Please re-read my original post then. At no point did I say they did what they did to get rid of him from the franchise. Torpedoed may have been the wrong choice of word, perhaps "Taken down a peg" is better. I'll retitle it. But anyway, the comment I highlighted in the original post was:
" 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."
Showing someone who's Boss by making them look shabby on-camera does not indicate they're trying to get rid of the actor. Another "Myth", as you're so fond of saying. Let me retitle the tread.
Did they have someone else doing hair and make-up/camera angles on LTK to TLD? Maybe Dalton pissed on that person's chips? Who knows? Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was on the grassy knoll taking potshots too.
Did they have someone else doing hair and make-up/camera angles on LTK to TLD? Maybe Dalton pissed on that person's chips?"
Napoleon Plural, I have to admit, this made me laugh my ass off. But in all seriousness, this is a discussion forum. I'm here to discuss. Until reading the comments made by the other poster in the "Bond 17" thread, I had never heard a single thing about it. It struck me as interesting, so I brought it up to discuss with others to see if A. They'd heard any stories about it, or B. had felt the same way viewing LTK, and hadn't heard about it.
Overwhelmingly, it seems that most think Dalton looked fine, or at least don't think there was anything amiss in the production company trying to make Dalton's appearance lacking from film to film. Hell, the difference may be down to the two-year gap between the films. I'll probably look different, or have less hair than I currently do this time in 2015.
Just speculation. But the IMDB message boards are a bit dead, and this has regular activity, so I figured it would get more discussion.
Yeah, I know. Actually, this is lightweight compared to the bickering on mi6-hq.com and I kid you not. Do not go over there, it's crystal meths.
While we're on it, Glen wrote in his memoirs that Dalton had approached him with a crew member's worries that he looked like a chimp or something kissing in TLD. Glen is very snotty that a crew member should have an opinion, saying he couldn't possibly judge the scene out of context of the film, and from thereon, crew were banned from the rushes.
Except, imo, Dalton did look a bit odd snogging in TLD. So the hired hand had the right idea.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
It's funny. I was talking to a female work colleague today about Bond. Neither of us realised the other was a fan! She likes Dalton ("brooding"), Moore ("funny") & Craig ("tough") but can't take much to Connery ("sexist"), Lazenby ("dull") or Brosnan ("smooth"). But that's an aside to the point.
Dalton does come across less suave in many ways, especially in LICENCE TO KILL, though I like his look (slicked back hair & all) in the casino scenes. It's his crumpled appearance which actually appeals to me. It flies in the face of the norm for Bond & gives LICENCE TO KILL a bit of its own visual identity.
I got the impression the mass audience didn't warm to Dalton. I know people will point to box office figures but this doesn't necessarily mean the leading man's beloved. Just look at CASINO ROYALE. Boffo business at the box office but you'd think Daniel Craig was the most hated actor on earth! How does that equate? Anyhow, though I liked Dalton, I felt he wasn't connecting. I don't know whether EON had it in for him. I think not but I could imagine they bowed to a certain pressure from United Artists to recast the role before stumping up the cash for GOLDENEYE.
I've also heard that Dalton one-on-oned with the actresses in the kissing scenes and asked them for their opinions on his method, as it were. I seem to recall Carey Lowell mentioning it in one of the "LTK" supplemental interviews.
At least he's humble enough to ask. I imagine other actors wouldn't even give it a thought, and assume it's perfect, or would be to embarrassed to even give it a thought.
Crystal meths, eh? I might have to pop over there and observe.
"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."
True. EON just wants to make money. So it does seem odd anyone would want to do something that might undermine the overall product.
It's odd though, And I posted this in another thread. Is it not remarkable the franchise has been as successful as it is? From all the changes, to forgiving fans that don't think for a moment about James Bond being played by a different actor, it's longevity is astounding.
I visited the Prometheus boards on IMDB briefly after the film opened. I thought it was very good, but there were people on there analyzing the continuity, the plot, etc. That really never happens in a James Bond film. It doesn't matter Charles Gray died in YOLT. When he pops up as Blofeld, there's not even a second thought.
True. EON just wants to make money. So it does seem odd anyone would want to do something that might undermine the overall product.
It's odd though, And I posted this in another thread. Is it not remarkable the franchise has been as successful as it is? From all the changes, to forgiving fans that don't think for a moment about James Bond being played by a different actor, it's longevity is astounding.
I visited the Prometheus boards on IMDB briefly after the film opened. I thought it was very good, but there were people on there analyzing the continuity, the plot, etc. That really never happens in a James Bond film. It doesn't matter Charles Gray died in YOLT. When he pops up as Blofeld, there's not even a second thought.
Y'know, I finally see Bondtoys' point. Dalton's films did do very badly, I think now they even lost money. They are the curse of the franchise. Dalton almost single-handedly destroyed Bond with his evil Thespian ways, and his vampire hair.
Why did I ever like the guy? I'm throwing out my TLD & LTK DVD's. The man's a menace.
On a related note, I threw my paycheck back in my employer's face today- if I can't get the highest amount of money possible, I'd rather get nothing. X-(
Thank you Bondtoys, for making me take the red pill.
I've never said, that the Dalton movies lost money.
That's really daft sarcasm in kindergarten - level that you are showing - again - how old are you?
Btw, just reading another interesting boring statistics, that LTK's worldwide grossing was only nr 11 of all movies from that year. Bond usually ranks 1st or second - with some exceptions, AVTAK was 4th, Qos was 5 for example.
TLD was nr. 4 that year.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Do you people have no idea how boring this endless discussion about money is?
Let`s go back to the original question. I belive no-one, including the director, tried to make Dalton look worse to get back at him. It`s simply illogical and counterproductive. But the director was workmanlike, making the diretion flat and uninventive. He should have directed TV-shows like Dynasty and left LTK to a younger and more talented director.
Do you people have no idea how boring this endless discussion about money is?
Let`s go back to the original question. I belive no-one, including the director, tried to make Dalton look worse to get back at him. It`s simply illogical and counterproductive.
Do you people have no idea how boring this endless discussion about money is?
Let`s go back to the original question. I belive no-one, including the director, tried to make Dalton look worse to get back at him. It`s simply illogical and counterproductive. But the director was workmanlike, making the diretion flat and uninventive. He should have directed TV-shows like Dynasty and left LTK to a younger and more talented director.
Well, things are not that easy.
Please take the time to read the following and you may understand that money has a lot to do with the reply to the ops theory.
The op's thesis was, that they mobbed Dalton because he was suggesting changes/unwilling to follow the director's orders and further did not let him appear in a 3rd movie.
That's absolutely nonsense imo and I brought the point, that they did not get him back for GE because the movie did not meet the producer's expectations financially and that Dalton was relatively bad-accepted by the audience.
For that, a bunch of Dalton-defenders fell over me and called me a liar, bending truth etc.
Well that's where I brought some numbers into the game - it may be boring to many, but supports my claim.
So if you are searching for a reason why Dalton did not make a 3rd movie, don't look at his wardrobe and don't analyze his haircut, go with the numbers and you'll understand the producer's decision {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I am a major, major Dalton fan, and believe that he had the full support of EON, but not necessarily UA. Craig was in a similar position in as much as EON (mainly Babs ) fought for him with the studio unsure if he was the right choice. if CR had done reasonable but unspectacular business he may have got to make QOS, but if that also failed to deliver the numbers he also would be toast. I firmly believe that it was Dalton who bailed, but he cannot have been unaware that Brosnan was always the studio's favoured choice. I think EON allowed Tim an 'honourable out' by accepting his resignation. Tim did not capture the imagination of the public outside of the hardcore.
John Glen was a workaday Director, and entirely the wrong choice for LTK. Neither of Dalton's movies were financial failures, but neither set the world alight either, combined with the move to film in Mexico and lacklustre marketing were also factors.
Please take the time to read the following and you may understand that money has a lot to do with the reply to the ops theory.
The op's thesis was, that they mobbed Dalton because he was suggesting changes/unwilling to follow the director's orders and further did not let him appear in a 3rd movie.
"That's absolutely nonsense imo and I brought the point, that they did not get him back for GE because the movie did not meet the producer's expectations financially and that Dalton was relatively bad-accepted by the audience.
For that, a bunch of Dalton-defenders fell over me and called me a liar, bending truth etc.
Well that's where I brought some numbers into the game - it may be boring to many, but supports my claim.
So if you are searching for a reason why Dalton did not make a 3rd movie, don't look at his wardrobe and don't analyze his haircut, go with the numbers and you'll understand the producer's decision."
Speaking of reading people's posts, you might want to give mine another review. At no point did I say EON forced him out of the franchise. I was just speculating if they did a little funny business with hair and wardrobe to make him look a bit rumpled, and draw attention to some faults in physical appearance. Lord knows I'd be embarrassed if I was filmed in something, watched it, and saw that I looked like I had a bald spot, especially playing a character like James Bond. I even retitled the thread as such, and explained to you why I retitled it, and you're still saying that my OP states that I think EON gave him a bad suit and a sh*tty hairdo so they could force him out of the franchise. I did not.
