117 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

I

[Loomis]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='776741' date='25 September 2007 - 21:16']John Glen is back in the seat for a 4th straight film in 6 years (seems like a break wouldn

[jaguar007]

Excellent point. I always (and still do) feel that TLD is one of the best Bond films, but that is mostly due to Dalton's take on the role. The main thing it needed was a different director to give it a more styalized look and feel.

[Monsieur B]

No, the one who should have complained about the struggles of paralysis should have been Christopher Reeve... OK, that was bad.

But, you certainly would be hard-pressed to find a truer sentiment. You can tell when watching Dalton's films that although they did still have that dark grittiness (which was all thanks to Dalton's superb acting), it was sort of wasted on the colourful backdrop. I wholeheartedly agree that the transition was a really sketchy phase for them. Glen didn't go through with it properly. Maybe he thought change wasn't the right idea. Maybe he was just so used to the formulaic approach and so used to how Roger played the game that he just didn't do anything differently. I mean, we had a great, new and young leading man in Timothy Dalton (and even Barry delivered a slightly darker score to go with Dalton's first film to sort of reinforce that transition), but Glen just didn't deliver on providing the right atmosphere for the right actor.

As was said, the Moore after-taste is still seen -- particularly in the Q scenes -- and as much as I love Q, I don't think he should have tagged along in LTK. The film had potential to go in a new direction (of Royale proportions, as you said), but it went too far past the mark. We did get a new type of Bond film... sort of. The glaring deterrence I can think of is the big part that Q has in this film. For being a rogue agent of MI6, he sure gets an awful lot of help when this mission should be a hell of a lot harder. M mustn't be running a very tight ship with this renegade staff he has employed. But as much as I love Q (and I do), I think his big part was just Glen trying to shoehorn that old, worn formula into this 'different' structure.

I still love the films to death. But things could have been and maybe should have been different.

The not-so-generous interpretation: Glen had no signature style whatsoever.

If it weren't for those damned pigeons flying out of stuff all the time, I would have no clue who the director was.

[Spurrier]

I don't think that the unpopularity of Dalton is so complex. On the contrary, it's very simple. In Roger Moore, Dalton was following a popular, well-known (going back to his TV days in Maverick and The Saint,), well-liked and consequently proven box office success. And Dalton's Bond was going in a radically different direction that Moore took it. Thus, people are going to be resistant. It's human nature not to like change. There's an old saying that you want to be the man to follow the man who follows the legend. Tim Dalton was in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that's a shame because he is a quality actor and quality person.

[Royal Dalton]

Over to you, pparker007.

[jaguar007]

I don't think that the unpopularity of Dalton is so complex. On the contrary, it's very simple. In Roger Moore, Dalton was following a popular, well-known (going back to his TV days in Maverick and The Saint,), well-liked and consequently proven box office success. And Dalton's Bond was going in a radically different direction that Moore took it. Thus, people are going to be resistant. It's human nature not to like change. There's an old saying that you want to be the man to follow the man who follows the legend. Tim Dalton was in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that's a shame because he is a quality actor and quality person.

That makes sence until you look at Daniel Craig who replaced a popular Bond and hit one out of the park with the public (even more than his predecessor did).

[B5Erik]

I don't think that the unpopularity of Dalton is so complex. On the contrary, it's very simple. In Roger Moore, Dalton was following a popular, well-known (going back to his TV days in Maverick and The Saint,), well-liked and consequently proven box office success. And Dalton's Bond was going in a radically different direction that Moore took it. Thus, people are going to be resistant. It's human nature not to like change. There's an old saying that you want to be the man to follow the man who follows the legend. Tim Dalton was in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that's a shame because he is a quality actor and quality person.

That makes sence until you look at Daniel Craig who replaced a popular Bond and hit one out of the park with the public (even more than his predecessor did).

Yeah, BUT Craig followed an actor who played the part with a little more intensity and more of an edge than Moore did. Dalton followed Mr Smooth, Suave, and Debonair who rarely had any intensity at all. Mr. Laid Back.

PLUS Craig had Dalton as precedent. Dalton's tough, realistic approach has gained in popularity and Dalton has earned more respect in the 20 years since he took on the role.

The public was ready for Craig. It wasn't ready for Dalton (unfortunately).

