At least Roger was old in AVTAK, what about George in OHMSS. NOW THAT'S A FAILURE! Anyway, personally I think Dalton's Bond was dark and gritty; (True to Fleming's books), especially in TLD. He wasn't the best Bond, but he certainly was not a failure.
Dalton was great as Bond. But it was the 80s, a great decade for some and a mostly tacky and empty-headed one for others. Movies by then were glorified TV shows, the Bond films in general felt routine and unglamourous, audiences were having trouble getting Moore out of their minds, and sc-fi and more violent action films were still the rage. By the time "Licence to Kill" came out, people were burned out on "Miami Vice," which a lot of folks I know said the film felt like, and Dalton just didn't command their attention, as he expected them to take Bond more seriously than they wanted to. Pop culture was shifting to hairbands and hip hop, and Bond had neither, so young people (I was in college by then) really thought it was kind of dorky to see Bond in the theaters; it was more of a video movie. I remember the second Dalton film hardly generating any excitement, even though the first was among the better of the series.
I have to strongly disagree. Not only was Dalton not a failure, in my opinion he comes a close second to Connery as my favorite.
My list would be:
Connery
Dalton
Brosnan
Moore
(Lazenby and Craig don't get a place since they've each only done one film. If forced to place them, they be between Dalton and Brosnan.)
Why is Timothy Dalton a failure as James Bond. Im was very exciting that was James Bond in 87 after Piece Brosnan couldn't make the part.
Piece Brosnan being casting as James Bond is what got me interested in 007. So, when Timothy Dalton replaced him, Im was equally as happy because I liked him as Baron in Flash Gordon.
Why did he do so bad as James Bond. Im mean he is handsome enough and a professional actor with real training. Im just wondering why people hate him and he failed so badly when it came to getting customers to watch his 007 movies. Thank you for answering my questions.
Ummm, Timothy Dalton played bond before Pierce Brosnan. Not the recprical.
1. Goldfinger 2. Skyfall 3. Goldeneye 4. The Spy Who Loved Me 5. OHMSS
Check out my Instagram: @livingthebondlife
"I never joke about my work, 007."
Timothy Dalton was not a failure. If there were failings, it was that his acting and character fit a more dynamic personna, while the scripting and action was still linked far too much with Roger Moore. That is not to fault Roger Moore, but in comparison, the two were day and night, and the transition was rapid in the acting, and slow in the characterization within the screenplay.
The problem was a combination of cohesion in actor selection and in scripting. The action could have been more visceral, more realistic, but it was hindered by the accretion of the suave, white-glove manners of Moore. There was no way to do both, the producers should have realized that they had allowed the movie personna to overstep the written character.
There is still a great deal of depth and humanity in the written stories that has not been portrayed in the motion picture. Many good and Fleming-inspired images that need to be portrayed. I liked The movie portrayal of Scaramanga, but it is not the written version of the character at all. Dr. No is still a more complex villain than was portrayed in the movie, and the idea of an "organization of evil" should have no better models than what exists in reality today.
The idea that a very good professional actor could be a failure when portraying a character that suits him well is not really that likely, if failings exist, it is the providing a credible story which links the original characters and story to a modern reality.
The Bond villains were intellectual, professional criminals, with depth and a lack of any concern for anything but power and money. Maybe that's the problem, today we have people with a deep-seated hatred for the western culture and a complete lack of value for human life. If any long-range motive exists, it is to see the seeds they spread grow and overshadow all western control. There is not the greed for control and power, just a desire to see everything that does not agree with them in ruins.
That is a villain on the scale of the old Bond characters, but in a new millenium. The world anarchist rather than the professional criminal.
Can't see how Dalton was a failure. He played the role he was given in the way he felt it should be played, as did all the other Bonds. I believe if anything failed it was the movies. They were lackluster to say the least. Not to say I didn't enjoy them, I enjoyed them greatly along with Dalton's performance.
I enjoyed the human side he brought out in it, which I appreciate more now that I have read the books. I guess it is another reason why I like DCs Bond so much. The humanity that he brings is absolutly perfect.
Personally i think daltons portrayal of bond was damn good ( although as a youngster i didnt think so ) , but the movies still hold up well today, and TLD and LTK are among my favourite bond movies
Ummm, Timothy Dalton played bond before Pierce Brosnan. Not the recprical.
No. Didn't Brosnan was already sign to the Living Daylights as Bond but contract reasons to Remington Steele made him unavailable, so Timothy Dalton replaced him.
Ummm, Timothy Dalton played bond before Pierce Brosnan. Not the recprical.
