77 replies to this topic

[David Schofield]

Well, I thought everything was pretty damn perfect in 1987 after the release of TLD. The press were positive about Dalton, and the box-office looked good.

The old man - Sir Rog - had finally got the hint, and here we had a younger, virile Bond. And one who actually respected Fleming! And who could actually play emotion. And it would appear he wanted to incorporate both Fleming and decent acting into the new Bond. What was not to like; with Brosnan I guess most of us believed we would get Roger II - though younger, more mobile and physically appealing - Remmington Steele in the movies, if you will. But instead we got Dalton, someone for the first time in years Ian Fleming would actually recognise as James Bond.

And then LTK went further and ripped the formula to pieces. Forget that the "same old crowd" of filmakers may have been involved; LTK was the most radical Bond ever (and I include the concept of putting a small blond haired guy with HUGE muscles in a rebooted CR in that).

In 1989 - if my rose-tinted view is accurate - we had a financially viable Bond film in LTK. Okay, it would never be Batman, Indy 3, Lethal Weapon 2 cos Bond was like English and a bit "straight" and therefore didn't turn on the American popcorn market. But who wanted it to? We had Bond in a better place than he had been for years, suddenly back in the world of FRWL and OHMSS.

Then there was the hiatus and legal issues. And a new guy at MGM - Calley - who didn't want the perfect Bond in his new film.

Why? Where did it all go wrong?

[Doctor Whom]

Putting Brosnan in TLD would have helped the box office (in the U.S. mostly) but I don't believe it would be a game changer that some people think it would have been.

Brosnan being there wouldn't have made the stunts better (though they probably would have kept the magic carpet scene) and he wouldn't have changed the films major weak points - the female lead and the villains.

I hear the old chestnut of "Dalton was a 2nd choice in America's eyes" and I shake my head. I am an American, I can vividly recall the "Brosnan gets Bond, Brosnan loses Bond" events of 1986, but it certainly didn't affect my desire to see TLD.

I have never met, nor ever heard of anyone who was ready to plunk down their money for TLD with Brosnan, but decided to stay home because Dalton got the part. Yes, Brosnan was better known. Would Remington Steele/Brosnan fandom really have taken a Brosnan TLD into the stratosphere box office wise? I highly doubt it.

Cubby Broccoli could have easily changed the TLD schedule to accommodate Brosnan. His intincts told him no.

Brosnan getting Bond in 86 means that Remington Steele gets a huge jolt - and gets renewed - probably for much longer than 5 episodes. So you then have what Cubby didn't want - James Bond on TV for free.

It's easy to point to Goldeneye and say "See, Brosnan would have made TLD a smash hit" but Goldeneye had a fresh new director (rather than a hold over from the previous administration), fresh new screenwriters (rather than a 77 year old hold over from the previous administration), a substantially higher budget (rather than the same $30 million from the previous administration), etc. etc.

Like Jaguar007, TLD is one of my favorite films, based almost entirely on the strength of Dalton's performance. He single handedly elevates the film to greatness. A feat I don't think Brosnan would have pulled off.

I don't think that Brosnan could have been forced to do more Remington Steele episodes after completing that last set of episodes; his contract was up. And as I recall, NBC didn't really want to spend too much money on a low-rated show they had already canceled. The only reason they wanted that handful of episodes was to make a quick buck off of Bond. They were even amenable to following the Bond unit around and getting Brosnan when he wasn't busy playing 007.

I definitely agree that it was the new look/new direction that was largely responsible for making Bond a hit again. Brosnan certainly deserves some of the credit, but I think audiences might have been disappointed had EON and MGM made another under-budged '80's style film.

[Turn]

Well, I thought everything was pretty damn perfect in 1987 after the release of TLD. The press were positive about Dalton, and the box-office looked good.

The old man - Sir Rog - had finally got the hint, and here we had a younger, virile Bond. And one who actually respected Fleming! And who could actually play emotion. And it would appear he wanted to incorporate both Fleming and decent acting into the new Bond. What was not to like; with Brosnan I guess most of us believed we would get Roger II - though younger, more mobile and physically appealing - Remmington Steele in the movies, if you will. But instead we got Dalton, someone for the first time in years Ian Fleming would actually recognise as James Bond.

And then LTK went further and ripped the formula to pieces. Forget that the "same old crowd" of filmakers may have been involved; LTK was the most radical Bond ever (and I include the concept of putting a small blond haired guy with HUGE muscles in a rebooted CR in that).

In 1989 - if my rose-tinted view is accurate - we had a financially viable Bond film in LTK. Okay, it would never be Batman, Indy 3, Lethal Weapon 2 cos Bond was like English and a bit "straight" and therefore didn't turn on the American popcorn market. But who wanted it to? We had Bond in a better place than he had been for years, suddenly back in the world of FRWL and OHMSS.

