Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

14950525455104

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    Yes in a way I guess.

    Too many Subway sandwich shops though... :P
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2015 Posts: 17,830
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Yes in a way I guess.

    Too many Subway sandwich shops though... :P
    Never too many of THOSE! FOOT LONG TUNA YEAH BABY!!!
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 3,333
    Delete
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 3,333
    bondsum wrote: »
    Let's get this distorted view of Dalton's first Bond movie not igniting in the UK like Craig's first outing out of the way. TLD was immensely popular. Both the Odeon Marble Arch and Leicester Square were sold out for weeks. This was before they carved up the Marble Arch cinema into smaller screens and was still the biggest in Europe! I can still recall the queues snaking around the adjoining streets just to get a ticket, and that was after the second week! Word of mouth was very good for Dalton. It was the first time I also saw a ton of merchandise being sold in the foyer for a Bond movie: sweat shirts, T-shirts, ties, playing cards, cups, jackets, lighters, key rings, baseball caps, etc, all with TLD logo emblazoned on the front. This stuff sold out pretty quickly too. TLD was a hit in the UK, no mistaking.

    Does anyone still have any of this TLD merchandise? I lost all of mine over several moves long ago.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Yes in a way I guess.

    Too many Subway sandwich shops though... :P
    Never too many of THOSE! FOOT LONG TUNA YEAH BABY!!!

    Lol true ..
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Let's get this distorted view of Dalton's first Bond movie not igniting in the UK like Craig's first outing out of the way. TLD was immensely popular. Both the Odeon Marble Arch and Leicester Square were sold out for weeks. This was before they carved up the Marble Arch cinema into smaller screens and was still the biggest in Europe! I can still recall the queues snaking around the adjoining streets just to get a ticket, and that was after the second week! Word of mouth was very good for Dalton. It was the first time I also saw a ton of merchandise being sold in the foyer for a Bond movie: sweat shirts, T-shirts, ties, playing cards, cups, jackets, lighters, key rings, baseball caps, etc, all with TLD logo emblazoned on the front. This stuff sold out pretty quickly too. TLD was a hit in the UK, no mistaking.

    Does anyone still have any of this TLD merchandise? I lost all of mine over several moves long ago.

    I was quite young at the time but my recollection was TLD was very well received in the UK. It's not hard to understand really. It's a cracking Bond movie, and a major step up from AVTAK. It contains many of the Rog elements but with a hard hitting and younger Bond in the main role. It doesn't surprise me that they were queuing round the block in London weeks after it came out.

    I do think LTK really threw people after TLD. Dalton's first is a pretty trad Roger Moore era Bond in many respects. And then LTK goes off in a completely different direction. And I'm not sure the Latin America thing really suits Bond. If the original idea had been for it to be about the Triads, then I think that would have worked a lot better. And would have helped explain why the Hong Kong narco police pop up half way through!

    LTK is an uneven movie and it's understandable that many people were a bit thrown by it. Still, I think it did decent business in Europe. Dalton just needed a more traditional third entry to steady the boat.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on here who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Delete
  • Posts: 11,425
    Double post
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on his who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    DC isn't as subtle or gifted an actor as Dalton... not a popular view, but one I believe to be true.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on his who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    DC isn't as subtle or gifted an actor as Dalton... not a popular view, but one I believe to be true.
    SP has increased my estimation of Dalton and confirmed for me that DC is not quite as good when doing formula Bond. I find him better just being an actor showing his range. Nobody really does it like him then. However, being Bond means forcing oneself into the 'limited' Bond film persona as defined over the past 50 years and operating within those confines. I actually think Dalton could navigate better there (based on TLD). Moore and Connery were the masters of it though.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on his who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    DC isn't as subtle or gifted an actor as Dalton... not a popular view, but one I believe to be true.

    I agree to a large extent. I have been a supporter of Craig ever since he was cast, and although he hasn't quite fully lived up to my expectations, I think he's done a good job. Perhaps most importantly, he's not Brosnan!

