Differences in acting between Timothy Dalton's Bond and Daniel Craig's Bond

145791017

Comments

  • Posts: 173
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)
  • Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Welcome aboard @Regan you seem very nice yourself and a good discussion as your introduction? A nice baptism for sure :)

    And watching FYEO for the first time? What a treat! Wish I watching it for the first time instead of the hundreth! Haha
  • Posts: 173
    Welcome aboard @Regan you seem very nice yourself and a good discussion as your introduction? A nice baptism for sure :)

    And watching FYEO for the first time? What a treat! Wish I watching it for the first time instead of the hundreth! Haha

    Thank you! And yes.. I feel rather fortunate lol, I have a couple by Moore and Connery yet to watch so I am giddy with excitement!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Regan wrote:
    Thank you! And yes.. I feel rather fortunate lol, I have a couple by Moore and Connery yet to watch so I am giddy with excitement!
    Earlier this year I watched Tim's two for the first time since they were in the theatre- it was like discovering TWO BRAND NEW Bonds films at once!! It was so exciting, more so because they've become two of my all time favourites now!
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think the difference between the two "acting styles" can be summed up in the EoN documentary. If you look at the two being interviewed you can see that Dalton really get's into it and almost goes over the top

    ("Bam Bam Bam Bam Bam" - really Tim?)

    It's almost as if he thinks he's acting again. Even one of the top comments on YT says he's "intense as hell" (the 1989 interview actually felt much more insightful and less OTT).

    Dalt's is a stage actor first and foremost. You can just tell the theatre is in his blood.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dalt's is a stage actor first and foremost. You can just tell the theatre is in his blood.
    It's probably why I love his Bond best of all...
    ^:)^
  • Dalton much of the time came off as awkward, forced, stagey and ultimately unconvincing in the role, where Craig's raw masculinity, presence and acting range have helped him own the part utterly since the very first scenes of Casino Royale.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Personally I love the different takes on the character, Rog has always been my favrouite, but I think it's perfect that Timbo followed him and brought a totally different approach, Brosnan of course gets a lot of stick but he was ok, not brilliant and not terrible but he had some good moments, I find it telling that his films resmebled the Moore era, the producers obviously thought this was the safest way to go?

    I never liked Craig as an actor before he became Bond and his first two films haven't really grabbed me as yet but I am warming to him and can't wait to see Skyfall, i really wan't him to nail it! Having watche Dragon Tatoo the other day, there were a couple of scenes where he really impressed me and was very Bond-like.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense. Sadly the Bond bashing has not diminished and I actually went off Bond totally for the last few years as a result. And the Bond bashing weakens the legacy not strengthens it. It kills my enjoyment of the films and leaves a bad taste.

    Each Bond creates a direction for the series which adds something. Daniel Craig is a very fine actor but his Bond could not have existed or made as strong an impact if it were not for what came before. But his approach would not have been accepted in 1995 for sure or before that. People forget the political climate that a film is made in too. We have more wars than ever before and more economic instability hence it gives the producers justification to change direction.

    With the internet, you can write any rubbish you want about anything without being grounded in facts and get away with it.

  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Don't get me wrong...I think Dalts deserves recognition but from the opening scene Craig grabs you by the balls in a way Tim never quite managed
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Dalton much of the time came off as awkward, forced, stagey and ultimately unconvincing in the role, where Craig's raw masculinity, presence and acting range have helped him own the part utterly since the very first scenes of Casino Royale.

    I guess you are implying that Cubby Broccoli did not know what he is doing when he cast Dalton. Or his wife Dana who suggested him and she wanted Connery. Have you read his book When The Snow Melts? He sings Dalton's praises for delving into the Fleming books and blueprinting the character and bringing that to life. Cubby liked the serious spy thriller style.

    Craig's raw masculinity? Are you implying Dalton was a wuss? Come on! Have you seen the scene where Dalton meets Sanchez for the first time? Watch Dalton's body language. He was playing the scene cool to win the confidence of Sanchez and shows so well how Bond keeps his cool. Dalton was measured with the toughness but he had it.

    I actually think the scene where Craig comes out of the sea in Casino is a bit pointless and just to show off that he has a great body. With Connery who was athletic they did not need to do that.

    Craig is more the thug which Bond never was. I do think they have overdone the action man element. The older Bond films knew how to breath better and the newer ones are edited too quickly. But all Bonds have a masculinity for sure.

    Also when the media called Craig too wimpy looking to be Bond they went out of their way to highlight his masculinity in the first film. This had not happened to any previous actor on being cast. I remember what was said by the press initially and laugh at their hypocrisy now. They were wrong from day one.

  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,425
    acoppola wrote:
    Dalton much of the time came off as awkward, forced, stagey and ultimately unconvincing in the role, where Craig's raw masculinity, presence and acting range have helped him own the part utterly since the very first scenes of Casino Royale.

    I guess you are implying that Cubby Broccoli did not know what he is doing when he cast Dalton or his wife Dana. Have you read his book When The Snow Melts? He sings Dalton's praises for delving into the Fleming books and blueprinting the character and bringing that to life. Cubby liked the serious spy thriller style.

    Craig's raw masculinity? Are implying Dalton was a wuss? Come on! Have you seen the scene where Dalton meets Sanchez for the first time? Watch Dalton's body language. He was playing the scene cool to win the confidence of Sanchez and shows so well how Bond keeps his cool.

