135 replies to this topic

[Trident]

I don't think this argument is really getting us anywhere. If one perceives the US market as 'the world', then so be it. The world doesn't care much and frankly never really did. A dwindling importance of a specific region in terms of overall net win isn't exactly the end of days, neither then nor now; we'll get used to it.

Films continue to be made; some more for a specific market of, say, Western Europe, South Asia, East and West Coast US, and some more for a market of Middle West US, South America or Eastern Europe. And some films aim at a general market, not caring much about regional preferences. It doesn't matter where a film makes its money. Why should it ever? A dollar is a dollar, no matter if it comes from Texas or from Tokio, Dallas or Dublin. Producing a universal worldwide success has become increasingly difficult over the decades. So if you can't get all of them they [the producers] try to at least get most of them. I don't see why it should be more important to get crowds into American film theaters than into theaters anywhere else. As long as it pays the rent it can be the crowds in Ulan Bator that guarantee the next entry in the series, for all I care.

[Zorin Industries]

The US market is NOT the biggest market for Bond. It may be politically, but to call a country as big as America a "single market" is a tad misguided and overlooks the vital territories that are the Far East, Australia, India and most of Europe.

The United States is the single biggest movie market in the world. I mean, seriously, are you REALLY going to contest that fact? Are you really going to put your "credibility" on the line trying to back up that statement?

Australia? A hit movie in Australia garners a total box office of $20-30 million dollars. An awful film like 2012 can make that in one night at the U.S. box office.

Please examine the following link and tell me what the biggest single market for Bond is if it's not the United States:

http://boxofficemojo...jamesbond22.htm

Cause I'm looking, and the 2nd largest market for British agent James Bond is, ironically, the United Kingdom, and the U.K.'s haul for QUANTUM OF SOLACE wasn't even half of what the United States took in.

LTK's (#36) US share of overall box office: 22%
GOLDENEYE (#6 film of the year) 30%
TOMORROW NEVER DIES (#10 film of the year) 37%
THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (#14 in the US) 35%
DIE ANOTHER DAY (#12) 37%
CASINO ROYALE (#9) 28%
QUANTUM OF SOLACE (#9) 29%

It's great that the series doesn't have to depend upon the U.S. to carry it into profitability, but your idea that the U.S. isn't the single biggest market for 007 is pure, unadulterated nonsense. Let's see you take your genius marketing skills to MGM and convince them NOT to release the next 007 film into the U.S. market and we'll see exactly how successful that film is. Your theory that the U.S. is essentially a bit player in the global success or failure of a movie is wishful thinking; a bit of revisionist history from people desperate to explain away the failure of LICENSE TO KILL REVOKED by pretending that U.S. box office receipts don't matter. Yeah, well, tell that to MGM's accounting department.

I CHALLENGE YOU, ZORIN INDUSTRIES, no, I DOUBLE-DOG DARE YOU, to find me one country that comes *EVEN CLOSE* to putting the same amount of money in the coffers of the Bond films that the United States can, and has. You won't, because it doesn't exist.

Also, unless you yourself are fully aware of the implications of what the "Writers Strike" did or did not to do the script progress on LICENCE TO KILL (note no-one apart from you seems misguided and blinkered enough to use its working title as its calling card) it is not wise to assume you know exactly how the Strike DID affect the finished film.

Well, and this is just a guess here so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you've never actually been to The University of Iowa and accessed Maibaum's archived-only materials and personal notes, much less read his 40-page screen treatment for BOND16, and written several extensive articles on it. Were you even alive back in 1989?

So, uh, yeah, I do know exactly what BOND16 looked like in Maibaum's mind, and Wilson should have waited. It was a bad call. A bad, bad call on MGM's part to go forward without Maibaum. It was worse than Carter Burke sending those terra-formers to go look for the derelict spacecraft in ALIENS, and it was worse than Bill Belichick going for a first down on his own 28-yard line, staring at a 4th and 2, and with a 6 point lead and only 2 minutes left to play. Yeah, it was THAT BAD.

When someone has been in every script meeting for BOND ' 89 on both sides of the Atlantic we can then slam labels like "the Writers Strike" on things. But until then it doesn't help the debate to shoe-horn everything into your negative stance on the film, just because that suits yout stance on the film.

Do you go around telling 6 year old kids that there's no such thing as Santa Claus? Just curious.

Where to begin....? Oh I know... from the perspective that Jim rightly highlighted - LICENCE TO KILL is only a fluffy bit of filmic fun made two decades ago (and check the official licence/copyright for the title of that one... REVOKED was never used or warranted as a title).

Can I point out that boxofficemojo.whatever is a subsidiary of IMDB which is a useful tool but not the last word in anything cinematic. Far from it. I know that because of the problems I have had on IMDB with my own CV. The truth and accuracy are not in the remit of a fan led site (and they are fans, not industry savvy professionals with access to the reality of film making).

James Bond films are not made solely for the American market - hence (as an example) the heavily Japanese and Asian leanings of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. They are also not solely made for the theatrical markets (so please remember and factor in the home cinema markets - which are as important to Danjaq / Eon as what the film makes in Atlanta).

