Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

16970727475104

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Fooled me.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 4,599
    We have drifted way off topic so what the heck...there is alot of confirmation bias going on within these threads. People decide if they like a particualr movie or dislike and then apply a completely different set of standards accordingly. So, with SF, I forgive the flashlight issue on the basis that M is weak and not thinking straight and Kinkade's age/usefullness has been telegraphed when, under stress, he drops the shotgun cartridges. (if Bond had used a torch then thats a different story) In contrast, those who dislike SF see this as some kind of dreadful weakness in the plot.

    With the SP PTS, Bond could have thrown anything (he does actually have a stick) into the rotor blades of the chopper before it took off, they are finely balanced and the smallest of differences will render it unflyable..but, instead, he jumps onboard and fights the two guys mid air.

    The bottom line is that, if we love a movie, we are prepared to offer forgiveness and if we dont like it, we will re watch and pick holes in the whole thing.
  • Posts: 14,816
    DAD's style of CGI was used in about all of the action/fantasy movies of that time.

    Just look at how horrible some Harry Potter and Spider-Man scenes are, or that abomination posted above.

    It's not an excuse for what was done in DAD but people here really should start to see the context.
    Back projection was the "CGI" of the old days, used often and sometimes excessive, even in the Connery films. Nobody complains about that here, and they shouldn't, just saying.

    Those 12 seconds of pure CGI in DAD get so much attendance here it's almost grotesque.

    But surely one cannot compare CGI in sci-fi or fantasy movies when their use is relevant and extensive to their use in a spy thriller when they should be at best spare.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,449
    @patb, I can't stand SP, but I don't believe that's ever been an issue or criticism of mine like the flashlight bit from SF is. Confirmation bias really has nothing to do with it.

    I'm sure I'm much more forgiving with the stuff I like, but nothing is perfect, and I'm open to discussing any of these movies in a positive or negative light.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    I love Bond's reaction when Silva blows up the Aston. That's when he kicks into high gear. Don't mess with my car!

    I love that bit,Bond's face is pure anger,and the way Silva looks back to the house as the Aston blows up shows he knows what that car meant to Bond.

    I also like the way the Bond music changes to an angry,darker tone...great scene.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Getafix wrote: »
    Bring back Dalton and let's get this show back on the road!

    Bring back John Glen too.

    "you're joking."

    54fd619cb8847fdfd6da0985f485775e.jpg


    I hope I look that at 70. Wish Dalton had had a better run. I blame Glen.

    My answer to the thread. Is yes probably critically but no commercially.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Bring back Dalton and let's get this show back on the road!

    Bring back John Glen too.

    "you're joking."

    54fd619cb8847fdfd6da0985f485775e.jpg


    I hope I look that at 70. Wish Dalton had had a better run. I blame Glen.

    My answer to the thread. Is yes probably critically but no commercially.

    I salute that response! Dalton being a fine actor, needed a change of director. But I can tell you his popularity is leaps and bounds better now than 20 years ago.

  • He would have destroyed the franchise, no way, he had practically no fanbase back then. Brosnan was highly popular and should have been Moore's replacement instead of the lackluster Dalton. oh well that's 30 years ago. Dalton was still better than lazenby but that's not saying much!
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Brosnan had a following in the US but not anywhere else I don't think. Not even sure Remmington Steel was even on UK TV. He was largely unknown in the UK, whereas Dalton had a reputation as a minor heart throb thanks to his period drama work - Jane Eyre in particular.

    Even LTK did reasonable BO outside the US.

    As with Trump now, I see America's failure to 'get' Dalton as a random bout of madness.
  • Posts: 11,189
    He was more popular in the US that's for sure but not completely unknown here.

    I remember a former work colleague telling me she signed a petition for him to get the role back in the 80s.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton? It would have been a better film, yes. But more of a financial success, no. Brosnan satisfied the publics expectations and 'idea' of Bond in the 90's.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Dalton would have ruined the masterpiece that is GoldneEye.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    Brosnan had a following in the US but not anywhere else I don't think. Not even sure Remmington Steel was even on UK TV. He was largely unknown in the UK, whereas Dalton had a reputation as a minor heart throb thanks to his period drama work - Jane Eyre in particular.

    Even LTK did reasonable BO outside the US.

    As with Trump now, I see America's failure to 'get' Dalton as a random bout of madness.

    american failure? that would have been the case with H. Clinton. Trump made 1 millions into 4 billions, i think that's trustworthy don't you think? anyway no politics on non-politics thread please.

    Brosnan made a few good movies before Goldeneye, he was popular. Dalton had so little of fanbase back then it was sad. Brosnan also has an infinitely better movie career than Dalton overall sorry!
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brosnan had a following in the US but not anywhere else I don't think. Not even sure Remmington Steel was even on UK TV. He was largely unknown in the UK, whereas Dalton had a reputation as a minor heart throb thanks to his period drama work - Jane Eyre in particular.

    Even LTK did reasonable BO outside the US.

    As with Trump now, I see America's failure to 'get' Dalton as a random bout of madness.

