135 replies to this topic

[RazorBlade]

Yes, to a 3rd Dalton film. No to GOLDENEYE. I would like to see him in LALD or FYEO.

[Hitmonk]

Yes, to a 3rd Dalton film. No to GOLDENEYE.

I agree - Goldeneye is a horrible "made for TV movie" and a horrible script. Dalton was better off out of it, although I'd have loved to have seen him do more.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think the franchise would have lasted much longer with Dalton in GOLDENEYE and had the rest of the film remained the same. I don't think it's a very good movie at all on its own right, and putting Dalton in there, who was already unpopular, would have probably considerably weakened the film in the eyes of the general audience, as opposed to Brosnan, who everyone had warmed up to before even seeing the film (or at least it seemed that way).

I don't want to start another "LTK: Flop or not?" thread, but that film did gross more than the likes of Die Hard worldwide. I'm not really sure if it is that fair to refer to Dalton as having been unpopular in the part. Off course, I was born the year LTK came out, so I know nothing about what general audiences felt about him at the time, but one can't deny that his films were popular.

However, I do think GE was, from a non-fanboy perspective, a logical place to introduce a new actor, given all the years between it and the last movie. I don't think we would have seen Daniel Craig returningt to the part if it took six years to get Bond 23 off the ground either, no matter what amount of money QoS made.

[Trident]

I also think it's not exactly logical to assume a third Dalton film/Goldeneye with Dalton would have been a LTK Part II and the end of the series. Whatever they are, EON are completely capable of adapting their series to the market's needs. Another Dalton Bond would doubtlessly have played a much lighter note than LTK. I can see no reason why Dalton shouldn't have played along the lines of TLD once more. And that one not only did reasonably well but also wasn't such a world away from Goldeneye eight years later. Minus a few of the more cheesy moments I actually can see Dalton doing that one. It would have been a different film to the one we got, but I'm also sure we'd have recognized it had we had the chance to see both.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Just imagine:

http://007art.free.f...e_dalton_2.html

How do YOU think GoldenEye would have been with Dalton's involvement? Better? Worse?

I personally think I would enjoy the film a lot more with him in the role. Pierce is not very interesting in this film (he hit his stride in Tomorrow Never Dies, where he's fine), and the script feels, as pointed out by many, like it was written with Dalton's portrayal in mind.

GoldenEye would likely also be a film I would have some kind of interest in re-watching with Timothy in the part (I never watch this film these days).

Perhaps a Dalton GE's trailer would like something like this-

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

[00Twelve]

I was in a mood yesterday while at work and was thinking about GE with Dalton. I was imagining what it'd have been like if Bond's psych evaluation had had something to do with the events of LTK and it was about making sure he's ready to take on 00 missions again. And the warning about not making the mission a vendetta for 006 could have held a little more obvious poignancy (as it is, it still seems like a subtle reference to the last film without going over the heads of casual viewers).

However, and this is more a criticism with the film in general, I don't think the older mentor idea would have worked any better than 006 did in the final film. Who could have possibly been set up as an older mentor for Bond other than Messervy or Boothroyd? It would have stood out a little more obviously as a retcon than even 006 did IMO. I'm glad it was a fellow 00 that was a villain (though, yes, they could of course have made him a *little* older to reflect the WWII references).

Alas, by '95, Dalton wasn't on the rise like Brosnan was and while I'd have loved to see it, I can't imagine the final project that was GE would have been as financially successful without Broz in the role.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Alas, by '95, Dalton wasn't on the rise like Brosnan was and while I'd have loved to see it, I can't imagine the final project that was GE would have been as financially successful without Broz in the role.

I don't think it would have either, but I'm sure a well-marketed Bond movie would at that point have been a major success even if it starred Verne Troyer.

[Dalton_Craig]

If I might be allowed to chip in? And before I begin, this is not a Brosnan-bashing exercise. Not really...

I think, as some others have pointed out in this thread, that while GoldenEye is a decent enough movie (others would beg to differ), the film is let down by the fact that all of a sudden, after more than thirty years of essentially being unseen or being two-minute plot devices, a fellow 00 Agent suddenly is Bond's best friend who he gets emotional about after getting shot in the PTS.

