Could Dalton have had his own "The Spy Who Loved Me"?
#1
Posted 18 December 2007 - 07:36 PM
That's where the similarities end. Dalton left and/or was fired after the poor showing and a long hiatus for the series. Moore, on the other hand, returned as Bond after a longer than usual wait (3 years) between films. His third film, The Spy Who Loved Me, established Roger Moore not only as Bond, but a very popular Bond. It marked the first time a Moore film didn't go out of its way to try to be something it wasn't. The producers embraced Moore's strengths and the overall feel he gave to the movies, went all-out in terms of spending and extravagance, and Bond was saved.
Could Dalton have come back like Moore with a Spy Who Loved Me type success which would have established him as Bond? Was this possible? If so, what would the movie have been like? What overall feel would it have? What did the producers need to do in order to accomplish this?
I feel that a 1995 Goldeneye is not the answer to this question. A 6.5 year gap is just too long for a fresh start for the same actor. But maybe a 1992 or 1993 film starring Dalton and fully embracing his style (with a big budget, and perhaps a big co-star) could have worked.
#2
Posted 18 December 2007 - 07:41 PM
Let's look at the Bond careers of Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton: both took over from popular Bonds in fairly well-received debuts and ushered in a new style, both followed up their debuts with films which were financial failures (by Bond standards) and it looked as if they would never gain widespread acceptance as Bond.
That's where the similarities end. Dalton left and/or was fired after the poor showing and a long hiatus for the series. Moore, on the other hand, returned as Bond after a longer than usual wait (3 years) between films. His third film, The Spy Who Loved Me, established Roger Moore not only as Bond, but a very popular Bond. It marked the first time a Moore film didn't go out of its way to try to be something it wasn't. The producers embraced Moore's strengths and the overall feel he gave to the movies, went all-out in terms of spending and extravagance, and Bond was saved.
Could Dalton have come back like Moore with a Spy Who Loved Me type success which would have established him as Bond? Was this possible? If so, what would the movie have been like? What overall feel would it have? What did the producers need to do in order to accomplish this?
I feel that a 1995 Goldeneye is not the answer to this question. A 6.5 year gap is just too long for a fresh start for the same actor. But maybe a 1992 or 1993 film starring Dalton and fully embracing his style (with a big budget, and perhaps a big co-star) could have worked.
I definitely think it could have worked. Had Bond 17 been released at Christmas 1991 or in the summer or Christmas of 1992, Dalton probably would've hit his stride and made probably 2 more. Then Brosnan could have had his chance around 1997 or 1998. The long hiatus and financial troubles involving MGM at the time period will forever prevent us from knowing for sure.
#3
Posted 18 December 2007 - 08:04 PM
#4
Posted 18 December 2007 - 08:10 PM
#5
Posted 18 December 2007 - 08:56 PM
#6
Posted 18 December 2007 - 10:19 PM
Hmmm...This is a great idea for a thread. The answer is..."yes!" Dalton would have been great in a big-budget, "balls-to-the-wall" Bond movie. Unfortunately, he was denied the chance, and his swansong was rather the opposite. ACE did an outline for a hypothetical third Dalton film entitled "The Hildebrand Rarity" and, while not nearly as bombastic as "TSWLM," it was definitely far more grandiose than either "TLD" and "LTK" and pretty much typifies what I would have liked to have seen in a third Timothy Dalton 007 film.
I think he would have been perfect in a film like that!
#7
Posted 18 December 2007 - 10:30 PM
Dalton in a TSWLM-type epic? I don't quite see it. TD's Bond was a serious, almost dour man, who was unconvincing with the throwaway one-liner. His Bond was a "real" man operating in a "real" world (at least as real as it can get in a Bond movie). His Bond would have been out-of-place, an almost jarring presence, in a fantasy tale of world domination, space lasers, hollow volcanoes, and massed private armies in matching multi-coloured tunics. There was a lightness about Sir Rog's Bond, a twinkle in the eye, the "don't worry I get-it" touch of self-effacement that the big epic Bonds need. Brozza had that too. In his tenure TD just seemed a bit too earnest.
