›

Dalton in FYEO. Could it have worked? I say ABSOLUTELY!!

Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
edited January 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 4,813
I've always said how I would have loved Dalton in GoldenEye- but after re-watching most of the Bond movies recently, as well as catching bits of Flash Gordon on Netflix on a rainy day, I can't help but think that the series may have benefited from having him show up as early as FYEO!

Dalton would have been 37-- a GREAT age for a new Bond, and judging by how he looked in Flash Gordon, he would have looked virtually identical to TLD.

<center>See? These pictures could have been taken a day apart if I didn't know better!

264544.jpg
162251__daylights_l.jpg</center>

Now I want to point out that I LOVE Roger Moore, but at the same time it's a plain fact that most people think that he hung around too long. I mean some people call him 'Grandpa Bond'. To his credit, I hear he did try to retire several times, only to be lured back at the last second- a great example being Octopussy, where his tenure was needed to go up against Connery in NSNA.
But as much as I like Roger as OO7, I almost feel as if MoonRaker would have been the perfect way to put the lid on 'his' Bond, and all of its fun wackiness. Roger could have been the Bond of the 70's (what the hell, put him in Diamonds are Forever since I'd hate cutting his run short) and Dalton could have been the Bond of the 80's!

Tim and Carole would have made a much better couple-- Bibi's crush on Bond would have been more believable and funny, (sorry Rog) all of the fights would have been a joy to watch and very intense
All of the above, and plus I found this cool video that really sets the tone of 'what if'.

A new decade, a new Bond, a trendy upbeat 80's song- check it out:


«134

Comments

  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Think dalton would have been great in FYEO. as much as i love moore he was past it come the john glen movie's.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    I've always said how I would have loved Dalton in GoldenEye- but after re-watching most of the Bond movies recently, as well as catching bits of Flash Gordon on Netflix on a rainy day, I can't help but think that the series may have benefited from having him show up as early as FYEO!

    Dalton would have been 37-- a GREAT age for a new Bond, and judging by how he looked in Flash Gordon, he would have looked virtually identical to TLD.

    Now I want to point out that I LOVE Roger Moore, but at the same time it's a plain fact that most people think that he hung around too long. I mean some people call him 'Grandpa Bond'. To his credit, I hear he did try to retire several times, only to be lured back at the last second- a great example being Octopussy, where his tenure was needed to go up against Connery in NSNA.
    But as much as I like Roger as OO7, I almost feel as if MoonRaker would have been the perfect way to put the lid on 'his' Bond, and all of its fun wackiness. Roger could have been the Bond of the 70's (what the hell, put him in Diamonds are Forever since I'd hate cutting his run short) and Dalton could have been the Bond of the 80's!

    Tim and Carole would have made a much better couple-- Bibi's crush on Bond would have been more believable and funny, (sorry Rog) all of the fights would have been a joy to watch and very intense
    All of the above, and plus I found this cool video that really sets the tone of 'what if'.

    A new decade, a new Bond, a trendy upbeat 80's song- check it out:


    Yep. FYEO would've been a great intro for Dalton's Bond. I still would've wanted a little more exciting final climax and John Barry to score it though I'm glad Moore did OP instead of Dalton.

    http://007art.free.fr/posters/for_your_eyes_only_dalton_5.jpg

    http://007art.free.fr/posters/st_dalton_fyeo_3.jpg

    http://007art.free.fr/posters/st_dalton_fyeo_4.jpg

    http://007art.free.fr/posters/st_dalton_fyeo_2.jpg

    http://007art.free.fr/posters/st_dalton_fyeo_1.jpg

  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Pretty cool posters there mate.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    The style of FYEO would've suited Dalton perfectly but then I would've been depraved of the my 2 favorite Moore films, FYEO and OP. A say AVTAK would've been the perfect time to debut. But either way FYEO would've been great.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    It's all what might have been but the thing is Moore did the film, his fifth outing and truth be told it was a believable and stand up performance and arguably the last time Moore was at least plausible as 007. Of course Dalton could of worked at the time but in hindsight I have no problem with Tim starting out when he did, he did a most fine job in both releases and never mind starting early, it's a shame with all the legal disputes and all that he wasn't able to feature again after License To Kill. We all know that Dalton was approached about the role as far back as the late 1960s but he said so himself he thought it was too premature a time in his life to do such a thing and all said and done I have no problem with his making his debut as late as 1987 if you want to see it that way, then again someone should painfully have replaced Moore after For Your Eyes Only at the very least, if it wasn't to be Dalton then any replacement may well have been worthwhile, poor Roger made an embarrassment of himself from that time onwards sorry to say
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    Pretty cool posters there mate.

    Indeed. They're the work of Stéphane Tron.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    Well, the movie was definitely one of Roger's more hard-edged, and would have been well suited for Timothy. However, I like FYEO with Moore, and see no reason to wish for Dalton's arrival so early. It could have been really awesome, but if Dalton were to come in early it would have needed to have been in OP, when Moore really started to show his age and heavy wrinkles! Hahaha.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Dalton would have been great in FYEO, all of Brosnan's (except DAD) and most of Moore's except MR and TSWLM.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Dalton is my favourite Bond and FYEO my favourite Bond fil....but.....