I have never been to Iowa so I doubt I have been to any University archive there. But I will say that - as someone not a million miles (in a lot of ways) from the people and creatives in discussion here - I could easily go a little closer to home (and have done) to find out what really happened. And your slamming notions of writers and how films are written is naive to say the least. I do not say that because I have visited some archive, but because I know what I do for a living and what pays my bills. Any further illumination on my part on my situation has been dampened by your quite malevolent and antagonistic tone - so professional courtesies go out the window. I also know a little of marketing as other people market my work for me professionally.

On the point of America, your clear arrogance about assuming (because mojo.com told you so.. or maybe Wikipedia) that the US is the only box office territory that matters for a Bond film. It is not. And if you have ever talked about that to the Bond producers you might be aware of that.

And please don't suggest I am using "revisionist" thinking when everything you say Gravity about LICENCE TO KILL is because you didn't like it and clearly feel you have been hard done by somewhere along the road.. as if every Bond film is made for you or to make billions of pounds or it is not a success. Please remember that BOND '91 was greenlit on the back of LICENCE TO KILL's release... if your American studios care SOOOO much about money and profit why did they do that after KILL was such - according to you - a disaster?

And I take it you do not deal with film finance, revenue, statistics or production from your easy but not very substantial claims at facts gleaned from not very substantial websites.

A statement like "it was a bad call. A bad, bad call on MGM's part to go forward without Maibaum" is only your opinion and not that savvy to wider and potentially more personal issues at play at the time - all of which are no-one's business.

And I was alive in 1989. I remember the production of LICENCE TO KILL VERY well....you sort of do when certain people very close to you are working on it... or maybe they are in your precious archives too...?

[Trident]

This is actually not going to lead anywhere much, is it? POV's have been stated repeatedly and in abundance, the respective opinions giving a solid impression, unlikely to change anytime soon, or at all. So perhaps best to agree to disagree and move on.

The original topic was pondering a third Dalton, be that 'Goldeneye' or another plot. Anyone got a new idea, what could have been?

[Safari Suit]

An evil organisation has been siphoning profits from a prestidigious production company and sending out false information boosting their competitors in the hopes of putting an end to their line of work...

[DAN LIGHTER]

I am going to join Jim and have some of his "Fresh Air"

[Zorin Industries]

I have said all I need to on this one Mr Silhouette.

I have provided some counterpoints to your dogmatic stance on a film you have very little knowledge of (and if that is wrong then I am not the inferior one here for knowing everything about a film I hate - which is your call not mine).

You have a weirdly unpleasant way of arguing your point. I know Zorin Industries can be no angel, but it is really hard to argue with such dogged obstinance that sees you bring in some third-bit website's stats, then when I mention their and IMDB's overall validity you ask why I have mentioned that site? (!). That is not rude. That is just a bit odd.

Yes, I do know what happens when films are announced as being "in production". BOND 17 was booked into Pinewood and was on its creative way until some legalities stalled everything. And the examples you cite are clear instances of some films being announced before they really ARE in "production". Bond does not tend to do that - not when directors and studio space were being looked at circa September 1990.

Re my point about YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE - don't clutch at straws when trees are being presented to you. What happened in the novel is irrelevant when Cubby and co took the decision to ride the Far Eastern wave and tap into the Japanese / Far East audiences who gave THUNDERBALL its original title and who lapped up BOND '67.

You are very snipey about people suggesting there is always a wider and different perspective to the production of a film - and who do so from the standpoint of personal and professional experience. My comments about Maibaum were not meant to elicit more rudeness from you, but merely to suggest that notions of Writers Strike gleaned from websites and Wikipedia (which is what a lot of people do - not saying you do solely before you jump on that one and ride with it) are not the last word or the working reality of why some things happen in the production of a film and why some things do not.

You have an unpleasant habit of ret-conning easily found data to suit an attitude to a film - a film that you dislike but go to a lot of bother to discuss.

And you still haven't answered me... what experience do you have of film budgets, box office, revenue and studio deals that isn't gleaned third-hand from what others have written or debated...?

[Jim]

Oh joy, everyone's back to fighting fog once more.

[Trident]

The original topic was pondering a third Dalton, be that 'Goldeneye' or another plot. Anyone got a new idea, what could have been?

No ideas?

Ok, off the top of my head:

Licence Renewed , 1993, with Timothy Dalton

1989: To redeem his position with the Secret Service, Bond is sent to the Soviet Union to investigate a new kind of biologic weapon somewhere in Siberia. Bond infiltrates a high security installation run by the KGB, but is caught. While held prisoner, Bond isn't tortured, not even questioned. Finally, in 1991 after the SU dissolved, Bond is put into a BA flight to London without comment. Over the years of his imprisonment nobody has spoken a single word with Bond.

On arrival in London he's immediately nicked and extensively questioned. All of the SIS officers are entirely unknown to Bond. His demands to see M or Tanner are ignored. But from the bullies' questions Bond soon finds out the SIS has lost a tremendous amount of personnel in the field since his KGB custody; a development that in the end lead to a new M now holding the position of head of SIS. Finally the new M agrees to question Bond him/herself. He/She starts with the question where Bond has taken the biological weapon the Russians miss since he was caught in Siberia.