    But looking back I do think Dalton is much enjoyable and interesting to watch than Craig. I think I even prefer watching Laz in OHMSS. Laz goes on a most believable and interesting emotional journey in his one film (helped by Fleming and Rigg) than Craig does in his four movie story arc IMO.

    I've actually come to the conclusion that Craig is a little bit boring. Still good in the role, good presence and physicality and more than adequate, but just not very good at conveying danger, excitement, menace or fun. That actually sounds quite harsh, which I don't mean it to be. But he just seems inferior to me than most of the others. Good but nowhere near as good as the current hype would have us believe.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Double post
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Oddly enough and thanks to the forum I do want to rediscover Dalton.

    I'm not a big fan of Glen at all. I hate Dalton never had a real director to work with. In a way then it's interesting to ponder how Dalton would have done in GE.

    However from a realistic perspective GE with Dalton would have bombed in the US if it had even been financed.

    Studio didn't want Dalton as I recall.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,731
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on his who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    DC isn't as subtle or gifted an actor as Dalton... not a popular view, but one I believe to be true.

    I agree to a large extent. I have been a supporter of Craig ever since he was cast, and although he hasn't quite fully lived up to my expectations, I think he's done a good job. Perhaps most importantly, he's not Brosnan!

    But looking back I do think Dalton is much enjoyable and interesting to watch than Craig. I think I even prefer watching Laz in OHMSS. Laz goes on a most believable and interesting emotional journey in his one film (helped by Fleming and Rigg) than Craig does in his four movie story arc IMO.

    I've actually come to the conclusion that Craig is a little bit boring. Still good in the role, good presence and physicality and more than adequate, but just not very good at conveying danger, excitement, menace or fun. That actually sounds quite harsh, which I don't mean it to be. But he just seems inferior to me than most of the others. Good but nowhere near as good as the current hype would have us believe.

    I'd go along with that. DC is a fine actor and I'm glad he was cast over a wooden plank such as Cavill, but I don't find him intriguing enough to warrant watching his 007 over Dalton's, he's just too bland in some respects.

    To be blunt - if I could supplant DC with Dalton in any of the last 4 films I would probably rate each movie higher.

    But I still think he's a good Bond, and rate him 3rd after Connery & Dalton.
  • Posts: 11,425
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on his who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    DC isn't as subtle or gifted an actor as Dalton... not a popular view, but one I believe to be true.

    I agree to a large extent. I have been a supporter of Craig ever since he was cast, and although he hasn't quite fully lived up to my expectations, I think he's done a good job. Perhaps most importantly, he's not Brosnan!

    But looking back I do think Dalton is much enjoyable and interesting to watch than Craig. I think I even prefer watching Laz in OHMSS. Laz goes on a most believable and interesting emotional journey in his one film (helped by Fleming and Rigg) than Craig does in his four movie story arc IMO.

    I've actually come to the conclusion that Craig is a little bit boring. Still good in the role, good presence and physicality and more than adequate, but just not very good at conveying danger, excitement, menace or fun. That actually sounds quite harsh, which I don't mean it to be. But he just seems inferior to me than most of the others. Good but nowhere near as good as the current hype would have us believe.

    I'd go along with that. DC is a fine actor and I'm glad he was cast over a wooden plank such as Cavill, but I don't find him intriguing enough to warrant watching his 007 over Dalton's, he's just too bland in some respects.

    To be blunt - if I could supplant DC with Dalton in any of the last 4 films I would probably rate each movie higher.

    But I still think he's a good Bond, and rate him 3rd after Connery & Dalton.

    Yes, I'm not dissing Craig at all. I think he's up against stiff competition, that's all, and I have not bought into the hype around him.

    I was happy when he was cast and I'm still happy with him now. I enjoyed his performance in SP a lot. But I do feel he lacks the light and shade of Connery or Dalton. And he doesn't entertain me he way Sir Rog did either.