Making someone look a little more shabby than usual on-camera is not an indication that there's a major plot in the works by the production company to fire him. I retitled my thread topic to make that clear as such. I never said Dalton didn't walk from the role voluntarily.
Do you people have no idea how boring this endless discussion about money is?
Let`s go back to the original question. I belive no-one, including the director, tried to make Dalton look worse to get back at him. It`s simply illogical and counterproductive. But the director was workmanlike, making the diretion flat and uninventive. He should have directed TV-shows like Dynasty and left LTK to a younger and more talented director.
-{
Absolutely. Nobody cares about the box office takings.
For that, a bunch of Dalton-defenders fell over me and called me a liar, bending truth etc.
Well that's where I brought some numbers into the game - it may be boring to many, but supports my claim.
So if you are searching for a reason why Dalton did not make a 3rd movie, don't look at his wardrobe and don't analyze his haircut, go with the numbers and you'll understand the producer's decision {[]
Your argument is based on nothing more than speculation and innuendo. You have no concrete evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason Dalton didn't do a third Bond film was a question of money.
Likewise. The quotes posted by Nick37 earlier in the thread did prove that the initial draft of GoldenEye was written for a Dalton Bond. It was only after Dalton resigned, and Brosnan was hired to replace him, that some of the film was re-written.
I am convinced that Dalton walked out on the franchise as a result of the long drawn out legal action and the passage of time in which he became too old to play Bond.
Your argument is based on nothing more than speculation and innuendo. You have no concrete evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason Dalton didn't do a third Bond film was a question of money.
Well, the purpose of a company like EON is to make money?
I have tried my best to give indicators, that this main purpose has failed with the Dalton Bonds.
It's like Real Madrid ended 4th one year and 11th the next year.
They are still in the premier league but nobody can't be happy about it and it's time to buy some better personel
So as far as I can see, it's you Dalton guys who fail to give anything substancial.
So far, I have heard nothing from you than hype and myths.
So, where is your evidence, that the Michael France draft of the Goldeneye was written for Dalton?
And when exactly was it done? [ Edit: Found myself: Jan 1994]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I am convinced that Dalton walked out on the franchise as a result of the long drawn out legal action and the passage of time in which he became too old to play Bond.
Yes, I agree, and if it had been anything else, why would Dalton still be friends the the EON peeps, or have any good things to say about them? B-)
"Well, the purpose of a company like EON is to make money?
I have tried my best to give indicators, that this main purpose has failed with the Dalton Bonds.
It's like Real Madrid ended 4th one year and 11th the next year.
They are still in the premier league but nobody can't be happy about it ajb007/biggrin and it's time to buy some better personel ajb007/biggrin"
HOWEVER, if the only purpose of EON Productions was to, as you say, make money, then why was Pierce Brosnan's contract not renewed, and why did they drop Brosnan for Daniel Craig? Die Another Day was one of the biggest box office returns for Brosnan's films, and is still in 12th place adjusted for inflation, ahead of Goldeneye. In fact, adjusted for inflation, it's the highest grossing Bond film Brosnan ever did. Yet in spite of all that, they refused to keep him.
Making the claim that Dalton was axed because he didn't make them enough money (Which is unsubstantiated since Dalton walked himself) Is disproved by EON's actions involving Pierce Brosnan. Brosnan gave them a film that scored nearly half a billion at the box office, in spite of being one of the crappiest Bond films ever made. Yet they unofficially gave Brosnan the axe by not renewing his contract. So the claim that they only keep Bonds that make them money is rendered inaccurate, since they didn't keep one that consistently made them money for 7 years.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I question your reasoning. Apparently there's much more to it than just EON making money that makes them decide who to keep as James Bond. Brosnan was immensely popular at the time he was released from EON, and I think he easily could have done one more Bond film that made them money, as long as it wasn't a similar script to DAD. Yet they replaced him with Craig.
HOWEVER, if the only purpose of EON Productions was to, as you say, make money, then why was Pierce Brosnan's contract not renewed, and why did they drop Brosnan for Daniel Craig? Die Another Day was one of the biggest box office returns for Brosnan's films
Which also begs the question, why doesn't EON just put out wave after wave of MR & DAD clones since goofy nonsense seems to always be big box office? ?:)
Comments
" 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."
Showing someone who's Boss by making them look shabby on-camera does not indicate they're trying to get rid of the actor. Another "Myth", as you're so fond of saying. Let me retitle the tread.
