26 replies to this topic

[Triton]

In "The Living Daylights" Special Edition DVD documentary it mentions that Timothy Dalton was considered for the James Bond role but he felt he was too young. At the time he said that he felt that James Bond should be played by someone between 35 and 40. Unfortunately, they don't establish when Dalton was first considered?

Was this in 1968 after his debut in "The Lion in Winter" at 22? Or was this in 1970 at the age of 24? Or in 1972 at the age of 26? Anyone know the answer?

He landed the part at 40 years of age in 1986.

[Simon]

Whether he was seriously considered or not is open to speculation. Certainly his name might have been mentioned but, as the producers had just lost Brosnan, the marketing boys had to strengthen their advertising as to just why Dalton landed the part over Brosnan.

As such, his name was "considered" in 1972 prior to LALD. Quite obviously, he would have been too young then so I doubt, in 1987, it was anything other than a ploy to convince the potential audience that he was the guy they wanted all along - very much along the lines of "there have never been any script changes or deleted scenes in the Bond series." Always make it sound as though this was the direction they were intending to go in all the time.

[Tanger]

He was actually considered way back in 1969 for OHMSS but as he was only 29 he felt he wasn't up to it and wanted to leave it for a while. He even did a screen test at this point which Cubby Brocolli thought was good, but he went with what Dalton wanted.

[Turn]

This has been an ongoing source of controversy here for a while now. I think it's ridiculous to think Dalton was considered at all in 1968 since he was all of about 21 (You are probably thinking of Lazenby as being 29, Tanger).

There are a couple of theories I think may have been at work: Cubby may have had Dalton in mind if he was thinking of going younger with Bond around 1972, but thought better of it. The other is he was always keeping people in mind for future productions if Moore didn't work out or left, as he threatened to do so many times.

I still think the most serious talk about his consideration as Bond was in 1980 when Moore was holding out of FYEO. The spin doctoring at UA was probably at work in 1987. They also came out as saying Moore was probably closer to Fleming's Bond when he took over in '72, although he claimed to have only read one Fleming novel at the time. And I've read that upon meeting Brosnan in 1981, Cubby had him in mind for the future.

[doublenoughtspy]

Dalton was born in 1944 (or 1946 depending on who you talk to) and thus at the time of the OHMSS casting in 1968, he would have been 24 or 22.

Broccoli and Dalton have claimed that he was considered for OHMSS, and while Broccoli may have spoken with him - I can't bet money he was NOT screen tested.

A few reasons: 1) He wasn't on the shortlist of 5 photographed by Life Magazine when they were allowed to view the final candidates who were screen tested. The article said the average age of the candidates was 32.

2) I spoke with director Peter Hunt at length about it - and he said at no time was Dalton under consideration for OHMSS.

3) He WAS screen tested for The Living Daylights (ironically enough using scenes from OHMSS). Now if they already had screen tested him, why would they do it again? Dalton was not happy that he had to screen test - and Michael Wilson told him it was not that they doubted his talent - they wanted to see what he would look like as Bond or some other excuse.

Dalton said on Good Morning America in 1987 that he was offered the role after Diamonds are Forever and turned it down. That I can believe. Dalton in 71-72 would have been around 28 - a little more on track than a 22 or 24 year old playing Bond in 68.

Basically its the EON publicity machine at work. If you are British, around 6 foot and anywhere between 25 and 45 - you are a candidate and they might call you in for a chat or look at a head shot. Then when you are chosen its "Oh we wanted him when he was 8 years old...oh we've wanted him since the day he was born...oh we have wanted him all along...etc...etc"

Look at the ages of the actors when they signed for Bond: Connery 31, Lazenby 29, John Gavin 42, Roger Moore 45, Pierce Brosnan 33 (first time), Timothy Dalton 40, Pierce Brosnan 41 (2nd time). I find it difficult to believe that Dalton was a serious consideration in his early 20s.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by doublenoughtspy
Look at the ages of the actors when they signed for Bond: Connery 31, Lazenby 29, John Gavin 42, Roger Moore 45, Pierce Brosnan 33 (first time), Timothy Dalton 40, Pierce Brosnan 41 (2nd time).  I find it difficult to believe that Dalton was a serious consideration in his early 20s.

