34 replies to this topic

[iBond]

Do you wish Dalton had done 7 films like Moore or Connery? Or do you think he wouldn't have it in him?

[TheREAL008]

If he took over for FYEO, then perhaps six total.

[00 Brosnan]

Tough question for me really. I thought Moore did a great job in FYEO and although I enjoy Octopussy for the most part, he should have retired after FYEO. Then Dalton could have taken over.

As it turned out Moore didn't retire until starring in 2 more films. I like Dalton as Bond, I really do, but I like Brosnan better and would have preferred Brosnan got the role in 1986. So, it's really a bunch of "what ifs" at this point in my point of view.

TLD is one of the best Bond films imo, but LTK is one of the worst. Though, it wasn't Dalton's fault...or Talisa Soto's either.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 15 April 2011 - 12:48 AM.

[Mr Twilight]

I would have loved to see Dalton as Bond from Octopussy because it had fitted him perfectly. It would probably have been slightly different with Dalton (can't really see Dalton in a clown suite even how much i fantasies)- A real classic Fleming story. In A view to a kill it would have been really exciting to see how Dalton growned in the suite. Actually it has grown in my eyes as a Moore-film too recently but it's tickling me to see it with Dalton. I'm a fan of GoldenEye as it is but how fun it would be seeing it with Dalton - so I would say 5 films - From octopussy to GoldenEye

[TCK]

I think Dalton is better with a short era. But don't get me wrong, I don't mean he's a bad actor, but in my opinion, the more is short an era, the more intensive is. Tim' did two wonderful movies, both form part of the top five, always in my opinion of course, and I think Dalton would not have been able to keep his character during seven movies. Licence to kill was written for him, and I can't imagine others movies like that one five times.

Okey, act Bond twice is very brief, and I would have enjoyed a third movie, A view to a kill perhaps, or a movie in 1991/1992, but seven, no.

Dalton, like Lazenby and Craig perhaps, are actors who will be better acting Bond in a short period, to make changes to the character, to the saga, to innovate, and Connery, Moore and Brosnan are better to represent the character in a long period.

[BoogieBond]

Tough question for me really. I thought Moore did a great job in FYEO and although I enjoy Octopussy for the most part, he should have retired after FYEO. Then Dalton could have taken over.

As it turned out Moore didn't retire until starring in 2 more films. I like Dalton as Bond, I really do, but I like Brosnan better and would have preferred Brosnan got the role in 1986. So, it's really a bunch of "what ifs" at this point in my point of view.

TLD is one of the best Bond films imo, but LTK is one of the worst. Though, it wasn't Dalton's fault...or Talisa Soto's either.

I agree about Moore retiring after FYEO. That would have given Dalton 2 more. I don't think Dalton would have wanted to do any more that 4 Bond films.
I am not sure about Broz taking over in 86. I think him doing his 4 from 95-02 was about what I expected. I couldn't have seen Broz doing any more than 5 films really. The producers recently like a change every 4-5 films.

[Messervy]

I'd have loved Dalton to do at least GE.
As has been said countless times here, GE was clearly written with Dalton in mind.
Would have been bloody fantastic.

[TheREAL008]

I do feel as if Timothy gets too much harsh 'critique' in this franchise. TLD and LTK are perfect films, if people loved TLD so much, then why the hate for LTK when it's basically the same film?

He probably should have done FYEO - GoldenEye, or maybe just FYEO - LTK, then hand the reigns over to Pierce.

People need to stop lambasting him (and Daniel also) just because they're not Bronsan, Moore, or even Connery. Having watched both TLD and LTK last night, I find them better than Bronsan's entries by a wide margin. Timothy and Daniel are the closest incarnations to Fleming's Bond thus far, and just like Daniel...Timothy was dedicated to the part and did his best with what he had.

[00 Brosnan]

I do feel as if Timothy gets too much harsh 'critique' in this franchise. TLD and LTK are perfect films, if people loved TLD so much, then why the hate for LTK when it's basically the same film?

I respect your opinion, but TLD and LTK are totally different. That's why in general, TLD is often praised while LTK is very divisive.

