Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

17071737576104

Comments

  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's my understanding that Bean auditioned for Bond. BB was so impressed with him that she encouraged EON to give him the villain role. I believe Anthony Hopkins was supposed to play the villain in the earlier draft, which was supposed to feature Dalton, and would have perhaps been more age appropriate.

    Had Hopkins and Dalton shared the screen together (in a Bond film) that would have been the second time they'd done so.


  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    It's cardboard cutout because it's Brosnan playing Bond.
    Rasputin wrote: »
    Perhaps because Bond is due to success even the crap bonds made tons of money, but it wouldn't have been as good and riveting with Dalton, can you imagine that old man against a prime sean bean in a fist-fight? It would have been unrealistic!

    As per comments above, the villain was originally planned to be Hopkins. Wouldn't that have been terrible?

    Bean would probably have made a more interesting Bond than Brosnan as well
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I really think Bean's a little too blue collar for Bond. He also tends to work well in films as a more villainous character.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I really think Bean's a little too blue collar for Bond. He also tends to work well in films as a more villainous character.

    Ha ha. No one more blue collar than Sean and look how that turned out?!

    It's called acting.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I really think Bean's a little too blue collar for Bond. He also tends to work well in films as a more villainous character.

    Ha ha. No one more blue collar than Sean and look how that turned out?!

    It's called acting.

    Sean had Terrance Young. Without him, truth be told, Sean would be nothing. I remember even you commenting on Connery being crap in Marnie (made around the time of Dr No).

    Besides I'm not entirely convinced Fleming ever really accepted Connery in the role. Despite what people say about him changing his mind.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I have no doubt that Terrence Young was absolutely vital in terms of getting the right performance out of Connery. It's still acting. And Connery was still as blue collar as you can get.

    I actually think Brosnan had potential as well, but had pretty poor direction. I suspect that most of his directors actually had little respect for him. That's how it feels to me any way.

    And yes Connery is appalling in Marnie. Hitchcock was probably not the right director for him at that time. May be a few years later Connery would have handled the role better. Hitch should have cast someone else.

    Having said that, Marnie is a dreadful story. Totally dated. You suspect that even at the time people thought it was a bit dodgey.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Yes I agree about the direction aspect. I actually think Brosnan comes off best in GE and that could be because of Campbell (though I know you disagree), It's not a great performance (Broz seems rigid at times) but he has his moments in it and there's less of the overacting that would be in his later films.

    Broz is teaming up with Campbell again btw to make an adaptation of Across the River and into the Trees.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Aren't they making a film with Jackie Chan as well?

    I don't rate Campbell that much tbh. I hated GE when it came out. CR is a lot better mainly due to Craig, but on a recent rewatch I wasn't bowled over.

    As you know I essentially feel Brosnan was miscast. Having said that, I can definitely envisage a scenario where, with a decent script and much better director he could have done something interesting with the role.

    For me the issue isn't so much overacting as his misjudging scenes. Tonally Brosnan is all over the place. He never had an idea about what Bond was or who he was. He just plods through it scene by scene with no overarching take on the character. It's why his films as so dull. Nothing resonates or is remotely believable. Connery and Moore were masters at taking essentislly hokum and making us believe in it. Brosnan doesn't sell the character or the scene in the same way.

    Dalton is not perfect, but at least (IMO) he gets the tone of most scenes right.



  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I'm a big fan of GE but I do take your points. It's the vague comments Broz has made about Bond outside of the films that give me a sense he was essentially making things up as he went along and hoping it worked.

    As you know I have my issues with Dalton. I think he sometimes was guilty of pushing the dramatics a bit too much to the point where it felt acted (Bond finding Della for example doesn't have the punch it was meant to and leaves me feeling nothing).

    That said there's no doubt he took charge of the role and for that he has to be commended.
  • Posts: 15,106
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's my understanding that Bean auditioned for Bond. BB was so impressed with him that she encouraged EON to give him the villain role. I believe Anthony Hopkins was supposed to play the villain in the earlier draft, which was supposed to feature Dalton, and would have perhaps been more age appropriate.

    Bean versus Dalton would not have worked. In fact the inexperience of Brosnan in GE was I think an asset in regard to his antagonism with Trevelyan.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 628
    The Michael France draft of GOLDENEYE was written for Dalton and Anthony Hopkins. It has some solid dialogue between Bond and Trevelyan (most of which is better than what's in the movie) but, unfortunately, the action scenes are ridiculous and I can't see Dalton agreeing to do the superhero stuff in the script.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's my understanding that Bean auditioned for Bond. BB was so impressed with him that she encouraged EON to give him the villain role. I believe Anthony Hopkins was supposed to play the villain in the earlier draft, which was supposed to feature Dalton, and would have perhaps been more age appropriate.