Each time Tim discussed this in interviews, he always emphasized that he'd been *approached* around the time of OHMSS, that's all. Not offered anything, simply *approached.* He said the same thing about the early 80s when it was believed Moore was going to leave the series. He never says that he was "offered" anything.

I have on video a segment of a UK talk show promoting LTK. The guests are Desmond Llewellyn, Dalton, Cubby, Robert Davi and Talisa Soto. When Tim is asked about this, both he and Cubby say that he'd simply been approached by the Broccolis to sound him out around the time of OHMSS. There are a couple of reasons this makes sense to me. Dalton at that time was getting a lot of attention----the press at that time was billing him as "the new Olivier," "a new matinee idol," and so on. He was a recent discovery on the big screen so it makes perfect sense to me that the Broccolis took notice of him.

Secondly, I have always presumed that during that period, with Sean leaving the series, the Broccolis were not only searching for a new actor for the next film, they were also keeping their eyes out for young actors who might be considered for the future. I have never believed that Dalton was seriously considered for OHMSS, only that the Broccolis (while in the middle of a transition period) were looking at many different up and coming actors, Dalton just being one of them, as a kind of ongoing "stable" of potential Bonds.

As to what happened in the 1980s, Cubby's autobiography calls Brosnan a "compromise" because there was such disagreement among all the decision makers about just who to hire. About Brosnan he says: "In terms of looks and style, he'd have probably taken us along the Roger Moore route." He says that his favorite was someone called Lambert Wilson, while Glen and the other Broccolis favored Sam Neill. He then goes on to state that Dana reminded him of Dalton, saying that she clearly favored him. Now, whether or not this is all simply spin that Cubby authorized for his biography, I don't know.

Regardless, I have always thought that Brosnan at that time was simply not mature or seasoned enough to play Bond.

[Triton]

Jaelle wrote:

Secondly, I have always presumed that during that period, with Sean leaving the series, the Broccolis were not only searching for a new actor for the next film, they were also keeping their eyes out for young actors who might be considered for the future. I have never believed that Dalton was seriously considered for OHMSS, only that the Broccolis (while in the middle of a transition period) were looking at many different up and coming actors, Dalton just being one of them, as a kind of ongoing "stable" of potential Bonds.

I imagine that Eon is constantly looking at male actors and maintains and updates a short list of actors who they could hire to play James Bond at short notice. It would only be prudent. Not that I wish anything bad to happen to him, Pierce Brosnan could be injured while making another film, or killed for that matter, and not be able to appear in the next Bond picture. The box office generated by the James Bond films is just too important to the survival of MGM/UA and so many people are employed by Eon productions when a Bond film is made, that it would be common sense for Eon to write contingency plans.

Of course Eon would deny that they were interviewing or screen testing other actors to play James Bond because these actors would have little to no chance of replacing the current Bond actor, in this case Pierce Brosnan. Let's not upset the fans or the MGM/UA stockholders needlessly.

I really don't know what they mean by "approached" or "sounded out". Perhaps Cubby and Dana Broccoli invited Timothy Dalton over for dinner in 1968, took him out to a restaurant, or invited him over for cocktails in an effort to meet him. Perhaps they discussed the James Bond role and the current candidates under consideration. I think that all of this was very preliminary, and no role was offered to Timothy Dalton. I also don't know if the Broccolis made it a habit of keeping in touch with actors in London and Hollywood, but it seem reasonable that they would be involved in the social scene to meet talent that they could use in the films and perhaps during these events they would run into Dalton.

I also imagine that Julian Glover and Micheal Billington were always on the James Bond short list too, until they got too old for the role or were hired to play other characters in the series.

