Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

DoubleOhhSeven

I figure I'll throw in my 2 cents. First of all Timothy Dalton DID NOT claim LTK would be the last Bond film. He said he suspected that his upcoming third Bond film (Bond 17) slated at the time for a 1991/1992 release would be the final Bond film. Just take a look at the link below.

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_17_intro.php3

Secondly I think some of the posters on this board are overestimating Brosnan's popularity at the time. Yes American audiences wanted him as Bond in 1986 but by the time 1994 came around Brosnan had been forgotten in the minds of alot of fans. He'd pretty much become an 80s tv hasbeen with 1 successful role since Remington Steele but with a laundry list of flops. GE in many ways saved his career.

No matter what GE would've been a success. Whenever there is a prolonged gap between Bond films the series always comes back strong. Whether it was Dalton, Brosnan, or James Purevoy stepping into the role the general feeling was that audiences had missed that Bond series and by 1995 had wanted it back in a bad way. However I'll agree with Dalton's lukewarm reception I suspect GE wouldn't have taken in as much money. A Bond debut always rakes in extra cash as audiences are naturally curious. But I believe had Dalton returned GE would not have been as dark as LTK and a concious effort would've been made to make a more quintessential Bond film.

Master_Dahark

Sure sounds like he's taking about LTK in that interview. ...

OHMSS69

Dalton did a bang up job in his two films. I think GE would have been a tour de force for him. I daresay Cubby would have toned down some of the intense and graphic violent deaths given the way the critics jumped all over the violence in LTK.
Some of the lighter scenes would have been tossed (like the socking the bad guy taking a dump and maybe the tank chase as well--I don't know. )
Dalton would have played well opposite Bean and his conflict at having to kill his old friend was taylor made for Dalton.
The film would have made gobs of money but not as much as it did with Brosnan being touted as a "new Bond".
James Bond is a viable and profitable entity and if I were a distributor I would not shy away from marketing and exhibiting one.

licensetoforum

Am I the only who thinks Dalton in GE would have been the perfect final Bond for Cubby? I know he liked Brosnan, but Dalton was Cubby's friend and to me it always seemed they had a great mutal respect for one another. As for the success question, yes GE would have been fine because it would have gotten tons of advertising and people wanted 007 back.

DoubleOhhSeven

actonsteve said:

Getafix said:
Dalton was his own worst enemy - openly predicting that LTK would be the last in the series. '.

He did? I dont remember that? And I have been a Dalton watcher since 1987..

I think it would have been a success as no Bond film has flopped (OHMSS broke even eventually) and the world was gagging for James Bond by 1995.

But it may not have ,made as much as with Pierce in it, but it would have made money. Enough to please the MGM suits? I dont know...

OHMSS did a hell of alot more than merely break even. It had a 7 million dollar budget and grossed 82 million dollars. That sounds like a profit to me. I hate the misconception that OHMSS was a flop. It was actually the second highest grossing film of 1969, behind Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid. It was an all around financial success. It just wasn't the mega blockbuster GF or TB was. With all due respect to @actionsteve ofcourse. ;)

identigraph

DoubleOhhSeven said:

actonsteve said:

Getafix said:
Dalton was his own worst enemy - openly predicting that LTK would be the last in the series. '.

He did? I dont remember that? And I have been a Dalton watcher since 1987..

I think it would have been a success as no Bond film has flopped (OHMSS broke even eventually) and the world was gagging for James Bond by 1995.

But it may not have ,made as much as with Pierce in it, but it would have made money. Enough to please the MGM suits? I dont know...

OHMSS did a hell of alot more than merely break even. It had a 7 million dollar budget and grossed 82 million dollars. That sounds like a profit to me. I hate the misconception that OHMSS was a flop. It was actually the second highest grossing film of 1969, behind Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid. It was an all around financial success. It just wasn't the mega blockbuster GF or TB was. With all due respect to @actionsteve ofcourse. ;)

You are absolutley right, if you look at actual tickets sold OHMSS did good business, a lot of blockbusters would be happy to have OHMSS in this day and age!

BAIN123

identigraph said:

DoubleOhhSeven said:

actonsteve said:

Getafix said:
Dalton was his own worst enemy - openly predicting that LTK would be the last in the series. '.

