From Dalton To Brosnan

chrisisall

Eon snagged Dalton, someone they'd wanted for some time. They tried a much more serious take, and it didn't quite catch fire as it should have with the general public. Then the years of legal delays, after which Dalton dropped out. Brosnan stepped in and the tone was altered to a mash up of Dalton/Connery serious and Moore extravaganza. This proved to be the right move financially. They were fun, but tended to, in the words of Carver, lack punch, scriptly speaking.

Also, I see a similarity between these Bonds and the earlier ones, superficially, of course. TND was a bit like DN, LTK like FRWL, GE like GF, TND like TB or YOLT, TWINE like OHMSS (Yeah, I know, not nearly as good, I'm meaning in general tone), and DAD like DAF.

Thoughts?

I'd be interested in comments from members who lived through the transition back then, as well as contrasts drawn by younger members who didn't have to wait YEARS in between them.

AlphaOmegaSin

I was born in 91, so I was obviously too young to remember when brosnan took over. But I've always felt that the Transition went as well as it could of done -{ Brosnan saved the Series and Bond was reborn

Barbel

It did seem a long wait at the time. I bought the Gardners as they appeared (each one a step down from its predecessor) and read "007" magazine avidly hoping for news of a new film. Snippets of the legal troubles appeared, but little about a new film. It seemed Dalton was definitely to continue, he was quoted as saying so, then came the news that he was out.
Rumours about new Bonds abounded in the press, the usual stuff, but it was clear that Brosnan was the front-runner and it was no surprise when he was confirmed. There was a lot of competition from other action films at the time, and it did seem possible that Bond might have had his day. It was gratifying to see GE emerge as the success it was.

Thunderpussy

I too was surprised when they announced Brosnan as the new Bond.
With GE, I was over the moon, great introduction as the new Bond. As far
As I'm concerned he did the best he could with what he was given. Even
Daniel Craig would have a hard time selling an invisible car to an audience.

AlphaOmegaSin

I can't remember now, but was the GE Script written with Dalton in Mind originally?

Barbel

Yes, it was.

Thunderpussy

I think this is common knowledge, that Cubby did offer it to
Dalton, but he turned it down, as he'd had a long break, and it
Would be a perfect time to introduce a new 007.

broadshoulder

chrisisall wrote:

I'd be interested in comments from members who lived through the transition back then, as well as contrasts drawn by younger members who didn't have to wait YEARS in between them.

I was enjoying life at the time. But Brosnans announcement wasn't unexpected.He'd been groomed for years.

AlphaOmegaSin

I always thought that it was -{

Thunderpussy

Broadshoulder wrote :
" ... He'd been groomed for years " Thankfully not in a Rolf Harris way.

broadshoulder

Barbel wrote:

There was a lot of competition from other action films at the time, and it did seem possible that Bond might have had his day. It was gratifying to see GE emerge as the success it was.

This was a new phenomenon with the press. Will Bond be relevant? Has he had his day? I also remember an article in a railway magazine with Brosnan saying "Dalton was too dark"

Aye, aye. Whats going on here?

AlphaOmegaSin

Can you guess what it is yet?

broadshoulder

Thunderpussy wrote:

Broadshoulder wrote :
" ... He'd been groomed for years " Thankfully not in a Rolf Harris way.

) ) ) )

Thunderpussy

I think Dalton was a fantastic Bond but for some reason the public didn't
Warm to him. I think replacing Sir Roger was the problem, Roger was fixed
in the publics minds as Bond, also the realism of the Dalton's also didn't
Seem popular at the time.
So with Brosnan they were on a safe bet, well known and loved actor mixed
With a bit of the old Moore humour, and away we go !

AlphaOmegaSin

I've always felt that an Adaptation of Gardners License Renewed would have been the perfect third Film for Dalton.

broadshoulder

Thunderpussy wrote:

I. I think replacing Sir Roger was the problem, Roger was fixed
in the publics minds as Bond, also the realism of the Dalton's also didn't
Seem popular at the time.
D

You may be right in that. 8-)

Thunderpussy

As many have said, Dalton was the right Bond but at the Wrong time .

AlphaOmegaSin

1989 )

chrisisall

Back in the 80's I was getting a little tired of Moore, and the gigantic wave of sci-fi/action was in play. Aliens, Predator, Lethal Weapon & such drew my attention. I had not yet read the Fleming novels, so when Dalton showed up in TLD I appreciated it, but didn't immediately love it. Back then Connery was still stuck in my head, and the rumours of my man Brosnan taking over never panned out thanks to !#&@! NBC. And when LTK came along, I was still reeling from Keaton's take on the Dark Knight, so while I liked it well enough, I had serious bats in my belfry. After more than five years I was thinking Bond would never return. Then came Brosnan, and all was right in my Bond universe. Around then I read the novels, and found them to be a different, if compelling beast.
And of course, now the Daltonator is my favourite.

Higgins

Thunderpussy wrote:

As many have said, Dalton was the right Bond but at the Wrong time .

No, he was the WRONG BOND!
He should have sticked with Shakespeare

Thunderpussy

How sharper than a serpents tooth, a thankless Bond fan. )

Moore Than

Maybe I was a bit naive but it never occurred to me that James Bond would not return, it was always a question of when, not if. Pierce Brosnan was pretty much the natural successor, he had landed the role but could not take it because of his Remington Steele contract. But I would have felt equally pleased had Timothy Dalton returned. Most satisfying of all was that Bond was back.

chrisisall

Higgins wrote:

He should have sticked with Shakespeare

Fleming wrote for the masses, but in a clever way. Like Shakespeare.

Charmed & Dangerous

The competition from other action films ironically, IMO, helped Brosnan and Goldeneye immensely.

True Lies - particularly the PTS - came out in '94 and was a major hit. In fact the PTS is clearly an homage to Goldfinger, with Arnie rising from a lake in a wetsuit, beneath which he's dressed in immaculate black tie. The rest of the film is a riot, treading the fine line between comedy and action.

In the same year, Speed was a taut, stylish and witty action film, much in the vein of the previous year's excellent Cliffhanger, with its Bond-type villain (whose sardonic humour steals the show).

These films' successes showed how ready the public were for lighter-hearted but thrilling entertainment... enter Mr Brosnan. -{

chrisisall

Excellent post, C&D! I agree!
I remember thinking True Lies was Cameron's shot at a Bond movie, and I liked it quite a bit, but when Goldeneye came out I all but forgot that flick.

Thunderpussy

Infact I think a lot of GE had to be changed as many of the
action sequences had been done in True Lies.

AlphaOmegaSin

There is an earlier Version of the GE Script floating about on the Interwebs -{

Blackleiter

chrisisall wrote:

I remember thinking True Lies was Cameron's shot at a Bond movie, and I liked it quite a bit,

I felt the same way the first time I saw True Lies. {[]

Gassy Man

I was a teenager in the 1980s and pretty much the demographic that moviemakers were trying to convince.

Here are some things about the 80s that people may not realize today:

1) We typically didn't go to see PG-rated movies. We went to R-rated movies. The moviemakers knew that. The theaters never checked IDs. The R-rated movies simply had more spectacle than the PG ones typically did. The Bond films had firmly occupied the PG spot for years, with only Licence to Kill up to that point daring to do more. And it did so unimpressively. You could experience better stunts, chases, and explosions in R-rated films, along with nudity and cussing, and Hollywood typically put the better filmmakers on those projects. Movies were pushing the envelope with what they could get away with, and R movies led.

2) Bond, even then, was considered rather passe. It wasn't so much about politics or the Cold War or whatever babble people who wrote about the Bond films claimed, but simply because the product was inferior. Whereas in the 1960s, the Bond films seemed to lead the way in their genre -- they simply did things better than the competition -- that didn't seem to be the case anymore. Heck, a typical episode of TV's Miami Vice often seemed more taut and relevant than a Bond movie did, at least to many Americans. So the Bond films were already being seen as rather dorky by many, especially younger people.

3) Most people assumed Pierce Brosnan would become Bond. He seemed the only actor around who had all of the natural qualities for the part. There was some talk about Mel Gibson, and there were actors I thought might be considered, like Ian Olgilvy, who like Brosnan, had a commercial at the time where he essentially played James Bond. That he looked and sounded a lot like Roger Moore but was younger and more athletic made him a distinct possibility. When Dalton was chosen, most people I knew had no idea who he was. I remembered him from Flash Gordon, where as a child, I thought he was dark and scary, too.

4) People were disappointed that Brosnan hadn't been chosen. I really believe that hurt Dalton's chances as Bond, as he wasn't just being compared to the previous Bonds but also to the Bond that never was, at least to that point. Dalton's strengths turned out to be his weaknesses -- his ability to be intense seemed to nullify his humor and warmth in other scenes. Ironically, the attempt to draw more of this out of Brosnan, in my opinion, hurt his depiction of Bond, as charm is his strength.

5) Dalton didn't seem to do much to promote the Bond films. That is, I don't recall seeing him all that much doing publicity in the U.S. He might have, and maybe I missed it, but there were far fewer channels and programs back then. I did see print interviews with him, but again, that was a miscalculation. Films then were aiming at 18-34 year old males, and they weren't really readers. They were TV watchers, especially with all of the channels now on cable. The MTV generation. It was like Bond was being made for one audience but then trying to market itself to another.

Some miscellaneous points to add: I always thought it odd that the time it took for the legal issues to be worked out was the same as the time it took for Dalton's contract to run out. I always assumed they just didn't want Dalton to continue and figured out a gentleman's agreement to get him out of the way. Had Goldeneye been made with Dalton, I think it would have been a better film. What's odd is that the concept and production are much more in line with Dalton's temperament than Brosnan's. The early to mid 1990s were not a particularly remarkable period for films anyway. They seemed to get more colorful, but in many cases just trotted out actors and ideas left over from Baby Boomer TV and film days. Brosnan always felt more like a product of the 1980s to me, and I think he would have fit films made in the late 1970s through the 1980s better than the 1990s. Though Dalton's turn as Bond in The Living Daylights is quite good, his personality might have been better in films made in the mid 1990s until the present day, assuming he'd be younger.

chrisisall

Gassy Man wrote:

I was a teenager in the 1980s and pretty much the demographic that moviemakers were trying to convince.

into my 20's myself.

The Bond films had firmly occupied the PG spot for years, with only Licence to Kill up to that point daring to do more. And it did so unimpressively.

It was all about skin in those days. And who had the biggest one. Explosion, I mean.

Bond, even then, was considered rather passe.

Sorry Moore fans, he was just getting too old. Bond had a "It's your Dad's movies" rep.

Most people assumed Pierce Brosnan would become Bond. He seemed the only actor around who had all of the natural qualities for the part. When Dalton was chosen, most people I knew had no idea who he was.

Same here.

People were disappointed that Brosnan hadn't been chosen. I really believe that hurt Dalton's chances as Bond, as he wasn't just being compared to the previous Bonds but also to the Bond that never was, at least to that point.

Good observation & extrapolation.

Also, back then my idea of Bond was that he was the guy you wanted to be. Dalton played him like the guy you weren't sure you really wanted to be (y'know, like in the novels?), and this was jarring for people who hadn't read Fleming (y'know, like most everyone?).
The transition between LTK & GE was about a good as possible IMHO. GE was reasonably kinda dark. TND lightened it up a bit... TWINE attempted dark but undercut it frequently with the funny so in the end it really wasn't much darker than TND, and of course DAD was pretty dopey aside from Brosnan & Pike. Still, 1987 - 1997 was a great ten years in MY book!

Barbel

Gassy Man wrote:

I always thought it odd that the time it took for the legal issues to be worked out was the same as the time it took for Dalton's contract to run out. I always assumed they just didn't want Dalton to continue and figured out a gentleman's agreement to get him out of the way.

My understanding, which is based on no one source but various bits & pieces over the years, is that Dalton's contract called for 3 films within 6 years ie a 2 year gap between films as had been the norm since TSWLM. I'd be happy to be corrected if anyone knows better. Although the well-known legal problems* had stalled the 3rd Dalton movie (?"The Property Of A Lady" with MGW as first writer) this was only a technicality and Broccoli firmly wanted Dalton to star in what later became GE. When Michael France began writing GE, Dalton was still planned to play Bond.
It's at this point (1993), that things become unclear. One explanation which I lean to is that MGM leaned on Broccoli to replace Dalton (owing to LTK and to a lesser extent TLD being seen as underperforming at the box-office**) which he was reluctant to do, and since Cubby was now in his 80s with ill-health and legal wrangles to contend with his kids MGW & BB took over the day-to-day running of Bond, while Dalton- who had great respect for Cubby- used the contract technicality as a gentlemanly way to bow out and save him that amount of stress.

*nothing to do with Dalton or Bond17 (GE). These concerned Pathe, the company which had bought MGM, selling off broadcasting rights to the earlier Bond movies leaving little or nothing for Eon.

** please do not leap in here, Higgins, this is not a cue. 8-)