It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Look, I love Brosnan, Connery and even Lazenby as Bond, but what Dalton brought to the party was a down to Earth, realistic and all-too-human character complete with the impulsiveness, momentary intensity and imperfections evident in the Bond of the Fleming novels.
In the end, a plausible & seriously flawed man trumps a marginally flawed 'superhero' for me.
Craig is a bit of a mix, but I really like his Bond a LOT. Reminds me of the Daltonator.
:)>-
Sean used a sniper's rifle in FRWL and shot down a bloody moving helicopter while hiding in some rocks. Tim shot front a climate controlled room, taking his time and probably having a martini in the interim. Hardly a contest.
Sean's Bond would never be caught dead using a cello case as a sled. In fact, he would never go back and pick up the cello in the first place.
He would never think on his feet, and make the best of what he has?
Bond has no weapons and kills Dr. No.(DN)
Bond has no weapons and kills Grant on the train.(FRWL)
Bond has no weapons and kills Oddjob and Goldfinger.(GF)
Bond has no weapons and kills Jack Duval.(TB)
Bond has no weapons and kills Blofeld's bodyguard.(YOLT)
I daresay Sean's Bond clearly is able to handle himself, weapon or not.
Connery:Bond could handle himself, I agree. But if Connery:Bond was in the same situation, I think he would have used the chello as well.
Well then he'd have been shot. Like Major said, he couldn't go on foot without being killed and the car was wrecked.
And Dalts wouldn't be caught dead with a duck on his head :P
Why do you think Sean pulled it off his head & tossed it away so FAST? :))
Sean was a fantastic cinematic Bond, but he makes no secret of the fact, that he moved away from the literary character, whom he considered boring and did not care for.
Tim on the other hand, according to Cubby's book, wanted to go back to the literary version, and be JUDGED on that alone. But despite this assertion by Cubby, fans take Dalton's aim out of context and still think he should have been a mere clone.
Take for instance the novel written by Bram Stoker called Dracula. We are yet to see an accurate representation of that, though, I argue that Gary Oldman came closest to the book. Now would there be any point of me comparing Christopher Lee's Dracula with Gary Oldman's? Answer=no. For all intents and puproses, Lee's is the cinematic interpretation ignoring a lot of Stoker's novel, whilst Oldman is far closer to the book, yet less stylized and romanticized. My point? Lee's is the easier one to accept, until, you read the book and realize how far the character is from the source.
Am I saying Lee is a bad Dracula? No! He was fantastic. But, I give huge respect to Oldman for being brave and going against expectation, as well as seriously challenging the image of Dracula, which had been heavily romanticized. And the same respect I have for Dalton!!!
And with respect to my above paragraph, it serves my argument well as it is similar to the Connery vs Dalton. Very similar, I hasten to add.
But, alas, people forget that, and keep banging on in essence of why Dalton was not a clone of Connery. Dalton was not attempting to emulate Connery, or the cinematic Bond, but go to the original source. Any actor worth his salt, has to make the role their own, and the minute they begin borrowing from a predecessor, they render themselves inferior.
If Dalton merely copied Connery's way of seducing a lady, then he would become nothing more than a copy of what came before. The Bond of Connery is in essence heavily based on Connery's personality. Which other actor has that? And so with respect, we have to be intelligent enough to accept that, and move on.
Let me make this clear, there is only one Sean Connery, and he is the best at his own style. When I heard Daniel Craig in Skyfall in the Q scene utter the line from Goldfinger "You must be joking!", that only served to remind me on how much better Connery delivered it. What am I saying? Bond or whoever is playing him, needs to do it in their own way without relying on the crutch of their predecessor. It actually annoys me, when I see that happen.
And to @Bain123 and his criticism that Dalton's Bond did not get his c**k out as often as Connery. @Bain123, read Fleming, and you will soon realise that a lot of the sex is in Bond's mind. Bond may look at a woman's body and through his eyes or face, suggest a sexual attraction. And Dalton seduces how a man would more in real life. Because women are complex, and in the real world do not behave like concubines,unless they are professional and you pay them to.
Also, at the time Dalton took over as Bond, we have to remember that we were coming out of the embers of the Moore era, which made women look like little more than things to amuse a male when he has spare time. Some women were insulted by this, and let's be honest, the stylized seductions are appealing to a teenage boy, or those with little sexual experience.
