The TIMOTHY DALTON Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

DarthDimi

Just finished watching TLD and LTK as a Daltonite's favourite combo. The pleasure I get from watching these films is overshadowed by my sadness over the fact that Dalton never got to do a third, fourth, ... Bond film. Both Dalton and his two Bond films were misunderstood at the time. It's the only sane conclusion I can draw. To prove my point, I'd say that the very things that brought Craig and CR ounces of praise, were the same things over which Dalton and his Bonds were heavily criticised. Instead of pointing favourably to the return to Fleming's Bond, they called it a 'lack of fun'; instead of heralding Dalton's fierceness and dramatic energy, they called him 'dull and too serious'. As had been the case with OHMSS, Dalton's Bonds received more praise after his tenure had come to an end and by then, a new era had begun and there was no going back. The unfair treatment of Dalton and Glen's final two films is a dark point in the history of the Bonds. Contemplating what could have been and should have been, leaves me restless and quite angry.

Dalton's Bond may not have been as glamorously sexy as Connery's, but the times were vastly different. He may not have been as uncomplicated and tongue-in-cheek as Moore's, but the focus had shifted to more grittiness. Dalton's Bond, however, had content - which is not to say that the others hadn't, but often to a lesser degree - and less showcasing of the impractical superspy aura that had been so abundant in certain previous films. Dalton's Bond was committed to Fleming's writings and he may have been the first to ever come so close in tone and attitude, in sharpness and cynicism. Against popular belief, and as only those who've actually ever read a Fleming are aware, Fleming's Bond wasn't quite the unbeatable, ever smiling glamour boy from many of the previous films. His Bond would indeed have told the British agent to piss off. Too bad audiences and critics were stuck in a cartoonish fantasy regarding Bond.

Dalton's Bond was given enormous weight by Maibaum and Wilson. Rather than merely reacting to situations mostly created by the villain and restricting active spying to a bare minimum, Dalton's Bond took matters in his own hands, manipulated the villain, uncovered the plot without having the villain spell it out for him and, when captured, energetically fought his way out. While the GF Bond mostly stood by and watched as others pulled the strings, the TLD Bond manoeuvres everything and everyone around. The LTK Bond throws the human side in the mix, showing that Bond can hurl instructions out and use his talents to effectively bring down a villain for personal reasons.

Dalton himself is an actor with great skill. Ever since TSWLM, James Bond had been Roger Moore. This Bond had been a pleasure to watch and had generally been liked by many, but in more than one way, the Moore Bond hadn't been anything else than an easy going, relatively unchallenged Bond. Dalton, by contrast, played James Bond straight off the pages of the novels. He actually acted and he pursued a more complex and nuanced character, one we wouldn't unconditionally worship as overall perfect, but a human being with both strengths and weaknesses. Too bad people weren't ready for that at the time. The key to the success of Craig had been properly introduced some two decades prior to CR, but there had not been a lock in which it fitted.

In principle, I am pleased that Dalton's Bond has been rediscovered over the years and that many a Bond fan will nowadays admit to liking TLD and LTK quite a lot. It's more or less the same fate Lazenby and OHMSS have suffered. The only problem I have with this is that dreaming about what might have been a natural, productive progression of Dalton's tenure as Bond, almost drives me mad. Like so many of us are left very much annoyed over the fact that DAF was never given the proper chance of becoming a solid OHMSS², so am I disturbed and aggravated by the fact that the early 90s, for many reasons (not all of them related to how Dalton's films were received), allowed us no more Dalton Bonds. To express how I feel about this, I need to use a word that I hardly ever use at all, but one I find quite appropriate now: livid.

