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 heard you perfectly fine and I find Brosnan by far the worse Bond and not Lazenby, at least he had an original interpretation instead of the greatest hit tribute act that poor old Pierce rolled out.
I don't admit OP is a great Bond because I genuinely believe that it is far from great so I'd be lying to admit anything else, I'm sure many people on this forum would share my opinion but as I said I did n't come on a thread about 2 different Bond's to say something that would obviously wind Craig fans up, how would you feel if I went on a thread about Moore being the Bond with the best comic timing and argued that Craig was better at this kind of thing and that actually Casino Royale was funnier and wittier lines than in SWLM?
I wouldn't because it would be ridiculous to imply such a statement just like you saying a past it Moore in a his penultimate entry delivers a more Fleming Bond than Craig in both CR and QOS, I actually feel that such an assertion ridiculous genuinely outright ludicrous in fact. I accept that is not Craig's thing he does a great job with the dead pan one liners but no one effortlessly deals with the comedy like Rog did, can't that be enough that he's the best at that but no he's now better than Craig at everything?
There you go I've given him credit in the department he's at his most strongest, why he needed to bought into this thread I don't know, you just see a thread about Craig and Dalton who have been associated as the most Fleming Bond's and thought you know what I know how to get right up the nose of these Craig fans boys I'll say he's not as much grasp on Fleming as good ol Rog is that your dose of balance and realism?
Lazenby? Original? He was a Connery clone in every way, or at least he tried to be. I've gained more respect for his performance in recent viewings. but Dalton and Craig especially just makes me think what might have been if either of these two had been in OHMSS.
I love OP, and think it's great. You don't, fine. I respect your opinion as much as I hope you would respect mine. I'd prefer you to disagree with me in some ways because by arguing with me, you help me see films/points from a different perspective I may not have thought of. It adds to an appreciation of the film so I would love to hear your detailed views on why OP is not a classic film...give me something to think about and add to the understanding of the film. I haven't wound Craig fans up...I'm just saying that Moore gave fine Dalton/Craig esque performances in FYEO and OP. I'm not a blind Moore fan who can't see through his faults...but credit where credit is due when he deserves it in respects and if I have wound Craig fans up, I apologise because it was not my intention to do that.
Moore, past it?? I disagree but respect your opinion and view. Moore is at his most Fleming in FYEO and OP and I will always maintain it. Is he more Fleming in FYEO and OP than Craig is in CR? No, absolutely not. Is he more Fleming in FYEO and OP than Craig is in QOS. Absolutely yes. I have never said Moore is perfect at everything. Physically, he was out of it. But there was more to his Bond than comedy I guess is the underlining message in all this from me.
You think I purposely come into this thread to wind Craig and Dalton fans up? I love Dalton and his films, are easily within my top 10. He's a brilliant Bond and very original and is the most Fleming-esque Bond for me (yet to see Skyfall). Craig gets Fleming and Bond in CR....but not in QOS. For whatever reason, the film didn't click and Craig lost it a bit (in my opinion).
That depends on the perspective you take. My opinion aside, Dalton never really won the public over and his films are among (if not) the least financially successful of the franchise. So certainly from this angle one might argue that Broccoli dropped the ball with the casting of Dalton (especially alongside Glen, a director Dalton famously did not get along with).
However I could personally care less which films are popular with the public and which are not, and nor would I be be so bold as to imply that Broccoli's casting of a Bond which didn't suit my personal ideal was evidence that he (or his wife) didn't know what they were doing.
Dalton just wasn't my ideal of a good Bond-- I find him too "geeky", for lack of a better way of putting it, and I say this as someone who was 12 when TLD came out, for whom it was his first Bond film in the cinema and who saw both LTK and TLD on their respective opening nights. The man just doesn't do it for me, though neither did Moore much of the time nor Brosnan ever...but I respect that all these actors have their own admirers whose ideals of a good James Bond differ with mine.
