91 replies to this topic

[Shrublands]

Not particularly reflective of my taste. I'm talking about my perception (and only my perception) of popular opinion.
And that is, that whilst both actors have attempted to actually act Fleming’s Bond on screen (something that is quite particular to Craig and Dalton), Dalton ended up showing a sour, stuffy quality that audiences found it difficult to relate too and stayed away in their millions.

Did they, though? The Living Daylights made more money than A View to a Kill, and Licence To Kill made only very slightly less than it (and even then it was hampered by being given a 15 certificate). I don't remember anybody saying A View to a Kill was a flop.

It would have been much the same result if Brosnan, or anyone else, was playing the character in those films at that time.

Also, Licence To Kill had the highest viewing figures of any film shown on British television in 1994. So Dalton couldn't have been that hated.

There has been no such problem with Craig’s similar approach but different outcome.

Craig's films, like Brosnan's, are promoted to the hilt. The hard sell can do wonders for a film.

With the casting of a new Bond attendance went up slightly with LD. But when audiences were asked to come back for Dalton’s second outing, there was no prevailing atmosphere that there was any hunger for it – subsequently, LTK is the least tickets sold for a Bond film in the history of the series.

And actually, whilst not a flop, AVTAK was seen as a big disappointment at the Box office. Which wasn't altogether surprising - Moore looked geriatric, the script and direction were farcically bad. If it hadn’t been for the Bond brand nobody would have shown up.

[Royal Dalton]

People only show up for the Bond brand anyway. They don't turn up because Daniel Craig, or whoever it might be, is in them. Otherwise they'd turn up for all their other films, as well. Which they don't.

Licence To Kill had only marginally less bums on seats than A View to a Kill, and was hampered, not, in my opinion, by Dalton, but by the core audience (under 15's) being frozen out. It probably would have been nearer to the Daylights attendance levels otherwise.

But it still did well, box office-wise. A lot better than its reputation would suggest, anyway.

[Shrublands]

People only show up for the Bond brand anyway. They don't turn up because Daniel Craig, or whoever it might be, is in them. Otherwise they'd turn up for all their other films, as well. Which they don't.

I think it’s a fusion, the Bond brand with the right actor creates something greater than the component parts.

[Royal Dalton]

Yes, that's true. But whether somebody is considered the right actor is subjective. Which is really what this whole discussion boils down to isn't it.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

TANGENT anybody?

LTK simply failed because of bad advertising, perhaps a little dose of audience Bond fatigue, but I don't think it attributed to Dalton's acting abilities. Any actor is "dislikeable" following jolly old Roger Moore. Dalton was fine, not Daniel Craig fine, but fine.

[SecretAgentFan]

Once again - perception is always closely linked to the everchanging views of a particular era.

Dalton came after Moore, and lots of people were tired of James Bond at that time.

Craig came after Brosnan, and lots of people were just excited to see James Bond again.

Dalton was not a muscular beast like Craig but took the role just as seriously, with a dark and sinister humor underneath.

Both are trying to portray Bond more realistically than their predecessors. But in the late 80´s Dalton just did not have the advantage of being welcomed by audiences who loved their Burton-Batman, Indiana Jones AND the "funny psychopathic Mel Gibson"-Lethal Weapon-films.

Those who still dislike Dalton but embrace Craig have just filed Dalton under failure. They should risk another look.

Once again – I’ve known people to give it another look and they still don’t like it for the very same reasons they didn’t like it back then. I’ve also known younger people who weren’t born in the late 80s take a look and say something like, “God, he seems in such a bad mood, what’s wrong with him?”
A bad-tempered, dyspeptic performance that is uncomfortable and wearing to watch.

Well, if you know those people you must be right.

I know others - but, hey, they must be wrong.


Now, that seems to be a pretty despeptic answer...

[Germanlady]

Thanks Shrublands. I've said before and I'll say it again: Dalton and Craig are like chalk and cheese. I think Craig is bloody fantastic and Dalton is my least favorite. Don't understand how anybody can consider those two cut from the same cloth.

Absolutely...

[Shrublands]

Well, if you know those people you must be right.

I know others - but, hey, they must be wrong.


Now, that seems to be a pretty despeptic answer...

It does somewhat. I was merely talking about a point of view and my experience.

[Germanlady]

Craig's films, like Brosnan's, are promoted to the hilt. The hard sell can do wonders for a film.

I really think, some people try so hard to change reality with obsurd reasons, that it rather hurts their intention then being helpful.
Sure, Dalton was a new Bond actor and of course, they promoted him less then new Bond actor Craig or Brosnan and surely, they didn't know back then how to promote a film. (this is sarcasm)

Even if Daltons films fall under a "still not as internetty as it is now" time - so did all those before him and most were more popular.

I dunno what it is, that the Dalton fans try to feed the rest of us with "put together facts" that make no sense. Its going versus absurdom. Why not accept, that he is a good actor, who tried his best but wasn't liked very much - and that has partly to do with the fact - yes fact - that many didn't find him attractive or charismatic at least. That's the real killer of him.

[JCRendle]

Now now, ladies, try to keep this place friendly...

[Royal Dalton]

Craig's films, like Brosnan's, are promoted to the hilt. The hard sell can do wonders for a film.