    Feel sorry for these guys that can't appreciate TD. They seem to mistake his quiet strength and confidence for him not being 'commanding' or whatever. Very silly. A sign of the times I guess, when 'strength' is considered to be about just looking the part and shouting loudest.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    Dalton much of the time came off as awkward, forced, stagey and ultimately unconvincing in the role, where Craig's raw masculinity, presence and acting range have helped him own the part utterly since the very first scenes of Casino Royale.

    I guess you are implying that Cubby Broccoli did not know what he is doing when he cast Dalton or his wife Dana. Have you read his book When The Snow Melts? He sings Dalton's praises for delving into the Fleming books and blueprinting the character and bringing that to life. Cubby liked the serious spy thriller style.

    Craig's raw masculinity? Are implying Dalton was a wuss? Come on! Have you seen the scene where Dalton meets Sanchez for the first time? Watch Dalton's body language. He was playing the scene cool to win the confidence of Sanchez and shows so well how Bond keeps his cool.

    Davi totally steals that scene. He has all the best lines and excludes a real confidence and menace. Dalton does well there but is upstaged.

    Dalton doesn't have what it takes to charm people - Craig does. I say that as someone who's recently looked at his films again.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Craig is playing a Bond at the beginning of his career. Dalton played a Bond towards the end of his career. Dalton's Bond has been there and done it all. He is cynical and burnt out. He has seen more and is jaded. If Dalton is a bad Bond, then I do not know what a good Bond is. And please, there are awkward moments for Craig in Casino Royale where he clearly is uncomfortable. Some scenes were forced.

    Where is Craig's humour? Because it is nothing like Connery or Moore. I know the films. Craig did smile during the torture scene in Casino Royale. Is that what you mean?

    Sure when he says to Vesper : "You noticed!". But the humour is toned down. Dalton had humour in parts, but he did it with facial expression.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Dalton much of the time came off as awkward, forced, stagey and ultimately unconvincing in the role, where Craig's raw masculinity, presence and acting range have helped him own the part utterly since the very first scenes of Casino Royale.

    I guess you are implying that Cubby Broccoli did not know what he is doing when he cast Dalton or his wife Dana. Have you read his book When The Snow Melts? He sings Dalton's praises for delving into the Fleming books and blueprinting the character and bringing that to life. Cubby liked the serious spy thriller style.

    Craig's raw masculinity? Are implying Dalton was a wuss? Come on! Have you seen the scene where Dalton meets Sanchez for the first time? Watch Dalton's body language. He was playing the scene cool to win the confidence of Sanchez and shows so well how Bond keeps his cool.

    Davi totally steals that scene. He has all the best lines and excludes a real confidence and menace. Dalton does well there but is upstaged.

    Dalton doesn't have what it takes to charm people - Craig does. I say that as someone who's recently looked at his films again.

    Absolutely not. Dalton is clearly Sanchez's equal. The scene has a tension because Bond takes the risk of not getting out of his office alive. Dalton is playing it to gain Sanchez's interest and hence to get in his inner circle.

    But those who say Dalton does not have presence may as well say Anthony Hopkins is not that great either. Dalton did not play Bond for children. Have you read a Fleming book?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    acoppola wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Mother wrote:

    Don't get me wrong - Craig is good but not as Bond. I simply can't imagine him as a commander in the British Navy. The guy has serious problems with discipline. He's just an action hero but not Bond. To quote M: "a blunt instrument".

    Now have a look at the Dalton Bond. He is serious, he can be brutal, he bleeds yet he's a distinguished, eloquent gentleman with a sense of humour. And to say the truth - Dalton's acting abilities greatly surpass those of Craig's. Bond's seriousness was a downside in the late 80s but is his strength right now. Too bad for Dalton. He's the most underrated Bond.
    Well, when I went to see Bond when TD took over I can assure you everyone was ready for a serious Bond. Dalton simply wasn't a big screen leading man. I'm sure his subsequent career would have been more distinguished if he had been.
    But as I say, a serious Bond was an exciting prospect. Calling Craig a Bond 'with serious problems with discipline' after enduring the crazed antics of LTK, is quite....interesting. Both actors play Bond like he is a man living on the edge, but to miss the humour in Craig's Bond just because he chooses a more subtle approach is a shame. All the Bonds have humour, some less pronounced.

    In my eyes Craig is twice the actor Dalton is. Both have great reputations and excellent CVs, but Craig has subtlety that screen acting requires. Watch his smaller independent films, or some of his TV work.

    I understand why people can't accept him as Bond, I really can. But to lead a film with a cast like SF has, and not be overwhelmed for one second is proof of Craig's abilities.

    I have to disagree strongly. Have you seen Dalton act on stage or in Jane Eyre?. He is a powerful actor and has screen presence. I have seen Daniel Craig in some tv series and he is not twice the actor Dalton is. For starters they are different styles. It would be like comparing The Rolling Stones to Led Zeppelin.

    And the big star argument is poor. There are a lot of great actors that have bad runs in the film industry. And when you get type cast as Bond some better roles elude you. Now that was especially true many years ago.

    Look at John Travolta when he was cast by Tarantino in Pulp Fiction. Until that point he was going nowhere. And it made him a huge star. Same for Samuel L Jackson. And let's not forget that despite Anthony Hokpins being a great actor for years, he did not make it big until much later in his career with Silence Of The Lambs.

    Craig is carrying Skyfall? Eon and Sony have cast big name actors to attract as wide an audience as possible. Sam Mendes is very famous and that attracts kudos. They are taking no risk. Had Dalton had the same meticulous backing Craig has now then you would see a different animal. When he was playing Bond, there were a lot of business issues lurking behind the scenes that lead to the halting of production on his third film. Craig would not have fared better in those circumstances and bear in mind that Craig has the benefit of hindsight.He knew what will work and what audiences hated about some Bond's.