[byline]

The public was ready for Craig. It wasn't ready for Dalton (unfortunately).

Yup.

[Cruiserweight]

Another indication of how poorly audiences took to Daltons bond after twelve years of Rogers bond was that while six of Rogers bond films(-TMWTGG)made it into the top ten highest grossing films of there respective years neither of Daltons bond made it on the top ten list of there respective years.As far as acting goes i think Dalton was a great bond second only to Roger.As far as the films go i prefer LTK to TLD.

[Publius]

While I largely agree with you, Judo chop, I think the powers that be may have figured "if we change more than the actor/character, we won't be able to isolate what did and didn't work with the movie". If you change too much and it's a hit, you won't know what wires to cut, so you stay the course and it quickly goes stale. If you change too much and it tanks, everyone plays the blame game and, in a desperate move to return to proven success, you throw the baby (that is, good/popular things surrounded by bad/unpopular things) out with the bathwater.

Would have preferred they took those chances, though. Dalton (and we) deserved it.

[avl]

This theory chimes well with what I was saying about Dalton starting with a bang in FYEO on the Pick 5 films thread.

I agree that the re-booting of the Bond character from Moore to Dalton was so seismic that it required a wholesale change of tone to really sell it.

TLD was a compromised attempt at that - still a bit of a Moore caper.

But would Dalton have connected with the public in the way his fans would hope? Impossible to say. I agree that Craig takes the benefit of the groundwork laid by Dalton - for a few.

But, when push comes to shove, I think Craig is a different kind of actor to Dalton. Not a better actor as such, but a better equipped actor for widespread public success as Bond. He is a cooler character, he acts less "theatrically" for want of a better word, and as such seems to fit the Connery/Moore/Brosnan template of Bond (adding his own intensity of characterisation) more easily than Dalton did.

Craig is the right man at the right time. I'd love to think that Dalton would have been in 81, but we will never know.

Edited by avl, 26 September 2007 - 09:23 AM.

[MarcAngeDraco]

The generous interpetation: Glen was a fantastically versatile director. The not-so-generous interpretation: Glen had no signature style whatsoever. Which is essentially saying the same thing, but most directors would - obviously - be happy to be described with the former yet would recoil in horror from the latter.

I've often wondered how much of Glen's directing was what he wanted to do versus just doing what the producers wanted...

[Loomis]

#15 byline

byline

Lt. Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 1218 posts

• Location:Canada

Posted 26 September 2007 - 03:11 PM

Would have preferred they took those chances, though. Dalton (and we) deserved it.

So very true. But we have the benefit of hindsight to go by. The powers-that-be didn't, so it's somewhat understandable that they chose a more conservative approach.

After all, even now, having the Dalton template to provide perspective, we still have people clamoring on that "Craig is not Bond," blah, blah, blah, ad nauseam. Can you imagine the outrage Dalton would have gone through with such an abrupt departure from Moore's Bond?

Another thing to keep in mind (and I think this also plays a role in why Dalton was not beloved by the movie-going public at that time): There was an expectation, at least among North Americans, that Brosnan would take over the role. I was living in a small town in western Kentucky at the time, and I can still remember the comments I heard (mainly from women) about Brosnan, and how "perfect" he'd be as Bond. Of course, these folks got their wish years later. But back then, when there was the hint that he'd be the next Bond, then wasn't, and a relatively unknown Dalton took over the role, I'm convinced that part of the backlash he suffered had to do with the Brosnan factor. He went up against fan expectation, something he couldn't hope to overcome because it's so ephemeral. But it's something every Bond actor has had to confront . . . including Craig. And we've all seen the hysteria that's produced among a small but stridently vocal minority.

Edited by byline, 26 September 2007 - 03:15 PM.

• Back to top

---

#16 doublenoughtspy

doublenoughtspy

Commander RNVR

• 
• Commanding Officers
• 
• 4122 posts

• Location:USA

Posted 26 September 2007 - 04:42 PM

I think there are just too many factors involved to narrow it down to a single reason, much less a single word.

Here are a few that pop into my head.

1) Prep/Lead Time. I'm willing to bet that Dalton had the shortest prep time between screen testing, getting the role, and playing Bond. I have no qualms about his talent as an actor - I know he is top notch - but I think with more prep time they might have been able to realize his "theatricality" was a little too evident in spots and tone it down some.

