Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

134689104

Comments

  • edited July 2012 Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Kara is my favourite Bond girl. Hot, and can handle herself in action but doesn't get in Bonds way.

    Kara's great but a tad too "puppy like" for me.

    Agreed. Pam was a better Bond girl and a perfect fit for Dalton's Bond.

    Kara was good as the "damsel in distress" that needed Dalton's "White Knight" but she always looked like she was about to cry or shed a tear. I prefer the slightly more self reliant Bond girls myself like Pam or Natalya. Although to be fair Kara did develop into that as the film went along (despite nearly flying the plane into a cliff).
    To me Dalton had charisma but it was more subtle. He was not like the other Bonds who had sly pick up lines, but rather one who let his actions dictate his charm. I think that works better if you are attempting an Ian Flemings Bond approach.

    A good point but I think people like the flippant "pick up" lines in their film Bond. I must confess part of me does too.

    Even Craig (often seen as a continuation of what Dalton started) has pick up lines:

    "I'm the money"

    "Every penny of it"

    I don't know if Dalton was a natural at the pick-up lines to be honest. I'm probably going to get hammered for this but I'm not sure whether I'm entirely convinced by the "better make that two" line. It sounds like something Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan would be better at and it felt like they were just putting it there because audiences weaned on Moore wanted it (which is perhaps understandable).
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I was impressed when I heard he did alot of his own stunts, because his films (well, all the 80s films), had imo, the best stunts of the series.

    That was good - I'll give you that. Especially since I've noticed a fair share of stunt doubles for both Moore and Brosnan. Also Dalton wanted to take it back to Fleming and for that he can only deserve credit.

    I've used these two examples before on Mi6 but hopefully you'll see what I mean when I refer to Dalton's lack of "swagger":





    Which actor moves in a cooler way? ;)


    The fact Dalts is smoking makes him immeasurably cooler.

    Interesting to see Onatop (or at least the idea for the character) appear in Q's video briefing. Hadn't noticed that before.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 1,778
    I've said it many times before I believe Dalton simply needed a better director to work with. John Glen was adaquete especially when he was directing straight-forward Roger Moore Bond adventures but Timothy Dalton was a much deeper actor and hence needed a deeper director. Supposidly Dalton got very angry with Glen while filming LTK when Glen kept ignoring him when he wanted to talk about the characters. Glen was focused on the action scenes and nothing else which probably left a bitter taste in Dalton's mouth after filming had wrapped.

    Im certain Dalton would've taken to working with Martin Campbell much more than John Glen. Assuming ofcourse Campbell would've signed on with Dalton in the lead. Plus Dalton was the only Bond actor that didn't have a mega-budget Bond movie. In retrospect Dalton's 2 films looked pretty cheap when compared to most of the series. In my opinion Timothy Dalton was a very good James Bond just not a very lucky one. Timing was never on his side the way it was for Brosnan.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Dalts had his budgets progressively cut.

    TLD stands up well though I think. It certainly doesn't look any cheaper than the films made since.
  • Posts: 1,778
    I have to disagree with this. As much as it pains me to admit, he was not very popular at all during this time. People just got used to the idea of him being the current Bond, but he really wasn't loved the way Moore was, or even Brosnan later. The average moviegoer/fan didn't like Dalton at all, and most critics echoed that sentiment. At least here in America that's how it was. I remember it clearly. I was definitely in the minority at the time.

    From what I understand after The Living Daylights was released audiences were cheering for him and got behind him. However it was Licence to Kill that didn't go over too well with audiences and would explain his drop in popularity during the 90s. Remember LTK was the last Bond film for 6 and a half years and was freshest in the minds of moviegoers. Craig has suffered a similar occurance. I've gotten the impression he was much more popular after CR than after QOS. And for these past 4 years QOS has been the freshest memory in the minds of audiences. However Craig will get the chance Dalton passed up by redeeming himself in the eyes of the public with a more Bondian entry in Skyfall. I believe after that Craig's popularity will shoot up again.

    But I believe had Dalton done a third film in the early 90s that was closer to The Living Daylights he would've been remembered more fondly by the public than he his now.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I have to disagree with this. As much as it pains me to admit, he was not very popular at all during this time. People just got used to the idea of him being the current Bond, but he really wasn't loved the way Moore was, or even Brosnan later. The average moviegoer/fan didn't like Dalton at all, and most critics echoed that sentiment. At least here in America that's how it was. I remember it clearly. I was definitely in the minority at the time.

