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 meant for me, obviously. The rest is trivial and unimportant, if someone likes Dalton or any other Bond better, that's up to them. Being a good fan is what counts most.
:-?
Thing is, both actors gave us two outstanding, superlative performances (Connery, Dr No, FRWL, and Dalton, Daylights and LTK) and it can be so hard to seperate them on that basis alone. But Connery had black marks against him, for some of his subsequent appearances and movies, while Dalton didn't have that of course. But they were both the nearest to the original character, and try as hard as Craig may, I don't think it may just be beaten..
At the end of the day I suppose that both are so different that it's entirely up to biased opinion to determine who you prefer, but if you're objective and assume that the best they can be is equals, coupled with the fact that Sean had twice as many greta films as Tim, and pile on the fact that Sean is the iconic pioneer of the role, it seems obvious that Sean at the very least has an edge over Tim, and at most is the clear favorite.
I will agree to this point.
I love that - he blew me away, 'to a degree'. Very measured.
Sean was the best obviously. Dalton would find it hilarious if any one claimed otherwise.
They are? I thought Connery and Craig were the best of the best? Shows what I know.
Dalton though a huge Connery fan and who himself said Connery was "too good", avoided the trap of copying his mannerisms. I think many assumed before TLD that Dalton would just port over elements of Connery.
Dalton came to the franchise at a time when it needed a new direction because AVTAK showed how stale it had become. Also like mentioned earlier, Dalton had the acting skill to really delve into Fleming's Bond and show the character's psychological makeup.
Now most audiences saw Bond as not a fleshed out character and so naturally they were shocked by Dalton's take. They compared him to Moore and to many, Moore's take was all they thought Bond should be. Watching tv shows from the TLD era, it is clear that many presenters saw Bond as a nice playboy and a comfortable character.
Well Dalton took audiences out of their comfort zone. Going from Moore to Dalton was almost kike going from Adam West to Christian Bale. No way to put it, but that is a shock to the system.
In the end both portrayals by those two actors give me the whole gamut of the character.
I will be honest and also say that I think Connery in DAF is better than Moore in TSWLM. And that is considered Moore's best but not for me.
Intelligently put! They were both hired for the franchise for their different qualities. Cubby was smart and with Dalton had an actor that highlighted that Bond was a complex character with a lot more to explore despite 25 years of film history back in 1987.
And I now see young teenagers wowed by Dalton on Youtube. Cubby knew that someone will always see value in a performance and he spoke highly of Tim.
The 80s Bond films however were dropping in popularity, and with Morre getting on in years a change was needed. The series needed revitalising. New, younger Bond steps in.
Now Dalton's debut I believe was more successful than AVTAK, and certainly deserved to be, but the curiosity factor got Dalton through. I don't remember him being unpopular because he was different or 'ahead of his time', a serious Bond wasn't exactly new (Connery didn't play Coco the clown exactly), I honestly believe his tendency to lay the emotion on with a trowel simply hi lighted why his acting career in films had never taken off.
He was competent but he never was a great film actor because sometimes less is more, and Timbo never learnt that.
Is is only my opinion, and I appreciate what you guys say about Fleming's Bond. I haven't read the books for many years, and I'm no expert on that matter. Maybe he captured Fleming's Bond wonderfully well, but I don't really care myself, I want my Bond to carry the film and dominate it.
I have had this opinion for decades thb, so it won't change. And I bow to you guys greater knowledge of what makes Bond Bond. I just come at this from a different direction.
Mind you, if everyone on here hated Dalton then it would be in my nature to stick up for him. ;-)
I think Dalton spoke the most highly of Connery in the interviews I read. He actually turned the role down in 1968 because he said any actor following in Connery's footsteps is mad. That shows how highly the Dalts rated Connery.
And Dalton gave a great analysis of why Connery was so good. Cubby says in his book that Dalton was not intimidated by Connery and saw no point of emulating something that Connery invented. Dalton as Cubby said wanted to be respected as Fleming's Bond.
To me because I was a huge Moore fan before TLD, I thought Dalton was an excellent choice who put in a lot of variation into the role. The Bond character in the books is emotional and does lose it but regains composure when his professional killer side kicks in.
I enjoyed the fact that by Dalton not going into Moore's territory, it makes Moore's Bond more exclusive as it were. I felt that some of the Brosnan portrayal was watered down Moore with a dash of Connery. And that got in the way for me.
But with Dalton we have an excellent Cold War portrayal of Fleming's Bond especially in the first act of TLD. With Craig, we have attributes that were not just down to Fleming because the Cold War is over and they have to add on a characterisation that is in line with the world we live in.
I think this is very fitting
And that to me shows why I respect him so much! Dalton went against the grain rather than with the flow. To me that was Brosnan's biggest mistake by going along with expectation as he was more than capable of giving a far more in depth performance in the role rather than have scenes written in for the sake of the one liner.
My friend actually at the time liked the idea of Brosnan's casting as he thought he was superb in The Fourth Protocol. But I think his casting was sadly more based on Remington Steele's popularity and fame. He was cast back in '86 before The Fourth Protocol. I would have preferred a straighter in line with TFP style of grit he showed there.
Brozza thought he would do at least 7 films. His interviews show that, as he was of the mind that once you survived the third film, you were set in the role for how long you wanted.
Ironic that Brozza got replaced despite his fourth film being the highest grossing of his tenure. But the astronomical budget did not bring in the grosses expected for that kind of investment. DAD was $150 million approx to achieve $435 million worldwide. Well you need to make 2.5 times the budget back to break even and so where is the profit for the next film's budget?
I read somewhere that Sony noticed that the Dalton films were more profitable. They took back 5 times their budget. TLD on a $30 million budget brought in $192 million. Over 6 times.
Even LTK took $156 million on a $30 million budget. Proportions are what need to be looked at.
SF is $200 million and it will bring in $1 billion which is what high budget risks should be bringing in at the cinema.
I understand the logic, but I think it's fair to say Brosnan simply was more popular with the audiences than Dalton. Regardless of budgets the box office talks.
However I agree that once they see the percentage return isn't exactly awe inspiring then change is needed. And in this case the change was a complete overhaul.
I think had DAD been made on a budget of $50 million, it would have done well anyway. But promotional costs are almost half a budget these days.
At the time Brosnan was very popular. In fact, based on his popularity, I was amazed Craig got accepted because he was a drastic change in both image as well as style. Brosnan alone from an image perspective was the classic and to many perfect Bond.
I myself thought whoever would replace Brosnan would go the Lazenby route. I don't remember many general public disliking Brosnan in the role and the cinema showing I went to were packed. Even I would see his film on the opening day and many times afterwards.
I accept that overall at the time of his tenure, Brosnan was way more popular than Dalton. But the advent of Craig gave a huge acceptance boost to Dalton retrospectively.
But I maintain that had Dalton done a few more films, he would have gained more popularity. A shame he lost momentum due to the 6 year legal hiatus. No Bond actor would enjoy that spanner in the works.
And LTK was a huge departure for a second film and a huge departure for a Bond film. It was crazily thrown out at the same time as Batman and Indiana Jones which is the last time we saw a Bond summer release. Gone were the days when Bond used to have summer to himself and November is the month of release in the USA since Goldeneye. No doubt because of what happened with LTK in the USA.