James Bond In Skyfall - Part 3

[Thebumwhowalks]

Dude, I just told you I got this info from older Bond fans that I've spoken to. Take it or leave it, I don't really care.

I don't think the public needs a 'getting over it' period of 4-5 years as you say. That sounds like you are just making that up because the Moore/Dalton crossover problem you are proposing doesn't fit the Brosnan/Craig crossover the way that happened....because people liked Brosnan as Bond as well, but since DAD was so crap, and Casino Royale was so good, folk did not mind the change.
If Dalton had came busting out of the blocks with such a radical departure in performance as Craig's, and a movie that was as exciting as CR in it's own way, it would not have mattered that Moore was only two years before.
Because, the thing is, he may not have been as 'camp' or whatever, but Dalton's performance still had that smarmy smart ass Bond dynamic, to the point where he was basically Moore without the funny bits.
Because Moore also had his 'badass', haha, characterisation too.

edit: the thing is, you *are* speculating on the reasons for TLD's failure to ignight audiences, because *you* enjoy the movie more than Moore's, but I went in wanting to like the movie, but didn't, sure, I missed that Moore dynamic I was used to, but I was hoping it would have been replaced by something equally entertaining, and it wasn't. I can see why it failed, because I didn't enjoy the movie. It was a drag.

 

[Dark Raven]

Dude, I just told you I got this info from older Bond fans that I've spoken to. Take it or leave it, I don't really care.

I can confirm as an older Bond fan who was a kid around at the time that people did love Moore as Bond, especially other kids. Most of the kids even preferred Moore to Connery and half of them thought that Connery was older than Moore (which wasn't the case). They liked the over-the-top action, gadgets, quips, Bond girls galore, etc. Basically they liked the superhuman Bond. They were particularly fond of TSWLM and more so of Moonraker (because that cashed in on the Star Wars craze). FYEO wasn't so popular because that was more downbeat and gritty compared to the others. Even AVTAK was very popular at the time.

People were expecting more of the same with Brosnan, especially after his stint on Remmington Steele. Since he was poised to take over from Moore, the public weren't prepared for such a sudden shift with Dalton. In retrospect, had Brosnan taken over the role, the Moore/Brosnan lightheartedness and campiness would've probably set in permanently, and we may never have gotten the likes of Craig. Connery would've become a distant memory in terms of his interpretation of Bond, and maybe more of an anomaly, since the standard would've become what the Moore and potential Brosnan years were. Having Dalton then was in some ways a blessing in disguise (although in other ways not).

TLD was a good film, and the public did like it, but not Dalton in the role, because they always felt that he had stolen Brosnan's opportunity. Without the internet at the time to hear about any behind-the-scenes rumblings, Dalton was so out of the blue as well that he came as a shock when he was announced. It was like there was a bait and switch which EON had done.

It's only after Moore's tenure that the public (particularly those who didn't grow up with him as their Bond or those who outgrew his interpretation) looked upon his films disfavourably. It's actually quite similar with Brosnan. People were raging about him at the time and how he might even be better than Connery, but he's not quite as well regarded these days.

 

[jmc]

I don't think the public needs a 'getting over it' period of 4-5 years as you say. That sounds like you are just making that up because the Moore/Dalton crossover problem you are proposing doesn't fit the Brosnan/Craig crossover the way that happened....because people liked Brosnan as Bond as well, but since DAD was so crap, and Casino Royale was so good, folk did not mind the change.
If Dalton had came busting out of the blocks with such a radical departure in performance as Craig's, and a movie that was as exciting as CR in it's own way, it would not have mattered that Moore was only two years before.
Because, the thing is, he may not have been as 'camp' or whatever, but Dalton's performance still had that smarmy smart ass Bond dynamic, to the point where he was basically Moore without the funny bits.
Because Moore also had his 'badass', haha, characterisation too.

edit: the thing is, you *are* speculating on the reasons for TLD's failure to ignight audiences, because *you* enjoy the movie more than Moore's, but I went in wanting to like the movie, but didn't, sure, I missed that Moore dynamic I was used to, but I was hoping it would have been replaced by something equally entertaining, and it wasn't. I can see why it failed, because I didn't enjoy the movie. It was a drag.

You're clearly ignoring the part were I've said this is info I've gotten from older Bond fans so there's no point in discussing it further. You can either believe it or not, I don't really care so have fun. Edit: BTW, The Living Daylights didn't fail.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

It may have made money, but I bet it fell behind expectations in that regard, but what it truly failed to do was create a cultural shift that caught on with the public.
It was dull in comparison to the best past Bonds.

If it had truly been as exciting as LALD in it's own way, folk would have taken to him, much as they did with Moore after Connery, and Craig after Brosnan.
Lazenby doesn't count, he was a blip. haha

 

[Spoonman]

TLD didn't change culture as the world knew it, but a failure? That's the first time I hear something like that, the movie was very succesful back in 1987 (at least from the alternate reality I seem to came from). It was Licence To Kill the Dalton flick that is considered a failure among the general public, now for that kind of Bond the public was not ready yet; but TDL was a realy good transitional Bond film, if LTK (which I like as it is, by the way) had a similar tone to TLD I am sure it would've had a similar success to TLD too and would've ease up Dalton as Bond in people's mind.

 

[Sebastos]

Take a peek at candid shots from one of Skyfall's shooting locations in London...

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_23_nov08_london_location.php3?s=bond23&id=03004

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yes it does say a lot. Ian didn't think up a background for the character's parents up on till that point (not like they are characters in there anyways). Nor has his past played much of a role since. It's a nice tribute to Sean. It in no way means Ian was there cherry picking ideas from the movies of an already fully formed character. 5 books in he references the actor playing the role, no big deal.

In John Gardner's Scorpious Bond watches The Untouchables on a flight to North Carolina and comments on how the old guy (Sean Connery) is his favorite actor. James Bond is also a big fan of spy novels and reads many of Ian's contemporaries including LeCarre and his favorite is Kingsley Amis (Ian's best friend who wrote a Bond novel after his death under the pen name Robert Markham, who was rumored to have edited TMWTGG) which is like being a fan of one of your creators.

Oh, of course not. I didn't mean Ian completely changed how he saw Bond when he saw Connery. The book's interpretation still stands. Though when I scan through the books, I do see and hear Connery myself despite Flemying's descriptions.

 

[Van Petrol]

I may be late to the party with this, if so, my apologies. But going from these snippets of info from this video of the Bond Girls regarding their characters, can we assume that...

Spoiler

Berenice Marlohe's character may be a villain?

 

[regwec]

I hope not. She reminds me of Sophie Marceau (which can only be a good thing), but I don't want her character to be too similar to Electra King. I hope her character is more nuanced than any of the standard tropes of damsel/femme-fatale/kick-ass-lady-Bond.

 

[Van Petrol]

She seems to have a big admiration for [blackout]Famke Janssen's Xenia Onatopp[/blackout]. After hearing her comments, my instant thought was that her character may share a similar sort of ilk.

 

[The Batman]

there was nothing wrong with Raiden's interpretation.

Yes. There was. Hence why I had to correct him. Period.

Not getting into an winded argument over this. Be free to believe what you want, since you're obviouisly gonna do that anyway.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Thank god cause i can't be arsed talking about anymore either , haha, i don't know, if you are at college, take that paragraph into one of your tutors and see what they think, I think they would agree with me that it could easily be misinterpreted because of the way it was phrased, with it not necessarily being the reader's fault.

 

[Webhead2006]

She probably will be bad gal.

 

[Sebastos]

I think she'll be working with Bardem's character.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

rewatching goldfinger, it seems like connery barely did anything substantial. he didnt even save the day, technically. the only effective thing he did was seduce galore.

