Differences in acting between Timothy Dalton's Bond and Daniel Craig's Bond

1246717

Comments

  • Is this debate still raging?

    Dalton was fabulous in both films. The press have tried to omit the Dalton years out when discussing Craig's era because they want Craig to be seen as revolutionary whereas he is in fact a poor man's Dalton (the comparisons between Craig and Connery are insulting to the great Scotsman). Dalton is far superior and why he is so superior and more memorable than Craig will ever be will be because he kept the Bond elements. Just a tweak of the gunbarrel music in LTK was enough to convince you that this would be a different film whereas Craig has to strop around, brood, change the whole franchise structure just because he has limitations as a 007 actor. Craig is better than Brosnan and Lazenby I'll give you that. But Dalton beats Craig in every single way. I believe Dalton more than Craig
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Shardlake wrote:
    For all the complaints about QOS both Dalton's entries ( which I both like) have issues, TLD is a more straight forward Bond film but TD's portrayal is at odds with the Moore type moments in it, the quips, a more thought out version tailored more to Dalton instead of a hangover from the Sir Rog era would have been better.

    As for LTK it definitely the better performance for Tim but the fact that you still get the goofy moments like Q turning up is at odds with the darker more realistic story, I think I would have preferred if they'd just missed out Desmond and stuck to a more even tone, LTK was my favourite Bond film when it came out, I went to see it 3 times and I'm going to watch it tomorrow, followed by CR then QOS in prep for Skyfall but I wish Dalton had got the same kind of treatment Craig got, a film tailored to his talents.

    While I still like Craig more I do feel Dalton didn't get the same break DC got and for me it is his Bond and performances I rate, the films are a little too uneven but it's still enough for him to be my no. 3 I enjoy TLD & LTK they are top 5 at the moment for me but I think more for Dalton, I don't mind the stories it's more the execution despite them both having some of my favourite sequence of the series.

    The top and tail of it is that Dalton never got the entry to well and truly shine and that is a crime, would have loved to see a 3rd film when they would have likely got it right.

    I understand. I actually thought QOS was not as terrible as made out. Kind of like what Licence was for Dalton at the time. Though Licence is a better movie in my opinion.

    I liked the Q scene in LTK and it added some humour. Plus the set up of Pam Bouvier refusing to sleep with Bond was actually humorous in a sophisticated way.

    I believe that had the legal issue been resolved quicker, Cubby would have done the same thing for Dalton he did for Moore after TMWTGG. He would have made sure the next film gets the balance for public expectation right and would have promoted the suaver side of Dalton more. And Dalton can do suave very well.

    Cubby was super smart and knew how to change tactic as proved by the success of TSWLM in 1977. Ironically Roger Moore could have not survived in the role if it was not for Cubby's belief. Because Moore's second entry was considered far below financial return compared to LALD.

  • It's true to say that they both had a very good and almost outstanding debut, while the second release was disappointing, even if both times the actors were still very much Fleming-esque and brought a real quality back to Bond, only the immediate problem was everything else that was happening around them. I still have Dalton as a better Bond than Craig as of now, will Skyfall change any of that?, maybe after this release and if Craig pulls off another fine performance for Bond XXIV I'll reluctantly let him overtake the Welshman in terms of fine Bond qualities, but at this moment in time Craig simply can't quite compare to either Dalton or Connery for getting that near to the original Fleming creation. At least Connery and Dalton weren't quite so thuggish or abrasive, as the current James Bond, but back then it was a whole different audience, attitudes and what people were seeing on screen. I don't have a problem with Craig being a roughneck Bond, in fact I encourage it, I hate too much humor in any Bond release, and Craig brings us a minimum on that, but as of now, while they share similar traits, and a no nonsense approach, Craig can't quite live up to Connery or Dalton as the very essence of what James Bond should resemble
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Is this debate still raging?

    Dalton was fabulous in both films. The press have tried to omit the Dalton years out when discussing Craig's era because they want Craig to be seen as revolutionary whereas he is in fact a poor man's Dalton (the comparisons between Craig and Connery are insulting to the great Scotsman). Dalton is far superior and why he is so superior and more memorable than Craig will ever be will be because he kept the Bond elements. Just a tweak of the gunbarrel music in LTK was enough to convince you that this would be a different film whereas Craig has to strop around, brood, change the whole franchise structure just because he has limitations as a 007 actor. Craig is better than Brosnan and Lazenby I'll give you that. But Dalton beats Craig in every single way. I believe Dalton more than Craig

    I agree though believe Craig is excellent in his own way and at least avoids the parody the series went in to. Dalton was excellent in the role and I found it hard to agree with how he was unfairly criticised. I grew up with Moore but was intelligent enough to understand Dalton was going back to Fleming. Some forget Bond was a Commander in The Royal Navy and Dalton certainly had that believebility.

