I've always wondered what Direction Dalton's third Film would have taken? Would it have stayed on the violent LTK Path, or would it have been much more light hearted?
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
Dalton hardly played the role any differently than he had others -- watch his Prince Barin in Flash Gordon a few years earlier. The problem isn't so much Dalton as John Glen's approach. In many ways, this is the best directed of his films, which comes across as more Guy Hamilton-ish, or perhaps Spielberg light. However, it's a little too colorful to be taken as a "dark film," and not funny enough to be considered a "fun" film. That, combined with Dalton being the replacement guy, turned a lot of people off. It is a good film, with a lot going for it, but it doesn't quite feel like a Bond film.
Part of the problem is it was the 1980s. People seemed to have lost their minds in terms of how to make a good movie in that decade, particularly in the middle. Of course, there were good films in this period, but there was so much awful, fomulaic, half-baked, going-through-the-motions filmmaking. And in some ways, The Living Daylights feels like that. I like it, and I like Dalton's turn as Bond, but even I have to be in a certain mood to watch it. With Dalton trying to be a "dangerous" Bond, his films should have felt more dangerous, something that Craig's films have managed to do successfully.
I think Moore was so well known and loved by the audience that anyone
Taking over would've had a hard time.
I'm finding this theory harder and harder to believe. Keep in mind all this was taking place before my time, but it seems like a cop-out to explain the Dalton failure. Audiences managed to easily transition from Die Another Day to Casino Royale, despite heavy public outcry against Craig replacing Brosnan.
Dalton had every possible advantage in 1987 by replacing the aging Roger Moore. Practically any male actor under the age of 45 would have been seen as a rejuvenating the series. The issue is that people just don't really connect with Dalton as Bond, aside from the 1% of Fleming Purists out there.
From Wikipedia:
In the United Kingdom—one of its critical markets—the film was also hampered by receiving a 15 certificate from the British Board of Film Classification which severely affected its commercial success. Future Bond films, following the resolution of legal and other issues, were all released between 31 October and mid-December, in order to avoid the risk of a summer failure, as had happened to Licence To Kill.
Since Dalton was contracted for three Bond films,[15] the pre-production of his third film began in 1990, in order to be released in 1991. What was confirmed is that the story would deal with the destruction of a chemical weapons laboratory in Scotland, and the events would take place in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong. However, the film was cancelled due to legal issues between UA/MGM and Eon Productions, which lasted for four years.[16]
The legal battle ended in 1993, and Dalton was expected to return as James Bond in the next Bond film, which later became GoldenEye. Despite his contract having expired, negotiations with him to renew it took place.[17] In an interview with the Daily Mail in August 1993, Dalton indicated that Michael France was writing the screenplay for the new film, and the production was to begin in January or February 1994.[18] When the deadline was not met, Dalton surprised everyone on 12 April 1994 with the announcement that he would not return as James Bond. At this time, he was shooting the mini-series Scarlett. The announcement for the new Bond came two months later, with Pierce Brosnan playing the role. Dalton reflected in 2007, "I was supposed to make one more but it was cancelled because MGM and the film's producers got into a lawsuit which lasted for five years. After that, I didn't want to do it any more."[19]
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I think Moore was so well known and loved by the audience that anyone
Taking over would've had a hard time.
I'm finding this theory harder and harder to believe. Keep in mind all this was taking place before my time, but it seems like a cop-out to explain the Dalton failure. Audiences managed to easily transition from Die Another Day to Casino Royale, despite heavy public outcry against Craig replacing Brosnan.
Dalton had every possible advantage in 1987 by replacing the aging Roger Moore. Practically any male actor under the age of 45 would have been seen as a rejuvenating the series. The issue is that people just don't really connect with Dalton as Bond, aside from the 1% of Fleming Purists out there.
Thank you! That's what I am constantly saying here for years.