He did? I dont remember that? And I have been a Dalton watcher since 1987..

I think it would have been a success as no Bond film has flopped (OHMSS broke even eventually) and the world was gagging for James Bond by 1995.

But it may not have ,made as much as with Pierce in it, but it would have made money. Enough to please the MGM suits? I dont know...

OHMSS did a hell of alot more than merely break even. It had a 7 million dollar budget and grossed 82 million dollars. That sounds like a profit to me. I hate the misconception that OHMSS was a flop. It was actually the second highest grossing film of 1969, behind Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid. It was an all around financial success. It just wasn't the mega blockbuster GF or TB was. With all due respect to @actionsteve ofcourse. ;)

You are absolutley right, if you look at actual tickets sold OHMSS did good business, a lot of blockbusters would be happy to have OHMSS in this day and age!

I think a lot of the misconceptions about OHMSS being a "flop" were to do with the fact that Laz (apparently) walked away before the film was even released. Hence he was (and is) seen as a "lesser Bond" who was sandwiched between two films with that "other fella".

dchantry

Back on subject.
Of course GE would have been a succes with Dalton. Everybody was gagging for a Bond film after the 6 year wait.

One misconception was that LTK was a disaster. The only market where LTK severly under performed was in the US, which wasn't helped by a poor last minute marketing campaign (poster and name changes etc) and the competition of other films in summer of 89.
LTK is a great film and one of my personal faves and its sad that such a great actor as Bond like Dalton only did 2 films, especially when his tenure as Bond was as long as Brosnans (8 years).

That said, GE is a great film and Brosnan is superb in it. It certainly looks and feels like the last of the 'traditional' Bonds. Great Marketing campaign as already mentioned.

BAIN123

The only market where LTK severly under performed was in the US, which wasn't helped by a poor last minute marketing campaign (poster and name changes etc) and the competition of other films in summer of 89.

The US is one of the biggest nations in the world so if a Bond film is going to under-perform the US is NOT the place it should do so.

Also, I'm not sure I buy this whole "competition of other films" stuff. True LTK had a lot of competition at the time but TND (an inferior film btw) had to compete with possibly one of the biggest, most anticipated films ever made upon its release date (Titanic) and still managed to make a hefty amount of cash.

NicNac

Getafix said:
As much as I love Dalton's take on Bond, all the Dalton-bashing on these forums has made me question whether he could have made a commercial success of GE in the way that Brosnan did. In a sense, the storyline would have suited him perfectly, as it nicely references the gap between the movies. I've read people who say GE was written with Dalton in mind, which makes a lot of sense when you think about the plot. But many posters on these forums are convinced that Dalton was unpopular with the audience and that a third outing would have meant the end of Bond. Perhaps Dalton was his own worst enemy - openly predicting that LTK would be the last in the series. My own feeling has always been that it would have been great to have a third Dalton film but that after LTK he would have needed to lighten up a bit and perhaps return more to the feel of TLD. Since Cubby liked to mix things up and keep things fresh, I have no doubt that Dalton's third outing would have been very different in tone to LTK and would have gone a long way to answer the critics who accuse him of being 'too dark'.

Dalton bashing? I thought the general consensus was one of adoration. I figured that my personal Dalton bashing was against the vast opinion of Dalton love. ;)

Well I believe the bigwigs who stomped the money up realised that GE would be more of a success with Brosnan than with Dalton which is why they gave Dalts the option to fall on his sword rather than be taken out and shot. He (Dalton) was very gracious but accepted his fate. And it was the right call. GE was popular, so was Brosnan.

It's only my theory and I could be a long way off the mark, but I do think Dalton was quietly forced out.

dchantry

BAIN123 said:
[i][b]Also, I'm not sure I buy this whole "competition of other films" stuff. True LTK had a lot of competition at the time but TND (an inferior film btw) had to compete with possibly one of the biggest, most anticipated films ever made upon its release date (Titanic) and still managed to make a hefty amount of cash.

