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
That was one of the reasons for the decision--the Japanese were crazy about Bond. China of course was not part of the market at the time (neither was Vietnam). I suspect box office from Thailand and Cambodia would have been negligible.
I believe you're correct about the Japanese Bond craze having an influence. Though OHMSS was put aside due to the lack of snow forecast for 1967, I think it was an obvious choice to switch the two around and capitalise on Bond's huge popularity in Japan instead.
It's interesting that you brought up the SW franchise earlier, because to an extent, Bond plays like SW in the Chinese market on a relative basis (in comparison to its gross elsewhere). Coincidentally, these are both older franchises with an established history in the US and Europe. For some reason they haven't quite found their groove over there yet. Probably both a bit slow going for local tastes.
That may have been a factor. If I recall some prints of GF stated the next film was to be OHMSS then McClory came along and TB became the next film. Then OHMSS was to be the next film after TB but it was felt that OHMSS was TB on skis, plus it was doubtful that Connery would go with the long shooting schedule. So it was shelved again.
Back to the point of the thread, I agree with those that say engineering a movie, or the people who act in the movie to appeal to a market isn't the way to go about the creative process. Better to be who you are and play to your strengths.
Could I see Dalton in GE? Yes I could, I think it was written with him in mind. Some scenes would play to his strengths. I think the death of 006 would have been a better moment for Dalton. Would the movie have been as much of a box office success? Not sure on that one. The buzz and publicity they scored from having Brosnan and the story of his long journey to get the role was HUGE. Some was also pent up demand from not having a Bond film in a number of years was also a factor. Were people clamouring for Dalton to come back? I would say that group was rather small.
It may have informed his decision somewhat, but he really couldn't have made YOLT anywhere else. I know the story was changed from the novel dramatically, but Japan was a character itself in the Fleming plot.
From experience, that number was indeed very small. People seem to underestimate how popular was Brosnan and GE when the movie was released. As unfair as it was, Dalton was seen as the usurper and Brosnan could do no wrong.
He was well known here for sure,mainly for Remington Steele,The 4th Protocol,Taffin,Mrs Doubtfire and some average budget films,but not as much as in the US.
Years later I remember watching him in Mrs Doubtfire and thinking how good he was as a light comedian. He did well, playing foil to Robin Williams and never trying to upstage him.
In saying that, I do think the success of GE was a necessity at the time, so I'm willing to swallow some of its kid-friendly foibles. In a way, I could say the very same thing about TSWLM. Not a favourite of mine as I much preferred Moore's two previous Bond outings to the kid-friendly silliness of TSWLM. But again, character continuity had to be sacrificed to deliver a surefire hit. Gone was the sardonic sadism of Connery and in its place roguish schoolboy charm was the order of the day, which of course played to Moore's strengths. One can almost see a parallel between Dalton and Brosnan, and Connery and Moore. I think the main criticism of Dalton from America was that he was too serious and lacked a playfulness to the character that audiences of that time had come to expect. Brosnan brought back that roguish schoolboy charm which obviously appealed to US audiences. Coupled with the fact that the US always saw Brosnan as the "real Bond" who'd been denied his rightful chance to play the character due to the contract shenanigans of Remington Steele, it was therefore always a foregone conclusion that Brosnan takeover if Dalton failed to ignite the box office. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this unilateral support and critical acclaim on his first movie might have been contributing factors as to why Brosnan came over as too smug in his subsequent performances.
On the plus side he was earnest and moody. He was the Bond who looked like he did the job because no one else would or could do it. You can imagine he didn't sleep well, not because he spent all night at the casino like Connery's Bond, but because the job troubled him.
Anyways, Bond fans who love the books love Dalton (even though in many books Bond is more gentlemanly and would often call the ladies 'darling' which is more in tune with Roger Moore). Casual movie goers who make up the vast majority of cinema goers, prefer Brosnan, because he comes over better on the big screen as a more typical handsome, well dressed, easy going leading man.
So, if Dalton had made GE it would have been successful because there is a huge market for Bond driving the films over the line. However It would not have been as successful as it eventually was.
The Lion In Winter is a superb film. I encourage anyone who hasn't watched it, to go watch it. Not just for Dalton's excellent performance, but also for Peter O'Toole, who was denied an Oscar due to Cliff Robertson winning it for Charly that same year. It's an impressive performance when you consider O'Toole was playing a much older man who was married to Katharine Hepburn. There was only 5 years age difference between him and Anthony Hopkins, but in this movie O'Toole is playing his father. And then there's John Barry's score which is sublime.
Oh I see. I didn't know that. Maybe as the Silence Of The Lambs oscar and The Remains Of The Day both came between 1991 and 1995 it would have priced him out of the market.
I don't know. Unless he and Timbo were good friends?
Come to think of it, I don't think a fight between Bean-Trevelyan and Dalton-Bond would have worked either, unless they'd change radically their approach to how Dalton was depicted in a fist fight.
Sorry I'm one of the few who never liked GE from day one. Feels like a straight to video thing to me. Don't get it at all.
Apparently it was down to the fact that the script wasn't completed, a view shared by Dench and Brossa, who voiced their concerns at the time!
Agree totally. It's a Bond movie that hasn't aged well either!
Biased Dalton fans may want it and would do anything to discredit Brosnan, but I've read the first draft written with him in mind, and it was a load of mess.
Even if Dalton was to star in the final draft depiction of the screenplay, that statue park scene would've had him overreacting to Alec's betrayal, thus offering a cringeworthy moment rather than what we've seen with Brosnan responding coldly with "the job we're chosen for."
Do you think he would have screamed "Aaaleec!!!", then clenched his fists?