Dalton's Goldeneye would've been better than the Goldeneye we got.
Better, probably, but successful ? Who knows. TD was broadly well received at the time of TLD, but a number of factors stymied LTK, not least of which was ditching the UK for Mexico. The film just looks wrong. My guess (and it is a guess) is that the pendulum would have swung back towards a more traditional offering, pretty much as I suspect it will with Skyfall after the radical departure that was QOS. Both LTK and QOS were to some extent experiments and driven by the qualities of the new actor. A lot was made at the time that LTK was 'Dalton's Bond' and my guess is that some of that would have been reigned in for Dalton's third outing.
He is by far my favourite Bond, but fanboy as I am, I do concede that he was sometimes awkward in love scenes ( he was however **** hot with a Headbutt ) and a touch to dour or subtle depending upon your view for some. I have to accept that the public just loved Pierce in a way that they never did with Timothy. I don't think his 17 would have flopped, but it's unlikely that it would have been as successful as GE. It would have been damn fine though...
I personally enjoy and have viewed Timothy Dalton's two Bonds, yes even LTK. I find him a tad too dour and as mentioned awkward in love scenes, however he plays a very nice Bond!
I don't think him as the lead actor in Bond 17 would have been incredibly succesful, especislly not after LTK. That being said, it wouldn't be a failure either. A modest success perhaps.
Either way, I would watch it )
PPK 7.65mmSaratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,253MI6 Agent
As long as UA/MGM did not go forward with the rumored screen play for Bond 17 that keeps cropping up on line, and they learned from the mistakes of the poor US marketing campaign that LTK had and used good judgement in when to release the film, I am sure a third Dalton movie would have been great.
First off, to answer HalfHitMan HalfMonk's question, no, I don't know a comprehensive guide to the screenplay, but the plot synopsis has shown up on more than a few reputable Bond sites.
And that's exactly why I wrote the post I did the last time. In my opinion, no matter what you think of Dalton, you don't blame him for Bond 17 probably being a terrible film, you blame a screenplay that would have given us Bond fighting robots and Whoopi Goldberg as the Bond girl.
I've nothing against Whoopi Goldberg as an actress, but face it: even in 1989, she didn't fit the part of Bond girl. She could have worked as an odd sort of villain, I guess, and there are rumors she would have been, but as a sultry villain. Again, I don't think that would have worked out.
After withstanding Wai Lin, Christmas Jones, and Jinx, AND then getting someone after that in Vesper who WAS a good Bond girl (plus having Elektra King in TWINE), I think we probably all know what a Bond girl who isn't well-suited to the role is. Try as I might, I just can't picture Whoopi Goldberg as a Bond girl.
But all right, you say, let's say they cast someone else. Okay, fine, they cast someone else. Well, you're still left with a central plot of BOND FIGHTING ROBOTS.
On the website The Agony Booth, which some of you may know of and hilariously recaps really, really bad films, someone made the point that getting a good (actually very good) cast, having good production values, and writing a coherent plot isn't enough. They were referring to the film Night of the Lepus, which was a "mutated animal" movie that has all these things...and the huge mutated animals are, in the words of the recapper, "giant, killer bunny rabbits".
Even by 1989 standards, having Bond fight robots would have been comically cheesy. I don't care if it's Dalton or Brosnan or FRWL Connery. NO BOND (and frankly no Bond girl) could save a film involving Bond fighting robots.
My entire point is that Bond 17, had the robot plot element been implemented (and since rumors say it pretty much WAS the plot, I doubt it would have gone and even if it had, hastily throwing together a script when it became clear robots wouldn't work may have proven almost as bad), had the potential to ruin Bond completely and totally regardless of who was playing him.
Bond still would've survived if it had flopped......
This is true, but I didn't mean it would be the "end of Bond". That, I think, is something completely different from ruination. If you think about it, we already had Bond ruined: it was called Die Another Day. The result was a big hiatus and a totally new Bond in the Daniel Craig franchise that just distanced itself from the previous 20 films in almost every way conceivable while still having it recognizeable as a Bond film.
