I just watched Living Daylights and License to Kill again (after watching all the Moore 007 films) and have to say they were underrated.
So why did Dalton give up the role and why did it take 6 years to make another Bond movie?
I was just watching it again 2 days ago as well. From what I understand, on one hand Dalton was already tired of playing Bond and felt he should be focusing on more serious roles on both screen and stage (though his next movie ended up being The Rocketeer). At the same time the producers were debating about who should take over, and more importantly, whether to even continue the series or if the Bond franchise was past its time and was irrelevant in the post Cold War era. But their second choice for Bond for Living Daylights, Pierce, was both available and older and ready to take on the role, but it took time to develop a screenplay and production.
The rest is history.
Brosnan was 'older & ready'? Connery was 31, when he first played Bond (though I think he looked older).
I think Dalton wanted to do 'The Rocketeer', because he got to send up Errol Flynn, which he'd previously done as Prince Berin, in 'Flash Gordon'.
Bottom line, I think it rather obvious that Dalton has no interest in being a movie star. He's a classic Brit actor, who does stage, film & TV---whatever strikes him @ the time. I can't really see much of a pattern, in his choices.
Carpe Noctem!
To answer your question as to why it took 6 years, MGM / United Artists was experiencing financial problems in the early 1990s, and it was bought out by some European financier. Apparently, he sold the TV rights to the Bond films to someone dirt cheap in order to raise cash, and the Bond producers were angered. They turned around and sued MGM's new owner, and were involved in litigation with him through 1993. Therefore, no new Bond films were released, because of the lawsuit.
And Dalton wanted to continue. As of 1993, he said he was ready to do a third one, but suddenly in the spring of 1994, he bowed out. Some people said at the time he was paid off to leave, as MGM wanted to start fresh with a new actor as Bond
[deleted]
mistermycroft's answer sounds about right actually. MGM does go on the brink of bankruptcy alot. I didn't know that Dalton wanted to stick around however. I guess I'm basing that part on interviews he's given in later where he says he feels liberated from not being Bond anymore. Maybe sour grapes?
I also agree about having Dalton play in A View to a Kill. As much as I am a fan of Roger Moore, he looked totally like a grandpa, especially when he was wearing a jacket and walking around SF. I guess he could still have done a few action roles as an aging semi-retired agent, but his days as a lady's man were way beind him at that point.
Thanks everyone, I appreciate the answers!
share"Roger Moore himself, has admitted that he hung around too long (he was almost 60 by the time he stopped playing James Bond)."
As much as I love Moore as Bond, I agree to this, he should've stopped after Octopussy, in "A View To A Kill" he was too old and watching him and Tanya Roberts together, he looked like her father.
Actually I thought, some will disagree, he should have left after For Your Eyes Only. It was a decent flick and we were starting to see age and wear&tear with Roger at 54 years of age.
shareI could go either way on the issue of Timothy Dalton in A View to a Kill. Roger Moore was at the point where he needed to retire from the series, and Christopher Walken would have been a more suitable opponent for Dalton, but I'm having difficulty imagining a character like Mayday appearing in a Timothy Dalton Bond film. It's not quite like having Jaws or Oddjob, or going into space like in Moonraker, but her super-steroid induced strength is still something of a science fiction element and I don't know if that would clash with Dalton's style or not.
The Moore-esque gadgetry in The Living Daylights certainly stood out like a sore thumb.
Yup, I think most fans,critics, and Moore himself can agree, Moore should NOT have been in A View To A Kill. I think he did it because he enjoyed the crew and the cast. I don't think he needed the money, but then again I'm not his financial advisor.
Now for Dalton. I do not know if he would have or would not have looked the other way on MayDay. He may have bear down to get through the movie with that type of character and he would more likely tell the producers he would prefer more realistic villians in his future movies. If it was already written and casted, then I think Dalton would have been professional enough to tolerate it for a film.
But he was not casted for A View to A Kill and therefore we do not know how he would have dealt with MayDay.