2) Poor lead actresses. Connery got Ursula. Lazenby got Rigg. Moore got Seymour. Pierce got Famke. Craig got Green. Dalton got D'Abo. Which doesn't belong?

3) Poor villains. Joe Don Baker was so pleasant and non-threatening that they brought him back as an ally for Pierce's films. Can you imagine them doing the same with Joseph Wiseman or Gert Frobe? Of course not. They're villains! Jerome Crabbe/Joe Don Baker/Robert Davi didn't have the gravitas to go against Dalton's intensity.

4) Too complex a plot for TLD. Explain the villain's plot in a single sentence. You can't. (Thanx to John Cork for that bit of wisdom). There is a long thread here on CBn were ACE goes into the complexity of the TLD plot and even long time Bond fans who've seen the film multiple times have a Eurkea! moment when they read it.

• Back to top

---

#17 plankattack

plankattack

Lt. Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 1385 posts

Posted 26 September 2007 - 04:56 PM

EON were running on formula for a good while before TLD. Creatively the series was jaded and was successful due to reputation and hard-core support (such as us). Spielberg/Lucas with Raiders of The Lost Ark were beginning to redefine the action franchise and the audience expectation of the genre, a process that would continue through the 80s with Lethal Weapon, Die Hard etc. All of a sudden, Bonds looked old-fashioned without any of the edge of the new breed. EON's commitment to "family entertainment" in an era when the action/adventure film had no desire to be so, left the Bonds in a limbo - see LTK, which can never make up its mind as to what it wants to be (a lesson learned by CR, which is devoid of LTK's split personality).

Dalton, while an inspired choice was almost miscast - not as Bond the character, but as the lead of a Bond-film - films there were almost pantomine-like in the what they were expected to deliver. Dalton was a lead ready to perform the unexpected, stuck in a series that had become about living up to expectations rather pushing the envelope.

And no, he wasn't a "sexy' choice. Never mind that he was perceived as the "second choice" he had a resume of stage work and films that hadn't been seen by a wide audience, and at the end of the day, Bonds are made for a wide audience. In a perverse way, the best thing that happened to DC was the whole internet furor. It might him a topic of conversation a long time before the film was released. Dalton, on the other hand, well "here he is, the new guy."

• Back to top

---

#18 Cruiserweight

Cruiserweight

Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 6815 posts

• Location:Toledo, Ohio

Posted 26 September 2007 - 09:46 PM

I think there are just too many factors involved to narrow it down to a single reason, much less a single word.

Here are a few that pop into my head.

1) Prep/Lead Time. I'm willing to bet that Dalton had the shortest prep time between screen testing, getting the role, and playing Bond. I have no qualms about his talent as an actor - I know he is top notch - but I think with more prep time they might have been able to realize his "theatricality" was a little too evident in spots and tone it down some.

2) Poor lead actresses. Connery got Ursula. Lazenby got Rigg. Moore got Seymour. Pierce got Famke. Craig got Green. Dalton got D'Abo. Which doesn't belong?

3) Poor villains. Joe Don Baker was so pleasant and non-threatening that they brought him back as an ally for Pierce's films. Can you imagine them doing the same with Joseph Wiseman or Gert Frobe? Of course not. They're villains! Jerome Crabbe/Joe Don Baker/Robert Davi didn't have the gravitas to go against Dalton's intensity.

4) Too complex a plot for TLD. Explain the villain's plot in a single sentence. You can't. (Thanx to John Cork for that bit of wisdom). There is a long thread here on CBn were ACE goes into the complexity of the TLD plot and even long time Bond fans who've seen the film multiple times have a Eurkea! moment when they read it.

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

• Back to top

---

#19 LadySylvia

LadySylvia

Lt. Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 1299 posts

• Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 26 September 2007 - 09:54 PM

Poor lead actresses. Connery got Ursula. Lazenby got Rigg. Moore got Seymour. Pierce got Famke. Craig got Green. Dalton got D'Abo. Which doesn't belong?

Famke Janssen WAS NOT Brosnan's leading lady. I also feel that Jane Seymour and Ursula Andress got stuck with some pretty bad characters. From the list, I think that Lazenby, Dalton and Craig got lucky.

