Why only two Bond films?
In my opinion he was great as James Bond.
shareLiving Daylights was written with Roger Moore in mind which didn't fit Dalton's style. That resulted in a weak box office return. License to Kill was tailored to fit Dalton better and resulted in a much better film. But by then the damage was done and they started looking for a different Bond. Then Brosnan became available and that was all she wrote for Timothy Dalton
shareThat's not accurate. EON was willing to stick with Dalton. After legal issues held up the Bond series in the early 90s, Dalton was already in his 50s by the time the issues were resolved and they were starting to get GoldenEye off the ground. Dalton only wanted to do just one more at that point, because of his age. Since this was a big comeback for Bond after a long absence on the screen, EON wanted a three film commitment from Dalton. That's where things fell apart and they went with Brosnan.
shareAnother correction is to be made. The Living Daylights was originally written to be a prequel with a younger James Bond, but Albert R. Broccoli felt audiences did not care to learn how James Bond came to be who he is.
At the time the script was being written circa 1985-6, Roger Moore had vacated the role, and negotiations with Pierce Brosnan went unsuccessful. Timothy Dalton was wanted for the role, but he had scheduling conflicts, which were eventually worked out so the writers did not initially write the script with any actor in mind.
Did The Living Daylights really have a weak box office return? Worldwide, it made about $191.2 million at the box office whereas the previous Bond film, A View to a Kill, made $152.4 million. In North America alone, The Living Daylights made $51,185,897 at the box office (that's about $131,702,754.84 in today's dollars) whereas A View to a Kill made $50,327,960 in North America (or $136,716,183.98 when adjusted for inflation).
share