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
He's not a pretty boy but he is terribly good looking, in a rather unusual way. Not everyone has the same taste (thank heaven for that) but I think he's gorgeous :\"> and had the same opinion before he became Bond (he was the only good thing about Tomb Raider).
I can appreciate where you are coming from. But we must remember that when Dalton took over as Bond they were experimenting with the formula. It was on Daniel Craig's third entry where it seems everyone is saying he got the blend right. And the producers by that time knew that Bond could not be without certain elements. And this was worked on heavily. Trial and error of the past, lead to Daniel being this new Bond
But, let us also remember the incredible support Craig got including Sam Mendes as well as the script writer and a longer preparation time. Yes he is talented but the wrong director and you can have a disaster too despite the actor being fine.
I have often heard this remarked about Dalton. Had he had the same backing as Craig got, he would be the best Bond ever.
Sadly, Tim never got the third film where the charm lays as they say. Daniel almost ended the same way when Bond 23 was indefinitely cancelled in 2010. Say they did not restart the series until 2016, hiring a new actor, the audience would criticise Daniel similarly like they did Tim when Pierce took over.
Daniel is a fine Bond, but there is this idiotic general public concept that you can only be great by doing 3 or more movies as Bond. I do not understand this false premise.
The one problem I have with the franchise is that by Dalton not doing a third film let alone fourth between '91-'93, we have a horribly wasted opportunity of growth. And as a result we got some poorer post-Dalton Bond films which were in essence the please everyone approach.
It took the franchise 17 years to find the ideal actor for modern times in Daniel.
I hope I make sense? and had Dalton been a less competent actor, I would not even waste my time defending him. But believe me, he had it and even Connery said he was a good choice when he was cast in '86. It was squandered.
I am happy Daniel is doing great but he could have ended up in the same boat as Tim suffering years of unfair criticism and blame. I wished Dalton's tenure had the same good fortune.
Hi Sandy! Interesting. I actually put some food for thought in my reply above to someone else but perhaps you may see where I am coming from. Great if you could read it.
I actually felt Daniel came across as most attractive as Bond in the casino sequences in CR. It's in his subdued menace which Dalton also had especially in LTK. If you try and be sexy all the time, it becomes dull. Pierce is guilty of that to an extent.
But the scenes at the hotel where they trying to make Daniel sexy like when he stares at the receptionist or the scene where he gets into the vintage Aston Martin with the woman were trying too hard to get him accepted in the role.
I remember my ex-girlfriend at the time laughing and she could see what they were trying to do. And she walked out saying she thought he is not Bond. She liked the previous Bonds looks and charisma.
But Daniel is getting better and controlling it more. We must also understand Dan's Bond is young Bond and Dalton's was jaded bastard at the end of his rope. He has done it all and is bored in a way. The demons had caught up!
I think @Getafix is right when he says Dalton wasn't looking to be a major movie star after Bond and was content to take a step back and take work that appealed to him, rather than have the responsibility of a movie resting on his shoulders again. The opposite can be said of Brosnan, who took this once in a lifetime opportunity that had propelled him from TV actor to A-list movie star, and pushed for bigger pictures because of his new found status. They are both different kinds of personalities with different goals at different stages of their careers. Brosnan always wanted to be a big Hollywood star but was always denied this before Bond, whereas it didn't seem to bother Dalton as he lived in the UK and wasn't part of the Tinseltown sycophants with a house overlooking Malibu beach. One could ask if Brosnan was so great then why did he need Bond to launch his career? And the only reason why the Brozz worked with John McTiernan was because Brosnan formed a film production company entitled "Irish DreamTime" in '96 that hired McTierman to direct his movie, and which also produced The Matador. Dalton just didn't have the same drive or ambition as Brosnan to set up his own production company and probably didn't like dealing with the Tinseltown suits. Not everyone does, different strokes for different folks.
Also, one could level the same argument at Roger Moore, who only had limited success outside of Bond in supporting roles throughout his much longer tenure as 007.
PS. Also, Dalton worked with heavyweights actors Peter O'Toole, Katharine Hepburn, Anthony Hopkins, Dustin Hoffman, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Harris, Alec Guinness, Glenda Jackson which I'm sure someone with Brosnan's acting chops would have LOVED opportunities like that.
He's either 2nd or 3rd on my list now. So tying with either Brosnan or Connery.
I was planning a long detailed reply but I'm afraid we are coming at the character from a completely different places, I really don't see Fleming in Moore at all and can't conceive how you can think he offers more Fleming than Craig, I've seen Skyfall and for me he offers the most IF Bond to date but I've no doubt you'll disagree because of your love affair with Roger Moore's Bond.
Incidentally my favourite entry still remains OHMSS, it has neither my joint favourite Bond Connery or Craig in it, Lazenby would rank below both and Dalton but above Moore and Brosnan for me but I'm not going to try and say his Bond offers a more Fleming like Bond because of it, I hoping someone will come to my defence about how you think Moore is more Fleming than Craig and OP is some lost Bond classic but I didn't come into a thread about Dalton and Craig's Bond's and start bigging up Roger Moore so forgive me if I jump to Craig defence.
Maybe you should start a thread explaining why you think the most comical unlikely deadly secret agent is more Fleming like than Craig, I've had my say and now will stay out of this thread and your Moore is more Fleming thread if you choose to start one, it would be a more suitable place to state rather than a thread that didn't even ask for an opinion on Moore's Bond.
Loving this comment, and very much agree. It's great that the Craig success is directly shedding a better light on Dalton now and elevating his films and portrayal so positively.
