It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
Only flaw in the CR we got was the Wilson’s Bond Begins pitch added. Craig is great in it as he is, but was too old for that kind of story. Besides, he’s a good enough actor that he could have done CR without the upstart angle and it would have been just as good a performance as he was the right age for an agent in he middle of his career.
From everything I have read it was going to be TB as the first James Bond movie. However the court proceedings scuttled that idea.(side note how could they have brought TB to the screen on the 1,000,000 dollar budget?) They then turned to DN. I don't think Feldman came knocking till after FRWL. I somehow think in the 60's by the time Feldman approached EON there was little to no hope that they would honour the book and we'd have been given a campy Bond movie like YOLT.
I think for it to have worked Feldman would have needed Connery to agree to a film outside of EON. Then I think there is a fighting chance we get a more faithful version of the book.
A very interesting discussion indeed. Insofar as Broccoli and Saltzman first intended to follow You Only Live Twice with The Man with the Golden Gun, inviting Moore to the Bond role back in the late 60s, with filming planned in Cambodia, maybe TMWTGG could have been this alternate adventure for Lazenby. Because of the Samlaut Uprising, filming in Cambodia was impossible, but maybe Thailand could have been a substitute, based on the relative stability of the country at the time. As far as Fleming's novel was much action oriented, it would have certainly benefited from Lazenby's physicality.
Speaking of revisiting lets go back to the age of GE for this next what if. As we all know there was a 6 year gap between LTK and GE. Dalton was still the Bond of record. We know that EON had attempted to get a film made in 1991 but legal wrangling stopped it from happening. With the legal stuff behind them EON began to begin production on GE for a Christmas 1995 release date. Brosnan was introduced as James Bond and started a new era. However I believe early drafts were written with Dalton in the role. What if Dalton had agreed to come back and star in GE, this would mean he would do at least one more film. Would this change effected Pierce? Would GE be as big a success with Dalton as it was with Brosnan? What effe3ct would it have when the series was rebooted in 2006 with CR?
What say you Mi6? What if Dalton had starred in GE instead of Brosnan?
Nevertheless, Brosnan not only benefited from an impression of renewal that Dalton would not have been able to bring, but the latter wasn't that interested to come back for more than one movie, creating an uncomfortable situation to pursue the franchise.
Several hypotheses are then possible, assuming that Dalton decided to come back for GE. He could have decided to star in more than one film, and in such a case, the saga would probably not have benefited from the same interest that it had with Brosnan. Of course it would have been successful, but not as much. Second hypothesis: Dalton only returns for Goldeneye, which would have been his swan song. I fear that such a situation would have been a terrible blow for the saga in search of recovery and would have created a similar case to OHMSS with a star already leaving. Audiences would have been more interested in what would happen next, putting aside GE even before its release. Maybe the 2006 reboot would have happened before.
Beyond these purely financial dimensions, I would have loved to see GE starring Dalton, with a story mixing elements from France's draft with the released movie. As an older Trevelyan played by Anthony Hopkins would have been a formidable opponent for this Bond, to see Dalton to be confronted to Xenia.
I am greatly intrigued by a Hopkins-Dalton dynamic and think it would have worked really well. Course we'd lose that lovely brutal fight between Bean and Brosnan.
Now, had Dalton agreed to do GE and more? Assuming it was a hit, I could see two more films down the line, and then by the new millennium Dalton would be finished for good and a new actor would have been appointed, which couldn’t have been Brosnan as he would have been pushing 50. Brosnan certainly would have not had the career resurgence that Bond gave him. Prior to GE, he was mostly doing TV work and supporting roles as his stardom dropped considerably after REMINGTON STEELE ended.
Would GE have been a hit with Dalton? I think it’s possible. The hiatus would have at least made audiences hungry for a new Bond film. I think Dalton would have had to lighten up his take on the role in order to be more accepted. Assuming that work, GE would have been seen where Dalton “finally clicked” with Bond in a way that many tend to say of Moore by his third installment.
It’s certainly one of the great what-ifs for Bond. I think it could have gone either way depending on how it was all handled.
I agree with Herr_Stockmann that a Dalton-version of GE would probably have been a moderate hit after Bond's hiatus, but not as big a hit as Brosnan's GE was, since American audiences had never taken to Dalton. But what's clear from the actual film is that no matter who GE starred, it would have avoided two major factors behind LTK's weak box office: cheaply pathetic marketing and a high-summer premiere.
I think, though had Dalton done GE, and finished with TND Pierce could have come in for the next film at 45 and done maybe 3 outings. He looked great during the 2000's.
Still, who knows how Pierce's career would have been up until then. TV movies were a large part of his resume. Thanks to Bond he was able to start his own production company and get various projects produced.
I always regretted losing Tim for GE, and felt a 3rd outing with the right balance of grit and humor may have sold him more to audiences.
He's on record saying he would have liked his third entry to be more light hearted.
My understanding is that LTK did pretty well at the BO - in some cases better than TLD - outside the US. So the big issue for Dalton was how US audiences took to him. There is no scientific way to test this. He definitely wasn't as well known in the US as Brosnan. But as others have pointed out, there is a bit of a consensus that Roger didn't really hit his stride until TSWLM. Perhaps the same would have happened with Dalton if he'd done a third.
Having said that, TLD is a pretty solid first entry by any standards.
I think the great loss is no B17 in 1991 and even B18 in 1993. Had those two been made Dalton would have had his 4 and the Brosnanites could still have had their era from 95. Everyone would have been happy.