As to what happened in the 1980s, Cubby's autobiography calls Brosnan a "compromise" because there was such disagreement among all the decision makers about just who to hire. About Brosnan he says: "In terms of looks and style, he'd have probably taken us along the Roger Moore route." He says that his favorite was someone called Lambert Wilson, while Glen and the other Broccolis favored Sam Neill. He then goes on to state that Dana reminded him of Dalton, saying that she clearly favored him. Now, whether or not this is all simply spin that Cubby authorized for his biography, I don't know.  

Regardless, I have always thought that Brosnan at that time was simply not mature or seasoned enough to play Bond.

In 1986, I was very concerned that Eon was trying to hire Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. A View to a Kill was the latest James Bond action comedy, and I feared that Pierce Brosnan would follow directly in Roger Moore's footsteps. Roger Moore had a penchant for light comedy, and the slapstick comedic scenes in A View to a Kill were just getting ridiculous. After seven films, eight if you count Diamonds Are Forever I had enough of the comedic James Bond films.

I believe that if Pierce Brosnan had been hired to play James Bond, Richard Maibaum and Micheal G. Wilson would have written the Living Daylights script for Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan would have been merely a Roger Moore impersonator. Especially since Pierce had just finished working on the romantic comedy/adventure series called Remington Steele.

Most fans really like to bash the Timothy Dalton Bond films, but I think that Timothy Dalton's tenure was absolutely necessary to save the James Bond series. In the late 1980s, the taste of film goers was leaning toward more realistic and harder-edged action films. Plus Timothy Dalton's personality is harder-edged as well and he would have been very uncomfortable being a comedian in an action film. Also Dalton made it a point to re-read the Fleming Bond books and recreate the literary character on the screen, and not mimic Sean Connery, George Lazenby, or Roger Moore. You could believe that Timothy Dalton was capable of assassination using a sniper's rifle, I don't think you could believe that Roger Moore was capable of doing this.

I think that the biggest complaints about the Timothy Dalton Bond films are a result of the budgets Eon was forced to work with. People tend to lose sight of the fact that so much belt tightening had to occur after A View to a Kill and the scripts were revised so that the movies would come in on budget.

Without Timothy Dalton's two Bond films, I am convinced that we would have NEVER gotten the Pierce Brosnan portrayal of James Bond that we got in Goldeneye. Pierce was able to mold his characterization of James Bond based on the performances of both Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton. Pierce's Bond is a lot tougher than what we would have received if he had taken the role in 1986. I don't think his portrayal is the result of just maturing and seasoning. I think that it was necessary for the character to change in the Timothy Dalton years. I also think that it was important for Pierce to do other movies as well after Remington Steele and distance himself from the Remington Steele character, such as the Fourth Protocol in which he plays a totally ruthless Russian agent. He needed time to shake off the Remington Steele image, and I think James Bond greatly benefited from that.

As for Sam Neill, I have always liked him very much and he had just finished Reilly: Ace of Spies in which he played a ruthless British secret agent named Sigmund Rosenblum who changed his name to Sidney Reilly. I believe that Sam Neill's Bond would have been as hard-edged as Timothy Dalton's and frankly I don't think that the films would have been much different. I really think that film goers in the late 1980s were looking for this type of thing.

Bruce Willis' Die Hard (1988), and the success of that film, is further evidence of the change of movie goer's tastes in the late 1980s.

[Canada]

Wow, another good thread! Check out David Giammarco's book FYEO only pages 197, 198... Dalton is quoted as saying he was only 24 or 25 at the time. Both 1969 and 1971 are mentioned but it is not quite clear. Then again Timothy was a possible Bond in 1980 as well... I would be curious to re-watch my 1987 taped interview to see if it had anything on this. I wish I had a better answer.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Triton
I really don't know what they mean by "approached" or "sounded out". Perhaps Cubby and Dana Broccoli invited Timothy Dalton over for dinner in 1968, took him out to a restaurant, or invited him over for cocktails in an effort to meet him.  Perhaps they discussed the James Bond role and the current candidates under consideration. I think that all of this was very preliminary, and no role was offered to Timothy Dalton. I also don't know if the Broccolis made it a habit of keeping in touch with actors in London and Hollywood, but it seem reasonable that they would be involved in the social scene to meet talent that they could use in the films and perhaps during these events they would run into Dalton.

