49 replies to this topic

[baerrtt]

The question's in the heading. Some fans feel GE would have been a better film with Dalton still in the lead as Bond. However, like Pierce or not, with the same type of marketing (Bond returns) and in the exact same movie we got would Dalton's presence have really made a difference at the box office? Yes the US performance of LTK and the supposed inisistence of MGM to go with Brosnan give an answer but I'd like to ask fans if, all things considered would this have been the case?

[Skudor]

Probably better, possibly not as successful.

[Royal Dalton]

Probably better, possibly not as successful.

[HH007]

Oh, who knows? We can only speculate that LTK wasn't as successful as other Bonds because audiences either didn't like Dalton, or didn't like the movie. I was disappointed when I heard Dalton wouldn't be back for GE, however, I do think Brosnan gave his best performance as Bond in that movie.

[jaguar007]

I think GE would have been a much better movie with Dalton in the role of Bond, however it probably would not have been quite as successful in the box office (especially in the US).

[HawkEye007]

IMO, if Dalton would have been in GE instead of Brosnan, I bet it would have been a totally different movie than what we got. Basic plot points might have stayed the same, but little things would be different because it would have been tailored for Tim. I also agree with a lot of folks here, it probably would have been a better movie overall but not as successful.

[Napoleon Solo]

I don't think the box office would have been good. I think some people may have sampled GE just because of the (real life) storyline of PB finally getting to be Bond after a nearly decade-long wait.

[DamnCoffee]

Quite Strange how Dalton was not much of a commercial success as Bond, as much as Connery or Moore were, now nearly everyone is singing his praises. Where were you all back in '87 and '89?

[Qwerty]

Probably better, possibly not as successful.

Could be. GoldenEye had the huge "return of Bond in the 90's!" factor helping it somewhat.

[Royal Dalton]

Quite Strange how Dalton was not much of a commercial success as Bond, as much as Connery or Moore were, now nearly everyone is singing his praises. Where were you all back in '87 and '89?

He was a success, everywhere but in America.

Roger Moore's box office returns had slumped there, too, remember.

[Skudor]

Probably better, possibly not as successful.

Could be. GoldenEye had the huge "return of Bond in the 90's!" factor helping it somewhat.

True - and you can't really separate that very easily from the Brosnan factor. Having a new Bond helps, but a six year gap also helps.

[J.C.D'Arc]

As a fan of Fleming's books, Dalton seems to me to have come the closest to portraying the James Bond of the books. Especially in the first part of The Living Daylights, the whole countersniper thing in Prague. (It was Prague, wasn't it? Of course, in the story it was East/West Berlin.) Goldeneye was very different in style to either The Living Daylights or Licence to Kill. It was pretty much right back to the good old Goldfinger/Thunderball plot, right down to stolen aircraft, highjacked nuclear weapons, financial disaster for a major Western power, etc., etc. As such, I don't know if it was a Timothy Dalton kind of movie. I think of the plot of Goldeneye, and I can't really picture anyone but Brosnan playing Bond in it. Likewise, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill have Timothy Dalton written all over them.

I mean, can you really imagine Dalton's Bond putting up with a harangue from a 4-foot 11 grandmother about how he's a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur?"

"Stuff yer bourbon!" he'd growl and head for the door to start searching for a better job.

[plankattack]

Goldeneye was very different in style to either The Living Daylights or Licence to Kill. It was pretty much right back to the good old Goldfinger/Thunderball plot, right down to stolen aircraft, highjacked nuclear weapons, financial disaster for a major Western power, etc., etc. As such, I don't know if it was a Timothy Dalton kind of movie. I think of the plot of Goldeneye, and I can't really picture anyone but Brosnan playing Bond in it. Likewise, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill have Timothy Dalton written all over them.

I know part of our existence as fans is daydreaming about SC in OHMSS or Laz doing three or four in total, but as I've said before, there is more than just transplanting leads. EON have always tailored the films to the star and so, as much as I like TD's Bond, I'm not entirely convinced it would have been a better fit or a better film.

