The TIMOTHY DALTON Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

15859606264

Comments

  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,103
    Not sure I can cope with Tim as a dashing airman.
  • Posts: 6,796
    Pete Townsend?? 😅
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,775
    Just saw his appearance in The Crown. Needless to say he’s amazing in it. Tim always is, of course.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2022 Posts: 7,526
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Pete Townsend?? 😅

    Don't be fooled (again).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    Just watched the episode that featured him in THE CROWN. Guy looks great for his 70s.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,103
    I watched it too! Gosh, the amount of Acting he can do without saying a single word, e.g.
    when he's listening to Princess Margaret's Desert Island Discs
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,775
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    I watched it too! Gosh, the amount of Acting he can do without saying a single word, e.g.
    when he's listening to Princess Margaret's Desert Island Discs

    One of his very best qualities, and one that distinguishes him from many others in the business.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    I haven't watched The Crown, but I have been watching, for the first time, Agatha Christie's Marple, the ITV version with Geraldine McEwan. I had forgotten that T-Dalts was in an episode, until I watched By The Pricking Of My Thumbs, and saw that our boi is in the next episode.
  • New full-length trailer for 1923, starring Harrison Ford, Helen Mirren and Timothy Dalton...



    (Since T-Dalt is playing the villain in this series, shouldn't he be sporting a mustache?)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I havent seen Yellowstone, but that doesnt look too bad.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    Harrison Ford never does TV, so that’s a pretty huge get.
  • Posts: 6,707
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    Since T-Dalt is playing the villain in this series, shouldn't he be sporting a mustache?

    MadFantasticFulmar-max-1mb.gif
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    I had The Lost Adventures Of James Bond for Christmas, and I have been reading it since. I think the Osbourne draft of Bond 17 would have suited Dalton in so far as depicting a Bond just passed his physical peak, though I think the humour was too broad for Dalton. Bond going undercover at a rodeo? But it's Reunion With Death that is the real missed opportunity. 'Reunion...' feels much more tailored for Dalton. A stylish spy thriller for the 90's, with just the right bit of humour. But would EON have had the guts to do the sombre ending at that point?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    GE always felt like to me a Dalton film that Brosnan starred in, which is why it feels so apart from the rest of Brosnan’s run. I think it would have served Dalton in the sense that it was trying to deliver to audience what they’ve come to expect from Bond through cultural osmosis, but at the same time still give something for Dalton to chew on via the conflict with Tevelyan. It could have been to Dalton what TSWLM was for Moore in terms of revitalizing the series and solidify the leading actor for audiences once and for all.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    GE always felt like to me a Dalton film that Brosnan starred in, which is why it feels so apart from the rest of Brosnan’s run. I think it would have served Dalton in the sense that it was trying to deliver to audience what they’ve come to expect from Bond through cultural osmosis, but at the same time still give something for Dalton to chew on via the conflict with Tevelyan. It could have been to Dalton what TSWLM was for Moore in terms of revitalizing the series and solidify the leading actor for audiences once and for all.

    That's how I feel about GE. As you say, the conflict with Trevelyan, and the beach scene with Natalya, would have suited Daltons approach. I like to think that a 3rd film would have cemented Dalton as Bond in the eyes of the public. Aiming for a tone somewhere between TLD and LTK. And directed and written by people who believe in Dalton, that think that he was the man for the job. But there still remains the problem of John Calley, who flat out refused to greenlight another Bond with Dalton. Unfortunately, he had EON over a barrel, so we will never know for certain.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    Sadly right about Calley. No matter the potential for a third Dalton film, Calley was always going to be the brick wall preventing it from happening.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,523
    Calley was wrong. He and Picker both. They just didn't know it at the time, Picker in '69 and Calley in the early '90s. They were wrong, but probably not from their POV.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    I can understand Calley's perspective, even if I vehemently don't share it. They are both in the bottom 3 lowest grossing Bond films when adjusted for inflation, there's no getting around that.

    On saying that, all 5 80's Bond films feature in the bottom 10, so maybe the issue ran deeper than who the leading man was
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Calley was wrong. He and Picker both. They just didn't know it at the time, Picker in '69 and Calley in the early '90s. They were wrong, but probably not from their POV.

    What was Picker wrong about in ‘69?
    I can understand Calley's perspective, even if I vehemently don't share it. They are both in the bottom 3 lowest grossing Bond films when adjusted for inflation, there's no getting around that.

