MovieChat Forums > James Bond > Was this the big fundamental problem w/ ...

Was this the big fundamental problem w/ the Timothy Dalton era?

posted 8 years ago by TMC-4
9 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] pking-2 8 years ago

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 problem...at 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 reader.