77 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

Dalton just isn't that compelling.

Are you certain that's not just your own natural prejudice against Dalton dictating the tone of the post?

[Safari Suit]

"Natural prejudice dictating the tone of the post"? This isn't a John Grisham novel sir

[Doctor Whom]

Dalton just isn't that compelling.

Are you certain that's not just your own natural prejudice against Dalton dictating the tone of the post?

Nope. I think Dalton is rather good as Bond, better than Brosnsn or Moore. I just happen to think he lacked the charisma to make him a box office draw as Bond.

[jaguar007]

Dalton just isn't that compelling.

Are you certain that's not just your own natural prejudice against Dalton dictating the tone of the post?

Nope. I think Dalton is rather good as Bond, better than Brosnsn or Moore. I just happen to think he lacked the charisma to make him a box office draw as Bond.

I understand where Doctor Whom is coming from. Dalton is my 3rd favorite Bond and TLD is in my top 5 films (mainly because of Dalton). I like Dalton because he played it with dark intensity and more like Fleming's Bond and closer to a real spy than a superspy. However that could be part of the problem with the public. He does not have that larger than life charisma that both Connery and Moore had.

[plankattack]

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.

In a strange way, the argument could be made that the best thing to happen to the series was the six-year gap and the perceived failure of TD to grab the imagination of the widespread audience. To echo many others, TD was done no favours by the sense that he was "second-choice" and the general ennui that surrounded the series was always going to make it a tough ask of whoever was wearing the tux in the late '80s.

I tend to agree with the esteemed Jim, that had Brozza been in TLD and LTK, that the series might well have ended there, regardless of the type of film made. If Brozza had been Moore-lite, than I suspect box office numbers would have slid back into the "decline" that TLD interrupted. And even if Brozza had played it a la Dalton, I'm not sure his perceived star-power would have made the kind of difference for John Calley or whoever to keep him in the job on the other side of the hiatus. While Remington Steele-Brozza may have been the name that everyone was expecting in '87, I'm still not convinced that Brozza had the kind of reputation that would have been enough to overcome both the series' on-screen competition, or the off-screen wrangling.

I do think Brozza should get considerable credit for the series success after '95, though as a box-office draw, I continue to contend that his clout is as much entwined with the character as it is his ability to draw consistently away from Bond. Yes, I know he's put in some good performances since '95 (oft-mentioned Matador and Tailor of Panama) but his name above the title has never been a guaranteed draw, at least when the name "James Bond" isn't above that same title too.

No, I don't think the series' history would have been any different had Brozza been cast in '87 - though I don't believe he would have had the part in '95. Who would? Well, that's a thread in itself. One thing I definitely believe - it's far too superficial when it's suggested that TD was responsible for the hiatus.

[Royal Dalton]

The difference between Brosnan and Dalton is that Brosnan would have taken those six years after 1989 to build-up a big screen career off the back of Bond. Whereas Dalton didn't. MGM wanted to make him their new big star when he became Bond, but he wasn't interested. As a result, for most people in the world, Dalton was pretty much invisible after Licence To Kill. If he'd been in the limelight throughout the hiatus period (as Brosnan probably would have been), it would have been far easier for them to bring him back as Bond.

[Doctor Whom]

The difference between Brosnan and Dalton is that Brosnan would have taken those six years after 1989 to build-up a big screen career off the back of Bond. Whereas Dalton didn't. MGM wanted to make him their new big star when he became Bond, but he wasn't interested. As a result, for most people in the world, Dalton was pretty much invisible after Licence To Kill. If he'd been in the limelight throughout the hiatus period (as Brosnan probably would have been), it would have been far easier for them to bring him back as Bond.

I always thought Dalton came up in the wrong era. He was a classic romantic swashbuckling leading man in the era when actors like Michael Caine and Oliver Reed took center stage. Twenty years earlier, MGM would have signed him up and made the new Errol Flynn.

[ChristopherZ22]

So had Brosnan been the Bond of record at this time would he have been asked to step down as well?

As far as I know, Dalton was never asked to step down. Dalton decided to leave the role out of his own free will. He felt too old for the role by 1994. We can never know what Brosnan would have done in 1994 had he made TLD and LTK.

[JimmyBond]

So had Brosnan been the Bond of record at this time would he have been asked to step down as well?

As far as I know, Dalton was never asked to step down. Dalton decided to leave the role out of his own free will. He felt too old for the role by 1994. We can never know what Brosnan would have done in 1994 had he made TLD and LTK.