Did they have someone else doing hair and make-up/camera angles on LTK to TLD? Maybe Dalton pissed on that person's chips? Who knows? Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was on the grassy knoll taking potshots too.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Did they have someone else doing hair and make-up/camera angles on LTK to TLD? Maybe Dalton pissed on that person's chips?"
Napoleon Plural, I have to admit, this made me laugh my ass off. But in all seriousness, this is a discussion forum. I'm here to discuss. Until reading the comments made by the other poster in the "Bond 17" thread, I had never heard a single thing about it. It struck me as interesting, so I brought it up to discuss with others to see if A. They'd heard any stories about it, or B. had felt the same way viewing LTK, and hadn't heard about it.
Overwhelmingly, it seems that most think Dalton looked fine, or at least don't think there was anything amiss in the production company trying to make Dalton's appearance lacking from film to film. Hell, the difference may be down to the two-year gap between the films. I'll probably look different, or have less hair than I currently do this time in 2015.
Just speculation. But the IMDB message boards are a bit dead, and this has regular activity, so I figured it would get more discussion.
While we're on it, Glen wrote in his memoirs that Dalton had approached him with a crew member's worries that he looked like a chimp or something kissing in TLD. Glen is very snotty that a crew member should have an opinion, saying he couldn't possibly judge the scene out of context of the film, and from thereon, crew were banned from the rushes.
Except, imo, Dalton did look a bit odd snogging in TLD. So the hired hand had the right idea.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Dalton does come across less suave in many ways, especially in LICENCE TO KILL, though I like his look (slicked back hair & all) in the casino scenes. It's his crumpled appearance which actually appeals to me. It flies in the face of the norm for Bond & gives LICENCE TO KILL a bit of its own visual identity.
I got the impression the mass audience didn't warm to Dalton. I know people will point to box office figures but this doesn't necessarily mean the leading man's beloved. Just look at CASINO ROYALE. Boffo business at the box office but you'd think Daniel Craig was the most hated actor on earth! How does that equate? Anyhow, though I liked Dalton, I felt he wasn't connecting. I don't know whether EON had it in for him. I think not but I could imagine they bowed to a certain pressure from United Artists to recast the role before stumping up the cash for GOLDENEYE.
At least he's humble enough to ask. I imagine other actors wouldn't even give it a thought, and assume it's perfect, or would be to embarrassed to even give it a thought.
Crystal meths, eh? I might have to pop over there and observe.
Calling me a liar is poor style as is your comments about what may be in my pants."
Sorry. It was a tad out of line.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It's odd though, And I posted this in another thread. Is it not remarkable the franchise has been as successful as it is? From all the changes, to forgiving fans that don't think for a moment about James Bond being played by a different actor, it's longevity is astounding.
I visited the Prometheus boards on IMDB briefly after the film opened. I thought it was very good, but there were people on there analyzing the continuity, the plot, etc. That really never happens in a James Bond film. It doesn't matter Charles Gray died in YOLT. When he pops up as Blofeld, there's not even a second thought.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Again, check out mi6-hq.com...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
1. GoldenEye 2. Goldfinger 3. Skyfall 4. OHMSS 5. TWINE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKM3Tev4BDg
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Why did I ever like the guy? I'm throwing out my TLD & LTK DVD's. The man's a menace.
On a related note, I threw my paycheck back in my employer's face today- if I can't get the highest amount of money possible, I'd rather get nothing. X-(
Thank you Bondtoys, for making me take the red pill.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
That's really daft sarcasm in kindergarten - level that you are showing - again
Btw, just reading another interesting boring statistics, that LTK's worldwide grossing was only nr 11 of all movies from that year. Bond usually ranks 1st or second - with some exceptions, AVTAK was 4th, Qos was 5 for example.
TLD was nr. 4 that year.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Let`s go back to the original question. I belive no-one, including the director, tried to make Dalton look worse to get back at him. It`s simply illogical and counterproductive. But the director was workmanlike, making the diretion flat and uninventive. He should have directed TV-shows like Dynasty and left LTK to a younger and more talented director.
Well, things are not that easy.
Please take the time to read the following and you may understand that money has a lot to do with the reply to the ops theory.
The op's thesis was, that they mobbed Dalton because he was suggesting changes/unwilling to follow the director's orders and further did not let him appear in a 3rd movie.
That's absolutely nonsense imo and I brought the point, that they did not get him back for GE because the movie did not meet the producer's expectations financially and that Dalton was relatively bad-accepted by the audience.