To me, TLD is a classic Bond film. It has a cool car w/ interesting gadgets, awesome pre-title sequence, great music, a sort of spy-thriller plot, and beautiful locations.

While LTK doesn't feel like a Bond film at all, it feels a little Lethal Weapon and a little 80s Steven Seagal w/ a guy named Bond. The plot is basically every other 80s action movie, Bond drives around in a wagon (why not a minivan), hardly any gadgets, and minus the temple at the end, boring locations.

Timothy and Daniel are the closest incarnations to Fleming's Bond thus far, and just like Daniel...Timothy was dedicated to the part and did his best with what he had.

I think every actor that has played Bond has been dedicated and did the best they could with what they had or were given. As far as being the closest to Ian Fleming's Bond, personally I don't think that matters to anyone except certain hardcore Bond fans. Being closer to Flemings vision isn't necessarily going to make the films more entertaining. For what it's worth though, I like Craig better than Dalton.

[iBond]

People need to stop lambasting him (and Daniel also) just because they're not Bronsan, Moore, or even Connery. Having watched both TLD and LTK last night, I find them better than Bronsan's entries by a wide margin. Timothy and Daniel are the closest incarnations to Fleming's Bond thus far, and just like Daniel...Timothy was dedicated to the part and did his best with what he had.

You just have to remember that this is a message board and people are always going to share their thoughts and opinions even if they might not be popular in your view. Honestly, I think Pierce is the best 007 and I can't stand Roger Moore; but again, that's my opinion. Yes, it can get me upset, but that's why this is a discussion board and not just a "respect every Bond to keep the peace" board.

Anyway, I agree with you that Dalton should have taken the reigns over from Moore in 1981. It was a shame that he didn't. It sucks.

[TheREAL008]

People need to stop lambasting him (and Daniel also) just because they're not Bronsan, Moore, or even Connery. Having watched both TLD and LTK last night, I find them better than Bronsan's entries by a wide margin. Timothy and Daniel are the closest incarnations to Fleming's Bond thus far, and just like Daniel...Timothy was dedicated to the part and did his best with what he had.

You just have to remember that this is a message board and people are always going to share their thoughts and opinions even if they might not be popular in your view. Honestly, I think Pierce is the best 007 and I can't stand Roger Moore; but again, that's my opinion. Yes, it can get me upset, but that's why this is a discussion board and not just a "respect every Bond to keep the peace" board.

Anyway, I agree with you that Dalton should have taken the reigns over from Moore in 1981. It was a shame that he didn't. It sucks.

No doubt, and perfectly stated. I was only trying to voice an opinion about the negativity in itself and nothing more.

[00 Brosnan]

I think Pierce is the best 007 and I can't stand Roger Moore

There isn't a single Bond that I don't like....Lazenby is the closest though.

[iBond]

I think Pierce is the best 007 and I can't stand Roger Moore

There isn't a single Bond that I don't like....Lazenby is the closest though.

Hah, I love your use of the ellipses.

[00 Brosnan]

I think Pierce is the best 007 and I can't stand Roger Moore

There isn't a single Bond that I don't like....Lazenby is the closest though.

Hah, I love your use of the ellipses.

Lol, yeah I like them all, they all bring something unique to the roll. Lazenby is my least liked though, therefore he's the closest to being hated.

[Davy]

I think 4 is a good limit for any actor. Any more and they get complacent and comofortable, losing theur edge.

[00 Brosnan]

Personally, I think 5 is the number of films every actor wants to hit. It would be bad for the franchise and it would be a negative for me if they switched actors every 2 or 3 films.

[iBond]

I'm glad they at least made a game with the likeness of Timothy Dalton. James Bond 007: The Duel came out in 1993 so Dalton was still expected to return as 007. This was also the last Bond game made by Domark and the last game to come out before GoldenEye 007 for the N64.

[Col. Sun]

I think 4 is a good limit for any actor. Any more and they get complacent and comofortable, losing theur edge.

Well Connery certainly dropped down a gear for YOLT, but that was really due to his battles with the producers which made him fed up with the role.

