56 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

1. Sean Connery - Had the most charisma, sex appeal, believability, and deadliness, as well as the best dialogue delivery. He was the one Bond that I felt carried the "to hell with it" attitude.
2. Pierce Brosnan - Not perfect, but in GE and TND he's wonderful. In TWINE and DAD... well that's another matter.
3. Roger Moore - Roger is on and off with me. I love him, I hate him. He's consistently excellent in TSWLM however.
4. Timothy Dalton - Ugh. I can't stand him as Bond. He's nowhere near what I think Bond is - even as Fleming described him. I don't find him to have the 007 sex appeal or even feel dangerous. It doesn't help he's in two of the more bland films in the series.
5. George Lazenby - This man has some of the worst dialogue delivery I've ever heard. I can't stand how he looks and how he acts - he's just completely unattractive. It's a pity he's in OHMSS, because outside of his performance, the film stands up reasonably well.

[General A. Ourumov]

I thought Timothy Dalton put in a pretty solid performance as 007, though it was, by no means, my favourite. My overall rankings of the Bond actors go;

1. Roger Moore
2. Sean Connery
= Pierce Brosnan
4. Timothy Dalton
5. George Lazenby

[007luvchild2]

Dalton is tied with Roger Moore at 3#. Both are just like, Night and Day. I don't include Lazenby in the rankings anymore. It would have been a different story if he did several more Bond films.

[DLibrasnow]

My ranking of Dalton would probably be higher if he had not done LTK.

[Qwerty]

My ranking of Dalton would probably be higher if he had not done LTK.

Although Dalton isn't my #1 Bond, I like his work on both his films alot! Licence To Kill, is so differnet, and I remember have a great detest for this film the first time I saw it. Now, I've grown to like it very much over the years for one reason: it's so different.

I'll admit that the violence can be shocking to a first time viewer of the film fresh from coming from the Roger Moore era, but for this film, it's needed and it works okay. (I'll admit, that some editting wouldn't hurt the film, but I think it'sd fine now)

I think it takes time to fully get this Bond film and why it's so different, at least, that was the deal for me.

[trs007]

1. Connery
2. Brosnan
3. Dalton
4. Lazenby
5. Moore

[brendan007]

My ranking of Dalton would probably be higher if he had not done LTK.

I completely agree, he gives a great performance in TLD, only to give a so-so perfomance in LTK.

[DLibrasnow]

My ranking of Dalton would probably be higher if he had not done LTK.

Although Dalton isn't my #1 Bond, I like his work on both his films alot! Licence To Kill, is so differnet, and I remember have a great detest for this film the first time I saw it. Now, I've grown to like it very much over the years for one reason: it's so different.

I'll admit that the violence can be shocking to a first time viewer of the film fresh from coming from the Roger Moore era, but for this film, it's needed and it works okay. (I'll admit, that some editting wouldn't hurt the film, but I think it'sd fine now)

I think it takes time to fully get this Bond film and why it's so different, at least, that was the deal for me.

I have nothing against shaking up the Bond formula a bit. In fact one of my favorite Bond films is Never Say Never Again precisely because it is so different.

[Qwerty]

My ranking of Dalton would probably be higher if he had not done LTK.

Although Dalton isn't my #1 Bond, I like his work on both his films alot! Licence To Kill, is so differnet, and I remember have a great detest for this film the first time I saw it. Now, I've grown to like it very much over the years for one reason: it's so different.

I'll admit that the violence can be shocking to a first time viewer of the film fresh from coming from the Roger Moore era, but for this film, it's needed and it works okay. (I'll admit, that some editting wouldn't hurt the film, but I think it'sd fine now)

I think it takes time to fully get this Bond film and why it's so different, at least, that was the deal for me.

I have nothing against shaking up the Bond formula a bit. In fact one of my favorite Bond films is Never Say Never Again precisely because it is so different.

Yes, I for one thinmk chanb=ge in the Bond films is nice and needed once in a while. Take NSNA or LTK for example, it keeps things refreshed and I hope they never stop changing things once in a while.

[Auricston]

I think Timothy Dalton's third film would have been a mixture of The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill. He would have gone on from strength to strength. As someone has said previously both Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby are dissmissed because they only did two and one films respectivley.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

1) Sean Connery
2) Timothy Dalton
3) Roger Moore
4) Pierce Brosnan
5) George Lazenby

[DLibrasnow]

I think Timothy Dalton's third film would have been a mixture of The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill. He would have gone on from strength to strength. As someone has said previously both Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby are dissmissed because they only did two and one films respectivley.

Yes, it was nice to finally hear Cubby say that Lazenby could have been a great 007 if he had stuck with the role.

[Loomis]

I think Timothy Dalton's third film would have been a mixture of The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill. He would have gone on from strength to strength.

