Possible Reception of Dalton's Third Film

IcePak

It took both Connery and Moore, the longest running actors to play Bond, 3 films before they were fully accepted in the role. Do you think if Dalton had done a third film, that the audience might have warmed to his more realistic portrayal of the character?

As much as I love Dalton's Flemingesque portrayal of 007, I feel this was not what audiences had come to expect from a Bond film. After the later Connery and Moore films, they expected a larger than life character, which was the antithesis of how Dalton played Bond. I feel that unless the film itself was something very special, it may very well have killed the franchise.

James Suzuki

If Dalton was to do Goldeneye, as it was originally intended, I believe it would have been his best film. He definitely deserved a third movie, not just because he was a great bond, but because he wasn't formed yet.
He hasn't had his equivalent to goldfinger or spy who loved me.

MilleniumForce

As much as I love Dalton, I like Brosnan a tiny bit more - and I wouldn't want Dalton to do GE. If it was a different film, however, then yeah, I'm sure it would have been great.

am747

Would have liked it if Dalton had the opportunity to do a 3rd film .... May be a '91/'92 release based on Fleming's books such as MR or CR or something like the recent Trigger Mortis

Thunderpussy

I fully agree Dalton deserved a third outing as 007. {[]

heartbroken_mr_drax

If the stars aligned like they did for Goldfinger and TSWLM for the respective actors then yeah, a 3rd Bond Dalton film would've been awesome.

But, if they did a film in the same vein as LTK then no. Great for fans, but not great for the general public. There are some great things about LTK - but there are some pretty bad things too - like the violence, the imbalance between dark/funny, the wardrobe and just the general cheap feel. Plus, Dalton's looks started to taper off...

Of course this is in hindsight, but I think the EON films needed the 6 year break to re-tool and remind the public of what they were missing. 80s Bond, even with all of its changes in tone started being taken for granted by the general public (especially the US audiences).

chrisisall

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Plus, Dalton's looks started to taper off...

You must give me the name of your occularist.
So I can avoid him. )

Gassy Man

Dalton was the right guy at the wrong time. If Moore had given up Bond when he should have, the transition would have been smoother, and if the overrated Goldeneye had been made with him in, say, 1989, it would likely have been a better film. But imagine if instead Goldeneye had been made in 1983 with Dalton, and then followed by Licence to Kill (before Miami Vice did the same thing better for free on TV), and then followed by The Living Daylights in 1989? I think all three films would have seemed better.

am747

Gassy Man wrote:

Dalton was the right guy at the wrong time. If Moore had given up Bond when he should have, the transition would have been smoother, and if the overrated Goldeneye had been made with him in, say, 1989, it would likely have been a better film. But imagine if instead Goldeneye had been made in 1983 with Dalton, and then followed by Licence to Kill (before Miami Vice did the same thing better for free on TV), and then followed by The Living Daylights in 1989? I think all three films would have seemed better.

Some intetesting points wrt the order of Bond films. ..... However, in '83, OP was released. I would rate OP >>>>> GE. So would not prefer it to scrapped as per your suggestion

Gassy Man

am747 wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Dalton was the right guy at the wrong time. If Moore had given up Bond when he should have, the transition would have been smoother, and if the overrated Goldeneye had been made with him in, say, 1989, it would likely have been a better film. But imagine if instead Goldeneye had been made in 1983 with Dalton, and then followed by Licence to Kill (before Miami Vice did the same thing better for free on TV), and then followed by The Living Daylights in 1989? I think all three films would have seemed better.

Some intetesting points wrt the order of Bond films. ..... However, in '83, OP was released. I would rate OP >>>>> GE. So would not prefer it to scrapped as per your suggestion

I'm less enamored with OP than most people, but I would think the best arc for Dalton would have been For Your Eyes Only, Goldeneye, License to Kill, and The Living Daylights. He could have retired at that point and still turned the films over to Brosnan, after dominating the 80s.

Higgins

No!

zaphod99

chrisisall wrote:

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Plus, Dalton's looks started to taper off...

You must give me the name of your occularist.
So I can avoid him. )

Few here can be more pro Tim than I am, but even if can see his looks and hair were starting to fade. I recall a TV interview mid period where he talks about doing a third and he mentions that he might need a rug if the wait is much longer. I agree with Grassy, Dalton was cast too late, he should have been Bond sooner.

Higgins

IcePak wrote:

It took both Connery and Moore, the longest running actors to play Bond, 3 films before they were fully accepted in the role.

I disagree.

Moore was pretty well known when he took over the role and he was accepted day one - with the exception of the Connery Diehards.
Same with Brosnan and Craig - even though Craig was not that famous prior to CR.

am747

I'm less enamored with OP than most people, but I would think the best arc for Dalton would have been For Your Eyes Only, Goldeneye, License to Kill, and The Living Daylights. He could have retired at that point and still turned the films over to Brosnan, after dominating the 80s.