• Back to top

---

#20 HH007

HH007

Lt. Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 1833 posts

• Location:U.S.A.

Posted 26 September 2007 - 10:55 PM

I agree with the poster who said that the movie going public just wasn't ready for a darker Bond like Dalton following the not-so-dark Moore. In this post 9/11 world, and with TV's 24 and the Jason Bourne movies and whatnot, I think people are ready for and even want a grittier 007 like Daniel Craig. However, TLD was my first Bond movie (saw it when I was 6 or 7) and Dalton has always been a favorite of mine.

• Back to top

---

#21 doublenoughtspy

doublenoughtspy

Commander RNVR

• 
• Commanding Officers
• 
• 4122 posts

• Location:USA

Posted 26 September 2007 - 11:20 PM

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

You think D'Abo had a greater impact on audiences and cinema in general?

Ursula coming out of the water is one of the most iconic images in the whole series.

D'Abo might be a slightly better actress and wasn't dubbed, but she still pales in comparison.

• Back to top

---

#22 doublenoughtspy

doublenoughtspy

Commander RNVR

• 
• Commanding Officers
• 
• 4122 posts

• Location:USA

Posted 26 September 2007 - 11:29 PM

Famke Janssen WAS NOT Brosnan's leading lady. I also feel that Jane Seymour and Ursula Andress got stuck with some pretty bad characters. From the list, I think that Lazenby, Dalton and Craig got lucky.

I know that Famke wasn't the leading lady and perhaps I should have qualified.

Famke was heavily promoted in the trailer, more so than Scorupco, in highly sexualized imagery. With that, she made a much more convincing reason to see the film, than say, D'Abo with a Cello between her legs...

• Back to top

---

#23 Cruiserweight

Cruiserweight

Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 6815 posts

• Location:Toledo, Ohio

Posted 27 September 2007 - 12:53 AM

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

You think D'Abo had a greater impact on audiences and cinema in general?

Ursula coming out of the water is one of the most iconic images in the whole series.

D'Abo might be a slightly better actress and wasn't dubbed, but she still pales in comparison.

The acting talent is what is most important to me and what i think should matter most in general.

• Back to top

---

#24 triviachamp

triviachamp

Lt. Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 1400 posts

• Location:Toronto

Posted 27 September 2007 - 03:19 AM

EON's commitment to "family entertainment"

That always struck me as rather odd considering how Bond is a killer who sleeps around with numerous women. Didn't the Pope even criticize him?

• Back to top

---

#25 LadySylvia

LadySylvia

Lt. Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 1299 posts

• Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 27 September 2007 - 05:54 AM

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

You think D'Abo had a greater impact on audiences and cinema in general?

Ursula coming out of the water is one of the most iconic images in the whole series.

D'Abo might be a slightly better actress and wasn't dubbed, but she still pales in comparison.

The reason why Andress is more popular is because the audience was more impressed by her physical assets, instead of her acting skills or her character. THAT is what made her iconic. And quite frankly, I find the idea that Andress is considered the superior Bond girl because of how she looked walking out of the water . . . well, shallow.

I prefer Maryam D'Abo, who portrayed one of my favorite Bond female characters. She may have not become as famous as Andress for looking iconic", she is the superior Bond girl in my eyes.

Edited by LadySylvia, 27 September 2007 - 05:55 AM.

• Back to top

---

#26 Cruiserweight

Cruiserweight

Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 6815 posts

• Location:Toledo, Ohio

Posted 27 September 2007 - 06:21 AM

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

You think D'Abo had a greater impact on audiences and cinema in general?

Ursula coming out of the water is one of the most iconic images in the whole series.

D'Abo might be a slightly better actress and wasn't dubbed, but she still pales in comparison.

The reason why Andress is more popular is because the audience was more impressed by her physical assets, instead of her acting skills or her character. THAT is what made her iconic. And quite frankly, I find the idea that Andress is considered the superior Bond girl because of how she looked walking out of the water . . . well, shallow.

I prefer Maryam D'Abo, who portrayed one of my favorite Bond female characters. She may have not become as famous as Andress for looking iconic", she is the superior Bond girl in my eyes.

I couldn't agree more.

