Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:48 AM
It's quite well known that Timothy Dalton was first asked to play Bond back in 1969 but declined because, at 24, he felt he was far too young. I wonder if this film would have gotten a much warmer reception if a better lead than Lazenby was in it. I certainly think it would been a perfect Bond film if that was the case. Also how would the 70's Bond film's have turned out if they had Dalton in them?
Edited by The Krynoid man, 05 May 2014 - 11:51 AM.
Lieutenant
Posted 05 May 2014 - 02:30 PM
He was and looked too young for playing Bond. I mean 24! That is way too young to play someone like Bond.
If you have seen him in The Lion in the winter, you know what I mean. Right then he couldn't have played the Bond he wanted to play, like he did in TLD and LtK.
Edited by Grard Bond, 06 May 2014 - 02:57 PM.
Commander
Posted 05 May 2014 - 02:51 PM
Dalton would have been far too young for the part in 1969 when On Her Majesty's Secret Service was released. That said, even with the age factor working very much against him, he would have been a far better Bond than Lazenby in that film.
Commander
Posted 05 May 2014 - 03:34 PM
Dalton would have been the better actor, no question about it.
But everyone following Connery at that time would have failed at the box office.
Imagine Stallone stepping down after "Rocky III" and some really good actor suddenly being "Rocky" in the next installment. Or the poor guy following Harrison Ford as Han Solo or Indiana Jones. It´s a no-one-can-win-situation.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 05 May 2014 - 03:55 PM
Dalton would have been the better actor, no question about it.
But everyone following Connery at that time would have failed at the box office.
Imagine Stallone stepping down after "Rocky III" and some really good actor suddenly being "Rocky" in the next installment. Or the poor guy following Harrison Ford as Han Solo or Indiana Jones. It´s a no-one-can-win-situation.
Lieutenant
Posted 05 May 2014 - 03:57 PM
I reckon Dalton should of taken over the role in around the time of moonraker obviously he probably of done a different film to that 
Commander
Posted 05 May 2014 - 03:58 PM
Dalton would have been the better actor, no question about it.
But everyone following Connery at that time would have failed at the box office.
Agreed.
I think that, although Dalton would have been far too young for the part at the time, he still would have been far from the worst choice for the role. The ideal scenario would have been Connery's return, as the part of Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service would have been greatly benefited by having both a qualified actor in the role, as well as an actor who was a veteran in the role of Bond. IMO, this film was a terrible film in which to introduce a new Bond, especially one with no acting experience.
Lieutenant
Posted 05 May 2014 - 05:15 PM
But you forget that Connery didn't want to do it any more. So if he would have done another one right after Twice, he would have been even more uninterested like he already was in that YOLT one and that's probably not the Connery you thinking of for OHMSS.
I like Lazenby a lot in OHMSS and frankly I don't think there was a real good reason to replace him for that film anyway.
Was he that terrible? I don't think so.
He was fantastic in the actionscene's and also showed a vulnerability that I don't think Connery as Bond could have ever shown in 1969, not after the other ones he already did, where he was the definition of cool.
Edited by Grard Bond, 05 May 2014 - 05:18 PM.
Commander
Posted 05 May 2014 - 05:23 PM
No, I haven't forgotten that. A bored, disinterested Connery would have still been better.
Also, Connery's coolness in the role would have played to the advantage of the love story, with the idea of it taking the right woman to get to Bond, whom he meets in Tracy.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 05 May 2014 - 05:34 PM
Commander
Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:35 PM
I still wouldn't change a thing about the OHMSS we have. So many factors make me uninterested in speculating how it would have turned out with another actor. Connery was Bond as the ultimate sexist, misogynist dinosaur (to borrow another actor's label) and didn't fit the part of romantic Bond. I suppose he could have, but it doesn't seem to be his thing, so why would he have tried even more by that point?
Romance also wasn't Dalton's strong suit, so I'm not sure it wouldn't have in 1969 anymore than in 1987 or 1989. Both Connery and Dalton had strengths for things other than what OHMSS required. Lazenby gave us a fresh look, somebody who wasn't too associated with any one aspect of the role that we couldn't accept his falling for his true love.
Also, Dalton wouldn't have necessarily been right in the 1970s when the lighter side of Bond was emphasized. Now I would unquestionably have liked him to start in 1981 or continue after 1989.
In response to Krynoid Man's claim of OHMSS having "failed" at the box office because of poor marketing, I disagree. First, the film didn't fail at the box office at all. It made money. That's an old myth based on not achieving the box office heights of its predecessors. Depends on your description of failure and if it's profitable then it's not a failure.
Secondly, the marketing was there. It was treated as an event movie just as the others had been while not getting near the marketing push TB and YOLT had. It also wasn't underserved the way LTK was. Add to that the challenge the marketing team had to deal with the fact Lazenby wasn't coming back as Bond. And that the peak of spymania had already passed. It's not like they just threw it out there to sink or swim. The effort was clearly there.
Lt. Commander
Posted 05 May 2014 - 10:58 PM
It's quite well known that Timothy Dalton was first asked to play Bond back in 1969 but declined because, at 24, he felt he was far too young. I wonder if this film would have gotten a much warmer reception if a better lead than Lazenby was in it. I certainly think it would been a perfect Bond film if that was the case. Also how would the 70's Bond film's have turned out if they had Dalton in them?
It's also quite well known that Christopher Columbus discovered North America... and just like the "fact" you cite above it also ain't true.
The producers never asked Dalton to play Bond in 1969 or any other year in that decade. This is a fan rumor that has taken on a life of its own. Our own DNS who wrote the definite book on the making of OHMSS even disputes this fan claim. Bloody shame that this lie gets official credence in the TLD making of documentary.
Let me ask you this, why would the producers consider an unknown actor like TD who, when casting began in 1968 - and not 1969 as you claim - hadn't finished a single film? He'd done some minor theatre and according to Malcolm McDowell, TD had just been fired from a tv series where he played a rich teenager. Hardly auspicious.
Dalton says the producers approached him when he was 24 or 25 - which would be 1970 or 1971 - after he had done "Mary Queen of Scots". I'll leave you to google what month and year that film came out. TD also says they never offered him the role. They merely asked him if he would be interested in doing a screentest. I cited the newspaper interview where TD clarifies this in another thread here some time ago.
Let's try this one on for size... "It's quite well known that Timothy Dalton was first asked to play Bond back in 1954 but declined because, at 8, he felt he was far too young. I wonder if this telly film would have gotten a much warmer reception if a better lead than Barry Nelson was in it. I certainly think it would been a perfect Bond film if that was the case. Also how would the 60's Bond film's have turned out if they had Dalton in them?"
That's right, folks. You heard it hear first, CBS approached TD first before casting Barry Nelson. I won't rest until every Bond film guide mentions this fact.
Commander
Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:11 PM
What Dalton turned down was the opportunity to audition for the Bond role in OHMSS.
Commander
Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:03 AM
I think that Connery would have been perfect for OHMSS. His boredom with the role would even have worked to his advantage, finally offering him a chance to give more shades to the role - and I´m sure he would have killed with the final scene.
That would have been a perfect way for him to step down and for the franchise to reboot with a new actor.
Of course, things did not happen in that way - and I do like OHMSS nevertheless.
Still, Connery did say in his infamous Playboy interview that after TB he was contracted to do OHMSS. Too bad EON decided to do YOLT first.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:17 AM
I still wouldn't change a thing about the OHMSS we have. So many factors make me uninterested in speculating how it would have turned out with another actor. Connery was Bond as the ultimate sexist, misogynist dinosaur (to borrow another actor's label) and didn't fit the part of romantic Bond. I suppose he could have, but it doesn't seem to be his thing, so why would he have tried even more by that point?
Romance also wasn't Dalton's strong suit, so I'm not sure it wouldn't have in 1969 anymore than in 1987 or 1989. Both Connery and Dalton had strengths for things other than what OHMSS required. Lazenby gave us a fresh look, somebody who wasn't too associated with any one aspect of the role that we couldn't accept his falling for his true love.
Also, Dalton wouldn't have necessarily been right in the 1970s when the lighter side of Bond was emphasized. Now I would unquestionably have liked him to start in 1981 or continue after 1989.
In response to Krynoid Man's claim of OHMSS having "failed" at the box office because of poor marketing, I disagree. First, the film didn't fail at the box office at all. It made money. That's an old myth based on not achieving the box office heights of its predecessors. Depends on your description of failure and if it's profitable then it's not a failure.
Secondly, the marketing was there. It was treated as an event movie just as the others had been while not getting near the marketing push TB and YOLT had. It also wasn't underserved the way LTK was. Add to that the challenge the marketing team had to deal with the fact Lazenby wasn't coming back as Bond. And that the peak of spymania had already passed. It's not like they just threw it out there to sink or swim. The effort was clearly there.
I didn't say I would want to change a thing about OHMSS. It's my favourite of all the Bond films. I just thought that it would be more highly regarded if it had a better leading man. Yes, I did say it would be perfect if it didn't have Lazenby, He did an adequate job and I still love the film, but he's the films weakest aspect in my opinion. I also wasn't saying that Dalton would have automatically been a better Bond in this, I was just curious as to what it would have been like.
I know it wasn't a failure at the box office, that's just how SecretAgentFan described it. I was explaining that it didn't makes as much money as the others because of the marketing. And yes obviously it was there it just didn't catch the audiences attention as much as the others, presumably because as you said, they tried to not emphasise who the actor playing Bond was.
It's quite well known that Timothy Dalton was first asked to play Bond back in 1969 but declined because, at 24, he felt he was far too young. I wonder if this film would have gotten a much warmer reception if a better lead than Lazenby was in it. I certainly think it would been a perfect Bond film if that was the case. Also how would the 70's Bond film's have turned out if they had Dalton in them?
It's also quite well known that Christopher Columbus discovered North America... and just like the "fact" you cite above it also ain't true.
The producers never asked Dalton to play Bond in 1969 or any other year in that decade. This is a fan rumor that has taken on a life of its own. Our own DNS who wrote the definite book on the making of OHMSS even disputes this fan claim. Bloody shame that this lie gets official credence in the TLD making of documentary.
Let me ask you this, why would the producers consider an unknown actor like TD who, when casting began in 1968 - and not 1969 as you claim - hadn't finished a single film? He'd done some minor theatre and according to Malcolm McDowell, TD had just been fired from a tv series where he played a rich teenager. Hardly auspicious.
Dalton says the producers approached him when he was 24 or 25 - which would be 1970 or 1971 - after he had done "Mary Queen of Scots". I'll leave you to google what month and year that film came out. TD also says they never offered him the role. They merely asked him if he would be interested in doing a screentest. I cited the newspaper interview where TD clarifies this in another thread here some time ago.
Let's try this one on for size... "It's quite well known that Timothy Dalton was first asked to play Bond back in 1954 but declined because, at 8, he felt he was far too young. I wonder if this telly film would have gotten a much warmer reception if a better lead than Barry Nelson was in it. I certainly think it would been a perfect Bond film if that was the case. Also how would the 60's Bond film's have turned out if they had Dalton in them?"
That's right, folks. You heard it hear first, CBS approached TD first before casting Barry Nelson. I won't rest until every Bond film guide mentions this fact.
I didn't realise that it was just a fan rumour. Like you said it was in the documentary so I assumed that it was probably true. If I knew it wasn't I probably wouldn't have started the tread. So if they offered him to screen test in 1970 or 1971 then it would have been for Diamonds are Forever, I wonder why fans assume it was this film.
Edited by The Krynoid man, 06 May 2014 - 05:42 AM.
Commander
Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:58 AM
You know, OHMSS really was a failure at the box office. Not a flop. But a huge disappointment for EON and UA. The grosses dropped sharply after YOLT, and while it did manage to outgross its budget and marketing costs, for a Bond film, OHMSS just did not make enough money. Sad, but true.
That does not take away anything from its quality.
Commander
Posted 06 May 2014 - 06:37 AM
A few observations about this. A young Timothy Dalton as Bond might have worked only if the producers had taken a radically different direction around the late 60s/early 70s and filmed a "young Bond, first mission" story. With so many unfilmed Fleming stories and titles left, they weren't about to do that.
On reflection, I think OHMSS wasn't an ideal story in which to introduce a new actor as Bond - and bear in mind, George Lazenby was fairly young himself. It needed a Bond who was now something of a veteran agent, fed up with his job and two years of fruitless pursuit of Blofeld. Curiously enough, Sean Connery was fed up with playing Bond - if he could have been persuaded to appear one more time his attitude might have reflected Bond's own towards his Double-O duties.
The ideal scenario should have been to film OHMSS after Thunderball, so continuity could have been maintained. But the producers didn't want it filmed so soon after TB (It would have been a "Thunderball" on skis, was one reason I've seen offered for not filming it around 1967) and for the whole Blofeld trilogy to work on screen I think it would have been best if Connery had stayed around for the final third, namely YOLT - but would he have wanted to? And, frankly, a YOLT filmed in 1969 and based more on the book wouldn't have been an ideal introduction for a new actor either.
Lieutenant
Posted 06 May 2014 - 02:54 PM
Dalton was not the most popular Bond actor ever when he played Bond in the late 1980's (that's an understatement). And that was in an ideal situation: younger actor takes over the part from an (too) old actor.
But why would Dalton been more popular bij audience (especially in America) in 1969 when Connery was still The Man?
Edited by Grard Bond, 06 May 2014 - 02:55 PM.
Commander
Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:31 PM
Quite. I'm not saying Timothy Dalton as a much younger Bond in a "first assignment" movie would have worked 40 odd years ago, only that it might have, had the film makers gone down what would have been a pretty unlikely route for the Bond series at the time. It's the only way I think it could have been done, but I have my doubts it would have been accepted, and for one reason pointed out in the previous post - at that time Sean Connery was the "one true Bond" for many. Oddly enough, after one comeback movie later the public accepted a new man and an older one, as Connery's second successor - but then Roger Moore had been around for years and had been mentioned in dispatches as a future 007.
Lieutenant
Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:40 PM
Roger is three years older than Connery, but..... I don't think most people know this and knew that when he took over the part. When you look at him in LaLD and compare him with Connery in DAF it looks like Connery is much older than him.
Lt. Commander
Posted 06 May 2014 - 04:59 PM
I recall Time magazine running a feature on Moore's assuming the Bond mantle, something to the effect of "Although three years older than Connery, Moore looks years younger." The information was out there, but Grard Bond is correct that the comparative ages of the two men were not publically appreciated.
Lt. Commander
Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:32 PM
What Dalton turned down was the opportunity to audition for the Bond role in OHMSS.
I didn't realise that it was just a fan rumour. Like you said it was in the documentary so I assumed that it was probably true. If I knew it wasn't I probably wouldn't have started the tread. So if they offered him to screen test in 1970 or 1971 then it would have been for Diamonds are Forever, I wonder why fans assume it was this film.
Commander
Posted 06 May 2014 - 06:24 PM
What Dalton turned down was the opportunity to audition for the Bond role in OHMSS.
Not true. He wasn't even asked to do that.
He was asked to audition for it and he turned the offer down.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 06 May 2014 - 06:42 PM
Commander
Posted 06 May 2014 - 06:51 PM
It's taken from an interview he gave for the book 'The Incredible World of 007'.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 10 May 2014 - 08:53 AM
I think lazenby was the right man. He just needed more time.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 10 May 2014 - 10:46 AM
Theres a quote on his IMDB page where he says that he was offered to audition for OHMSS. I don't know the exact interview but here's a link to the IMDB page (it's near the bottom) http://www.imdb.com/...f_=nm_ov_bio_sm
It's possible that me might have been thinking of one of the other films but got them mixed up, he does also mention LALD
And IMDb is know for its truth all the tiem?
Lt. Commander
Posted 11 May 2014 - 01:28 PM
I don't believe this story that Dalton was offered the role in '69. Mostly based on the fact that he didn't get the role in '73 (Moore), did not get an offer in '83 (James Brolin), and did not get the first offer in '87 (Brosnan). They probably looked at all male British actors back in '69 and Dalton happened to be one of them.
Lt. Commander
Posted 11 May 2014 - 08:55 PM
What Dalton turned down was the opportunity to audition for the Bond role in OHMSS.
Not true. He wasn't even asked to do that.
He was asked to audition for it and he turned the offer down.
Actually, he was only asked if he'd be interested. Not even sure it got as far as an audition. Traditionally the producers meet a performer first.
UPDATED POST: The producers meet an actor first. If they decide there's potential, only then do they arrange a screen test. To do a screen test, you gotta get a director, cameraman, equipment. Don't know that they can actually do a screen test in their Audley street offices.
It's taken from an interview he gave for the book 'The Incredible World of 007'.
I'm familiar with the book and for reasons I'll explain when I have more time the quote is suspect. Elsewhere Dalton has said he doesn't remember the film but knows it wasn't the one Roger was up for and that it was around the time of Mary, Queen of Scots.
Edited by glidrose, 13 May 2014 - 12:39 AM.