›

CAN DALTON COME BACK INTO THE ROLE OF 007 AFTER CRAIGS DEPARTURE?

245

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    chrisisall wrote:
    lewisblake wrote:
    perhaps in an ideal world he could have come back for Die Another Day?
    No Bond actor deserved that movie...

    R (John Cleese): Aston Martin call it the Vanquish we call it...the vanish!!

    Bond (Dalton): No...it's time I left.

    (later when outside)

    That was DAMN STUPID!!!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    BAIN123 wrote:
    R (John Cleese): Aston Martin call it the Vanquish we call it...the vanish!!

    Bond (Dalton): No...it's time I left

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Good one!
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    errrrr no!
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Please, no one start a 'Can Roger Moore return as Bond after Craig leaves?' thread.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Please, no one start a 'Can Roger Moore return as Bond after Craig leaves?' thread.

    They will... :D
  • BenBen
    edited November 2012 Posts: 121
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Please, no one start a 'Can Roger Moore return as Bond after Craig leaves?' thread.

    I suppose that rules out the Connery/Lazenby ones as well ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    Ben wrote:
    I suppose that rules out the Connery/Lazenby ones as well ;)
    And Barry Nelson...
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,220
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Please, no one start a 'Can Roger Moore return as Bond after Craig leaves?' thread.
    I could see it now, "Keeping the British End Up: The Risque Adventures of a Retirement Home Spy"
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    Suddenly, everything's a joke... @-)
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited November 2012 Posts: 4,813
    Dalton or Brosnan could both come back and do an 'older Bond' movie (not unlike Dark Knight Returns) and I'd be all over that

    Unfortunately there's just no demand for such a thing.... :(
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2012 Posts: 17,798
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    Unfortunately there's just no demand for such a thing.... :(
    I *DEMAND* it!!!
    (That's not sufficient, I presume...)

  • KanangaKananga
    Posts: 367
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Please, no one start a 'Can Roger Moore return as Bond after Craig leaves?' thread.

    I have a feeling that someone will do it.......
  • MrSenorMrSenor
    Posts: 37
    I certainly wouldn't mind...
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

    How do you know this?

    I think it's interesting to ponder how GE with Dalton would have looked/felt. There are some scenes that echo Dalton a bit (the statue park scene) but you said yourself that Campbell wasn't a fan of Dalton's Bond so it's perhaps unlikely he would have sat in the directors chair had Tim continued.

    As I said in another thread if Goldeneye had not been made in it's current form I doubt we would have had CR (in it's current form). They re-hired Campbell because GE did well and he was a safe pair of hands to helm a "re-boot" Bond film.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

    How do you know this?

    I think it's interesting to ponder how GE with Dalton would have looked/felt. There are some scenes that echo Dalton a bit (the cemetary scene) but you said yourself that Campbell wasn't a fan of Dalton's Bond so it's perhaps unlikely he would have sat in the directors chair had Tim continued.

    As I said in another thread if Goldeneye had not been made in it's current form I doubt we would have had CR (in it's current form).

    Here it is. it is a transcript from a KLOS radio interview he did and was published on The Timothy Dalton Chat Group website.

    http://pelicanpromotions.com.au/dalton/tdradioint.html

    There is another version of this interview somewhere, where he says he will do one but not another three. But why would Eon say you have to sign for three and not just one?
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

    How do you know this?

    I think it's interesting to ponder how GE with Dalton would have looked/felt. There are some scenes that echo Dalton a bit (the statue park scene) but you said yourself that Campbell wasn't a fan of Dalton's Bond so it's perhaps unlikely he would have sat in the directors chair had Tim continued.

    As I said in another thread if Goldeneye had not been made in it's current form I doubt we would have had CR (in it's current form). They re-hired Campbell because GE did well and he was a safe pair of hands to helm a "re-boot" Bond film.

    When Dalton quit,Campbell had not yet been approached. But had he stayed on, then Eon would have told Campbell Dalton is the man and he would have got on with it.

