Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

18586889091104

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    Are they? I mean are you saying they are or they aren't?
  • Posts: 11,189
    They are...or at least they were before and during his Bond run.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Has anyone seen Dalton on stage? If so, how is he?
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    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.
    That's an interesting thought. Possibly.
  • Posts: 2,918
    For insight into Dalton's past roles and his reasons for choosing them, this long AVClub interview is valuable.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Very interesting read. Thanks for posting that @Revelator. I learned a lot. I didn't know Dalton was in an episode of Charlies Angels for instance. That fight is borderline ridiculous!
  • Posts: 676
    Thanks for sharing, @Revelator. I realized halfway through that I'd read it before, but I still finished it, good to read again. Dalton is very gracious in praising all the people he's enjoyed working with and just leaving the rest behind. I also appreciated his anecdote about young people believing that Nazis are nothing more than "movie villains." Quite bothersome.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 3,333
    I think, perhaps, another problem that Dalton faced in the early 90s was that there wasn't really enough or, indeed, any big roles for leading British actors in Hollywood at the time. Most other fellow UK actors were consigned to playing the supporting role of villain in these big productions, as did Dalton in Rocketeer. Dalton just wasn't a big enough draw to green-light a megabucks project, which was probably why he took on Scarlett, maybe hoping to reverse that. I'm speculating, of course. The fact that the next Bond movie, The Property of a Lady, was whipped out from under him, didn't help him either. Personally, I feel that Dalton was a victim of UA's poor decision to save money by turning LTK into an American production as a tax incentive, and then release their hybrid among the other summer blockbusters of 89 with an adult certificate.

    Can anyone name an alternative leading role that should've gone to Dalton instead of another British actor in the early 90s?

    To a certain degree, I think even Craig is suffering from the lack of big roles for leading English actors in Hollywood movies, hence his decision to now play smaller supporting roles in quirky productions that interest him. I guess he no longer needs the money and can afford to be picky.

    That said, neither was Brosnan doing particularly well in the early 90s, despite him benefiting from playing an American rather than a Brit, he didn't get any big movie roles, until his belated supporting role in Mrs Doubtfire put him back on the producer's radar. I think the other difference was that Brosnan had zero aspirations of taking to the stage ever again once he'd made the transition to the big screen, unlike Dalton, who felt more comfortable and at ease treading the boards. I think it all comes down to Brosnan being more driven than Dalton to succeed in Tinseltown, and his younger/boyish good looks gave him a better edge. Or maybe it was just luck of the Irish?

    ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS: It's also easy to forget the huge impact that True Lies had back in 94 with audiences. I recall James Cameron saying in interviews that he made the movie because he missed there not being a big James Bond movie, and that he wanted to fill the vacuum. True Lies was, up until then, the most expensive movie ever made. Though loosely based on a mediocre French movie, it was to all intents and purposes a Bond movie with a subtle twist. The movie was huge back in 94 and, if anything, showed UA/MGM that scrimping on the next Bond budget wasn't the best way for good returns. I also think, and I'm merely speculating again, that it was another reason why the studio bosses decided on rebooting the series with a fresh face. It wasn't so much GE that relit the fuse for future espionage thrillers, but the colossal success of True Lies, for which GE was one of its beneficiaries. The first Jack Ryan movie, Hunt for Red October, was incidentally another good example of the early 90s spy thriller doing it bigger and better than Bond.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Funny thing about Dalton is he never finished acting school, dropping out of RADA after a year. Whereas Brosnan and Rog both completed their studies (as far as I know). Brosnan had some decent stage credits to his name before going into TV.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    @bondsum. I loved True Lies as a teenager. Never saw it in the cinema though as i was too young and It wasn't until Boxing Day night on BBC 1 in 1997 when I first watched it. Saw it again a few days ago on Sky. It's still a pretty fun movie even if it's rather dated.

    You can definitely see where GE got a lot of its inspiration.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    bondjames wrote: »
    Has anyone seen Dalton on stage? If so, how is he?
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    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.
    That's an interesting thought. Possibly.

    When Philip Pulman's 'His Dark Materials' books were adapted for the London stage, it was Dalton who was cast as Lord Asriel. A piece of smart casting to be sure if anyone has read the books.

    However when the first novel 'Northern Lights' was adapted for the big screen it was called 'The Golden Compass' and the part of Asriel went to Daniel Craig.

