WI: Remington Steele stays canceled, early Brosnan Bond
- Thread starter Urcea
- Start date
Stolengood
Banned
Nobody else forgot. And, of course, Dalton's been having a much better post-Bond career than Brosnan, who's had... what? Mamma Mia?
chrislondon
Banned
That is a fairly recent thing though. He had a very dry patch just after Bond which is the norm since Sean who as the first did not have to deal with the legacy.
Perkeo
Banned
I understand that Timothy Dalton did not fare badly at all. Both his films did well on the box office and a lawsuit delayed his third film. After that, Timothy Dalton ended the contract.
When I heard that Pierce Brossman was the next Bond I thought he'd be a disaster. Fortunately I was wrong.
And last but not least, The living daylights is still one of my favorite Bond movies and Timothy Dalton number 2 in my Bond actor ranking, lags behind Daniel Craig and a nose length ahead of Pierce Brossman - sorry old-school Bond fans.
I liked the Dalton Bond. I suppose that's sacrilege, but there you go.
Dalton was the one who most fully expressed the animalistic sociopathy that has to lie at the heart of a character like Bond. Someone who can and will kill people, and enjoy it, and who can with equal zest, drink Martini's, drive expensive cars, sleep with beautiful women.
Dalton's Bond was a monster, but one who knew how to wear a tuxedo.
Dalton was the one who most fully expressed the animalistic sociopathy that has to lie at the heart of a character like Bond. Someone who can and will kill people, and enjoy it, and who can with equal zest, drink Martini's, drive expensive cars, sleep with beautiful women.
Dalton's Bond was a monster, but one who knew how to wear a tuxedo.
Agreed to this, except that in many ways he also brought a certain humanity to the monster: The Living Daylights basically has him be the sweetest Bond ever has been to a Bond girl consistently through a movie (after refusing to kill Kara Milovy as an innocent dupe of Koskov's), and of course, Licence to Kill is entirely personally motivated.
Yeah, I don't think either film would've been as good with Brosnan.
Timothy Dalton was is my second favorite Bond actually. If he had done more movies I don't doubt he would have been my top favorite.
Still, I think the movies would have been much different if Brosnan was hired earlier. I can't see him being quite as sociopathic in the role as Dalton. It might make for a lighter series of Bond films
Still, I think the movies would have been much different if Brosnan was hired earlier. I can't see him being quite as sociopathic in the role as Dalton. It might make for a lighter series of Bond films
Stolengood
Banned
Have any of you ever read the original GoldenEyen screenplay? It was written for Dalton, and contains MANY, many action sequences which went unused in the final film (and have since been cannibalized for use in various Bond films since, including The World Is Not Enough, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, and Spectre).
The script has a few story threads it seemingly forgets to resolve, but I think it's a better script than the finished film -- certainly a stronger one, and you can see how things that had been strong in this script ended up weaker in the finished film.
But I'll let you decide; here's the January '94 first draft of GoldenEye, by Michael France: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Goldeneye.pdf
The script has a few story threads it seemingly forgets to resolve, but I think it's a better script than the finished film -- certainly a stronger one, and you can see how things that had been strong in this script ended up weaker in the finished film.
But I'll let you decide; here's the January '94 first draft of GoldenEye, by Michael France: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Goldeneye.pdf
I would submit that Brosnan was a different man when he took the role due to the death of his wife.
I'm not sure he'd have been the same Bond before.
I'm not sure he'd have been the same Bond before.
I actually wish that Dalton had done more. He was way better as Bond than Pierce Brosnan.
Whether or not Dalton was good or better than Brosnan is a little off topic here. Whether or not Dalton is well remembered, the movies he starred in were generally considered a nadir point for the franchise, eventually revived by Goldeneye. The point I'm trying to get at is whether or not Brosnan would have avoided this, or if the movies themselves and the writing just wasn't good enough
Its really down to the stories. I'm a great Bronson fan, but really his films seem a little weak in the writing. If getting in earlier means he would have better scripts than Hurrah! But Dalton while not quite as good IMHO as Bronson, was certainly nothing like as bad as Roger Moore.
With better scripts its entirely possible that Bronson could have revived the franchise, but then so could have Dalton.
With better scripts its entirely possible that Bronson could have revived the franchise, but then so could have Dalton.
I liked Dalton as well and for a long time, Living Daylights was my favorite non-Sean Connery Bond film.
Frankly, I think a lot more people like Dalton than is generally realized (based in part on what I am reading in this thread). It's just that the people who didn't like him were pretty loud and I think a lot of people who do like him stayed silent.
Another thing (and I know this is off topic) but in addition to the contract issues, Dalton had the misfortune of being Bond when the Cold War started to end. His first film made in 1987 was a pure Cold War film. His second film made in 1989 (a few months before the fall of the Wall) dealt with South American drug dealers.
When you consider how much the Cold War shaped the Bond franchise (even when Bond was fighting SPECTRE), the first non-Cold War Bond film was going to be a little awkward.
By the time Brosnan made Goldeneye, the Cold War had been over for several years and they got to bring in a lot of fun Cold War nostalgia in that film like Bond meeting an old adversary who he gave the limp to and stuff like that.
Frankly, I think a lot more people like Dalton than is generally realized (based in part on what I am reading in this thread). It's just that the people who didn't like him were pretty loud and I think a lot of people who do like him stayed silent.
Another thing (and I know this is off topic) but in addition to the contract issues, Dalton had the misfortune of being Bond when the Cold War started to end. His first film made in 1987 was a pure Cold War film. His second film made in 1989 (a few months before the fall of the Wall) dealt with South American drug dealers.
When you consider how much the Cold War shaped the Bond franchise (even when Bond was fighting SPECTRE), the first non-Cold War Bond film was going to be a little awkward.
By the time Brosnan made Goldeneye, the Cold War had been over for several years and they got to bring in a lot of fun Cold War nostalgia in that film like Bond meeting an old adversary who he gave the limp to and stuff like that.
Did he enjoy it though? There's the line in the opening sequence where after not shooting Milovy he gets into an argument with Saunders about it
I always viewed Dalton's Bond as someone who as a professional was perfectly willing to kill to get the job done but by that stage was becoming something of a burnout. But I think we're getting somewhat off topic here.
Well I still think that Lazenby was the more humane Bond. I actually liked lazeenby play better than the following person(s).
I really like Tim Dalton's Bond and wish he had gotten a third film (with Anthony Hopkins as villains - something they both hoped for since becoming friends on A Lion in Winter). I'd even go further and wish Dalton had accepted the Bond offer after Connery left (but he refused saying he was too young at the time)and we had gotten him instead of Lazenby and Moore.
I can't see Brosnan doing the kind of scripts written for Dalton. Goldeneye, the best Brosnan film and written for Dalton (altered for Brosnan), is quite different than the Brosnan film that went after it. I think if Brosnan becomes Bond in 1987 then it would have been a different shade of Roger Moore Bond, with a lot more humor, a lot more Q and a lot more gadgets (in others words more Die Another Day but on a smaller scale fitting the 80s). Something that fit his Remington Steel era style.
I also think Brosnan would have been gone quicker from the role and Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli would have rebooted or gone with a new, HARDER Bond before they got the rights to Casino Royale and rebooted the franchise.
I can't see Brosnan doing the kind of scripts written for Dalton. Goldeneye, the best Brosnan film and written for Dalton (altered for Brosnan), is quite different than the Brosnan film that went after it. I think if Brosnan becomes Bond in 1987 then it would have been a different shade of Roger Moore Bond, with a lot more humor, a lot more Q and a lot more gadgets (in others words more Die Another Day but on a smaller scale fitting the 80s). Something that fit his Remington Steel era style.
I also think Brosnan would have been gone quicker from the role and Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli would have rebooted or gone with a new, HARDER Bond before they got the rights to Casino Royale and rebooted the franchise.
Oh yes, because the 1997 hit movie The Beautician and the Beast* ** was well received by both critics and moviegoers alike.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautician_and_the_Beast
** I'm a Dalton can as well, but let's be fair to post-Bond missteps.
Brosnan was a good Bond but Dalton's interpretation of Bond worked better for they were going for in Living Daylights and License to Kill, so we'd see an entirely different Living Daylights than what we got (one of my top Bond movies actually) Brosan's was something of a fusion of the Connery and Moore interpretations while, in my opinion at least, Dalton's was something unique until Craig's interpretation came around.
Living Daylights had the last really good theme song, too
I think that if Brosnan had been Bond back then, he'd only have got a couple of films before being replaced. Don't get me wrong - he's not a bad actor (he was really good in Noble House) - but I don't think he had the presence to be Bond. Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies were good in spite of him. If he'd got the more awkward transition roles, like License to Kill, he'd have suffered...
I think that if Brosnan had been Bond back then, he'd only have got a couple of films before being replaced. Don't get me wrong - he's not a bad actor (he was really good in Noble House) - but I don't think he had the presence to be Bond. Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies were good in spite of him. If he'd got the more awkward transition roles, like License to Kill, he'd have suffered...