Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

edited August 2014 in Actors Posts: 9,853
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'.
«134567102

Comments

  • haserothaserot has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.
    edited May 2012 Posts: 4,188
    would it have been a success? i'm positive it would have.... would it have been AS successful? - if i had to guess, I would say probably not..

    part of the contribution towards LTK's box office short comings, was due to a crowded summer in '89, which had not only the third Indiana Jones film, but also the mega popular Batman flick.. this is precisely the reason why (starting with GE) the Bond films moved from the summer, to the holiday season - to avoid the gamut of blockbuster openings..

    but it is no secret, that at the time of Dalton's appointment as 007, the general public were dead set on Brosnan taking over the role (which he would have, had it not been for Remington Steele stepping in at the last minute to reel him back)... so to many, Brosnan as Bond in GE was a long time coming - probably even overdue to many as well....

    Dalton did well as Bond - but he wasn't setting the world aflame with his take either..... so as it pains me to say (because i am a Dalton fan), it was probably for the best that he stepped aside... because GE was a smash hit, and secured Bond's place back at the box office again..... could it have done so with Dalton? maybe, we'll never know..

    Dalton is one who seems to have gained a following over time, much like Lazenby - and his films, with repeated viewings, have aged gracefully among the fanbase.
  • If critics think Dalton sledding on a cello is dark then this world has gone mad. lol Joking aside, Dalton was a great Bond, better than Moore in my opinion because Dalton wanted to stay true to the character as Fleming intended him to be. Lets not forget that Dalton is a shakespearean actor and takes his roles very seriously . I believe Dalton tried to convince the writers/directors to give him more leeway with TLDL, and they did , but not much. But for LTK Im pretty sure Dalton swayed cubby and the gang, letting him play the role with more of his own intent, in this case being darker. I enjoyed every bit of LTK until the poorly written ending came along, there was no need for bond to perform a wheelie in a semi-truck, dear god what lazy horrible writing. License to Kill all in all was a very solid bond flick though, let's not forget its the only film out of the series to give Q a more in-depth role, and I really enjoyed the subtle presence of Q being in and around Bond at the hotel. The sequence with the signature gun was also very well put together, as well as the gritty death of Felix. Yes LTK had it's flaws, but all were minor compared to any of Moore's outings flaws. As far as Dalton being in Goldeneye? It all depends on the writing, thinking back on all the scenes including Brosnan , such as the toilet hanging sequence and Tank chase, I substitute Brosnan's face with Dalton's and Its not hard at all for me to imagine Dalton being fed the same script. I actually believe it would have most likely been the same , but I may be wrong, and probably am. who knows.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:
    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...

  • I'm not sure I entirely buy the "public demanding Pierce Brosnan" line that seems to have become the accepted wisdom. I doubt there would have been a bloodthirsty torch-bearing, pitchfork waving, mob outside Eon's doors, had they plumped for Dalton or another actor for Goldeneye.

    I just don't think he was as famous (certainly in the UK) as we are sometimes led to believe. Perhaps I'm wrong, but he certainly wasn't a household name (maybe he was in the US?) in the way that Roger Moore was in 1973, off the back of The Saint and The Persuaders.

    All that being said, I don't think a Dalton 'Goldeneye' would have made as much money as Brosnan's version did. The novelty of a new Bond, merely added to the build-up of anticipation, during the lay off.
  • Posts: 11,089
    I'm just going to echo what people have said above. I'm sure GE would have been relatively successful but I really don't think it would have been AS successful.

    The film NEEDED to bring back Bond in a big way. I don't mean to bash Dalton (again) but I just don't think he's a star. At THAT point Bond needed a star, it needed someone who was popular (i.e. In America).

    @actonsteve

    Apparently Dalton did. I've read that too. Whether it's true or not who knows but it does kind of go against the claim Cubby made in 1989 on Terry Wogan that "Bond will live on forever".

    I'm starting to think that KIll REALLY damaged the series if claims like that are being made by it's star.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,920
    It wouldn't have been AS successful but after 6 years since the last film and with a lighter tone it would probably keep the series going. I think it would've also made Dalton a more popular Bond.

