›

(POLL) 1,400th Discussion! - Which PAST Bond would you pick to film one more movie?

2

Comments

  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    edited November 2011 Posts: 1,003
    DELETE
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,155
    Goldfinger and Goldeneye for me...
    You may want to re-read the question, sir.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2011 Posts: 15,713
    Goldfinger and Goldeneye for me...
    You may want to re-read the question, sir.
    Lets keep it simple...
  • jolearonjolearon
    Posts: 645
    @JBFan626 True, if they made Bond 17 with Dalton, theres no guarantee it would have done better than LTK, probably worse. Overall the film would be too much of a gamble. But looking back, (yeas later) I would have liked to have seen the film.

    And yes if Goldeneye 64 hadn't been such a big hit, Bond films may not have been such a big hit in the 90s/00s. I had never thought about that.
  • FromCanadaWithLoveFromCanadaWithLove Canada
    edited November 2011 Posts: 612
    I would have to say Dalton. He definitely fit the role, there was just too much turmoil at the time.

    If I had things my way, Moore would have left the role a movie or two early to allow Dalton in. That way, we would have avoided the initial Brosnan conundrum as well. Moore was there too long, Dalton wasn't there long enough. Problem solved. (In my opinion)

    I think Brosnan should have had an extra movie as well, or many a replacement for DAD, but I don't think he should have started any earlier than in GoldenEye. It would have had to be at the end of his career... But without compromising Craig's debut in CR.

    As for Lazenby, I just have no idea how a followup to OHMSS would have gone. It's my favourite Bond movie, and DAF is my least favourite. I don't think the whole Bond seeking revenge thing works for the character - it's what bugged me most about QoS. What works better is when Bond visits Mrs. Bond's grave - like in FYEO. That worked really well, even though it was a completely different actor.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Dalton by a long shot. Still painful. I was really getting into Bond at the time (aged 12 when LTK came out) and I look back and think what might have been.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Goldfinger and Goldeneye for me...
    You may want to re-read the question, sir.
    My bad, I posted that in the wrong section!! :O

    On topic. I would have to say Lazenby. He only did one movie. I would have liked to see him star in another one..

  • jolearonjolearon
    Posts: 645
    Love the Poll, thanks and I'm amazed that Lazenby is in the lead???
    I understand his part and story was kind of unfinished, but Dalton........but Dalton.
    That is all.
  • FelixCIAFelixCIA
    Posts: 2
    Brosnan in Quentin Tarantino's Casino Royale. During his tenure as 007, Brosnan complained that the series was too silly and he'd like to do something darker...so they dumped him and did just that. I think his work in Ghost Writer, Tailor of Panama and The Matador prove he had the chops. It's a shame the Broccolis dumped him so unceremoniously before giving the series a temperament reboot.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Brosnan. He deserved a better film to end on.
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    DALTON DALTON The only actor that actually deserves to of had another film.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    I would go with Lazenby for this thread, just to see how they would have followed up OHMSS?
  • ProfDentsSpiderProfDentsSpider
    Posts: 27
    Lazenby. Not just because I thought he did a decent job in OHMSS and that I would have liked to see him continue and grow in the role, but also because, at that point in the time, John Barry was still scoring the series, basically the whole classic crew --plus Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llywellyn-- were together and still at the top of their game. I have to believe DAF would've been a much different movie if he had stayed on, which may well have had a big effect on casting decisions for the other roles and the overall tone of the film, especially if Hunt returned to direct Lazenby again, rather than Guy Hamilton. I think Connery's reluctant-then-bored attitude, and nervousness from Eon when their new 007 bailed before OHMSS was released, doomed DAF to become what we got. I doubt the alternative would've been the same film, just with the lead actor switched out.

