Did EON try to take Dalton's Bond down a peg?
Nick37
Posts: 270MI6 Agent
Found this under the thread "Would Dalton have ruined Bond 17". I must say, it has some merit:
“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.”
John Glen has said that he and Dalton got into a row or two while filming "LTK", and Carey Lowell stated that Glen was too busy filming and directing the action sequences to care about the scenes developing character. She said that Dalton was the one who came forward and tried to guide her through the performance, and that he was open on working out scenes and character development. I found this on another website:
"Glen’s directorial style also contributed to the chaos. It seems Glen was too preoccupied with action scenes to even think about trivial things such as characters and a compelling story. As Carey Lowell explains in an interview for Cinefantastique, Glen’s “‘interest is really in the action.... He’s not really interested at all in the character’s history and he doesn’t want to discuss much of it. The acting sort of took second place to the special effects and the action and momentum of the story’” (Altman 26-28). Fortunately, Dalton stepped in to fill the void that Glen created, pulling the directorial reigns on the acting front and hitting pay dirt with Lowell’s praises. “‘What John didn’t give me,’” the actress recalls, “‘Timothy did.... Luckily, Timothy was helpful because he’s very into character and ready to discuss it’” (56). Put another way, Glen landed a cushy job, relegated to filming explosions and exempted from reading the script and bringing the story and characters to life."
While I think Dalton’s performance is pitch perfect, he's my favorite Bond and in spite of the problems, this is my favorite Bond film, subsequent reviews of the film have allowed me to see in more detail the faults in Dalton’s clothing. And yes, there are a lot of faults, particularly the bagginess. The question is, was EON trying to humble Dalton?
While it seems unbelievable, I can’t think of any other Bond outing where Bond has been dressed so tackily. Also, there are at least two shots I can remember where we see a very glaring bald spot (I feel for the guy, I’m slowly losing my hair too, thank God for Nioxin stopping the bleeding) on the back of Dalton’s head. Would that have ever flown in any other Bond film? I think not.
It definitely does seem there was some behind the scenes crap going on (Not from Cubby, Cubby was delighted to have Dalton, but was forced to leave the production due to ill health, and thus could no longer really oversee things to make sure Dalton wasn't getting lack of attention from make-up and wardrobe) that served to make Dalton look more unkempt.
And even when they’re not showing off his bald spot, they’re giving him tacky hairdoos. The comb-back they sidle him with in the casino scenes is appalling. His hair looks perfectly fine in the opening scenes. When they keep it to that, it’s fine.
Overall, I've been given a very different outlook to "LTK" than I had. And I have to admit, the differences in Dalton's look at wardrobe from "TLD" to "LTK" are astounding. Even when Dalton was casual in "TLD", you could tell the clothes fit well and were probably a bit pricy. Not so here, with baggy pants, shirts, and slip on deck shoes.
Poor T Dalts.
“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.”
John Glen has said that he and Dalton got into a row or two while filming "LTK", and Carey Lowell stated that Glen was too busy filming and directing the action sequences to care about the scenes developing character. She said that Dalton was the one who came forward and tried to guide her through the performance, and that he was open on working out scenes and character development. I found this on another website:
"Glen’s directorial style also contributed to the chaos. It seems Glen was too preoccupied with action scenes to even think about trivial things such as characters and a compelling story. As Carey Lowell explains in an interview for Cinefantastique, Glen’s “‘interest is really in the action.... He’s not really interested at all in the character’s history and he doesn’t want to discuss much of it. The acting sort of took second place to the special effects and the action and momentum of the story’” (Altman 26-28). Fortunately, Dalton stepped in to fill the void that Glen created, pulling the directorial reigns on the acting front and hitting pay dirt with Lowell’s praises. “‘What John didn’t give me,’” the actress recalls, “‘Timothy did.... Luckily, Timothy was helpful because he’s very into character and ready to discuss it’” (56). Put another way, Glen landed a cushy job, relegated to filming explosions and exempted from reading the script and bringing the story and characters to life."
While I think Dalton’s performance is pitch perfect, he's my favorite Bond and in spite of the problems, this is my favorite Bond film, subsequent reviews of the film have allowed me to see in more detail the faults in Dalton’s clothing. And yes, there are a lot of faults, particularly the bagginess. The question is, was EON trying to humble Dalton?
While it seems unbelievable, I can’t think of any other Bond outing where Bond has been dressed so tackily. Also, there are at least two shots I can remember where we see a very glaring bald spot (I feel for the guy, I’m slowly losing my hair too, thank God for Nioxin stopping the bleeding) on the back of Dalton’s head. Would that have ever flown in any other Bond film? I think not.
It definitely does seem there was some behind the scenes crap going on (Not from Cubby, Cubby was delighted to have Dalton, but was forced to leave the production due to ill health, and thus could no longer really oversee things to make sure Dalton wasn't getting lack of attention from make-up and wardrobe) that served to make Dalton look more unkempt.