• Back to top

---

#27 avl

avl

Lieutenant

• 
• Crew
• 
• 871 posts

• Location:London

Posted 27 September 2007 - 09:12 AM

Know what? Today I was thinking about what I said earlier in this thread - Dalton needs a wholesale change of tone etc etc - and then I thought - hang on - TLD is much better than LTK!

So today I'm thinking - Dalton should have done a MR style Bond. Totally OTT. And He should have played it utterly straight. I can just picture him saying "what is there to do in Rio if you don't samba" with his wolfish grin and welsh brio.

What do you think? Could it have worked??

• Back to top

---

#28 Lady Rose

Lady Rose

Sub-Lieutenant

• 
• Crew
• 
• 384 posts

• Location:London,UK

Posted 27 September 2007 - 10:17 AM

So today I'm thinking - Dalton should have done a MR style Bond. Totally OTT. And He should have played it utterly straight.

What do you think? Could it have worked??

Absolutely. I'm very much of the same opinion. Straight men in ludicrous situations always works well eg Tommy Lee Jones/M.I.B. I think it could have worked for TD and changed the publics opinion of him being too serious.

I have always thought it a shame that LTK was TD's last film because that seems to be be how the public perceive him and not by the much lighter ( and better IMO) TLD.

• Back to top

---

#29 Skudor

Skudor

Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 9286 posts

• Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 27 September 2007 - 11:35 AM

It's simple really. He's a fine actor with very little charisma. For Bond you really need some charisma, charm or the like.

• Back to top

---

#30 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 4542 posts

Posted 27 September 2007 - 11:38 AM

I have no qualms about his talent as an actor - I know he is top notch - but I think with more prep time they might have been able to realize his "theatricality" was a little too evident in spots and tone it down some.

John Glen wasn't an actors' director. That was the problem there, I think. It's part of his job to tell an actor to tone it down a bit, if they're going overboard.

I don't think he really knew how to handle Dalton.

Mind you, Campbell's work with Brosnan, and, yes, Craig, is no better than Glen's with Dalton, if you ask me.

I have always thought it a shame that LTK was TD's last film because that seems to be be how the public perceive him and not by the much lighter ( and better IMO) TLD.

That's what I think, too, LR.

I'm sure his third film would have been more in the spirit of Daylights. With a bit of a harder edge, perhaps.

• Back to top

---

[byline]

Would have preferred they took those chances, though. Dalton (and we) deserved it.

So very true. But we have the benefit of hindsight to go by. The powers-that-be didn't, so it's somewhat understandable that they chose a more conservative approach.

After all, even now, having the Dalton template to provide perspective, we still have people clamoring on that "Craig is not Bond," blah, blah, blah, ad nauseam. Can you imagine the outrage Dalton would have gone through with such an abrupt departure from Moore's Bond?

Another thing to keep in mind (and I think this also plays a role in why Dalton was not beloved by the movie-going public at that time): There was an expectation, at least among North Americans, that Brosnan would take over the role. I was living in a small town in western Kentucky at the time, and I can still remember the comments I heard (mainly from women) about Brosnan, and how "perfect" he'd be as Bond. Of course, these folks got their wish years later. But back then, when there was the hint that he'd be the next Bond, then wasn't, and a relatively unknown Dalton took over the role, I'm convinced that part of the backlash he suffered had to do with the Brosnan factor. He went up against fan expectation, something he couldn't hope to overcome because it's so ephemeral. But it's something every Bond actor has had to confront . . . including Craig. And we've all seen the hysteria that's produced among a small but stridently vocal minority.

Edited by byline, 26 September 2007 - 03:15 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

I think there are just too many factors involved to narrow it down to a single reason, much less a single word.

Here are a few that pop into my head.

1) Prep/Lead Time. I'm willing to bet that Dalton had the shortest prep time between screen testing, getting the role, and playing Bond. I have no qualms about his talent as an actor - I know he is top notch - but I think with more prep time they might have been able to realize his "theatricality" was a little too evident in spots and tone it down some.

2) Poor lead actresses. Connery got Ursula. Lazenby got Rigg. Moore got Seymour. Pierce got Famke. Craig got Green. Dalton got D'Abo. Which doesn't belong?