    Bean versus Dalton would not have worked. In fact the inexperience of Brosnan in GE was I think an asset in regard to his antagonism with Trevelyan.

    Agreed. Bean vs Dalton wouldn't have worked at all. I think the more likely scenario was that he auditioned for the part of Bond, impressed BB, who then kept him in mind when they needed to go younger with the villain after Brosnan replaced Dalton as Bond.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    The Michael France draft of GOLDENEYE was written for Dalton and Anthony Hopkins. It has some solid dialogue between Bond and Trevelyan (most of which is better than what's in the movie) but, unfortunately, the action scenes are ridiculous and I can't see Dalton agreeing to do the superhero stuff in the script.

    What were these action scenes?

    It's difficult to imagine anything more ridiculous than the 'I can fly' PTS in GE

    From the first time I saw that sequence I felt Bond had entered cartoon world - more so even than anything in the Moore era. That abysmal flying sequence and the kite surfing in DAD top and tail the Brosnan era perfectly.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    First and foremost, I like Brosnan more than Dalton, but I still like Dalton. I think the film would've been a success but not as much without Brosnan. Having a new Bond in the role helped and I believe at the time people were expecting, and wanting, Brosnan.
    Honestly I'm 50/50 on which I'd prefer in the movie. It would've been a good finale for Dalton but it's also a great start for Brosnan. I will say that the lines at the end would've been great to hear coming from Dalton and Anthony Hopkins. "For England, James?" "No. For me."
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    The Michael France draft of GOLDENEYE was written for Dalton and Anthony Hopkins. It has some solid dialogue between Bond and Trevelyan (most of which is better than what's in the movie) but, unfortunately, the action scenes are ridiculous and I can't see Dalton agreeing to do the superhero stuff in the script.

    What were these action scenes?

    It's difficult to imagine anything more ridiculous than the 'I can fly' PTS in GE

    From the first time I saw that sequence I felt Bond had entered cartoon world - more so even than anything in the Moore era. That abysmal flying sequence and the kite surfing in DAD top and tail the Brosnan era perfectly.

    Technically it wasn't "flying" but "falling with style" *

    *I acknowledge this shameless Toy Story reference.
  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    I think so, and I think it would have led to Dalton's wide acceptance as Bond to audiences, as what tends to happens with third films in the series. If the film remains the exact same with the sole exception being Dalton in place of Brosnan, I can't see any reason why it would have been any better or worse than it is.

    I also don't see a problem matching Dalton and Bean up. There's an age difference, sure, but both are talented enough actors to make it work.
    *I acknowledge this shameless Toy Story reference.
    There's nothing wrong with Toy Story references.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think it ultimately depends on your views of Brosnan/Dalton/Bean as actors in general.

    I don't get the sense @Getafix is fond of Bean as an actor.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ford and Bean were both excellent in Patriot Games a few years prior (despite a noticeable age gap), so it could have worked, if the script were tweaked somewhat.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I think so, and I think it would have led to Dalton's wide acceptance as Bond to audiences, as what tends to happens with third films in the series. If the film remains the exact same with the sole exception being Dalton in place of Brosnan, I can't see any reason why it would have been any better or worse than it is.

    I also don't see a problem matching Dalton and Bean up. There's an age difference, sure, but both are talented enough actors to make it work.
    *I acknowledge this shameless Toy Story reference.
    There's nothing wrong with Toy Story references.

    Bruce, I think if it was the same word for word, it wouldnt have suites Dalton as much. I really can't for the life of me imagine him saying the line "Boys with toys".

    I think the film was a classic, and a super start to Brosnans era.

    Rather than seeing Tim in GE, I would have much rather see him bow out in another film better suited to him in between LTK and GE

  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I think so, and I think it would have led to Dalton's wide acceptance as Bond to audiences, as what tends to happens with third films in the series. If the film remains the exact same with the sole exception being Dalton in place of Brosnan, I can't see any reason why it would have been any better or worse than it is.

    I also don't see a problem matching Dalton and Bean up. There's an age difference, sure, but both are talented enough actors to make it work.
    *I acknowledge this shameless Toy Story reference.
    There's nothing wrong with Toy Story references.

