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
But see I think that while Dalton's Bond is burnt out by all the pain and death he's experienced, he still likes the core of his job. I found this in LTK, when he says "I help people with problems... i'm more of a problem eliminator". He's a white knight just a little tortured and ready to snap. I think he's a man with a sense of justice to him and even when his job has led him to experience injustice and misery (when robbed of Della and Tracy) he still believes in the core values that made him want to be a military man anyway. I just think he's at the point where he's a tad burnt out but it's not as though he completely hates what he does. If that was the case he would have quit already. Remember, Dalton's Bond is coherent with his values and thought process.
At the end of the day he's still working for MI6. Hell, he even comes back after going rogue in LTK. He has high ideals that are not going to just go away. It's not as though he's sulking around, whining and moaning about his job. He just has less patience with bureaucracy and villainy and has realized he's probably as bad as the rest of the baddies because even though he works for the side that is called good, he still has to do some pretty awful stuff. That's taken a toll. He might not like that particular side of the job but he does like the fact that by his sacrifice the innocent are spared.
I'll take the tension if it comes from within MI6 or from without as long as it makes for great storytelling and character development. I think all this has to do with personal taste and what you consider enjoyable, which is fine. I just like story lines that dare push the boundaries and generally place the hero against all odds. In terms of Bond interacting with villains though, I hold the Sanchez/Bond interaction as one of the best. Sanchez is superb and not any actor could hold his own with someone as good as Davi. So I guess in summation, Dalton rocked it with the Saunders type and rocked it with the Sanchez type too. The way he twists Sanchez's mind and manipulates him is something to behold.
No, anoather poster said that about the Bond in the books. I just thought it apply to Dalton during TLD as well.
Nicely written @Regan
@SirSeanIsBond It is ironic that you mention that Dalton is paler than any of the other Bonds. Why? Because he offers up to that point the darkest and more realistic portrayal of the character. He oozes danger and really adds to the Bond lore in just two films.
Did you really watch his films?, because I see teenagers on Youtube praise how good he is in light of the Craig era. Are you one of those fans who needs to look at best Bond list in a magazine to form his opinion. In other words are you writing what you think or what you have been told?
Your position is the easy one as it rarely will be challenged by Joe public. But someone like me likes controversial opinions on the franchise more as they are far less predictable. Ironically we live in an age where there is more information than before and strangely less knowledge on even trivial subjects like Bond.
Your whole basis for argument is not really explained other than only the Connery formula should be used. Do you think Christian Bale would have copied Adam West as an analogy of your statement. Because copying never leads to innovation of any film series.
I have a friend who is truly expert on the franchise. He met all the classic directors as well as Bond actors. He has a different assessment to you and he often tells me that a lot of so called Bond fans really have little understanding of who James Bond is. And he avoids forums as he has no time to talk with people who he believes should not really be calling themselves a Bond fan.
Dalton is The James Bond of the books. Moore is himself playing Bond and even admits it. Who got it right? And objectivity needs to be the answer not subjectivity. Connery was the product of Terence Young's fantasy of himself.
He said anyone who has read the books of Fleming cannot in any seriousness criticise Dalton. Moore was funny but in seven films how much did he move the character forward? Seven films is a lot in my view to get so much done.
You have to judge a Bond actor on the merit of their mission statement on taking the role. Considering Dalton said he was going back to Fleming and not copying the others, then there is no point of comparing him to Moore or Connery. I don't compare Connery to Barry Nelson who technically is the first visual version.
The mistake many fans make is they dismiss too easily an actor's work. Lazenby was good but as an actor he is not in Dalton's orbit or Connery's either. And that is the problem. Lazenby does very well considering his zero acting experience but he is the odd one out of all the actors in terms of real skill.
Secondly, are you aware that some of Lazenby's lines were overdubbed by the English actor Richard Baker? So Richard Baker should get credit for doing the parts that were beyond Lazenby's competence. All the posh English accents in OHMSS are Baker.
It amazes me that a young boy in this video I include has done his homework on who Bond is and check it out
Thanks @acoppola (great post by the way), and thanks again @chrisisall.
You are most welcome @Regan And I am glad you contribute a lot too here in defence of Mr Dalton.
It's only fair ;)
This is all well and good but what it really boils down to is pure opinion, and to me I am not a fan of Fleming or Dalton's character, but Sean's. That was my whole point behind this thread, that no matter how good Dalton may have played Fleming's Bond, I don't care because to me, Sean is Bond, he always has been, and he always will be...
Which suggests you like Sean Connery, not so much James Bond.
Maybe, but I think that most people recognize that Sean played the role the best, and if he did, then what he created was better than the original, and is for me the thing which should be coveted. This was my whole point behind starting this thread. Sean made Ian Flemings character better than it originally was and because he defined what James Bond is today, his contribution to the Bond character is priceless.
Well, opinions vary, but by no means is it a given what you're forwarding here is correct.
Don't get me wrong, I can see why you like Connery. But your thread originally did not state that opinion as clearly. Fleming was wrong for creating the character that would make Connery's career take off?
Sean also did not make the character better, he just made him more palatable and gave him the mainstream appeal. He threw out the aspects he did not like, and made him into someone else. Fine but those books are still read to this day and there is a huge difference in personality of the book character and film character.
And the books were very popular before the films.
It's great you admire Connery, but the character is way bigger than just one actor. Granted, Connery made a mega success of it. But I look beyond the populism of the character and try to uncover who he really was.
And your original thread said Dalton was worst as well in the title. So naturally people will challenge your opinion.
