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
That's an interesting thought. Possibly.
Can anyone name an alternative leading role that should've gone to Dalton instead of another British actor in the early 90s?
To a certain degree, I think even Craig is suffering from the lack of big roles for leading English actors in Hollywood movies, hence his decision to now play smaller supporting roles in quirky productions that interest him. I guess he no longer needs the money and can afford to be picky.
That said, neither was Brosnan doing particularly well in the early 90s, despite him benefiting from playing an American rather than a Brit, he didn't get any big movie roles, until his belated supporting role in Mrs Doubtfire put him back on the producer's radar. I think the other difference was that Brosnan had zero aspirations of taking to the stage ever again once he'd made the transition to the big screen, unlike Dalton, who felt more comfortable and at ease treading the boards. I think it all comes down to Brosnan being more driven than Dalton to succeed in Tinseltown, and his younger/boyish good looks gave him a better edge. Or maybe it was just luck of the Irish?
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS: It's also easy to forget the huge impact that True Lies had back in 94 with audiences. I recall James Cameron saying in interviews that he made the movie because he missed there not being a big James Bond movie, and that he wanted to fill the vacuum. True Lies was, up until then, the most expensive movie ever made. Though loosely based on a mediocre French movie, it was to all intents and purposes a Bond movie with a subtle twist. The movie was huge back in 94 and, if anything, showed UA/MGM that scrimping on the next Bond budget wasn't the best way for good returns. I also think, and I'm merely speculating again, that it was another reason why the studio bosses decided on rebooting the series with a fresh face. It wasn't so much GE that relit the fuse for future espionage thrillers, but the colossal success of True Lies, for which GE was one of its beneficiaries. The first Jack Ryan movie, Hunt for Red October, was incidentally another good example of the early 90s spy thriller doing it bigger and better than Bond.
You can definitely see where GE got a lot of its inspiration.
When Philip Pulman's 'His Dark Materials' books were adapted for the London stage, it was Dalton who was cast as Lord Asriel. A piece of smart casting to be sure if anyone has read the books.
However when the first novel 'Northern Lights' was adapted for the big screen it was called 'The Golden Compass' and the part of Asriel went to Daniel Craig.
At the time I did try to get tickets, but the run came to an end and I simply wasn't quick enough.
I'm a big Craig fan, and often I will knock Dalton mercilessly, but when it comes to the role of Lord Asriel I was far more of the opinion that it suited Dalton, rather than Craig, and would have loved to see him in the West End in that role.
Did anyone else see it?
I only managed to see it after Dalton had left the role and David Harewood was playing Lord Asriel. This was and still is a source of huge, huge regret for me (although there was nothing at all wrong with Harewood's performance).
Lord Asriel is an ideal character for Dalton: scary, intelligent, good-looking, probably going to turn out evil.
I find him too good looking for Alfred. I always imagined him more stuck up, a bit like Philip Stone.
http://www.warpedfactor.com/2017/02/bond-10-things-you-might-not-know-about.html
I certainly didn't know that the Finnish title was 007 AND THE DANGER ZONE. Archer crossover? :)
he might had the looks and "toughness" but his on screen persona was just bad, it's just a weak name compared to Sir Rog or Sir connery and the extremely popular(at the time) brosnan.
I agree, although I do think Craig sells the carefree elements better than Dalton did...at least in CR (taking on Domitrios at the betting table then seducing his Mrs).
I think the trick is to be able to embody that nonchalant, insouciant persona (caricature though it may be) in a natural manner even when the films don't provide scripts to readily demonstrate that. This is an art. It must come from within.
Dalton didn't pull it off well even though his films gave him that opportunity (particularly TLD), but at least he really didn't try and I give him credit for that. In the few instances that he did, it came across forced. Craig has only been able to pull it off (imho) in certain instances where the script is designed to accommodate that (most notably CR). Both Dalton and Craig lean towards the serious side of things. It's in their look (intense and less cultivated) and preferred acting style as much as it is in the script.
Regarding Dalton, I do think he was more of a stage actor and that is evident on-screen — but there again I'm not convinced his films entirely gelled with his style, the one that would most optimally have given him that cinematic presence.
I think it's also interesting with Brosnan how he basically tried on three different styles for his first three films, none of which quite worked, and then got it right on his last film kind of in spite of the mismatch in style with the film itself.