This is Roger Ebert in 1989:
On the basis of this second performance as Bond, Dalton can have the role as long as he enjoys it. He makes an effective Bond - lacking Sean Connery's grace and humor, and Roger Moore's suave self-mockery, but with a lean tension and a toughness that is possibly more contemporary. The major difference between Dalton and the earlier Bonds is that he seems to prefer action to sex. But then so do movie audiences, these days. "Licence to Kill" is one of the best of the recent Bonds.
But yes the BO for LTK in the US was poor.
I am from the UK and was quite young at the time but had absolutely no awareness of Brosnan and who he was. The whole Dalton as second choice thing was definitely a US concept.
Speaking of which, wasn't Dalton actually first choice? But he initially wasn't available which is why they turned to Brosnan who then had his Remmington Steele contract renewed ... by which time Dalton was available?
That’s the official story. Because Brosnan couldn’t commit due to NBC, production had to be postponed in order to have time to find a replacement, and that meant Dalton was available by then because he had finished shooting a film.
But many tend to dismiss the story that Dalton was the first choice, believing EON made that up in order to make it seem like Dalton wasn’t a second choice, but it was very difficult in the US to shake off that perception.
You can see in this clip how persistent the media was in asking about Brosnan and Cubby didn’t handle it well.
In fact People magazine did an article on Brosnan losing the gig, and when Dalton’s agent tried to set up an interview in order to promote him People magazine declined it.
In the UK at least I think Dalton was much better known.
Very true, though it didn't stop many from presuming that was also just something invented for PR.
And as you said, Brosnan was unknown in the UK.
For the US, I think Brosnan was especially more perceived as "Bond like" than Dalton because in Remington Steele he was much more lighthearted and suave in a way that reminded people of the cinematic Bond especially the most recent with Roger Moore, whereas Dalton was going for pure Fleming which wasn't anything like his predecessors. This is why he often got branded as "too serious" in the role, when many didn't realize that was the feature rather than the bug.
Also, Brosnan signed up for Coke ads where he basically played up Bondian tropes and that just threw more gas into the fire, making people feel Brosnan was "robbed" and "showing up" Dalton. They were pretty cheesy, but they were also aiming for that kind of Roger Moore cool-as-a-cucumber-in-a-bowl-of-hot-sauce that Brosnan seemed fit for.
This seems to be the most likely case. Let's not forget that, while Michael France was writing GE, Eon recruited Richard Burges Smith and John Cork to pen treatments with Dalton in mind as Bond, so clearly everything was ready in case of Dalton's return for the franchise to continue with him, for at least two more movies.
In the first draft by France it features Fredrick Grey in the MI6 scenes. Also Defense Minsiter Mishkin was originally going to be a returning Pushkin. Once Dalton left it seemed any ties to TLD were severed. The only carryover in the cast being Desmond Llewllyn, who I suspect was only brought back in the Brosnan era as a legacy character in order to tie Brosnan in with something from the past films as so much had changed between LTK and GE. Though there is Joe Don Baker, which is just odd casting.
Nevertheless, a GE starring Dalton would have introduced a partially new supporting cast. First, because Robert Brown retired acting in 1991, leaving the door open for a new actor, or actress, as M. In this regard, Ian Richardson would have been great in this role. Secondly, because neither France's screenplay, nor Smith's treatment for a fourth Dalton film featured Miss Moneypenny, but rather Loelia Ponsonby. Perhaps additional rewrites would have allowed Caroline Bliss to return, but that was not expected at first.
Andrew Clarke was offered the role, but was unhappy with the salary.
That is the greatest loss. I agree. I wish we had had a more lighthearted third film with Dalton. He would've knocked it out of the park, as he did with his more serious interpretations.
I tried to watch Andrew Clarke's SAINT film, but thought he was terribly miscast. I tend to buy the Finlay Light rumors more than him.
UA wanted Gibson, who had first been on their radar for OP, and was a huge star by 86. Mel only wanted to do one, maybe one more if it was successful in the US. Cubby said no.
Back to the what if...I do think Dalton could have pulled off GE without major re-writes. Although there were some comedic moments it wasn't the silly stuff and still grounded in the story. I wish Dalton had a chance to be in a bigger production with some of the elements that GE seemed to embrace. Sadly we can only hang on the what if.
Where I think Dalton would struggle is Box Office in N.A. I remember the clamour was more about Brosnan being Bond then the gap between films. I don't think Dalton would have had the audience in N.A. clamouring for his portrayal. Which is a shame as I like him in TLD and feel he had it in him to deliver what GE provided. I think if Dalton does GE and another Bond, perhaps we don't get Brosnan or Craig. Brosnan cause by the late 90's I think people would be over seeing him as Bond. Craig cause his portrayal is closer to Dalton and not enough of a dramatic departure.
Let's suppose that Hopkins was cast as the heavy in TND. What do you think his casting would have done to the movie? Improve it? Would Brosnan been able to keep up with such an esteemed actor? TND was a hit without him, would having him play Carver had any impact on the film?
What say you Mi6? What if Anthony Hopkins had been cast as Elliot Carver in TND?
What I would really have been interested in was when he was eyed for the original Augustus Trevelyan character in GE (the first draft written by Michael France when Dalton was still attached), who was supposed to be an old mentor figure for Bond before being reimagined as a fellow 00. IIRC we would have got a flashback of Bond and another 00 agent on a rescue mission in the East, only to find out Trevelyan wasn’t captured but had defected, and during the mission the Trevelyan sells them out and in an attempt to escape the other 00 dies, leaving Bond betrayed. Just imagining that kind of film with Dalton and Hopkins once again on screen together at that time sounds like what I really would have been down for.
The thought that Hopkins would have raised the production with his presence is a curious one, as Pryce is just as esteemed in a lot of circles as Hopkins. Not as big a name, mind you.