It's been reported here and elsewhere that the current head of MGM at the time wouldn't have moved forward on another Bond film with Dalton as Bond. So instead of causing problems he did the noble thing and stepped aside.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

It's been reported here and elsewhere that the current head of MGM at the time wouldn't have moved forward on another Bond film with Dalton as Bond. So instead of causing problems he did the noble thing and stepped aside.

I've heard two versions of this - one, that MGM management were unwilling to finance another Bond film with Dalton in the lead, period. And two, that MGM was willing to greenlight a lower budget Bond with Dalton, or a higher budget film with someone else as Bond, at which point Dalton, not wanting to make things difficult for Cubby Broccoli, chose to step down.

[JimmyBond]

It's been reported here and elsewhere that the current head of MGM at the time wouldn't have moved forward on another Bond film with Dalton as Bond. So instead of causing problems he did the noble thing and stepped aside.

I've heard two versions of this - one, that MGM management were unwilling to finance another Bond film with Dalton in the lead, period. And two, that MGM was willing to greenlight a lower budget Bond with Dalton, or a higher budget film with someone else as Bond, at which point Dalton, not wanting to make things difficult for Cubby Broccoli, chose to step down.

I never heard about the lower budget angle. That definitely is interesting.

[Royal Dalton]

They already did that. It was called Licence To Kill.

[JimmyBond]

Jimmy Bond wrote:

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.

Fair point. However, the fault wasn't with Roger Moore, but the fact that Moore was forced to play Bond out of his style. No one was buying Roger as the brute who slapped Andrea Anders and threatened to snitch on her to Scaramanga, assuring her of a painful death. In Dalton's case LICENSE TO KILL REVOKED was specifically tailored to Dalton's strengths and style; the audience rejected both Dalton and the film. Furthermore, there's every reason to believe that if Dalton had been forced to ease up on what made Dalton great, and instead had to wing it light and breezy in a film about evil robots designed by Disney, that that certainly would have been Dalton's last film, because BOND '91 would have been an ever bigger unmitigated disaster. Does anyone really believe Dalton would have been comfortable or looked at ease and at home starring in a Bond film about killer robots?

It's easy to look at a few facts from the aborted Bond 17 screenplay, such as: "killer robots," "lighter tone," "Whoopi Goldburg," and automatically assume it would have been a disaster. But from the few people who I know who've read the treatment (or outline...I don't recall how far that story got), have said it wasn't as bad as a few of those tidbits would lead to suggest.

I'm not saying it would have been a great film, but there's nothing saying it would have been a disaster either. We'll just never know.

[Royal Dalton]

In Dalton's case LICENSE TO KILL REVOKED was specifically tailored to Dalton's strengths and style; the audience rejected both Dalton and the film.

You are John Calley and I claim my five pounds.

As you know, Grav, even his lowest grossing film only took a sliver less than A View to a Kill. The popularity of James Bond was already on the slide before Dalton took over. True, he didn't do a lot to stop it. But Brosnan probably wouldn't have, either.

Does anyone really believe Dalton would have been comfortable or looked at ease and at home starring in a Bond film about killer robots?

Yes. Although that story wasn't about killer robots, as such, anyway.

And, I hate to bring this up, but has anyone ever seriously considered the possibility that females simply weren't all that attracted to Dalton? He certainly doesn't appear to have the charisma or sexual energy that women loved about Connery, Brosnan and Craig.

I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who would fall at his feet. Even today.

[Guy Haines]

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.

You really hit the nail on the head, especially the remark about Dalton's uncomfortableness being "a liability not worth pursuing." Some of the newer fans to the series may not be old enough to remember how Dalton failed to really promote the films; how reserved, stiff, and uncomfortable he appeared at the press junkets. Look, no one has ever denied he's a great actor; but he may have been the one actor in the series who was over-qualified for the role. Bond IS a Hollywood product and therefore you must sell it accordingly. Even Dame Judi Dench has been much more adroit and adept at promoting Bond in the United States than Dalton ever was, and she's immensely popular over here all the more for it.

Jimmy Bond wrote:

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.

Fair point. However, the fault wasn't with Roger Moore, but the fact that Moore was forced to play Bond out of his style. No one was buying Roger as the brute who slapped Andrea Anders and threatened to snitch on her to Scaramanga, assuring her of a painful death. In Dalton's case LICENSE TO KILL REVOKED was specifically tailored to Dalton's strengths and style; the audience rejected both Dalton and the film. Furthermore, there's every reason to believe that if Dalton had been forced to ease up on what made Dalton great, and instead had to wing it light and breezy in a film about evil robots designed by Disney, that that certainly would have been Dalton's last film, because BOND '91 would have been an ever bigger unmitigated disaster. Does anyone really believe Dalton would have been comfortable or looked at ease and at home starring in a Bond film about killer robots?

And, I hate to bring this up, but has anyone ever seriously considered the possibility that females simply weren't all that attracted to Dalton? He certainly doesn't appear to have the charisma or sexual energy that women loved about Connery, Brosnan and Craig.

I can recall one female member of the audience over here telling me she liked TLD because it was "more romantic". However, in retrospect I think she was in a minority. Whether we approve or disapprove, Bond is a "love 'em and leave 'em" type. I think this was the only aspect of Dalton's version of Bond which didn't come over to the audience convincingly.

And I do agree with your later post - there should have been a clean sweep regarding direction and screenwriting for TLD. One problem with both Dalton movies was that the leading man was pulling in one direction whilst the production team had spent over a decade going a different way.

[jaguar007]

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.

Now that's just plain wrong. How can one look at Brosnan's four-film track record from '95 to '02 and extrapolate from that that somehow his tenure in an alternate time line would have "fizzled out"? I'd say it's highly probable, based upon his ability to bring moviegoers into the theaters 9 years after having first lost the role and having not been a major movie star at the time GOLDENEYE was released, that there's every confidence to believe that he would have had a successful run from '87 to '99 (assuming he wanted to equal Roger's record of at least 7 Bond films) and possibly have continued until 2002, where he first began to show signs of aging. A rejuvenated, money-making Bond series back in '89 - '92 may have been enough to offset the problems Broccoli had with that Pathe/Parretti deal, and the series could have gone forward without the need for a lawsuit.

My point is that had the series continued with the 80s trend of Glen directed films with lower budgets, the films, even with Brosnan, would have continued to decline. I think the 6 year gap after LTK along with a fresh production team helped invigorate the franchise as far as the public is concerned. I think Brosnan's popularity alone would not have salvaged the series in the late 80s except for a light 1 film bump.

[Doctor Whom]

there should have been a clean sweep regarding direction and screenwriting for TLD.

I can't agree more. The biggest problem the series faced in the eighties was a sort of creative ennui. The same people making the same sort of films every two years. A shakeup was desperately needed by the time of AVTAK and probably earlier. I agree with the notion that the American audience resented Dalton "usurping" Brosnan, but if they had brought in a new director, new writer, new production designer, etc. along with their new leading man, they might have done better.

[The Shark]

I can't agree more. The biggest problem the series faced in the eighties was a sort of creative ennui. The same people making the same sort of films every two years. A shakeup was desperately needed by the time of AVTAK and probably earlier. I agree with the notion that the American audience resented Dalton "usurping" Brosnan, but if they had brought in a new director, new writer, new production designer, etc. along with their new leading man, they might have done better.

Sounds rather like CASINO ROYALE. New Bond, but the same writers, M, composer, stunt-team etc... But I'd argue in the case of DAYLIGHTS, the familiar cast and crew were more suited for the job - John Barry, Richard Maibaum, Robert Brown etc...

[Guy Haines]

I can't agree more. The biggest problem the series faced in the eighties was a sort of creative ennui. The same people making the same sort of films every two years. A shakeup was desperately needed by the time of AVTAK and probably earlier. I agree with the notion that the American audience resented Dalton "usurping" Brosnan, but if they had brought in a new director, new writer, new production designer, etc. along with their new leading man, they might have done better.

Sounds rather like CASINO ROYALE. New Bond, but the same writers, M, composer, stunt-team etc... But I'd argue in the case of DAYLIGHTS, the familiar cast and crew were more suited for the job - John Barry, Richard Maibaum, Robert Brown etc...

I think those who have argued that TLD was the ideal film to bring in fresh talent were looking specifically at the writing and direction side - I know I was. I think some of the dialogue in the 80s Bond scripts was getting a bit pedestrian at times. On the other hand, Robert Brown did a fine job as M - overlooked, unfairly, as the one after Bernard Lee but before Judi Dench. And replace John Barry? Unthinkable!

[DR76]

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 doubt that Brosnan would have spelled the end of the Bond franchise. And I don't recall being tired of EON's "business as usual" 80s Bonds. At least three of the 80s Bond movies are among my favorite. I suspect that the U.S. didn't cotton to LTK, because it seemed like a rip-off of "MIAMI VICE", which the public was getting tired of by 1988.

[jaguar007]

I doubt that Brosnan would have spelled the end of the Bond franchise. And I don't recall being tired of EON's "business as usual" 80s Bonds. At least three of the 80s Bond movies are among my favorite. I suspect that the U.S. didn't cotton to LTK, because it seemed like a rip-off of "MIAMI VICE", which the public was getting tired of by 1988.

I was not particularly tired of the 80s Bond films either, put the point is the public in general was, not the core group of Bond fans. Also if Brosnan was Bond in the 80s, he would not have been the popular favorite for a "come back" film.

[Doctor Whom]

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 doubt that Brosnan would have spelled the end of the Bond franchise. And I don't recall being tired of EON's "business as usual" 80s Bonds. At least three of the 80s Bond movies are among my favorite. I suspect that the U.S. didn't cotton to LTK, because it seemed like a rip-off of "MIAMI VICE", which the public was getting tired of by 1988.

I was kind of tired of Bond films by that point. General audiences in the US were. I don't think a mere change of leading man (particulary to an actor like Brosnan, who would probably have continued in the Moore vein), would have done much to stem the box office erosion the series was seeing in those days.

[ChristopherZ22]

I can recall one female member of the audience over here telling me she liked TLD because it was "more romantic". However, in retrospect I think she was in a minority. Whether we approve or disapprove, Bond is a "love 'em and leave 'em" type. I think this was the only aspect of Dalton's version of Bond which didn't come over to the audience convincingly.

If my memory serves, the main criticisms towards Dalton was his lack of humor and having no personality. Dalton is a great actor, but as another member pointed out, he was overqualified. I think he was too good of an actor to play in a series of Hollywood blockbusters.

I was kind of tired of Bond films by that point. General audiences in the US were. I don't think a mere change of leading man (particulary to an actor like Brosnan, who would probably have continued in the Moore vein), would have done much to stem the box office erosion the series was seeing in those days.

I was 14 when LTK was released and I remember how the U.S. public grew bored with Bond in the 80s. Perhaps it was because the character had been around too long, and audiences were becoming interested in more recent action film characters like Robocop, Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon, Bruce Willis in Die Hard, and Michael Keaton's dark version of Batman.

[00 Brosnan]

Man, I wish he was cast in The Living Daylights. Whether the hiatus still happened or not, I think Brosnan would have stayed in the role and completed about 6 or 7 films. IMO, TLD and LTK would be much better films. The only reason I believe he might have left is b/c of his wife dying, but Brosnan was a popular Bond (much more so than Dalton) and he loved playing the role so chances are he would have come back either way.

Plus, he would have had his Remmington Steele look for more than just GoldenEye. (I don't like how his hair got more slicked back w/ each film).

I see a lot of people on these forums ragging on Brosnan. Yet, each movie he made grossed more money than the last and he was a very popular Bond w/ the public. He had a lot of support from fans and the media to return for a fifth film. In my opinion, GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies are excellent Bond films. The World is Not Enough is okay, and Die Another Day has a ton of problems, but most of the blame for those issues goes to the writers, the directors, and such....not Brosnan.

[jaguar007]

Man, I wish he was cast in The Living Daylights. Whether the hiatus still happened or not, I think Brosnan would have stayed in the role and completed about 6 or 7 films. IMO, TLD and LTK would be much better films. The only reason I believe he might have left is b/c of his wife dying, but Brosnan was a popular Bond (much more so than Dalton) and he loved playing the role so chances are he would have come back either way.

I agree that Brosnan was more popular than Dalton, but personally I feel that Dalton was a far superior Bond. TLD is one of my favorite Bond films and that is mostly due to Dalton's performance.

[00 Brosnan]

Man, I wish he was cast in The Living Daylights. Whether the hiatus still happened or not, I think Brosnan would have stayed in the role and completed about 6 or 7 films. IMO, TLD and LTK would be much better films. The only reason I believe he might have left is b/c of his wife dying, but Brosnan was a popular Bond (much more so than Dalton) and he loved playing the role so chances are he would have come back either way.

I agree that Brosnan was more popular than Dalton, but personally I feel that Dalton was a far superior Bond. TLD is one of my favorite Bond films and that is mostly due to Dalton's performance.

Oh, I wasn't trying to imply anything negative about Dalton. I think Dalton made a great Bond, I just prefer Brosnan's style and humor over Dalton's seriousness. Also, I agree The Living Daylights is a good Bond film, it's not my favorite though.

[Guy Haines]

I can recall one female member of the audience over here telling me she liked TLD because it was "more romantic". However, in retrospect I think she was in a minority. Whether we approve or disapprove, Bond is a "love 'em and leave 'em" type. I think this was the only aspect of Dalton's version of Bond which didn't come over to the audience convincingly.

If my memory serves, the main criticisms towards Dalton was his lack of humor and having no personality. Dalton is a great actor, but as another member pointed out, he was overqualified. I think he was too good of an actor to play in a series of Hollywood blockbusters.

I was kind of tired of Bond films by that point. General audiences in the US were. I don't think a mere change of leading man (particulary to an actor like Brosnan, who would probably have continued in the Moore vein), would have done much to stem the box office erosion the series was seeing in those days.

I was 14 when LTK was released and I remember how the U.S. public grew bored with Bond in the 80s. Perhaps it was because the character had been around too long, and audiences were becoming interested in more recent action film characters like Robocop, Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon, Bruce Willis in Die Hard, and Michael Keaton's dark version of Batman.

I don't recall audiences over here in the UK being turned off by any supposed lack of humour on Dalton's part. My own experience - I went to see TLD several times - was that the cinemas were busy, often full, and TLD remained at the top of the UK box office for many weeks. I do remember Dalton and the film producers getting some stick because of the toned down nature of Bond's amorous encounters.

Regarding LTK in the US - it struck me at the time it was released that it might struggle against the first new Batman film, or Indiana Jones 3 (featuring the original Bond, Sean Connery, as Indy's dad), but I don't think the marketing for LTK was that great, regardless of the competition. The first indication of loss of nerve on the part of the producers, I thought, was changing the title from "Licence Revoked", which at least hinted at Bond's situation in the film, to "Licence To Kill", which, frankly, could have been used as a title for any Bond film, let alone one about revenge.

But, if Bond was out of fashion in the US, as is asserted here, then would Dalton, Brosnan or anyone else as Bond have made any difference to the eventual box office outcomes?

[Doctor Whom]

I was 14 when LTK was released and I remember how the U.S. public grew bored with Bond in the 80s. Perhaps it was because the character had been around too long, and audiences were becoming interested in more recent action film characters like Robocop, Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon, Bruce Willis in Die Hard, and Michael Keaton's dark version of Batman.

The American audience's lack of interest in Bond may have stemmed from the fact that the films were seeming to become stale and repetetive. Roger Moore had been in the role since 1973 and the producers had been cranking out movies at roughly two-year intervals the whole time. By the mid eighties, it was the same thing, over and over again. Old hat.

[jaguar007]

I was a big fan of Dalton's films and saw them several times in the theater, however most of the people I know did not care anything about going to see the Bond films by the late 80s. I had to drag my friends to go see them with me.

[doublenoughtspy]

Putting Brosnan in TLD would have helped the box office (in the U.S. mostly) but I don't believe it would be a game changer that some people think it would have been.

Brosnan being there wouldn't have made the stunts better (though they probably would have kept the magic carpet scene) and he wouldn't have changed the films major weak points - the female lead and the villains.

I hear the old chestnut of "Dalton was a 2nd choice in America's eyes" and I shake my head. I am an American, I can vividly recall the "Brosnan gets Bond, Brosnan loses Bond" events of 1986, but it certainly didn't affect my desire to see TLD.

I have never met, nor ever heard of anyone who was ready to plunk down their money for TLD with Brosnan, but decided to stay home because Dalton got the part. Yes, Brosnan was better known. Would Remington Steele/Brosnan fandom really have taken a Brosnan TLD into the stratosphere box office wise? I highly doubt it.

Cubby Broccoli could have easily changed the TLD schedule to accommodate Brosnan. His intincts told him no.

Brosnan getting Bond in 86 means that Remington Steele gets a huge jolt - and gets renewed - probably for much longer than 5 episodes. So you then have what Cubby didn't want - James Bond on TV for free.

It's easy to point to Goldeneye and say "See, Brosnan would have made TLD a smash hit" but Goldeneye had a fresh new director (rather than a hold over from the previous administration), fresh new screenwriters (rather than a 77 year old hold over from the previous administration), a substantially higher budget (rather than the same $30 million from the previous administration), etc. etc.

Like Jaguar007, TLD is one of my favorite films, based almost entirely on the strength of Dalton's performance. He single handedly elevates the film to greatness. A feat I don't think Brosnan would have pulled off.