Was Tim Dalton ahead of his time?

123457

Comments

  • Posts: 6,601
    Getafix wrote:

    This is such a serious issue I've transferred it to a seperate thread.

    Certainly not serious, but fun ;)
  • this thread is hilarious...!

    for years i thought i was alone in my pining for the loss of Dalts and the having to watch the mid atlantic pain-face disco-diva roll the franchaise towards the cliff of oblivion

    really good to hear that alot of people here thing the same

    good work!
  • ps - the thought of Brosnan playing rugby made me laugh until i was gagging


  • 002 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    If Connery liked Brosnan that's fine. It's his own opinion and I'm sure Brosnan was elated to hear it as anyone would be. But I think him "bringing new layers to the character" is alot of bs and proves Connery obviosuly didn't read too far into it. What layers did he bring? What new aspects did he bring to the table that weren't already explored by the other 4 actors? I've never had this answered because Brosnan simply brought nothing. He took half of Connery and mixed it with half of Moore and gave us a boring retread more fit to be parodied than taken seriously.

    I think one thing that makes Brosnan a bit more distinctive though is that, unlike any of the other 4 Bond actors at the time, he actually experienced real torment and suffered from a loss that was close to him. Whether you like him or not that surely adds a little bit more of a poigniancy and authenticity to the role. It may not be "new" per-say but IMO it's unique and worth noting.

    Brosnan is the first to show actual emotion- the statue park scene with Alec and Bond in Goldeneye, the beach scene in goldeneye, when he drinks in TND in the apartment to forget all the negativness, his confrintation between Electra in TWINE asking her to call off Renard and killing her in cold blood was something that none of the other bonds have done (unless you count the connery moment in NSNA) and the montage of his torture when he was decreasing his heart beat in DAD)

    Oh I suppose Tracy's death in OHMSS was Bond not showing any emotion? Or Bond discovering Felix's body in LTK? Did you even see all the films? Brosnan brought nothing.
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I must admit it first sounded a bit awkward and un-Bond like when he said: "now the whole world's going to know you died scratching my balls".

    I've got used to it now though.

    i have seen dialogue in die another day that is less akward than that line in Casino Royale

    seriously
    BAIN123 wrote:
    In fairness to Brozza he was very good in The Greatest, which had Carey Mulligan and Susan Sarandon, two rather heavyweight actresses (yes, I know CM is young but still she's good).

    i know he did a great peformance. i loved Carey Mulligan too (its funny enough she use to play goldeneye on the 64 and called Brozzer her goldeneye) especially when she plays as Sally Sparrow
  • 002002
    Posts: 581

    Oh I suppose Tracy's death in OHMSS was Bond not showing any emotion? Or Bond discovering Felix's body in LTK? Did you even see all the films? Brosnan brought nothing.[/quote]

    alright i will give you Timothy Dalton because he had good acting
    but i think the whole Tracy/Bond relationship in OHMSS was really forced- it didnt feel natural at all but i guess it was noteworthy

    and Brosnan did bring something- he brought hope that Bond can exist outside of the cold war- remember when reporters said will bond be relevant in the 90s...brosnan and goldeneye made that happen...even some fans hailed him the second coming of Sean Connery...though i cant find the article it was mentioned on Comanderbond.net

    anyway back on topic- TImothy Dalton did a fantastic job on Chuck especially his first episode
  • and why do people always insist it was Blofeld who killed Tracy, he was merely doing the driving, it was Bunt who fired the fatal shots after all, I wonder what happened to her character after the film, Blofeld would perhaps be seen again in an ambiguous scene in For Your Eyes Only but Bunt just faded from the memory after the slaying off 'Mrs Bond' at the end of OHMSS. Lazenby and Rigg did seem plausible enough as lovers at times during the films duration even if there was off screen tensions during filming between personnel
  • Posts: 6,432
    Connerys bond showed emotion with great restraint when telling domino her brother had been murdered. bonds hand is shaking when he give's domino her brothers personal effects. bond put's on black sun glasses to shield his emotion from domino. very subtle and a great scene.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Connerys bond showed emotion with great restraint when telling domino her brother had been murdered. bonds hand is shaking when he give's domino her brothers personal effects. bond put's on black sun glasses to shield his emotion from domino. very subtle and a great scene.

