› ›

Would you forgo the Brosnan Era to add to the Dalton era?

licensetoforumlicensetoforum
edited March 2012 in Actors Posts: 371
Hypothetically, let's say the legal problems the franchise faced after LTK never happened therefore allowing Dalton to immediately continue. Would you want this if this meant that Brosnan would not get the part?
«134567…10

Comments

  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited March 2012 Posts: 1,778
    Absolutly. Sorry if I keep bashing Brosnan but this thread is directly related to that. I'd give up all 4 of Brosnan's films just for 1 more Dalton film. I've said it before Brosnan's run was IMO byfar the worst period in the history of the series. The idea of Dalton getting 2 or 3 more films sounds great to me.

    But at the same time it was necessary. The circus that was DAD woke EON up and we got CR as a result. But getting both Craig and Dalton would be ideal.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    edited March 2012 Posts: 2,341
    I for one say: HELL YES.
    Dalton would have been Great in GE.

    He would have brought better scripts, women than EON threw together for the rest of Brozza's run. I would have loved to see Dalton in TWINE as well (minus Denise Richards of course) Dalton would have been great opposite Sophie Marceau's Elektra
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited March 2012 Posts: 13,978
    In a heartbeat. I could see Dalton sticking around for 3 further films, either 1991, 1993 & 1995 or 1994, 1996 & 1998*. I don't buy into the theory that further Dalton films would have killed off the series. [-X The general public just needed a bit more time to warm to Dalton.

    * That would work best, as the next Bond would make his first film in 2000 and his second in the 40th anniversary year, 2002.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Absolutly. Sorry if I keep bashing Brosnan but this thread is directly related to that. I'd give up all 4 of Brosnan's films just for 1 more Dalton film. I've said it before Brosnan's run was IMO byfar the worst period in the history of the series. The idea of Dalton getting 2 or 3 more films sounds great to me.

    But at the same time it was necessary. The circus that was DAD woke EON up and we got CR as a result. But getting both Craig and Dalton would be ideal.

    No I wouldn't to tell the truth. I know his era was far from the greatest but I still enjoy Pierce. Sorry if its "uncool" on this forum but, while I enjoy Dalton, I'm not going to jump on the anti-Brozza bandwagon.

    The general public just needed a bit more time to warm to Dalton.

    I'm not sure if I buy it. I agree that Dalts deserved at least one more film but that doesn't explain why Craig (also a dark Bond) hit the ground running in a way that Dalton never quite managed. He's got something Dalton lacked. I'm being honest, I've never heard any regular joe describe Dalton as "the best since Connery". Craig - yes. I'm not sure about the whole "head of his time" thing either. I can't quite put my finger on it but maybe its the whole "theatrical" thing.
  • PussfellaPussfella
    Posts: 56

    thank god a lot of you guys think
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Absolutly. Sorry if I keep bashing Brosnan but this thread is directly related to that. I'd give up all 4 of Brosnan's films just for 1 more Dalton film. I've said it before Brosnan's run was IMO byfar the worst period in the history of the series. The idea of Dalton getting 2 or 3 more films sounds great to me.

    But at the same time it was necessary. The circus that was DAD woke EON up and we got CR as a result. But getting both Craig and Dalton would be ideal.

    amen brother
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited March 2012 Posts: 4,813
    What if Brosnan got his wish in 1987 and got to be Bond in TLD? Then he'd do LTK and we'd still have the same legal nonsense. THEN maybe we get Dalton! So they switched places completely! Tim's not that much older than Pierce, and we did replace Sean with Roger before so it wouldn't be out of the question.
    This way we wouldn't get rid of Pierce completely-- as I do like him very much. But now he gets two, and Dalton gets FOUR, including GoldenEye (my dream come true). And rest assured, DAD would not have been the same under Dalton's tenure!
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I'd have had dalton carry on until 1999, then I would've got brosnan in for an improved DAD and 2 more films before handing over to craig for CR.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    In a heartbeat. I could see Dalton sticking around for 3 further films, either 1991, 1993 & 1995 or 1994, 1996 & 1998*. I don't buy into the theory that further Dalton films would have killed off the series. [-X
    * That would work best, as the next Bond would make his first film in 2000 and his second in the 40th anniversary year, 2002.
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    What if Brosnan got his wish in 1987 and got to be Bond in TLD? Then he'd do LTK and we'd still have the same legal nonsense. THEN maybe we get Dalton! So they switched places completely! Tim's not that much older than Pierce, and we did replace Sean with Roger before so it wouldn't be out of the question.
    This way we wouldn't get rid of Pierce completely-- as I do like him very much. But now he gets two, and Dalton gets FOUR, including GoldenEye (my dream come true). And rest assured, DAD would not have been the same under Dalton's tenure!

