It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
No, but I checked out Layer Cake as soon as he was mentioned and liked the prospect.
After GE I was not surprised where Brosnan's era headed.
Actually I'm not sure it was Broz I hated in 95 - I just distinctly remember feeling what a tired and cliched movie GE was. Something dragged through a committee backwards. Desperate to please and tick every box available. Sort of bereft of any hint of originality - zombie Bond. I think I gave Brozza himself the benefit of the doubt although wasn't enamoured of him.
I remember seeing him in the TTOP and thinking - wow, this guy isn't as bad as his Bond performance would suggest. Then TND actually was an improvement on GE for me - still highly generic and bland but for some reason just felt a little more up to date. I think it was partly the locations and production design which just seemed slightly more where I thought 90s Bond should be heading. Hamburg was a nice touch IMO.
Then came TWINE and DAD and his fate was sealed. TWINE was the absolute low point for me. DAD was atrocious but has that so bad it's good naff appeal. Like car crash TV. TWINE is just dull.
I think he knows that though to be fair. What I like about interviews with him is that even when he's critical about how his films were handled, he never shies away from admitting that Bond basically made his career and seems very grateful for it.
I had a sort of similar experience. I wasn't impressed when he was cast but that was because Dalton was the first Bond I saw. I'd been waiting years for a new Dalton Bond film, watching the videos of his two and over and over, and then they finally make a new one and he wasn't in it. I was pretty disappointed so I wasn't really willing to give Brosnan a chance. Then I saw that first trailer in the cinema (I can't even remember what I went to see now) I couldn't help but be excited. Bond was back. Then when I finally saw the film I thought he was great.
In response to the thread question I think it would have been successful but not as successful. I think Dalton was more popular than people give him credit for, I was really young at the time so can't really remember but my adoptive dad was a big Bond fan and he always gave me the impression that TLD did quite well. But Brosnan really resonated with audiences. He had proper star power as Bond and I think people forget how big his films actually were. Robert Carlyle said that while they were filming TWINE in Spain it was like Beatlemania. Huge crowds. He'd never seen anything like it. I think the same is true with Craig, there's definitely mass appeal (the success of SF proves that) but it felt different in the 90s. Like Brosnan was the main attraction rather than the films. Sort of like Doctor Who with David Tennant, it was still very popular with Matt Smith but back when Tennant was in it it really was his show, people watched it for him. I think the same is true of Brosnan. That might just be how I remember it though.
EDIT: I think I was a bit unfair actually because with CR there was a lot of buzz around how good Craig was. I think that SF and SP have sort of distorted my memory of it, because with those films, the mass appeal of them seemed to come from nostalgia (I think that's why SP did so much better in the UK than the US, it really struck a cord with critics and audiences who probably watched the old Connery and Moore on ITV and had forgotten all about how it felt seeing that magic for the first time) and the brand itself. Whereas with Brosnan the focus was on fresh new 90s Bond and he was the star, the main attraction. But there was lots of similar hype around Craig back when he was the gritty reboot Bond. I just think that with the last two the hype has been less about him and more just about the novelty of a new Bond film. Maybe because they take longer to make, maybe because of how nostalgic and old school the last two were, but that's just how I see it.
Pre-Bond, Brozzer was either support in bigger budget films, or the lead in low budget films. Similar, in fact to Daniel Craig a few years later. The difference was Craig was starting to work with A list directors and building a solid reputation. I think Brosnan was (maybe) going in circles, and probably destined for another stint on TV (which is not such a bad thing now). Bond came at the right time for him.
Dalton is a more interesting case. Being Bond never harms anyone's career, but Dalton has slipped under the radar somewhat and imagining where he would have ended up without Bond is hard to predict. Whereas Craig would have forged a career in film and on stage of some repute if not so noticeable to the public at large( because Bond definitely gave him a useful leg up), Dalton had been around for nearly 20 years pre-Bond, nearly making it on the big screen (he was a good Heatcliffe and did well in the Cromwell film), but somehow disappeared from view. By the 80s he was a guest star on Charlie's Angels, and singing to Mae West. That showed how far he had gone downhill. Bond did help him along, but he has never really become a top star either side of Bond.
I know that Craig has struggled at the BO, but the difference is he is highly regarded in the movie world, and gets the opportunities with well respected directors. If he plays Broadway it sells out, because it's Daniel Craig. He has taken his chance and forged a career to suit himself.
So has Brosnan,
So did Moore and Connery.
Dalton never got a foothold anywhere, until - arguably - Penny Dreadful. It took nearly 30 years after his Bond stint to make a dent. So, without Bond he would have had, if anything, a similar career to what he ended up with.
Maybe the only Bond actor not to successfully exploit the massive career opportunities the part offered?
Surely Lazenby fits that tag best? Although he did claim he was blacklisted.
I knew him from... Elizabeth. Loving everything about that movie I kept an open mind but was skeptical at first. Brosnan I was enthusiastic and it took me DAD to reevaluate him.
Im sure it would have been successful, but maybe not to the level it was with Brosnan.
I don't really think the general public really took to Dalton, he didn't seem to capture the imagination the way that Connery, Moore or even Brosnan and Craig did.
Now we know that a lot of die hard Bond fans love Tim, but it never really translated to big box office. Im sure Goldeneye would have still been a good film with Dalton, but as successful? Im not sure. I think the script would have been tailored more to suit him, but I love it just the way it is.
It is one of the few Bond films I find extremely hard to pick fault with, unless I really, really nitpick.
I did hesitate over that, but in his own way Lazenby made Bond work in his favour. While Tim will do interviews and discuss the role, George has gone full throttle. Any subsequent acting roles, investing his money wisely as he earned it, and now doing the circuit of Memorabelia events and Bond events, George has become wealthy on the back of this one movie.
