Well, GE would do better for having a new Bond, a long hiatus, better marketing and a new appetite for such movies after the Die Hard thing was beginning to wane... And not being up against the summer big guns.
LOL, THAT's not the argument here! But you hold on so rabidly in a need to win you can't see that.
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. ) 8-)
My dear friend
You prove me wrong? The opposite is true!
I was hoping that I have showed you with the average adjusted numbers of each actor, that Dalton by far was the least successful Bond..
Here are the figures again for your own convenience:
Roger Moore: average 349 mio per movie
Pierce Brosnan: average 321,5 mio per movie
Dalton: average 210 mio per movie
If you prefer to think, that Dalton was soooo overly successful, you are free to go, but the numbers will not follow that
And yes, Batman was a good and successful movie, another factor may be that people have seen Dalton in TLD (curious for the new actor) but felt disappointed and decided not to go to the next movie with him.
I'd say, that that's a huge factor for the box office also!
So, TLD benefitted from some curiosity for the new kid on the block which settled down rapidly after they have seen him in flesh so to say.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Remember the smash hit "The Dark Knight"?
When did it come out? 2008!
Which Bond movie came out 2008?
There you go. Even if QoS sucked in many regards, it was a highly successful movie.
Was it affected by the new Batman movie? Not at all.
Did people come back because they liked Craig in CR? Of course they did.
So, let's put these pinkie Dalton glasses away and be a bit realistic, won't we?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I do think the 15 cert for LTK cut a huge amount of its audience.
But even as a Dalton fan I do admit, the Cinema audience, for
whatever reason didn't warm to him.
While the public seemed to already be in love with the idea
of P Brosnan becoming Bond.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Well, Dark Knight wasn't the box office phenonomon of Batman, no way.
And it didn't come out within a month or so of CR, by any means. LTK came out the same time as Batman, give or take a month.
Hmmm, so why did people choose to spend their money for Batman instead of Bond?
Could have been the other way round, but Batman was not affected by the competition of the Bond movie at the same time. Sorry, I can't follow that logic.
Remember the smash hit "The Dark Knight"?
"When did it come out? 2008!
Which Bond movie came out 2008?
There you go. Even if QoS sucked in many regards, it was a highly successful movie.
Was it affected by the new Batman movie? Not at all.
Did people come back because they liked Craig in CR? Of course they did."
Are you sure it maybe wasn't affected by the new Batman movie (In 2008)?
CR Budget $102 million, BO $596,365,000
QOS: Budget $230,000,000, BO $591,692,078
QOS had more than twice the budget of CR, yet only made about one and a half times it's budget back, as opposed to CR which had less than half that amount budgeted, yet made nearly SIX TIMES it's budget back.
Skyfall knocked it out of the park.
Hmm...So DC had a successful first film, a less successful (But still profitable) 2nd film. Gee, that's exactly how Timothy Dalton's films did at the BO. Roger Moore had a successful first film, and less successful second film. Just like TD. The only difference is, they were able to make a 3rd film, which pulled out all the stops. Based on history, it's possible Dalton could have had a very popular 3rd film.
"So, let's put these pinkie Dalton glasses away and be a bit realistic, won't we?
Bondtoys wrote:
Adjusted box offices**:
Roger Moore: average 349 mio per movie
Pierce Brosnan: average 321,5 mio per movie
Dalton: average 210 mio per movie"
This math is completely useless. Of course Dalton's box office averages are going to be lower than Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan. HE MADE LESS FILMS. How can you say the math is OK when you're averaging an actor making two films against an actor who made 7, or an actor who made 4? If Dalton had done three, four, or more films, the numbers would have merit. Comparing 2 vs 7 and saying, "See? See? I told you it was lower!" stinks.
Remember the smash hit "The Dark Knight"?
When did it come out? 2008!
Which Bond movie came out 2008?
There you go. Even if QoS sucked in many regards, it was a highly successful movie.
Was it affected by the new Batman movie? Not at all.
Did people come back because they liked Craig in CR? Of course they did.
So, let's put these pinkie Dalton glasses away and be a bit realistic, won't we?