    I do think it is perfect the way it is.

    I like Rogs' rather protective thoughtful Bond in this ne. The way he comforts Melina in Corfu or wheezes up the steps. Its a more wistful Bond who is coming to terms with his ageing.

    Rog suits this film to a tee.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited January 2012 Posts: 13,978
    Though it would've worked with Dalton, the problem I have, is that I would have wanted Dalton to have carried on into the '90s rather than start any earlier than '87.

    So 1981 - 1989 or 1987 - 1999? I'm going the go with the latter.
  • OnlyManWhoCanOnlyManWhoCan Greater London
    Posts: 202
    I've never given this any thought, but I immediately love the idea. FYEO is one of my favourite Bonds, and I very much like Sir Rog in the role, but the thought of Timothy Dalton in FYEO has me salivating! There are several scenes that would benefit from having a younger guy in the role, and we know that Tim could have handled the more dramatic beats.

    My only concern is that I can't really see him in Octopussy or A View to a Kill. I would imagine they would have been changed to better suit him. (Picture TD riding in a Union Jack balloon with loads of acrobatic ladies bouncing about and you'll see what I mean)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,172
    Dalton certainly could have worked in FYEO but I wouldn't want to have missed on Moore's great performance. I say yes to more Dalton any day but I say no to less Moore at the same time. So there you are. I'm caught in a dilemma. ;-)
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    It wouldn't have worked, TD lacked the real charisma that is needed for a leading role. A lot of TD fans live under the assumption that he was some kind of saviour, while in fact he was alienating the general audiences, claiming that other blockbusters were too big a competition while in fact they had leading men with screen charisma where TD just did not have enough in the area.
    TD is a good actor but his leading parts have never been that impressive, he is however a good supporting actor or villain. That is why he never would have worked as the leading man of a series that with Roger Moore in the lead managed to survive the years after Sean Connery.

    FYEO was the movie that RM needed to make to keep the series on track and with him it came believable. He was that popular that we got him twice more.

    It is my believe that with TD that early in the part we would not have the franchise around today. RM's version carried the show through the years when the danger was that 007 would have become a endagered species. TD's effort was not that spectacular since most non-fan would not name him when asked name a actor that played 007, he failed to impress the general audience and they pay the tickets.

    A longer TD series is just a fans wet dream. But when you wake up you are covered with Yugh.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    SaintMark wrote:
    It wouldn't have worked, TD lacked the real charisma that is needed for a leading role. A lot of TD fans live under the assumption that he was some kind of saviour, while in fact he was alienating the general audiences, claiming that other blockbusters were too big a competition while in fact they had leading men with screen charisma where TD just did not have enough in the area.
    TD is a good actor but his leading parts have never been that impressive, he is however a good supporting actor or villain. That is why he never would have worked as the leading man of a series that with Roger Moore in the lead managed to survive the years after Sean Connery.

    FYEO was the movie that RM needed to make to keep the series on track and with him it came believable. He was that popular that we got him twice more.

    It is my believe that with TD that early in the part we would not have the franchise around today. RM's version carried the show through the years when the danger was that 007 would have become a endagered species. TD's effort was not that spectacular since most non-fan would not name him when asked name a actor that played 007, he failed to impress the general audience and they pay the tickets.

    A longer TD series is just a fans wet dream. But when you wake up you are covered with Yugh.

    Sounds like the rantings of a bitter Brosnan podder who cant get his head around other actors did a better job then he did and are more acclaimed then he was. He may have brought in the cash - but Brosnan didnt get the respect.

    Yugh.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2012 Posts: 15,715
    I always have a hard time imagining any of the 6 Bond's starting their tenure earlier... I have no problem with Brosnan doing a 5th, Dalton continuing after LTK, Lazenby doing more, Craig doing 6 films... but having Connery/Laz/Rog/Dalts/Broz/Craig as Bond while being younger than their first outing... nope, I don't like it. I think all of them started at the right age. I can't picture Dalton as Bond younger than in TLD, but older than LTK yes. I can't picture Brosnan as Bond younger than in GE, but older than DAD yes.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    It wouldn't have worked, TD lacked the real charisma that is needed for a leading role. A lot of TD fans live under the assumption that he was some kind of saviour, while in fact he was alienating the general audiences, claiming that other blockbusters were too big a competition while in fact they had leading men with screen charisma where TD just did not have enough in the area.
    TD is a good actor but his leading parts have never been that impressive, he is however a good supporting actor or villain. That is why he never would have worked as the leading man of a series that with Roger Moore in the lead managed to survive the years after Sean Connery.

    FYEO was the movie that RM needed to make to keep the series on track and with him it came believable. He was that popular that we got him twice more.

    It is my believe that with TD that early in the part we would not have the franchise around today. RM's version carried the show through the years when the danger was that 007 would have become a endagered species. TD's effort was not that spectacular since most non-fan would not name him when asked name a actor that played 007, he failed to impress the general audience and they pay the tickets.

    A longer TD series is just a fans wet dream. But when you wake up you are covered with Yugh.