    With every film with Craig there has been a new director to keep things fresh. And the charisma can be forced. Dalton could easily mimick the traditional Bond persona but chose to play him as a real spy.

    To answer these points.
    Have I seen Dalton on stage? No I haven't but I sure would like to because I believe this is the medium where he is at his best. I would rather watch him on stage than any other Bond actor. But I would rather watch any other actor in a film than him.

    Dalton was never a big star. You mention Travolta, and I agree to a point. He was out of it when Tarantino came knocking. But when he first came on the scene in SNF and Grease his big star appeal was obvious. He just made some bad choices there on in. However I accept your point and maybe Dalton also could get a lucky break somewhere along the line. I would certainly root for him as I would any Bond actor.

    I will take exception to you suggesting that I said Craig carries SF, despite the wonderful cast. I actually said he isn't overwhelmed by the cast. A big difference.

    I stick by my words that Craig is twice the actor Dalton is, but I only mean 'film actor/star'. And I don't mean Dalton is a bad actor, of course he isn't. Any classically trained actor knows his stuff, but sometimes on the big screen there is an element that can go missing. You can look back in history and see other examples of great theatrical actors who never became great film stars ( Ralph Richardson is an obvious one). Dalton landed Bond because he looked the part. Without it he would never have been the lead in another movie. And before you say it Craig had already headlined several (albeit smaller) movies.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Getafix wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Dalton much of the time came off as awkward, forced, stagey and ultimately unconvincing in the role, where Craig's raw masculinity, presence and acting range have helped him own the part utterly since the very first scenes of Casino Royale.

    I guess you are implying that Cubby Broccoli did not know what he is doing when he cast Dalton or his wife Dana. Have you read his book When The Snow Melts? He sings Dalton's praises for delving into the Fleming books and blueprinting the character and bringing that to life. Cubby liked the serious spy thriller style.

    Craig's raw masculinity? Are implying Dalton was a wuss? Come on! Have you seen the scene where Dalton meets Sanchez for the first time? Watch Dalton's body language. He was playing the scene cool to win the confidence of Sanchez and shows so well how Bond keeps his cool.

    Feel sorry for these guys that can't appreciate TD. They seem to mistake his quiet strength and confidence for him not being 'commanding' or whatever. Very silly. A sign of the times I guess, when 'strength' is considered to be about just looking the part and shouting loudest.

    You hit the nail on the head. I feel bad for Pierce too who is now wrongly seen as a weaker Bond compared to Daniel. Very unfair. All of them had presence or would not have been cast. I guess some think they know Bond better than Cubby.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    NicNac wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Mother wrote:

    Don't get me wrong - Craig is good but not as Bond. I simply can't imagine him as a commander in the British Navy. The guy has serious problems with discipline. He's just an action hero but not Bond. To quote M: "a blunt instrument".

    Now have a look at the Dalton Bond. He is serious, he can be brutal, he bleeds yet he's a distinguished, eloquent gentleman with a sense of humour. And to say the truth - Dalton's acting abilities greatly surpass those of Craig's. Bond's seriousness was a downside in the late 80s but is his strength right now. Too bad for Dalton. He's the most underrated Bond.
    Well, when I went to see Bond when TD took over I can assure you everyone was ready for a serious Bond. Dalton simply wasn't a big screen leading man. I'm sure his subsequent career would have been more distinguished if he had been.
    But as I say, a serious Bond was an exciting prospect. Calling Craig a Bond 'with serious problems with discipline' after enduring the crazed antics of LTK, is quite....interesting. Both actors play Bond like he is a man living on the edge, but to miss the humour in Craig's Bond just because he chooses a more subtle approach is a shame. All the Bonds have humour, some less pronounced.

    In my eyes Craig is twice the actor Dalton is. Both have great reputations and excellent CVs, but Craig has subtlety that screen acting requires. Watch his smaller independent films, or some of his TV work.

    I understand why people can't accept him as Bond, I really can. But to lead a film with a cast like SF has, and not be overwhelmed for one second is proof of Craig's abilities.

    I have to disagree strongly. Have you seen Dalton act on stage or in Jane Eyre?. He is a powerful actor and has screen presence. I have seen Daniel Craig in some tv series and he is not twice the actor Dalton is. For starters they are different styles. It would be like comparing The Rolling Stones to Led Zeppelin.

    And the big star argument is poor. There are a lot of great actors that have bad runs in the film industry. And when you get type cast as Bond some better roles elude you. Now that was especially true many years ago.

    Look at John Travolta when he was cast by Tarantino in Pulp Fiction. Until that point he was going nowhere. And it made him a huge star. Same for Samuel L Jackson. And let's not forget that despite Anthony Hokpins being a great actor for years, he did not make it big until much later in his career with Silence Of The Lambs.

    Craig is carrying Skyfall? Eon and Sony have cast big name actors to attract as wide an audience as possible. Sam Mendes is very famous and that attracts kudos. They are taking no risk. Had Dalton had the same meticulous backing Craig has now then you would see a different animal. When he was playing Bond, there were a lot of business issues lurking behind the scenes that lead to the halting of production on his third film. Craig would not have fared better in those circumstances and bear in mind that Craig has the benefit of hindsight.He knew what will work and what audiences hated about some Bond's.

    With every film with Craig there has been a new director to keep things fresh. And the charisma can be forced. Dalton could easily mimick the traditional Bond persona but chose to play him as a real spy.

    To answer these points.
    Have I seen Dalton on stage? No I haven't but I sure would like to because I believe this is the medium where he is at his best. I would rather watch him on stage than any other Bond actor. But I would rather watch any other actor in a film than him.

    Dalton was never a big star. You mention Travolta, and I agree to a point. He was out of it when Tarantino came knocking. But when he first came on the scene in SNF and Grease his big star appeal was obvious. He just made some bad choices there on in. However I accept your point and maybe Dalton also could get a lucky break somewhere along the line. I would certainly root for him as I would any Bond actor.

    I will take exception to you suggesting that I said Craig carries SF, despite the wonderful cast. I actually said he isn't overwhelmed by the cast. A big difference.

    I stick by my words that Craig is twice the actor Dalton is, but I only mean 'film actor/star'. And I don't mean Dalton is a bad actor, of course he isn't. Any classically trained actor knows his stuff, but sometimes on the big screen there is an element that can go missing. You can look back in history and see other examples of great theatrical actors who never became great film stars ( Ralph Richardson is an obvious one). Dalton landed Bond because he looked the part. Without it he would never have been the lead in another movie. And before you say it Craig had already headlined several (albeit smaller) movies.

    Craig is a brilliant actor. But he is of a totally different acting generation to Dalton. And this star is a very subjective word. Not all actors want that level of fame. It does not mean that they are less valid.

    Craig was heavily supported and they clearly had a strategy for where they saw Bond going. Had he received the same negative initial publicity when Harry and Cubby were producing Bond, he would not have filmed even a scene. And he would have been replaced. Craig has some good fortune, because talent in this world does not always equal success.

    Not everyone has to be the same. And Dalton's theatricality has it's merits. He is more an actor like Patrick Stewart. He is very classical and that is a style not in vogue these days unless they are doing period pieces.

    But he got a great part in Hot Fuzz and Simon Pegg loves him.

    When Dalton was younger he turned down a lot film work to became a better stage actor. But had he done more films he would have been a bigger name in showbusiness.

    And had Dalton received the same care and attention like Craig has as in hiring the best possible actors to play opposite him as well as directors and script writers, then you would see a different animal.

    Dalton's Bond was badly publicised by the studio due to internal conflicts and financial turmoil. They cared less about the franchise and took it for granted and tried to save money.With Craig they spent the same as the budget to tell the world he is Bond. It is all how you create perception of an actor and film marketing is more sophisticated now. Licence To Kill barely had any advertising in the States and they threw the film to the wall.

  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Craig is playing a Bond at the beginning of his career. Dalton played a Bond towards the end of his career. Dalton's Bond has been there and done it all. He is cynical and burnt out. He has seen more and is jaded. If Dalton is a bad Bond, then I do not know what a good Bond is. And please, there are awkward moments for Craig in Casino Royale where he clearly is uncomfortable. Some scenes were forced.

    Where is Craig's humour? Because it is nothing like Connery or Moore. I know the films. Craig did smile during the torture scene in Casino Royale. Is that what you mean?

    Sure when he says to Vesper : "You noticed!". But the humour is toned down. Dalton had humour in parts, but he did it with facial expression.

    Dalton isn't a bad Bond - but I can see why some people don't like him.

    Yes I agree there were a few moments where Craig looked a BIT nervous, but on the whole I'd say he was far more noticibly confident than Dalts. Craig's acting in the torture scene is grand - the way he laughs when he says "no" is superb.

    YES I have read Fleming and I still stand by what I say.

    I still ask the question: why has Dalton - despite his prestigious acting background and the fact he's played one of the most famous roles of all time - not succeeded in getting meaty, challenging roles and instead ended up in parts alongside the likes of Billy Zane and Bugs Bunny?

    (*Note* I LOVE Dalton in Hot Fuzz but it's hardly an ultra challenging role, rather one where he can just have fun and play up his "stagey" persona)
    acoppola wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Dalton much of the time came off as awkward, forced, stagey and ultimately unconvincing in the role, where Craig's raw masculinity, presence and acting range have helped him own the part utterly since the very first scenes of Casino Royale.

    I guess you are implying that Cubby Broccoli did not know what he is doing when he cast Dalton or his wife Dana. Have you read his book When The Snow Melts? He sings Dalton's praises for delving into the Fleming books and blueprinting the character and bringing that to life. Cubby liked the serious spy thriller style.

    Craig's raw masculinity? Are implying Dalton was a wuss? Come on! Have you seen the scene where Dalton meets Sanchez for the first time? Watch Dalton's body language. He was playing the scene cool to win the confidence of Sanchez and shows so well how Bond keeps his cool.

    Feel sorry for these guys that can't appreciate TD. They seem to mistake his quiet strength and confidence for him not being 'commanding' or whatever. Very silly. A sign of the times I guess, when 'strength' is considered to be about just looking the part and shouting loudest.

    You hit the nail on the head. I feel bad for Pierce too who is now wrongly seen as a weaker Bond compared to Daniel. Very unfair. All of them had presence or would not have been cast. I guess some think they know Bond better than Cubby.

    #-o #-o #-o Don't say that to @Getafix. He can't stand the man
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,425
    To be more accurate, I'm not a fan of his Bond.

    But going back to Dalts, I really don't get where this idea he didn't feel confident in the role comes from. TLD is one of the best in the series IMO. From the very first shot of Dalts he commands the screen.

    You're too young to remember, but despite almost everything you say, it was a pretty well received film when it came out. LTK is an entirely different matter and although I think Dalton gives a decent performance it has never been one of my personal favourites. But as I and others have said a thousand times, the third Dalton film would have been very different and Dalton himself said he wanted it to be a lot more light hearted. He himself was a fan of the Connery films, which people seem to forget are chock full of wit, humour and lightheartedness.

