MovieChat Forums > Licence to Kill (1989) Discussion > For those of you may not be aware of rea...

For those of you may not be aware of reasons for Dalton not returning and the six year gap.


https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a26988704/james-bond-movies-lawsuit/

reply

Yep. Great read, Dalton wanted to to do Goldeneye and call it quits, Cubby wanted him to do several after that, Dalton didn't want to and quit the role.

reply

Probably for the best. Dalton would have been way too old to keep doing the series for that many more films. And I think the Brosnan era would have been pretty bad regardless of who the lead actor was.

reply

Timothy Dalton was I want to say, 48-49 when GoldenEye formally started filming and was released. He could've in theory, done at least two more films under the standard "one film every two years" schedule. Daniel Craig was I think 52-53 when his last Bond movie, No Time to Die finally got released. Maybe the general feeling was, that Dalton didn't want to be like Roger Moore and keep playing the role when he was pushing 60 years old in real life.

reply

Good old aggravating days those were. Never knew Dalton was potentially up for Goldeneye. That would have been pretty great, and a good capstone of him having a little trilogy. But they definitely made the right call. After so long a break, we were all hungry for a good streak of Bond films and you definitely don't want to be fooling around with casting shakeups in the middle of that. Couldn't imagine the 90s without Brosnan's Bond. It was just a good fit that decade.

reply

Thanks for the article.

reply

I can see both sides here. It sucks Dalton couldn't do another one, but I completely see why they didn't want him back to do only one more film....

reply

After a six year hiatus, It would have been weird to have Dalton come back, I think it was appropriate to have a new Bond be introduced.

reply

I always thought it would have been cool if Dalton played Bond in the opening for GoldenEye (9 years earlier) and Brosnan played Bond the rest of the movie with no explanation....

reply

I always thought it would have been cool if Dalton played Bond in the opening for GoldenEye (9 years earlier) and Brosnan played Bond the rest of the movie
Totally agree! Better than what we got where Bond hasn't aged at all in those nine years, or trying to age an actor with less-than-convincing makeup.

Especially since that pre-credits prologue in Russia takes places during the Dalton era.

reply

But then Sean Bean wouldn't have recognised him later in the film...

reply

Yes he would, with no explanation....

reply

Would have been cool if Dalton had done one more movie. He was a very unique and underrated Bond that I would have loved to have seen more of.

reply

I agree with this. Dalton was basically ahead of his time. Every adjective the press releases bandied about for Craig - realistic, serious, "gritty" - was already Dalton's bag.

If he had done GoldenEye, I suspect that Dalton's influence might have put a bit more of a hard nose on the project. I would have liked to have seen that.

reply

Exactly. You're absolutely right about how everything people praise Craig for, Dalton had basically already done. I've been saying that for years.

reply

Don't get me wrong, I still appreciate Craig's performance and I really like Casino Royale and Skyfall, but Dalton deserves more credit and recognition for blazing trails.

reply

Oh yeah, so do I. Craig is good, but I've always felt like Dalton pioneered that style of Bond way before and most people don't seem to acknowledge that.

reply

Amen. Dalton is sorely underrated.

reply

Indeed.

reply

I think Dalton is a bad actor but he did star in two very well written Bond movies. The inverse is true for Brosnan.

reply

I agree, I think Dalton was a very good Bond.

reply