Klaus, I wasn't trying to insult Dalton's acting abilities, as I know that he is a skillfully trained actor. But you see, this is Bond we're dealing with here, not Shakespearian theater, and he overacts and reads way too deep into the cinematic Bond character, and while he is a complex character, he's nowhere near as complex as the literary Bond. The majority of audiences wanted the cinematic Bond, not the literary one, and while I think Dalton is a good actor, one of the major reasons LTK is not good is due to his acting of the Bond role, and I agree with Dan that this is the worst performance in the Bond series.
This is the last response I am going to give to Dan and JFF on the topic, because quite frankly, I'm tired of having this debate. It seems that we are watching two completely different movies and actors when we discuss Dalton, and quite frankly, I'm flabergasted that you guys don't see things my way, and I'm sure you two have similiar reactions. I've cited specific characteristics of his performance (and my evaluation thereof) and the vitality of the foundation for his performance in support of my position, and that's good enough for me.
Firstly Dan, I personally think you are indeed subscribing to anti-Dalton bias and a bit of a passion for slamming the man in your evaluations of the quality of his acting in the role. You have said before in criticizing Dalton that, while he was the best in portraying the literary 007 (and you have said this; I will be more than happy to drag out the thread in which you did), he wasn't your idea of the literary incarnation. Now, when the topic is his actual acting in the role, you slam it; whereas before, by saying he was the best in portraying the literary 007, you implied otherwise. How can he be, as you have said, the epitome of the literary 007, and yet at the same time have given a subpar performance strictly in terms of acting? You may not have liked the tone of his performance, if you say that he is good at doing what he was trying to do, then you think he acted well in the part.
As for my assertion that any serious actor, director, critic, etc. would have praised Dalton's performance, well, here just a couple of examples I was able to scrounge up in about 5 minutes of Googling:
"Tim was fantastic. He really had the balls to go out there and play it on the nose - Ian Fleming undiluted.
- Pierce Brosnan
"On the basis of this second performance as Bond, Dalton can have the role as long as he enjoys it. Dalton makes an effective Bond - lacking Sean Connery's grace and humor, and Roger Moore's suave self-mockery, but with a lean tension and a toughness that is possibly more contemporary."
- Roger Ebert, in a review of Licence to Kill
I would assume that both you and JFF would particularly respect the opinion of the former opiner given how both of you have commented regarding your admiration for his performance in the role of Bond. (An admiration that I share, given that I have him #2 on my list)
And JFF, regarding this doozy....
The majority of audiences wanted the cinematic Bond, not the literary one,
Firstly, just because a majority of audiences want the Bond that has been established over time doesn't mean that, assuming Dalton was striving to portray the literary 007, he performed poorly in interpreting the literary 007. Nor does the expectation or opinion of a majority of audiences, and the assumption that Dalton doesn't meet it, necessitate that he did performed poorly in the role or "ruined" the role; it just means that a majority of audiences don't like it. (If we assume that this is the case, which is quite an assumption)
Anyway, I think Bond actors should be different from each other. Just pick what mood you're in and enjoy a different texture. I don't want Bonds to imitate each other for pete's sake.
Well exactly; what's the point in making more Bond films if they're all exactly the same?
Some of the criticism leveled at TD stems from the fact he wasn't humorous like RM was. Well exactly, he didn't copy his predecessor's style.
It all depends on the script and the producers willingness to ring changes on the formula. By the time Dalton took over the mantle of Bond - and he was excellent - the series had sadly become the cinematic equivilant of a Big Mac hambuger. Tasty perhaps but always the same. Early posters for his second outing used the log line: "The Most Dangerous Man In The World." Think about that for a moment. If a storyline using that concept had been truely developed we might have really had something. Oh well, in another lifetime perhaps... or maybe even this coming November. I'll be standing in line to find out.
Ciao
Roger Moore's first two Bond movies weren't exactly runaway hits either. But when it came time to film TSWLM Cubby Broccoli, in his infinite wisdom, pulled out all the stops and dropped Moore in the middle of a spectacle, complete with exotic locations, beautiful girls, amazing gadgets, and a suitable world threatening plot. Only after the success of TSWLM did Moore really come into his own.