Agreed, the US is the one market which forms how succesful the Bond films are:
Connery was anything between 1/2 and 1/3.
Lazumby was 1/4.
Moore was anything between 1/3 and 1/4.
Dalton was 1/4 for LTK was just under 1/5 (almost same figures gross in both US and ROW as LALD 16 years earlier)
Brosnan was actually best US performance since Connery and under 1/3 total gross.
Craig was actually better gross than any Brosnan in the US but the ratio is down because worldwide gross was much higher.

Having said that, competition from Titanic is not the same as having competition from Batman, Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2 and even Ghostbusters 2 all at the same time.

Speaking for the UK, summer of 89, warm weather, so many films to go to and limited multiplexes as the old traditional cinemas were replaced obviously affected the box office of LTK here.
Winter of 97 meant colder weather, lots of evening trips to the cinema and a direct choice of Titanic or Bond. Seems everyone on the planet saw Titanic and even I got dragged in by my then girlfriend, but I saw TND a few times because of nothing else :)

MrEon

licensetoforum said:
Am I the only who thinks Dalton in GE would have been the perfect final Bond for Cubby? I know he liked Brosnan, but Dalton was Cubby's friend and to me it always seemed they had a great mutal respect for one another. As for the success question, yes GE would have been fine because it would have gotten tons of advertising and people wanted 007 back.

You are indeed right "licensetforum", Cubby was very good friends with Dalton and was upset that circumstances didn't allow them to make a third Bond film together!! Timothy Dalton is also great friends with Barbra Broccoli too, I bumped into both of them at the John Barry Memorial Concert last year and she referred to Tim as her Bond, which I found interesting!, at which MGW raised his eye brows. Tim put his arm around her and pulled her tight to him, being that the man is a giant! Tim is a lovely man and seeing him in GE would of been the Bond film he deserved, esp with Martin Campbell getting even more out of him than the lame John Glen!?
Brosnan could of then done his 3, and then that would bring us to the present day and DC.... :-B

DaltonCraig007

dchantry said:

One misconception was that LTK was a disaster. The only market where LTK severly under performed was in the US

LTK sold 39 million tickets world wide..... GE sold 81 million tickets world wide, which is twice as more..... only CR67 made less than LTK... even NSNA made 10 millions more ticket sales than LTK, MR which came 10 years before LTK sold more than twice as many tickets than LTK.

GE is the only Bond film to have sold twice as many tickets than its immediate predecessor.... so GE and Brosnan made the biggest improvement in the box office for a new Bond's first outing.... would GE have made twice as more as LTK if Dalton had returned ? Even Connery at the height of Bond mania didn't manage to make film that outgrossed 2 times its immediate predecessor...

BAIN123

dchantry said:

BAIN123 said:
[i][b]Also, I'm not sure I buy this whole "competition of other films" stuff. True LTK had a lot of competition at the time but TND (an inferior film btw) had to compete with possibly one of the biggest, most anticipated films ever made upon its release date (Titanic) and still managed to make a hefty amount of cash.

Agreed, the US is the one market which forms how succesful the Bond films are:
Connery was anything between 1/2 and 1/3.
Lazumby was 1/4.
Moore was anything between 1/3 and 1/4.
Dalton was 1/4 for LTK was just under 1/5 (almost same figures gross in both US and ROW as LALD 16 years earlier)
Brosnan was actually best US performance since Connery and under 1/3 total gross.
Craig was actually better gross than any Brosnan in the US but the ratio is down because worldwide gross was much higher.

Having said that, competition from Titanic is not the same as having competition from Batman, Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2 and even Ghostbusters 2 all at the same time.

Speaking for the UK, summer of 89, warm weather, so many films to go to and limited multiplexes as the old traditional cinemas were replaced obviously affected the box office of LTK here.
Winter of 97 meant colder weather, lots of evening trips to the cinema and a direct choice of Titanic or Bond. Seems everyone on the planet saw Titanic and even I got dragged in by my then girlfriend, but I saw TND a few times because of nothing else :)

Hmm hat's a good point dchantry. I suppose none of the other Bond films have had that kind of competition from films out at the same time.

Still, you'd expect a Bond film to at least do better than it did.

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1989&p=.htm

By that point James Bond had been a familiar name in the cinema for 27 years, thats much longer than someone like Indiana Jones. Even if it under-performed it SHOULD have done better than number 36.

NicNac

We could ask the question would LTK have performed better at the box office if Brosnan had starred in it.