    For the record, I find more humour in TLD than CR and QoS combined.

    Check this out for some Dalts lovin'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9631617/James-Bond-The-best-Bond-films.html

    I like the way GE is chosen because of the game.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Craig is playing a Bond at the beginning of his career. Dalton played a Bond towards the end of his career. Dalton's Bond has been there and done it all. He is cynical and burnt out. He has seen more and is jaded. If Dalton is a bad Bond, then I do not know what a good Bond is. And please, there are awkward moments for Craig in Casino Royale where he clearly is uncomfortable. Some scenes were forced.

    Where is Craig's humour? Because it is nothing like Connery or Moore. I know the films. Craig did smile during the torture scene in Casino Royale. Is that what you mean?

    Sure when he says to Vesper : "You noticed!". But the humour is toned down. Dalton had humour in parts, but he did it with facial expression.

    Dalton isn't a bad Bond - but I can see why some people don't like him.

    Yes I agree there were a few moments where Craig looked a BIT nervous, but on the whole I'd say he was far more noticibly confident than Dalts. Craig's acting in the torture scene is grand - the way he laughs when he says "no".

    YES I have read Fleming and I still stand by what I say.

    I still ask the question: why has Dalton - despite his prestigious acting background and the fact he's played one of the most famous roles of all time - not succeeded in getting meaty, challenging roles and instead ended up in roles alongside the likes of Billy Zane and Bugs Bunny?

    We live in a different world. The actor Michael Keaton who headlined big films like Batman said that in modern films, they will hire actors that can make more than a $100 million at the box office. He said it is all about profit and the film studios are run by different people these days and there is less willingness for taking risk.

    The question you ask about why Dalton did not reach greater heights of success is pointless. How many actors have a big career these days?. Gary Oldman is a brilliant leading actor but most of the films he headlined were not big hits so he got more supporting roles.

    But that does not mean that Tom Cruise is a better actor than Gary Oldman. It's the politics of the industry and how willing you are to kiss ass. Gary Oldman is one of the greatest ever but will be lost on a brain dead mass audience who want films like Transformers or anything that you do not need much thinking with.

  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,425
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Craig is playing a Bond at the beginning of his career. Dalton played a Bond towards the end of his career. Dalton's Bond has been there and done it all. He is cynical and burnt out. He has seen more and is jaded. If Dalton is a bad Bond, then I do not know what a good Bond is. And please, there are awkward moments for Craig in Casino Royale where he clearly is uncomfortable. Some scenes were forced.

    Where is Craig's humour? Because it is nothing like Connery or Moore. I know the films. Craig did smile during the torture scene in Casino Royale. Is that what you mean?

    Sure when he says to Vesper : "You noticed!". But the humour is toned down. Dalton had humour in parts, but he did it with facial expression.

    Dalton isn't a bad Bond - but I can see why some people don't like him.

    Yes I agree there were a few moments where Craig looked a BIT nervous, but on the whole I'd say he was far more noticibly confident than Dalts. Craig's acting in the torture scene is grand - the way he laughs when he says "no".

    YES I have read Fleming and I still stand by what I say.

    I still ask the question: why has Dalton - despite his prestigious acting background and the fact he's played one of the most famous roles of all time - not succeeded in getting meaty, challenging roles and instead ended up in roles alongside the likes of Billy Zane and Bugs Bunny?

    We live in a different world. The actor Michael Keaton who headlined big films like Batman said that in modern films, they will hire actors that can make more than a $100 million at the box office. He said it is all about profit and the film studios are run by different people these days and there is less willingness for taking risk.

    The question you ask about why Dalton did not reach greater heights of success is pointless. How many actors have a big career these days?. Gary Oldman is a brilliant leading actor but most of the films he headlined were not big hits so he got more supporting roles.

    But that does not mean that Tom Cruise is a better actor than Gary Oldman. It's the politics of the industry and how willing you are to kiss ass. Gary Oldman is one of the greatest ever but will be lost on a brain dead mass audience who want films like Transformers or anything that you do not need much thinking with.

    This is very true, but Bond is different. EON hold a lot of power and although they need the support of the studio they can basically cast who they want. You can be 100% certain that no studio would have cast Craig as Bond back in 2004, but EON had the rights and power to do so. That's creative freedom that most other production companies don't have.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Craig is playing a Bond at the beginning of his career. Dalton played a Bond towards the end of his career. Dalton's Bond has been there and done it all. He is cynical and burnt out. He has seen more and is jaded. If Dalton is a bad Bond, then I do not know what a good Bond is. And please, there are awkward moments for Craig in Casino Royale where he clearly is uncomfortable. Some scenes were forced.

    Where is Craig's humour? Because it is nothing like Connery or Moore. I know the films. Craig did smile during the torture scene in Casino Royale. Is that what you mean?

    Sure when he says to Vesper : "You noticed!". But the humour is toned down. Dalton had humour in parts, but he did it with facial expression.

    Dalton isn't a bad Bond - but I can see why some people don't like him.

    Yes I agree there were a few moments where Craig looked a BIT nervous, but on the whole I'd say he was far more noticibly confident than Dalts. Craig's acting in the torture scene is grand - the way he laughs when he says "no".

    YES I have read Fleming and I still stand by what I say.

    I still ask the question: why has Dalton - despite his prestigious acting background and the fact he's played one of the most famous roles of all time - not succeeded in getting meaty, challenging roles and instead ended up in roles alongside the likes of Billy Zane and Bugs Bunny?

    We live in a different world. The actor Michael Keaton who headlined big films like Batman said that in modern films, they will hire actors that can make more than a $100 million at the box office. He said it is all about profit and the film studios are run by different people these days and there is less willingness for taking risk.

    The question you ask about why Dalton did not reach greater heights of success is pointless. How many actors have a big career these days?. Gary Oldman is a brilliant leading actor but most of the films he headlined were not big hits so he got more supporting roles.

    But that does not mean that Tom Cruise is a better actor than Gary Oldman. It's the politics of the industry and how willing you are to kiss ass. Gary Oldman is one of the greatest ever but will be lost on a brain dead mass audience who want films like Transformers or anything that you do not need much thinking with.

    But we see Gary Oldman far more on film than we do the likes of Dalton. Agreed Oldman is rarely in leading roles but most of the roles he IS in make an impact. They are "meaty" and play an important part in a story. A good example is as Commisioner Gordon in the Batman films, he's a figure of authority who struggles to maintain peace in a crumbling city.

    Maybe Oldman IS more suited to supporting parts - but he plays them very well and, perhaps most of all, is EXTREMELY versitile. Who'd have thought he could play dispicable monsters in the likes of Leon, Air Force One and Hannibal but ALSO sympathetic figures like in Nolan's Batman films. He becomes each character he plays - for an actor that's suprisingly rare. Usually when we see someone we say "look there's so and so"

    Most of the roles Dalton gets are quite theatrical looking at his IMDB page (The Beautician and The Beast, Hot Fuzz, Cleopatra, Toy Story 3). I'm not sure he has the diversity that Oldman (also a stage actor) has.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Getafix wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Craig is playing a Bond at the beginning of his career. Dalton played a Bond towards the end of his career. Dalton's Bond has been there and done it all. He is cynical and burnt out. He has seen more and is jaded. If Dalton is a bad Bond, then I do not know what a good Bond is. And please, there are awkward moments for Craig in Casino Royale where he clearly is uncomfortable. Some scenes were forced.

    Where is Craig's humour? Because it is nothing like Connery or Moore. I know the films. Craig did smile during the torture scene in Casino Royale. Is that what you mean?

    Sure when he says to Vesper : "You noticed!". But the humour is toned down. Dalton had humour in parts, but he did it with facial expression.

    Dalton isn't a bad Bond - but I can see why some people don't like him.

    Yes I agree there were a few moments where Craig looked a BIT nervous, but on the whole I'd say he was far more noticibly confident than Dalts. Craig's acting in the torture scene is grand - the way he laughs when he says "no".

    YES I have read Fleming and I still stand by what I say.

    I still ask the question: why has Dalton - despite his prestigious acting background and the fact he's played one of the most famous roles of all time - not succeeded in getting meaty, challenging roles and instead ended up in roles alongside the likes of Billy Zane and Bugs Bunny?

    We live in a different world. The actor Michael Keaton who headlined big films like Batman said that in modern films, they will hire actors that can make more than a $100 million at the box office. He said it is all about profit and the film studios are run by different people these days and there is less willingness for taking risk.

    The question you ask about why Dalton did not reach greater heights of success is pointless. How many actors have a big career these days?. Gary Oldman is a brilliant leading actor but most of the films he headlined were not big hits so he got more supporting roles.

    But that does not mean that Tom Cruise is a better actor than Gary Oldman. It's the politics of the industry and how willing you are to kiss ass. Gary Oldman is one of the greatest ever but will be lost on a brain dead mass audience who want films like Transformers or anything that you do not need much thinking with.

    This is very true, but Bond is different. EON hold a lot of power and although they need the support of the studio they can basically cast who they want. You can be 100% certain that no studio would have cast Craig as Bond back in 2004, but EON had the rights and power to do so. That's creative freedom that most other production companies don't have.

    It's a miracle that Craig got accepted after Brosnan. Because when Craig was cast very few in the public thought he was the right choice and thought it was crazy. I used to work in a call centre with hundreds of people and they all thought the producers had lost the plot. Brosnan was heavily accepted and people loved him in the role.

    Had this been the 1970's or 1990's, Craig would not have made it past one movie. It has nothing to do with talent because Craig is talented, but it is a ruthless industry.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Craig is playing a Bond at the beginning of his career. Dalton played a Bond towards the end of his career. Dalton's Bond has been there and done it all. He is cynical and burnt out. He has seen more and is jaded. If Dalton is a bad Bond, then I do not know what a good Bond is. And please, there are awkward moments for Craig in Casino Royale where he clearly is uncomfortable. Some scenes were forced.

    Where is Craig's humour? Because it is nothing like Connery or Moore. I know the films. Craig did smile during the torture scene in Casino Royale. Is that what you mean?

    Sure when he says to Vesper : "You noticed!". But the humour is toned down. Dalton had humour in parts, but he did it with facial expression.

    Dalton isn't a bad Bond - but I can see why some people don't like him.

    Yes I agree there were a few moments where Craig looked a BIT nervous, but on the whole I'd say he was far more noticibly confident than Dalts. Craig's acting in the torture scene is grand - the way he laughs when he says "no".

    YES I have read Fleming and I still stand by what I say.

    I still ask the question: why has Dalton - despite his prestigious acting background and the fact he's played one of the most famous roles of all time - not succeeded in getting meaty, challenging roles and instead ended up in roles alongside the likes of Billy Zane and Bugs Bunny?

    We live in a different world. The actor Michael Keaton who headlined big films like Batman said that in modern films, they will hire actors that can make more than a $100 million at the box office. He said it is all about profit and the film studios are run by different people these days and there is less willingness for taking risk.

    The question you ask about why Dalton did not reach greater heights of success is pointless. How many actors have a big career these days?. Gary Oldman is a brilliant leading actor but most of the films he headlined were not big hits so he got more supporting roles.

    But that does not mean that Tom Cruise is a better actor than Gary Oldman. It's the politics of the industry and how willing you are to kiss ass. Gary Oldman is one of the greatest ever but will be lost on a brain dead mass audience who want films like Transformers or anything that you do not need much thinking with.

    But we see Gary Oldman far more on film than we do the likes of Dalton. Agreed he's rarely in leading roles but most of the roles he IS in make an impact. They are "meaty" and play an important part in a story. A good example is as Commisioner Gordon in the Batman films, he's a figure of authority who struggles to maintain peace in a crumbling city.

    Maybe Oldman IS more suited to supporting parts - but he plays them very well and, perhaps most of all, is EXTREMELY versitile. Who'd have thought he could play dispicable monsters in the likes of Leon, Air Force One and Hannibal but ALSO sympathetic figures like in Nolan's Batman films.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Craig is playing a Bond at the beginning of his career. Dalton played a Bond towards the end of his career. Dalton's Bond has been there and done it all. He is cynical and burnt out. He has seen more and is jaded. If Dalton is a bad Bond, then I do not know what a good Bond is. And please, there are awkward moments for Craig in Casino Royale where he clearly is uncomfortable. Some scenes were forced.

    Where is Craig's humour? Because it is nothing like Connery or Moore. I know the films. Craig did smile during the torture scene in Casino Royale. Is that what you mean?

    Sure when he says to Vesper : "You noticed!". But the humour is toned down. Dalton had humour in parts, but he did it with facial expression.

    Dalton isn't a bad Bond - but I can see why some people don't like him.

    Yes I agree there were a few moments where Craig looked a BIT nervous, but on the whole I'd say he was far more noticibly confident than Dalts. Craig's acting in the torture scene is grand - the way he laughs when he says "no".

    YES I have read Fleming and I still stand by what I say.

    I still ask the question: why has Dalton - despite his prestigious acting background and the fact he's played one of the most famous roles of all time - not succeeded in getting meaty, challenging roles and instead ended up in roles alongside the likes of Billy Zane and Bugs Bunny?

    We live in a different world. The actor Michael Keaton who headlined big films like Batman said that in modern films, they will hire actors that can make more than a $100 million at the box office. He said it is all about profit and the film studios are run by different people these days and there is less willingness for taking risk.

    The question you ask about why Dalton did not reach greater heights of success is pointless. How many actors have a big career these days?. Gary Oldman is a brilliant leading actor but most of the films he headlined were not big hits so he got more supporting roles.

    But that does not mean that Tom Cruise is a better actor than Gary Oldman. It's the politics of the industry and how willing you are to kiss ass. Gary Oldman is one of the greatest ever but will be lost on a brain dead mass audience who want films like Transformers or anything that you do not need much thinking with.

    But we see Gary Oldman far more on film than we do the likes of Dalton. Agreed he's rarely in leading roles but most of the roles he IS in make an impact. They are "meaty" and play an important part in a story. A good example is as Commisioner Gordon in the Batman films, he's a figure of authority who struggles to maintain peace in a crumbling city.

    Maybe Oldman IS more suited to supporting parts - but he plays them very well and, perhaps most of all, is EXTREMELY versitile. Who'd have thought he could play dispicable monsters in the likes of Leon, Air Force One and Hannibal but ALSO sympathetic figures like in Nolan's Batman films.

    Most of Oldman's role are for the villain. Dalton having done Bond would not be cast as a villain. And he was a lot older when he quit Bond. They want leading men in general in their thirties or twenties. Dalton was pushing fifty and the roles become more harder to attain.

    Also when Connery left Bond was 41, he was a mega star and even he struggled for years to get the same level if success. Connery was the biggest star in the movie world at one point.

    But my point is that Gary Oldman is an incredible actor and could wipe the floor wiht most film stars we see today. But film studios just care about the opening weekend and films these days do not have legs they had decades ago. Here today, forgotten tomorrow.

    Dalton just needs a director like a Tarantino and he is back on top. Or a Roman Polanski. Dalton has a wide range and is sadly underused. A director who could change his perception and it can be done if there is the will to risk.



  • Posts: 6,601
    Had this been the 1970's or 1990's, Craig would not have made it past one movie. It has nothing to do with talent because Craig is talented, but it is a ruthless industry.

    Of course, he would, because success sells and he was highly successful. Whatever gives you your ideas?

    You try to make sense but more and more, you come of as being more desperate then anything else. You don't do your idol justice IMO, if you try to make him something, he just isn't and come up with the weirdest scenarios, why he didn't succeed.

    I think, you are flogging a dead horse here. Dalton has a good fan base. Why not be happy with that? It won't grow, how ever hard you try to make people see him with your eyes.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,425
    As much as I like Dalton I kind of blame him for his poor career after Bond. To start with, he should not have bailed when he did and should have at least stayed on for GE. And secondly, he does not seem to have actively sought out interesting roles. He just doesn't really seem to care that much.

    I think we can probably safely assume that he feels he did his heavy lifting in his early days when appeared in so many plays and plenty of TV shows and films. I think he saw Bond almost as the culmination of a career that was very successful from a very young age. After that he was happier to sit back and enjoy life.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Sometimes I get off put by the needless bashing of this Bond over that Bond. They are all of their time. Sadly whenever a new Bond gets cast, at some point the media as well as some fans will try to destroy the work of the previous Bond. Pierce too had some great moments and his first two films were super fine. He had the worst script writers that made some of Bond's pyschological dialogue come across amateurish.

    Absolutely agree with this. It is quite off-putting for me too. I just don't see the need or sense in it, as they are all very much the product of their own unique circumstances/times and the general public tends to be fickle.

    Germanlady, I am sorry... it seemed to me as though that was the case (that you were a Dalton-hater/basher) but I stand corrected if you didn't mean it to come across like that. I am all for each person trying to support their views with valid arguments, so I respect your attempts. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dalton. It's nice to know there is another lady in the forums. ;)

    Loving this discussion and so happy to see Roger get appreciated so. I am watching FYEO for the first time.. EVER and enjoying it so much.

    Also glad I decided to participate as you all seem like such a nice group. :)

    Thanks. I mean there are those that criticise Dalton for being serious and then praise Craig for being serious. I do not understand the logic. It makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense. Craig has a raw, more captivating quality that Dalton NEVER had. That's why he was better received. His performances are more confident and less self conscious.

    ...and he could carry off the humour better

    Craig is playing a Bond at the beginning of his career. Dalton played a Bond towards the end of his career. Dalton's Bond has been there and done it all. He is cynical and burnt out. He has seen more and is jaded. If Dalton is a bad Bond, then I do not know what a good Bond is. And please, there are awkward moments for Craig in Casino Royale where he clearly is uncomfortable. Some scenes were forced.

    Where is Craig's humour? Because it is nothing like Connery or Moore. I know the films. Craig did smile during the torture scene in Casino Royale. Is that what you mean?

    Sure when he says to Vesper : "You noticed!". But the humour is toned down. Dalton had humour in parts, but he did it with facial expression.

    Dalton isn't a bad Bond - but I can see why some people don't like him.

    Yes I agree there were a few moments where Craig looked a BIT nervous, but on the whole I'd say he was far more noticibly confident than Dalts. Craig's acting in the torture scene is grand - the way he laughs when he says "no".

    YES I have read Fleming and I still stand by what I say.

    I still ask the question: why has Dalton - despite his prestigious acting background and the fact he's played one of the most famous roles of all time - not succeeded in getting meaty, challenging roles and instead ended up in roles alongside the likes of Billy Zane and Bugs Bunny?

    We live in a different world. The actor Michael Keaton who headlined big films like Batman said that in modern films, they will hire actors that can make more than a $100 million at the box office. He said it is all about profit and the film studios are run by different people these days and there is less willingness for taking risk.

    The question you ask about why Dalton did not reach greater heights of success is pointless. How many actors have a big career these days?. Gary Oldman is a brilliant leading actor but most of the films he headlined were not big hits so he got more supporting roles.

    But that does not mean that Tom Cruise is a better actor than Gary Oldman. It's the politics of the industry and how willing you are to kiss ass. Gary Oldman is one of the greatest ever but will be lost on a brain dead mass audience who want films like Transformers or anything that you do not need much thinking with.

    But we see Gary Oldman far more on film than we do the likes of Dalton. Agreed he's rarely in leading roles but most of the roles he IS in make an impact. They are "meaty" and play an important part in a story. A good example is as Commisioner Gordon in the Batman films, he's a figure of authority who struggles to maintain peace in a crumbling city.

    Maybe Oldman IS more suited to supporting parts - but he plays them very well and, perhaps most of all, is EXTREMELY versitile. Who'd have thought he could play dispicable monsters in the likes of Leon, Air Force One and Hannibal but ALSO sympathetic figures like in Nolan's Batman films.

    Most of Oldman's role are for the villain. Dalton having done Bond would not be cast as a villain. And he was a lot older when he quit Bond. They want leading men in general in their thirties or twenties. Dalton was pushing fifty and the roles become more harder to attain.

    Also when Connery left Bond was 41, he was a mega star and even he struggled for years to get the same level if success. Connery was the biggest star in the movie world at one point.

    But my point is that Gary Oldman is an incredible actor and could wipe the floor wiht most film stars we see today. But film studios just care about the opening weekend and films these days do not have legs they had decades ago. Here today, forgotten tomorrow.

    Dalton just needs a director like a Tarantino and he is back on top. Or a Roman Polanski. Dalton has a wide range and is sadly underused. A director who could change his perception and it can be done if there is the will to risk.



    Come to think of it Dalton's never worked with a really "top" director as far as I know. The closest "big name" I've heard him being associated with was Renny Harlin (I know he's not the greatest of directors but he was big in the 90s with Cliffhanger and Die Hard 2 - both solid action flicks).

    Harlin flatly refused to work with him when he was asked to do GE and said the studio needed to recast.

    Brosnan's worked with the likes of Roman Polanski and John McTiernan, and starred alongside Meryl Streep, Judi Dench and Susan Sarandon. I'm sure Dalton would have LOVED opportunities like that.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Brosnan has managed his career outside Bond very, very well. I frankly would much prefer see a non-Bond Brosnan film than a non-Bond Dalton one.

    But I still think Dalts is far and away the better Bond. It's not really about acting talent for me. I just think he is a much better fit in the role than PB. Probably 80-90% of the film-going public probably disagree with me but that's my view.

    I'm actually noticing a lot of love for Dalts in the press recently. Both the Guardian and Telegraph have recently had TLD featured as their critics' favourite Bond movie. At the same time, the PB era seems to be almost universally derided in the press these days. Some people say they like GE but more often than not they're confusing the film with the computer game.

    In the end, quality will out!
Sign In or Register to comment.