License to Kill came out in the summer of '89, directly opposite Batman.
Quantum of Solace came out in the late autumn of '08 - months after The Dark Knight's run.
None of this is even on topic.
Nobody "torpedoed" Dalton. Everyone was all set for a third movie, but by the time the lawsuits were done, he had moved on. He waited for them beyond his contract expiration, but could not wait any longer.
"She likes you, I can see it."
"You must give me the name of your oculist."
Boy, you should really take some maths lessons.
Just have a look at Moore's first 2 films and see the adjusted first 2 movies. Or Brosnan's. Or Craig's
Dalton's second movie lost(adjusted) 25% of the audience, Craig's second one lost less than 1%.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
License to Kill came out in the summer of '89, directly opposite Batman.
Quantum of Solace came out in the late autumn of '08 - months after The Dark Knight's run.
Lethal Weapon 2 came at the same time as Batman and was not affected. Now how do you explain that and maybe you explain, why people preferred to see Batman instead of Bond. Could have been the other way round.
These cannibalizing effects may count for computers or cars, but we're talking about 10 bucks for a cinema ticket.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
R How can you say the math is OK when you're averaging an actor making two films against an actor who made 7, or an actor who made 4? If Dalton had done three, four, or more films, the numbers would have merit. Comparing 2 vs 7 and saying, "See? See? I told you it was lower!" stinks.
So, let's see his first 2 movies jusst to show how irrelevant your 2-film theory is:
So your point is? Moore was more successful? Did anyone say Moore wasn't a popular 007? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I love Roger Moore as James Bond. He's tied with DC in 3rd place. Nor did I say Pierce Brosnan wasn't a popular 007. I like Brosnan just fine as Bond. He's 5th on my list, but it's not because he was BAD, it's just I'm not as caught up in his films as I am in other Bond adventures. I prefer "Moonraker" to "Tomorrow Never Dies". Personal preference.
Just because Dalton was LESS popular, doesn't mean he WASN'T AT ALL. That's been the entire point. Both his films were financially successful. No sh*t, they weren't as successful as other Bond films, but he filled seats and turned a profit.
That's been the entire argument. You're trying to purposely take a dump on the guy's legacy, and I don't agree with that. If the actor playing James Bond was automatically fired every time their movie didn't make more than the last one they did, the Connery would have been fired anyway after "You Only Live Twice", if he hadn't left. Roger Moore would have been fired after "The Man With the Golden Gun", Brosnan after "Tomorrow Never Dies", and Craig after "Quantum of Solace".
Well, that's what I've said before you guys where falling over me trying to prove me wrong!
And they did not fire Connery and Moore because they knew, that they where accepted by the audience - and their movies where successfully!* So why should they fire them?
Not with Dalton.
Everybody hoped and waited for Brosnan. And that's not a myth
No one tried to prove you wrong. This was your original statement:
"Both Dalton movies did not go well on the box office."
Both his films were profitable. They went fine at the Box office. As you've so tirelessly shown, "LTK" is the lowest performing film of the franchise, adjusted for inflation. However, I'm sure that there are thousands of studios out there would would be more than happy if they released a film that grossed 285 million (Adjusted for inflation).
Now if "LTK" had grossed 40, 50, or 60 million, I would wholeheartedly agree with you that it didn't go well at the box office. But that's not the case. It did lower than expected, but it was not a total disaster. They tried a new Bond formula, because they had an actor in their employ who had the range to experiment. It didn't click with American audiences. You live and you learn. No doubt Dalton's 3rd film would have returned the the Bond formula. Goldeneye certainly did.
Part of the reason I love "LTK" is that it messes with the formula. Others disagree.
License to Kill came out in the summer of '89, directly opposite Batman.
Quantum of Solace came out in the late autumn of '08 - months after The Dark Knight's run.
Lethal Weapon 2 came at the same time as Batman and was not affected. Now how do you explain that and maybe you explain, why people preferred to see Batman instead of Bond. Could have been the other way round.
These cannibalizing effects may count for computers or cars, but we're talking about 10 bucks for a cinema ticket.
I can't explain why. I don't care why. Maybe people preferred to see Batman over LTK because it was a better movie? I thought so.
