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
On pure enjoyment level:
1. GE (I loved it then and I love it now - such fun - supporting cast is magnificent. Brosnan doesn't screw up)
2. CR (Eva Green and Caterina Murino really do it for me, as does Craig's acting)
3. TLD (I thought and still think it was a fantastic debut - first hr or so is Bond gold)
4. LALD (great debut from Moore with some very iconic franchise moments)
5. DN (Connery set the standard here but if I'm being honest it's a bit dated for me)
6. OHMSS (I like a lot of it but I really think it's Barry's score that does most of it for me, as well as the stuff in Lauterbrunnen)
On critical level:
1. DN (superb introduction to Fleming's Bond)
2. OHMSS (close to the book and an iconic story)
3. CR (wonderful reimagination of the book for today's age)
4. TLD (the return of the hardcore Bond transitioned brilliantly from Moore's interpretation)
5. LALD (Moore being Bond rather than Moore)
6. GE (doesn't seem like the Bond I knew but I love it anyway)
Personally I think Dalton had an amazing debut in TLD (and it was a bigger success than AVTAK so he was off to a great start). Really I think the problem came with LTK and the fact that Die Hard/Lethal Weapon 2 were already out by then and the action dynamic had moved forward. Just bad timing, and poor execution in some ways.
No I am not joking. Most of the review of QoS and SF were bad. I don't recall the reviews for CR, but after DAD I am sure they were good.
QOS reviews were overall mixed. As for SF do your research: they were in wide majority positive.
The thing is, one likes or dislikes has no bearing over reality. I wonder if @Perdogg is a solipsist.
Seems to be giving a rather bad buzz: the franchise is in completely falling apart, people are running away from the theatres when they see that a Bond movie is being released and SF has been panned universally...
I concur. We are now so far removed from what 007 really is/was that the films are 'James Bond' only as far as the licencing goes. There needs to be some kind of return to the subtlety that Fleming brought to the stories.
Both, the Dalton and Craig films tried it though, with DC coming out successful. What else do you want? They tried to adapt the old novels to a new time.
Hardly irrelevant. If Dalton had been given CR he would have nailed it just as Craig did.
Craig has had the benefit of the producers playing to his strengths with quality material, whilst letting Craig 'be' the Bond of the novels (or at the very least approaching it). Dalton was not afforded that luxury.
Hence - another reason why Dalton 'failed' whilst Craig did not.
So a relevant comment all around :D
If Dalton would have done CR, it would have been a good film, but lacking the drool factor, DC had going for him, which was a huge part of the success.
So no, it wouldnt have been the same. And are not all his fans say, his films were so brilliant? So, going by that, why didnt he reach the popularity? The films were great, Dalton was such a sex bomb. Sorry, but the arguments bite each others tail, just because the fans wont acknowkledge th elefant in the room.
I think a lot of people want to ignore reality. You can't remake history or shape it as you prefer. It's a fair comment to say Dalton was not the most popular Bond at the time however unfair the Perception was.
It wasn't to me, but what the hell. James Bond films would be nice. A character that resembles Bond would be most welcome, too.
If those are the criteria, only Brosnan failed.
Well, other than CR, they were ('a far cry from the novels') weren't they? So again, perfectly logical arguments all nicely within topic :>
But Dalton tried to make his Bond close to the novels and the public did not like it. You think they'd have accepted him for CR in 1987? I don't buy that.
The time was different, EON was different, the movie dynamic was different, everyone had less to draw from, and Dalton was following a very popular Bond in Moore who had aged but who was still popular despite that and the number two Bond of the day behind Connery.
Craig has had many advantages that Dalton did not have. First and foremost, he came after Dalton, and was instructed to essentially do the same thing, but with the benefit of hindsight (he could see what worked and what did not work). Additionally, they had the 4 yr break between it and DAD, giving them more time to think it through properly. Also, DAD was a critical bomb of absolutely epic proportions and in almost every way (while AVTAK is mainly criticized due to Moore's age). Moreover, the spy genre had moved forward dramatically by 2006 due to Bourne (whether you like it or not, this series had a profound effect). In 1989, Bond still was the spy banner boy - it was the action side of the equation that had moved forward to more rugged/brutal fare due to Die Hard/Lethal Weapon, and it was more difficult to incorporate such elements into the Bond universe successfully without creating a shock to the audience. In addition, the last two Bond movies prior to CR were absolute disgraces (imho) that rank at the near bottom of most objective assessments - lending audience credence to CR and a reboot. Finally, EON under BB was deadly serious about adapting CR, casting solid actors (I'd take Eva Green and Giancarlo Giannini any day over Carey Lowell and Talisa Soto) and avoiding overused tropes (no Bond theme or Bond, James Bond until the end, no gunbarrel, no shaken not stirred etc.). This was not the case when Cubby made TLD & LTK. He was trying to straddle the Moore/Dalton universe, and although it was successful in TLD, the profound shift with LTK was too jarring to many, and also did not reflect what the public wanted at the time in James Bond. So Cubby did not commit like BB did - he did not go all in - neither did he capture the public mood properly. Production quality on LTK was also not up to the same level as CR.