This historical absence on the part of the Alec Trevelyan/006 character from the previous movies is what undermines GoldenEye's storyline, to an extent. It expects you to believe that a brand new Bond has a whole lot of emotional/historical investment with this whole new character. The film does pull it off, to a degree, but a lot of that 'oomph' which would normally come from 'friend-turned-foe' is lost in the final wash-up. What should have happened in the previous films is that the character of 006 should have been introduced (say during say Dalton's reign) and the reltionship between the two characters developed over the course of a few films.

There is a second factor that lets the film down as well, I feel, in perhaps the most critical of character relationships in the Bond movies - the relationship between Bond and M. And the factor undermining that relationship in this film is the casting of Pierce Brosnan. Or rather, the absence of the established Bond, Timothy Dalton.

One of GoldenEye's big draw cards was that the character of Bond and the Secret Service in general was changing (being dragged) with the times, best exemplified by the appointment of a new, female M as Bond's superior officer, mirroring Stella Rimingtion's promotion to MI5 in real life. This new M clearly has issues with Bond, best exemplified by her line "You're a sexist, mysoginst dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War." A perfect summation by a new progressive boss of the old, politically incorrect, Cold War-era gunfighter Bond.

However, the problem is that this criticsm rings hollow against the James Bond portrayed by Pierce Brosnan, who is actually somewhat closer to (heck, in my view he TYPIFIES) the image of the 90's man - the metrosexual, the SNAG. Someone mentioned this over in the Brosnan forum, when discussing Brosnan's 'manliness', that he always came across as "a bit met". This is my feeling exactly.

The whole strike against Bond as a "dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War" by M would have had a much more powerful impact if it were thrown at the Bond of the Cold War 1980's, Timothy Dalton. The film could have made a lot more mileage out of the "new world order theme" if it had portrayed Dalton, the Bond of the 80's, struggling to find his place in this radically changed world of gender equality, free-markets, post-Soviet Russia and such.

Picture the scene with Moneypenny, remarking that Bond's banter "could qualify as sexual harrassment", or the exchange with Wade in St Petersburg about the Brits "with your secret codes and your passwords". Or Valentin's taunt "still working for MI6 or have you decided to join the 21st century?". Or the scene on the beach with Natalya, "It's what keeps me alive".

These are the nuggets of gold that develop characters and storylines, but they are wasted on the new actor, Pierce Brosnan, who personifies the man of 1990s, down to his expensive Brioni suit and dripping gold cufflinks. He isn't "joining the 21st century", he's already there...

I think GoldenEye is a good film. Heck, it's the Bond movie that introduced me proper to the series (but that might have to do more with the fantastic video game), so there is a sentimental factor ther for me, too. But what I feel is a good film as it stands, could potentially have been one of the 'giants' of the series, alongside From Russia with Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Goldfinger and such, if it had have addressed the issues I've just raised.

So, in short, would I want Timothy Dalton in GoldenEye? Absolutely!

[Trident]

Brilliant post, Dalton_Craig! Sums up many of my own feelings about GE.

[Tybre]

If I might be allowed to chip in? And before I begin, this is not a Brosnan-bashing exercise. Not really...

I think, as some others have pointed out in this thread, that while GoldenEye is a decent enough movie (others would beg to differ), the film is let down by the fact that all of a sudden, after more than thirty years of essentially being unseen or being two-minute plot devices, a fellow 00 Agent suddenly is Bond's best friend who he gets emotional about after getting shot in the PTS.

This historical absence on the part of the Alec Trevelyan/006 character from the previous movies is what undermines GoldenEye's storyline, to an extent. It expects you to believe that a brand new Bond has a whole lot of emotional/historical investment with this whole new character. The film does pull it off, to a degree, but a lot of that 'oomph' which would normally come from 'friend-turned-foe' is lost in the final wash-up. What should have happened in the previous films is that the character of 006 should have been introduced (say during say Dalton's reign) and the reltionship between the two characters developed over the course of a few films.

There is a second factor that lets the film down as well, I feel, in perhaps the most critical of character relationships in the Bond movies - the relationship between Bond and M. And the factor undermining that relationship in this film is the casting of Pierce Brosnan. Or rather, the absence of the established Bond, Timothy Dalton.

One of GoldenEye's big draw cards was that the character of Bond and the Secret Service in general was changing (being dragged) with the times, best exemplified by the appointment of a new, female M as Bond's superior officer, mirroring Stella Rimingtion's promotion to MI5 in real life. This new M clearly has issues with Bond, best exemplified by her line "You're a sexist, mysoginst dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War." A perfect summation by a new progressive boss of the old, politically incorrect, Cold War-era gunfighter Bond.

