16 replies to this topic

[ThomasCrown76]

I have been a Bond fan since the mid 80s when I was in the 4th grade and my Dad got copies of all of the Bond films from a friend of his. I watched these things over and over back then, and I was hooked. I liked Connery right away, didn't think too much of Moore, and then there was the Lazenby thing. My first Bond movie I saw in the theater was The Living Daylights in 1987. I was blown away to see Bond being serious again. The whole going back to Fleming was great. I was the only 4th and 5th grader reading Ian Fleming, so you can imagine the reactions I would get! Anyway, the movie was great then. I wore out my tape soundtrack a few times, and then after the next Bond came and went, there was no Bond for a long time.
Looking back on The Living Daylights now, I really can't stand a lot of it. Its biggest fault was Timothy Dalton. Dalton is I am sure a fine actor, but he's not Bond. Men should want to be Bond, and women want to be with Bond. Dalton doesn't register any of that. The man has no charisma. He couldn't deliver a one liner to save his life. The script was terribly PC, and I am almost wondering if they could have just put Alan Alda in there as Bond, since they were going out of their way to make Bond a sensitive, monogamous male in touch with his feelings. Dalton's Bond would have gotten his butt kicked in the end fight with Necros if his dingbat girlfriend hadn't accidentally opened the back door. Is this the same Bond that went at it with Red Grant on the Orient Express? Joe Don Baker is an absolute joke as the villain. He was funnier and slightly more believable as Jack Wade. And Necros? They wanted him to be Red Grant so bad in this movie....
On the plus side, John Barry did a great score. There was a decent chase scene in the snow that will look silly when they do a great one in Die Another Day. The opening wasn't too bad, but Dalton was again getting his butt kicked in the jeep just before it went over the cliff.
This is only my second post. For the record, I think Connery and Brosnan are the best Bonds. Lazenby is actually pretty good. Moore was pretty good in 3 out of 7 of his Bonds, and Dalton...well, enough about him.

[Friedrich Baxter]

I read somewhere that Timothy Dalton was the 2nd choice James Bond. Back in 1981 during the shooting of FYEO Pierce Brosnan heavily visited his wife Cassandra Harris. It was then, that Albert R. Broccoli invited late Mrs. Brosnan- Harris and Pierce to dinner. It was there that Broccoli spotted Pierce as the next Bond.

And, don't forget that Timothy Dalton asked a lot from the producers. He INSISTED to make 007 more real; to make the movies far more serious. Dalton wanted to go back to the original Fleming character. That was a very nobel idea, but something like that certainly won't work out very well for 007 as MOVIE character.

Maybe Pierce Brosnan could have kept the original humour of the previous Bond, Roger Moore.

[zencat]

I think Pierce was VERY lucky that he didn't become Bond in '87. He dodged a bullet. Regards of how he would have improved Daylights, the entire creative Bond team was getting very stale and nothing was going to stop the legal nightmare that lay ahead. Regardless of the qualities of the two Pierce movies, the box-office would have been about the same and the Bond franchise would have gone into it 6 year slump and Pierce would have been looked at as a

[zencat]

ThomasCrown76 (21 Mar, 2002 07:48 p.m.):
The script was terribly PC, and I am almost wondering if they could have just put Alan Alda in there as Bond, since they were going out of their way to make Bond a sensitive, monogamous male in touch with his feelings.

Poor Alan Alda. The guy shows a little respect for women and he gets branded as a big p***y for the rest of his life. Shouldn't we give him a break, considering we all now know that woman are about 1000 times smarter than us men.

[RossMan]

I wouldn't have liked seeing pb1 in The Living Daylights though that is probably just because Dalton, just barely managing to beat Connery, is my favorite Bond, I'm one of those who'd like him to have done a lot more than 2. (Actually, I wouldn't mind if he had returned in GoldenEye instead of Brosnan). I'm surprised to hear such negativity on The Living Daylights as it always ranks as number one Bond film for me.

[Turn]

Zencat, you basically wrote my post for me. And RossMan, it's good to see another Dalton supporter as I waver my support between him and Connery sometimes.

Dalton was indeed a victim of bad timing, following the popular but aging Moore and preceding Brosnan. I remember how thrilled I was seeing Dalton in action as Bond. It was refreshing after 12 years of Moore (not a slam against him). Dalton just seemed to bring out the Bond I'd read in the books.

It sucks to see so many people slam him, although I'm not slamming ThomasCrown76 for his opinion. One magazine, Maxim or Stuff or something, even went out of its way to slam Dalton recently in one of its goofy lists. Yeah, maybe he could have been a little better with the jokes, but he did most everything else very well. He just came in at the wrong time.

[ThomasCrown76]

Recently, I have been listening to the Barry score for The Living Daylights, and it's pretty nice music to listen to when you're driving down the interstate. I love the score, didn't care too much for the actor playing Bond in the movie. When I read the books, I picture either Pierce or Sean. Lazenby was even a better Bond than Dalton was, and the man didn't even have any real acting experience!

[zencat]

ThomasCrown76 (22 Mar, 2002 04:30 p.m.):
Lazenby was even a better Bond than Dalton was, and the man didn't even have any real acting experience!

I say "ouch" for Timothy Dalton.

[WillieGarvin]

I agree with Hardyboy's assessment on Brosnan and The Living Daylights--PB most likely would have played 007 in a style similar to Roger Moore.However,it's also interesting to know that The Living Daylights was written as a generic Bond film.There was always a chance--a very small one--that Roger Moore might play Bond in it,as well.

Accordingly,TLD wasn't written with any specific actor in mind.However,in the documentary on the making of TLD on the TLD DVD,it's revealed that Timothy Dalton was Cubby Broccoli's first choice to play 007 in TLD.Broccoli had offered Dalton the role of James Bond in OHMSS in 1968 following the departure of Sean Connery.At that time,however,Dalton turned Broccoli down,observing that he was only 26 years old and too young to be a credible Bond.Dalton also realized that coming immediately after Connery--at that time the most popular actor in the world and the definitive 007--could only spell career suicide.Dalton couldn't fit TLD into his schedule at that time and it was then that EON turned to Pierce Brosnan,a popular 2nd choice for Bond and signed him.After NBC renewed Remington Steele at the 11th hour,Broccoli let Brosnan go.The production stopped for a while and during that time,Dalton once again became available and became the 4th 007.

One of the first things Dalton did was reduce his dialogue with a special emphasis on removing the many flippant comments written for Bond in the script.He thought that Bond should only speak when he had something important to say.

There's a sequence in TLD that would have been just fine for Roger or Pierce and that's when Bond races across some rooftops and escapes by throwing a rug over some telephone lines and riding it down like a flying carpet.This was filmed but not kept in the final print.It would have damaged the tone of the scene.

Timothy Dalton's interpretation of James Bond is original and outstanding and is certainly a fine contribution to the 007 series.He brought Ian Fleming's dangerous and conflicted character back to the screen,establishing a more serious and harder-edged portrayal of Bond and his world.After that there could be no going backwards for 007--and for that we can all be grateful.

Nevertheless,Dalton's films were victims of timing and changing public tastes.The 6 year gap gave both the Bond fans and the general public the time to renew their interest in the cinematic 007--a circumstance which unquestionably helped the Brosnan pictures.

[Hardyboy]

Pierce wasn't "unattractive" in 1986, but in retrospect he DID look a little young and callow. Dalton looked more mature and weathered, and I think those qualities served him well. I believe that, had Brosnan made "TLD," his interpretation of the character might have been very different from what he's doing now. At the time Brosnan was best known for the light comedy and action of "Remington Steele;" and since the script for "TLD" originally had many comedic sequences (which were later taken out to better fit Dalton's darker take on the part), I believe Brosnan might have played Bond somewhat like Roger Moore did. This probably would have appealed more to audiences than did Brosnan's interpretation and it MAY have held off the problems that hit the series just a few years later; but we would have been denied the Bond that Pierce Brosnan now gives us.

[Blofeld's Cat]

zencat (22 Mar, 2002 04:42 p.m.):

ThomasCrown76 (22 Mar, 2002 04:30 p.m.):
Lazenby was even a better Bond than Dalton was, and the man didn't even have any real acting experience!

I say "ouch" for Timothy Dalton.

In all fairness, there was no intention of changing Bond's attitudes in OHMSS, which made it easier for Lazenby, but an effort was made to make Bond more serious in Dalton's two outings. And that's not a detriment to Dalton's acting ability but a misguidance on the part of Eon in making it so.

If Brosnan got to do The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill, would Eon have decided to make Bond more serious? I don't think so, based on his acting in Remmington Steele.

Bond was made more serious in those two movies because Dalton was percieved as a "serious" actor, with shakespearian experience.

[WillieGarvin]

Good points,MBE-- And very true.In fact,one needn't look to The Fourth Protocol alone to see how Pierce Brosnan might have played James Bond in the late 1980s--Just look to his performances in Noble House and Remington Steele.Like Leslie Charteris' Simon Templar,Remington Steele was a man with several shadings--some of them very dark ones.