I know that the original treatment was written when TD was still the incumbent (so by extension, with him in mind) but the finished product didn't seem to me to fit his style. TD's straight from Fleming interpretation (something he himself has said he tried to do) would have been a little out of synch with satellites, enemy secret bases, and Omegas with laser beams inside.

GE definitely tried to recapture the "fantastic" elements of the series, served up with a slightly harder mid-90s action-film attitude. Yes, I like the idea of TD v Sean Bean, "what no more chit-chat" dialogue with LTK-like venom, but I'm not convinced the overall finished product would have been better. As much as Brozza was still finding his feet in his first outing, the tone of GE fits his tenure perfectly.

As to more successful - no. America didn't buy TD as Bond. I'm not trying to start a row here but the fact of the matter is, he was the lead in a Bond (LTK) that didn't put bums on seats, and fair or no, he carried the can for that.

[Royal Dalton]

As to more successful - no. America didn't buy TD as Bond. I'm not trying to start a row here but the fact of the matter is, he was the lead in a Bond (LTK) that didn't put bums on seats, and fair or no, he carried the can for that.

Oh, I dunno. The Man with the Golden Gun underperformed in the US, and Roger Moore bounced back with his next film. The same thing could just as easily have happened with Dalton.

[jaguar007]

Quite Strange how Dalton was not much of a commercial success as Bond, as much as Connery or Moore were, now nearly everyone is singing his praises. Where were you all back in '87 and '89?

I was in the theater watching TLD and LTK over and over again (LTK still holds the record for the most times I saw a Bond film in the theater, 9 times).

As a fan of Fleming's books, Dalton seems to me to have come the closest to portraying the James Bond of the books. Especially in the first part of The Living Daylights, the whole countersniper thing in Prague. (It was Prague, wasn't it? Of course, in the story it was East/West Berlin.) Goldeneye was very different in style to either The Living Daylights or Licence to Kill. It was pretty much right back to the good old Goldfinger/Thunderball plot, right down to stolen aircraft, highjacked nuclear weapons, financial disaster for a major Western power, etc., etc. As such, I don't know if it was a Timothy Dalton kind of movie. I think of the plot of Goldeneye, and I can't really picture anyone but Brosnan playing Bond in it. Likewise, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill have Timothy Dalton written all over them.

I mean, can you really imagine Dalton's Bond putting up with a harangue from a 4-foot 11 grandmother about how he's a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur?"

"Stuff yer bourbon!" he'd growl and head for the door to start searching for a better job.

I disagree, I felt Brosnan was trying to be Timothy Dalton quite a bit in GE instead of being his own Bond. GE is a much more serious outing for the Bond character than the other Brosnan films, in fact I think (apart from the music score) I think Brosnan was the weakest part of GE. Sure some of the diolague would have been tweaked a bit, but I think we could have had a very similar film (just with a stronger Bond).

[Felix Heavier]

Quite Strange how Dalton was not much of a commercial success as Bond, as much as Connery or Moore were, now nearly everyone is singing his praises. Where were you all back in '87 and '89?

Where was I? I was busy being 4 and 6 years old, respectively.

At any rate, I'm sure people would've been glad to see Bond again after 6 long years (absence makes the heart grow fonder, and all that). However, I'm not so sure as many people would've been glad to see Tim Dalton as Bond again.

[Mr. Somerset]

This is a very strong argument. As much as I loved TD in the role and was heartbroken to find out he was not going to be in Bond 17 (right before my birthday, too. Thanks a lot, Tim.), it's hard to say how successful GE would've been. Clearly by 1995, MGM/UA could afford to promote the latest film, which the two Dalton films lacked. There was probably the least promotional campaign for LTK in the series history, with maybe the exception of Dr No. At the time, I felt Dalton's third would've been a huge hit, with the right elements of the "cinematic Bond" and Fleming/Dalton Bond combined. GoldenEye had thoses elements pretty well balanced. Overall, I agree that GE would still probably have been a much bigger hit than the previous two Dalton films, but Pierce still had the edge.

