It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think Eon would entertain a planned "two film Bond star" today because they recognise that reboots and relaunches are now much more familiar and comfortable territory for 21st century audiences. As I have said about Dalton before, right man in the role at the wrong time.
Exactly how it happened there.
He could have played Bond from DN to SP, it would be all good, but maybe it would have become a tad boring with time.
On second thought...no, not even that.
1981 to 1989 DALTON
1995 to 2006 BROSNAN
2008 to 2022 DALTON
:P
Oh I could live with:
1962 to 1981 (as it was)
1983 to 2022 PIERCE BROSNAN
I definitely could.
Here's my version.
1962-85 as it was.
1987 to 2020 Pierce Brosnan. :D
1962-1969 - As it was (although I would have been ok with Conners in OHMSS)
1971-1983 - Moore (I can live with him stopping in 1979, but OP is just so damn good)
1985-1989 - Dalton (just so the Daltonites can stop whining about him not getting his 3rd)
1995-2002 - Brosnan (if there was no Brosnan, there would be no Craig)
2006-2015 - Craig (I wouldn't have minded him stopping after SF to be honest)
2019- somebody new.
That'll do as well :D
But seriously now:
If I really had the means to alter history it would have played out like this:
1962 to 1967 CONNERY
1969 to 1971 LAZENBY with DAF a gritty revenge story
1973 to 1983 MOORE
1985 to 1991 DALTON with Property Of A Lady being made
1995 to 2020 BROSNAN assuming 2018 and 2020 saw two more Bond films
This is the only way it should have been...
1962 - 2002 Roger Moore
Really?!?!? He never had a hot/hit film. Ever. His Bond films under-delivered.
Yet someone like @Mendes goes after Craig who, even when a film doesn't exactly hit makes more than Dalton's films combined.
And, as i remind @Mendes, DC's films are not the popcorn flicks seeking number one at the Box office (aside from his LATE CASTING in CBvsA).
He just didn't deliver.
I was once a Daltonite. I was twelve when he was cast. I loved his face. I ate up everything I could find on the man.
But man, oh man, he couldn't execute. And believe me, I defended his interpretation against anyone who had a bad word to say about him, including dear old dad who said he couldn't hold a candle to Connery; Dad was turned off by Dalton 's staginess, but, I fought and fought the good fight , coz everything Dalton said made sense about the character.
But, as I grew older, I came to agree with the critics that I personally knew and had argued against: Tim blew as Bond. Uncomfortable. Over-acting. Stagey. Too Shakespearian. Can see him telegraphing emotions...
I started to see it all. And, to this day,I have a tough time watching his very interesting to very good films (despite his wooden staginess).
No, Goldeneye would NOT have been a hit with Dalton, on soooo many levels, but most of all that he had lost the audiences two films prior.
<font size=7> DALTON RULEZ™ </font>
Apostate! Under ISIS this would be a criminal offence.
I'd do myself :D
HA! Yes, exactly!
Also Dalton is the only Bond who knows how to set a man on fire !
Didn t Craig set Silva on fire?
They were trying to have their cake and eat it regarding which part of Bond's character was comtempory and which parts were from the original material so we end up with a rather confused and conflicting portrayal and its hard to work out how much of this is down the the script and how much is down to the actor.
Part of what made Bond a success was Connery playing him as a swaggering, cultured snob. Also his build and movement was incredibly appealing to the ladies.
Dalton abandoned all of this for a casual, off-the-peg everyman which was fine for what it is but offered no longevity.
Afraid the wider audience (you know the people, they can't spell Fleming, never mind tell you who he was) who pay Dalton's wages didn't buy in to his portrayal.
So, I'm afraid I agree with @peter. No point me saying it all again. GoldenEye was a success because Bond was brought back with a facelift and a popular actor. If Dalton had continued it would not have made as much money.
A success..maybe..just.
Of course I was exaggerating a tiny bit.
Connery is elementary in the series success.
GE was the perfect storm, I wouldn't want it any other way.
What I mean is GE as Dalton's fourth after 1991's Property Of A Lady had worked perfectly. Dalton needed another chance that never materialized. He had gone down the same road as Moore who wasn't exactly very popular before TSWLM.
You have to be kidding if you think he is scowling. He looks cool as f**k!. But, Craig in the scene in Skyfall when he is in the museum, where he gets introduced to the new Q is pathetic. He looks so uncomfortable and the way he delivers "You must be joking!", is an insult to how superb Connery did it.
My wife is Colombian and finds Dalton highly culturally relatable, and has a look that can translate to other cultures, which is part of what James Bond is. She thought Dalton has mixed ancestry. Craig is ideal for a white audience and hardly represents diversity. No one I know in Colombia sees him as James Bond!
Bottom line. Dalton in his younger form would be a better representation of Bond now in an age where cultural diversity is playing a greater role, because he has those dark looks. Certainly for where a Latin American audience is concerned!