So, Craig deserves all the success and accolades he gets. He's earned it. Dalton on the other hand does not deserve the criticism he gets in some circles. He did the best he could and the first hour of TLD in particular shows what an absolutely brilliant Bond he could have been, had circumstances been different.
Apart from that CR was almost a revolutionary way of making a Bond movie without the formula. EON really went 'back to basics' for that one.
I do foresee a slightly lighter take on Bond returning sometime soon, as the general trend in Hollywood is to become not overly dark and serious (Marvel, Mad Max, even DC is turning slightly lighter). I don't mean we'll go back to the 70's slapstick, but gadgetry, onliners and great, diabolical villains might return. Right, SPECTRE?
There's one area where the DC-era lacks, just like Dalton's take, that is very present in the novels: sex. Personally I feel that especially Brosnan and Connery's movies had more sex-appeal. With 50 Shades being 'accepted' in cinema's nowadays, I'd say that Fleming's more sensual references deserve to have a more prominent on-screen presence.
That imho is where they really blew it with Dalton - trying to make him somewhat PC in TLD. Even in LTK, although he did exhibit a rougher edge at times with the ladies, there was still this sort of one woman thing going on with him - it was too different from Moore (who I think hit a record with the number of women his Bond bedded in AVTAK) and not in tune with what the public expected at the time from Bond.
With Craig, I think the public has been more understanding because he's been grieving Vesper, but I think soon he will have to show some bona fides in this dept. I also agree that we likely will go to lighter fare post-Craig. The trend seems to be in that direction.
Well, there's nothing wrong with "sort of one woman thing going on" - the novels have that, too, and it works fine. It's not the quantity, but the quality that matters. Increasing quantity doesn't make the movies or Bond himself sexier or whatever people expect from "the sex thing". Bond sleeping around with anyone is just meh, and can be pretty off-putting, too.
Yes, well... I know opinions vary, but my impression is that most guys don't think it makes a woman more attractive or interesting somehow if she just sleeps with anyone, quite the opposite. I feel kinda the same way about guys. (And btw, I knew you'd get it. :) )
But the most important thing is that for Fleming, sex was an important ingredient, and I think the movies would benefit from a more explicit scene or two. The scene with the girl on the beach in SF was a step in the right direction.
After all, sex sells...
Btw, as for QOS, it was pretty clear why story-wise more than one affair in that film would have been utterly stupid, even one was kinda questionable, but since it's Bond I suppose it's just expected, never mind if it makes sense or not. The guy just lost the love of his life, like, a couple of days before or something, due to her committing suicide in front of him. Hey, no big deal. Yeah. --- You think there should have been more sex partners, despite all that? Oh, ok...
Eon now considers Bond sleeping around as distasteful. Babs said so.
For the record I don't think we could or should see Bond sleeping around the way Moore did. The seduction is an important aspect and I think overall Craig (and Dalton before him but to a lesser extend) did very well in that regard. Although i was never quite convinced by Dalton as a seducer.
@BondJames
My intent wasn't to get us off topic (sorry, folks) but to point out a general pecking order for the actors' first films. I'd have to look at the latest rankings on this site. But my guess is that in general CR scores much higher than TLD, which may be one of the reasons Craig was successful right off the bat and Dalton wasn't. It was mostly the material. Don't get me wrong, TLD wasn't a "bad" film; but I sometimes think it was missing something. I think Dalton's films were flawed due to poor production design. The sets were awful. Though I must admit, with LTK, I love the cultish feel of the film. It has a certain charm, due to the poor sets, bad (to the point of unintentionally hilarious) dialogue, and bad acting.