BAIN123

NicNac said:
We could ask the question would LTK have performed better at the box office if Brosnan had starred in it.

I think we both know what the answer to that would be ;)

BUT the story wouldn't have suited him.

DaltonCraig007

Brosnan, who is closer to Moore than Dalton, would have been a less brutal change of style after Sir Rog.... so probably TLD and LTK would have made more money with Brosnan....

Agent007391

DaltonCraig007 said:
Brosnan, who is closer to Moore than Dalton, would have been a less brutal change of style after Sir Rog.... so probably TLD and LTK would have made more money with Brosnan....

I don't think that at all. Bond's personality in TLD and LTK was as much a desire of the producers as Dalton, and probably would have happened either way. Also, Dalton just fits in TLD (not so much LTK, but still a good film). Brosnan, on the other hand, came in on the right film, and shouldn't have happened any earlier. Imagine Michael Bay's Transformers coming out in 2000, when CG wasn't as good as it was seven years later, it would have been just plain wrong.

BAIN123

Watching the PTS of LTK and GE back to back one thing is quite clear. Brosnan is slicker than Dalton (come to think of it so is Sean Bean).

Just the way he catches the machine gun Trevelyan throws to him in the facility is epic.

That's really the question that bugs me about Dalton. He's tall, he's dark, he's handsome, he's a good actor and he's probably a nice bloke in real life but is he "cool"? Brosnan is a bit light-weight in GE (and a tad effimate sometimes) but he does have a "star" quality which you really need to play Bond.

I dunno...I'm probably thinking about it too much
:-? :-? :-?

Master_Dahark

I always say if you try to be cool you're not cool. Brosnan's a bit guilty of this in GE but he gradually grew out of that. Dalton would be cool just standing around! He just is cool, period

DaltonCraig007

Agent007391 said:

DaltonCraig007 said:
Brosnan, who is closer to Moore than Dalton, would have been a less brutal change of style after Sir Rog.... so probably TLD and LTK would have made more money with Brosnan....

I don't think that at all. Bond's personality in TLD and LTK was as much a desire of the producers as Dalton, and probably would have happened either way. Also, Dalton just fits in TLD (not so much LTK, but still a good film). Brosnan, on the other hand, came in on the right film, and shouldn't have happened any earlier. Imagine Michael Bay's Transformers coming out in 2000, when CG wasn't as good as it was seven years later, it would have been just plain wrong.

What I was saying was if Brosnan had been in TLD, the style would have been different, and would probably have performed better at the box office because he wouldn't have been such a brutal change after Moore..... whether Dalton or the producers wanted to make TLD that way is irrelevant - the TLD that was made did not set the box office on fire, whereas a Brosnanized TLD would have performed better.

BAIN123

Master_Dahark said:
I always say if you try to be cool you're not cool. Brosnan's a bit guilty of this in GE but he gradually grew out of that. Dalton would be cool just standing around! He just is cool, period

That's Connery :p

Agent007391

DaltonCraig007 said:

Agent007391 said:

DaltonCraig007 said:
Brosnan, who is closer to Moore than Dalton, would have been a less brutal change of style after Sir Rog.... so probably TLD and LTK would have made more money with Brosnan....

I don't think that at all. Bond's personality in TLD and LTK was as much a desire of the producers as Dalton, and probably would have happened either way. Also, Dalton just fits in TLD (not so much LTK, but still a good film). Brosnan, on the other hand, came in on the right film, and shouldn't have happened any earlier. Imagine Michael Bay's Transformers coming out in 2000, when CG wasn't as good as it was seven years later, it would have been just plain wrong.

What I was saying was if Brosnan had been in TLD, the style would have been different, and would probably have performed better at the box office because he wouldn't have been such a brutal change after Moore..... whether Dalton or the producers wanted to make TLD that way is irrelevant - the TLD that was made did not set the box office on fire, whereas a Brosnanized TLD would have performed better.

I know what you were saying. The style wouldn't have changed at all. Brosnan would have been the same kind of Bond as Dalton, just with a slight Irish accent. The only thing that might have had an impact would have been Brosnan's recent role as Remington Steele.

dchantry

DaltonCraig007 said:

Agent007391 said:

DaltonCraig007 said:
Brosnan, who is closer to Moore than Dalton, would have been a less brutal change of style after Sir Rog.... so probably TLD and LTK would have made more money with Brosnan....

