77 replies to this topic

[baerrtt]

there was no way they were ever going to make the film with Dalton

Eon was going to make it with him. MGM wasn't.

But we don't really know that for sure, do we? I know what was said at the time but I suspect Dalton was given a golden handshake and was allowed to appear to bow-out graciously. The truth is that if Goldeneye had flopped it would have been the end for the series and the loss of Eon's livelihood - they weren't about to risk that by using a man who'd failed in the court of public opinion. In 1995 they had to have fresh start, which meant no Dalton.

Dalton only "failed in the court of public opinion" because EON made it look that way.

There is one truth I know, and one truth only: GoldenEye should have been Dalton's film.

Can you explain how EON made it that way? By not giving Tim better material? Better films may not have neccessarily meant better box office as I alluded to in my post earlier on. Marketing? Given how the summer of 89 was loaded (Batman, LW2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade etc) I don't feel the highest level of marketing would have made a difference. When Harry Met Sally, If I recall, wasn't marketed that much either but somehow still took more than LTK at the gate stateside during that period. The US public and their apparent Brosnan obsession ultimately may be more to blame. Yes towards the end of Moore's era the box office for his films in America were dropping but the excited belief that Pierce would take over in 86 states that ultimately it was all about who the public preferred as the next Bond, basically Roger Moore mark 2. After GE there isn't really much of a difference between Brosnan's remaining 3 (particularly DAD) and the most ott of RM's era. People wanted the same 'traditional' Bond from 87-89 and Remington Steele was it. Dalton's take, whether the film was directed by John Glen or James Cameron, wasn't. Stick him in GE and he'd probably have a better film on his hands, but a more successful one? I don't know.

[Peckinpah1976]

Eon are on the record as being in talks with Dalton to appear in GoldenEye in 1993.

"We're in discussion with him, and we're not in discussion with anyone else. He's the Bond of record." - Danjaq spokesman John Parkinson, July 1993.

If you're happy to accept that; then good for you. In reality though there's a gap wider than Sean Connery's shoulders between what a company says and what they actually think.

Dalton only "failed in the court of public opinion" because EON made it look that way.

There is one truth I know, and one truth only: GoldenEye should have been Dalton's film.

Sorry but virtually nobody outside of fandom likes (or remembers) Dalton and his movies today. That's a failure by any reckoning. And if Dalton had done Goldeneye in '95 we wouldn't be sat around in '08 waiting for Bond 22 to be released - the franchise would have been dead in it's tracks.

[Royal Dalton]

Eon are on the record as being in talks with Dalton to appear in GoldenEye in 1993.

"We're in discussion with him, and we're not in discussion with anyone else. He's the Bond of record." - Danjaq spokesman John Parkinson, July 1993.

If you're happy to accept that; then good for you. In reality though there's a gap wider than Sean Connery's shoulders between what a company says and what they actually think.

I noticed you chose to ignore the last part of the post, which explained what happened after that statement was made.

Re: Timothy Dalton starring in Bond 17. Here's another quote for you:

"Nothing's been signed yet, but we are extremely hopeful." - Eon spokeswoman Liz Ihre, July 1993.

It was John Calley who got rid of Dalton. He wasn't even on the scene when the GoldenEye script was commissioned. Which is why there are several Dalton quotes from that period discussing the film, as though he was going to star in it. Because, as far as everyone at that time was concerned (including Eon and the then-MGM/UA management), he was.

[ACE]

It was John Calley who got rid of Dalton. He wasn't even on the scene when the GoldenEye script was commissioned. Which is why there are several Dalton quotes from that period discussing the film, as though he was going to star in it. Because, as far as everyone at that time was concerned (including Eon and the then-MGM/UA management), he was.

This is exactly right.

For those conspiracy theorists out there for whom day is night and night is day, consider some facts.

1) Post LTK, the trades announced at least two further Bond films for 1991 and 1993.

2) Post LTK, MGM/UA announced the 17th Bond film starring Timothy Dalton at Cannes.

3) The Bond films went on hiatus not because of the less than expected US box office (but still very profitable worldwide) take, but because other revenue-generating Bond assets co-controlled by Danjaq (Eon owns no Bond IP), were abused and used as leverage by the incoming management of the studio. They were trying to buy the cow with its own milk - while it was still in the udder! When the legalities of the situation were resolved (in Danjaq's favour), development of Bond 17 could and did go ahead. With Dalton in the role.