    The Bond of the books is not likable and Dalton certainly mastered that. Dalton played Bond at times like the villain. In the novel Casino Royale, Bond and the villain are almost mirror images of each other. With Roger Moore, Bond was a little on the too nice side to be a credible cold blooded killer.

    And apart from Connery, every time a Bond is replaced by another actor, the predecessor will get criticised for what he was once praised for. Ironic but true.

    And when Craig exits the role, he will get the same backlash. I bet if Clive Owen got cast, some will say he has the better image for the role. Shallow but I know how people are.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Is this debate still raging?

    Dalton was fabulous in both films. The press have tried to omit the Dalton years out when discussing Craig's era because they want Craig to be seen as revolutionary whereas he is in fact a poor man's Dalton (the comparisons between Craig and Connery are insulting to the great Scotsman). Dalton is far superior and why he is so superior and more memorable than Craig will ever be will be because he kept the Bond elements. Just a tweak of the gunbarrel music in LTK was enough to convince you that this would be a different film whereas Craig has to strop around, brood, change the whole franchise structure just because he has limitations as a 007 actor. Craig is better than Brosnan and Lazenby I'll give you that. But Dalton beats Craig in every single way. I believe Dalton more than Craig

    Limitation as a 007 actor, this coming from someone who's a Moore fan? I guess we better wait till Skyfall to see how limited Craig is?
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Hmm I don't know if it's the better performance to be honest. True its a darker film and more taylored to Dalton's interpretation but Dalts goes a bit over the top at times. Especially in the meeting in the casino. He grimaces his way through the scene. And (as I've said before) I don't like the way he dramatically blocks Lupe's path and commands her to "take me to him". That wasn't natural, that was over-top.

    He's also completely outshone by Robert Davi who gets the best lines and has more of a presence.

    Not to say Dalts delivered a bad performance but I do feel that in TLD he's more reserved. He tries a tad too hard in LTK I feel.

    Moore's a decent actor. Not a great one but a decent one. I saw FYEO and he was fine as a more stripped down Bond. In fact I'd argue his car kicking scene was just as effective as anything Dalton ever did.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited October 2012 Posts: 11,139
    acoppola wrote:

    Craig is more successful in the role because they really took their time. And they learned from their mistakes of not giving Dalton the full backing he deserved as an actor. I mean the Living Daylights was a Roger Moore era style script for the new bond actor. Now imagine if they took the same approach with Craig as in giving him a Brosnan style script. Craig would be able to do little with that situation and no doubt he is a super actor.

    If Craig was being given Brosnan-style scripts he wouldn't have signed on in the first place which is a point I made earlier on. As I said, Craig wasn't interested in taking on the role and had to be begged by Barbara to come on board because Craig had no interest in making Brosnan-type Bond movies.

    Craig despite being a fine Bond could have easily ended up worse than Dalton. Or are we to forget the most negative media backlash when he was cast. Many consigned him as a one off Bond like Lazenby.

    He could have been a one off but contrary to what you think, it wasn't just money that saw Craig return. Bond ALWAYS makes money and Craig delieverd a standout performance which was widely recognised and was even nominated for a bafta.

    And I know of many people who went to see Casino Royale on the assumption that Craig would be terrible and just to see that. They did not go to see Craig initially like they did Brosnan. Some went out of a perverse pleasure to see Craig screw up. Of course Craig did not. Believe me, Pierce Brosnan still had a huge fan base and few were backing Craig in the public arena. But the same media that hated Craig on seeing the box office returns, were the first to kiss his ass. And then everyone else towed the same line.

    Brosnan still has a huge fanbase but people didn't just get in line because of the media praising him. Craig's performance speaks for itself and if people want to pay money to see a product fail, what does that say about them?

    Had the box office returns been below estimates, Craig would have gone despite doing a great job. Money won the day and not talent.

    What estimates?? Like I said, Bond movies always make money and when OHMSS "underperformed" the producers still made more effort than they should have to bring Lazenby back and the guy wasn't even an actor. Craig on the othr hand delivered the best perfomance in years in one of the best movies in decades and had CR "underperformed" I think it's narrow minded to declare that he would have been out. Craig brought a degree of credibility to the role that had been missing for decades and a real sense of character and identity which Brosnan never achieved. Craig's portrayal resonated with the audience and one thing you have to remember is, the sensibilities of audiences toay have moved on from that of the 80s/90s.

    Also this new Bond film was cancelled at one point just like Dalton's third film. But Craig had the luxury of doing a third which was denied to Dalton because of the longer legal issues. A shame.