However, the problem is that this criticsm rings hollow against the James Bond portrayed by Pierce Brosnan, who is actually somewhat closer to (heck, in my view he TYPIFIES) the image of the 90's man - the metrosexual, the SNAG. Someone mentioned this over in the Brosnan forum, when discussing Brosnan's 'manliness', that he always came across as "a bit met". This is my feeling exactly.

The whole strike against Bond as a "dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War" by M would have had a much more powerful impact if it were thrown at the Bond of the Cold War 1980's, Timothy Dalton. The film could have made a lot more mileage out of the "new world order theme" if it had portrayed Dalton, the Bond of the 80's, struggling to find his place in this radically changed world of gender equality, free-markets, post-Soviet Russia and such.

Picture the scene with Moneypenny, remarking that Bond's banter "could qualify as sexual harrassment", or the exchange with Wade in St Petersburg about the Brits "with your secret codes and your passwords". Or Valentin's taunt "still working for MI6 or have you decided to join the 21st century?". Or the scene on the beach with Natalya, "It's what keeps me alive".

These are the nuggets of gold that develop characters and storylines, but they are wasted on the new actor, Pierce Brosnan, who personifies the man of 1990s, down to his expensive Brioni suit and dripping gold cufflinks. He isn't "joining the 21st century", he's already there...

I think GoldenEye is a good film. Heck, it's the Bond movie that introduced me proper to the series (but that might have to do more with the fantastic video game), so there is a sentimental factor ther for me, too. But what I feel is a good film as it stands, could potentially have been one of the 'giants' of the series, alongside From Russia with Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Goldfinger and such, if it had have addressed the issues I've just raised.

So, in short, would I want Timothy Dalton in GoldenEye? Absolutely!

Bravissimo! Precisely what I think is wrong with a good deal of GoldenEye. Of course there are some more issues I have with the film, but that, I think, is the core. I applaud you, good sir.

[00Twelve]

If I might be allowed to chip in? And before I begin, this is not a Brosnan-bashing exercise. Not really...

I think, as some others have pointed out in this thread, that while GoldenEye is a decent enough movie (others would beg to differ), the film is let down by the fact that all of a sudden, after more than thirty years of essentially being unseen or being two-minute plot devices, a fellow 00 Agent suddenly is Bond's best friend who he gets emotional about after getting shot in the PTS.

This historical absence on the part of the Alec Trevelyan/006 character from the previous movies is what undermines GoldenEye's storyline, to an extent. It expects you to believe that a brand new Bond has a whole lot of emotional/historical investment with this whole new character. The film does pull it off, to a degree, but a lot of that 'oomph' which would normally come from 'friend-turned-foe' is lost in the final wash-up. What should have happened in the previous films is that the character of 006 should have been introduced (say during say Dalton's reign) and the reltionship between the two characters developed over the course of a few films.

Sorry to bring this up for what seems like the 27th time, but this is exactly why I have always failed to understand why Trevelyan was 006 rather than 008.

008 has been referred to as far back as Fleming's Moonraker, being one of the three men in the section along with Bond and 0011, and received several references in the literary canon alone. In the films, 008 was always the man with whom M could replace Bond if he felt the latter wasn't going to be objective (Goldfinger and TLD). We never saw 008 nor heard his name; the one thing we've known about 008 is that his skills are as close to Bond's as anyone else's in the service.

Without having the benefit of an established relationship that could have been set up in Dalton's movies, we could have at least recognized 008 from those earlier references and more easily palated the prospect of his being friends with an equally-skilled Bond. How I see it, anyway.

[Turn]

Allow me to offer my props to Dalton-Craig's post. It says a lot of what I've felt were weaknesses with GE, which should've been a stand-alone mission with no baggage for a first-time Bond actor to get acquainted with the series.

I can buy it's the same character, but it's a lot different than, say, OHMSS. Bond is after Blofeld, his past adventures are referenced, etc. With GE we're asked to believe there was a whole period of time in Bond's career where he worked with a fellow 00 enough to form a bond with him, when there was no reference in any other films and the fact a different actor was in the role at the time of the flashback.

GE has a lot to squeeze into one film:

-Introduce a new actor as Bond
-Update the series for the 1990s
-Bring in the personal element
-Keep the continuity of what fans expect including action, women, villains, gadgets, etc.

