My story is really sad .
I only got into Bond again in the 00s because of the DVDs (I have all but Brosnan's) and then CR and Craig, the best since Connery.
I own the Brosnan ones as they are part of the boxset but never watch them. Funny how those that came before just struggled with the Brosnan's
Dalton showed us somewhat different - a new take on Bond. Brosnan went backwards.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I don't think it was Dalton's fault. The marketing strategy for LTK was a mess. For a start they shouldn't have released LTK in summer 1989 against Batman, Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon II.
I've said it before - the " missing" or "wrong" marketing strategy is wrong and distracts from the main problem:
Dalton was not accepted by the wide audiences!
Blaming LTK for being started at the "wrong time" - together and against Batman, Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon is also flawed: In economic terms, the market was there because the other 3 movies succeeded - so there was a reason why the market (audience) decided not to choose Bond and LTK but went with the alternatives!
You could mention the strong competition if all the alternatives would have cannibalized each other significantly!
But all 3 alternatives have been very successful and there was a reason for that!
An additional thought: I have recently read that you can't compare Batman and Indiana Jones
franchises with Bond.
Why not? Bond had already 15 movies (Batman for example was the first big movie), so the franchise was strong and well established.
The Box office numbers from Skyfall and the last Batman movie where pretty similar, so the Bond franchise was and is as strong as Batman for example!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I don't think it was Dalton's fault. The marketing strategy for LTK was a mess. For a start they shouldn't have released LTK in summer 1989 against Batman, Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon II.
I've said it before - the " missing" or "wrong" marketing strategy is wrong and distracts from the main problem:
Dalton was not accepted by the wide audiences!
Blaming LTK for being started at the "wrong time" - together and against Batman, Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon is also flawed: In economic terms, the market was there because the other 3 movies succeeded - so there was a reason why the market (audience) decided not to choose Bond and LTK but went with the alternatives!
You could mention the strong competition if all the alternatives would have cannibalized each other significantly!
But all 3 alternatives have been very successful and there was a reason for that!
An additional thought: I have recently read that you can't compare Batman and Indiana Jones
franchises with Bond.
Why not? Bond had already 15 movies (Batman for example was the first big movie), so the franchise was strong and well established.
The Box office numbers from Skyfall and the last Batman movie where pretty similar, so the Bond franchise was and is as strong as Batman for example!
Of course the summer market was there. No one argues with that. And Batman, Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon II were very successful. Let's face it, that summer was specially strong. But blaming Dalton is wrong IMHO. TLD had been successful in summer 1987 so Dalton was accepted as Bond. The thing is ,in 87 there was only Lethal Weapon I and the Superman IV swindle which (deservedly) flopped. EON realised their mistake in 1989 and never again released a Bond film in the summer season. Ever. The Christmas market is easier for Bond, more children oriented, so adults go watch 007. EON did not blame Dalton.
LTK marketing mess is anknowledged by EON themselves. Starting by the changing title "Licence Revoked" to the frankly unoriginal and uninspiring LTK. The posters were plain bad. The title song was not as commercial as AVTAK or TLD,so no MTV video playing all the time...They simply didn't do a good job at selling the movie.
That summer (I remember it very well) was Batman, Batman, Batman, the Joker, Batman...everywere, all the time.
Yes, it would have been hard for any actor to follow in the shoes of Sir Roger. I can only think of one name: Jim Carrey. Thank God, we got Dalton instead.
TLD had been successful in summer 1987 so Dalton was accepted as Bond. The thing is ,in 87 there was only Lethal Weapon I and the Superman IV swindle which (deservedly) flopped. EON realised their mistake in 1989 and never again released a Bond film in the summer season. Ever. The Christmas market is easier for Bond, more children oriented, so adults go watch 007. EON did not blame Dalton.
LTK marketing mess is anknowledged by EON themselves. Starting by the changing title "Licence Revoked" to the frankly unoriginal and uninspiring LTK. The posters were plain bad. The title song was not as commercial as AVTAK or TLD,so no MTV video playing all the time...They simply didn't do a good job at selling the movie.
That summer (I remember it very well) was Batman, Batman, Batman, the Joker, Batman...everywere, all the time.
Well said, TLD had done very big business in 87. Even the bus stops screamed BATMAN where I lived.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
But blaming Dalton is wrong IMHO. TLD had been successful in summer 1987 so Dalton was accepted as Bond.
If you check the numbers below, TLD's grossing was equally disappointing like LTK (And AVTAK btw..):
As for Dalton's acceptance as Bond:
"25 years ago when the US box-office take was disappointing,United Artists were quick to throw Timothy Dalton under the bus..." "The American public loves the movies - but they don't love Dalton. He just isn't clicking..."
But blaming Dalton is wrong IMHO. TLD had been successful in summer 1987 so Dalton was accepted as Bond.
