Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
George Lazenby's Diamonds Are Forever or Timothy Dalton's Bond 17/Goldeneye
Greetings ladies and gents. This isn't another vs. thread as we're comparing two films that never were and I don't think this would go under the "your ideal Bond timeline" as the point of this thread is to choose one and only one. If a Bond genie appeared in your home and allowed you to choose between a George Lazenby/Peter Hunt helmed Diamonds Are Forever that would've followed the ending of OHMSS or a third Timothy Dalton Bond film, whether it be the proposed Bond 17 slated for an early 90s release or a Timothy Dalton starring Goldeneye, which would you choose?
For the longest time I've always said that EON never producing a third Timothy Dalton Bond film was the greatest missed opportunity in the franchise. My second choice being a George Lazenby starring DAF that would function as a revenge story after the events of OHMSS. But as time has gone on I'm just not sure anymore. Yes, I know I'm starting a thread asking board members to make a choice while I can't seem to make one but maybe your opinions and comments will sway me over to one side. Let's examine both possibilities.
OHMSS is rightfully regarded as one the best Bond films in the series. What Lazenby lacked in acting chops, Peter Hunt made up for with focus and an interesting new style of direction for the Bond films. And the fact that the gut-punch of an ending for OHMSS never received a proper follow-up is a crime. I also believe that Lazenby's physicality (his best attribute) would've meshed well for the purposes of a revenge story. We would've been dealing with a pissed off Bond which would have opened up possibilities for some even more kinetic and personal fight scenes. And remind yourself, no matter what you thought of Lazenby could his version of DAF possibly be worse than the one we got? Diamonds Are Forever stands as one of the most bizarre viewing experiences in the franchise as it's essentially a Roger Moore Bond film starring a fat past his Bondian prime Sean Connery who was only there for a paycheck. I love Roger Moore Bond movies but only when they actually star Roger Moore.
Now onto Timothy Dalton's Bond 17. As most of you know back in 1986 Timothy Dalton signed a contract with EON for 3 Bond films with an option of a 4th. And EON had every intention of honoring that contract. I'll post the link for the Bond 17 page below. Now unlike George Lazenby and OHMSS, Timothy Dalton and his films won me over as a fan immediately. After viewing both of his films I just couldn't figure out why his Bond wasn't held in a higher regard. Needless to say I would've happily traded one of the Connery, Moore, or Brosnan films for another Timothy Dalton entry. But after reading what was being planned as Dalton 3rd film let's take a closer look. First let's address the elephant in the room. Bond fighting robots? I have a feeling this could've gone down as an embarrassing and cringe-worthy moment. This might've (and I stress the word "might've") worked in a Roger Moore film but it was all wrong for Dalton. Ofcourse it's all about execution. This could've been Dalton's TSWLM but it also could've been his MR. Another concern I have would be the film's budget. Would it continue to drop after the less than stellar box-office performance of LTK and would it still have that cheap made-for-tv look? But ofcourse there were still positives. I loved the fact that it would've been a proto-Skyfall with MI6 battling political forces that view them as antiquated. And there are scenes such as Bond faking his death so the "mission can really begin" that I'm sure Dalton would've nailed. But it just seems like less of a sure thing than Lazenby's DAF.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movies/bond17.php3
Now onto Dalton's Goldeneye. IMO just as DAF was a Roger Moore film starring Sean Connery, GE was a Timothy Dalton film starring Pierce Brosnan. In alot of ways TND was more of a debut for Brosnan than his actual debut was. Everything from the personal relationship to his villain, to Bond's vendetta, to the themes of a post Cold War world just screamed Dalton. Afterall the first few drafts of the script were written with the impression that Dalton would return. And in many ways I feel their initial concept for GE was better. The purposes of the story call for an older, burnt out Bond who's been 007 for many years and is around 50 rather a baby-faced Brosnan who looks far too young and fresh to have "toppled all those dictators" and "undermined all those regimes". The same could be said for a 34 year old Sean Bean harboring grudges from half a century ago. Their original concept with Anthony Hopkins starring as an older Trevelyn who was Bond's mentor rather than a partner held the promise of great things. Especially considering how Dalton and Hopkins are frankly superior actors to Brosnan and Bean. And I would've loved to have seen the relationship between Dalton's Bond and Dench's M. But there's one thing that has be on the fence. Had Dalton starred in GE he would've gone on to play the role atleast once of twice after that. Which means no Brosnan Era. With no Brosnan Era we'd have no DAD. And with no DAD we'd have no CR and James Bond would not currently be experiencing this renaissance it is with the Craig Era. It just feels like the timeline would be effected least with Lazman's DAF.