I'm a Daltonite. I love Timothy Dalton's acting, as Bond as well as beyond, I love his dedication to the part (a rare dedication, absent in most of the other actors), I love his two Bonds and the enormous step up in quality they provide compared to some of the previous Bond films. How can people claim that the series had tired down, when TLD and LTK freshened things up the way they did? How can people call Glen's directing boring and even incompetent, when the man gave us these two magnificent films? (For the record, I also love FYEO and OP.) But most of all, how can people criticise Dalton for not being a true Bond, when he may in fact have been the truest Bond of them all, judging from the template that Ian Fleming had devised? Obviously there's more than one way to look at the character of Bond. The Fleming way is but one but I am of the opinion that it is the most legitimate one. If only for trying (and succeeding) in bringing that particular Bond to life, Dalton should have been pampered with compliments. Sadly enough it wasn't until 2006, when the real world had piled up enough trouble to leave audiences bitter and cynical themselves, that a gritty, no-nonsense Bond was embraced as something of an ideal. It hadn't worked in '69 and it hadn't worked in '87 and '89 either. But more and more, people have gotten into this Bond and have learned to appreciate the major efforts that have gone into the production of TLD and LTK.

As for me, I have always been a believer, right from the start. The boy me loved TLD and LTK, the adult me still does.

Timothy Dalton is James Bond.

thelivingroyale

@DarthDimi =D> That was beautiful. Really well said and I can't agree enough.

Murdock

Well I after watching LTK after I think five years I fell in love with this film. I never liked it for a very long time but after 007 Legends revealed it to be Mission 3 I decided to give the film another chance. Where it used to be in my bottom 3, now it's in my top 3!

I've always liked Dalton's Bond. It was his own the moment he turned around dramatically to see 003 fall to his death.

I've never considered myself a Daltonite but after last night I became one. However I'll always be A Brosnanite first! :)

Baltimore_007

For me, License to Kill, just doesn't feel like a Bond film, I can't be insincere with this, Dalton actually does a great job, but it simply never feels like Bond for me, I liked the idea of going rogue agent and the locations were exotic, but after the success of Daylights, it just went all a bit off course for me, it's the best way I can describe it. Of course Dalton was such a great James Bond, will always be my favorite, but I'm always torn between who was really the very best between the Welshman and Connery for their portrayal of Flemings original character. Sometimes it can be so tough to choose between them, especially Connery's earliest appearances

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

forgotmyusername wrote:

The_Reaper wrote:

The fact he never did his third pains me even twenty years later. *sigh*

Same here...goldeneye would have been his goldfinger...three classic bonds in a row would have convinced us all here that he truly was the heir to sean.

It isn't the number of films a Bond actor gets, but what they do in those films to signify all the character is and can be. Sean did it in 1 film, and continued on, and Dan is doing a great job already and one of the best in only 2 films.

Baltimore_007

What a great read this was

http://pelicanpromotions.com.au/dalton/livingd.html

but too late for me. Goodnight I-)

AgentDalton

That was an excellent read, Darth.

Getafix

Great post. I think I need to rewatch LTK to make a proper judgement on Dalton's second film. The first time I saw it I was slightly disappointed, especially as I'd thought TLD was such an excellent debut. However on subsequent rewatchings I did come to appreciate it more. However I think we have to recognise that LTK will always divide people - even those fans who really loved Dalton's performance - and will always be controversial. Someone posted some quotes from Dalton a while back which were very interesting. He said that effectively he felt that LTK had been a little too dour and that he wanted the next film to be a little bit lighter - closer to TLD. I suspect that that is a view that a lot of both casual and dedicated Dalton fans would agree with. Interestingly he also said that he didnt even see the script for LTK until about ten days before shooting, which scotches the idea that Dalton was in any way the driving force behind the more serious tone of the movie. Essentially he was given the material and made the best of it, just as Roger had done with all the light-comedy stuff. While Dalton obviously wanted to bring back a harder edge to the role, I think he had many of the same reservations about LTK that critics at the time did. Any way, as others have pointed out, there are many precedents for a 'lighter' film being followed by a more 'serious' one and vice versa, and had Tim made his rightful three or four films we'd have that more balanced set of films for the more casual fans to judge him by. I think a GE with Dalton, Maibaum script and Glen direction would have been a classic.

DarthDimi

thelivingroyale wrote:

@DarthDimi =D> That was beautiful. Really well said and I can't agree enough.

We aim to please, sir. ;-)

forgotmyusername

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

forgotmyusername wrote:

The_Reaper wrote:

The fact he never did his third pains me even twenty years later. *sigh*

Same here...goldeneye would have been his goldfinger...three classic bonds in a row would have convinced us all here that he truly was the heir to sean.

It isn't the number of films a Bond actor gets, but what they do in those films to signify all the character is and can be. Sean did it in 1 film, and continued on, and Dan is doing a great job already and one of the best in only 2 films.

Yes as ever you are quite right. Opinions of us mortals are worthless in comparison to your definitive knowledge on all things Bond. I bow down to your platitudes and I only wish that in my next life I could come back to the level of existence you have attained.

DarthDimi

Now now, let's play along, fellas. ;-) Please, it's been a quiet and nice Sunday so far - hats off to those who manage to keep it that way.

MajorDSmythe

Dimi, that has to be the finest Dalton centric post i've read in my 7 years at MI6. =D> I could not have made a better post if I tried.

I'm still working on the Dalton era in my full-cast <a href="http://www.listal.com/list/my-ultimate-james-bond-timeline">timeline</a>. I'm in the process of putting together the cast for The Property Of A Lady (1994). I'm aiming for a cast of 10 for each film, so I just need one more for TPOAL before I publish it. :-?

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

forgotmyusername wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

forgotmyusername wrote:

The_Reaper wrote:

The fact he never did his third pains me even twenty years later. *sigh*

Same here...goldeneye would have been his goldfinger...three classic bonds in a row would have convinced us all here that he truly was the heir to sean.

It isn't the number of films a Bond actor gets, but what they do in those films to signify all the character is and can be. Sean did it in 1 film, and continued on, and Dan is doing a great job already and one of the best in only 2 films.

Yes as ever you are quite right. Opinions of us mortals are worthless in comparison to your definitive knowledge on all things Bond. I bow down to your platitudes and I only wish that in my next life I could come back to the level of existence you have attained.

My post didn't have the slightest tint of arrogance over self-adoration in it. What has little your match, mate? Whatever it is, I suggest you find better methods to relieve it.

thelordflasheart

DarthDimi wrote:

Both Dalton and his two Bond films were misunderstood at the time. It's the only sane conclusion I can draw. To prove my point, I'd say that the very things that brought Craig and CR ounces of praise, were the same things over which Dalton and his Bonds were heavily criticised.

<snip>

Too bad people weren't ready for that at the time. The key to the success of Craig had been properly introduced some two decades prior to CR, but there had not been a lock in which it fitted.

<snip>

But most of all, how can people criticise Dalton for not being a true Bond, when he may in fact have been the truest Bond of them all, judging from the template that Ian Fleming had devised? Obviously there's more than one way to look at the character of Bond. The Fleming way is but one but I am of the opinion that it is the most legitimate one. If only for trying (and succeeding) in bringing that particular Bond to life, Dalton should have been pampered with compliments. Sadly enough it wasn't until 2006, when the real world had piled up enough trouble to leave audiences bitter and cynical themselves, that a gritty, no-nonsense Bond was embraced as something of an ideal. It hadn't worked in '69 and it hadn't worked in '87 and '89 either.

<snip>

As for me, I have always been a believer, right from the start. The boy me loved TLD and LTK, the adult me still does.

Timothy Dalton is James Bond.

Fantastic post, and lots to chew on. I've abbreviated it to a few key things, but first some context:

As a kid, I despised Roger Moore as Bond. To me, he wasn't Bond, he was a punning clown imitating Bond. Why couldn't they get a cool guy like Connery? Someone who I could actually believe would win in a fight? A guy that I could actually believe that a woman would want to have sex with? And finally, a guy who didn't have to clown his way through the films with a level of humour that even as a kid I found immature and beneath me. To me Moore was the "class clown" of Bond films - he wasn't cool, he wasn't tough, so he adopted the jokey persona to distract from that. Because of him I fell off of the Bond films as I got older.

So when Dalton was first cast I thought, hmm, he certainly *seems* more like Bond. I was a 17 year old theatre kid and the more that I read about Dalton, the more impressed that I was - in fact, I was really looking forward to TLD. When it came out I was ecstatic - Bond was back! The fact that Dalton was very much an "actor" instead of a "star" was not a bad thing in my mind; in fact it was a huge plus. The main reaction that I had, and I hope that this doesn't come off as egotistical, was "That's the way I would have played it!". It was as if Dalton had read my mind. The biggest thing I loved about him was that with his Bond there wasn't really subtext, only text - you always saw exactly what he was thinking in any scene.

So imagine my shock when I found that hardly anybody liked him. Friends, co-workers, classmates - other than some of the theatre kids no one liked him. A few theatre girls and some older women that I knew found him attractive but not most women, and no guy wanted to be him when they grew up. At first I was puzzled, then angry. Why couldn't people see how great he was? To show what a huge Dalton fan I was I even placed a very angry, yelling phone call to a local film critic who gave him a tepid review.

With the wisdom of years I see now that I fell into a common trap that is all too prevalent on the internet now. I thought that the only reason that people would have a different opinion than me was because they were stupid (an attitude I learned from my father) and that it was my duty to show them the error of their ways. The more we would talk about Dalton the angrier that I would get, trying to get people to understand that they just didn't "get" Dalton's portrayal.

But here's the thing - they did "get" it. They just didn't like it.

Now that I've matured I can accept that people have different opinions. It was really interesting to rewatch TLD with an audience a few years back. My first reaction, other than being overjoyed at the round of applause that Dalton got when you first see his face , was "Wow - he's really...stage-y"! I still think that he handled the one-liners (at least in TLD) with greater aplomb than people give him credit for but the charm, or I guess I should say the ease just wasn't there the way it was with other Bond actors. It was a huge revelation for me, and although I still have a huge soft spot for Dalton I could finally see what others (the general public) were talking about. I think that a combination of my hatred of Moore and the fact that as a hormone overloaded teen I liked things bigger and more dramatic made me look at Dalton even more favourably than I would have otherwise.

So - why was Dalton not liked and Craig was? Were things really that different between 1987 and 2006? It's easy to say so and to use that as an excuse or explanation. But looking at some of the top-grossing films in, say, 1985-1987 we can see that although "fun" films did well so did some very serious films. So here's what I finally came around to - Dalton is not Craig.

IMHO Craig has far more presence and charm than Dalton. Had a 40-year old Dalton been cast in CR in 2006 I think that the general public would have reacted the same way to him as they did in '87. Likewise, if a 40-year old Craig had been cast in TLD in '87 the general public still would have loved him. And I'm saying this as a huge Dalton fan. People will always talk about script quality, timing, and context but when you headline a movie having that x-factor, that star quality, is a huge thing. To my regret, Dalton didn't have it in a way that resonated with mainstream audiences.

I still do love Dalton and am tremendously grateful that we got TLD and LTK. But as a Bond fan I'm glad we didn't get a third Dalton film as it would have changed things for the franchise for the worse. It's tempting to think that if Dalton had gotten one more film that audiences finally would have warmed to him but I don't think that would have happened. I'm glad that we got him as it's a tremendously important piece of the overall puzzle.

bondtheory

AgentDalton wrote:

I really hate how most people blames Dalton for 'the death of Bond', when they don't even know the fulls story. Ugh.

Can't agree more. The historiography shows many glowing reviews in his day. He seemed to not have as much interest in "selling" to the public the fact that he was Bond. I recall some accounts stating how he could even be shy at times, and more reserved, not as willing to do chat show plugs of his films as others. There was also less marketing of License To Kill than previous entries, and as David Pickford stated regarding some of the publicity following OHMSS, a studio and/or others forces can often choose to blame a film's star for a less-than-perfect perception.

thelivingroyale

Just because he wasn't that popular in America and LTK didn't do that well lots of people think he would've killed the series, that's not true at all.

