It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
;)
He was intense, he was devout to the role, no question. But I do think in interviews and also to a lesser degree onscreen, he seemed to be overwhelmed, which after Moore and because Brosnan was the heir apparent, may have played a role in the public's perception. It must have been caused to a degree by the fact that he was perceived as second choice, so it was a vicious circle: the public expected Brosnan, Dalton feels this, it shows in interviews (the infamous LTK may be the last Bond line) and maybe on screen, they don't like it, they want Brosnan, etc. Objectively, how long did the longing for Brosnan last before CR? Until the first trailer?
I think when people call Craig the terminator Bond it's to do with during the action scenes rather than after. He gets hurt, he bleeds and that's great but when he's actually fighting he's unstoppable. He can beat the sh*t out of henchmen with ease, he leaps off rooftops and carries on unharmed, and he managed to survive being shot and falling into the river in SF.
Compare this to Dalton. He gets hurt and bleeds too (look at him at the end of LTK's finale, I'm amazed he's still standing), and he does cool stuff, but he doesn't make it look easy like Craig does.
In the PTS of The Living Daylights, he jumps onto the truck and you can tell he's clinging on for his life. And in the Licence To Kill finale, he jumps off a plane onto the tanker but he barely manages it. This is also true in the fight scenes, look at the fight in the prison in TLD. I'll admit it's nowhere near as good as the fights in CR and QOS, but he does actually look like he's fighting for his life.
Craig is brilliant in the fight scenes, the best so far imo, but even though you can see he's hurt after the action scenes are over, he never seems very vulnerable during them imo. He never seems to struggle (there is one exception though, the parkour chase in Casino Royale).
That being said I don't think Dalton "failed" per se but he perhaps didnt get the reception the studios had hoped for. He was well received in TLD but that praise seemed to fade a bit with LTK.
Dalton did novel Bond. Or as close to it as we will ever see.
In MY world, Bond can lose in a physical fight & have to think up something to come out ahead (give the man your boot, or a light). So far, Craig's Bond just cuts or hits or shoots them to death (or gives them oil to drink on a hot journey- actually that was a nice departure...). :)>-
To be honest I think people like it when Bond makes it look easy. Connery and Moore especially were experts at that and surprise surprise they are still fondly remembered.
:))
I said the same thing and the Brosnan fans attacked me. I don't think a Bond actor should play the role beyond the age 50. And Brosnan's age was showing. He was exactly a spring chicken when he was cast to begin with.
You hit the nail on the head. Body language is an invaluable part of an actor's performance. And while Connery and Craig moved like panthers Dalton's body language just seemed awkward at times. As if he's unsure of himself or uncomfortable. I might be looking into it to closely but he didn't move like James Bond. He also seemed a little awkward or shy around women at times. A never bought his Bond as a ladykiller the way I did with the others.
Due to 9/11, twitter and social media, technology , and a more cynical age of course
The first James Bond film after 9/11 was Die Another Day, arguably the most wacky James Bond film since Moonraker. It grossed over 500 million dollars (would be higher adjusted to 2014) and Pierce Brosnan's most successful Bond film. In retrospect, the 9/11 factor didn't make people less interested in over-the-top James Bond films.
I think US audiences didn't like Dalton because he was too intense and serious in the role (as mentioned on this thread) and this tends to reduce the character's wide appeal to casual Bond fans and regular film goers. But I do recall TLD doing huge box office beyond the US. From a US perspective you could argue Dalton wasn't a big success but elsewhere he was a big hit with film goers. Dalton played James Bond the way he wanted to play the part. That's all you can ask from any actor. :)
That's seems to be the issue. He wasn't particularly popular in one of the biggest countries in the world.
Because his portrayal of James Bond was at odds with established film heroes like Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones, Mel Gibson's Martin Riggs (Lethal Weapon), Bruce Willis' John McClane, etc. Here was this serious, intense British actor trying to capture the essence of Ian Fleming's 1950s Bond (albeit one with a 1980s 'safe sex' sensibility) and it didn't capture the imagination of the US audience. The average American's image of Bond is Sean Connery/Roger Moore so when Dalton came along they must have got a culture shock. "Who is this serious Brit playing Bond? "Where did Roger Moore's nudge nudge wink wink humour go?"
Perhaps timing and marketing are the reasons Dalton's Bond films didn't do too well in the US. Had MGM spent millions on promoting TLD and LTK in the US I'm sure they would have opened to bigger box office but it's possible Dalton's take would never wow enough US film goers. Craig's Bond follows on from Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne so audiences were accepting of a more serious/realistic take on the spy genre. But Dalton was Bond at the wrong time period (for the Americans).
Maybe some Brosnan fans, but hey I was somewhat of a Brosnan fan and after DAD I thought he had his days (regardless of my dislike of the last movie). I think the general public loved him, but not to the point where they thought he was entitled to stay. Of course, with Moore's age people understood he had to leave the role, but then Dalton was still second choice, and his departure from his predecessor very steep.
I remember when Brosnan left and Craig was cast, I was talking to a friend who is into Bond but is not a fan, and he said at first he wanted Brosnan to carry on, I told him the age issue, obvious in DAD, he said, well, yes maybe... But can the other guy be as good and bla, bla, bla. And then CR came out, and he was sold. Brosnan did not have anymore the popular back up he had in 1995 or 1987.
I think that's a fair assessment.
It's funny: I remember reading an interview with Fleming saying that "he (Bond) is a man of little culture". Could it be that Dalton was too cultured to play the role of Bond?
That said Bond did go to Eton and Dalts looks more like an an Etonian than Craig. But then again so does Ausie bruiser Lazenby.
It's strange when watching Dalts part of me does think he's perhaps a bit too posh an actor for Bond but then I like him in other scenes.
"I know a great restaurant in Karachi...we could just make dinner"
That never happened with Dalton. I believe, had DC been in the Dalton films, the reaction would have been different. Maybe not AS great as now, but a lot better.
I don't think he failed at all, however. Although TD was criticized for his portrayal by some, many contemporary critics praised him for bringing Bond back down to earth. Both TLD and LTK were critical successes, and TLD was the third highest grossing movie of 1987 (internationally). People often blame him for LTK's commercial failure, but that was thanks to a god-awful US marketing campaign and the decision to release it on the same day time as LEthal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones, Batman, etc. Had the producers had the foresight to delay release to the fall, I believe the film would have had a much higher gross.
I think people were more willing to accept Craig's similar portrayal for two reasons. First, after DAD, well, you know. Second, I feel that in a post-9/11 world, people liked the idea of a grittier, more worldly Bond. It also really helps that CR is just such an amazing movie.
1. Bond Fatigue.
2. LTK was a train wreck.
3. Unresolved legal issue dealing with the rights of Bond.
I am not really sure one can call Craig a success yet. A commercial success yes, but not necessarily the artistic success in the overall Bond legacy.
What are you missing - artistically? Which other film had 9 Bafta nods, incl. Best Actor for one film, etc, etc...?
If what you say about TLD being the third highest grossing movie of 87 is true, then surely that settles the argument about whether Dalton was a commercial success.
A big change since 87 that may also be a factor is that the US is nowhere near as important to the success of a film as it used to be. A film can do very moderate business in the States and go onto huge success globally because other markets have grown so much.
Any way, it seems clear that the idea Dalton 'failed', at least commercially, is just a myth.
[/quote]
Those were 3 heavyweights. Yup, not smart to put it up against those.
Well, of course we need distance to evaluate a legacy. But this was not what I asked, was it? I was of course asking about overall popularity and acceptance of the actor in the role, by critics and general public alike.
And one could say there was Bond fatigue after DAD.
And that's the problem I have with the Craig films. We are supposed to go straight from a young inexperienced Bond (who was supposed to be ex-SAS/military, but has a chip on his shoulder the size of the coast of Britain) then to this supposedly burned out agent in the space of one film. EON should have gone for a younger actor, failing that, re-write the film.
There was nothing wrong with the scripts of TLD & LTK, but Glen did focus more on the action, than any drama, which was left to the actors. But had Dalton had the support of a director that encouraged his performance(s), there's little doubt in my mind that Dalton would have been even better than he was.
Film Anarchy! Let the actors direct themselves!
...worked out rather well, actually. :-?
This is quite a ridiculous comment to make.
Artistic success? Casino Royale and Skyfall were not only the best reviewed Bond films since the Connery Era (if not ever) but also some of the best reviewed films of their respective years. Bond hasn't enjoyed such critical or "artistic" success in decades.
In regards to your first point I had a problem with that too. But at the same time GE plays around with the idea of an aging Bond but then in TND it seems like he's back to being Bond in his prime.
As far as you second point goes, while I still think Craig's scripts are much better than Dalton's there's no doubt that an actor of Dalton's caliber deserved a better director than John Glen. Supposedly Dalton and Glen had a heated confrontation on the set of LTK. Dalton and other actors would walk up to Glen with questions about their characters and he would basically blow them off and get back to focusing on an explosion. Dalton had had enough and called him out on his abilities working with actors. Afterwards the actors all went to Dalton for guidance rather than Glen.