I think that had Bond 17 with robots and Whoopi Goldberg seen the light of day, we may have gotten a total continuity reboot (since one gets the distinct impression that the writers were thinking about it by watching GE...), but I agree, Bond would not have gone the way of the dodo.
I haven't read every post in this thread, but I want to respond to the initial question.
The question "Would Daltons Bond 17 [have] ruined bond?" assumes a false circumstance.
Grammatical error aside, why does everybody automatically assume that the star of a film is responsible for administrative and creative decisions made by other people? Dalton was not the problem.
Change that question to "Would Michael J. Wilson's Bond 17 [have] ruined bond?"
Dalton was enthusiastically received. He impressed fans and general audiences and critics alike. Everybody liked Dalton and appreciated the change he brought to the Bond films in 1987 and 1989. Audiences were less impressed with the film-making. Licence to Kill is okay, but it could have been infinitely better. It was ponderously, even amateurishly executed. Nobody could beat a scene to death like John Glen. He had no subtlety, no story discernment, no sense of tone and timing. He's a stunt director, not a dramatist, and he had learned nothing by his previous films. Then there was Michael Wilson, a no-talent hack who kept screwing up the scripts. Being a stepson who grows up watching from the sidelines may be an entitlement but it doesn't make you an artist, a writer or a filmmaker. Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera. I reiterate: Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera. Again: Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera. In front of the camera, Timothy Dalton is pitch-perfect. His performance can't be faulted. He defines James Bond. But he's also a baggy, balding mess because he wasn't getting the right angles, no attention from hair, make-up or wardrobe. This was deliberate and willful. Somebody set out to make him look bad. I'm reliably informed that Dalton was highly critical on the set of the script and the direction, and EON decided to take him down in front of everybody, to show him who's boss. Nevertheless, audiences responded to Dalton. He carries the film like the professional he is. Fans would have turned out to see him in the next film if there had been one.
Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera.
It could have been a James Bond masterpiece.
Someone mentioned above that Richard Maibaum decided not to return. Not so. After writing his best script, and watching it get screwed up yet again, he passed away in 1989.
Regarding The Property of a Lady (unfilmed, 1991) with Bond fighting robots and Whoopi Goldberg as a Bond girl / villainess, nobody can blame the actor for that. I don't believe Dalton would have accepted that script. He would have refused it. Yes, it would have sunk the franchise no matter who played the part. Credit for that stupid idea goes to Michael J. Wilson and his cronies. What better proof that the Bond franchise needed a change behind the camera. It still does.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
I wish John Boorman had directed Licence to Kill. He'd have worked wonders with that script. Or perhaps Mike Hodges.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
"In front of the camera, Timothy Dalton is pitch-perfect. His performance can't be faulted. He defines James Bond. But he's also a baggy, balding mess because he wasn't getting the right angles, no attention from hair, make-up or wardrobe. This was deliberate and willful. Somebody set out to make him look bad. I'm reliably informed that Dalton was highly critical on the set of the script and the direction, and EON decided to take him down in front of everybody, to show him who's boss. Nevertheless, audiences responded to Dalton. He carries the film like the professional he is. Fans would have turned out to see him in the next film if there had been one.
Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera.
It could have been a James Bond masterpiece."
It's interesting you bring this up, because it's a vibe I've always gotten from the film. To begin with, "Licence to Kill" is probably my favorite Bond film. I know it strays heavily from the formula, but I love it. Dalton's perfectly ruthless and Davi is the best villain the franchise has ever seen, Goldfinger be damned. I don't care how cool Goldfinger was. He died by getting sucked out of a window. Anticlimactic is an understatement.
Back to you statement, subsequent viewings of the film have allowed me to see the things you pointed out. A couple of camera angles where you can see a bald spot on Dalton. The terrible hairstyle they gave him in the casino scenes. The ill-fitting suits they dressed him in. These are things that never would have flown in any of the other films of the franchise. Yet poor Timothy Dalton had to play James Bond while sporting terrible hairdoos and gunneysack suits. The fact that he still pulls it off is a testament to the actor, and indeed, Upon reviewing some of the earlier threads on here, I'm sorry, but "Licence to Kill" WAS Timothy Dalton's, and there isn't a single actor in the franchise, save for Daniel Craig, that could have pulled off the film the way Dalton did. Connery would have done ok, but not great, and Lazenby, Moore, and Brosnan would have been totally out of their element.