It may have been better to make it more of a generic type of mission that pushed the right buttons rather than bring in the whole personal thing and build that backstory that seems rather hard to swallow. It still would have worked fine without the emotional baggage.

Also, how MI6 was so blind to Trevelyan's background is one of the most glossed over holes of the series. It wasn't exactly UNCLE he was working for.

[Dalton_Craig]

Thank you all for your kind words. I don't usually make many posts (least of all of that length) on online boards, peferring to read what others have posted and jump in only when the urge strikes me and only then when I have a contribution that I have thought at length. This is one such occasion.

GE has a lot to squeeze into one film:

-Introduce a new actor as Bond
-Update the series for the 1990s
-Bring in the personal element
-Keep the continuity of what fans expect including action, women, villains, gadgets, etc.

It may have been better to make it more of a generic type of mission that pushed the right buttons rather than bring in the whole personal thing and build that backstory that seems rather hard to swallow. It still would have worked fine without the emotional baggage.

Which is why I think Tomorrow Never Dies would have been a much better movie to introduce Pierce Brosnan. TND is something of a generic action movie that ticks boxes 1 and 4 that you have outlined above, which are the staples of any Bond movie that has a new Bond actor onboard. Boxes 2 and 3 would have been ticked by a Dalton GoldenEye, particularly box 2, which would have made the task for a Brosnan TND much easier. Piggybacking on Timothy Dalton's hard work, if you will.

The one thing, I feel, that Brosnan had going for him that made GoldenEye a success (financially), is that he had the (perverse) advantage of the "six-year gap", which satisfied typical Bond fans with their pent-up hunger for a new Bond film, a new generation of movie goers and kids to be introduced to Brosnan as 'their' Bond (myself among them), and a sense of entitlement on the part of those who wanted Brosnan in 1986 and were dissapointed to see Dalton instead.

Said financial success allowed the anti-Dalton types to cement the idea that Dalton was a failure/poor Bond and that Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye was the Second Coming for the Bond franchise. (Okay, maybe I'm getting a little sensationalist here, but you get my point?)

[Peckinpah1976]

It may have been better to make it more of a generic type of mission that pushed the right buttons rather than bring in the whole personal thing and build that backstory that seems rather hard to swallow. It still would have worked fine without the emotional baggage.

My big problem with GE is that it's too generic; the damn thing plays a check-list of Bond movie cliche's, yes there are odd scenes that attempt to bring some emotional development to the character but they feel awkwardly bolted-on and in no way define the film. However, if you're correct in saying that "backstory" and "emotional baggage" are no way to launch a new actor in the role, how come CR was such a resounding success?

[Turn]

It may have been better to make it more of a generic type of mission that pushed the right buttons rather than bring in the whole personal thing and build that backstory that seems rather hard to swallow. It still would have worked fine without the emotional baggage.

My big problem with GE is that it's too generic; the damn thing plays a check-list of Bond movie cliche's, yes there are odd scenes that attempt to bring some emotional development to the character but they feel awkwardly bolted-on and in no way define the film. However, if you're correct in saying that "backstory" and "emotional baggage" are no way to launch a new actor in the role, how come CR was such a resounding success?

I do agree with GE being rather generic as well, relying on the standby deadly space hardware plot, along with the standard car chases, gadget cars, stunts, etc. But it was necessary as you wouldn't have wanted a James Bond movie in the era of True Lies that was more grounded in the story. They attempted it, but with a new actor in Brosnan it didn't work as well, at least in my view and probably yours.

CR was a resounding success because it was established that this was Bond at his beginning. Not the super agent we are accustomed to. It set out to not be about the action, with fewer sequences and most loaded up front rather than spread out. Then it took a chance by taking the middle section and placing it in on mostly indoors, with little action, save for the rousing stairwell fight.

CR shook up expectations of the standard Bond film. Part of the appeal of what Daniel Craig brought was most audiences weren't familiar with him and that meant we got to know him along with this young Bond just starting his career and it blended well with the different storyline.

Brosnan was annointed the heir to the Bond throne back when Remington Steele was in its first season, even before that if you count Cubby Broccoli's noting of him as a potential Bond when his wife was acting in FYEO. We knew what to expect with him and pretty much got it. His wanting to "peel back the layers" was where it didn't work quite as well. I don't think he could have been as acceptable being a Bond on his first mission due to our familiarity with him.

