Was Tim Dalton ahead of his time?

Germanlady

I think, there is humor in Bond films, that has humor written all over it and there is humor, that is a bit more subtle, but nevertheless there. Suppose that goes for Dalton and Craig. Not to forget the infamous "That last hand - nearly killed me". There is lots of charme and flirting in CR and to a lesser extend in QOS.

licensetoforum

Brosnan gave Bond short time emotion. Basically let's cry over something for a scene and then go back to one liners.

Baltimore_007

But that's what some people want from their Bonds i.e. a straight faced approach or playing it straight such as Dalton and Craig have given us. I don't mind a slice of humor with 007 but not to the extremes we have seen before in some outings where it all got a bit out of hand. Thankfully we seem to have moved on from those distant days

DoubleOhhSeven

thelivingroyale wrote:

DoubleOhhSeven wrote:

002 wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

DoubleOhhSeven 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.

Any actor worth his salt will find something new to bring to a character. And Craig certainly has brought something new. A sense of realism (and no im not talking about the action scenes because let's face it they've always been far-fetched). What I get from Craig is that if a man like James Bond did exist in the world he'd be closer to Craig's portrayal than any other actor. Because of James Bond's violent lifestyle that forces him to be emotionally detached Craig has formed a character that is a borderline (if not all the way) sociopath. And that's what seperates him from Dalton. Dalton wasn't afraid to let people know that he cared and show emotions. Craig on the other hand will lie about it (i.e. his conversation with M at the end of CR and beginning of QOS). Bond says "the bitch is dead". Ofcourse he didn't think that little of Vesper otherwise he wouldn't have tried so hard to save her and then carry her picture. And then in QOS he tells M she wasn't important just before stealing that picture when M wasn't looking. His Bond can be hurt but he will never under an circumstances show it. Because like a hardened spy he needs to constantly appear completely untouchable. He needs to appear to both his friends and enemies as a machine. Someone who will do his job and not care about any collateral damage to others. But he does care. That's what makes him fascinating. He's a real man under a forced ficade.

My biggest problem with the Brosnan films (aside from his bad acting) was that he played a James Bond that was almost always fully aware that he was in a James Bond movie. Almost as if he's winking at the audience all the way through. If an actor can't take the character seriously why should we? Yes Moore did the same but that was more accetable in the 70s than the 90s. Keep in mind Moore came before Austin Powers and before shows like The Simpsons, SNL, and pretty everything else took shots at James Bond. Even by 1985 in AVTAK Moore's sticke was getting to be too much and outdated hence Dalton was brought to make things serious again. Why they traveled backwards after Im not sure.

BAIN123

If it was more acceptable in the 70s than the 90s then how does that explain Brozza's popularity in the 90s? It seems to me that Brozza fit his era of the flashy 90s hero rather well.

DoubleOhhSeven

BAIN123 wrote:

If it was more acceptable in the 70s than the 90s then how does that explain Brozza's popularity in the 90s?

That can be attributed to a few factors. First of he's a popular actor. Unlike Dalton and Lazenby he was familar to the public eye and excepted as a leading man, not because of talent but because he is admittadly a very handsome man. Secondly I believe after 6 years people really wanted James Bond back in their lives. It was the longest gap in franchise's history. Had Brosnan debuted in 1987 with TLD I believe the reception would not have been as good as the public was growing alittle tired of Bond. He should count himself lucky to debut when he did. Thirdly I believe Brosnan, the man, was more popular than his Bond. Yes GE was recieved well but whenever I asked about his other Bond films people had lukewarm if not negative reactions to them. I frequently heard from fans both older and my age "Yeah (insert title) was ok but it wasn't as good as the older ones". And lastly much of the casual audience wants the same old stuff over and over. But Im not a casual fan. Im a Bond fanatic who had to watch his cinematic hero toil in mediocrity throughout the 90s. Brosnan was popular with the casual audience but not so much with the hardcore fanbase, which is what we are.

