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
And then they complain about reviewers not doing their homework when reviewing the various movies. ;)
Claimed Brosnan hadn't trained as an actor.
A lot of Shakespeare, because it's England and we do a lot of Shakespeare. If
I'd been in America I'd have done a lot of Theatre and TV.
So he was mostly self trained as for some other Bond actors who received proper training, but do not get that credit.
For me Dalton is mostly a successful TV actor/ stage actor. While the others with exception of pretty model boy Lazenby have had fairly good to decent careers. That said I would not mind seeing some more Craig non-Bond movies.
I thought Brosnan did the same thing? He was initially having success and making a name for himself on the English stage and then moved to the US in search of fame and fortune.
To be perfectly honest, the careers of Dalton and Brosnan are not that different up to Bond - it's afterwards that they diverge, with Tim crashing and burning, and Pierce doing really rather well. Their early careers though were theatre, TV and a few (often not very good) movies.
You could say Tim's having a bit of a resurgence. I think that's partly a reflection of a new generation reassessing him as Bond as well. But overall Pierce is far and away the most successful actor in terms of what he's done post-Bond. And fair play to him.
Going back to the topic, I think it would have been a better movie with Dalton. I think the scenes with Dench would have sent sparks flying, and Dalton v Bean could have been fantastic. I suspect though that they'd have cast and done the whole film a bit differently. As I'm not a fan of GE at all, I personally thing a film adapted more to suit Dlaton could only have improved the end result.
The reason is purely based on the fact that America, just never took to Dalton to their heart as Bond.....i think they thought he was somewhat dour........and never gave him a chance.
They gave him two chances which is in movie terms a shedload of money worth. Had Craig failed to do well with CR I doubt we would have seen QoB with Craig.
TLD was a straight down the line success - critically and commercially. LTK was a totally different matter and I think there's a good case for saying that the jump between TLD and LYK was too sudden. May be the success of TLD made EON think they could do something more radical and get away with it.
changing definitions is not making an argument but tailoring your opinion to have a ring of truth.
Most performers that did Bond are well trained individuals, with the exception of Lazenby. So perhaps Dalton is better suited on stage which does not make him a better actor, he lacks the qualities to succeed on the big screen as a leading man which is not a bad thing. Only the 007 franchise needs leading men that come across on the big screen so in that aspect Dalton failed to live up to the 007 part.
TLD was arguably the weakest debut by a Bond actor outside of OHMSS. It made money and was successful, but it was definitely not as successful (relatively speaking commercially, in comparison to its immediate predecessors, as LALD, GE, & CR were). This is despite having an uncontroversial script. So while it didn't offend in any way, it didn't blow anyone's socks off either. Outside of Connery, every actor has had a less commercially successful 2nd film (in comparison to the 1st) so the first one has to come out of the blocks strong.
Isn't this just because the non-Bond fans who normally don't watch every Bond movie all want to see the 'new guy'?
Then when said new guy does his 2nd film the 'new Bond' hype has worn off and it's mostly people who actually want to see a Bondfilm (regardless of any novelty factor) who go to see it...
Back on topic: I don't think GE would have had the same commercial success with Tim, no. For the simple reason that EoN marketed the film so heavily on the surface that any actual content just didn't matter anymore.
Dalton's strengths were far more subtle and needed actual viewing to be appreciated - after the 6 year hiatus it was the hyper-agressive PR (I mean it was insane - GE marketing was just bl**dy everywhere in 1995... really), replete with it's surface glamour & mass appeal that brought the crowds back. And Brosnan had that kind of instant appeal that draws in casual moviegoers.
I liked very much licence to kill and the living daylights but they do look a bitt like a tv special Bond.
Now im glad Pierce is the one who got it and at least has one very well respected and beloved film among critics and hard core Bond fans. Otherwise his detractors would go much more vocal on how bad was his tenure was even though i disagree since i love the 4 movies he did.
Dalton with or without a clasic Bond movie is still greatly respected and beloved, everyone says how he is the man who was ahead of his times.
Sure Craig fans could say he wasn't cinemmatic enough but that's because the films didn't have the budgets Daniel Craig got.
A licence to kill film with a more expensive budget could have been considered a classic movie, the story is great and very engaging the only problem is way it was exectued in production values.
In peace acting and script ForLicence to kill and the living daylights were perfect they only lacked a nice villain lair, more impressive looking Bond girls and taking the production into higher notes to make us believe we were watching a movie made for the big screen.
As silly as the scripts were witn Pierce his films looked like they were made for the big screen
You must be joking? Connery had an incredible post Bond career that spans 30 years, name recognition, and an oscar to boot.
In terms of GE with Dalton, I concur with what everyone here says--it would've been a hit, but would it have reinvigorated the series like GE did? Ironically, SP sounds like its going the route that Dalton surely had to have gone down sooner or later, if just to switch it up: jokier and more reliant on formula. In many ways Dalton was proto-Craig, but I wonder if the creative verve and desire was there to create a spectacle on par with the Craig era. I enjoy Brosnan in the role and sporadically his first three films, but DAD is just creatively bankrupt and does not bode well for that rest of his era, which kind of felt by the numbers at points to be honest.
Dalton was too stiff and theatrical to the point of being unrealistic to be entertaining.
I wasn't changing definitions, I was clarifying. And if you read my other post, you'll notice I mentioned Dalton was financially unsuccessful, and that's almost certainly because of his inferior charisma compared to the likes of Brosnan. All I said was that his confrontation with Judi Dench's M probably would've been better than Brosnan's.
The film is quite good (actually the first one I saw in cinema, I was 14 yrs old) and in some way it felt like it was written for Dalton.
I prefer Dalton over Brosnan any time.
The script was uncontroversial, but the casting certainly was. Not Dalton's fault of course, but people were expecting someone else. So they dismissed him. In a way, LTK needed to succeed in a big way and this did not happen.
I am not so sure. I think Brosnan's youthful look serves GE a lot, especially against Sean Bean (with the seasoned Dalton as Bond, Trevelyan would have come off as very lightweight), but also when it comes to his relationship with the new M. Sure, Dalton can convince as a relic of the Cold War, but his look and attitude display far less the unruly pupil. Samantha Bond as Moneypenny, however, I think might have worked really well with Dalton.
Who said TLD was a weak debut? That's crazy talk.
GE would obviously have been my better with Dalton.
But we found out that Brosnan did pick up the cape in a way Dalton failed to do, he put 007 back on the map when Dalton almost succeeded to take it of.
TLD was not a weak debut, LTK was a poor swansong.