    On saying that, all 5 80's Bond films feature in the bottom 10, so maybe the issue ran deeper than who the leading man was

    A noticeable drop in box office receipts happened right after MGM bought UA. For various reasons, MGM’s marketing and distribution system in the 80s was no where as good as UA’s in the 60s and 70s.

    In fact, we saw something similar with NTTD. Universal’s marketing and distribution of NTTD for international was very successful, whereas United Artists Releasing, after taking over from Sony, was not as successful in the North American market.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,523
    What was Picker wrong about in ‘69?

    I get that Lazenby himself had decided he wasn't coming back. But unless my memory doesn't serve me well, it was Picker (among others, probably) who rejected the tone of OHMSS and therefore wasn't willing to have DAF be some sort of 'sequel' to OHMSS. Now, we see Bond get his revenge on Blofeld with a smile and some slapstick comedy. That's a mistake, in my opinion. Either way, he probably wasn't wrong from the POV of the chief of UA. OHMSS had not met their expectations after all.
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Haydock, England
    Posts: 254
    Sadly right about Calley. No matter the potential for a third Dalton film, Calley was always going to be the brick wall preventing it from happening.

    John Calley was a duplicitous and conniving snake who’s choices for Bond after Dalton left the role included Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, and Hugh Grant (Seriously?!) before Brosnan was cast. He buggered off to Sony in 1996, which shows you what kind of person he was.



  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,095
    GE always felt like to me a Dalton film that Brosnan starred in, which is why it feels so apart from the rest of Brosnan’s run. I think it would have served Dalton in the sense that it was trying to deliver to audience what they’ve come to expect from Bond through cultural osmosis, but at the same time still give something for Dalton to chew on via the conflict with Tevelyan. It could have been to Dalton what TSWLM was for Moore in terms of revitalizing the series and solidify the leading actor for audiences once and for all.

    That's how I feel about GE. As you say, the conflict with Trevelyan, and the beach scene with Natalya, would have suited Daltons approach. I like to think that a 3rd film would have cemented Dalton as Bond in the eyes of the public. Aiming for a tone somewhere between TLD and LTK. And directed and written by people who believe in Dalton, that think that he was the man for the job. But there still remains the problem of John Calley, who flat out refused to greenlight another Bond with Dalton. Unfortunately, he had EON over a barrel, so we will never know for certain.

    I feel that if Dalton did GE, we would have gotten a older Alec Trevelyan, as originally planned. Maybe Sir Anthony Hopkins, as wanted? I don’t know if Martin Campbell would have directed as well.

    As for his third film, some things to consider. He needed new writers and a new director drastically. I think that’s why the box office numbers dropped off in the late 80s. The public realized that the movies were being made by the same people in a possible creative decline. Maibaum and Glenn really needed to go. The right director and possible editor would have been more helpful. Same with RWD. EON’s biggest gift and curse is keeping people around for too long.
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Haydock, England
    Posts: 254
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    GE always felt like to me a Dalton film that Brosnan starred in, which is why it feels so apart from the rest of Brosnan’s run. I think it would have served Dalton in the sense that it was trying to deliver to audience what they’ve come to expect from Bond through cultural osmosis, but at the same time still give something for Dalton to chew on via the conflict with Tevelyan. It could have been to Dalton what TSWLM was for Moore in terms of revitalizing the series and solidify the leading actor for audiences once and for all.

    That's how I feel about GE. As you say, the conflict with Trevelyan, and the beach scene with Natalya, would have suited Daltons approach. I like to think that a 3rd film would have cemented Dalton as Bond in the eyes of the public. Aiming for a tone somewhere between TLD and LTK. And directed and written by people who believe in Dalton, that think that he was the man for the job. But there still remains the problem of John Calley, who flat out refused to greenlight another Bond with Dalton. Unfortunately, he had EON over a barrel, so we will never know for certain.

    I feel that if Dalton did GE, we would have gotten a older Alec Trevelyan, as originally planned. Maybe Sir Anthony Hopkins, as wanted? I don’t know if Martin Campbell would have directed as well.

    As for his third film, some things to consider. He needed new writers and a new director drastically. I think that’s why the box office numbers dropped off in the late 80s. The public realized that the movies were being made by the same people in a possible creative decline. Maibaum and Glenn really needed to go. The right director and possible editor would have been more helpful. Same with RWD. EON’s biggest gift and curse is keeping people around for too long.

