Now, let me say upfront that I liked Dalton. The first time I saw TLD (at it's Scottish premiere) I was thrilled by his interpretation of Bond, which I saw as more faithful than Moore's. I couldn't wait for LTK, then was disappointed when I finally saw it though not with Dalton in the part (I grew to like it more later).
BT's economic argument is sound and logical (yes, I said logical). I disagree with him artistically but commercially he does have a point. However, it has to be said that Dalton's films came at the end of the (arguable in a different thread*) second era of Bond- LTK was the last film made by Broccoli, Maibaum, and Binder, the last Bond for Glen, TLD the last Bond for Barry, etc. When Brosnan debuted in GE there was nearly a whole new team + max hype. It's unfair to blame/credit the leading actor for a lot of factors outwith his remit.
* I'm not wanting to open a debate on that here but briefly I'd say that the first era ended with TMWTGG (no more Saltzman, hello Wilson). Worth an individual thread.
BT's economic argument is sound and logical (yes, I said logical). I disagree with him artistically but commercially he does have a point.
My point of contention with his belief system is what if Bond films never make more than five times their production and advertising budget? Would that be a reason to stop making them? Because they're only exceptionally profitable, not INSANELY profitable? Because they're not making progressively more each time? I just don't understand how that makes sense. Can YOU explain it to me, sir? ?:)
Of course they do not have to make more than 5X their budget. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/James-Bondhttp://007.lucklaboratories.com/
Of course they do not have to make progressively more each time. The studios behind the Bond films (UA, MGM, etc) have always had financial considerations outwith the franchise and see Bond as a guaranteed moneymaker- no 007 movie loses money ever, although some make more than others.
BT's point is that the Dalton films were in the main not as financially lucrative as the Moores before them or the Brosnans after them (correct me if I'm wrong, Markus) and that is undeniable.
BT's point is that the Dalton films were in the main not as financially lucrative as the Moores before them or the Brosnans after them (correct me if I'm wrong, Markus) and that is undeniable.
*raises hand* Ummm, denying here. TLD made more than AVTAK.
BT's point is that the Dalton films were in the main not as financially lucrative as the Moores before them or the Brosnans after them (correct me if I'm wrong, Markus) and that is undeniable.
Thanks Barbel for trying to bring some realism into the discussion.
My main point is still ignored:
Like it or not - franchises are outlined to grow!
Starbucks - Louis Vuitton - Mercedes Benz - Star Wars - you name them.
Their main key (sometimes more important than to be profitable AT ALL) is to grow and gain marketshare. Particularly when your main competitor grows larger than yourself!
The cost/gross ratio may be an interesting detail but the main focus is on growth of total profits and marketshare!
And the Bond franchise is nothing different though I am aware that the EON people always had a focus on making nice movies too.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
IMO the Fleming DNA is highly overrated. He's overrated imo!
He wrote nice novels - OHMSS and CR are great novels and I genuinely like TSWLM also.
But TMWTGG DAF and LALD for example are plain boring to me and I had difficulties to wade thru.
If we are talking about the cinematic Bond, I have no problem with a grittier approach in general and even going back to Fleming is welcomed for me, if it's so faithful like in OHMSS and CR.
My problem is not Dalton's grittier approach - it's the execution of that idea and therfore I blame the main actor who never convinces me with his screenplay - no matter what he's doing (popping balloon anyone?)
One additional thought - it may be unpopular.
IMO the critics on Moore's movies is really unfair!
First of all he showed that he could switch to serious stuff in a minute (in every of his movies).
Many parts of the silly stuff had to be done in the 70s and 80s and these are parts of the success of his movies.
But mainly we all should be grateful that his area brought so much cash to the producers so that Bond survived the 80s and we could get the brilliant (sans QoS) Craig movies.
I am pretty sure that with almost every alternative main actor, the franchise would have died in the 80s and/or the producers would have lost interest in it.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
BT's point is that the Dalton films were in the main not as financially lucrative as the Moores before them or the Brosnans after them (correct me if I'm wrong, Markus) and that is undeniable.
*raises hand* Ummm, denying here. TLD made more than AVTAK.
First of all he showed that he could switch to serious stuff in a minute (in every of his movies).
And to me Moore is just as unconvincing doing the "serious stuff" as Dalton is to you in general. See, once again opinions are all over the place about what (or who) makes a good Bond. Let's just all say that Connery nailed it and everyone else comes up short on some level. See how simple that is? After all, I am a "Problem Eliminator"! You can all thank me later.
Let's just all say that Connery nailed it and everyone else comes up short on some level. See how simple that is? After all, I am a "Problem Eliminator"! You can all thank me later.
Thank you. -{
Here's my metaphorical ratings:
Connery: Nailed it.
Lazenby: Tacked it.
Moore: Velcro-ed it.
Dalton: Hot glued it.
Brosnan: Cut & pasted it.
Craig: Screwed it (not up; in).
Let's just all say that Connery nailed it and everyone else comes up short on some level. See how simple that is? After all, I am a "Problem Eliminator"! You can all thank me later.
Thank you. -{
Here's my metaphorical ratings:
Connery: Nailed it.
Lazenby: Tacked it.
Moore: Velcro-ed it.
Dalton: Hot glued it.
Brosnan: Cut & pasted it.
Craig: Screwed it (not up; in).
Comments
I call it unflappable conviction! Nothing wrong with that!
Hey, I have been called magoifan and everyone takes offense on "arrogant"
What's wrong with you guys
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
In my case it's because I don't even know what magoifan means!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That's what i am hearing from my wife several times during a normal day
It translates from 'troublemaker' over 'complicated' to 'stupid' - depending on the context
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well in that case, the word "magoifan" should in no way be used in a discussion about you and your opinions! "Wrong", perhaps, but not "magoifan"!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I got that! :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
BT's economic argument is sound and logical (yes, I said logical). I disagree with him artistically but commercially he does have a point. However, it has to be said that Dalton's films came at the end of the (arguable in a different thread*) second era of Bond- LTK was the last film made by Broccoli, Maibaum, and Binder, the last Bond for Glen, TLD the last Bond for Barry, etc. When Brosnan debuted in GE there was nearly a whole new team + max hype. It's unfair to blame/credit the leading actor for a lot of factors outwith his remit.
* I'm not wanting to open a debate on that here but briefly I'd say that the first era ended with TMWTGG (no more Saltzman, hello Wilson). Worth an individual thread.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Of course they do not have to make progressively more each time. The studios behind the Bond films (UA, MGM, etc) have always had financial considerations outwith the franchise and see Bond as a guaranteed moneymaker- no 007 movie loses money ever, although some make more than others.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
What is your top 7?
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
TLD
LTK
TND
GE
TB
DN
YOLT
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Thanks Barbel for trying to bring some realism into the discussion.
My main point is still ignored:
Like it or not - franchises are outlined to grow!
Starbucks - Louis Vuitton - Mercedes Benz - Star Wars - you name them.
Their main key (sometimes more important than to be profitable AT ALL) is to grow and gain marketshare. Particularly when your main competitor grows larger than yourself!
The cost/gross ratio may be an interesting detail but the main focus is on growth of total profits and marketshare!
And the Bond franchise is nothing different though I am aware that the EON people always had a focus on making nice movies too.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
IMO the Fleming DNA is highly overrated. He's overrated imo!
He wrote nice novels - OHMSS and CR are great novels and I genuinely like TSWLM also.
But TMWTGG DAF and LALD for example are plain boring to me and I had difficulties to wade thru.
If we are talking about the cinematic Bond, I have no problem with a grittier approach in general and even going back to Fleming is welcomed for me, if it's so faithful like in OHMSS and CR.
My problem is not Dalton's grittier approach - it's the execution of that idea and therfore I blame the main actor who never convinces me with his screenplay - no matter what he's doing (popping balloon anyone?)
One additional thought - it may be unpopular.
IMO the critics on Moore's movies is really unfair!
First of all he showed that he could switch to serious stuff in a minute (in every of his movies).
Many parts of the silly stuff had to be done in the 70s and 80s and these are parts of the success of his movies.
But mainly we all should be grateful that his area brought so much cash to the producers so that Bond survived the 80s and we could get the brilliant (sans QoS) Craig movies.
I am pretty sure that with almost every alternative main actor, the franchise would have died in the 80s and/or the producers would have lost interest in it.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
...which is why I said "in the main".
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
And to me Moore is just as unconvincing doing the "serious stuff" as Dalton is to you in general. See, once again opinions are all over the place about what (or who) makes a good Bond. Let's just all say that Connery nailed it and everyone else comes up short on some level. See how simple that is? After all, I am a "Problem Eliminator"! You can all thank me later.
No problem. Connery nailed it and everyone else comes up short on some level. Who's next?
(Though I thought it was Number 24 who had the problem with Craig's height....)
Here's my metaphorical ratings:
Connery: Nailed it.
Lazenby: Tacked it.
Moore: Velcro-ed it.
Dalton: Hot glued it.
Brosnan: Cut & pasted it.
Craig: Screwed it (not up; in).
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Nicely done!