The What if NTTD is the last EON produced Bond film? page 62

1161719212263

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2019 Posts: 8,182
    I always felt Dalton was best as the more weary Bond from the latter novels, someone who had been on the job longer than he should have. But I would have no complaints if Dalton portrayed Fleming Bond in CR because he really nailed that characterization.

    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.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,419
    Minion wrote: »
    Here's a terrifying thought: we might not have ever seen Daniel Craig's Casino Royale if Connery had already covered that material.

    As much as I dig CR with Craig, I would have been perfectly happy with a CR set in the early 60s with Connery in his prime. I would hope it would remain faithful to the story, but who knows what EON would have done specifically. From what I read Broccoli offered to buy the rights to CR off Feldman but was declined. That’s too bad. I wonder if he had bought them that CR really would have been positioned as the first film instead of DN.

    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.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 3,333
    Revelator wrote: »
    But I suppose after GF success EON would have taken a ton of liberties with the adaptation. Can’t imagine them sticking to Vesper’s story. I would have only been interested in a straight up adaptation. Being the genesis of all Bond, I demand no less.

    Yes, that's the rub. Ben Hecht's last draft for Casino Royale was written between the release of FRWL and GF, which would have been the best time for a serious version of CR to have been released. Afterward, the chances of a faithful adaptation, especially following Hecht's death, grew exponentially worse each year. The idea of a faithful '68 CR with Connery is no more plausible than a faithful '69 OHMSS with him. Any producer who could perpetrate the abortive mess that was the '67 CR was obviously not invested in the original's story, whereas Hecht was.
    Ben Hecht wasn't the producer, so his death in 1964 wouldn't have changed a thing. It was Feldman's decision to change course and spoof the series, hoping he could emulate the previous success of his own What's New Pussycat in 1965, especially when he couldn't get Connery for the price he wanted. To imply that Feldman couldn't produce a serious Bond movie when he'd previously produced A Streetcar Named Desire without Hecht's involvement is tenuous to say the least. There would be nothing stopping Feldman from hiring another screenwriter to polish Hecht's script, such as a Wendell Mayes, whom he'd worked with previously, or even Ernest Lehman. Feldman was pissed with being first rebuffed by Harry & Cubby, then feeling taken advantage of by Connery's pay demands. The deal-breaker was Connery, not Hecht. Without Connery on board, Feldman didn't believe the general public would look favourably on another actor playing the role of Bond, so he decided to send-it-up and deride it by having multiple 007s. Big mistake and one that Feldman admitted to afterwards by saying "It would've been cheaper to have paid Connery the $1 million." The only reason why we didn't have a serious CR in the Sixties was because of Feldman's stubbornness, not because Connery was unwilling to do it, unlike OHMSS which he declined to make.
  • thedove wrote: »
    What if George Lazenby had debuted as Bond in another adventure?

    Lets pick any of the Fleming novels that hadn't yet been on the big screen and that EON had the rights.

    Do you think changing the film or adventure would have set Lazenby up for longer success as Bond?

    Or would you keep it status quo and have him star in OHMSS as planned?

    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.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,419
    Great stuff as always! Thanks for bringing back another discussion point @Herr_Stockmann I always expected that some would dig deep into previous discussion points and bring them back again. Glad to see your views on Lazenby being in TMWTGG I think he would have been able to handle that adventure.

    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?
  • thedove wrote: »
    What say you Mi6? What if Dalton had starred in GE instead of Brosnan?
    I guess the movie would have performed well, but not as much as Brosnan's version. While LTK was a deception, it still grossed more than AVTAK ($156.1 million against $152.4 million), so I doubt a hypothetical GE with Dalton would have bombed.

    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.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,419
    Great points @Herr_Stockmann I concur with most of what you say. I remember Tim recently sharing that he agreed to come back for one and then Broccoli told him he'd have to do at least 2 otherwise they'd just recast. So I don't think we would ever get a one off with Dalton.

    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.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    GE with Dalton would have only happened if he agreed to do more films down the line, as that was the dealbreaker for Cubby, and I understand why that line was drawn. Had Dalton only come back for one more and it turned out to be a mega hit, EON would have looked foolish to let Dalton go after just getting back on track.

