Timothy Dalton or Daniel Craig?

1363739414248

Comments

  • Posts: 11,189
    Hmm fair point. Lets just agree that every film post FYEO has a big climax with at least one explosion or one gun being fired ;)
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    I find it strange that some people seem to ignore the fact that one of the staples in any Bond film is a degree of fantasy and OTT action but because Craig's doing it, mixed with an overall more serious and less cartoony tone, it's a problem??Some of you need to understand that these movies don't have to be one thing or another, there is clearly room for a dynamic that combines multiple elements. Get it into your heads, Bond movies will always have OTT action and will always have a degree of fantastical elements, irrespective of how "realistic" or "grounded in reality" they're supposed to be. To think otherwise is silly. That being said, with the physical shape Craig is in and how he looks doing the action, as far as I'm concerned he brings credibility and even a certain degree of believability that all the other 5 actors that came before him could actually do all the remarkable things he and they have done, as they're playing the same man. Bond is and has always been portrayed as some sort of expert when it comes to navigating any type of vehicle or executing some daring stunt. With Craig I can believe Bond can do these things not because the story tells me to believe it but because looking at Craig I can believe he can.As for Dalton, he's a great Bond and as disappointing as it is he only did 2 movies, I'm somewhat glad he didn't do more after LTK because with the corroding quality of scripts and overall direction the movies were heading in, I fear we all may have wished that Dalton stopped and got out after LTK. If anything I wish Dalton had either taken over the role from FYEO or OP.What I also love about Dalton is, it's with great conviction that he approached the role the way he did, knowing the risks and it was great to hear him as recent as 2002 for the DAD premiere show with parkinson, talking about how he had planted the seeds for a more darker take, which is more in line with Fleming's tone of the novels. I couldn't help bit feel embarrassed for Brosnan because he had done nothing with what Dalton had set up and when it was time for him to talk, he just lacked any real knowledge of the character where as Dalton when he was speaking knew what the hell he was talking about. This brings me to both Dalton and Craig. Both are very similar but still play the character differently. Both took incredible risks in that with Dalton he made a complete tonal shift from the Moore era abd with Craig, he himself just by his appearance alone was a risk and again, like Dalton it was a case of making a complete tonal shift from the cartoony Brosnan era. Both are great actors but having to choose one, I'd easily declare Craig as the better actor in general abd subsequently the better Bond.One if the issues I have with Dalton is, he could appear to be overly theatrical in his delivery of acting. As an actor one of the key skills you need to have is to be able to adjust and adapt and there were a few times where he couldn't quite find that right level of where he needed to be, which adversely affected his performance, making some of his scenes somewhat clumsy. Dalton is also an actor that has presense but for some reason, even with the theatrical acting he sometimes employed, he rarely ever lot up the screen with any real commanding presense for me. There was never that constant there that i could see but when it was there, he was great.As for Craig, for me, he's the total package and I could go on all day about how such a superb actor and great Bond he is but I'll do that another time. For me in a nut shell, Craig joins the ranks of Connery and Moore as being iconic and offering definitive portrayals of the character and once again making the Bond movies an A-list franchise once again. He is by far the best actor cast as Bond and conveys his performances with an undeniable brutal conviction. In my eyes, we're incredibly lucky to have this man as Bond.
    Very well written! That clearly took effort and I like that. I don't necessarily agree with everything but overall I do. I will say my worst scene for Dalton is where he meets Leiter in TLD. I think Glen thought it was good enough but I would have re-shot it again.I do remember Glen in his book mentioning him not showing Tim all the dailies after a while as Dalton would find a fault in a lot of shots and demand a reshoot. Tim would even question the kissing scenes by asking women on the set.Like you say, Dalton was a great Bond but took over at a time when the franchise was penny pinching thanks to studio pressure. I could not imagine Craig being happy to be in such a scenario where you have no real idea where things stand and can sense the opposition to what you are doing.I can say with full confidence that watching SF and Mendes work, I feel Dalton needed an A-list director to bring his full qualities out. But I still love his performances all the more knowing the history.Personally, I thought Dalton had in some scenes an overpowering in a good way presence. He just underplayed the Bondisms many were too familiar with. But he is an actor that was capable of doing the spoofier type Bond but him and Cubby wanted to go more serious and for that to work, the familiar elements were cut down.As the saying goes "You don't know until you try." Dalton took incredible risk being the first to jump in the deep end of uncertainty. That takes guts.I also think Brosnan's biggest mistake was running a mile from what Dalton had started. I never believed the depth in his films as a parodying moment was not far away. I really felt Brosnan could have played so well a straighter Bond like Craig does now.Brosnan in The Fourth Protocol shows he has the qualities to play the depth to a tee. And he would have been accepted in the role even if he was more serious. But I suspect EON wanting to make sure his films did big in the USA were tailoring his scripts more to his Remington Steele persona because that is why he was popular in the running for the role in the 1980's.The Fourth Protocol was not a hit but a damn fine film about secret agencies. Brosnan was great in that! And Brosnan to me has a greater image than Craig as far as Bond look goes. I never met one woman who did not find him incredibly handsome. And he had the right height which was a Cubby inistence as his book vividly states.I am sure Brosnan looks back now and sees where he needed to make alterations. But that can be said of any actor who has been in the part. Dalton included.
    On the "Bond Girls Are Forever" documentary I remember an interview between Mariam and Carey where Carey was recalling a story where Dalton was explaining to her how she should kiss him and the two laughed about it. Sadly a "big director to his name" is something Dalton has never really had - unlike Craig. A few days ago I read that Dalton was originally signed up for the 1985 film Pirates directed by Roman Polanski but was replaced because the two, for whatever reason, didn't get on. I could be wrong but I get the feeling that Dalton is perhaps a little too self conscious about his roles to the point where it clashes with directors and works against him. It happened with John Glenn in LTK too.

    I will agree that a big name director is something an actor of Dalton's calibre needed. Craig only agreed to sign on as long as the best possible people were hired to direct.

    I do think it strange that Dalton had to tell his Bond women how to kiss when it is the director's job. But they both loved working with him. John Glen said Dalton was super professional on set and knew exactly what he was doing. Glen was under huge pressure for LTK due to the budget cuts and MGM falling apart behind the scenes.

    In the film business there will always be clashes as it is a creative medium. I am a huge Polanski fan and sometimes creative differences can be an issue. Pirates ended up not being a great film for Polanski and he did it more as a favour to get back on his feet after his exile from the USA.

    Apparently the atmosphere on the TND set was awful too with the script writer falling out with the director. Film makers are like musicians and ego is so prevalent in both industries.

    Connery fell out with many directors he worked with.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    I find it strange that some people seem to ignore the fact that one of the staples in any Bond film is a degree of fantasy and OTT action but because Craig's doing it, mixed with an overall more serious and less cartoony tone, it's a problem??Some of you need to understand that these movies don't have to be one thing or another, there is clearly room for a dynamic that combines multiple elements. Get it into your heads, Bond movies will always have OTT action and will always have a degree of fantastical elements, irrespective of how "realistic" or "grounded in reality" they're supposed to be. To think otherwise is silly. That being said, with the physical shape Craig is in and how he looks doing the action, as far as I'm concerned he brings credibility and even a certain degree of believability that all the other 5 actors that came before him could actually do all the remarkable things he and they have done, as they're playing the same man. Bond is and has always been portrayed as some sort of expert when it comes to navigating any type of vehicle or executing some daring stunt. With Craig I can believe Bond can do these things not because the story tells me to believe it but because looking at Craig I can believe he can.As for Dalton, he's a great Bond and as disappointing as it is he only did 2 movies, I'm somewhat glad he didn't do more after LTK because with the corroding quality of scripts and overall direction the movies were heading in, I fear we all may have wished that Dalton stopped and got out after LTK. If anything I wish Dalton had either taken over the role from FYEO or OP.What I also love about Dalton is, it's with great conviction that he approached the role the way he did, knowing the risks and it was great to hear him as recent as 2002 for the DAD premiere show with parkinson, talking about how he had planted the seeds for a more darker take, which is more in line with Fleming's tone of the novels. I couldn't help bit feel embarrassed for Brosnan because he had done nothing with what Dalton had set up and when it was time for him to talk, he just lacked any real knowledge of the character where as Dalton when he was speaking knew what the hell he was talking about. This brings me to both Dalton and Craig. Both are very similar but still play the character differently. Both took incredible risks in that with Dalton he made a complete tonal shift from the Moore era abd with Craig, he himself just by his appearance alone was a risk and again, like Dalton it was a case of making a complete tonal shift from the cartoony Brosnan era. Both are great actors but having to choose one, I'd easily declare Craig as the better actor in general abd subsequently the better Bond.One if the issues I have with Dalton is, he could appear to be overly theatrical in his delivery of acting. As an actor one of the key skills you need to have is to be able to adjust and adapt and there were a few times where he couldn't quite find that right level of where he needed to be, which adversely affected his performance, making some of his scenes somewhat clumsy. Dalton is also an actor that has presense but for some reason, even with the theatrical acting he sometimes employed, he rarely ever lot up the screen with any real commanding presense for me. There was never that constant there that i could see but when it was there, he was great.As for Craig, for me, he's the total package and I could go on all day about how such a superb actor and great Bond he is but I'll do that another time. For me in a nut shell, Craig joins the ranks of Connery and Moore as being iconic and offering definitive portrayals of the character and once again making the Bond movies an A-list franchise once again. He is by far the best actor cast as Bond and conveys his performances with an undeniable brutal conviction. In my eyes, we're incredibly lucky to have this man as Bond.
    Very well written! That clearly took effort and I like that. I don't necessarily agree with everything but overall I do. I will say my worst scene for Dalton is where he meets Leiter in TLD. I think Glen thought it was good enough but I would have re-shot it again.I do remember Glen in his book mentioning him not showing Tim all the dailies after a while as Dalton would find a fault in a lot of shots and demand a reshoot. Tim would even question the kissing scenes by asking women on the set.Like you say, Dalton was a great Bond but took over at a time when the franchise was penny pinching thanks to studio pressure. I could not imagine Craig being happy to be in such a scenario where you have no real idea where things stand and can sense the opposition to what you are doing.I can say with full confidence that watching SF and Mendes work, I feel Dalton needed an A-list director to bring his full qualities out. But I still love his performances all the more knowing the history.Personally, I thought Dalton had in some scenes an overpowering in a good way presence. He just underplayed the Bondisms many were too familiar with. But he is an actor that was capable of doing the spoofier type Bond but him and Cubby wanted to go more serious and for that to work, the familiar elements were cut down.As the saying goes "You don't know until you try." Dalton took incredible risk being the first to jump in the deep end of uncertainty. That takes guts.I also think Brosnan's biggest mistake was running a mile from what Dalton had started. I never believed the depth in his films as a parodying moment was not far away. I really felt Brosnan could have played so well a straighter Bond like Craig does now.Brosnan in The Fourth Protocol shows he has the qualities to play the depth to a tee. And he would have been accepted in the role even if he was more serious. But I suspect EON wanting to make sure his films did big in the USA were tailoring his scripts more to his Remington Steele persona because that is why he was popular in the running for the role in the 1980's.The Fourth Protocol was not a hit but a damn fine film about secret agencies. Brosnan was great in that! And Brosnan to me has a greater image than Craig as far as Bond look goes. I never met one woman who did not find him incredibly handsome. And he had the right height which was a Cubby inistence as his book vividly states.I am sure Brosnan looks back now and sees where he needed to make alterations. But that can be said of any actor who has been in the part. Dalton included.
    On the "Bond Girls Are Forever" documentary I remember an interview between Mariam and Carey where Carey was recalling a story where Dalton was explaining to her how she should kiss him and the two laughed about it. Sadly a "big director to his name" is something Dalton has never really had - unlike Craig. A few days ago I read that Dalton was originally signed up for the 1985 film Pirates directed by Roman Polanski but was replaced because the two, for whatever reason, didn't get on. I could be wrong but I get the feeling that Dalton is perhaps a little too self conscious about his roles to the point where it clashes with directors and works against him. It happened with John Glenn in LTK too.
    I will agree that a big name director is something an actor of Dalton's calibre needed. Craig only agreed to sign on as long as the best possible people were hired to direct. I do think it strange that Dalton had to tell his Bond women how to kiss when it is the director's job. But they both loved working with him. John Glen said Dalton was super professional on set and knew exactly what he was doing. Glen was under huge pressure for LTK due to the budget cuts and MGM falling apart behind the scenes.In the film business there will always be clashes as it is a creative medium. I am a huge Polanski fan and sometimes creative differences can be an issue. Pirates ended up not being a great film for Polanski and he did it more as a favour to get back on his feet after his exile from the USA.Apparently the atmosphere on the TND set was awful too with the script writer falling out with the director. Film makers are like musicians and ego is so prevalent in both industries.Connery fell out with many directors he worked with.
    Indeed thats true regarding TND and Connery. In TND's case I remember reading in Dench's biography that she had to learn re-written pages of dialogue at very short notice and there were several altercations between Spottiswode and Barbara Broccoli - and I haven't included Brosnan and Hatcher. Connery I remember fell out with the director of the crapfest League of Extraordinary Gentlemen so yeah, creative disputes have always existed.One thing that is good about Dalts is that he doesn't strike me as particularly egotistical - more picky and precise. 
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Indeed @Bain123 Any actor will tell you even the most successful that luck or good fortune is a factor in the movie business.

    Dalton if he had any on set tantrums were tiny compared to Connery. Connery did not even want to see Saltzman on set. And I heard about the League Of as well as NSNA super arguments.

    Bond looks glamorous on the outside to the world and movie goers but the blood sure spilled metaphorically to deliver any film.

    Now I understand why actors avoid watching their films. I think it is because they know where the faults are and it must frustrate them to see that once it is released it is impossible to change.

    If you watch the commentary on TLD, Michael Wilson says Dalton was a leader having coached actors on sets before and had a healthy ego. Dalton is the only actor Cubby did not say a bad word about in his book. And Dalton never pissed him off once which speaks volumes.

    You seen the SF poster with Craig with one hand in his pocket? Dalton wanted to put his hands in his pockets for once scene in TLD and Glen over ruled him after a heated argument.And then years later, it is so normal.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I believe Glen said something like, Bond being a naval man, would never do that. Was he right? I'd assume Dalton would know Bond as well, or better than Glen.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I believe Glen said something like, Bond being a naval man, would never do that. Was he right? I'd assume Dalton would know Bond as well, or better than Glen.

    Glen had his work cut out with Dalton because no question but as an actor, he floors Moore. Dalton did know Fleming better as Cubby even said so in his book that no actor went to the depths of study like Tim.

    I watched FYEO the other day and notice when you take the humour away from Moore he suffers with the drama as well as action. Naturally, Dalton could have made that a better film.

    I think trying to make Moore serious is going against his nature as an actor. He pkays Bond best as a laugh. And that's fine if that is your cup of tea.



  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I believe Glen said something like, Bond being a naval man, would never do that. Was he right? I'd assume Dalton would know Bond as well, or better than Glen.

    I love the fact that the directors and actors used to argue over that kind of stuff. I really does explain why the detail and feel of the films up to 1989 is so different. You just can't imagine the directors from Cambell onwards having that awareness and sense of what is right and wrong for the character. Bond has frankly been a bit all over the place since LTK. Brosnan desperately needed a director that could mould him into Bond but he never got it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Getafix wrote:
    I love the fact that the directors and actors used to argue over that kind of stuff. I really does explain why the detail and feel of the films up to 1989 is so different. You just can't imagine the directors from Cambell onwards having that awareness and sense of what is right and wrong for the character. Bond has frankly been a bit all over the place since LTK. Brosnan desperately needed a director that could mould him into Bond but he never got it.

    @Getafix this is very astute and possibly my favourite ever post of yours. :)>-
  • Getafix wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I believe Glen said something like, Bond being a naval man, would never do that. Was he right? I'd assume Dalton would know Bond as well, or better than Glen.

    I love the fact that the directors and actors used to argue over that kind of stuff. I really does explain why the detail and feel of the films up to 1989 is so different. You just can't imagine the directors from Cambell onwards having that awareness and sense of what is right and wrong for the character. Bond has frankly been a bit all over the place since LTK. Brosnan desperately needed a director that could mould him into Bond but he never got it.

    I understand your point but I think "the good old days" weren't always as good as we like to think they were. I remember being astonished watching a few minutes of a Moore film (I can't remember which one) on TV when I was 13 or 14 years old. Even then I knew it was ridiculous for Bond to be wearing a double breasted blazer - how would he get the gun from his shoulder holster? Interestingly, years later I read a book about the Bond films and that was a criticism the author had - I seem to recall he said that Fleming pointed out Bond would never wear a double breasted jacket for that very reason.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    I understand your point but I think "the good old days" weren't always as good as we like to think they were.
    Watching movies like TB & TLD, I find I must disagree to some degree.
    ;)
  • Posts: 17
    How very true, the view of something at the age of 13 vs 26 or 36, will generally be very different, we like films for various reasons. I don't think "the gold old days" were as good as many remember. WE could pick out numerous items that would not be correct attire or items out of each movie some years later, however, they have been good films, no matter the era. I think Craig is the darker, tougher, fresh out of the training in CR and rough around the edges and still on the learning curve as an MI6 agent. I think as Fleming described in the first book CR.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Molly wrote:
    I don't think "the gold old days" were as good as many remember.
    Watching movies like DN & LTK, I find I must disagree to some degree.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Molly wrote:
    I don't think "the gold old days" were as good as many remember.
    Watching movies like DN & LTK, I find I must disagree to some degree.

    Well, MR was in the past as well... ;-)

    We're not saying that everything was "bad" in the "good old days", we're just saying that neither was it all good. There are several psychology studies that show that people tend to look at the past with rose-coloured glasses, imagining an ideal that never really existed in the first place.

    However, my point was that whatever problems the Bond films have now would also have been experienced by previous productions (in addition to other problems). So when someone says that it's too bad that actors and directors don't hash out details like whether or not Bond would stand with his hands in his pockets, just remember that are are lots of other details that they *didn't* hash out in the "good old days" (like the afore-mentioned double-breasted blazers).

    In fact, something that I really admired about Craig's Bond in CR was that in some scenes he had a very military walk (such as when he first approaches the new Aston Martin in Montenegro). There was an interview with Craig where he said that getting the posture and walk right was very important to making the character believable as someone who had been in the service. The fact that I noticed it when watching the movie (and before I read the interview) shows that actors and directors do indeed still hash out important character details.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    So when someone says that it's too bad that actors and directors don't hash out details like whether or not Bond would stand with his hands in his pockets, just remember that are are lots of other details that they *didn't* hash out in the "good old days" (like the afore-mentioned double-breasted blazers).

    Point taken and appreciated. :)>-
  • Posts: 3,327
    chrisisall wrote:
    I understand your point but I think "the good old days" weren't always as good as we like to think they were.
    Watching movies like TB & TLD, I find I must disagree to some degree.
    ;)
    You are choosing 2 films there from a list of how many....?

  • Posts: 3,327
    Well, MR was in the past as well... ;-)

    We're not saying that everything was "bad" in the "good old days", we're just saying that neither was it all good. There are several psychology studies that show that people tend to look at the past with rose-coloured glasses, imagining an ideal that never really existed in the first place.

    However, my point was that whatever problems the Bond films have now would also have been experienced by previous productions (in addition to other problems). So when someone says that it's too bad that actors and directors don't hash out details like whether or not Bond would stand with his hands in his pockets, just remember that are are lots of other details that they *didn't* hash out in the "good old days" (like the afore-mentioned double-breasted blazers).

    In fact, something that I really admired about Craig's Bond in CR was that in some scenes he had a very military walk (such as when he first approaches the new Aston Martin in Montenegro). There was an interview with Craig where he said that getting the posture and walk right was very important to making the character believable as someone who had been in the service. The fact that I noticed it when watching the movie (and before I read the interview) shows that actors and directors do indeed still hash out important character details.

    Nice post, and it also shatters the rosy coloured tint of the `good old days' which weren't really that good from YOLT onwards. With the exception of OHMSS and Dalton's films, I find it hard pressed to really love everything about the good old days.

    For every Moore film which had a few decent scenes, there would be some nasties in equal measure (no need to repeat them again, you all know which scenes there are).

    Then Brozza came along and the series really took a dive domb.

    I think the best of Bond is living with us right now - two of the greatest films in the franchise belong to modern Bond, it's just some here are reluctant to let go of the past, and their memories of the past are clouding their judgement.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    chrisisall wrote:
    I understand your point but I think "the good old days" weren't always as good as we like to think they were.
    Watching movies like TB & TLD, I find I must disagree to some degree.
    ;)
    You are choosing 2 films there from a list of how many....?

    I wouldn't call TLD good old days, as it isn't old. I think more 60s, where in addition we have the brilliant DN and FRWL and iconic GF above all else.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Well, MR was in the past as well... ;-)

    We're not saying that everything was "bad" in the "good old days", we're just saying that neither was it all good. There are several psychology studies that show that people tend to look at the past with rose-coloured glasses, imagining an ideal that never really existed in the first place.

    However, my point was that whatever problems the Bond films have now would also have been experienced by previous productions (in addition to other problems). So when someone says that it's too bad that actors and directors don't hash out details like whether or not Bond would stand with his hands in his pockets, just remember that are are lots of other details that they *didn't* hash out in the "good old days" (like the afore-mentioned double-breasted blazers).

    In fact, something that I really admired about Craig's Bond in CR was that in some scenes he had a very military walk (such as when he first approaches the new Aston Martin in Montenegro). There was an interview with Craig where he said that getting the posture and walk right was very important to making the character believable as someone who had been in the service. The fact that I noticed it when watching the movie (and before I read the interview) shows that actors and directors do indeed still hash out important character details.

    Nice post, and it also shatters the rosy coloured tint of the `good old days' which weren't really that good from YOLT onwards. With the exception of OHMSS and Dalton's films, I find it hard pressed to really love everything about the good old days.

    For every Moore film which had a few decent scenes, there would be some nasties in equal measure (no need to repeat them again, you all know which scenes there are).

    Then Brozza came along and the series really took a dive domb.

    I think the best of Bond is living with us right now - two of the greatest films in the franchise belong to modern Bond, it's just some here are reluctant to let go of the past, and their memories of the past are clouding their judgement.

    This. Also, nostalgia can be a very dangerous handicap. I know some people who flat out refuse to go back and watch certain films or tv shows because they are scared about hating it and they know they will if they revisit it with now. The preservation of their enjoyment from their younger years is that important to them and they don't want to tarnish that and to some degree this applies to many things.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Most of Rog's films were made in my lifetime. Are you saying that I lived in the good old days? I never realised. Makes me feel like a proper old codger!
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:
    Most of Rog's films were made in my lifetime. Are you saying that I lived in the good old days? I never realised. Makes me feel like a proper old codger!

    That makes two of us..... ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    doubleoego wrote:
    nostalgia can be a very dangerous handicap. I know some people who flat out refuse to go back and watch certain films or tv shows because they are scared about hating it and they know they will if they revisit it with now. The preservation of their enjoyment from their younger years is that important to them and they don't want to tarnish that and to some degree this applies to many things.
    When I was just a teen I thought DN was pretty good, but in seeing it recently I found it to be rather, errr... excellent.
    The Prisoner, UFO, Planet Of The Apes, Star Trek TOS- most of the stuff I loved as a kid I still love (Lost in Space's 2nd season being a glaring exception). ;)
  • Dalton is by and far my favorite. Craig has made some excellent films but Dalton's Bond is more compelling. As cold as he is Dalton is more human and vulernable, which makes him a more interesting and complex character.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Craig for me. By a mile.
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 12,837
    While I think Craig is probably a better actor it's still Dalton for me. My first Bond, he's always been my favourite and he probably always will be.