    I mean Campbell knows Dalton is a fine actor. Brosnan needed to come across like he was the perfect Bond. If he said Dalton was good as Bond then it would not have helped his selling of Brosnan.

    If he made Craig come across well, then he could have done it with Dalton.

    The Brosnan era sadly started with unfair criticism of the past and ironically it ended with the same for Brosnan. Considering Brosnan did four films. he should have made a huge mark on the series.

    Bond fans are not stupid and know the politics of what went down. Goldeneye was hyped to show that Bond was relevant and the studio needed to make a fortune.

    Make no mistake, I think the idea of Craig as Bond must have taken some persuasion with Campbell. Because he ironically went in a more Dalton style hard edged direction which we was a critic of years ago.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

    How do you know this?

    I think it's interesting to ponder how GE with Dalton would have looked/felt. There are some scenes that echo Dalton a bit (the statue park scene) but you said yourself that Campbell wasn't a fan of Dalton's Bond so it's perhaps unlikely he would have sat in the directors chair had Tim continued.

    As I said in another thread if Goldeneye had not been made in it's current form I doubt we would have had CR (in it's current form). They re-hired Campbell because GE did well and he was a safe pair of hands to helm a "re-boot" Bond film.

    When Dalton quit,Campbell had not yet been approached. But had he stayed on, then Eon would have told Campbell Dalton is the man and he would have got on with it.

    I mean Campbell knows Dalton is a fine actor. Brosnan needed to come across like he was the perfect Bond. If he said Dalton was good as Bond then it would not have helped his selling of Brosnan.

    If he made Craig come across well, then he could have done it with Dalton.

    The Brosnan era sadly started with unfair criticism of the past and ironically it ended with the same for Brosnan.

    Now you see I didn't know that either. Apparently there were plans to replace Glenn but who else did they approach while Dalts was still in the frame?

    I know this may sound a bit harsh but I just don't get the impression directors are lining up to work with Dalton sadly.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

    How do you know this?

    I think it's interesting to ponder how GE with Dalton would have looked/felt. There are some scenes that echo Dalton a bit (the statue park scene) but you said yourself that Campbell wasn't a fan of Dalton's Bond so it's perhaps unlikely he would have sat in the directors chair had Tim continued.

    As I said in another thread if Goldeneye had not been made in it's current form I doubt we would have had CR (in it's current form). They re-hired Campbell because GE did well and he was a safe pair of hands to helm a "re-boot" Bond film.

    When Dalton quit,Campbell had not yet been approached. But had he stayed on, then Eon would have told Campbell Dalton is the man and he would have got on with it.

    I mean Campbell knows Dalton is a fine actor. Brosnan needed to come across like he was the perfect Bond. If he said Dalton was good as Bond then it would not have helped his selling of Brosnan.

    If he made Craig come across well, then he could have done it with Dalton.

    The Brosnan era sadly started with unfair criticism of the past and ironically it ended with the same for Brosnan.

    Now you see I didn't know that either. Apparently there were plans to replace Glenn but who else did they approach while Dalts was still in the frame?

    I know this may sound a bit harsh but I don't get the impression directors are lining up to work with Dalton.

    Here is the thing with Bond. Dalton said when he took on the Bond role that being seen as a failure in the role will put your whole career to a stop. Only in the last few years is Dalton getting offered more work.

    Nowadays to be cast in big role,they look how well your films have done and can the film hit the $100 million mark.

    Michael Keaton did two huge blockbusters as Batman but said work dried up because they want actors that can get asses on seats. Hollywood in general is becoming less risky and trying to keep safe.

    The directors who were children when Dalton played Bond and liked him are the ones who will want to cast. I remember when he did Doctor Who and they said they were lucky to get him. The film business is full of crap. Anthony Hopkins did not get his huge break until 1991. And no one saw it coming.



  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

    How do you know this?