I reckon they'd have tried to move well away from LICENCE TO KILL for the third Dalton outing. They'd have upped the gadgetry, stunts and spectacle and attempted to make another "fun for all the family" Bond adventure, much more lighthearted than LTK, although I can't picture Dalton giving a Moore-type comic performance. We'd probably have ended up with a more expensive and action-packed version of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. I'm sure they'd have learned lessons from the failure of LTK, and the third Dalton would have done a lot better at the box office. Would it have been a blockbuster, though, and secured his tenure as 007? Who can say?

I believe the third Dalton film wasn't just idle chat or a glimmer in Cubby Broccoli's eye. It actually went into pre-production, with a script almost complete. But the unthinkable happened, and MGM/Eon have kept very quiet about it over the years: a James Bond film was actually shut down, cancelled, scrapped. Why? Dalton's perceived lack of popularity may have been a factor, but only one factor. Probably, the screenplay just wasn't good enough and the film wasn't ready to roll. Or perhaps it was just that pesky court case that kept getting in the way.

(This topic has been mentioned a few times in the Dalton forum, with reports of the proposed story, and of the announcement of the followup to LTK at Cannes. Basically, there are indications that the third Dalton film came much closer to being made than has ever been officially admitted.)

[DLibrasnow]

After the lukewarm reception for LTK here in the USA I think Loomis hit it right on the money with his previous post.

[Loomis]

After the lukewarm reception for LTK here in the USA I think Loomis hit it right on the money with his previous post.

Thanks, Darren. Yes, I think they'd have completely shunned LICENCE TO KILL as a model for DALTON 3 and tried to get back to "classic Bond". I expect they'd have aimed to make a hipper, more pumped-up LIVING DAYLIGHTS-type flick, with a bigger villain with bigger schemes (as opposed to lowlife drug dealer Sanchez), and a couple of really awesome action scenes. I've always felt that spectacle was sorely missing from LTK as far as general audiences were concerned, and that if Sanchez had had a good old-fashioned, honest-to-God Bond villain's diabolical plan, such as threatening to blow up Miami with a death ray, the movie would have taken much more money.

So the stories of robots and other hi-tech elements in DALTON 3 make sense when looked at from that point of view.

[SnakeEyes]

"I've always felt that spectacle was sorely missing from LTK as far as general audiences were concerned, and that if Sanchez had had a good old-fashioned, honest-to-God Bond villain's diabolical plan, such as threatening to blow up Miami with a death ray, the movie would have taken much more money."

You could be very right, imagine if the giant 'door' on the temple had actually been a silo cover for a giant nuke with loads of poisoned drugs type gasses as the payload: that would have been great, Sanchez, who the world thinks is just some drug scum actually has a secret plan even the audience only learns of near the end and then it's a race against madness as Bond trys to abort the launch etc.

Instead they just have a really great effect like that door wasted on a fkn indoor helipad

Who knows what the 3rd Dalton could have done? It would have surely been the make or break film, however. Instead, we are left only to speculate

[booyeah_]

I believe the third Dalton film wasn't just idle chat or a glimmer in Cubby Broccoli's eye. It actually went into pre-production, with a script almost complete. But the unthinkable happened, and MGM/Eon have kept very quiet about it over the years: a James Bond film was actually shut down, cancelled, scrapped. Why? Dalton's perceived lack of popularity may have been a factor, but only one factor. Probably, the screenplay just wasn't good enough and the film wasn't ready to roll.

Was the title of the script "The Property of a Lady"? Did it take place in Hong Kong or is this an old rumor with no substance? Does anybody know of any info on the script? If so, please share.

[Qwerty]

I believe the third Dalton film wasn't just idle chat or a glimmer in Cubby Broccoli's eye. It actually went into pre-production, with a script almost complete. But the unthinkable happened, and MGM/Eon have kept very quiet about it over the years: a James Bond film was actually shut down, cancelled, scrapped. Why? Dalton's perceived lack of popularity may have been a factor, but only one factor. Probably, the screenplay just wasn't good enough and the film wasn't ready to roll.

Was the title of the script "The Property of a Lady"? Did it take place in Hong Kong or is this an old rumor with no substance? Does anybody know of any info on the script? If so, please share.

I'm pretty sure a script was never written, although I believe that there were some ideas thrown around, including that title and the possibility of China....

[Harmsway]

well you have to read the books to appreciate Daltons performance.

I sincerely disagree. I've read the books and I don't think Dalton is what Fleming described. Dalton tries, however, and I give him credit for that.

[H.M.Servant]

I'm pretty sure a script was never written, although I believe that there were some ideas thrown around, including that title and the possibility of China....

I don't know too much about this but I always thought Dalton's third film was supposed to have been Goldeneye? Then due to the McClory thing it was shelfed and when the courtcase was done, Dalton's contract was over and the got Brosnan instead? Or is that just what they (EON) want us to think?