Tim, whilst a good ambassador for the franchise when called on to be, has never exploited the opportunity he was given. He made small budget films like Hawks (he was very good in that) at the time of Bond, but his film career stalled very quickly afterwards. His is a strange career.
I think the general audience struggled to accept him, because of the wild difference in style of what had came before, ie Roger Moore. Taking the style of film out of the equation, there has never been a more jarring change in the way the Bond character is portrayed.
When Lazenby took over from Sean, he basically followed the same blueprint set before him.
Ditto Moore, although as his films moved on his own interpretation began to shine through.
Even from Brosnan to Craig, the difference wasn't as severe. Obviously things where more stripped back with Craig, but the filmakers had already began to add more sensitivity and personal cost during the Brosnan era.
I believe thats why Tim struggled with the masses in the way he did.
I recall being more than ready for a new interpretation when Moore stepped down. We were desperate for a younger, fitter, more serious Bond, believe me. I can remember quite vividly.
Dalton didn't fail (no Bond has ever failed), but the series was already stumbling. Box office was going downwards. It needed a massive overhaul, not just a new actor.
It needed to be edgier, shinier, more modern, with a more dynamic, possibly beefier hero (this was the era of Arnie and Sly and co). TLD was a good film, exciting and energetic, but it could only hold back the tide for so long. It still looked old fashioned next to Die Hard and Indiana Jones. And Dalton didn't appeal to the masses.
GoldenEye got it right, and whether we accept it or not. It got Bond back to where it needed to be.
I think the casual fan still expected a certain level of humour and escapism from Bond, at least in the 80's.
Fair enough. I approached it differently by thinking that Lazenby's actual film career was kind of gone afterwards. His future work felt like aftershocks of the earthquake that was OHMSS. Dalton might not have had the most illustrious career post-Bond, but at least people can name something he's done.
But it is hard to tell how much of this is Bond propelling him or not, etc. Lazenby's definitely done more in terms of being Bond's ambassador, I agree.
On the other hand, I thought Lazenby was nearly broke for a while and made his fortune off real estate more than anything else?
I remember I watched Dalton it and thought he was bloody excellent. I preferred his performance as the con artist in Framed to his Bond performance in LTK. This series also features a very young Penelope Cruz, and is well-worth tracking down in its entirety, not the shortened version. After that, Dalton seemed to vanish again until the $45 million production of Scarlett TV mini-series, where he played Rhett Butler. Sadly, this wasn't that well received from American critics. Variety even stated: "Whalley-Kilmer and the underrated Dalton have proven their talents elsewhere, but the script lets them down with these one-dimensional characters." Alas, it seemed like an ill-advised venture on Dalton's part to get involved in this novelty act from a continuation novelist that made the curious decision to relocate the story from the Deep South trappings of Civil War America to England and Ireland. This production seemed to coincide with Dalton's resignation from Bond in the same year, I think.
So, apart from the Gone With the Wind sequel, I can't understand any of Dalton's career choices and why he didn't get himself a better agent. I'm also not sure whether Dalton not relocating to America was what truly harmed his career. Both Brosnan and Craig relocated there. I think that might be another reason why he didn't establish or ingratiate himself in the States like he should've done.
He was good in The Rocketeer, and if anyone gets the chance to see Hawks, then Dalton is very good in that. It's a black comedy about men living with cancer. Funny and heart breaking.
I've never seen his excursions into TV Movie land.
Yes totally agree. Dalton's career is bizarre. Promising early years then fades before getting Bond. But I don't think he saw Bond as a big deal somehow. Perhaps he lacked the ambition or drive. He certainly could have done with a better agent in his post Bond years. He's mainly done trash. Not sure if he's done so little because he wanted it that way (and signs are he's moderately well off and doesn't probably need to work) or whether he just hasn't had the offers. The latter I suspect.
Have to say I admire Brosnan for the way he used Bond to reboot his career.
Maybe, as the above poster said, he just had a crap agent.
Brosnan did even better than that: he used Bond to build his career or at least keep on working before he even had the role.
Dalton hasn't, and neither has Craig in my view.
He also made films while he was Bond,such as Dante's Peak,which kept his public profile on a high, and HE became the box-office draw.
He kept busy.
It's only as Bond that I feel Dalton excelled.
Agreed,he thought things out very well did Brosnan.
Dalton doesn't really appeal to me,except maybe in Flash Gordon,Hot Fuzz and Penny Dreadful.
Time will tell if Craig manages much. I must say the only non-Bond work of his I particularly enjoyed was Layer Cake.
I honestly can't think of a single one of Dalton's other than Hot Fuzz. I know he did the Rocketeer, that was awful. I seem to remember seeing him in a low budget Exorcist knock off too, but the fact I cant even remember the name of the film tells you all you need to know of what I thought of it.
Dalton...I don't know. It does seem odd that he's not had the impact in the film world that the others have had. One would have thought that, given his background, he would have wanted something more challenging besides scene-stealing parts in fairly fluffy films.
I recently watched American Outlaws starring Dalton and a young Collin Farrel. Not a good film by any means, but Dalton was definitely the best aspect about it. I wonder whether he gravitates towards certain "types" of roles perhaps, roles that are set in a specific historical period or those where he tends to play more flamboyant, authoritative characters. Kings, Emperors, Sheriffs etc.
I still think he fits better on television and seems to have found more meatier roles there outside of Bond (Centennial, Jane Eyre, Framed, Penny Dreadful etc).
Despite his relatively limp film career (lets be honest), no one can argue that his theatre credentials are very impressive.