LTK did poorly because of bad advertising and lots of competition, it was up against Indiana Jones, Leathal Weapon and Batman. If QOS had gone up against The Dark Knight or Crystal Skull in 2008, that wouldn't have made as much money. Plus, it was 15, rated higher than any of the other Bond films when they were released.

And overall, internationally, LTK made lots of money. Just because it wasn't as successful as past Bonds and just because it didn't set the box office on fire in America, it doesn't mean it was a failure. And LTK still got good reviews.

TLD made lots of money, more than AVTAK and OP I think, and got mostly good reviews. Most people I know/knew at the time liked Dalton as Bond. I think a 3rd film from Dalton would've been successful.

Germanlady

thelordflasheart wrote:

So - why was Dalton not liked and Craig was? Were things really that different between 1987 and 2006? It's easy to say so and to use that as an excuse or explanation. But looking at some of the top-grossing films in, say, 1985-1987 we can see that although "fun" films did well so did some very serious films. So here's what I finally came around to - Dalton is not Craig.

IMHO Craig has far more presence and charm than Dalton. Had a 40-year old Dalton been cast in CR in 2006 I think that the general public would have reacted the same way to him as they did in '87. Likewise, if a 40-year old Craig had been cast in TLD in '87 the general public still would have loved him. And I'm saying this as a huge Dalton fan. People will always talk about script quality, timing, and context but when you headline a movie having that x-factor, that star quality, is a huge thing. To my regret, Dalton didn't have it in a way that resonated with mainstream audiences.

I didn't make an effort to point this out again ( I did before though) beccause coming from me won*t make a difference. But this is it. Exactly.

thelivingroyale

Yeah we get it, Craig has more charm than Dalton, etc.

We know you don't like Dalton @Germanlady so why are you even on this thread? It is an appreciation thread after all...

Germanlady

I was just agreeing with something, someone else said, royale, and not bashing anybody. I didn't think, this was already too much.
But this whole "The world was not ready" never hit the true mark.

From the outcome of my thread, everybody seemed to have agreed, that there is no such thing as paying respect to other peoples opinion necessary. You are the one, who things everything is just so funny. Obviously not anymore, where your guy is concerned.

But honest, I am not planning on going that route. I thought, this was really far from any attack.

thelivingroyale

Germanlady wrote:

I was just agreeing with something, someone else said, royale, and not bashing anybody.

I never said you were bashing anyone. But the difference is, lordflashheart gave his opinion on it while actually giving some appreciation, which is, y'know, the point of the thread.

You just agreed with him on the part where he said Craig was more charming, not the bit where he praised Dalton, so you didn't give any appreciation. And if you have no appreciation on an appreciation thread, what's the point?

Germanlady wrote:

But this whole "The world was not ready" never hit the true mark.

No, it didn't hit it to you.

Germanlady wrote:

From the outcome of my thread, everybody seemed to have agreed, that there is no such thing as paying respect to other peoples opinion necessary

So you're upset because your thread got closed?

Germanlady wrote:

You are the one, who things everything is just so funny. Obviously not anymore, where your guy is concerned.

Thinks. And you obviously didn't read my post. I said one post from @Getafix was just tongue in cheek, not meant to be taken seriously. And it's not like he posted it on a Brosnan or Craig appreciation thread.

Germanlady wrote:

But honest, I am not planning on going that route. I thought, this was really far from any attack.

Yeah it's far from attack, but it's also far from any appreciation, the point of this thread, too.

I have no problem with your post really, it's just that this is an appreciation thread and you didn't post any appreciation. That's all.

BAIN123

thelordflasheart wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

Both Dalton and his two Bond films were misunderstood at the time. It's the only sane conclusion I can draw. To prove my point, I'd say that the very things that brought Craig and CR ounces of praise, were the same things over which Dalton and his Bonds were heavily criticised.

<snip>

Too bad people weren't ready for that at the time. The key to the success of Craig had been properly introduced some two decades prior to CR, but there had not been a lock in which it fitted.