Realistically, the films Dalton could hv done are AVTAK and GE (if not for delays and released earlier in '91 / '92) .... OP with its action and adventure theme could hv suited Dalton too with minor adjustments in the script

W/o scrapping any Bond film, maintaining the order of their release and asduming that Dalton could hv taken over in '83 and took on SC in NASA, OP to GE (with minor changes ) could hv worked well for Dalton

Gassy Man

Dalton would have been 35 if he'd taken over for For Your Eyes Only, a film which would have lent itself not only to a younger man but to a harder edged Bond. It also would have tied Dalton back to the 60s. Dalton had the "look" of the mid-70s to late 80s -- lean, long face, long hair. The whole blowed-dry styling fit him, and he would have fit into the aesthetics of the day. If he'd done Goldeneye next, it would have cemented him as the "serious" Bond. License to Kill's violence would have made more sense, as the films would have intensified. Then, he could have gotten his shot at a more romantic adventure with The Living Daylights. The beauty is both Octopussy and A View to a Kill would not have had to have been made.

am747

Gassy Man wrote:

Dalton would have been 35 if he'd taken over for For Your Eyes Only, a film which would have lent itself not only to a younger man but to a harder edged Bond. It also would have tied Dalton back to the 60s. Dalton had the "look" of the mid-70s to late 80s -- lean, long face, long hair. The whole blowed-dry styling fit him, and he would have fit into the aesthetics of the day. If he'd done Goldeneye next, it would have cemented him as the "serious" Bond. License to Kill's violence would have made more sense, as the films would have intensified. Then, he could have gotten his shot at a more romantic adventure with The Living Daylights. The beauty is both Octopussy and A View to a Kill would not have had to have been made.

It is a good hypothesis. All this would have been possible if Bond scripts were all placed on a buffet table and producers could pick and chose anything anytime. The facts are:

a) Moore did a good job in FYEO
b) GE script was probably not ready in '83
c) There are no reasons to scrap OP and AVTAK so there is no beauty if they were not made. In fact I rate both of them higher than GE whose success also depended on it having a new Bond and releasing after 6 years. So if it would have released after FYEO who knows it might not have been that successful
d) Dalton's phase is seen as the weakest when measured objectively

There are two sides of a coin. Who knows if Dalton had come in '81, Bond may not have survived the 80s as the audiences of the time preferred Moore type of films

{[]

am747

The pertinent question is - if Dalton had done a 3rd film, would it have been as successful as SC and RM's 3rd films ?

Since the release of TSWLM ($700M+ gross), the next film to be as successful as GF or TSWLM was SF (in terms of gross) .... This should answer the Q

Gassy Man

It does require one to posit that all the scripts of the period were available. And I don't mind Moore or that Moore was in For Your Eyes Only -- it just feels like a younger man would have taken the story further. It's feel would be "right" for Dalton.

But as regards Octopussy and A View to a Kill, they're both just weak entries to me, both derivations on Goldfinger, and not very good at all. Except for the films of the Brosnan era, they're the ones I rarely ever watch.

Dalton's Bonds were to varying degrees financially successful, but they came too late. Audiences, in part, were disappointed that Brosnan wasn't Bond, and Dalton's debut five or ten years earlier would have fit the times more. I suspect he would have succeeded more had he come earlier rather than later, but that's something we will never know.

Charmed & Dangerous

Higgins wrote:

IcePak wrote:

It took both Connery and Moore, the longest running actors to play Bond, 3 films before they were fully accepted in the role.

I disagree.

Moore was pretty well known when he took over the role and he was accepted day one - with the exception of the Connery Diehards.
Same with Brosnan and Craig - even though Craig was not that famous prior to CR.

+1. -{ and Dr No was phenomenally successful and cemented Connery in the role from the moment he appeared on screen.

Higgins

all these ifs and thens are pretty funny.

All these speculations ignore the fact, that Dalton was not well accepted in the biggest market - the US and in other parts (like Germany).

There is no way that UA would have let this go for another movie - remember that they wanted to have Dalton fired after his second movie - LTK.

zaphod99

Higgins wrote:

all these ifs and thens are pretty funny.

All these speculations ignore the fact, that Dalton was not well accepted in the biggest market - the US and in other parts (like Germany).

There is no way that UA would have let this go for another movie - remember that they wanted to have Dalton fired after his second movie - LTK.

I think you may have an issue with the notion of conjecture A lot of what goes on here is predicated on what ifs and maybe...those who engage do it because they find it fun. I do take your point that it seems that Dalton never sat well with UA which I agree would have most likely stymied him. Tim was well regarded by Cubby but ultimately the money would have won.However we can dream...

Higgins

The funny part is that Timboys disregard the lack of acceptance which the main actor suffered and no matter when he'd started, UA would have ended him after 2 attempts.

Higgins

As for Dalton in FYEO and/or OP:

Let's not forget that Eon had to rely on tradition, branding and trademarks to compete with Connery and NSNA.

Would have been a desaster if EON would have been depending on a new and unknown actor like Dalton! Connery would have wiped the floor with young Timmy!

