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
I think all said, it's merely a case of Dalton dropped out, Brosnan came in, looked the part, did an adequate job of things and the film was a big success. Tomorrow Never Dies was chicken litter for the most part, even if Brosnan looked the part, but redeemed himself with the excellent World Is Not Enough before an ill advised fourth outing in 2002 with Die Another Day, we can't change history or what occured back in the day but there you are
It's time for some sleep while I dream up some fiendish guess the character for next time out ; - )
Goodnight I-)
The script and story makes a lot more sense with Dalton in it but I accept the line of the Dalton bashers. It would not have been such a succes.
What line? My line that Dalton would have been better but the film less financially successful?
Yes. It's wishful thinking that if same Bond as in LTK had returned in GE, the box office revenue would have doubled the same way as what the actual GE did. There was a need of a new Bond to boost the revenue, and Brosnan was the perfect candidate.
I was talking about the "more financially successful" line
It's all moot really. Even Dalton is on record saying he thought LTK was too dour. Obviously with GE the producers decided to lighten the tone a bit, so its likely we would have had Dalton back in TLD mode.
TLD sold 9 millions more tickets than the 'dour' LTK... what make you think a return to that TLD would have sold 41 millions tickets, like Brosnan's GE did ? TLD sold 6 millions more tickets than AVTAK, what makes you think that a TLD #2 would have made a 7 times bigger improvement the 2nd time 'round ?
But the fact is Brosnan was (like Rog in the 70s) a more popular candidate in The States. Like it or not the US is one of the biggest markets in the world and Dalton's earlier 2 films weren't mega hits there, LTK especially. Bottom line - most yanks weren't overly blown away by Dalton.
I basically agree with you. I'm just saying that a Dalton GE would have been very different from LTK - much lighter in tone. Both Dalton and EON would have taken it in that direction because they knew LTK had probably gone too far in the other direction. I think a Dalton GE would have been more successful than LTK, but perhaps that isn't saying much!
Agreed.
GE wouldn't have been AS popular with Dalton. That's for sure. But after 6 years, it would've been successful, Bond has a history of films being more successful after longer breaks (TSWLM, GE, CR).
Anyway, even though Dalton is my favourite I wouldn't want him in GE. For one thing, I think it was suited to Brosnan, and if Dalton was there they'd have to get an older guy to play 006, so no Sean Bean. I think GE is a great film the way it is with Brozza.
An interesting question.
Dalton was clearly trying to persuade the producers to revert to the Bond of the books.
Closely but not completely personified by Connery in Dr.No, FRWL and to an extent in GF.
He succeeded to some degree but achieving realism when you are obliged to sled in a cello case is difficult!
That said, he did the best he could in difficult circumstances and personally I think he made a very creditable Bond.
Would GE have been as successful with him - I would say almost certainly yes. The script and style clearly had his direction in mind and I think it would have given him the vehicle he needed to put some grit into the Bond franchise in the way that DC finally did in "Casino Royale".
Regards,
Bentley
But did people WANT that at the time - especially after such a long gap and with competing films like Die Hard 1, 2 and 3 and True Lies.
I'm not so sure.
Also, I've said this b4 but I get the feeling a significant propertion of people just weren't convinced by Dalton. Not everyone but a significant proportion. I remember Haphazard saying he was in the disappointed minority to hear Dalton wasn't coming back.
When "M" says to James Bond, "I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War", who can disagree? To ram home the point, "M" is played by a woman (Judi Dench) and a key scene is set in a Russian park that is now a dumping ground for statues of redundant communist heroes. However, Pierce Brosnan, on his first mission as 007, quickly established himself as the best Bond since Sean Connery and makes a fetish out of the old-fashioned values of loyalty and patriotism. The villain is not immediately evident - the mysterious Janus - but director Martin Campbell does provide a stunning chase between car and tank through the streets of St Petersburg. There are also splendid Bond girls, including Izabella Scorupco and feisty Famke Janssen, who kills by crushing her victims between her thighs.
I just don't feel Dalton would have had the same reception.