Timothy Dalton was refusing to come back to the fold. He'd signed up for three films, but it was now five years since his last outing as Bond and he felt the time had come to move on. This saved Broccoli, who was reportedly under pressure from MGM, from having to "fire" the actor.
Even I as a Dalton fan, accept the fact that for whatever reason
The cinema audience didn't take to the harder edged Dalton.
In my opinion it's their loss, he would have been brilliant ! {[]
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
With Dalton's contract officially expired in 1993 (which was originally planned to be the year of his fourth film), the actor bowed out from the role gracefully in 1994. Dalton had read France's screenplay for Bond 17 whilst filming "Scarlett".
It was there that Dalton made, and subsequently announced, his decision to walk way. On 12 April 1994, the bombshell was dropped - Timothy Dalton was refusing to come back to the fold. He'd signed up for three films, but it was now five years since his last outing as Bond and he felt the time had come to move on. This saved Broccoli, who was reportedly under pressure from MGM, from having to "fire" the actor.
EON opted not to stand in his way and set about searching for his replacement.
His five years were up.He'd moved on to other projects.He was still a jobbing actor.Do you honestly think Broccoli would give in to MGM would give him up?
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I'm not sure, if it really had to do with the "harder edged" approach.
Roger's wit wore off a bit after all these years, it was the time when AIDS was a big concern.
There where immensely successfully hard-edged movies before (First Blood by example - I remember leaving the cinema and realizing that movies will never be the same after it) and I for my part immensely enjoyed "How dares wins" with Lewis Collins - who in my opinion would have been the ideal Bond instead of Dalton.
So you can see, I would have welcomed a tougher Bond back then - but Dalton never looked the part (imo of course)
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Oh I think Dalton nailed it. {[] Although I can see Higgins's point
( very tight shorts )
For whatever reason, The public didn't warm to him. Sad I know
But most of the public have never read a Bond book so probably
Didn't recognise this Character Dalton created as "Bond"
Hence with Brosnan they went back to a more " Moore " Bond.
Only my opinion. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Oh I think Dalton nailed it. {[] Although I can see Higgins's point
( very tight shorts )
For whatever reason, The public didn't warm to him. Sad I know
But most of the public have never read a Bond book so probably
Didn't recognise this Character Dalton created as "Bond"
Hence with Brosnan they went back to a more " Moore " Bond.
Only my opinion. )
You're probably right. And I never really consider myself a "Fleming purist" (having read only a few of the novels), or a "Bond purist" or whatever it's called. I just know what strikes the right cord for me on the screen. Dalton as Bond does the trick. Moore as Bond does not. So maybe I'm out of step with the general public, but that's fine with me.
But blaming Dalton is wrong IMHO. TLD had been successful in summer 1987 so Dalton was accepted as Bond.
If you check the numbers below, TLD's grossing was equally disappointing like LTK (And AVTAK btw..):
As for Dalton's acceptance as Bond:
"25 years ago when the US box-office take was disappointing,United Artists were quick to throw Timothy Dalton under the bus..." "The American public loves the movies - but they don't love Dalton. He just isn't clicking..."
The title song was not as commercial as AVTAK or TLD,so no MTV video playing all the time...They simply didn't do a good job at selling the movie.
The song had all the "classic Goldfinger" elements to be a success and I remember seeing it quite often on MTV.
What else do you want to blame? ) )
Looking at all the figures in history past-present-and future can be misleading. My point was that Timothy Dalton was accepted as Bond with TLD and that LTK had a messy marketing campaign that hindered the movie.
Let's look at the 80s, the context of Dalton movies. TLD is right between OP and AVTAK in box office. Now, OP was considered a successful movie (even won the battle of the Bonds!), otherwise following your logic MGM would have pressured Cubby to fire Roger Moore right after OP. They went on to make AVTAK with him, then he left and TLD made more than AVTAK. So Dalton was at least as accepted as Moore in the 80s. I don't think they realistically expected to make as much as with TB or GF in 1987. Maybe they were expecting what Brosnan did later with GE (considered very successful), which was adding roughly 150MM to what TLD did (GE is just above OHMSS with Lazenby, a widely accepted Bond if there was one).
Now, LTK. I think the figures show IMHO more the effect of a wrong marketing strategy and strong market competition than the fact that people walked out of TLD saying, "nah, that Dalton was too violent, where is my Roger?", as you try to prove. In my opinion, had LTK been released in, say, october 1989, with a good marketing campaign, it could have at least made what TLD did, if not more (that is, what Bond movies were making in the 80s).
I like the LTK theme song, I bought the record back then. I agree that it is very Goldfinger-classic Bond, which in the context of the 80s and after Duran Duran's and Aha's was a wrong move. Sadly, it did not stand out. It had the elements to be a success in the 60s, not the 80s.
