102 replies to this topic

[Mr Wint]

My "Forget Fleming" line was a throw away gesture, probably caused by too many free radicals at that moment.

But it seems like 1q2w3e4r misunderstood me. My example with the Union Jack doesn

[Bondpurist]

If Dalton has to sacrifice so called sophistication to get closer to Fleming's Bond then so be it. Fleming's Bond wasn't particularly sophisticated, and Dalton kept to that. Dalton still has class anyway, buts that totally subjective, so there's no point in arguing, we may just as well agree to disagree.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Bondpurist


Earlier on you said that Fleming's Bond was a 'thug with ambitions at gentility' and now you're calling Dalton 'thuggish' - where's your consistency??

There need be no consistency. One reference was to a fictional character; the other was to a real person's acting style. On reflection, I'll put headings in next time. Or a diagram.

Dalton played Bond as if he was Bond not as if he was someone pretending to be Bond. Some may not like that, but I think it's great. What you hate about Dalton I admire.

This I disagree with but I note what you say and can understand why you believe that.

But it's not as simple as hate or admire. I don't hate Timothy Dalton. I don't know him. I'm not overwhelmed by DaltonBond, but even then it's not hate or admire, only those two options. My take is that he is consciously "acting" Bond and one can observe technical actor's tricks in his performance. I'm referring specifically to Licence to Kill here. Fair's fair though; he outacts the material he's given. I've never been fond of Licence to Kill but it's not because of Timothy Dalton. If anything, his perfomance is too strong (i.e. overpowers) the rest of the film. Another way of expressing the same thing is that he doesn't appreciate the strengths and (predominately) weaknesses of the material he's given and overacts it. It unbalances the film, in my view.

I'm not saying his performance was too good; the way it strikes me is that he didn't understand what he was up to. Whether he did or he didn't, whether he ate pages of Fleming for his din-dins or not, that's the way it strikes me.

Dalton, a prole? Anyone who talks like Dalton and acts like him is hardly a prole.

Again, I was referring to DaltonBond, not Mr Dalton himself.

Fine. If it's closer to Fleming's Bond then it's got to be good. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want Fleming's Bond you should call it something else and create a different series of films - Bond is Fleming's Bond and always will be as far as I'm concerned.
Fine. But that's your opinion and some think that there shouldn't be a Broccoli's Bond - Broccoli's Bond should be Fleming's Bond.

Blimey. Really? Wow.

[14 20 02]

Quote from Bond Purist "Fine. If it's closer to Fleming's Bond then it's got to be good. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want Fleming's Bond you should call it something else and create a different series of films - Bond is Fleming's Bond and always will be as far as I'm concerned.
Fine. But that's your opinion and some think that there shouldn't be a Broccoli's Bond - Broccoli's Bond should be Fleming's Bond."

Some of this i agree with but i have a problem with the bit about Broccoli's Bond being Fleming's Bond. If Broccoli made Flemings Bond then not many people would be watching the Bond films today. I do have evidence with this as Dalton really did play Flemings Bond really well but like at TLD and LTK, not many people are big Dalton fans and his films didn't do to well. There are quite few people on these forums who prefer the movie Bond or flemings's Bond or even both but you should not be complaning about Broccoli's Bond. We should be thankful we have the James Bond films not complaining about them. Anyway that is your opinion and i have mine and everyone else does.

[Bondpurist]

Bond fans normally fall into one of a few categories.
1) Those who think Bond films should be as much like Fleming's Bond books as possible.
2)Those who think Bond should continue in its cinematic heritage of gadgets, meglomaniacs and one liners and should not attempt to be too much like Fleming's novels.
3) Those who think we should strike a compromise between the novels and Bond's cinematic tradition.
People in category 1 like Dalton's Bond and parts of Connery's Bond.
People in category 2 like Moore's Bond.
People in category 3 like Brosnan's Bond and Connery's Bond.
I am quite aware of Broccoli's significance and we owe him a lot. But artistically I think he was lacking in places. I can't help it if my view is the minority - if the majority disagree with me and get their way then fine. But we've had Bonds from both sides of the fence and I think a compromise is best - someone with literary and populist crudentials. Brosnan is a good example of this and another Bond like him wouldn't be a bad thing. As for Daltons 'overpowering' performance - I can understand why one may think that but I think that after Moore he seems like that only because he is so different from - had Moore been more serious then you might not think that. Anyhow, I like Daltons strong performance. It's like a cup of tea - some like it strong, some think it's too strong. I like the strong performance but you think it's too strong. That's a matter of taste and there's no point getting fret up about it when it's something so subjective. I think, concerning your comments about 'didn't know what he was up to' - well, I think he thought he was playing a role that others think should be played in a different way. He understood what he was doing in as much that he was playing the role how he thought it should be played, not how the majority think it should be played. If you fit into category no 2 then you'll think he didn't know what he was doing. If you're in cat. 1 then you'll think he knew exactly what he was doing. His perception of the role of Bond was a literary perception, not a cinematic one.

[Jim]

A census taker once tried to qualify me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Are there really "shoulds" and categories in all this? I'm not sure I fit into any of them and I'm not sure I can or want to. One thing I tell my children is not to be limited by the boundaries other people want to set for them.

Perhaps that's why there's crayon all over the walls. Maybe I went wrong there.

[Mister Asterix]

I'd have to put myself in Category 46.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Mister Asterix
I'd have to put myself in Category 46.

Ah, category 46. And I never knew you were a Lithuanian "hater" of Brosnan's left leg but "admirer" of Connery's right index finger.

This categorising is jolly fun, innit?

Shame you're not in category 47. I think my dog's in that. I think.

Oh, categories lead to prejudice and prejudice leads to hate and hate leads to suffering. I know I've pinched that from Yoda, but he's in category 76, "Barbara Bach enthusiasts and inverted green socks spouting bad syntax", so can't touch me.

[Carver]

Dalton was not the ladies man Bond that Flemings was. By this I mean that he hardly ever tok note of gorgeous women in low cut tops etc. In TLD, he said about Kara with the cello, and in LTK he glanced (and I say glanced( at Pam Bovier taking her wet suit off. That's two times, and in two movies Connnery or Brozzy, or Moore for that fact would just stare at women countless times hell, even Lazenby took more notice of women in his single film!

[Predator_007]

You're all so cruel!!

I think BP made some good points there. As much as we obviously hate categories so much, it's pretty much the done thing at MGM at the moment, so why not use them?

As for me: Category 3 with tendencies towards 1 and 2!

[Jim]

Not so much cruel as an aversion to being categorised.

I try to make my own. This is how I get to know me.

All went a bit self-help there, didn't it? Sorry about that.

[Bondpurist]

It was only a rough guide - all I'm trying to say is that Bond fans like different things and dislike different things which are purely a matter of taste, and arguing about such matters is fruitless and time wasting. As for the ladies man thing - well there was the woman on the boat at the start of TLD and a few scenes where he gawps at Lupe, and he flirts a bit with some women (Della and friend) at the wedding, and also stares at Pam when she walks out of Felix's room at the wedding, as well as what you said but a lot of it was in the script, or rather not in the script - there were hardly any women TO stare at - and those that there were he did.

[Carver]

Can one of the mods close this thread down? Its getting boring.