I watched A View to a Kill for a second time last night. The script would have required extensive rewrites if Timothy Dalton were to take over for Roger Moore. They had some rather silly moments, like Bond driving a car after it had been cut in half.
I do believe that Christopher Walken would have made a good opponent for Dalton though. But yeah, as the film stands, it's very much a sequel and not an introductory film. It was written for someone who was already well established as Bond and very comfortable in the role. Bond got captured a lot in this film and it would have made Dalton look like a negligent Bond if it had been his first run as 007. And, again, we get the sillier antics like the car cut in half, "humorous" aliases, and subtle science fiction elements.
It is a shame that we didn't get a Timothy Dalton trilogy though. A third film would have been nice. And I think that Roger Moore was fine in A View to a Kill, but it really was for the best that it was his final Bond film.
Yeah I have a hard time seeing Dalton cooking quiche.
share
Moore did A View to a Kill because he got along very well with the Bond producers (as did Timothy Dalton when he became 007), he had fun with the role, and in his words "he felt sorry for them because they'd have a hard time finding someone to work as cheaply as me." He was joking, of course.
In fact, while there were some doubts as to whether Moore was going to do For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy (there were rumors he was going to quit in 1980 and 1982), when they started working on "View" in 1984, there was never a question that Moore was going to do it
It's a pity that Lazenby made a really bad career move by turning down a long-term deal for Bond. I thought he was great. Instead of tongue in cheek Bond movies in the 70's we could have had a more serious, and adventuresome Bond.
Best of all...when Moonraker would be done. Dalton could have stepped in at For Your Eyes Only as his starting point.
Then ending with License To Kill. So Connery Early to Late 60's, Lazenby late 60's to 1979. Dalton 80's. Bronson 90's to early 2000's.
Moore would be making money from his TV shows. :)
I agree.
I have always had a hard time with accepting Moore. His movies and his Bond portrayal are generally a little too silly for my taste.
There is nothing inside - and they rebuild it every 20th year.
I stumbled across this 007-video series the other day. There's tons of interesting info on all the actors/eras.. once you get over the monotone voice of the guy narrating them, they're quite entertaining.. :)
http://haphazardstuff.com/TheBondSeries.html
For Your Eyes Only was the planned exit for Roger Moore as 007 James Bond in 1981.
For Your Eyes Only was the planned exit for Roger Moore as 007 James Bond in 1981. Thing is though, this is exactly what people never address with Moore Bond. In that the success of his films made Cubby Broccoli put him back in the 007 role seeing as they always made money despite some negative critical reviews to the contrary about Moore always being in the James Bond role up until then.
Octopussy and View To A Kill looking back in hindsight its obvious now to see that Roger Moore had been in the Bond films for far too long by then, but at the time the filmmakers saw dollar signs and knew their guy was a breadwinner who drew lots of money however (Octopussy made more than; Never Say Again in 1983 for example?). Dalton by comparison should been granted his third movie by early 91 and even possibly done GoldenEye as at the time the film was rewritten for Pierce Brosnan but it always felt like a Dalton Bond film vehicle nayhow when it came out in 1995.
This is what somebody on youtube re-imagines what GoldenEye would've looked like with Timothy Dalton in the role still.
DALTON BOND III: GOLDENEYE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzCnWjzQso
ST4
When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die!
Ironic that you should say about Moore quitting after For Your Eyes Only, because I've heard before that FYEO was actually written for Timothy Dalton - everyone knows Roger Moore was considering leaving the Bond series after Moonraker and the following film was written to ease in a new actor, hence the opening at Theresa's grave, designed to link the new actor with the earlier films.
Timothy Dalton is often named as the guy supposed to take over from Moore on FYEO before Moore changed his mind at the last minute. There's certainly elements of Dalton's portrayal in the final film - it's darker, more gritty, more ruthless and more low-key. No disrespect to Moore, but as someone who considers Dalton the best 007 it's a shame it never came to pass.