I'm not here to argue. I simply don't care enough to.
"She likes you, I can see it."
"You must give me the name of your oculist."
No one tried to prove you wrong. This was your original statement:
"Both Dalton movies did not go well on the box office."
Both his films were profitable. They went fine at the Box office. As you've so tirelessly shown, "LTK" is the lowest performing film of the franchise, adjusted for inflation. However, I'm sure that there are thousands of studios out there would would be more than happy if they released a film that grossed 285 million (Adjusted for inflation).
Now if "LTK" had grossed 40, 50, or 60 million, I would wholeheartedly agree with you that it didn't go well at the box office. But that's not the case. It did lower than expected, but it was not a total disaster. They tried a new Bond formula, because they had an actor in their employ who had the range to experiment. It didn't click with American audiences. You live and you learn. No doubt Dalton's 3rd film would have returned the the Bond formula. Goldeneye certainly did.
Part of the reason I love "LTK" is that it messes with the formula. Others disagree.
Sorry, no!
They wanted to go with Brosnan after all these lawsuits knowing that he'll be widely accepted by the audience and bring the franchise to old success. And they where right.
Brosnan was a safe bet like Moore was for LALD.
They could not risk Dalton loosing another 25% of the audience, Brosnan almost doubled the number!
And Dalton also "did not click" with the german audience, not sure about the UK.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton would have lost another 25% of the audience, Brosnan almost doubled the number!
Frankly, I couldn't care less if Dalton had lost half of the audience for Bond 17. To my mind and to the minds of many purists, he WAS James Bond. Connery and Dalton aside, the other actors were playing some superhero called James Bond. If the audience preferred that, well good luck to them. Box office numbers mean jack all.
"They wanted to go with Brosnan after all these lawsuits knowing that he'll be widely accepted by the audience and bring the franchise to old success. And they where right."
Yes and No. Granted, Brosnan was definitely the right choice after Dalton, after his close casting in TLD. But Dalton walked from the role first. If he'd said yes to coming back for a third film, I wholeheartedly believe Cubby Broccoli would have supported his return. Cubby wanted Dalton as far back as 1969.
Why I say no is because it wasn't just a change in 007. They also scored Judi Dench (Who acts rings around Robert Brown), got rid of John Glen, and replaced Caroline Bliss (Who was cute, but wasn't a very good Moneypenny). Essentially, they replaced all the film's "Old Guard" (Save for Q, who is irreplaceable.)
It was a near-total revamp of the franchise, not just James Bond.
Dalton would have lost another 25% of the audience, Brosnan almost doubled the number!
Frankly, I couldn't care less if Dalton had lost half of the audience for Bond 17. To my mind and to the minds of many purists, he WAS James Bond. Connery and Dalton aside, the other actors were playing some superhero called James Bond. If the audience preferred that, well good luck to them. Box office numbers mean jack all.
Yawn!
Now after falling over me for 3 pages on this thread because I said, that his movies did not go well on the BO, you have nothing to say than:
"But his movies where great!"
You really disappoit me, Defiant.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well, I don't know and neither does anyone, hence the ill-tempered nature of this thread.
I would have thought that the problem with LTK is that it showed that Dalton's range was limited and he didn't have leading man appeal, you can't say that about Moore, who had had years as The Saint, but you could maybe of Lazenby. Plus you have him visibly ageing. You can say that about Craig too, but he did have more experience on camera as a lead actor, if not leading man, and his series was divorced from the Moore years and with a new (kind of) director.
Now with Dalton not getting any younger, of untested appeal, and Brosnan waiting in the wings, you can see why they might switch, but I can prove none of this.
"They wanted to go with Brosnan after all these lawsuits knowing that he'll be widely accepted by the audience and bring the franchise to old success. And they where right."
Yes and No. Granted, Brosnan was definitely the right choice after Dalton, after his close casting in TLD. But Dalton walked from the role first. If he'd said yes to coming back for a third film, I wholeheartedly believe Cubby Broccoli would have supported his return. Cubby wanted Dalton as far back as 1969.
Yes and Heidi Klum and Seal will remain to be best friends after their breakup LOL.
I am sure that Cubby did not want to continue with Dalton anymore after his first choice, Brosnan was available. That Dalton can say, that he walked off is the usual press-blah-blah, nothing more
Another myth is born!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
"Timothy Dalton was originally unavailable to play Bond, and Pierce Brosnan was then chosen to play 007 in 1986 and was given the script to The Living Daylights. Although he was contracted to Remington Steele for seven seasons, NBC decided to cancel the show at the end of the fourth season, which meant that Brosnan was free to play James Bond in The Living Daylights the following year. However, shortly after the end of the fourth season, NBC had second thoughts about canceling Remington Steele and subsequently approached the Bond producers directly, in an attempt to strike a deal that would allow Brosnan to play both James Bond and Remington Steele the following year. NBC also offered to completely reschedule the shooting of Remington Steele to ensure that there were no scheduling conflicts. But eventually, Albert R. Broccoli famously told NBC that "James Bond will not be Remington Steele and Remington Steele will not be James Bond." Accordingly, Brosnan would only play Bond if the show remained canceled. NBC had a 60 day deadline to revoke their decision to cancel Remington Steele series and at 6.30pm on the 60th day of the deadline, Brosnan learned that NBC decided to make a fifth season. The Bond producers subsequently prevented Brosnan from becoming the next James Bond. Subsequently, the role went to Timothy Dalton, who was now finally available. NBC went on to make only six episodes of the fifth season of Remington Steele before finally canceling the show for good."
And:
"Timothy Dalton was originally considered for the role of James Bond in the late 1960s, after Sean Connery left the role following You Only Live Twice. Dalton was screen tested by Albert R. Broccoli for On Her Majesty's Secret Service but he turned down the part as he thought he was too young. He was also considered for Diamonds Are Forever but turned it down again, still feeling he was too young. He was considered again for the role in For Your Eyes Only when for a time it was unclear whether Roger Moore would return. However, Dalton declined at that time, as there was no script (or even first draft). Dalton was offered the role again in 1983 for Octopussy, and yet again in 1985 for A View to a Kill, but had to decline the role both times due to previous commitments."
Dalton would have lost another 25% of the audience, Brosnan almost doubled the number!
Frankly, I couldn't care less if Dalton had lost half of the audience for Bond 17. To my mind and to the minds of many purists, he WAS James Bond. Connery and Dalton aside, the other actors were playing some superhero called James Bond. If the audience preferred that, well good luck to them. Box office numbers mean jack all.
Yawn!
Now after falling over me for 3 pages on this thread because I said, that his movies did not go well on the BO, you have nothing to say than:
"But his movies where great!"
You really disappoit me, Defiant.
In case you haven't noticed, this is the first time I've posted in this thread after having to read through countless posts about box office numbers, which no one outside of the film producers care about anyway. Titanic broke box office records. Was that a good film? Avatar did too. Was that good?
The tired old arguments about box office numbers are precisely that - tired and old. Focussing on that rather than any external factors that may have affected Dalton's resignation from the role is simply naive and short sighted. I fail to understand why Dalton is vilified for what Connery has done before in his first two films and what Craig is trying to do now - portraying Bond as he was written. Dalton portrayed Bond the way he was meant to be portrayed. Box office numbers be damned!
You bring up the theory that Dalton was deliberately torpedoed by EON and now you are trying to convince us, that Cubby wanted him so badly for a third movie, which did not happen because Dalton walked out?
Not sure how this makes sense
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Now who's trying to create myths? Just because you lie doesn't mean it's so. Dalton was a candidate and popular choice for James Bond long before Pierce Brosnan was a blip on Cubby's radar.
Nice try though. You're really good at pulling crap out of the seat of your pants. Let me guess, President of the Pierce Brosnan fan club?
Sorry, no Brosnan Fan Club, I simply don't like Dalton like so many do.
Where exactly did I create myths? Yes, they wanted Dalton previously but everything leads to that they did not want him anymore for GE. That's all I am saying
And I find your language a bit offensive - particularly for a member who's here his 2nd day.