I mean this in a nice way, but try to look beyond just one interpretation of one actor. To me, Dalton was the first actor to seriously challenge Connery by a brave and bold interpretation rather than being a mere clone.
In fact to me Connery and Dalton are my favourites because they are so different but also similar in the sense that both actors are head strong and do things their way regardless of what they are told by others.
Super classic! :)
Of course, OHMSS and YOLT take Bond to a darker place. YOLT was one of my favorites the last time I read them, so I'm excited to see if it measures up to my memory. But overall, especially in the earlier books, I think the Fleming Bond is closest to Connery - a '60s man-of-the-world who enjoys the finer things, is smooth and confident and dangerous, and basically comfortable with who he is and what he does. I see very little of Dalton in Fleming, honestly (aside from the aforementioned chapters).
I'm not trying to bash Dalton, because I do love his portrayal (TLD is one of the few Bond films that is also a great spy movie). But I do think that if you look closely at the Fleming books, you'll find that Bond as a character isn't angry or conflicted most of the time - he's just not particularly funny.
Having also read the Bond books, I have to point out that Dalton amalgamated various elements from the books. Many think Dalton was an angry Bond, but he was only so in certain scenes in his movies. He could very happy and then suddenly lose it.
In other words, anger was not the only emotion Dalton used in his portrayal. But some seem to wrongly just attribute anger, when you clearly see romance, vulnerability, nerves, panache, snobbery, manipulation, hate and many more. Watching Dalton at the amusement park where you see Bond actually enjoying himself is fantastic. And the way he goes along with Kara's enthusiasm is brilliantly shown. He has all the elements that show why Bond is truly the man of any situation.
The character in the books goes through many emotions depending on the story. In the short story of TLD, he is taking a drug to calm his nerves before he carries out the attempted assassination. Dalton captured that really well in the film. He was calm and then as the time approaches gets more edgy.
I will agree that the first two movies overall capture the closest feel of the books all round. But me personally because of Connery's personality see a gulf between his Bond and the book Bond.
But the image cannot be argued. Connery himself said he made changes to the character as he could not relate to him and found him dull. So Connery's Bond is a marriage of Fleming's and Terence Young's vision. It is no secret that Terence Young imparted his own personality traits on Connery.
And Fleming once said to not make the character too likeable. Well Dalton certainly achieved that. Up until Dalton, to me the character was very likeable.
I agree with you @Charles, I feel the same way about the books and the movies. For starters your assessment of Fleming's character is spot-on. It's not just that he's angry, that's a small part of it. Most of the time he's a misogynist and a snob, and antihero arguments aside, the character is not admirable. In the novels that became the first films: DN, FRWL, GF, and TB, you cant help but see Sean in the role while you read. He is very close to the character in those books, and what he did change was only for the better.
This goes to further the point which i would like to impress upon you @acoppola, and all the other Dalton and Fleming supporters. I understand everything you said, like the original book character Tim managed to capture a wide range of emotions while playing the role, as would be expected from such a theater actor of Tim's caliber. However you also acknowledge the likability concern. Again, I suppose that this is just my humble opinion speaking again but what you said is right, up till Dalton the character was very likable, but he turned people off with his performances because, brilliant though they were, he was let down by a lack of populist support. And rightly so frankly because what he did went against the Bond film zeitgeist.
Again this is the very thing I was trying to get at with this thread. Sean took an unlikable character and made him likable, and for that he should be commended for making the Bond character what it is today. If the first few films had been made in the same way that Dalton's were, by trying to mimic closely the book character, the series would have flopped, and we wouldn't be here 50 years and 23 films later discussing what has become perhaps the best known male hero in modern western culture. Fleming and Dalton didn't generate that popularity, it was all Sean. He is the quintessential James Bond, and as a fan surely you must realize that, regardless of whether he's your favorite or not.
I doubt the series would have flopped with a more serious take. It was too early to do it after the Moore era and audiences were shocked at the departure. But in 2012, it is demanded with the advent of the Nolan Batman films. In fact,the latest Bond movie is darker than CR and is the most successful in decades.
Sean like I said many posts back is Sean. No one can replicate that and if I want that style then only Sean. I never like an imitation of someone else. But just using Sean's template would get boring after 50 years. In fact when the series tries to emulate it, it comes off as trying too hard.
And Dalton pointed where the series needed to head decades ago. And with SF, you have the proof in the pudding. And Fleming's style in terms of psychology is as relevant today as in the 50's.
You also seem to forget that there are many in this world who like Fleming and that style. Something you dismiss entirely from any reasonable argument.
Your argument is based on popularity. So McDonald's is a better restaurant than The Ritz because it is more popular? You can also call it the quintessential restaurant because many love it in this world too.
And why did the producers so desperately want the rights to the books? Because they thought they would make great movies. Sean re-interpreted the character yes. But it was not just Sean's work alone that made the series a hit. It took many people and huge risk to get it off the ground.
At the time, Sean was not seen as the sure fire hit and it was a gamble that paid off. You need to read Cubby Broccoli's book where he goes into detail why Connery's portrayal was tongue in cheek. It had a lot to do with the class system of the time and had he played the role seriously he would not have been believable being from a working class back ground.
Sad but true. Those were the times and attitudes. Posh actors played posh roles and Connery not being posh by origin was an in joke or wink at the audience of the time.
Hence where the spoofyness came from according to Cubby.
@SirSean Less is more. Connery's value is enhanced by doing the six films and no more. They suited the era perfectly and that is not under dispute. But to me, what makes me go and see Bond is for the new things they add to the character.
None of the Bond actors seemed like the literary Bond to me. Which is why I liked all six actors and don't really care for the novels.