    Indeed. A great scene and one of his best. Also, definitely putting his armour on to keep Domino from getting too close.

  • So I think we can concure that Brosnan was certainly not the first Bond to show an emotional side.
  • edited January 2012 Posts: 2,782
    Just watching LTK on itv4 now, just seeing Tim makes me think what a loss he was to the series - should have two more at least.

    Sanchez is awesome and the script is terrific and fun. I love TD.

    Mi3 and the new Batman movie pay homage to two action scenes in the first half, plus DC and co must have watched this film religiously to get a sense of where they were taking his Bond character. TD's two films have never been bettered so far.
  • edited January 2012 Posts: 12,837
    002 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    If Connery liked Brosnan that's fine. It's his own opinion and I'm sure Brosnan was elated to hear it as anyone would be. But I think him "bringing new layers to the character" is alot of bs and proves Connery obviosuly didn't read too far into it. What layers did he bring? What new aspects did he bring to the table that weren't already explored by the other 4 actors? I've never had this answered because Brosnan simply brought nothing. He took half of Connery and mixed it with half of Moore and gave us a boring retread more fit to be parodied than taken seriously.

    I think one thing that makes Brosnan a bit more distinctive though is that, unlike any of the other 4 Bond actors at the time, he actually experienced real torment and suffered from a loss that was close to him. Whether you like him or not that surely adds a little bit more of a poigniancy and authenticity to the role. It may not be "new" per-say but IMO it's unique and worth noting.

    Brosnan is the first to show actual emotion- the statue park scene with Alec and Bond in Goldeneye, the beach scene in goldeneye, when he drinks in TND in the apartment to forget all the negativness, his confrintation between Electra in TWINE asking her to call off Renard and killing her in cold blood was something that none of the other bonds have done (unless you count the connery moment in NSNA) and the montage of his torture when he was decreasing his heart beat in DAD)

    Oh I suppose Tracy's death in OHMSS was Bond not showing any emotion? Or Bond discovering Felix's body in LTK? Did you even see all the films? Brosnan brought nothing.

    read BAIN123s post. We'd seen emotion before but brosnan was the 1st bond to actually have experienced something like tracy dying, which made it a bit more authentic when he did have emotional moments. Dalton will always be my fave bond but brosnan is great, and I'm sick of people making out he's such a bad james bond. What exactly did craig bring that was new??? dalton had done the whole dark thing, and lasenby the emotional thing before right??? but craig is still a good james bond isn't he. Brosnan, and craig, brought nothing new because there wasn't anything new to bring, moore had done the light hearted, dalton the darker side, and connery had done the whole classic bond thing. What could brosnan have brought that hadn't been done before??? Brosnan did everything he could do and he turned out to be a great james bond.
  • edited January 2012 Posts: 12,837
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    So he was a circus act. Makes sense.

    I don't think Chuck Norris could eat fire ;)

    chuck norris could do anything. he's chuck norris.

    TRUE CHUCK NORRIS FACTS

    If chuck norris is running late, then time slows the f*** down.

    There's no life on mars and other planets because chuck norris got there first.

    We now have over 7 billion people on earth.... because chuck norris allows them to live

    chuck norris doesn't have cereal in milk for breakfast, he eats mini grenades in poison

    in goldeneye, 006 switched places with a disguised chuck norris while bond wasn't looking, and chuck norris took a bullet to the head

    the world will not end in 2012, the world will end whenever chuck norris wants it too

    chuck norris killed a man in antartica by practising bruce lees one inch punch. He was in new york at the time
  • 002 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    If Connery liked Brosnan that's fine. It's his own opinion and I'm sure Brosnan was elated to hear it as anyone would be. But I think him "bringing new layers to the character" is alot of bs and proves Connery obviosuly didn't read too far into it. What layers did he bring? What new aspects did he bring to the table that weren't already explored by the other 4 actors? I've never had this answered because Brosnan simply brought nothing. He took half of Connery and mixed it with half of Moore and gave us a boring retread more fit to be parodied than taken seriously.

