25 replies to this topic

[Jake007]

How do you think the film would've been? Better, worse, or the same? And also how many films do you think he would've done?

[jaguar007]

Honestly I think the Bond series might be dead right now. I'm not saying this as a Dalton fan, but I think if Pierce had succeeded Roger Moore the movies would have continued too comical and the declining interest in BOnd would have continued. The public wanted Brosnan in 87 and I think the long wait with Brosnan as Bond helped drive people to the box office. I think if Brosnan had done 2 Bond films in 87 & 89 the 95 return with a new actor (someone other than Brosnan) would not have been quite the marketing success.

[Daddy Bond]

It would have been worse. Dalton is great in this movie. TLD is one of the best because of Dalton.

[CaptainPower]

Like GoldenEye I've always seen The Living Daylights as an attempt to make a classic Bond movie, perhaps as an attempt to help usher in a new Bond. The classic ingrediants are presented and portrayed in each actors unique style. I think Brosnan would have taken a more traditional approach with TLD (taking his time with "the line" as opposed to Dalton throwing it off as if its nothing, for instance) but I still think the result would be a cracking film, as it is already.

[Mister E]

The film really isn't that great the way it is now and adding Brosnan would have made it a complete dud.

[jaguar007]

It would have been worse. Dalton is great in this movie. TLD is one of the best because of Dalton.

Agreed. The opening Czhec scene is one of the best in the series. I also love the scene where Bond confronts Pushkin in his hotel. I read that the script originally had Bond break in with a gun, but they had a civliized conversation over a glass of Champagne. It was toughened up when Dalton was cast.

Brosnan also looked to young and skinny back in 86/87 to be Bond.

[Mister E]

Without Dalton in the role, LTK ceases to exist, and EON goes in a different direction than the one they took with Dalton.

I don't think so. The film would have been a bit more light hearted but it would still been there. I always felt LICENCE TO KILL was never really Dalton's film but more like a response to the films popular at the time and why it seems very dated compared to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS made just two years earlier. EON really never made a film to reflect the nature of Dalton's portrayal of James Bond.

[DR76]

I have no problems with Dalton's films. I love TLD and I like LTK a lot . . . even if the latter seemed more appropriate for a crime film instead of a spy thriller.

[jaguar007]

Without Dalton in the role, LTK ceases to exist, and EON goes in a different direction than the one they took with Dalton.

I don't think so. The film would have been a bit more light hearted but it would still been there. I always felt LICENCE TO KILL was never really Dalton's film but more like a response to the films popular at the time and why it seems very dated compared to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS made just two years earlier. EON really never made a film to reflect the nature of Dalton's portrayal of James Bond.

I disagree. I think (which has been confirmed in interviews with MGW) that they did LTK because they had an actor whose strength was doing the more rough and gritty stuff. I think the drug lord theme was very much a response to films at that time, but Bond going out for revenge and making it "grittier" was more to do with Daltons casting.

[Mister E]

I disagree. I think (which has been confirmed in interviews with MGW) that they did LTK because they had an actor whose strength was doing the more rough and gritty stuff. I think the drug lord theme was very much a response to films at that time, but Bond going out for revenge and making it "grittier" was more to do with Daltons casting.

Well with the major villian and composer consisting of people from DIE HARD and LEATHAL WEAPON I find it hard to belive a trenmendous effort was made to tailor this film to Dalton's strengths. The only Fleming in the film is the name of Milton Krest and two scenes from the LIVE AND LET DIE novel, the rest is clearly pandering to 80's action films at the time.

The INSIDE LICENCE TO KILL documentary about how this was a Fleming Bond film and Dalton's preformance being "Fleming-esque" was just mentioned to make the film legit to the general public. That was the only documentary mentioning a Bond film failing at the box office and they basically wanted to say "Hey it failed at the BO but this is the film Fleming fans should love !".

[Bondian]

I have no problems with Dalton's films. I love TLD and I like LTK a lot . . . even if the latter seemed more appropriate for a crime film instead of a spy thriller.

Ditto. I enjoy both movies on a regular basis.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Let me start by saying that Pierce Brosnan is my favorite 007 and after seeing him in Remington Steele, he was my top choice for James Bond number 5, and I was disappointed when he didn't get it.

In the long run, however, I believe it was better that he didn't get the role in 1986/87 and the series is/was better off for it. Like jaguar007 said, Brosnan was too young and skinny back then. Just compare what he looked like then to when he got the role nine years later. Due in no small part to living through his wife's illness and death, those nine years added character and world experience to his face. By 1995, he truly had grown into the part.