    Sounds like the rantings of a bitter Brosnan podder who cant get his head around other actors did a better job then he did and are more acclaimed then he was. He may have brought in the cash - but Brosnan didnt get the respect.

    Yugh.

    There is an element of truth to what SM says though. Why has Craig worked in a way that Dalton didn't? What has he got that Dalton lacked? You can have all the acting chops in the world but if you don't have that X-Factor to connect with audiences it won't matter.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    actonsteve wrote:
    who cant get his head around other actors did a better job then he did

    That's just your opinion.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    who cant get his head around other actors did a better job then he did

    That's just your opinion.

    As much as I enjoy Brosnan I can't deny that Dalton, Craig, Connery and even Moore are probably stronger actors. Pierce has had his moments though.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2012 Posts: 15,715
    BAIN123 wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    who cant get his head around other actors did a better job then he did

    That's just your opinion.

    As much as I enjoy Brosnan I can't deny that Dalton, Craig, Connery and even Moore are probably stronger actors. Pierce has had his moments though.

    Better actor doesn't always mean best performance... Craig is a great actor, but his CR and QOS performances are rubbish... Brosnan may not be a great actor, but his DAD performance is one of the best in the franchise...
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    BAIN123 wrote:
    As much as I enjoy Brosnan I can't deny that Dalton, Craig, Connery and even Moore are probably stronger actors. Pierce has had his moments though.

    Acting skills are great but it also needs the X-factor which makes the package complete. There are brilliant actors with great skills but they themselves don't fill cinema's when there are actors that are skilled but have that little extra which drives folks to the cinema. Sean Connery is one of those folks, Roger Moore & Pierce Brosnan did that with the 007 series.
    DC currently drives on the good name of the franchise and I sincerely hope that with Bond23 he gets his best movie and recognition that he is one of the great 007's. My only gripe with the current 007 incarnation is that I won't be bringing my daugthers to the cinema due to the more violent & grim approuch. They love RM & PB & SC &GL.

  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    actonsteve wrote:
    Sounds like the rantings of a bitter Brosnan podder who cant get his head around other actors did a better job then he did and are more acclaimed then he was. He may have brought in the cash - but Brosnan didnt get the respect.

    Yugh.

    Actually it is an argument against TD in the place of RM, and indeed I rate RM much higher than TD, as I do with every performer in the EON series. In my view TD's talents got wasted and was a poor choice.
    When do you get respect? I think every 007 performer gets that, it is the biggest role in the movie world but some are better suited for the part.
    ANd a better actor does not mean automatically better respected. And the word respect is a bit taken out of context these days.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    As much as I like TD, Rog does sterling work in FYEO. Although the girls are a bit young...
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    edited January 2012 Posts: 1,492
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    [

    Better actor doesn't always mean best performance... Craig is a great actor, but his CR and QOS performances are rubbish... Brosnan may not be a great actor, but his DAD performance is one of the best in the franchise...
    [/quote]

    =)) =)) =))
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    SaintMark wrote:
    [
    ANd a better actor does not mean automatically better respected. A

    It does if you have an iota of intelligence.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    [

    Better actor doesn't always mean best performance... Craig is a great actor, but his CR and QOS performances are rubbish... Brosnan may not be a great actor, but his DAD performance is one of the best in the franchise...

    =)) =)) =)) [/quote]

    I do think DAD probably features one of Pierce's best performances as Bond - even if the film around him is naff. Look at the scene between him and M in the underground station for example.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Think brosnan appealed to a broad audience, i am not a fan in fact think he is the worst bond. an ex was obsessed with him, it would appear he appealed to women. perhap's brosnan was a more accessible bond?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    Think brosnan appealed to a broad audience, i am not a fan in fact think he is the worst bond. an ex was obsessed with him, it would appear he appealed to women. perhap's brosnan was a more accessible bond?

    I think you've nailed it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2012 Posts: 15,715
    actonsteve wrote:
    =)) =)) =))

    I see you have no opinion on Brosnan other than mock everyone who like his movies... you're like a broken record on Brosnan... we understand you hate his Bond... no need to force your hatred of Brosnan on us...
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Brosnan was a fine Bond- it was his movies that were most of the problem. But that gives me a new idea: we all know that part of the reason behind Dalton's lukewarm debut in TLD was because many people were expecting Brosnan. (the other big reason was that Dalton was so radically different than Moore)
    But you know what-- If Dalton had taken the role in FYEO, it would have been before Remington Steele, and not a damn soul would have known who Brosnan was!!
    Now yes I know that Brosnan first met Cubby on the set of FYEO because of his late wife playing the Countess, but Remington Steele played a HUGE part in Brosnan eventually getting the role. Remington Steele was practically an AUDITION! :-))
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    Now yes I know that Brosnan first met Cubby on the set of FYEO because of his late wife playing the Countess, but Remington Steele played a HUGE part in Brosnan eventually getting the role. Remington Steele was practically an AUDITION! :-))

    Indeed. It was Brosnan's playing "Remington Steele" that got him pictured as a potential Bond in the mind of the general public in the first place. If it weren't for RS, he may never have gotten the role of 007.

Sign In or Register to comment.