Remember the Timboys are a weird and creepy bunch
In another article it's mentioned that MGM were pressuring Cubby to fire him
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think Moore was so well known and loved by the audience that anyone
Taking over would've had a hard time.
I'm finding this theory harder and harder to believe. Keep in mind all this was taking place before my time, but it seems like a cop-out to explain the Dalton failure. Audiences managed to easily transition from Die Another Day to Casino Royale, despite heavy public outcry against Craig replacing Brosnan.
Dalton had every possible advantage in 1987 by replacing the aging Roger Moore. Practically any male actor under the age of 45 would have been seen as a rejuvenating the series. The issue is that people just don't really connect with Dalton as Bond, aside from the 1% of Fleming Purists out there.
From Wikipedia:
In the United Kingdom—one of its critical markets—the film was also hampered by receiving a 15 certificate from the British Board of Film Classification which severely affected its commercial success. Future Bond films, following the resolution of legal and other issues, were all released between 31 October and mid-December, in order to avoid the risk of a summer failure, as had happened to Licence To Kill.
Since Dalton was contracted for three Bond films,[15] the pre-production of his third film began in 1990, in order to be released in 1991. What was confirmed is that the story would deal with the destruction of a chemical weapons laboratory in Scotland, and the events would take place in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong. However, the film was cancelled due to legal issues between UA/MGM and Eon Productions, which lasted for four years.[16]
The legal battle ended in 1993, and Dalton was expected to return as James Bond in the next Bond film, which later became GoldenEye. Despite his contract having expired, negotiations with him to renew it took place.[17] In an interview with the Daily Mail in August 1993, Dalton indicated that Michael France was writing the screenplay for the new film, and the production was to begin in January or February 1994.[18] When the deadline was not met, Dalton surprised everyone on 12 April 1994 with the announcement that he would not return as James Bond. At this time, he was shooting the mini-series Scarlett. The announcement for the new Bond came two months later, with Pierce Brosnan playing the role. Dalton reflected in 2007, "I was supposed to make one more but it was cancelled because MGM and the film's producers got into a lawsuit which lasted for five years. After that, I didn't want to do it any more."[19]
I was around then. People did not warm up to Dalton, at least in the U.S. He was a disappointment for some because they had been anticipating Brosnan. Dalton was also not a known commodity in the U.S. And for better or for worse, for a substantial number of people, Moore was Bond, and Brosnan seemed like he would be a younger, hipper version of Moore. Dalton was the skinny guy with the saturnine features and Shakespearean delivery that replaced him. The press was not particularly kind to Dalton, either, and most critics were unimpressed. All that aside, if the film had been more hard-hitting, and therefore better suited to Dalton's personality, it might have fared much, much better.
I think Moore was so well known and loved by the audience that anyone
Taking over would've had a hard time.
I'm finding this theory harder and harder to believe. Keep in mind all this was taking place before my time, but it seems like a cop-out to explain the Dalton failure. Audiences managed to easily transition from Die Another Day to Casino Royale, despite heavy public outcry against Craig replacing Brosnan.
Dalton had every possible advantage in 1987 by replacing the aging Roger Moore. Practically any male actor under the age of 45 would have been seen as a rejuvenating the series. The issue is that people just don't really connect with Dalton as Bond, aside from the 1% of Fleming Purists out there.
From Wikipedia:
In the United Kingdom—one of its critical markets—the film was also hampered by receiving a 15 certificate from the British Board of Film Classification which severely affected its commercial success. Future Bond films, following the resolution of legal and other issues, were all released between 31 October and mid-December, in order to avoid the risk of a summer failure, as had happened to Licence To Kill.