So what do you think? Which of the two least popular Bonds deserved another film more?
For the longest time I've always said that EON never producing a third Timothy Dalton Bond film was the greatest missed opportunity in the franchise. My second choice being a George Lazenby starring DAF that would function as a revenge story after the events of OHMSS. But as time has gone on I'm just not sure anymore. Yes, I know I'm starting a thread asking board members to make a choice while I can't seem to make one but maybe your opinions and comments will sway me over to one side. Let's examine both possibilities.
OHMSS is rightfully regarded as one the best Bond films in the series. What Lazenby lacked in acting chops, Peter Hunt made up for with focus and an interesting new style of direction for the Bond films. And the fact that the gut-punch of an ending for OHMSS never received a proper follow-up is a crime. I also believe that Lazenby's physicality (his best attribute) would've meshed well for the purposes of a revenge story. We would've been dealing with a pissed off Bond which would have opened up possibilities for some even more kinetic and personal fight scenes. And remind yourself, no matter what you thought of Lazenby could his version of DAF possibly be worse than the one we got? Diamonds Are Forever stands as one of the most bizarre viewing experiences in the franchise as it's essentially a Roger Moore Bond film starring a fat past his Bondian prime Sean Connery who was only there for a paycheck. I love Roger Moore Bond movies but only when they actually star Roger Moore.
Now onto Timothy Dalton's Bond 17. As most of you know back in 1986 Timothy Dalton signed a contract with EON for 3 Bond films with an option of a 4th. And EON had every intention of honoring that contract. I'll post the link for the Bond 17 page below. Now unlike George Lazenby and OHMSS, Timothy Dalton and his films won me over as a fan immediately. After viewing both of his films I just couldn't figure out why his Bond wasn't held in a higher regard. Needless to say I would've happily traded one of the Connery, Moore, or Brosnan films for another Timothy Dalton entry. But after reading what was being planned as Dalton 3rd film let's take a closer look. First let's address the elephant in the room. Bond fighting robots? I have a feeling this could've gone down as an embarrassing and cringe-worthy moment. This might've (and I stress the word "might've") worked in a Roger Moore film but it was all wrong for Dalton. Ofcourse it's all about execution. This could've been Dalton's TSWLM but it also could've been his MR. Another concern I have would be the film's budget. Would it continue to drop after the less than stellar box-office performance of LTK and would it still have that cheap made-for-tv look? But ofcourse there were still positives. I loved the fact that it would've been a proto-Skyfall with MI6 battling political forces that view them as antiquated. And there are scenes such as Bond faking his death so the "mission can really begin" that I'm sure Dalton would've nailed. But it just seems like less of a sure thing than Lazenby's DAF.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movies/bond17.php3
Now onto Dalton's Goldeneye. IMO just as DAF was a Roger Moore film starring Sean Connery, GE was a Timothy Dalton film starring Pierce Brosnan. In alot of ways TND was more of a debut for Brosnan than his actual debut was. Everything from the personal relationship to his villain, to Bond's vendetta, to the themes of a post Cold War world just screamed Dalton. Afterall the first few drafts of the script were written with the impression that Dalton would return. And in many ways I feel their initial concept for GE was better. The purposes of the story call for an older, burnt out Bond who's been 007 for many years and is around 50 rather a baby-faced Brosnan who looks far too young and fresh to have "toppled all those dictators" and "undermined all those regimes". The same could be said for a 34 year old Sean Bean harboring grudges from half a century ago. Their original concept with Anthony Hopkins starring as an older Trevelyn who was Bond's mentor rather than a partner held the promise of great things. Especially considering how Dalton and Hopkins are frankly superior actors to Brosnan and Bean. And I would've loved to have seen the relationship between Dalton's Bond and Dench's M. But there's one thing that has be on the fence. Had Dalton starred in GE he would've gone on to play the role atleast once of twice after that. Which means no Brosnan Era. With no Brosnan Era we'd have no DAD. And with no DAD we'd have no CR and James Bond would not currently be experiencing this renaissance it is with the Craig Era. It just feels like the timeline would be effected least with Lazman's DAF.
So what do you think? Which of the two least popular Bonds deserved another film more?
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I also agree that TND seemed like the real Brosnan introduction, with far more of his personal stamp on the character starting to come through in that film (he admits that he had a lot more involvement with that film in a 1997 interview).
I would have been happy with either the rumoured robot flick (I'm sure Cubby would have nailed it in a post-T2 setting.....it would have been a quality production certainly) or the original GE concept with Dalton.
It's true that the timeline would have been affected by this, and there may have not been a Brosnan era as a result, but I'm pretty sure we would have got the Craig era, or something along those lines, as soon as EON got the rights to CR. It just probably wouldn't have been such a reboot, because a longer Dalton era probably wouldn't have gotten as escapist to begin with, and likely would have stayed more grounded.
While Lazenby did quite well with OHMSS, I'm not too keen for him to have done a follow up. Too unpredictable, and likely would have messed up somewhere along the way, imho.
The thing is I'm not too certain about that. When I looked it up I was surprised to see that the budget for LTK was $32 mil as opposed to $40 mil for TLD. That's a pretty sizable decrease. Had they decreased the budget further for Bond 17 I'm not sure that the special effects aspect of it would've worked out well.
I've said before that Dalton got screwed with his budgets but I didn't think it was by that much. Hell Moonraker had a higher budget than LTK with $34 million and that was 10 years prior when $34 million went further.
I kinda feel like the fantastical aspects of the Bond 17 script were the producer's reaction to the disappointing grosses of LTK. Aswell as their response to the criticism's aimed at LTK for being too violent and gritty for a Bond film. So for their next film they'd go in another direction.
As already stated several times, much of GoldenEye seems like it was meant for Dalton and Hopkins to occupy the lead roles. That would have made for a much stronger film, as it would have given some weight to many of the lines about the characters' past that simply doesn't come through with the much younger Brosnan and Bean, on top of the fact that both Dalton and Hopkins are better actors than Brosnan and Bean (as much as I love Sean Bean, he's not quite on Hopkins' level).
There's a pretty solid film under the surface of GoldenEye, it just has a hard time shining through because it's clearly a film meant for a different actor's tenure, whether it was intended that way or not. Especially had they had another film between Licence to Kill and GoldenEye, it could have been a good way to cap off the Dalton Era by having him face off against an old mentor rather than getting a new era started by having Bond face off against a former partner.
I've said it before, Goldeneye feels alot more like a send-off for a Bond actor rather than a debut for a new one. Bond's response to Trevelyn at the end of the film, "No. For me", just has an aura of finality to it. Yes, it would've been the perfect film to end the Dalton Era.
Goldeneye was supposed to be a story about two burnt-out middle-aged spies from a bygone era, not two fresh faced GQ models. Dalton and Hopkins would've knocked it out of the park.
I'd love to have seen more Dalton films as well, but GE with Pierce at least worked. I understand that large parts of GE seemed to be written for Dalton's Bond, but GE at least still turned out to be a fine move IMO (although the older, burnt out spies of a bygone era thing with Dalton/Hopkins is really intriguing). I really wish more of Pierce's era had taken some of the elements that made GE so great and kept them in his films. I also really enjoy the first half of TND, but once the car sequence in the parking deck ends that film plummets into a mess that TWINE & DAD only made worse.
a) Do we make a subpar film into a good film?
or
b) Do we make a good film into a classic film?
but, the real one who got screwed is Dalton... he just couldn't win fans over, and the six year hiatus really forced him out.. if anyone deserved a proper follow up, it's him in GE.
Therefore Goldeneye would not happen until 1993 or 1995.
Furthermore Dalton could have played Bond again but decided to step down after that long gap, which we have to be very thankful to him. It was a wise decision, because after 5 or 6 years, Dalton wouldn't have worked anymore.
Goldeneye is considered the movie that saved the franchise.
George Lazenby should have made DAF.
DAF WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and probably a masterpiece of gigantic proportions because it was planned to make it a revenge movie.
Instead we got the worst Bond ever with the worst performance ever and an absolutely low point in Connery's Bond. DAF is almost more of a parody of Bond than anything else.
The only thing that saves the movie is the dialogue and the score.
i dont know... i think that little thing in 1983 called 'Never Say Never Again' has got that beat..
I was talking EON pictures. If we count in the other Bond movies as well it would be Casino Royale 67, definitely.
Dalton's 3rd film being titled The Property of a Lady is a rumor that's been debunked but won't be a good little boy and die. There was never any confirmation that that was to be the title. Nor is there any reason to believe so. By that point EON had stopped using Fleming titles and started coming up with their own ones. Plus there's nothing in the script outline that suggests The Property of a Lady as a title especially since it was already used in Octopussy less than a decade earlier. If any film was going to be called The Property of a Lady it would've been what eventually became Octopussy.