    @BAIN123 See, I think this would've made Dalton a star. I love Brosnan but I'd have preferred Dalton for GE.
  • haserothaserot has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.
    edited May 2012 Posts: 4,188
    I'm not sure I entirely buy the "public demanding Pierce Brosnan" line that seems to have become the accepted wisdom. I doubt there would have been a bloodthirsty torch-bearing, pitchfork waving, mob outside Eon's doors, had they plumped for Dalton or another actor for Goldeneye.

    there was a (non scientific) poll conducted by the media in or around the mid 80s, as to who should take over as Bond once Moore was done..... Brosnan was by and away the audience favorite, primarily due to the fact he played a roll in Remington Steele that was very Bond-like....

    it's on a video somewhere - i think it might be on HapHazardStuff's website.

  • oo7oo7
    edited May 2012 Posts: 1,068
    whats next on your list of hypothetical bus tour, would Dr No have won if Roger Moore was Bond in 62?
    of course goldeneye would have been better, its already observed that the script is drasticly rewritten and dumbed down, perhaps to the point where it becomes senseless. i enjoyed the backstory of blofeld in he thunderball book but i couldnt gather where or when 006 made his deal with Oromov. and in the game remake i didnt even know what way was xenia even connected to anyone? she just showed up to react death sequences.
    I'd like to add that was brosnon not called the billion dollar bond because his films were progressivly making more money. a trend observed widely as the avengers nearly takes a billion being out than less that 2 weeks. needless to say Bond opening night views will always be high. Even those ones brosnan made that people thought wer e buit of a dud. QoS still made money through despite being poorly written and apparently made up by daniel craig himself.
    I think the rest period of Bonds brings alot of people out from under there rocks. but bond is bond and people will watch whatever they put his name on, or read, or wear, or play. Bond is and "official" "FRanchise" if they made him a woman and she couldnt drive and sat in an office all day. people would still in some way show up to disbelieve it and spend money in the process.
    I think Lazenby was proof enough that Bond did not rely on the actor to sell, the only reason Connery came back was because he was wanted back and he saw and angle to get two films off the ground for himself. and a solid pay check.
    Enough of these forum posts all they seem to do is antagonise and bring about rather stagnant realms of thought.
    Why has no one tried to get dalton to record all the books as audio plays?
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 330
    The first Bond film for any actor must be a rather nervy experience. Connery had to concentrate on becoming the polished, sophisticate, that Terence Young insisted on; Lazenby had the most challenging debut of all, replacing the original; Moore joked that he had to concentrate on NOT saying "Bond. James Bond" with a Scottish accent, but a lot was riding on LALD; Dalton had to freshen up the series, following a very established actor; and Brosnan had to ensure that Bond had a place in the 1990s.

    Hats off to all of them.

    I think Brosnan did a decent job with Goldeneye. It was an excellent debut, but, in the back of my mind, is always the nagging thought when I watch it: - "This is where Tim would have hit his stride."

    A shame, in many ways.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    I think we put a little too much on these actors as I said. I think you look too deeply into actors being the horses that carry the series rather than the production in a whole. If it had not been Dalton in goldeneye it was Brosnan and if brosnan had found himself in alot of work after mrs doubtfire it would have been sam neil, if not sam it would have been some other idiot we dont know of. the thing is bond will continue on deminished scales if not sucessful. we saw casino royal push a new bond film out in 2 years in Quantum of solace. then a lull of 4 years because of that films confused production. even now to this day they are rearranging things at the last minute and cutting corners to fit the filming in for the cheapest way possible. Bond will chug along no matter what. actor, music, writers(cleary on this one Purvis and Wade must be actually paying eon to keep the job by now) like haircuts bond films will be good and bad but you are almost certainly going to need one at some point somewhere down the line so dont think too hard about who should be in a film thats already made.
    It makes for futile conversation
  • haserothaserot has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.
    edited May 2012 Posts: 4,188
    oo7 wrote:
    we saw casino royal push a new bond film out in 2 years in Quantum of solace. then a lull of 4 years because of that films confused production.

    that had nothing to do with it...