    From what I understand after The Living Daylights was released audiences were cheering for him and got behind him. However it was Licence to Kill that didn't go over too well with audiences and would explain his drop in popularity during the 90s. Remember LTK was the last Bond film for 6 and a half years and was freshest in the minds of moviegoers. Craig has suffered a similar occurance. I've gotten the impression he was much more popular after CR than after QOS. And for these past 4 years QOS has been the freshest memory in the minds of audiences. However Craig will get the chance Dalton passed up by redeeming himself in the eyes of the public with a more Bondian entry in Skyfall. I believe after that Craig's popularity will shoot up again.

    But I believe had Dalton done a third film in the early 90s that was closer to The Living Daylights he would've been remembered more fondly by the public than he his now.

    Good point. By all accounts Dalton felt LTK lacked the humour that even he felt should be part of a Bond movie. He was not shown the script until just a week or so before filming started so it is unfair to attribute the rather downbeat character of LTK to Dalton - the decision to go in this direction was taken by the directors.

    I saw TLD in the cinema but cannot really say how popular Dalton was. I got the impression at the time that TLD was well received and LTK less so. However, I don't think people really took to Dalton as they had with Sean and Roger. That said, perhaps even Roger needed time to establish himself. Had Dalts done a third we would have had a better measure of his take on Bond and the popular reaction. I think a third Dalton would have been more light hearted than LTK as both the producers and Dalton wanted to go in that direction. However, TLD is a bit of a classic IMO and LTK a unique entry. Could a third Dalton have matched these two? Perhaps not, if the writing was as bad as GE.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 1,778
    Getafix wrote:
    I have to disagree with this. As much as it pains me to admit, he was not very popular at all during this time. People just got used to the idea of him being the current Bond, but he really wasn't loved the way Moore was, or even Brosnan later. The average moviegoer/fan didn't like Dalton at all, and most critics echoed that sentiment. At least here in America that's how it was. I remember it clearly. I was definitely in the minority at the time.

    From what I understand after The Living Daylights was released audiences were cheering for him and got behind him. However it was Licence to Kill that didn't go over too well with audiences and would explain his drop in popularity during the 90s. Remember LTK was the last Bond film for 6 and a half years and was freshest in the minds of moviegoers. Craig has suffered a similar occurance. I've gotten the impression he was much more popular after CR than after QOS. And for these past 4 years QOS has been the freshest memory in the minds of audiences. However Craig will get the chance Dalton passed up by redeeming himself in the eyes of the public with a more Bondian entry in Skyfall. I believe after that Craig's popularity will shoot up again.

    But I believe had Dalton done a third film in the early 90s that was closer to The Living Daylights he would've been remembered more fondly by the public than he his now.

    Good point. By all accounts Dalton felt LTK lacked the humour that even he felt should be part of a Bond movie. He was not shown the script until just a week or so before filming started so it is unfair to attribute the rather downbeat character of LTK to Dalton - the decision to go in this direction was taken by the directors.

    I saw TLD in the cinema but cannot really say how popular Dalton was. I got the impression at the time that TLD was well received and LTK less so. However, I don't think people really took to Dalton as they had with Sean and Roger. That said, perhaps even Roger needed time to establish himself. Had Dalts done a third we would have had a better measure of his take on Bond and the popular reaction. I think a third Dalton would have been more light hearted than LTK as both the producers and Dalton wanted to go in that direction. However, TLD is a bit of a classic IMO and LTK a unique entry. Could a third Dalton have matched these two? Perhaps not, if the writing was as bad as GE.

    GE wasn't always meant to be Bond 17. After LTK a third Dalton film was slated for 1991/1992 release. It would've featured Bond going to Tokyo to battle a computer genuis. The outline is on this site. From what I read it would've been a much more Bondian entry than LTK which is what Dalton needed at the time to get audiences back. And John Glen was not going to be the director. EON was looking at either Renny Harlin or whoever directed Rambo 3.

    And I admit Dalton wasn't as popular during his tenure as Connery, Moore, Craig, or Brosnan. But what Im saying is that Dalton started out with more steam than some people realise. Im certain if he retired with a more popular entry he would've been remembered more affectionaltly. And the fact that his stay was so short also added to his lack of support. Connery, Moore, and Brosnan all retired with lackluster entries but by that point they had all been excepted as Bond. Dalton needed atleast another film or 2 before he would've been accepted.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    actually Dalton films were more expensive than moores. also they took a loss for living daylights boxoffice wise but proved a hit with license to kill(both films have no doubt made a tonne of money since dvds and such) so cheers or no cheers people were certainly paying for Dalton on his second outing and they knew all about him.
    the films look fine any assumptions of cheapness must be one of your own.
  • Posts: 11,189
    oo7 wrote:
    the films look fine any assumptions of cheapness must be one of your own.