    At the time I did try to get tickets, but the run came to an end and I simply wasn't quick enough.

    I'm a big Craig fan, and often I will knock Dalton mercilessly, but when it comes to the role of Lord Asriel I was far more of the opinion that it suited Dalton, rather than Craig, and would have loved to see him in the West End in that role.

    Did anyone else see it?
  • Posts: 15,124
    @bondsum The French movie La Totale was a comedy and a Bond parody and a rather funny one from the bits I have seen. It was not meant to be an action movie and why Cameron decided to uses this as source material is beyond me.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,176
    NicNac wrote: »
    At the time I did try to get tickets, but the run came to an end and I simply wasn't quick enough.

    I'm a big Craig fan, and often I will knock Dalton mercilessly, but when it comes to the role of Lord Asriel I was far more of the opinion that it suited Dalton, rather than Craig, and would have loved to see him in the West End in that role.

    Did anyone else see it?

    I only managed to see it after Dalton had left the role and David Harewood was playing Lord Asriel. This was and still is a source of huge, huge regret for me (although there was nothing at all wrong with Harewood's performance).

    Lord Asriel is an ideal character for Dalton: scary, intelligent, good-looking, probably going to turn out evil.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I didn't know Harewood took over from Dalton. That's good casting as well. Always liked Harewood.
  • Posts: 11,425
    A shame they didn't cast Dalton as the new Alfred in the Batman movies - would have been good.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Getafix wrote: »
    A shame they didn't cast Dalton as the new Alfred in the Batman movies - would have been good.

    I find him too good looking for Alfred. I always imagined him more stuck up, a bit like Philip Stone.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Some interesting factoids on TLD, including the claim that it was a huge success.

    http://www.warpedfactor.com/2017/02/bond-10-things-you-might-not-know-about.html
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,176
    Getafix wrote: »
    Some interesting factoids on TLD, including the claim that it was a huge success.

    I certainly didn't know that the Finnish title was 007 AND THE DANGER ZONE. Archer crossover? :)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Gibson as Bond and Connery as M. That would have been interesting to see.
  • Posts: 676
    I've never before seen the fencing shown in the Prince Charles and Diana video on the page @Getafix posted. Was there originally meant to be a scene of fencing in TLD?
  • no he wouldn't, his bland bond tenure was the weakest in success and many people thought back then bond was over and out.

    he might had the looks and "toughness" but his on screen persona was just bad, it's just a weak name compared to Sir Rog or Sir connery and the extremely popular(at the time) brosnan.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    When we talk about the IT factor with Bond, we really just mean cinematic presence. Connery and Brosnan had it, it came naturally. Dalton and Craig didn't. With Dalton they thought it wouldn't matter. Those films are dark and intense because that's all they have to work with. A Bond actor needs variation. Even Moore, the funny Bond, was amply dexterous for the love scenes and could deliver a stern speech or soft moment. Dalton looks p##sed off throughout his tenure and whenever he does crack a smile it seems unnatural. Craig suffers the same problem, he can't sell when he's supposed to be enjoying himself in a carefree cavalier manner.

  • edited November 2017 Posts: 11,189
    When we talk about the IT factor with Bond, we really just mean cinematic presence. Connery and Brosnan had it, it came naturally. Dalton and Craig didn't. With Dalton they thought it wouldn't matter. Those films are dark and intense because that's all they have to work with. A Bond actor needs variation. Even Moore, the funny Bond, was amply dexterous for the love scenes and could deliver a stern speech or soft moment. Dalton looks p##sed off throughout his tenure and whenever he does crack a smile it seems unnatural. Craig suffers the same problem, he can't sell when he's supposed to be enjoying himself in a carefree cavalier manner.

    I agree, although I do think Craig sells the carefree elements better than Dalton did...at least in CR (taking on Domitrios at the betting table then seducing his Mrs).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    When we talk about the IT factor with Bond, we really just mean cinematic presence. Connery and Brosnan had it, it came naturally. Dalton and Craig didn't. With Dalton they thought it wouldn't matter. Those films are dark and intense because that's all they have to work with. A Bond actor needs variation. Even Moore, the funny Bond, was amply dexterous for the love scenes and could deliver a stern speech or soft moment. Dalton looks p##sed off throughout his tenure and whenever he does crack a smile it seems unnatural. Craig suffers the same problem, he can't sell when he's supposed to be enjoying himself in a carefree cavalier manner.

