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
Agreed. All of them should stay clear of critisizing each other. Leave that to the press.
He had no 15 second tributes in his movies.
In the new Everything Or Nothing documentary Dalton says Roger was brilliant. He was critical of the overly fantastical elements and that Bond sends himself up too much. And part of the reason he turned Bond down a few times is because he did not see himself fitting into that style of film.
But he never said Roger was a bad Bond unless brilliant means bad. I have seen plenty of interviews where Tim says "Roger was superb and unique!.". But films like Moonraker did not help the franchise get taken seriously. Moore's Bonds were very funny but it comes at the expense of taking the story seriously. The double take pigeon in MR is a perfect example. Jaws falling in love in MR are ridiculously campy.
It makes DAF look like a serious thriller in comparison.
Dalton was always a fan of the early Connery style and the Ian Fleming and he makes no secret of that.
But he clearly likes what Craig has done with Bond and how he gets the balance right. Dalton loves CR immensely and it is clear he wished his films were more like that but they were compromised by what the producers found acceptable at the time.
personally I've always found GF, TB and YOLT to be some of the most gadget reliant films.
I agree though, MR is far too silly and tends to cloud the rest of the Moore era in terms of opinion.
I do wholeheartedly agree though that nothing annoys me more when Bond actors criticise each other. Because what they forget is that with the six Bonds, we all have our favourites. And no one likes having their taste in an actor seen as a bad thing.
But Dalton is always diplomatic and has never criticised the actors or their performance. In fact if anyone reads between the lines, he clearly indicates that Brosnan wanted to do something deeper with the character but the films he was in were not the best vehicles for that. Even Roger said DAD was pushing the fantastical a little too far!:)
He is right that Pierce was put in some fantastical films which effectively tied him into playing a less fleshed out Bond. Martin Campbell was even disappointed with what came after Goldeneye.
So was Pierce Brosnan
I agree @Bain123 Brosnan was a Bond that could have easily been accepted in taking the series in a more realistic direction. He is no fool and Goldeneye was the start of something great. It had depth as well as humour. The scenes where he later meets 006 are very serious and Brosnan plays it very well.
But all of that was dropped to make Bond more commercially viable to an audience that did not like to think too much. And I am sure Brosnan wishes he dug his heels in more and demanded better scripts. He had all the right ingredients for the part and in The Fourth Protocol film showed he could be a mean Bond too!
I do remember when watching DAD that was Brosnan aware that the film was destroying his good standing in the role. I can only assume that he thought his 5th Bond would redeem that. But alas the damage was done. Had it been 1979, he would have had a 5th movie but studios are less forgiving of missteps than before.
But I still don't understand what's so brilliant about GE. It's an ok start, yes, but even then you had already parts of the cliché Bond that ran rampant between 1997-2002.
I don't see that much depth either, and Brosnan was at his best in playing Bond just as the series got horrendous. The first act of DAD has more depth than GE, and I've come to like TWINE more over to years.
Oh the way DAD started and with Bond captured. Well I thought that I was in for one of the best films and then all of a sudden Moonraker began to look like Citizen Cane:)
By no means is Goldeneye perfect and the scene with the Ferrari racing the Aston are tacky. But the opening as well as scenes where Bond shows intelligence and wit is where they should have built his future films.
Yes his Remington Steele stereotype meant that he was seen as a safe Bond as in marrying Sean and Roger's style elements. Dalton was offered Bond first for TLD but turned it down saying he is committed to a theatre play run. Only then did producers sign Brosnan and it would have been a Moore era continuation.
Plus the over reaction to the Dalton era meant they compromised on the depth of the films.
He had potential to expand the part but sadly the scripts were style over substance. I mean when they gave him Christmas Jones it was game over for TWINE. A nuclear scientist? And Pamela Anderson may as well have played M!:)
But him "caring" for her after she's dead was not needed. She was hot, yes, but she was a cold hearted b*tch.
He did play that so well. And it was a shame his Bond persona was so inconsistent. He would go to extremes of either dark or too light. At least Roger knew he was playing it for a laugh and made no pretense hence why he got away with it.
People forget Rog did have his more serious moments too. In the first 2 films he did he was playing a very different character to the one in Spy/MR.
