TImothy Dalton and John Glen

13

Comments

  • edited August 2015 Posts: 1,778
    My wife came home will I was watching the everything or nothing DVD, (now I must start by saying my wife works in a theatre company) it came to the point of Dalton in LTK on the oil tanker and he does some roll. My wife who known nothing about Bond prior to Daniel Craig said "by any chance is he (Dalton) a theatre actor" Me "yes, how could you tell". She says "the way he just rolled about there, he over acted it, that's a give away of theatre actors they are over theatrical". My wife has now ruined the Dalton films for me, cause if you do watch his action scenes he is over theatrical with his movements lol.

    That's really interesting. In the PTS for TLD i can't help but chuckle a little when Dalton first starts running after the truck. He so oversells the running that it's almost comical.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Yeah I remember a writer in Rolling Stone lamenting on Glen's return despite the casting of a new intriguing Bond (Dalton).

    Dalton like Brosnan deserved better.

    I don't know why Brosnan always gets sympathy to the effect that he got screwed over on his directors. Both Martin Campbell and Michael Apted were more celebrated directors than the Bond series had hired in a good while. And Lee Tamahori directed the very underrated The Edge, which as a director gave him a higher stock than Glen had going into his first film.
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    One line that always bugged me in LTK was Dalton yelling "Della!" when finding her body. I don't know if that was just bad ADR or something but Glen should have caught it. I think it really ruins an emotionally important scene.

    Another line that I thought was pretty bad was the way Dalton says, "If you can't trust Heller who can you trust". The way Dalton delivers it sounds like Bond is about to start sobbing and whimpering. I'm surprised that's the take they settled on.
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    The reality is John Glen is a very lucky man, charming and a strong leader, but not really a great talent, although very professional. In today's film world he would never ever rise to the heights of directing Bond, not a chance in hell. It's all about the time and the place. That's life.

    Agreed. Glen in alot of ways was a TV director. Competent enough to get the shots he needed but was never going to go much further beyond just getting it done.

    That's a frustration I've had with the Bond series and EON. I won't say that EON was lazy but they definitely got complacent at times. Yes the John Glen Bond films of the 80s were making healthy profits but their success both critically and moreso financially was a long way off from what they experienced in the 60s and better films of the 70s. It seemed like they were perfectly fine with their diminished success. I agree with some of the above posters that the comfort zone of the "Bond family" could often be more of a detriment rather than a benefit.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Sad to read they didn't get on as I like the Dalton Bonds immensely. I only wish there were more of them. :(
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,189
    My wife came home will I was watching the everything or nothing DVD, (now I must start by saying my wife works in a theatre company) it came to the point of Dalton in LTK on the oil tanker and he does some roll. My wife who known nothing about Bond prior to Daniel Craig said "by any chance is he (Dalton) a theatre actor" Me "yes, how could you tell". She says "the way he just rolled about there, he over acted it, that's a give away of theatre actors they are over theatrical". My wife has now ruined the Dalton films for me, cause if you do watch his action scenes he is over theatrical with his movements lol.

    Funnily enough I think the same sometimes applies to Brosnan. I remember a few months ago I was watching a play in London (City of Angels it was called). There was a scene when one of the main characters was lying on the floor in a darkened room being beaten up by a group of men. The actor on the floor was making all sorts of grunts and groans when he was hit. It reminded me of the sound-proof room scene in TND.

    I wouldn't say Dalton overacts quite as much as Pierce does, but he can be guilty of being somewhat over-dramatic in his facial expressions.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    And then they tell you that being a theatre actor is an asset in films! :D
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think it kind of depends on what the role is and how the actor adapts to film. Some theatre actors work better on film than others.

    I suppose the trick is make it not LOOK like the actor is acting. Someone like Judy Dench can do this very well. She's probably one of the most successful theatre actors who has also made a big name for herself in serious films. I saw Iris for the first time a few days ago and she's brilliant in it.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    And then they tell you that being a theatre actor is an asset in films! :D

    I think it most definitely is, but you need to adapt your demeanor and your voice. everything is bigger on the big screen, you cannot have the same range as on the stage. Some stage actors make the transaction easily, some less. And it also depends of the movie. I think Dalton struggled at times, not only in his Bond movies but in other ones as well. He was great in The Rocketeer, playing a villain, and I think villains in general are easier to play in movies for thespians.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Dalton tends to be in his element when he's playing larger-than-life characters.
  • Posts: 1,407
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Dalton tends to be in his element when he's playing larger-than-life characters.