    Dalton was denied a third because the studio no longer wanted him. Sure, the legal issues that put Dalton's 3rd on hold was a major factor but if EoN really wanted, they could have kept Dalton on but they couldn't due to studio pressure to bring in someone more "favorable" namely, the golden boy, people's choice, Pierce Brosnan.
    Craig's so damn good in the role of Bond that for the producers and the studio, it's pointlss thinking about replacements. Craig has proven to be an asset to the series in more ways than just being the lead actor and everything is being done to keep him around for as long as possible. When SF was initially on hold, they didn't just stop production like they did after LTK. Craig and Mendes were still working behind the scenes.



  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Hmm I don't know if it's the better performance to be honest. True its a darker film and more taylored to Dalton's interpretation but Dalts goes a bit over the top at times. Especially in the meeting in the casino. He grimaces his way through the scene. And (as I've said before) I don't like the way he dramatically blocks Lupe's path and commands her to "take me to him".

    In TLD he's a bit more reserved.

    I think it is contextual to the revenge theme and the fact that Sanchez is a brutal villain so the stakes for Bond are high. If he played it too relaxed the tension would not be there. But Dalton is in command in the casino and is certainly the alpha male Bond should be.

    Plus in LTK, Bond is overcome with pure hatred over what happened to his friend and the portrayal makes sense. Bond wants blood and it is personal. He even leaves the secret service to get the revenge complete at great cost.

  • Shardlake wrote:
    Is this debate still raging?

    Dalton was fabulous in both films. The press have tried to omit the Dalton years out when discussing Craig's era because they want Craig to be seen as revolutionary whereas he is in fact a poor man's Dalton (the comparisons between Craig and Connery are insulting to the great Scotsman). Dalton is far superior and why he is so superior and more memorable than Craig will ever be will be because he kept the Bond elements. Just a tweak of the gunbarrel music in LTK was enough to convince you that this would be a different film whereas Craig has to strop around, brood, change the whole franchise structure just because he has limitations as a 007 actor. Craig is better than Brosnan and Lazenby I'll give you that. But Dalton beats Craig in every single way. I believe Dalton more than Craig

    Limitation as a 007 actor, this coming from someone who's a Moore fan? I guess we better wait till Skyfall to see how limited Craig is?

    He has been limited thus far, yes. Was Moore limited? yes he was. Moore did everything we know he did but Moore also did dark tense moments and gave some terrific performances for which he never gets credit for. I point to it continuously but the whole Germany sequence in Octopussy is tenser and darker than anything Craig has done.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Hmm I don't know if it's the better performance to be honest. True its a darker film and more taylored to Dalton's interpretation but Dalts goes a bit over the top at times. Especially in the meeting in the casino. He grimaces his way through the scene. And (as I've said before) I don't like the way he dramatically blocks Lupe's path and commands her to "take me to him".

    In TLD he's a bit more reserved.

    I think it is contextual to the revenge theme and the fact that Sanchez is a brutal villain so the stakes for Bond are high. If he played it too relaxed the tension would not be there. But Dalton is in command in the casino and is certainly the alpha male Bond should be.

    Plus in LTK, Bond is overcome with pure hatred over what happened to his friend and the portrayal makes sense. Bond wants blood and it is personal. He even leaves the secret service to get the revenge complete at great cost.

    But Craig does the same kind of thing but in a less theatrical way. He's superb in the final couple of scenes in QoS (where he's confronting the person effectively responsible for a loved ones death) and doesn't resort to overly dramatic movements.

    I think Dalton was good in other scenes in LTK (the "make a sound...and you're dead" line is very effective) but there I just felt he was overplaying it a little bit.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Shardlake wrote:
    Is this debate still raging?

    Dalton was fabulous in both films. The press have tried to omit the Dalton years out when discussing Craig's era because they want Craig to be seen as revolutionary whereas he is in fact a poor man's Dalton (the comparisons between Craig and Connery are insulting to the great Scotsman). Dalton is far superior and why he is so superior and more memorable than Craig will ever be will be because he kept the Bond elements. Just a tweak of the gunbarrel music in LTK was enough to convince you that this would be a different film whereas Craig has to strop around, brood, change the whole franchise structure just because he has limitations as a 007 actor. Craig is better than Brosnan and Lazenby I'll give you that. But Dalton beats Craig in every single way. I believe Dalton more than Craig

    Limitation as a 007 actor, this coming from someone who's a Moore fan? I guess we better wait till Skyfall to see how limited Craig is?

    He has been limited thus far, yes. Was Moore limited? yes he was. Moore did everything we know he did but Moore also did dark tense moments and gave some terrific performances for which he never gets credit for. I point to it continuously but the whole Germany sequence in Octopussy is tenser and darker than anything Craig has done.

    That like mine is an opinion and I'm sure you'll get a few that would definitely disagree with that.