BAIN123

I'm not so sure about that last bit. I recall seeing an old thread on mi6 (sadly not available now due to the change in format) where a lot of fans (about 80%) said they were sorry to see him go. Ive also had the odd mod admit to me the same privately.

DoubleOhhSeven

BAIN123 wrote:

I'm not so sure about that last bit. I recall seeing an old thread on mi6 (sadly not available now due to the change in format) where a lot of fans (about 80%) said they were sorry to see him go. Ive also had the odd mod admit to me the same privately.

Was this before or after CR was released? Because Yes in 2005 audiences were sorry to see him go but after CR was released and was an all-around bigger hit than any of Brosnan's films I doubt many people were clamoring for Brosnan to return. These things have to be viewed in the context of history.

Plus maybe they were sorry to see him go because of the ugly falling out with EON. But I have no sympathy for him in that regard. He became a very rich man during his tenure as Bond and asked for a King's ransom for his salary for Bond 21. There are people struggling just to make a living so him not making another fortune didn't strike me as tragic. Although it obviously did to him.

BAIN123

Agreed, but nonetheless many people (including me) were sorry when he left.

It seems like he's still missed by some people closer to him too - assuming this is true of course ;)

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/debbiedowner/news/?a=49794

DoubleOhhSeven

He could very well be a nice guy in person but judging from his interviews and childish whining he kinda came off as a jerk to me. Plus EON dumping him, when they have a history of wanting to hold on to actors as long as they can, defiantly tells me something.

Again Brosnan was very popular with casual fans. I can't take that away from him. But like I said Im not a casual fan.

BAIN123

DoubleOhhSeven wrote:

He could very well be a nice guy in person but judging from his interviews and childish whining he kinda came off as a jerk to me. Plus EON dumping him, when they have a history of wanting to hold on to actors as long as they can, defiantly tells me something.

Again Brosnan was very popular with casual fans. I can't take that away from him. But like I said Im not a casual fan.

Who knows what he's like in real life. I have mixed feelings about him in person but he surely can't be ALL bad. I suspect he'd be fun to go for a drink with but, like Lazenby, he has a rather bitter streak to him.

As I said, up until 2005/6 he seemed to be popular with more hardcore fans too, but that changed (perhaps with some justification) when CR came out.

DaltonCraig007

Well you have to admit that Craig fans should be glad DAD was made... without that film, Craig would never have been cast... so for them, DAD saved the franchise...

DoubleOhhSeven

DaltonCraig007 wrote:

Well you have to admit that Craig fans should be glad DAD was made... without that film, Craig would never have been cast... so for them, DAD saved the franchise...

I wouldn't say that. It was all about casting the right man. Afterall OHMSS was supposed to be a harder-edged more Fleming Bond after YOLT but because of Lazenby is didn't take off. The same could've happened to CR.

DaltonCraig007

DoubleOhhSeven wrote:

DaltonCraig007 wrote:

Well you have to admit that Craig fans should be glad DAD was made... without that film, Craig would never have been cast... so for them, DAD saved the franchise...

I wouldn't say that. It was all about casting the right man. Afterall OHMSS was supposed to be a harder-edged more Fleming Bond after YOLT but because of Lazenby is didn't take off. The same could've happened to CR.

Well if DAD was never made, and Brosnan's 4th film was very well received by fans and critics, Brosnan would have made a 5th film in 2005, and possibly even a 6th in 2007. And Bond 23 with the Bond #6 wouldn't be released until 2012 (not enough time between Pierce's last and the MGM financial problems). So I doubt a 44 years old Craig would have been cast for a 2012 debute... we'd have to look for an actor in his mid 30's... Fassbender ?

So we can safely say the only reason we got CR with Craig in 2006 was because DAD was made... if DAD didn't exist, Brosnan would have continued on for 1, maybe 2 more films. Brosnan would never have been fired/quit if Bond 20 was a success for the critics and the fans.