Bond doesn't understand a single question, but realises the Russians are currently blackmailed with this stuff, a small city at the Black Sea having been annihilated only recently. The blackmailer's first demand being that Bond was taken to London. Behind the scenes the tensions between the West and the Russians are rapidly increasing, a full blown war waiting just around the corner.

While M explains all this, Bond realises he's the fall guy for some kind of greater operation. He tries to convince M to let him free, but this is of course out of the question.

All the more so as M's bodyguard draws a gun and shoots him/her. Right after that he aims at Bond, but 007 can in a fierce fight of course escape.



And so on, take it from there. The main villain is a deep cover KGB sleeper who is next-in-line to become head of SIS. His old KGB cell has stolen their own biological weapon. They plan to provoke a war in order for a coup d'etat, re-establishing their grip on the state and actually welcomed by the Russian people and the West for preventing the nuclear holocaust in the last minute. Bond has to uncover all this, while he's on the run from all concerned parties. He can locate the bio stuff and surrenders it to a Russian army general who helped him in his investigation. A small amount of this stuff is still missing, but Bond can reassure his temporary ally that this has already been put to use on the hideout of the KGB cell that set the whole plot in motion.


Last scene is Bond at the SIS headquarter in London where he reports to the new M. After Bond finishes his story M congratulates him on his operation and officially renews his licence to kill as 007. Bond thanks him and immediately goes on his first assigment, shooting M in the head.

Enter the new M, same as the old M. Bond won't get fooled again.

Gunbarrel. End titles.

Bond will return in 'The World In A Goldeneye'





PS: that shooting of M could be with the 'bulb-butted pistol' from TMWTGG and the actual biological weapon stuff from Russia. Would be a nice touch.

[Tybre]

Think of all the lovely fresh air and exercise one could have instead.

Sorry, I just got a 45 minutes of unseasonably hot fresh air. I'm quite full, thank you. Still though, I suppose we could knock the arguing off.

[SecretAgentFan]

Although I probably should not react to the provocation - and I applaud Jim and Trident for their voices of reason - I´d like to add this.

I agree with Zorin. The US market is not the biggest for Bond. The rest of the world - or as Americans would say: overseas - is the market where Bond films have always had the biggest returns.

"Overseas" has also become more important for other films as well. Witness the box office of recent films like 2012, ANGELS & DEMONS or THE GOLDEN COMPASS.

Does this mean the US market is not important anymore? Of course, not. But what a Bond film does in the US is only one factor in the whole release strategy. A big one, yes, but not the most important one. I guess the decision to release QOS in Europe first speaks volumes.

However, I do get the feeling, Mr.Silhouette, that you basically want to be assured that the USA are in any respect Number One. Isn´t there a wonderful "Saturday Night Live"-sketch about that?

[Zorin Industries]

I think Mr Silhouette has made it perfectly clear how receptive he is to a discussion about LICENCE TO KILL.

But as I don't want to continue one dominated by such curt replies then there is no point. I don't care what a film he is the only one that has renamed didn't do at the American box office. What is the point? He is saying KILL underperformed in the US. It did. I am not disputing that (when you compare the film to the Bond entries that went before). But it made its money in a vast number of other territories (Japan, Europe, India, Australia) and that is all that counts at the end of the financial day.

But Mr Silhouette is laying the blame at whatever short sighted reasons the internet tells him (eg. Writers Strike - not that relevant, but Wikipedia and cut and paste movie websites say otherwise... I was only privy to the production of LICENCE TO KILL and would suggest otherwise....but what do I know?!) which all only amount to opinion masquerading as opinion on something he himself didn't like. But as his criteria for a Bond film's success seems to be the dollar signs then we are not going to get anywhere with a decent informed discussion.

It is indeed fighting fog.

Still waiting for Zorin Industries to explain his statement that:



"The US market is NOT


the biggest market for Bond"


I'm just going to lay under the vaste expanse of a beaufiul Georgia peach tree, eat a little country cooking, and wait till ZORIN INDUSTRIES repuditates his statement.

Zorin Industries does not even know what the word "repuditates" means... let alone is that bothered.

[jaguar007]

Well yes, the US IS the single biggest market for the Bond movies, however, unlike most big budget films, the majority of Bond's box office does not come from the US. You take a movie like The Bourne Ultimatim, over 50% of it's total box office gross came from the US market as opposed to CR where just over 1/4 of the worldwide total came from the US. IF CR had not been released in the US, it still would have grossed almost as much as The Bourne Ultimatium and DAD did in worldwide box office.

So yes, while the US is the single biggest market, it is not quite as significant to Bond as it is to most big budget films.

BTW, while LTK does have many flaws and is far from the best Bond movie, I think it is still better than many other entries out there, including all four of Pierce Brosnan's Bond films.

[Tybre]

BTW, while LTK does have many flaws and is far from the best Bond movie, I think it is still better than many other entries out there, including all four of Pierce Brosnan's Bond films.

[Zorin Industries]

I was only privy to the production of LICENCE TO KILL and would suggest otherwise....

So you admit you had access to the filming of LICENSE TO KILL REVOKED yet did nothing to stop it, which is tantamount to seeing the iceberg ahead of the Titanic but yawning and going back to sleep. At least we have someone on this board who we can directly blame for this train wreck, since MGW has been unwilling to return my phone calls and keeps forcibly removing me from his property.

How would Oscar Wilde have put it? To have one LICENSE TO KILL REVOKED is unfortunate. To have two is enemy action.

Never again will we have a film this bad get made and slapped with a 007 label on it. Not on my watch. We came close with DAD, but....like I said, NEVER AGAIN. We will never forget.

I think I know why Gravity is so against young Zorin here...

Could it be that Ms Silhouette is that Georgian chanteusse with the ringlets I jilted at the altar in July 1989 in order to attend a screening of the fifth James Bond film starring Timothy Dalton?!! If I am right then I fully understand the animosity and can only offer my apologies to young Gravity.

It's only a film after all. And one you don't like. And one I do. Horses for courses...and I like mine genetically engineered.

[honeyjes]

Ground Hog Day! I think you need a gobstopper.

[Eric Stromberg]

Ok, off the top of my head:

Last scene is Bond at the SIS headquarter in London where he reports to the new M. After Bond finishes his story M congratulates him on his operation and officially renews his licence to kill as 007. Bond thanks him and immediately goes on his first assigment, shooting M in the head.

Enter the new M, same as the old M. Bond won't get fooled again.

That was off the top of your head? Some good ideas in there. Plus, a few bars of The Who before the end credits roll is gonna sound awesome.

[Dalton_Craig]

There is so much I could say in defence of Licence To Kill, but I won't, because I know that I will not change many minds (if any at all). But I will say that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. And what one may see as a bastard red-headed stepchild I see as a quiet, authentic, red-haired beauty sitting quietly in a yard at high school, crowded out by a suite of orange-skinned Peroxide platinum blondes.

I accept Licence To Kill for what it is: an largely unpopular, understated, very dark and unconvential entry in the Bond series. And it does have points about it that I don't like (such as Binder's titles and some of John Glen's choices in editing). And yet despite all of this, I find it far and away one of the best movies in the series that deals with James Bond the character. I like my protagonists to be fallible human beings who I can sympathize with. Tarnished knights, if you will.

But sadly, the average movie goer does not think like me, does not view Timothy Dalton like me and does not view this movie like me. Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me or GoldenEye, it is not.

And on that last note, perhaps we should steer the thread back to its original topic, that is, the lost prospect of a third Bond movie starring Timothy Dalton (GoldenEye or otherwise)? That post about a LICENCE RENEWED movie did sound rather good...

Edited by Dalton_Craig, 19 November 2009 - 06:35 AM.

[Trident]

Ok, off the top of my head:

Last scene is Bond at the SIS headquarter in London where he reports to the new M. After Bond finishes his story M congratulates him on his operation and officially renews his licence to kill as 007. Bond thanks him and immediately goes on his first assigment, shooting M in the head.

Enter the new M, same as the old M. Bond won't get fooled again.

That was off the top of your head? Some good ideas in there. Plus, a few bars of The Who before the end credits roll is gonna sound awesome.

And on that last note, perhaps we should steer the thread back to its original topic, that is, the lost prospect of a third Bond movie starring Timothy Dalton (GoldenEye or otherwise)? That post about a LICENCE RENEWED movie did sound rather good...

Oh, glad you liked it!

Yes, it was off the top of my head, typed the way it came to me. But if you look closely there is really only very little original stuff. Most of it is taken from Brosnan films and inverted, reshaped or adapted for another parallel film with Dalton.

My basic assumption is that there is a number of ideas (for plot elements, characters, locations, stunts ect) constantly cruising around in EON orbit. When the time for a new entry is coming closer, these ideas are examined, researched, vetted, vetoed or whatever. Some are taken into closer consideration, some stay in orbit and some are perhaps dropped altogether. And this whole process is (depending on stadium of production of course) going on until the last day of shooting. So I suppose a Dalton Bond somewhere in the early 90's would most likely feature elements of films we've seen later.

Referencing the previous film would be only natural in my opinion and given the specific kind of plot Bond being under scrutiny and trying to rehabilitate himself also a logical step. Bond infiltrating some military installation in the Soviet Union is of course straight from GE; him being taken prisoner straight from DAD. But I wanted something special, so Bond was alone and those evil, evil Russian-Commie-bastards don't torture him. How's that for a change?

In my plot Bond would stay a little longer under lock and key, but wouldn't have anybody to talk to. Ok, also a form of torture, some might think...

When he's back in London I'd like him to get a little of the treatment he missed out in Russia. Just a little, not the whole Presidential-supersized-waterboarding-experience-thank-you-for-whining-with-our-torturers-we-hope-you-had-a-pleasant-scream. It's 1991 and we have yet to learn the pleasures of torture.

Debriefing with the new M would of course be a bit of a shock. A bit of the GE dialogue could get used here, Bond being a relic of the cold war and a loose cannon. It would be interesting to have these scenes with Dench and Dalton. Of course this would be a more recent reference to the scene in QOS with Bond in Mr. White's place. M shot by his/her bodyguard would mix up this with Goldeneye's shooting of the Russian Minister of Defense.