    His performance in Hot Fuzz and Toy Story would give that assumption credit for sure.

    A theatre career usually wouldn't hurt you. But he just needed a director who can tell him when it was too much
  • Posts: 232
    My wife came home will I was watching the everything or nothing DVD, (now I must start by saying my wife works in a theatre company) it came to the point of Dalton in LTK on the oil tanker and he does some roll. My wife who known nothing about Bond prior to Daniel Craig said "by any chance is he (Dalton) a theatre actor" Me "yes, how could you tell". She says "the way he just rolled about there, he over acted it, that's a give away of theatre actors they are over theatrical". My wife has now ruined the Dalton films for me, cause if you do watch his action scenes he is over theatrical with his movements lol.

    That's really interesting. In the PTS for TLD i can't help but chuckle a little when Dalton first starts running after the truck. He so oversells the running that it's almost comical.

    I thought it was just that the pack was too heavy so he was a bit wobbly bearing up.

  • Posts: 11,425
    bondbat007 wrote:
    He was obviously a better director for Moore than he was for Dalton (no matter how much I love TLD and LTK). I just found it interesting that Dalton would drop a lead role in a film because his former director came on to do it.

    I actually disagree. Glen's latter Dalton Bond films are considerably better than his Moore efforts. Glen's appointment to the directors chair was always done in an attempt to make the series more gritty and realistic with a focus on larger-than-life stunts done for real. He's a great technical filmmaker.

    Glen wanted to make Bond films that were closer to the spirit of the books. He was able to do this with the Dalton movies but Moore presented more challenges. This is clear with FYEO which is a great film with a much more serious, character-driven tone. Clearly this was possibly considered a little too serious especially for Roger's style hence the strange tonal shift for OP and the less said about AVTAK the better. TLD and LTK are his his standout works.

    The thing I love about Glen though are quite how good his action scenes are. The best in the series no question especially his areal work.

    The divide between Glen and Dalton I think came from character, Dalton took the role very seriously and Glen was a little more of a technical craftsman. I think they clashed here. I think they hired some guy called Alfonso (Don't remember his surname) to do the 3rd Dalton film and Glen was not asked to return

    very astute observation. i admire glen and dalton massively. i think they gave us two really good Bond movies. just a shame they didnt get on personally.

    I agree 100% that Glen is one of the great Bond directors. he was very consistent and may be apart from AVTAk I put all his films in the top half of the table.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited August 2015 Posts: 45,489
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Dalton tends to be in his element when he's playing larger-than-life characters.

    His performance in Hot Fuzz and Toy Story would give that assumption credit for sure.

    A theatre career usually wouldn't hurt you. But he just needed a director who can tell him when it was too much

    Theatre actors don t transition very well to modern films, especially after sound was introduced in 1929 with The Jazz Singer.

    In the old days with no microphones and camera close-ups, they had to oversell the emotions, lines etc. that they needed to convey to the audience in the theatre, right down to the back-seaters.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I think Dalton should be grateful his two films are as good as they are and directed by someone who understood Bond and was fantastic at action.

    Imagine if they'd been directed by Spottiswood, Apted or Tamahori...
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    TLD probably would have been a little better. Wish Koskov and Whittaker weren't such imbecilic clowns. Licence to Kill directed by Martin Campbell may have been a treat. I love LTK but it does feel a little plain at times.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited August 2015 Posts: 13,978
    I think that Glen was the best when it came to action in Bond. Of the directors that have followed, I think Apted could have worked well with Dalton.

    Not that it would bear any similarity to a Apted/Dalton Bond, but Apted directed my favourite Stacy Keach film, 1977's 'The Squeeze'. If you like your films old skool tough (REAL tough, it is made in the decade when heroes smelt of beer and Brut), I recommend The Squeeze. This image sums up the film...

    stacy-keach-alison-portes-the-squeeze-1977-BP8C5M.jpg

    Now consider this, Keach plays the flawed hero.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I'm sold. going to seek that out tonight.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Murdock wrote: »
    TLD probably would have been a little better. Wish Koskov and Whittaker weren't such imbecilic clowns. Licence to Kill directed by Martin Campbell may have been a treat. I love LTK but it does feel a little plain at times.

    There's no guarantee the film would have been better. I think Koskov is actually good casting but the character could definitely have been played a bit darker. I am not a fan of Joe Don Baker.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I can understand Dalton being bitter over having had his 2 films directed by a journeyman hack, yes both TLD & LTK are near the top for me but I think of what they could have been like with a director who actually understood what Tim was trying to do.
    .

    Definitely. EON didn't catch on until after Dalton's run that if you want to break out of the foggy, I would say, rather tacky look of the past decade, they would have to look outside of house.

    Something that always struck me about Dalton's films were that despite that fact that they were made in the late 80s they looked like they could've been released in the 70s.

    Take License to Kill and compare it to other blockbuster films released that same year like Lethal Weapon 2, Batman, The Last Crusade, Back to the Future 2, The Abyss, etc. They all look so much more polished, refined, and cinematic. While TLD and LTK at times looked like they could've been made for TV.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Getafix wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    TLD probably would have been a little better. Wish Koskov and Whittaker weren't such imbecilic clowns. Licence to Kill directed by Martin Campbell may have been a treat. I love LTK but it does feel a little plain at times.

    There's no guarantee the film would have been better. I think Koskov is actually good casting but the character could definitely have been played a bit darker. I am not a fan of Joe Don Baker.

    Yeah I have no problem with Jeroen Krabbe but Koskov was written pretty poorly and was just stupid to me. I also didn't care for Baker as Whittaker. I prefer him as Jack Wade but as a villain he's also pretty clownish at the end, That child like giggle always makes me rip out my hair.
  • Posts: 232
    I think the Dalton films have way too much fill light, which makes them look TV-ish at times, but not 70ish, because the trend there was to shoot 'for real' and not make it look pretty a lot of the time. When they turn off the overfill, TLD looks pretty good (on my old TV, I used to turn the contrast and brightness way over to get LTK looking approriately 'dark and edgy.'
  • trevanian wrote: »
    I think the Dalton films have way too much fill light, which makes them look TV-ish at times, but not 70ish, because the trend there was to shoot 'for real' and not make it look pretty a lot of the time. When they turn off the overfill, TLD looks pretty good (on my old TV, I used to turn the contrast and brightness way over to get LTK looking approriately 'dark and edgy.'

    It's not just the lightening. The quality of film and images just look older than they are. Compare it to any of the films I mentioned above. They all look so much more crisp and polished.
  • Posts: 232
    The first BATMAN looked like crap, there was no backlight, everything mushed into the background, at least in the theater and on VHS. The second one had a nice edge light though. THE ABYSS looked spectacular, but I don't remember anything special about LETHAL WEAPON in the slightest, visually. DIE HARD looked almost like it was shot without movie lights some of the time, was very rough-looking (not talking about the overstylized exteriors with the shot-through-sunglass look.)

    TLD was shot on the same stocks everybody else used at that time, 5247 and 5294, and I'm pretty sure Mills didn't force-process his imagery, so I can't imagine what would make you think the image looked older. LTK has a lot of white in its art direction, and grain shows up more strongly in white and gray areas of image, so that is about the only thing I can think of (and I've seen these two movies at least 30 times apiece. Except for FRWL and GF, have probably seen these the most of any Bond film.)
  • trevanian wrote: »
    The first BATMAN looked like crap, there was no backlight, everything mushed into the background, at least in the theater and on VHS. The second one had a nice edge light though. THE ABYSS looked spectacular, but I don't remember anything special about LETHAL WEAPON in the slightest, visually. DIE HARD looked almost like it was shot without movie lights some of the time, was very rough-looking (not talking about the overstylized exteriors with the shot-through-sunglass look.)