    Tenser at a stretch you might be able to argue you that but it won't wash me but Moore darker than Craig, that is laughable.
  • Shardlake wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    Is this debate still raging?

    Dalton was fabulous in both films. The press have tried to omit the Dalton years out when discussing Craig's era because they want Craig to be seen as revolutionary whereas he is in fact a poor man's Dalton (the comparisons between Craig and Connery are insulting to the great Scotsman). Dalton is far superior and why he is so superior and more memorable than Craig will ever be will be because he kept the Bond elements. Just a tweak of the gunbarrel music in LTK was enough to convince you that this would be a different film whereas Craig has to strop around, brood, change the whole franchise structure just because he has limitations as a 007 actor. Craig is better than Brosnan and Lazenby I'll give you that. But Dalton beats Craig in every single way. I believe Dalton more than Craig

    Limitation as a 007 actor, this coming from someone who's a Moore fan? I guess we better wait till Skyfall to see how limited Craig is?

    He has been limited thus far, yes. Was Moore limited? yes he was. Moore did everything we know he did but Moore also did dark tense moments and gave some terrific performances for which he never gets credit for. I point to it continuously but the whole Germany sequence in Octopussy is tenser and darker than anything Craig has done.

    That like mine is an opinion and I'm sure you'll get a few that would definitely disagree with that.

    Tenser at a stretch you might be able to argue you that but it won't wash me but Moore darker than Craig, that is laughable.

    I didn't say Moore was darker...I said the Germany sequence in OP was darker than anything Craig has done. Overall, ofcourse Craig is darker than Moore. But let's not deny Moore his dark moments of tension and great acting. His seven films are littered with it, more of them appearing in his final three outings admittedly.
  • That train sequence through West Germany in Octopussy was indeed a very fun ride and Moore being unusually serious at the time of his tenure. Shame about some other parts of the movie. Roger could be serious when he wanted to be, but more towards the beginning rather than end, although For Your Eyes Only could be the most straight faced yet
  • That train sequence through West Germany in Octopussy was indeed a very fun ride and Moore being unusually serious at the time of his tenure. Shame about some other parts of the movie. Roger could be serious when he wanted to be, but more towards the beginning rather than end, although For Your Eyes Only could be the most straight faced yet

    Tarzan and the Gorilla costume were rare bad shouts in OP. The chase through the jungle was equally tense as Germany. A View To A Kill Moore is just as serious and straight faced surely (and no jokes about the facelift please:P )
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    OP had some of Moore's BEST Bond moments- small triumphs against the humorous grain!
  • How can someone compare Tim and Daniel? Timothy was unlucky with the effort to make him a monogamous agent he could've been great as in LTK but bad luck. Daniel is great actor, very physical great at action but not the ladies man. But he is involved 110% in all aspects and that makes him #1. Brosnan had huge potential but thought he was irreplaceable and has a chip on his shoulder So bye-bye. Sore loser too. at first he was sad then he said he hated the role.
  • Posts: 1,052
    What is actually classified as "dark"? Isn't killing somebody and then making a joke about it pretty dark?
  • Posts: 11,425
    acoppola wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    For all the complaints about QOS both Dalton's entries ( which I both like) have issues, TLD is a more straight forward Bond film but TD's portrayal is at odds with the Moore type moments in it, the quips, a more thought out version tailored more to Dalton instead of a hangover from the Sir Rog era would have been better.

    As for LTK it definitely the better performance for Tim but the fact that you still get the goofy moments like Q turning up is at odds with the darker more realistic story, I think I would have preferred if they'd just missed out Desmond and stuck to a more even tone, LTK was my favourite Bond film when it came out, I went to see it 3 times and I'm going to watch it tomorrow, followed by CR then QOS in prep for Skyfall but I wish Dalton had got the same kind of treatment Craig got, a film tailored to his talents.

    While I still like Craig more I do feel Dalton didn't get the same break DC got and for me it is his Bond and performances I rate, the films are a little too uneven but it's still enough for him to be my no. 3 I enjoy TLD & LTK they are top 5 at the moment for me but I think more for Dalton, I don't mind the stories it's more the execution despite them both having some of my favourite sequence of the series.

    The top and tail of it is that Dalton never got the entry to well and truly shine and that is a crime, would have loved to see a 3rd film when they would have likely got it right.

    I understand. I actually thought QOS was not as terrible as made out. Kind of like what Licence was for Dalton at the time. Though Licence is a better movie in my opinion.

    I liked the Q scene in LTK and it added some humour. Plus the set up of Pam Bouvier refusing to sleep with Bond was actually humorous in a sophisticated way.