1. Dalton became Bond reluctantly. Broccoli had been after him since Connery first left in 1968. He could have been cast in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" but told Broccoli that he was too young for the role. ( he was 22 at the time ) He was offered the role after "Moonraker" when Moore told Broccoli he was reluctant to do any more films for the series. Dalton turned the part down again because he felt the Bond series was no longer a fair representation of the books but formula big budget films that did not truly represent Bond. "For Your Eyes Only" was Broccoli's attempt at returning to the formula of the early Connery films, and very possibly written to lure Dalton to the series. Dalton finally agreed to be Bond to help Broccoli out of a jam. Brosnan was slated to replace Moore in "The Living Daylights", but just before production began NBC decided to bring back "Rimington Steele" which Brosnan was contracted to fulfil. Broccoli would have to cancel production and perhaps go bankrupt if he did not sign a new Bond immediately. Dalton agreed to a three picture deal.
2. According to Dalton's friend Sylvester McCoy, Dalton desperately wanted to do a third Bond movie. Both the James Bond series and Doctor Who were both put on hiatus the same year. McCoy told Dalton that he regretted the BBC stopping production on any new Doctor Who episodes because he had just figured out his character in the last couple of episodes. Dalton told McCoy he had the same problem, that he had finally figured out how to play the Bond character in "License to Kill" and wanted to play Bond again in his contracted third film.
3. Six years was a long time. It didn't just give Dalton enough time to lose interest in Bond, but allowed his contract to expire. If he was to do a third Bond movie then he would need to be signed to a new contract. Broccoli was interested in casting Dalton again. But his daughter, who was taking over as producer of the series, wanted Brosnan. She had been the one who pitched Brosnan to her father when Moore finally retired for good. MGM also wanted Brosnan. Dalton saw where this was going and to save Broccoli the grief announced he was bowing out of the role.
4. Roger Moore outgrew 007 after his first movie. He looked good in "Live and Let Die", but in every film after played Bond as if he was a middle aged. When "For Your Eyes Only" came out, I just could not buy that any of the women found Roger Moore's Bond sexy. This was especially true with 23 year old Lynn-Holly Johnson who was playing a teenager and instantly fell for the middle aged Bond on first sight.
Between 1989 and 1995, there was a lawsuit between EON and MGM... by the time they got over their lawsuit, Dalton bowed out.
Which is for the best; Dalton's third movie was said to be comedic...
And Brosnan's era is like Moore's but on crack and meth amphetamine. Brosnan's era was horrible... they even ripped off stunts from "Knight Rider" episodes for crying out loud...
Brosnan was great for Goldeneye, but the film was more made for Dalton.
Dalton's Bond was quite personal, so the 006 betrayal would have fit really well, plus the scene of the chemical facility was supposed to take place about 1986 which would have fit better.
Plus also Dalton's run ins with the Soviets/Russians already established in The Living Daylights.
Well, he was tired of waiting six years between movies. At first there were plans to make a movie in 1991; that fell through. Then a story finally got started in 1994 but that didn't end up happening in which case Dalton wanted to move onto other projects. It's a shame because it would have been awesome to have him as the Bond I grew up with. But, I'm glad he was able to make a film that really suited his Bond and was made for HIM. It was awesome and I loved Licence to Kill. I feel that if he had done more than two movies, Dalton would have a much better reputation with most people as Bond, but he's done a great job as Bond. I approve Timothy Dalton!
In a way, I almost want to say it was his own fault and that he should have stayed on board. I mean, after waiting so long, you'd think he would totally give Eon one more chance and stay on board, but who knows, maybe he felt like he was being played with and was tired of the constant waiting.
It was a shame Dalton did not come back but 6 years is a long time I guess (for a Bond film anyway) between films. Some have said that Goldeneye is kind of like a Dalton film in tone and I guess they are right and he wodul haev been good but I guess after a 6 year gap and a new audience expected a NEW Bond.
The force will be with you always...