But Roger's 5th, FYEO, really brought out the best in him. For me it's his best performance as Bond along with TSWLM.

I think Brosnan would have worked hard (perhaps too hard, which was his problem) to make his 5th film strong if he'd had the chance.

For me, 5 films is the perfect number and I hope Craig achieves that number before moving on. I suspect however, he'll retire after his 4th film.

[Davy]

I think 4 is a good limit for any actor. Any more and they get complacent and comofortable, losing theur edge.

Well Connery certainly dropped down a gear for YOLT, but that was really due to his battles with the producers which made him fed up with the role.

But Roger's 5th, FYEO, really brought out the best in him. For me it's his best performance as Bond along with TSWLM.

I think Brosnan would have worked hard (perhaps too hard, which was his problem) to make his 5th film strong if he'd had the chance.

For me, 5 films is the perfect number and I hope Craig achieves that number before moving on. I suspect however, he'll retire after his 4th film.

Yes, Moore is the problem with my 4 films is enough theory as his best were his 4th and 6th respectively. I agree with you, Craig will only do one or two more and then drop out. Even if he does 4, he could very well be 50 years old by the time a number five did come out so I don't see it happening myself.

[00 Brosnan]

I'm glad they at least made a game with the likeness of Timothy Dalton. James Bond 007: The Duel came out in 1993 so Dalton was still expected to return as 007.

Could you really tell though...in-game wise? I mean...Genesis graphics and all. Not that I don't like the Sega Genesis b/c I do. ToeJam and Earl, Sonic & Knuckles...good times.

Yes, Moore is the problem with my 4 films is enough theory as his best were his 4th and 6th respectively. I agree with you, Craig will only do one or two more and then drop out. Even if he does 4, he could very well be 50 years old by the time a number five did come out so I don't see it happening myself.

Personally, I hope Craig will do at least 5 films. I think 4 is basically definite, but 5 is a good possibility.

[iBond]

I'm glad they at least made a game with the likeness of Timothy Dalton. James Bond 007: The Duel came out in 1993 so Dalton was still expected to return as 007.

Could you really tell though...in-game wise? I mean...Genesis graphics and all. Not that I don't like the Sega Genesis b/c I do. ToeJam and Earl, Sonic & Knuckles...good times.

True, you're right about that.

[Miles Miservy]

Both Roger Moore & Sean Connery wore the tux way too long. Poor George Lazenby was doomed to fail anyway. He could've hung around & done DAF. As for Pierce Brosnan, he got it right with 4. By the time DAD came around, all the elements in that movie pointed towards Brosnan being done. So I think Timothy Dalton should've hung around for at least 1 more, if not two. I think were it not for the the writers' strike & other proprietary legalities that held up production for over half a decade, EON Productions would've cranked out their customary Bond adventure, every 2 years as always, giving Timothy Dalton a 3rd picture to mold as his own.

I think Dalton is better with a short era. But don't get me wrong, I don't mean he's a bad actor, but in my opinion, the more is short an era, the more intensive is. Tim' did two wonderful movies, both form part of the top five, always in my opinion of course, and I think Dalton would not have been able to keep his character during seven movies. Licence to kill was written for him, and I can't imagine others movies like that one five times.

Okey, act Bond twice is very brief, and I would have enjoyed a third movie, A view to a kill perhaps, or a movie in 1991/1992, but seven, no.

Dalton, like Lazenby and Craig perhaps, are actors who will be better acting Bond in a short period, to make changes to the character, to the saga, to innovate, and Connery, Moore and Brosnan are better to represent the character in a long period.

I'm glad they at least made a game with the likeness of Timothy Dalton. James Bond 007: The Duel came out in 1993 so Dalton was still expected to return as 007. This was also the last Bond game made by Domark and the last game to come out before GoldenEye 007 for the N64.

I loved this game. It was so cheap & cheesey, you could play it for hours; Mario Brothers with a PPK.

[iBond]

Both Roger Moore & Sean Connery wore the tux way too long. Poor George Lazenby was doomed to fail anyway. He could've hung around & done DAF. As for Pierce Brosnan, he got it right with 4. By the time DAD came around, all the elements in that movie pointed towards Brosnan being done. So I think Timothy Dalton should've hung around for at least 1 more, if not two. I think were it not for the the writers' strike & other proprietary legalities that held up production for over half a decade, EON Productions would've cranked out their customary Bond adventure, every 2 years as always, giving Timothy Dalton a 3rd picture to mold as his own.

This is very true. I'm glad Licence to Kill was written specifically for Dalton though. It certainly left his mark on Bond.

[iBond]

It would be cool if they started to write books based on the actors who played the character in original stories. I think that would be pretty cool. They could write one featuring Dalton's Bond.

[Guy Haines]

I always wanted Timothy Dalton to do a third, fourth, fifth Bond, but wasn't entirely surprised that he didn't. He never seemed completely at ease in the role, and I think it was in part because he had one take on the part and the film makers still had another one. We will never know, but if TLD and LTK had been filmed with a new team involved, Dalton could have been going strong into the 1990s.

(On the other hand, would it have made any difference? From what I have read on our site, once the studio takeover had gone through, the heads were seemingly determined to get rid of Dalton anyway, regardless of what Cubby & Co thought.)

Certainly the approach to playing Bond changed when Dalton took over, and continued when he left. Brosnan's Bond always seemed to me to combine the virtues of Moore and Dalton without the drawbacks, and Craig has the toughness of Connery combined with Dalton's depth of character.

Timothy Dalton made but two Bond films, but his impact is felt even now.

[iBond]

I feel that Brosnan combines Moore and Connery while Craig combines himself along with Dalton.

[Dekard77]

Dalton would have been good in AVTAK or FYEO. I felt they were movies which needed a new actor. Moore really is excellent in OP/FYEO. He captured the right elements of being Bond even if he had to wear clown make up. Looking at the Glen era I think he was running short of steam as a director especially with Dalton who is wasn't known like Moore. Moore and Brosnan share the privilege of being the audience favourites to play Bond. Craig and Connery had to earn it.
LTK has certain strong elements but removing Bond from his world is not a very good idea. You need the plush locations along with Bonds ability to be noticed over his adversaries. In the case of LTK it was complete opposite. I always think if LTK was filmed in Europe like France or Spain it would have set a better tone for the movie.TD paved the way for a serious Bond for which I am eternally grateful. But it was Brosnan who knew how to manage both sides well. His main disadvantage was the poor one liners. What annoys me more is seeing the deleted scenes of LTK and wondering why they would remove the TD parts. It actually showed another side to his 007.

But GE was going to be made with a new actor. That much I am sure. TD was gracious enough to let things go for a new era. Glad to know the new Bond film is assembling a new crew.

[Mr_Wint]

Never been a fan of Dalton. He brought two too many.

[Miles Miservy]

Tough question for me really. I thought Moore did a great job in FYEO and although I enjoy Octopussy for the most part, he should have retired after FYEO. Then Dalton could have taken over.

As it turned out Moore didn't retire until starring in 2 more films. I like Dalton as Bond, I really do, but I like Brosnan better and would have preferred Brosnan got the role in 1986. So, it's really a bunch of "what ifs" at this point in my point of view.

TLD is one of the best Bond films imo, but LTK is one of the worst. Though, it wasn't Dalton's fault...or Talisa Soto's either.

I think Robert Davi has one of the coolest entrances for a villain, aside from Kurt Jurgens. You know right away what this guy's about & what he's capable of.. "What did he promise you, his heart? Give her his heart."

[iBond]

Yeah, right away you knew how ruthless his character was. I mean, this is right before the main titles as well. It's like Glen didn't want to waste any time with introducing the character and just wanted to set things off right away from the get go. Basically, what happens in the pre-titles sequence is what shapes the entire film. Bond and Felix capture Sanchez; Sanchez finds out where Felix lives through Killifer; murders his wife and tortures Felix; Bond on personal vendetta.

Edited by iBond, 20 June 2011 - 04:34 PM.