[Trident]

Brosnan was annointed the heir to the Bond throne back when Remington Steele was in its first season, even before that if you count Cubby Broccoli's noting of him as a potential Bond when his wife was acting in FYEO. We knew what to expect with him and pretty much got it. His wanting to "peel back the layers" was where it didn't work quite as well. I don't think he could have been as acceptable being a Bond on his first mission due to our familiarity with him.

I must say in hindsight I find the Remington Steele part just what didn't agree with Brosnan's Bond. In GE I found him terribly Steele-ish and also rather young. It would perhaps well have been worth a go had EON gone the reboot-route with Brosnan back then and done a 'Bond begins' plot.

[Peckinpah1976]

I must say in hindsight I find the Remington Steele part just what didn't agree with Brosnan's Bond. In GE I found him terribly Steele-ish and also rather young. It would perhaps well have been worth a go had EON gone the reboot-route with Brosnan back then and done a 'Bond begins' plot.

Whilst it's tempting to think that we could have had a CR-type movie back in '95 I don't think Eon were in a position to take such a gamble at the time (especially after the percieved failure of Dalton's "serious" Bond); so as much as I personally dislike GE, I think for the long-term survival of the series they were entirely right to take the route that they did.

Agree with you about Brosnan's age; he seemed to suit the part more the older he got (the complete reverse of Connery and Moore) which is odd when you think that he really wasn't "young" at all when he started out.

[The Shark]

I must say in hindsight I find the Remington Steele part just what didn't agree with Brosnan's Bond. In GE I found him terribly Steele-ish and also rather young. It would perhaps well have been worth a go had EON gone the reboot-route with Brosnan back then and done a 'Bond begins' plot.

Whilst it's tempting to think that we could have had a CR-type movie back in '95 I don't think Eon were in a position to take such a gamble at the time (especially after the percieved failure of Dalton's "serious" Bond); so as much as I personally dislike GE, I think for the long-term survival of the series they were entirely right to take the route that they did.

Agree with you about Brosnan's age; he seemed to suit the part more the older he got (the complete reverse of Connery and Moore) which is odd when you think that he really wasn't "young" at all when he started out.

Strangely enough, I also think Brosnan's best and most mature performance was in DAD, believe it or not, even though it's my least favourite of his films. The one where he really got a chance to channel Fleming while he smoked, was tortured, acted like a chauvinist pig, drank, and brooded for the majority of the time.

[Dalton_Craig]

To add again to this debate, I refer you all to a post made by poster thefish over at the Club Obi-Wan forums, which offered an interesting angle on the question of why Indiana Jones is still using a Webley revolver in the late 1950s. While being concerned with a different subject altogether, the insights about the themes of change and Indy being old-fashioned in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull speak just as much, I feel, of the situation I outlined above with GoldenEye.

The difference of course is that one film comes off better on this subject than the other, mainly due to the choice of casting of the main character...

Post in question is here...

Edited by Dalton_Craig, 25 October 2009 - 12:35 PM.

[The Richmond Spy]

GoldenEye is just a title...I'm sure it could have been adapted to fit Dalton just as the real one fit Brosnan.

[Gabriel]

Not a GoldenEye fan. I think the film is a messy clash of styles: essentially a Timothy Dalton movie with Roger Moore jokes thrown in. Tonally, it's all over the place. One minute, Bond machine guns to death a bunch of innocent Russian soldiers (remember, these are normal soldiers doing a normal day's work, not the likes of Blofeld's henchmen) then we're supposed to laugh as he wrecks Leningrad with a stolen tank, crushing large numbers of cars, presumably killing a large number of civilians, along the way . . . except A-Team style a number of people are seen to climb out of the crushed cars.

Also, the publicity for GoldenEye slagged off Dalton's era completely unfairly. I hadn't heard any hatred for Dalton's Bond in the years preceding GoldenEye and everyone I knew had liked Licence to Kill. Suddenly, GoldenEye gets announced and people started saying Dalton was crap!

If Dalton hadn't played Bond when he did and forced the change in style of films, I don't think we'd have Bond films now. Had Pierce Brosnan made The Living Daylights, it would have been a Roger Moore film without Roger Moore!

[Dalton_Craig]

I think the film is a messy clash of styles: essentially a Timothy Dalton movie with Roger Moore jokes thrown in. Tonally, it's all over the place. One minute, Bond machine guns to death a bunch of innocent Russian soldiers (remember, these are normal soldiers doing a normal day's work, not the likes of Blofeld's henchmen) then we're supposed to laugh as he wrecks Leningrad with a stolen tank, crushing large numbers of cars, presumably killing a large number of civilians, along the way . . . except A-Team style a number of people are seen to climb out of the crushed cars.

Completley agree. Although, I always preferred to think that the soldiers in the archives were 'Ourumov's people' (loyal to him alone/paid off by Janus) and therefore, to put it crudely, 'fair(er) game' for Bond (if you get my meaning).

The tank chase, on the other hand, well, that's a bit harder to explain away. Maybe Fate was really smiling that day...

Also, the publicity for GoldenEye slagged off Dalton's era completely unfairly. I hadn't heard any hatred for Dalton's Bond in the years preceding GoldenEye and everyone I knew had liked Licence to Kill. Suddenly, GoldenEye gets announced and people started saying Dalton was crap!

The publicity/marketing for GE did seem to have an element of apology for Dalton's reign to it. It certainly, I feel, seemed to cement the idea, in the mind's eye of the public, that Dalton was a failure. Okay, he had his detractors, and you are entitled to your view if you feel that way, but so has every actor to play the role. In the end, though, the alure of the popular option won out over the more sensible course of action.

Thus, we have the GoldenEye we have today - a hybrid of character driven drama in the vein of Dalton and an updated smattering of Roger Moore-style humour and smarm injected by Pierce Brosnan. Not a masterpiece, but a generally solid film that cobbles together enough support from most camps to get by as a success.

[Gabriel]

Completley agree. Although, I always preferred to think that the soldiers in the archives were 'Ourumov's people' (loyal to him alone/paid off by Janus) and therefore, to put it crudely, 'fair(er) game' for Bond (if you get my meaning).

The thing that mitigates against that, though, is that they make chase when Ouromov shouts that Bond has killed the minister. If they were paid flunkies there would have been no need to do that!

Edited by Gabriel, 26 October 2009 - 01:45 PM.

[Trident]

It's strange, but GE is really one of the films I liked quite some despite its various problems.

Mostly I think GE would have profited from another Dalton go. It would perhaps still have had problems (which film hasn't?) but it would have come across somehow more, well, evenly. I felt Brosnan was looking very, very young and constantly reminded me of his 'Remington Steele' role. Subconsciously I was looking for Stephanie Zimbalist to gatecrash the scene and tow Brosnan out by his collar, apologising for the inconvenience her delusional friend has caused with his idée fixe that he was 'James Bond'.

Brosnan (in my perception anyway) became more convincing with age, even though his films didn't always do his efforts justice. But in 'Goldeneye' his Bond didn't convince me at all. Partially this was also due to the concept of introducing a 'new M' with Dench, the real (terribly ugly!) SIS building and so on. Also the dialogue parts with 'cold-war-relic' and 'sexual harassment' sounded somehow hollow. As did the psychological evaluation, supposedly necessary for a Bond who looked by no means 'seasoned' but in fact quite the freshman. All that stuff loses most of its impact when played against Brosnan's boyish lightness. I really never get the feeling, neither then nor now, that he is the one who is addressed here.

Dalton on the other hand would have been just the right contrast to all this newness and his supposed weariness (never really mentioned again after this embarrassing girl gave her report; so why bother in the first place with that idea?). I can't help but feeling most of these elements have been very much directed at his depiction originally.

And yet I have to say I still liked 'Goldeneye'. Not terribly much, not the way I like my favourites of the series. But I still can enjoy it at times and feel reasonably well entertained.

[Dalton_Craig]

The thing that mitigates against that, though, is that they make chase when Ouromov shouts that Bond has killed the minister. If they were paid flunkies there would have been no need to do that!

I see what you're saying, but... (runs off to DVD cabinet and slots movie into PC...)

Having just gone over the whole sequence, the way it plays out is that:

- Mishkin enters the cell with a single guard;
- As Mishkin returns his attention to Bond, after Natalya's dialogue, Ourumov storms into the cell alone and noticibly leaves the door wide open;
- Ourumov goads Mishkin with the gun, noticibly asking him "Do you even know who the enemy is, Dimitri? Do you?!";
- Mishkin calls out "Guard!". Ourumov shoots both Mishkin's guard and Mishkin himself.
- Ourumov quietly mutters to himself about how Mishkin has been murdered "by British Agent James Bond." (so far, the minister's yell and two loud gunshots have not attracted more guards into the cell).
-Ourumov calls out "Guards!", at which point Bond beats on Ourumov and the two guards as they rush into the room. Bond and Natalya then escape.

It is the way this sequence plays out that made me think that perhaps the guards were bought off by Ourumov/Janus. Perhaps it wasn't what the filmmakers had in mind or intended when creating the sequence, but that's the way it comes off to me.

Anyway, it's just a thought of mine...

EDIT: Oh, and Trident, agree completely with everything you just said. Exactly the same reason(s) why GoldenEye is favourite of mine, too, despite its flaws.

Edited by Dalton_Craig, 26 October 2009 - 02:40 PM.

[blueman]

Never bought the setup: 00s are solo artists exclusively, having two with any sort of bond between them rings false and forced. Bond's "friends" in the novels are as flighty as his female companions, there then gone. Even Fleming's Felix would never invite Bond to his wedding, nor would Fleming ever write a plot based on friendship two 00s have for each other. Silly TV mentality/Oprah stuff that robs Bond of Bond IMO.

[Jose]

I would have liked to see a third Dalton movie, not necessarily Dalton in GoldenEye. Actually, Dalton in GoldenEye would have been a different movie altogether- in tone and content. GoldenEye, as it is, is Brosnan's movie.

Edited by Jose, 06 November 2009 - 11:18 PM.

[Gabriel]

So LTK was an intentional failure, or just an 'incomplete success'? I don't think I can recall the 'Dalton-as-cinematic-martyr' angle before.

Neither can I, so I guess you took what I said the wrong way. Actually, Pierce Brosnan was the guy who said that he couldn't have played Bond the way he did (in GE and TND, IIRC) had Dalton not not changed the perception of the films.

Had Brosnan played Bond in TLD, you can pretty much guarantee we'd have had a Roger Moore film without Roger, including stuff like the Tangiers 'Magic Carpet Ride' and more groan-inducing puns. Certainly, it wouldn't have been the rather good film we ultimately got.

Dalton toughened up the Bond franchise and made people realise that Bond wasn't just a globetrotting punster who shagged around.

LTK's 'failure' can be levelled at many things, not least the late-in-the day marketing and title change and an overcrowded summer of sequels. As a 15-year-old, I was looked on with envy by schoolmates for getting in to see the film and the next year the VHS was doing the rounds in my class in the uncut version, as one classmate had been to Malta (I think) and had picked up a pirate copy.

The perception of LTK as a 'failure' and Dalton as another 'George Lazenby' didn't come about until GoldenEye's publicity machine got into operation. Indeed most reviews of the LTK at the time of its release applauded its tougher approach and Dalton's performance. Certainly in all the years between LTK and GE there was no obvious nastiness about it. Only when GE showed up did people start bitching up Dalton.

I would have loved to see a third Dalton movie, but his legacy is IMHO two of the best modern mid-period Bond films out there!

Edited by Gabriel, 08 November 2009 - 05:36 PM.

[bond4life]

Yes for sure because Brosnan was not acting good. He seemed very nervous and the scene where he finds alec alive is juste not good because of him. Dalton would have done it more realistic

[jaguar007]

Actually, Pierce Brosnan was the guy who said that he couldn't have played Bond the way he did (in GE and TND, IIRC) had Dalton not not changed the perception of the films.

Had Brosnan played Bond in TLD, you can pretty much guarantee we'd have had a Roger Moore film without Roger, including stuff like the Tangiers 'Magic Carpet Ride' and more groan-inducing puns. Certainly, it wouldn't have been the rather good film we ultimately got.

Dalton toughened up the Bond franchise and made people realise that Bond wasn't just a globetrotting punster who shagged around.

I totally agree with you here.

The perception of LTK as a 'failure' and Dalton as another 'George Lazenby' didn't come about until GoldenEye's publicity machine got into operation. Indeed most reviews of the LTK at the time of its release applauded its tougher approach and Dalton's performance. Certainly in all the years between LTK and GE there was no obvious nastiness about it. Only when GE showed up did people start bitching up Dalton.

Perhaps in the UK. However here in the US the public were unfortunately less willing to even give Dalton a chance, which is why the film basically bombed here in the US.