Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

17273757778104

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wonder what the Fleming purists (I am not one) think of Brosnan's performances.

    I don't know if I'd call my self a "Fleming Purist", because I can enjoy the more outrageous Bond films (at times), as well, but I do think of Fleming's character as the ideal. I feel that Brosnan is the furthest from Fleming's version of the six. I like his films fairly well, and I think he is fun to watch, but I don't see Fleming's Bond at all. I see the prototypical (taking everything up to that point) cinematic Bond. Much of that is how the character was written, much due to P{fierce himself, but I also the fact that he was never given even a scene taken directly from Fleming's work didn't help.
    Thanks. Even though I'm not all that familiar with Fleming (I've read a few of the books), that's pretty much how I feel. I can sense a consistency in the character with all the other Bond actors despite their different nuances, takes and approaches. Almost like I can anticipate how they might react in a situation. With Brosnan post-GE and until DAD, I felt I was watching a different character entirely.

    As an example, early Connery, early Moore, Dalton in TLD & early Craig are all the same character. To me it's clear.
  • Posts: 15,110
    I think Brosnan worked on projection during his whole time as Bond. The projection people had of him before he even played the role. Before he was cast even.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    Of course GoldenEye would have been a success with Dalton. The series' continued success after Connery left the role - even in the face of a few bumps in the road (e.g. Lazenby, TMWTGG) - proved that Bond was bigger than the actor playing him.

    No matter who was playing him, Bond was back after 6 years in a well-produced action thriller that finally felt modern and big-scale after the lackluster John Glen films. Add the buzz about the film addressing the fall of the Soviet Union, as well as a female M, and people would have definitely bought tickets.

    I won't pretend Brosnan wasn't one of the film's draws, but I don't think he was the deciding factor in its success. He was a bland, inoffensive, safe choice. I would have much preferred to see Dalton, who was an intriguing choice for Bond, with a clear, modern take on the character. Or even Sean Bean.

    Dalton's take on Bond - the vulnerable, dangerous, burnt-out secret agent - was 007 for the 21st century. TLD, LTK and GE (which was developed for Dalton) laid out a clear trajectory towards that idea. But the series got off track thanks to Brosnan's "greatest hits" portrayal, before it was dragged kicking and screaming back to the 21st century in the Craig films. Basically, Dalton's portrayal became the series' future, and Brosnan would end up just a detour.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    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.


    TLD isn't top notch, it's possibly one of the worst bond, and the one i found the most boring, Afghanistan such an exotic location! I always wanted to go there! Oh and Dalton never seemed much in control. He was rather bland during his bond tenure.

    Brosnan on the other hand, was totally in control. Granted he was a bit smug and some of his movies are a bit silly, but that's partly what bond is about. We don't want a Jason Bourne or a Jack ryan do we? Brosnan back then was the only man popular to do it, the other odds were like 1/25 like arnold or stalone, christ's sake even Sharon Stone had a rumour floating around she would be the next bond.

    He did the job remarkably well even with his over-the-top scripts.

    Goldeneye wouldn't have been a success as much as it was with Brosnan, we all saw how badly the Dalton movies did financially in comparison with Sir rog!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Murdock, you nailed something about Bond: he's loyal to the mission, and that's why Dalton's Bond never rings true... He's too left of center for the role. He's not jaded, like some call him (that's DC in SF). Dalton's the anti-establishment man (better in a Le Carre book/film), whereas--

    -- No matter what, 007 can have doubts about the intentions of a mission, but he is always loyal to the mission. He is always right of center, and gives benefit of the doubt to the "old man" that sends him on his missions... For right or wrong...
  • Posts: 1,680
    Brosnan was Bond the moment he piledrived that tank onto the streets of St Petersberg. Dalton would have hammed up a lot of the drama & dialogue in Goldeneye. The problem with Dalton was they didnt move him with the times, he was never well recieved critically IMO.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Here's a controversial opinion that i should post in another thread: 007 in DAF was more jaded than Dalton "jaded-acting" in TLD and LTK... and i will do that now...
  • Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Hated the tank.