Regardless of who played Bond--Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan,it was obvious to EON that 007 had to return to his more serious roots in order to survive.The action comedies the Bonds had become("family films,"Roger Moore called them),were running their course by the late 80s.

In their interpretations,both Tim and Pierce bring a much-needed intensity and harder edge to Bond than Roger was ever known for.And both men have been up to the challenge of keeping agent 007 alive for new generations.

The Bond series was a victim of bad timing in the late 80s.And with that lawsuit in place,a Brosnan Bond would have faced the same problems as the Dalton Bond.I like both actors equally and think that each man's versions of James Bond(really more alike stylistically than they are different)are noteworthy and commendable.

I also believe that Brosnan's appearance has only improved with age and that in the late 80s his then boyish features so well-suited to Remington Steele,would have been less effective for James Bond,a more somber and dangerous individual.Dalton's darkly handsome lupine features,suggesting both a ruthlessness and maturity,made him more suitable as the 007 of that era.Conversely,the Pierce Brosnan of today's Bond films now has both a rugged world wearyness and a more impressive physique than he did at the time when he was first considered for the role.Brosnan looks as right for the part now,as Timothy Dalton did years earlier.

For his part, Pierce Brosnan has openly praised Timothy Dalton's Bond,observing that Tim was excellent in the role.And on his end,Timothy Dalton is quick to laud Pierce Brosnan's Bond.

[License To Kill]

I think Pierce was saved by the grace of God for not being in TLD. Dalton was fine in it, but in the 1980s, Pierce was quite unattractive and now in the 90s-00's, he looks much better. But I guess thats what the 80's does to you: ala Boy George

[ThomasCrown76]

If Dalton was the second choice for Bond back then, was Alan Alda the third? Uh-oh, I did it again...

[zencat]

Friedrich Baxter (31 Mar, 2002 10:23 p.m.):
And, don't forget that Timothy Dalton asked a lot from the producers. He INSISTED to make 007 more real; to make the movies far more serious. Dalton wanted to go back to the original Fleming character. That was a very nobel idea, but something like that certainly won't work out very well for 007 as MOVIE character.

That's true to a point. While Dalton certainly played the character of Bond very close to Fleming, the movie The Living Daylights was written before Dalton was ever cast. Pierce has said many times that he had the script of The Living Daylights sitting by his bedside. So the producers had made a decision to return Bond to his Fleming roots long before Dalton came on board. But Dalton did fit perfectly with the new approach, much more than Pierce would have at the time, which is another reason Pierce was lucky he didn't become Bond in '87.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

To the supposition that Brosnan would have played Bond more like Moore in 1987, not unless EON disregarded everything he said about the character and forced that direction on him. And since they knew his views why would they bother, they could have got someone else to play it Moore-like, if that was thier desire, but it evidently wasn't or they wouldn't have gone back to Dalton.

And anyone who's seen The Fourth Protocol knows that Brosnan could play darker and wasn't limited to the light romantic comedic performances of Remington Steele in 1987.

BROSNAN ON BOND, from Starlog magazine, June 1986 [interviewed March 1986]

"I've *never* actually been asked to play James Bond. And the next question is, Would I *like* to play James Bond? I suppose I would like to have a crack at it. It hasn't been a lifetime ambition to play James Bond, but I wish they would make up their minds one way or the other by offering it to me or giving it to someone else. Not a day goes by now
without people saying, `You're going to make a great James Bond.' But no one has ever come to me and said, `Pierce, my dear boy, we would like you to play Jimmy Bond.' That may knock the rumor on the head, but I have been saying that now for quite a while, and the rumor is still around."

If he were offered the role, does he think he could make his portrayal different than those of Sean Connery and Roger Moore? "I don't think different, because there are certain guidelines to playing Bond. Whatever the difference is, it would be hard for me to define. This is nothing against Roger and his interpretation, which is very valid--but for me,
Sean Connery *was* James Bond. He had a killer instinct. Bond was a Commander and there was a certain ruthlessness, an edge to the character which has been lacking, mixed in with humor and getting the woman. I think the element of danger would have to be brought back with less of a focus
on gimmicks, maybe more of a character study. They have to go right back to the beginning and redefine what Ian Fleming put down on paper. They also should take into consideration what's happening musically now, and modern techniques of editing. They need fresh blood, as far as directors go, too.

"Anyway," he laughs, "they'll probably get some Aussie."

[JAWS]

I think Dalton would be great in a Shakespearian film. I even liked him in The Beautician and The Beast, but I didn't care for him in Bond films.