Timothy Dalton is Failure
Secret Asian Man
Posts: 18MI6 Agent
Why is Timothy Dalton a failure as James Bond. Im was very exciting that was James Bond in 87 after Piece Brosnan couldn't make the part.
Piece Brosnan being casting as James Bond is what got me interested in 007. So, when Timothy Dalton replaced him, Im was equally as happy because I liked him as Baron in Flash Gordon.
Why did he do so bad as James Bond. Im mean he is handsome enough and a professional actor with real training. Im just wondering why people hate him and he failed so badly when it came to getting customers to watch his 007 movies. Thank you for answering my questions.
Piece Brosnan being casting as James Bond is what got me interested in 007. So, when Timothy Dalton replaced him, Im was equally as happy because I liked him as Baron in Flash Gordon.
Why did he do so bad as James Bond. Im mean he is handsome enough and a professional actor with real training. Im just wondering why people hate him and he failed so badly when it came to getting customers to watch his 007 movies. Thank you for answering my questions.
Comments
On the otherhand, License To Kill is probably one of the weakest Bond films to date - but that isn't Dalton's fault.
Some have been less than happy with his serious look at the 007 character, coming as it did after Roger Moore's very popular light-hearted Bond. This does not make Dalton a failure; with the full backing of Eon, his different take was a perfectly valid one which has clear echoes today.
I completely agree . . . I thought Dalton was a great Bond. He remained true to Fleming's literary creation. I enjoyed the dark, gritty edge so evident in the Dalton films. Although LTK is routinely derided by many, I actually enjoyed the film for its stark realism.
That's why I enjoyed CR so much . . . Daniel Craig has made Bond human again.
Im agree with this too much. Man, when I saw Living Daylights it was my favorite James Bond movie and I was so excited. I could not wait too much longer for the next Timothy Dalton movie to come out. Im waited for two years and when Licence to Kill finally come out, the very day I woke my cousin up early at 6:00 to make the first show. We waited for hours and you know what? There was no line. There was only a few people to watch the film.
So, me too! I love the Living Daylights but Licence to Kill is the worst James Bond movie.
*looks around for JFF*
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
-the budgets were not big enough.
-people were used to the joking Roger Moore
-Failed marketing against tough competition
Care to expand on that?
Forgive me, 006, but I don't think Brosnan's portray of Bond was close to Fleming's literary portrayal. Dalton came very close . . . and I think Daniel Craig might have actually hit the mark.
David Niven?
"Better make that two."
Unfortunately, the second Bond does tell. But he had crushing opposition. The summer of 1989 is still fresh in my mind and I can remember the sheer volume of advertising for BATMAN. Every wall was covered in the posters, every newspaper carried Jack Nicholson, and the sheer hype was unbelievable. Not just that. It was also up against Lethal Weapon 2 and Indiana Jones. Licence to Kill was released after all three and didnt have a chance.
It was a pretty lacklustre advertising campaign. But most people that summer went to see BATMAN because that was the one who shouted loudest.
Timothy Dalton was replaced by Pierce Brosnan.
So when you say Brosnan was closer to Fleming's interpretation, perhaps you mean Dalton?
And therefore this thread should be titled 'Pierce Brosnan is a failure'?
To put it simply, LTK is weak and it's not because of Dalton.
Dalton is my third choice for Bond behind Connery and Craig
Perhaps they should have released LTK in November as they've done with recent Bond movies. Might have done better at the box office.
I think Secret Asian Man is referring to 86, when Brosnan got the role, then lost it thanks to the producers of Remington Steele and Dalton took over.
In a third movie well, things should be different. but it was all because the legal problems and the poor performance or LTK, again, for marketing problems.
THat looks nothing like Rupert Everett, to me.
In fact, I would say if it looks like anyone, it looks most closely to Dalton.
For reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/255000/images/_257422_timothy_dalton150.jpg
He does MNL. But with all due respect to Fleming, Brett doesn't look right to me for Bond, although that may be because he was such a great Holmes.
All the speculation of what Fleming had in his mind's eye when he created the character is pretty thin, IMO. What does very handsome mean? What does an American movie star look like? Depends on the star. I think he left it very vague, and deliberately so. I think the person he saw as he was writing the novels was none other than Ian Fleming. He was far to more likely to describe Bond in character-like terms, like serious, taciturn, cruel ...
But I don't think Dalton was a failure. The problem with so many of the films in my view was the script, not the actor. Craig benefited from the best Bond script we've seen in a long time IMO.
Correct, you are!
In fact, it looks most like the LTK casino-scene Dalton with the slicked-back Dracula hair... the one everyone criticizes.
I've always thought it would have been cool to see Dalton in GoldenEye . . .
Dalton's biggest problem was that he just didn't have the looks. That nose of his made it difficult to believe in him as the suave, debonair ladies-man that we had come to expect from Bond. He was more believable as a Nazi villain in The Rocketeer. But that's not to fault his acting, which, as Bond, was the equal of any of them. Once the legal wranglings between 1989 and 1995 were finally sorted out, and Brosnan came along, it was a different world, the Cold War was over, and Brosnan brought a different sense to the character, one that, in retrospect, was probably appropriate to the "Roaring '90s", as I expect they will one day be called, a time of peace and prosperity, ignoring the ominous clouds on the horizon. The new Bond, while reflecting more closely to the original Bond of the early Cold War years, also reflects more closely on our own more violent and primal times. Such is the cycle of history, I suppose.
I disagree. Timothy Dalton's looks was one of his strongest suits, apart from the Dracula haircut in LTK.
I find it easy to believe that the ladies would fall for his Bond. He was suave and debonair, but not in the same way as say Roger Moore. With Roger it was more natural and it seemed to fit his Bond like a glove.
Overall, perhaps Dalton was too serious and the charm, wit and suaveness did not appear to come to his Bond so easily. One thing's for sure though, I certainly do not regard him as a failure in any way.
Well said. Although I think the PTS on Gibraltar in TLD is one of the best of the series. I think Dalton was a fine Bond, but like just about all the actors, had to make do with subpar, unmemorable scripts.
I am one of the very few who actually prefers Timothy Dalton's intro to Sean Connery's. Yes, I know Connery's intro is iconic, but I just love that first shot of Dalton as he turns round to look after hearing the dying scream of his fellow agent.
Wasn't Dalton tall, dark and handsome? The bloke now playing Bond looks like a plumber from Dagenham. My equation on the last three James Bonds goes like this:
I accepted Pierce Brosnan as James Bond but not as a 'real' person/character.
I accepted Daniel Craig as a real person/character but not as James Bond.
I accepted Timothy Dalton as a real person/character and as James Bond.
Therefore, Timothy Dalton wins IMO.
Same, its tatooed on my brain
"Better make that two."