Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

QuantumOrganization

Getafix wrote: »

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.

Cubby died in 1996.

Thunderfinger

BAIN123 wrote: »

Thunderfinger wrote: »

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?

Oh yes, Kitchen was great! Best Tanner by far. The others are perhaps ok, but nothing special. Except Coltrane, he is exceptionally cringeworthy.

Tuck91

Dalton was so forced in his delivery, he had a few good moments but Brosnan was so relaxed in GE for a first outing.

BAIN123

Brosnan was quite uncomfortable in GE and even he admitted that in the EON doc.

Getafix

Brosnan looked uncomfortable throughout his tenure to me. In the sense that he never got into the role in any meaningful way.

The man himself agrees with me, so who am I to disagree.

James Bland.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/14/pierce-brosnan-james-bond-never-good-enough

This article perfectly sums up my views on Brosnan. Frankly he was an awful Bond. And the sad thing is he could actually have been alright. Laziness? Fear? Who knows, but he will never get a chance to put it right.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/apr/14/james-bond-pierce-brosnan-007-goldeneye?client=safari

Murdock

Never looked uncomfortable to me. He was always oozing charm and confidence. Never a forced line or overacted moment in his 4 films. Can't say the same for Dalton. I think Glen really let him down though. I think with the proper director we would have gotten better performances out of Tim. I enjoy Tim in his other non Bond films but I find him to be an awful Bond.

Getafix

Ha ha. Very funny.

Brosnan was definitely oozing something.

I actually prefer watching Dalton as Bond. Most of his other stuff is not particualrly interesting to me. As I've said many times, Bond aside, I probably would gravitate to something with Pierce in it more than Dalts.

I actually recognise the flaws in Dalton. I don't think I've ever claimed he was my favourite Bond. Rog and definitley Sean are head and shoulders above him.

However, Brosnan as Bond simply doesn't make the grade. For all his flaws, Dalton is an edgier, more interesting take on the character. And I think we'd have continued to see an evolution in his performance of he'd done a couple more. Which is more than can be said about Brosnan, whose interpretation started weakly and went nowhere.

Murdock

When I was younger I didn't care for Tim then around 2011 I liked him for a while but recently the flaws in his performances have become too glaring for me to enjoy. It's sad really, I want to like him as Bond but I just can't. He needed a Terrance Young that's for sure. A performance like he had in Hot Fuzz would have been great. Pierce will always be the Best Bond that's for sure.

Getafix

I never warmed to Brosnan as Bond, but can see how he might have been a lot better. I feel Brosnan was let down by his directors a lot more than Dalton.

Tim had the experience to come up with his own interpretation, even if John Glen wasn't that into characterisation. You're not required to like it, but most people can see Tim had his own distinct take - the forerunner of Craig's in many ways.

Brosnan just didn't know what to do with the character. Yes the writing was bad and the directing generally indifferent, but at the heart of it is a totally unfleshed out cardboard cutout of Bond.

Playing Bond is much more difficult than Brosnan realised. Sean and Rog made it look effortless when it's anything but.

Tim I think probably doesn't make it look effortless, but that's a reflection of his take on the character. He went back to the books and wanted to portray someone a bit more complex and troubled than the screen Bond had been up until that point.

I think one of Brozza's mistakes was actually learning the wrong lessons from Dalton. He thought (like almost everyone did back then) that Dalton had screwed up and that what everyone wanted was a return to cartoon antics and bad quips. Light and frothy with not much content .

Murdock

I never understood that honestly. Tim and Pierce had their own interpretation. Tim was just more temperamental and a bit of a rebel and Pierce was more relaxed, laid back and loyal to the mission. Neither of them redefined the character and didn't have to. I find Tim to be more a cardboard cutout because it just comes off that he's trying to be Connery and it doesn't work. I like a more relaxed Bond.

Getafix

I see where your coming from.

I too would have liked to see Tim relax into the role a little more, although I think the idea he's awkward or stiff the whole time is unfair.

And if you read what he's said about the character and where he wanted the third film to go, I think you'll find he agrees with you in terms of wanting a more devil may care style movie.

