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
Craig to me is an interesting mix. Fleming Bond on one hand but not quite Dalton. I don't think he wants to be quite that intense. He also has Connery's sense of dry humor and can deliver that. What I think he may be going for is a balance of both, in other words a more fun version of Fleming Bond, and it's these qualities I'll be looking for come 11/11.
Well, everyone's entitled to their opinions. I love Dalton but recognize that he's not as much of a man's man as Connery...nor as much as a lady's man as Connery (at least as Bond; he has a pretty impressive list of partners in the real world). But he had his own strengths, and lots of them.
However, I do see where people are coming from when they talk about how commanding Connery is. My favourite example of this is in DN. Connery has been captured and is in handcuffs, and the head guard commands him to do something. He angrily explodes and holds his hands up, asking how he's supposed to do it while handcuffed. Then he commands a guard - "You! Hey you! COME HERE!" and the guard comes over and starts taking off his handcuffs! No other actor who has played Bond would ever been able to have made that work except Connery, and when he does it it's believable - and all because of his commanding presence.
Connery walks into a room and most if not all eyes are on him. He has quite a 'presence attack'. Lazenby, well, he just looks like a male model or something! Moore oozes charm, it drips off him like sweat off a runner gone red- and that smile...! Brosnan is the definition of pretty boy...
But both Dalton & Craig (to different degrees) can slide by unnoticed. Eyes down & charm off, they can pass for ordinary. Some may call this lack of ability to command the screen at all times, I call it being well cast as an agent in Her Majesty's Secret Service!
That's exactly what I hate about Dalton's Bond. I realize that it's supposed to be consistent with the novels but I hated seeing Dalton all sour about his job. Craig's Bond is ultra-serious but you don't get the impression that he hates his job.
Connery admited to only read three (which makes his portrayal more impressive), Lazenby I know he read OHMSS and carried it in the set. Moore I think read a couple and regarding Bronsan I don't know, I've never heard him mention it.
Obviously not.
60 day clauses in contracts ;)
I remember reading somewhere (maybe on here) Moore didn't read the books. Not sure though. I don't think Brosnan did because he wasn't sure how many there were.
I think Craig and Dalton are the only ones who read them all and properly used them for their Bonds.
I think if you are as cool as Rog then you don't need to read the books.
Neither do I. I haven't read them all but I prefer the films anyway and I don't think every Bond has to be close to the books, that'd get boring. I like having variety with the actors.
Craig has had the advantage of a reboot etc whereas Timbo's films still had familiar elements from previous films.
Reboot or not, both actors more serious approach to Bond is in complete contrast to their more vaunted Teflon coated, GQ, predecessors. The majority of the movie going public seem to find Craig’s take on Bond the more appealing. If you consider the vitriolic reception he got, the public weren’t ready for him either.
In terms of portrayal, Dalton's Bond clearly can't stand his job in TLD. Craig's Bond seems to have a hard time with the killing side of things (whatever he says to Vesper) but his Bond seems to enjoy the other parts of his occupation much more. As an actor, Craig is also far more comfortable with delivering one-liners than Dalton, who clearly felt they were a hangover from the Moore era and they just die on his lips.
I think both actors succeed in capturing a certain amount of Fleming's Bond, but I've never bought the idea that Dalton is the closest to the books; he is *far* more intense than Fleming's character, and in LTK he's no longer playing a character I recognise from the novels.
Here's one thing I've noticed in the Skyfall trailers, and perhaps I'll know either way once I've seen the movie, but does it sound to anyone else like Craig has Etoned-up his accent a bit in the new movie, compared to CR and QoS?
I suppose we all take different things from different places; I found the literary Fleming Bond could be quite intense....
I see Dalton as the closest to Fleming's Bond and I love that regarding his portrayal. But the one thing Dalton lacks is the screen presence and playfulness of for example Connery and Craig.
I do however also think, that Craig is not just a mix of old but also adds a bit more human quality to Bond.
As for the books. Imo it's an important factor to read the books, which is why I enjoy Craig and Dalton so much. It's the source material and that should never be forgotten.
Sean only read 3, which amazes me...really amazes me but he seemingly got Bond. Or at least was directed greatly!
I don't know about Lazenby or Brosnan, but somebody said Lazenby read OHMSS...makes sense.
I am however sure that Moore read the books, or at least some of them. Because I remember in an interview, guess it was on one of the dvds, he says regarding his portrayal of Bond, that he read in one of the books that Bond didn't like killing in cold blood...or something along those lines.
The first thing we should bear in mind is that Daniel Craig had the benefit of hindsight as to what audiences accepted and did not. On the other hand, Timothy Dalton was the first to take Bond into unchartered territory not knowing how it would be received and being fully aware of that. He was very brave and sometimes people forget that.
And Dalton's change of approach made sense after 12 years of Roger Moore. People forget that at the time a lot were complaining about Bond's flippancy. Cubby Broccoli wanted a serious actor who would give Bond his credibility back and also show the world that the Bond role can be played by a serious actor.
Secondly, Daniel Craig had a lot better backing than Dalton got as in supporting cast as well choice of directors. He had Martin Campbell for his first outing. Look how much they are spending on the new film's promotion. And there is more media now than ever before. So Daniel knew what to adjust to keep audiences happy in advance. And no doubt Martin Campbell made sure he would not stray too much and amplify the charm where necessary.
By the way Dalton had charm when he needed but did not overuse it unlike Roger Moore. Bond is a killer and his charm is more manipulative rather than sincere. And he has demons through the years of service which Dalton portrayed in the sub-text.
So in a way, Daniel knew that playing it too straight would get the wrong reaction. And modern audiences don't mind the more violent character Bond as in the new films. Whilst when Licence To Kill came out there was a backlash to the violence.
And I remember that Tim Dalton was going to change his approach for his third film. He wanted to bring out the flirtier side to Bond.
Has anyone seen Framed with Dalton where he is more than comfortable playing a sleazier 007 style character who has his way with the ladies.
Had Daniel played Bond in 1987,believe me you would have a totally different Bond than what you have with him now. As I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing!
In my opinion I respect both Dalton and Craig. I see no point of comparing as the times the films were made in are different. And I ignore the media hype as once upon a time Pierce Brosnan was called the "new Sean Connery". Wow do they change their minds so quickly these days. What they say about Craig now is what they said about Brosnan.
I think Dalton was ahead of his time and put in a super fine acting performance. I remember the famous Bond script writer Tom Mankiewicz saying in 1999 that Dalton had a "violence" about him. Dalton fit in well in Sanchez's organisation and Sanchez was a mean villain. Dalton played the bastard when he needed to.
True, I do not think Daniel Craig would have been accepted in the 1980's either.
But Dalton's films are not as PC as some say. His threat of violence to women is scary especially in LTK. He understood Fleming's sadism for sure and tried to get that in. I mean he puts a knife to the throat of Sanchez's girlfriend on the ship and holds her hair aggressively. It is a striking moment of Dalton showing Bond's alpha male dominance which was wasted on the movie going public at the time. And he would have killed her if she tried to alert someone.
He also throws Pam Bouvier on the bed in LTK which is disturbing in the context because it looks like he either wants to make love to her or kill her. And the sub-text of the scene shows that Bond could have done either if he wished. Dalton was a Bond that let any woman know that he was first and she was second. Definitely not as PC, and they would not try that these days in a new Bond film.
The sex scenes in the Dalton movies, were toned down in my estimation because of the excessive use of them in the Moore years and women were becoming tired of that. But the sadism was increased to counter balance that. Roger Moore's seductions were a bit school boyish and not very real world. Women were almost like a toy to pass time.
We can always talk about what could have been but what we have is what we have and that's what's being analysed here. That being said, Craig is the more successful Bond actor out of he and Dalton and IMO a superior Bond and last night for me, it was unequivocally cemented that Craig is either the best of the 6 or at the very least, a rock hard 2nd best (after Connery).
Craig is more successful in the role because they really took their time. And they learned from their mistakes of not giving Dalton the full backing he deserved as an actor. I mean the Living Daylights was a Roger Moore era style script for the new bond actor. Now imagine if they took the same approach with Craig as in giving him a Brosnan style script. Craig would be able to do little with that situation and no doubt he is a super actor.
Craig despite being a fine Bond could have easily ended up worse than Dalton. Or are we to forget the most negative media backlash when he was cast. Many consigned him as a one off Bond like Lazenby.
