Why did Craig succeed when Dalton failed?

2456720

Comments

  • edited January 2014 Posts: 15,123
    I also felt that Dalton lacked some kind of confidence. He always seemed somewhat uncomfortable, not only on screen, but in interviews as well and especially, as if he was overwhelmed by the whole thing. Craig on the other hand seems very comfortable, both with the route the series has now taken, but with its history.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Ludovico wrote:
    I also felt that Dalton lacked some kind of confidence.
    That's what you and a fair number of others saw, I saw intensity, devotion, and a degree of caffeine addiction appropriate to the role.
    ;)
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 15,123
    chrisisall wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    I also felt that Dalton lacked some kind of confidence.
    That's what you and a fair number of others saw, I saw intensity, devotion, and a degree of caffeine addiction appropriate to the role.
    ;)

    He was intense, he was devout to the role, no question. But I do think in interviews and also to a lesser degree onscreen, he seemed to be overwhelmed, which after Moore and because Brosnan was the heir apparent, may have played a role in the public's perception. It must have been caused to a degree by the fact that he was perceived as second choice, so it was a vicious circle: the public expected Brosnan, Dalton feels this, it shows in interviews (the infamous LTK may be the last Bond line) and maybe on screen, they don't like it, they want Brosnan, etc. Objectively, how long did the longing for Brosnan last before CR? Until the first trailer?
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 12,837
    I don't think Dalton failed. But I think Craig has been more successful because it's a different time and he's more charismatic. Anyway, I think it's strange how Craig is always compared to Dalton and Connery, he reminds me of Lazenby more than anyone else.
    chrisisall wrote:
    What about Craig makes you say that?
    Oh, all this tosh about Brosnan's Bond shooting machine guns & being like Rambo, then we get Craig's T-1000 version of Bond and that's suddenly okay apparently.
    [-(

    But I don't ever recall Brosnan's Bond having to clean up his wounds after he's been slashed with a machete or getting shot (twice) or having his plums whacked so hard, they end up in his stomach requiring a fairly long convalescence in hospital.

    I think when people call Craig the terminator Bond it's to do with during the action scenes rather than after. He gets hurt, he bleeds and that's great but when he's actually fighting he's unstoppable. He can beat the sh*t out of henchmen with ease, he leaps off rooftops and carries on unharmed, and he managed to survive being shot and falling into the river in SF.

    Compare this to Dalton. He gets hurt and bleeds too (look at him at the end of LTK's finale, I'm amazed he's still standing), and he does cool stuff, but he doesn't make it look easy like Craig does.

    In the PTS of The Living Daylights, he jumps onto the truck and you can tell he's clinging on for his life. And in the Licence To Kill finale, he jumps off a plane onto the tanker but he barely manages it. This is also true in the fight scenes, look at the fight in the prison in TLD. I'll admit it's nowhere near as good as the fights in CR and QOS, but he does actually look like he's fighting for his life.

    Craig is brilliant in the fight scenes, the best so far imo, but even though you can see he's hurt after the action scenes are over, he never seems very vulnerable during them imo. He never seems to struggle (there is one exception though, the parkour chase in Casino Royale).
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    @Doubleohhseven. I've noticed the same thing. I remember I went to a Bond exhibition at the Barbican in London in 2012 and some rooms in the exhibition had large screen TV's showing footage of the actors. Watching the actors next to each other made me realise Dalts just doesn't have the big screen presence of Connery, laz, Moore, Broz and even Craig. Despite his impressive height and classical good looks he looks more like he should be on television. He's got that sort of style about him. I've said that on here before and I know I've been pounced on but you notice it more when you look at all the actors together.

    That being said I don't think Dalton "failed" per se but he perhaps didnt get the reception the studios had hoped for. He was well received in TLD but that praise seemed to fade a bit with LTK.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Compare this to Dalton. He gets hurt and bleeds too (look at him at the end of LTK's finale, I'm amazed he's still standing), and he does cool stuff, but he doesn't make it look easy like Craig does.
    See, Connery mostly did suave & cool Bond. Craig does rough & rumble-tumble Bond.
    Dalton did novel Bond. Or as close to it as we will ever see.
    In MY world, Bond can lose in a physical fight & have to think up something to come out ahead (give the man your boot, or a light). So far, Craig's Bond just cuts or hits or shoots them to death (or gives them oil to drink on a hot journey- actually that was a nice departure...). :)>-
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    but he doesn't make it look easy like Craig does.

    To be honest I think people like it when Bond makes it look easy. Connery and Moore especially were experts at that and surprise surprise they are still fondly remembered.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    BAIN123 wrote:
    To be honest I think people like it when Bond makes it look easy. Connery and Moore especially were experts at that and surprise surprise they are still fondly remembered.
    No, not me- I like it when Spider-man makes it look easy, Bond needs to look like he's trying hard, or else I feel like I'm watching a version of Flint. Not that that's a really bad thing...
    :))
  • Ludovico wrote:
    pachazo wrote:
    To be fair Craig also had his own problems as there were a large number of people upset over his casting. I think that the 9/11 attacks and (I hate to say it) the success of the Bourne movies helped audiences to accept his style of Bond. Plus, I think that his Bond is more likeable than Dalton's version. I'm not saying that this is a good or a bad thing but perhaps the idea of a rookie agent was more appealing to general audiences than that of world weary, burnt out spy.

    Craig had to earn it, no doubt about it. But unlike Dalton, he did not have a clear competitor in people's mind. Brosnan was perceived as Moore's successor, but he had no clear successor himself. And however many nostalgics there were of the Brosnan era, I think the public understood that at around 50, he had to go. Whatever reservations people had about Craig, nobody felt he was stealing the role from somebody else, that he was second choice.

    I said the same thing and the Brosnan fans attacked me. I don't think a Bond actor should play the role beyond the age 50. And Brosnan's age was showing. He was exactly a spring chicken when he was cast to begin with.
    Ludovico wrote:
    I also felt that Dalton lacked some kind of confidence. He always seemed somewhat uncomfortable, not only on screen, but in interviews as well and especially, as if he was overwhelmed by the whole thing. Craig on the other hand seems very comfortable, both with the route the series has now taken, but with its history.

    You hit the nail on the head. Body language is an invaluable part of an actor's performance. And while Connery and Craig moved like panthers Dalton's body language just seemed awkward at times. As if he's unsure of himself or uncomfortable. I might be looking into it to closely but he didn't move like James Bond. He also seemed a little awkward or shy around women at times. A never bought his Bond as a ladykiller the way I did with the others.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Most action films are less fanciful now. We'll look back in 30 years time and it'll be the defining style of 2000s filmmaking.

    Due to 9/11, twitter and social media, technology , and a more cynical age of course
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,661
    " Craig's films were released AFTER 9/11, when the light-hearted approach favored by Moore would have been totally out of step with the audience's mood."

    The first James Bond film after 9/11 was Die Another Day, arguably the most wacky James Bond film since Moonraker. It grossed over 500 million dollars (would be higher adjusted to 2014) and Pierce Brosnan's most successful Bond film. In retrospect, the 9/11 factor didn't make people less interested in over-the-top James Bond films.

    I think US audiences didn't like Dalton because he was too intense and serious in the role (as mentioned on this thread) and this tends to reduce the character's wide appeal to casual Bond fans and regular film goers. But I do recall TLD doing huge box office beyond the US. From a US perspective you could argue Dalton wasn't a big success but elsewhere he was a big hit with film goers. Dalton played James Bond the way he wanted to play the part. That's all you can ask from any actor. :)
  • Posts: 11,189
    fanbond123 wrote:
    " Craig's films were released AFTER 9/11, when the light-hearted approach favored by Moore would have been totally out of step with the audience's mood."

    The first James Bond film after 9/11 was Die Another Day, arguably the most wacky James Bond film since Moonraker. It grossed over 500 million dollars (would be a bit higher adjusted to 2014) and Brosnan's most successful Bond film. In retrospect the 9/11 factor didn't make people less interested in over-the-top Bond films.

    I think US audiences didn't like Dalton because he was too intense in the role (as mentioned on this thread) and this tends to reduce the character's wide appeal to casual Bond fans and regular film goers. But I do recall TLD doing huge box office beyond the US. From a US perspective you could argue Dalton wasn't a big success but elsewhere he was a big hit with film goers.

    That's seems to be the issue. He wasn't particularly popular in one of the biggest countries in the world.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,661
    "That's seems to be the issue. He wasn't particularly popular in one of the biggest countries in the world."