Then there was the hiatus and legal issues. And a new guy at MGM - Calley - who didn't want the perfect Bond in his new film.

Why? Where did it all go wrong?

Very well put. I used to think I was pretty much alone back in those days in my enthusiasm for Dalton's portrayal and the films. Much of it seems to come now in hindsight.

Many people forget or weren't around to experience the excitement and freshness that came with Dalton and TLD in late '86 and into the summer of '87. I had a friend who was a huge Steele and Brosnan fan and he was annoyed when he lost the part and to this day he still holds a bias against Dalton.

While it's true the late '80s didn't match the hype and excitement GE received, it only seems in retrospect that some are led to believe the era was treated with complete apathy.

[JimmyBond]

I can remember spending the night at my friends house once in the summer of 87 and watching TLD on VHS. Probably around the time it was out to rent (could have been 88), I can't recall showing much interest in the movie, or if I even watched it.

I do remember when I had a marathon of Bond films over a long week period watching many of them (well, probably the majority of them) for the firs time, and when I watched LTK (keep in mind this is a few years before GE came out), I was blown away at how different it was from anything that had gone before. Heck, for a long while I considered it the black sheep of the series...I even thought it was the last Bond film ever. Not that I didn't enjoy it, I actually loved it, and felt Dalton was a real breath of fresh air after Roger Moore (I was also watching the films more or less in order).

What's also funny to me, is that back (long before Craig was even thought of as Bond) many of Craig's criticisms were being leveled at Dalton: "He doesnt look like a Bond!" "He looks more like a villain," etc. etc.

When Goldeneye was announced I just took it in stride that we were getting a new Bond. It never even occurred to me that Dalton might return.

[jaguar007]

I don't think that Brosnan could have been forced to do more Remington Steele episodes after completing that last set of episodes; his contract was up. And as I recall, NBC didn't really want to spend too much money on a low-rated show they had already canceled. The only reason they wanted that handful of episodes was to make a quick buck off of Bond. They were even amenable to following the Bond unit around and getting Brosnan when he wasn't busy playing 007.

Except Remington Steele was not even that low rated. The ratings did slip quite a bit during the 4th season, but at the last minute when NBC renewed Steele, it had become a top 20 rated show (viewership did increase with all the Bond publicity. It had become a top rated show during season 4 summer reruns).

[Terry]

Back in '86 I was strongly against the idea of Brosnan landing the Bond role. I was basing this on what I had seen of REMINGTON STEELE and believed he was not physical enough for the part. Having seen THE FINAL OPTION and read some of the British media hype, I wanted Lewis Collins to be the next 007. Since then, I have come to believe he would have done a fine job. One should check his work in THE FOURTH PROTOCOL with Michael Caine and you will see he was up to the demands of the part.

I have a pretty extensive clipping file from that time and a couple of things stand out. Michael Caine is quoted in the May 31st, 1986 edition of People magazine as saying "He'd be great if he would gain a little more weight on the shoulders." Brosnan did just that in preparing for GOLDENEYE and I'm sure would have done the same back then.

Brosnan's own comments from the June 1986 issue of Starlog are quite telling on the direction he wanted future Bond movies to go. "This is nothing against Roger and his interpretation, which is very valid--but for me, Sean Connery was James Bond. He had a killer instinct. Bond was a Commander and there was a certain ruthlessness, an edge to the character which has been lacking, mixed in with humor and also getting the woman. I think the element of danger would have to be brought back with less of a focus on gimmicks, maybe more of a character study. They have to go right back to the beginning and redefine what Ian Fleming put down on paper. They also should take into consideration what's happening musically now, and modern techniques of editing. They need fresh blood, as far as directors go, too."

Most telling is how Brosnan's screen test for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS changed the mind of a skeptical Cubby Broccoli and sold the whole Bond crew on his casting.

I have been told several times by friends (casual movie goers) that they didn't care for Dalton's portrayal and that they would have preferred to see Brosnan as Bond. I am not knocking Dalton's work, I just feel Brosnan would have carried the role with no problem.

[blueman]

I think I would've liked Brosnan as Bond better in '87, would've been a better fit IMO. Everything from that Starlog quote is bang-on, maybe back then he would've actually walked the walk? His performance in The Fourth Protocol gives one hope it would've played out that way... then again if Laz had stuck with the role all through the 70s, we'd likely had Dalton as Bond in '81, a better fit as well IMO. Glad EON finally wised up and cast Craig before his sell-by date. So many woulda coulda shouldas with EON's Bond, sigh.

[blueman]

Hunt directing Dalton in '81, that woulda fixed a lot. I can take all the weirdness up till then, but FYEO with Glen in the director's chair is when the wheels came off IMHO, would've loved to see a 10-12 year run of serious Dalton Bond films in the 80s (and adios to even the thought of Brosnan taking the role after that!).

[Doctor Whom]

Hunt directing Dalton in '81, that woulda fixed a lot. I can take all the weirdness up till then, but FYEO with Glen in the director's chair is when the wheels came off IMHO, would've loved to see a 10-12 year run of serious Dalton Bond films in the 80s (and adios to even the thought of Brosnan taking the role after that!).

Interesting that you'd say that about Glen. I've always felt that Glen was a lacklustre director, with no real style. He (and EON's insistence on re-hiring him) was a big reason for the series decline during the eighties.

[JimmyBond]

Hunt directing Dalton in '81, that woulda fixed a lot. I can take all the weirdness up till then, but FYEO with Glen in the director's chair is when the wheels came off IMHO, would've loved to see a 10-12 year run of serious Dalton Bond films in the 80s (and adios to even the thought of Brosnan taking the role after that!).

Interesting that you'd say that about Glen. I've always felt that Glen was a lacklustre director, with no real style. He (and EON's insistence on re-hiring him) was a big reason for the series decline during the eighties.

I'm pretty sure blueman is in agreement with you there.

I disagree (At least on FYEO) I felt Glen's directorial style on that film was pretty good. Definitely something different at the time, though he did stay on a bit too long. He did get a bit of a boost when Dalton was in the role, but by then he had overstayed his welcome.

[Doctor Whom]

Hunt directing Dalton in '81, that woulda fixed a lot. I can take all the weirdness up till then, but FYEO with Glen in the director's chair is when the wheels came off IMHO, would've loved to see a 10-12 year run of serious Dalton Bond films in the 80s (and adios to even the thought of Brosnan taking the role after that!).

Interesting that you'd say that about Glen. I've always felt that Glen was a lacklustre director, with no real style. He (and EON's insistence on re-hiring him) was a big reason for the series decline during the eighties.

I'm pretty sure blueman is in agreement with you there.

I disagree (At least on FYEO) I felt Glen's directorial style on that film was pretty good. Definitely something different at the time, though he did stay on a bit too long. He did get a bit of a boost when Dalton was in the role, but by then he had overstayed his welcome.

Glen's workmanlkike style did seem like a breath of fresh air coming, as it did, after MR. It definitely suited FYEO'a bare-bones approach. I think he did his best work on TLD. It wasn't great, and it helped that he had Dalton as a leading man, but it is definitely a cut above all the other Bonds he did.

[Safari Suit]

I actually think Glen improved as a director from FYEO to TLD. FYEO looks a little too cheap and dull to me, even for a "back to basics" entry. OP is a considerable improvement, AVTAK is perhaps a little sloppier but generally of the same standard, and TLK manages to be restrained yet colourful in a way that FYEO didn't. He took a bit of a tumble with LTK, although that wasn't necessarily all him.

[blueman]

Glen was a big fail as a director: no eye for visuals, can't help actors any, no sense of pacing... it's like EON hired a bad giallo director, for a decade. And it shows. And it unfortunately fed Brosnan's tenure, even CR feels Glennish around the edges. But Broccoli wouldn't move on from Moore (Dalton was every kind of ready for Bond in '81, catch him in that silly 1980 Flash Gordon film for proof), I think he was still scared from the Lazenby experience. Plus he never really wanted the film series to embrace the darker, more serious nature of Fleming's novels, it had been family entertainment from the 60s, why stop in '81? From a business standpoint, very smart, even with declining revenues he made bank off old Moore/too-little-too-late Dalton - and Glen made the perfect Yes-man apparently. So glad that way of looking at Bond has passed, sucks that it took another decade of films even after the 80s to clear the Bond palate, but better late than never!

Thinking of a different 80s, had Dalton started in '81 and gone for 5-6 films, who would've taken over in the early 90s from him? The character would be firmly darker and more real, much closer to what Craig's doing with it now than say Moore's interpretation - which makes me think Brosnan would not get the nod. James Purefoy? IIRC he was the runner up to Brosnan in '95. Somebody else? Left field: Gabriel Byrne? Probably not. Hmmm... it's 1990 (or thereabouts), who's your Bond?

[David Schofield]

Glen was a big fail as a director: no eye for visuals, can't help actors any, no sense of pacing... it's like EON hired a bad giallo director, for a decade. And it shows. And it unfortunately fed Brosnan's tenure, even CR feels Glennish around the edges. But Broccoli wouldn't move on from Moore (Dalton was every kind of ready for Bond in '81, catch him in that silly 1980 Flash Gordon film for proof), I think he was still scared from the Lazenby experience. Plus he never really wanted the film series to embrace the darker, more serious nature of Fleming's novels, it had been family entertainment from the 60s, why stop in '81? From a business standpoint, very smart, even with declining revenues he made bank off old Moore/too-little-too-late Dalton - and Glen made the perfect Yes-man apparently. So glad that way of looking at Bond has passed, sucks that it took another decade of films even after the 80s to clear the Bond palate, but better late than never!

