117 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

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

In my theory

[Stephen Spotswood]

Timothy Dalton was simply the best Bond ever, in some of the worst Bond movies ever

(Casino Royale with David Nivens excepted.)

[doublenoughtspy]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='777452' date='27 September 2007 - 11:51']The casting choice of D

[Judo chop]

[quote name='doublenoughtspy' post='777477' date='27 September 2007 - 12:36'][quote name='Judo chop' post='777452' date='27 September 2007 - 11:51']The casting choice of D

[plankattack]

I'd never previously put much thought into how D'Abo/Kara affected the hatching of Dalton's characterization of Bond. I do agree with those who say it would've have been a better mix with Brozza. The latter has some obvious traits (he does have a debonair charisma, great comic-timing a la Sir Rog) that would have helped shape his interpretation regardless of the leading lady.

TDs Bond - darker, more introverted perhaps - needed a strong actress/strongly written character to play off of, even more so when much was made at the time of 007s near monogamy in TLD. Laz's rookie actor-ness (made up phrase but hopefully you get my drift) is helped by the strength of Rigg/Tracy. Brozza in GE is helped by having a good girl/bad girl dymanic of whats-her-face and Onatopp to play off.

TD, whose brooding, literal interpretation, needed the light of a well-written/good performance to help give his Bond definition, and he didn't it get with D'Abo's puppy-eyed airhead performance. Look at DC - he had Vesper as a balance and it worked perfectly well.

How you can you be a knight in shining armour when the damsel in distress is so clearly a dope? TD's Bond was almost reduced to that of social worker, not secret agent.

Edited by plankattack, 27 September 2007 - 06:23 PM.

[Lady Rose]

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.

I totally agree with you here.Glen really didn't know what to do with TD and it shows.Glen isn't an actors director, and his history was with editing.His films were generally sloppy and without any proper direction or focus. Dalton feeds very well off directors who direct him and doublenought is right in that Glen should have known when to tone things down.

You only have to see TD's performance in Hot Fuzz to see what he can do when he has a director who knows exactly what he wants from his actors.

I'm also going to wade in and defend D'Arbo here. I thought she was terrific and her chemistry with TD was spot on unlike the forced contrived one with Pam Bouvier. Their relationship was more romantic and real than many of the others in the series.

As for her character being a dope I will also disagree.She was a cellist not a spy. It was actually quite refreshing to find a woman who didn't know how to hold her own after being placed in such a strange scenario.I for one am pretty sick of the Bonds equal nonsense. I would like to see more charcters like her.

[RazorBlade]

I agree with Judo Chop's first analysis; Dalton's dark edge didn't fit the lighter tone of his films. With that kind of mismatch it is very easy and lazy to perceive Dalton as the reason bond "almost" died off.

[puck]

I've long thought there were production failures right down the line during he TD era. I agree that Glen might not have been an actor's director and may have even given bad direction. I did read Dalton backed out of later projects when he learned that Glen was directing (can't verify but it wouldn't shock me).

Otherwise I felt the whole styling camera and scripting were off. No artistic cohesion. I mean he's actually a very big guy but you'd never know it in a lot of scenes. And he's also nothing if not walking charisma -- see HOT FUZZ, JANE EYRE, LION IN WINTER... but I feel some of that was lost too. I did love the way Tim delivered humor though ... not so corny, evident in TLD.

But even with all that, I think the thread's mistitled. As far as I can see, based on the internet, his is one of the most respected takes on the character these days. And he's one of my top 3 favorite Bonds; No. 2 actually.

I think they've got it right with Craig. He's even been given an overall life circumstance to play. Humble beginnings, aspiring to more than his birth prepared him for and choking on his own resentment on his way up. That gives an actor a lot to chew on.

And yeah, the directors are prime for character driven themes. Can't wait to see what the new DP does also.

[sharpshooter]

Dalton's portrayal of James Bond is the most accurate of the world weary agent with a licence to kill. It is what Craig's Bond would turn into with time.

The truth is, people want a little bit of flair and cinematic touch to the piece. They can not take 100 percent seriousness well, they want an escapist ride with moments of lightness. That is where Craig is more successful to Dalton in that regard.

[LadySylvia]

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??

No. I don't think it suits Dalton's style.

The truth is, people want a little bit of flair and cinematic touch to the piece. They can not take 100 percent seriousness well, they want an escapist ride with moments of lightness. That is where Craig is more successful to Dalton in that regard.

And yet . . . Dalton is more appreciated as Bond today, than he was 20 years ago. How ironic.

Edited by LadySylvia, 02 October 2007 - 03:02 PM.

[Judo chop]

The truth is, people want a little bit of flair and cinematic touch to the piece. They can not take 100 percent seriousness well, they want an escapist ride with moments of lightness. That is where Craig is more successful to Dalton in that regard.