    I think it's interesting to ponder how GE with Dalton would have looked/felt. There are some scenes that echo Dalton a bit (the statue park scene) but you said yourself that Campbell wasn't a fan of Dalton's Bond so it's perhaps unlikely he would have sat in the directors chair had Tim continued.

    As I said in another thread if Goldeneye had not been made in it's current form I doubt we would have had CR (in it's current form). They re-hired Campbell because GE did well and he was a safe pair of hands to helm a "re-boot" Bond film.

    When Dalton quit,Campbell had not yet been approached. But had he stayed on, then Eon would have told Campbell Dalton is the man and he would have got on with it.

    I mean Campbell knows Dalton is a fine actor. Brosnan needed to come across like he was the perfect Bond. If he said Dalton was good as Bond then it would not have helped his selling of Brosnan.

    If he made Craig come across well, then he could have done it with Dalton.

    The Brosnan era sadly started with unfair criticism of the past and ironically it ended with the same for Brosnan.

    Now you see I didn't know that either. Apparently there were plans to replace Glenn but who else did they approach while Dalts was still in the frame?

    I know this may sound a bit harsh but I don't get the impression directors are lining up to work with Dalton.

    Here is the thing with Bond. Dalton said when he took on the Bond role that being seen as a failure in the role will put your whole career to a stop. Only in the last few years is Dalton getting offered more work.

    Nowadays to be cast in big role,they look how well your films have done and can the film hit the $100 million mark.

    Michael Keaton did two huge blockbusters as Batman but said work dried up because they want actors that can get asses on seats. Hollywood in general is becoming less risky and trying to keep safe.

    It sounds like the first two Batman films had a similar pattern to Dalton's films. The first was genuinely a big financial hit while the second was something of a disappointment. Hence a re-structuring for the third.

    I think one thing that is fair is that Dalton was NEVER that popular in the US. Looking at the BO figures for that year that is crystal clear. Craig on the other hand HAS been popular - despite a fair chunk of initial criticism probably coming from Americans.

    I've said this before - I get the feeling the "acid test" for any new Bond actor is whether they can crack it in the States. Craig did - and that's despite the yanks still mourning Brosnan's departure.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I don't buy it that directors would have run for the hills at the prospect of helming a Dalton Bond film. Renny Harlin is the only director I have heard speak out against Dalton. Though I have no problem with Glenn's diretion (I don't agree with Glenn's direction being called workmanlike as to me TLD oozes class as much as FRWL & OHMSS), but I think two films with Dalton was enough. Just like Hunt & Glenn, they may have kept it in house, who knows.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

    How do you know this?

    I think it's interesting to ponder how GE with Dalton would have looked/felt. There are some scenes that echo Dalton a bit (the statue park scene) but you said yourself that Campbell wasn't a fan of Dalton's Bond so it's perhaps unlikely he would have sat in the directors chair had Tim continued.

    As I said in another thread if Goldeneye had not been made in it's current form I doubt we would have had CR (in it's current form). They re-hired Campbell because GE did well and he was a safe pair of hands to helm a "re-boot" Bond film.

    When Dalton quit,Campbell had not yet been approached. But had he stayed on, then Eon would have told Campbell Dalton is the man and he would have got on with it.

    I mean Campbell knows Dalton is a fine actor. Brosnan needed to come across like he was the perfect Bond. If he said Dalton was good as Bond then it would not have helped his selling of Brosnan.

    If he made Craig come across well, then he could have done it with Dalton.

    The Brosnan era sadly started with unfair criticism of the past and ironically it ended with the same for Brosnan.

    Now you see I didn't know that either. Apparently there were plans to replace Glenn but who else did they approach while Dalts was still in the frame?

    I know this may sound a bit harsh but I don't get the impression directors are lining up to work with Dalton.

    Here is the thing with Bond. Dalton said when he took on the Bond role that being seen as a failure in the role will put your whole career to a stop. Only in the last few years is Dalton getting offered more work.