I really think, some people try so hard to change reality with obsurd reasons, that it rather hurts their intention then being helpful.
Sure, Dalton was a new Bond actor and of course, they promoted him less then new Bond actor Craig or Brosnan and surely, they didn't know back then how to promote a film. (this is sarcasm)

There's nothing absurd about it. If you market something properly people will buy it. Whether it's a film or an ice lolly.

[Germanlady]

Craig's films, like Brosnan's, are promoted to the hilt. The hard sell can do wonders for a film.

I really think, some people try so hard to change reality with obsurd reasons, that it rather hurts their intention then being helpful.
Sure, Dalton was a new Bond actor and of course, they promoted him less then new Bond actor Craig or Brosnan and surely, they didn't know back then how to promote a film. (this is sarcasm)

There's nothing absurd about it. If you market something properly people will buy it. Whether it's a film or an ice lolly.

I don't agree, that it wasn't properly marketed, hence my saying...its grabbing at straws..

..and this is NOT an unfriendly remark. But if Dalton fans try to make his overall BO look good by counting Toy Story 3, where he is Nr. 19 speaking role (other board, but probably same people here) its showing a bit, how hard they try...that is all I am saying.

[JCRendle]

Got to love him in Hot Fuzz though...

[Royal Dalton]

..and this is NOT an unfriendly remark. But if Dalton fans try to make his overall BO look good by counting Toy Story 3, where he is Nr. 19 speaking role (other board, but probably same people here) its showing a bit, how hard they try...that is all I am saying.

Okay, I promise not to count Toy Story 3.

So, what's Craig's overall box office for his non-Bond films, then? I should think it must be pretty good, considering his attractiveness and charisma.

[SecretAgentFan]

Let´s not get too dyspeptic here.

Those of us who love Dalton can still love Craig and vice versa. Those who don´t have perfectly legitimate opinions.

As long as both sides don´t try to force their opinions down each other´s throats we should be doing fine here.

In the end, we all love James Bond, don´t we?

[Royal Dalton]

As long as both sides don´t try to force their opinions down each other´s throats we should be doing fine here.

That would be nice, SAF.

Especially since this thread isn't even supposed to be about Dalton.

[SecretAgentFan]

Depressing, isn´t it?

[Royal Dalton]

Depressing, isn´t it?

[PPK_19]

So... aside from all that, hasn't "Bond in a funk" just been covered in the last movie? Don't want EON to be retreading old ground...

I know what you mean, but QOS was more about Bond finding redemption.

This is more an 'inner demons' look at a tortured, troubled assassin who questions his job.

[Vauxhall]

I doubt they'll wallow in Bond's "depression" too much, but some moody scenes in the same vein as the hotel room scene in TOMORROW NEVER DIES would be decent. It also would be interesting to see if they could portray Bond's fitness regime as being part of a personality trait which suggests his pastimes are ways to numb his brain to the reality of his profession.

[Royal Dalton]

Yeah, I imagine the swimming pool and running in the park scenes will be about Bond getting all the negative stuff out of his system, so he's ready for duty.

[Matt_13]

Exactly, just as the lines "Some men are coming to kill us. We have to kill them first" symbolizes Bond coming full circle and accepting his fate as a 00.

Or not.

[Vauxhall]

Yeah, I imagine the swimming pool and running in the park scenes will be about Bond getting all the negative stuff out of his system, so he's ready for duty.

On a similar note, I'd missed the fact that one of the teaser summaries referred to a shooting range. I'd wager that this is another facet of Bond's training regime, along with running and swimming.

[smudge76]

Still, it's good to know they're showing Alfred Hitchcock films in gyms these days. Although, I would have thought The 39 Steps would have been more appropriate.

Who needs 39 Steps whe you have Dalton perving over some young lady, tearing her dress off and making us all a little un easy and nervous........yum yum ........Timothy Dalton was a good Bond not the best i don't think but as a post above stated its the Bond brand people go to see not the actor. Thats why i was a bit stunned and on a previous thread when a few people said they would no longer be Bond fans if Tom Hardy got the role, i dubt what they said is true though.In fact probably toughest and one most capable of handling himself in real life was George Lazenby. A skilled martial artist, boxed a couple times whilst doing his stint in australian army then again Roger Moore was known to throw the odd punch as young man aswell.

[Royal Dalton]

Lazenby was physically very good, wasn't he. When he threw a punch, he put his whole body weight behind it.

On a similar note, I'd missed the fact that one of the teaser summaries referred to a shooting range. I'd wager that this is another facet of Bond's training regime, along with running and swimming.

Oh, that's interesting. A bit of Moonraker influence there then, perhaps?

[AMC Hornet]

I so hope you mean the novel and not the movie...

[Matt_13]

He means the novel. The intro where Bond is at the range.

[Royal Dalton]

Yes, the novel. But the pigeon from the film version's in it, too. So, all bases have been covered.

[Harmsway]

I'm fine with a little depressed Bond provided it's not much like the beach scene from GOLDENEYE. "It's what keeps me alive." "No, it's what keeps you alone." Blecch.

[Matt_13]

It'll likely be conveyed through metaphorical conversation or Craig brooding/pushing himself hard while training to demonstrate his angst.