Possible Reception of Dalton's Third Film
![IcePak](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b8122a1956550e2d079ff9c856c33594/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2Fd4d2a5e7e664e3f4c6ac9bcbeefd86f7_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
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.
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.
1. CR 2. OHMSS 3. GE 4. TLD 5. OP 6. FRwL 7. FYEO
8. TSWLM 9. TND 10. LtK 11. SF 12. TMwtGG 13. AVtaK 14. NTtD
15. GF 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. YOLT 19. DN 20. SP 21. TWiNE
22. TB 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
8. TSWLM 9. TND 10. LtK 11. SF 12. TMwtGG 13. AVtaK 14. NTtD
15. GF 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. YOLT 19. DN 20. SP 21. TWiNE
22. TB 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
Comments
He hasn't had his equivalent to goldfinger or spy who loved me.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
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).
"Better make that two."
So I can avoid him.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
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
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
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.
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.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
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
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
{[]
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
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.
+1. -{ and Dr No was phenomenally successful and cemented Connery in the role from the moment he appeared on screen.
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.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think you may have an issue with the notion of conjecture
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
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! {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
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.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
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.
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.
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
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.