[tambourineman]

I definately dont think it would have been as successful. A lot of GE's popularity came down to all the hype around at the time about a new Bond and the series being kickstarted. But it would have been a better movie though I think. I doubt it would have been as successful if it were just a continuation of Dalton's films, especially after the gap between them and the (incorrect) sentiment around at the time that there hadnt been a Bond movie in so long because Dalton's were flops.

[RazorBlade]

Where was I? I was in the theater with my sons, watching TD as bond and loving it. Sad to see him go. I think the reasons were a little more complex than underperforming box office. And we may never know what those reasons were.

[agentjamesbond007]

Probably better, possibly not as successful.

Yup, I think Brosnan did a good job.

[coco1997]

"Stuff yer bourbon!" he'd growl and head for the door to start searching for a better job.

Actually, I can see Dalton doing that scene! Instead of looking smug and casual during M's little talk-down, though, Dalton would have looked bitter and, upon getting up to leave, he would have turned and said something really biting and effective to piss M off!

[Mr. Blofeld]

"Stuff yer bourbon!" he'd growl and head for the door to start searching for a better job.

Actually, I can see Dalton doing that scene! Instead of looking smug and casual during M's little talk-down, though, Dalton would have looked bitter and, upon getting up to leave, he would have turned and said something really biting and effective to piss M off!

All the better, my friend.

[Licence_007]

Probably better, possibly not as successful.

I'll agree with this. I think a new Bond actor will always get more people to reach into their pockets just so they can see what they are like, which would have been part of Goldeneye's commercial success.

[The Richmond Spy]

I doubt it.

Gene Siskel was even calling for Brosnan to be Bond in his TV review of TLD (saw it in another thread.) I had always thought the whole Brosnan/TLD/Remington Steele scenario was more of a behind-the-scenes type of affair, but after watching Siskel's sentiment at the time...it makes me think it can't be 100% unique.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bond is what it is today without Dalton's two films. Fair or not, I'm under the impression that the public didn't like him as much as they thought they would like Brosnan. Also, I was only a few months old when all of this was going on...so maybe history has been distorted in the past 20 years.

[Judo chop]

Dalton (in Goldeneye teaser trailer, 1995): "Were you expecting someone else?"

This or That:

<chills of anticipation>

or

various mutters heard from the audience... "um, well... Yes. We WERE."

[WatchtheBirdy]

My thoughts:

If it weren't for the awful lawsuits that happened after LTK, I highly doubt that they would have done GoldenEye in 1991. It would be completely different.

As for 1995, it would be probably a whole lot better, but not as successful, sadly.

[tdalton]

GoldenEye in 1995 starring Timothy Dalton would not have been a very successful film, sadly. I think that coming back after a six year hiatus with the same Bond that wasn't very popular with audiences after LTK would have meant a lackluster performance at the box office.

[coco1997]

But wasn't the script not written until 1992/1993?

[Stephen Spotswood]

Dalton would've been better in Goldeneye. This was when the franchise finally got rid of that hack John Glen and replaced him with Martin Campbell. Brosnan wasn't up to Sean Bean's level, and scenes of Dalton and Bean pacing around each other would've been much much better.

Of course Dalton would've be 10 years older (nearly) than when he started as Bond.

But it always seemed like the producers felt that almost anybody could play the part, when they were considering everyone from Cary Grant, James Mason, Patrick McGoohan, Roger Moore and Christopher Lee in the early days, and later Ian Ogilvey and Lewis Collins, even Mel Gibson. I'm surprised they never considered Benny Hill.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 10 December 2007 - 04:04 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm surprised they never considered Benny Hill.

If they had, they probably would have been Yakety Sax-ing all over Dr. No's lair.