4) In 1993-4, the new management of MGM/UA (who replaced the team in paragraph 3 above - difficult to run a studio from jail!) were behind the decision not to back a 3rd Dalton 007 film. As their corporate subsidiary, UA Corp. co-owns and co-controls the film rights, Eon (the service company who make the films) were not in a position to shop around to other studios or even make the movie on their own.

5) Dalton's announced resignation was a mutually acceptable fait accompli. It may be why, while Dalton was a pall-bearer for Cubby and attends a number of Broccoli family and artistic functions at their invitation, he refuses to sign, endorse or support corporate product emanating from the controlling studio.

Timothy Dalton is my favourite James Bond. I think he would have been excellent in GoldenEye. However, while I believe the film would have been successful, I do not believe it would have grossed what GoldenEye eventually did and I do not believe the franchise would have been reinvigorated the way needed to be and the way it was with Pierce Brosnan (who was particularly excellent) in the role. IMH (but sad) O.

[HH007]

It was John Calley who got rid of Dalton. He wasn't even on the scene when the GoldenEye script was commissioned. Which is why there are several Dalton quotes from that period discussing the film, as though he was going to star in it. Because, as far as everyone at that time was concerned (including Eon and the then-MGM/UA management), he was.

This is exactly right.

For those conspiracy theorists out there for whom day is night and night is day, consider some facts.

1) Post LTK, the trades announced at least two further Bond films for 1991 and 1993.

2) Post LTK, MGM/UA announced the 17th Bond film starring Timothy Dalton at Cannes.

3) The Bond films went on hiatus not because of the less than expected US box office (but still very profitable worldwide) take, but because other revenue-generating Bond assets co-controlled by Danjaq (Eon owns no Bond IP), were abused and used as leverage by the incoming management of the studio. They were trying to buy the cow with its own milk - while it was still in the udder! When the legalities of the situation were resolved (in Danjaq's favour), development of Bond 17 could and did go ahead. With Dalton in the role.

4) In 1993-4, the new management of MGM/UA (who replaced the team in paragraph 3 above - difficult to run a studio from jail!) were behind the decision not to back a 3rd Dalton 007 film. As their corporate subsidiary, UA Corp. co-owns and co-controls the film rights, Eon (the service company who make the films) were not in a position to shop around to other studios or even make the movie on their own.

5) Dalton's announced resignation was a mutually acceptable fait accompli. It may be why, while Dalton was a pall-bearer for Cubby and attends a number of Broccoli family and artistic functions at their invitation, he refuses to sign, endorse or support corporate product emanating from the controlling studio.

Timothy Dalton is my favourite James Bond. I think he would have been excellent in GoldenEye. However, while I believe the film would have been successful, I do not believe it would have grossed what GoldenEye eventually did and I do not believe the franchise would have been reinvigorated the way needed to be and the way it was with Pierce Brosnan (who was particularly excellent) in the role. IMH (but sad) O.

I think that answers the original question quite accurately.

[tdalton]

It was John Calley who got rid of Dalton. He wasn't even on the scene when the GoldenEye script was commissioned. Which is why there are several Dalton quotes from that period discussing the film, as though he was going to star in it. Because, as far as everyone at that time was concerned (including Eon and the then-MGM/UA management), he was.

This is exactly right.

For those conspiracy theorists out there for whom day is night and night is day, consider some facts.

1) Post LTK, the trades announced at least two further Bond films for 1991 and 1993.

2) Post LTK, MGM/UA announced the 17th Bond film starring Timothy Dalton at Cannes.

3) The Bond films went on hiatus not because of the less than expected US box office (but still very profitable worldwide) take, but because other revenue-generating Bond assets co-controlled by Danjaq (Eon owns no Bond IP), were abused and used as leverage by the incoming management of the studio. They were trying to buy the cow with its own milk - while it was still in the udder! When the legalities of the situation were resolved (in Danjaq's favour), development of Bond 17 could and did go ahead. With Dalton in the role.

4) In 1993-4, the new management of MGM/UA (who replaced the team in paragraph 3 above - difficult to run a studio from jail!) were behind the decision not to back a 3rd Dalton 007 film. As their corporate subsidiary, UA Corp. co-owns and co-controls the film rights, Eon (the service company who make the films) were not in a position to shop around to other studios or even make the movie on their own.