    I think one thing that makes Brosnan a bit more distinctive though is that, unlike any of the other 4 Bond actors at the time, he actually experienced real torment and suffered from a loss that was close to him. Whether you like him or not that surely adds a little bit more of a poigniancy and authenticity to the role. It may not be "new" per-say but IMO it's unique and worth noting.

    Brosnan is the first to show actual emotion- the statue park scene with Alec and Bond in Goldeneye, the beach scene in goldeneye, when he drinks in TND in the apartment to forget all the negativness, his confrintation between Electra in TWINE asking her to call off Renard and killing her in cold blood was something that none of the other bonds have done (unless you count the connery moment in NSNA) and the montage of his torture when he was decreasing his heart beat in DAD)

    Oh I suppose Tracy's death in OHMSS was Bond not showing any emotion? Or Bond discovering Felix's body in LTK? Did you even see all the films? Brosnan brought nothing.

    read BAIN123s post. We'd seen emotion before but brosnan was the 1st bond to actually have experienced something like tracy dying, which made it a bit more authentic when he did have emotional moments. Dalton will always be my fave bond but brosnan is great, and I'm sick of people making out he's such a bad james bond. What exactly did craig bring that was new??? dalton had done the whole dark thing, and lasenby the emotional thing before right??? but craig is still a good james bond isn't he. Brosnan, and craig, brought nothing new because there wasn't anything new to bring, moore had done the light hearted, dalton the darker side, and connery had done the whole classic bond thing. What could brosnan have brought that hadn't been done before??? Brosnan did everything he could do and he turned out to be a great james bond.

    You can read my posts and you'll see I said him experiencing it in real life meant absolutly nothing. All that matters is what's on screen and Brosnan sure as hell didn't outperform Dalton in his emotional scenes. That's because he's simply not a good actor. I highly doubt anyone watched Brosnan's scenes and said "Wow either he's the greatest actor in the world or he really did lose his wife". All Brosnan did was grimace and wince. He should've spent a few more years in acting school.
  • 002 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    If Connery liked Brosnan that's fine. It's his own opinion and I'm sure Brosnan was elated to hear it as anyone would be. But I think him "bringing new layers to the character" is alot of bs and proves Connery obviosuly didn't read too far into it. What layers did he bring? What new aspects did he bring to the table that weren't already explored by the other 4 actors? I've never had this answered because Brosnan simply brought nothing. He took half of Connery and mixed it with half of Moore and gave us a boring retread more fit to be parodied than taken seriously.

    I think one thing that makes Brosnan a bit more distinctive though is that, unlike any of the other 4 Bond actors at the time, he actually experienced real torment and suffered from a loss that was close to him. Whether you like him or not that surely adds a little bit more of a poigniancy and authenticity to the role. It may not be "new" per-say but IMO it's unique and worth noting.

    Brosnan is the first to show actual emotion- the statue park scene with Alec and Bond in Goldeneye, the beach scene in goldeneye, when he drinks in TND in the apartment to forget all the negativness, his confrintation between Electra in TWINE asking her to call off Renard and killing her in cold blood was something that none of the other bonds have done (unless you count the connery moment in NSNA) and the montage of his torture when he was decreasing his heart beat in DAD)

    Oh I suppose Tracy's death in OHMSS was Bond not showing any emotion? Or Bond discovering Felix's body in LTK? Did you even see all the films? Brosnan brought nothing.

    read BAIN123s post. We'd seen emotion before but brosnan was the 1st bond to actually have experienced something like tracy dying, which made it a bit more authentic when he did have emotional moments. Dalton will always be my fave bond but brosnan is great, and I'm sick of people making out he's such a bad james bond. What exactly did craig bring that was new??? dalton had done the whole dark thing, and lasenby the emotional thing before right??? but craig is still a good james bond isn't he. Brosnan, and craig, brought nothing new because there wasn't anything new to bring, moore had done the light hearted, dalton the darker side, and connery had done the whole classic bond thing. What could brosnan have brought that hadn't been done before??? Brosnan did everything he could do and he turned out to be a great james bond.