Plus Bond avenging Tracy and killing Blofeld once and for all would have been a nice conclusion for the Connery/Lazenby Era of the sixties. And subsequently Roger Moore's debut in LALD would've felt even more like a new beginning for the franchise.
And I do like Dalton even given my opinion of his performances. Blame a lot on John Glen. Yes I think Dalton needed a better director and scripts. But the filmmakers blew their chance...
Lazenby eh doubtful but Connery's lazy outing as Bond kept Bond alive for Sir Roger. Good move even if half a**ed.
Maybe there'd even been scope for decent dialogue flashbacks to really anchor the new DAF into a follow up story arc with new unseen 1 on 1 the emphasise Bond's loss and resolve.
Is it still wrong here to say I actually really liked Lazenby on my first viewing of OHMSS? To leave it there with Bond in the Aston next to a very dead Tracy always hurt as much as the shock of seeing that bullet hole in the windshield.
For example, while I would personally have loved to see a proper follow-up to OHMSS - what if the public at the time wouldn't have received a 2nd Lazenby outing well, the film did poorly at the box office, and the franchise folded before Moore ever stepped into the role? Or what if they made the Moore films more down to earth which might have resulted in better films (TMWTGG, MR come to mind for me), but maybe without the over the top spectacle & humor in those films the franchise doesn't differentiate itself from the Connery era enough in order to survive long enough to make it into the 80's?
I love debating these type of things about the franchise hypothetically because there are so many decisions over the 50+ years of the franchise that us fans go back and nit pick. But if those certain decisions were made differently (and perhaps a couple of the films turned out better than the actual finished product), who is to say the franchise would've survived?
Well said. As a follow-up to OHMSS this film had tremendous potential. In addition to that, Bond properly killing Blofeld face-to-face and the film ending with Bond at Tracy's grave having finally avenged her would have been the perfect end to the Connery/Lazenby era of the 60s with Bond at last defeating the ever looming threat of Spectre once and for all. And that in turn would have made Roger Moore's debut in LALD feel more like the beginning of a new era for Bond.
The thing is OHMSS wasn't the flop that many people thought it was. It made nearly $65 million on a budget of $7 million and was the second highest grossing film of 1969. Plus I would assume Lazenby would've left after DAF. He's said in interviews if he could do it again he'd have done 2 films.
It's really amazing how good time has been to OHMSS. I first saw it when I was 10 years old and hated it. I refused to watch it again until I was about 14 and decided it was alright but still a weaker Bond film. Within two year after that I had decided it was one of the best Bond films in the series.
i remember not caring for it when i was younger either, but now that i've watched it more as an adult, i like it a lot.. there are still some pacing issues in the movie that i think bog it down in the middle - and Laz isn't the best actor at times, but he does a good job all things considered.... it's a film that yes, time has been kinder to - and i think a lot of the comes from a generation that didn't like it, who had kids - told those kids how bad it was.. those kids grow up and watch the film then realize it's not as bad as mom and dad said it was lol.
As I got older not only didn't I mind the fact that it was a slower paced Bond film but I actually loved it for that. Most Bond films race from beginning to end like a bullet. But OHMSS actually takes it's time in telling its story. Plus it was nice to see some of the more mundane aspects of Bond's life. Seeing what this larger than life figure does when he isn't saving the world was something special.
In the dilemma of making a bad film a good one and making a good one a classic I vote for the former, as I too enjoy GE as it is. Sure, it could have always been better, but DAF failed terribly as a follow up and as mentioned, it would have been a better conclusion to the 60s era.
But what about this scenario: What if TD would have accepted the role of Bond for OHMSS? He had been previously approached by Cubby but he deemed himself too young. What if he had said yes? Well, considering he is an actual actor of theatrical background (as opposed to George Lazenby who wasn't even an actor [don't get me wrong, I do like GL and think he would have only gotten better in time]) he would have had a better chemistry with Diana Rigg, another seasoned thespian.
Would audiences have responded well to it? Probably not. Even in this timeline, the audiences of the 1980s used to Moore's comedic antics were thrown off with the realistic approach by Dalton, but I believe those of the 60s would have been more open to him.
I live in a world where Never Say Never Again happened it's a happy world colors are brighter birds are chirping... it's quite lovely :D
George Lazenby's DAF- 7
The Daltonator's Bond 17/GE- 5
I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't alittle surprised but as previous posters have pointed out in a lot of ways it comes down to turning a subpar Bond film into a good (possibly great film) or turning a good Bond film into a great one.