I didn't go further into the plot but feel it's a safe assumption to give Bond a temporary Russian ally that can sort out the affair on the Russian side similar to TND's Chinese agent (Wai Lin???). Having a traitor inside London's administration of course also picks up the theme of Miranda Frost from DAD. But I thought it would be much more interesting to have this traitor further up. And shooting M somewhere at the beginning should have a purpose apart from giving Bond reason to run like hell and all kinds of extras making their guns sweat oil. As a final move for a deep penetration agent/sleeper/double agent/ordinary corrupt greedy bastard this would be quite comfy, wouldn't it?

Now, this film would have for the most part two Ms, both of which wouldn't be around to watch the end titles. And a third 'real' M to take over at the end. This is of course absolutely unsalvageable and far beyond everything EON would risk, neither then nor nowadays. I just liked the feel of typing it up. It would have shaken the formula far more than the early 90's would have allowed for. In this sense my LICENCE RENEWED piffle would have been an even greater risk than LTK and CR.

But you see, the elements of some Brosnan films could have been also used in quite a different manner.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

While I like Pierce very much in the Bond role, I think all of the basic ideas for his films would've been even better suited for Dalton. They all tried to, in a subtle way, shake things up a little (Bond fights his former buddy/colleague, Bond meets a woman he fell in love with again, Bond falls in love with the villain, Bond is captured and tortured for around a year). Having Dalton in the part might have made these excellent ideas being executed a bit better, more seriously and less concerned with sticking to "the formula", akin to Licence to Kill.

And don't tell me Dalton would have been too old to be Bond in 2002 when DAD came out.

[Dalton_Craig]

And don't tell me Dalton would have been too old to be Bond in 2002 when DAD came out.

No, I won't try and tell you that. He wasn't too old (for DAD). He was too good for it.

Yeah, I know. Die Another Day would not have happened the way it did with Dalton in the role. Makes the cut all that deeper...

But while he might not have looked or was too old come GoldenEye, I really do think the powers that be let an opportunity there go begging, to dabble in what Gardner and now Faulks have toyed with; that is, to portray Bond as an ageing gunfighter in a completely different/changed world to what he has 'grown up in' (as a character). Gender equality, free markets, analysts, health awareness, post-Cold War, no Soviet Union, etc. Those putdowns by Judi Dench's M were nice rhetoric, but the final film doesn't carry this theme forward in any real sense.

EON kind of pulled it off in an indirect way, with Bond only having Kara in The Living Daylights, in reaction to the rise of AIDS/safe-sex. Didn't hurt the storyline. In fact, it adds to the character of Bond, humanises him as he starts to fall fof her.

A post-Cold War Bond, a feminist woman M. The way I see it, if the press is going to get all excited about these things, then why not go the whole hog and actually make some plot mileage out of them. Instead, they just kind of feel shoe-horned in...

Edited by Dalton_Craig, 19 November 2009 - 01:27 PM.

[Trident]

While I like Pierce very much in the Bond role, I think all of the basic ideas for his films would've been even better suited for Dalton. They all tried to, in a subtle way, shake things up a little (Bond fights his former buddy/colleague, Bond meets a woman he fell in love with again, Bond falls in love with the villain, Bond is captured and tortured for around a year). Having Dalton in the part might have made these excellent ideas being executed a bit better, more seriously and less concerned with sticking to "the formula", akin to Licence to Kill.

And don't tell me Dalton would have been too old to be Bond in 2002 when DAD came out.

I don't know. With GE I have little doubt the whole film would have worked better with Dalton, even if the plot had been exactly the same (unlikely). But somehow the later films to me give a strong indication of being tailored more or less on Brosnan's Bond. They would still work with Dalton, but I don't have that same feeling of 'this should have been a Dalton film' I get when seeing GE.

[Trident]

A post-Cold War Bond, a feminist woman M. The way I see it, if the press is going to get all excited about these things, then why not go the whole hog and actually make some plot mileage out of them. Instead, they just kind of feel shoe-horned in...

This may simply be too much to ask from film Bond. To all intents and purposes Bond is just transporting plain simple entertainment, nothing more and, hopefully, nothing less. Of course, to give us the (illusional) impression of the tiniest bit of relevance there have to be relations to our present reality, a kind of echo of the things our society is confronted with. We see this in the themes and plotlines and agree that this film or that is meant to be set today, 'five minutes into the future' as the popular saying of Bond folklore goes.

But the 'modern' themes are really mostly superficial and have little or no real relevance on the basic constellation of characters and their function inside the Bond universe. All of that is just the surface shaped to follow (sometimes even establish) a fashion, nothing more. When Bond says in QOS 'So the right people have kept their jobs.' some people suspect a political reference, their hurt pride fuming, but all Bond ever is and ever was is two hours of fun for grown ups in a fairly harmless manner.

But this fun has to follow a certain pattern that was carefully established over decades and can only change ever so slightly with each new entry. Even the 'Bond begins' story of EON's CR isn't really about Bond beginning. Craig's Bond is no tiro or noob. He's beginning his duty as 007, but nothing really suggests he's anything but a solid professional. It's almost as if one had to kill roughly a hundred people for the SIS before they decide to aim you at two more to give you two zeros.

