77 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I was reading old threads in this forum and came across the one about what it would have been like if Brosnan was cast in TLD instead of Dalton. And it got me thinking, if Brosnan was the Bond of record when the hiatus hit, would he, like Dalton, have been asked to step down when Goldeneye was gearing up for Production?

I'm not up to date on the particulars (not sure I ever was), but it was always my understanding that Dalton was asked to step down because the powers that be erroneously believed he was the reason for Licence to Kill's under performance and felt a new Bond was needed to launch the series again. So had Brosnan been the Bond of record at this time would he have been asked to step down as well? If so who would have been deemed an appropriate replacement for Pierce, and would that actor have been as well received in GE as Brosnan was?

[Jim]

I was reading old threads in this forum and came across the one about what it would have been like if Brosnan was cast in TLD instead of Dalton. And it got me thinking, if Brosnan was the Bond of record when the hiatus hit, would he, like Dalton, have been asked to step down when Goldeneye was gearing up for Production?

I'm not up to date on the particulars (not sure I ever was), but it was always my understanding that Dalton was asked to step down because the powers that be erroneously believed he was the reason for Licence to Kill's under performance and felt a new Bond was needed to launch the series again. So had Brosnan been the Bond of record at this time would he have been asked to step down as well? If so who would have been deemed an appropriate replacement for Pierce, and would that actor have been as well received in GE as Brosnan was?

Interesting question: I suspect the follow-up wouldn't have been like Licence to Kill. Whether that would or would not have prevented the hiatus I doubt - I understand it to have been unrelated but popular myth dictates it was due to Dalton/Licence to Kill. Not sure who would have been in the frame otherwise in 1994 to take Bond on.

On balance, he probably would not have been asked to step aside; which would have spared us GoldenEye in its current form. Small mercies.

[JimmyBond]

On balance, he probably would not have been asked to step aside; which would have spared us GoldenEye in its current form. Small mercies.

I've actually held this belief too, especially when people say they would have preferred Dalton in the film. I always tell them the same thing, had Dalton (or Brosnan, based on the hypotheticals in this thread) still been Bond, Goldeneye would have been a very different beast

[Jim]

I also suspect that had he been cast, The Living Daylights - which is rather super in its current form - would have been very different, a bit moore (ho ho) in the vein of the preceding three (i.e. moribund) and whilst it may have twitched the corpse by being more successful than A View to a Kill, the series would have ended with Mr Brosnan.

[JimmyBond]

I've seen that sentiment expressed in other places here. If Brosnan were cast in 86 it's very likely his approach to the role would have been lighter. Granted the film would have been similar, since the script was written before anyone was cast. But I know this for certain, the "magic carpet" ride would have been kept in the film

[Doctor Whom]

I also suspect that had he been cast, The Living Daylights - which is rather super in its current form - would have been very different, a bit moore (ho ho) in the vein of the preceding three (i.e. moribund) and whilst it may have twitched the corpse by being more successful than A View to a Kill, the series would have ended with Mr Brosnan.

Quite right. The public (at least in the lucrative US market) was tired of Eon's "business-as-usual" 80's Bonds. I too am of the opinion that an 80's Brosnan Bond would have spelled the end of the series.

[mttvolcano]

I also suspect that had he been cast, The Living Daylights - which is rather super in its current form - would have been very different, a bit moore (ho ho) in the vein of the preceding three (i.e. moribund) and whilst it may have twitched the corpse by being more successful than A View to a Kill, the series would have ended with Mr Brosnan.

Quite right. The public (at least in the lucrative US market) was tired of Eon's "business-as-usual" 80's Bonds. I too am of the opinion that an 80's Brosnan Bond would have spelled the end of the series.

I'm a little bit confused on how this might have been the end of the series? Would it be because of following Roger Moore with a still more light-hearted actor or more so than Dalton?

[Royal Dalton]

He probably would have been asked back for GoldenEye. But if the hiatus hadn't happened, he might have stood down from the role after two films, anyway, because his wife was dying.

[mttvolcano]

Ah, i forgot Cassandra Harris got cancer. I see now

[Mr. Blofeld]

This makes me wonder: How much pressure was being applied on Dalton to quit the series? There were at least two known scripts written for his Bond, with the latter actually being in development when he stepped down; this later script contained so many elements inspired by the Dalton era (the inclusion of Pushkin, a seaplane sequence, that famous line concerning finding "forgiveness, in the arms of all those women, for the one you failed to protect") that it's impossible not to be convinced that Michael France was writing with Dalton in mind.

So, what happened? Why was the "Bond of record" pressured into leaving and replaced with a man who, at the time, had resorted to playing in TV movies and Robin Williams comedies?

[Simon]

I also suspect that had he been cast, The Living Daylights - which is rather super in its current form - would have been very different, a bit moore (ho ho) in the vein of the preceding three (i.e. moribund) and whilst it may have twitched the corpse by being more successful than A View to a Kill, the series would have ended with Mr Brosnan.

While the above could probably successfully be argued due to a review of the final output of Brosnan's four films, to perhaps be fair(er) to Brosnan, during his tenure he was always asking, nay demanding, that the series go harder and more tough-line than the scripts were allowing him and the character to go.

I do think the thread question is an interesting one, and one can never know how the series would have gone bearing in mind with Dalton, it did hit ultimately harder than the Moore offerings, but can we really say it would have naturally followed that Brosnan would have been told to play it just as Moore-light? It is a bugger, because I would have loved to see how Brosnan would have played Bond tough and I am sure he is a mite pissed that Craig has been playing the character pretty much how I believe Brosnan would have wanted to play it if he had had the de rigueur Q and Moneypenny scenes left out of the script.

[jaguar007]

This makes me wonder: How much pressure was being applied on Dalton to quit the series? There were at least two known scripts written for his Bond, with the latter actually being in development when he stepped down; this later script contained so many elements inspired by the Dalton era (the inclusion of Pushkin, a seaplane sequence, that famous line concerning finding "forgiveness, in the arms of all those women, for the one you failed to protect") that it's impossible not to be convinced that Michael France was writing with Dalton in mind.

So, what happened? Why was the "Bond of record" pressured into leaving and replaced with a man who, at the time, had resorted to playing in TV movies and Robin Williams comedies?

It was John Calley (who was appointed head on MGM in 93) that insisted that Dalton be replaced. Had the lawsuit between Danjaq and MGM had not happened, a 3rd Dalton film would have been produced before Calley was at MGM.

Back to the original question, I feel if Brosnan had done TLD, it would have been more financially successful (at least in the US) because of the popularity of Remington Steele. There was a common misconception (at least in the US) that Dalton was the second rate choice after Pierce Brosnan and I think that kept many people away from the cinema. However, due to the decline of Bond in the 80s and another run of the mill John Glen Bond film, the series would still have fizzled out by Brosnan's second Bond film just as it did with LTK.

I also think the series would have continued in the lighter aspect of the Moore films as Brosnan was really known for the light hearted Remington Steele and that is how he became assiciated with Bond.

[Guy Haines]

If Pierce Brosnan had been available to play Bond in TLD, I suspect it would have been Roger Moore's shoes he would have been forced into, in spite of his declared preference for Sean Connery's style of Bond performance. The script for TLD had been set up for "James Bond" rather than written with a particular actor in mind, but you only have to consider the deleted scenes never used in the finished film to realise that the producers had a Moore style film in mind, subconsciously anyway.

I expect it would have done well - as others have pointed out, particularly in the US, on the back of Pierce's Remington Steele fame. LTK would not have happened, although a popular actor could have asked for the character to be steered more in the direction he wanted, so perhaps Brosnan could have moved in Connery's direction a bit in film number two.

But...... the first MGM hiatus would still have happened. Pierce Brosnan's Bond would have been in limbo just as Timothy Dalton's was in the real world. Would Pierce have wanted to wait? We'll never know.