5) Dalton's announced resignation was a mutually acceptable fait accompli. It may be why, while Dalton was a pall-bearer for Cubby and attends a number of Broccoli family and artistic functions at their invitation, he refuses to sign, endorse or support corporate product emanating from the controlling studio.

Timothy Dalton is my favourite James Bond. I think he would have been excellent in GoldenEye. However, while I believe the film would have been successful, I do not believe it would have grossed what GoldenEye eventually did and I do not believe the franchise would have been reinvigorated the way needed to be and the way it was with Pierce Brosnan (who was particularly excellent) in the role. IMH (but sad) O.

I think that answers the original question quite accurately.

Agreed. That is easily the most detailed description of what happened back then that I've heard so far, and it clears up a few questions that I had.

It is a shame that Dalton didn't get to do GoldenEye. I think that with him in the role, it would have been a much better film, mainly due to the fact that Dalton is my favorite Bond, but also because the film is written more for his strengths as an actor than it was for Brosnan. It's a shame that he only got two films, although I think that, even now, he could come back and turn in a fantastic performance as Bond.

[Panavision]

As much as it pains me to say it, Pierce Brosnan was the right Bond for the 90s. A 5 year gap was what Bond needed, and the marketing was easy, not only was it a new film but also a new Bond.

[Mr. Blofeld]

It's a shame that he only got two films, although I think that, even now, he could come back and turn in a fantastic performance as Bond.

On Alfred Hitchcock Presents, perhaps?

[Harry Fawkes]

To say the Bond series would have ended had Dalton starred in Goldeneye is simply far fetched speculation. Had the studio used the same publicity campaign used for Brosnan, Goldeneye staring Timothy Dalton as James Bond would have no doubt been a box office blast as well.

Timothy Dalton is the type of actor who likes moving on and the fact that he had been associated for so long with the character of Bond was one of the main reasons he gave it up.

Let us not forget that Cubby would never have let anyone interfere with his choice of actor for James Bond, not even the studio big wigs, and Dalton was, ultimately, his choice.

He would never have let him go had Dalton not wanted to go. In fact, he was, and this is an indisputable fact, formally approached by MGM and EON a year before Cubby underwent emergency surgery but he turned the offer down.

Respectfully, those who say Dalton was fired are wrong and, I'm sorry to say, haven't got their facts right.

Harry Fawkes MRQ

Edited by Harry Fawkes, 11 February 2008 - 07:53 PM.

[jboy]

More Dalton and less Brosnan would've suited me fine.

Less acting on trying to look cool and more focus on acting...

[Mr. Blofeld]

It was John Calley who got rid of Dalton.

Thank God. Someone had to save EON from committing artistic suicide. The Broccolis should be grateful that they had someone at the studio in the form of John Calley who was willing to do their dirty work for them and spare them the unpleasant task of firing Dalton themselves.

Well, somebody hates Dalton, don't they?

[Royal Dalton]

Yes. Martin Campbell.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Yes. Martin Campbell.

Are you sure? GoldenEye looks to me like the ideal Dalton film... if only he'd been given a chance.

[Royal Dalton]

Yes. Martin Campbell.

Are you sure?

Yes.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Yes. Martin Campbell.

Are you sure?

Yes.

So Martin Campbell forced Dalton out, huh?

[Royal Dalton]

No, of course not. He's only a hired hand.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Five hit films in a row since 1995, and likely to be 6 hit films in a row this Novemeber.

Three of which had no resemblance to anything by Fleming whatsoever.

[doublenoughtspy]

Let us not forget that Cubby would never have let anyone interfere with his choice of actor for James Bond, not even the studio big wigs, and Dalton was, ultimately, his choice.

Nice try Harry, but you are wrong on at least two counts.

Connery coming back for DAF wasn't a Cubby decision. It was forced on Eon by UA. You do recall that Gavin was Cubby's choice?

Now Cubby was a realist and he knew that Connery coming back would be better box office - and he & Harry made peace (temporarily) with Sean - but your claim of no interferance is not true.

Secondly, the people here aren't saying Dalton was fired. More that he did not have the confidence of the studio, and rather than hurt Cubby or the franchise, he resigned.

What I was told by a source close to the production is that a 3rd Dalton film was "offered" to Eon by the studio, but at a very low budget.

A Bond film with a new actor was also offered, and with a much higher budget.

Take a look at Cubby's bio - the studio was getting more involved as the series progressed, not less.

While Cubby commanded tremendous power and respect within the industry, he could not self-finance a Bond film.