    I believe that had the legal issue been resolved quicker, Cubby would have done the same thing for Dalton he did for Moore after TMWTGG. He would have made sure the next film gets the balance for public expectation right and would have promoted the suaver side of Dalton more. And Dalton can do suave very well.

    Cubby was super smart and knew how to change tactic as proved by the success of TSWLM in 1977. Ironically Roger Moore could have not survived in the role if it was not for Cubby's belief. Because Moore's second entry was considered far below financial return compared to LALD.

    Well said. Everyone forgets that Rog was on shaky ground after TMWTGG. Dalts deserved a 3 rd film to balance out his legacy. People drone on about him being the 'dark', ' serious' Bond but TLD is actually a late Rog vehicle with a bit of tweaking. LTK is much darker but there is humor and Dalton actually said he felt the seriousness went a bit too far. In those days the actors were just handed the script and expected to get on with it and Dalts was no different. He got the script for LTK ten days before filming began. He is also on record saying he wanted the next one to be a bit more lighthearted.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    doubleoego wrote:
    acoppola wrote:

    Craig is more successful in the role because they really took their time. And they learned from their mistakes of not giving Dalton the full backing he deserved as an actor. I mean the Living Daylights was a Roger Moore era style script for the new bond actor. Now imagine if they took the same approach with Craig as in giving him a Brosnan style script. Craig would be able to do little with that situation and no doubt he is a super actor.

    If Craig was being given Brosnan-style scripts he wouldn't have signed on in the first place which is a point I made earlier on. As I said, Craig wasn't interested in taking on the role and had to be begged by Barbara to come on board because Craig had no interest in making Brosnan-type Bond movies.

    Craig despite being a fine Bond could have easily ended up worse than Dalton. Or are we to forget the most negative media backlash when he was cast. Many consigned him as a one off Bond like Lazenby.

    He could have been a one off but contrary to what you think, it wasn't just money that saw Craig return. Bond ALWAYS makes money and Craig delieverd a standout performance which was widely recognised and was even nominated for a bafta.

    And I know of many people who went to see Casino Royale on the assumption that Craig would be terrible and just to see that. They did not go to see Craig initially like they did Brosnan. Some went out of a perverse pleasure to see Craig screw up. Of course Craig did not. Believe me, Pierce Brosnan still had a huge fan base and few were backing Craig in the public arena. But the same media that hated Craig on seeing the box office returns, were the first to kiss his ass. And then everyone else towed the same line.

    Brosnan still has a huge fanbase but people didn't just get in line because of the media praising him. Craig's performance speaks for itself and if people want to pay money to see a product fail, what does that say about them?

    Had the box office returns been below estimates, Craig would have gone despite doing a great job. Money won the day and not talent.

    What estimates?? Like I said, Bond movies always make money and when OHMSS "underperformed" the producers still made more effort than they should have to bring Lazenby back and the guy wasn't even an actor. Craig on the othr hand delivered the best perfomance in years in one of the best movies in decades and had CR "underperformed" I think it's narrow minded to declare that he would have been out. Craig brought a degree of credibility to the role that had been missing for decades and a real sense of character and identity which Brosnan never achieved. Craig's portrayal resonated with the audience and one thing you have to remember is, the sensibilities of audiences toay have moved on from that of the 80s/90s.

    Also this new Bond film was cancelled at one point just like Dalton's third film. But Craig had the luxury of doing a third which was denied to Dalton because of the longer legal issues. A shame.

    Dalton was denied a third because the studio no longer wanted him. Sure, the legal issues that put Dalton's 3rd on hold was a major factor but if EoN really wanted, they could have kept Dalton on but they couldn't due to studio pressure to bring in someone more "favorable" namely, the golden boy, people's choice, Pierce Brosnan.
    Craig's so damn good in the role of Bond that for the producers and the studio, it's pointlss thinking about replacements. Craig has proven to be an asset to the series in more ways than just being the lead actor and everything is being done to keep him around for as long as possible. When SF was initially on hold, they didn't just stop production like they did after LTK. Craig and Mendes were still working behind the scenes.




    Had the legal issue been resolved by 1991 or 1992, Dalton would have had his third film. In 1993, Dalton was still signed to the franchise. But by 1994 he decided to move on as he was approaching 50. He actually said in a 1989 interview that Bond had to be younger and he did not want to play the role at 50.

    We must not forget that Cubby Broccoli was loyal to his actors and if Dalton was fired, then why was it not done in 1990 or 1991? I mean why would he still be contracted to the role. Believe me, the studio easily could have let him go after 1989 but did not.

    In fact in 1993, Dalton was talking about the Michael France script.

    One more thing he was not fired as some in the media wrongly assume. I read a late nineties/early 2000 interview where Dalton set the record straight that in 1994 they asked him to sign on for three more as they would need a longer term commitment. Dalton said he would only do one more and would not agree to another 3 picture deal.

    He said that would tie him to Bond until 1999 and he did not like the idea of that.

    Dalton was close to Cubby and even carried his coffin at the funeral. Dalton always looked for the best interest of the franchise.

    And once again, people are forgeting that Craig has had amazing backing in terms of script and supporting cast. He benefitted from all the Bonds that came before him. By the time he was cast, the political climate as well as the success of the Bourne films helped him enormously.

    I wish to point out that I once won an argument with a journalist from The Times Newspaper who admitted to me that a lot of journalism on Bond is highly subjective. That was back in 1999. He admitted that there was a lot of unfair harshness to Dalton.

    But the Dalton films made their money back on box office alone. LTK was an F up promotion wise with the studio screwing it up irresponsibly. Even dropping Bob peak's incredible artwork.


    And as for Craig's legacy. That will be judged after he leaves the role. When Brosnan was playing Bond, the majority said he was up there with Connery. Deja Vu or what?
    And the younger audience I talk to like Craig because they were huge Bourne fans. Some of them have hardly seen more than 2 or 3 Bind films. My friend's nephew likes Craig because of the similarity to Jason Bourne in parts.

    But let's not get ahead of ourselves. These newer Bond films are a different animal to the classic series. The first four Bond actors were very much cold war based. In reality, Craig is the post 9/11 Bond and that tragic event was a game changer as in a deeply psychologised Bond was needed for the modern age.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Getafix wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    For all the complaints about QOS both Dalton's entries ( which I both like) have issues, TLD is a more straight forward Bond film but TD's portrayal is at odds with the Moore type moments in it, the quips, a more thought out version tailored more to Dalton instead of a hangover from the Sir Rog era would have been better.

    As for LTK it definitely the better performance for Tim but the fact that you still get the goofy moments like Q turning up is at odds with the darker more realistic story, I think I would have preferred if they'd just missed out Desmond and stuck to a more even tone, LTK was my favourite Bond film when it came out, I went to see it 3 times and I'm going to watch it tomorrow, followed by CR then QOS in prep for Skyfall but I wish Dalton had got the same kind of treatment Craig got, a film tailored to his talents.

    While I still like Craig more I do feel Dalton didn't get the same break DC got and for me it is his Bond and performances I rate, the films are a little too uneven but it's still enough for him to be my no. 3 I enjoy TLD & LTK they are top 5 at the moment for me but I think more for Dalton, I don't mind the stories it's more the execution despite them both having some of my favourite sequence of the series.

    The top and tail of it is that Dalton never got the entry to well and truly shine and that is a crime, would have loved to see a 3rd film when they would have likely got it right.

    I understand. I actually thought QOS was not as terrible as made out. Kind of like what Licence was for Dalton at the time. Though Licence is a better movie in my opinion.

    I liked the Q scene in LTK and it added some humour. Plus the set up of Pam Bouvier refusing to sleep with Bond was actually humorous in a sophisticated way.

    I believe that had the legal issue been resolved quicker, Cubby would have done the same thing for Dalton he did for Moore after TMWTGG. He would have made sure the next film gets the balance for public expectation right and would have promoted the suaver side of Dalton more. And Dalton can do suave very well.

    Cubby was super smart and knew how to change tactic as proved by the success of TSWLM in 1977. Ironically Roger Moore could have not survived in the role if it was not for Cubby's belief. Because Moore's second entry was considered far below financial return compared to LALD.

    Well said. Everyone forgets that Rog was on shaky ground after TMWTGG. Dalts deserved a 3 rd film to balance out his legacy. People drone on about him being the 'dark', ' serious' Bond but TLD is actually a late Rog vehicle with a bit of tweaking. LTK is much darker but there is humor and Dalton actually said he felt the seriousness went a bit too far. In those days the actors were just handed the script and expected to get on with it and Dalts was no different. He got the script for LTK ten days before filming began. He is also on record saying he wanted the next one to be a bit more lighthearted.

    Thank you very much. I agree with your facts too! I hate Dalton bashing because he is a wonderful actor and I find it an insult to Cubby who went to great lengths to hire him. Cubby discovered Connery and knew what he wanted at the time he cast Dalton. Brosnan looked too young to play Bond in 1986 and it would have backfired. Goldeneye benefitted from an older Brosnan. Cubby's book praises Dalton's research and hard work to update the character by studying Fleming.

    And the casting of Dalton showed you need a lot more than just good looks to play Bond and that the character has depth as well as current appeal.

    I actually appreciate the Bond actors for their quirks. Sometimes this best Bond business turns me off the franchise. I enjoy the changes and find unfair comparissons pointless.

    I mean in the same way. Are we to compare the special effects of a 1960's Bond to a 2012 Bond? That would be stupid. How can Craig be better than Connery if he is following his blueprint for Bond? Where do the mannerisms come from?

    For F sake, Craig even had to have the 1964 Aston Martin which reminds me of how powerful Mr Connery's legacy still is and will be. When I saw that Aston in both Brosnan's and Craig's films, I knew who was boss. Who did it first? Sometimes the media think we are morons and know little about the history.

    And that is not putting Daniel Craig down. He is very fine but in his own way. Let's enjoy Bond without having the need to put every actor down if you know what I mean. And had Clive Owen been the new Bond, I feel he too would have done a great job.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 6,601
    Reading all of this just clearly shows, HOW biased we all are in our liking and dislinking. imo, nothing of what has been said above or what I could say has a lot to do with reality, which is a stretch of imagination anyway.

    I am cringing at reading, DC is not a Ladies man, when all the femals went nuts after CR - as much as probably others faint at the thought of Dalton not being attractive and not standing a chance never mind what portrayal he had put on. Its the way it is...there will never be an answer that is universally right. Not even, where it concerns Connery. I prefer Moore as Bond.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Germanlady wrote:
    Reading all of this just clearly shows, HOW biased we all are in our liking and dislinking. imo, nothing of what has been said above or what I could say has a lot to do with reality, which is a stretch of imagination anyway.

    I am cringing at reading, DC is not a Ladies man, when all the femals went nuts after CR - as much as probably others faint at the thought of Dalton not being attractive and not standing a chance never mind what portrayal he had put on. Its the way it is...there will never be an answer that is universally right. Not even, where it concerns Connery. I prefer Moore as Bond.

    I see your point but I always try to be as factual as I can. Very true that there is incredible subjectivity with Bond. I have met many stunning women in my life who had a crush on Dalton's Bond. I also met many women who do not like Craig's looks and miss Brosnan. Not my opinion but the way it is. I once met an ugly woman who thought Dalton was ugly but then again I met a stunning half Indian/English woman who wanted to meet Dalton and marry him. Good for Dalton and poor Sean in the context of this paragraph!:)

    I will say this for Dalton, he has some beautiful female admirers who were not born when he played Bond. It comes down to preference.

    Bond is also very generational. The younger kids who see Craig as their first Bond will love him the most. It is understandable.

  • Posts: 6,601
    acoppola wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Reading all of this just clearly shows, HOW biased we all are in our liking and dislinking. imo, nothing of what has been said above or what I could say has a lot to do with reality, which is a stretch of imagination anyway.

    I am cringing at reading, DC is not a Ladies man, when all the femals went nuts after CR - as much as probably others faint at the thought of Dalton not being attractive and not standing a chance never mind what portrayal he had put on. Its the way it is...there will never be an answer that is universally right. Not even, where it concerns Connery. I prefer Moore as Bond.

    I see your point but

    ..but what? I think some here want for Dalton to get a white veste and find all sorts of reasons, why he didn't make it. I love DC, but I didn't go into the cinema with the wish, it should happen or even the expectation. Same with Dalton. Only here, I got out and neither he nor the film did anything for me. IMO, it has nothing to do with the darker approach. Its always all about the leading actor. If you like HIM, you will come to like the film, if you don't, the best film will be trown into the garbage can. Who ever it is has to sell the film.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Germanlady wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Reading all of this just clearly shows, HOW biased we all are in our liking and dislinking. imo, nothing of what has been said above or what I could say has a lot to do with reality, which is a stretch of imagination anyway.

    I am cringing at reading, DC is not a Ladies man, when all the femals went nuts after CR - as much as probably others faint at the thought of Dalton not being attractive and not standing a chance never mind what portrayal he had put on. Its the way it is...there will never be an answer that is universally right. Not even, where it concerns Connery. I prefer Moore as Bond.

    I see your point but

    ..but what? I think some here want for Dalton to get a white veste and find all sorts of reasons, why he didn't make it. I love DC, but I didn't go into the cinema with the wish, it should happen or even the expectation. Same with Dalton. Only here, I got out and neither he nor the film did anything for me. IMO, it has nothing to do with the darker approach. Its always all about the leading actor. If you like HIM, you will come to like the film, if you don't, the best film will be trown into the garbage can. Who ever it is has to sell the film.

    I hit the post button accidentally!

  • You say Bond is generational but I have grown up on the Brosnan/Craig era and not one of those 6 films (omitting Skyfall ofcourse) appear in my top 14 Bond films. Neither Brosnan nor Craig do anything for me. The films are cold and just seem to try too hard.

    To be honest, I'm yet to meet a girl/woman who think Dalton or Craig are good looking where as they rave (looks wise) about Connery and Moore (back in the day).

    Horses for courses
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Germanlady wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Reading all of this just clearly shows, HOW biased we all are in our liking and dislinking. imo, nothing of what has been said above or what I could say has a lot to do with reality, which is a stretch of imagination anyway.

    I am cringing at reading, DC is not a Ladies man, when all the femals went nuts after CR - as much as probably others faint at the thought of Dalton not being attractive and not standing a chance never mind what portrayal he had put on. Its the way it is...there will never be an answer that is universally right. Not even, where it concerns Connery. I prefer Moore as Bond.

    I see your point but

    ..but what? I think some here want for Dalton to get a white veste and find all sorts of reasons, why he didn't make it. I love DC, but I didn't go into the cinema with the wish, it should happen or even the expectation. Same with Dalton. Only here, I got out and neither he nor the film did anything for me. IMO, it has nothing to do with the darker approach. Its always all about the leading actor. If you like HIM, you will come to like the film, if you don't, the best film will be trown into the garbage can. Who ever it is has to sell the film.

    To be honest I did not like Daniel Craig initially but grew to like him. It was his acting that did it for me and I understood where he was coming from. Let's not make the mistake, but for some he is an acquired taste and a serious challenge to the traditional Bond image. And Brosnan to many was the ideal Bond in terms of look. I know what people have told me over the years and how they think.



  • Posts: 176
    You say Bond is generational but I have grown up on the Brosnan/Craig era and not one of those 6 films (omitting Skyfall ofcourse) appear in my top 14 Bond films. Neither Brosnan nor Craig do anything for me. The films are cold and just seem to try too hard.

    To be honest, I'm yet to meet a girl/woman who think Dalton or Craig are good looking where as they rave (looks wise) about Connery and Moore (back in the day).

    Horses for courses

    Really? I've always felt Dalton was good looking. I actually find him better looking than Connery.I just didn't like his personality.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    You say Bond is generational but I have grown up on the Brosnan/Craig era and not one of those 6 films (omitting Skyfall ofcourse) appear in my top 14 Bond films. Neither Brosnan nor Craig do anything for me. The films are cold and just seem to try too hard.

    To be honest, I'm yet to meet a girl/woman who think Dalton or Craig are good looking where as they rave (looks wise) about Connery and Moore (back in the day).

    Horses for courses

    I was being general naturally. Wow you don't like Craig or Brosnan? I tell you this objectively, but Dalton is a handsome man and no one has called him ugly that I know. And I met hundreds over the years. And if Dalton is not good looking then God help most men is all I can say!

  • Posts: 6,601
    You can always delete. What I wanted to add is - Dalton carried his films and DC carried Cr and QOS. The supporter always praise how great the Dalton films have been. Do you really think, that no other actor would have been able to make those films a success? I think yes. Dalton was just not the type to agree with a larger audience, as it is often claimed and rightly so. Not his fault, its just the way it is. Is making him better then he was a way to show your appreciation? Why not just like him and be good with that. If everybody stilled hated DC, I would still saying, I like him but not claiming, he was the icing on the cake. Some people are just not for everybody, but that doesn't make them any less good for those, who like them.

    For me, Dalton is NOT good looking and without charisma. That's what put me off and I am not alone. Just saying, and that not as a DC fangirl because back then, he was not on the plate yet.
  • marymoss wrote:
    You say Bond is generational but I have grown up on the Brosnan/Craig era and not one of those 6 films (omitting Skyfall ofcourse) appear in my top 14 Bond films. Neither Brosnan nor Craig do anything for me. The films are cold and just seem to try too hard.

    To be honest, I'm yet to meet a girl/woman who think Dalton or Craig are good looking where as they rave (looks wise) about Connery and Moore (back in the day).

    Horses for courses

    Really? I've always felt Dalton was good looking. I actually find him better looking than Connery.I just didn't like his personality.

    Well as I am 21, most of them are girls my own age. But my Mum and Nan love Sir Roger (looks wise) and that's it. Brosnan is "ok". As a man, I would say Dalton is better looking than Craig and Brosnan but it is subjective

    acoppola wrote:

    I was being general naturally. Wow you don't like Craig or Brosnan? I tell you this objectively, but Dalton is a handsome man and no one has called him ugly that I know. And I met hundreds over the years. And if Dalton is not good looking then God help most men is all I can say!

    Honestly, neither of them do anything for me. Craig is a poor man's Dalton and Brosnan is a very poor man's Moore. As I would say, forget the press/Barbara Broccolli/Moore bashers, a lot of Non-Bond fans do not like Daniel Craig or his films. I know Non-Bond fans who much prefer AVTAK to CR/QOS. But some would dismiss that as "disgusting"

    Dalton is fairly good looking, I just think Connery and Moore are better looking
Sign In or Register to comment.