    TLD looks ok but LTK certainly looks quite cheap in places. When Bond and Pam are travelling away in the speed boat after the bar fight the rear projection is obvious. Also it goes from the dead of night to dawn in the space of a second.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    I dont know if these are cheap things or if ineed they are more logistical things, rear projection for something like that isnt uncomon with the bulkier cameras of that time. passage of time is another thing thats not uncomon nor a cheapening thing.

    I just mean though the budgits are inflated beyond anything that had gone before if anything the action and locations are as big as ever. for example the stunts on the plane form living daylights or indeed the lorrys in ltk. amazing to this day.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 11,189
    oo7 wrote:
    I dont know if these are cheap things or if ineed they are more logistical things, rear projection for something like that isnt uncomon with the bulkier cameras of that time. passage of time is another thing thats not uncomon nor a cheapening thing.

    I just mean though the budgits are inflated beyond anything that had gone before if anything the action and locations are as big as ever. for example the stunts on the plane form living daylights or indeed the lorrys in ltk. amazing to this day.

    Kill doesn't really "look" like a big film though compared to FRWL, OHMSS etc. The early scene in the interrogation room between Kelifer and Sanchez looks like it could come from a TV movie - not to mention the actor who plays Kelifer hams it up big time.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    big ed hams it up no more so than the guy who dr no tells to go kill bond. prehaps you need to go back to watch them in full surround sound and not paned and scanned for tv?
  • Posts: 11,425
    I was sure MGM/UA were squeezing the budgets progressively with TLD and LTK.

    Isn't that one reason why they made LTK in Mexico instead of Pinewood?
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    I was sure MGM/UA were squeezing the budgets progressively with TLD and LTK.

    Isn't that one reason why they made LTK in Mexico instead of Pinewood?

    Yes
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I was sure MGM/UA were squeezing the budgets progressively with TLD and LTK.

    Isn't that one reason why they made LTK in Mexico instead of Pinewood?

    Yes
    yes? go and compare the budgits and profits on daltons films if you dont believe me. I'm pretty sure mexico exteriors are better equiped for location shoots than pinewood is at replicating them. how can this be a squeezing of budgit? I find as well Bond films will move to a country which are willing to let them pull off the sunts much like you saw between the india and africa battle for skyfall. so for the truck scenes practicallity to match the exteriors where those where filmed might have come into play.
    didnt product placement also source much more income on daltons run, he did afterall star in a Larks advertisement.
  • Posts: 11,425
    oo7 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I was sure MGM/UA were squeezing the budgets progressively with TLD and LTK.

    Isn't that one reason why they made LTK in Mexico instead of Pinewood?

    Yes
    yes? go and compare the budgits and profits on daltons films if you dont believe me. I'm pretty sure mexico exteriors are better equiped for location shoots than pinewood is at replicating them. how can this be a squeezing of budgit? I find as well Bond films will move to a country which are willing to let them pull off the sunts much like you saw between the india and africa battle for skyfall. so for the truck scenes practicallity to match the exteriors where those where filmed might have come into play.
    didnt product placement also source much more income on daltons run, he did afterall star in a Larks advertisement.

    Pinewood is the 'home' of Bond. EON would only have reluctantly have decided to relocate studio work to Mexico - the main reason being cost.

    I am not saying this to have a go at Dalts, who is one of my favourite Bonds. It is just (as I understand it) historical fact that the Bond budgets were under considerable pressure in the late 80s.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 11,189
    The fact Dalts is smoking makes him immeasurably cooler

    Are you from the 1950s? ;) Smoking isnt cool anymore and hasn't been cool for years.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 4,813
    I saw the Rocketeer once, and from what I remember Dalton had a very small part in that, hardly saw much of him.
    But he was the main villain! He was in it plenty- he had such a cool death too
    He straps on the jetpack to make his escape and says 'I'm going to miss Hollywood' and as he takes off, the sabotaged jetpack explodes and sends his crispy ass into the Hollywood sign!

    hollywood-sign-closeup.jpg

    He didn't 'miss' it after all! :P

  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The fact Dalts is smoking makes him immeasurably cooler

    Are you from the 1950s? ;) Smoking isnt cool anymore and hasn't been cool for years.