I'm not saying Dalton didn't have many great scenes-- my favorite was the Pushkin interrogation in TLD-- pure Bondian magnificence. But taken on the whole his two performances didn't win me over.
I thought that was a great scene-- it made women want Bond, and men want to be Bond, which has always been the point (for me).
I don't mind Craig's brutality, in fact it's one of the things I like the most about his Bond-- it's a raw power that has been lost in the franchise since Connery and Lazenby stepped down.
Same! QoS is actually favorite Bond movie outside of the 60s/70s-- it has a much much higher rewatchability factor than CR (imho)
A very nice one from Variety:
Evolution essential for Bond
Franchise's history brings context for new 'Skyfall'
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118061287?refcatid=4076
Excerpt:
"The beginning of the current move toward a more "realistic" Bond begins as early as the Timothy Dalton days. The Welsh actor's approach was far less theatrical than his predecessors and marked the series' first attempt at exploring the psychology of the character: "The Living Daylights" admirably allows him to focus on a single, relatively intelligent love interest, while his next (and final) appearance, "License to Kill," found Bond relinquishing his double-O status in order to avenge the murder of CIA pal Felix Leiter's wife.
The series would pick up the "this time it's personal" approach again in the Daniel Craig era, eschewing traditional "get Mr. Big" missions for intrigues that hit closer to home (something the series had failed to do after killing Bond's wife at the end of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," then ignoring it in the next film)."
Another very nice one, from Dork Shelf reviewing the Bond 50:
http://dorkshelf.com/2012/10/07/the-new-old-bond-from-1982-to-2012/
Excerpt:
"The Living Daylights (John Glen, 1987) – Moore exits and in almost steps Sam Neil (who wasn’t very well liked by producer Cubby Broccoli, but was liked by everyone else according to this disc’s making-of documentary which shows rare footage of Neil in the role) and Pierce Brosnan (who couldn’t yet get out of his contract for TV’s Remington Steele). With both of those choices out of the way, audiences were treated to the most underrated and possibly strongest of all the Bond runs with actor Timothy Dalton"
And last but not least, one of the most awesome articles I've read in a while, and it's by a woman too.
From Ramp.Ie: Laura argues why Dalton is the second best Bond behind Connery
http://ramp.ie/index.php/movies/movies-bond-james-bond-timothy-dalton/
Excerpt:
"Setting aside the fact that Dalton makes it easy to believe that he could happily kill you and everyone you care about without much thought or mercy, whilst living solely on a diet of human fear and vodka martinis, spending his days blowing things up and seducing everything with a pulse… he’s basically the Bond that Ian Fleming wanted all along."
The comments on that last one are awesome and delightful too.
That said he's good in other scenes but (IMO) somewhat outshone by Davi who makes looking sinister easy
("No one saw you come in...so no one has to see you go out")
Went back to watch that Lupe scene at the Casino just for you BAIN123, and... truly, madly, deeply... I just honestly don't see the theatricality (is that even a word, sorry if it isn't, consider it a "Reganism"). Believe me, I went back to judge as objectively as possible and genuinely thought I might find some of what you are describing, but frankly I couldn't. If anything, I ended up falling in love with how he plays that particular scene (I couldn't remember it before). The way he says "take me to him" with that pause before the phrase and sheer determination shining from his eyes... it just makes the phrase that more powerful. He plays it with his whole body and face, the eyes brimming with a half-mad disregard for the sheer danger getting up to Sanchez will entail. This is exactly why Lupe asks if he is "loco/crazy" because what he is about to do could potentially get them both killed, it's a deathwish. I love that Dalton seems half off-his rocker on this movie, it's gripping. There's just something waiting to burst... he's tearing at the seams. (Which is why I love the tanker chase at the end, because it is just so climactic and it finally allows him to become unhinged).
I guess we just have different tastes when it comes to acting and the things we like to see on the screen (and experience while watching).
I also think he's great in the Pushkin scene in TLD. ("put your hands behind your back").
