Thanks, stjimmy456 this is very interesting case to talk about
First of all it is important to say that Timothy Dalton is my favourite James Bond actor. Unfortunately he had so much bad luck and I think that Bond fans would respect him more if he could have got his third chance to play the role of Bond, James Bond.
I have read the original synopsis of 17th Bond film (The property of a lady) and it would have been a very great movie and it would have changed the whole Bond world totally. Well, the original Goldeneye (1993) would have been a very amazing too with Dalton. Goldeneye is very good film but when I watch it I always think that Dalton plays the role of James Bond in that film, not Brosnan.
Like I said it is a good film but with Dalton it would have been much better with darkness, electric action and modern problems. It would have been more searious and convincing too. Dalton would have made three totally different performances and got his respect what he deserves.
Its interesting how people want to know how well Dalton would have done in other Bond films, before and after his two films, and no one really mentions how well Sir Roger would have done in TLD.
"You're in the wrong business... leave it to the professionals!"
James Bond- Licence To Kill
I actually have the Goldeneye script with Dalton in mind, the one written in 1994 by Micheal France. There was some great ideas even for a first draft and it had a bit more of a thriller aspect. The film we ulitmately got was less bloated with action but it became far more obnoxious with it's dialogue and had annoying characters like Xenia and Boris.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
...no one really mentions how well Sir Roger would have done in TLD.
That's true. Nobody really mentions that at all.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
PPK 7.65mmSaratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,230MI6 Agent
I think that Dalton would have been amazing in Goldeneye. I remember reading alot of old news articles with many American critics saying that the series (at that time) had found the best actor since Connery for the role of Bond. If the legal problems had not come up than I think he would have done really good in his third outing. As past history has shown the third film is the charm for a James Bond actor.
Curious what the effect if any of one top selling games ever made (GoldenEye 007 8 million copies) had on the popularity of the film. If Dalton had been in the game and film would he have had more acceptance from the general public who also bought the game???
I completely agree, if Dalton had made 3 or 4 films then he would probably be much more talked about by modern audiences.
Another point worth making is that when TD came along, people had already lost interest in Bond after AVTAK and the cold war which had previously defined bond was no longer exciting people. This was probably the hardest time for bond to be successful at all.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
Its interesting how people want to know how well Dalton would have done in other Bond films, before and after his two films, and no one really mentions how well Sir Roger would have done in TLD.
Based on Moore's age at the time and the quality of the movies that came before (OP, AVTAK) it is very optimistic to believe he would have been good in TLD.
I wonder what would have happened if Dalton had gotten the job for OHMSS or FYEO?
My guess is he would have been too young in 1968 (he was 22 at the time), but he would have been fine in 1982 at 37. FYEO would have suited his style, and Bond-films in the 80's would have been less cartoon-like and ...... better. Moore would also have been spared the indignities of his post FYEO Bonds. Other views?
I am perfectly happy with Moore in FYEO. I can't imagine another actor to be in it and I am also happy for him, that he did a more serious Bond.
If he would have left with MR, a big chance would have been missed.
As I have said otherwhere, I don't regards TD to be a hard-edged Bond, I find him pretty annoying by looks and acting.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
If GoldenEye had been made in 1991 or 1994 as it was initially anticipated !
GoldenEye wasn't planned for 1991. Rumour goes - I say that because I don't think I've ever read firm confirmation of it - that the next Dalton instalment was to have Bond up against a villianess who unleashes robots on Japan, or something along those ridiculous lines. I'm just very glad that it didn't see fruition.
GoldenEye was very much a post-Cold War story, and had the unenviable task of not only bringing Bond back after 6 years, but redefining him in a vastly changed world. As enjoyable as it is, I would've loved to have seen how Dalton would've handled it. His anger and sense of betrayal by Trevelyan, I believe, would have been far more tangible and I believe would've leant a decent edge and sense of urgency to the film. The scene in the 'monument graveyard' for example, where he's first confronted by 006, where Brosnan's "I trusted you, Alec" sounds a bit weak and washy to me. Other scenes where I feel Dalton's gravitas would've outshone Brosnan is on the train (holding the gun to Trevelyan's head) and on the beach, with the whole "It's what keeps you alone" speech.
I think Bond would still be back, it would still have been made relevant in the new world order, but the film wouldn't be as limp-wristed in points. Though the ridiculous PTS closer, of Bond slaying half the Soviet troops stationed at Arkangel before leaping after a freefalling aeroplane, and Bond slaying half the Russian interior ministry guard in the archives, would really have to go. Actually, they should've gone regardless of who was Bond...
I liked Dalton a great deal. He was a good Bond and worked with some rubbish scripts and actors in his outing as Bond. I'm not saying I don't enjoy both TLD or LTK, but they feel cheap compared to the films of the Brosnan era. But Dalton had his time and Brosnan had his. I'm glad Brosnan was in Goldeneye, as I'm glad he had his time and Craig took over for CR.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
I'm not saying I don't enjoy both TLD or LTK, but they feel cheap compared to the films of the Brosnan era. But Dalton had his time and Brosnan had his.
If you look into the budgets, infact they have been
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
GoldenEye was very much a post-Cold War story, and had the unenviable task of not only bringing Bond back after 6 years, but redefining him in a vastly changed world. As enjoyable as it is, I would've loved to have seen how Dalton would've handled it. His anger and sense of betrayal by Trevelyan, I believe, would have been far more tangible and I believe would've leant a decent edge and sense of urgency to the film. The scene in the 'monument graveyard' for example, where he's first confronted by 006, where Brosnan's "I trusted you, Alec" sounds a bit weak and washy to me. Other scenes where I feel Dalton's gravitas would've outshone Brosnan is on the train (holding the gun to Trevelyan's head) and on the beach, with the whole "It's what keeps you alone" speech.
I think the relationship would have changed between the two characters. Alec in this film always said Bond's loyality was more to the mission before his friends, clearly not how Dalton was in his two outings. They probably would have kept closer to the first draft, Trevelyan being a former M and his bretrayal was because he wanted to sell out to Russia.
Also personally I never thought that it was such a momunmental task to bring back Bond in the 90's. What happened was they just added alot more booms and bangs, this wasn't exactly brain surgery for producers with alot of cash to shell out. I think during the Craig era Bond had finally changed after decades but it's not a "re-invention", they simply made him more human. Hell Casino Royale wasn't exactly a revolutionary film either, EON could have done that 20 years ago, re-boot or not. They just finally decidec "hey, we should actually make a film by telling a story and developing characters".
Comments
First of all it is important to say that Timothy Dalton is my favourite James Bond actor. Unfortunately he had so much bad luck and I think that Bond fans would respect him more if he could have got his third chance to play the role of Bond, James Bond.
I have read the original synopsis of 17th Bond film (The property of a lady) and it would have been a very great movie and it would have changed the whole Bond world totally. Well, the original Goldeneye (1993) would have been a very amazing too with Dalton. Goldeneye is very good film but when I watch it I always think that Dalton plays the role of James Bond in that film, not Brosnan.
Like I said it is a good film but with Dalton it would have been much better with darkness, electric action and modern problems. It would have been more searious and convincing too. Dalton would have made three totally different performances and got his respect what he deserves.
James Bond- Licence To Kill
That's true. Nobody really mentions that at all.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I completely agree, if Dalton had made 3 or 4 films then he would probably be much more talked about by modern audiences.
Another point worth making is that when TD came along, people had already lost interest in Bond after AVTAK and the cold war which had previously defined bond was no longer exciting people. This was probably the hardest time for bond to be successful at all.
Based on Moore's age at the time and the quality of the movies that came before (OP, AVTAK) it is very optimistic to believe he would have been good in TLD.
My guess is he would have been too young in 1968 (he was 22 at the time), but he would have been fine in 1982 at 37. FYEO would have suited his style, and Bond-films in the 80's would have been less cartoon-like and ...... better. Moore would also have been spared the indignities of his post FYEO Bonds. Other views?
If he would have left with MR, a big chance would have been missed.
As I have said otherwhere, I don't regards TD to be a hard-edged Bond, I find him pretty annoying by looks and acting.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
GoldenEye was very much a post-Cold War story, and had the unenviable task of not only bringing Bond back after 6 years, but redefining him in a vastly changed world. As enjoyable as it is, I would've loved to have seen how Dalton would've handled it. His anger and sense of betrayal by Trevelyan, I believe, would have been far more tangible and I believe would've leant a decent edge and sense of urgency to the film. The scene in the 'monument graveyard' for example, where he's first confronted by 006, where Brosnan's "I trusted you, Alec" sounds a bit weak and washy to me. Other scenes where I feel Dalton's gravitas would've outshone Brosnan is on the train (holding the gun to Trevelyan's head) and on the beach, with the whole "It's what keeps you alone" speech.
I think Bond would still be back, it would still have been made relevant in the new world order, but the film wouldn't be as limp-wristed in points. Though the ridiculous PTS closer, of Bond slaying half the Soviet troops stationed at Arkangel before leaping after a freefalling aeroplane, and Bond slaying half the Russian interior ministry guard in the archives, would really have to go. Actually, they should've gone regardless of who was Bond...
http://apbateman.com
If you look into the budgets, infact they have been
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think the relationship would have changed between the two characters. Alec in this film always said Bond's loyality was more to the mission before his friends, clearly not how Dalton was in his two outings. They probably would have kept closer to the first draft, Trevelyan being a former M and his bretrayal was because he wanted to sell out to Russia.
Also personally I never thought that it was such a momunmental task to bring back Bond in the 90's. What happened was they just added alot more booms and bangs, this wasn't exactly brain surgery for producers with alot of cash to shell out. I think during the Craig era Bond had finally changed after decades but it's not a "re-invention", they simply made him more human. Hell Casino Royale wasn't exactly a revolutionary film either, EON could have done that 20 years ago, re-boot or not. They just finally decidec "hey, we should actually make a film by telling a story and developing characters".
Sorry ;%