    He was just brilliant. He was the most ruthless Bond but also the most caring. He wasn't just a blunt instrument, he didn't blindly follow orders if it wasn't the right thing to do. He had a conscience and a clear sense of right and wrong, he was human. And even though he was more cold blooded than Fleming's Bond he was pretty faithful to the source material. He captured the world weary, burn out side of Fleming's Bond perfectly. More than any of the others you got the sense that Dalton was sick of his job. His Bond was also a daredevil, maybe not to the extent of Brosnan's Bond (who was daring to the point of being suicidal), but he did do some great stunts, and it's also impressive how Dalton did a lot of these himself. He was also resilient, he'd keep going until the job was done no matter how much he went through, and he was a complete badass. He also managed to define his Bond instantly. With some of the others, it seemed like they got better as they got more settled, for example I don't think Moore really hit his stride until TSWLM, but Dalton owned the role from day one.

    The only flaw I can think of was that some of his one liners fell a bit flat but that's not to say he wasn't funny. He might not have been great at the quips but he was funny ("I hope you don't snore Q" and "piss off" being his funniest moments imo).

    Dalton just is James Bond for me. Such a shame that he didn't do more.
    Craig for me. By a mile.

    Why by a mile? Not a Dalton fan?
  • Posts: 6,396
    I like Tim. I just like Dan a lot more.
  • ml94ml94 Finland
    Posts: 88
    Timothy Dalton.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    If I divorce the actor from the material (because I think Craig has a much better team, better scripts to date and better actors to work with) I will have to say Dalton.

    He certainly looked the part, was suitably ruthless when he needed to be and yet was able to project some vulnerability. He had a steeliness like Craig, but just looked more like Bond to me.

    Unfortunately, all the variables around him are much better in Craig's era (it's not even close).

    Dalton (in his prime mind you) stuck into a Craig era Bond film would have been masterful.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dalton (in his prime mind you) stuck into a Craig era Bond film would have been masterful.

    I disagree. I couldn't picture Dalton's Bond with all the modern technology like the overuse of cellphones, etc. Just like I can't see Craig's Bond in the late 1980's era. While both are quite similar, I think they both wouldn't fit in the other's period of time.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dalton (in his prime mind you) stuck into a Craig era Bond film would have been masterful.

    I disagree. I couldn't picture Dalton's Bond with all the modern technology like the overuse of cellphones, etc. Just like I can't see Craig's Bond in the late 1980's era. While both are quite similar, I think they both wouldn't fit in the other's period of time.

    The trouble with questions like this is they are impossible to answer. The times are different. If Dalton was 20 years younger, and made CR in 2006 for example, and Craig was the one who was 20 years older, and made LTK in 1989 for example, then Dalts would have been able to learn from Craig's mistakes, just like Craig has inevitably been able to learn from the mistakes of all the actors before him. There is a collective learning that has to be accounted for, as well as EON's learning.

    Craig no doubt studied Dalton, saw what worked and adjusted - including retaining the humour.

    Dalton only had Moore to go from (in the past 12 years) when he took over. What he was able to acheive in his two movies was very impressive, especially with the supporting cast he was given (nowhere as good as Craig).

    Plus, when Craig made Bond, serious was in and Bourne was around (not all that different from Bond in the sense that he was a spy - if a US based one) and successful. When Dalts made LTK, buff r-rated American superheroes were in (Willis, Sly, Arnie, Gibson) - something Bond could never be - so Dalts was already disadvantaged. Plus it was the 80's (which had its share of cheese).
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Of the two actors, I'd pick Dalton.
Sign In or Register to comment.