Now, an aging-gunslinger Bond would be most interesting. But he would also disturb the balance the series has established. More disturb than Bond falling in love or marrying. Such moves can easily be reversed, the previous status quo re-established. But an older Bond cannot become younger. In the same manner Bond cannot ever be injured beyond the point of 100 per cent reconvalescence. Whatever can't grow back mustn't be cut off. The series very foundations would be threatened with such moves, and this must never happen, must it?

[Dalton_Craig]

A post-Cold War Bond, a feminist woman M. The way I see it, if the press is going to get all excited about these things, then why not go the whole hog and actually make some plot mileage out of them. Instead, they just kind of feel shoe-horned in...

This may simply be too much to ask from film Bond. To all intents and purposes Bond is just transporting plain simple entertainment, nothing more and, hopefully, nothing less. Of course, to give us the (illusional) impression of the tiniest bit of relevance there have to be relations to our present reality, a kind of echo of the things our society is confronted with. We see this in the themes and plotlines and agree that this film or that is meant to be set today, 'five minutes into the future' as the popular saying of Bond folklore goes.

But the 'modern' themes are really mostly superficial and have little or no real relevance on the basic constellation of characters and their function inside the Bond universe. All of that is just the surface shaped to follow (sometimes even establish) a fashion, nothing more. When Bond says in QOS 'So the right people have kept their jobs.' some people suspect a political reference, their hurt pride fuming, but all Bond ever is and ever was is two hours of fun for grown ups in a fairly harmless manner.

But this fun has to follow a certain pattern that was carefully established over decades and can only change ever so slightly with each new entry. Even the 'Bond begins' story of EON's CR isn't really about Bond beginning. Craig's Bond is no tiro or noob. He's beginning his duty as 007, but nothing really suggests he's anything but a solid professional. It's almost as if one had to kill roughly a hundred people for the SIS before they decide to aim you at two more to give you two zeros.

Now, an aging-gunslinger Bond would be most interesting. But he would also disturb the balance the series has established. More disturb than Bond falling in love or marrying. Such moves can easily be reversed, the previous status quo re-established. But an older Bond cannot become younger. In the same manner Bond cannot ever be injured beyond the point of 100 per cent reconvalescence. Whatever can't grow back mustn't be cut off. The series very foundations would be threatened with such moves, and this must never happen, must it?

Well, maybe, maybe not. I take your point about not being able to turn back the clock on an old/ageing Bond. But that was really what Roger Moore was, wasn't he?

Okay, granted, that wasn't the Bond he was playing, but there was something of a 'reboot' happening by replacing 57-year old Roger with 40-year old Timothy Dalton, along with a near-total complete change in tone. So how come Brosnan could not have potentially done the same following a near-50 year-old Dalton?

I see what you're saying about how the 'modern themes' are merely there to add just a whiff of contemporary relevance, just enough to relate to the audience. But with GoldenEye, a lot of that dialogue just seemed to scream out "Hey, a female M for the womanising Bond!". You know, "the sexist mysoginst dinosaur" line. They really did seem to make a deal out of it.

If you really wanted to keep the film 'timeless yet contemporary', why not just introduce the female M, not make too big a deal out of it and scrap the dialogue about Bond being "a relic of the Cold War". That kind of stuff just dates a film for the sake of it, without a genuine reason for that kind of discourse (ie: an ageing lead actor).

Yeah, I accept that the safer option is to keep Bond an ageless character who doesn't look a day over 37 after 30-odd years of fighting for Queen and country. That is, after all, what Fleming was trying to do in his books by contradicting his previously-established dates. And Timothy Dalton took the same view when he took up the role.

But that approach also breeds staleness (something that Fleming was also afraid of and tried to avoid, hence his decision to write The Spy who Loved Me), and the 'same old Bond' approach eventually produced Die Another Day as a result. I suppose my view is formed out of the unique turn of events of that time period, and so I feet that it would have been great to use the momentous changes in society at that time to develop character, add a new wrinkle to Bond's image (pun not intended) .

But hey, at least we got a Bond movie, all the same...

Edited by Dalton_Craig, 20 November 2009 - 10:01 AM.

[Trident]

I see what your saying about how the 'modern themes' are merely there to add just a whiff of contemporary relevance, just enough to relate to the audience. But with GoldenEye, a lot of that dialogue just seemed to scream out "Hey, a female M for the womanising Bond!". You know, "the sexist mysoginst dinosaur" line. They really did seem to make a deal out of it.

Yes, I remember that time and those lines, along with the female M, featured quite prominently in next to every article about GE. At that time I also thought them a good idea. But even at the first time seeing GE I had a distinct feeling they came across entirely wrong with Brosnan, almost as if he'd been Bond for four or five films already. Today, I really feel all that GE stuff, relic and everything, should either have been done with Dalton or dropped altogether with Brosnan. This was like seeing the first film of an EON series from an alternate reality; and it wasn't necessarily a better kind of reality either.

If you really wanted to keep the film 'timeless yet contemporary', why not just introduce the female M, not make too big a deal out of it and scrap the dialogue about Bond being "a relic of the Cold War". That kind of stuff just dates a film for the sake of it, without a genuine reason for that kind of discourse (ie: an ageing lead actor).