That's the charm of the movie. In most of these films we hear M say, "we'll put our best man on the job." In Goldfinger, it appears as if Bond is just another agent. M very quickly threatens to replace him. Bond himself reminds Goldfinger that if killed others will come after him. And at the end, as you say, he barely saves the day.

In retrospect, had Brosnan taken over the role, the Moore/Brosnan lightheartedness and campiness would've probably set in permanently, and we may never have gotten the likes of Craig.

Timothy Dalton was cast at the last minute. The Living Daylights with Pierce Brosnan would have been, more or less, the same movie. License to Kill was the only Bond film tailored made for Dalton and it's very different from TLD. You don't get Bond using a violin case to escape villains on vehicles or Joe Don Baker using toys in an attempt to kill Bond.

And in an interesting twist of fate, GoldenEye was written with Dalton in mind. And yet, Brosnan fills in quite nicely.

I don't think that Brosnan ever intended to follow in the footsteps of Roger Moore. He's a Sean Connery fan and used that as a template. Brosnan may have done his share of "silly Bond films" but his performance was never Moore-esque. Even in Die Another Day you had Bond being captured, tortured, and escaping a hospital while looking like a homeless man. Brosnan took the role seriously. Even when the people around him didn't.

 

[jmc]

I've often wondered what the fabled third Dalton Bond film would have been like. I don't think GoldenEye specifically was going to the next Bond movie before the legal issues ensued but I vaguely remember news of the next film being planned for a 91/92 release coz this was around the time when I started getting into the character.

 

[Sebastos]

I believe it was going to be Goldeneye, only with Dalton's interpretation of Bond. And when he dropped out and Brosnan came on board, rewrites ensued.

 

[Spoonman]

^Probably not in 92-93, but either way when they started writing what ended up being GoldenEye it was done with Dalton in mind, it is not a coincidence that from all the Brosnan movies GE is the most serious, it was supposed to go to Dalton but he decided to leave the franchise (around 94) believing to much time had pass between his last Bond movie and the next one.

 

[jmc]

Doing a quick search turns out that Dalton's third Bond for 92 release and GoldenEye weren't one and the same film.

 

[Sebastos]

Oh yes I stand corrected, wasn't a title set to be "A Property of a Lady" at one point?

 

[jmc]

According to the Mi6 website the film was never actually titled, the 'Property of a Lady' became internet rumour apparently. Still wish they would use that title at some point.

 

[Sebastos]

Likewise, can always happen later down the road. I liked the sound of Risico too.

 

[Van Petrol]

I've often wondered what the fabled third Dalton Bond film would have been like. I don't think GoldenEye specifically was going to the next Bond movie before the legal issues ensued but I vaguely remember news of the next film being planned for a 91/92 release coz this was around the time when I started getting into the character.

I believe it was going to be Goldeneye, only with Dalton's interpretation of Bond. And when he dropped out and Brosnan came on board, rewrites ensued.

Brosnan was supposedly the one they wanted to take over the Bond role after Moore. However, his contractual obligations to Remmington Steele prevented that, and Dalton was his replacement.

 

[jmc]

Dalton was almost literally last minute casting. I remember correctly the documentary on the DVD said Dalton was hired the day before press conference.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I've talked to Bond fans older than me regarding this subject before coz I was too young to know about it but from what they've told me Roger Moore was loved by a lot of people, maybe not by book Bond diehards, but mainstream folks did, no-one was looking for a fresh take except those involved with the series. Enter Dalton less than 2 years after with a completely different Bond, of course he was never going to be looked at favourbly, he wasn't the same Bond that people had been watching for the last 12 or so years. The Living Daylights is one of the better Bond movies, better than anything Moore did, but was released at the wrong time for Dalton to get a favourable response, because the contrast in styles was so vast what was needed was a 4-5 year break like what they did between Brosnan and Craig.

Eh, I almost agree with everything, except I find the spy who loved me a much superior movie than the living daylights.