And even when they’re not showing off his bald spot, they’re giving him tacky hairdoos. The comb-back they sidle him with in the casino scenes is appalling. His hair looks perfectly fine in the opening scenes. When they keep it to that, it’s fine.
Overall, I've been given a very different outlook to "LTK" than I had. And I have to admit, the differences in Dalton's look at wardrobe from "TLD" to "LTK" are astounding. Even when Dalton was casual in "TLD", you could tell the clothes fit well and were probably a bit pricy. Not so here, with baggy pants, shirts, and slip on deck shoes.
Poor T Dalts.
"I've had a few...Optional extras installed."
Comments
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
right on the money with the shots though, though not bad enough to distract from the movie imo.
License to Kill, its crept up to my #2 spot on the list! fantastic movie, and fantastic Bond by TD.
Really? Because from what I see, Dalton's first outing outperformed "A View to a Kill" Domestically and worldwide. Yep, Licence to Kill grossed lower in the US than past Bond films, but slightly outperformed "A View to a Kill".
Not going well at the Box office is a film that only makes it's budget back, or doesn't even do that. LTK was budgeted for 42 million and did 156,000,000 in total. making back nearly 4 times it's budget is not doing well? You have some high standards, sir. I mean Hell, by that standard, Tomorrow Never Dies was a Dud. It was budgeted for 110,000,000 and only made 335 million, that's barely three time it's budget. LTK made 4 times that.
It "Underperformed" It didn't not go well. It also suffered from a last minute title change and marketing strategy change, and was given some slipshod posters. But that's beside the point. The question was whether or not it's possible Eon was trying to "Teach Dalton a Lesson". Considering the appalling costume choices and terrible angles for Dalton's hairline, which wouldn't have flown in any other Bond film, one wonders.
This is the real myth...both movies did pretty well at the box office...just not the big numbers that other films at the same time did...but then they had a MUCH smaller budget in the first place...
By that time, he'd moved on.
Simple as that.
"You must give me the name of your oculist."
And when were hair and make-up meant to mess him up? Before the row or after?
And I'm not sure audiences were that keen on Dalton either. They accepted him cos they had to.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I chop this one up to relative incompetence on Glen's part and MGW's relative inexperience. Also LTK felt a little like the crew were caught in two minds between making a macho 80s action movie or a classic Bond film.
Still, TD certainly got a little screwed over the following 4 or 5 years.
Glen is a good set piece director, but luckily he let Dalton take over on some of the character & acting details. It is NO coincidence that there were no Tarzan yells or the like in the Dalton Bonds.
Nah, no 'torpedoing', just regular production problems & budget issues, as well as location & schedule nonsense, IMO.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
- I don't think Dalton looks bad at all in LTK and I'm not the least bit distracted by his appearance.
- I find the story and the interaction between the characters to be intriguing and generally well-directed, so I have no sense that only the action scenes mattered to Glen.
So if there was a plot afoot to deliberately torpedo Dalton's tenure as Bond by ruining LTK, then I guess I was too dense to notice, because that plot didn't work on me! 8-)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I never actually noticed a bald patch.
"Me either, and I've seen it many times- recently"
You can notice it when Bond is going up the steps with the MI-6 agents at Hemingway House. The overhead shot shows the back of his head. It's also visible after Bond is "rescued" by Sanchez. When Sanchez greets him, there's a shot of Dalton from the back, and it's visible. Now, to be fair, I don't know how many times I've watched "LTK", and I didn't notice it till recently, before I saw the comments on that other thread that I highlighted. It's quick, not very focused on. My only question is, would that shot have been allowed in any other Bond film. I hate to knock Connery, but would the editors have allowed a shot where Sir Sean's hairpiece was out of line and showed a patch of baldness, even if the shot was only a second or two? I dunno.
As for the costume choices, again, I didn't pay too much attention to them until I wandered onto a website called "The Suits of James Bond", where he analyzes the costumes of each of the Bonds, their tailoring, look, time period, etc. While the administrator has made it quite clear he thinks Dalton is a fine Bond, when it comes to "Licence to Kill's" wardrobe, he has little positive to say about it, saying it's one that he'd like to forget. Out of all of Dalton's costumes he's "reviewed" so to speak, the only things he's liked are the black pyjamas and Dalton's wet suit.
Ultimately, the hair and questionable costumes don't ruin the film for me, in fact, I kind of like Dalton's more dressed-down Bond in the film. I just find it puzzling, since the poster brought up the comments. Even more puzzling is that I can't remember any other Bond film where Bond's wardrobe is like this, or his hair was off (We can all agree the stylist for the casino scenes should be disbarred).
And it would be easy to see EON not knowing what to do with Dalton. After 11 years of Roger Moore wanting to be silly, it would be quite a departure for them to be working with an actor who knows what he's doing and references the books to prove a point. One who's pushing for realism and not an invincible action hero.
It's pure speculation, obviously. Dalton's not talking, gentleman that he is. It's just a curiosity.
