I’ve always understood that MGM did not want Dalton back and that meant that the other pretender who already turned the job down due to his obligations to Remington Steele came into play, he was a far more financial interesting of course.
Cubby might have loyalty to Dalton but that was just not enough with MGM.
Probably also true - Dalton as Bond was just one of a long line of disagreements Cubby had with MGM. Cubby liked Dalton in the role, so that’s who was in the role, no doubt much to annoyance of MGM who then cut their budget even further.
Odd to think that, by 05 and the casting of Craig, MGM had virtually no say in what was happening in the films anymore, following almost 2 decades of fighting with Eon.
I believe both men had already been offered the role and Brosnan was screwed over by the Remington Steele producers. So the remainder Dalton took the job.
I am quite sure that Brosnan was the MGM’s choice.
Indeed odd how EON decided on the next 007 themselves or so we are told, I am not sure how much influence SONY had at the time or that they were pleased or got an extra percentage, Craig was a gamble, one that paid out, after-all.
I always think that LTK, with bond going renegade to avenge Felix, makes a change from the usual “megalomaniac villain wanting to take over the world” or “east vs West” scenario, but it should not be repeated. I can’t really see it working with any other bond actor for a whole movie, okay, I know PB was a rouge for a little while in DAD and DC was for a bit in SF, but not for the entire movie.
1 Like
Brosnan was probably better connected in Hollywood at the time - and maybe also had been working to get the role since FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, when he was introduced to the production via his wife. He may have been MGM’s candidate, but one Broccoli could live with, I think.
The story goes that Remington Steele was only picked up for another season when its producers learned about the Bond role. If so, one wonders what the reasoning behind that was. They cannot seriously have hoped to have Bond in a small-scale by-the-numbers tv production for any length of time. The series’ popularity had already been going southward and it wasn’t really a big thing outside its own fanbase*.
So I guess the hope may have been to see some serious cash to buy Brosnan out. Which probably neither MGM nor Eon was prepared to shell out. At that time there was already some pressure to keep budgets in check - maybe also with a mind to see the series nod off and get the hands on the entire package instead of merely 50 percent.
Without Brosnan to take over Broccoli had no lead actor and the legend goes that Dalton was only asked then and agreed more as a favour to the Broccolis. If that’s true one wonders what might have happened if Dalton hadn’t taken over from Moore…
*That’s another reason I’m not totally sold on the Americans-wanted-Brosnan-as-Bond myth: Brosnan was a familiar face and well liked, no doubt - but far from the only popular actor whose name was peddled after Moore. And Remington Steele was a nice little show but nothing people threatened to slash their wrists over. It wasn’t a cult show back then - and it’s still not a cult show. So the preference for Brosnan over Dalton may have been a factor. But LICENCE TO KILL would have disappointed just as much with Brosnan, if not more.
1 Like
It wasnt so much by themselves as cutting out MGM from the process, as Amy Pascal, representing Sony, was involved. According to Martin Campbell, the choice was taken by BB, MGW, Campbell himself, and Amy Pascal. MGW and Campbell wanted Henry Cavill, BB and Pascal wanted Craig. When lead producer and the studio agree on one person, that’s the person getting the job.
Wasn’t they interested in Christopher lambert taking over from Roger Moore, but were put off by his French accent?
It was a strange logic at work concerning NBC and Bond. The only reason the summer repeats of Remington Steele got such good ratings was because people thought they were watching the next Bond. The moment that wasn’t the case - because NBC renewing it caused Brosnan to lose Bond - the ratings fell of a cliff. The fact NBC were stupid enough to think people would stick around after Brosnan lost Bond remains remarkable. (Perhaps, if we were to be kind, they renewed it in the hope that he would do both, though Cubby had already scotched such suggestions.)
As for RM’s non-cult status, it’s just as forgotten as many genre shows of the '80s, outside of Knight Rider, McGuyver, Murder She Wrote and The A Team.
I think both would really have pushed the envelope, a film series that was already searching for its place in the greater scheme agreeing to have its own appeal cheapened by a telly series that was a bit over the hill…no way that would have worked out, even if there had been goodwill to try.
As for Christopher Lambert, I never saw substantial evidence beyond the tabloid rumours to support that claim. That doesn’t mean he may not have been an interesting choice. But back then a significant number of names was bandied and it remains pretty hard to judge today which ones were serious, which ones were just thrown into the world to troll Moore or further other interests. And which ones were just plain tabloid bs.
1 Like
Christopher lambert played a secret agent in the low budget direct to DVD movie THE POINT Men, released in 2001 and filmed almost entirely in Luxembourg. It was directed by John Glenn, and being a fan of christoper lambert, I bought the DVD from ebay on 2002,the sellers name was John Glenn and I asked him I was “that John Glenn”? and he never replied!
1 Like
I know they tested Ian Ogilvy, the return of the Saint, at one time too but he had even less appeal to me than Chistopher Lambert, although he played an excellent Saint.
But that is arbitrary, we are at the mercy of both the lead producer and head of studio, and how their arguments land,
Certainly, Amy Pascal and BB were always going to agree with each other. They had a close relationship, no doubt strengthened by being women in an industry mostly governed by men.
Ian ogilvy was my first experience of audio James bond, as in the mid 1980s, my uncle Arthur had an audio book cassette 2 pack reading of DAF, read by Ian ogilvy
Given what transpired in the years that followed: the on-going and bitter feud between EON and MGM, the growing prevalence of quality action cinema in the summer months which forced a move to the less jam-packed fall, the extended break between Licence To Kill and GoldenEye which helped usher in new and younger blood with a changing of the guard of those behind the scenes, and the poor health and subsequent death of Pierce Brosnan’s wife Cassandra Harris, I think everything turned out, if not in the best case scenario, certainly one that was likely the best that one could have legitimately hoped for.
While I would have enjoyed a third Timothy Dalton film and liked him in the role, I’m not sure that The Property Of A Lady would have helped him. The script I read with the villain in love with a life-like android, puts me off and doesn’t seem believable, or at least “family friendly” that the Bond films have tried to be. People get all up in arms about Die Another Day’s invisible car, but I can see just as many people being upset about the “realistic” android and all that went with that. I don’t think TPOAL script I saw would have been a success, particularly if MGM gave EON another bare bones budget. I think it would have only damaged Dalton’s legacy. (A different script, however, could have changed that.)
And if Brosnan had been cast as James Bond back in 1986, I have no doubt that he would have been a success like he wound up being, and MGM would have given EON more funding, BUT we may have only gotten TWO Brosnan films instead of four. With Harris contracting ovarian cancer, Brosnan would have no doubt either quit the Bond role or took a hiatus circa 1990 to spend time with his wife. I’m sure Cubby Broccoli would have waited for him to come back when he was ready, but would Brosnan have wanted to come back after that? He would have already fulfilled his lifelong dream of being 007. Continuing on may have only brought painful memories. Also, would cash-strapped MGM have pushed for a new lead, as following Harris’ death at the end of 1991 would have meant that the earliest the next Brosnan film would have been seen was 1993? I don’t know.
Fortunately, while the question of a third Dalton film joins the ranks of the great debates of what-ifs like a second George Lazenby film or a fifth Brosnan film, ultimately in the end, the series turned out all right as is.
Oh, and if Dalton turned down Broccoli after Brosnan was forced to back out of The Living Daylights, my guess is EON would have went with Sam Neill.
2 Likes
Totally agreed re the POL storyline: it’s a long time since I read it and, though I don’t remember hating it, I do remember doing a Moonraker pigeon double take at the thought of a lifelike Android In a Bond film, particularly one starring Dalton. What a change in tone to LTK… I definitely think it would have been up (or down) there with invisible cars and tsunami surfing!
2 Likes
Of course, these early drafts often are far from what the finished film might look like. It’s not a given Dalton would just have played along - though if we look on previous examples, GOLDFINGER and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, the third film used to be a bit more outlandish extravaganza as a rule. And Dalton’s influence might not have been enough to push for fundamental changes; after all he’s had his serious depiction in LICENCE TO KILL.
But all that would only have had a remote chance to work with the necessary funding. As long as MGM kept the coffers closed anything Eon could have produced would likely have been another disappointing made-for-tv affair.
1 Like
With all of this talk about what budget MGM would have given EON for a third Dalton film, all I can say is count me in for another “made for TV” film. EON did more with that limited budget on LTK than they’ve done on many of the other higher budgeted pictures.
2 Likes
So…aspire for a bad relationship with your funder?
Spectre’s issues (overstated as it is. Still a good film, just watch assuming you dont know the title) were mostly studio interference so you may have a point
1 Like
It probably depends what kind of Bond film you want to produce. If it’s an intimate little affair like - more or less - FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, which is often mentioned as the ‘back-to-Fleming’ example, then you can do a lot with little money and let Pinewood’s parking lot stand in for exotic locales.
If it’s the big globetrotting affair that’s supposed to use locales from various continents, and a couple of stunt scenes amid postcard/Instagram sceneries…then you are bound to notice the missing budget sooner or later. It’s sadly true, you get what you pay for.
1 Like