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
I suppose Dalton is quite "highbrow", more so than Craig. You say that you saw those features in The Guardian and The Telegraph. I can't imagine them in papers like The Express, The Mail or The Sun.
A bit... 'thespy'?
If they spent the same money on promoting Dalton's Bond like they did Craig then we would have a different result. Dalton's Bond era was unlucky because mistakes were made.
When they cast Dalton as Bond he went to work immediately with little preparation time. Are you telling me that had Craig started in the same circumstances with little change to the setup that he would fair better?
Craig's Bond era was handled perfectly by the producers and the studio. They left nothing to chance and did an exceptional promotional campaign. Without that, it would have been a different story.
I am defending Dalton's talent not his monetary success or how much money his films made.
And do not pretend that Craig was an easy sell and forgone conclusion that he would be a success. Had he had Dalton's support setup he would have headed the same way. Dalton did not have a Martin Campbell and got a director better suited to Moore. Though John Glen did a great job with Dalton, but Dalton had the leftovers from the Moore era. It needed a cleaner slate. Even if Casino flopped, it would not mean that he was a bad Bond. Or am I to judge an actor on financial or box office success. Some arthouse films are hardly famous but does it mean they are inferior?
And do not forget that the Bourne films had a huge impact on Craig's casting. Had the Bourne films not been the success they were, the Bond franchise would have stayed with Brosnan. All those factors played a part in Craig being accepted. He was at the right place at the right time. Plain and simple.
Well...he is a bit to be honest. Love them or loathe them the likes of Moore and Brosnan probably are a bit more excessable.
But they are both more popular Bonds. You can't really argue that.
Exactly. One does have to give him credit for trying to make Bond darker again.
I think TLD holds up fairly well (except the "can't imagine why" line at the end which is truely cringeworthy given todays climate) but I'm not so sure about LTK. It looks very "80s".
I actually like all the Bonds. For example I love Connery's style but appreciate that Moore is the total opposite. And by Dalton being so radically different I get another take for when the mood suits if that makes sense. By that they all are cool though some translate to a mass audience better than others.
But by Dalton being so different he succeeds in terms of the debate that still has not died. I have known those who hated him to one day completely love him. I had a work colleague who thought he was terrible but had not seen his films. But when I explained the history and why, he watched it and said he now rates Dalton. He actually enjoyed the films when he ignored the bad word which he admitted is what made him have the negative opinion. But thinking for yourself helps.
I think Dalton was very aware of Connery and intentionally wanted to make his Bond different. Connery is unique and there is no point in copying his personality. Because the classic movie Bond personality is Connery's personality too.
No one can do Connery style Bond better than Connery. Not Craig, not any other actor. When an actor tries to emulate Connery they are inadvertently acknowledging that he is superior. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. As Bond you have to be your own man for better or sometimes worse. But the Bond actors are evergreen and will be remembered. Dalton is better understood today than 15 years ago for instance.
Even George Lazenby's film is gaining a younger audience because fans these days really analyse everything thanks to the internet.
Ultimately that's very true but, to be honest, Connery was just the more entertaining.
As Dalton intelligently said when he was playing Bond that "You can't beat Connery!". I agree that Connery was the best movie Bond but Dalton is the better Fleming book Bond. In my opinion, Dalton was wise in the long run for being how he was. It stands out as different and he cannot be accused of imitation.
When I hear that Craig is the best Bond ever, I know that is temporary. No one will ever outdo Connery and it is a fools errand to try. Every one liner is because of Connery. The style and whatever is Connery too. You can at best copy, but they can only add more psychology to the character like they are now. But that is because audiences are ready for that. Kind of like the new Batman films. But they are a different franchise and cannot be compared to Bond.
And I prefer the older style Bond's including Dalton to the newer ones. I find it hard to rewatch Casino or Quantum. They make even the Dalton era look easy going and less heavy.
But I can watch the classic era every day. That says something. The new Bonds are for a different generation and the producers cannot depend on the die hard fans alone. The 18-24 year old audience is key for film studios.
But classic Bond was for everyone old and young alike. Sometimes I think the Craig Bond has elements of Bourne and that is why he never will equal Connery even if he does ten films. But Craig is a great actor!