<snip>

But most of all, how can people criticise Dalton for not being a true Bond, when he may in fact have been the truest Bond of them all, judging from the template that Ian Fleming had devised? Obviously there's more than one way to look at the character of Bond. The Fleming way is but one but I am of the opinion that it is the most legitimate one. If only for trying (and succeeding) in bringing that particular Bond to life, Dalton should have been pampered with compliments. Sadly enough it wasn't until 2006, when the real world had piled up enough trouble to leave audiences bitter and cynical themselves, that a gritty, no-nonsense Bond was embraced as something of an ideal. It hadn't worked in '69 and it hadn't worked in '87 and '89 either.

<snip>

As for me, I have always been a believer, right from the start. The boy me loved TLD and LTK, the adult me still does.

Timothy Dalton is James Bond.

Fantastic post, and lots to chew on. I've abbreviated it to a few key things, but first some context:

As a kid, I despised Roger Moore as Bond. To me, he wasn't Bond, he was a punning clown imitating Bond. Why couldn't they get a cool guy like Connery? Someone who I could actually believe would win in a fight? A guy that I could actually believe that a woman would want to have sex with? And finally, a guy who didn't have to clown his way through the films with a level of humour that even as a kid I found immature and beneath me. To me Moore was the "class clown" of Bond films - he wasn't cool, he wasn't tough, so he adopted the jokey persona to distract from that. Because of him I fell off of the Bond films as I got older.

So when Dalton was first cast I thought, hmm, he certainly *seems* more like Bond. I was a 17 year old theatre kid and the more that I read about Dalton, the more impressed that I was - in fact, I was really looking forward to TLD. When it came out I was ecstatic - Bond was back! The fact that Dalton was very much an "actor" instead of a "star" was not a bad thing in my mind; in fact it was a huge plus. The main reaction that I had, and I hope that this doesn't come off as egotistical, was "That's the way I would have played it!". It was as if Dalton had read my mind. The biggest thing I loved about him was that with his Bond there wasn't really subtext, only text - you always saw exactly what he was thinking in any scene.

So imagine my shock when I found that hardly anybody liked him. Friends, co-workers, classmates - other than some of the theatre kids no one liked him. A few theatre girls and some older women that I knew found him attractive but not most women, and no guy wanted to be him when they grew up. At first I was puzzled, then angry. Why couldn't people see how great he was? To show what a huge Dalton fan I was I even placed a very angry, yelling phone call to a local film critic who gave him a tepid review.

With the wisdom of years I see now that I fell into a common trap that is all too prevalent on the internet now. I thought that the only reason that people would have a different opinion than me was because they were stupid (an attitude I learned from my father) and that it was my duty to show them the error of their ways. The more we would talk about Dalton the angrier that I would get, trying to get people to understand that they just didn't "get" Dalton's portrayal.

But here's the thing - they did "get" it. They just didn't like it.

Now that I've matured I can accept that people have different opinions. It was really interesting to rewatch TLD with an audience a few years back. My first reaction, other than being overjoyed at the round of applause that Dalton got when you first see his face , was "Wow - he's really...stage-y"! I still think that he handled the one-liners (at least in TLD) with greater aplomb than people give him credit for but the charm, or I guess I should say the ease just wasn't there the way it was with other Bond actors. It was a huge revelation for me, and although I still have a huge soft spot for Dalton I could finally see what others (the general public) were talking about. I think that a combination of my hatred of Moore and the fact that as a hormone overloaded teen I liked things bigger and more dramatic made me look at Dalton even more favourably than I would have otherwise.

So - why was Dalton not liked and Craig was? Were things really that different between 1987 and 2006? It's easy to say so and to use that as an excuse or explanation. But looking at some of the top-grossing films in, say, 1985-1987 we can see that although "fun" films did well so did some very serious films. So here's what I finally came around to - Dalton is not Craig.

IMHO Craig has far more presence and charm than Dalton. Had a 40-year old Dalton been cast in CR in 2006 I think that the general public would have reacted the same way to him as they did in '87. Likewise, if a 40-year old Craig had been cast in TLD in '87 the general public still would have loved him. And I'm saying this as a huge Dalton fan. People will always talk about script quality, timing, and context but when you headline a movie having that x-factor, that star quality, is a huge thing. To my regret, Dalton didn't have it in a way that resonated with mainstream audiences.

I still do love Dalton and am tremendously grateful that we got TLD and LTK. But as a Bond fan I'm glad we didn't get a third Dalton film as it would have changed things for the franchise for the worse. It's tempting to think that if Dalton had gotten one more film that audiences finally would have warmed to him but I don't think that would have happened. I'm glad that we got him as it's a tremendously important piece of the overall puzzle.

An excellent, well-balanced post Flash :D

Germanlady

thelivingroyale wrote:

I have no problem with your post really, it's just that this is an appreciation thread and you didn't post any appreciation. That's all.

That is true. Apologies...

Master_Dahark

Dalton could kill the other Bond's with just his 'death stare'

thelordflasheart

BAIN123 wrote:

An excellent, well-balanced post Flash :D

Thanks very much - I was expecting Dalton fans to unleash the same fury at me as I unleashed against that film critic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLMMx3MRi0s&feature=related

BAIN123

thelordflasheart wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

An excellent, well-balanced post Flash :D

Thanks very much - I was expecting Dalton fans to unleash the same fury at me as I unleashed against that film critic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLMMx3MRi0s&feature=related

People on this board will know that I've always had mixed feelings towards Dalton. I don't dislike him but equally I don't love him in the way some do here (although DD's latest post provided a very good defence for the Dalts).

I think your post has a lot of truth to it and pretty much sums up why Dalton is "under-appreciated".

Out of interest what happened regarding your "yelling phone call"? You must have been quite passionate to take things that far.

DarthDimi

Thanks for the compliments, folks.

Geez, I never guessed it would show that I'm a Dalton fan. ;-)

@MajorDSmythe, looking forward to that completed timeline, buddy. ;)

licensetoforum

There are two things I like about Dalton's Bond:
1. He plans out every move. In LTK it was so great to see him work methodically to destroy Sanchez. He even does some things just for backup. For example, when he went to see Sanchez at the Casino he is obviously seeing if he can kill him by judging the windows. He could have just done some small talk about how much he admires Sanchez, or make up a fake persona, but he asks to be part of his organization that helps save his life later on.
2. He is a few steps away from retiring. Dalton makes the charecter seem tired, burnedout and that he has seen this all before. It hurts Bond if your perception of him was the superman type that he became with Connery and Moore, but works masterfully if you like the novels.

thelivingroyale

licensetoforum wrote:

It hurts Bond if your perception of him was the superman type that he became with Connery and Moore, but works masterfully if you like the novels.

I didn't read the books for a while (actually I still haven't read all of them), but lucky for me TLD was my first Bond film and Dalton my first Bond, so my perception of him was still the way Dalton played him.

LeChiffre

Tim Dalton. Easily my 3rd favourite Bond after Connery and Craig and miles ahead of Brosnan, Moore and Lazenby.

forgotmyusername

Germanlady wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

I have no problem with your post really, it's just that this is an appreciation thread and you didn't post any appreciation. That's all.

That is true. Apologies...

Without wanting to be seen as patronising...i worked in ad agency where we had a office in the UK and an office in Germany. We had to work together on central client, Ford. Which as you know are based in Germany for European sales.

Both creative teams used to send a lot of work to each other....and yes you guessed a lot got lost in translation.


In the UK we were scratching our heads looking at the creative thinking what are our German cousins like? We of course didn't get the in-jokes, the different cultural meanings etc....

And that's what I get from your posts. We (I) probably don't translate the subtle cultural references/humor in our posts when you read them and you might accidentally get the wrong end of the stick and visa -versa. Or I'm talking complete tosh and I am really that mean.


Back on subject: