Timothy Dalton or Daniel Craig?

1333436383948

Comments

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,425
    The only true outlier for me is Brosnan. Moore did his own thing and that is one of the reasons I respect him. A lot of people (including the ever self-deprecating Rog himself) dismiss him as lightweight, but I think there's a huge lack of appreciation for the seriousness that he sometimes brought to the role. The thing about Rog is that he could turn the charm on and off just like that. I actually think that added an edge of danger to his Bond that few have matched - a sense that the charm was just a thin veneer behind which was a rather ruthless operator. He's in second place behind Sean for me.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Craig.

    In fact, Anybody or Craig, for me it's Craig.
  • Dalton never did any outrageous stunts or resembled Superman or implausible feats of survival I'll add before sleep takes me. Craig gets a black mark for his sheer not feasible endeavors I'm afraid. Bond doesn't appear human anymore sometimes, but is a very good James Bond for the most part if you can look beyond that, and far better in the role than Brosnan I do feel
  • I'd vote for Daniel Craig. Casino & Skyfall are both fantastic movies and Craig just kicks butt.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Dalton never did any outrageous stunts or resembled Superman or implausible feats of survival I'll add before sleep takes me. Craig gets a black mark for his sheer not feasible endeavors I'm afraid. Bond doesn't appear human anymore sometimes, but is a very good James Bond for the most part if you can look beyond that, and far better in the role than Brosnan I do feel

    Yes, after watching the torture scene in CR, it seems Craig's Bond has b*lls of steel.

  • Posts: 11,425
    I think Craig is good but the character has become almost the least human of them all. He is totally indestructable. You could nuke him and he'd still keep on coming.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Getafix wrote:
    I think Craig is good but the character has become almost the least human of them all. He is totally indestructable. You could nuke him and he'd still keep on coming.
    Yeah. At least Jones had to jump in a fridge. :))
  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I think Craig is good but the character has become almost the least human of them all. He is totally indestructable. You could nuke him and he'd still keep on coming.
    Yeah. At least Jones had to jump in a fridge. :))

    It makes you feel sorry for the bad guys! That wimp LeChiffre never stood a chance.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:
    I think Craig is good but the character has become almost the least human of them all. He is totally indestructable. You could nuke him and he'd still keep on coming.

    Really? I find him the most vulnerable out of all the Bonds. In CR he looks nervous and hesitates before jumping off the crane, needs to down a bourbon after the stairwell fight, he almost dies during the poisoning scene, passes out after the car crash, and passes out agan after the torture scene, looks very frightened before the torture scene, screams out in pain during the torture scene, recovers in hospital after the torture scene, gets heartbroken after seeing Vesper die.

    And all that in just one film. Moore and Brozza combined didn't have that much in all of their movies.

    QoS was were it all went wrong, because suddenly he became the superhuman Bond again, who didn't feel pain mostly during the action scenes, but even then we still see a few vulnerable moments - Mathis death, reflecting on Vesper during the drunken scene on the plane, his confrontation with Vesper's boyfriend at the end.

    In SF, he suffers depression after another near death, then finds his body is no longer what it was when attempting to pass his physical, looks on helplessly when Silva starts to make him feel uncomfortable, the we see a flicker of supressed emotion when M and Bond share a quiet moment talking about his parents in Scotland before going to SF Lodge, then breaking down in near-tears after M's death.

    Nothing indestructable about Craig's Bond whatsoever. I would say the order of vulnerability would go something like this -

    1. Craig (CR and SF)
    2. Dalton
    3. Lazenby
    4. Connery
    5. Brozza (even though his performances were fairly pathetic attempts)
    6. Moore - the least vulnerable.






  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Getafix wrote:
    It makes you feel sorry for the bad guys! That wimp LeChiffre never stood a chance.
    Bond: "I'll be back." ;)
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I think Craig is good but the character has become almost the least human of them all. He is totally indestructable. You could nuke him and he'd still keep on coming.
    Yeah. At least Jones had to jump in a fridge. :))

    It makes you feel sorry for the bad guys! That wimp LeChiffre never stood a chance.

    Bond never got the better of him, more the other way round. It wasn't even Bond who kills him.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2012 Posts: 17,827
    I would say the order of vulnerability would go something like this -

    1. Craig (CR and SF)
    2. Dalton
    3. Lazenby
    4. Connery
    5. Brozza (even though his performances were fairly pathetic attempts)
    6. Moore - the least vulnerable.

    I see it more like this:
    1. Brosnan (only Bond to go through a movie with an unhealed wound in TWINE)
    2. Dalton
    3. Lazenby
    4. Connery
    5. Craig
    6. Moore - the least vulnerable.
  • Posts: 3,327
    chrisisall wrote:
    I would say the order of vulnerability would go something like this -

    1. Craig (CR and SF)
    2. Dalton
    3. Lazenby
    4. Connery
    5. Brozza (even though his performances were fairly pathetic attempts)
    6. Moore - the least vulnerable.

    I see it more like this:
    1. Brosnan (only Bond to got through a movie with an unhealed wound in TWINE)
    2. Dalton
    3. Lazenby
    4. Connery
    5. Craig
    6. Moore - the least vulnerable.
    Really? So from all the scenes I mentioned in CR and SF, show me where this vulnerability matches up in the other actors films...?

  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    I think Craig is good but the character has become almost the least human of them all. He is totally indestructable. You could nuke him and he'd still keep on coming.

    Really? I find him the most vulnerable out of all the Bonds. In CR he looks nervous and hesitates before jumping off the crane, needs to down a bourbon after the stairwell fight, he almost dies during the poisoning scene, passes out after the car crash, and passes out agan after the torture scene, looks very frightened before the torture scene, screams out in pain during the torture scene, recovers in hospital after the torture scene, gets heartbroken after seeing Vesper die.

    And all that in just one film. Moore and Brozza combined didn't have that much in all of their movies.

    QoS was were it all went wrong, because suddenly he became the superhuman Bond again, who didn't feel pain mostly during the action scenes, but even then we still see a few vulnerable moments - Mathis death, reflecting on Vesper during the drunken scene on the plane, his confrontation with Vesper's boyfriend at the end.

    In SF, he suffers depression after another near death, then finds his body is no longer what it was when attempting to pass his physical, looks on helplessly when Silva starts to make him feel uncomfortable, the we see a flicker of supressed emotion when M and Bond share a quiet moment talking about his parents in Scotland before going to SF Lodge, then breaking down in near-tears after M's death.

    Nothing indestructable about Craig's Bond whatsoever. I would say the order of vulnerability would go something like this -

    1. Craig (CR and SF)
    2. Dalton
    3. Lazenby
    4. Connery
    5. Brozza (even though his performances were fairly pathetic attempts)
    6. Moore - the least vulnerable.






    I agree with you about CR. He has more vulnerability in that. With QoS I guess his emotional guards are up but there's nothing to compare to the literal physical indestructability he shows in SF - being shot, falling 100m from the viaduct, drowning, the underwater lake fight etc. It's like a totally different character from the one we saw in SF and not in a character development sort of way - he just seems to be an entirely different type of species.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    @jetsetwilly I didn't think Skyfall had much pain in the action scenes either. One of my few problems with it actually.

    The fight scenes weren't as brutal as CR (the one in the casino with the dragons was the worst because even though it had some cool one liners it didn't feel dangerous at all).

    He doesn't seem to get hurt that often, apart from when he was shot. Like you said, in CR during the parkour he hesitates and when he does jump, he only just makes it. In SF, he leaps of a crane through a hole in a train car roof, lands perfectly without breaking a sweat and then adjusts his cuffs.