We can argue about TD and DC, but it's fairly pointless. They both saw Bond as a serious, flawed yet occassionally playful character. In SF you will see Bond as a despairing, faultering man, but he emerges as the usual cocky and confident agent with a wicked sense of humour that we all love. It's a very good performance and the transition is faultless.
Dalton's Bond was relaxed and happy in LTK, but circumstances sent him the other way. SF in reverse in some ways. Mind you, I'm no fan of LTK ;-)
Well put. I have a feeling the producers know this. They will always promote the current actor as the best because the film studio needs the box office and public motivation to see if it is true if you get my meaning. Change is necessary to maintain interest and sometimes a film that was hated becomes a classic. In the UK, you can only get the Bonds on Blu Ray by buying the whole set. A real Bond fan will watch all the movies. The casual will watch two or three. All the Bond actors are still making them a lot of money. TV rights not included.
If the Bond actors all played the part identically to each other then Bond would have died years ago. And the fan base likes light and dark in equal measure. I can imagine a lighter style Bond after Craig.
Only its not the prods, who do this, but right now the press or back then or whenever. If the prods had any influenece in this, every film would be praised and every actor, because they all want our money. I think, the praise it gets right now is outstanding. But we will know more after today...
Out of interest, I just looked up RT for GE, which many here say got the same hype. Its on 81%, but with only 48 freviews. Quite different back then...
The Bond producers have a lot of power. When they cast the next actor as Bond it will be the same story how this one shows a different side of the character. I will never forget what they said about Pierce and now they are saying that Daniel is the best ever. I know it will be the same for the next guy. It is understandable, but I am immune to the hype.
All I am saying is that it is a business and when your time as Bond is up, the next guy has to be made to look like he is amazing too. As long as Bond lasts it is a neverending story. Any actor taking on the role can only do so much to add. 50 years is long as it is.
You also as an actor have to know how to play the press though the dinosaur media is not as powerful thanks to the internet. I mean viewing figures for television are getting lower and lower because we have so many things vying for our attention.
One thing I am noticing on casually talking to people is that a Bond movie is not the big deal to many people. Die hard Bond fans are a different case though.
I am noticing younger people say all Bond films are the same and people are so spoiled these days for entertainment. I am a different generation where Bond was the biggest attraction. I mean a Bond film on tv at Christmas was a highlight of the festival.
He would have done one more but refused to sign on for three more. The producers needed a longer commitment. Man, but I wish that dumb ass studio carried on making Bonds in 1991 and 1993. The biggest screw up in the franchises history because of greed. Dalton did not want to be Bond until 1999 and said it in an interview.
Let's also remember that the Bond limbo between 1989 until 1994 meant he was still Bond as he had not officially stepped away from the role and that would not help you career wise. He had no idea when the hiatus would end. Had he known it would last close to 6 years from day one, he would have quit immediately after LTK. Dalton was contractually obligated as he signed on for three in 1986.
His main love is the theatre and I don't think he cares what people think of him. He tends to go for films he likes even if they do little to boost his popularity.
After a role like Bond, it is hard to be seen as anything else. Back when Dalton left Bond, that is how the industry viewed it. It took Connery 16 years until he did The Untouchables. Before that he had mixed success and even a few flops. And Connery was a cultural icon.
Skyfall isn't going to be the best James Bond film of all time. Certainly not now. Daniel Craig can't be seen as the best Bond actor because he needs his tenure to run through to the end.
The press are clueless about Bond. They just pick the buzzwords without examine the film critically. Rotten Tomatoes is the most useless website ever and yet it gets some massive rep...why? Just because some bloke in Chicago didn't like AVTAK, does it mean it's bad? Hell no. In the article in the Torygraph kindly provided by @Getafix there is no mention of Roger Moore's films. Seriously? And yet because he didn't mention a Moore classic such as TSWLM, OP, LALD or FYEO, people would dismiss Moore as a poor Bond.
Ultimately, Dalton will always be seen better and stronger than Bond. Dalton had the tougher set up than Craig did and Dalton simply is better at playing Bond than Craig. I hate it when people mention Ian Fleming. Ian Fleming was a snob (to quote Sir Sean Connery) and his view of the chracter is archaic and old fashioned. The literary Bond is as good as dead in my opinion because things have changed. Oh and Moore was a literary Bond too if people had bothered to read the books/watch Moore's films more closely
I like your thinking! I do miss the classic style of the older Bond films. And the hype is ubearable. Back when Roger played Bond you saw a tv advert or a newsflash. That was it. And there was mystery to how it will be. But they give away so much before you even see the damn thing thanks to a 24 hour media. It is so hard sell. Nowadays I log in to Yahoo and Bond is in my face. I cannot escape it and ironically am not as excited.
I think the newer Craig era is radically different with even the gun barrel missing at the very opening. At times it reminds me of a mix of Bond as well as Bourne. I have talked to serious die hard Bond fans who pointed it out too.
In Skyfall, I hate the idea of a young Q. Sorry, but the charm was the fact that Q was older and Bond was naughty with him. I saw the clips of Q in Skyfall and hated it with a vengeance. These changes will bite the series in the ass years down the line. It jars me more than an invisible car.
And the poster campaign looks poor compared to the classic larger than life Bond posters. I saw London buses advertising Skyfall and the villain looked like he was from The Matrix. The individual character campaign does not suit Bond. Give me Live And Let Die style artwork or Diamonds any day please over Skyfall!
And I do not care but have to say that M with Bernard Lee was perfect. I loved how Bond would walk into his office and that style was last seen in Daylights. It is so unique to Bond and part of the heritage. To me M worked best in smaller measures rather than an almost main character nowadays. Revealing too much of M or about M is wrong. Hell, bond even broke into her house in Casino. Nice one!
And I do not trust the press even for news coverage let alone a film. Even the classic Bond films got there share of bad reviews but it made you want to see it more.
What spoils it for me is this illusion that Skyfall is the best ever. Sorry, but the trailer does not get me hooked. Man, but when I watch the trailer for a Connery Bond, they handle the mystique of the character Bond better. Same for Moore and Dalton.
I think the trailer for FYEO is a case in point of making Bond very sexy and mysterious which is what he should be! Oh and The Living Daylights trailer is made cooler by using the Bond music from Live And Let Die's scene where Bond is in the yellow cab going to Harlem. A nice touch!
And I hear all this stuff about him being unpopular, well, I can't speak for everyone but not where I lived he wasn't.
That's because GE came out before RT and it's much harder to round up all the reviews without websites, etc. It's the same with all older films.
It DID get similar hype and it was really well recieved (but I will admit not on the same scale as SF).
It's growing. After GE came out it seemed like everybody hated Dalton but now I'm seeing more and more appreciation for him. He's even got himself some celeb fans (Simon Pegg said he was the best Bond).
It's funny really, I've heard this lots of times but then I can't understand why me, my foster dad, and other people I knew/know would like him. I grew up in Hackney and I've never been to the theatre in my life, but Dalton is still my favourite Bond. Never thought of him as "high brow"
Right, I'm off now. Down to London to see SF. Bye.
It's nice to see some Dalton love in the press, as it doesn't occur that often.
The Guardian ran a piece last week where one of their critics was saying TLD was his favourite.
The love is out there and it's growing.
I actually think DC has given a lot people a reason to take a second look at Dalts.
During the PB era the attitude was that TD was an aboration - a nasty mistake that we should all keep quiet about. But since CR it's become increasingly obvious that TD was onto something back then in the 80s and it's taken almost 20 years to get back to where he left off. Now its PB that looks like the odd man out.
:P
I do think Daniel should acknowledge that Dalton went back to Fleming on an intense level first. I saw his Skyfall interview and it sounded like he was the first to do it. Not that he said that, but surely as the fan of Bond he claims he is, he must of known that.
Just simple courtesy. Even the critic Mark Kermode said Dalton laid the foundation for the Craig era.
Yes credit should go to Sean for originating the role, but he should mention Dalton when it comes to Fleming style Bond. Oh and to Matt Damon too!:)
Pierce did acknowledge what Dalton did later in his Bond career and it made me like Pierce more.
Though I would like to pick at something. Matthews says that ther was a lack of humour in Daltons Bond, which I think isn't true. There is humour, but It's dry, sarcastic even.
"Correct, you should have brought lillies."
Even Haphazard - a Dalton fan - admits in his reviews that Craig delivers the one liners far better than Tim managed. In the screening I just attended there were several laugh out loud moments. Craig was smooth, relaxed and charismatic.
Great Bond film.