    Agreed. A fresh director and writer, along with an editor and cast would have helped Dalton win audiences over.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    What was Picker wrong about in ‘69?

    I get that Lazenby himself had decided he wasn't coming back. But unless my memory doesn't serve me well, it was Picker (among others, probably) who rejected the tone of OHMSS and therefore wasn't willing to have DAF be some sort of 'sequel' to OHMSS. Now, we see Bond get his revenge on Blofeld with a smile and some slapstick comedy. That's a mistake, in my opinion. Either way, he probably wasn't wrong from the POV of the chief of UA. OHMSS had not met their expectations after all.

    Never heard of that, I always understood it to be that Eon made the conscious choice to NOT make an overt sequel to OHMSS from the moment Lazenby left, and that bringing back Guy Hamilton and hiring Tom Mankiewicz was part of a concerted effort to return to the tone of GF for the early 70s. I honestly don’t blame them for making that decision. Trying to double down by making a direct follow up to one of the least popular Bonds wouldn’t have been wise.

    Now, regarding Picker, the only thing I know he had a direct involvement as far as DAF goes was the casting of Bond. In 1971, Eon had already picked American actor John Gavin to be the new Bond. He was all set to play it. But Picker had no confidence that this guy could help right the ship, so he came directly to Connery and asked what it would take to get him back for one more film and the deal was made. As far as I know, this is one of the rare times Picker involved himself in such an overt matter because he preferred to leave it to the filmmakers but this was one of those rare instance he asserted himself. This was also done at the very last minute too. Connery signed onto play Bond in March and was expected to start shooting in April. That would probably account for why Connery wasn’t in good shape because he had very little prep time to get back to that physique he had in his 30s, and he was already 40.

    IMO, I think Picker made the right call for both the short and long run. By getting Connery back, Eon was able to deliver another hit film and this would assure them to later recast this time with Roger Moore, and the rest is history.

    Would I have liked a OHMSS follow up? Sure, I think every Bond fan would. But the reality of the situation at the time just didn’t allow for that. Eon needed to rebound, not double down. But I may also be biased because I love DAF for the film it is as just another Bond film. The film was never meant to be a follow up to OHMSS, so why should I berate it for not being what it never was meant to be?
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 2,894
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    As for his third film, some things to consider. He needed new writers and a new director drastically. I think that’s why the box office numbers dropped off in the late 80s...Maibaum and Glenn really needed to go

    I think this is a bit hard on the pair. I think this up-thread explanation helps explain the sagging 80s grosses:
    A noticeable drop in box office receipts happened right after MGM bought UA. For various reasons, MGM’s marketing and distribution system in the 80s was no where as good as UA’s in the 60s and 70s.

    Maibaum can't be blamed for the final draft of LTK, since the writer's strike prevented him from bringing the ship into port (and it's not as if the final script was badly written). As for Glen, after five films he probably needed a break, but he also deserves some credit for guiding the series after its budget was frozen (post-MR) and UA lost its bearings. Only LTK came out looking like it was on a lowered budget, and that was partly because it had to be made in Mexico, again because of the squeezed budget. A different director would have still struggled with later films if the series's resources hadn't risen by the time of GE.
  • Posts: 1,882
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    GE always felt like to me a Dalton film that Brosnan starred in, which is why it feels so apart from the rest of Brosnan’s run. I think it would have served Dalton in the sense that it was trying to deliver to audience what they’ve come to expect from Bond through cultural osmosis, but at the same time still give something for Dalton to chew on via the conflict with Tevelyan. It could have been to Dalton what TSWLM was for Moore in terms of revitalizing the series and solidify the leading actor for audiences once and for all.

    That's how I feel about GE. As you say, the conflict with Trevelyan, and the beach scene with Natalya, would have suited Daltons approach. I like to think that a 3rd film would have cemented Dalton as Bond in the eyes of the public. Aiming for a tone somewhere between TLD and LTK. And directed and written by people who believe in Dalton, that think that he was the man for the job. But there still remains the problem of John Calley, who flat out refused to greenlight another Bond with Dalton. Unfortunately, he had EON over a barrel, so we will never know for certain.

    I feel that if Dalton did GE, we would have gotten a older Alec Trevelyan, as originally planned. Maybe Sir Anthony Hopkins, as wanted? I don’t know if Martin Campbell would have directed as well.

    As for his third film, some things to consider. He needed new writers and a new director drastically. I think that’s why the box office numbers dropped off in the late 80s. The public realized that the movies were being made by the same people in a possible creative decline. Maibaum and Glenn really needed to go. The right director and possible editor would have been more helpful. Same with RWD. EON’s biggest gift and curse is keeping people around for too long.

    Why is Maibaum considered a scapegoat when Michael G. Wilson seemed to have a more active if not equal role in writing at the time in addition to his other behind the scenes work? Also, Glen proved his versatility as director, going from the Moore years of action and humor to the more serious with TLD to the very serious with LTK.

    Cubby should also be looked at in this capacity as he could be overly loyal to certain team members, and now his heirs are repeating that with keeping Purvis and Wade for multiple films.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,095
    Revelator wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    As for his third film, some things to consider. He needed new writers and a new director drastically. I think that’s why the box office numbers dropped off in the late 80s...Maibaum and Glenn really needed to go

    I think this is a bit hard on the pair. I think this up-thread explanation helps explain the sagging 80s grosses:
    A noticeable drop in box office receipts happened right after MGM bought UA. For various reasons, MGM’s marketing and distribution system in the 80s was no where as good as UA’s in the 60s and 70s.

    Maibaum can't be blamed for the final draft of LTK, since the writer's strike prevented him from bringing the ship into port (and it's not as if the final script was badly written). As for Glen, after five films he probably needed a break, but he also deserves some credit for guiding the series after its budget was frozen (post-MR) and UA lost its bearings. Only LTK came out looking like it was on a lowered budget, and that was partly because it had to be made in Mexico, again because of the squeezed budget. A different director would have still struggled with later films if the series's resources hadn't risen by the time of GE.

    Overall loyalty can be shown in repeating mistakes at times. I’ll leave Glenn alone as he didn’t criticize others for his shortcomings. Maibaum criticized everyone who worked on his scripts, actors and other writers especially. Karma’s not nice, always, but let’s not pretend that he was a flawless writer. For crying out loud, he wanted a chimp to be Bond’s ally more than once!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2022 Posts: 23,523
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    As for his third film, some things to consider. He needed new writers and a new director drastically. I think that’s why the box office numbers dropped off in the late 80s...Maibaum and Glenn really needed to go

    I think this is a bit hard on the pair. I think this up-thread explanation helps explain the sagging 80s grosses:
    A noticeable drop in box office receipts happened right after MGM bought UA. For various reasons, MGM’s marketing and distribution system in the 80s was no where as good as UA’s in the 60s and 70s.

    Maibaum can't be blamed for the final draft of LTK, since the writer's strike prevented him from bringing the ship into port (and it's not as if the final script was badly written). As for Glen, after five films he probably needed a break, but he also deserves some credit for guiding the series after its budget was frozen (post-MR) and UA lost its bearings. Only LTK came out looking like it was on a lowered budget, and that was partly because it had to be made in Mexico, again because of the squeezed budget. A different director would have still struggled with later films if the series's resources hadn't risen by the time of GE.

    Overall loyalty can be shown in repeating mistakes at times. I’ll leave Glenn alone as he didn’t criticize others for his shortcomings. Maibaum criticized everyone who worked on his scripts, actors and other writers especially. Karma’s not nice, always, but let’s not pretend that he was a flawless writer. For crying out loud, he wanted a chimp to be Bond’s ally more than once!

    A parrot is as far as we went. ;)
  • Posts: 2,894
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Overall loyalty can be shown in repeating mistakes at times. I’ll leave Glenn alone as he didn’t criticize others for his shortcomings. Maibaum criticized everyone who worked on his scripts, actors and other writers especially. Karma’s not nice, always, but let’s not pretend that he was a flawless writer. For crying out loud, he wanted a chimp to be Bond’s ally more than once!

    It would be difficult for any creative person to not have at least one bad idea, and the chimp one isn't as awful as some that other Bond folk have either had or implemented. And most of Maibaum's criticisms are fair rather than petty, even if one doesn't agree with them. Beyond all that, there was nothing to prove Maibaum was written out after LTK (which I consider better written than any of the Brosnan films). But since he was old and the film was a commercial flop, he was punished for it. Interestingly, that was also the last time Michael G. Wilson co-wrote a Bond film.
Sign In or Register to comment.