Timothy Dalton or Sean Connery ?

124»

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    pachazo wrote:
    It's hard to put my finger on it but I've just never really enjoyed watching him play Bond as much as the others.
    It's been said that if you are watching a Bond movie that makes you want to potentially be Bond, you aren't watching a movie about the real Bond.
    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.
    :)>-
  • Posts: 315
    There's really no comparison between Sean and Timothy..Sean is superior in every way. Just a few thoughts:
    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.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    FLeiter wrote:
    There's really no comparison between Sean and Timothy..Sean is superior in every way. Just a few thoughts:
    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?
  • Making the most out of being ambushed and attacking with stealth/remaining undetected are two very different levels of skill...
  • Posts: 315
    He would never think on his feet, and make the best of what he has?
    Now Major..let's review some facts:
    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.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,978
    So are you saying that in Dalton:Bonds shoes, Connery:Bond would trek through the snow, with Kara at his side, the Aston out of action and a small army at his heels, rather than use the cello case to slide down the mountain? As Bond himself said, it was a good thing he brought the chello.

    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.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    FLeiter wrote:
    Sean's Bond would never be caught dead using a cello case as a sled.

    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
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789

    Dalts wouldn't be caught dead with a duck on his head.

    Why do you think Sean pulled it off his head & tossed it away so FAST? :))
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited June 2013 Posts: 1,243
    Having read Cubby Broccoli's autobiography "When The Snow Melts", I am amazed that some forget the context of the actors and the aims of the films of their respective eras. Cubby even states that they had to make Sean's Bond more tongue in cheek, as the class divide was strong in those times, and no one would believe that Connery went to Eton. So, according to Cubby, they needed to slightly spoof it. With Dalton, he had an actor who could take the Fleming blueprint and a pull off the true shading of the character.

    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.






  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Sean by far. No contest.
  • hullcityfanhullcityfan Banned
    Posts: 496
    Timothy Dalton more Modern.
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 48
    We respect Dalton for having tried to bring back the seriousness and danger of Connery in depicting Bond. But doesn't it sound odd to compare Dalton with Connery who remains forever the definitive Bond?!.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    senthilvel wrote:
    Connery who remains forever the definitive Bond?!.
    Whoah pal, you almost hit with that BROAD BRUSH you're swinging around there! :))
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Timothy Dalton for me.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Timothy Dalton more Modern.

    Modern pails in comparison to a classic. Connery is classic.
  • hullcityfanhullcityfan Banned
    Posts: 496
    doubleoego wrote:
    Timothy Dalton more Modern.

    Modern pails in comparison to a classic. Connery is classic.

    I prefer Modern though more techy.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited June 2013 Posts: 1,243
    The Bond series would have not survived for being the same over 50 years. And if it is to survive, then it has to undergo some change. The classic Bond elements are fine and dandy, but if they are done ad nauseum to the point of predictability, then the series will die. Predictable=BORING.

    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????????????????????

  • Posts: 52
    What Dalton did was ballsy, especially coming after Moore but it actually sort of went against the Connery blueprint and ultimately didn't capture the casual fans imagination or bring them back to the cinema after Moore.

    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.
  • Posts: 11
    Timothy Dalton is James Bond.
  • Posts: 2,402
    aspydad wrote:
    Timothy Dalton is James Bond.

    This.
  • RikRik Southend
    Posts: 68
    For me Dalton nailed the Bond of the novels. I can't read a Ian Fleming novel without picturing Dalton in my mind. So I have to go with Dalton.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Can we have a poll attached to this thread,i would be intrigued to see how this one pans out...
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 1,596
    Sean Connery is James Bond.

    Fleming this Fleming that, realism this realism that, "human" or not, Sean Connery IS James Bond.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 2,189
    Sean Connery is James Bond.

    Fleming this Fleming that, realism this realism that, "human" or not, Sean Connery IS James Bond.
    As if my username didn't say it enough, I very much second that!
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    barryt007 wrote:
    Can we have a poll attached to this thread,i would be intrigued to see how this one pans out...

    Done.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Connery.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 23
    If we're talking the cinematic Bond then its Sean all the way. But Flemings Bond? A different story.

    If you just take DN and FRWL then Sean probably shades it again, although its important to remember that he had the benefit of working with Fleming material for his first 4. However Seans Bond of TB onward is nowhere near as good as Daltons and it would be fascinating to see Dalton in films made up of mostly Fleming material. In his moments of Fleming stuff (TLD opening act, Felixes maiming) he is very good and moments like popping the balloon surpass anything Sean did in terms of acting.

    Where Dalton fails is in charisma but thats a movie Bond trait so it depends which angle you are coming at it from.

    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.
  • Posts: 6,601
    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.
  • Posts: 368
    For me it's Sean (my number 2) but Timmy is shortly after (number 3)...
  • Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote:
    Can we have a poll attached to this thread,i would be intrigued to see how this one pans out...

    Done.
    Thanks matey !!
Sign In or Register to comment.