Unadjusted box offices:
AVTAK followed by a new actor in TLD: +25%
LTK followed by a new actor in GE: +39%
Adjusted box offices**:
Roger Moore: average 349 mio per movie
Pierce Brosnan: average 321,5 mio per movie
Dalton: average 210 mio per movie
And : If I can choose between 114 mio gain for LTK and 225 mio gain for TND I don't have to think twice.
Time to put off these pink-tinted glasses, fanboys :v
And I agree with Nick37:
Daltons combback in the casino scene in LTK was only one thing: Pathetic.....
As for the stubbing in the back theories: Pure science fiction.
Cubby felt very connected to Dalton because he helped him when Brosnan was not available for TLD because there was another series of RS.
**source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9636036/James-Bond-by-numbers-interactive-graphic.html
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
As for Dalton's reception. He was enthusiastically received by hardcore fans and the critics, but not by the general audience, IMO. They saw him as too serious, lacking the charisma and charm of Sean Connery and Roger Moore.
You have obviously been missing the point that I directly have replied to the ops second post
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Unadjusted box offices:
AVTAK followed by a new actor in TLD: +25%
LTK followed by a new actor in GE: +39%
Adjusted box offices**:
Roger Moore: average 349 mio per movie
Pierce Brosnan: average 321,5 mio per movie
Dalton: average 210 mio per movie
And : If I can choose between 114 mio gain for LTK and 225 mio gain for TND I don't have to think twice."
Your math stretches credibility because you're doing it after the fact. At the time the films were made, the profits of Goldeneye vs LTK are just guesstimates. If EON had a particular way of knowing that replacing the actor would guarantee a bigger Box office, then it holds merit. If EON was so disappointed with Dalton's BO returns for "LTK", why did they write Goldeneye with Dalton in mind, and offer it to him, instead of just ending his contract?
Brosnan also benefited from a 6-year hiatus with Bond films. People were ready for a new Bond film after 6 years of waiting. Someone else on here said they could have put John Cleese in "Goldeneye" and it would have been a smash.
As for rose-tinted glasses, Brosnan, who replaced Dalton, is the only Bond actor basically "Fired" from EON. Everyone else left on their own accord, even Lazenby.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Another myth is that Brosnan wasn't really fired from the Bond franchise......
And yes, I fail to see how you think making 3 times your budget back is better than making four times your budget back. Just because the amount is bigger?
So if I take $42.00 and turn it into $156 I've done worse than taking $110 and turning it into $339? Even though I've made four times my initial investment at less risk than three times my initial investment at more risk?
I know that you did
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
"Well, perhaps I'd better QUIT for the night."
Didn't realise that was a common thought ?:)
It was written with no one in mind.
http://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/14122-was-goldeneye-daltons-third-film/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113189/faq#.2.1.1
"Did the writers pen the GoldenEye script for Timothy Dalton?
Yes. Timothy Dalton was under contract to come back and do at least one, possibly two, more Bond films after The Living Daylights (1987) and Licence to Kill (1989), but the producers and the studio started suing each other over the ownership of the James Bond character, as well as the film series itself, and those lawsuits dragged on for several years. Longtime screenwriter Richard Maibaum's death only added more trouble to this film's production. The Bond film to follow Licence To Kill was originally intended to be filmed and released in 1991, but the lawsuits were not resolved until early 1994 and the screenplay was still not completed at that time. Consequently, the film was delayed again, with the producers pushing its release date to 1995. At that point in time, Timothy Dalton resigned, saying that too much time had passed since the previous film. Also, Timothy Dalton was 48 years old in 1994, and he thought that he was a few years too old to play Bond any longer. The literary James Bond character is only in his early- to mid-30's."
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/ge_roadtoproduction.php3
"Dalton's earlier claim that Michael France was writing the new film proved accurate when production details were officially announced. France had created a first draft screenplay with Dalton in mind and, when Brosnan came on board, it was rewritten by British writer Jeffrey Caine who retained a lot of France's original ideas, but added new angles to the piece. Although the battle between 007 and the treacherous 006 was the centre piece of France's first draft, it was Caine who added the nine-years-previously prologue that opens the finished film. A third writer, Kevin Wade, was brought in to polish the script, followed by final tinkering by Bruce Feirstein,who would later go on to write "Tomorrow Never Dies" and work on "The World Is Not Enough".
I googled: "Was Goldeneye Written with Timothy Dalton in mind?" There are a number of pages discussing it?
Well, this comes up pretty often from the Dalton fanboy fraction. Haven't heard this for the first or second time....
To our new young friend who cares so much about hairstyles and bald spots:
You and me go to the Casino.
You are leaving with 156 after betting with 42 and I am leaving with 339 after having put down 110.
Now who from us gets the larger steak?
This kind of maths is not that difficult, even you can do it!
And re. googling a certain conspiration theory, you'll always find someone who confirms this kind of crap
If you don't believe it, try "Is Jennifer Lopez a man?", but don't try the picture search
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You said Dalton's movies didn't do well at the box office, we just proved you wrong on that one point is all. YES TND made more than LTK- that's not in question.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS