Was this the big fundamental problem w/ the Timothy Dalton era?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — James Bond
TMC-4 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 02:22 AM)
Dalton playing a more naturalistic, real-world Bond (a more specifically, a burned-out soldier just one nudge away from exploding with rage) was likely always going to be off-putting and not very likable. Unfortunately, the movies constructed around him didn't seem to fully realize this and that dissonance rubbed audiences the wrong way. Basically, the put things in the proper perspective, after a decade and a half of Roger Moore's snark and campy foolishness, audiences just weren't ready for a Bond who wasn't joking around anymore.
-
CountJohn — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 09:36 AM)
I don't see a fundamental problem with Dalton's Bond. The problems for audiences at the time may have been.
A. With the era of celebratory blockbusters in the 80's and not having seen a portrayal in the vein of Dalton's since FRWL 20 something years earlier while coming off the most light hearted Bond of all time in Roger Moore, people simply weren't in the mood or ready for that kind of Bond performance
B. License to Kill is a good movie, but not very Bond-like, which may have out audiences off specifically that movie when it came out. -
TheSharkFromJaws — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 12:54 PM)
No.
The Living Daylights was a very popular movie and also a successful one. No, it wasn't Goldfinger popular, but neither were the prior few Moore flicks.
Licence to Kill was a relative disappointment financially because of bad marketing decisions and very stiff competition. However, it was still a reasonable critical success.
Dalton was all set for a third film and probably one or two additional films, but it was derailed by the studio's financial struggles.
Modern perspective of the Dalton films not being accepted is the result of rewriting history due the commonly spread idea that Dalton was booted after LTK "bombing", which is obviously untrue but since it's such a firm and longstanding belief with general audiences, it's difficult to tell people otherwise.
It's the same as trying to tell people that Batman Forever was actually a well liked and hugely successful film back in 95 and not the disaster people see it as today because of years of people associating it with Batman and Robin. -
-
rich_bruce — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 04:37 PM)
Yeah, where failure myths failed over time for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and more recently QUANTUM OF SOLACE, LICENCE TO KILL is an easy target.
One true problem with the Dalton era: he never got the big third mission like GOLDFINGER or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.
What no man
C
an give ya. And none
C
an take away. -
pking-2 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 11:14 PM)
You're not getting much support here, but I in a broad sense agree with you.
Dalton's portrayal was not really supposed to be a crowd pleaser, at least not via comedy or satire. But a Fleming-reader pleaser through a more faithful, if grim, take on things.
Perhaps its your semantic construct that this is a "big fundamental problem" when it isn't, to many, a problem, in terms of entertainment.
But it
was
somewhat of a problemat the box office. Love it or hate it, Dalton's era was unimpressive and disappointing at the box office compared to
all
the other Bond eras, overall, maybe even more of a concern than even Laz/OHMSS from a franchise profit/relevancy/survival/business point of view. Which has nothing to do with what anyone enjoys, really.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er. -
Ronsin1976 — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 09:16 AM)
Well with Dalton you have a more serious Bond, which to some was a boring one. I mean look at Moore's Bond, he's the kind of guy you could drink a half pint with down at the pub and tell jokes all day long. I could not imagine doing that with Dalton's Bond. Moore was more self-deprecating, a wee bit for my liking. People like a lad who is willing to have a joke at his expense.
But it was somewhat of a problemat the box office. Love it or hate it, Dalton's era was unimpressive and disappointing at the box office compared to all the other Bond eras,
Dalton's Bond wasn't a complete letdown outside of the U.S. His two movies did reasonably well in Europe. I remembered the summer of 1989 being a strong season for movies. A reason why they release the films now towards the latter part of the year (e.g. November).
Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3 -
pking-2 — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 10:23 AM)
All Bond movies and eras have been profitable, so when Dalton (or AVTAK or TMWTGG or OHMSS etc) is under scrutiny we are discussing the difference between fantastic profit vs. disappointing profit, but always profit nonetheless. And yes, LTK's biggest eyebrow raiser was its weak US box office.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er. -
-
HugeDaiCottermee — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 04:41 AM)
Verily I say unto theeyour statements are certainly simple there is no doubt and kudos to LICENCE TO KILL for the violence contained within it.I watch films and US TV shows ten times more violent practically every day of the week and revel in them.Have you ever seen THE WALKING DEAD for example? LTK is like a Disney film in comparison.