    As I say, there's a lot of very good competition. When I'm feeling generous I put Craig 4th and other days I have him 5th.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    To be blunt - if I could supplant DC with Dalton in any of the last 4 films I would probably rate each movie higher.
    I'd be very curious to see a younger Dalton in CR. I think he could have pulled it off very well actually.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I'm reasonably happy with the CR we have. Just glad they didn't do it with Brosnan.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm reasonably happy with the CR we have. Just glad they didn't do it with Brosnan.
    I'm definitely happy with what we got as well. However, thinking about this makes me realize that Dalton would have likely aced that part as well. It was made for him. Brooding/dark but still Bondian cool. He may not have been smooth enough with Green but ironically they pair well together now in Penny Dreadful.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm reasonably happy with the CR we have. Just glad they didn't do it with Brosnan.
    I'm definitely happy with what we got as well. However, thinking about this makes me realize that Dalton would have likely aced that part as well. It was made for him. Brooding/dark but still Bondian cool. He may not have been smooth enough with Green but ironically they pair well together now in Penny Dreadful.

    DC and Green went well together.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,243
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on here who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    Guilty as charged @getafix You are right that I was too enthusiastic about SF then. I will give you full credit for being more objective about it. And you went against the grain of the positive opinion.

    I think sub-consciously I went overboard in praising SF, because I was relieved that Craig did not overtake Dalton in my rankings. The hype was that this was the mother of all Bond films. I also recall being really tired when I saw it.

    But, I watched it again a few weeks backs for the first time since my cinema viewing, and found it a torture to watch. It is not a Bond film for me, and I am seeing many people go from initially hot on SF to luke warm.

    I find SF so up it's own arse and pseudo-intellectual. I think the opening PTS lacks that Bond cool. I honestly began to miss Brosnan after seeing SF again. And I think the film colourwise is not a thing of beauty, it looks dull. Old Bond knew how to use a location to full effect and we had beautiful vivid colours!! I think people underestimate how well filmed classic Bond films were.

    LTK feels more like a comedy after seeing SF again. Craig lost that brilliance he particularly had in QOS when he is fully energized in the role. I love the action in QOS a lot and the story is actually very intelligent. More relevant politically than SF.

    And who cut Craig's hair???

    Oh well, at least SF helped to serve people to be pleasantly surprised when they watch Dalton for the first time, like my friend's wife!!!





  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes the SF PTS is just an OTT wham bam thank you ma'am action extravaganza. No subtlety or wit.

    How we miss John Glen's genius in the action department.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,243
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    To be blunt - if I could supplant DC with Dalton in any of the last 4 films I would probably rate each movie higher.
    I'd be very curious to see a younger Dalton in CR. I think he could have pulled it off very well actually.

    That is what I was thinking since 2012. Goodness, but Dalton unleashed with no compromise to his vision of Bond would be splendid!

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    acoppola wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on here who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    Guilty as charged @getafix You are right that I was too enthusiastic about SF then. I will give you full credit for being more objective about it. And you went against the grain of the positive opinion.

    I think sub-consciously I went overboard in praising SF, because I was relieved that Craig did not overtake Dalton in my rankings. The hype was that this was the mother of all Bond films. I also recall being really tired when I saw it.

    But, I watched it again a few weeks backs for the first time since my cinema viewing, and found it a torture to watch. It is not a Bond film for me, and I am seeing many people go from initially hot on SF to luke warm.

    I find SF so up it's own arse and pseudo-intellectual. I think the opening PTS lacks that Bond cool. I honestly began to miss Brosnan after seeing SF again. And I think the film colourwise is not a thing of beauty, it looks dull. Old Bond knew how to use a location to full effect.

    LTK feels more like a comedy after seeing SF again. Craig lost that brilliance he particularly had in QOS when he is fully energized in the role. I love the action in QOS a lot.

    And who cut Craig's hair???? Honestly it had a neo-nazi style and I was shocked by that!





    I'm glad you have an appreciation for QoS. For me, QoS is a very unappreciated and underrated Bond film.

    I'm finding after SP I am gaining appreciation for QoS as well as the Dalton entries. You swayed me there.

    I'm still not and never will be a fan of Glen as a director ..second unit maybe... his action is good but nowhere near as good as Campbell's for me.

