44 replies to this topic

[BondNumber7]

Brosnan might be more sophisticated than Dalton, but like the original Pink Panther, the Dalton films are more mature and for adults. Tomorrow Never Dies is definitely a picture for the teenagers with all its non-stop head banging action, except I did think Brosnan was very good in that film. Tim Dalton might not have been likable in Licence To Kill, but his character is more interesting than anything Brosnan, Moore, or Lazenby ever did. Dalton is a well trained Shakespearean actor who, as an artist, can be sophisticated and so are his Bond pictures. If your 16 and want shoot em' ups than go for Brosnan, but Dalton's powerful performance has a greater affect on me and after taking two courses in acting I know he did everything an actor is supposed to do. James Bond is a character we all love of course, but the guy Dalton was playing in The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill is a much more fascinating figure, and the only Bond that could be found in the real world. The reason why the Dalton era wins is because realism takes us to wherever we feel the strongest. We just can't relate to anything in Brosnan's era despite the fact that we enjoy those films, but I bet someone like Dalton's Bond can actually be found in our own world.

[brendan007]

Originally posted by BondNumber7
James Bond is a character we all love of course, but the guy Dalton was playing in The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill is a much more fascinating figure, and the only Bond that could be found in the real world. The reason why the Dalton era wins is because realism takes us to wherever we feel the strongest. We just can't relate to anything in Brosnan's era despite the fact that we enjoy those films, but I bet someone like Dalton's Bond can actually be found in our own world.

These are bond films though, and the majority (i know not everyone) look to these films for light, escapist entertainment. Do we really want to see a character that appears in the real world? If you do, then dalton was successful, however for most people we want to have fun in a bond film.

And you dont always need realism to take us to wherever we feel the strongest, have a watch of Buffy the Vampire Slayer

[BondNumber7]

Brendan007:

When I see someone shove a stake through a vampires heart I really feel moved. It is as though my mind has expanded. LOL-way loud. You need help boy. Seriously.

[brendan007]

spoken by someone who has obviously never watched the show then

[BondNumber7]

I suppose for you television is the best form of education and mental stimulation. Do yourself a favor and read some literature.

[brendan007]

do yourself a favour and drop the 'im intellegent cos i read and anything on television is just garbage because its beneath me' attitude. do yourself a favour and get an open mind.

(im sorry to personally start attacking people, im not usually like that, and i know other people dont like it either, ill try to not do it again)

[Rolex]

changing the subject slightly , i was watching Sky movies a couple of weeks ago and i am sure i saw Tim dressed as priest unfortunatley i had to change the channels to CN for my son. Anyone got any ideas?

[5 BONDS]

Dalton in my opinion brought something totally different to the character of Bond. My favourite Bond is Connery but I really grew up around Daltons era but I feel he had too much competition with the likes of Die Hard etc and just fell into the role in an uneasy time. I think if he had made a third film with probably LTK doing better then it did I am sure he would have been here to stay. I have always felt though that if Pierce Brosnan returns in his fifth film Timothy Dalton should play the villain....considering everyone out there seems to have neglected him.
It will be a wicked showdown.

[Bondpurist]

Tim Dalton was dressed as a priest because he played a priest in some horror film someone being possessed by the devil

[Robinson]

Originally posted by Bondpurist
Tim Dalton was dressed as a priest because he played a priest in some horror film someone being possessed by the devil

Yeah, it was a made-for-cable film about a real life "exorcist" which took place in the late 50's early 60's.

Dalton's done some solid screen work since he left Bond (Framed, The Informant, Posessed). The problem, is that most Americans didn't take to Dalton- citing, he didn't have charisma. The headline for a TLD review in the Village Voice screamed "The Spy Who Bored Me." For most in the states, he simply wasn't Brosnan & that was that. Dalton had the acting pedigree, sunk himself into the role, he was physical & he was relatively young. However to many- he just didn't have "it."

It's intersting, that Dalton's been sorta the "Shemp"(see, "The Three Stooges") of the Bond Series as far as the US press is concerned. It's a shame because TLD was an excellent Bond movie(and one of the best of the John Glen era) and Dalton really brought something to the flick.

Now, if Sam Neil had wanted in post-FYEO...

[JimmyBond]

Not to start an argument any further, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the spin-off, Angel. Happen to be two of the most inteligent programs on tv, sharply written, directed and acted.

To get this back on topic though, Dalton, ah yes. Two films, that bring up a lot of debates. Nobody has debated this much on any of the Brosnan, Moore, Connery, heck, even Lazenbys sole film is not debated this much.

Why is this? Cause Dalton chose to shake things up, the films were light hearted at the time Dalton took over, and Dalton wanted the films to be more down to earth, serious, hey, no one wants another Moonraker. The thing is, it wasnt a gradual process. Living Daylights was pretty good, since it still retained that element of fun, and the humor was still there, not as much as in the Moore era, but it was there.

Enter LTK, a complete 180 from LD. No humor anywhere (a few bits is all), and Dalton played Bond as a humorless thug. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy LTK, I do applaud what they did, but I just think it was too soon. If they had a gradual build up to LTK, say have each film involve less and less humor, than maybe LTK wouldnt have recieved the critical backlash it did. As it was, people walked into LTK expecting a fun Bond adventure, what they got was a revenge story that was just a tad too serious, heck, even DAD (which appears to have a similar revenge plot) still retains the sense of fun that the Moore and Connery films had.

Should he have done more? Thats a tricky question, the public didnt really want him, Brosnan had already been cemented in their minds, thats who they wanted. I'm sure the papers didnt help things by still discussing Brosnan as Bond well after Living Daylights come out, but the film business can be a tricky thing, when people dont get what they want, they let it be known.

Now I'm not going to go into a big speech about Brosnan (this post is running long already ) But SirJames is right, Brosnan is doing a great job as Bond, and I just couldnt imagine GoldenEye with anyone but Brosnan.

[ChandlerBing]

I agree with you. Brosnan was the public's choice for Bond back in 87. Dalton wasn't on many people's lists back then. When he was mentioned as the guy, people were thunderstruck. He was someone not many people had heard of. It's like if George Lazenby had been plucked from obscurity for Dr. No instead of Connery. The polls said people wanted Connery. They wanted him, they got him. With Brosnan, we had to wait a long time. But, damn it, it was worth the wait!

[WarBird]

He was a good actor, I personally think he should have stopped at one film, he should have done at least 2 if not more.

[IrishCrown]

Dalton never caught on as Bond because he wasn't the people's top choice for the role. They wanted Pierce back then, and they helped screw things up unwittingly when they started watching Remington in droves, helping perk up the ratings, and letting NBC make the fateful decision to screw him out of the role.

[Citan Trevelyan]

The way I see things: Tim has done two Bond films. One I really liked, and the other was trash. (IMHO)