Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

Baltimore_007

I think Dalton would of had no more luck in the steam room with Onatopp than Brosnan did, obviously Goldeneye was written with Dalton in mind, but can you really imagine him doing a leap off the dam, or driving a tank around Saint Petersburg, or involved in a brutal fight with Trevelyan or hitting it off with Scorupco etc

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-)

Getafix

licensetoforum said:

Baltimore_007 said:
He wasn't forced, he decided to quit the role in early '94 due to the ongoing legal disputes of the time

Sorry, I see what you mean now, the visit to M in Florida in License to Kill, wasn't reading from the same page

No matter what is said, I always insist Dalton would of been inappropriate for Goldeneye by 1995, just as Connery was with Diamonds and Moore in Octopussy and View to a Kill and Brosnan in Die Another Day. Bond actors need to know, or be told sometimes when enough is enough, but they evidently weren't listening one or two of them. Brosnan was a success in '95, new Bond, new times, it was an overall success, I'm adamant that Dalton wouldn't have done as well, Pierce looked young and fresh at the time and did very well. As much I like Dalton, I merely insist, this was past his time by now, it's all very well in hindsight that he dropped out when he did and someone else got the part and did a fine job with it

I do think Brosnan held the series up well, but GE was one of the few films in the series where an older Bond would work. All the talk about Bond being a relic would have made more sense with a ond we already had, and a Bond who was older.

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.

BAIN123

It's not just the "Dalton-bashers" that say that though @Getafix. I've had this conversation with @Jaguar007 - a Dalton supporter - and he takes the same line.

Getafix

BAIN123 said:
It's not just the "Dalton-bashers" that say that though @Getafix. I've had this conversation with @Jaguar007 - a Dalton supporter - and he takes the same line.

What line? My line that Dalton would have been better but the film less financially successful?

DaltonCraig007

Getafix said:

BAIN123 said:
It's not just the "Dalton-bashers" that say that though @Getafix. I've had this conversation with @Jaguar007 - a Dalton supporter - and he takes the same line.

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.

BAIN123

Getafix said:

BAIN123 said:
It's not just the "Dalton-bashers" that say that though @Getafix. I've had this conversation with @Jaguar007 - a Dalton supporter - and he takes the same line.

What line? My line that Dalton would have been better but the film less financially successful?

I was talking about the "more financially successful" line

Getafix

DaltonCraig007 said:

Getafix said:

BAIN123 said:
It's not just the "Dalton-bashers" that say that though @Getafix. I've had this conversation with @Jaguar007 - a Dalton supporter - and he takes the same line.

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.

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.

DaltonCraig007

Getafix said:

DaltonCraig007 said:

Getafix said:

BAIN123 said:
It's not just the "Dalton-bashers" that say that though @Getafix. I've had this conversation with @Jaguar007 - a Dalton supporter - and he takes the same line.

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.

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 ?

BAIN123

Getafix said:

DaltonCraig007 said:

Getafix said:

BAIN123 said:
It's not just the "Dalton-bashers" that say that though @Getafix. I've had this conversation with @Jaguar007 - a Dalton supporter - and he takes the same line.

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.

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.

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.

Getafix

DaltonCraig007 said:

Getafix said:

DaltonCraig007 said:

Getafix said:

BAIN123 said:
It's not just the "Dalton-bashers" that say that though @Getafix. I've had this conversation with @Jaguar007 - a Dalton supporter - and he takes the same line.

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.

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 ?

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!

Getafix

BAIN123 said:

Getafix said:

DaltonCraig007 said:

Getafix said:

BAIN123 said:
It's not just the "Dalton-bashers" that say that though @Getafix. I've had this conversation with @Jaguar007 - a Dalton supporter - and he takes the same line.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

thelivingroyale

I've said it before but still.

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.

Getafix

Just been watching DC in QoS on ITV 2. He really isn't as good as Dalts, sadly.

Bentley

Fellow Agents,
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

BAIN123

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".

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.

00Beast

Here's the real question: Would anyone PREFER to have Dalton in GoldenEye over Brosnan. As for me, I say no how, no way. Pierce is the best thing about GoldenEye, I mean it's like Connery in Goldfinger or Roger in The Man with the Golden Gun. Without him, it just doesn't fit! And besides, Dalton had a good run with his two, and I don't see the need for him in GoldenEye.

BAIN123

Here's an old Radio Times review for GE:

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.

Getafix

BAIN123 said:
Here's an old Radio Times review for GE:

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.

Getafix

It was a tragedy they didn't let Dalts do one more movie.

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

BAIN123

Getafix said:
It was a tragedy they didn't let Dalts do one more movie.

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.

Getafix

BAIN123 said:

Getafix said:
It was a tragedy they didn't let Dalts do one more movie.

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.

SportzStooge007

The genesis of the GE story was built around Dalton's portrayal, certainly. Not so much because it was designed for him, but because he was the most recent incarnation of the role.

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.

Master_Dahark

I mentioned before-- what about Craig in SkyFall? We had a break from the films (granted, not quite as long) and he is returning.
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?

thelivingroyale

I agree. GE might not have been AS successful, but the break would've still made people intrested enough to see it, even if they didn't like Dalton.

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.

HenryJonesVictor

Yes, he would be perfect in the film. AND would make it even better...

BAIN123

Getafix said:

BAIN123 said:

Getafix said:
It was a tragedy they didn't let Dalts do one more movie.

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 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.

thelivingroyale

I don't really care about how much money his films outside Bond have made (or even how much his Bond films made), what matters to me is he was a great James Bond, I think the very best, who's been great in everything I've seen him in. I really don't care how big a star he is.

wildboonjive

BAIN123 said:

Getafix said:

BAIN123 said:

Getafix said:
It was a tragedy they didn't let Dalts do one more movie.

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 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.

BAIN123

thelivingroyale said:
I don't really care about how much money his films outside Bond have made (or even how much his Bond films made), what matters to me is he was a great James Bond, I think the very best, who's been great in everything I've seen him in. I really don't care how big a star he is.

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?

thelivingroyale

Yeah, but how much attention he's gotten doesn't bother me either. Like I said, I think he was the best Bond and a great actor, so I really don't care how popular he is or how big a star he is (and he was popular when he was Bond).

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements