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
Sounds like Brokenclaw Lee Fu-Chu a bit!
Just finished watched it. Timothy is still such a brilliant actor, truly special talent. I get a kick out of Timothy and Harrison Ford on screen together too
Eighties lore.
Bond and Indy.
Good shout!
Especially if they were Bond films. We Dalton fans were robbed.
Yes, Dalton truly deserved a third movie. With Sir Anthony Hopkins as Sir Henry.
NTTD was a big disappointment for reasons already explained and QOS was in truth lame but Craig that year still played the part with intent and purpose. You then got all the others, CR, Skyfall, Spectre etc, and all put together Craig could just be by now the very best to play the role.
Before Skyfall Dalton would have walked off with the prize as to who is the best 007 but now Craig's added extra appearances to his Bond resume, it pains to say it but honesty dictates he's risen into something of #1 position.
It's clear you're always going to have more of a chance as to who's better when you feature in 5 or 6 Bond movies like Craig has over Dalton's two appearances. Then again
some would argue Lazenby did better in the (one) role than Moore or Brosnan, (it) just depends how you view it.
It doesn't 'pain me to say it' at all! :)
And more than that as well, ideally. I'd have taken Dalton over the whole of the Brosnan era.
I can say the same of the transition from Brosnan to Craig - I’ll always maintain that Pierce had another film in him and giving him a grittier film to wash the bad taste of Die Another Day would’ve been ideal - but I’m still glad we have Casino Royale and Craig.
Yeah, I don't think Brosnan was perfect but he was what the series needed at that point in time- more Dalton and I don't think audiences would really have engaged.
I don’t think any Bond is perfect but at the very least I find them all good and enjoyable. I partly agree about Dalton however - I think that LTK may have been a step too far for some audiences in the way that QOS was but perhaps if he was given a third film that nailed all the right ingredients then perhaps they would’ve warmed up to him. Sadly I don’t think any of those early Bond 17 drafts would’ve done that - and while many claim Goldeneye was written with Dalton in mind - the film needed a more energetic and dynamic lead and we got that in Pierce.
Regardless of Dalton's star power or success as Bond though, I think it's worth praising him for taking Bond in the different direction he did. Playing to his strengths as a lead gave us LTK, and I'd argue GE embraced a more mature, darker tone because of that film.
In any case, he would have been a more generic Bond over the years. LTK didn't work and the change of tone was inevitable.
The change of actor should have come in the early 80s. I guess Connery lost the battle but won the war. In 1989, he was more popular.
Well I think that as a win in this particular instance would be debatable, especially when we look at Bond in the long term. But I get what you mean, I suppose Connery came away from NSNA pretty well. Anyway...
I think it's worth saying any actor even in that scenario would have faced the same problems for Bond in that decade regardless of whether were cast earlier (in this instance the rival McClory film, the stagnant budgets, and eventually the American action boom of the mid to late 80s). Even a hypothetical Brosnan casting in the early 80s would have had those issues to deal with. I suspect things turned out for the best in the long run, even if imperfect.
I disagree. For the most part, I think Craig played a 21st century action hero whose films occasionally referenced Fleming. Even the exception, Casino Royale, was substantially reshaped to fit his personality and modern audience expectations. Craig is praised for playing Bond as a "blunt instrument," but that is also why he was no closer to Fleming than any other Bond actor. We should remember that Fleming said he had intended for Bond to be a blunt instrument, but the character had veered away from that conception (and rather early I'd say--CR is really about Bond's failure to be a blunt instrument). As John Pearson noted, Bond was Fleming writing about himself in the third person, so Bond's personality is closer to Fleming himself than any movie actor's. As far as by-the-book parts go, Craig was better suited to play Fleming's Red Grant rather than Fleming's Bond (and not just because of his looks and build).
It's not just that Craig was more of a bruiser/killer than Fleming's Bond; he also comes up short in bringing out the character's bon vivant/epicurean side (compare the relish with which Connery and Moore, both working class in origin, tackled that). I never found Craig convincing or at home with the luxurious side of Bond's world, though that might be yet another reason why the mass audience took to him. Nor do I think he was convincing in playing Fleming Bond's more whimsical side (and as far as delivering puns went he was no better than Dalton), as in the conversations with Tiffany Case, or when he asks Honey if she lives up a tree. Craig's embrace of the blunt instrument caricature was part of giving 21st century audiences what they expected of modern heroes, that they be damaged and dealing with trauma. This is why the films got more mileage out of Vesper than Fleming ever did.