No. Didn't Brosnan was already sign to the Living Daylights as Bond but contract reasons to Remington Steele made him unavailable, so Timothy Dalton replaced him.
Accounts differ, but are consistent on Dalton being chosen though he was unavailable owing to his having signed up to do a play. When the play fell through, he became available once his film Stella Dallas was completed, a few days before filming on TLD was to begin. It's the exact timing of the Brosnan selection that causes confusion. During Dalton's tenure, it was put about that Brosnan had been chosen owing to Dalton's unavailability. When Brosnan took over, the story was subtly changed. IMO much of this is publicity/marketing speak; EON would be keen to ensure that whoever was the current Bond had always been the first choice- a policy which still operates today...
anywho, Dalton was DEFF. not a failure...as a matter of fact, he's my favorite. He brought a gritty Bond to the world, and did it with amazing skill. He looked the part, and owned it.
Ummm, Timothy Dalton played bond before Pierce Brosnan. Not the recprical.
No. Didn't Brosnan was already sign to the Living Daylights as Bond but contract reasons to Remington Steele made him unavailable, so Timothy Dalton replaced him.
That is what I had heard. In fact, according to Doris Roberts, Brosnan's co-star from REMINGTON STEELE, Brosnan was in a bit of a snit on the set, because he had lost the Bond role due to his contract with STEELE.
Barbel is correct. The official and most widely accepted line is that Dalton was offered but was unavailable due to various committments. This is highly plausable as he had been approached twice before by Eon for the Bond role, so why not a third?
Brosnan was offered and accepted the role of Bond and then Remington Steel producers took up their option of another series on the back of Pierce's association with Bond. Cubby does not 'share' his Bonds with anyone and the Brosnan deal collapsed.
Due to the delays over this fiasco, Dalton again became available and finished filming Brenda Starr ( hate to correct you Barbel ) on the Friday, flew out of the States on a Saturday and started filming Bond on the Monday ( or something ridiculous like that) and Pierce had to wait for his turn in the tux.
Barbel is correct. The official and most widely accepted line is that Dalton was offered but was unavailable due to various committments. This is highly plausable as he had been approached twice before by Eon for the Bond role, so why not a third?
Due to the delays over this fiasco, Dalton again became available and finished filming Brenda Starr ( hate to correct you Barbel ) on the Friday, flew out of the States on a Saturday and started filming Bond on the Monday ( or something ridiculous like that) and Pierce had to wait for his turn in the tux.
Thank you, Lady Rose, and you're quite right about the film (correction accepted ). However, I do believe it was on the Friday and not the Saturday that our Tim took his flight...
IMO much of this is publicity/marketing speak; EON would be keen to ensure that whoever was the current Bond had always been the first choice- a policy which still operates today...
Did you know that Daniel Craig was selected just before The Living Daylights, but declined because he considered himself to be too young?
>.< wow. I love the sort of stuff we know. thanks for the trivia, Cat...comes in useful, especially with this being the year I graduate and 2'007 concurently...my class believes they know everything about Bond because they know what he drinks...HA!
) ) ... Now, remind me again why people think we Bond fans have no lives ??
) These people include my wife (Bride Of Barbel), kids (apart from Son Of Barbel), family, friends.... Often a brother/friend/etc will call me from a pub quiz somewhere with a question such as "Quick, who directed OHMSS?" in the absolute certainty that I'll know the answer. (There have been hard ones, too!)
Dalton was a decent Bond, trapped in a couple of dud films. It happens.
Thats Brosnan you are referring to. Dalton was a great Bond trapped in Excellent Bond films.
Or . . . Dalton was trapped in one excellent Bond film and one decent one.
Or... Dalton was a terrible Bond trapped in two really bad films.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Dalton was a decent Bond, trapped in a couple of dud films. It happens.
Thats Brosnan you are referring to. Dalton was a great Bond trapped in Excellent Bond films.
I'm with you, Krassno. I've now seen Brosnan's four films, and none of them hold a candle to TLD or LTK.
GE more than holds a candle. It's my favourite Pierce Brosnan Bond film by some distance. I'm not a fan of the PTS (apart from the bungee jump), but from the moment Bond arrives in Monaco to the end of the film is very entertaining and enjoyable.
As for TND, TWINE & DAD. I would only place TWINE (despite it's flaws) on the same level as TLD & LTK. TND & DAD have good first halves but very poor second halves.
I respectfully disagree. I think TWINE is the worst of Brosnan's films. I liked TND the best, though GE is also very good. Not much of a story, mind you. The big reveal was evident from the beginning. But it had nice action scenes and a great supporting cast.