3) Poor villains. Joe Don Baker was so pleasant and non-threatening that they brought him back as an ally for Pierce's films. Can you imagine them doing the same with Joseph Wiseman or Gert Frobe? Of course not. They're villains! Jerome Crabbe/Joe Don Baker/Robert Davi didn't have the gravitas to go against Dalton's intensity.

4) Too complex a plot for TLD. Explain the villain's plot in a single sentence. You can't. (Thanx to John Cork for that bit of wisdom). There is a long thread here on CBn were ACE goes into the complexity of the TLD plot and even long time Bond fans who've seen the film multiple times have a Eurkea! moment when they read it.

[plankattack]

EON were running on formula for a good while before TLD. Creatively the series was jaded and was successful due to reputation and hard-core support (such as us). Spielberg/Lucas with Raiders of The Lost Ark were beginning to redefine the action franchise and the audience expectation of the genre, a process that would continue through the 80s with Lethal Weapon, Die Hard etc. All of a sudden, Bonds looked old-fashioned without any of the edge of the new breed. EON's commitment to "family entertainment" in an era when the action/adventure film had no desire to be so, left the Bonds in a limbo - see LTK, which can never make up its mind as to what it wants to be (a lesson learned by CR, which is devoid of LTK's split personality).

Dalton, while an inspired choice was almost miscast - not as Bond the character, but as the lead of a Bond-film - films there were almost pantomine-like in the what they were expected to deliver. Dalton was a lead ready to perform the unexpected, stuck in a series that had become about living up to expectations rather pushing the envelope.

And no, he wasn't a "sexy' choice. Never mind that he was perceived as the "second choice" he had a resume of stage work and films that hadn't been seen by a wide audience, and at the end of the day, Bonds are made for a wide audience. In a perverse way, the best thing that happened to DC was the whole internet furor. It might him a topic of conversation a long time before the film was released. Dalton, on the other hand, well "here he is, the new guy."

[Cruiserweight]

I think there are just too many factors involved to narrow it down to a single reason, much less a single word.

Here are a few that pop into my head.

1) Prep/Lead Time. I'm willing to bet that Dalton had the shortest prep time between screen testing, getting the role, and playing Bond. I have no qualms about his talent as an actor - I know he is top notch - but I think with more prep time they might have been able to realize his "theatricality" was a little too evident in spots and tone it down some.

2) Poor lead actresses. Connery got Ursula. Lazenby got Rigg. Moore got Seymour. Pierce got Famke. Craig got Green. Dalton got D'Abo. Which doesn't belong?

3) Poor villains. Joe Don Baker was so pleasant and non-threatening that they brought him back as an ally for Pierce's films. Can you imagine them doing the same with Joseph Wiseman or Gert Frobe? Of course not. They're villains! Jerome Crabbe/Joe Don Baker/Robert Davi didn't have the gravitas to go against Dalton's intensity.

4) Too complex a plot for TLD. Explain the villain's plot in a single sentence. You can't. (Thanx to John Cork for that bit of wisdom). There is a long thread here on CBn were ACE goes into the complexity of the TLD plot and even long time Bond fans who've seen the film multiple times have a Eurkea! moment when they read it.

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

[LadySylvia]

Poor lead actresses. Connery got Ursula. Lazenby got Rigg. Moore got Seymour. Pierce got Famke. Craig got Green. Dalton got D'Abo. Which doesn't belong?

Famke Janssen WAS NOT Brosnan's leading lady. I also feel that Jane Seymour and Ursula Andress got stuck with some pretty bad characters. From the list, I think that Lazenby, Dalton and Craig got lucky.

[HH007]

I agree with the poster who said that the movie going public just wasn't ready for a darker Bond like Dalton following the not-so-dark Moore. In this post 9/11 world, and with TV's 24 and the Jason Bourne movies and whatnot, I think people are ready for and even want a grittier 007 like Daniel Craig. However, TLD was my first Bond movie (saw it when I was 6 or 7) and Dalton has always been a favorite of mine.

[doublenoughtspy]

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

You think D'Abo had a greater impact on audiences and cinema in general?

Ursula coming out of the water is one of the most iconic images in the whole series.

D'Abo might be a slightly better actress and wasn't dubbed, but she still pales in comparison.