    I'd like to have seen Dalton return, too, but... despite the fact that I like, by and large, both TLD and LTK, the two films are generally workmanlike and a bit blah, visually; good action scenes and some cool moments, but not a whole heck of a lot of excess flair from John Glen.... a far cry from the high style of the series in its glory days. That's one thing I remember being noticed when GE finally came out, that Martin Campbell brought back some (though not all) of the dynamism and sheen that had largely been missing from the 1980s entries in particular.
  • JohnBarryFanJohnBarryFan
    Posts: 1,405
    Timothy Dalton, no contest. Two Bond films by Dalton was nowhere near enough.
    I keep going to youtube to watch the fake trailer of "Property of a Lady" and get a thrill out of it every single time. That trailer is better than 99% of the movies I saw in my lifetime.
  • WestonMcKay2WestonMcKay2
    Posts: 3
    Connery, can't get enough of the guy
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,257
    Dalton
  • CraigisnotbondCraigisnotbond
    Posts: 99
    Brosnan! Dalton had enough.
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    Dalton, today, yesterday, tomorrow.
  • jolearonjolearon
    Posts: 645
    Great! It's good to see Dalton in the lead.
    Winner winner, chicken dinner!

    Score so far:

    Connery: 2
    Lazenby: 11
    Moore: 2
    Dalton: 23
    Brosnan: 4

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Hard to pick between Lazenby and Dalton. DAF as it turned out would have been a waste for Lazenby. If they gave him a film more in the vein of QOS or LTK, and with Savalas and Hunt returning, sure.
    In the end I voted for Dalton, simply because he is a better actor. Ideally he should have started one film earlier, but not in AVTAK the way it was scripted. Something else.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I will,amazingly,go for Dalton as well..i would have liked to see him in a 3rd more spectacular Bond film and see how he handled it,as he definately improved in LTK.

    So,Dalton for me.... :O :-O
  • SmithersSmithers Bandit Country
    Posts: 48
    JBFan626 wrote:
    I am going to argue against the pro-Dalton stance. Here's why: Dalton simply wasn't making the series enough money. LTK was the lowest earning Bond film (adjusted for inflation) to date. Public enthusiasm for the series was on the wane. I would foresee Dalton#3 only continuing the slow burn of the series down to a halt. On the contrary, Brosnan in GE nearly doubled the box office of LTK. I think the 6 year break was probably healthy for the series in revamping the character. Plus having the popular N64 game was perfect timing all around, in addition to Brit-pop and the rise of Cool Britannia of the mid 90's. Again it was all timing. Everything came together right. I personally would have loved another Dalton Bond film, but I don't think we would be here talking about CR, SF or Daniel Craig for that matter.

    I have to agree with everything you have said in this link. Dalton was my favourite in so many ways and wished I could have seen more, but as you say had he made another film would we still be talking about this now. I also agree with another who said Brosnan should have had a better film to go out on and Lazenby should have been better advised. But the question still remains who would you like to see make another film and as such I would revert to my choice of Dalton.

    Point well made though JBFan626
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I voted for Lazenby. Connery and Moore had more than enough films to satisfy me. A third Dalton or fifth Brosnan film are intriguing, for sure, but I'd be much more stoked to see how DAF would have turned out with Lazenby.
  • UniversalExportUniversalExport
    Posts: 40
    Cleary Timothy Dalton,..
    but when i think about it.. him and Lazenby..
    ..and Connery.. perhaps even Brosnan..
    ..and one Moore ;)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Not one vote for David Niven? You are scum.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Not one vote for David Niven? You are scum.

  • UniversalExportUniversalExport
    Posts: 40
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Not one vote for David Niven? You are scum.

    I know. But i also didnt voted for Barry Nelson.. :)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    UniversalExport wrote:
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Not one vote for David Niven? You are scum.

    I know. But i also didnt voted for Barry Nelson.. :)

    But Brosnan got two votes. I rest my case...
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    UniversalExport wrote:
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Not one vote for David Niven? You are scum.

    I know. But i also didnt voted for Barry Nelson.. :)

    But Brosnan got two votes. I rest my case...

    Your case is a very battered, antiquated, outdated, shabby and rather worthless piece of junk these days, dear @Thunderfinger. We know that because you trot it out so often to display to all of us. :D

    If I could vote for two who deserved another film, it would be Dalton and Brosnan. I really enjoy Brosnan as Bond and I wanted him to finish on a better film than DAD. Anything like his first 3 would have been fine, and a more fitting end to his era.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,194
    Dalton!
Sign In or Register to comment.