Calling me a liar is poor style as is your comments about what may be in my pants.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LTK came out in the summer of 1989.
You know what else did? Batman.
That movie killed everything that summer.
"You must give me the name of your oculist."
My dear friend
You prove me wrong? The opposite is true!
I was hoping that I have showed you with the average adjusted numbers of each actor, that Dalton by far was the least successful Bond..
Here are the figures again for your own convenience:
If you prefer to think, that Dalton was soooo overly successful, you are free to go, but the numbers will not follow that
And yes, Batman was a good and successful movie, another factor may be that people have seen Dalton in TLD (curious for the new actor) but felt disappointed and decided not to go to the next movie with him.
I'd say, that that's a huge factor for the box office also!
So, TLD benefitted from some curiosity for the new kid on the block which settled down rapidly after they have seen him in flesh so to say.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Except for Lethal Weapon 2 and Indy and the Last Crusade.
Granted, LW2 came out in autumn in the UK.
LTK was the Pink Cadillac of the year, like Clint's career, the Bond films needed a reboot.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Remember the smash hit "The Dark Knight"?
When did it come out? 2008!
Which Bond movie came out 2008?
There you go. Even if QoS sucked in many regards, it was a highly successful movie.
Was it affected by the new Batman movie? Not at all.
Did people come back because they liked Craig in CR? Of course they did.
So, let's put these pinkie Dalton glasses away and be a bit realistic, won't we?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But even as a Dalton fan I do admit, the Cinema audience, for
whatever reason didn't warm to him.
While the public seemed to already be in love with the idea
of P Brosnan becoming Bond.
I'd put a healthy bet on that the Dalton Movies are among the least successful sellers of single discs.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
And it didn't come out within a month or so of CR, by any means. LTK came out the same time as Batman, give or take a month.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Hmmm, so why did people choose to spend their money for Batman instead of Bond?
Could have been the other way round, but Batman was not affected by the competition of the Bond movie at the same time. Sorry, I can't follow that logic.
As for the success for TDK:
Adjusted for ticket price inflation:
1. The dark Knight 600 mio
2. Batman 506 mio
Worldwide, unadjusted:
2. The Dark Knight 1003 mio
3. Batman 411 mio
source: http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
"When did it come out? 2008!
Which Bond movie came out 2008?
There you go. Even if QoS sucked in many regards, it was a highly successful movie.
Was it affected by the new Batman movie? Not at all.
Did people come back because they liked Craig in CR? Of course they did."
Are you sure it maybe wasn't affected by the new Batman movie (In 2008)?
CR Budget $102 million, BO $596,365,000
QOS: Budget $230,000,000, BO $591,692,078
QOS had more than twice the budget of CR, yet only made about one and a half times it's budget back, as opposed to CR which had less than half that amount budgeted, yet made nearly SIX TIMES it's budget back.
Skyfall knocked it out of the park.
Hmm...So DC had a successful first film, a less successful (But still profitable) 2nd film. Gee, that's exactly how Timothy Dalton's films did at the BO. Roger Moore had a successful first film, and less successful second film. Just like TD. The only difference is, they were able to make a 3rd film, which pulled out all the stops. Based on history, it's possible Dalton could have had a very popular 3rd film.
"So, let's put these pinkie Dalton glasses away and be a bit realistic, won't we?
Bondtoys wrote:
Adjusted box offices**:
Roger Moore: average 349 mio per movie
Pierce Brosnan: average 321,5 mio per movie
Dalton: average 210 mio per movie"
This math is completely useless. Of course Dalton's box office averages are going to be lower than Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan. HE MADE LESS FILMS. How can you say the math is OK when you're averaging an actor making two films against an actor who made 7, or an actor who made 4? If Dalton had done three, four, or more films, the numbers would have merit. Comparing 2 vs 7 and saying, "See? See? I told you it was lower!" stinks.
License to Kill came out in the summer of '89, directly opposite Batman.
Quantum of Solace came out in the late autumn of '08 - months after The Dark Knight's run.
None of this is even on topic.
Nobody "torpedoed" Dalton. Everyone was all set for a third movie, but by the time the lawsuits were done, he had moved on. He waited for them beyond his contract expiration, but could not wait any longer.
"You must give me the name of your oculist."
Just have a look at Moore's first 2 films and see the adjusted first 2 movies. Or Brosnan's. Or Craig's
Dalton's second movie lost(adjusted) 25% of the audience, Craig's second one lost less than 1%.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Lethal Weapon 2 came at the same time as Batman and was not affected. Now how do you explain that and maybe you explain, why people preferred to see Batman instead of Bond. Could have been the other way round.
These cannibalizing effects may count for computers or cars, but we're talking about 10 bucks for a cinema ticket.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well, you brought the counter-argument that Moore had the advantage making 7 movies:
So, let's see his first 2 movies jusst to show how irrelevant your 2-film theory is:
Moore: adjusted average 2 movies: 403 mio
Dalton " " 210 mio
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Just because Dalton was LESS popular, doesn't mean he WASN'T AT ALL. That's been the entire point. Both his films were financially successful. No sh*t, they weren't as successful as other Bond films, but he filled seats and turned a profit.
That's been the entire argument. You're trying to purposely take a dump on the guy's legacy, and I don't agree with that. If the actor playing James Bond was automatically fired every time their movie didn't make more than the last one they did, the Connery would have been fired anyway after "You Only Live Twice", if he hadn't left. Roger Moore would have been fired after "The Man With the Golden Gun", Brosnan after "Tomorrow Never Dies", and Craig after "Quantum of Solace".
Well, that's what I've said before you guys where falling over me trying to prove me wrong!
And they did not fire Connery and Moore because they knew, that they where accepted by the audience - and their movies where successfully!* So why should they fire them?
Not with Dalton.
Everybody hoped and waited for Brosnan. And that's not a myth
*
YOLT: adjusted 479 mio
TMWTGG adj. 284 mio
LTK: adj. 180 mio
TND adj. 297 mio
QoS adj 392 mio
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
"Both Dalton movies did not go well on the box office."
Both his films were profitable. They went fine at the Box office. As you've so tirelessly shown, "LTK" is the lowest performing film of the franchise, adjusted for inflation. However, I'm sure that there are thousands of studios out there would would be more than happy if they released a film that grossed 285 million (Adjusted for inflation).
Now if "LTK" had grossed 40, 50, or 60 million, I would wholeheartedly agree with you that it didn't go well at the box office. But that's not the case. It did lower than expected, but it was not a total disaster. They tried a new Bond formula, because they had an actor in their employ who had the range to experiment. It didn't click with American audiences. You live and you learn. No doubt Dalton's 3rd film would have returned the the Bond formula. Goldeneye certainly did.
Part of the reason I love "LTK" is that it messes with the formula. Others disagree.
I can't explain why. I don't care why. Maybe people preferred to see Batman over LTK because it was a better movie? I thought so.
I'm not here to argue. I simply don't care enough to.
"You must give me the name of your oculist."
Sorry, no!
They wanted to go with Brosnan after all these lawsuits knowing that he'll be widely accepted by the audience and bring the franchise to old success. And they where right.
Brosnan was a safe bet like Moore was for LALD.
They could not risk Dalton loosing another 25% of the audience, Brosnan almost doubled the number!
And Dalton also "did not click" with the german audience, not sure about the UK.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Frankly, I couldn't care less if Dalton had lost half of the audience for Bond 17. To my mind and to the minds of many purists, he WAS James Bond. Connery and Dalton aside, the other actors were playing some superhero called James Bond. If the audience preferred that, well good luck to them. Box office numbers mean jack all.
Yes and No. Granted, Brosnan was definitely the right choice after Dalton, after his close casting in TLD. But Dalton walked from the role first. If he'd said yes to coming back for a third film, I wholeheartedly believe Cubby Broccoli would have supported his return. Cubby wanted Dalton as far back as 1969.
Why I say no is because it wasn't just a change in 007. They also scored Judi Dench (Who acts rings around Robert Brown), got rid of John Glen, and replaced Caroline Bliss (Who was cute, but wasn't a very good Moneypenny). Essentially, they replaced all the film's "Old Guard" (Save for Q, who is irreplaceable.)
