›

Legal Problems: The rough transition from Licence to Kill to GoldenEye

Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
edited March 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 4,813
Forgive me if there is a thread already- I did try to search.
I wanted to ask you guys-- just what was the problem? It's mentioned very often on the boards but I'm embarrassed to say I honestly have no clue what the 'legal troubles' actually were.
Was it because LTK didn't make BILLIONS at the box office? Did Ian Fleming's illegitimate son show up and say he owned all the rights? lol
Seriously, what was the big hold up?

The only reason I ask is because I just read an interesting interview with Dalton circa 1988 and it sounded like he was excited to be a part of the franchise for YEARS to come, and that enrages me!!

So I ask you: what petty nonsense prevented me from getting another awesome Dalton movie in 1991, 1993 (and 1995? ;) )
«1

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    do u have a link to this interview?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Have a read of this:

    http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/ge_roadtoproduction.php3
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited March 2012 Posts: 4,813
    It was on the main website- gimmie a minute, I'll try and find it


    *edit- thanks Samuel!
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Damnit I can't find it-- I've been reading a bunch of different ones. This one was from Playboy if I remember right and I could swear it was on this site, but I can't find it now
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I've already said this before but, as much as I enjoy Brosnan, I feel genuinely quite bad for Dalton. He never really managed to establish himself in the part in the way the other actors (except perhaps Lazenby) did. With potential directors refusing to go ahead with GE unless they re-cast I feel a bit sorry for Timmy.



    Nonetheless I can't see Dalton and Renny Harlin getting on anyway and I still maintain that GE with Dalton wouldn't have been as sucessful. Pity!
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    edited March 2012 Posts: 1,497
    I never really felt that bad for Dalton. He's continued on with a consistent acting career. Of all the Bond actors he always striked me the least concerned with the fame association, and more focused on the workmanship of having an acting career, having come from the stage background. In other words, I never got the sense that Dalton felt too attached to the Bond role and didn't necessarily care too much about making Bond a defining mark on his carreer. To him, it was a job, and he took it seriously, and afterall it was Dalton himself who walked away from the role, rather than him getting canned.

    That's just my take on it based on what he has said in interviews and the way he has conducted himself over the years.

    I've felt more bad for Lazenby being young and impressionable at the time, Bond being the only real thing he had going for him, and receiving dubious advice from his agent. It was his decision, but there were so many factors playing against him. I also felt bad for Pierce as well, who felt he had another Bond left in him and seemed to genuinely enjoy being Bond but was canned in the end.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    That is a good point JBFan626.

    But nonetheless it must be a bit disheartening - even for an actor of his age and professionalism. Trying to make your own version of Bond and then coming to the realisation that it just wasn't quite "clicking". What must be worse is having other Bond actors be critical of you - as Connery (a man who Dalton seemed to admire) apparently was.

    Funnily enough I've actually enjoyed Dalton a bit more outside of Bond (i.e. Hot Fuzz). He just seemed to be having a more fun time in some of his other work. He's infact stated that the most fun he had on ANY film was firing a gun out of a police car window in Hot Fuzz during the final high speed chase - no mention of Bond. Who knows but maybe he preferred being away from the limelight - in which case good for him.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited March 2012 Posts: 4,813
    JBFan626 wrote:
    I've felt more bad for Lazenby being young and impressionable at the time, Bond being the only real thing he had going for him, and receiving dubious advice from his agent.

    I agree about Lazenby, JBFan- I hope that if they ever cast someone as young as him again, he gets better taken care of (maybe get him to sign a contract BEFORE filming the first movie)

    And about Dalts: Also agree- he's not the 'superstar' type. He's happy to be acting for the sake of acting, which is good! I think playing Bond was just another day at the office for him! I just wanted him around more cause he's awesome, lol
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    JBFan626 wrote:
    I never really felt that bad for Dalton. He's continued on with a consistent acting career. Of all the Bond actors he always striked me the least concerned with the fame association, and more focused on the workmanship of having an acting career, having come from the stage background. In other words, I never got the sense that Dalton felt too attached to the Bond role and didn't necessarily care too much about making Bond a defining mark on his carreer. To him, it was a job, and he took it seriously, and afterall it was Dalton himself who walked away from the role, rather than him getting canned.