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on here who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    Guilty as charged @getafix You are right that I was too enthusiastic about SF then. I will give you full credit for being more objective about it. And you went against the grain of the positive opinion.

    I think sub-consciously I went overboard in praising SF, because I was relieved that Craig did not overtake Dalton in my rankings. The hype was that this was the mother of all Bond films. I also recall being really tired when I saw it.

    But, I watched it again a few weeks backs for the first time since my cinema viewing, and found it a torture to watch. It is not a Bond film for me, and I am seeing many people go from initially hot on SF to luke warm.

    I find SF so up it's own arse and pseudo-intellectual. I think the opening PTS lacks that Bond cool. I honestly began to miss Brosnan after seeing SF again. And I think the film colourwise is not a thing of beauty, it looks dull. Old Bond knew how to use a location to full effect.

    LTK feels more like a comedy after seeing SF again. Craig lost that brilliance he particularly had in QOS when he is fully energized in the role. I love the action in QOS a lot.

    And who cut Craig's hair???? Honestly it had a neo-nazi style and I was shocked by that!





    I'm glad you have an appreciation for QoS. For me, QoS is a very unappreciated and underrated Bond film.

    I'm finding after SP I am gaining appreciation for QoS as well as the Dalton entries. You swayed me there.

    I'm still not and never will be a fan of Glen as a director ..second unit maybe... his action is good but nowhere near as good as Campbell's for me.

    Seriously? I think Glen's action is the best in the series. Put his work as director and second unit director together and it's insane how many great moments he gave us.

    If QoS is one of the under appreciated movies (which I agree with), then Glen is definitley the most under appreciated director.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on here who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    Guilty as charged @getafix You are right that I was too enthusiastic about SF then. I will give you full credit for being more objective about it. And you went against the grain of the positive opinion.

    I think sub-consciously I went overboard in praising SF, because I was relieved that Craig did not overtake Dalton in my rankings. The hype was that this was the mother of all Bond films. I also recall being really tired when I saw it.

    But, I watched it again a few weeks backs for the first time since my cinema viewing, and found it a torture to watch. It is not a Bond film for me, and I am seeing many people go from initially hot on SF to luke warm.

    I find SF so up it's own arse and pseudo-intellectual. I think the opening PTS lacks that Bond cool. I honestly began to miss Brosnan after seeing SF again. And I think the film colourwise is not a thing of beauty, it looks dull. Old Bond knew how to use a location to full effect.

    LTK feels more like a comedy after seeing SF again. Craig lost that brilliance he particularly had in QOS when he is fully energized in the role. I love the action in QOS a lot.

    And who cut Craig's hair???? Honestly it had a neo-nazi style and I was shocked by that!





    I'm glad you have an appreciation for QoS. For me, QoS is a very unappreciated and underrated Bond film.

    I'm finding after SP I am gaining appreciation for QoS as well as the Dalton entries. You swayed me there.

    I'm still not and never will be a fan of Glen as a director ..second unit maybe... his action is good but nowhere near as good as Campbell's for me.

    Seriously? I think Glen's action is the best in the series. Out his work as director and second unit director together and it's insane how many great moments he gave us.


    Yes I'm serious. His pacing is a bit too slow and too often what he accepted was just too sloppy for me.

    Not so great with actors either. The acting sans Dalton in LTK is just embarrassing.

    But you're right he did give us some exceptional action sequences.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    LTK is all about Davi and Dalton. The two are superb playing off of each other. I agree that the rest were sort of naff......including Del Toro actually who was quite camp.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,243
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on here who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    Guilty as charged @getafix You are right that I was too enthusiastic about SF then. I will give you full credit for being more objective about it. And you went against the grain of the positive opinion.

    I think sub-consciously I went overboard in praising SF, because I was relieved that Craig did not overtake Dalton in my rankings. The hype was that this was the mother of all Bond films. I also recall being really tired when I saw it.

    But, I watched it again a few weeks backs for the first time since my cinema viewing, and found it a torture to watch. It is not a Bond film for me, and I am seeing many people go from initially hot on SF to luke warm.

    I find SF so up it's own arse and pseudo-intellectual. I think the opening PTS lacks that Bond cool. I honestly began to miss Brosnan after seeing SF again. And I think the film colourwise is not a thing of beauty, it looks dull. Old Bond knew how to use a location to full effect.

    LTK feels more like a comedy after seeing SF again. Craig lost that brilliance he particularly had in QOS when he is fully energized in the role. I love the action in QOS a lot.

    And who cut Craig's hair???? Honestly it had a neo-nazi style and I was shocked by that!





    I'm glad you have an appreciation for QoS. For me, QoS is a very unappreciated and underrated Bond film.

    I'm finding after SP I am gaining appreciation for QoS as well as the Dalton entries. You swayed me there.

    I'm still not and never will be a fan of Glen as a director ..second unit maybe... his action is good but nowhere near as good as Campbell's for me.

    Indeed, I remember walking out of the cinema after seeing QOS 100% satisfied. I love the music, locations and to the point direction. Craig was truly his own Bond without needing to look back to the past.

    I think with time Dalton will grow on you. His performance as Bond holds up to multiple viewings. I rank LTK and QOS as equally enjoyable, though LTK has a better villain.

    QOS PTS is for me spectacular and lmany people have not really watched QOS with their thinking caps on, because it is a clever film.
  • Posts: 11,425
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on here who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    Guilty as charged @getafix You are right that I was too enthusiastic about SF then. I will give you full credit for being more objective about it. And you went against the grain of the positive opinion.

    I think sub-consciously I went overboard in praising SF, because I was relieved that Craig did not overtake Dalton in my rankings. The hype was that this was the mother of all Bond films. I also recall being really tired when I saw it.

    But, I watched it again a few weeks backs for the first time since my cinema viewing, and found it a torture to watch. It is not a Bond film for me, and I am seeing many people go from initially hot on SF to luke warm.

    I find SF so up it's own arse and pseudo-intellectual. I think the opening PTS lacks that Bond cool. I honestly began to miss Brosnan after seeing SF again. And I think the film colourwise is not a thing of beauty, it looks dull. Old Bond knew how to use a location to full effect.

    LTK feels more like a comedy after seeing SF again. Craig lost that brilliance he particularly had in QOS when he is fully energized in the role. I love the action in QOS a lot.

    And who cut Craig's hair???? Honestly it had a neo-nazi style and I was shocked by that!





    I'm glad you have an appreciation for QoS. For me, QoS is a very unappreciated and underrated Bond film.

    I'm finding after SP I am gaining appreciation for QoS as well as the Dalton entries. You swayed me there.

    I'm still not and never will be a fan of Glen as a director ..second unit maybe... his action is good but nowhere near as good as Campbell's for me.

    Seriously? I think Glen's action is the best in the series. Out his work as director and second unit director together and it's insane how many great moments he gave us.


    Yes I'm serious. His pacing is a bit too slow and too often what he accepted was just too sloppy for me.

    Not so great with actors either. The acting sans Dalton in LTK is just embarrassing.

    But you're right he did give us some exceptional action sequences.

    I actually like his pacing as well. You really get the sense of a story being properly told. Despite their incredible length, I find the plot and story dimensions of SF and SP quite perfunctory and rushed.

    I think it's a style thing. Glen's films feel like old fashioned thrillers a little more. Mendes's Bond films are more in line with thematic broad brush stroke filmmaking. Mendes has been massively influenced by Nolan's films as well -Nolan's influence is all over SP.

    I find GE and TWINE two of the most plodding directorial efforts of recent times. Even CR I find slightly dull at times. I'd go as far as saying Cambell is the most overrated director.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    [qu
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No you dont. Dalton tried but too stiff.

    You can be a student of Fleming and not like Dalton.

    Way too simplistic view of the American audience.

    No you don't what? Your answer is no answer. Too stiff? What does that mean???

    My view of America I admit is not the highest. I won't even comment on their foreign policy or this continuing idea that American box office is more important than the rest of the world.

    You are from Texas? I am sure the Mexicans would love that back!