And yet . . . Dalton is more appreciated as Bond today, than he was 20 years ago. How ironic.

He is? What polls have been performed to suggest that Dalton really is more popular now than before? Where are you getting your data?

In my observance, the average movie-goer (the person who

[Royal Dalton]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='779124' date='2 October 2007 - 16:28']He is? What polls have been performed to suggest that Dalton really is more popular now than before? Where are you getting your data?

In my observance, the average movie-goer (the person who

[Judo chop]

[quote name='Royal Dalton' post='779130' date='2 October 2007 - 10:45'][quote name='Judo chop' post='779124' date='2 October 2007 - 16:28']He is? What polls have been performed to suggest that Dalton really is more popular now than before? Where are you getting your data?

In my observance, the average movie-goer (the person who

[Zorin Industries]

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware Timothy Dalton was a root of any problem when it came to the Bond film series. Too many fans are completely unable to separate the films from their own bedroom studio system. Look at the films for what they were at the time they came out. Dalton deserves no criticism as he kept the Bond series afloat on film - which is exactly what EVERY Bond actor has done. Remember - no 007 actor has killed the franchise. That is Eon's glory and why they rarely make duff decisions.

[Judo chop]

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware Timothy Dalton was a root of any problem when it came to the Bond film series. Too many fans are completely unable to separate the films from their own bedroom studio system. Look at the films for what they were at the time they came out. Dalton deserves no criticism as he kept the Bond series afloat on film - which is exactly what EVERY Bond actor has done. Remember - no 007 actor has killed the franchise. That is Eon's glory and why they rarely make duff decisions.

Perhaps I missed something, but this post seems to have come WAAAY out of left field, Zorin.

Who (here) is criticizing Dalton of anything?

[RazorBlade]

Judo Chop;

I think another way of looking at this thread is how to challenge the notion that TD should be critized for anything to do with Bond. We have started to cataloge the failures around TD.

[doublenoughtspy]

Who (here) is criticizing Dalton of anything?

I know you're not saying it Judo, but just glancing at the headline - it looks like another thread on why Dalton didn't work, and by extension, blaming him.

And what I tried to do in my early reply, is list some major points on why TLD & LTK were not successful - outside of Dalton.

I know you were trying to do the same - maybe you should have titled the thread "Eon's mistakes in the Dalton era" or something similar.

"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan" as JFK once said. Plenty of people, including the studio, lived by that motto and incorrectly put the blame squarely on Dalton's shoulders.

[Judo chop]

Who (here) is criticizing Dalton of anything?

I know you're not saying it Judo, but just glancing at the headline - it looks like another thread on why Dalton didn't work, and by extension, blaming him.
I know you were trying to do the same - maybe you should have titled the thread "Eon's mistakes in the Dalton era" or something similar.

Thanks for the support DNought. Maybe my initial post is too wordy for the hit-and-run poster, but I don

[puck]

Who (here) is criticizing Dalton of anything?

I know you're not saying it Judo, but just glancing at the headline - it looks like another thread on why Dalton didn't work, and by extension, blaming him.

The short version: Dalton was a major reboot to Bond the character, and yet nothing else around him was adjusted to compliment this new lead. There are a myriad individual problems with the Dalton era, and though I wasn’t trying to come up with a list, I do think they can be (mostly) summarized by saying: "the same ol’ way of filmmaking doesn’t work with Dalton".

Since I do not think Dalton's approach to Bond was a failure (much to the contrary), the blame is not on him - it is squarely on the shoulders of management. They failed Dalton, not the other way around.

I knew what you meant and even summerized specifically how I think management failed, tho I think . . changing the approach to the character and not the overall film, says it pretty much. Despite that he brought something fresh to the franchise.

The thread title IS misleading.

Edited by puck, 02 October 2007 - 11:25 PM.

[mrsbonds_ppk]

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.

Right, that's what it was. Brosnan was hard-edged but now Craig takes it to a whole other level and it's fine for people to like it because that's what goes in this day and age. Dalton was right for the role but not for the time so he wasn't popular but, I think he was intense and great. Craig is a lucky guy. I also prefer LTK over TLD.

[Colossus]

I agree with your assessment Judo chop, where they acquired a brand new actor, they forgot to change the things around him and it was awkwardness. I still regard John Glen as the weakest of the Bond directors, bereft of style, a workman approach. And he directed the most! I suppose it's always that way, we always get too little of the best, too much of the bad. Now where's my Ghetto Blaster?

Edited by Colossus, 03 October 2007 - 08:39 AM.

[plankattack]

I'm not confused by the thread at all. Dalton was not a "popular" Bond to the "populist" audience. To most of us, he is a great Bond, the most literal interpretation of the literary character (sorry, this alliteration thing is completely by accident today), but to the masses weaned on "stick it in your asp" or whatever that line from OP is and "fill her up" TD's Bond didn't bring the "humour" and charisma to the role that the audience expected. Therefore, in their minds, he carries the can for the films whose box office was down, and for the fact that mass media always ranks them low on their lists, and gives the lead a harsh critique.