    Sounds like you need a smoke.

    Smoking will always be cool - when done properly. Whether it's a good idea or not is another matter.
  • Posts: 4,813
    The only time I don't like smokers is when they hang out right in front of an entrance to someplace. There's a special level in hell for those guys

    Otherwise I have no opinions on smoking either way.
    As for Bond, I'd like to see him light up again soon- preferably cigarettes à la Connery/Fleming . Even though Roger had a cigar (on and off screen) and it worked for him, cigars just seem more like an 'Arnold thing'

    schwarzenegger-with-cigar.jpg
  • Posts: 12,837
    Getafix wrote:
    That said, perhaps even Roger needed time to establish himself. Had Dalts done a third we would have had a better measure of his take on Bond and the popular reaction.

    I wasn't around in the 70s, but I get the impression that Rogers Bond wasn't that popular until TSWLM, which was a mega hit (and it deserved to be). I think maybe people were still getting used to Bond not being Connery, like they were in a way with Bond not being Moore when Dalts took over. To be honest the only Bonds I think that were really accepted after their 1st film were Brosnan, Connery and Craig.
    GE wasn't always meant to be Bond 17. After LTK a third Dalton film was slated for 1991/1992 release. It would've featured Bond going to Tokyo to battle a computer genuis. The outline is on this site. From what I read it would've been a much more Bondian entry than LTK which is what Dalton needed at the time to get audiences back. And John Glen was not going to be the director. EON was looking at either Renny Harlin or whoever directed Rambo 3.

    I think it was meant to be Hong Kong. Still, from what I've read on this site, Daltons third film sounds like it would've been a great, classic Bond film. I would've loved a 3rd and 4th film from Dalton, maybe more, before handing over to Brosnan for GE.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    That said, perhaps even Roger needed time to establish himself. Had Dalts done a third we would have had a better measure of his take on Bond and the popular reaction.

    I wasn't around in the 70s, but I get the impression that Rogers Bond wasn't that popular until TSWLM, which was a mega hit (and it deserved to be). I think maybe people were still getting used to Bond not being Connery, like they were in a way with Bond not being Moore when Dalts took over. To be honest the only Bonds I think that were really accepted after their 1st film were Brosnan, Connery and Craig.

    The key difference there though was that Rog was already a hugely popular star thanks to The Saint. The Americans as well as the British loved him. Dalton was fairly well known but I don't get the feeling he was the household name like Rog was.



  • Posts: 12,837
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    That said, perhaps even Roger needed time to establish himself. Had Dalts done a third we would have had a better measure of his take on Bond and the popular reaction.

    I wasn't around in the 70s, but I get the impression that Rogers Bond wasn't that popular until TSWLM, which was a mega hit (and it deserved to be). I think maybe people were still getting used to Bond not being Connery, like they were in a way with Bond not being Moore when Dalts took over. To be honest the only Bonds I think that were really accepted after their 1st film were Brosnan, Connery and Craig.

    The key difference there though was that Rog was already a hugely popular star thanks to The Saint. The Americans as well as the British loved him. Dalton was fairly well known but I don't get the feeling he was the household name like Rog was.

    That's true, I'd forgotten about the Saint. But like I said, I think he wasn't that popular at first because he was still in Connery's shadow.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think a lot of Connery fans hated Rog - probably still do.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2012 Posts: 15,692
    Getafix wrote:
    I think a lot of Connery fans hated Rog - probably still do.

    Let me get my Sir Rog Vacuum Cleaner to suck out any hate out of these people.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's almost as bad as all these Dalton fans who constantly knock the Broz...
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    Oh come on now, it's not as if Brosnan is the only Bond whom has had something said about him which his fans would disagree with.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Every Bond gets bashed on here. But some get defended more than others (for some reason it's almost as if it's illegal to critiscise Craig or what we've heard about SF).
    Getafix wrote:
    It's almost as bad as all these Dalton fans who constantly knock the Broz...

    I'm guessing that's sarcasm? Or are you finally admitting that you secretly love Brosnan?

  • edited July 2012 Posts: 11,425
    I was joking.

    Obviously knocking Brozza is entirely justified cos he was rubbish.

    I'm happy to see a bit of Craig knocking as well. He's good but not as good as many say he is.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,692
    'he was rubbish' is only your opinion, @Getafix.

    My Sir Rog Vacuum Cleaner will also suck out the Brosnan hate in your body.
Sign In or Register to comment.