Since Dalton was contracted for three Bond films,[15] the pre-production of his third film began in 1990, in order to be released in 1991. What was confirmed is that the story would deal with the destruction of a chemical weapons laboratory in Scotland, and the events would take place in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong. However, the film was cancelled due to legal issues between UA/MGM and Eon Productions, which lasted for four years.[16]
The legal battle ended in 1993, and Dalton was expected to return as James Bond in the next Bond film, which later became GoldenEye. Despite his contract having expired, negotiations with him to renew it took place.[17] In an interview with the Daily Mail in August 1993, Dalton indicated that Michael France was writing the screenplay for the new film, and the production was to begin in January or February 1994.[18] When the deadline was not met, Dalton surprised everyone on 12 April 1994 with the announcement that he would not return as James Bond. At this time, he was shooting the mini-series Scarlett. The announcement for the new Bond came two months later, with Pierce Brosnan playing the role. Dalton reflected in 2007, "I was supposed to make one more but it was cancelled because MGM and the film's producers got into a lawsuit which lasted for five years. After that, I didn't want to do it any more."[19]
I was around then. People did not warm up to Dalton, at least in the U.S. He was a disappointment for some because they had been anticipating Brosnan. Dalton was also not a known commodity in the U.S. And for better or for worse, for a substantial number of people, Moore was Bond, and Brosnan seemed like he would be a younger, hipper version of Moore. Dalton was the skinny guy with the saturnine features and Shakespearean delivery that replaced him. The press was not particularly kind to Dalton, either, and most critics were unimpressed. All that aside, if the film had been more hard-hitting, and therefore better suited to Dalton's personality, it might have fared much, much better.
To be honest I am the opposite?
Who is this Pierce Brosnan? He's an American film star? Oh no he's British. Actually he's Irish. Let's have a look. Wheres Remington Steele? Ah, the BBC have got it on at 11.30 at night. Too late to watch it.
Whose Timothy Dalton? Oh yes, I remember him from Flash Gordon. The one with Houdini line. Didn't I watch him on Jane Eyre the other week? He's doing Shakespeare in the West End. He looks good. Very Bondian.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I'm another one who was around at the time, and here's my take. First, critics and audiences began complaining about Moore's age as early as For Your Eyes Only (look at the number of times it's referenced in Mad magazine's parody, For Her Thighs Only), and by the time of AVTAK they were all complaining that he looked ridiculous and that it was time for a change. People were indeed ready for a new Bond.
As for who that Bond should be, the feeling in the U.S. was that it should indeed be Brosnan. Remington Steele wasn't a massive hit, but it was popular and Brosnan was a known commodity. In those pre-Internet days, there were a lot of reports in the newspapers that he was the favorite, and we seemed to be conditioned to have him as the next Bond. When it was announced that the role would go to Dalton, People magazine even ran an issue with Brosnan on the cover, saying he was angry and planning to fight for the Bond role. I also remember when TLD was released and reviewed on the old Siskel and Ebert program, Gene Siskel bashed Dalton and said that the producers really should have gone with Brosnan. Other reviewers said much the same thing, and I think the die was cast against Dalton from the beginning.
I've always wondered what Direction Dalton's third Film would have taken? Would it have stayed on the violent LTK Path, or would it have been much more light hearted?
Looking at some ideas for it, I think they were going down the sci-fi light hearted route. At one point his third instalment would see him battling Anthony Hopkins and a robot army!
Pierce Brosnan did not screw up his own films. For sure he had his critics. But as Higgins stated, he was widely accepted, and that was up to and including Die Another Day. At the time, many were perfectly content (including myself) when it appeared he would return for a fifth.
I was around then. People did not warm up to Dalton, at least in the U.S. He was a disappointment for some because they had been anticipating Brosnan. Dalton was also not a known commodity in the U.S. And for better or for worse, for a substantial number of people, Moore was Bond, and Brosnan seemed like he would be a younger, hipper version of Moore.
This EXACTLY.
The PR folks could have done a much better job of introducing their new Bond... and I for one remember thinking "He's not Brosnan, but he's pretty good."
If they had shot out a good campaign something like: You've never really met James Bond, UNTIL NOW! Timothy Dalton & EON Productions introduce you to Ian Fleming's Bond in The Living Daylights!