    I never understand this kind of comment. If you look at Dalton's career pre Bond it was solid and interesting. Post-Bond his career went into a tail-spin. He appeared only in dross. Of all the actors to play Bond he has made the least of the part in terms of getting other work. He's a good actor and was a decent Bond, and it's a tragedy what became of him. In a way Bond appears to have destroyed him. Plus the mother of his child ended up bedding Mel Gibson. That's gotta hurt!
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    Getafix wrote:
    Plus the mother of his child ended up bedding Mel Gibson. That's gotta hurt!

    I reconsider my previous comments. He did have it hard, poor chap!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I don't feel too sorry for Laz. Yeah he arguably should have done more films but he still made his fortune and (I think) is the richest actor out of the 6 to have played Bond.

    And @Getafix - I always enjoyed Hot Fuzz. Yeah it wasn't that "heavyweight" but Dalton was clearly having a good time.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    edited March 2012 Posts: 2,341
    At the risk of being flamed by my fellow fans, you seem to have gotten off point. The chat was to be about what happened during the long hiatus not whether Dalts was a good Bond or great actor.

    My take on the original thread subject: the studio had wanted to sell pieces of the franchise piecemeal and Cubby filed an injunction halting this and they went to court. (Not sure of what the studio was doing but they were up to some shady crap)

    They were battling all these years in the courts, Dalton was still planning on starring in a third Bond film. However when it all setteled in 1994, Dalton lost interest and thus decided to move on.

    I guess it's okay for some fans and former Bonds to trash Tim, but I for one feel that his two films were better than all four Brozzas (and some of Moore's as well)

  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I don't feel too sorry for Laz. Yeah he arguably should have done more films but he still made his fortune and (I think) is the richest actor out of the 6 to have played Bond.

    And @Getafix - I always enjoyed Hot Fuzz. Yeah it wasn't that "heavyweight" but Dalton was clearly having a good time.
    Surely you must be joking???!?!?!??!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    No seriously! I think he might be. Consider the number of Bond related events he's been to over the years combined with the fact that he apparently married a lot of rich women.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Getafix wrote:
    JBFan626 wrote:
    I never really felt that bad for Dalton. He's continued on with a consistent acting career. Of all the Bond actors he always striked me the least concerned with the fame association, and more focused on the workmanship of having an acting career, having come from the stage background. In other words, I never got the sense that Dalton felt too attached to the Bond role and didn't necessarily care too much about making Bond a defining mark on his carreer. To him, it was a job, and he took it seriously, and afterall it was Dalton himself who walked away from the role, rather than him getting canned.

    I never understand this kind of comment. If you look at Dalton's career pre Bond it was solid and interesting. Post-Bond his career went into a tail-spin. He appeared only in dross. Of all the actors to play Bond he has made the least of the part in terms of getting other work. He's a good actor and was a decent Bond, and it's a tragedy what became of him. In a way Bond appears to have destroyed him. Plus the mother of his child ended up bedding Mel Gibson. That's gotta hurt!


    Dalton's been in some solid stuff since then. Look at his IMDB page. What has Laz been in? TV films and voice over stuff. Which is fine for most mortals but really weak for a Bond.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    edited March 2012 Posts: 1,497
    BAIN123 wrote:
    No seriously! I think he might be. Consider the number of Bond related events he's been to over the years combined with the fact that he apparently married a lot of rich women.

    Put it this way, Sean Connery net worth is $300 million...Lazenby wouldn't be showing up to screenings if he had that kind of bank.

    But to the topic, it's still says something that Dalton stuck around all the way until 1994; shows something of his commitment to the project. At the end of the day money talks though and as the article says, LTK underperformed at the box office and the series was in need of a shake-up. I think even in the 1989 it was in the cards that Dalton wouldn't be returning.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    JBFan626 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    No seriously! I think he might be. Consider the number of Bond related events he's been to over the years combined with the fact that he apparently married a lot of rich women.

    Put it this way, Sean Connery net worth is $300 million...Lazenby wouldn't be showing up to screenings if he had that kind of bank.

    But to the topic, it's still says something that Dalton stuck around all the way until 1994; shows something of his commitment to the project. At the end of the day money talks though and as the article says, LTK underperformed at the box office and the series was in need of a shake-up. I think even in the 1989 it was in the cards that Dalton wouldn't be returning.

    I've said this before but, watching LTK, there's a sense that things are "coming to an end". It's hard to put my finger on but one gets the impression the series was a bit tired by 1989.

    I could be wrong but I don't get the impression that many people were sorry to see Dalton go in 1994.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Teaser posters in 1990 did advertise Bond 17 for a Summer '91 release, so EON were planning to stick to their guns.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    JBFan626 wrote:
    But to the topic, it's still says something that Dalton stuck around all the way until 1994; shows something of his commitment to the project. At the end of the day money talks though and as the article says, LTK underperformed at the box office and the series was in need of a shake-up. I think even in the 1989 it was in the cards that Dalton wouldn't be returning.

    Despite Bond fans liking to think Dalton jumped I believe as @JBFan626 says that it was more likely he was pushed. I think (I don't know) that Eon would have told him they needed a change but fed the media the idea Dalton walked, in order for him to save face.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I suspect they had to reluctantly let him go.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Maybe I was reading the posts too fast, but did anyone give some info on what the "legal troubles" were in that time period? I was interested ...
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    4EverBonded wrote:
    Maybe I was reading the posts too fast, but did anyone give some info on what the "legal troubles" were in that time period? I was interested ...

    Worth checking out the link provided by @Samuel001 above. ;)
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Yeah my initial question was pretty much answered right away by Samuel001. But I'm also enjoying the current conversation; lets keep the thread going!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,690
    One problem that cannot be overlooked is the steady decline of ticket sales from '79 to '89. MR was the last Bond film to have atleast 80 millions ticket sold world wide (85 millions exactly). FYEO made 15 millions less, and was the last film with atleast 70 millions movie-goers. OP made 11 millions less again than the previous outing, and was the last film with atleast 50 milions movie-goers. AVTAK sold 17 millions (!) less tickets than OP. TLD was the first amelioration since MR 8 years prior, and yet only made 48 millions ticket sales world wide. And LTK sold 9 millions less tickets than TLD, which made it the least successful outing in the franchise, only 3 millions better than CR67.

    So even if the legal problems never existed, EON had to pul a TSWLM, and make a huge amelioration in attendance, or else, IMO, the franchise was doomed for a long hiatus anyway. It seems possible that Bond 17 in 1991 would have been the first Bond film to have less than 30 millions movie-goers in attendance world wide. That would have been catastrophic.

    So IMO it is right to say Brosnan saved the franchise, not because he was there at the right time, but because movie-goers wanted him as Bond, and it seemed almost mathematical and logical that attendance would improve dramaticly if Bond was played by an actor almost everyone wanted to see as Bond as the time. Maybe it was a safe choice, but it was needed because the franchise was on it's last leg. Brosnan wasn't the right choice to play Bond in 1995, but the only choice. EON couldn't have allowed themselves another risky choice as Bond... they needed to reverse the steam and give a big electrochoc to revive the franchise. And Brosnan delivered big time.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I can't help but feel that, had any other actor got the part in 1995, they still would have been in Brozza's shadow regardless of how good (or bad) they actually were.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,690
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I can't help but feel that, had any other actor got the part in 1995, they still would have been in Brozza's shadow regardless of how good (or bad) they actually were.

    I fear that if any other actor got the the part in 1995, the amelioration in ticket sales and box-office revenue would have been minimal, like TLD with Dalton in 1987.

    Besides, the Dalton-Brosnan change is the shortest Bond actor search in the franchise by a huge margin (Dalton resigned in april 1994 and Brosnan signed in may 1994). Which is considerably shorter than the longest search in the franchise which was Brosnan to Craig (18 months). But understandable since there were no clear favorite candidate after Brosnan. And in 1995, Brosnan wasn't the clear favorite, he was the only candidate.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Daylights, from what I gather, did pretty well (it was kill that disappointed). But there was still that shadow hanging over the series. There was a sense (esp in the States) that "Brozza should have got the role".
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,690
    Well if you look at debute outings:

    OHMSS : 62 millions tickets sold - 19 millions less than YOLT
    LALD : 91 millions tickets sold - 21 millions more than DAF
    TLD : 48 millions tickets sold - 6 millions more than AVTAK
    GE : 81 millions tickets sold - 42 millions more than LTK
    CR : 90 millions tickets sold - 12 millions more than DAD.

    So the most successful debute film if you look at total tickets sold :
    LALD
    CR
    GE
    OHMSS
    TLD

    And most successful debute film when compared with previous outing :
    GE
    LALD
    CR
    TLD
    OHMSS
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    What's the source for that?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,690
    world_admissions.png

    Yes TLD improved over AVTAK, but it's still the 3rd least successful outing in the franchise.
Sign In or Register to comment.