    MGM was in a $5 billion dollar debt - and after 2 years of trying to (A) Find a buyer and (B) restructure their debt into equity, we finally get a Bond film...

    filming was slated to begin in 2011, with a late 2011 release... but because of MGM's financial crisis, everything was put on hold - which ended up working out in the end, because we get a Bond film in it's 50th anniversary year..

    delayed production had nothing to do with QOS.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!
    Posts: 15,413
    Ge was a very good film, no doubt about it. Brosnan's "fresh" appearence certainly must have had something to do with the film's success as well. We may seem very divided, as a group, towards Brosnan's Bond, but audiences certainly had taken a liking to the man.

    But Dalton's GE might have worked too. LTK hadn't been the success they'd hoped for but neither had TMWTGG been. Then they both introduced a longer-than-usual gap. It worked for TSWLM. It could have equally worked for Dalton.

    Lastly, a Dalton GE would have had a different script. It might have come off as an entirely different film alltogether. So who knows...
  • Posts: 1,052
    I think it's all about timing, I'm sure after a 6 year gap GE would have been a huge hit with Dalton in the lead, if the hype was big enough and people liked what they saw from clips and promos, then Timbo wouldn't have kept them away?

    I'm not sure about the competion being the reason LTK under performed, nobody ever mentions that AVTAK was against Back to the Future, Rocky 4 and Rambo 2 which were all monster hits in the US.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,832
    I would loved that Dalton did GoldenEye, and at least two more films. My favourite Bond, who had a great deal in getting the series back where it belonged after the jokey tenure of Moore.
  • Posts: 11,089
    Then they both introduced a longer-than-usual gap. It worked for TSWLM.

    I've said this before but the difference there was that Moore was ALREADY a hugely popular star both in the US and the UK thanks to The Saint and The Persuaders. It was known that people liked him.
  • barryt007barryt007 Hunting Kara Milovy with a massive elephant gun.
    Posts: 16,057
    IMO no it wouldnt have been.
    After LTK and a 6 hear hiatus,Dalton would not have been able to pull the crowds back to see the film,especially in the US where he was never popular from the start.

    It needed a star who was popular and could play the role in a more light hearted way and who could be convincing but throw a one liner when need be.
    Brosnan fitted the role for the time and the revenue proved it,and he should be applauded for that.
  • Posts: 4,718
    GoldenEye was totally written with Dalton in mind. I believe the only changes that were made to the script were because of True Lies (too similar a plot) and not because of Pierce. Just look at GE compared to TND, TWINE & DAD. The later three are the ones tailored to Brosnan. And it wasn't until '94 that we finally knew for sure that Dalton wasn't returning.

    Now as for 'would it have been as successful'? Realistically, probably not. But it sure wouldn't have tanked either! Plus I think like a lot of movies, we'd all appreciate it more today. I could easily compare the scenario to what we have going on today: Daniel Craig does CR, QOS, then a big gap-- and now he's BACK for SF. And the public is excited! I think this may be the biggest one yet!
    Like Dalton, not everyone loves Daniel Craig, but everyone's excited to have BOND back!
    Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone who lived through it: I'm sort of under the impression that whoever in the general public didn't like Dalton are the ones who missed Moore. I'm of the belief that after the hiatus they would have been more ready for Dalton's style.

    I would have just loved Dalton to stick around for GE. Pierce could have the other three (and a 4th in 2004)
  • Posts: 2,157
    Goldeneye neededwhich Pierce. He fitis the style of the movie better. Also, if Dalton had continuedto with Goldeneye, then the series wouldn't have had the re-borth it needed at the time. Better question: Would TLDL and LTK have been better with Peirce? I know that die hard Dalton fans will hate that idea, but I think I would have enjoyed those two movies more if Brozzer had been in them, as would the general cinima-going public.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe S.A.R.A.H.
    Posts: 9,830
    Given how much of a darling of the american general public Brosnan was, TLD & LTK would've made money. But they would have been nowhere near as good as the films we got. Not only was he built like a toothpick back then, but Brosnan lacks a presence. He wouldn't have been able to carry off the Interrogtion of Pushkin scene in TLD (just like the more weighty moments of GE) and and as for LTK... that would be sending a child to do a mans job.