Thank god, they had established Sir Roger in the role and he was the only one in the 80s who could compete Connery's return to the role back then. And he did! {[]

zaphod99

Higgins wrote:

The funny part is that Timboys disregard the lack of acceptance which the main actor suffered and no matter when he'd started, UA would have ended him after 2 attempts.

I'm probably a Timbboy, but think I am agreeing with you that Dalton did not resonate widely enough for longevity. The only divergence is that I think that it was a real shame, and that as a consequence we lost a potentially superb Bond too soon.

Higgins

Yes, we've lost a crybaby - not too soon

Thunderpussy

I too would be one of the cool kids " Tomboy" sadly the average
Punter, couldn't see how good he was, and why should they. Not
Being Bond connoisseurs, they couldn't see the power of the Daltonator.
Sir Roger was a tough act to follow and the change of tone too strange
for the unbelievers. Hence why after Dalton they went back to the Sir Roger
Version of Bond with Pierce.
Not until the second coming with Craig, did the stars Aline and the
Prophecy fulfilled, did Dalton's version of Bond begin again, a Renaissance,
a rebirth, and our progenitors can look to the heavens knowing that there is
Peace and order due to Dalton's Tenure. ...... Something like that.

am747

Performance wise Dalton was brilliant -{

Gassy Man

zaphod99 wrote:

Higgins wrote:

The funny part is that Timboys disregard the lack of acceptance which the main actor suffered and no matter when he'd started, UA would have ended him after 2 attempts.

I'm probably a Timbboy, but think I am agreeing with you that Dalton did not resonate widely enough for longevity. The only divergence is that I think that it was a real shame, and that as a consequence we lost a potentially superb Bond too soon.

Actually, The Living Daylights was reasonably well received, and it performed well at the box office. The follow up is what basically killed Dalton's tenure, as American audiences in particular did not respond favorably and probably in part because, by then, Miami Vice has already explored the same idea for five years. Dalton himself was a disappointment because he was not Brosnan.

But consider, too, that Moore's hanging on for two or three more films helped to cement his tenure in the public's view of James Bond. If he hadn't done those three films, and Dalton had come along and well before Brosnan was considered, things could have turned out quite differently. Moore would have gone out on Moonraker, one of the silliest films, and Dalton would have started out fresh, younger and more in line with the expectations of the late 70s and early 80s. I think he could have handled the role well and not been burdened with so many expectations. And, as before, we wouldn't have had to suffer through Octopussy and A View to a Kill.

am747

Gassy Man wrote:

And, as before, we I wouldn't have had to suffer through Octopussy and A View to a Kill.

Corrected the last sentence (unless you like to refer to yourself as we), as, IMO, OP, AVTAK, etc >>>>>>> GE

And if you like to speculate, it can be said that GE did relatively well than some of the films that came before it mainly because it had a new Bond and it was released after 6 yrs. If it were released in '83 (like 2 yrs after FYEO) as you fantasize, it probably would have made less money that LTK

Gassy Man

Maybe. I'm not a big fan of Goldeneye, which I find to be mostly unimpressive, but I think it got a bounce because Brosnan was in it, and he was the Bond that American audiences in particular had wanted all the way back to the 80s. We'll never know for sure either way. But seven Moore films, three pretty good, combined with the disappointment that Brosnan didn't get the role in 1987 certainly helped set Dalton up for failure. "We," by the way, extends to quite a few of us who were around when Octopussy and A View to a Kill lumbered onto the screens, and "we" left pretty unmoved, though, of course, not everyone will agree.

zaphod99

Gassy Man wrote:

zaphod99 wrote:

Higgins wrote:

The funny part is that Timboys disregard the lack of acceptance which the main actor suffered and no matter when he'd started, UA would have ended him after 2 attempts.

I'm probably a Timbboy, but think I am agreeing with you that Dalton did not resonate widely enough for longevity. The only divergence is that I think that it was a real shame, and that as a consequence we lost a potentially superb Bond too soon.

Actually, The Living Daylights was reasonably well received, and it performed well at the box office. The follow up is what basically killed Dalton's tenure, as American audiences in particular did not respond favorably and probably in part because, by then, Miami Vice has already explored the same idea for five years. Dalton himself was a disappointment because he was not Brosnan.

But consider, too, that Moore's hanging on for two or three more films helped to cement his tenure in the public's view of James Bond. If he hadn't done those three films, and Dalton had come along and well before Brosnan was considered, things could have turned out quite differently. Moore would have gone out on Moonraker, one of the silliest films, and Dalton would have started out fresh, younger and more in line with the expectations of the late 70s and early 80s. I think he could have handled the role well and not been burdened with so many expectations. And, as before, we wouldn't have had to suffer through Octopussy and A View to a Kill.

I'm with you there Brav. Still have a slight concern that reasonably well received may not have alas been enough to carry the day, but agree that starting earlier may have changed the game considerably in our chaps favour.