    You can read my posts and you'll see I said him experiencing it in real life meant absolutly nothing. All that matters is what's on screen and Brosnan sure as hell didn't outperform Dalton in his emotional scenes. That's because he's simply not a good actor. I highly doubt anyone watched Brosnan's scenes and said "Wow either he's the greatest actor in the world or he really did lose his wife". All Brosnan did was grimace and wince. He should've spent a few more years in acting school.

    No he didn't outperform dalton in the emotional scenes. But read my other post, you talked about how brosnan brought nothing new, I said there wasn't anything new to bring.
  • Posts: 6,432
    I think the best way i can describe brosnans take on bond and i am sorry to say. brosnan tried to act like bond. sean connery is bond. dalton is bond, craig is bond, moore is bond and lazenby is bond because i believe they are who they claim to be when playing bond.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I didn't think Brozza was that bad with the emotional stuff in GE. He looked awkward and confused - like how you WOULD if you saw a friend who you thought was long dead.

  • No he didn't outperform dalton in the emotional scenes. But read my other post, you talked about how brosnan brought nothing new, I said there wasn't anything new to bring.

    I would strongly disagree with that. Just because Dalton played a "dark" Bond and Craig plays a "dark" Bond doesn't mean the performances are similar (I'd even disagree with the "dark" part). Look at how many different takes there are on Sherlock Holmes...or Hamlet! Not only is it the same character but because of the source material the dialogue is even often exactly the same. Yet the different actors playing the role can give very different performances.

    Brosnan wasn't just a retread of Moore, he was his own character. Was that character consistant and played with utter conviction? Not always. So I think that he did indeed bring some new things to the character but I feel that he wasn't able to back it up with the acting ability needed. That doesn't mean that he was a *terrible* actor, just that his reach might have exceeded his grasp.

    As for Craig he as well has brought "something new" to the character - indeed, that was something commonly pointed out for praise in the reviews of CR (and likely a big reason for his BAFTA nomination). I think that if you gave each of the 6 Bond actors the same scene to do with the same dialogue you'd be surprised at just how different the scenes would turn out.

  • edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Just to let people know, I don't think Brozza is a GREAT actor (I just watched Remember Me where I wasn't too impressed) but he does have his moments (I liked him in Evelyn and The Greatest - where he played a grieving father). And I think your personal experiences probably do affect your abilities as an actor. True people complain about Brozza now but I suspect it would have been worse in 1986.

    Its really weird. I think out of all his performances TWINE is often met with the most controversy. I remember Haphazard saying he thought it was Brozza's best performance (bar his "there's no point in livinng" scene) and he said he thought Brozza did well in giving the character "new dimensions". Others seem to think its his worst. I think we can all agree on one thing - Brosnan improved as Bond as he went on.

  • I would strongly disagree with that. Just because Dalton played a "dark" Bond and Craig plays a "dark" Bond doesn't mean the performances are similar (I'd even disagree with the "dark" part). Look at how many different takes there are on Sherlock Holmes...or Hamlet! Not only is it the same character but because of the source material the dialogue is even often exactly the same. Yet the different actors playing the role can give very different performances.

    Brosnan wasn't just a retread of Moore, he was his own character. Was that character consistant and played with utter conviction? Not always. So I think that he did indeed bring some new things to the character but I feel that he wasn't able to back it up with the acting ability needed. That doesn't mean that he was a *terrible* actor, just that his reach might have exceeded his grasp.