    I certainly would not have enjoyed Brosnan-ised TLD & LTK.
  • Posts: 4,718
    I'd sooner see Roger Moore do LTK than Pierce.... Actually it would have been a cool sendoff for Moore's Bond! Of course I'm glad that's Dalton's baby

    Pierce in TLD was this close to happening though. He even did his screen tests with Maryam D'Abo- I'd have loved to see those tests!
  • Posts: 11,920
    Goldeneye neededwhich Pierce. He fitis the style of the movie better. Also, if Dalton had continuedto with Goldeneye, then the series wouldn't have had the re-borth it needed at the time. Better question: Would TLDL and LTK have been better with Peirce? I know that die hard Dalton fans will hate that idea, but I think I would have enjoyed those two movies more if Brozzer had been in them, as would the general cinima-going public.

    God no (and this is coming from a Brosnan fan). I've seen Remington Steele, and Brosnan wasn't great in it. I like Brosnan, I rank him 2nd, but let's face it he's not the best actor, especially not back in the 80s. He couldn't have handled TLD and (especially), LTK.

    Anyway, I think GE would have still been successful with Dalton (maybe not as successful though). I can't speak for everyone, but back when GE was coming out, even though I was sad that Dalton was gone, I didn't care that much about how played Bond. I was just glad we were getting a Bond film. So I think after 6 years, people were hyped for a new Bond film and the actor didn't make too much difference.
  • haserot wrote:
    oo7 wrote:
    we saw casino royal push a new bond film out in 2 years in Quantum of solace. then a lull of 4 years because of that films confused production.

    that had nothing to do with it...

    MGM was in a $5 billion dollar debt - and after 2 years of trying to (A) Find a buyer and (B) restructure their debt into equity, we finally get a Bond film...

    filming was slated to begin in 2011, with a late 2011 release... but because of MGM's financial crisis, everything was put on hold - which ended up working out in the end, because we get a Bond film in it's 50th anniversary year..

    delayed production had nothing to do with QOS.

    After the legal issues, the "confused production" was due to a writer's strike and a production behind schedule. I thought everyone knew that :-S
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 2,782
    It would have given him a trilogy of classic Bond films. Only the other fella did that.

    Pity, Dalton was heir apparent to SC throne.
  • Posts: 299
    To answer this properly, I think we first need to ask ourselves a more important question - why was GoldenEye successful? I think there are a few answers to this.

    First off, it made a conscious attempt to look and feel like a James Bond movie on the surface, much more so than LTK. The 6-year gap certainly played to its advantage, since that can create a fair amount of public anticipation more often than not. Thirdly, I do have to agree with those of you who have pointed out that a substantial portion of the public, at least in America, were waiting for the day that Brosnan would step into this role, so there was certainly a sense of wish-fulfillment there I believe, and I think it definitely contributed to the success. But there was one other major reason behind the success, which surprisingly I don't think any of you have mentioned. The marketing on GE was outstanding. Do you remember it? It was a stellar, stellar campaign. In fact, I recall one magazine claiming that it had been the best marketing campaign for a any film that year, and I believed that to be true even then. EON and MGM did a terrific job because it was simultaneously sold as retro and new. And that worked very well in my opinion. The whole "You expecting someone else?" line from the teaser was the clincher. It was very smart.

    Now, if you consider all of this, I think it's fair to say that GE would have been a hit if Dalton was in it (the 6-year gap and the marketing would have worked to its advantage). However, I don't think it would have been as big as it was with Brosnan. Perhaps 60% - 70% of its final take. The Brosnan factor was significant. And though I'm truly not much of a fan of his and instead prefer Dalton all the way, as well as TLD and (especially) LTK, I think GE had the edge with Brosnan in it.
  • Posts: 1,492
    T Thirdly, I do have to agree with those of you who have pointed out that a substantial portion of the public, at least in America, were waiting for the day that Brosnan would step into this role, so there was certainly a sense of wish-fulfillment there I believe, and I think it definitely contributed to the success. .