I'd like to think that the same thing would have happened to Dalton in his 3rd outing. Seeing that the audience response had been lukewarm to the past few movies, Cubby would have probably again loosened the purse strings and placed Dalton in the center of another commercially viable spectacle.
I think releasing a movie like LTK in 1989 was a bad creative decision. The tone of the film was too dark relative to the competition at the time and having Bond go rogue in only Dalton's 2nd outing probably made the film look even more alien and unappealing. If they had given Dalton a proper vehicle which balanced his strengths with a more traditional adventure and more of the trappings commonly associated with Bond (and saved LTK for when he had really become established), I really think he would have been embraced. It would have also been really fun to see a movie where Dalton "played it straight" even as he was surrounded by wild gadgetry and more outlandish villians. That kind of a dichotomoy (assuming of course Dalton went for it) might just have worked back in the early 90's.
It would have also been really fun to see a movie where Dalton "played it straight" even as he was surrounded by wild gadgetry and more outlandish villians. That kind of a dichotomoy (assuming of course Dalton went for it) might just have worked back in the early 90's.
I think you are absolutely right. Straight man in outlandish scenario seems to work very well. A prime example is Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black. Whilst I love LTK, I do think they needed to reign it in a little to satisfy the fans tastes and it sounds like they were heading in that direction before the the lawsuits took over. Bond fighting robots sounds about as far removed from LTK as you can get.
It would have also been really fun to see a movie where Dalton "played it straight" even as he was surrounded by wild gadgetry and more outlandish villians. That kind of a dichotomoy (assuming of course Dalton went for it) might just have worked back in the early 90's.
I think you are absolutely right. Straight man in outlandish scenario seems to work very well. A prime example is Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black. Whilst I love LTK, I do think they needed to reign it in a little to satisfy the fans tastes and it sounds like they were heading in that direction before the the lawsuits took over. Bond fighting robots sounds about as far removed from LTK as you can get.
I, too, agree. LTK would have been much better after audiences had warmed up to Dalton a bit. In that case, Dlaton's Bond 17 would have possibly been LTK. That throws a new light on the discussion: Would Licence to Kill released as Dalton's third film in 1991 have ruined the Bond franchise?
Roger Moore's first two Bond movies weren't exactly runaway hits either. But when it came time to film TSWLM Cubby Broccoli, in his infinite wisdom, pulled out all the stops and dropped Moore in the middle of a spectacle, complete with exotic locations, beautiful girls, amazing gadgets, and a suitable world threatening plot. Only after the success of TSWLM did Moore really come into his own.
I'd like to think that the same thing would have happened to Dalton in his 3rd outing. Seeing that the audience response had been lukewarm to the past few movies, Cubby would have probably again loosened the purse strings and placed Dalton in the center of another commercially viable spectacle.
I think releasing a movie like LTK in 1989 was a bad creative decision. The tone of the film was too dark relative to the competition at the time and having Bond go rogue in only Dalton's 2nd outing probably made the film look even more alien and unappealing. If they had given Dalton a proper vehicle which balanced his strengths with a more traditional adventure and more of the trappings commonly associated with Bond (and saved LTK for when he had really become established), I really think he would have been embraced. It would have also been really fun to see a movie where Dalton "played it straight" even as he was surrounded by wild gadgetry and more outlandish villians. That kind of a dichotomoy (assuming of course Dalton went for it) might just have worked back in the early 90's.
Excellent post,Tony.I actually like both of Dalton's films and his performances in each of them, but I'm also the first to admit that neither one is perfect and that while very good,the screenplays of both films really needed at least one more rewrite prior to filming.One screenplay--TLD--was considered a "generic" screenplay(Wilson's and Broccoli's and Maibaum's term),while the other--LTK--was completed during a writer's strike by Wilson in order to meet the deadline for the film's shooting.These films might also have benefited by having a newer director--someone more along the lines of the late,great Terence Young.Someone who could better utilize Dalton's intensity.
And had I called the shots,for Licence to Kill all of the "Isthimis" sequences would've been filmed in either Costa Rica or Puerto Rico--both of which are lush and green and more closely resemble Panama than the Mexican Rivera does.I'd also insist that Dalton use a wig(it worked for Connery) or get a hair weave.Minor but important points.