TMWTGG is where I really like Moore. FYEO as well as the earlier LALD. Yes Moore could do serious but the comical would follow through and make you think you are watching a Carry On film.
Don't get me wrong,only Roger could get away with it. His comedic skill was fantastic and did suit his films. But it would be out of place in a gritty Bond.
I stopped a long time ago comparing Bond actors. I will choose a film to watch depending on my mood. If I want funny I watch Moore for instance. I judge them by the context of their time. The Craig era is right for today and his Bond has to psychologically adapt to the modern world.
Had he played Bond 25 years ago, I believe his films would have been radically different because you can only go as far as producers allow. With the success of Bourne, the Bond franchise had it's hands untied and could show that Bond can match anything.
Dalton played Fleming's Bond more. And I judge him on that. Craig is an amalgamation of Fleming with the Connery style updated. But look how much work the script writers had to do. Sh*t scripts and an actor is compromised. No matter how good he is. Paul Haggis is known as a good writer and no chances were taken. And there was no more of a hope for the best attitude with the Craig era.
It is well and good to praise Craig in this time. But had he been a Bond in 1995, I do not think the mass audience were ready for that. They still wanted half serious half jokey Bond as well as the stereotypical image. Brosnan was the right Bond for that demand and they came in droves to see him. But they got bored after DAD and that was the wake up call for the franchise to sink or swim.
But real life events changed everything for the franchise.
Do you think he isn't that great of an actor or?
Yes that's it- before I read the books I would have favoured neither and stuck with Brosnan as my favourite... but having read them I like both actor's takes on Bond, just that Dalton not only looks like the Bond from the novels, he's nailed the negative aspects of Bond and explored them more fully onscreen (Which doesn't mean Craig or even Brosnan couldn't- but it is what it is).
When I was growing up, Bond was a super secret agent, now Bond is pretty messed up guy with a unique skill set. I find the latter far more interesting.
If the books are the reason the films even got made in the first place, then I say they are of major importance. I know Connery did not like certain characteristics of the book Bond and changed them to suit his style. And of course Terence Young' added some of his own characteristics to the Bond style.
And that is perfectly fine. But, Dalton based his interpretation on this man who is a lot more complex and conflicted by going to the books. In the books he is not a fun character and not an easy sell either which is why Fleming had difficulty in getting them made into films.
But if you take Bond too far away from his literary source then he risks becoming like any other action hero. And we are swamped with them these days. Some people think that all you need to be Bond is wear a nice suit and look good.
The Bond series is an irony in the sense that the actor closest to Fleming Bond gets the most criticism. And it is laughable. I mean every film says as Ian Fleming's James Bond and that is not true in some cases. But many in the world would be happy with a one dimensional Bond who looks good and is funny but little else.
Had it been The Lord Of The Rings, then there would be an outcry if elements of the books were ignored and characters altered to how Tolkien wrote them.
I have said this before, but Anthony Hopkins got praised for representing Hannibal accurately as the author wrote. He is always compared to the books. And ironically Dalton got his first big acting break with Hopkins in Peter O'Tooles The lion In Winter.
And in Dalton's case even on a Bond forum it is overlooked how much he researched the books and Fleming's own life to give Cubby an authentic not pulled out of thin air take on the character. And Cubby was impressed! That is called being an actor!
And those who think Dalton hammed it up in LTK do not realise that Cubby loved it and was disappointed by it's underperformance. Cubby knew the books and would not have allowed Dalton to F it up. He knew what was going on and backed it!
Most people who have worked with Dalton professionally, say he is a total pro and you can learn from him. Only the ignorant who know sh*t about acting think otherwise. Some also thought Gary Oldman hammed up Dracula when in fact he was closer than any of the previous actors and busted his ass to get the part done.
1) Connery
2) Craig
3) Dalton
I think his comfort zone is when his doing his new age Cary Grant schtick (Laws Of Attraction). Though he did have his few moments (confronting Kauffman is my favourite Brosnan moment), I don't think he could have kept that up for an entire film. And he was decent enough in his action scenes, he just lacked presence.
I'm watching Remington Steele now actually and there is an "awkwardness" to Brosnan that I can't quite put my finger on.
I'd say Brosnan had a presence though despite his relitively slim build. You would notice him if he was standing next to you.
Dalton
Brosnan
Connery/Craig