Timothy Dalton or Sean Connery ?

24

Comments

  • Posts: 11,189
    Oh common...Sean wins...he's cooler :p
  • Posts: 12,837
    Dalton! More badass, more dangerous, better Bond.

    Connery was great, but he did have the advantage of being first and having the 60s films. I always wonder that if Connery wasn't first, and got some worse films, would he still be thought of as the best? I really doubt it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Dalton! More badass, more dangerous, better Bond.

    Connery was great, but he did have the advantage of being first and having the 60s films. I always wonder that if Connery wasn't first, and got some worse films, would he still be thought of as the best? I really doubt it.
    It doesn't matter that he was first. If Roger was first and played it like he did I would still hate his Bond. And I find it hilarious that you think Sean has the upper hand because he got the best films. Why do you think the 60s films were so good, mate? IT WAS BECAUSE OF SEAN! He was a huge reason why they succeeded so much. He brought that classic Bond flare to them, and helped make them the famous films they are today in large part. He is and always will be the definition of James Bond on screen. That is why he not only beats out Tim, but every other Bond succeeding him. Not because he was first, no, how trivial an argument. It was because he was the absolute best. Suave, cold, calculating and absolutely elegant in every shape and form.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Connery had a seductive panther-like movement which Dalton (to be honest) lacked.

    That's an issue I've had with Dalts and I've said it before on here. The bloke did well but just didn't really have the swagger. People may say what they like about Broz but he did have more swagger.
  • Posts: 1,971
    I think a lot of this discussion gets sidetracked by who your first Bond was or the spectacle of the films--the newer obviously having the edge in this regard--which makes it difficult to focus purely on the acting.

    Recently I watched all the Moore films again for the expressed purpose of studying his acting. As Bond, he has a very limited bag of tricks. You see these same techniques in each of his films. What he intends as cool mostly comes off as smug and smarmy. Whether in action or still, he and Connery express something very different. A good way to evaluate their acting is to watch them listening. Or watch how each reacts to surprise or danger. But you have to watch the actor, not the scene. As I have said in previous posts, Connery inhabits the role, whereas Moore plays the role. It would be nice to do side by side shots of similar scenes to compare how each plays the role.

    For me it's always Connery first.
    2nd--Craig. (First Bond to not make me miss Connery. Similar techniques.)
    3rd--Dalton. (A better Bond than given credit for.)
    4th--Lazenby. (Terribly underrated.)
    5th--Brosnan. (Closer to Moore than the others.)
    6th--Moore.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Hmmmmm? :-? Well? Had Dalton been given the opportunity of being in more movies? This would have been far more difficult? As much as i liked both Dalton movies, i will have to go with Connery as we saw him develop and in far more situations.
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,341
    Some here seem to forget that "Sean Connery IS James Bond" (-;
    But seriously, the argument that only Dalton played the role as Ian Fleming had intended it does not apply. Connery did play the book-Bondit as intended by Fleming in DN and FRWL, after that it was pretty much up to the directors what kind of personality they wanted Bond to be. So while Connery DEFINED the on-screen persona that Bond is, Dalton was in a way lucky that, after the completely over-the-top Moore era, the producers allowed him to rediscover the book-Bond.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Whether in action or still, he and Connery express something very different. A good way to evaluate their acting is to watch them listening. Or watch how each reacts to surprise or danger

    Thats a good point. Connery and Dalton though both have very different acting styles. Connery, I often think, comes off as more "relaxed" and (dare I say) natural. Upon facing criticism he'll remain calm but you will see the emotions on his face (like when M repremands him after Jill Masterson's death). Dalton's style is more "theatrical". In LTK when M reprimands him at the Hemmingway House he tightens his face, breaths heavily and pulls an extremely angry expression. Try it - it's actually quite straining on the facial muscles. That would be very defferent to how Sean would approach it. Another good example is in TLD when M tells Bond off for failing to shoot Kara. We see the angry expression and the look down from the camera. I wonder how Sean Connery would approach that scene.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 153
    First of all, let's have a short study on what EON Productions promises for every James Bond film they release:

    IAN FLEMING'S JAMES BOND 007

    Sean Connery was the first. Most say he is the best. It's hard to argue, really. The guy has this cold brutality hidden inside that tuxedoed physical magnetism. He is the measuring stick for everything manly and awesome. But the point we are missing is Ian Fleming's James Bond. Sure, he got the suaveness. He got the charisma. But he owes it more to Cubby and Terence Young than Fleming. Fleming himself disliked Connery if I'm not mistaken, but thankfully his girlfriend pointed out that Connery may have the potential to dish out the role (which he did properly). It was only after he accepted Connery did he add a bit of humor to Bond. Still, it is hard for me to imagine the brow raising, ever-quipping, and seemingly unbeatable Connery as the same Bond in the novels who makes mistakes, gets madly furious, and gets hurt.

