It would've been cool to have a Dalton film in 1991 about the ending of the Cold War. The coups and unrest in the Soviet Union ca. 1989-1990 were perfect breeding ground for some interesting, mature Bond stories with an interesting late 80s/early 90s feel akin to Hunt for the Red October. Then you could've had a four year break and gotten Brosnan anyway.
Atomic Blonde, which just came out last week, is a bit like that
set in Berlin over the two or three days before the Wall fell
theres a mad scramble to seize data or make it disappear as East Berlin changes hands
part of the basic plot is a bit like Living Daylights (gotta get this Stasi agent with The List in his head across the border)
and the challenge of salvaging top secret data before the enemy claims territory was actually part of Fleming's job during WWII
otherwise Atomic Blonde is about 100x bloodier than anything ever in a Bond film, even Dalton's second
It's fine margins between the Bonds. Potentially Dalton & Lazenby could've been the two best Bonds, but the majority of viewers will never regard them as such. Every actor of Bond has done a really good job imo. But naturally you narrow it down and pick your favourites or who you think is best. I always liked Moore but can't possibly say he was best. I would truly love to have seen Dalton do a 3rd film & more. Sadly it wasn't to be. It's possible with the disappointing box-office reception of LTK that it was for the best long-term to have a change. For whatever reason the public couldn't get behind Tim in the same way they have Daniel. People seemed happy enough with TLD but LTK a film which had an American feel to it, didn't appeal to Americans. Dalton's brooding persona just didn't sit comfortably with many casual viewers. A bit silly really when you consider how dark and tough Craig's take on Bond has been. I mean we actually see Bond get tortured on these modern films, yet today's audiences are absolutely fine, welcome all this and praise the tough & gritty approach. What a shame fans back in the late 80's were so tame and couldn't handle LTK (not a violent film by today's standards at all). It should never have got a 15 certificate. That was ridiculous, it's a 12 only. Most films these days are given 12's when really they are 15's in disguise. For fear of box-office struggles they somehow scrape 12's. Who can honestly say Casino Royale was suitable for a 12 year-old? It's clearly not. The Dark Knight is not suitable for a 12-year old. Even Spider-man (first Tobey Maguire) film is not suitable. It only takes one drastic scene and the whole certificate should be changed. But the official decision goes by gore rather than brutality in itself or shocking perception. Superman Returns was downright unpleasant for one scene. It's not suitable for children, it can't possibly be. As an adult who likes violence & realism in films, I was shocked & quite disturbed by scenes in the above films I've mentioned. LTK was given a rough deal. It changed its title because the Americans were thought to be confused by Licence Revoked being a driving licence or an unpopular sounding title. The film suffered poor advertising and genuinely had big blockbusters to contend with. Batman '89 & Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were huge films at the time. LTK was always likely to be affected, but it deserved a great deal more. Dalton imo could've nailed any Bond film given to him, he was THAT good. A 3rd film in '91 might have hit similar money to TLD or a bit more, but probably not significantly successful. Perhaps a 3rd outing between '92 -94 might have been enough gap to whet the appetite of fans again, working in Dalton's favour. By GE's release however it was way over 6 years, and in truth such a lengthy gap that Dalton would've been under severe pressure for it to succeed. A new actor was always more likely to get success with GE I think. It felt like a new era, new M, a Bond for the 90's. Tim could've done it extremely well and his version of the film would've been great, but the casual fans and audiences probably wanted the GE we got instead. It was a success, fair play to Brosnan. Dalton's third outing was delayed too long. Very frustrating but at least he did TWO and reprised his role. Unlike Lazenby who largely became forgotten about and criticised for the way he conducted himself off set. Dalton's a great actor and put absolutely everything into his films. I think it's only more recent years where Craig fans and other people rewatching the old films now realise what a great job Tim did. He basically was the first version of Craig's Bond. But Craig has been exceptional and his scripts have taken Bond to a new level I feel. Except QOS the other three Craig movies have been absolutely terrific. I'm just delighted that we got Dalton & Craig cast as Bond. They are the true masters of it for me.
Three possibilities:
A. It could've been his GF or TSWLM and would have cemented him as the great Bond he is.
B. It could've been a modest success like TLD. I think this is the most likely.
C. It could've bombed and sunk the series.
-{
I'd say A. We all know what third bond films are like for all of the Bond actors, excluding Pierce Brosnan (sorry Heartbroken). They would have found an awesome balance with it. TLD was more or less like the previous three films but with Timothy Dalton in the lead role, with a harder edge, LTK was the darkest in the series and a revenge story, and I feel the third would have been an awesome action packaged Bond, serious but a big plot.
When I feel disappointed that Timothy Dalton only got to appear twice in the role, I then compare it if Roger Moore only had LALD and TMWTGG. I definitely would not have remembered him for anything whatsoever, since I'm not the greatest fan of LALD and TMWTGG is consistently poor in my rankings. The same could be said for Pierce Brosnan, since I am not a fan of the actor, him only doing GE and TND would have changed nothing for me. If Daniel Craig had only done CR and QOS, he'd still be ahead of Pierce Brosnan at fourth in my rankings.
I'd say A. We all know what third bond films are like for all of the Bond actors, excluding Pierce Brosnan (sorry Heartbroken). They would have found an awesome balance with it. TLD was more or less like the previous three films but with Timothy Dalton in the lead role, with a harder edge, LTK was the darkest in the series and a revenge story, and I feel the third would have been an awesome action packaged Bond, serious but a big plot.
That was the plan judging by the treatments for Bond 17. We really missed out.
-{
Comments
set in Berlin over the two or three days before the Wall fell
theres a mad scramble to seize data or make it disappear as East Berlin changes hands
part of the basic plot is a bit like Living Daylights (gotta get this Stasi agent with The List in his head across the border)
and the challenge of salvaging top secret data before the enemy claims territory was actually part of Fleming's job during WWII
otherwise Atomic Blonde is about 100x bloodier than anything ever in a Bond film, even Dalton's second
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Your misty eyes must make reading difficult at times Higgins.
Who said the two of us couldn't agree on anything concerning Dalton?
A. It could've been his GF or TSWLM and would have cemented him as the great Bond he is.
B. It could've been a modest success like TLD. I think this is the most likely.
C. It could've bombed and sunk the series.
-{
"Better make that two."
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
"Better make that two."
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
-{