People seem to think he had a role in the direction they took with LTK. But he was handed the script a couple of weeks before shooting. Crazy when you think about it. He just had to get on and act the scenes that had been written for him. It would have been odd to have given a more relaxed performance in LTK, given the subject matter. I actually think he handles the constant changes in tone and mood pretty well.

Rog didn't really settle into his interpretation of the role until his third film. Imagine if Rog had only got to make two films and all we had to judge him on was LALD and Gun - his legacy would be seen very differently.

I think TLD is a pretty solid first entry for Tim. It seems to be fairly widely liked on here. And even on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes it rates highly, suggesting the general public and critics liked it too. LTK is definitlely the tricky second album, but all things considered, I think it stands up pretty well.

Murdock

I thought Tim was much better in LTK for the most part. He was much more relaxed. Though his random anger fits at Pam was rather off putting and unnecessary. The lack of the more cheesier elements from TLD also helped. LTK is in my top 10. It's a great movie. TLD is in the Bottom 5 at #20.

What kills TLD for me is mostly down to the villains, Kara, some of the humorous bits and some overracted moments from Tim and the dull Afghanistan finale. I absolutely hate the Cello case sled scene. I hate it as much as the second half of DAD which sits at the bottom of my rank.

I would be interested in seeing a version of GE with Tim though. It would be interesting though. Would have been a success? I don't know. I love it just the way it is.

Getafix

Agree with you about the Afghanistan stuff (apart from the cargo net fight, which is awesome) but I think the first half or two thirds of TLD is top notch. And as you say, any weaknesses are not primarily due to Tim.

Can't stand Joe Don Baker in TLD or as Wade in the Brosnan films.

However, great soundtrack, henchman, Aston Martin. And a very decent first Bond perofrmance IMO. I even like the cello scene!

Obviously you're entitled to your views, but even you must recognise that having TLD ranked so low is a bit of an anomaly. Not sure many on here or even amongst the general public would share that view.

And of course i recognise the same is true in terms of my views on GE.

Murdock

I'm hit and miss on the cargo net fight. The stunt work by BJ Worth and Jake Lombardi is great but it isn't the most exciting of fights. I liked Baker better as Wade but only in GE, like J.W. Pepper he was in one Bond movie too many. I like the first half of TLD but sadly the bad outweigh the good for me. Maybe when I get around to watching all the Bond movies again for my 2017 rank things will be different. I know one member here has it at the very bottom. It's a minority opinion sure but I just don't find it to be as great as most do. With some minor tweaks and better performances it would be much better to me.

Getafix

The Ruggiero treatment sounds quite interesting. Minus the cyborg girlfriend.

You can see how loads of this unmade film made its way into later Brosnan films.

The robot stuff always concernede but as described here doesn't sound so bad.

http://lifebetweenframes.blogspot.ug/2012/09/the-lost-dalton-film.html?m=1

Murdock

Reading that does put a lot of things into perspective though as a Bond movie I don't think it would have worked. Seems more suited for a Schwarzenegger flick but who knows.

Getafix

Totally depends on how the 'robots' were used. If they were going to be AI cyborgs then agreed total disaster. But if it they are basically industrial robots with a bit of tinkering and we're talking industrial espionage etc then I quite like the idea.

Also like the idea of Bond investigating following a major nuclear leak. The set up sounds good.

What appears to be a civilian nuclear accident is actually something much more sinister, which Bond uncovers.

Love Hong Kong as a location as well.

Lots of good ideas IMO.

Murdock

I agree 100%. I also like this cool Special Edition poster someone made for the MI6 site some years ago. Shame a larger version is nowhere to be found.

Getafix

Ahhh. What might have been!

Two more Daltons in 91 and 93 and you still get your GE!

Murdock

I can live with that. More Bond the better. :-bd.

Some_Kind_Of_Hero

I always believe the more Bonds the better myself, but still it's nice that Dalton had two excellent outings with minimal hiccups and went out on a very high note, IMHO.

bondjames

I wonder what the Fleming purists (I am not one) think of Brosnan's performances.