    Bruce, I think if it was the same word for word, it wouldnt have suites Dalton as much. I really can't for the life of me imagine him saying the line "Boys with toys".

    I think the film was a classic, and a super start to Brosnans era.

    Rather than seeing Tim in GE, I would have much rather see him bow out in another film better suited to him in between LTK and GE

    I'd actually rather see him in AVTAK. That might actually make me like that movie more. Plus I think it would be a good first movie for Dalton. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing his start in OP.

  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Bruce, I think if it was the same word for word, it wouldnt have suites Dalton as much. I really can't for the life of me imagine him saying the line "Boys with toys".
    I can. I prefer Natalya's delivery anyways.
    Rather than seeing Tim in GE, I would have much rather see him bow out in another film better suited to him in between LTK and GE
    I mean, ideally I'd have rather seen Dalton in every Bond film ever.

    Realistically, though, I probably prefer a film between LTK and GE, too.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,176
    I mean, ideally I'd have rather seen Dalton in every Bond film ever.

    Hurrah! Me too. I especially always wanted to see him do a Casino Royale and Moonraker that bore some resemblance to the books.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I think it ultimately depends on your views of Brosnan/Dalton/Bean as actors in general.

    I don't get the sense @Getafix is fond of Bean as an actor.

    I don't have too much of an issue with Bean. Bit 'TV' ish. I remembered the rumours about Hopkins being in the next Bond film so when Bean was cast I was a bit disappointed.

    Bean for me is not one of the great Bond villains.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    @TheSharkFromJaws

    I can't remember from the IMDB boards, are you a Craig fan? I am just assuming as you are a Dalton fan you may well be.

    I am personally of the opinion that Craig is essentially a facsimile of Dalton, with more muscles but less charisma.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I think it ultimately depends on your views of Brosnan/Dalton/Bean as actors in general.

    I don't get the sense @Getafix is fond of Bean as an actor.

    I don't have too much of an issue with Bean. Bit 'TV' ish. I remembered the rumours about Hopkins being in the next Bond film so when Bean was cast I was a bit disappointed.

    Bean for me is not one of the great Bond villains.

    Agreed. I read all the time how great the cast for Goldeneye is, but the only ones who spring to mind as any good are Karyo and John.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I personally find the almost unanimous adoration for GE inexplicable. A dull, cheap looking movie with mediocre script, direction and acting. I still remember how sitting through it as the cinema was like a living nightmare. Every worst fear made true. Cubby's death and the six year wait and then this. disappointment doesn't begin to describe my feelings.

    Brosnan making his appearance hanging upside down in a toilet summed it all for me. Bond had gone down the pan.

    Dalton would have improved it, and perhaps with him they'd have built a better film around him. But as it is I'm not sure he could have saved it because it's essentially not very good.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I personally find the almost unanimous adoration for GE inexplicable.

    For some...no actually A LOT...it was the first Bond film they saw and grew up with. Myself included.

    For me personally It was a definitive film. That's undebatable. I know its got its flaws but its always been one I've enjoyed when I've watched it. It's a film I have a strong personal and emotional connection to. Everyone has one Bond film they are nostalgic about and mine is GE so I am more than entitled to defend it.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I think it ultimately depends on your views of Brosnan/Dalton/Bean as actors in general.

    I don't get the sense @Getafix is fond of Bean as an actor.

    I don't have too much of an issue with Bean. Bit 'TV' ish. I remembered the rumours about Hopkins being in the next Bond film so when Bean was cast I was a bit disappointed.

    Bean for me is not one of the great Bond villains.

    Agreed. I read all the time how great the cast for Goldeneye is, but the only ones who spring to mind as any good are Karyo and John.

    Coltrane, Scorrupco, Dench, Kitchen, Janssen?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I personally find the almost unanimous adoration for GE inexplicable.

    For some...no actually A LOT...it was the first Bond film they saw and grew up with. Myself included.

    For me personally It was a definitive film. That's undebatable. I know its got its flaws but its always been one I've enjoyed when I've watched it. It's a film I have a strong personal and emotional connection to. Everyone has one Bond film they are nostalgic about and mine is GE so I am more than entitled to defend it.
    GE still remains the Bond film of the past 30 years that I most look forward to watching. I can never tire of it and I find it more entertaining than any of the Craig efforts. Prior to that it would be OP and then before that TSWLM.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    GE is the Best Bond film. It is perfect and flawless as it is. With Tim it would have bombed.
Sign In or Register to comment.