    I like Brozza but, trust me, that would have been bad. If you don't believe me watch Taffin or Live Wire for comfirmation.
  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    I think Tim could have easily played the role through the late 90s as he was still very much looking the part. Therefore I would forgo the Brosnan Era in a second for more Dalton films.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I like Brozza but, trust me, that would have been bad. If you don't believe me watch Taffin or Live Wire for confirmation.

    Ah but then we'd have insurance that he wouldn't be lured back years later for GoldenEye! ;) If he's bad in TLD & LTK then the public would be itching for a tough Bond in 1995!
    Then again, while I have not seen Taffin or Live Wire, Pierce is quite badass in 4h Protocol! I bet he would have done alright. But yeah, come 1995, bring on Dalton!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/30263230

    Here's a fan review of Live Wire @Master_Dahark.

    Like @doubleooh said 50 is probably the age where any Bond actor should consider retiring. As Dalton was around that age in 1995 I suspect GE would have been his last anyway. Bear in mind too that Rog was 58 and known to have outstayed his welcome.

    Nonetheless I genuinely think its a shame Dalts didn't get at least one more and fulfill his contract but, lets be honest, people just didn't take to him.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Its really strange - as it is proved that Tim Dalton was not much of a hit but still - some here seem to go out of their way to prove otherwise. He tried to be the tough Bond, but the audience didn't love him...no more, no less can be said about him. I truly believe - had he gone on - Bond would be dead by now, as the general audience just couldn't find a love for him. He is not really sexy nor was he a real tough Bond - he was rather "playing" tough, but not exuding the goods...so in the end - Bond is either sexy playful or sexy tough, but never ????
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I do a bit bad for Dalts in a way :( He's the underdog of the Bond franchise.

    I remember someone (who was around at the time) describing the reception each actor had:

    "Connery was loved and admired
    Lazenby was neither
    Moore was loved but not admired
    Dalton was admired but not loved
    Brosnan was loved and admired
    Craig divides opinion - A LOT"

    Weren't you around at the time @Germanlady? I was too young.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I would, oh yes. Dalton could have starred in GoldenEye for a start, then take it from there.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    @ Germanlady
    I have heard others say that Dalton did not have any "sex appeal"
    Connery and Lazenby exuded sexual confidence
    Moore seemed more like an overgrown frat boy wating for the next panty raid
    Brosnan has all the screen idol looks but I think it worked to his disadvantage.
    Craig on the other hand seems more in the mold of Connery and Lazenby. A sexy beast who would kill at the drop of a hat.
    Dalton looks dangerous enough and tough but maybe he lacked the balance of sex appeal that Connery and Lazenby (and now Craig) presented so convincingly.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    edited March 2012 Posts: 6,601
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I do a bit bad for Dalts in a way :( He's the underdog of the Bond franchise.

    I remember someone (who was around at the time) describing the reception each actor had:

    "Connery was loved and admired
    Lazenby was neither
    Moore was loved but not admired
    Dalton was admired but not loved
    Brosnan was loved and admired
    Craig divides opinion - A LOT"

    Weren't you around at the time @Germanlady? I was too young.

    No, I wasn't and agree to your quotes - just - Brosnan was loved and admired, yes - until Craig came along...seems he made people aware of what Pierce lacked at the end of the day. Personally, I find it always awkward to place them - they have all brought their own specific goods to the role and defined Bond a bit more.

  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited March 2012 Posts: 4,813
    My girlfriend has said many times that Tim is not just good looking, but HOT. She said this while watching his Bond movies with me and when watching Hot Fuzz and Chuck. Now, whether she means it, or just says so because she knows he's my favorite Bond is up for debate....
    I'm pretty sure she means it though, as one day I came home and saw her watching Jane Eyre on Netflix :)
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    NO absolutely not, as Dalton himself had said that these days for 007 would have been over such was his popularity. If he had done 1 more without legal battles we would still have gotten Brosnan if the franchise had survived a 3rd Dalton. The 2nd one was already going down. And is also one of the least selling 007 dvd's.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think one of the problems with Dalton is that he often presented himself as "too sensible". Perhaps that's why he never quite "clicked".
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited March 2012 Posts: 4,520
    There can have made Dalton his third Bond movie for 1992 or atleast Goldeneye.

    TMND whas on the edge to delay til 1998 (Release whas earlier in The Netherlands then in the Uk), if Goldeneye have been Dalton his 3th or 4th movie, Brosnan first be seen in 1998. Then we get his second in 2000 and if we get that extra Dalton movie in 1992 it mean that be the 20th movie (Stil without Desmond LLewelyn). Die Another Day be then his third and the 21th movie movie in 20002, cost whas it cost Eon whant a Bond movie in 2002, maney there have delay it til 2003, but then we get another movie in 2007. (45 Years) For 2010 then we get a new Bond.

