But Brosnan was not even close to being as established as Moore was after The Saint, neither in the US and certainly not in Europe.

I still think going with Brosnan was a gambit. It payed, but it was a risk.

#475 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 11 August 2009 - 06:58 PM

Apart from a major recasting I don't get the feeling of a reboot with 'Goldeneye'.

Absolutely agreed. Although, the announcement of a new Bond actor is a relatively monumental change in of itself. Add to that a several year hiatus, and GE feels like a reboot as much as anything. (Anything except CASINO ROYALE.)

#476 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:02 PM

Apart from a major recasting I don't get the feeling of a reboot with 'Goldeneye'.

Absolutely agreed. Although, the announcement of a new Bond actor is a relatively monumental change in of itself. Add to that a several year hiatus, and GE feels like a reboot as much as anything. (Anything except CASINO ROYALE.)



Moreover, I think it wasn't promoted as a reboot, neither intentional nor unintentional.

'YOU KNOW THE NAME - YOU KNOW THE NUMBER'

So everything was familiar. Faces change, but Bond stays the same.

#477 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:05 PM

TBH, I'm not sure what a 'reboot' even is.

#478 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:31 PM

TBH, I'm not sure what a 'reboot' even is.


re·boot (rē-bōōt')
tr.v. re·boot·ed, re·boot·ing, re·boots
To turn (a computer or operating system) off and then on again; restart.
----------------------------------------------------------
A term that comes from computer usage. To reboot a computer is to start it up again after a computer crash. Hence, “reboot” has the connotation of starting a process over again.


A "reboot" would be the restarting of something. In the case of cinema, getting rid of everything that came before, either literally or metaphorically or both, in favor of a new, fresh spin. Thus one could argue every actor received a reboot. It's a bit of a thin argument, but it could be made.

#479 Rufus Ffolkes

Rufus Ffolkes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 297 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:44 PM

Cannot say I agree here. It's exactly as you said, Brosnan was cheap. So the leading role goes from an acclaimed Shakespeare actor to a former tv and B film star, which is not exactly advertising. And, strangely, it's often forgotten that Dalton had two films and the first one had got a decidedly better start. I see no reason why it wouldn't have been possible to win the nay-sayers over with a third film for Dalton the way they did it with TSWLM.

Apart from a major recasting I don't get the feeling of a reboot with 'Goldeneye'. Yes, M is a woman now and, obviously, Remington Steele now is Bond. But on the whole there has changed remarkably little for a reboot. The tone of the film, the humour, the stunts and so on in their majority stay in character with the EON series. Much more so than 'Casino Royale' did IMHO. I can see no major hindrance that would have prevented filming 'Goldeneye' with Dalton if he had still been available. And he would have been Bond already, whereas Brosnan had first to become him.


I don't think that GE was meant to be a complete overhaul the way CR was, so 'reboot' probably isn't the right word. But I think it was definitely intended to be a 'rejuvenation' of the series.

The entire film is a desperate attempt to prove that Bond, as a character, and the Bond films, as a series, are still relevant in a post-Cold War world, hence M's speech about Bond being a relic and a dinosaur. Even the film's advertising plays to this theme - "you can still depend on one man," "you were expecting someone else", and so on. The film also had to prove that Bond could compete with pumped-up, modern action blockbusters like the "Die Hards" and "True Lies."

That's not to say it wouldn't have worked with Dalton - they could have gone the "Spy Who Loved Me" route. And in some ways, it would have made more sense to have a guy in the lead who had already been there, a seasoned cold-warrior justifying his existence in a new world.

Obviously, this is all conjecture, but I suspect the film would have been a hit with either Dalton or Brosnan in the lead. Personally, I think the six-year gap between films, bigger budget and superior marketing push were the main factors in GE's success.

But MGM clearly lacked faith in both Dalton and the series. I suppose they felt that Dalton had had his chance and blew it, and it was time for a fresh start.

#480 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:46 PM

[In response to Tybre's post]
Exactly. Everything in Bond that is not blatantly sequential is then a reboot. Or maybe not. Or mabye so. Or maybe not...

Hence my confusion. Or rather... my unconcern, at this point.