I wouldn't say he seemed uncomfortable in the role per se, except in GE perhaps. However, there was something about his interpretation which was very different to all the other Bond actors before him. Something less assured and more generic. More run of the mill and less distinctive. I can't quite put my finger on it. GE was such a throwback Bondian film (to me at least) with the Russian aspects and all, so I didn't notice it as much although the signs were there also.

In TND it became quite evident, but only after Kaufmann. Up until that point he was still not bad. I thought he was absolutely horrendous in the later half of TND (no Bond actor has worn the naval uniform less assuredly) and in all of TWINE. This had nothing to do with the scripts (although they were rather horrid in themselves), but more to do with him.

I found him at his best, ironically, in DAD. There was some of the cool, arrogant and stylish swagger that I expect from Bond. Examples include in Cuba, with Peaceful Fountains of Desire & Chang in HK, & in his dealings with Miranda.

BAIN123

I think DAD was where he seemed to get lazy.

In GE he was uncomfortable and rather self conscious but at least he was trying.

Nonetheless, I think his weakest scenes in that film are the Q scene, threatening Wade outside the airport ("Nooo...show me the rose") and the first part of the meeting with Valentin in the bar:

bondjames

Such a poseur. It worked in GE because Dalton was anything but. Then it became a bit tiresome imho.

tanaka123

bondjames wrote: »

I wonder what the Fleming purists (I am not one) think of Brosnan's performances.

I wouldn't say he seemed uncomfortable in the role per se, except in GE perhaps. However, there was something about his interpretation which was very different to all the other Bond actors before him. Something less assured and more generic. More run of the mill and less distinctive. I can't quite put my finger on it. GE was such a throwback Bondian film (to me at least) with the Russian aspects and all, so I didn't notice it as much although the signs were there also.

In TND it became quite evident, but only after Kaufmann. Up until that point he was still not bad. I thought he was absolutely horrendous in the later half of TND (no Bond actor has worn the naval uniform less assuredly) and in all of TWINE. This had nothing to do with the scripts (although they were rather horrid in themselves), but more to do with him.

I found him at his best, ironically, in DAD. There was some of the cool, arrogant and stylish swagger that I expect from Bond. Examples include in Cuba, with Peaceful Fountains of Desire & Chang in HK, & in his dealings with Miranda.

I was discussing Brosnan with a friend the other day and it struck me that either his performances (in all his films) are pretty good (eg The Ghost, Tailor of Panama) or bad (variety of TV movies he did such as Death Train etc.)

bondjames

tanaka123 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

I wonder what the Fleming purists (I am not one) think of Brosnan's performances.

I wouldn't say he seemed uncomfortable in the role per se, except in GE perhaps. However, there was something about his interpretation which was very different to all the other Bond actors before him. Something less assured and more generic. More run of the mill and less distinctive. I can't quite put my finger on it. GE was such a throwback Bondian film (to me at least) with the Russian aspects and all, so I didn't notice it as much although the signs were there also.

In TND it became quite evident, but only after Kaufmann. Up until that point he was still not bad. I thought he was absolutely horrendous in the later half of TND (no Bond actor has worn the naval uniform less assuredly) and in all of TWINE. This had nothing to do with the scripts (although they were rather horrid in themselves), but more to do with him.

I found him at his best, ironically, in DAD. There was some of the cool, arrogant and stylish swagger that I expect from Bond. Examples include in Cuba, with Peaceful Fountains of Desire & Chang in HK, & in his dealings with Miranda.

I was discussing Brosnan with a friend the other day and it struck me that either his performances (in all his films) are pretty good (eg The Ghost, Tailor of Panama) or bad (variety of TV movies he did such as Death Train etc.)

Don't remind me of Death Train. Awful. There was another film (I can't remember which one) where he breaks down and starts crying. Cringe worthy stuff.

Yes, I agree that he was somewhat inconsistent. The two you mention above are highlights for me. He was similarly excellent in The Fourth Protocol and The Noble House .

Thunderfinger

bondjames wrote: »

Such a poseur. It worked in GE because Dalton was anything but. Then it became a bit tiresome imho.

One of my problems with him as Bond.