By "approached" or "sounded out" I've just assumed that it meant that the Broccolis thought he looked good enuf to take the time to meet him, get to know him, ask him if he'd be interested in something like a Bond film, hear him talk, get an idea of his physical presence and manner.

Now, where there is controversey is the part of the story that Dalton, Glen and the Broccolis/Michael Wilson began to tell once Dalton was hired after the debacle with NBC and Brosnan. They began to say that Dalton was initially offered (or, in one interview, "asked if he'd be available for") TLD but he turned it down because he had a prior commitment to the Brenda Starr film. Then, so the story goes, they decided to go with Brosnan, then Brosnan couldn't do it, then they asked Dalton again and he was available because of the time delay, giving him enuf time to finish Brenda Starr. In the TLD documentary, I believe, Dalton is on the TLD set saying this. And co-stars like Jeroen Krabbe all say that he arrived on the set on a Sunday from the US after finishing Brenda Starr and started work on TLD immediately the next day. That's the part of the story where accusations of "spin" started coming out. Perhaps it is spin, I have no illusions about the machinations of the PR machine of commercial filmmaking.

There is also mention often made of the Broccolis going to see Dalton in the West End in his popular Shakespeare double bill (co-starring Redgrave). The story goes that they met with Tim then to, again, have further discussions about him playing Bond. The story also goes that it was after those meetings that the Broccolis were really taken with him. I do know that they did indeed see him in those two productions, which were getting a lot of press attention and tickets were very hard to come by. I was in London at the time and saw that production three times; there were publicity photos in the press about which celebrities were coming to see Dalton and Redgrave in the two Shakespeare plays, and the Broccolis were among them.

In 1986, I was very concerned that Eon was trying to hire Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. [/B]

You're not the only one. Many commentators were. Today it's considered conventional wisdom that everyone wanted Pierce, everybody thought he was perfect, and there were absolutely no
qualms or disagreement from any corner whatsoever. If that's not spin, I don't know what is. It's simply not true. I remember very well reading various columnists and critics thinking that Pierce would take the films in the wrong direction. I remember going to a science fiction convention in Philly in the early 80s with my then-boyfriend and his friends, who were all big James Bond fans. At the time we knew some of the guys writing for Starlog magainze. I hung out mostly with these guys. And none of them thought Pierce was a good choice, they wanted someone (as you said) harder edged, and Pierce was dismissed by a lot of the guys I hung around with as just a lightweight comic.

I think that Timothy Dalton's tenure was absolutely necessary to save the James Bond series.  In the late 1980s, the taste of film goers was leaning toward more realistic and harder-edged action films. Plus Timothy Dalton's personality is harder-edged as well and he would have been very uncomfortable being a comedian in an action film. Also Dalton made it a point to re-read the Fleming Bond books and recreate the literary character on the screen, and not mimic Sean Connery, George Lazenby, or Roger Moore. You could believe that Timothy Dalton was capable of assassination using a sniper's rifle, I don't think you could believe that Roger Moore was capable of doing this.
I think that the biggest complaints about the Timothy Dalton Bond films are a result of the budgets Eon was forced to work with. People tend to lose sight of the fact that so much belt tightening had to occur after A View to a Kill and the scripts were revised so that the movies would come in on budget.
Without Timothy Dalton's two Bond films, I am convinced that we would have NEVER gotten the Pierce Brosnan portrayal of James Bond that we got in Goldeneye.  ... As for Sam Neill, I have always liked him very much and he had just finished Reilly: Ace of Spies in which he played a ruthless British secret agent named Sigmund Rosenblum who changed his name to Sidney Reilly. I believe that Sam Neill's Bond would have been as hard-edged as Timothy Dalton's and frankly I don't think that the films would have been much different. I really think that film goers in the late 1980s were looking for this type of thing.
Bruce Willis' Die Hard (1988), and the success of that film, is further evidence of the change of movie goer's tastes in the late 1980s. [/B]

I agree with you about Sam Neill. Cubby didn't like him but I think he would've made a very interesting Bond. By the way, your post is excellent. You have articulated an argument I have often made elsewhere, but in a far more concise and thorough manner. (And point taken about Pierce and it *not* being about him maturing or seasoning.) May I forward your post to a couple of friends?