The Living Daylights would no doubt have been a success with Brosnan, who probably would have followed more in Roger Moore's footsteps then than he did later in the '90s. TLD may also have been as good a movie as it turned out with Timothy Dalton. However, after his next film, his tenure very likely would have been over thanks to the six-year hiatus. And then what? Would Bond have still been successful in 1995 with a new 007 actor? Perhaps, but I have serious doubts that the '90s would have been as successful as they were without Brosnan. As a result, I think things actually turned out for the best the way they happened. Dalton was a good Bond with two great films and Brosnan was a great Bond who kept the series going strong with four commercially successful and popular films. Can't complain about that.

[Eurospy]

Hmm, well Dalton and Craing are my favorite Bonds...

BUT, one should always keep one thing in mind: Brosnan always wanted to be quite a bit more experimental with the role and the formula.

The light-heartedness that many seem to dislike about his era shouldn't be blamed on him, but the producers.

Brosnan tried to get McTiernan to direct (producers refused - I was always curious to know his take) and the rumor about him trying to team-up with Tarantino for a Casino Royale adaptation seemed quite true (so it's no wonder the he left the franchise quite angry, since they ditched him and his pleas, oly to turn around and do want he always tried to push forward).

I did want to have something a bit darker and play around with the formula a bit more. It was always Wilson and Broccoli who prevented that.

I've read in many discussions about who was to blame for what flaw. There seems to be a tendency to forget about the Bond franchise producers, they're the ones who set the tone, etc. NOT the actors. They chose Dalton (and Craig)because THEY wanted to have a grittier Bond. Had they wanted a grittier Bond in Brosnan's Era, he would have played the part that way.

Were I him, I also would have left the franchise with a big chip on the shoulder. I just hope that one day, he gets to play a spy in a couple of movies of his own (perhaps, with Tarantino writing and directing, perhaps in Jack Higgin's Sean Dillon stories - flawed as I may find them, or Adam Hall's Quiller). He does have his own production company.

[Jake007]

Wow, I didn't expect so many replies! But I'm glad to here you guy's opinions.

Edited by Jake007, 27 November 2008 - 03:59 PM.

[Quincy]

Would've been worse. Comic is what Brosnan brings......and this isn't what the people wanted after AVTAK. Dalton is just fine.

[JimmyBond]

Had they wanted a grittier Bond in Brosnan's Era, he would have played the part that way.

It's hard to argue with that. Had the producers wanted tonally different films in the 90's we would have gotten them, but would Brosnan have been up to the challenge? I've always believed the Brosnan films were done in that mould because that's exactly what the producers knew would work for Brosnan.

I've always felt that Brosnan would have worked better if he played it a bit lighter ala Moore. Can't blame him for pushing for depth though.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

It would have been worse. Dalton is great in this movie. TLD is one of the best because of Dalton.

Agreed. The opening Czhec scene is one of the best in the series. I also love the scene where Bond confronts Pushkin in his hotel. I read that the script originally had Bond break in with a gun, but they had a civliized conversation over a glass of Champagne. It was toughened up when Dalton was cast.

Brosnan also looked to young and skinny back in 86/87 to be Bond.

Yep, I can't really imagine any other actor than Tim in TLD.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Hmm, well Dalton and Craing are my favorite Bonds...

BUT, one should always keep one thing in mind: Brosnan always wanted to be quite a bit more experimental with the role and the formula.

The light-heartedness that many seem to dislike about his era shouldn't be blamed on him, but the producers.

Brosnan tried to get McTiernan to direct (producers refused - I was always curious to know his take) and the rumor about him trying to team-up with Tarantino for a Casino Royale adaptation seemed quite true (so it's no wonder the he left the franchise quite angry, since they ditched him and his pleas, oly to turn around and do want he always tried to push forward).

I did want to have something a bit darker and play around with the formula a bit more. It was always Wilson and Broccoli who prevented that.

I've read in many discussions about who was to blame for what flaw. There seems to be a tendency to forget about the Bond franchise producers, they're the ones who set the tone, etc. NOT the actors. They chose Dalton (and Craig)because THEY wanted to have a grittier Bond. Had they wanted a grittier Bond in Brosnan's Era, he would have played the part that way.

Were I him, I also would have left the franchise with a big chip on the shoulder. I just hope that one day, he gets to play a spy in a couple of movies of his own (perhaps, with Tarantino writing and directing, perhaps in Jack Higgin's Sean Dillon stories - flawed as I may find them, or Adam Hall's Quiller). He does have his own production company.