Thinking of a different 80s, had Dalton started in '81 and gone for 5-6 films, who would've taken over in the early 90s from him? The character would be firmly darker and more real, much closer to what Craig's doing with it now than say Moore's interpretation - which makes me think Brosnan would not get the nod. James Purefoy? IIRC he was the runner up to Brosnan in '95. Somebody else? Left field: Gabriel Byrne? Probably not. Hmmm... it's 1990 (or thereabouts), who's your Bond?

I would certainly agree Cubby had lost all courage by the 1980s. Things like only considering new actors if they were around6'2", that sort of thing. And why not? He was getting on, Rog's movies were still bringing in lots of $$$$s, and the "team" had them down pat - why strain yourself, then, unnecessarily if you are as comfortable as that?

TBH, Rog should have gone after Moonraker and, as you say, Tim come in. Never happened.

Indeed, and here's controversial food for thought, Cubby never thought of getting rid of Rog (rather than vice-versa) until 1986. Even then, it wasn't a done deal that AVTAK was DEFINATELY Rog's last film in 1985; the damn script for TLD was even written with "Roger mind", apparently. In fact, isn't it amazing that Cubby never asked Rog to walk the plank until the most obvious and perfect (In the Rog mould) new Bond candidate ever - Pierce Brosnan - presented himself....

Makes you wonder whether this stuff about Cubby always wanting TD™ wasn't all B.S., doesn't it....

[Dustin]

I would certainly agree Cubby had lost all courage by the 1980s. Things like only considering new actors if they were around6'2", that sort of thing. And why not? He was getting on, Rog's movies were still bringing in lots of $$$$s, and the "team" had them down pat - why strain yourself, then, unnecessarily if you are as comfortable as that?

TBH, Rog should have gone after Moonraker and, as you say, Tim come in. Never happened.

Indeed, and here's controversial food for thought, Cubby never thought of getting rid of Rog (rather than vice-versa) until 1986. Even then, it wasn't a done deal that AVTAK was DEFINATELY Rog's last film in 1985; the damn script for TLD was even written with "Roger mind", apparently. In fact, isn't it amazing that Cubby never asked Rog to walk the plank until the most obvious and perfect (In the Rog mould) new Bond candidate ever - Pierce Brosnan - presented himself....

Makes you wonder whether this stuff about Cubby always wanting TD™ wasn't all B.S., doesn't it....

But wanting and doing, that two different things, isn't it? We get to hear it every other post, every other thread: 'why fix what ain't broken???'. There is a tremendous force the actual circumstances of reality nail down the options for the future with. There's no escaping that and that's the reason grown businessmen marry their ventures to walls. Because 'So far, everything's fine!'

[Doctor Whom]

I actually think Glen improved as a director from FYEO to TLD. FYEO looks a little too cheap and dull to me, even for a "back to basics" entry. OP is a considerable improvement, AVTAK is perhaps a little sloppier but generally of the same standard, and TLK manages to be restrained yet colourful in a way that FYEO didn't. He took a bit of a tumble with LTK, although that wasn't necessarily all him.

Glen was a decent technician, nothing more. He got the job done and that's about it. Kind of a "point and shoot" director.

[plankattack]

I've taken my shots at Glen over the years, but to be fair, he was part of an EON "team" that turned out a Bond-film every other year. To hang the the series' declining returns/quality (if that is one's opinion) on him is fair enough, but he is far from the only one responsible. The "family entertainment" films that defined his tenure were the result of Cubby, Maibaum-Wilson, and the over-riding impression (IMHO) that the public "expected" a certain type of film when they bought their ticket to OP, AVATK, whatever.

Consequently, Brozza, or whoever was cast as Bond, was always going to be framed within the confines/direction that EON wanted. I continue to assert that Brozza in '87 would have played out not much differently then what actually occurred - yes, American audiences especially seemed to reject TD as Bond, but I also think that that market was also turning its back on Bond, rather than just the actor playing him.

Yes,Brozza's success '95-2002 is grounded in the good work that Brozza did. But the success of the franchise was because Bond was back, not necessarily Brozza-as-Bond. Do we really remember that people went to see GE to see Brozza get his chance to prove his worth, or because James Bond was back after half-a-decade away? Brozza was a popular Bond but (as many threads about SC and Bond back in '62 have argued) it's the character that heads the bill, not the actor playing him.

James Bond was back and hot in '95. In the late-80s, he was the original action star in a market-place more intrigued by the newer models. I'm not convinced there was a single actor out there whose star power alone could have kept the series at the very top of the pile.

[Safari Suit]

Glen was a decent technician, nothing more. He got the job done and that's about it. Kind of a "point and shoot" director.

Yes, but I'd say that of the vast majority of directors associated with the Bond series.