It was a near-total revamp of the franchise, not just James Bond.
Yawn!
Now after falling over me for 3 pages on this thread because I said, that his movies did not go well on the BO, you have nothing to say than:
"But his movies where great!"
You really disappoit me, Defiant.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I would have thought that the problem with LTK is that it showed that Dalton's range was limited and he didn't have leading man appeal, you can't say that about Moore, who had had years as The Saint, but you could maybe of Lazenby. Plus you have him visibly ageing. You can say that about Craig too, but he did have more experience on camera as a lead actor, if not leading man, and his series was divorced from the Moore years and with a new (kind of) director.
Now with Dalton not getting any younger, of untested appeal, and Brosnan waiting in the wings, you can see why they might switch, but I can prove none of this.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yes and Heidi Klum and Seal will remain to be best friends after their breakup LOL.
I am sure that Cubby did not want to continue with Dalton anymore after his first choice, Brosnan was available. That Dalton can say, that he walked off is the usual press-blah-blah, nothing more
Another myth is born!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
"Timothy Dalton was originally unavailable to play Bond, and Pierce Brosnan was then chosen to play 007 in 1986 and was given the script to The Living Daylights. Although he was contracted to Remington Steele for seven seasons, NBC decided to cancel the show at the end of the fourth season, which meant that Brosnan was free to play James Bond in The Living Daylights the following year. However, shortly after the end of the fourth season, NBC had second thoughts about canceling Remington Steele and subsequently approached the Bond producers directly, in an attempt to strike a deal that would allow Brosnan to play both James Bond and Remington Steele the following year. NBC also offered to completely reschedule the shooting of Remington Steele to ensure that there were no scheduling conflicts. But eventually, Albert R. Broccoli famously told NBC that "James Bond will not be Remington Steele and Remington Steele will not be James Bond." Accordingly, Brosnan would only play Bond if the show remained canceled. NBC had a 60 day deadline to revoke their decision to cancel Remington Steele series and at 6.30pm on the 60th day of the deadline, Brosnan learned that NBC decided to make a fifth season. The Bond producers subsequently prevented Brosnan from becoming the next James Bond. Subsequently, the role went to Timothy Dalton, who was now finally available. NBC went on to make only six episodes of the fifth season of Remington Steele before finally canceling the show for good."
And:
"Timothy Dalton was originally considered for the role of James Bond in the late 1960s, after Sean Connery left the role following You Only Live Twice. Dalton was screen tested by Albert R. Broccoli for On Her Majesty's Secret Service but he turned down the part as he thought he was too young. He was also considered for Diamonds Are Forever but turned it down again, still feeling he was too young. He was considered again for the role in For Your Eyes Only when for a time it was unclear whether Roger Moore would return. However, Dalton declined at that time, as there was no script (or even first draft). Dalton was offered the role again in 1983 for Octopussy, and yet again in 1985 for A View to a Kill, but had to decline the role both times due to previous commitments."
(EDITED COMMENTS)
In case you haven't noticed, this is the first time I've posted in this thread after having to read through countless posts about box office numbers, which no one outside of the film producers care about anyway. Titanic broke box office records. Was that a good film? Avatar did too. Was that good?
The tired old arguments about box office numbers are precisely that - tired and old. Focussing on that rather than any external factors that may have affected Dalton's resignation from the role is simply naive and short sighted. I fail to understand why Dalton is vilified for what Connery has done before in his first two films and what Craig is trying to do now - portraying Bond as he was written. Dalton portrayed Bond the way he was meant to be portrayed. Box office numbers be damned!
You bring up the theory that Dalton was deliberately torpedoed by EON and now you are trying to convince us, that Cubby wanted him so badly for a third movie, which did not happen because Dalton walked out?
Not sure how this makes sense
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sorry, no Brosnan Fan Club, I simply don't like Dalton like so many do.
Where exactly did I create myths? Yes, they wanted Dalton previously but everything leads to that they did not want him anymore for GE. That's all I am saying
And I find your language a bit offensive - particularly for a member who's here his 2nd day.
Calling me a liar is poor style as is your comments about what may be in my pants.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!