    Too theatrical... don't worry my opinion of you is even lower.

    Brosnan was popular but so was Connery and now Craig.

    You know what? Enjoy your Bond. It's not worth it anymore.

    Y'all want him? Have him. I'm done.

    I apologise I put you through the arduous task of having to type that. Go have a rest.

    You're not worth it. "Stiff" is my opinion. Craig is natural ...same authority in his voice.

    This is a forum of options ..some agree, some don't. If you wish to represent the UK the way you do so be it.

    I'm not stooping to your level.

    This is a forum of opinions you mean? Craig in SF is stiff as a rock, yet got praised like it was the best Bond ever. There is a double standard in Bond fandom when it comes to Craig and Dalton.

    But the coming years will see a change in that. I know many people who are seeing Dalton as criminally underrated. Natural implies that an actor put no effort in.

    In fact after SF, I see Dalton as more well-rounded and nowhere near as serious as some make him out to be. He smiles way more than I noticed before and studied the books intensely. Dalton was the first to show the many shadings of the character. He explored the parts that were not the most audience friendly.

    Interesting change of view on SF. I remember us discussing SF in 2012 and you were pretty keen on it back then, while I couldn't stand it (still can't really). What made you change your mind?

    I seem to be one of the few on here who doesn't think Craig is some kind acting genius - the second coming with blond hair.

    I actually like Craig as Bond but I do feel he's quite limited as an actor. Dalton gave me much more enjoyment in terms of his portrayal personally. I don't quite see all the emotional depth that others say they see in Craig. I'm not actually sure Craig is trying to convey emotional depth either. What I respect about Craig is his consistency and that he gives us a solid and plausible interpretation.

    Guilty as charged @getafix You are right that I was too enthusiastic about SF then. I will give you full credit for being more objective about it. And you went against the grain of the positive opinion.

    I think sub-consciously I went overboard in praising SF, because I was relieved that Craig did not overtake Dalton in my rankings. The hype was that this was the mother of all Bond films. I also recall being really tired when I saw it.

    But, I watched it again a few weeks backs for the first time since my cinema viewing, and found it a torture to watch. It is not a Bond film for me, and I am seeing many people go from initially hot on SF to luke warm.

    I find SF so up it's own arse and pseudo-intellectual. I think the opening PTS lacks that Bond cool. I honestly began to miss Brosnan after seeing SF again. And I think the film colourwise is not a thing of beauty, it looks dull. Old Bond knew how to use a location to full effect.

    LTK feels more like a comedy after seeing SF again. Craig lost that brilliance he particularly had in QOS when he is fully energized in the role. I love the action in QOS a lot.

    And who cut Craig's hair???? Honestly it had a neo-nazi style and I was shocked by that!





    I'm glad you have an appreciation for QoS. For me, QoS is a very unappreciated and underrated Bond film.

    I'm finding after SP I am gaining appreciation for QoS as well as the Dalton entries. You swayed me there.

    I'm still not and never will be a fan of Glen as a director ..second unit maybe... his action is good but nowhere near as good as Campbell's for me.

    Seriously? I think Glen's action is the best in the series. Out his work as director and second unit director together and it's insane how many great moments he gave us.


    Yes I'm serious. His pacing is a bit too slow and too often what he accepted was just too sloppy for me.

    Not so great with actors either. The acting sans Dalton in LTK is just embarrassing.

    But you're right he did give us some exceptional action sequences.

    I actually like his pacing as well. You really get the sense of a story being properly told. Despite their incredible length, I find the plot and story dimensions of SF and SP quite perfunctory and rushed.

    I think it's a style thing. Glen's films feel like old fashioned thrillers a little more. Mendes's Bond films are more in line with thematic broad brush stroke filmmaking. Mendes has been massively influenced by Nolan's films as well -Nolan's influence is all over SP.

    I find GE and TWINE two of the most plodding directorial efforts of recent times. Even CR I find slightly dull at times. I'd go as far as saying Cambell is the most overrated director.

    I respect that.
Sign In or Register to comment.