    There is a useful four letter word and this post is full of it. Your anti Brosnan bias is incredible. Whatever you are smoking, I want some. Maybe it will make Dalton better for me. =))
  • Double posts for the loss, please move out the mirror in front of you before you type. Trump is the president for 8 years most likely, you better think it's serious.

    Oh and Brosnan>Dalton, does this displease you?

    to answer again to the question, it probably would have killed the franchise with Dalton on GE.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brosnan had a following in the US but not anywhere else I don't think. Not even sure Remmington Steel was even on UK TV. He was largely unknown in the UK, whereas Dalton had a reputation as a minor heart throb thanks to his period drama work - Jane Eyre in particular.

    Even LTK did reasonable BO outside the US.

    As with Trump now, I see America's failure to 'get' Dalton as a random bout of madness.

    american failure? that would have been the case with H. Clinton. Trump made 1 millions into 4 billions, i think that's trustworthy don't you think? anyway no politics on non-politics thread please.

    Brosnan made a few good movies before Goldeneye, he was popular. Dalton had so little of fanbase back then it was sad. Brosnan also has an infinitely better movie career than Dalton overall sorry!

    After Bond I would definitely agree. Pre Bond much less so.

    Brosnan played his cards brilliantly after being cast as Bond. His non Bond work has also generally been much better than his films for EON
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,630
    As a fan of Tim, I wish that he did get one more run as Bond. I think he would've done very well in the position Brosnan gave in GoldenEye. With that said, I am very fond of Brosnan's performance in the film and his presence did lend to some of the film's success. I think if Dalton was in the role, it would've been far more successful than LTK but less than what it received with Pierce.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It would have been a better film with Dalton.
  • Posts: 11,189
    As it is GE is my most watched Bond film.

    Better with Dalton? Pah!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    It would have been a better film with Dalton.
    Dalton, having done two previous Bond films already, may have really delivered a killer performance in a film like GE. Brosnan was unsure in his first outing, there's no doubt about that, despite looking very dapper.

    Having said that, I think Brosnan's insecurity helped the other actors to really shine, and made GE into the classic that it is (imho). Whenever I put that film on I have an absolute blast (I think it's the last great traditional Bond film), and I really watch it for everyone else except Bond, who is merely a supporting character in it.

    The same, interestingly, applies to SF for me (Bond is merely a subsidiary character to the brilliance around him imho).
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    The same, interestingly, applies to SF for me (Bond is merely a subsidiary character to the brilliance around him imho).

    I think that applies more to Spectre
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The same, interestingly, applies to SF for me (Bond is merely a subsidiary character to the brilliance around him imho).

    I think that applies more to Spectre
    I don't recall any brilliance in SP though. At least SF had some inspired performances by the supporting cast just like GE, which to some extent overshadowed Bond.
  • Posts: 14,816
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It would have been a better film with Dalton.
    Dalton, having done two previous Bond films already, may have really delivered a killer performance in a film like GE. Brosnan was unsure in his first outing, there's no doubt about that, despite looking very dapper.

    Having said that, I think Brosnan's insecurity helped the other actors to really shine, and made GE into the classic that it is (imho). Whenever I put that film on I have an absolute blast (I think it's the last great traditional Bond film), and I really watch it for everyone else except Bond, who is merely a supporting character in it.

    The same, interestingly, applies to SF for me (Bond is merely a subsidiary character to the brilliance around him imho).

    I think you should write this in the controversial thread. I think on the contrary that GE is one of the most Bond centrist movies. Almost single character seem define at least to a degree in relation to Bond, there is barely a scene when Bond is not in it, the villain is a former friend of Bond who was instrumental to his "creation", Zukovsky has a history with Bond... Brosnan merely had to wear the suit, he was "padded" in the role.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It would have been a better film with Dalton.
    Dalton, having done two previous Bond films already, may have really delivered a killer performance in a film like GE. Brosnan was unsure in his first outing, there's no doubt about that, despite looking very dapper.

    Having said that, I think Brosnan's insecurity helped the other actors to really shine, and made GE into the classic that it is (imho). Whenever I put that film on I have an absolute blast (I think it's the last great traditional Bond film), and I really watch it for everyone else except Bond, who is merely a supporting character in it.

    The same, interestingly, applies to SF for me (Bond is merely a subsidiary character to the brilliance around him imho).

    I think you should write this in the controversial thread. I think on the contrary that GE is one of the most Bond centrist movies. Almost single character seem define at least to a degree in relation to Bond, there is barely a scene when Bond is not in it, the villain is a former friend of Bond who was instrumental to his "creation", Zukovsky has a history with Bond... Brosnan merely had to wear the suit, he was "padded" in the role.
    I think you've proved my point with your last statement. Brosnan did indeed only have to wear the suit, which he did very well. While some key and supporting characters may have been written to have a history with Bond, the character of Bond himself only needed to be somewhat of a cardboard cut-out in this film. He was defined by the narrative, and not by the requirements of the performance. This, to an extent, is what I'm getting at. I believe the same thing exists, to a lesser extent, in SF, which essentially revolves around the character of Bond. He is somewhat of a bystander in his own story in that film as well, which really draws strength from the supporting characters.