While I agree with the idea that Eon had it out for Dalton, I honestly don't think Cubby Broccoli himself did. I think Cubby was thrilled to no end that he'd finally signed Dalton in the role. He asked Dalton no less than four times to play the role. If Dalton had decided to come back for "Goldeneye", I think Broccoli, even in ill health, would have fought for his return. But at 50, I don't blame Dalton for walking. Even though he still looked good, Bond's meant for a man in his late 30s-40s.
Dalton was cut an unfair hand right from the start. After having to decline "The Living Daylights" because of the "Brenda Starr" shooting conflict, Brosnan was then the high-profile selection. Everyone wanted him because they were enamored with "Remington Steele" (I watched a few episodes on cable a few weeks ago. I fail to see what was so great about it) when NBC screwed Brosnan over, allowing Dalton to take over, there was already a pre-programmed vibe that Dalton was the 2nd choice, despite the fact he'd been offered the role first.
I've watched "TLD" and "LTK" countless times, and I fail to see what the Hell is wrong with Dalton's James Bond. his love scene with Kara in Afghanistan seems spontaneous and real. Touched with the humor of her calling him a horses arse. Same with the scene between him and Pam Bovier. The boat horn startling them both, causing them to laugh, seems so real. And lets be honest. Roger Moore in that scene would have resulted in the boat horn going off another 5 times before they cut away from the scene. His humor in "TLD" is just fine. I love the alternating way the ice chase scene goes. He tries to play along with her for a bit "Salt Corrosion....Must be an atmospheric anomaly". Then he gives up the pretense a little when he's getting set to blow up the semi, then it's right back with "Amazing, this modern safety glass!"
Bond 17 would have been fine with Dalton. As would "Goldeneye". Everyone was hot to have Brosnan as Bond, and when that happened, they went right back to the crap that got them in trouble with Roger Moore, and once again drove the franchise into the ground. Everyone praising Brosnan at the expense of Dalton needs to remember that Brosnan, in the history of the franchise, is the only actor to have basically been fired from the role. I remember I really liked Brosnan as Bond when first watching his films. But subsequent viewings have exposed a number of faults and of his films, I only watch "Goldeneye" with any regularity. Brosnan's Bond is less his own creation and more of what it seems he was told to do (Brosnan himself has said he was told how to play the character, instead of being able to offer an interpretation. It shows. He's a Connery/Moore hybrid.)
Comments
Better, probably, but successful ? Who knows. TD was broadly well received at the time of TLD, but a number of factors stymied LTK, not least of which was ditching the UK for Mexico. The film just looks wrong. My guess (and it is a guess) is that the pendulum would have swung back towards a more traditional offering, pretty much as I suspect it will with Skyfall after the radical departure that was QOS. Both LTK and QOS were to some extent experiments and driven by the qualities of the new actor. A lot was made at the time that LTK was 'Dalton's Bond' and my guess is that some of that would have been reigned in for Dalton's third outing.
He is by far my favourite Bond, but fanboy as I am, I do concede that he was sometimes awkward in love scenes ( he was however **** hot with a Headbutt ) and a touch to dour or subtle depending upon your view for some. I have to accept that the public just loved Pierce in a way that they never did with Timothy. I don't think his 17 would have flopped, but it's unlikely that it would have been as successful as GE. It would have been damn fine though...
I don't think him as the lead actor in Bond 17 would have been incredibly succesful, especislly not after LTK. That being said, it wouldn't be a failure either. A modest success perhaps.
Either way, I would watch it
First off, to answer HalfHitMan HalfMonk's question, no, I don't know a comprehensive guide to the screenplay, but the plot synopsis has shown up on more than a few reputable Bond sites.
And that's exactly why I wrote the post I did the last time. In my opinion, no matter what you think of Dalton, you don't blame him for Bond 17 probably being a terrible film, you blame a screenplay that would have given us Bond fighting robots and Whoopi Goldberg as the Bond girl.
I've nothing against Whoopi Goldberg as an actress, but face it: even in 1989, she didn't fit the part of Bond girl. She could have worked as an odd sort of villain, I guess, and there are rumors she would have been, but as a sultry villain. Again, I don't think that would have worked out.
After withstanding Wai Lin, Christmas Jones, and Jinx, AND then getting someone after that in Vesper who WAS a good Bond girl (plus having Elektra King in TWINE), I think we probably all know what a Bond girl who isn't well-suited to the role is. Try as I might, I just can't picture Whoopi Goldberg as a Bond girl.
But all right, you say, let's say they cast someone else. Okay, fine, they cast someone else. Well, you're still left with a central plot of BOND FIGHTING ROBOTS.
On the website The Agony Booth, which some of you may know of and hilariously recaps really, really bad films, someone made the point that getting a good (actually very good) cast, having good production values, and writing a coherent plot isn't enough. They were referring to the film Night of the Lepus, which was a "mutated animal" movie that has all these things...and the huge mutated animals are, in the words of the recapper, "giant, killer bunny rabbits".
Even by 1989 standards, having Bond fight robots would have been comically cheesy. I don't care if it's Dalton or Brosnan or FRWL Connery. NO BOND (and frankly no Bond girl) could save a film involving Bond fighting robots.
My entire point is that Bond 17, had the robot plot element been implemented (and since rumors say it pretty much WAS the plot, I doubt it would have gone and even if it had, hastily throwing together a script when it became clear robots wouldn't work may have proven almost as bad), had the potential to ruin Bond completely and totally regardless of who was playing him.
This is true, but I didn't mean it would be the "end of Bond". That, I think, is something completely different from ruination. If you think about it, we already had Bond ruined: it was called Die Another Day. The result was a big hiatus and a totally new Bond in the Daniel Craig franchise that just distanced itself from the previous 20 films in almost every way conceivable while still having it recognizeable as a Bond film.
I think that had Bond 17 with robots and Whoopi Goldberg seen the light of day, we may have gotten a total continuity reboot (since one gets the distinct impression that the writers were thinking about it by watching GE...), but I agree, Bond would not have gone the way of the dodo.
It is if it's the one with Dalton supposed to be fighting robots with Whoopi Goldberg as a Bond girl.
The question "Would Daltons Bond 17 [have] ruined bond?" assumes a false circumstance.
Grammatical error aside, why does everybody automatically assume that the star of a film is responsible for administrative and creative decisions made by other people? Dalton was not the problem.
Change that question to "Would Michael J. Wilson's Bond 17 [have] ruined bond?"
Dalton was enthusiastically received. He impressed fans and general audiences and critics alike. Everybody liked Dalton and appreciated the change he brought to the Bond films in 1987 and 1989. Audiences were less impressed with the film-making. Licence to Kill is okay, but it could have been infinitely better. It was ponderously, even amateurishly executed. Nobody could beat a scene to death like John Glen. He had no subtlety, no story discernment, no sense of tone and timing. He's a stunt director, not a dramatist, and he had learned nothing by his previous films. Then there was Michael Wilson, a no-talent hack who kept screwing up the scripts. Being a stepson who grows up watching from the sidelines may be an entitlement but it doesn't make you an artist, a writer or a filmmaker. Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera. I reiterate: Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera. Again: Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera. In front of the camera, Timothy Dalton is pitch-perfect. His performance can't be faulted. He defines James Bond. But he's also a baggy, balding mess because he wasn't getting the right angles, no attention from hair, make-up or wardrobe. This was deliberate and willful. Somebody set out to make him look bad. I'm reliably informed that Dalton was highly critical on the set of the script and the direction, and EON decided to take him down in front of everybody, to show him who's boss. Nevertheless, audiences responded to Dalton. He carries the film like the professional he is. Fans would have turned out to see him in the next film if there had been one.
Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera.
It could have been a James Bond masterpiece.
Someone mentioned above that Richard Maibaum decided not to return. Not so. After writing his best script, and watching it get screwed up yet again, he passed away in 1989.
Regarding The Property of a Lady (unfilmed, 1991) with Bond fighting robots and Whoopi Goldberg as a Bond girl / villainess, nobody can blame the actor for that. I don't believe Dalton would have accepted that script. He would have refused it. Yes, it would have sunk the franchise no matter who played the part. Credit for that stupid idea goes to Michael J. Wilson and his cronies. What better proof that the Bond franchise needed a change behind the camera. It still does.
Richard
Richard
Licence to Kill needed a change behind the camera.
It could have been a James Bond masterpiece."
It's interesting you bring this up, because it's a vibe I've always gotten from the film. To begin with, "Licence to Kill" is probably my favorite Bond film. I know it strays heavily from the formula, but I love it. Dalton's perfectly ruthless and Davi is the best villain the franchise has ever seen, Goldfinger be damned. I don't care how cool Goldfinger was. He died by getting sucked out of a window. Anticlimactic is an understatement.
Back to you statement, subsequent viewings of the film have allowed me to see the things you pointed out. A couple of camera angles where you can see a bald spot on Dalton. The terrible hairstyle they gave him in the casino scenes. The ill-fitting suits they dressed him in. These are things that never would have flown in any of the other films of the franchise. Yet poor Timothy Dalton had to play James Bond while sporting terrible hairdoos and gunneysack suits. The fact that he still pulls it off is a testament to the actor, and indeed, Upon reviewing some of the earlier threads on here, I'm sorry, but "Licence to Kill" WAS Timothy Dalton's, and there isn't a single actor in the franchise, save for Daniel Craig, that could have pulled off the film the way Dalton did. Connery would have done ok, but not great, and Lazenby, Moore, and Brosnan would have been totally out of their element.
While I agree with the idea that Eon had it out for Dalton, I honestly don't think Cubby Broccoli himself did. I think Cubby was thrilled to no end that he'd finally signed Dalton in the role. He asked Dalton no less than four times to play the role. If Dalton had decided to come back for "Goldeneye", I think Broccoli, even in ill health, would have fought for his return. But at 50, I don't blame Dalton for walking. Even though he still looked good, Bond's meant for a man in his late 30s-40s.
Dalton was cut an unfair hand right from the start. After having to decline "The Living Daylights" because of the "Brenda Starr" shooting conflict, Brosnan was then the high-profile selection. Everyone wanted him because they were enamored with "Remington Steele" (I watched a few episodes on cable a few weeks ago. I fail to see what was so great about it) when NBC screwed Brosnan over, allowing Dalton to take over, there was already a pre-programmed vibe that Dalton was the 2nd choice, despite the fact he'd been offered the role first.
I've watched "TLD" and "LTK" countless times, and I fail to see what the Hell is wrong with Dalton's James Bond. his love scene with Kara in Afghanistan seems spontaneous and real. Touched with the humor of her calling him a horses arse. Same with the scene between him and Pam Bovier. The boat horn startling them both, causing them to laugh, seems so real. And lets be honest. Roger Moore in that scene would have resulted in the boat horn going off another 5 times before they cut away from the scene. His humor in "TLD" is just fine. I love the alternating way the ice chase scene goes. He tries to play along with her for a bit "Salt Corrosion....Must be an atmospheric anomaly". Then he gives up the pretense a little when he's getting set to blow up the semi, then it's right back with "Amazing, this modern safety glass!"
Bond 17 would have been fine with Dalton. As would "Goldeneye". Everyone was hot to have Brosnan as Bond, and when that happened, they went right back to the crap that got them in trouble with Roger Moore, and once again drove the franchise into the ground. Everyone praising Brosnan at the expense of Dalton needs to remember that Brosnan, in the history of the franchise, is the only actor to have basically been fired from the role. I remember I really liked Brosnan as Bond when first watching his films. But subsequent viewings have exposed a number of faults and of his films, I only watch "Goldeneye" with any regularity. Brosnan's Bond is less his own creation and more of what it seems he was told to do (Brosnan himself has said he was told how to play the character, instead of being able to offer an interpretation. It shows. He's a Connery/Moore hybrid.)