And I know of many people who went to see Casino Royale on the assumption that Craig would be terrible and just to see that. They did not go to see Craig initially like they did Brosnan. Some went out of a perverse pleasure to see Craig screw up. Of course Craig did not. Believe me, Pierce Brosnan still had a huge fan base and few were backing Craig in the public arena. But the same media that hated Craig on seeing the box office returns, were the first to kiss his ass. And then everyone else towed the same line.
Had the box office returns been below estimates, Craig would have gone despite doing a great job. Money won the day and not talent. Also this new Bond film was cancelled at one point just like Dalton's third film. But Craig had the luxury of doing a third which was denied to Dalton because of the longer legal issues. A shame.
But let's say Craig faced the same delay as Dalton for his third film and too much time had elapsed, calling for the next Bond casting. Craig would have the same perception as Dalton once had. I am no fool and see the forest for the trees.
I saw the newspaper cuttings when Dalton did Daylights and he was hailed in England as "The best Bond since Connery!" by some newspapers. Licence To Kill was well received in Europe.
It's a cynical industry and Craig has the good fortune of getting the backing he deserves. But make no mistake had Dalton got the same backing, you bet he would be considered one of the best Bond's. Dalton is an amazing actor and did Bond proud. I see kids who were not born when Dalton was Bond loving his films. People are not stupid and his Bond holds up well with age. Dalton to me is a great Bond who had the balls to follow his path and not copy Connery or Moore.
The franchise could not survive if all the Bonds were too similar in style. It would have died a long time ago. And carrying on in the Roger Moore vein would have sunk the franchise too. Austin Powers anyone?
This is actually not true. Although a lot of moviegoers may have "towed the same line" afterwards as you say, Craig got rave reviews from the majority of critics before Casino Royale even opened. He was being praised, and rightly so, before anything happened at the box office.
But once Craig leaves the role he will have his critics. The public are very fickle. I remember when Brosnan played Bond and everyone said he was up there with Connery. And the knives sure came out when he retired from Bond.
As they say in show business there is no such thing as bad publicity and all the negativity worked to Craig's advantage. But I see no point in comparing him to Bonds of the past. I enjoy them for their uniqueness. I don't like Craig bashing any more than I like Dalton bashing.
And I will bet that the best Bond debate will never die out. Let's say another actor takes the role and does a great job, then it will start up all over again. All Bond actors are a product of their time and even Roger Moore suited the franchise in the early seventies very well.
I'm not sure about that. I like having different takes on Bond, if every Bond just tried to be Connery things would be boring. They should use all the Bond elements the Connery film made famous but shouldn't just completely copy them.
Absolutely. Though I did like Pierce Brosnan as Bond, I could not help but notice how he copied elements of Connery with a dash of Moore. And Brosnan made it too obvious where the source was. When he says "Recall, three, shend" in Tomorrow Never Dies, I thought he almost sound like Connery in the scene with the hit man in his hotel room. It was a mistake and the reason why by going for the easier option works against you in the long run. The Brosnan era was terrified of the Dalton era's seriousness and by avoiding it like the plague crashed and burned with the parody called Die Another Day.
Just like Connery was an original, every new actor has to bring something new and fresh to the franchise. Risk is important too as series die without it.
I know there are Dalton detractors, but Dalton was no copy of anyone before and that is why he has a fan base. Had Moore copied Connery it would have been pointless.
And Lazenby admits he copied Connery even trying to get his look down for the audition. Yes Lazenby did a great film but his acting was not that good. And his voice being over-dubbed in scenes proves my point.
Daniel Craig has elements of the other Bonds but his own stamp overpowers that. It is umistakeably Daniel.
As for LTK it definitely the better performance for Tim but the fact that you still get the goofy moments like Q turning up is at odds with the darker more realistic story, I think I would have preferred if they'd just missed out Desmond and stuck to a more even tone, LTK was my favourite Bond film when it came out, I went to see it 3 times and I'm going to watch it tomorrow, followed by CR then QOS in prep for Skyfall but I wish Dalton had got the same kind of treatment Craig got, a film tailored to his talents.
While I still like Craig more I do feel Dalton didn't get the same break DC got and for me it is his Bond and performances I rate, the films are a little too uneven but it's still enough for him to be my no. 3 I enjoy TLD & LTK they are top 5 at the moment for me but I think more for Dalton, I don't mind the stories it's more the execution despite them both having some of my favourite sequence of the series.
The top and tail of it is that Dalton never got the entry to well and truly shine and that is a crime, would have loved to see a 3rd film when they would have likely got it right.