    Nowadays to be cast in big role,they look how well your films have done and can the film hit the $100 million mark.

    Michael Keaton did two huge blockbusters as Batman but said work dried up because they want actors that can get asses on seats. Hollywood in general is becoming less risky and trying to keep safe.

    From what I've heard the first two Batman films had a similar pattern to Dalton's films. The first was genuinely a big financial hit while the second was something of a disappointment. Hence a re-structuring for the third.

    They wanted Keaton for the third but he said no as he thought the script was too light and the wrong direction. But by him quitting like Dalton did, he damaged his career. Because then the studio will bang home to the audience that the replacement was the actor they wanted all along. And similarly they will say the new film is the best.

    Now that Dalton had a part in Johnny Depp's The Tourist, casting directors will think again.

    And Toy Story 3 was a big gig and mega hit. So his name is once again prominent.

    And Hot Fuzz changed his perception as being unhumorous.



  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2012 Posts: 4,399
    chrisisall wrote:
    And Barry Nelson...

    only if George Romero directs it ;)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

    How do you know this?

    I think it's interesting to ponder how GE with Dalton would have looked/felt. There are some scenes that echo Dalton a bit (the statue park scene) but you said yourself that Campbell wasn't a fan of Dalton's Bond so it's perhaps unlikely he would have sat in the directors chair had Tim continued.

    As I said in another thread if Goldeneye had not been made in it's current form I doubt we would have had CR (in it's current form). They re-hired Campbell because GE did well and he was a safe pair of hands to helm a "re-boot" Bond film.

    When Dalton quit,Campbell had not yet been approached. But had he stayed on, then Eon would have told Campbell Dalton is the man and he would have got on with it.

    I mean Campbell knows Dalton is a fine actor. Brosnan needed to come across like he was the perfect Bond. If he said Dalton was good as Bond then it would not have helped his selling of Brosnan.

    If he made Craig come across well, then he could have done it with Dalton.

    The Brosnan era sadly started with unfair criticism of the past and ironically it ended with the same for Brosnan.

    Now you see I didn't know that either. Apparently there were plans to replace Glenn but who else did they approach while Dalts was still in the frame?

    I know this may sound a bit harsh but I don't get the impression directors are lining up to work with Dalton.

    Here is the thing with Bond. Dalton said when he took on the Bond role that being seen as a failure in the role will put your whole career to a stop. Only in the last few years is Dalton getting offered more work.

    Nowadays to be cast in big role,they look how well your films have done and can the film hit the $100 million mark.

    Michael Keaton did two huge blockbusters as Batman but said work dried up because they want actors that can get asses on seats. Hollywood in general is becoming less risky and trying to keep safe.

    From what I've heard the first two Batman films had a similar pattern to Dalton's films. The first was genuinely a big financial hit while the second was something of a disappointment. Hence a re-structuring for the third.

    They wanted Keaton for the third but he said no as he thought the script was too light and the wrong direction. But by him quitting like Dalton did, he damaged his career. Because then the studio will bang home to the audience that the replacement was the actor they wanted all along. And similarly they will say the new film is the best.

    Now that Dalton had a part in Johnny Depp's The Tourist, casting directors will think again.

    And Toy Story 3 was a big gig and mega hit. So his name is once again prominent.

    And Hot Fuzz changed his perception as being unhumorous.


    I watched him in that last night. I actually enjoy him more there I do Bond. He was good as Bond but I got the feeling he was having more fun in the latter. It is a role that plays up to his "theatrical" manner though.

    I get the feeling Dalton is better suited to scene stealing side roles in film - and those have been the kind of roles he's been in since Bond.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    I don't buy it that directors would have run for the hills at the prospect of helming a Dalton Bond film. Renny Harlin is the only director I have heard speak out against Dalton. Though I have no problem with Glenn's diretion (I don't agree with Glenn's direction being called workmanlike as to me TLD oozes class as much as FRWL & OHMSS), but I think two films with Dalton was enough. Just like Hunt & Glenn, they may have kept it in house, who knows.