    +1

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,132
    Having just watched GE I have to say, the more I watch this film, the more I enjoy it.
    GE has been a film that I genuinely used to find hard to enjoy. From the first time I saw it back in '95 it never appealed to me as it seemed to for many other fans. Though over time I've gradually found myself liking it more and more. In my last Bondathon toward the end of last year, it had risen to 11th in my overall ranking of the series.
    After this viewing, I dare say it could rise even higher up the list. Truth be told, GE is a fantastic Bond film, and Pierce Brosnan completely owns the film. I'm a big fan of the Timothy Dalton entries, especially TLD which has consistently remained in my top ten if not top five since '87. However, I don't think Dalton would've handled GE as well as Brosnan did. GE feels like a 60's Bond film, thrown into the 90's. It has the over the top villains and scheme. Even has an underground lair from which the villain tries to throw the world into chaos. I just don't feel that Daltons Bond would've been as comfortable in the scenario as Brosnan Bond is. Brosnan is fantastic in the film, he reinvigorates the series, at a time when it needed a shot in the arm. Had GE been a flop, then I think Bond would've been off screens for a very long time. If not altogether. Pierce was a massive reason why Bond became a popular screen character in the 90's and continued into the present day with Daniel Craig. He may not have been the best actor, or even best Bond. But he was an everyman Bond, who appealed to fans and more importantly, the general audience. It's hard not to like Pierce.
    So to answer the question, no GE wouldn't have been as successful with Dalton is my feeling.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Haven't watched GE for years. Dire movie.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 1,970
    Goldeneye wouldn't have worked with Dalton. I do think both of Daltons movies would of worked with Brosnan.

    The people wanted Brosnan not Dalton. And theres proof in that with LTK. I know some will say GE would of been successful with Dalton. I don't think so. I give Brosnan 90% of the credit for bringing the Bond series back from the dead. People wanted him.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    Haven't watched GE for years. Dire movie.

    You don't like it? Wow, you've never said that before :O
  • Posts: 1,970
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ahhh. What might have been!

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

    I think Dalton would of had 1 more. It be hard to see him getting another one after that
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I honestly think Dalton could have nailed GE. It was written for an 'amalgam' composite Bond. The spark & depth came from all the supporting characters rather that from Bond.

    If Dalton had played GE like he played the earlier parts of TLD (particularly Koskov's escape in Bratislava), I think he would have been excellent in it. However, there's no doubt that he would have been older in 1995 vs. 1987, and so I don't know if he could have come across as youthfully energetic as he did in his first film.

    That youthful vigor from Brosnan is part of what gave GE its energy, & the same applies to Craig in CR.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,189
    The truth is Dalton has never been as popular an actor as Brosnan. Kind of a shame really but I think Dalton's more reclusive nature plays a part in that. I sense that he's a bit uncomfortable with the limelight, whereas Broz likes it.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    How about Brosnan in casino Royale
  • Posts: 11,189
    How about Brosnan in casino Royale

    Hmm...no. Craig's excellent in it.
  • Posts: 1,970
    How about Brosnan in casino Royale
    It wouldnt have worked unless it was Brosnans first Bond film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    No, I don't think Brosnan could have pulled off CR. That film needed an actor's actor. Scene chewing Eva Green needed a capable sparring partner, and Craig was that man.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    How about Brosnan in casino Royale
    It wouldnt have worked unless it was Brosnans first Bond film.

    Not even then.
  • Posts: 1,970
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    How about Brosnan in casino Royale
    It wouldnt have worked unless it was Brosnans first Bond film.

    Not even then.

    I think it could of worked
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Brosnan probably would have nailed SP, but not CR.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to see that Tarantino-directed CR starring Brosnan. I wouldn't take that over what we were given, but it would be interesting to see.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    bondjames wrote: »
    Brosnan probably would have nailed SP, but not CR.

    True SPECTRE is a very Brosnan bond film
  • Posts: 11,425
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to see that Tarantino-directed CR starring Brosnan. I wouldn't take that over what we were given, but it would be interesting to see.

    Definitely
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Samuel L. Jackson cameoing as the mysterious agent who kills Le Chiffe?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The question is, which role would Samuel L. Jackson have featured in?
    Why Felix of course! Unless Quentin wanted to be the one who cast the first black Bond.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Also, instead of "the bitch is dead" I suspect it would have been a bit stronger :))
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    It would have been interesting to see.
    CpKbe9qh.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    "You were expecting someone else?" :))
Sign In or Register to comment.