The problem in my view was not so much they did those lines about the cold war and the dinosaur, but that they did them so half-assed, so undecided, not quite trusting their own courage. It was testing waters, up to a point. But it was also testing waters in all different kinds of directions, without a proper map or compass, trying to run with the times and stay with tradition. And the result didn't really acknowledge any consequences whatsoever.

Brosnan taking over would have been the first real chance to reboot, although Dalton's TLD already felt like a little reboot before. But when Dalton said he hoped M would sack him this didn't sound one single iota wrong. Dalton came across as entirely believable. He would have been perfect for GE's lines.

Brosnan on the other hand should have been recognised as a chance to go in the other direction. Unfortunately, the verdict of Broccoli, to stay away from reboots was still valid. In EON's defence one also has to take into account that 'reboots' as a fashion were still pretty much a thing of the future. I can understand that nobody back then had the boldness to make this crucial step. Had I been in a position to decide, I doubt I'd have had the courage to do it myself.

[Dalton_Craig]

But even at the first time seeing GE I had a distinct feeling they came across entirely wrong with Brosnan, almost as if he'd been Bond for four or five films already. Today, I really feel all that GE stuff, relic and everything, should either have been done with Dalton or dropped altogether with Brosnan. This was like seeing the first film of an EON series from an alternate reality; and it wasn't necessarily a better kind of reality either.

Exactly. By the time the movie reaches MI6 after the Severnaya massacare, the transition for Brosnan into the role is essentially complete. All the classic/essential elements - the DB5, the Walther PPK, the tuxedo, the obligatory casino scene, "shaken, not stirred" and "Bond, James Bond" - have all fallen into place and we can procced on with the story. Since this is meant to be the same old James Bond, only with a new actor and set in the 1990's, only the barest dialogue is required to establish that the film is set in contemporary times, such as Xenia's remarks about Russia being "a differnt place now. A land of opportunity." Or Mishkin's line "Russia may have changed but the penalty for terrorism is still death!" All that other stuff abour being "a relic of the Cold War" etc. is just not right for Brosnan. Especially given that he still looks young.

Now, with Dalton, you could have played "post-Cold War Bond" two ways. Either you could fully embrace the concept of Bond being an "ageing gunslinger", physical appearance and all (a good example of this is the 1982 scenes in Sins, where Dalton proudly sports visible grey streaks in his hair). Or you could take the slightly more subtler route, where Bond is portrayed as being in the 40-45 area, as opposed to 35-40.

The dialogue could be tailored in such a way as to emphasise that, with all the big changes in the world, Bond is ruminating on the fact that he himself is not getting any younger. Or any healthier (shades of Ian Fleming?). That's where the bits about being a relic and a dinosaur come into play, because that is exactly what Dalton Bond is in the modern age of espionage.

But when the world is in peril, he's the only man you'd want at your back...

[scissorpuppy007]

Yes, I remember that time and those lines, along with the female M, featured quite prominently in next to every article about GE. At that time I also thought them a good idea. But even at the first time seeing GE I had a distinct feeling they came across entirely wrong with Brosnan, almost as if he'd been Bond for four or five films already. Today, I really feel all that GE stuff, relic and everything, should either have been done with Dalton or dropped altogether with Brosnan. This was like seeing the first film of an EON series from an alternate reality; and it wasn't necessarily a better kind of reality either.

But wasn't that what EON was going for while promoting GE? They pretty much (Along with the media threw Dalton under the bus). But having reference to Brosnan's Bond being established, along with the PTS taking place in 1987, was basically saying "We got it wrong guys, Brosnan should have been Bond in 1987 and we are making up for it now."

[Trident]

Yes, I remember that time and those lines, along with the female M, featured quite prominently in next to every article about GE. At that time I also thought them a good idea. But even at the first time seeing GE I had a distinct feeling they came across entirely wrong with Brosnan, almost as if he'd been Bond for four or five films already. Today, I really feel all that GE stuff, relic and everything, should either have been done with Dalton or dropped altogether with Brosnan. This was like seeing the first film of an EON series from an alternate reality; and it wasn't necessarily a better kind of reality either.

But wasn't that what EON was going for while promoting GE? They pretty much (Along with the media threw Dalton under the bus). But having reference to Brosnan's Bond being established, along with the PTS taking place in 1987, was basically saying "We got it wrong guys, Brosnan should have been Bond in 1987 and we are making up for it now."

There certainly was a feeling of 'we've got to establish Brosnan now pretty good', but that was more than a little awkward with an actor looking so terribly young. Brosnan looked quite the trainee, hardly long enough in the SIS to know where the canteen is and which secretaries to flirt with. Those 'cold war' stuff only made this discrepancy all the more obvious and should have been avoided. I really don't see how those lines could have been written with Brosnan in mind. And frankly, had Brosnan said anything to this effect in 87, they'd have been even more ludicrous, almost to the point of farcical. 87 would have been really too early.

I don't see setting the PTS in '87 as a deliberate move of EON to drop Dalton. EON always stood firmly behind their current Bond, emphasising on how happy they are with him, without ever trashing the former model. That PTS dating to '87 was just something that came with the plotline and the 006 connection (another major weak point of GE in my view) that called for an agent being missing/believed dead for some years. It also had to reach back to a time the Soviet union still existed, yet not so long we'd have to see Bond as a pensioner in '95.