    Renny Harlin is not a big name director and the kind of films he directed would not make him Bond suitable. Had Cubby asked Tarantino in 1993 to direct Dalton as Bond, Tarantino would have done it. Dalton would have been great in Reservior Dogs. He can easily play a nasty character, and would have fitted in with Madsen and Keitel as well as Roth.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    I don't buy it that directors would have run for the hills at the prospect of helming a Dalton Bond film. Renny Harlin is the only director I have heard speak out against Dalton. Though I have no problem with Glenn's diretion (I don't agree with Glenn's direction being called workmanlike as to me TLD oozes class as much as FRWL & OHMSS), but I think two films with Dalton was enough. Just like Hunt & Glenn, they may have kept it in house, who knows.

    Renny Harlin is not a big name director and the kind of films he directed would not make him Bond suitable. Had Cubby asked Tarantino in 1993 to direct Dalton as Bond, Tarantino would have done it. Dalton would have been great in Reservior Dogs. He can easily play a nasty character, and would have fitted in with Madsen and Keitel as well as Roth.

    He was in the 90s. Both Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger are solid action films and had been very successful financially too. Harlin was also approached to helm Alien 3.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    He deserved a third film.

    He was a sir who waited 5 years (!!!!) to resign.

    Yeah that was a long time to wait. Had he been fired like some wrongly assume, he would have gone by 1990 or 1991. Studios do not waste time in those matters. He was close to Cubby, so the fact he waited so long was because Cubby wanted him to stay on and had plans.

    Michael France even says he wrote Goldeneye with Dalton in mind as he was supposed to play the part.

    Dalton did an interview years back where he was asked what happened, and he said the producers wanted him to sign on for another 3 Bond films in 1994. He said he would do only one more and that three would have pushed him into his 50's. So he then decided to quit.

    So they were confident in him to ask that and Dalton is always straight about the facts. Had he signed on for three in 1994 which would have made him Bond until 1999, then he would have stayed in the role longer than Moore.

    But he would have been paid for the third film he never did as his contract stipulated 3.

    How do you know this?

    I think it's interesting to ponder how GE with Dalton would have looked/felt. There are some scenes that echo Dalton a bit (the statue park scene) but you said yourself that Campbell wasn't a fan of Dalton's Bond so it's perhaps unlikely he would have sat in the directors chair had Tim continued.

    As I said in another thread if Goldeneye had not been made in it's current form I doubt we would have had CR (in it's current form). They re-hired Campbell because GE did well and he was a safe pair of hands to helm a "re-boot" Bond film.

    When Dalton quit,Campbell had not yet been approached. But had he stayed on, then Eon would have told Campbell Dalton is the man and he would have got on with it.

    I mean Campbell knows Dalton is a fine actor. Brosnan needed to come across like he was the perfect Bond. If he said Dalton was good as Bond then it would not have helped his selling of Brosnan.

    If he made Craig come across well, then he could have done it with Dalton.

    The Brosnan era sadly started with unfair criticism of the past and ironically it ended with the same for Brosnan.

    Now you see I didn't know that either. Apparently there were plans to replace Glenn but who else did they approach while Dalts was still in the frame?

    I know this may sound a bit harsh but I don't get the impression directors are lining up to work with Dalton.

    Here is the thing with Bond. Dalton said when he took on the Bond role that being seen as a failure in the role will put your whole career to a stop. Only in the last few years is Dalton getting offered more work.

    Nowadays to be cast in big role,they look how well your films have done and can the film hit the $100 million mark.

    Michael Keaton did two huge blockbusters as Batman but said work dried up because they want actors that can get asses on seats. Hollywood in general is becoming less risky and trying to keep safe.

    From what I've heard the first two Batman films had a similar pattern to Dalton's films. The first was genuinely a big financial hit while the second was something of a disappointment. Hence a re-structuring for the third.

    They wanted Keaton for the third but he said no as he thought the script was too light and the wrong direction. But by him quitting like Dalton did, he damaged his career. Because then the studio will bang home to the audience that the replacement was the actor they wanted all along. And similarly they will say the new film is the best.

    Now that Dalton had a part in Johnny Depp's The Tourist, casting directors will think again.

    And Toy Story 3 was a big gig and mega hit. So his name is once again prominent.

    And Hot Fuzz changed his perception as being unhumorous.


    I watched him in that last night. I actually enjoy him more there I do Bond. He was good as Bond but I got the feeling he was having more fun in the latter. It is a role that plays up to his "theatrical" manner though.


    He would have lightened up his Bond had he done a third. He is an extremely capable actor. I like his brooding Bond because that is true to Fleming. Connery never cared for the character in the book and did not like his personality. Which is fair enough.

    I think the theatricality lends itself to the Fleming Bond. The Connery Bond is based heavily on Connery's personality and many people forget that.

    Cubby said about Dalton that you had the actor's approach in the interpretation. You took him seriously but he is not an audience spoon fed Bond.

    Audiences like nice bastard but Dalton as Bond showed Nasty Bastard and more calculating ruthlessness.How he gets Sanchez's loyal men executed and watches is a case in point. He shows no shock when Milton Crest gets exploded.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Tarantino should stay FAR away from Bond. Like I said, I like his movies (a lot actually), but... no. And he needs to stop being so full of himself.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2012 Posts: 4,399
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    I don't buy it that directors would have run for the hills at the prospect of helming a Dalton Bond film. Renny Harlin is the only director I have heard speak out against Dalton. Though I have no problem with Glenn's diretion (I don't agree with Glenn's direction being called workmanlike as to me TLD oozes class as much as FRWL & OHMSS), but I think two films with Dalton was enough. Just like Hunt & Glenn, they may have kept it in house, who knows.

    Renny Harlin is not a big name director and the kind of films he directed would not make him Bond suitable. Had Cubby asked Tarantino in 1993 to direct Dalton as Bond, Tarantino would have done it. Dalton would have been great in Reservior Dogs. He can easily play a nasty character, and would have fitted in with Madsen and Keitel as well as Roth.

    He was in the 90s. Both Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger are solid action films and had been very successful financially too.

    I was about to say, at the time Renny Harlin was in talks for Bond 17, he had already directed box office smashes Nightmare On Elm Street 4, Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger..

    but to further add to this point - Renny Harlin is/was more of a name director at his time than Martin Campbell or Roger Spottiswoode.... Campbell's first big commercial hit was Goldeneye, and Spottiswoode had a slew of midtier actioners - not to mention such cinema classics as "Turner and Hooch" and "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot!"

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    I don't buy it that directors would have run for the hills at the prospect of helming a Dalton Bond film. Renny Harlin is the only director I have heard speak out against Dalton. Though I have no problem with Glenn's diretion (I don't agree with Glenn's direction being called workmanlike as to me TLD oozes class as much as FRWL & OHMSS), but I think two films with Dalton was enough. Just like Hunt & Glenn, they may have kept it in house, who knows.

    Renny Harlin is not a big name director and the kind of films he directed would not make him Bond suitable. Had Cubby asked Tarantino in 1993 to direct Dalton as Bond, Tarantino would have done it. Dalton would have been great in Reservior Dogs. He can easily play a nasty character, and would have fitted in with Madsen and Keitel as well as Roth.

    He was in the 90s. Both Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger are solid action films and had been very successful financially too. Harlin was also approached to helm Alien 3.

    Ridley Scott he is not when it comes to the Alien franchise which went downhill. Hollywood is a nasty place. All actors will have enemies. He just shouted his mouth off.

    I mean didn't Sam Mendes also say in 2006 that Craig was wrong for Bond? And look at him now. He is singing his praises. Also the media love to shit stir to gain bigger audiences and hence bigger advertising revenue.

Sign In or Register to comment.