Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

17778808283104

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @Getafix, I'm afraid I can't see Dalton in GE. Even if it had starred another older Alec rather than Bean. It's too fantasy oriented and 'fun' for him.

    Like Craig, Dalton needed something darker to really come alive. I'm not saying another LTK revenge tale, but certainly something with a bit more consequence than a regular Bond outing. Perhaps if they had built up the Alec/Bond rivalry a bit more it could have worked with Dalts.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Hopkins : Dalton

    The Lion in Winter all over again.

    Would have been awesome.
    Of course you'd need a proper script not the drek we actually got in GE.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,189
    To me GE can be viewed repeatedly. It's the only Bond film I can quote off the top of my head in its entirety. Frankly I'm proof that it's immensely rewatchable ;)

    The others don't even come close in competing.

    Like I've said before Dalton is a fine actor but I really don't think he has what it takes on the big screen. I'll be more convinced otherwise when he actually does a main role in a notable film. The likes of Lion in Winter worked for him because they fitted his stage trained acting style and even then he wasn't in the leading role.

    Maybe it was a case of him turning down scripts but I can't think why he wouldn't have wanted a more meaty film role given his impressive theatre training.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @BAIN123

    Quotability is indeed a sign of a film being immensely rewatchable.

    It happened to me with SPECTRE, after the third viewing I was able to go through a great part of the dialogue in my mind and by the sixth or seventh I could have spoken every word seconds before they were spoken on screen.

    Same goes for GoldenEye naturally. And The Living Daylights and surprisingly for Diamonds Are Forever.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @Getafix

    This is one of my favourite threads as well.

    Because it constantly challenges me with the internal conflict I have. While you clearly can do without Brosnan I cannot.

    GoldenEye has been my No 1 film for 20 years.
    But DALTON RULEZ™ is so clearly my No 1 Bond that I indeed can imagine him in GoldenEye.

    Naturally the film would have to be adapted to Dalton somewhat.

    It's a sad fact that Dalton was unlucky with EON's history. If none of the unfortunate events had occurred, Dalton would have been established by his third film and probably have been Bond until 1997.

    I'm not usually in things like "if this, if that" though.

    Overall, it's totally ok how the franchise played out like it did. Even if this current era clearly could have been so much better.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I could certainly do without Brosnan's last three, but I'm actually happy he showed up when he did (finally) and did GE, which is a masterclass effort on many levels.

    Somewhat controversially, the one actor I wouldn't lose sleep over not being in the frame is Dalton, regrettably. The timing of his tenure was not right. The world was not ready for him in 1986, and the films didn't do as well commercially as a result, which had repercussions. Ultimately, this is a business and he had the worst commercial intro of any Bond actor, followed by a film that did even worse (which I enjoy and which is a top 10 for me, mind you).

    I would have preferred Brosnan in 1986 and Dalton to take over sometime in the 90's when the world was ready for him. I've always felt that Brosnan had much more of a confident edge to him when he was younger (watch The Noble House to see what I mean. He owns the screen, even when starring with a scene chewer like John Rhys-Davies). This was before his early 90's 'B' movie phase and before his wife passed. He was truly on fire around the time he didn't get Bond. Shame.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @bondjames
    TLD is the one film I would fight for with my life.

    Dalton was perfect for it and 1987 was the perfect year for it.

    It is my belief that in 1987 the public was tired of Bond as never before and even Connery returning for TLD wouldn't have changed the decline in BO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'm not sure I agree @BondJasonBond006, but I realize I will never be able to convince a self confessed Daltonite! I think the world was ready for Brosnan in 1987, and 1987 to around 1997 would have been a perfect time for him (his peak).

    Both GF & TLD are two films that I most disagree with the general community on. TMWTGG as well, but there I have a positive view in comparison to the community at large.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited April 2017 Posts: 45,489
    TLD and Dalton were both received very well.Better than AVTAK. I don t remember a single soul mentioning Brosnan.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's our cousins across the pond who were obsessed with Brosnan. No one in the UK or Europe knew or cared less about Brosnan not getting the part in 1987
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I was too young to know the dynamics at that time, but I have read that many were waiting for Brosnan, and that Dalton was seen as an unconvincing and forgettable usurper. I lived in London at the time, and I knew of Brosnan. I had no idea who Dalton was, but then again, I didn't watch the films he made at the time.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It was Brosnan who was the eventual usurper.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Usurper is quite a term to use on Dalton or Brosnan...

