 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.86.132.44
In Reply to: Re: Watchin' Dr. No last night posted by jamesgarvin on August 9, 2005 at 11:50:31:
jamesgarvin -
I always enjoy your posts. You bring up many good points-but one thing that made the old Bond films enjoyable then -and now is Connery's raw predator like sexiness in the context of the 60's social climate . If contemporay producers cast someone talented and sexy like Daniel Day Lewis ? or even Val Kilmer as Bond could one enjoy viewing their sexual conquests without thinking of AIDS, equality of the sexes and "just say no" ? Maybe a small justification for all the electronics , explosions and gadgets in a modern Bond film.
Follow Ups:
I agree that Bond was more a product of his times in the 60's. Connery was certainly darker than Moore. Moore was the Bond I grew up on, Connery was the Bond my parents grew up on. At the time, I preferred Moore. But the more I watched Connery, the more I preferred him. Now I look at Moore as the weakest of the Bonds. I think that Moore basically left the set of The Saint, and moved into Bond. Moore probably changed the arc of Bond to more of a flippant, light, Bond.I think that the producers agreed, and tried to return to Connery style Bond when they filled the tuxedo with Timothy Dalton. Dalton was similar to Connery in many ways, they were both highly regarded stage actors in England, he was darker, and more forboding than Moore. And like Connery, was not a household name before he assumed the role. The problem was, the films did not do great box office. The two films with Dalton had some great action scenes and stunts. But no special effects. But the numbers were not there.
I think that with Brosnan, they have an actor who can quip like Moore, maybe not as much, but is darker, more similar to Connery, again not as dark. But the special effects were heightened up. I rememember the producer's defending their use of the blue screen after the first film with Brosnan, because much was made of the fact that all the stunts and action scenes before were real people in real stunts. They claimed that they only used the blue screen for a scene or two. But then the ticket sales rose dramatically. Maybe due to Brosnan. Maybe due to special effects. And I suspect that the blue screen is cheaper. If someone screws up, you do not need to rebuild a set.
I personally would love for the producers to go back to the Bond of Connery. But I think they looked at that as a failed experiment when they tried to do that with Dalton. As a point of trivia, Dalton was offered the part of Bond before Moore, but he turned it down because he felt that Connery was the best possible Bond, he was not old enough, and he did not want to follow Connery, knowing he would be unfavorably compared with him. Perhaps that is why Moore played Bond so differently from Connery. I wonder how Bond would be today had Dalton played Bond rather than Moore. I realize Lazemby played Bond, but his tenure was so brief that Connery's ghost was still present.
These days, I think that the producers feel an ever increasing need to outdo the last Bond film, and to outdo the competition. Problem is, the box office seems to support them. Look at Brosnan's numbers. Pretty hard to argue. Brosnan's first Bond film hit 26 million it's opening weekend, reaching 106 million domestically. Dalton's first Bond film hit 11 million it's opening, and reached 51 million.
But those numbers have to look at inflation -- roughly 20 years between Dalton and Brosnon and the new bonds have not done as well as hoped for -- $100 million on an action film is a relative dissapointment. They have dumped Brosnan so they must feel the people have grown tired of him.I liked Dalton - he was darker and colder. The Living Daylights was total crap unfortunately which didn't help Dalton much.
"They have dumped Brosnan so they must feel the people have grown tired of him."Actually, they did not dump Brosnan. They would like him to do another film, and have tried to sign him for two more films. He is the one who, at this time, has expressed his feeling that he would not like to return. His last film as Bond grosses 160 million. That is a lot of tired people.
I agree the inflation can he an influence. But the proof in the pudding is how Dalton's number compared with Moore's last film - From a View to a Kill, which, in my opinion, is the worst of the Bond films. View did 23 million it's opening weekend, and took in slightly more than 50 million. Those were in 1985 dollars. In 1987 dollars, Dalton's first did significantly less it's first weekend, and only slightly more than View when it's run ended. Inflation does not explain Brosnan's box office as double that of Dalton's, and it certainly does not explain Dalton's box take vis a vis View's. The real damning number is License to Kill, Dalton's second film. It scored $8.7 million on it's opening weekend, and did $34.6 million in the U.S. Compare those numbers with Brosnan's first film. Inflation does not come close to explaining that disparity.
Brosnan's second film grossed 25 million on it's first weekend, ended at 125 million. His second film did better than the first, which was the opposite of Dalton's. Brosnan's third film did 35 million it's opening, a shade under 127 million total. Brosnan's fourth film took in 47 million opening weekend, finishing at 160 million. One of the top grossing films in 2002, and the top grossing action film (if you classify Star Wars as science fiction.)
The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the ticket holders like Brosnan, as each of his films have done better than the previous. On the other hand, they did not like Dalton, because his second film did substantially less than the first. I suspect that the people who went to the first Dalton were Bond diehards who went because of the franchise. Many stayed away for his second. Which is too bad.
In 1987 a movie ticket here in Canada was $2.00 now they are between $9.00-$14.00. I'll compare the same theater I went to then and it's replacement in the same area for $2.00 to $10.00. Inflation aside movie prices have went up FIVE times since 1987. And I seriously doubt that's much different anywhere else in the world -- Take the $160 million and divide by 5 and you're getting closer to the truth.The Brosnan wants out articles is probably not too untrue but I also knwo they want a ounger hipper and CHEAPER actor. The cheaper part is probably way closer to the truth.
The other thing about the big come down in box office could be many fold - unknown Bond yes but also because View was as you note pretty lousy. So people may not want to go to yet another weak effort.
I dislike the whole America success is counted in Dollars -- I'd far rather see number of tickets sold or seats filled than box office take. E.T in the US alone had nearly three times more viewers than the Lord of the Rings in tickets bought even though the film made more money - LOTR was around 47 on the list I read behind films like The Graduate.
Even this doesn't tell all as there are way more people living in the US today than in the 1950's or the 1980s.
Of course you're correct that if Daltons second effort fared worse the execs would blame him - easier than blaming the atrocious Living Daylights script.
Besides people like crap -- Would not suprise me if the Dukes make 100 million. 30 million so far despite the reviews!
Here would be another way to look at the numbers. Rather than comparing each film to other Bond releases in a different year, let's compare each film to how it performed against other films within that year. Dalton's first film was the 19th highest grossing film of 1987. License to Kill was the 36th highest grossing film of 1989. Brosnan's first Bond film was the 6th highest grossing film of 1995. Ahead of it were Toy Story, Apollo 13, Pocohontas, Batman. Stiff competition. Brosnan's second film dropped to the 10th highest grossing film of 1997, but considering that Men In Black, Titanic, Jurassic Park, and the re-release of Star Wars, ten is not so bad. Brosnan's third dropped to the 14th spot in 1999, but again, considering that 1999 saw The Matrix, Star Wars, Toy Story 2, The Sixth Sense, and Blair Witch, that is a respectable performance. Brosnan's last Bond film was 12th in 2002, but considering that year brought us Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, Men in Black II, and Harry Potter, that is a very respectable placement.Even discounting inflation, gross figures, etc., Brosnan's performance, in terms of box office placement, has been better than Dalton's. I suspect that if Dalton's Bond placed spots akin to Brosnan's, he would have been Bond for more than two pictures.
Well there is no question that the Bond execs felt they needed a change of Bond actors. Daylights came before Licence and Daylights was a stinkeroo. There was a long what 6 year wait after Dalton so his numbers had the gee it's been a long time factor to factor in.I also don't think one can even compare to other films on a chart -- more kids spend money at the movies than do their parents these days as opposed to back then -- which is why more and more movies are geared to them and are a lot dumber.
Certainly the Brosnan movies have made more money no matter which way one slices it - but I also knwo they want a younger cheaper hipper Bond to appeal to the kids. Of course with all that bond knows how to do and all the knowledge he has he would have to be a minimum of 40 just to learn it all.
I thought it wasn't *that* bad. Granted, flooding silicon valley is sort of silly, and derivitive of Goldfinger, but, c'mon, it had Christopher Walken and Grace Jones! :)I think, by far, the worst installment was Moonraker. Killing off humanity with super nerve-gas is kinda cool, but the space station was a bit too Buck Rogers, as were the laser shooting astronaut soldiers, and cheesy space shuttles that looked like Pan-Am planes on the inside (2001 ripoff?)
I tought License to Kill was lame as well. Gritty, yes, but poorly written. Popping a wheelie in a semi? Ugh.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
" tought License to Kill was lame as well. Gritty, yes, but poorly written. Popping a wheelie in a semi? Ugh."Well, he is Bond. The stunt in which he shoots the rudder of the plane with a harpoon, then skis behind the plane, is classic. It was a stunt that harkened back to the older Bonds. Plus, it had a very young Benicio Del Torres, and some great scenery, both walking and non-walking. Plus, it has Wayne Newton, who did not very good job in a relatively small role. It was essentially a revenge picture, which I like. But it was the only film in which Bond is not acting for Queen and country, which I thought to be a nice departure.
Grace Jones made a great villain, one of my favorites. I thought she was wasted in a poor film. Tonya Roberts was useless, and Walken, whom I normally enjoy, seemed reduced to goofy facial grimaces, within a goofy plot. The scene of him at the end with a machine gun was too laughable to me. I also think that Moore was too old to play Bond at that time. I think they kept Moore around one film too many.
Moonraker is pretty cheesy. But it did have Jaws.
The last bit where Jaws finds his metal mouthed girlfriend was quite funny but other than that it bored me to absolyute tears. MoonRaker was the worst IMO of the entire series so far.How I see them Out of 5 (3 is recommended)
Dr. No ***
From Russia With Love ***1/2
Goldfinger ***1/2
Thunderball **
You Only Live Twice ***
On Her Majesty's Secret Service ***1/2
Diamonds Are Forever ***
Live and Let Die **1/2
The Man with the Golden Gun **
The Spy Who Loved Me ***1/2
Moonraker *1/2
For Your Eyes Only **1/2
Octopussy ***
A View to a Kill **
The Living Daylights **
Licence to Kill ***1/2
GoldenEye ***
Tomorrow Never Dies ***
The World is Not Enough ***
Die Another Day **1/2Never Say Never Again **
Sorry should have one mroe star on Never Say Never Again to *** and Die Another Day I also have at a barely made it ***
"The Living Daylights" has what I consider the best opening of any Bond film, the chase down the Rock of Gibralter.
Thanks for the info filled post . A good read, indeed !
That's exactly why they went to tongue in cheek humour and it started before the programs you mention with Roger Moore and has continued to this day.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
