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
People like Michael Balcon (Ealing Films) and Peter Rogers (Carry On Films) were typically only interested in making films aimed squarely at the British public and so accepted that theirs would likely have low budgets/international appeal.
Others like Lew Grade and Pressburger&Powell were always trying to court the American market and so consequently often made very big budget lavish films in exotic locations with American stars (or at the very least, British actors who were already stars in America).
:Edit: I don't think there's any such a thing as British sensibility or an American sensibility or what have you. Cultural trends and stereotypes absolutely exist but those are often subject to change all the time.
I mean, before James Bond, was the image of the ultimate British man in Europe and the USA really a suave hyper-masculine alpha male, adept at lovemaking and an expert on fashion/food/wine etc?
Two American producers: short term franchise.
That Canadian producer and that American producer at that point in time: no end in sight.
lol-- only coz Canucks arent appreciated as much on the international stage because of our cousin to the south (not taking away from their achievements, but the Canukal heads have many groundbreaking achievements and studies born from this land)....
Blofeld "Well go on it's merely a lift. Or elevator as you call them here." I may not have that direct quote.
I also think if it's British producers we don't get Sean Connery cast as Bond. I don't think Cubby and Harry were looking for a typical English leading man and the result was getting Sean.
"You handle those cubes like a monkey handles coconuts!"
It's "Well go on, it's merely a lift. Or perhaps I should say 'elevator'."
Some of my favorite lines are from Mankiewicz, particularly DAF.
"Well, if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear about it for years".
A similar gag to that appears in SUPERMAN when the government is tracking the missile.
"It's heading straight for Metropolis!"
"Uh, actually sir, it appears to be heading for New Jersey."
"New Jersey? What the hell is in New Jersey?"
Lets jump back to the late eighties early nineties. LTK has been released in the tough ultra competitive summer of 1989. The Box Office suffers and Bond seems to have taken a misstep. However Cubby proceeds to move ahead with Bond 17 starring Dalton. The film is targeted for a 1991 release date and I believer even posters in Cannes shouted this out. A script or at least a screen treatment was crafted with the action taking place in China and involving robots and some sci-fi elements. However MGM gets broiled into legal and financial trouble and the script is eventually shelved. By the time it's all sorted out Dalton's contract is run out and a new Bond is brought on in Pierce Brosnan is brought in as a new Bond.
However, what if MGM didn't have issues and EON was able to bring Bond 17 to the screen. Yes this one is for all the Dalton fans out there, what if Timothy Dalton starred in Bond 17 in 1991. Would this film been a success? Would Dalton then be set up for future films? How would this impact the casting of Craig many years later since his Bond has some similarities with Dalton's portrayal?
What say you Mi6? What if Dalton had starred in a Bond film in 1991 Bond 17?
Hopefully the 3rd time would've been the charm for Dalton as it had been for Moore. People forget that Moore's 2nd Bond film was a relative box disappointment after his 1st one had been a hit. Maybe a 1991 Bond 17 would've been Dalton's TSWLM?
At the very least I wish EON/MGM would've waited until Christmas 1991 to release it and given it the promotion it needed to succeed.
Bond movies traditionally were Christmas fare, but then I think Spy changed the release schedule and set them off as summer fare? I think a Christmas release works better.
As a kid I loved the Bonds being released in the summer. No school, sunny skies, warm weather, perfect for Bond. T2 was probably the biggest release that summer, other than the Kevin Costner Robin Hood film. I doubt B17 would have repeated LTK's unfortunate US box office numbers.
The treatment for B17 always fascinated me. Kept the Dalton grit, yet gave him a bit of fantasy to play with. Although some fans may dislike the robot angle, I don't think that treatment was any worse than some of the Purvis/Wade masterpieces that actually made it to the screen.
At the time one of LTK's biggest criticisms was the lack of a larger than life cinematic Bond plot, being too serious in tone and too Miami Vice.
I think this film would have addressed those issues and given Dalton a chance to have a little fun in the role.
Connie Webb.
@echo read all about the B17 that never was here:
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_17_intro.php3
Point Break, which is now considered a near classic, did okay, as did The Rocketeer, Backdraft and van Damme's Double Impact. None would be considered blockbusters, though. The Bruce Willis action comedy Hudson Hawk was a big bomb. But looking at the rest of the slate, a ton of the releases were comedies: Naked Gun 2, Hot Shots, City Slickers, and Thelma and Louise was a big drama.
While Terminator was still a fresh new franchise at the time that had a lot of anticipation with groundbreaking special effects, Bond would've been the only other tentpole franchise that summer. It could've been the chance to rediscover it and the chance for Dalton to establish the character, although I don't subscribe to the third film theory. If done right, it could've revived the franchise or killed it off if audiences weren't receptive.
As mentioned above, the Christmas season would've been even better. The only action picture was Willis's The Last Boy Scout, which wasn't a huge hit, and Star Trek VI was the big genre picture and was a hit.
Looking at this from a wider perspective, it's an inconsistent release pattern. DN and FRWL were released in the October in the UK and in the spring in the U.S. GF was released on Sept. 17 in the UK and at Christmas in the U.S. TB was the first released in the UK and US at Christmas simultaneously.
YOLT came out in summer '67. Now, 3 of the next 4 - OHMSS, DAF and TMWTGG - were Christmas releases, but LALD was a summer release. TSWLM was released in the same summer as Star Wars. Jaws was the first blockbuster that ushered in the summer being for big-budget popcorn entertainment two years before and the success of Star Wars solidified it and changed the industry as studios made this their focus. Christmas became more for awards season fare.
I'm not sure what UA or Eon's thinking was in releasing TSWLM in the summer, but it could've been even bigger without that space movie everybody kept going back to see, but it stayed comfortably in that season for the next 5 films.
Now since GE, we consider Bonds Christmas releases, but in a loose way. The only true Christmas release was TND, most of the others were released in October in the UK and then November in the U.S., but they were still on release during the holiday season. Most of these were released around the Thanksgiving season, which is a big holiday time here in the U.S.
As for the Dalton adventure, I too would be curious to think about what might have been. It certainly had the fantastical elements that LTK lacked. I think Dalton might have been able to pulled it off.
In retrospect, it's too bad that EON didn't have the foresight to have had a Bond film released on July 7, 2007 aka 7-7-007. Definitely a missed opportunity.
It definitely would've been fun to see Dalton have his GF/TSWLM style fantasy Bond adventure after the Cold War espionage-laden TLD(his era's FRWL) and the gritty LTK(which in some ways was the Lazenby DAF we never got).
There is the belief that a Lazenby DAF would've been more of a true sequel to the events of OHMSS than the Connery DAF we got in reality. Just look at Della Leiter as a substitute for Tracy Bond(both brides murdered on their wedding day) and Franz Sanchez as a replacement for Savalas Blofeld and LTK becomes that "what if?" version of DAF.
But... those are LTK plot points... :-?
Maibaum's first treatments for the film suggests it would have been much different. Ultimately the producers decided to go in a different direction, especially when Connery returned.
In relation to the future casting of Daniel Craig, I believe that we would've probably skipped the Brosnan era (Brosnan would've been too old for the role by the time Dalton finished) and then gone straight into Craig. It will be interesting to see who is cast next in the role of Bond, because typically we go from a darker Bond to a lighter one thereafter. If the next Bond is in the same vain as Connery, Lazenby, Dalton or Craig then I do believe it proves to some degree that they would've still cast Craig straight after Dalton, IMO.
An earlier draft for Bond 16 had a villain s plot that involved a plane crashing into Buckingham Palace, with Bond as an involuntary pilot.
I'm also pretty sure that Dalton wasn't all that keen on the tone of LTK and wanted a more lighthearted film for his 3rd entry. People always seem to think Dalton was in some way behind the darker tone of LTK, but they were still very much producer led films back then (as opposed to actor producer led today with Craig) and I think Cubby was just going where I think he felt the market was at that time. Dalton didn't have much say in it, just getting the script a few weeks before shooting.
It would be great to get an interview with Dalton and put all these questions to him. Like a really nerdy fan-led interview that goes into all the background stuff.
Actually we could have had films in 91 and 93 and still had Brosnan and then Craig.
The 6 year gap was just a lose lose situation for everyone.
I suppose one scenario though might have been that Dalton established himself and either carried on to 95 or later. Had this happened and Dalton's more serious take on the character had become accepted then its harder to see Brosnan getting cast. But it makes Craig's casting even more likely.
But: audiences didn't really take to Dalton all that much (they didn't hate him: it was more indifference really) so I don't think it would have suddenly lifted him off- and GoldenEye was still the way to relaunch the series.
I would hypothesize that if Dalton had a longer run we may not have gotten Craig as you would argue they play the character in a similar vein.
Which is true, they do. But then I don't know if they always have to be different to each other: I'd be surprised if Bond no.7 was a massive contrast to Craig's version- I feel like he's brought back the alpha male tough guy Bond and the audience will expect that.
And I guess it depends on whether the third one we're talking about was his last or not: there's still plenty of Bros-room between him and Craig
:)