Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

11718202223104

Comments

  • Posts: 6,396
    PalkoPalko wrote:
    <img src="http://i.imgur.com/n44APik.png">;

    "Just give me five minutes and then scream your head off"

    =))
  • Posts: 54
    "Better make that a number two."
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 19,339
    I just told Tim Dalton that he would have been crap in GoldenEye,i don't think he took it too well."

    pierce500
  • Posts: 54
    barryt007 wrote:
    I just told Tim Dalton that he would have been crap in GoldenEye,i don't think he took it too well."

    pierce500

    Ha! Never let Tim see you bleed!

  • CGI in Bond films....I believe that started in The World Is Not Enough....the flying buzzsaws bouncing around in the caviar factory....
  • Posts: 19,339
    I think it started at the beginning of Brosnan's films.
    The days of brilliant stuntwork ended with Bond setting fire to Sanchez in LTK.

    It wasnt just Sanchez that went up in smoke.
  • Posts: 7,653
    barryt007 wrote:
    I think it started at the beginning of Brosnan's films.
    The days of brilliant stuntwork ended with Bond setting fire to Sanchez in LTK.

    It wasnt just Sanchez that went up in smoke.

    In 6 years the abilities in filmmaking did improve a hellofalot and as moviemaker you would be amiss to fail and not use any improvements.

    That said I still wonder who gave the greenlight for that awefull CGI in DAD. And more to the point why have they not retroactively improved upon that horrible scene with some new CGI just to wipe out that poor piece of film. And I do not advertise changing movies or as George Lucas did improve them, but even at the time DAD hit the theaters that special bit of CGI was poorer than anything possible those days. So not changing but actually fixing the scene so that upon watching you are not pulled out of the story due to the poorest CGI.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Also that scene would have been checked along with the rest of the film before release,so i cant understand how it would have passed examination.

    Surely they wouldnt have gone 'on the cheap' with it,this was Bond's 40th Anniversary !!
  • Posts: 7,653
    barryt007 wrote:
    Surely they wouldnt have gone 'on the cheap' with it,this was Bond's 40th Anniversary !!

    You would wonder about that, wouldn't you?

  • edited May 2014 Posts: 1,778
    Getafix wrote:
    Part of Tim's downfall was perhaps his failure to win over the US. It's a shame - these days it is obviously far less important how popular you are there.

    I know I'm a little late with this but you're absolutely right. Only that's not only the case in America. It's the whole world. The days of an actor relying on their star power alone to sell a movie are long gone. Nowadays it's all about franchises (sequels, reboots, etc). Gone are the days where you could slap Tom Cruise's or Will Smith's name on a movie poster and let it make a fortune just based on their popularity like Jerry Maguire or Hitch.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 11,425
    SaintMark wrote:
    barryt007 wrote:
    Surely they wouldnt have gone 'on the cheap' with it,this was Bond's 40th Anniversary !!

    You would wonder about that, wouldn't you?

    That CGI was so awful. Very strange they let it through.

    In general I think CGI is best avoided. The helicopters over Silva's island in SF also look awful IMO, although not as bad as DAD.

    CGI just wrecks serious movies in my view. Hope Mendes stays well away from it in the next movie. I don't want my Bond films looking like computer games.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 2,341
    It always amazes me how Bond films, despite their mega million dollar budgets tend to fall down in the FX and now CGI department. Spielberg got it right in Jurrassic Park more than 20 years ago ! those dinos looked like living breathing creatures. Bond films manage to look cheesy at times.

    Makes you wonder where all those millions go on a Bond picture.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I know - Cubby's philosophy was to put the money on the screen. I wonder whether the tendency towards star actors in recent years has begun to whittle away at the production budgets. That still doesn't explain the bad CGI in DAD though, where the cast was all B-list.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Getafix wrote:
    I know - Cubby's philosophy was to put the money on the screen. I wonder whether the tendency towards star actors in recent years has begun to whittle away at the production budgets. That still doesn't explain the bad CGI in DAD though, where the cast was all B-list.

    In SF all the salaries would make it more acceptable???
  • Posts: 11,425
    SaintMark wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I know - Cubby's philosophy was to put the money on the screen. I wonder whether the tendency towards star actors in recent years has begun to whittle away at the production budgets. That still doesn't explain the bad CGI in DAD though, where the cast was all B-list.

    In SF all the salaries would make it more acceptable???

    No. I'm just saying that it may be partly explains the not entirely brilliant CGI .
  • Posts: 2,341
    With all the superhero films and "Godzilla" etc it seems that CGI is the "in" thing nowadays. Pity because at the end of the day it will only "date" the Bond films. In Sf, all the CGI from the PTS, to the Komoda dragons, to the helicopters on Silva's island.