Regarding the casino scene, it might just be me but I don't know if I can imagine people actually talking like that. Craig may not be to everyone's taste but I just can't imagine him delivering a line in that way. Even imitating it (yes I know that's sad but I did try it) takes a LOT of effort.
I just don't like how he plays the character in that scene.
Personally I think that's a case where you can "see" him acting. It's an example of his visual style in performing. Brosnan sometimes had the same issues (particularly in twine).
Have you seen him in the EON documentary? I think he goes a bit over-the-top at points even being interviewed - like he was reading a story rather than having a natural discussion - but you may disagree.
This thread rocks. It's become a great Dalton appreciation thread.
Nice to see some ladies on here to balance out GL's argument that Dalts was about as attractive to the opposite sex as Andrew Mitchell in a Jimmy Saville mask.
Yes Sandy! The greatest thing about the Craig era is that Dalton has become a relevant Bond. And when I see some Youtube reviews of the film, I am seeing people say Connery/Dalton as well as Craig are their favourite Bond. In the Brosnan era Dalton was seen as the Marilyn Manson of the franchise in the sense of being a hated figure by certain factions in society.
Sometimes the most successful entries in the franchise become the most dated whilst the less successful grow in reputation and are more evergreen. OHMSS is an example as well as LTK.
What I enjoy about Craig is his use of different shadings to the Fleming character. And like Dalton, he understands the importance of the books as they were the foundation.
And yes Sandy, Dalton and Craig are different Bonds which is healthy. Both are highly skilled actors who are no clones of what has gone before. And Craig does not need to put other Bond actors down in interviews to make himself look better. Brosnan was guilty of that when he got the role. And so was the media.
But when I watch Daniel, I do think of Tim and Sean a lot. All three are very strong individual men who blazed their Bond paths differently.
I enjoy Daniel in his own right and the same for Tim. They complete the picture for me in terms of character development.
And like you say Daniel's era has made people revisit Dalton and finally understand he was right for the series development. Daniel gets credit for sticking to his guns and showing the public that Bond can be serious as well as cool. With Brosnan the gags as well as the sex were more the focus of what was thought at the time makes Bond great.
And that is why the Brosnan films had nowhere else to go. Die Another Day was the worst misstep in the franchises's history. And Brosnan did not see that coming. He could never have pulled off CR because his Bond after being captive and tortured for 14 months just needed a haircut and change of clothes, and he was back to normal. Bond is not Superman! You cannot do serious and then spoof style at the same time.
Dalton warned the franchise that you have to know your direction from the outset. Brosnan's attempted serious with the utterly camp. I mean TWINE starts off serious and then the cards collapse with Christmas Jones.
Dalton appreciation and Saville jokes? Post of the year.
@Regan You summed up Dalton in that casino scenes perfectly.
Very nice to read @regan . I went so see The Living Daylights after mainly only knowing Moore's Bond from television. I somehow missed the Connery films when they were on tv as I was out a lot back then. And I got Dalton straight away despite being a Moore fan. He was easy to accept and I loved Roger as Bond. I guess, I was more open minded and appreciated the added dimensions to the character. I am sure Cubby liked it too.
@getafix Some of the untruths about Dalton are as accurate as saying his hair was bleach blonde.:) That's how I viewed it and there was no objectivity to his aims for the character.
Most hate to Dalton was through media conditioning and not thinking for yourself. Cubby mentions a story in his book where someone did not want to see TLD because of what they heard or read. Cubby said they should make their own mind up and not listen. Cubby was wise and he did not get where he did by being a follower. He was a leader!
I think that's what some people didn't like about Dalts. He lead and eventually others followed. At the time some people resented the fact that he was giving the series a shake up, but that was exactly what it needed. I actually feel we are sort of back where we were in 1989. The quality is back. We have a very good actor as Bond who loves the role and takes it seriously. And we've got rid of those clowns Purvis and Wade. I am feeling very happy about the Bond world right now.
I totally agree that Craig is giving a lot of people reason to go back and reassess Dalts. Of course many of us have always thought he was great. The 1990s and early 2000s were a very difficult time for me and my relationship with Bond because I really liked the direction that Dalts had taken the chearacter. The Brosnan era to me felt like a dead end, devoid of ideas and just engaged in a cycnical recycling of tired cliches. I think DC was inspired casting. I still wish Dalts had got to make three of four though. For me his Bond is a real joy. Entertaining, convincing and full of depth.
I admire what Dalton did. I really do. He had some great moments but he just isn't as entertaining for me as some of the other actors were - and I say that as someone who re-watched (and enjoyed) TLD just the other week.
Personally when I saw Dan in SF I didn't think of Tim at all. Dan's his own man and had/has a better mix of danger and humour than Tim did (imo).
I do respect you and your opinion. But the entertaining aspect is a double edged sword for the series and leads to films like Moonraker or DAD. Films that force the series to go back to the drawing board or become irrelevant. Dalton was more for the thinking man and so was Fleming. Because Fleming's books were certainly not entertaining in the sense of the movie Bond we all grew up with.
I think Tim assumed he would get the chance to give a balance of Bond in each film and certainly was not expecting to go out with LTK. Imagine the perception of Craig if QOS was his last movie due to the 2010 cancellation?
But Skyfall is the definer for Craig's Bond. And without it, he would be Dalton 2. It is all about giving some the chance. Dalton was at least contracted to three films and had he known he would bow out after just two in advance, I think we would not have got the revolutionary LTK but a safer bet Bond film to go out. Tim is not stupid and being close to Cubby had no reason to think otherwise. Cubby was honourable!
Cubby would have changed some aspects for Dalton's third film in '91and there were rumours of Anthony Hopkins possibly playing the villain which would have boosted box office. Look how Cubby's wisdom changed Roger Moore's fortunes as Bond in '77. Need I say more. And Dalton would do anything Cubby asked of him apart from Tarzan impressions!:)
I understand Daylights did well - I do accept that - but I just don't sense Dalton grabbed audiences from early on. Like Craig did after one film. I get the feeling that if Craig left after QoS more people would have been disappointed than when Dalton left in 1994.
Moore, unlike Dalton, was a very popular actor both here and in America thanks to shows like The Saint so I'm not entirely sure he had to try as hard to be accepted. With a few tweaks of the script they could taylor to Moore AND make a crowd pleasing adventure. People liked old Rog - I don't think that was the issue.
I think in terms of the "entertainment" factor its a case of making the audience smile. Connery in FRWL - a more "serious" Bond film - is, I would argue, more enjoyable to watch than Dalton in TLD. That's not to say that Dalts didn't have some good scenes. He did, but I wasn't glued to him like I was with Connery.
Same actually goes for Moore in FYEO. Moore, unlike his previous film, played it fairly straigt and acted like an "old pro". He took things seriously but at the same time demonstrated a natural charm that I don't know whether Dalts had. This made him a bit more entertaining for me. Moore took the lead in the film and offered a sympathetic shoulder for Boquet to effectively cry on and delivered what I would say is one of his best performances as Bond. He doesn't look he's trying if that makes sense. The issue I have with Dalton is that sometimes he did (to me).
The promotional campaign for Craig's Bond was amazingly handled and it benefitted from the advent of the internet for it's ubiquity. And they used the internet to highlight clips from the film showing Craig off well in the role. His debut was when the internet was in every home. And every 24 hour news service would run the story too!
Had Craig had the same backlash he did in 2005 in 1987, I have a feeling the film would have sunk. I said this before, but the Craig era benefitted from having a film studio that wants the franchise to succeed. Back in Dalton's tenure, Bond was taken for granted and it was assumed it would do well anyway.
Oh Dalton has charm and as Bond too but only in a story related way depending on Bond's mood. Have you seen him in Brenda Starr? Man he could sweep a woman off her feet. But we are forgetting he was playing Fleming's book Bond more than film Bond. And Fleming's Bond of the books is not something as easily accessible.
The accessibility of the character was added on by Terence Young and Sean Connery. The real Bond is a bland sociopath who is not supposed to be liked. He takes tranquilisers, smokes 80 cigarettes a day and drinks like tomorrow he will die. Does not sound like a happy character.
Why I like Dalton's approach is because it leaves Connery as well as Moore to be enjoyed on their own merits. Look, if you eat pizza every day, you will get bored. Same with Bond, someone has to shake things up and change the menu.
If you want Connery, watch his 6 films. Or Moore, then watch his 7 films.
Firstly, some of the strongest actors in the world aren't regarded to be movie stars and thats not always a bad thing. Secondly, I don't think Dalton had the charisma audiences were looking for or expecting at the time. Dalton was great, make no mistake about it but his brooding, snappy and angry interpretation rubbed audiences the wrong way I think and most importantly, what's clear imo is, the main difference between Craig and Dalton is, when watching Dalton, I always saw Timothy Dalton doing an excellent job ACTING as James Bond, whereas Craig is from the school of Connery where instead of acting, they actually were and became James Bond.
Unfortunately not. He got an Evening Standard Award and a Bafta nod, which was still a never see before for Bond. I think, some of the cast of SF will be in for another Bafta nod and who knows, what else.
After avoiding this tread for a while, I see, things are still the same.
You really wanna tell me, that it was NOT just down to DC ALONE to convince the audiences, who were ready to eat him alive? That is ***.
I always saw Timothy Dalton doing an excellent job ACTING as James Bond, whereas Craig is from the school of Connery where instead of acting, they actually were and became James Bond.
This...its about being effortlessly convincing in the cool, the swag etc...If you see someone trying, its just not the same.
I haven't seen BS but I have seen Hot Fuzz - and I thought he was superb in that.
I get what he trying to do. I do see that. I've read all the books except TSWLM and the short stories and I understand Dalton's angle but something still felt a little off to me. When reading the books I could see that Dalts was trying to copy that Bond's expressions/mannerisms times. It just felt a little too "actor-ly" if that's a word.
Heck even Lazenby has a slightly more natural manner about him - and I'm not his biggest fan.
Have you read a Fleming book? Because Bond is bland though sophisticated. The Connery Bond tried to make Bond more palatable to a mass audience and yes it worked. When Dalton was hired for the part, they wanted to change some things and see how they get accepted. It does not always work and can be a risk. But the keep things the same approach is also what stagnates a series.
When Craig took on the role of Bond, he knew that the Dalton version had a backlash. And Martin Campbell made sure he amped up the so called Bond presence. Campbell after all was not a fan of Dalton's Bond in the Goldeneye interviews.
But Dalton is capable of duplicating that traditional Bond presence you talk about but chose not too. I have seen him in other movies play the sleazy 007 style and I knew he could do it. He just did not want to copy and said so.
I see what you're saying and agree to a point, but to me Bond IS intense, and I don't mind a larger than life character being played a bit theatrically anyway. Nope, not at all.
Yes, I've read the novels and Bond is a bit of a wet blanket but here's the thing, we're dealing with multi million dollar movie production based on a character that needs to entertain and be accessible to a large audience and trying to defend an actor for his short comings with the gp or citing his excuses for said short comings is pretty laughable, especially, when trying to measure and compare the success and public acceptance with another Bond actor who by all accounts is regarded largely as a superior Bond. The producers tried something new back in the 80s, make better use of literary Bond and shove him into the movies....it didn't go down as well and wasn't the transitional success they had hoped for. Craig comes in, takes the literary elements but infuses it with the cinematic swagger and bravado of Bond and understandable gets better results. The proof is in the pudding.
I think it's possible if one has the skill set to, successfully have a natural and organic feel in their theatrical performances. Dalton is a fantastic actor but he is still very much a flawed one and doesn't quite sell the role as convincingly as Connery and Craig imo.