I'm not saying a third Dalton film couldn't have been a success - but I'm just not sure a TSWLM-type epic would have been the reason.
#8
Posted 18 December 2007 - 10:42 PM
Anyway, I dont think a "big budget" is the only solution. The problem is that the filmmakers didn't know what direction to take with the films. At that time, they simply didn't realize that people would actually pay to see a Bondfilm with a ridiculous amount of machineguns and explosions.
#9
Posted 15 February 2008 - 06:06 AM
In my opinion, we should have had a third Dalton film in 1991 and a fourth in 1993. This way, Pierce could still have taken over with GoldenEye in 1995. What would the other Dalton films have been like? That could be a thread in itself. But I would suggest several things.
1. Dalton seems to work best with smaller scale stories where the fate of the whole world is not necessarily at stake, but rather he is dealing with some very nasty SOBs plotting something that keeps him on the edge of danger from start to finish.
2. Less gadgets, more fisticuffs and physical action.
3. There is room for more humor, but of the drier kind and not the groan-inducing puns. Dalton just needed better writers in this area.
I'd love to see a Bond movie where the whole thrust of the plot is a race against time and Bond is on his feet nonstop from start to finish. I don't think this has ever been done, and Dalton, with his natural intensity, would have been fascinating to watch under that kind of pressure. Imagine a Bond film that unfolds in actual time, where he's got two hours to get to the bottom of something or all hell breaks loose. That would be a novel approach and he'd be the actor to try it, I think.
#10
Posted 15 February 2008 - 06:35 AM
#11
Posted 15 February 2008 - 06:48 AM
#12
Posted 20 February 2008 - 09:56 PM
Sounds like a load of bull...Part of that can be blamed on the fact that LTK was an abortion, but Dalton lacked the charisma necessary to get people past the parts of the movie that they didn't find interesting (and with LTK, it was practically the whole movie).
#13
Posted 22 February 2008 - 07:20 PM
#14
Posted 22 February 2008 - 09:32 PM
I disagree. They didnWell, EON tried extremely hard to tailor LTK to Dalton's acting style. That film was supposed to be his TSWLM! And we all know how well that worked... A third Dalton film would most likely be a return to a more lighter, epic, style (closer to TLD).
#15
Posted 15 April 2008 - 03:35 AM
Let's face it, while I love Dalton's movies, Dalton was kept from being a mainstream success by bad circumstances.
I never understood why they kept John Glen in the directors chair after AVTAK...At least we have this great Bond in 2 somewhat flawed films...
I think Dalton in a big budget, properly marketed film would have sealed the deal!
#16
Posted 15 April 2008 - 04:57 AM
#17
Posted 15 April 2008 - 10:30 AM
TLD was a commercial success but compared to CR for example it's success wasn't enough to reverse the declining fortunes of Bond films at the box office and a huge part of that like it or not was because the public at large didn't (and sadly still don't) care for Dalton's interpretation regardless of whether or not the film was his SPY WHO LOVED ME or as originally planned GOLDENEYE. Judo Chop above again makes the assertion that a darker film (with strong writing and better direction) would have made the difference. However if the public didn't like a 'dark' Bond performance in Moore like films what makes one think they (given the era we're talking about) would flock to a dark Bond performance in a dark Bond film.
Quality (which in the action genre back then was subjective at the best of times)is absolutely no guarantee that audiences, after TWO films, would have warmed up to Dalton eventually. Brosnan was hardly served with best material either yet his Bond movies raked in lots of cash.
#18
Posted 15 April 2008 - 10:52 AM
If Tim had a third film where they upped the beautiful locations and women, created original and thrilling stunts, that were the best in the Bond series and perhaps some allies that were genuinely humorous, could it have been the 3rd film that was successful.
What may not have worked is the other elements of Spy, sight gags, metal toothed villains, villains Lairs, shark pools, magnets, underwater cars, quips (e.g. All those feathers and he still can't fly)
I love Spy, but Daltons 3rd would have been completely different, the humour elements would have been toned down and suited to TD. The lighter touch would not have been present, and that was part of the success of Spy. If I had to compare his 3rd to a film in the canon, I can only think of a OHMSS like adventure, where the action is the best, the plot is credible and the gadgets are pretty much absent, doesn't stop a thrilling car chase, or fantastic fights though. And Bond would have more girls, but would ultimately fall for one at the end. More locations, and EON would find plenty of clever ways for TD to get out of dangerous situations using his wits. TD taking on 2/3 men in hand to hand combat in a gritty style in a spectacular long fight, walking away from the fight with blood and bruises to show for it, but showing what a dangerous lethal man the TD 007 was.
If the action was outstanding, and it had been a real fast moving, globe trotting adventure and also with several "Stand Out" moments that would be remembered, then I can see it being successful, but not sure if it would have been to Spy's proportions. Echoing baerrtt's comments, wasn't LALD a huge success(taking inflation into account) ? TLD was successful, but was it as successful as LALD(inflation adjusted). In some ways I guess EON knew with LALD they could get the audience back if they went with the fantasy elements etc.. not sure they would be so sure with a 3rd Dalton, but it would have been a blast if it would have happened
Edited by BoogieBond, 15 April 2008 - 12:47 PM.
#19
Posted 15 April 2008 - 06:51 PM
#20
Posted 15 April 2008 - 07:07 PM
Edited by bondrules, 15 April 2008 - 07:08 PM.
#21
Posted 16 April 2008 - 02:47 AM
Hmmm...This is a great idea for a thread. The answer is..."yes!" Dalton would have been great in a big-budget, "balls-to-the-wall" Bond movie.
I really can't see Dalton in that type of Bond film. I don't think I would want to see him in that kind of film. I think that Dalton's problem was that his Bond was ahead of its time. His type of Bond wasn't appreciated in the late 80s. I wonder if TLD and LTK would have been more appreciated if they had been released during this decade. I wonder how CR would have fared if it had been released 20 years ago.
#22
Posted 21 April 2008 - 03:04 PM
I agree with BoogieBond. Timmy's third movie should've been like OHMSS where his capabilities would've been realized to the fullest. TWINE could've been Timmy's third movie in 1991. No Christmas Jones, no unnecessary explosions & shootouts, just concentrating on the main plot. Tim could've played Bond's emotional side really well.
#23
Posted 22 April 2008 - 06:59 AM
#24
Posted 22 April 2008 - 10:41 AM
In a movie in the TSWLM style his strength would have been again to add a certain counterpoint to the movie's setup.
The questin is if the public would have accepted a third Dalton Bond movie after they were put off by the amount of violence in his last one. And that has nothing to do with Dalton himself in the first place.
#25
Posted 23 April 2008 - 03:29 PM
Timmy in a TSWLM type movie? Forget it! That's an insult to the best actor ever to play Bond.
I can see no reason why Dalton could not have been in a TSWLM type movie. After all, one of Dalton's next film's after "License to Kill" was "The Rocketeer" in which he played an over-the-top, Errol Flynn inspired villian.
I agree with a previous post that wondered if the greatest problem with a third Dalton film would have been the amount of violence of LTK.
#26
Posted 24 April 2008 - 02:41 PM
#27
Posted 24 April 2008 - 02:44 PM
"Better make that two!"
#28
Posted 24 April 2008 - 04:29 PM
That would have been fantastic.
#29
Posted 25 April 2008 - 02:36 AM
II love Spy, but Daltons 3rd would have been completely different, the humour elements would have been toned down and suited to TD. The lighter touch would not have been present, and that was part of the success of Spy. If I had to compare his 3rd to a film in the canon, I can only think of a OHMSS like adventure, where the action is the best, the plot is credible and the gadgets are pretty much absent, doesn't stop a thrilling car chase, or fantastic fights though. And Bond would have more girls, but would ultimately fall for one at the end. More locations, and EON would find plenty of clever ways for TD to get out of dangerous situations using his wits.
Edited by 6Joker9, 25 April 2008 - 02:39 AM.
#30
Posted 25 April 2008 - 11:58 AM
Dalton should of done a third film, regardless of what some people say about him, i thought he was a terrific Bond, just what we needed after the Moore Era.
Edited by George Lazenby, 25 April 2008 - 11:59 AM.