    As for Craig he as well has brought "something new" to the character - indeed, that was something commonly pointed out for praise in the reviews of CR (and likely a big reason for his BAFTA nomination). I think that if you gave each of the 6 Bond actors the same scene to do with the same dialogue you'd be surprised at just how different the scenes would turn out.

    I don't think brosnan and craig brought anything new, but I don't care. They are still great bonds and there isn't anything REALLY new to bring.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2012 Posts: 15,718
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Just to let people know, I don't think Brozza is a GREAT actor (I just watched Remember Me where I wasn't too impressed)

    I also had the misfortune of watching Remember Me... and I thought Brosnan was immense in the film. He stole every scene he was in. He has like 8 minutes of screentime at most, yet he totally outshines the main characters. When Brosnan and Pattinson were in the fancy restaurant, Brosnan looked completly 'in his element' - full of grace, commanding figure - while Pattinson looked like a baffoon. And when Pattinson goes to throw a tantrum in Pierce's office, I could feel the rage in Brosnan while sitting infront of my computer... it really felt like Brosnan was about to annihilate Pattinson's existence.

    I know Pattinson is far from being a great actor... but Brosnan really wipes the floor with him... Brosnan outperforms Pattinson by a huge margin, so he must be a good actor atleast...
  • edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I'll agree he looked commanding but his accent seemed too cheesey and "put on".

    He overacted a little with the"SIT THE ****DOWN" line though.

    That said I really felt sorry for his character in The Greatest.
  • Posts: 6,601
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Just to let people know, I don't think Brozza is a GREAT actor (I just watched Remember Me where I wasn't too impressed)

    I also had the misfortune of watching Remember Me... and I thought Brosnan was immense in the film. He stole every scene he was in. He has like 8 minutes of screentime at most, yet he totally outshines the main characters. When Brosnan and Pattinson were in the fancy restaurant, Brosnan looked completly 'in his element' - full of grace, commanding figure - while Pattinson looked like a baffoon. And when Pattinson goes to throw a tantrum in Pierce's office, I could feel the rage in Brosnan while sitting infront of my computer... it really felt like Brosnan was about to annihilate Pattinson's existence.

    I know Pattinson is far from being a great actor... but Brosnan really wipes the floor with him... Brosnan outperforms Pattinson by a huge margin, so he must be a good actor atleast...

    I didn't see the film, but this is EXACTLY the ambience, where Pierce feels totally at ease and in the right place, hence it works for his Bond. Here he exudes all, what is necessary to be a convincing Bond. But he largely lacks in danger and action. This is when he becomes less convincing and looks out of place. But I think, that those nice location parts are those, where people enjoyed his Bond.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    So I think we can concure that Brosnan was certainly not the first Bond to show an emotional side.

    Moore did it well in TSWLM when XXX kept pushing him about Tracy. One of Moore's best scenes in the franchise.
  • echo wrote:
    So I think we can concure that Brosnan was certainly not the first Bond to show an emotional side.

    Moore did it well in TSWLM when XXX kept pushing him about Tracy. One of Moore's best scenes in the franchise.

    They all did. Especially Dalton and Lazenby. But I suppose some people think Bond was some sort of robot before Brosnan. Even though all he did was make funny facial expressions.
  • Posts: 6,601
    But I suppose some people think Bond was some sort of robot before Brosnan. Even though all he did was make funny facial expressions.

    In a way, that is true. To me the essence of Bond was his coolness, which was proven by not showing much of emotion, never mind what. They kill and turn around - unmoved. They love and turn around - unmoved. Obviously Tracy was the exception.
    I kinda liked that, made him larger then life.
    I am a fan of Moore (yes, Dalton/Craig), because even though he was a lightweight, he had tons of charme to make up for not being a tough guy. He was my favourite Bond and in some way, still is.
    I think, Dalton failed not because his films were darker, but because of his lack of appeal. SDo, to answer the title question, he was not ahead of his time, he was the wrong man to bring it up.
    Pierce to me is the least convincing Bond.
    DC is my favourite Bond actor, but not my favourite Bond, if that makes any sense. That is Moore...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Both Moore and Dalton had great "Tracy reflection" moments. I didn't love Brosnan's in TWINE as much.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Germanlady wrote:
    But I suppose some people think Bond was some sort of robot before Brosnan. Even though all he did was make funny facial expressions.

    In a way, that is true. To me the essence of Bond was his coolness, which was proven by not showing much of emotion, never mind what. They kill and turn around - unmoved. They love and turn around - unmoved. Obviously Tracy was the exception.
    I kinda liked that, made him larger then life.
    I am a fan of Moore (yes, Dalton/Craig), because even though he was a lightweight, he had tons of charme to make up for not being a tough guy. He was my favourite Bond and in some way, still is.
    I think, Dalton failed not because his films were darker, but because of his lack of appeal. SDo, to answer the title question, he was not ahead of his time, he was the wrong man to bring it up.
    Pierce to me is the least convincing Bond.
    DC is my favourite Bond actor, but not my favourite Bond, if that makes any sense. That is Moore...

    Exactly. What defines Bond (and lets down Craig for me) is that sense of devil may care, do or die, coolness. Brozza turned him into a groaning, moaning, mincing pansy, and Craig is just too damn serious about everything. Although Rog' was slated by countless Sean fans, I think time has allowed us to get perspective on his take on Bond, and the conclusions are pretty positive. Oodles of charm, likeability and a sense that he'd get through anything. Plus, you root for him. He's not as physical as Sean, so you don't necessarily see him as the automatic winner - this makes his big confrontations more gripping. I've seen heard some people compare him to Brozza, which is absurd and completely misses the star quality that Moore brought to the screen.

    A true legend.
  • Getafix wrote:

    ...and Craig is just too damn serious about everything.

    I'm always surprised when people say this. I started a thread quite some time back about "favourite moment of humour in Craig's films" and I think that showed that the humourless, dark Craig Bond (or Bond films) is a bit of a case of people seeing what they want to see. Craig flirting with both Solange and Vesper (especially telling her that her cover name is Stephanie Broadchest), teasing/humiliating Dimitrios and the German tourist in the The One and Only Club, joking while eating caviar after winning the card tournament...I think that some people don't like the "darker" moments and then project that onto everything.

    I think a similar thing happened to Dalton. I thought that he showed charm and a nice light touch with the lines and humour in TLD. But then people didn't like his take in LTK (I agree that his charm disappeared in that film) and retroactively remembered TLD as lacking humour.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:

    ...and Craig is just too damn serious about everything.

    I'm always surprised when people say this. I started a thread quite some time back about "favourite moment of humour in Craig's films" and I think that showed that the humourless, dark Craig Bond (or Bond films) is a bit of a case of people seeing what they want to see. Craig flirting with both Solange and Vesper (especially telling her that her cover name is Stephanie Broadchest), teasing/humiliating Dimitrios and the German tourist in the The One and Only Club, joking while eating caviar after winning the card tournament...I think that some people don't like the "darker" moments and then project that onto everything.

    I think a similar thing happened to Dalton. I thought that he showed charm and a nice light touch with the lines and humour in TLD. But then people didn't like his take in LTK (I agree that his charm disappeared in that film) and retroactively remembered TLD as lacking humour.

    I think you're right Flasheart. I was watching a bit of LTK yesterday and, while there are a few lighter moments with Dalton ("why don't you wait until you're asked") its overshadowed by the grim, violent nature of the plot. When people think of "humour" they often think of one-liners and there's no denying that they often fell a bit flat when Dalton attempted them ("he looks like he came to a dead end"). The same goes for Craig in Quantum ("thank you, she's seasick")
Sign In or Register to comment.