Another wrong move by EON in the 80s (again, marketing) was making it widely known that they wanted Pierce Brosnan. It looked as though Dalton was their second option (when in fact Dalton had been offered the role more than any other actor).
Brosnan did in fact better in terms of box office than Dalton while at the same time sinking the movies into an abyss of absurdity for years (IMO of course) , but none were Craig (who performed nothing short of a miracle).
Anyway, Dalton deserved a third movie, never mind what MGM executives said (their track record proved that they were no geniuses). Had Cubby been in his prime and not at the end of his life, he would have stood by Dalton for a third time.
OHMSS with Lazenby, a widely accepted Bond if there was one.
I wish you where right because OHMSS is my favorite Bond. Quite the opposite is true.
As you still insist that the main reason for LTKs failure was the marketing campain:
That would have been mostly UAs part. So instead of trying to get the marketing right with the next one, they where to fire the main actor?
Makes no sense for me, but I'll leave you with your opinion.
Well, if you don't understand the irony in the Lazenby comment, what can I say? ) I'm simply pointing out the fact that you base the "accepted" or "not accepted" Bonds on that list of 50 years figures, which is simply a wrong way to make a judgement. For instance, GE (Brosnan widely accepted Bond) would be just as accepted as Lazenby (a not accepted Bond, now I won't use irony so you don't get confused).
What I'm doing in my post is basically an analysis of the figures on yours, doing what an analyst would do, which is focus on the period and making judgements taking into account market conditions, not just the cold numbers.
We still had Bond Material in the Shape of Novels being published in the early 90's though
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
PPK 7.65mmSaratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,229MI6 Agent
Since I was born in 1982, I made due with the cartoon James Bond Jr. and watching the older films on VHS tape when my father introduced them to me. Having read many articles in the fan magazines about this period had I been older in the early 1990's I would have likely read John Gardner's novels, watched the older films, and read Ian Fleming's novels as well to hold me over until Goldeneye came out.
Comments
Obscene, vulgar, slanderous ... take your pick 8-)
Ah, I realize that you are taking offense by the trainers in my signature. Vulgar - you are right
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I own the Brosnan ones as they are part of the boxset but never watch them. Funny how those that came before just struggled with the Brosnan's
Dalton showed us somewhat different - a new take on Bond. Brosnan went backwards.
I've said it before - the " missing" or "wrong" marketing strategy is wrong and distracts from the main problem:
Dalton was not accepted by the wide audiences!
Blaming LTK for being started at the "wrong time" - together and against Batman, Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon is also flawed: In economic terms, the market was there because the other 3 movies succeeded - so there was a reason why the market (audience) decided not to choose Bond and LTK but went with the alternatives!
You could mention the strong competition if all the alternatives would have cannibalized each other significantly!
But all 3 alternatives have been very successful and there was a reason for that!
An additional thought: I have recently read that you can't compare Batman and Indiana Jones
franchises with Bond.
Why not? Bond had already 15 movies (Batman for example was the first big movie), so the franchise was strong and well established.
The Box office numbers from Skyfall and the last Batman movie where pretty similar, so the Bond franchise was and is as strong as Batman for example!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Can't argue with that; you have definitely said it before.
Yes, but the Dalton boys repeat the same old myths again and again, too.
Though someone must bring some sanity and common sense into the discussion - and I am doing the dirty job
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Of course the summer market was there. No one argues with that. And Batman, Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon II were very successful. Let's face it, that summer was specially strong. But blaming Dalton is wrong IMHO. TLD had been successful in summer 1987 so Dalton was accepted as Bond. The thing is ,in 87 there was only Lethal Weapon I and the Superman IV swindle which (deservedly) flopped. EON realised their mistake in 1989 and never again released a Bond film in the summer season. Ever. The Christmas market is easier for Bond, more children oriented, so adults go watch 007. EON did not blame Dalton.
LTK marketing mess is anknowledged by EON themselves. Starting by the changing title "Licence Revoked" to the frankly unoriginal and uninspiring LTK. The posters were plain bad. The title song was not as commercial as AVTAK or TLD,so no MTV video playing all the time...They simply didn't do a good job at selling the movie.
That summer (I remember it very well) was Batman, Batman, Batman, the Joker, Batman...everywere, all the time.
Well said, TLD had done very big business in 87. Even the bus stops screamed BATMAN where I lived.
If you check the numbers below, TLD's grossing was equally disappointing like LTK (And AVTAK btw..):
As for Dalton's acceptance as Bond:
"25 years ago when the US box-office take was disappointing, United Artists were quick to throw Timothy Dalton under the bus..."
"The American public loves the movies - but they don't love Dalton. He just isn't clicking..."
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/history_press_ltk_broken_bond?t=&s=mi6_update&id=03725
Well, what should EON have said:
"Our last 3 movies where stinkers?"
"Dalton is not accepted by the audience"?