    Now that is very interesting because over this side of the Bond Brosnan barely registered. His main point of notability was being linked with James Bond.

    Remington Steele wasn't a big hit over here. It was on BBC2 on a week night and I think only lasted one or two seasons.

    So, it was really the American public which went for Brosnan?



  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 10,903
    @Wildboonjive (awesome name btw lol) hit the nail on the head, particularly with the marketing aspect and the Brosnan factor. Like it or not, Brosnan was the people's choice to be the next Bond. His popularity was shockingly high and you know what, I've said it before and i'll say it again, I'm not Brosnan's biggest fan when it comes to him being Bond but he delivered on the expectations the GA had and he made Bond relevant again. I'm watching GE for the 3rd time in a row over the last 2 days and it's just a crime that things turned out the way it did. GE was/is a great film. Sure, it has it's flaws but as good as Brosnan was in GE, he also showed signs of greater potential that just never materialised through out the rest of his era and as much as he is to blame, I also strongly believe the blame can also be on the heads of the writers, producers and the different directors who did a poor job in realising their leading man. On another note, Purvis and Wade get a bad rap but the fact is, the movies' end result isn't a product of their writing. Those 2 are kept on because they know Fleming extremely well and are excellent idea men but it's the involvement of others who screw their story up beyond belief resulting in mediocre bullcrap but bringing it back on topic, could GE have been better with Dalton. It's hard to say. Dalton wasn't exactly a popular Bond but he could have given GE more gravitas, especially with the Bond and Alec scenes and with the 6 year gap but this is all moot. Either way, GE achieved what it set out to do and we should all be grateful that it turned out as well as it did.
  • Posts: 299
    Thanks doubleoego :)

    But yes, I believe here in America the public definitely accepted Brosnan and in some ways thought of him as a no-brainer for the role.
  • Posts: 11,920
    actonsteve wrote:
    T Thirdly, I do have to agree with those of you who have pointed out that a substantial portion of the public, at least in America, were waiting for the day that Brosnan would step into this role, so there was certainly a sense of wish-fulfillment there I believe, and I think it definitely contributed to the success. .

    Now that is very interesting because over this side of the Bond Brosnan barely registered. His main point of notability was being linked with James Bond.

    Remington Steele wasn't a big hit over here. It was on BBC2 on a week night and I think only lasted one or two seasons.

    So, it was really the American public which went for Brosnan?



    Yeah, I hadn't heard of Remington Steele until after he'd become Bond (I live in England).

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    actonsteve wrote:
    T Thirdly, I do have to agree with those of you who have pointed out that a substantial portion of the public, at least in America, were waiting for the day that Brosnan would step into this role, so there was certainly a sense of wish-fulfillment there I believe, and I think it definitely contributed to the success. .

    Now that is very interesting because over this side of the Bond Brosnan barely registered. His main point of notability was being linked with James Bond.

    Remington Steele wasn't a big hit over here. It was on BBC2 on a week night and I think only lasted one or two seasons.

    So, it was really the American public which went for Brosnan?



    Yeah, I hadn't heard of Remington Steele until after he'd become Bond (I live in England).

    Indeed. Had not really heard of Dalton either when TLD came out (although I was only 12 so my knowledge of Shakespearean actors was rather scant) but at least he had been in Flash Gordon (begs the question why did no one interview Peter Duncan for Bond?) I had absolutely no clue who Brosnan was at the time.

    I remember in 007 magazine Graham Rye getting all excited saying that Brozza was the only candidate and was a fantastic choice (wonder if he still stands by those words?) but the only thing I was aware of was Mrs Doubtfire - hardly a great showreel to audition for Bond. And I dont know anyone this side of the pond who watched Remington Steele.
  • Posts: 4,727
    Dalton would have fit the tone for GoldenEye and would have gone up nicely against Sean Bean's Alec Trevelyan, but quite honestly, I can't see anyone in the role of 007 in GoldenEye except Pierce Brosnan. He fit the movie like a comfortable suit. Perhaps Dalton could have hit his best note with a third performance with a superb storyline like GE, but Brosnan did it better.
Sign In or Register to comment.