    I agree, although I do think Craig sells the carefree elements better than Dalton did...at least in CR.
    He certainly does in that film, but he had a worthy script and incredible supporting cast to bounce those elements off of there too. That's a privilege which Dalton never had.
  • Posts: 11,189
    the problem is people talk about Craig (and to an extent Dalton) not being "the Bond we know and love". The Bond we know and love is a caricature.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Perhaps, but regardless that is still a fundamental element of the film depiction of the character, whether we like it or not. One can't erase 40+ years (until Craig) of history.

    I think the trick is to be able to embody that nonchalant, insouciant persona (caricature though it may be) in a natural manner even when the films don't provide scripts to readily demonstrate that. This is an art. It must come from within.

    Dalton didn't pull it off well even though his films gave him that opportunity (particularly TLD), but at least he really didn't try and I give him credit for that. In the few instances that he did, it came across forced. Craig has only been able to pull it off (imho) in certain instances where the script is designed to accommodate that (most notably CR). Both Dalton and Craig lean towards the serious side of things. It's in their look (intense and less cultivated) and preferred acting style as much as it is in the script.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 684
    When we talk about the IT factor with Bond, we really just mean cinematic presence. Connery and Brosnan had it, it came naturally. Dalton and Craig didn't. With Dalton they thought it wouldn't matter. Those films are dark and intense because that's all they have to work with. A Bond actor needs variation. Even Moore, the funny Bond, was amply dexterous for the love scenes and could deliver a stern speech or soft moment. Dalton looks p##sed off throughout his tenure and whenever he does crack a smile it seems unnatural. Craig suffers the same problem, he can't sell when he's supposed to be enjoying himself in a carefree cavalier manner.
    I definitely see a cinematic presence in Craig. To make it shine, however, requires matching the films to his style. With him EON doesn't have the flexibility they had in Connery or Moore, who were very flexible and could often go the other way, marrying their style to the one which the film called for.

    Regarding Dalton, I do think he was more of a stage actor and that is evident on-screen — but there again I'm not convinced his films entirely gelled with his style, the one that would most optimally have given him that cinematic presence.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Strog wrote: »
    I definitely see a cinematic presence in Craig. To make it shine, however, requires matching the films to his style. With him EON doesn't have the flexibility they had in Connery or Moore, who were very flexible and could often go the other way, marrying their style to the one which the film called for.
    Bang on the money @Strog. It's something that they don't get enough credit for. Their subtle versatility.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 684
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    I definitely see a cinematic presence in Craig. To make it shine, however, requires matching the films to his style. With him EON doesn't have the flexibility they had in Connery or Moore, who were very flexible and could often go the other way, marrying their style to the one which the film called for.
    Bang on the money @Strog. It's something that they don't get enough credit for. Their subtle versatility.
    Definitely, @bondjames. I wonder how Lazenby would've turned out had he continued? I'm thinking more in line with Connery and Moore than Dalton and Craig, but I'm uncertain.

    I think it's also interesting with Brosnan how he basically tried on three different styles for his first three films, none of which quite worked, and then got it right on his last film kind of in spite of the mismatch in style with the film itself.
  • Posts: 11,189
    This sounds harsh but I'm not sure Dalton really has a cinematic presence.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    I definitely see a cinematic presence in Craig. To make it shine, however, requires matching the films to his style. With him EON doesn't have the flexibility they had in Connery or Moore, who were very flexible and could often go the other way, marrying their style to the one which the film called for.
    Bang on the money @Strog. It's something that they don't get enough credit for. Their subtle versatility.
    Definitely, @bondjames. I wonder how Lazenby would've turned out had he continued? I'm thinking more in line with Connery and Moore than Dalton and Craig, but I'm uncertain.

    I think it's also interesting with Brosnan how he basically tried on three different styles for his first three films, none of which quite worked, and then got it right on his last film kind of in spite of the mismatch in style with the film itself.
    Once again, couldn't agree more (on Brosnan) and also think that Laz could have gone more in the Moore/Connery direction with his second (he certainly played the first one straight down the middle with a slight dose of vulnerability).
Sign In or Register to comment.