    Now I thought the moment above was badass and really felt like Bond, but I thought it was fair to bring that up since we're talking about how vunerable Craigs Bond is. Anyway, overall I felt a bit let down with the action scenes (especially the fight scenes) in SF, especially compared to CR.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:
    I agree with you about CR. He has more vulnerability in that. With QoS I guess his emotional guards are up but there's nothing to compare to the literal physical indestructability he shows in SF - being shot, falling 100m from the viaduct, drowning, the underwater lake fight etc. It's like a totally different character from the one we saw in SF and not in a character development sort of way - he just seems to be an entirely different type of species.
    I have come to a conclusion Getafix that you saw a different SF to everyone else. I get more and more amazed by each of your posts damning SF, because it doesn't add up. You like CR and LTK, but not SF. To me they are all cut from the exact same cloth.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Roger is careful. He picks his fights carefully and that speaks of genuine human vulnerability to me. He often comes across as the weaker guy up against some henchman and there are several scenes where he gets badly shaken up - the centrifuge in MR for example. For me there is not more moving scene than the final sequences of OP where he's dressed as the clown and is desperately trying to stop the bomb. He's not a superhero in that scene - he's an agent who has done absolutely whatever it takes to save the day. I actually think that's one of the most underrated scenes in Bond - I feel sorry for those people who think it somehow makes a mockery of 007. It's some of the best film making in the series IMO.
  • Posts: 3,327
    @jetsetwilly I didn't think Skyfall had much pain in the action scenes either. One of my few problems with it actually.

    The fight scenes weren't as brutal as CR (the one in the casino with the dragons was the worst because even though it had some cool one liners it didn't feel dangerous at all).

    He doesn't seem to get hurt that often, apart from when he was shot. Like you said, in CR during the parkour he hesitates and when he does jump, he only just makes it. In SF, he leaps of a crane through a hole in a train car roof, lands perfectly without breaking a sweat and then adjusts his cuffs.

    Now I thought the moment above was badass and really felt like Bond, but I thought it was fair to bring that up since we're talking about how vunerable Craigs Bond is. Anyway, overall I felt a bit let down with the action scenes (especially the fight scenes) in SF, especially compared to CR.
    Bond's vulnerability came in different moments in SF to the scenes in CR. It wasn't after the action scenes where we saw his human side, but more around his health and trigger aim failing, his state of mind overall. Bond was at his peak in the PTS, then lost it and spends the whole film trying to get back to where he was.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Getafix wrote:
    For me there is not more moving scene than the final sequences of OP where he's dressed as the clown and is desperately trying to stop the bomb. He's not a superhero in that scene - he's an agent who has done absolutely whatever it takes to save the day. I actually think that's one of the most underrated scenes in Bond - I feel sorry for those people who think it somehow makes a mockery of 007. It's some of the best film making in the series IMO.
    That was a great moment, one that I enjoy more every time I see it.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    I agree with you about CR. He has more vulnerability in that. With QoS I guess his emotional guards are up but there's nothing to compare to the literal physical indestructability he shows in SF - being shot, falling 100m from the viaduct, drowning, the underwater lake fight etc. It's like a totally different character from the one we saw in SF and not in a character development sort of way - he just seems to be an entirely different type of species.
    I have come to a conclusion Getafix that you saw a different SF to everyone else. I get more and more amazed by each of your posts damning SF, because it doesn't add up. You like CR and LTK, but not SF. To me they are all cut from the exact same cloth.

    There is something about the way in which Craig has been directed or chosen to play the role that to me says 'Terminator'. I put the PTS in CR and SF in this category, where he crashes through walls, falls immense heights and survives etc. It is just not to my taste and gives Bond an air of physical inedestructability that I don't like. I feel it distances him from the audience and makes him less relatable. It's just my view. I know there are plenty of others on here who think the same because I see their comments daily.

    I don't dislike Craig. I think there is a lot about his performance that is good and that I enjoy. Mainly though as time goes by I am just glad that he isn't Pierce Brosnan.

    I found Dalton's depiction contained vastly more humanity and believeability than Craig.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:
    Roger is careful. He picks his fights carefully and that speaks of genuine human vulnerability to me. He often comes across as the weaker guy up against some henchman and there are several scenes where he gets badly shaken up - the centrifuge in MR for example. For me there is not more moving scene than the final sequences of OP where he's dressed as the clown and is desperately trying to stop the bomb. He's not a superhero in that scene - he's an agent who has done absolutely whatever it takes to save the day. I actually think that's one of the most underrated scenes in Bond - I feel sorry for those people who think it somehow makes a mockery of 007. It's some of the best film making in the series IMO.
    Unfortunately for Moore, his films are let down by the worst scenes in the franchise. For every decent moment he has, there are equally bad moments that crop up - double taking pigeons, Tarzan yells, Magnificent Seven soundtracks, Close Encouters nods, Beach Boys surfing songs, telling snakes to hiss off, slide whistles during car stunts, Sheriff JW Pepper.

    All these moments make a mockery of 007, and takes away any edge in Moore's films. Ignore them, and you are in denial.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Bond's vulnerability came in different moments in SF to the scenes in CR. It wasn't after the action scenes where we saw his human side, but more around his health and trigger aim failing, his state of mind overall. Bond was at his peak in the PTS, then lost it and spends the whole film trying to get back to where he was.
    You are speaking to his emotional vulnerability (which I like), we are talking about the near Terminator like physical unstoppability.
    Brosnan wrenched his arm & had to go to Hospital.
    Dalton fell off a truck & could barely stand up.
    That's believability IMO.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I agree with you about CR. He has more vulnerability in that. With QoS I guess his emotional guards are up but there's nothing to compare to the literal physical indestructability he shows in SF - being shot, falling 100m from the viaduct, drowning, the underwater lake fight etc. It's like a totally different character from the one we saw in SF and not in a character development sort of way - he just seems to be an entirely different type of species.
    I have come to a conclusion Getafix that you saw a different SF to everyone else. I get more and more amazed by each of your posts damning SF, because it doesn't add up. You like CR and LTK, but not SF. To me they are all cut from the exact same cloth.

    There is something about the way in which Craig has been directed or chosen to play the role that to me says 'Terminator'. I put the PTS in CR and SF in this category, where he crashes through walls, falls immense heights and survives etc. It is just not to my taste and gives Bond an air of physical inedestructability that I don't like. I feel it distances him from the audience and makes him less relatable. It's just my view. I know there are plenty of others on here who think the same because I see their comments daily.

    I don't dislike Craig. I think there is a lot about his performance that is good and that I enjoy. Mainly though as time goes by I am just glad that he isn't Pierce Brosnan.

    I found Dalton's depiction contained vastly more humanity and believeability than Craig.
    These outrageous moments you mention are no different to Bond jumping off a mountain and pulling open a Union Jack parachute, doing wheelies through fire in a truck, riding down a mountain on a chello case, falling off a plane without a parachute and fighting with Jaws mid-air, etc.

    For every moment Craig's Bond has which makes him indestructable, he has equal moments to counteract this, and also none of his films suffer any of the silly comedy scenes which plagued Moore's movies.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 3,327
    chrisisall wrote:
    Bond's vulnerability came in different moments in SF to the scenes in CR. It wasn't after the action scenes where we saw his human side, but more around his health and trigger aim failing, his state of mind overall. Bond was at his peak in the PTS, then lost it and spends the whole film trying to get back to where he was.
    You are speaking to his emotional vulnerability (which I like), we are talking about the near Terminator like physical unstoppability.
    Brosnan wrenched his arm & had to go to Hospital.
    Dalton fell off a truck & could barely stand up.
    That's believability IMO.
    These are very, very tiny, small moments to the huge long list I mentioned in Craig's films. Your argument has disappeared.

  • Posts: 11,425
    I agree that there are plenty of cringeworthy moments in some of the Roger movies. Often it goes too far. However, even in his worst outings there are plenty of scenes that I would rate more highly than most of what we've had since 1989.

    For some reason I also find it much easier to suspend belief when watching the Bond movies up to LTK. I put this down to superior directing and a sort of magic formula they found that blended serious and humorous in a unique way - the essence of what made Bond Bond really.

    That was lost with Brosnan and although they're groping to refind it with Craig, I don't find it works half as well. The comedy and fantasy elements in the Craig films actually grate with me more than they do in the Moore films. I think it's because CR and QoS seemed to wipe the slate clean and now as the old elements creap back in they just seem out of place. It's like they want to have it both ways - serious but OTT - but the writing and direction that made that possible in the past is no longer there, so it all just fails to hang together.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2012 Posts: 17,827
    Getafix wrote:
    That was lost with Brosnan
    Not entirely, there was enough of it still working for me, but then I don't hate the Brozza.
    Getafix wrote:
    It's like they want to have it both ways - serious but OTT - but the writing and direction that made that possible in the past is no longer there, so it all just fails to hang together.
    That's pretty much spot on IMO.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:
    I agree that there are plenty of cringeworthy moments in some of the Roger movies. Often it goes too far. However, even in his worst outings there are plenty of scenes that I would rate more highly than most of what we've had since 1989.

    For some reason I also find it much easier to suspend belief when watching the Bond movies up to LTK. I put this down to superior directing and a sort of magic formula they found that blended serious and humorous in a unique way - the essence of what made Bond Bond really.

    That was lost with Brosnan and although they're groping to refind it with Craig, I don't find it works half as well. The comedy and fantasy elements in the Craig films actually grate with me more than they do in the Moore films. I think it's because CR and QoS seemed to wipe the slate clean and now as the old elements creap back in they just seem out of place. It's like they want to have it both ways - serious but OTT - but the writing and direction that made that possible in the past is no longer there, so it all just fails to hang together.
    I honestly think you are looking back at Moore's and Dalton's films with rose-tinted glasses, and a fondness of good memories which can cloud judgement.

    I love LTK - I think it is one of the best films, and I find Craig's films continue in exactly the same vein where Dalton left off. Moore's films are pretty naff now when you watch them. He had decent scenes ocassionally, but most of his films are nothing more than comedy action flicks overall.

  • Posts: 3,327
    chrisisall wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    That was lost with Brosnan
    Not entirely, there was enough of it still working for me, but then I don't hate the Brozza.
    Getafix wrote:
    It's like they want to have it both ways - serious but OTT - but the writing and direction that made that possible in the past is no longer there, so it all just fails to hang together.
    That's pretty much spot on IMO.
    Can you outline a list of vulnerable moments in all the other actor's films to counteract the huge list I made on Craig's movies? No, the best you can come up with is Brozza's arm in a sling, or Dalton looking knackered at the end of LTK - which fails miserably in comparison to the moments I mentioned.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Dalton was vunerable.

    When he's going into the cocaine grinder in LTK, he looks scared. When he was clinging onto the cargo net in TLD you could tell he was fighting for his life.

    Outside the action he had the whole "stuff my orders" thing in TLD. It made him seem like he was human and that his job was taking it's toll on him. And he was emotional enough to go rogue and go on a personal revenge mission in LTK.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Dalton was vunerable.

    When he's going into the cocaine grinder in LTK, he looks scared. When he was clinging onto the cargo net in TLD you could tell he was fighting for his life.

    Outside the action he had the whole "stuff my orders" thing in TLD. It made him seem like he was human and that his job was taking it's toll on him. And he was emotional enough to go rogue and go on a personal revenge mission in LTK.
    I agree totally, hence why he is No. 2 on my list, right after Craig. They are cut from the same cloth - it's just Craig had more moments than Dalton did, but both were equally great portraying the vulnerable side to Fleming's Bond.

Sign In or Register to comment.