In 2007 we can look back on the last twenty-five years and get some proper perspective on the series. It's easy to go from serious to funny - it's a lot harder to make that transition the other way around. TD's two films are celluloid proof of that, but it's taken the franchise that long to change course. Even Brozza's four are examples of the schizophrenic nature of what has been put on screen.

On an aside, and I don't know what this means, but whenever we discuss TD, many of us always find it necessary to say which of his pair we like more (I'm with Mrs Bond, LTK over TLD). What does this say about our own personal preferences for a Bond film? Or Fleming? Or what? Why do we prefer the one that we do? I like LTK because of TD - I think he's brilliant start to finish, and with this theatrical-training, where it's all about interpreting the written script, his Bond in LTK is IMHO, the closest anyone, including SC and DC, have come to putting the literary character up on screen.

But that's the point - he's unpopular because the masses don't want that, they want Sir Rog's "fill her up" Bond.

[Judo chop]

But that's the point - he's unpopular because the masses don't want that, they want Sir Rog's "fill her up" Bond.

You may be right Plank - that may be the basic, bottom line, truth of it. However, though I didn

[plankattack]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='779446' date='3 October 2007 - 08:51']The one thing we do know, is that Dalton

Edited by plankattack, 03 October 2007 - 03:26 PM.

[Judo chop]

How do you reincorporate things such as Moneypenny and Q without stranding your lead on a stylistic island?

It

[00Twelve]

I think they honestly thought that some of those jokier elements (especially the Q scenes) would be univerally appealing, no matter who the Bond was. I really don't know what they were trying to do with Moneypenny, except make her a little more "80s" (and that worked about as well as a paper umbrella).

[Judo chop]

I

[LadySylvia]

TD didn't benefit - if anything, his performance was seriously undermined by the ormanents, or should I say remnants of the Moore-era.

I would agree . . . only to a certain extent. After the last time I saw TLD, I noticed little shades of Moore-isms in the movie's first 40 minutes or so, or at least up until Bond and Kara's escape from Czechoslovakia. The writers tried to pepper his dialogue with Moore-style witticisms and it didn't exactly work with Dalton. He was at his funniest in two scenes during the movie's first half - when he snidely told Saunders that he could not reveal his plans for Koskov's escape and his annoyed reaction to being forced to retrieve Kara's cello. Other than that it seemed they tried to force Moore's style of humor upon him. Also during this period in the movie, we had that damn Aston-Martin loaded with the usual gadgets. It just seemed so unecessary to me. Thank goodness it was destroyed near the Austrian border. Once Bond and Kara had reached Austria, Dalton's style completely took over and dominated the rest of the film. Well . . . at least to me.

I think that Dalton's tenure was ruined by that lawsuit that EON Productions had to endure during the early 1990s, not by LTK. And the latter film only lacked success in the US.

Edited by LadySylvia, 04 October 2007 - 04:53 PM.

[plankattack]

TD didn't benefit - if anything, his performance was seriously undermined by the ormanents, or should I say remnants of the Moore-era.

I would agree . . . only to a certain extent. After the last time I saw TLD, I noticed little shades of Moore-isms in the movie's first 40 minutes or so, or at least up until Bond and Kara's escape from Czechoslovakia. The writers tried to pepper his dialogue with Moore-style witticisms and it didn't exactly work with Dalton. early 1990s, not by LTK. And the latter film only lacked success in the US.

This is a great point. P & W have said (interview on the HMSS website) that they didn't know who they were writing for when they started work on CR - they just knew it wasn't Brozza. So they wrote for the character of Bond.

John Glen said that when TLD was written they were writing for Brozza who EON felt would be in line with Sir Rog's Bond, and then when TD was hired late in the game, they did some script adjustments, changing lines and axing some "jokier" action sequences. The roof top chase in Tangiers originally had Bond using a rug hanging on a line as help (a "flying carper" ha ha.....stick that in your asp!).

It's true, when Dalton delivers the witticisms it does seem a bit forced to me, which may explain why I personally like LTK better - it was written for TD's Bond. Then again, when Heller is skewered by the fork lift and TD says "he came to a dead end" that moment feels wedged in.

It's the bon mot, the witticism that ultimately is the hardest test for any Bond actor. I sometimes feel that SC knew he was being clever, Sir Rog knew he was being funny, TD knew it didn't come naturally, and Brozza who knew that we knew that he knew that we knew the line was a groaner, but what the hell, he was getting paid to say it anyway. DC? I think he'll be staying away from the puns...

Laz was actually pretty good at the throwaway line IMHO. He was being cool without knowing it.

I think about this stuff too much, don't I?

[Judo chop]

So they wrote for the character of Bond.

Hey, now there's an idea!