There is sexual tension in the Dalton films, but it is in the subtext. Take how Dalton seduces Kara at the funfair. He does it skillfully by pretending he is not after getting into her knickers. The seductions of the earlier Bond films were played for laughs too, which is fine, but I think some male viewers, have taken those a bit too seriously.
Dalton also showed so well the hinted sexual violence in his Bond. Like when he takes Lupe by the hair on Krest's boat in LTK and put's a knife to her throat. That is Fleming's Bond and serves to show how Bond can instill terror into a woman, completely taking dominance over her. That is the sexism of Bond, and how he can be extremely unpleasant and also go against a woman's will. Because the novel Casino Royale, shows that Bond has a very, very, dark side. Is it nice? No, but an accurate portrayal of a character that often through popular media, gets idealised as a paragon of romanticism. He is anything but.
I tend to veer away from the populist arguments about Bond. If you are a cinematic purist then it is Connery, but, if you are someone who respects an actor for having the facility to capture the character in the book with all his unsavoury traits, then it has to be Dalton.
Modern pails in comparison to a classic. Connery is classic.
I prefer Modern though more techy.
There are those fans who happily jettison literary Bond and render the source irrelevant ; preferring the cinematic. Or the weak argument that no one reads the novels. We live in an age of illiteracy, where the effort of reading a book is too much for short attention spans. Ignorance sadly is not bliss.
I have little respect for someone offering argument about Bond with a paltry knowledge of the Fleming novels. Because pulling arguments out of one's arse is not part of intelligent debate. I prefer fact to fancy.
Dalton adhered to Fleming the closest, and also captured the Etonian aspects in his manner of talking. I have been around Etonians and was impressed by how well Dalton got that right. Fleming's Bond was a snob, and no nouveau riche type, or someone that flaunted wealth like a person who just won the lottery.
Dalton played Bond as someone who could believably be seen as the rank of Commander, and a by-product of the British public school system.
The Connery Bond was hugely entetaining, though a creation of Terence Young, and Connery makes no denial. In the end, there is room for both types of Bond. And the classic Bond is Connery's personality whether we like it or not. Anyone who copies it, always risks being subservient to the Sean.
For me, rather than choose one over the other, I actually enjoy these two actors as in Sean and Tim, the most, though really like the other Bonds too! They are both really head strong men who forge their own paths, and don't give a f**k what anyone thinks!
Connery was the original blueprint,and Dalton took the character from scratch which is amazing by totally changing the way Bond was perceived up until that point. Am I seriously going to criticize an actor for being faithful to the source? Really????????????????????
Not being an avid reader of the books, Connery wins easily for me but Dalton seems to have missed out on the rapture that Craig seems to be getting for basically copying him which is a little harsh on Tim.
This.
Fleming this Fleming that, realism this realism that, "human" or not, Sean Connery IS James Bond.
Done.
I think your missing the point Wiz. We are judging who is the better actor in the lead role (Connery or Dalton) not who is the better cinematic Bond or Fleming Bond. If you put the 1962-65 Connery in any other Bond film in the series he would have been fantastic. If you put Dalton in Dr.No, FRWL, Goldfinger, or TB, do you seriously believe he would have been better than Connery? Something else to ponder too, is that if you took Lazenby out of OHMSS and replaced him with the Connery of 1962-65, I believe you would have the best entry in the series.
Dalton once stated years ago when he was offered the role that he was too young to play the part. Well, Connery initially played the role when he was in his early 30s. It also does not matter that Connery was the only Bond actor to have met Ian Fleming as Sean was mentored by Terrence Young, not Fleming. Sure, Connery and Fleming talked on the set of Dr. No, FRWL, and Goldfinger, but it was Young who Connery was getting his direction from. Fleming even disliked the choice of Connery at first, but changed his mind once he met him and saw him on screen.
The public has also made up our minds for us as to who the most popular James Bond is, as Connery was the number one box-office draw in 1965 and the number one male box-office star in 1966. Another observation is that Dalton's two Bond films (which are good films) rank low on the list in terms of box-office. Also, with the success of Skyfall, Daniel Craig was not the number one box-office draw in 2012. Connery was definitely more popular in 1965-66 than Craig was in 2012.
I would think, that back then, the competition with other actors was a lot less heated, as there simply were less of them in the field. So IMO - to draw a comparison due to that fact, is unrealistic. Even though, Connery might still be ahead of DC, but there is no knowing really.