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
As for versatility, Moore didn't really click in the role until his third Bond film--one film more than Dalton enjoyed.
I really wonder what it would have been like if Dalton had a 1991 and 1993 movie. Perhaps he could've got his own TSWLM and just struck the right chord.
At the end of the day, though, we judge based on what we have seen, and Moore demonstrated a variety and flexibility to his approach that Dalton never came close to replicating. For that matter, nobody has (I think Moore's approach was even more varied than Connery's, who had an overall better portrayal of Bond but kind of stuck to a single mould). That wins major points in my book. Like all the Bond actors, Moore had his leanings and preferred style, but he was able to stretch his acting to fit other scenarios in a way that just about none of the other actors could (Connery could but rarely did).
The other thing Sir Roger has going for him is consistency. Regardless of how he played Bond he gave good performances and maintained a standard that even Connery dropped in YOLT and DAF when he phoned it in. Brosnan and Craig have slipped at times; the other two haven't made enough movies to be judged on consistency (though there's certainly Dalton's accent slips in LTK to consider :)) ).
Good post. I agree with your assessment of Moore. He's underrated in terms of his acting - a very deft and flexible performer. Ironically it is Moore who actually completed his studies at RADA - Dalton dropped out after a year, I think partly becuase he resented being forced to lose his regional accent! We always hear how Dalton is a 'stage actor' but I wonder if it isn't just that Moore and Connery are better actors. I feel Dalton didn't take the time to learn the craft in the same way as Rog, who also benefited from a stint in Hollywood during the last days of the old studio system when young stars were expected to fit into whatever role or type the studio expected of them.
I fully recognise the weaknesses in Dalton but still enjoy his two entries, particularly TLD, where I think he owns the part brilliantly during the first half especially.
I am a Dalton fan who found Brosnan utterly underwhelming throughout his stint. Always amused to hear people describe Brosnan as 'nailing it' in DAD. Seriously?! In the sense that he managed to nail sh*t to the wall? I suppose that is an achievement of sorts.
So from my perspective one more Dalton would always have been preferable to any number of Brosnan entries. Whether a third Dalton film would have cemented him in the role will always be out there as a big "what if". For people like me he established himself brilliantly in TLD any way.
But the 90s were a difficult time for Bond. Cold War gone. Abysmal out of character product placement everywhere (MI6 handing out BMWs?!). I can't stand GE and although Dalton would have improved it in my eyes it would have needed major changes to redeem it entirely.
The light hearted Moore stuff that they (badly) resurrected during the Brosnan era just felt stale and wrong to me. It took Bourne to wake EON up to where Bond might head in the future.
Yep those accent slips in LTK are bad. Hillarious though. Glen should have insisted on Dalton dubbing those lines later but I guess he knew about Dalton's touchiness on this subject.
Roger was very good at playing light comedy, which is harder than it looks, but he was not a flexible performer. He had a narrow range which he performed very well in.
You hear that Dalton is stage actor because he was a stage actor. He appeared in dozens of productions after receiving his dramatic training, unlike Moore. And he continued appearing in them after breaking into films.
I doubt starring in a few anodyne pictures for MGM was more challenging than regularly appearing on stage. As Roger admitted, he wasn't very good at the studio and didn't last long there. His roles were mostly small and undemanding and the larger ones, such as in Diane, were premature typecasting.
Yes Dalton appeared more on the stage but Rog is the one who completed his classical training at RADA. Sometimes I feel this shows. Also Brosnan finished stage school and had a successful stage career before TV. I'm not particualrly making a point, just setting the record straight.
Re Rog's time in the studio system you can debate it all you want but I have no doubt just being around that system at that time and perhaps watching how some of the big stars performed rubbed off on Rog. He was able to convey some of that old school Hollywood charm and screen charisma that's for sure - in a different league from all the other Bonds apart from Connery on that front. And I think no one can really question that Connery was the better actor.
I think these days the idea that you are either a stage or screen actor is rather old hat, although they remain very distinct mediums requiring a radically different approach. I agree Dalton has a tendency to overact sometimes, but surely the same criticism applies as much, if not more so, to Brosnan. What is the pain face and all of Brosnan's strutting and posturing if not ticks from his stage background?
I'm not sure how it would--Moore never played any classical parts afterward (unlike Dalton). And I don't think RADA's emphasis would have been on the sort of light comedy Moore went on to play so well. Those skills are honed in commercial entertainment, and Moore certainly paid his dues in that area.
No doubt about that. But Connery also conveyed old school Hollywood charm and screen charisma, and he wasn't a studio player. Roger himself was only at MGM for two years. I would argue that Moore's long career in television--Ivanhoe, Maverick, The Alaskans, etc.--was what really gave him polish and honed his onscreen skills.
I'm not a great Brosnan fan, but I tend to be bothered more by his underacting. He took playing it cool to the point of playing dead.
Bang on.
I'm not sure if he was good in all his movies but GE was very much needed as it is and he was very much needed as Bond to make the character cool again.
I don t even know what to say to that...
I don't Dalton could have sold this cover.
More importantly for the studio, he was cheap. GE had to be a lower-budgeted Bond film, and Brosnan was an actor they knew they could get for a low fee.
In 1993 Dalton was excited about doing one more Bond film -- and only one more -- but Cubby Broccoli wanted to sign him for as many as four more films. Dalton wasn't interested in that. Then the new regime at MGM/UA stepped in and pressured EON to dismiss Dalton.
If MGM/UA had not been so aggressive about replacing Bond, I wonder if Dalton would have been driven enough to negotiate with Cubby and finish off his tenure with GE.
What do you think? Could it have worked as well, or would he have scared the living daylights out of her?
https://i.imgur.com/v7m6M1S.jpg
I think Dalton in GE would have exacerbated many viewers. The jury was in and had said they wanted Brosnan. I remember that time and Dalton fans had no leg to stand on.
For some of us that's a point in Dalton's favour ;)
Anyway, what is this 'new, postmodern Bond adventure by Will Self'?? I missed that at the time.