Ludovico

bondjames wrote: »

tanaka123 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

I wonder what the Fleming purists (I am not one) think of Brosnan's performances.

I wouldn't say he seemed uncomfortable in the role per se, except in GE perhaps. However, there was something about his interpretation which was very different to all the other Bond actors before him. Something less assured and more generic. More run of the mill and less distinctive. I can't quite put my finger on it. GE was such a throwback Bondian film (to me at least) with the Russian aspects and all, so I didn't notice it as much although the signs were there also.

In TND it became quite evident, but only after Kaufmann. Up until that point he was still not bad. I thought he was absolutely horrendous in the later half of TND (no Bond actor has worn the naval uniform less assuredly) and in all of TWINE. This had nothing to do with the scripts (although they were rather horrid in themselves), but more to do with him.

I found him at his best, ironically, in DAD. There was some of the cool, arrogant and stylish swagger that I expect from Bond. Examples include in Cuba, with Peaceful Fountains of Desire & Chang in HK, & in his dealings with Miranda.

I was discussing Brosnan with a friend the other day and it struck me that either his performances (in all his films) are pretty good (eg The Ghost, Tailor of Panama) or bad (variety of TV movies he did such as Death Train etc.)

Don't remind me of Death Train. Awful. There was another film (I can't remember which one) where he breaks down and starts crying. Cringe worthy stuff.

Yes, I agree that he was somewhat inconsistent. The two you mention above are highlights for me. He was similarly excellent in The Fourth Protocol and The Noble House .

Oh I LOVE Death Train! Sure it's a bad movie but it has Christopher Lee, Patrick Stewart and Clarke Peters. And a train! We need more trains in our lives. Anyway it is a bad movie I love.

Regarding Brosnan he was happy playing the icon but never understood or truly tried to play the character.

bondjames

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

tanaka123 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

I wonder what the Fleming purists (I am not one) think of Brosnan's performances.

I wouldn't say he seemed uncomfortable in the role per se, except in GE perhaps. However, there was something about his interpretation which was very different to all the other Bond actors before him. Something less assured and more generic. More run of the mill and less distinctive. I can't quite put my finger on it. GE was such a throwback Bondian film (to me at least) with the Russian aspects and all, so I didn't notice it as much although the signs were there also.

In TND it became quite evident, but only after Kaufmann. Up until that point he was still not bad. I thought he was absolutely horrendous in the later half of TND (no Bond actor has worn the naval uniform less assuredly) and in all of TWINE. This had nothing to do with the scripts (although they were rather horrid in themselves), but more to do with him.

I found him at his best, ironically, in DAD. There was some of the cool, arrogant and stylish swagger that I expect from Bond. Examples include in Cuba, with Peaceful Fountains of Desire & Chang in HK, & in his dealings with Miranda.

I was discussing Brosnan with a friend the other day and it struck me that either his performances (in all his films) are pretty good (eg The Ghost, Tailor of Panama) or bad (variety of TV movies he did such as Death Train etc.)

Don't remind me of Death Train. Awful. There was another film (I can't remember which one) where he breaks down and starts crying. Cringe worthy stuff.

Yes, I agree that he was somewhat inconsistent. The two you mention above are highlights for me. He was similarly excellent in The Fourth Protocol and The Noble House .

Oh I LOVE Death Train! Sure it's a bad movie but it has Christopher Lee, Patrick Stewart and Clarke Peters. And a train! We need more trains in our lives. Anyway it is a bad movie I love.

Regarding Brosnan he was happy playing the icon but never understood or truly tried to play the character.

I'll have to watch Death Train again. You're right that the supporting cast is quite good.

TheSharkFromJaws

Roadphill wrote: »

@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.

I like Craig but I don't love him. I much prefer Dalton, Connery, and Moore in the role. I think Craig builds off of Dalton but I still think he has crafted his own unique portrayal and I actually think he may have Dalton beat in terms of charisma. Dalton, while my favorite, is certainly not the most charismatic Bond, but I really think he's purposely trying not to be in his interpretation.

That said, if we were to change the question to "Would GoldenEye have worked with Craig", I don't think he'd be able to do it. Dalton I think could.