In retrospect, I do think that Pierce Brosnan was a much better Bond because he had to wait until 1995. Even though his forte is light comedy, he is very capable in other kinds of parts, and it was Dalton's darker version of 007 he followed, so perhaps some kind of continuity was necessary. Others here may disagree, but what I liked about the Pierce Brosnan Bond we finally saw was that he combined the virtues of Moore and Dalton with few, if any, of the vices. That enforced absence from Bond may have helped. That, plus the introduction of a new team of director and writers - something that should have happened in 1987 for TLD, I think.

[Mr_Wint]

The script for TLD had been set up for "James Bond" rather than written with a particular actor in mind, but you only have to consider the deleted scenes never used in the finished film to realise that the producers had a Moore style film in mind, subconsciously anyway.

What more scenes than the flying carpet? To be honest, that scene doesn't change the film much. They should have kept it in the film as it looked good, IMO. You would probably react in the same way if the cello-scene was deleted and shown 20 years later in crap picture quality, without music and final editing. These light comedy moment works well in Bondfilms.

[Guy Haines]

The script for TLD had been set up for "James Bond" rather than written with a particular actor in mind, but you only have to consider the deleted scenes never used in the finished film to realise that the producers had a Moore style film in mind, subconsciously anyway.

What more scenes than the flying carpet? To be honest, that scene doesn't change the film much. They should have kept it in the film as it looked good, IMO. You would probably react in the same way if the cello-scene was deleted and shown 20 years later in crap picture quality, without music and final editing. These light comedy moment works well in Bondfilms.

Depends on what you mean by light comedy. The dry wit of the Connery,Lazenby and Moore movies I admire. Even the cello scene worked well in context (your highly expensive car is out of commission, you have the Czech army and police breathing down your neck and you are stuck in the snow. What to do? Make a sledge out of something.)

But having seen the magic carpet scene, let alone the scenes showing Bond commandeering a motorbike and the local chief of police being covered in blue paint, I think editing them out was the right decision - for Timothy Dalton. Whether they would have worked better for Pierce Brosnan or someone else we will never know.

My personal view is that humour works well in these films, but it depends on what sort of humour. I've never thought the visual, slapstick kind worked particularly well. I prefer to laugh with Bond, not at him.

[MajorB]

If Pierce Brosnan had been available to play Bond in TLD, I suspect it would have been Roger Moore's shoes he would have been forced into, in spite of his declared preference for Sean Connery's style of Bond performance. The script for TLD had been set up for "James Bond" rather than written with a particular actor in mind, but you only have to consider the deleted scenes never used in the finished film to realise that the producers had a Moore style film in mind, subconsciously anyway.

I expect it would have done well - as others have pointed out, particularly in the US, on the back of Pierce's Remington Steele fame. LTK would not have happened, although a popular actor could have asked for the character to be steered more in the direction he wanted, so perhaps Brosnan could have moved in Connery's direction a bit in film number two.

But...... the first MGM hiatus would still have happened. Pierce Brosnan's Bond would have been in limbo just as Timothy Dalton's was in the real world. Would Pierce have wanted to wait? We'll never know.

In retrospect, I do think that Pierce Brosnan was a much better Bond because he had to wait until 1995. Even though his forte is light comedy, he is very capable in other kinds of parts, and it was Dalton's darker version of 007 he followed, so perhaps some kind of continuity was necessary. Others here may disagree, but what I liked about the Pierce Brosnan Bond we finally saw was that he combined the virtues of Moore and Dalton with few, if any, of the vices. That enforced absence from Bond may have helped. That, plus the introduction of a new team of director and writers - something that should have happened in 1987 for TLD, I think.

This sounds right. After Dalton was cast, I think I remember Broccoli making a remark about Brosnan having been very much in the Moore mold, so that seems to have been the way Cubby saw him at the time. I think it was Dalton's tougher take on Bond that paved the way for a harder-edged, more human Bond. Had Brosnan been cast first, he would probably have been pushed in the direction of Moore's portrayal. At the same time, though, I think Brosnan expressed interest even back then (when rumors were rife that he was next, but before he signed) in making Bond tougher. So who knows how things might have evolved?

[Doctor Whom]

I also suspect that had he been cast, The Living Daylights - which is rather super in its current form - would have been very different, a bit moore (ho ho) in the vein of the preceding three (i.e. moribund) and whilst it may have twitched the corpse by being more successful than A View to a Kill, the series would have ended with Mr Brosnan.

Quite right. The public (at least in the lucrative US market) was tired of Eon's "business-as-usual" 80's Bonds. I too am of the opinion that an 80's Brosnan Bond would have spelled the end of the series.

I'm a little bit confused on how this might have been the end of the series? Would it be because of following Roger Moore with a still more light-hearted actor or more so than Dalton?

I think TLD would have done better business in the US with Brosnan than Dalton -- I subscribe to the theory put forth by others that Dalton suffered from not being Brosnan, i.e. that the American public viewed him as second best (it's not without good reason that whenever producers replace someone in a part, the replacement is always described as their original first choice. When Sharon Gless replaced Meg Foster on Gagney and Lacey, the producers insisted that Gless was always their first choice -- despite the fact that she was actually the third person to play the part).

Now as far as the series ending with Brosnan, the box office had been softening in the US throughout the eighties, and I'm convinced that unless EON and the studio seriously changed direction, there wasn't much that could have saved the series. More of the same wasn''t working any more and I suspect that an eighties Brosnan Bond wouold have been similar in style to the Moore version to the point that audiences would have tired of Brosnan, maybe as early as his second film.

The hiatus between LTK and GoldenEye, and the resultant change in production philosophy (e.g. bigger budgets) revitalized the series.

[Doctor Whom]

If Pierce Brosnan had been available to play Bond in TLD, I suspect it would have been Roger Moore's shoes he would have been forced into, in spite of his declared preference for Sean Connery's style of Bond performance. The script for TLD had been set up for "James Bond" rather than written with a particular actor in mind, but you only have to consider the deleted scenes never used in the finished film to realise that the producers had a Moore style film in mind, subconsciously anyway.

I expect it would have done well - as others have pointed out, particularly in the US, on the back of Pierce's Remington Steele fame. LTK would not have happened, although a popular actor could have asked for the character to be steered more in the direction he wanted, so perhaps Brosnan could have moved in Connery's direction a bit in film number two.

But...... the first MGM hiatus would still have happened. Pierce Brosnan's Bond would have been in limbo just as Timothy Dalton's was in the real world. Would Pierce have wanted to wait? We'll never know.

In retrospect, I do think that Pierce Brosnan was a much better Bond because he had to wait until 1995. Even though his forte is light comedy, he is very capable in other kinds of parts, and it was Dalton's darker version of 007 he followed, so perhaps some kind of continuity was necessary. Others here may disagree, but what I liked about the Pierce Brosnan Bond we finally saw was that he combined the virtues of Moore and Dalton with few, if any, of the vices. That enforced absence from Bond may have helped. That, plus the introduction of a new team of director and writers - something that should have happened in 1987 for TLD, I think.

This sounds right. After Dalton was cast, I think I remember Broccoli making a remark about Brosnan having been very much in the Moore mold, so that seems to have been the way Cubby saw him at the time. I think it was Dalton's tougher take on Bond that paved the way for a harder-edged, more human Bond. Had Brosnan been cast first, he would probably have been pushed in the direction of Moore's portrayal. At the same time, though, I think Brosnan expressed interest even back then (when rumors were rife that he was next, but before he signed) in making Bond tougher. So who knows how things might have evolved?

It would have been interesting to see if Brosnan could have influenced Broccoli to take the series in that direction. They would have to have done something to enliven the series, and after more than a decade of Moore, perhaps they would have considered a harder-edged Bond.

[Syndicate]

It was a good thing that Brosnan waited till 94-95 to play Bond. Didn't he also say that in an interview during his time playing Bond ofr after that.

The Dalton thing wasn't that the doing of the MGM CEO at that time. He didn't want another Bond movie made or what was going on at the MGM studio at the time. It didn't have anything to do with Dalton, and he just waited and waited. Then he said I'm going to move on, unless it just reported that, but the real story is he was told to move on.

Any way it has always been asked and talked about, what if the Bond movies contiuned to be made after Licence To Kill, what would the movies be and would it haven the ones Brosnan did. But done in diffent ways and would Brosnan ever still get the role?

Edited by Syndicate, 20 December 2010 - 05:50 AM.

[Guy Haines]

I also suspect that had he been cast, The Living Daylights - which is rather super in its current form - would have been very different, a bit moore (ho ho) in the vein of the preceding three (i.e. moribund) and whilst it may have twitched the corpse by being more successful than A View to a Kill, the series would have ended with Mr Brosnan.

Quite right. The public (at least in the lucrative US market) was tired of Eon's "business-as-usual" 80's Bonds. I too am of the opinion that an 80's Brosnan Bond would have spelled the end of the series.

I'm a little bit confused on how this might have been the end of the series? Would it be because of following Roger Moore with a still more light-hearted actor or more so than Dalton?

I think TLD would have done better business in the US with Brosnan than Dalton -- I subscribe to the theory put forth by others that Dalton suffered from not being Brosnan, i.e. that the American public viewed him as second best (it's not without good reason that whenever producers replace someone in a part, the replacement is always described as their original first choice. When Sharon Gless replaced Meg Foster on Gagney and Lacey, the producers insisted that Gless was always their first choice -- despite the fact that she was actually the third person to play the part).

Now as far as the series ending with Brosnan, the box office had been softening in the US throughout the eighties, and I'm convinced that unless EON and the studio seriously changed direction, there wasn't much that could have saved the series. More of the same wasn''t working any more and I suspect that an eighties Brosnan Bond wouold have been similar in style to the Moore version to the point that audiences would have tired of Brosnan, maybe as early as his second film.

The hiatus between LTK and GoldenEye, and the resultant change in production philosophy (e.g. bigger budgets) revitalized the series.

I think you may be right about this. Oddly enough, in the UK, TLD did extremely well, as I recall, and the fact that Dalton was perceived as there instead of Brosnan didn't seem to matter much. Mind you, Dalton was helped by largely positive reviews from the UK critics. (many, I dare say, had already encountered Dalton's stage performances over here.)

Can't help wondering, though, what the reaction to Sean Connery would have been if he had replaced someone else as Bond, given that in real life he was, reputedly, not the first choice in the role. Yet another one we'll never know!

[JimmyBond]

Any way it has always been asked and talked about, wht if the Bond movies contiuned to be made after Licence To Kill, what would the movies be and would it haven the ones Brosnan did. But done in diffent ways and would Brosnan ever still get the role?

That's an interesting question in itself. Because of the hiatus everyone involved felt there was need for a change of pace. The films were made with a quicker pace and more action was injected into the scripts. Had the films continued after LTK (assuming no hiatus) I'm not sure the films would have evolved in the way they did when GE came out.

Either that or Dalton's third would have bombed and we'd have been without Bond for much longer than six years.

[Syndicate]

Either that or Dalton's third would have bombed and we'd have been without Bond for much longer than six years.

Anyway what would Dalton's third one and beyond be. Well the storyline, places Bond be going who would be the enimies and so on. Was there ever any storylines planed or a rough draft written

[David_M]

As noted, we'll never know how Brosnan may have approached Bond in TLD, or how the film would have done at the box office, but I will say I almost wish he'd gotten the chance, just because I consider that film to be the last of the classic Bond series. It would have been interesting to see what he'd have been like in a "real" Bond film, but on the other hand it's hard to imagine him doing any better than Dalton.

I agree with jaguar007 that the press here in the US made a big stink about the whole Brosnan/Steele/EON muddle and very much portrayed Brosnan as a wronged party and Dalton as, at best, a runner-up who inherited the crown on a technicality. One thing about Bond movies is that they should never be perceived as "settling for second best," and this perception -- that EON was just trying to crank out more product despite losing the guy they "really wanted" -- probably dampened enthusiasm for the film.

As I mentioned in another thread once, a kid seated near me asked his kid "is that James Bond?" every time a new male face appeared in the PTS, which tells me EON didn't do nearly enough to promote Dalton in the role.

I have to say on opening day I was guilty myself of sitting through the first half hour or so imagining how differently Brosnan might have delivered this or that line, or looked in this or that scene, such was the power of the popular notion that he was "supposed to" get the part.

By the end, though, I didn't miss him at all. And a few years later I learned what they mean by "be careful what you wish for..."

[David Schofield]

As noted, we'll never know how Brosnan may have approached Bond in TLD, or how the film would have done at the box office, but I will say I almost wish he'd gotten the chance, just because I consider that film to be the last of the classic Bond series. It would have been interesting to see what he'd have been like in a "real" Bond film, but on the other hand it's hard to imagine him doing any better than Dalton.

I agree with jaguar007 that the press here in the US made a big stink about the whole Brosnan/Steele/EON muddle and very much portrayed Brosnan as a wronged party and Dalton as, at best, a runner-up who inherited the crown on a technicality. One thing about Bond movies is that they should never be perceived as "settling for second best," and this perception -- that EON was just trying to crank out more product despite losing the guy they "really wanted" -- probably dampened enthusiasm for the film.

As I mentioned in another thread once, a kid seated near me asked his kid "is that James Bond?" every time a new male face appeared in the PTS, which tells me EON didn't do nearly enough to promote Dalton in the role.

I have to say on opening day I was guilty myself of sitting through the first half hour or so imagining how differently Brosnan might have delivered this or that line, or looked in this or that scene, such was the power of the popular notion that he was "supposed to" get the part.

By the end, though, I didn't miss him at all. And a few years later I learned what they mean by "be careful what you wish for..."

Of course, Dalton never really "played" the press correctly did he? I very much suspect it was Dalton's unwillingness (or being generous, inability) to work the PR machine that failed to break him through with the general audience, and which John Calley ultimately found to be a liability not worth pursuing.

Dalton merely felt that serving up the product, leaving it for the audience to vew on it merits, was enough. He believed his Bond product was enough to stand on its own. I doubt he quite understood what "being" James Bond meant in the way Rog, Broz and now Craig do. TLD was enough of a breath of fresh air to stand on its own to some extent after Roger's previous four weary effcrts; Dalton's very personal project, LTK, could not, and Dalton failed to sell it with the pressure selling of a media blitz that it required.

Brosnan, on the other hand, certainly had the public awareness down, certainly in the US, and probably even here in the UK in 1987 than Tim. And boy did/does Brosnan know how to work his natural "James Bond" image and the press.

[Doctor Whom]

Any way it has always been asked and talked about, wht if the Bond movies contiuned to be made after Licence To Kill, what would the movies be and would it haven the ones Brosnan did. But done in diffent ways and would Brosnan ever still get the role?

That's an interesting question in itself. Because of the hiatus everyone involved felt there was need for a change of pace. The films were made with a quicker pace and more action was injected into the scripts. Had the films continued after LTK (assuming no hiatus) I'm not sure the films would have evolved in the way they did when GE came out.

Either that or Dalton's third would have bombed and we'd have been without Bond for much longer than six years.

I don't think it would have been a disaster, per se. Even the poorest Bond films have made money. However, Dalton just never caught on in the US, and I think a third Dalton film would have done no better, and perhaps even worse than LTK. And that might very well have been the end of the series for a very, very long time.

[Doctor Whom]

EON didn't do nearly enough to promote Dalton in the role.

As I recall, they did a fair amount of publicity (I still remember the big story in "USA Today" complete with a huge color photo of Dalton). But given the combination of the "Brosnan sour grapes" media storyline and Dalton's unfamiliarity with American audiences, they probably should have been more agressive.

Edited by Doctor Whom, 20 December 2010 - 04:12 PM.

[Guy Haines]

As noted, we'll never know how Brosnan may have approached Bond in TLD, or how the film would have done at the box office, but I will say I almost wish he'd gotten the chance, just because I consider that film to be the last of the classic Bond series. It would have been interesting to see what he'd have been like in a "real" Bond film, but on the other hand it's hard to imagine him doing any better than Dalton.

I agree with jaguar007 that the press here in the US made a big stink about the whole Brosnan/Steele/EON muddle and very much portrayed Brosnan as a wronged party and Dalton as, at best, a runner-up who inherited the crown on a technicality. One thing about Bond movies is that they should never be perceived as "settling for second best," and this perception -- that EON was just trying to crank out more product despite losing the guy they "really wanted" -- probably dampened enthusiasm for the film.

As I mentioned in another thread once, a kid seated near me asked his kid "is that James Bond?" every time a new male face appeared in the PTS, which tells me EON didn't do nearly enough to promote Dalton in the role.

I have to say on opening day I was guilty myself of sitting through the first half hour or so imagining how differently Brosnan might have delivered this or that line, or looked in this or that scene, such was the power of the popular notion that he was "supposed to" get the part.

By the end, though, I didn't miss him at all. And a few years later I learned what they mean by "be careful what you wish for..."

Of course, Dalton never really "played" the press correctly did he? I very much suspect it was Dalton's unwillingness (or being generous, inability) to work the PR machine that failed to break him through with the general audience, and which John Calley ultimately found to be a liability not worth pursuing.

Dalton merely felt that serving up the product, leaving it for the audience to vew on it merits, was enough. He believed his Bond product was enough to stand on its own. I doubt he quite understood what "being" James Bond meant in the way Rog, Broz and now Craig do. TLD was enough of a breath of fresh air to stand on its own to some extent after Roger's previous four weary effcrts; Dalton's very personal project, LTK, could not, and Dalton failed to sell it with the pressure selling of a media blitz that it required.

Brosnan, on the other hand, certainly had the public awareness down, certainly in the US, and probably even here in the UK in 1987 than Tim. And boy did/does Brosnan know how to work his natural "James Bond" image and the press.

I have a couple of points to add to this. First, I think Dalton never seemed entirely comfortable with the "womanising" side of Bond - he said on more than one occasion that his Bond was in effect a "one girl guy", not something his predecessors versions could ever be described as. Second, even if he had been comfortable with Bond's bed hopping, Dalton played the role during the height of the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, and the producers seemed mindful of the example Bond might set. His Bond was undoubtedly romantic, but was that a side of Bond that fans brought up on Connery and Moore appreciated? I wonder if this dented his appeal? A pity - and I say this as a fan of Dalton and both his films, who appreciated and admired what he was trying to achieve. But I think there were a few aspects about what you call "being James Bond" that Timothy Dalton wasn't completely at home with.

[JimmyBond]

I don't think it would have been a disaster, per se. Even the poorest Bond films have made money. However, Dalton just never caught on in the US, and I think a third Dalton film would have done no better, and perhaps even worse than LTK. And that might very well have been the end of the series for a very, very long time.

True. But then again Roger Moore bounced back from TMWTGG just fine. If Dalton had one helluva third Bond film it could have changed the tide in his favor, but that's assuming the hiatus never occurred.

[Doctor Whom]

I don't think it would have been a disaster, per se. Even the poorest Bond films have made money. However, Dalton just never caught on in the US, and I think a third Dalton film would have done no better, and perhaps even worse than LTK. And that might very well have been the end of the series for a very, very long time.

True. But then again Roger Moore bounced back from TMWTGG just fine. If Dalton had one helluva third Bond film it could have changed the tide in his favor, but that's assuming the hiatus never occurred.

I can agree with that. But the third Dalton film would have to have been a HUGE affair. TSWLM cost considerably more than TMWTGG and a lot of the buzz relating to the film was about how expensive it was. I don't know if anyone was interested in putting that kind of money into a Bond film circa 1991.

At the end of the day, though, the problem was always Dalton himself. He's just not a movie star. He's a good actor, but he doesn't have the larger-than-life charisma that Connery and even Moore (to a degree) had. Even Brosnan has a bit of it in him. Craig - definitely. But Dalton just isn't that compelling.

[Syndicate]

I wonder this at the time, was there anyone that throught Dalton was Brosnan and the other way around. So when Dalron got the role they throught it was Brosnan and the other way around. All this because of the same hair color and they kind of look a like in a quick glimpse. Well for those who are not really a Bond fan, when the whole thing was happening of picking a new Bond star.