But to answer the topic's question--in my opinion,no,Timothy Dalton would not have ruined the Bond series had he starred in the 17th or even an 18th motion picture.If you don't like him as 007,fine.There's no question that Tim's 007 was a great departure from Roger Moore's lighter portrayal--but I think Dalton's darker interpretation of 007 is right on the money.It's every bit as sincere and valid as any other actor's take on the character.That Dalton actually took the time to reread Fleming prior and during filming in order to shape his interpretation of 007(even reducing his own dialogue) speaks volumes to me.Overall,I think he did a commendable job in his attempt to put something resembling Ian Fleming's literary iteration of Bond on the screen.It's not faultless,perhaps, but then no actor's interpretation has been.
Although not everyone finds Dalton's version of 007 appealing,surely no one really thinks that Dalton took the role with an eye towards somehow damaging the Bond series.Cubby Broccoli personally selected Tim to play James Bond,after all.Again,even if you don't like Dalton's movies,that's okay--but why not be fair-minded?
There's really a 007 for every taste,and it'd be terrible if Eon insisted that every one of their 007 actors behave in as an identical fashion as possible.I actually like seeing each man approach the character in his own manner with his own unique personalty informing his interpretation of Bond.This is the series that subtlely reinvents itself(in varying degrees)every time a different actor plays James Bond.I think this is a major reason why this particular series has lasted for over 40 years.
I understand that GoldenEye was intended to be Timothy Dalton's third James Bond film.This is what the original screenwriter Michael France has always claimed,and I believe him.In my opinion, had GoldenEye been made as planned following Licence to Kill(which was written specifically for Dalton)--without the additions by Purvis & Wade and with Timothy Dalton playing 007-- that it would have been for Dalton what The Spy Who Loved Me was for Roger Moore.
Were it not for the litigation I honestly think Cubby would have turned it around and Dalton would have made at least four films. It's been said before but things like 'Hawks' and 'The Rocketeer' showed that Dalton could have made a more traditional Bond film third time out.
Thankfully, we still have LIVING DAYLIGHTS, which is my second favorite Bond movie of all time.
Let me guess, your favourite is OHMSS. Am I right?
(My second guess is FRWL.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I wish I could credit my brilliant deduction skills, but it was actually pretty obvious!
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The 9 year absense did the franchise good. It built anticipation, which translated into powerful box office. I was living in New York City when GE opened and it was sold out on every screen for every showtime through midnight.
Had Dalton made Bond 17 in 1991 or so, I think it would have furthered hobbled the franchise. First off, the US (for the most part) never warmed to Dalton. But that debate aside, the 9 year interim led to a much-needed purging of the old creative staff and new writers and director. GE *felt* like a modern Bond movie in a way that LTK didn't. I've said it before: in 1989, Bond was still using exploding toothpaste and alarm-clock bombs. By the time GE came out, the franchise had been rooted firmly in the late 1990s, inclusing realtime staellite imagery, operations centers, and military hardware.
The 9 year absense did the franchise good. It built anticipation, which translated into powerful box office. I was living in New York City when GE opened and it was sold out on every screen for every showtime through midnight.
Had Dalton made Bond 17 in 1991 or so, I think it would have furthered hobbled the franchise. First off, the US (for the most part) never warmed to Dalton. But that debate aside, the 9 year interim led to a much-needed purging of the old creative staff and new writers and director. GE *felt* like a modern Bond movie in a way that LTK didn't. I've said it before: in 1989, Bond was still using exploding toothpaste and alarm-clock bombs. By the time GE came out, the franchise had been rooted firmly in the late 1990s, inclusing realtime staellite imagery, operations centers, and military hardware.
The Dalton Bonds performed abysmally in the US and, I believe, underperformed worldwide. There's no reason to believe that Bond 17 would have been any differet--especially with Glen at the helm. The franchise was pretty exhausted at that point, and Glen was never anything other than a perpetuator of the franchise.
As far as I'm concerned, the franchise was not exhausted by the late 80s. In fact, I believe that Dalton's style gave the franchise the jolt of energy it needed. People seemed too blind to realize this, despite the fact that many actors have been copying Dalton's style of the angst-filled secret agent for the past 15 years or so.
As for whether Dalton would have ruined the Bond franchise . . . you don't know. I don't know. No one knows. To assume that you would know is either pure arrogance on your part or you're simply projecting your own views of Dalton.