For that, a bunch of Dalton-defenders fell over me and called me a liar, bending truth etc.
Well that's where I brought some numbers into the game - it may be boring to many, but supports my claim.
So if you are searching for a reason why Dalton did not make a 3rd movie, don't look at his wardrobe and don't analyze his haircut, go with the numbers and you'll understand the producer's decision {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
John Glen was a workaday Director, and entirely the wrong choice for LTK. Neither of Dalton's movies were financial failures, but neither set the world alight either, combined with the move to film in Mexico and lacklustre marketing were also factors.
The op's thesis was, that they mobbed Dalton because he was suggesting changes/unwilling to follow the director's orders and further did not let him appear in a 3rd movie.
"That's absolutely nonsense imo and I brought the point, that they did not get him back for GE because the movie did not meet the producer's expectations financially and that Dalton was relatively bad-accepted by the audience.
For that, a bunch of Dalton-defenders fell over me and called me a liar, bending truth etc.
Well that's where I brought some numbers into the game - it may be boring to many, but supports my claim.
So if you are searching for a reason why Dalton did not make a 3rd movie, don't look at his wardrobe and don't analyze his haircut, go with the numbers and you'll understand the producer's decision."
Speaking of reading people's posts, you might want to give mine another review. At no point did I say EON forced him out of the franchise. I was just speculating if they did a little funny business with hair and wardrobe to make him look a bit rumpled, and draw attention to some faults in physical appearance. Lord knows I'd be embarrassed if I was filmed in something, watched it, and saw that I looked like I had a bald spot, especially playing a character like James Bond. I even retitled the thread as such, and explained to you why I retitled it, and you're still saying that my OP states that I think EON gave him a bad suit and a sh*tty hairdo so they could force him out of the franchise. I did not.
Making someone look a little more shabby than usual on-camera is not an indication that there's a major plot in the works by the production company to fire him. I retitled my thread topic to make that clear as such. I never said Dalton didn't walk from the role voluntarily.
This of course also made Pierce's day.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
-{
Absolutely. Nobody cares about the box office takings.
Your argument is based on nothing more than speculation and innuendo. You have no concrete evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason Dalton didn't do a third Bond film was a question of money.
Likewise. The quotes posted by Nick37 earlier in the thread did prove that the initial draft of GoldenEye was written for a Dalton Bond. It was only after Dalton resigned, and Brosnan was hired to replace him, that some of the film was re-written.
I am convinced that Dalton walked out on the franchise as a result of the long drawn out legal action and the passage of time in which he became too old to play Bond.
Well, the purpose of a company like EON is to make money?
I have tried my best to give indicators, that this main purpose has failed with the Dalton Bonds.
It's like Real Madrid ended 4th one year and 11th the next year.
They are still in the premier league but nobody can't be happy about it
So as far as I can see, it's you Dalton guys who fail to give anything substancial.
So far, I have heard nothing from you than hype and myths.
So, where is your evidence, that the Michael France draft of the Goldeneye was written for Dalton?
And when exactly was it done? [ Edit: Found myself: Jan 1994]
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
I have tried my best to give indicators, that this main purpose has failed with the Dalton Bonds.
It's like Real Madrid ended 4th one year and 11th the next year.
They are still in the premier league but nobody can't be happy about it ajb007/biggrin and it's time to buy some better personel ajb007/biggrin"
HOWEVER, if the only purpose of EON Productions was to, as you say, make money, then why was Pierce Brosnan's contract not renewed, and why did they drop Brosnan for Daniel Craig? Die Another Day was one of the biggest box office returns for Brosnan's films, and is still in 12th place adjusted for inflation, ahead of Goldeneye. In fact, adjusted for inflation, it's the highest grossing Bond film Brosnan ever did. Yet in spite of all that, they refused to keep him.
Making the claim that Dalton was axed because he didn't make them enough money (Which is unsubstantiated since Dalton walked himself) Is disproved by EON's actions involving Pierce Brosnan. Brosnan gave them a film that scored nearly half a billion at the box office, in spite of being one of the crappiest Bond films ever made. Yet they unofficially gave Brosnan the axe by not renewing his contract. So the claim that they only keep Bonds that make them money is rendered inaccurate, since they didn't keep one that consistently made them money for 7 years.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I question your reasoning. Apparently there's much more to it than just EON making money that makes them decide who to keep as James Bond. Brosnan was immensely popular at the time he was released from EON, and I think he easily could have done one more Bond film that made them money, as long as it wasn't a similar script to DAD. Yet they replaced him with Craig.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS