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 guess this is the synthesis of what I was originally trying to get at. First of all, Dalton is the best cinematic representative of Fleming's Bond, and thus can be used as a surrogate for comparing Fleming's book character to the film versions. Secondly, Because both Dalton's Bond and the one from the books seem to share a similar lack of that certain 'je-ne-sais-quoi', it points to a some sort of flaw in the original character which Fleming created. Thirdly, the Bond character would never have become as popular as it did without Sean bringing his personal swagger to the role, which ultimately changed Bond from something sinister into something sexy. Though each film is a constant battle between these two essential ingredients, Bond movies are just better when the sensual elements out-weigh the menacing ones, and that is why Both Fleming and Dalton got Bond wrong, where as Sean, George, Roger, and Pearce all got it right, for the most part. Craig's verdict is still out because he's not finished with his film tenure yet, but if he were to step out now I'd have to rank him second to last after Dalton for his lack of swag, but that's a whole other thing entirely and this is not the time or the place for me to be trying to explain that. The point is Sean's classic quartet, DN, FRWL, GF, and TB are just absolutely Bond-tastic because they were the films that pioneered the film series and Sean's performances in them simply cannot be beat because he didn't just set the bar for Bond films to come, he was genesis and everything that the Bond character has become in our modern cultural lexicon can be trace back to him. Sean Is Bond!
I can respect you for making the effort to argue your point. And I agree that no one can beat Connery as a cinematic Bond. To do that, they would have to copy his attributes which means they are still in his shadow.
And this is why Dalton went to the books. Fleming is not flawed as the books are a fine read and show a less cartoony Bond. Dalton wanted to be judged only for his authenticity to the true character and also to create his own spin. Why be another Connery when you cannot no matter how hard the actor tries. Imitation is not what makes Bond great. Inventiveness is.
But the Bond blueprint of Connery can only go on for so long until it becomes boring. I do agree that the excessive use of Craig's toplessness is overkill and it stems from critics who initially called him too weedy looking for the role.
Connery had a great body too but you did not need to see it to know it!
I think the six Connery films you have are an era that will never be replicated unless you set the film in that era and style of film making. The modern take on Bond makes it so hard to allow that in my opinion.
You hit the nail on the head. "Forced". When I see forced Bond humour, I get annoyed rather than amused. It can never look like it is there to tick a box. In the old films it was more charming and even sexual references were subtler. Connery era anyway.
Say in DAF, where Connery says to the man in the office of the funeral parlour "He has gone to a better place. There is some consellation in that."
Well that line is humorous but delivered so subtly to not stand out or go to the audience "Was that funny or what?".
Not true. The point is that Sean was the best James Bond ever, even better than the one Fleming wrote about in the books, and he always will be because of how he pioneered the role in his first 4 films. It's basic but this was just one aspect of what I wanted to try and discuss here. Give me some time to get back to you with more about Craig's involvement here and where I think the series has to start going with his next two movies...
But that's only because they purposely veered away from the source material. So, you do like Connery's Bond better than Fleming's because he is a more likeable character. Which is pretty much what JimThompson said.
I do agree with your thesis, btw. I think the reason Bond survived so long in film was because he was made into a likeable character. I just wouldn't go as far as to say Connery was a better Bond than Fleming's since Fleming was the one who created the character to begin with. For the sake of the movies, he was better, yes, but that shouldn't negate what Fleming did with his books.
Well Pierce still did a better job at humor than Dalton did. He didn't even try very much to be funny, and when he did he got crickets. People rag on Pierce for coming off a bit silly and cartoonish yet they manage to cut Rog some serious slack. Pierce trying to force humor is far easier to watch than Bond defusing a bomb in a clown suit, or driving an iceberg-shaped submarine...
Yep.
Pierce was going for a different take to what Dalton did. No point in comparing. The films were different and written different. Pierce's style would not be appropriate for Casino Royale for instance.
Dalton had humour too but it was underused. TLD has a few one liners. And Dalton's era was a reaction to the over using of humour in Roger Moore's era. We have to judge in context of the times.
Pierce got ragged because unlike Roger, he was taking the role real serious but at the same time using too many lines written in for the sake of it. Purvis and Wade are no match for a Tom Mankiewicz humour style.
The Bond makers have their work cut out. You can only use the formula so many times and the day will come where it no longer works.
No that's not what I meant to do at all. Flemings books were great and they too are in a class of their own in the Bond universe. My primary goal was to use Dalton as proof that if they had started making Bond films with an actor like him who played the role verbatim to Fleming's description, rather than starting out with Sean who made the character sexier and less serious, then the series would have died off after just a few films. I guess I got a mild case of mission-creep while I was writing my thesis because I ended up trying to use that fact to argue that Connery had been just as integral to the creation of the modern Bond character as Fleming was, and while that may seem like a bit of a stretch, you cannot deny that he had an enormous part in it, second only to Fleming. I guess I was really just trying to illustrate how much Sean improved upon Flemings original character, and I do believe that his screen version was better, partly because he was likable, and mostly because he made it the character cool.
@sirseanisbond,
Though I do agree with you in large part to what you are saying, I nonetheless feel you completely invalidate the legitimacy of your statements by using the number of sexual conquests in a given film as a barometer for the sex appeal of that film's leading man. That is a ludicrous analysis. I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously if you state that as your agument.
I do agree with you in that Connery's portrayal is extremely different to Dalton's, as well Fleming's description. No question there. And I also agree with you that Connery's works infinitely better for the screen, and that he simply has the most animal magnetism and raw sexuality than any of the others. No arguments there either. However, I feel that Craig has that to some extent as well, and definitely much more so than you give him credit for. And you simply cannot evaluate that aspect of his masculinity by counting the number of on-screen conquests he's had. Those statistics exist because the SCREENPLAYS demanded them, end of story. It has absolutely nothing to do with Craig, or any of the other actors for that matter. Blame the writers.
I think you have a good argument overall, but you really need something much stronger to back it up because this, unfortunately, weakens it.
Those who discard the Bond from the book are missing out. It makes no sense to say Fleming is flawed considering the producers bought the rights and thought the character would make for amazing cinema.
The real question and answer @SirSeanIsBond is that had Fleming not written those books then there would be no Connery in the first place.
As for Sean improving on Fleming's original character? Sean was amazing in the role, but he just used his own personality to add to Fleming's Bond. @SirSeanIsBond is confusing the actor with the character. A nice try but ultimately does not stack up to logic.
Cubby Broccoli said that Bond is bigger than the actor who plays him and here we are 50 years later.
@SirSeanIsBond Who is the best Dracula. Is it the cinematic version by Bela Lugosi whose image was based on a magician or Bram Stoker's novel that to this day is being read?
I think the problem is that if characters stay in a stereotype or populist version, they can only go so far before running out of steam. The Hammer Dracula series became exploitation towards the end.
I remember when I saw the Dracula with Gary Oldman and thought he lost the plot. I grew up on Christopher Lee and I was the equivalent of you when it comes to Bond. I thought it was awful and so unsexy. I mean an old man as Dracula like Coppola shows in parts of the film? But it'sin the books and adds dimension.
But on reading about the character and Coppola's vision for the film, I could respect the work on it's own merit.
You unfortunately rubbish an actors hard work and that I take objection to. Not just Dalton but Craig too who both put a lot of thought into their performances and had no interest of being like a predecessor.
Dalton's Bond was a necessity for the series to gain some respect back. It could not have survived going in the Roger Moore direction and was past it's sell by date.
See, nobody supporting the argument of this thread has responded to my original post. TLD's opening is cinematic Bond in a nutshell, I reckon it proves Dalton was just as good as cinematic Bond as any of the others (and imo, he was better).
Dalton was the most dangerous, badass, ruthless Bond. In terms of badass, no Bond has topped Dalton in LTKs finale.
@wildboonjive You mentioned that you agree with most of @Sirsean
I want to ask you what you think of his assessment that Lazenby achieved more in 1 film than Dalton could have in 5. I think it is a stretch with no backing up myself.Kind of like me saying the world is totally flat because I think so.
I agree with you and your first post. Hey, I am doing my best to defend Dalton and I hope you noticed.
It is not easy and hard work. In fact Dalton's take on the character and his contribution is why I watch Bond to this day.
The problem is some want Bond to be like the pornstar Ron Jeremy!:)
Dalton's Bond had mystique and intrigue in his eyes. Like how he would look at a woman's body quickly and say it in his eyes how much he would like to do it with her.
And Fleming's Bond has that too.
Well, in varying degrees, all the Bonds were badass. Moore's stunts alone made his Bond particularly badass. I think his Bond had the best survival skills.
I don't think it's a question of how ruthless and dangerous Bond is. I think the original point was that Dalton didn't have the charm to hold the audience. IOW, would an audience in 1962 want to see a character like Fleming's Bond? Would they enjoy the films in 1962 if Dalton was playing the character the way he played it in 1986?
No Roger himself even said his Bond was never the killer but the lover.
Had Craig quit after two, many would say the same too. Just peoples nature.
We have to remember that Dalton's run was cut short due to a legal dispute but he was going to adapt his third. Audiences are not always the best judge. Are you aware that LTK scored higher with American test audiences than any prior Bond film?
Are you aware @marymoss that Roger's second Bond film took half the money his first took and yet 3 years later he was on top.
Audiences did like Dalton at the time he was in the role. Don't believe all the bullsh*t they did not. I was there and many loved it. After he left the press gave his film a hard time and it was unfair.
That's more reasonable @Bain123 Have you read Cubby's book When The Snow Melts?
@acoppola, the Lazenby this falls into that same category. It's ridiculous to assess him based on his conquests. The screenplay is responsible, not Lazenby. Though I have to be honest, for an unexperienced bloke I do think that Lazenby did have a fair amount of charisma.
I knew a guy just like you who until he read Cubby's book was not a huge Dalton fan.
But when he read why Cubby cast him and the reasons, he was sold.
You should get that book as it will broaden your understanding of why the franchise is so successful. Trust me on that one. A treasure of a book and the stories about Connery are great too.
The way he wrote it @wildboonjive I thought he meant Lazenby did a better job as Bond than a highly trained actor like Dalton. I know he mentioned the women, but I thought that was another issue.
I never thought Lazenby was a bad Bond and in a way he holds his own and has some unique moments that suited him perfectly.
You should read Cubby's When The Snow Melts if you have not. He goes into why they had to let Lazenby go.