    Because his portrayal of James Bond was at odds with established film heroes like Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones, Mel Gibson's Martin Riggs (Lethal Weapon), Bruce Willis' John McClane, etc. Here was this serious, intense British actor trying to capture the essence of Ian Fleming's 1950s Bond (albeit one with a 1980s 'safe sex' sensibility) and it didn't capture the imagination of the US audience. The average American's image of Bond is Sean Connery/Roger Moore so when Dalton came along they must have got a culture shock. "Who is this serious Brit playing Bond? "Where did Roger Moore's nudge nudge wink wink humour go?"

    Perhaps timing and marketing are the reasons Dalton's Bond films didn't do too well in the US. Had MGM spent millions on promoting TLD and LTK in the US I'm sure they would have opened to bigger box office but it's possible Dalton's take would never wow enough US film goers. Craig's Bond follows on from Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne so audiences were accepting of a more serious/realistic take on the spy genre. But Dalton was Bond at the wrong time period (for the Americans).
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 15,123
    Ludovico wrote:
    pachazo wrote:
    To be fair Craig also had his own problems as there were a large number of people upset over his casting. I think that the 9/11 attacks and (I hate to say it) the success of the Bourne movies helped audiences to accept his style of Bond. Plus, I think that his Bond is more likeable than Dalton's version. I'm not saying that this is a good or a bad thing but perhaps the idea of a rookie agent was more appealing to general audiences than that of world weary, burnt out spy.

    Craig had to earn it, no doubt about it. But unlike Dalton, he did not have a clear competitor in people's mind. Brosnan was perceived as Moore's successor, but he had no clear successor himself. And however many nostalgics there were of the Brosnan era, I think the public understood that at around 50, he had to go. Whatever reservations people had about Craig, nobody felt he was stealing the role from somebody else, that he was second choice.

    I said the same thing and the Brosnan fans attacked me. I don't think a Bond actor should play the role beyond the age 50. And Brosnan's age was showing. He was exactly a spring chicken when he was cast to begin with.
    Ludovico wrote:
    I also felt that Dalton lacked some kind of confidence. He always seemed somewhat uncomfortable, not only on screen, but in interviews as well and especially, as if he was overwhelmed by the whole thing. Craig on the other hand seems very comfortable, both with the route the series has now taken, but with its history.

    You hit the nail on the head. Body language is an invaluable part of an actor's performance. And while Connery and Craig moved like panthers Dalton's body language just seemed awkward at times. As if he's unsure of himself or uncomfortable. I might be looking into it to closely but he didn't move like James Bond. He also seemed a little awkward or shy around women at times. A never bought his Bond as a ladykiller the way I did with the others.

    Maybe some Brosnan fans, but hey I was somewhat of a Brosnan fan and after DAD I thought he had his days (regardless of my dislike of the last movie). I think the general public loved him, but not to the point where they thought he was entitled to stay. Of course, with Moore's age people understood he had to leave the role, but then Dalton was still second choice, and his departure from his predecessor very steep.

    I remember when Brosnan left and Craig was cast, I was talking to a friend who is into Bond but is not a fan, and he said at first he wanted Brosnan to carry on, I told him the age issue, obvious in DAD, he said, well, yes maybe... But can the other guy be as good and bla, bla, bla. And then CR came out, and he was sold. Brosnan did not have anymore the popular back up he had in 1995 or 1987.
  • Posts: 11,189
    fanbond123 wrote:
    "That's seems to be the issue. He wasn't particularly popular in one of the biggest countries in the world."


    Because his portrayal of James Bond was at odds with established film heroes like Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones, Mel Gibson's Martin Riggs (Lethal Weapon), Bruce Willis' John McClane, etc. Here was this serious, intense British actor trying to capture the essence of Ian Fleming's 1950s Bond (albeit one with a 1980s 'safe sex' sensibility) and it didn't capture the imagination of the US audience. The average American's image of Bond is Sean Connery/Roger Moore so when Dalton came along they must have got a culture shock. "Who is this serious Brit playing Bond? "Where did Roger Moore's nudge nudge wink wink humour go?"

    Perhaps timing and marketing are the reasons Dalton's Bond films didn't do too well in the US. Had MGM spent millions on promoting TLD and LTK in the US I'm sure they would have opened to bigger box office but it's possible Dalton's take would never wow enough US film goers. Craig's Bond follows on from Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne so audiences were accepting of a more serious/realistic take on the spy genre. But Dalton was Bond at the wrong time period (for the Americans).

    I think that's a fair assessment.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,661
    Maybe the US audience were just plain wrong to dismiss Dalton's Bond? They were not smart enough or tolerant enough or whatever enough :P to embrace his Bond so it's their fault not Dalton's. You could look at it like that. Or maybe Bond was just too boring, or too much of the same thing, for Americans? They got bored it? Perhaps.

  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    I think a lot of people in America just didn't believe Dalton in the role. Some posh, English Shakespearean actooor playing a womanising, philandering spy? Yeah right :p

    It's funny: I remember reading an interview with Fleming saying that "he (Bond) is a man of little culture". Could it be that Dalton was too cultured to play the role of Bond?

    That said Bond did go to Eton and Dalts looks more like an an Etonian than Craig. But then again so does Ausie bruiser Lazenby.

    It's strange when watching Dalts part of me does think he's perhaps a bit too posh an actor for Bond but then I like him in other scenes.

    "I know a great restaurant in Karachi...we could just make dinner"
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 6,601
    Of course, I understand its always difficult to take anything I say, that's to do with DC, serious. I get it, BUT...you can twist it as much as you want, a Bond film stands and falls with the actor. I remember well all the hopla going on after CR. Women just fell in love with him head over heels, as was the case with a great part of the gay community plus straight guys found him incredibly cool. I believe, that did count for a lot of butts in the seats and was THE major part of the success. Dalton could have been the greatest actor in the world, nothing beats charisma and screen presence. Its not looks either, as many people find DC sorta ugly but nevertheless very attractive. Now why is that? Its about what comes from inside which makes all the difference. Just pretty is incredibly boring. You need something else to make a lasting impression.

    That never happened with Dalton. I believe, had DC been in the Dalton films, the reaction would have been different. Maybe not AS great as now, but a lot better.
  • Posts: 6,601
    To this day, I don't like my Bond so serious. Moore's my man. But DC made up for that. I love the films, because HE is in it. What I mean is, you don't have to like the whole package, but either one of the two (script or actor)) it has to be. I think, with Dalton it was a bit of meh towards both overall
  • "he was the Bond the world deserved, but not the one it needed right now"

    I don't think he failed at all, however. Although TD was criticized for his portrayal by some, many contemporary critics praised him for bringing Bond back down to earth. Both TLD and LTK were critical successes, and TLD was the third highest grossing movie of 1987 (internationally). People often blame him for LTK's commercial failure, but that was thanks to a god-awful US marketing campaign and the decision to release it on the same day time as LEthal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones, Batman, etc. Had the producers had the foresight to delay release to the fall, I believe the film would have had a much higher gross.

    I think people were more willing to accept Craig's similar portrayal for two reasons. First, after DAD, well, you know. Second, I feel that in a post-9/11 world, people liked the idea of a grittier, more worldly Bond. It also really helps that CR is just such an amazing movie.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 686
    The biggest reason Dalton 'failed' was Bond fatigue. Here is the list:

    1. Bond Fatigue.
    2. LTK was a train wreck.
    3. Unresolved legal issue dealing with the rights of Bond.

    I am not really sure one can call Craig a success yet. A commercial success yes, but not necessarily the artistic success in the overall Bond legacy.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Perdogg wrote:
    I am not really sure one can call Craig a success yet. A commercial success yes, but not necessarily the artistic success in the overall Bond legacy.


    What are you missing - artistically? Which other film had 9 Bafta nods, incl. Best Actor for one film, etc, etc...?
  • Posts: 11,425
    "he was the Bond the world deserved, but not the one it needed right now"

    I don't think he failed at all, however. Although TD was criticized for his portrayal by some, many contemporary critics praised him for bringing Bond back down to earth. Both TLD and LTK were critical successes, and TLD was the third highest grossing movie of 1987 (internationally). People often blame him for LTK's commercial failure, but that was thanks to a god-awful US marketing campaign and the decision to release it on the same day time as LEthal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones, Batman, etc. Had the producers had the foresight to delay release to the fall, I believe the film would have had a much higher gross.

    I think people were more willing to accept Craig's similar portrayal for two reasons. First, after DAD, well, you know. Second, I feel that in a post-9/11 world, people liked the idea of a grittier, more worldly Bond. It also really helps that CR is just such an amazing movie.

    If what you say about TLD being the third highest grossing movie of 87 is true, then surely that settles the argument about whether Dalton was a commercial success.

    A big change since 87 that may also be a factor is that the US is nowhere near as important to the success of a film as it used to be. A film can do very moderate business in the States and go onto huge success globally because other markets have grown so much.

    Any way, it seems clear that the idea Dalton 'failed', at least commercially, is just a myth.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 6,601
    [quote="hildebrand_rarity god-awful US marketing campaign and the decision to release it on the same day time as LEthal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones, Batman, etc. Had the producers had the foresight to delay release to the fall, I believe the film would have had a much higher gross.

    [/quote]

    Those were 3 heavyweights. Yup, not smart to put it up against those.

  • Posts: 15,123
    Perdogg wrote:
    The biggest reason Dalton 'failed' was Bond fatigue. Here is the list:

    1. Bond Fatigue.
    2. LTK was a train wreck.
    3. Unresolved legal issue dealing with the rights of Bond.

    I am not really sure one can call Craig a success yet. A commercial success yes, but not necessarily the artistic success in the overall Bond legacy.

    Well, of course we need distance to evaluate a legacy. But this was not what I asked, was it? I was of course asking about overall popularity and acceptance of the actor in the role, by critics and general public alike.

    And one could say there was Bond fatigue after DAD.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    On top of that Dalton was never given as much to do as Craig. Dalton's Bond was never allowed to fall in love and get his heart broken. He was never allowed to play an aging and physically wounded Bond dealing with the possibility that he's been played out. Dalton's films, although very good, are more standard adventures than CR or Skyfall.

    And that's the problem I have with the Craig films. We are supposed to go straight from a young inexperienced Bond (who was supposed to be ex-SAS/military, but has a chip on his shoulder the size of the coast of Britain) then to this supposedly burned out agent in the space of one film. EON should have gone for a younger actor, failing that, re-write the film.
    Imagine Dalton what could've done with Craig's scripts and Craig's directors.

    There was nothing wrong with the scripts of TLD & LTK, but Glen did focus more on the action, than any drama, which was left to the actors. But had Dalton had the support of a director that encouraged his performance(s), there's little doubt in my mind that Dalton would have been even better than he was.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    There was nothing wrong with the scripts of TLD & LTK, but Glen did focus more on the action, than any drama, which was left to the actors.

    Film Anarchy! Let the actors direct themselves!

    ...worked out rather well, actually. :-?
  • Posts: 12,526
    I think probably because the world wasn't ready for it after the light touch of Sir Roger for so long?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Perdogg wrote:

    I am not really sure one can call Craig a success yet. A commercial success yes, but not necessarily the artistic success in the overall Bond legacy.

    This is quite a ridiculous comment to make.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,778
    Perdogg wrote:
    I am not really sure one can call Craig a success yet. A commercial success yes, but not necessarily the artistic success in the overall Bond legacy.

    Artistic success? Casino Royale and Skyfall were not only the best reviewed Bond films since the Connery Era (if not ever) but also some of the best reviewed films of their respective years. Bond hasn't enjoyed such critical or "artistic" success in decades.
    On top of that Dalton was never given as much to do as Craig. Dalton's Bond was never allowed to fall in love and get his heart broken. He was never allowed to play an aging and physically wounded Bond dealing with the possibility that he's been played out. Dalton's films, although very good, are more standard adventures than CR or Skyfall.

    And that's the problem I have with the Craig films. We are supposed to go straight from a young inexperienced Bond (who was supposed to be ex-SAS/military, but has a chip on his shoulder the size of the coast of Britain) then to this supposedly burned out agent in the space of one film. EON should have gone for a younger actor, failing that, re-write the film.
    Imagine Dalton what could've done with Craig's scripts and Craig's directors.

    There was nothing wrong with the scripts of TLD & LTK, but Glen did focus more on the action, than any drama, which was left to the actors. But had Dalton had the support of a director that encouraged his performance(s), there's little doubt in my mind that Dalton would have been even better than he was.

    In regards to your first point I had a problem with that too. But at the same time GE plays around with the idea of an aging Bond but then in TND it seems like he's back to being Bond in his prime.

    As far as you second point goes, while I still think Craig's scripts are much better than Dalton's there's no doubt that an actor of Dalton's caliber deserved a better director than John Glen. Supposedly Dalton and Glen had a heated confrontation on the set of LTK. Dalton and other actors would walk up to Glen with questions about their characters and he would basically blow them off and get back to focusing on an explosion. Dalton had had enough and called him out on his abilities working with actors. Afterwards the actors all went to Dalton for guidance rather than Glen.
This discussion has been closed.