    Dalton on the other hand, is more in tradition to Ian Fleming's James Bond in my opinion. Whenever I see Timothy Dalton in the role, I see him more fitting as the same James Bond who wrestled a giant squid at Crab Key, the one that beat Le Chiffre at Royale-de-Eaux, the one that married Tracy di Vicenzo and so brutally avenged her by killing Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Had Ian Fleming survived to see him, I'm sure he'd be so elated to see his James Bond. And as opposed to Sean Connery's Bruce Lee, who is unbeatable and un-killable, Timothy Dalton is Jackie Chan: just another guy anybody can beat. Just another professional spy anybody can take down. With two films he had propelled himself equally to the status Sean Connery achieved with six, Roger Moore with seven.

    I kinda feel bad at Dalton's underrated status, and much worse when I heard Connery's comment that he underestimated the role. No offense to Sir Sean Connery, but didn't he also underestimate the role? Left the role at the peak of its popularity to "break out" from the shadow of James Bond?

    I like them both, but when pitted against each other I'd go with Timothy Dalton. Sean Connery for me is second.
  • Posts: 4,762
    Timothy Dalton is certainly better than Sean Connery in my book. I like Connery of course, he's legendary, but Dalton is better, he just is. His dark side and edgy attitude make for a better 007 in my book, and he is just as swagg-worthy and stylin' as Connery. He can pull off cool just as easily as Connery can, if not a little better. As for the movie breakdown, well, both TLD and LTK are in my top ten. FRWL and DAF are the only two Connery's in my top ten, but only FRWL beats them, so Dalton wins this one.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 7,653
    Connery, the other fellow does simply not have any tool to compete.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    And I find it hilarious that you think Sean has the upper hand because he got the best films. Why do you think the 60s films were so good, mate? IT WAS BECAUSE OF SEAN!

    Not to denigrate Sean who did make a huge contribution to the series success but your argument is rather flawed. The 60s films were so good because by and large they were based mostly on Fleming.
    Are you saying that if Sean had starred in DAD it would have been good? Because frankly thats b*llocks. Theres only so much the actor playing Bond can do. Brozza puts in a decent shift in DAD but he cant stop it being a shambles and nor could Sean, Rog, Dan, Tim or George.

    Similarly DAF is pretty dismal but by your reasoning Seans presence alone shouldve salvaged it.
    Quite a few people hate George but rate OHMSS highly proving that if all the elements are in place the actor isnt that important.

    If you look at most of the best films - FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, CR - the actor in the role is fairly irrelevant. They are good because they have big chunks of Fleming and the actor is playing Flemings Bond and not movie Bond.
    First of all, let's have a short study on what EON Productions promises for every James Bond film they release:

    IAN FLEMING'S JAMES BOND 007

    Sorry to pedantically pull you up but they only state that from TSWLM onwards due to the rights issue surrounding that film. Until that film it was 'XXXX as James Bond 007 in Ian Flemings XXXXX'.

    (OK before someone says anything I know in the early Connery films they just say starring Sean but the point is that until TSWLM 'Ian Flemings' goes with the title not the character).

    The rest of your post is fairly on the money though.
  • Posts: 5,634
    These two are are so hard to seperate in terms of Bond greatness or their quite brilliant portrayal of the original character. I just prefer Dalton more, he epitomizes everything what Bond should be, dark, serious, no nonsense, a minimum on humor, it's just how I want my Bond to appear. Connery was excellent, but only for two movies. As good as he was, I just don't have the same adulation for his work as with Dalton, but these two share a certain quality in that they really brought to the screen a most impressive representation of what Fleming intended
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @TheWizardOfIce, I am not saying that Sean could save any film he is in. If you don't already know, I find DAF to be a mess. Yes, the 60s films were Fleming based, but they didn't have to be. EON could have gone another route and made the stories their own, like they would do in the future films by taking the Fleming titles and pieces of various stories but never adapting the full novel. Kudos go to EON for following Fleming's stories so closely, and to Sean for bringing us his Bond. You say that the 60s films followed the Fleming books, but Sean himself made his own Bond separate from the literary Bond, and that is why I hold him so high in that regard to his mark on the franchise. Some things he does have in common with the literary Bond, yes, but other things he took and magnified to make it his own. I agree with what you said about Brosnan as well, that one lead actor can't save a bad film. But they do make it watchable. Without Sean as Bond I would never watch DAF, so his presence there makes the film less of a burden.
  • Posts: 4,762
    These two are are so hard to seperate in terms of Bond greatness or their quite brilliant portrayal of the original character. I just prefer Dalton more, he epitomizes everything what Bond should be, dark, serious, no nonsense, a minimum on humor, it's just how I want my Bond to appear. Connery was excellent, but only for two movies. As good as he was, I just don't have the same adulation for his work as with Dalton, but these two share a certain quality in that they really brought to the screen a most impressive representation of what Fleming intended

    Which two? Even though I like Dalton better than Connery, I think he performed excellently in all of his movies except for You Only Live Twice. Even his performance in Goldfinger gets a mention from me, as hard as that is to believe.
  • Posts: 5,634
    Dalton and Connery - too hard to seperate sometimes. I mean a Sean of 1962-63, 1965 and Dalton of 1987-89

    Connery of 1964 is of Lazenby standards, good, but not great, real room for improvement

    1967 is more Moore of 1983, a bit past it and not really suitable and 1971 was, and I'm too tired to elaborate.. something pretty poor is best I can describe it
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    I love them both, but Connery beats out Dalton for me.

    1.) Brosnan
    2.) Connery
    3.) Craig
    4.) Dalton
    5.) Moore
    6.) Lazenby
  • Posts: 5,634
    That's how these pages work essentially. Someone may have Moore or Brosnan at #1, and someone may place them last, and another will have Lazenby top and Craig bottom and vice versa, it's a great range for debate. The more Bonds we get in the subsequent years after Craig, the more these arguements will rage on, fifty years from now, one of you younger ones may be sitting here now, and we will be at James Bond (actor) #16 or something, and think of the debates that would be going on... quite frightening to think now that I've mentioned it..
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    That's how these pages work essentially. Someone may have Moore or Brosnan at #1, and someone may place them last, and another will have Lazenby top and Craig bottom and vice versa, it's a great range for debate. The more Bonds we get in the subsequent years after Craig, the more these arguements will rage on, fifty years from now, one of you younger ones may be sitting here now, and we will be at James Bond (actor) #16 or something, and think of the debates that would be going on... quite frightening to think now that I've mentioned it..

    That could prove to be quite fun, dissecting well over/around 100 Bond films with 20 or so different Bond actors, trying to find who is the best. I'll most certainly be jealous of those getting to experience that, if it just so happens.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I'll most certainly be jealous of those getting to experience that, if it just so happens.

    Speak for yourself mate. I hope to be still hanging on here in 50 years. Mind you a pretty pitiful sight I will be - an octogenarian with nothing better to do whilst he waits for the grave than come on here and try and convince young twentysomethings that Laz is still the king 16 Bonds into the series.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Say we manage one Bond every ten years from here on out. I'm 21, so if I make it to 80, I'll see another six Bonds. But, I really don't count on making it to 80, so I'll enjoy the rest that the Bond universe has to offer me while I can.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2012 Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Say we manage one Bond every ten years from here on out. I'm 21, so if I make it to 80, I'll see another six Bonds. But, I really don't count on making it to 80, so I'll enjoy the rest that the Bond universe has to offer me while I can.

    Thats quite an annoying thing about death. The thought that you'll miss out on loads of new Bond films. Not to mention the possiblity that England might one day win the world cup - I know it would take infinity for this to happen but if a room full of monkeys typing for infnity can produce the complete Shakespeare then maybe even the likes of Downing could score a hattrick against the Germans in the final. Well come to think of it that would take maybe two infinities to come to pass.

    If I can see England win a world cup and a period faithful remake of all the Fleming novels before I go then I suppose I could live with dying (pun intended).
  • Posts: 12,837
    Not to mention the possiblity that England might one day win the world cup

    None of us are going to live long enough to see that happen again.
  • Posts: 5,634
    Have a last word at soccer as a final mention. No caped crusaders or Adam West playing center forward

    To the last response, England won the world title a few years ago and came close again this year apparently, so you guys keep your ambitions and be optimistic, maybe next time perhaps, it won't be long now. Oh, and Dalton better Bond over Connery, or more favorite even. It's like saying Netherlands better than Spain maybe on a soccer equivalent, or Portugal even. Bit fuzzy in this area in my defense

    Goodnight (:|
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 546
    Who was tougher? Sir Timothy Dalton
    Who had more Charm? Sean Connery
    Who had more Swag? Sean Conney
    Who was more Suave? Sean Connery
    Who had the look of 007? Sir Timothy Dalton
    Who had the best final Bond film? Sir Timothy Dalton

    Pretty much a tie. But if I had to choose...I'm going with Sean Connery
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Who was tougher? Sir Timothy Dalton
    Who had more Charm? Sean Connery
    Who had more Swag? Sean Conney
    Who was more Suave? Sean Connery
    Who had the look of 007? Sir Timothy Dalton
    Who had the best final Bond film? Sir Timothy Dalton
    Who had the feel from the novels? Sir Timothy Dalton

    Tim wins.
    ;)
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Tim could NEVER pull something like this off: I love this clip
  • TRSTN1TRSTN1 Tokio,North Dakota U.S.A
    Posts: 11
    Sir Sean Connery
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Tim could NEVER pull something like this off:

    God I love this clip

    It's not thay Dalton could not have pulled that off, it's that they were Bond in different times. Connery could not have gotten away with that line in 1987 or 1989, even if he was in his early 30's as he was in GF.
  • Posts: 1,405
    I've already mentionned that out of 6 Bond outings, Connery had two (YOLT, DAF) where his performance somewhat was sub-par. He looked bored and we know for a fact that he wasn't really interested in being 007 anymore from insane contract demands.

    So, 2 "average" outings out of 6 isn't really a good average for me, even if the 4 previous were irreprochable. I may commit an unforgivable sin here but I must declare Connery a bit overrated. I honestly think that Timothy Dalton was the better Bond. No pedestrian performance from Tim, only first-rate, classic Bond moments.
Sign In or Register to comment.