I don't think that at all. Bond's personality in TLD and LTK was as much a desire of the producers as Dalton, and probably would have happened either way. Also, Dalton just fits in TLD (not so much LTK, but still a good film). Brosnan, on the other hand, came in on the right film, and shouldn't have happened any earlier. Imagine Michael Bay's Transformers coming out in 2000, when CG wasn't as good as it was seven years later, it would have been just plain wrong.

What I was saying was if Brosnan had been in TLD, the style would have been different, and would probably have performed better at the box office because he wouldn't have been such a brutal change after Moore..... whether Dalton or the producers wanted to make TLD that way is irrelevant - the TLD that was made did not set the box office on fire, whereas a Brosnanized TLD would have performed better.

I agree, If Brosnan had come in straight after Moore then people would just have said, same Bond, only younger :)

Personally, I love every interpretation of Bond when the films come out because I love the Bond in the cinema experience.

We can make arguments all day about this actor in this film, even each actor played it differently dependant on the film (watch Connery, Moore and Brosnan in their first and last to see) so its hard to say would one have made as much money.

Master_Dahark

dchantry said:
We can make arguments all day about this actor in this film, even each actor played it differently dependent on the film (watch Connery, Moore and Brosnan in their first and last to see) so its hard to say would one have made as much money.

That brings up a very good point @dchantry. Each Bond actor was a bit different in their very first film compared to their later ones (I suppose Connery played it consistently though- he's an exception)
So another thing to consider is: Would GoldenEye have been better with an established Bond, and not a noob? HELL. YES.

licensetoforum

BAIN123 said:

That's really the question that bugs me about Dalton. He's tall, he's dark, he's handsome, he's a good actor and he's probably a nice bloke in real life but is he "cool"? Brosnan is a bit light-weight in GE (and a tad effimate sometimes) but he does have a "star" quality which you really need to play Bond.

I always thought Dalts was cool by being more of the strong silent type. Brosnan is cool too, but in ore of an award ceremony sort of way.

wildboonjive

BAIN123 said:
Watching the PTS of LTK and GE back to back one thing is quite clear. Brosnan is slicker than Dalton (come to think of it so is Sean Bean).

Just the way he catches the machine gun Trevelyan throws to him in the facility is epic.

That's really the question that bugs me about Dalton. He's tall, he's dark, he's handsome, he's a good actor and he's probably a nice bloke in real life but is he "cool"? Brosnan is a bit light-weight in GE (and a tad effimate sometimes) but he does have a "star" quality which you really need to play Bond.

I dunno...I'm probably thinking about it too much
:-? :-? :-?

I agree with you that Brosnan on the surface seems "cooler" than Dalton, and does indeed have much more of that star quality. However, Dalton to me looked like someone who could kill you easily, and that's Bond. At least that should be Bond. Brosnan didn't really have that quality, at least nowhere even close to Dalton. But I guess it all goes back to what we want out of Bond.

This can be debated forever...

BAIN123

However, Dalton to me looked like someone who could kill you easily, and that's Bond.

You see. I don't know about that :-? I see what you mean but I think, in some ways, Craig has more of that genuinely scary manner about him. Craig could (and did) kill people in a heartbeat. With Dalton it sometimes seemed a bit...put on sometimes :\">

thelivingroyale

BAIN123 said:
However, Dalton to me looked like someone who could kill you easily, and that's Bond.

You see. I don't know about that :-? I see what you mean but I think, in some ways, Craig has more of that genuinely scary manner about him. Craig could (and did) kill people in a heartbeat. With Dalton it sometimes seemed a bit...put on sometimes :\">

I don't see this, but anyway, what does Craig have to do with any of this?

This is about Brosnan, and as cool as Brosnan was, Dalton looked/acted alot more dangerous. He looked like he didn't give 2 sh*ts about the rules and could kill anyone at any second. Brosnan didn't have this feeling, which is fine, he was a different type of Bond and I like him, but I prefer Dalton.

BAIN123

I like Dalts too but am not sure what position I'd rank him atm.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements