what was the real Dalton made only two films?

perdogg

I have always been under the impression the continuing law suit regarding the Bond franchise delayed the third movie, but according to "everything or nothing" I was left with the impression that the studio was unwilling to fund a declining franchise.

What was the real reason?

Sir Miles

The real reason ? A six year gap....Dalton getting poor reviews....the last film not doing as well as they hoped...Dalton had had enough....he had a three film contract and would have honoured it...but they ALL felt a need for a fresh start...that's all...

zaphod

I have always had a 'did he jump or was he pushed' feeling about it, but agree it probably was a joint decision. A real shame, and the biggest what if of the series. I somehow feel that although he delighted many of the hard core fan base that for some reason he was unlikely to capture the general public, perhaps to private as a person for the public to really get to know. Great shame, as I doubt that we will ever see a finer Bond.

dr. evan-gelist

It is common Knowledge that Broccolli and Wilson were disappointed he left.

chrisisall

Sir Miles wrote:

....Dalton getting poor reviews....the last film not doing as well as they hoped...

An aggressive marketing campaign would have helped tremendously to get the public prepared- something along the lines of "Ian Fleming's Bond bursts from the screen in all his Double-O disavowed fury! The villains have taken it too far this time, made it too personal... and so will Bond..."
Y'know, in that sensational late 80's lingo. )

James Suzuki

) Sounds almost 60 s Chrissial! What about a picture of a blown up tanker, a dead corpse and people screaming. WHEN BOND, JAMES BOND IS ANGRY.....YOU'RE IN THE SH*T.

chrisisall

James Suzuki wrote:

) Sounds almost 60 s Chrissial! What about a picture of a blown up tanker, a dead corpse and people screaming. WHEN BOND, JAMES BOND IS ANGRY.....YOU'RE IN THE SH*T.

)

Sir Miles

chrisisall wrote:

Sir Miles wrote:

....Dalton getting poor reviews....the last film not doing as well as they hoped...

An aggressive marketing campaign would have helped tremendously to get the public prepared- something along the lines of "Ian Fleming's Bond bursts from the screen in all his Double-O disavowed fury! The villains have taken it too far this time, made it too personal... and so will Bond..."
Y'know, in that sensational late 80's lingo. )

Maybe...but they didn't have the money...that's why they filmed in Mexico...

chrisisall

Sir Miles wrote:

Maybe...but they didn't have the money...that's why they filmed in Mexico...

Yeah, still, my second favourite Bond movie! -{

Jarvio

A number of reasons. The legal issues, the financial failure of LTK, Dalton getting mediocre reviews, and Dalton's frustration with the hiatus (of which I can't blame him).

Such a shame. TLD and LTK are fine entries, and a 3rd and 4th Dalton film would have been perfect.

AlphaOmegaSin

I wonder if Goldeneye would have been better with Dalton.

DEFIANT 74205

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I wonder if Goldeneye would have been better with Dalton.

Undoubtedly.

Silhouette Man

I think Dalton would have stayed had they released Property of A Lady in 1991 or 1993, by 1995 he probably thought that it was just too late! Just my thoughts...plus EON wanted a new fresh start with a new frsh actor in the form of Pierce Brosnan!

AlphaOmegaSin

Silhouette Man wrote:

I think Dalton would have stayed had they released Property of A Lady in 1991 or 1993, by 1995 he probably thought that it was just too late! Just my thoughts...plus EON wanted a new fresh start with a new frsh actor in the form of Pierce Brosnan!

They were going to make a Film Version of POAL?

perdogg

From what I understand through the rumor mill POAL was supposed to involved Scotland and Hong Kong and involve fembots.

Q and M

Have to remember that at the start of the Goldeneye process, Dalton was still very much Bond. He was quoted as saying in 1993 that Michael France was working on the next film and that production would begin in early 1994. A real shame he pulled out, but after 5 years who could blame him. I wish he had stayed on!!! although i am a little bias as he is my favourite bond

Moore Than

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I wonder if Goldeneye would have been better with Dalton.

There is another what if question. Would Goldeneye have grossed more at the box office with Timothy Dalton as Bond? I think not, Pierce Brosnan was more popular, especially in the US.

Dalton was unfortunate, the right man at the wrong time.

Silhouette Man

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

I think Dalton would have stayed had they released Property of A Lady in 1991 or 1993, by 1995 he probably thought that it was just too late! Just my thoughts...plus EON wanted a new fresh start with a new frsh actor in the form of Pierce Brosnan!

They were going to make a Film Version of POAL?

Yes, there are a number of articles online regarding this!

AlphaOmegaSin

perdogg wrote:

From what I understand through the rumor mill POAL was supposed to involved Scotland and Hong Kong and involve fembots.

And I suppose they would have Machine Gun Fire from there Breasts?

Silhouette Man

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

perdogg wrote:

From what I understand through the rumor mill POAL was supposed to involved Scotland and Hong Kong and involve fembots.

And I suppose they would have Machine Gun Fire from there Breasts?

You watch too many Katy Perry videos, my friend! )

AlphaOmegaSin

Silhouette Man wrote:

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

perdogg wrote:

From what I understand through the rumor mill POAL was supposed to involved Scotland and Hong Kong and involve fembots.

And I suppose they would have Machine Gun Fire from there Breasts?

You watch too many Katy Perry videos, my friend! )

Not in this Lifetime )

Richard--W

Jarvio wrote:

A number of reasons. The legal issues, the financial failure of LTK, Dalton getting mediocre reviews, and Dalton's frustration with the hiatus (of which I can't blame him).

Such a shame. TLD and LTK are fine entries, and a 3rd and 4th Dalton film would have been perfect.

I was around when those films were new and I remember nothing but positive, enthusiastic reviews for Timothy Dalton and positive, enthusiastic audience reactions in the USA. People had issues with the films, but not with Dalton. Dalton is the one factor everybody liked. Everybody appreciated Dalton. I know MGM wanted to ditch John Glen but EON wanted to stick with him no matter what it cost them in good will and cooperation. The prevailing opinion was that Glen was a plodding mediocrity who couldn't block the simplest dialog interaction. Which is true. He certainly knew how to flog an action scene into a dead horse. But he also brought a lot of energy and realism to the films which was needed at the time.

Napoleon Plural

Dunno, the audience doesn't lie. No real laughter at the gags going on there, no great upswell of goodwill that I felt during the Moore tenure. Or that you got in the Lethal Weapon series, or the Indy movie that year etc.

Blackleiter

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Dunno, the audience doesn't lie. No real laughter at the gags going on there, no great upswell of goodwill that I felt during the Moore tenure. Or that you got in the Lethal Weapon series, or the Indy movie that year etc.

Well the audiences with which I watched TLD and LTK must have been lying, because as I recall they carried on like they were having a terrific time at the movies. I know I did!

HowardB

At least in the USA, the critics loved Dalton along with the public. LTK was far from a flop and made a tidy profit at the box office but suffered from poor marketing and a huge blunder in releasing it in the summer of Batman, Indiana Jones, etc.
From everything I have read, Dalton moved on as a result of the lawsuits and the passage of time. Would have been interesting to see Dalton as Bond in Goldeneye where they may have been able to strike a balance between the more fanciful elements of TLD and the brutality of LTK. IMO, from what I have seen of Dalton lately, he still looks like he could put on a good hairpiece and play a convincing old Bond in his twilght.

Always thought they could do a Bond remake/adaptation of "Robin and Marian" with Dalton as a retired Bond coming back to rescue Moneypenny from the clutches of an old nemesis.

Firemass

from wikipedia

Dalton's first appearance as 007, The Living Daylights (1987) was critically successful, and grossed more than the previous two Bond films with Moore, as well as contemporary box-office rivals such as Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. However, his second film, Licence to Kill (1989), although almost as successful as its predecessor in most markets, did not perform as well at the U.S. box office, in large part due to a lacklustre marketing campaign, after the title of the film was abruptly changed from Licence Revoked. The main factor for the lack of success in the U.S. was that it was released at the same time as the hugely successful Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Tim Burton's Batman, and Lethal Weapon 2, during the summer blockbuster season. In the United Kingdom - one of its critical markets, the film was also hampered by receiving a 15 certificate from the British Board of Film Classification which severely affected its commercial success. Future Bond films, following the resolution of legal and other issues, were all released between 31 October and mid-December, in order to avoid the risk of a summer failure, as had happened to Licence To Kill.
With a worldwide gross of $191 million, The Living Daylights became the fourth most successful Bond film at the time of its release. In 1998 the second Deluxe Edition of Bond's Soundtracks was released. The Living Daylights was one of the first soundtracks to receive Deluxe treatment. The booklet/poster of this CD contains MGM's quote about The Living Daylights being the fourth most successful Bond film.
Since Dalton was contracted for three Bond films,[13] the pre-production of his third film began in 1990, in order to be released in 1991. What was confirmed is that the story would deal with the destruction of a chemical weapons laboratory in Scotland, and the events would take place in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong. However, the film was cancelled due to legal issues between UA/MGM and Eon Productions, which lasted for four years.[14]
The legal battle ended in 1993, and Dalton was expected to return as James Bond in the next Bond film, which later became GoldenEye. Despite his contract having expired, negotiations with him to renew it took place.[15] In an interview with the Daily Mail in August 1993, Dalton indicated that Michael France was writing the screenplay for the new film, and the production was to begin in January or February 1994.[16] When the deadline was not met, Dalton surprised everyone on 12 April 1994 with the announcement that he would not return as James Bond. At this time, he was shooting the mini-series Scarlett. The announcement for the new Bond came two months later, with Pierce Brosnan playing the role. Dalton reflected in 2007, "I was supposed to make one more but it was cancelled because MGM and the film's producers got into a lawsuit which lasted for five years. After that, I didn't want to do it any more."[17]

tigersharka

I prefer License to Kill...Dalton is extremely good...and I was luck enough to visit the location where it was filmed at Villa Arabesque...amazing!

Higgins

Richard--W wrote:

I was around when those films were new and I remember nothing but positive, enthusiastic reviews for Timothy Dalton and positive, enthusiastic audience reactions in the USA. People had issues with the films, but not with Dalton. Dalton is the one factor everybody liked. Everybody appreciated Dalton...

HowardB wrote:

At least in the USA, the critics loved Dalton along with the public. LTK was far from a flop and made a tidy profit at the box office but suffered from poor marketing and a huge blunder in releasing it in the summer of Batman, Indiana Jones, etc.

That's far from the truth.

Particularly in the US and my I add - also in Germany, Dalton was never well accepted.
Not by the critics and not by the audience.

And being known as a Bond nut - everyone who approached me about "that new guy Dalton" was doing it in a sense of 8-) 8-) 8-)

The argument that it was wrong to let it run against Indiana Jones and others never made sense to me.
If a movie and it's main actor is well accepted, why does it necessarily flop against the other blockbusters?

It just says, that the audience decided that Bond was less appealing than the other movie for a reason and in that case, it was mostly the main actor and his overly serious approach to the role, which has never convinced me.

One must also know that most of the previous Bond movies have been released in the summer months - so that can be hardly an excuse for the not really good box office results.

Sir Miles

But it was that particular year where a plethora of summer blockbuster movies were released (possibly the first ?)....there is ALWAYS an audience for Bond...but I guess the other films offered something new and different - at the time.
The only 'downside' to Dalton was his reluctance to promote the films....he did, but was never happy doing so and I think this came across to the press and didn't help...
Bondtots.....I think you are overly-harsh in your view of Dalton and his films...in the quiet light of day, I think you feel you are too...but time has embittered your viewpoint...

Higgins

Sir Miles wrote:

Bondtots.....I think you are overly-harsh in your view of Dalton and his films...in the quiet light of day, I think you feel you are too...but time has embittered your viewpoint...

I am not sure, if I hould reply to someone, who's not capable to spell my name properly but I am very mild today

I can assure you - Sir Millers - I have been more bitter about him back then.

In my point of vew many here romantize his performance - just because he contrasted to Moore's performance so much.
Problem is that he tried to appear cool but he isn't the kind of cool guy at all - plus his weeping... :v

Sir Miles

Hey, Bondtots....it's Granny Miles to you )

Dalton does suffer purely because of the love for Moore's Bond films....some people don't like (and can't accept) change....and Dalton's films are a COMPLETE change from Moore's....