    TLD was shot on the same stocks everybody else used at that time, 5247 and 5294, and I'm pretty sure Mills didn't force-process his imagery, so I can't imagine what would make you think the image looked older. LTK has a lot of white in its art direction, and grain shows up more strongly in white and gray areas of image, so that is about the only thing I can think of (and I've seen these two movies at least 30 times apiece. Except for FRWL and GF, have probably seen these the most of any Bond film.)

    I obviously don't know as much technical information as you but all I can say is that both Dalton films look older than they are to me. The films I mentioned, not all of which were winning any awards for their cinematographers, all atleast looked like they were made in the late 80s.

    Is it just me or does anyone else agree? Maybe I'm going crazy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I think this is a 'John Glen' problem more than a 'Dalton era' problem.

    If I'm being honest, I really thought all of his Bond films looked pretty cheap in comparison to other fare of that era, and particularly in comparison to the previous Bond films.

    I think that's partly why GE was such a success when it came out, because the 'Glen look' was gone.

    Don't get me wrong, I really do like his films, particularly OP, TLD & LTK, but all of his Bond movies have a relatively cheap and less than glamorous quality to them for me, except maybe FYEO.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I think this is a 'John Glen' problem more than a 'Dalton era' problem.

    If I'm being honest, I really thought all of his Bond films looked pretty cheap in comparison to other fare of that era, and particularly in comparison to the previous Bond films.

    I think that's partly why GE was such a success when it came out, because the 'Glen look' was gone.

    Don't get me wrong, I really do like his films, particularly OP, TLD & LTK, but all of his Bond movies have a relatively cheap and less than glamorous quality to them for me, except maybe FYEO.

    Spot on. I remembered when I watched LTK and GE back to back I couldn't believe that they were released only 6 years apart. They looked like films from two completely different eras. GE looked so much more polished and crisp.

    And I agree FYEO was John Glen's best looking Bond film.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    I wasn't one bit excited about Brosnan getting the role, I went into GOLDENEYE almost reluctantly, and while I can't say it will ever be a favorite of mine, I was immediately impressed and encouraged that for the first time since MOONRAKER a Bond film looked like an A production.

    Which is another valid point that can be made to the argument that Dalton got screwed. Not just with his director but with his budgets aswell. Dalton signed on at a time when EON wasn't spending the kind of money that they used to on the Bond films. Everything's about timing I guess.

    Imagine a Dalton Bond film helmed by a director the calibre of Sam Mendes and with an absurdly massive budget to go with it.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think this is a 'John Glen' problem more than a 'Dalton era' problem.

    If I'm being honest, I really thought all of his Bond films looked pretty cheap in comparison to other fare of that era, and particularly in comparison to the previous Bond films.

    I think that's partly why GE was such a success when it came out, because the 'Glen look' was gone.

    Don't get me wrong, I really do like his films, particularly OP, TLD & LTK, but all of his Bond movies have a relatively cheap and less than glamorous quality to them for me, except maybe FYEO.

    It's funny, I was talking to a friend of mine just last night and he said: "What was that Bond film where he's on a boat talking to some bloke and the camera keeps tilting all over the place. Terrible film. Badly made" :))
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    TLD probably would have been a little better. Wish Koskov and Whittaker weren't such imbecilic clowns. Licence to Kill directed by Martin Campbell may have been a treat. I love LTK but it does feel a little plain at times.

    There's no guarantee the film would have been better. I think Koskov is actually good casting but the character could definitely have been played a bit darker. I am not a fan of Joe Don Baker.

    Koskov is great casting but catastrophic writing. Jerome Krabbe could have played Blofeld in another time, he's that good. I think the weak villains in TLD may have hurted Dalton's tenure overall.
  • Posts: 157
    You say these John Glen movies look cheap. But don't forget they were cheaply produced in comparison to the movies from the Brosnan era. Glen said several times he would loved to have the budget of the latter movies for his own. He did a very good job on Bond with what he had.
  • Posts: 232
    Yeah, the budget jump from LTK to GE is immense, as is the increase in dollars from product placement, owing to BMW. Same thing with the TREK reboot, where you're going from 65mil in 2002 dollars to 160 in 2009 dollars.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Murdock wrote: »
    I'm sold. going to seek that out tonight.

    Me too!

Sign In or Register to comment.