    Some of us will bemoan the "good old days" ie, the crocodile farm in LALD, the ski jump in TSWLM, the PTS of MR, Bond fighting the drug traffickers on the plane in LTK, those explosive scenes on the airbase in TLD...etc.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't mind CGI in the right context, but Bond is not the right context!

    Back on topic, GE was on UK TV last week. I watched the first 5 minutes and then had to turn it off. It is as bad, if not worse, than I remember. The early exchanges between Brosnan and Bean are cringeworthy.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Some of the dialogue in GE is corny but not as bad as subsequent Brosnan films.
  • Posts: 2,341
    @Getafix what is it about Brosnan that sets us off?
    I agree the dialogue about pints and all is such crapola. I hated the scene where we first see his face: dropping in on a guy taking a dump. I doubt that Dalton would have done this scene and he might have come off more believable in exchanges with Bean.

    It was as if from the get go EON was not going to take Brosnan serious.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Dalton did get the "dead end" line in LTK. That's hardly Shakespearian in itself is it?

    Some of you Brosnan haters sound like a bloody stuck record.
  • Posts: 2,341
    Maybe Brosnan is just not the actor Dalton is. Even the beach scene with Natalya seems forced and just... er...well... shitty.

    @Bain123 I know you probably expected more from someone with my education and culture but "shitty" is the best I can come up with. :0 :)

    Brosnan was good in the final fight scene and theres always the scene with Kaufman in TND that Brosnanites can hang their hats on but for me: the number of his "really nailing it as Bond" can be counted on one hand.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Brosnan was good in the final fight scene and theres always the scene with Kaufman in TND that Brosnanites can hang their hats on but for me: the number of his "really nailing it as Bond" can be counted on one hand.
    Same here.

    If I cut off five thunderfingers.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Poor old Broz. I want to like him but he's so damn bad. I'd almost forgotten just how awful GE is.
  • Posts: 14,816
    00Beast wrote:
    Dalton would have fit the tone for GoldenEye and would have gone up nicely against Sean Bean's Alec Trevelyan, but quite honestly, I can't see anyone in the role of 007 in GoldenEye except Pierce Brosnan. He fit the movie like a comfortable suit. Perhaps Dalton could have hit his best note with a third performance with a superb storyline like GE, but Brosnan did it better.

    I am very late answering this but I don't think so. Dalton being much older than Bean and looking it, Trevelyan would have come up as far less menacing. It is one of the rare instances when I think Brosnan's youthful look served him and the role. Even though Sean Bean is younger, he looks at least as seasoned and mature as Bond, if not more. I don't think it would have worked nearly as well with Dalton.
  • Posts: 11,425
    But weren't they lining up Hopkins as the villain for Dalton's third?

    Bean is not a great Bond villain, IMO, any way.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 6,396
    Bean would have been(!) a lot better had he voice Treveleyan in his native Yorkshire accent. As it is, he comes across as a spoilt public schoolboy.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 14,816
    Getafix wrote:
    But weren't they lining up Hopkins as the villain for Dalton's third?

    Bean is not a great Bond villain, IMO, any way.

    Yes, originally 006 was meant to be Bond's mentor. I believe Trevelyan was also supposed to be the current M's predecessor, not a fellow 00. I am of two minds about a former M as a Bond villain, but Hopkins playing the mentor of Dalton's 007 would have worked very well. But then you would have had an entirely different movie. As GE is, casting and all, you replace Brosnan with Dalton and the movie is not as good, ironically enough because of Brosnan's shortcomings (see my thread the weakness that becomes an asset).

    I love Bean as an actor and I think he was a very good villain, although he is overrated. He would have been far weaker opposite to Dalton.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Bean would have appeared a very weak foil to an actor of Dalton's abilities.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Getafix wrote:
    Bean would have appeared a very weak foil to an actor of Dalton's abilities.

    This is why I think that with the film as it stands, casting and all, Brosnan fitted the bill better than Dalton. To make GE a Dalton movie it would have needed to be considerably different: an older actor playing Trevelyan, Trevelyan having another function than a 00, etc. Would it have been a better movie I don't know, but it would have been a very different movie.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Ludovico wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Bean would have appeared a very weak foil to an actor of Dalton's abilities.

    This is why I think that with the film as it stands, casting and all, Brosnan fitted the bill better than Dalton. To make GE a Dalton movie it would have needed to be considerably different: an older actor playing Trevelyan, Trevelyan having another function than a 00, etc. Would it have been a better movie I don't know, but it would have been a very different movie.
    I beg to not-disagree.
    B-)
Sign In or Register to comment.