I don't really believe in this...

I think Brosnan had the chance to add some grittyness at his portrayal for TWINE, but he did blow it. He doesn't seems capable to play drama, as Dalton isn't good at comedy.

Fortunately, right now, we have Daniel Craig who seeems to be capable of a wider range of acting, than his predecessors.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 28 November 2008 - 04:17 AM.

[Eurospy]

Well, TWINE is not nearly as gritty as Casino Royale. Yes, Brosnan is tortured (which felt shoehorned to me) and he does execute Elektra, but IMO it feels that they rushed things (and they did, perhps a bit less than in TND) to try to get a slightly darker Bond made.

In TWINE Bond still doesn't bleed, and he didn't shoot the Cigar Girl - quite the opposite (unlike what was portraied in an earlier draft). What we see in TWINE is not the same level of grittyness as in Casino Royale, but something more akin to a drama (or even melodrama?).

Sorry about that, fans of TWINE, just my opinion and perception, nothing more.

Thus, Brosnan almost came a bit near to what he claimed to want for his Bond, but it still didn't feel like it came that close.

I just don't understand why the producers don't plan a bit more far ahead, instead of nearly having the script written on the knee, relying on older drafts for certain action sequences (again, and to further prove my point, TWINE has at least two action sequences taken from Michael France's Goldeneye early draft).

[jaguar007]

Had they wanted a grittier Bond in Brosnan's Era, he would have played the part that way.

It's hard to argue with that. Had the producers wanted tonally different films in the 90's we would have gotten them, but would Brosnan have been up to the challenge? I've always believed the Brosnan films were done in that mould because that's exactly what the producers knew would work for Brosnan.

I've always felt that Brosnan would have worked better if he played it a bit lighter ala Moore. Can't blame him for pushing for depth though.

Agreed. I think part of the reason the movies stayed a bit comical during the Brosnan era is just because Brosnan is better at lite comedy (much like Roger Moore). I don't find him good at all when he does heavier type roles (or scenes).

[Eurospy]

I agree with your points, Gravity's Silhouette. Yes, gritty is a relative term, indeed LTK was tailored for Dalton, and Brosnan was quite good at being lighter.

But, I do recall his performances in Live Wire, Tailor of Panama, The Fourth Protocol, Murder 101, The Matador, Lawnmower Man (and I'll even throw in the bond-wannabe Death Train a.k.a. Detonator). Still have to watch The Deceivers, seems quite interesting.

He can play lighter roles, Remington Steele being the most immediate example that comes to mind.

And, he can also play darker roles (some of which among the ones mentioned above).

I'll have to yeld on an aspect, though. I think that what might have been near-perfect for Brosnan would not have been the relatively gritty take he seemed to want though. But neither a tongue-in-cheek in the Moore still would have worked I think.

Hm, taking it all in from an outside perspective, I'm starting to think that something more along the lines of black humour might have been near-perfect for him.

Now that is a version of Bond that we haven't seen before. Sure there always have been moments in most films (even in a portion of the CR torture sequence of my favorite Bond), but never applied to an entire movie (and I'm not saying that they should have done black comedies per se).

With Moore - tongue-in-cheek.
With Criag - grittyness (relatively )

With Brosan (perhaps should have been) - wait a minute... it's starting to sound more and more like Tarantino's take on Casino Royale (a dark plot sprinkled with black humour all around?...)

My goodness, I think I've just reached inebriation point by now. Really.

[_JW_]

How do you think the film would've been? Better, worse, or the same? And also how many films do you think he would've done?

Thing is, I can't really imagine anybody else in that role in that movie other than Daniel Craig. If you could stick Daniel Craig's face, voice, and performance on Dalton's body and re-release the film, you'd have another $700 million earning film.

I completely disagree with statements like this. I could not imagine Craig delivering the "whoever she was it must have scared the living daylights out of her..." line with that little smirk Tim has on his face. It's hard to remember Craig's Bond EVER smiling or smirking*. Could you imagine Craig standing there scowling during the Q-branch scene? What a joke!


* - (Yes... I know he has. I was just making a silly generalization.)

[DavidSomerset]

....
I completely disagree with statements like this. I could not imagine Craig delivering the "whoever she was it must have scared the living daylights out of her..." line with that little smirk Tim has on his face. It's hard to remember Craig's Bond EVER smiling or smirking*. Could you imagine Craig standing there scowling during the Q-branch scene? What a joke!
....

You are right. Danny can never carry off lines like " I've got a little itch, down there. Would you mind? ", "Skewered! One sympathizes.", "If you had just been born wouldn't you be naked?", "That's because you know what I can do with my little finger". And he never smiles or smirks (though not in these pictures from CR)http://dyn.ifilm.com...td/2785895.jpg.

I think he is copying Timmy's acting as Timmy used to act as if he is really pissed off - even with the gals around him.
I like Dalton too, but doesn't mean that Danny is the acting equivalent of George Wooden Lazenby.

Edited by Jim, 29 November 2008 - 10:11 AM.

[Mister E]

And yes, LTK *WAS* tailored specifically for Dalton. MGW has said so on many occasions. It was written with him completely in mind. So when I suggest that Brosnan having done TLD would erase LTK from existence, I'm correct. We would've gotten an entirely different movie from Brosnan's second attempt than what we ended up getting with Dalton.

I know he said that but I don't think he did correctly. MGW failed to note the difference between anger and emotion in LICENCE TO KILL. Also as I noted before, the film clearly wanted to stick with the times.

[Eurospy]

My goodness, this is not going to turn into one of those bashing threads is it?!

I'm no troll! (Though my inebriation IS running deeper, so to speak).

I think that the producers in the Dalton Era liked is performance in TLD and tailored the LTK script for him, but with plot and characters that would fit for the time.

Yes, Bond used to be the trend-orginator, then he became a character who has to keep up. Deal with it. No problem with that at all. Bond is to spy thrillers as Lord of the Rings is to fantasy. And that's the truth. Not even Fleming- the master himself - was that original himself. He took his material from both personal experience and fiction which he enjoyed (Bulldog Drummond, etc, etc.). Again, I'll see a completely original idea, any, when cows grow wings and chickens grow teeth.

Bond nowdays HAS taken a cue from the Bourne films and proven to be better (at least concerning the first one - the action sequences in Identity DO NOT advance the plot, unlike in QOS - in the Bourne Idenity we have a cop car chase which could have been placed anywhere in the film, and he learns NOTHING from his confrontation with the guy he fights with a pen nor The Professor).

He's been keeping up with the times for a long...er, time. And that's not wrong, that's just how it is.

Moore's Bond was in the campy Tv series era, and he kept up with the times. Monnraker (the polar opposite of my perception of Bond) is one of the highest grossing in the franchise (if not THE highest grossing).

When Goldeneye came out, they felt that they had to re-introduce the character and that's what the movie feels like to me - trying a bit too hard bring back Michael France!!- a true profesional AND a true Bond fan!).

With Casino Royale they gave us what most Bond fans had been asking for a long time - less relying on gadgets, have him bleed like a human being, the adaptation of the novel itself, a more down-to-earth plot. I remember reading about these complainis/suggestions years ago, before CR came out. And that's what we eventually ended up with.

What first impressed me about Bond in my childhood was when in DN connery shot a villain in cold blood. I'd never seen that before! I was beyond flabbergasted.

What Dalton did was take Connery's moments like that and expand it over the entire movie - which impressed me further.

Then Craig came along and showed us a Bond who (same as always) tries to get the upper hand on the villain, even if it's just on an emotional level. That's why the torture sequence had it's "black humour" moments - it's the same Bond from Goldfinger and many others, trying to beat the villain at his own game.

And I still defend that Brosnan could have played it gritty, but probably would have delivered wonders with a high dose of black comedy.

[Eurospy]

Well, "gritty" is a relative term, just as much as "light-hearted" or even "comic" or "humourous" is a relative term, as it is for most other terms as such.

And I think that what they gave us with Craig and CR is exactly what most Bond fans had been asking for a long time.

That's what I remember from reading on numerous threads at many forums when Brosnan was still in the role. Less gadgets, less one-liners, more stunts, no CGI Bonds, have him bleed like a human being, have him be a bit more ruthless, etc.

There's no doubt about one thing we, the Bond fans, are an overall crowd VERY hard to please. I've had what I always wanted with most Connery films, Dalton, and now with Craig.

But the perceptions of Bond will always differ immensely, of course. It's like Dr. Who. The more different incarnations of the charcter they provide, the wider the fan audience grows, the harder the audience seems to be pleased.

With each actor comes a different version of the same basic character, and we all want our beloved characters for ourselves.

Concerning Brosnan, well, he did what he had to do in Mrs. Doubtfire, no more, no less. And I think he was quite competent in that Mars Attacks! madness