It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
UGH!!!!!!!!!!!! >:/
I agree, except he is not really that pretty, is he?
Sorry I don't buy it. He was good playing against hard men, but not as convincing as a seducer.
Below is a link to an article on some of the Bond scenarios that could have played out. At the bottom there is a good writeup on Bond 17 and how it progressed to GE.....for those who were not aware. Also some interesting stuff on Warhead 2000, McClory's possible 3rd kick at a TB remake with Liam Neeson in the lead.
denofgeek.us/movies/james-bond/233218/the-james-bond-movies-you-never-saw
Quid?
IMHO it has been great that McGlory did do what he did do which gave the franchise its much needed rest from the popular Roger Moore and the unpopular Dalton. Brosnan arriving was refreshing and he brought the franchise back where it belonged namely at the top of the BO and popularity.
Dalton just did not have it andremains a pipedream for so called Fleming fans. I like flrming a lot and do like the franchise but both are different beasties in nature. Which is perhaps why the franchise is still around and working.
So Dalton failing and McGlory's troubles turned out to be a boon for the franchise, any way you see it.
If he had come in after the overblown MR for example, I'm sure he would have been able to establish himself much faster.
Also, if he had come in after DAD, he would have been much more accepted (assuming he was much younger of course, as his age would have precluded him from playing in CR).
On top of all that speculation, LTK was just ahead of its time. They should not have made that movie when they did, but rather, should have let Dalts establish himself properly before going on such a tangent. TLD was a very good start, but they switched gears way too fast - especially since the audience was still getting used to a new Bond after Moore's looong run. Dalts may have been to blame (not sure if he is the one who demanded such rapid change) but regardless, it was his loss.
He gave us two very endearing and brilliant performances in TLD and LTK, both which have very high rewatch value with me personally.
Only in the US I think. Brosnan didn't have much of a profile anywhere else.
As noted above, Dalton was not 'uncomfortable' as Bond - he was playing the character in a certain way. A more edgy, less suave and comfortable interpretation. As he's shown elsewhere, he can amp up the charm if he wants to. He played Bond in a much more understated way. Some didn't like, some did. It's difficult to argue that he was a huge success as Bond, but he certainly wasn't the disaster that some claim. And given a third film who knows what might have happened to public perceptions and his reputation.
People always say Brosnan should have been allowed to do a fifth to show he could do a decent stripped-back Bond movie after DAD. Well I say Dalton should have got a third, more conventionally fun film, after LTK.
Any way, I've met plenty of people recently who all have a real appreciation for Dalton. He's widely admired by a lot of hardcore Bond fans.
Dalton didn't want to play it like Connery or Moore. For him that was not an interesting thing to do. Like Craig, he wanted to put a different spin on the character. For my money, I prefer Dalton's take to Craig's but I respect both of them for not taking the easy option.
For slightly different reasons I also respect Sir Rog. He followed in the footsteps of a legend and redefined the role in a successful way. All the best Bonds have brought something new to the screen interpretation. If you just copy what's come before, what's the point?
As for Brosnan I am not American and knew of him in the 90s. Heck, I knew he was the heir apparent to Moore in the late 80s. The guy was building his career on Bond! It might not have been elegant to Dalton. But it had its effect on public perception.
They were indeed. It's only on forums that I've found vitriolic criticism of Brosnan. Within my wider social circles he's never at the top of anyone's list, but they all think he's great at what he does, which is how I tend to judge him. I don't see how he can be judged in the context of another actor's tenure, which is what a lot of fans tend to do when they're knocking him.
He did what he was asked to do and for the most part did it excellently imo.
The wider audience crave familiarity and the Brosnan era did that. Whether that's a good thing is up for debate, but it's pretty undeniable. Hence why we saw MP, Q and the GF DB5 in SF and why we'll see even more tropes in SP.
He may not have delivered award-winning performances, but was that something being entertained at the time? No. He was supposed to come in and steady the ship, not rock the boat. 1995 was a not a time to gamble with the franchise like 2006 was. Brosnan did what was asked.
I agree with and totally accept your point about needing to get things back on an even keel after the relatively lacklustre performance of LTK (in the US at least, since it did perfectly well everywhere else) and the 6 year hiatus, but wasn't the ship sufficiently steadied by 2002 for them not to have made DAD? Did we really need a decade of dull, box-ticking movies just to get things back on track?
I can't deny that Brosnan was a commercial success, but surely Bond has aspirations above being JUST a money making machine. I'm not disparaging the desire to be popular and profitable - that's at the heart of what has made Bond a success. But it just felt like the Brosnan films lacked any soul.
It was steadied by TND. They then tried to shift the weight towards drama with TWINE, but they obviously didn't have the balls to follow through and kept the fundamental and familiar elements, which served to undercut the drama. DAD was a reaction to that, but swung back so far in the other direction that it almost killed EON's own personal interest by all accounts. They basically didn't know what to do with 007 post 99 and I don't blame Broz for that, I blame B&M. Broz was still top notch in DAD despite the film falling apart around him. Much like DC in QoS. No one criticises DC for that films flaws, the same way I don't blame Broz for the actions of the creatives he was burdened with. You can see a similar pattern in the DC era, SF was a reaction to QoS and more of the 'familiar' will be back in SP. The advantage DC has is that most of the budget is now being spent on enough talent behind the cameras to avoid too many glaring problems.
I love them both. I don't really dwell too much on the what ifs. It happened. I enjoy what we've got, rather than crave what we haven't.
i think the issue here, or rather the point of dispute, is that many people use a lot of "if" to defend a hypothetical success of GE as Dalton. There are reasons why he did not come back to do GE. They may have been unfair, but this is what happened. If they thought Dalton could have done as well, in terms of popularity, then thy would have made sure he stayed for one more Bond. It did not happen. And GE was not a success sorely because of Brosnan, but the fact that there was a new actor for Bond certainly generated interest for the movie.
Slight distortion of the facts. I think Cubby and Babs were very committed to keeping Dalton but the studio, and perhaps just one individual in particular, were adament that he should be replaced. That sadly is the legacy of Harry's decision to sell his stake to UA rather than Cubby.
We should not underestimate EON's ability to turn around a seemingly dire situation. They'd done it several times before and there is no reason to assume that they wouldn't have delivered the ship-steadying entry required with Dalton in the lead in 1995. As has been stated countless times before, LTK performed poorly IN THE US, for a wide range of reasons, not purely because of Dalton's supposed poor reception there. And by 1995 the US was becoming increasingly less important in terms of a film's overall financial performance.
I agree this all hypothetical, but that is what fan sites like this are for, surely?
I wish I could share in your enjoyment of the Brosnan era, but for me it's an enterainment-free zone - a dead period that registers almost an extension of the post-89 hiatus. Bond didn't return again until 2006 for me.
However, I stand by my point earlier that LTK was a big mistake. While die hard fans love the movie, it was not the right film for the time for the majority of the movie going audience. I believe a lot of people in the late 80's actually wanted Bond to go back to the somewhat fantastical 70's approach (not quite MR, but at least TSWLM) and were waiting for a new Bond to take them there. The dialed back, rougher, more gritty LTK was not what they expected of Bond at that time, or for that matter, what they wanted. I also think that people at the time expected Bond to be smooth in the Roger Moore vein. They did not want book-like realism from Bond, but rather, escapism in 1989.
I agree that by 1995, a more realistic take may have worked, and EON certainly could have been able to keep Dalton and the take the series back to the TLD type approach, which likely could have worked very well then. Patriot Games had already come out, as had True Lies and the 90's were a different time to the 80's.
In fact, the concert in Vienna in TLD looks very similar to the dance scene in Europe in True Lies, which came out in 1994. Many aspects of True Lies remind me of TLD.
If Brosnan made one less, there wouldn't be Daniel Craig as Bond, because the sequel to TWINE would have been made in 2002-2003, before Craig made Layer Cake and arrived on the radar, so another actor would have been chosen.