    The only one that term can be applied to obviously is Craig.

    Brosnan should and could have stayed on longer.

    It's also Craig who I can imagine as the only of the great six to not have been at all.

    He was unnecessary if there ever has been an unnecessary choice.

    Brosnan elevated the franchise to unknown heights and DAD was his most successful even.

    Brosnan in another film in 2006 would have been at least as successful as Craig in CR.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Brosnan elevated the franchise to unknown heights and DAD was his most successful even.

    Brosnan in another film in 2006 would have been at least as successful as Craig in CR.
    I wouldn't say he elevated it to unknown heights. DAD & TWINE are panned by many of the general public and the critics. In terms of financial success, DAD is his most successful, but it's only 13 on the list (inflation adjusted worldwide gross which admittedly is very difficult to measure accurately due to the passage of time and due to currency variations during the period) according to 007james. MR, CR, TSWLM, YOLT, LALD, SP. GF, TB, DAF, QoS, FRWL & SF all thrash it.

    I agree that Brosnan could have brought a financial success to a film in 2006, but I doubt it would have been received well critically. His trajectory in this respect was unfortunately a downward spiral.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's our cousins across the pond who were obsessed with Brosnan. No one in the UK or Europe knew or cared less about Brosnan not getting the part in 1987

    You're wrong. At least one person I know admitted to me that she signed a petition backing him to be Bond back in the 80s. Granted he was more popular in the States but he still had his fans over here.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    Sorry @bondjames but critics were full of praise for TWINE and especially DAD at the time.

    And inflation adjusted is the lame excuse people always bring. Studios and monetary reality couldn't care less about what could have been.

    DAD was the most successful Bond film to date. In real monetary terms.

    Sure, now, today, things are looked upon differently critic wise. But the same can happen to all the Craig era films once time has passed. CR may be already old enough to be ensured the eternal classic it is.

    Brosnan gets too much unfair flack.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @BondJasonBond006, I can't recall much praise for DAD & TWINE at the time. Perhaps your experience was different. Sure, there were some who thought highly of it then, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find them openly admitting it today, and that says something. Nobody is ashamed to heap praise on a true classic.

    Inflation adjusted is relevant to everyone because it reflects and approximates ticket sales (bums in seats). The value of money declines with time (especially these days when it's value is literally going into the toilet) and that's why this measure is quite pertinent. As I said, it's very difficult to measure across 40+ years and across several continents, so the numbers must be taken with a grain of salt.

    However, if anyone is trying to suggest that DAD was as successful as films during the height of Bondmania or even during the resurgence of the late 70's, I'm afraid I can't take them seriously. Those films had iconic cultural relevancy, as did SF. DAD is just a money making film, like countless others.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    Ticket sales wise, the last truly successful film was TSWLM, all others that came after it can't compare.

    Ticket sales wise the Craig era with CR and QOS was rather disappointing compared to what Brosnan generated. Only SF came nearer to the mark that was once reached TSWLM and before.

    It's too complicated and impossible to compare films of the 60s, 70's, 80's, etc.
    Because ticket prices skyrocketed and nowadays in this decade a lot of special tickets cost a lot like IMAX for instance.

    Brosnan was a huge success for EON from GE to DAD, also critics wise. It wasn't in any way less well received than Dalton's or Moore's.

    I never claimed DAD was a classic like TSWLM or even films of the Connery era.

    If anything ever came close to the classic standard that TSWLM and films before had, then it's only GE and CR.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    @bondjames

    http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/die-another-day-2002

    this review stands for a lot of US reviews of that time, I can provide you dozens like that. Also I find that review a very good assessment of the film.

    Edit: here is TWINE

    http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-world-is-not-enough-1999
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I feel the same way. When I first became a Bond fan I didn't really like Tim as Bond all that much. Then a few years ago I really liked him though I think it was due to the overpraise he gets. The after my most recent viewing of his films, I think he was severly miscast for the role. But outside of Bond I really like Dalton. His performance in Hot Fuzz is my favorite.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There is almost a prevailing attitude on here that, even putting Bond aside, Dalton is the superior actor. I have seen plenty of films starring both men and I don't see that at all. Brosnan continues to impress me, Tim not so much. The effort and the craft get in the way of any appearance of being natural. He never just seems to be. Always trying to be.

    Spot on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @BondJasonBond006, I was shocked to read those two reviews from the late Roger Ebert.

    This from the DAD one:
    "The film has been directed by Lee Tamahori (whose credits include "Once Were Warriors" and "Mulholland Falls"), from New Zealand, who has tilted the balance away from humor and toward pure action. With "Austin Powers" breathing down the neck of the franchise, he told Sight & Sound magazine, it seemed like looking for trouble to broaden the traditional farcical elements. "

    And this from the TWINE one:
    "All of these elements are assembled by director Michael Apted and writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Bruce Feirstein into a Bond picture that for once doesn't seem like set pieces uneasily glued together, but proceeds in a more or less logical way to explain what the problem and solution might be. Bond's one-liners seem more part of his character this time, and Carlyle's villain emerges as more three-dimensional and motivated, less of a caricature, than the evildoers in some of the Bond films."

    I couldn't disagree more. I suppose they were those who felt this way in 1999 and 2002. I think we should consider ourselves very lucky that Babs & EON weren't influenced by this, but rather decided to take the franchise in a new direction. I'm hoping they do the same shortly.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There is almost a prevailing attitude on here that, even putting Bond aside, Dalton is the superior actor. I have seen plenty of films starring both men and I don't see that at all. Brosnan continues to impress me, Tim not so much. The effort and the craft get in the way of any appearance of being natural. He never just seems to be. Always trying to be.

    I agree in many respects except I find Tim a better Bond. He's far more British than Pierce who for a number of reasons just comes across as a midatlantic type.

    I've said many times I'm happier to watch Brosnan in a non Bond movie than Dalton.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I was too young to know the dynamics at that time, but I have read that many were waiting for Brosnan, and that Dalton was seen as an unconvincing and forgettable usurper. I lived in London at the time, and I knew of Brosnan. I had no idea who Dalton was, but then again, I didn't watch the films he made at the time.

    I was also quite young at the time but don't think Brosnan had anything like Dalton's profile in the UK. Brosnan was pretty much unknown outside the U.S.
    @bondjames

    http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/die-another-day-2002

    this review stands for a lot of US reviews of that time, I can provide you dozens like that. Also I find that review a very good assessment of the film.

    Edit: here is TWINE

    http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-world-is-not-enough-1999

    There are some good US reviews of TLD from the time. The press seemed to quite like Dalton at the time.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Was Dalton somewhat known and liked at the time? To me Dalton just seemed like an actor the world didn't really know what to think of, like Timothy Who? But they just kind of went along with it and obviously gaining the fans respect but not the general populations. Then after LTK people were really indifferent.

    It's kind of a gamble with Bond films, because the producers have seen a nobody become a superstar (Sean) but the same formula didn't apply to Dalton. Consequentially casting a popular actor worked with Moore but hurt the films quality and acting when casting Pierce.

    Hence why the casting process is so difficult.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Dalton was hardly a nobody. I'd say his profile in the UK was significantly higher than Brosnan's back in 87. He appeared in big Hollywood films as far back as the 60s, as well as leading roles in TV dramas and was dating acting royalty at the time.

    I will repeat it again as it deserves repeating - LTK only underperformed in the US. Elsewhere, including most European markets it performed well. UA/MGM or whoever the studio were known as at that time seemed to take an active dislike to Dalton, undermining the films release in the US.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Still think Dalton fits better as a supporting player in films and as a lead on television. Outside Bond he's not done one notable lead role in a film.

    Some actors just don't seem to make the leap from tv to film as well as others.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Interesting.

    I honestly think it's with hindsight that most people say that Brosnan was better known as he went on to be the more (commercially at least) successful Bond and longer lived.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I can't really comment on Brosnan before Bond as I was too young to remember but, having looked at a few of his poor pre-Bond films, he did seem a fairly lightweight actor who had carved a fan base for himself because of a lightweight show.

    I get the impression Dalton was moderately well known by the public but perhaps not on the same level as John Geulgud, Richard Harris, Jonathan Pryce etc.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Brosnan was well known of course. He was Remington Steele, one of the most loved and best known sleuth on television around the world.

    Only Moore had a similar popularity already when he got to Bond.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Brosnan was well known of course. He was Remington Steele, one of the most loved and best known sleuth on television around the world.

    Only Moore had a similar popularity already when he got to Bond.

    Both Remington Steele and The Saint were very popular in America too.

    RS though didn't seem that well received in the U.K.
Sign In or Register to comment.