Of course, they blame the hot summer, the strong competition and the weak marketing. What would you do?
Cubby was not at the top of his game and wanted to stick with Dalton - true. But he was under pressure from UA to fire him!
The song had all the "classic Goldfinger" elements to be a success and I remember seeing it quite often on MTV.
What else do you want to blame?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Timothy Dalton was refusing to come back to the fold. He'd signed up for three films, but it was now five years since his last outing as Bond and he felt the time had come to move on. This saved Broccoli, who was reportedly under pressure from MGM, from having to "fire" the actor.
source:http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/dalton_bond_era.php3?t=&s=mi6_update&id=03547
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The cinema audience didn't take to the harder edged Dalton.
In my opinion it's their loss, he would have been brilliant ! {[]
His five years were up.He'd moved on to other projects.He was still a jobbing actor.Do you honestly think Broccoli would give in to MGM would give him up?
Roger's wit wore off a bit after all these years, it was the time when AIDS was a big concern.
There where immensely successfully hard-edged movies before (First Blood by example - I remember leaving the cinema and realizing that movies will never be the same after it) and I for my part immensely enjoyed "How dares wins" with Lewis Collins - who in my opinion would have been the ideal Bond instead of Dalton.
So you can see, I would have welcomed a tougher Bond back then - but Dalton never looked the part (imo of course)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
They would have been rejected.
Sorry, what language is that? English?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You may have been right.There was going to be trouble once his stint was over. Been fed the fantastical Bonds for too long.
But Dalton embraced the character like no one before. He actually changed the character and went back to Fleming
Good or bad - the films were never the same when he took over.
Well........some of the public, anyway!
( very tight shorts
For whatever reason, The public didn't warm to him. Sad I know
But most of the public have never read a Bond book so probably
Didn't recognise this Character Dalton created as "Bond"
Hence with Brosnan they went back to a more " Moore " Bond.
Only my opinion.
You're probably right. And I never really consider myself a "Fleming purist" (having read only a few of the novels), or a "Bond purist" or whatever it's called. I just know what strikes the right cord for me on the screen. Dalton as Bond does the trick. Moore as Bond does not. So maybe I'm out of step with the general public, but that's fine with me.
Public to catch up with you.
Once again your profound wisdom shines through!
Looking at all the figures in history past-present-and future can be misleading. My point was that Timothy Dalton was accepted as Bond with TLD and that LTK had a messy marketing campaign that hindered the movie.
Let's look at the 80s, the context of Dalton movies. TLD is right between OP and AVTAK in box office. Now, OP was considered a successful movie (even won the battle of the Bonds!), otherwise following your logic MGM would have pressured Cubby to fire Roger Moore right after OP. They went on to make AVTAK with him, then he left and TLD made more than AVTAK. So Dalton was at least as accepted as Moore in the 80s. I don't think they realistically expected to make as much as with TB or GF in 1987. Maybe they were expecting what Brosnan did later with GE (considered very successful), which was adding roughly 150MM to what TLD did (GE is just above OHMSS with Lazenby, a widely accepted Bond if there was one).
Now, LTK. I think the figures show IMHO more the effect of a wrong marketing strategy and strong market competition than the fact that people walked out of TLD saying, "nah, that Dalton was too violent, where is my Roger?", as you try to prove. In my opinion, had LTK been released in, say, october 1989, with a good marketing campaign, it could have at least made what TLD did, if not more (that is, what Bond movies were making in the 80s).
I like the LTK theme song, I bought the record back then. I agree that it is very Goldfinger-classic Bond, which in the context of the 80s and after Duran Duran's and Aha's was a wrong move. Sadly, it did not stand out. It had the elements to be a success in the 60s, not the 80s.
Another wrong move by EON in the 80s (again, marketing) was making it widely known that they wanted Pierce Brosnan. It looked as though Dalton was their second option (when in fact Dalton had been offered the role more than any other actor).
Brosnan did in fact better in terms of box office than Dalton while at the same time sinking the movies into an abyss of absurdity for years (IMO of course) , but none were Craig (who performed nothing short of a miracle).
Anyway, Dalton deserved a third movie, never mind what MGM executives said (their track record proved that they were no geniuses). Had Cubby been in his prime and not at the end of his life, he would have stood by Dalton for a third time.
Just one exapmle:
I wish you where right because OHMSS is my favorite Bond. Quite the opposite is true.
As you still insist that the main reason for LTKs failure was the marketing campain:
That would have been mostly UAs part. So instead of trying to get the marketing right with the next one, they where to fire the main actor?
Makes no sense for me, but I'll leave you with your opinion.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well, if you don't understand the irony in the Lazenby comment, what can I say?
What I'm doing in my post is basically an analysis of the figures on yours, doing what an analyst would do, which is focus on the period and making judgements taking into account market conditions, not just the cold numbers.