[Royal Dalton]

Slating Dalton was certainly Martin Campbell's modus operandi at the time.

[Trident]

Now, with Dalton, you could have played "post-Cold War Bond" two ways. Either you could fully embrace the concept of Bond being an "ageing gunslinger", physical appearance and all (a good example of this is the 1982 scenes in Sins, where Dalton proudly sports visible grey streaks in his hair). Or you could take the slightly more subtler route, where Bond is portrayed as being in the 40-45 area, as opposed to 35-40.

The dialogue could be tailored in such a way as to emphasise that, with all the big changes in the world, Bond is ruminating on the fact that he himself is not getting any younger. Or any healthier (shades of Ian Fleming?). That's where the bits about being a relic and a dinosaur come into play, because that is exactly what Dalton Bond is in the modern age of espionage.

But when the world is in peril, he's the only man you'd want at your back...

Much as I'd like to have such a story one day, I see a very basic problem with going an 'ageing hero' route with Bond. This is a device that many genres have adopted in some way over the years, generally when these genres became aware of their own decline looming on the horizon. And it has often given these genres some of their best works, shuffling the cards, the types, the clichés in a new way and lending a whiff of Indian summer melancholy. Things are coming to an end, time moves on and the hero recognises this, in essence acknowledges his own mortality. It's stuff for some great stories and adds another layer to them.


But what may be reviving a genre as a whole sends the specific protagonist away on a one way ticket, in this case Bond. And Bond becoming aware of age would ultimately lead to the end of the series. Not necessarily an end on the screen, but the basic acceptance of the existence of an end. And once this is a theme, even if it's just implied, it's always a theme. Feeling the weight of age once cannot be undone. The day you feel it is the day you feel it for the rest of your life.

Now, it would be of course great to have this element in one Bond film one day. Or perhaps in two films. But would we want this in every Bond film? It's an alluring boulevard, offering all kinds of previously undiscovered possibilities with Bond. But it quickly becomes narrower, an alley. And a few steps further on it turns out to be a dead end. And while we idly prowled along this way, there was this curious smell, slightly smouldering. And now that we try to find our way back to the main track we find out it was all the bridges that completely burned down behind us.

I feel Broccoli was wrong in refusing to outrightly reboot Bond with Dalton. But I also think he was right in refusing to acknowledge Bond's age in the series. This is something that only really can be done in a single stand-alone film. And EON's turf aren't stand-alone flicks.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Much as I'd like to have such a story one day, I see a very basic problem with going an 'ageing hero' route with Bond. This is a device that many genres have adopted in some way over the years, generally when these genres became aware of their own decline looming on the horizon. And it has often given these genres some of their best works, shuffling the cards, the types, the clichés in a new way and lending a whiff of Indian summer melancholy. Things are coming to an end, time moves on and the hero recognises this, in essence acknowledges his own mortality. It's stuff for some great stories and adds another layer to them.


But what may be reviving a genre as a whole sends the specific protagonist away on a one way ticket, in this case Bond. And Bond becoming aware of age would ultimately lead to the end of the series. Not necessarily an end on the screen, but the basic acceptance of the existence of an end. And once this is a theme, even if it's just implied, it's always a theme. Feeling the weight of age once cannot be undone. The day you feel it is the day you feel it for the rest of your life.

Now, it would be of course great to have this element in one Bond film one day. Or perhaps in two films. But would we want this in every Bond film? It's an alluring boulevard, offering all kinds of previously undiscovered possibilities with Bond. But it quickly becomes narrower, an alley. And a few steps further on it turns out to be a dead end. And while we idly prowled along this way, there was this curious smell, slightly smouldering. And now that we try to find our way back to the main track we find out it was all the bridges that completely burned down behind us.

I feel Broccoli was wrong in refusing to outrightly reboot Bond with Dalton. But I also think he was right in refusing to acknowledge Bond's age in the series. This is something that only really can be done in a single stand-alone film. And EON's turf aren't stand-alone flicks.

Until Craig came along, I've always viewed each entry as a "stand alone" film. Sure, it was an ongoing series but it never mattered what order you watched them in and one entry had little or no bearing on any other.

AVTAK should have gone the ageing Bond route. It might have been the only way to salvage that film - an older Bond, nearing retirement, in a changing world facing a much younger opponent. There's a lot of dramatic and comedic potential in the prospect of a Bond who has to use his wits more than his fists and who no longer has every woman falling at his feet. They could have even cast one of the previously considered but never used actresses as Bond's love interest - Catherine Deneuve, Raquel Welch, Faye Dunaway, Julie Christie etc. It would have been a much classier and more fitting swan sang for Moore than what we ended up with.

NSNA also had, and wasted, the opportunity to feature an ageing Bond. It's brought up in the opening scenes, but pretty soon he's being ogled by bikini-clad twenty-five year olds at a spa (while wearing sweat-pants, no less) and Bond's advancing years are never brought up again.

I don't see why it couldn't work, particularly as an actor's final Bond picture.

Edited by Rufus Ffolkes, 20 November 2009 - 08:09 PM.