    This is different from CR or QoS for example, where the Bond performance is essential to sell the narrative.
  • Posts: 11,189
    The funny thing is that I'm starting to think that, in many ways, Bond IS a "lesser" character who is revolved by the characters around him. I remember when I first read the Octopussy short story, which is mainly about Major Dexter Smythe.

    Bond himself is barely in it and is only really there to set up events surrounding Smythe.

    Likewise FRWL (the book) does not even feature Bond until the half way mark or so.
  • Posts: 14,816
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It would have been a better film with Dalton.
    Dalton, having done two previous Bond films already, may have really delivered a killer performance in a film like GE. Brosnan was unsure in his first outing, there's no doubt about that, despite looking very dapper.

    Having said that, I think Brosnan's insecurity helped the other actors to really shine, and made GE into the classic that it is (imho). Whenever I put that film on I have an absolute blast (I think it's the last great traditional Bond film), and I really watch it for everyone else except Bond, who is merely a supporting character in it.

    The same, interestingly, applies to SF for me (Bond is merely a subsidiary character to the brilliance around him imho).

    I think you should write this in the controversial thread. I think on the contrary that GE is one of the most Bond centrist movies. Almost single character seem define at least to a degree in relation to Bond, there is barely a scene when Bond is not in it, the villain is a former friend of Bond who was instrumental to his "creation", Zukovsky has a history with Bond... Brosnan merely had to wear the suit, he was "padded" in the role.
    I think you've proved my point with your last statement. Brosnan did indeed only have to wear the suit, which he did very well. While some key and supporting characters may have been written to have a history with Bond, the character of Bond himself only needed to be somewhat of a cardboard cut-out in this film. He was defined by the narrative, and not by the requirements of the performance. This, to an extent, is what I'm getting at. I believe the same thing exists, to a lesser extent, in SF, which essentially revolves around the character of Bond. He is somewhat of a bystander in his own story in that film as well, which really draws strength from the supporting characters.

    This is different from CR or QoS for example, where the Bond performance is essential to sell the narrative.

    Whether or not Bond was static is beside the point. You could say Bond is more an icon in GE than a character he's still at the core of it and borderline omnipresent. It was probably due to his long absence from cinema but I find GE to be one of the most Bond centrist Bond movies.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It would have been a better film with Dalton.
    Dalton, having done two previous Bond films already, may have really delivered a killer performance in a film like GE. Brosnan was unsure in his first outing, there's no doubt about that, despite looking very dapper.

    Having said that, I think Brosnan's insecurity helped the other actors to really shine, and made GE into the classic that it is (imho). Whenever I put that film on I have an absolute blast (I think it's the last great traditional Bond film), and I really watch it for everyone else except Bond, who is merely a supporting character in it.

    The same, interestingly, applies to SF for me (Bond is merely a subsidiary character to the brilliance around him imho).

    I think you should write this in the controversial thread. I think on the contrary that GE is one of the most Bond centrist movies. Almost single character seem define at least to a degree in relation to Bond, there is barely a scene when Bond is not in it, the villain is a former friend of Bond who was instrumental to his "creation", Zukovsky has a history with Bond... Brosnan merely had to wear the suit, he was "padded" in the role.
    I think you've proved my point with your last statement. Brosnan did indeed only have to wear the suit, which he did very well. While some key and supporting characters may have been written to have a history with Bond, the character of Bond himself only needed to be somewhat of a cardboard cut-out in this film. He was defined by the narrative, and not by the requirements of the performance. This, to an extent, is what I'm getting at. I believe the same thing exists, to a lesser extent, in SF, which essentially revolves around the character of Bond. He is somewhat of a bystander in his own story in that film as well, which really draws strength from the supporting characters.

    This is different from CR or QoS for example, where the Bond performance is essential to sell the narrative.

    Whether or not Bond was static is beside the point. You could say Bond is more an icon in GE than a character he's still at the core of it and borderline omnipresent. It was probably due to his long absence from cinema but I find GE to be one of the most Bond centrist Bond movies.
    Yes, you are correct in terms of being physically present. In fact, the scenes with Natalya at Severnaya are notable because it's a rare instance when Bond is not in the frame. However, I still think the Bond role in GE was somewhat cardboard cutout. As an analogy, there is bread in every sandwich, but it is the other ingredients which leave a lasting impression.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's cardboard cutout because it's Brosnan playing Bond.
  • Perhaps because Bond is due to success even the crap bonds made tons of money, but it wouldn't have been as good and riveting with Dalton, can you imagine that old man against a prime sean bean in a fist-fight? It would have been unrealistic!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's my understanding that Bean auditioned for Bond. BB was so impressed with him that she encouraged EON to give him the villain role. I believe Anthony Hopkins was supposed to play the villain in the earlier draft, which was supposed to feature Dalton, and would have perhaps been more age appropriate.
Sign In or Register to comment.