I'm with you, Krassno. I've now seen Brosnan's four films, and none of them hold a candle to TLD or LTK.
I completely disagree. GE is in my top 10 and TWINE and TND are both in my top 15. I prefer LTK to DAD but it's still my fourth least favourite Bond film of all time. DAD is my third least favourite Bond film of all time, while TLD is second-last on my list.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
He was not a failure. None of the actors who have portrayed bond have been failures. Some may have portrayed him in a better way than others, but none are failures!
He was not a failure. None of the actors who have portrayed bond have been failures. Some may have portrayed him in a better way than others, but none are failures!
That's a rather politically correct thing to say.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
tut tut tut - "NOW THAT'S AN OPINION!" - and lacking any semblance of a basis- sorry
-oh, and I suggest fixing your sig - "a genuine Felix Leiter" was said by Moore in LALD. :007)
My list would be:
Connery
Dalton
Brosnan
Moore
(Lazenby and Craig don't get a place since they've each only done one film. If forced to place them, they be between Dalton and Brosnan.)
Ummm, Timothy Dalton played bond before Pierce Brosnan. Not the recprical.
Check out my Instagram: @livingthebondlife
"I never joke about my work, 007."
The problem was a combination of cohesion in actor selection and in scripting. The action could have been more visceral, more realistic, but it was hindered by the accretion of the suave, white-glove manners of Moore. There was no way to do both, the producers should have realized that they had allowed the movie personna to overstep the written character.
There is still a great deal of depth and humanity in the written stories that has not been portrayed in the motion picture. Many good and Fleming-inspired images that need to be portrayed. I liked The movie portrayal of Scaramanga, but it is not the written version of the character at all. Dr. No is still a more complex villain than was portrayed in the movie, and the idea of an "organization of evil" should have no better models than what exists in reality today.
The idea that a very good professional actor could be a failure when portraying a character that suits him well is not really that likely, if failings exist, it is the providing a credible story which links the original characters and story to a modern reality.
The Bond villains were intellectual, professional criminals, with depth and a lack of any concern for anything but power and money. Maybe that's the problem, today we have people with a deep-seated hatred for the western culture and a complete lack of value for human life. If any long-range motive exists, it is to see the seeds they spread grow and overshadow all western control. There is not the greed for control and power, just a desire to see everything that does not agree with them in ruins.
That is a villain on the scale of the old Bond characters, but in a new millenium. The world anarchist rather than the professional criminal.
I enjoyed the human side he brought out in it, which I appreciate more now that I have read the books. I guess it is another reason why I like DCs Bond so much. The humanity that he brings is absolutly perfect.
Accounts differ, but are consistent on Dalton being chosen though he was unavailable owing to his having signed up to do a play. When the play fell through, he became available once his film Stella Dallas was completed, a few days before filming on TLD was to begin. It's the exact timing of the Brosnan selection that causes confusion. During Dalton's tenure, it was put about that Brosnan had been chosen owing to Dalton's unavailability. When Brosnan took over, the story was subtly changed. IMO much of this is publicity/marketing speak; EON would be keen to ensure that whoever was the current Bond had always been the first choice- a policy which still operates today...
anywho, Dalton was DEFF. not a failure...as a matter of fact, he's my favorite. He brought a gritty Bond to the world, and did it with amazing skill. He looked the part, and owned it.
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Barbel is correct. The official and most widely accepted line is that Dalton was offered but was unavailable due to various committments. This is highly plausable as he had been approached twice before by Eon for the Bond role, so why not a third?
Brosnan was offered and accepted the role of Bond and then Remington Steel producers took up their option of another series on the back of Pierce's association with Bond. Cubby does not 'share' his Bonds with anyone and the Brosnan deal collapsed.
Due to the delays over this fiasco, Dalton again became available and finished filming Brenda Starr ( hate to correct you Barbel
Thank you, Lady Rose, and you're quite right about the film (correction accepted
Did you know that Daniel Craig was selected just before The Living Daylights, but declined because he considered himself to be too young?
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Nice one, Cat
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
I'm with you, Krassno. I've now seen Brosnan's four films, and none of them hold a candle to TLD or LTK.
GE more than holds a candle. It's my favourite Pierce Brosnan Bond film by some distance. I'm not a fan of the PTS (apart from the bungee jump), but from the moment Bond arrives in Monaco to the end of the film is very entertaining and enjoyable.
As for TND, TWINE & DAD. I would only place TWINE (despite it's flaws) on the same level as TLD & LTK. TND & DAD have good first halves but very poor second halves.
Bingo. I think this is the bottom line as to why Dalton only did the 2 movies he did....