Of course we're all speculating here--I thought that went without saying. Some facts, however, are not conjecture.
1) The returns on the Bond films were decreasing steadily through the 1980s with the US (a large chunk of the overall revenues) dropping off drastically.
2) There was a small uptick in revenue for TLD, probably because of the interest in a new Bond. Still, it didn't beat FYEO.
3) LTK was the worst performing Bond film in the 1980s in the US (worldwide it barely squeeked out AVTAK). US admissions were 8 million--about half of TLD. This would seem to indicate that US viewers had sampled the new Bond and didn't like him. Compare this to Brosnan's sophomore outing which brought about 27 million people to the theatre. Whether Dalton was miscast or misunderstood, really is irrelevent if he wasn't bringing people into the theatre.
So, with a Bond actor that US audiences (I can't speak for audiences worldwide) weren't inclined to see, and a creative team that was responsible for a product that was streadily shedding consumers (at a fairly shocking rate), it seems likely to me that a Dalton (and Maibaum/Glen/etc.) Bond 17 would have been a further financial disappointment.
Of course it is possible that it would have been a huge success, the magic bullet that restarted the franchise. But, based on the above, I stand by my theory.
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
It's actually a very good question. Even for a Dalton fan like me, there are real doubts. I would have liked Dalton to appear in a third and even a fourth entry; but I believe the hiatus was good for the series because it allowed for a major rethinking of the Bond-movie aesthetic. It's not so much the Bond-image that needed rethinking, but the general recipe for how the entire movie should look. In that sense, GE started off a concept that was perfected in TWINE (and ruined in DAD)
I have to disagree with the no outcry in 1989. I remember it well too. There was no internet (as we know it now) to spread an outcry but many people were disappointed with the dark turn the series seemed to be taking (although some liked it). Overall by Bond standards this movie underperformed. AVTAK also did poorly at the box office and it was thought that Dalton could return Bond to blockbuster status but it did not happen.
Would a third Dalton movie killed the series? Probably not but another low box office turnout would have had the Dalton boo-birds coming out in droves.
To get back to the original question of "Would Dalton's Bond 17 [have] ruined Bond?" I think we should take a look at what little we know about the script rather than Dalton himself. So let me see if I have this right: Bond would have been fighting assassin robots and Whoopi Goldberg seemed likely to be cast as the villainess in this, a Bond film. Before I say anything else, I do not think that Timothy Dalton was either the best Bond (pre-YOLT Sean Connery) nor the worst Bond (AVTAK Roger Moore, though I normally like Moore's films). If I do have those script details right, though, then I have three words for you: Die Another Day.
As many of the defenders of Pierce Brosnan's Bond point out, he was given a bunch of bad scripts after (and depending on said person's point of view, including) GE and frankly, DAD came pretty close to killing the franchise despite its initial box office success. Brosnan played a good Bond in DAD, in my opinion, but the rest of the film so overshadowed him in its awfulness that he was almost made irrelevant. I've seen many comments here that neither FRWL Connery nor OHMSS Lazenby could save it.
This leads me to conclude that Dalton, good or bad, was irrelevant. Would any Bond fighting robots and Whoopi Goldberg look all that serious? Heck, nix Whoopi Goldberg. Just leave in the robots which were supposedly going to play a pretty prominent role. Of course the script didn't go far, and there were also rumors of Anthony Hopkins playing a potential villain, but recall Hopkins turning down the part of Elliot Carver in TND essentially because he thought it was too silly. To me, had this script progressed with the robots in their prominent role, I'll go back and say that it just would not have worked, no matter who was playing Bond. Had it been released, it could have had a DAD-like effect on the franchise and likely necessitated drastic changes (including possibly a change of Bond actor). Just my two cents.
I think its quite an interesting question tbh. Whilst I certainly don't think Dalton's GE would have "ruined Bond" as such, I doubt the film would have been quite as successful as it was had Dalton been in it. I remember when GE first came out in 1995 and how the reviews praised Brosnan's portrayal of Bond. They described him as "the best since Connery". In other words, he was a big part of the films success back then. Part of the exitement of GE was the fact that a new Bond was stepping into the famous tux.
A lot of people seem to say nowadays that Dalton should have done GE, and indeed it was originally written for him (the headbutts for instance). However, IMO its always been a Brosnan vehicle. The good thing about GE was that the audience was, once again, seeing a Bond who enjoyed life (as the opening playful car chase shows) and could also be a serious government agent. The former was something which IMO was missing in the Dalton era and is subsequently harder to imagine him doing. In 1995 people wanted a more "fun" Bond adventure.
I think the reason people warmed to Brosnan more than Dalton was because Pierce looked so relaxed and confident in the role. The public liked that.
Like darenhat, I don't believe another Dalton film would have hurt the series. Look at Roger Moore: his second Bond film did poor business in the U.S. and underperformed in Britain, was panned by much of the press, and was followed by a disruption in the management of EON when Harry Saltzman left. Many thought the series was doomed, but EON responded with The Spy Who Loved Me, a huge hit that led to audiences and critics accepting Moore and which ensured the survival of the series. Chances are, a third Dalton film might have been designed along the same lines as was TSWLM and would have delivered the same results.
If there had been a 3rd Dalton Bond film how would he turn up to face M after he had previously
jumped over the balcony and gone rogue in LTKill?
They tend to ignore these resignation events and in the next film start afresh.
There's no doubt Dalton wasn't catching on with audiences, though whether additional films would have remedied that (as they did for Moore) or not is something we'll never know. My personal belief is that they wouldn't, but who knows?
But the other boat anchor dragging down the franchise was the moribund creative team. Maibaum and Glen, in particular, were treating a franchise going into the 1990s as if it were still the '60s (or the '70s in the case of Glen, who seemed to feel that there was no stretch of film that couldn't be improved by a car chase in which vehicles got wrecked Smokey and the Bandit-style). While Tom Clancy was writing technothrillers about spy satellites, Bond films were still using explosive toothpaste.
I'm not sure a Dalton Bond 17 would have ruined the series singlehandedly, but without the scripter and helmer being swapped out, there's a good chance it would have crashed and burned as LTK did.
Well, considering Maibaum and Glen decided to leave after LTK, getting a writer and director prepared for what the 90's audience want on board could go in the film's favour. However, in terms on the possibility of Dalton becoming more popular with each film like Moore, did Moore being in something popular like "The Saint" beforehand had a hand in it?
Wow, thorough comments all round. A well re-activated post.
I agree with the posters above who mention the creative team. Dalton, for all his faults and successes, was not the reason audiences paled from TLD and LTK, it was the stale product. John Glen in particular seems on auto pilot from OP onwards and the movies from 1983 seem interminably long. No one seems to understand how to construct a simple, consise story which features one or two sterling villians and a classy heroine; hell, these films don't even look good - shoddy photography, cheap looking sets and naff suits.
Worth remembering, however, that the budget for 007 movies (in real terms) didn't go up from FYEO to LTK. Glen was effectively working on the cheap, which explains why the same technicians were hired; they did it for love and loyalty... Cubby's little family. There wasn't any recognition for working on a Bond movie in the '80s. It was like a private club you had to break into and once you were in it, you simply couldn't bear to leave.
I'm probably being unjust, but I think the Bond team was simply too comfortable in the 1980s. Dalton could have shaken them up so much with a new writer, director and editor, but it was simpler for Brocolli to stick with who he knows. Itw as the easy choice and the cheaper one.
The big story of GE was Brosnan's selling point about how he was passed over first time round but now had his big shot. A new Bond also makes for a new load of press. I don't think Dalton ever really worked with audiences much, due to his total lack in the humour department, though he's great as a villainous type in things like Hot Fuzz and La Plante's Framed. Dalton is great with us purist fans, or at least more accepted by us. And he would have leant gravitas to GE. I can't really see him snogging that girl sent out to evaluate him in Monarco, Dalton just didn't seem to 'get' sex much.
Anyhow, I think GE was reworked a heck of a lot once Brosnan was on board (though not enough imo, how come Bean was born at the end of WW2 but is 20 years too young? Because originally he was written as a mentor figure to Bond and it was fatherly rather than brotherly betrayal).
I can't really see him snogging that girl sent out to evaluate him in Monarco, Dalton just didn't seem to 'get' sex much.
That's the issue I had with Dalton as Bond aswell. He just didn't seem to have that school-boy enthusiasm for sex. When he tried to it seemed a little bit forced IMO.
What's more, judging by the various rumours and synopses floating around, Dalton's Bond 17 would have been a return to a more fantastical Bond, involving robot assassins and nuclear threats.
Sorry to bump, but I know I read a detailed description of this third Dalton film somewhere. Can anyone please point me toward such a read?
Comments
Firstly Dan, I personally think you are indeed subscribing to anti-Dalton bias and a bit of a passion for slamming the man in your evaluations of the quality of his acting in the role. You have said before in criticizing Dalton that, while he was the best in portraying the literary 007 (and you have said this; I will be more than happy to drag out the thread in which you did), he wasn't your idea of the literary incarnation. Now, when the topic is his actual acting in the role, you slam it; whereas before, by saying he was the best in portraying the literary 007, you implied otherwise. How can he be, as you have said, the epitome of the literary 007, and yet at the same time have given a subpar performance strictly in terms of acting? You may not have liked the tone of his performance, if you say that he is good at doing what he was trying to do, then you think he acted well in the part.
As for my assertion that any serious actor, director, critic, etc. would have praised Dalton's performance, well, here just a couple of examples I was able to scrounge up in about 5 minutes of Googling:
- Pierce Brosnan
- Roger Ebert, in a review of Licence to Kill
I would assume that both you and JFF would particularly respect the opinion of the former opiner given how both of you have commented regarding your admiration for his performance in the role of Bond. (An admiration that I share, given that I have him #2 on my list)
And JFF, regarding this doozy....
Firstly, just because a majority of audiences want the Bond that has been established over time doesn't mean that, assuming Dalton was striving to portray the literary 007, he performed poorly in interpreting the literary 007. Nor does the expectation or opinion of a majority of audiences, and the assumption that Dalton doesn't meet it, necessitate that he did performed poorly in the role or "ruined" the role; it just means that a majority of audiences don't like it. (If we assume that this is the case, which is quite an assumption)
Why do you think I wrote that?
Ciao
I'd like to think that the same thing would have happened to Dalton in his 3rd outing. Seeing that the audience response had been lukewarm to the past few movies, Cubby would have probably again loosened the purse strings and placed Dalton in the center of another commercially viable spectacle.
I think releasing a movie like LTK in 1989 was a bad creative decision. The tone of the film was too dark relative to the competition at the time and having Bond go rogue in only Dalton's 2nd outing probably made the film look even more alien and unappealing. If they had given Dalton a proper vehicle which balanced his strengths with a more traditional adventure and more of the trappings commonly associated with Bond (and saved LTK for when he had really become established), I really think he would have been embraced. It would have also been really fun to see a movie where Dalton "played it straight" even as he was surrounded by wild gadgetry and more outlandish villians. That kind of a dichotomoy (assuming of course Dalton went for it) might just have worked back in the early 90's.
I think you are absolutely right. Straight man in outlandish scenario seems to work very well. A prime example is Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black. Whilst I love LTK, I do think they needed to reign it in a little to satisfy the fans tastes and it sounds like they were heading in that direction before the the lawsuits took over. Bond fighting robots sounds about as far removed from LTK as you can get.
I, too, agree. LTK would have been much better after audiences had warmed up to Dalton a bit. In that case, Dlaton's Bond 17 would have possibly been LTK. That throws a new light on the discussion: Would Licence to Kill released as Dalton's third film in 1991 have ruined the Bond franchise?
Excellent post,Tony.I actually like both of Dalton's films and his performances in each of them, but I'm also the first to admit that neither one is perfect and that while very good,the screenplays of both films really needed at least one more rewrite prior to filming.One screenplay--TLD--was considered a "generic" screenplay(Wilson's and Broccoli's and Maibaum's term),while the other--LTK--was completed during a writer's strike by Wilson in order to meet the deadline for the film's shooting.These films might also have benefited by having a newer director--someone more along the lines of the late,great Terence Young.Someone who could better utilize Dalton's intensity.
And had I called the shots,for Licence to Kill all of the "Isthimis" sequences would've been filmed in either Costa Rica or Puerto Rico--both of which are lush and green and more closely resemble Panama than the Mexican Rivera does.I'd also insist that Dalton use a wig(it worked for Connery) or get a hair weave.Minor but important points.
But to answer the topic's question--in my opinion,no,Timothy Dalton would not have ruined the Bond series had he starred in the 17th or even an 18th motion picture.If you don't like him as 007,fine.There's no question that Tim's 007 was a great departure from Roger Moore's lighter portrayal--but I think Dalton's darker interpretation of 007 is right on the money.It's every bit as sincere and valid as any other actor's take on the character.That Dalton actually took the time to reread Fleming prior and during filming in order to shape his interpretation of 007(even reducing his own dialogue) speaks volumes to me.Overall,I think he did a commendable job in his attempt to put something resembling Ian Fleming's literary iteration of Bond on the screen.It's not faultless,perhaps, but then no actor's interpretation has been.
Although not everyone finds Dalton's version of 007 appealing,surely no one really thinks that Dalton took the role with an eye towards somehow damaging the Bond series.Cubby Broccoli personally selected Tim to play James Bond,after all.Again,even if you don't like Dalton's movies,that's okay--but why not be fair-minded?
There's really a 007 for every taste,and it'd be terrible if Eon insisted that every one of their 007 actors behave in as an identical fashion as possible.I actually like seeing each man approach the character in his own manner with his own unique personalty informing his interpretation of Bond.This is the series that subtlely reinvents itself(in varying degrees)every time a different actor plays James Bond.I think this is a major reason why this particular series has lasted for over 40 years.
I understand that GoldenEye was intended to be Timothy Dalton's third James Bond film.This is what the original screenwriter Michael France has always claimed,and I believe him.In my opinion, had GoldenEye been made as planned following Licence to Kill(which was written specifically for Dalton)--without the additions by Purvis & Wade and with Timothy Dalton playing 007-- that it would have been for Dalton what The Spy Who Loved Me was for Roger Moore.
(My second guess is FRWL.)
The 9 year absense did the franchise good. It built anticipation, which translated into powerful box office. I was living in New York City when GE opened and it was sold out on every screen for every showtime through midnight.
Had Dalton made Bond 17 in 1991 or so, I think it would have furthered hobbled the franchise. First off, the US (for the most part) never warmed to Dalton. But that debate aside, the 9 year interim led to a much-needed purging of the old creative staff and new writers and director. GE *felt* like a modern Bond movie in a way that LTK didn't. I've said it before: in 1989, Bond was still using exploding toothpaste and alarm-clock bombs. By the time GE came out, the franchise had been rooted firmly in the late 1990s, inclusing realtime staellite imagery, operations centers, and military hardware.
Actually it was six years, but very good points.
However, it's my understanding that Dalton was never too popular and is often ridiculed. I always liked him very much.
I would have liked to have seen a third Dalton; most of us would have loved it. But it's not something that bugs me as a "what if" scenario.
I don't look at that 5 year gap as a blackhole or anything. Just a timeout.
Of course we're all speculating here--I thought that went without saying. Some facts, however, are not conjecture.
1) The returns on the Bond films were decreasing steadily through the 1980s with the US (a large chunk of the overall revenues) dropping off drastically.
2) There was a small uptick in revenue for TLD, probably because of the interest in a new Bond. Still, it didn't beat FYEO.
3) LTK was the worst performing Bond film in the 1980s in the US (worldwide it barely squeeked out AVTAK). US admissions were 8 million--about half of TLD. This would seem to indicate that US viewers had sampled the new Bond and didn't like him. Compare this to Brosnan's sophomore outing which brought about 27 million people to the theatre. Whether Dalton was miscast or misunderstood, really is irrelevent if he wasn't bringing people into the theatre.
So, with a Bond actor that US audiences (I can't speak for audiences worldwide) weren't inclined to see, and a creative team that was responsible for a product that was streadily shedding consumers (at a fairly shocking rate), it seems likely to me that a Dalton (and Maibaum/Glen/etc.) Bond 17 would have been a further financial disappointment.
Of course it is possible that it would have been a huge success, the magic bullet that restarted the franchise. But, based on the above, I stand by my theory.
Would a third Dalton movie killed the series? Probably not but another low box office turnout would have had the Dalton boo-birds coming out in droves.
As many of the defenders of Pierce Brosnan's Bond point out, he was given a bunch of bad scripts after (and depending on said person's point of view, including) GE and frankly, DAD came pretty close to killing the franchise despite its initial box office success. Brosnan played a good Bond in DAD, in my opinion, but the rest of the film so overshadowed him in its awfulness that he was almost made irrelevant. I've seen many comments here that neither FRWL Connery nor OHMSS Lazenby could save it.
This leads me to conclude that Dalton, good or bad, was irrelevant. Would any Bond fighting robots and Whoopi Goldberg look all that serious? Heck, nix Whoopi Goldberg. Just leave in the robots which were supposedly going to play a pretty prominent role. Of course the script didn't go far, and there were also rumors of Anthony Hopkins playing a potential villain, but recall Hopkins turning down the part of Elliot Carver in TND essentially because he thought it was too silly. To me, had this script progressed with the robots in their prominent role, I'll go back and say that it just would not have worked, no matter who was playing Bond. Had it been released, it could have had a DAD-like effect on the franchise and likely necessitated drastic changes (including possibly a change of Bond actor). Just my two cents.
A lot of people seem to say nowadays that Dalton should have done GE, and indeed it was originally written for him (the headbutts for instance). However, IMO its always been a Brosnan vehicle. The good thing about GE was that the audience was, once again, seeing a Bond who enjoyed life (as the opening playful car chase shows) and could also be a serious government agent. The former was something which IMO was missing in the Dalton era and is subsequently harder to imagine him doing. In 1995 people wanted a more "fun" Bond adventure.
I think the reason people warmed to Brosnan more than Dalton was because Pierce looked so relaxed and confident in the role. The public liked that.
If there had been a 3rd Dalton Bond film how would he turn up to face M after he had previously
jumped over the balcony and gone rogue in LTKill?
They tend to ignore these resignation events and in the next film start afresh.
Bleuville.
Nah. The Goldeneye we got was just fine IMO. It started my love affair with everything Bond
There's no doubt Dalton wasn't catching on with audiences, though whether additional films would have remedied that (as they did for Moore) or not is something we'll never know. My personal belief is that they wouldn't, but who knows?
But the other boat anchor dragging down the franchise was the moribund creative team. Maibaum and Glen, in particular, were treating a franchise going into the 1990s as if it were still the '60s (or the '70s in the case of Glen, who seemed to feel that there was no stretch of film that couldn't be improved by a car chase in which vehicles got wrecked Smokey and the Bandit-style). While Tom Clancy was writing technothrillers about spy satellites, Bond films were still using explosive toothpaste.
I'm not sure a Dalton Bond 17 would have ruined the series singlehandedly, but without the scripter and helmer being swapped out, there's a good chance it would have crashed and burned as LTK did.
I agree with the posters above who mention the creative team. Dalton, for all his faults and successes, was not the reason audiences paled from TLD and LTK, it was the stale product. John Glen in particular seems on auto pilot from OP onwards and the movies from 1983 seem interminably long. No one seems to understand how to construct a simple, consise story which features one or two sterling villians and a classy heroine; hell, these films don't even look good - shoddy photography, cheap looking sets and naff suits.
Worth remembering, however, that the budget for 007 movies (in real terms) didn't go up from FYEO to LTK. Glen was effectively working on the cheap, which explains why the same technicians were hired; they did it for love and loyalty... Cubby's little family. There wasn't any recognition for working on a Bond movie in the '80s. It was like a private club you had to break into and once you were in it, you simply couldn't bear to leave.
I'm probably being unjust, but I think the Bond team was simply too comfortable in the 1980s. Dalton could have shaken them up so much with a new writer, director and editor, but it was simpler for Brocolli to stick with who he knows. Itw as the easy choice and the cheaper one.
Anyhow, I think GE was reworked a heck of a lot once Brosnan was on board (though not enough imo, how come Bean was born at the end of WW2 but is 20 years too young? Because originally he was written as a mentor figure to Bond and it was fatherly rather than brotherly betrayal).
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That's the issue I had with Dalton as Bond aswell. He just didn't seem to have that school-boy enthusiasm for sex. When he tried to it seemed a little bit forced IMO.
Sorry to bump, but I know I read a detailed description of this third Dalton film somewhere. Can anyone please point me toward such a read?