    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.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 2,917
    I do wonder if Dalton's story about only returning for one more film was akin to Roger Moore's claim that every Bond film after his original contract ended would be his last. I also wonder if Dalton's only-one-more stance was actually a face-saving cover story he and the Broccoli family agreed on after Calley insisted on Dalton's replacement.

    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.
  • Posts: 16,154
    I couldn't agree with you more, @MakeshiftPython.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's worth remembering that Dalton was given the script for LTK just a few weeks before shooting started. The idea that he personally was driving the 'darker' and more serious tone at that time is not true.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    The US was definitely less enamored with Dalton than other territories, especially since Brosnan was a TV star for that country and the mainstream media was not being open to Dalton, regarding him as “second choice”.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 11,425
    And yet if you read the US reviews of TLD and even LTK they are pretty positive and have lots of good things to say about Dalton.

    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?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited December 2019 Posts: 8,182
    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.

    8_11_86_750x1000.jpg?w=750
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes all a bit mysterious. We know they'd had their eyes on Dalton for decades though so not entirely implausible.

    In the UK at least I think Dalton was much better known.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited December 2019 Posts: 8,182
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes all a bit mysterious. We know they'd had their eyes on Dalton for decades though so not entirely implausible.

    Very true, though it didn't stop many from presuming that was also just something invented for PR.
    In the UK at least I think Dalton was much better known.

    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.








  • 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.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited December 2019 Posts: 8,182
    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.

    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.
  • In the first draft by France it features Fredrick Grey in the MI6 scenes.
    I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Minister of Defense was not named in France's script. It could have been Frederick Gray, but given the age of Geoffrey Keen, who was almost eighty years old in 1995, it would seem odd.

    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    And yet if you read the US reviews of TLD and even LTK they are pretty positive and have lots of good things to say about Dalton.

    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?

    clarke_3x4.jpg
    Andrew Clarke was offered the role, but was unhappy with the salary.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited December 2019 Posts: 7,021
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, Bond came back to him at just the right time. He was still doing okay by himself, with supporting roles in high-profile projects like Mrs. Doubtfire and Love Affair (though that one did poor business), but if he wanted to reach the next level in his career and get out of TV-land, it was "now or never." Five years later he might have been on an exclusive diet of TV movies and cheap B-movies.

    Getafix wrote: »
    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.
    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.
  • Posts: 16,154
    Getafix wrote: »
    And yet if you read the US reviews of TLD and even LTK they are pretty positive and have lots of good things to say about Dalton.

    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?

    clarke_3x4.jpg
    Andrew Clarke was offered the role, but was unhappy with the salary.

    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    And yet if you read the US reviews of TLD and even LTK they are pretty positive and have lots of good things to say about Dalton.

    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?

    clarke_3x4.jpg
    Andrew Clarke was offered the role, but was unhappy with the salary.

    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.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,419
    Very interesting. There were no shortage of candidates back then. I somehow think this time after Craig the list will be considerably shorter. I am also thinking they will look for someone opposite Craig's strengths we may see a Bond with a lighter touch.

    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.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,419
    Okay Mi6 community it's time for another "what if" scenario. This one takes us to the casting of a villain in the series. It was rumoured that Anthony Hopkins was leading the way to be cast as Elliot Carver in TND. The part eventually went to Jonathan Pryce (who I rather enjoy in the role.)

    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?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited December 2019 Posts: 8,182
    Might have been a more menacing take on Carver than Pryce’s hammy approach, but not sure how that would impact the rest of the film.

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2019 Posts: 6,288
    Yes, Hopkins was first considered for GE. And it makes a lot of sense because Bean is simply too young for the role (Cossack and all). Hopkins would have been just the right age.
  • Posts: 4,044
    I thought Hopkins was cast in TND. He did 3 or 4 days on set.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited December 2019 Posts: 984
    I don't think it would have made a huge difference. He probably would have played the role with a little more subtlety than Pryce did, but other than that, nada. I actually prefer someone hamming up the type of villain that Carver was. A more low key take, and you end up with a Stromberg type, that gets swallowed up by the film around him.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,917
    It would certainly have given the film a lot more attention than just the new Bond film at the time and given it a little more recognition among the general public as "the one with Hannibal Lecter." I'm sure TND isn't a real recognizable title among the public as it currently stands.
Sign In or Register to comment.