Good old Radio Times. Always my first point of call for film criticism.
According to Wikianswers though, Dalts didn't like the GE script (which I can understand - it's awful) and didn't actually want the part any more.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Timothy_Dalton_not_want_to_play_James_Bond_anymore
I'd have thought, as Haphazard said, the idea of Bond facing an old friend-turned-bad guy (which is what GE is ultimately about) would have been EXACTLY what Dalton would have wanted.
To me it just sounds like key people higher up didn't like him and so he was kind of "forced out". He wasn't happy with the script of LTK either but that didn't make him quit.
Frankly, while Dalton did deserve a third movie, I'm not too fussed about the way things turned out.
In the last few weeks I've come to this conclusion. Compared to Connery, Moore, Craig and yes...even Brosnan, Dalton just isn't that charismatic onscreen. Don't get me wrong he's a good actor but he just lacks that certain something. It's the reason he hasn't had (lets face it) a really flourishing film career away from Bond in the last 20 odd years.
Perhaps in a sense you're right, although I am sure there are plenty of charismatic actors who have fallen by the wayside and as we know there are a lot of deadbeats who've made it big in Hollywood, so Dalton's lack of post Bond success is not necessarily an indication of whether he has more or less charisma than Brozza. Ultimately these things are in the eyes of the beholder. I enjoy watching Pierce on screen, just not as Bond, where I think he falls painfully flat on his face. For me Dalts conveys more charisma in the first half hour of LTD than Brozza mustered in four entire films. But I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this one.
But once you get past the basic structure of the story, the movie takes on a decidedly different feel from any of Dalton's films. The finished product featured more or less a universal James Bond character that really any of the Bond actors could have pulled off.
The movie itself is the perfect mid-90s action adventure film.
As far as whether Dalton would've been successful in this movie - it all depends on when the film was released. You release it right after LTK in, say, 1991, then you probably have a decent (but different) movie. I can't see it being negatively received.
If it's released in 1995, I don't see it being nearly as successful as it turned out with Brosnan. A large part of its success was excitement over the reinvention of the series. It was sort of revived from the dead. Even though it hadn't been that long since the last movie, the overall feeling was that James Bond was a part of the past, now being restored.
Stick an old actor in the role, and you lose all of that momentum. It becomes a continuation of a series that is old rather than a fresh start.
Craig did CR, QOS, then a break- and now SF. And people are anxious as hell for the the release.
Dalton could have done TLD, LTK, then a break- and then GE. I bet he would have been much more well received than his first two films- if nothing else than people have had time to get used to a Bond that wasn't Roger Moore
Anyone agree?
Dalton is my favourite Bond, but I love GE the way it is. I'd have rather had a 3rd and 4th film from him before GE, in the early 90s.
But the thing is its not just his post Bond career but also WHILE he was Bond. He never really starred in any big movies during that time. They were mainly smaller TV or straight to video films (not saying they were bad incidently but I don't get the sense many set the film world on fire). Consider Dalton's education and acting credintials prior to Bond (Sexette aside). He SHOULD be a big star but he isn't (you don't take on a role like Bond if you aren't at least prepared to be a star). I wonder if there is a reason for that.
There was one small exception in 1991, when he starred in Disney's The Rocketeer. The film wasn't much of a hit, but I clearly recall that he was considered a standout in it, both by the critics, as well as many people who went to see the picuture. In a way, some folks found it amusing that James Bond was suddenly playing a Nazi. I think people appreciated that kind of weird detour.
I'm not talking strictly about money I'm talking about overall attention. Compare him to someone like Gary Oldman who's in a variety of movies (big and small) and who started his career on the stage. Both he and Dalts have had similar training yet there's no doubt which has "made it" in the film world.
@Wildboonjive. I've seen the Rocketeer but not for ages.
Maybe Dalton is a bit like Charles Dance (another stage actor) in a way. Better suited either for TV or small/supporting roles in movies. I can't envision a movie "starring" Charles Dance. Perhaps the same can be applied to Dalton?