We all (in the U.S.) might have been a bit more intrigued & open to him.
Oh, here's the magazine cover I mentioned. . .vintage 1986. . .
I used to have that issue, which I bought because I was such a huge Remington Steele fan and therefore a fan of Pierce Brosnan as the next Bond; I remember even going over the cover with a pencil to age him a bit to better resemble Sean Connery's rugged features. Then, seeing "relatively unknown" Timothy Dalton in a small picture in the article, it took a while for me to make the Prince Barin connection, which was a surprise considering how much I loved Flash Gordon because of Timothy Dalton. It was at that moment of realization when I got extremely stoked at the prospect of this new Bond!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I'm another one who was around at the time, and here's my take. First, critics and audiences began complaining about Moore's age as early as For Your Eyes Only (look at the number of times it's referenced in Mad magazine's parody, For Her Thighs Only), and by the time of AVTAK they were all complaining that he looked ridiculous and that it was time for a change. People were indeed ready for a new Bond.
As for who that Bond should be, the feeling in the U.S. was that it should indeed be Brosnan. Remington Steele wasn't a massive hit, but it was popular and Brosnan was a known commodity. In those pre-Internet days, there were a lot of reports in the newspapers that he was the favorite, and we seemed to be conditioned to have him as the next Bond. When it was announced that the role would go to Dalton, People magazine even ran an issue with Brosnan on the cover, saying he was angry and planning to fight for the Bond role. I also remember when TLD was released and reviewed on the old Siskel and Ebert program, Gene Siskel bashed Dalton and said that the producers really should have gone with Brosnan. Other reviewers said much the same thing, and I think the die was cast against Dalton from the beginning.
At least that's how I see it.
Sorry, but I reported from how it was seen in Britain.
We hadn't heard of Brosnan but Dalton was a known quantity to us. Of course Brosnan became more close to us once he'd opened up and started to do more films.
It dores seem the Americans had choosen their Bond before Broccoli
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I've always wondered what Direction Dalton's third Film would have taken? Would it have stayed on the violent LTK Path, or would it have been much more light hearted?
Looking at some ideas for it, I think they were going down the sci-fi light hearted route. At one point his third instalment would see him battling Anthony Hopkins and a robot army!
It probably would not have been that light Hearted, but more of a Mix of TLD and LTK.
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
Comments
Part of the problem is it was the 1980s. People seemed to have lost their minds in terms of how to make a good movie in that decade, particularly in the middle. Of course, there were good films in this period, but there was so much awful, fomulaic, half-baked, going-through-the-motions filmmaking. And in some ways, The Living Daylights feels like that. I like it, and I like Dalton's turn as Bond, but even I have to be in a certain mood to watch it. With Dalton trying to be a "dangerous" Bond, his films should have felt more dangerous, something that Craig's films have managed to do successfully.
I was just trying to work in a gag; Higgins is a good sport. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
www.007jamesbond.dk
http://thedangermen.com/
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I'm finding this theory harder and harder to believe. Keep in mind all this was taking place before my time, but it seems like a cop-out to explain the Dalton failure. Audiences managed to easily transition from Die Another Day to Casino Royale, despite heavy public outcry against Craig replacing Brosnan.
Dalton had every possible advantage in 1987 by replacing the aging Roger Moore. Practically any male actor under the age of 45 would have been seen as a rejuvenating the series. The issue is that people just don't really connect with Dalton as Bond, aside from the 1% of Fleming Purists out there.
From Wikipedia:
In the United Kingdom—one of its critical markets—the film was also hampered by receiving a 15 certificate from the British Board of Film Classification which severely affected its commercial success. Future Bond films, following the resolution of legal and other issues, were all released between 31 October and mid-December, in order to avoid the risk of a summer failure, as had happened to Licence To Kill.
Since Dalton was contracted for three Bond films,[15] the pre-production of his third film began in 1990, in order to be released in 1991. What was confirmed is that the story would deal with the destruction of a chemical weapons laboratory in Scotland, and the events would take place in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong. However, the film was cancelled due to legal issues between UA/MGM and Eon Productions, which lasted for four years.[16]
The legal battle ended in 1993, and Dalton was expected to return as James Bond in the next Bond film, which later became GoldenEye. Despite his contract having expired, negotiations with him to renew it took place.[17] In an interview with the Daily Mail in August 1993, Dalton indicated that Michael France was writing the screenplay for the new film, and the production was to begin in January or February 1994.[18] When the deadline was not met, Dalton surprised everyone on 12 April 1994 with the announcement that he would not return as James Bond. At this time, he was shooting the mini-series Scarlett. The announcement for the new Bond came two months later, with Pierce Brosnan playing the role. Dalton reflected in 2007, "I was supposed to make one more but it was cancelled because MGM and the film's producers got into a lawsuit which lasted for five years. After that, I didn't want to do it any more."[19]
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Thank you! That's what I am constantly saying here for years.
Remember the Timboys are a weird and creepy bunch
In another article it's mentioned that MGM were pressuring Cubby to fire him
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
To be honest I am the opposite?
Who is this Pierce Brosnan? He's an American film star? Oh no he's British. Actually he's Irish. Let's have a look. Wheres Remington Steele? Ah, the BBC have got it on at 11.30 at night. Too late to watch it.
Whose Timothy Dalton? Oh yes, I remember him from Flash Gordon. The one with Houdini line. Didn't I watch him on Jane Eyre the other week? He's doing Shakespeare in the West End. He looks good. Very Bondian.
As for who that Bond should be, the feeling in the U.S. was that it should indeed be Brosnan. Remington Steele wasn't a massive hit, but it was popular and Brosnan was a known commodity. In those pre-Internet days, there were a lot of reports in the newspapers that he was the favorite, and we seemed to be conditioned to have him as the next Bond. When it was announced that the role would go to Dalton, People magazine even ran an issue with Brosnan on the cover, saying he was angry and planning to fight for the Bond role. I also remember when TLD was released and reviewed on the old Siskel and Ebert program, Gene Siskel bashed Dalton and said that the producers really should have gone with Brosnan. Other reviewers said much the same thing, and I think the die was cast against Dalton from the beginning.
At least that's how I see it.
Looking at some ideas for it, I think they were going down the sci-fi light hearted route. At one point his third instalment would see him battling Anthony Hopkins and a robot army!
And chris and me!
Count me in, too.
The PR folks could have done a much better job of introducing their new Bond... and I for one remember thinking "He's not Brosnan, but he's pretty good."
If they had shot out a good campaign something like:
You've never really met James Bond, UNTIL NOW!
Timothy Dalton & EON Productions introduce you to Ian Fleming's Bond in The Living Daylights!
We all (in the U.S.) might have been a bit more intrigued & open to him.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
In hindsight, he still looked a bit young for it, no matter how much I wanted him for Bond...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I used to have that issue, which I bought because I was such a huge Remington Steele fan and therefore a fan of Pierce Brosnan as the next Bond; I remember even going over the cover with a pencil to age him a bit to better resemble Sean Connery's rugged features. Then, seeing "relatively unknown" Timothy Dalton in a small picture in the article, it took a while for me to make the Prince Barin connection, which was a surprise considering how much I loved Flash Gordon because of Timothy Dalton. It was at that moment of realization when I got extremely stoked at the prospect of this new Bond!
Sorry, but I reported from how it was seen in Britain.
We hadn't heard of Brosnan but Dalton was a known quantity to us. Of course Brosnan became more close to us once he'd opened up and started to do more films.
It dores seem the Americans had choosen their Bond before Broccoli
It probably would not have been that light Hearted, but more of a Mix of TLD and LTK.