From Canada:

Wow, another good thread! Check out David Giammarco's book FYEO only pages 197, 198... Dalton is quoted as saying he was only 24 or 25 at the time. Both 1969 and 1971 are mentioned but it is not quite clear. [/B]

A friend of mine bought that book recently and I read thru it. I'll get my copy eventually. It's a great book. Nice sections on each of the Bond actors. I love what John Rhys Davies has to say about what he saw in his days at RADA with young Tim, and all the girls that Tim had to fight off while on stage. Very funny.

[Triton]

Originally posted by Canada
Wow, another good thread!  Check out David Giammarco's book FYEO only pages 197, 198...  Dalton is quoted as saying he was only 24 or 25 at the time.  Both 1969 and 1971 are mentioned but it is not quite clear.  Then again Timothy was a possible Bond in 1980 as well...   I would be curious to re-watch my 1987 taped interview to see if it had anything on this. I wish I had a better answer.

Frankly I have no interest in reading or participating in threads titled: "How would you rank the Bond girls" or "Sean Connery is Over-rated" or some other nonsense. I really more interested in topics that have been briefly touched on over the years that have also been spin doctored so much that you can seperate "a good story" from the truth. Case in point, the story that Eon Productions is an acronym for Everything or Nothing. Micheal G. Wilson says it just isn't true and is named for word eon. Of all people currently living, he should know.

Thanks for the suggestion of David Giammarco's book FYEO. I saw it once when I was killing time at a Barnes & Noble before a dentist appointment and didn't have time to purchase it. When I went back to the store, the copy I was looking at was sold and the staff at the store didn't know what I was talking about and looked at me like I had two heads or something.

Jaelle wrote:

By the way, your post is excellent. You have articulated an argument I have often made elsewhere, but in a far more concise and thorough manner

Thank you for asking. Sure, go ahead and share the post with whomever you wish.

Many commentators were. Today it's considered conventional wisdom that everyone wanted Pierce, everybody thought he was perfect, and there were absolutely no qualms or disagreement from any corner whatsoever. If that's not spin, I don't know what is. It's simply not true. I remember very well reading various columnists and critics thinking that Pierce would take the films in the wrong direction. I remember going to a science fiction convention in Philly in the early 80s with my then-boyfriend and his friends, who were all big James Bond fans. At the time we knew some of the guys writing for Starlog magainze. I hung out mostly with these guys. And none of them thought Pierce was a good choice, they wanted someone (as you said) harder edged, and Pierce was dismissed by a lot of the guys I hung around with as just a lightweight comic.

Is seems like a lot of fans are now comparing The Living Daylights to Goldeneye and speculating what a horrible thing it was to have to wait eight or nine years for Pierce Brosnan's wonderful portrayal of James Bond. They speculate how much better and more successful The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill could have been if Pierce Brosnan was in these films. But they lose sight of the fact that the early draft of The Living Daylights was written for Roger Moore. Remember the sequence in which a Tangiers police man was to fall into a pool or red dye during the roof top chase and Bond was supposed to quip: "Better red than dead" and thank goodness they cut out the "Flying Magic Carpet" scene, a perfect example of a Roger Moore comedic action scene.

Pierce Brosnan may have always been capable of giving us a harder-edged Bond like he portrayed in Goldeneye way back in 1986. But Pierce is an actor for hire and he gives the directors and producers a performance that they want and what they think the audience expects.

I don't think that just the passage of time helped to season and mature Pierce Brosnan. I think that audiences needed to see him in other films so that he could distance himself from the Remington Steele character. He needed to do films like The Lawnmower Man, The Fourth Protocol, and Detonator, among others.

Remember when we laughed when we first heard that Bruce Willis was trying to be an action star in 1988's Die Hard? Now it's just incredible to think that he had his start in the romantic comedy Moonlighting. Today who could ever think of Bruce Willis not being an action star?

[Triton]

Sorry, the sentence in my previous post should have read:

I am really more interested in topics that have been briefly touched on over the years that have also been spin doctored so much that it is difficult to seperate the truth from a story that sounds good or puts everyone in a positive light.

[Triton]

I love previously owned bookstores! I just picked up The Incredible World of 007: The Authorized Celebration of James Bond by Lee Pfeiffer and Philip Lisa published by Citadel Press 1992. In this book on page 198 there is an interview with Timothy Dalton.

We understand that prior to The Living Daylights you had been approached to play 007?

There was a time when Sean Connery gave up the role. I guess I, alongside quite a few other actors, was approached about the possibility of the part. This was for On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I was very flattered, but I think anybody would be off their head to have taken over from Connery. I was too young. Bond should be a man in his mid-thirties, at least-- a mature adult who has been around.

I was not approached for Live and Let Die, but there was a time in the late 1970s when Roger may not have done another one, for whatever reason. They were looking around then, and I went to see Mr. Broccoli in Los Angeles. At the time, they didn't have a script finished and also, the way that the Bond movies had gone--although they were fun and entertaining--weren't my idea of Bond movies. They had become a completely different entity. I know Roger, and think he does a fantastic job, but they were different kinds of movies. Roger is one of the only people in the world who can be fun in the midst of all that gadgetry. But in truth my favourite Bond movies were always Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger.

So this quote confirms that he was first approached in 1968. For the late 1970s Bond film, Timothy Dalton must mean either The Spy Who Loved Me or Moonraker because I seem to remember reading that Roger Moore was reluctant to return to James Bond starting with The Spy Who Loved Me. It seems to me that Roger Moore's reluctance was mostly an effort to get bigger acting paychecks for each new James Bond film.

[DLibrasnow]

A lot of the hype when "The Living Daylights" was released in 1987 mentioned that Dalton had been first considered for the role in 1969. However, in the intervening years much of this has been questionned if not downright proven inaccurate.
We must not forget that one of the claims made in 1987 was also that Timothy Dalton had always been the choice to play 007, but now we know this was a lie.
What is most likely is that Timothy Dalton was probably brought to the attention of Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman in 1969 (as many young hopefuls are) but that no serious offer was made.

[Triton]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
A lot of the hype when "The Living Daylights" was released in 1987 mentioned that Dalton had been first considered for the role in 1969. However, in the intervening years much of this has been questionned if not downright proven inaccurate.
We must not forget that one of the claims made in 1987 was also that Timothy Dalton had always been the choice to play 007, but now we know this was a lie.
What is most likely is that Timothy Dalton was probably brought to the attention of Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman in 1969 (as many young hopefuls are) but that no serious offer was made.

Oh I agree completely. Just because they want to meet you doesn't mean that you are going to get a job offer.

I also believe that Micheal G. Wilson, Barabara Brocolli, and others at Eon Productions are constantly in contact with male actors from the British Commonwealth between the ages of 25 and 45. I think that this may be one of the reasons that we frequently hear rumors that they are recasting James Bond and someone is next in line.

With the money at stake, it seems only prudent that Eon would have contingency plans if Pierce Brosnan was seriously injured, or killed, and couldn't make the next movie. It doesn't mean that Pierce Brosnan isn't the favored choice for the next film.

[Jaelle]

It's been a busy day and I return to the CBn forums to see that, once again, I must correct one of the many pieces of misinformation re Dalton and the "hype" surrounding his selection for the Bond role.

At no time did EON nor Dalton EVER say that he was seriously considered for the role in 1969, nor offered anything. Each time Dalton was asked about this in interview after interview he makes the distinction between being *approached* about the role, and *offered* the role. I can give you exact citations and quotes if necessary. All he says is that the Broccolis wanted to sound him out, would he ever be interested in doing something like Bond. I have a John Glen interview from 1986 in which he says "there was a misunderstanding between us and Timothy because we all thought he just wasn't interested, period. He kept saying no."

In one UK interview on a popular talk show, he sits beside Cubby Broccoli answering this question and corrects the host (which he did many times regarding this) by saying that he was approached by the Broccolis to simply talk about the possibility of playing Bond, not offered anything. Many actors were approached when it was clear that Connery was finished with Bond. It makes perfect sense that he was approached at that time---everyone was taking notice of him at that time. This new young, talented handsome actor burst on the scene in a couple of high-profile prestigious films while getting rave reviews in the West End and having two leading roles on popular BBC TV series. Hollywood came calling as well as well.

Dalton was merely one of many actors the Broccolis had talked to over the years, that's all.

I don't understand your hostile tone nor do I take seriously your apparent belief that Dalton, Cubby, Glen, and Wilson are all liars.

Oh, and Triton, I have that book. It's a great book, isn't it? Some terrific interviews. Too bad it's out of print.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Jaelle

I don't understand your hostile tone nor do I take seriously your apparent belief that Dalton, Cubby, Glen, and Wilson are all liars.

If you are referring to me I didn't think I wrote my post in anyway hostile towards anyone, just kinda blunt and too the point. I certainly don't think Dalton ever lied, but information that appeared in the press (granted from uncredired sources) have been revealed to be a lie...

[Kingdom Come]

1969 also in 1971.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Kingdom Come
1969 also in 1971.

Not true.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
Not true.

From WHEN THE SNOW MELTS, Cubby Broccoli's autobiography, page 280-1:

"Throughout all this flurry in Hollywood and London, there was a patient but persistent voice in the background. It was Dana's. 'Why don't you have another look at Timothy Dalton?' she suggested. Seven years earlier I had twice talked to him about playing Bond. Those were occasions when we were having some differences with Roger, and we had to be prepared with a replacement. But Timothy considered he was too young. He also said the part intimidated him, which I found interesting, coming from an experienced Shakespearean actor. Also, Michael detected in his reluctance some uncertainty about our genuineness in looking for a new 007. Dana was absolutely convinced from the start that he would make a first-class Bond. Now, seven years later, she was just as certain. I told her that Timothy had gone on record saying he didn't want the part. Dana, with that enervatingly sweet insistence, replied, 'Why don't we have him over for a drink at the Dorchester?' When we met with Timothy we saw that those seven years had added poise, experience and self-assurance. Dana was right. He stood out from the bunch."

Truth or lie? You decide.

[Triton]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


If you are referring to me I didn't think I wrote my post in anyway hostile towards anyone, just kinda blunt and too the point. I certainly don't think Dalton ever lied, but information that appeared in the press (granted from uncredired sources) have been revealed to be a lie...

I still don't know what specific articles, interviews, or press releases you are refering to. It's clear from the DVD documentary that John Glen and Micheal G. Wilson originally wanted Sam Neill for the role. Dana Broccoli, Cubby's wife, always wanted Timothy Dalton. Then we have Pierce Brosnan's signing for the role, the renewal of Remington Steele, and the edict that Remington Steele would not be James Bond from Cubby Broccoli. If we are to believe Tom Mankiewicz, someone at MGM/UA pushed hard for Mel Gibson. Then we have the rumors about consideration being given to Anthony Hamilton, Lambert Wilson, and Findley Light. Micheal G. Wilson describes it as "a close race" in the Special Edition DVD documentary.

But Eon Productions was not, and is not, a democracy. Cubby Broccoli made the decision to cast him. Once Timothy Dalton signed and the film went into production, the MGM/UA and Eon publicity machine went to work. MGM/UA must have finally approved the casting decision because they financed the motion picture.

Once the decision was made, every one who wanted to keep their job at Eon supported the casting decision. Would you have expected at the time for Micheal G. Wilson and John Glen to say that they would have preferred Sam Neill in the James Bond role? Should any one at Eon or MGM/UA have criticized Cubby Broccoli's stinginess concerning Pierce Brosnan? It wouldn't have changed anything. Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli was commander-in-chief of the Eon Productions James Bond army.

As far as I can tell from the recollections and the books, Timothy Dalton was never offered a contract to play James Bond in 1968, 1971, or in 1979/80. The Broccoli's were in touch with him frequently over the years and asked him about the possibility of playing James Bond. I think that we are arguing semantics in this thread DLibrasnow.

In the end, the only thing that really matters is that Timothy Dalton played James Bond in The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill.

[Jaelle]

Well said, Triton.

Oh by the way, I just got in the mail today an old article from a friend in the UK. It's from a UK magazine called Tribute, dated June-July 1987. It has a quote from Cubby saying something about Dalton and Moore that I've never read anywhere else: "He has more of Connery's qualities, but it was Roger Moore who once suggested Dalton as his replacement."

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Triton


I still don't know what specific articles, interviews, or press releases you are refering to. It's clear from the DVD documentary that John Glen and Micheal G. Wilson originally wanted Sam Neill for the role. Dana Broccoli, Cubby's wife, always wanted Timothy Dalton. Then we have Pierce Brosnan's signing for the role, the renewal of Remington Steele, and the edict that Remington Steele would not be James Bond from Cubby Broccoli. If we are to believe Tom Mankiewicz, someone at MGM/UA pushed hard for Mel Gibson. Then we have the rumors about consideration being given to Anthony Hamilton, Lambert Wilson, and Findley Light. Micheal G. Wilson describes it as "a close race" in the Special Edition DVD documentary.

But Eon Productions was not, and is not, a democracy. Cubby Broccoli made the decision to cast him. Once Timothy Dalton signed and the film went into production, the MGM/UA and Eon publicity machine went to work. MGM/UA must have finally approved the casting decision because they financed the motion picture.

Once the decision was made, every one who wanted to keep their job at Eon supported the casting decision. Would you have expected at the time for Micheal G. Wilson and John Glen to say that they would have preferred Sam Neill in the James Bond role? Should any one at Eon or MGM/UA have criticized Cubby Broccoli's stinginess concerning Pierce Brosnan? It wouldn't have changed anything.  Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli was commander-in-chief of the Eon Productions James Bond army.

As far as I can tell from the recollections and the books, Timothy Dalton was never offered a contract to play James Bond in 1968, 1971, or in  1979/80. The Broccoli's were in touch with him frequently over the years and asked him about the possibility of playing James Bond. I think that we are arguing semantics in this thread DLibrasnow.

In the end, the only thing that really matters is that Timothy Dalton played James Bond in The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill.

Triton...I don't think we are even arguing about anything, because I agreed entirely with every part of your post.

[Kingdom Come]

"Dalton had first come to the attention of Cubby/Harry when he appeared in The Lion In Winter... Timothy turned down the role
in the late sixties..."

Extract For My Eyes Only by John Glen.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by Kingdom Come
"Dalton had first come to the attention of Cubby/Harry when he appeared in The Lion In Winter... Timothy turned down the role  
in the late sixties..."

Extract For My Eyes Only by John Glen.

Ah, God bless him. Unfortunately, one needs to take what John Glen sometimes says with a grain of salt as he's not always that acurate.

According to IanFleming.org:

Timothy Dalton was first approached for the Bond role back in 1971 after Sean Connery said he'd "never" do it again. In a 1987 interview on "Good Morning America" (and elsewhere), Dalton said he turned down the role in '71 because he was "too young" for it, and because of the imposing legacy of Sean Connery. By 1986, with Roger Moore retiring from the part for good, Dalton finally said "yes" to Bond, after EON's first preference -- Pierce Brosnan -- was forced to turn down the offer.

But then again, this contradicts what Dalton has supposedly said in the book "The Incredible World of 007..." as highlighted by Triton in an earlier post in this thread.

[Kingdom Come]

If any of you have not got the book - For My Eyes Only, visit a bookshop, try and glance at the pic on page 205...

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Kingdom Come
If any of you have not got the book - For My Eyes Only, visit a bookshop, try and glance at the pic on page 205...

You mean that hand coming out of the fireball? Weird, huh?

[Triton]

Posted by Jaelle:
You mean that hand coming out of the fireball? Weird, huh?

I assume the nuns haunting that stretch of highway in Rumorosa aren't James Bond fans.