    So let i say this, iam be happy if Dalton have got his extra movie for 1992 and mabey also Goldeneye, if Brosnan get his first one in 1998, second in 2000 and 3th movie in 2003 and 4th final movie in 2007. If iam relestic i know he haven't made more then 3 in that case. But if this mean stil TMND and Twine and another movie insteed of DAD and lost GE to Dalton. I like GE a lot. With mabey some litle changed Dalton easy fit in GE. With changes i mean there should strick with his Moneypenny. Felix should be in 1992 movie but not in GE (like Jeffrey wright not be in Skyfall.)

    In 2004 and 2005 there be to much problems, those also have exist without Brosnan. In 1996 it whas Albert who died and his wife died in 2004 and in between we have 2001. Eon whant give us Bond 21 in 2005 but for that production must start in 2004.

    Dalton haven't made more then 4. Albert whant Brosnan already and if a new Bond must be choosen for 1998 release, as a kind of respect Brosnan have been Bond. Mabey Brosnan stil have made 4 movies like he have now but then his last movie be in 2007.

  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    edited March 2012 Posts: 2,632
    M_Balje wrote:
    Dalton haven't made more then 4. Albert wanted Brosnan already and if a new Bond must be chosen for 1998 release, as a kind of respect Brosnan have been Bond. Maybe Brosnan still have made 4 movies like he have now but then his last movie be in 2007.

    Actually, Cubby Broccoli was very fond of Timothy Dalton and wasn't in mind of Pierce Brosnan as James Bond until Dalton announced his resignation. Because of a certain director (whose name I dont remember) was willing to do GE but only without Timothy... and Albert declined because he was loyal to TD as Bond.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    That was probably Renny Harlin. Thats one reason I do feel quite bad for TD but I suppose Harlin wasn't the only one who felt that way.
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    I like Brosnan, but I would've loved to see Dalton in at least two more films. Like the Brosnan era never happened. And I'm no Brozza hater.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    edited March 2012 Posts: 7,653
    I think that Broccoli would perhaps have made a third Dalton outing by the name of Property of a Lady. And if that one would have done as good as LTK it would have meant that the studio would put their foot down and demand another performer the more commercial interesting Pierce Brosnan (who was also Brocolli's choice).

    The big difference being that we would have had the 24th Bond currently being filmed.

  • St_GeorgeSt_George Shuttling Drax's lovelies to the space doughnut - happy 40th, MR!
    edited March 2012 Posts: 1,699
    licensetoforum wrote:
    Would you forgo the Brosnan Era to add to the Dalton era?

    I can answer this question in four words: not for a second...
  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    Posts: 2,782
    licensetoforum wrote:
    Hypothetically, let's say the legal problems the franchise faced after LTK never happened therefore allowing Dalton to immediately continue. Would you want this if this meant that Brosnan would not get the part?

    In an instant.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    licensetoforum wrote:
    Hypothetically, let's say the legal problems the franchise faced after LTK never happened therefore allowing Dalton to immediately continue. Would you want this if this meant that Brosnan would not get the part?

    NO! NO! NO! Pierce Brosnan is amazing as 007! It is a shame that Dalton didn't get two more in between '89 and '95, but GoldenEye with Dalton? Just no-that's Brosnan's movie hands down!
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited March 2012 Posts: 401
    This is a hard question. Dalton is my favorite Bond, but Brosnan's era wasn't that bad. My favorite out of Brosnan's era is probably TND. I would take away from Moore's era actually. Maybe give Dalton AVTAK, and have him make a Bond film in '91 or sometime in the early 90's, then have Brosnan be the new Bond for GoldenEye. Although Dalton could have played Bond up until 2002 IMO.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited March 2012 Posts: 5,767
    licensetoforum wrote:
    Hypothetically, let's say the legal problems the franchise faced after LTK never happened therefore allowing Dalton to immediately continue. Would you want this if this meant that Brosnan would not get the part?
    I supported Brosnan for many years, and I still don´t loath DAD, but my DVD shelf feels much more comfortable since Craig follows directly after Dalton.

    In a way, I like to see Brosnan´s Bond films as kind of rogue, much like NSNA, not bad films, but somehow not fitting with the rest. Which admittedly I can say only now that Craig has established his version of Bond. To quote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Brosnan was loved and admired, yes - until Craig came along...seems he made people aware of what Pierce lacked at the end of the day.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Well, I treat the Brosnan era like an interregulum (it never happened) and my films jumped between LTK and CR. I mean would the world really miss TND if it didnt exist?
Sign In or Register to comment.