[deleted]
I keep trying to watch the Dalton movies but just can't. I don't know if it's Dalton's Bond or the way/style in which the movies were shot, maybe the supporting actors as well, but both movies are just bad. I'd take AVTAK over both Dalton movies any day. As silly as Moore may have been at times, everything still fit together and worked from an 80s point of view in FYEO, OP and AVTAK.
Dalton himself just lacked a certain grace that's needed for Bond. I get wanting a tougher, more up to date Bond (as Craig has been), but Dalton was gruff and unrefined. Bad hair, facial lines, even the way he said the lines seemed off.
I think most peoples' problem with Dalton was that, as a serious "Stage" actor, he was playing the character in the novels, not the character in the previous films. Shame no one got it at the time because if his films were released today I think they'd actually go down much better.
I read an interview recently in which Dalton said, apart from press intrusion into his private life, his main reason for resigning was the delay in getting Bond 17 (that eventually became Goldeneye) made. He said it was always supposed to be starting "Next Year" (for about five years!) and he had to turn down / reschedule a lot of other work for a project that didn't seem to be happening.
Having said that, he didn't seem remotely bitter about it though and said he's seen and enjoyed every Bond film since his and is nothing but happy for Craig who is now getting praised for pretty much doing what he got vilified for!
Get real, Dalton fans. He was forced out because he made two flops. Admit it: 'Licence' was little more than a bad 'Miami Vice' TV movie. Dalton lacked the charisma and gravitas of much better Bond actors such as Connery, Lazenby and Craig. He stunk the place up and needed to be replaced!
share"He was forced out because he made two flops."
Production Budget Worldwide Box Office
The Living Daylights $40,000,000 $191,200,000
License to Kill $42,000,000 $156,167,015
Gee, I can see your point. Every movie that makes only about 4 times it's budget or 5 times it's budget back is obviously a flop. *eyeroll*
And your buddy Lazenby's one and only Bond film only dragged in 82 million. You Only Live Twice made 111 million worldwide. That's a loss of 30 million. Not good, and not a good follow-up to Connery's success.
Dalton's two films both made more money in theaters than Moore's last outing. The box office improved after Roger Moore left.
And as for Daniel Craig:
Production Budget Worldwide Box Office
Quantum of Solace $230,000,000 $591,692,078
Skyfall $200,000,000 $729,469,693
Daniel Craig's current outing has made, thus far, less than 4 times it's budget back in theaters, and his 2nd outing didn't even make three times it's budget back. Since you say Dalton's two Bond films are flops, since they made 5 times and 4 times their budgets back, then QOS must have been a flop for Daniel Craig then, since it performed worse than LTK at the box office. Right?
I mean, the math is there. if Dalton's are flops, then a movie that did worse than Dalton's must also be a flop, in order for your logic to make sense.
Next time, anthony_thompson, why don't you use the magical thing called the internet to find out of the crap your spouting is actually true before you spout it, instead of coming on here and looking like a freaking idiot.
Five minutes and google. That's all it took. Go back to your trolling now, have a nice day.
I love to love my Lisa.
The reason for the big delay was the legal troubles MGM was having at the time. Same reason there was such a big gap between DAD and CR; and a big gap between QOS and Skyfall. We're lucky Craig came back for Skyfall
share
dalton was due to do "property of a lady" in 1991 his 3rd bond movie but the finances fell thru and he did the rocketeer instead. by 1995 it was felt they need a younger bond so they chose pierce brosnan.
Why did Dalton leave and why 6 years between LTK and GoldenEye?
Because LtK bombed. MGM blamed Dalton and wanted to fire him but EON wanted to keep him. This went on and on so Dalton quit knowing that MGM was still trying to fire him and replace him with Brosnan.
^^Geez. Get real. Supposed flops don't hold up a production like James Bond for 6 years. They did have legal problems that prevented them from continuing earlier. And when they finally did continue in '95 Dalton would have been 51. After a 6 year break you don't come back with a too old actor, who will be even more too old when the next movie would come around. Since the producers never were thinking about stopping the series, they had no other chance than to use the long break to start anew with a new, younger actor (and also a new M and Moneypenny).
share[deleted]