[Qwerty]

I'm pretty sure a script was never written, although I believe that there were some ideas thrown around, including that title and the possibility of China....

I don't know too much about this but I always thought Dalton's third film was supposed to have been Goldeneye? Then due to the McClory thing it was shelfed and when the courtcase was done, Dalton's contract was over and the got Brosnan instead? Or is that just what they (EON) want us to think?

I'm not too sure either, I got most of my info from 'the Bond Files." A very interesting and mysterious topic!

[Jaelle]

Qwerty:
<I'm pretty sure a script was never written, although I believe that there were some ideas thrown around, including that title and the possibility of China.... >

A draft of a script was indeed written by Michael France. It was the beginnings of what ultimately turned out to be GE. Dalton was definitely involved in the pre-production, including the script work.

A third Dalton film would have, I presume, more of the humor he himself said several times that he wanted to portray---the sort of sardonic, hard-edged humor he felt was more appropriate for his interpretation of Bond.

[Jaelle]

SnakeEyes:
<Others? There's others?
Dalton
Lazenby
Dalton
Dalton
Dalton
Sorry I forgot the rest. >

This gets my vote as this thread's best post.

Tarl said it all, really.

My rankings:
Sean -- always WILL be James Bond, period.

Tim -- a fabulously risky, innovative approach to the character that reeks of intelligence, thought and substance
TIE: Roger and George -- hard to say which one I prefer. I guess Roger gets the edge just because his films gave me more hours of pleasure than George did
Pierce is last for me -- the man is a damned fine looking guy to ogle, no doubt, he's got the humor down and so on. But something is just missing for me, and he always seems to be posing; as Tarl has said elsewhere, "he reeks of Hollywood."

[SirMiles83]

If LTK is to what the third Dalton film could have been, as what MR was to FYEO, then it would have been great, because I really liked LTK. Anyway...here's my list.

1-Sean- I think he was given better scripts and direction than Roger was, so in effect, his films and performances usually were better (not in all cases, as FYEO, OP, TMWTGG, TSWLM and LALD are amazing Bond films). Connery's stand-out performances were- 1. TB 2. FRWL 3. GF
2-Roger- My favorite Bond because I like the character of a suave, sly, secret agent that looks danger in the eye and gives that great wink! One of my favorite scenes of him as Bond was in TMWTGG as he is fighting the first guy in the blue get-up, and instead of prolonging the whole battle, he justs ends it with kicking him while he wasn't paying attention! Stand-out performances- 1. FYEO 2.TMWTGG 3. OP.
3-Pierce- I highly enjoy his films as Bond, and enjoy his performances as Bond, especially when he interogated Electra after knocking out her bodyguard in TWINE, when got the drop on Alec and Xenia in the Train in GE, and when he first encountered Graves at Blades!
4-Dalton/Lazenby- can't really say unless they did a few more Bond films. If Lazenby did five more like his performance in OHMSS, then he would probably skyrocket up the list. Maybe the same with Dalton.

Edited by SirMiles83, 21 January 2004 - 01:15 AM.

[Qwerty]

Qwerty:
<I'm pretty sure a script was never written, although I believe that there were some ideas thrown around, including that title and the possibility of China.... >

Good to see you back by the way Jaelle.

Yes, the info in that particular book is very bare, naturally due to the very limited info about the film. It only details a possible script and locations. I've always wondered, even to due to hot reception of Licence to Kill, if John Glen would have returned for Tim Dalton's third Bond film.

[Agent 76]

the list:
#1 - Sean Connery
#2 - Pierce Brosnan
#3 - Timothy Dalton/Roger Moore
#4 - George Lanzeby (I'm still thinking today why they chose him )

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

The best James Bond is Timothy Dalton. Hands down. He nailed the character and added his own personal style practically from the very start. He didnt wait for the films to get a feel for his delivery or style and then to start writing for his acting methods, instead, he carved his own niche immediately and changed the character and series to suit him from the very beggining (as opposed to other bond actors who took 2 or 3 films to find their own voice or niche).
My favorite James Bond is Roger Moore, though. He was alot of fun. He could make any crap line into gold. He is such an underated actor.
Lazenby was good but was really only doing a Connerry impression so it doesnt count all that much. He didn't even try to bring anything new to the role. For what it's worth, I think he does a commendable and a very satisfactory job. No real complaints from me.
Pierce is good, but is more of an understated actor. He has a sly blimey irish charm and isn't as bold or brash or commanding as his predecessors such as Dalton or Connery.
Connery was great, too.

My list of best bonds.......

1) Dalton
2)Moore
3)Connery
4)Brosnan

Lazenby only had ONE film so it isnt all that fair to judge him. If Pierce or Roger only did one film, we would be saying they were lackluster also.

Edited by Roger_Moore's_Bad_Facelift, 09 February 2004 - 04:36 AM.