BAIN123

I must admit, while Brosnan had his flaws and cant escape some responsibility, i really dont think he can be blamed completely for the way DAD turned out. After all I doubt very much it was him who decided to name a character Mr Kil or him who decided to have a sequence completely cgi - in fact the latter was the producers idea.

Risico

I don't think he was ahead of his time (this is not going to be a criticism - I think Dalton was great), I think he was totally *of* his time, ie. he was bang up to date for 1987. This was the era of Rambo, Lethal Weapon, etc, and Moore's Bond was in many ways a hangover from the previous decade (again, not a criticism, just a fact). TLD was a very 1987 Bond movie, with a contemporary plot, influenced by AIDS concerns in Bond's number of sleeping partners, and a great action movie. If Dalton was cast today (at the age he was then) I think he'd still polarise audiences, but not for the same reasons as Daniel Craig. The problem with Dalton's portrayal, and to some extent the problem with Craig's in Quantum of Solace, is that he almost never seemed to enjoy his job. Yes, there were times in the books when Bond hated it and wanted to pack it in, but you've also got to add the flipside, which is that he nevertheless keeps doing it because deep down *he loves it*. For me, Dalton's best, most crystalising moment as Bond is in TLD when he's driving through the East German night and says with a glint in his eye, "Whoever she was, it must have scared the living daylights out of her."

DoubleOhhSeven

Risico wrote:

I don't think he was ahead of his time (this is not going to be a criticism - I think Dalton was great), I think he was totally *of* his time, ie. he was bang up to date for 1987. This was the era of Rambo, Lethal Weapon, etc, and Moore's Bond was in many ways a hangover from the previous decade (again, not a criticism, just a fact). TLD was a very 1987 Bond movie, with a contemporary plot, influenced by AIDS concerns in Bond's number of sleeping partners, and a great action movie. If Dalton was cast today (at the age he was then) I think he'd still polarise audiences, but not for the same reasons as Daniel Craig. The problem with Dalton's portrayal, and to some extent the problem with Craig's in Quantum of Solace, is that he almost never seemed to enjoy his job. Yes, there were times in the books when Bond hated it and wanted to pack it in, but you've also got to add the flipside, which is that he nevertheless keeps doing it because deep down *he loves it*. For me, Dalton's best, most crystalising moment as Bond is in TLD when he's driving through the East German night and says with a glint in his eye, "Whoever she was, it must have scared the living daylights out of her."

I don't think Craig is polarising audiences. If anything he's become a very popular choice.

Getafix

Risico wrote:

I don't think he was ahead of his time (this is not going to be a criticism - I think Dalton was great), I think he was totally *of* his time, ie. he was bang up to date for 1987. This was the era of Rambo, Lethal Weapon, etc, and Moore's Bond was in many ways a hangover from the previous decade (again, not a criticism, just a fact). TLD was a very 1987 Bond movie, with a contemporary plot, influenced by AIDS concerns in Bond's number of sleeping partners, and a great action movie. If Dalton was cast today (at the age he was then) I think he'd still polarise audiences, but not for the same reasons as Daniel Craig. The problem with Dalton's portrayal, and to some extent the problem with Craig's in Quantum of Solace, is that he almost never seemed to enjoy his job. Yes, there were times in the books when Bond hated it and wanted to pack it in, but you've also got to add the flipside, which is that he nevertheless keeps doing it because deep down *he loves it*. For me, Dalton's best, most crystalising moment as Bond is in TLD when he's driving through the East German night and says with a glint in his eye, "Whoever she was, it must have scared the living daylights out of her."

Ah, the first part of TLD is great, and I'm a big fan of the film overall, although it does go a bit dodge towards the end.

connerybond

Dalton brought back seriousness after years of Moore Bond parodies ( don't get me
wrong, Moore was very good as cheeky Saint), the Bond films then got me bored, but Dalton got the seriousness back in TLD. It did not last as Brosnan and gadgets took over.