Hmm good post @Bondsum, I know we've had this discussion and I'm probably being a little unfair. I'm no fan of RH (although I do like the films I mentioned above) but l I just can't help but wonder whether there's a reason why he's not appeared in more stuff in the years since. I know he doesn't like Tinsletown but I'm sure there were more independent productions he could have been involved in - if he wanted to of course. I don't get why he wouldn't though. He said himself in the "EON" documentary that he "likes a challenge" so why hasn't he taken on more roles that offer him this? Not necessarily "starring" roles per se but just ones with a bit of clout.
I don't know for certain, I'm only speculating.
Personally I think its a good thing RH and TD never worked together. They don't strike me as a very compatable couple anyway. I felt sorry for Tim when I heard RH say those things
Yeah, this is one of the best comments I've read! Thanks Pasty!
Surely Craig didn'*t need a failed Dalton to make HIS impact. Success is never build on failure.
In 2006, people wanted a darker Bond and when they saw CR, they thought "this is actually pretty good" And people who'd seen the older films thought "Dalton might've been onto something there"
It doesn't take away from him at all. It actually adds to him because it's saying he was ahead of his time.
Not saying that at all, only saying that having a Bond with a similar sensibility has given me a greater appreciation of Dalton. I don't think in either case one needed the other. I am stating an opinion, calling it ridiculous seems somewhat harsh.
About the parts I put in Bold I couldn't disagree more, I think these were some of the best parts in the film and completely natural to me. I apreciate (secretly) when a man behaves like that and I find that completely irresistible :) Of course other women can have a different opinion, what works for some doesn't work for the other. I don't think he was trying to be sexy in those scenes, he was showing an incredible self-confidence. He know how to do it without becoming strange, which didn't work well with Brosnan, something in which I completely agree with you. I also agree that Dalton's Bond is at the end of his career and yes "The demons had caught up" indeed!
I also think the fact that people like Craig makes them check Dalton again and that is why the appreciation for Dalton's Bond has been increasing lately in the public's eyes. I don't think Craig needed Dalton to succeed but his portrayal has opened many people's eyes towards Dalton's work.
;) *Credit to @Master_Dahark*
Seriously now though, I don't think it's just about the lead actor. Put any actor in DAD and most people on here would still have it towards the bottom. Tone still plays a big part in it, it's not always all about the lead actor.
Well said, Sandy... you and I agree :) I don't think Craig needed Dalton to succeed per se. Dalton was just the precursor to a grittier bond and his portrayal helped pave the way, in a way, to start calibrating the more "grounded" Bond if you will. Craig is standing on his own two feet for sure. I don't think one takes away from the other, and it certainly isn't a competition as some seem to believe. We are talking about two different actors from completely different eras.
Dalton is enjoyed by a certain Bondfan while the general audiences are not that impressed with the man as 007 or as a BO magnet period. Timothy Dalton is an aquired taste. On the whole I prefer his non-Bond roles, he impressed me far more in them.
In my view they would do well to relist Dalton for the next movie and make him the baddie. I bet he will do very well.
There was this poll in a Dutch paper about the preference of James Bond, Connery was good for 50%, Next was Roger, the Brosnan by a small margin on Craig. Dalton did not even figure at all.
Sure you did. Some tried to throw the man in our faces as being the best ever. Best is an opinion anyway and can never be shared by everybody. I think, its a matter of just giving it a rest. Even I wouldn't go around and try to make everybody like DC. Those, who have their strong opinion won't change it anyway.
n't
People have said they think he was the best. Just like people have said Connery was, Lazenby was, Moore was, Brosnan was and Craig was on these forums.
So we shouldn't say opinions because not everyone agrees?
If I'm throwing Dalton in peoples faces then by that logic, you're throwing Craig in peoples faces.
Well, I stated that he's finally being seen as one of the best Bonds ever. As opposed to "the guy in those bad Bond movies" as he might have been seen in the past. There's a valid argument to be made that each of the Bond actors were "THE" best. I, personally, feel that Dalton & Craig are the cream that rises to the top of this particular milk bottle, but in any case, it's nice to see a little more appreciation here and on other sites from hard core 007 fans concerning Dalton. And as for the general public- a pox on them anyway. They mostly haven't even read Shakespeare, never mind Fleming, think Rembrandt is just a brand of toothpaste and believe the AIDS virus came from monkeys, so what should I care for polls? :))
Calling people who disagree stupid as they do not agree with you, shows your insight.
The comparisons made by you are rather shortsighted imho, really Shakespeare, Fleming, Rembrandt and the AIDS virus. I am not quite sure where you are from.
Well, you obviously havent read what I have said. I did not say Moore was Fleming's Bond throughout his tenure...I highlighted that in OP (and FYEO) he is Fleming's Bond. It's undeniable. And yes, in those two films, the character of bond was closer to Fleming than in QOS. I mean only someone who is biased would say that in those two films, he was as far removed from Fleming as possible. when have i ever said in MR or that that Moore is Fleming's Bond? Never...because it's foolish
OHMSS is a great film I agree (top 5). But Lazenby was average at best, and that is why he is the worst bond actor. Well you can hope all day...because I never said if you actually bothered to read. And you are the only OP basher on here so far...says alot. OP is a great Bond film in every way, why don't you admit it? What's the difference between you loving CR and me loving OP? There is none, it's opinion and it's as equal (no better or no worse than anyone else's
Craig and Dalton are Fleming's Bond on a consistent basis...but credit where credit due eh with the other actors, it's not all a love in with Craig. Yes, wrong thread. But people need a dose of realism and balance in there arguments.