But that focus on trauma can become emotionally monotonous. Fleming's Bond got over his traumas faster and had more emotional range. He was a more well adjusted character, with more variable moods; he can shed tears at the carnage in the end of LALD, or fly into a rage when he sees someone shoot a bird, or refuse a knighthood by joking that he's a Scottish peasant. Craig was very good at playing a cold-blooded killer. (Too good perhaps, whereas Fleming's Bond grew increasingly uncomfortable with killing someone in cold blood, even if they were a sleazy capungo; here is where Dalton's world-weariness was a strength). But Craig's strengths also contributed to a certain stolidity; he tried for the Steve McQueen style of minimalist cool, but McQueen had the charisma and core of mystery to consistently do more with less. Perhaps with the passage of time (and the debut of the next Bond) it will be less controversial to discuss Craig's drawbacks, just as Craig made it possible for the Brosnan era to be looked at more critically.
Ironically my problem with Brosnan was that he lacked energy and dynamism--I always found him too laid back in the role, which is why I tend to still view as a lightweight Bond. But he enjoyed many advantages over Dalton. American audiences were already familiar with and liked him, thanks to Remington Steele. And he had the immense good fortune to take over as Bond after (1) the American 80s action film cycle had crested and (2) MGM/UA had been bought and revived by Sony.
I've read both of the circulating Bond 17 drafts and I think they would have resulted in a film that could have clicked at the box office. But the bigger issue was that the studio was in no shape to make it, just as it had been in no shape to properly budget or market LTK. The real tragedy of Dalton's tenure is that the studio failed him; it was dying when he made his second film and in the hands of corporate raiders by the time he was ready to make the third. And by the time it was bought and stabilized that lack of a third film ensured the studio would go with someone else.
Personally, I’ve always maintained if Bond is to be kept alive it’ll be through making the best films they can, and as I said above moulding the source material to these new stories. If we go through Craig’s films with a fine tooth comb I’m sure we’ll see differences compared to Fleming’s Bond, and they may even be debatable depending on who’s arguing the point. But for me, I definitely see the use of Fleming in those films, and I definitely see the similarities/link to Fleming’s Bond in Craig’s.
1. Dalton
2. Lazenby
3. Craig
4. Connery
5. Brosnan
6. Moore
I disagree. Aside from Connery, I think Brosnan is the only other Bond actor who really manages to nail down what makes the character work on screen without sacrificing elements of the character that audiences know and love. I find his portrayal in Goldeneye to be perfect and perhaps it's my favorite interpretation of the character on film precisely because of Pierce's approach to the character; he's a suave, debonair, and ruthless killer who can easily overcome obstacles thanks to his resourcefulness. Perhaps he gets dismissed by some because they perceive him as having "boyish" looks (he's certainly no more "boyish" looking than Lazenby) or having a smaller build when compared to the likes of Connery and Craig - but what's often overlooked is his ability to convey the cold blooded aspects of Bond and his emotional vulnerability while still remaining cool/aloof and humorous at times. For me that's what I think makes him one of the best and my personal favorite.
That isn't to say that I think Brosnan is perfect in the role at all times - none of the actors are if we're being honest. But I do think that there are elements to Brosnan's portrayal that are often overlooked, dragged down, or ignored all together simply because of the quality of the films he was in - which isn't his fault.
My inner Dalton and Lazenby fanboy admires this ranking.
I think Brosnan is somewhat cheesy and not very believable as a killer or even a fighter really, but I do otherwise agree with this; he hits all of the notes needed and, as Revelator says, the audience just likes him. I don't think that's just because they'd seen him in Remington Steele, I think he's a naturally charismatic star and just works well in the lead of a movie. And I think that's a quality which Dalton didn't possess and no matter of extra movies would have made audiences like him as much as they took to Brosnan.
For me Craig outclasses him in pretty much every way as a screen Bond, whereas Roger's natural charm and twinkle probably makes him my favourite, but I can never dismiss Brosnan as he did a terrific job and was exactly what the series needed: a star.