[doublenoughtspy]

Famke Janssen WAS NOT Brosnan's leading lady. I also feel that Jane Seymour and Ursula Andress got stuck with some pretty bad characters. From the list, I think that Lazenby, Dalton and Craig got lucky.

I know that Famke wasn't the leading lady and perhaps I should have qualified.

Famke was heavily promoted in the trailer, more so than Scorupco, in highly sexualized imagery. With that, she made a much more convincing reason to see the film, than say, D'Abo with a Cello between her legs...

[Cruiserweight]

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

You think D'Abo had a greater impact on audiences and cinema in general?

Ursula coming out of the water is one of the most iconic images in the whole series.

D'Abo might be a slightly better actress and wasn't dubbed, but she still pales in comparison.

The acting talent is what is most important to me and what i think should matter most in general.

[triviachamp]

EON's commitment to "family entertainment"

That always struck me as rather odd considering how Bond is a killer who sleeps around with numerous women. Didn't the Pope even criticize him?

[LadySylvia]

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

You think D'Abo had a greater impact on audiences and cinema in general?

Ursula coming out of the water is one of the most iconic images in the whole series.

D'Abo might be a slightly better actress and wasn't dubbed, but she still pales in comparison.

The reason why Andress is more popular is because the audience was more impressed by her physical assets, instead of her acting skills or her character. THAT is what made her iconic. And quite frankly, I find the idea that Andress is considered the superior Bond girl because of how she looked walking out of the water . . . well, shallow.

I prefer Maryam D'Abo, who portrayed one of my favorite Bond female characters. She may have not become as famous as Andress for looking iconic", she is the superior Bond girl in my eyes.

Edited by LadySylvia, 27 September 2007 - 05:55 AM.

[Cruiserweight]

To comment on two of your points..I'd rank D'Abo over Ursula anyday and i think Robert Davi matched up with Dalton quite well.

You think D'Abo had a greater impact on audiences and cinema in general?

Ursula coming out of the water is one of the most iconic images in the whole series.

D'Abo might be a slightly better actress and wasn't dubbed, but she still pales in comparison.

The reason why Andress is more popular is because the audience was more impressed by her physical assets, instead of her acting skills or her character. THAT is what made her iconic. And quite frankly, I find the idea that Andress is considered the superior Bond girl because of how she looked walking out of the water . . . well, shallow.

I prefer Maryam D'Abo, who portrayed one of my favorite Bond female characters. She may have not become as famous as Andress for looking iconic", she is the superior Bond girl in my eyes.

I couldn't agree more.

[avl]

Know what? Today I was thinking about what I said earlier in this thread - Dalton needs a wholesale change of tone etc etc - and then I thought - hang on - TLD is much better than LTK!

So today I'm thinking - Dalton should have done a MR style Bond. Totally OTT. And He should have played it utterly straight. I can just picture him saying "what is there to do in Rio if you don't samba" with his wolfish grin and welsh brio.

What do you think? Could it have worked??

[Lady Rose]

So today I'm thinking - Dalton should have done a MR style Bond. Totally OTT. And He should have played it utterly straight.

What do you think? Could it have worked??

Absolutely. I'm very much of the same opinion. Straight men in ludicrous situations always works well eg Tommy Lee Jones/M.I.B. I think it could have worked for TD and changed the publics opinion of him being too serious.

I have always thought it a shame that LTK was TD's last film because that seems to be be how the public perceive him and not by the much lighter ( and better IMO) TLD.

[Skudor]

It's simple really. He's a fine actor with very little charisma. For Bond you really need some charisma, charm or the like.

[Royal Dalton]

I have no qualms about his talent as an actor - I know he is top notch - but I think with more prep time they might have been able to realize his "theatricality" was a little too evident in spots and tone it down some.

John Glen wasn't an actors' director. That was the problem there, I think. It's part of his job to tell an actor to tone it down a bit, if they're going overboard.

I don't think he really knew how to handle Dalton.

Mind you, Campbell's work with Brosnan, and, yes, Craig, is no better than Glen's with Dalton, if you ask me.

I have always thought it a shame that LTK was TD's last film because that seems to be be how the public perceive him and not by the much lighter ( and better IMO) TLD.

That's what I think, too, LR.

I'm sure his third film would have been more in the spirit of Daylights. With a bit of a harder edge, perhaps.