280 replies to this topic

[EyesOnly]

To the members that don't/didn't like Dalton's take as Bond, has Daniel Craig's portrayal changed your mind on Dalton's Bond? If so, why?

[Mr_Wint]

To the members that don't/didn't like Dalton's take as Bond, has Daniel Craig's portrayal changed your mind on Dalton's Bond? If so, why?

No Change.

[sharpshooter]

I always regarded Dalton highly. No change for me either.

[Righty007]

No change. I already love Dalton's portrayl.

Here's how I see Craig:

Sean Connery + Timothy Dalton = Daniel Craig

Here's another one:

Sean Connery + Roger Moore = Pierce Brosnan

[Sbott]

No change I will always rate Dalton highly.
What CR showed though was that if a talented actor (Dalton or Craig) is fully supported by a committed team then they can reach great heights. Dalton was never given the material or the full support to really succeed as Bond.

[coco1997]

No change. I already love Dalton's portrayl.

Here's how I see Craig:

Sean Connery + Timothy Dalton = Daniel Craig

Here's another one:

Sean Connery + Roger Moore = Pierce Brosnan

I would say that Brosnan tried to be Roger Moore + Timothy Dalton and resulted in a terrible product.

[Cruiserweight]

I like Dalton better then Craig so no,no change

[Wade]

No change I will always rate Dalton highly.
What CR showed though was that if a talented actor (Dalton or Craig) is fully supported by a committed team then they can reach great heights. Dalton was never given the material or the full support to really succeed as Bond.

I'll agree with this assessment to a point, but I'll elaborate. Dalton was without question one of the best actors to every play the role. But the problem may be in those words. Sean, Roger, Pierce ... they were all accessible personalities as well. They projected something of themselves in their portrayals. So did Craig in CR. He knew when to go serious and when to relax and get loose. Dalton didn't know sometimes how to do that. Or at least that's what it seemed. I think Dalton is great, don't get me wrong. But he's an "actor." With all that word implies. He tries to act like the character, rather than acting like he himself would IF he WERE the character. There's a huge difference between those two, as anyone who has acted will tell you. And sometimes, well, Dalton just played Bond as if he had been tortured by getting a broom handle lodged up his .

[broadshoulder]

No change I will always rate Dalton highly.
I'll agree with this assessment to a point, but I'll elaborate. Dalton was without question one of the best actors to every play the role. But the problem may be in those words. Sean, Roger, Pierce ... they were all accessible personalities as well. They projected something of themselves in their portrayals. So did Craig in CR. He knew when to go serious and when to relax and get loose. Dalton didn't know sometimes how to do that. Or at least that's what it seemed. I think Dalton is great, don't get me wrong. But he's an "actor." With all that word implies. He tries to act like the character, rather than acting like he himself would IF he WERE the character. There's a huge difference between those two, as anyone who has acted will tell you. And sometimes, well, Dalton just played Bond as if he had been tortured by getting a broom handle lodged up his .

But thats what actors do they ACT. If his portrayal was too dour and hamlet-like for you then fair dos. But some of us were blown away by his portrayal. It was like a breath of fresh air. He actually uses the subtext, like Craig does - in the Vienna scenes he is playing Kara along because she can lead him to Koskov but you can see behind the eyes that he is slowly falling for her. Hes read the script and interpeted it the way an actor does.

If you want the "personality" Bonds then Brozza is your man. But if you want a Bond that is more rounded and "adult" then Tims your man.

[Jackanaples]

Craig hasn't changed my view of Dalton, but I'll tell what did: that clip on YouTube that someone posted of him being interviewed during the filming of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. I thought he came off very well there and wished he'd infused his performances with more of his own innate charm.

I also think both of Dalton's movies suffer due to the times they were made in, and the mindset of the filmmakers. James Bond is for better or worse a very un-PC character. Any attempt to change that is to miss the point of the character entirely. With TLD made during the very height of the AIDS scare, something's got to give; and obviously it's got to be 007.

[sharpshooter]

Yes definitely. Dalton oozed real life Bond in that TLD behind the scenes clip.

[dinovelvet]

No change I will always rate Dalton highly.
What CR showed though was that if a talented actor (Dalton or Craig) is fully supported by a committed team then they can reach great heights. Dalton was never given the material or the full support to really succeed as Bond.

I'll agree with this assessment to a point, but I'll elaborate. Dalton was without question one of the best actors to every play the role. But the problem may be in those words. Sean, Roger, Pierce ... they were all accessible personalities as well. They projected something of themselves in their portrayals. So did Craig in CR. He knew when to go serious and when to relax and get loose. Dalton didn't know sometimes how to do that. Or at least that's what it seemed. I think Dalton is great, don't get me wrong. But he's an "actor." With all that word implies. He tries to act like the character, rather than acting like he himself would IF he WERE the character. There's a huge difference between those two, as anyone who has acted will tell you. And sometimes, well, Dalton just played Bond as if he had been tortured by getting a broom handle lodged up his .

Yes this highlights the major difference between Dalton and Craig for me - Dalton never projects any kind of warmth, is too standoffish, and in LTK is pretty grumpy and miserable throughout (He looks like he could easily kick one of the cats at the Hemingway house), and that's why he doesn't work, and I suspect its why he never really established that rapport with the audience that Sean, Rog, and Broz did. Good actor? Fine, whatever, but Good Bond and Good Actor are two different entities. Craig can do The Serious, but also brings charisma, humanity, and laid-back cool to the table. He showed us you can be dark, dramatic, and all that, but without losing sight of the escapist/fantasy part of James Bond. So I guess my answer to the question of has Craig has changed my view of Dalton, is...yes, considerably.

[Harry Fawkes]

I also think both of Dalton's movies suffer due to the times they were made in, and the mindset of the filmmakers. James Bond is for better or worse a very un-PC character. Any attempt to change that is to miss the point of the character entirely. With TLD made during the very height of the AIDS scare, something's got to give; and obviously it's got to be 007.
[/quote]

Very well put.

[ACE]

Casino Royale showed that the writing, direction and pacing of a Bond film are fundamentally important when bringing about a successful reinterpretation of the character. Daniel Craig also gives a stellar performance and his seems more nimble and adept with humour (which was far better written in CR than in the Dalton films).

Dalton The Man
As previous posters have acknowledged, Dalton's diffidence with the press and selling of not only Bond but his own personality did not endear him to the Fourtth Estate. Like Craig, upon his announcement as Bond on 6th August 1986, Dalton was a relatively unknown, leading man/working actor. However, this became an important aspect to the thrill of his debut. This lack of knowledge about the actor made his Bond unpredictable. To an audience and press weaned on 14 years of suaveness and co-operation from Roger Moore, the change in style took a lot of getting used to. Craig also benefits from exactly the same unpredictability as he and Dalton had very similar pre-Bond careers: TV shows, supporting parts in studios films, extensive stage work, leading roles in British movies (and curiously one post-Bond role - Craig played Lord Asriel in The Golden Compass, a role originated by Dalton on the London stage). The audience could not lean into their performances in anticipation as they had been used to doing with the easy charm of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan. Moore and Brosnan were also used to global stardom, having come from immensely successful TV shows, and so were more adept at handling the accompanying pressures of the worldwide 007 spotlight. Dalton and Craig were more circumspect in their dealings with the press - they both refused to be Hello'd - which did not help manage the perception.

The Dalton Humour
Dalton has a different sort of humour to that of previous Bonds, especially the Roger Moore era. In TLD, there is little outright comedy. This has been replaced by comic relief. Brief relief, perfectly in keeping with the darker, moodier, thriller tone. One doesn

[Harry Fawkes]

Thanks Ace for that

[Royal Dalton]

I can only echo the words of Daniel Craig himself:

"Timothy Dalton was great in the part."

[Professor Dent]

Great analysis, ACE.

Craig has not changed my view of Dalton. I've always thought The Living Daylights was a good movie. The humor Dalton injected worked nicely, the action was good, & it's the last John Barry score. Licence to Kill, on the other hand, is one of the movies that I watch the least. There are parts of it that I like, specifically Q's scenes, but the revenge thing never worked for me. The drug angle seem dated even in the day considering we had just wrapped five years of Miami Vice.

[Single-O-Seven]

I can only echo the words of Daniel Craig himself:

"Timothy Dalton was great in the part."

Really? When did he say that? That makes me quite happy.

[Skudor]

No change. I already love Dalton's portrayl.

Here's how I see Craig:

Sean Connery + Timothy Dalton = Daniel Craig

Here's another one:

Sean Connery + Roger Moore = Pierce Brosnan

It's not a bad way to put it.

[Double-0-Seven]

No change for me. I've always liked Dalton as a Bond. His films are two of the series best. It's a shame he never got a third film.

[Jackanaples]

Great post, Ace. I don't think Dalton's Bond was PC himself. Just the attitude of the movies he was in. OK, maybe just TLD. LTK was pretty brutally violent as I recall. In contrast, Pierce Brosnan's Bond was PC in movies that were themselves PC.

Political Correctness is not modern manners. It's putting a veneer of politesse on something to protect someone's potential bad feelings on a matter instead of respecting them enough to be honest about it.

George Carlin has a great bit about political correctness in one of his shows. He focuses mainly on the language aspect. You can read it here.

One of the things most bracing about Craig's Bond is how un-PC he is. He sleeps with married women because they're easier to walk away from when it's all over and says so. It's not nice, but it's true and something I can only see coming from Connery's, Lazenby's, or Craig's Bond.

Most of the women I've talked to about Bond over the years have only had great things to say about either Connery or Craig. It occurs to me that the reason for this is that their Bond movies treat women as women, whereas most of the others treat women as girls.

I think Dalton a fine actor who could have been even better as Bond than he was perhaps allowed to be. And yes, clearly Craig's performance owes him a debt.

Edited by Jackanaples, 03 February 2008 - 04:02 PM.

[jaguar007]

I was a big fan of Dalton's Bond since 1987. TLD was the last Bond movie I walked out of feeling totally pumped and not at all let down, until Casino Royale was released.

As Righty mentioned earlier, I have always felt Criag was somewhat of a cross between Connery and Dalton (but thought Brosnan was a cross between Moore and Dalton).

[jaguar007]

Dalton was without question one of the best actors to every play the role. But the problem may be in those words. Sean, Roger, Pierce ... they were all accessible personalities as well. They projected something of themselves in their portrayals. So did Craig in CR. He knew when to go serious and when to relax and get loose. Dalton didn't know sometimes how to do that. Or at least that's what it seemed. I think Dalton is great, don't get me wrong. But he's an "actor." With all that word implies. He tries to act like the character, rather than acting like he himself would IF he WERE the character. There's a huge difference between those two, as anyone who has acted will tell you. And sometimes, well, Dalton just played Bond as if he had been tortured by getting a broom handle lodged up his .

I felt Brosnan had that problem in GE more than Dalton did in his films. While watching GE I always feel he is trying too hard to play Bond like he were Timothy Dalton. I think Brosnan seemed more comfortable as Bond in his future films as he let his own personality come into play (however the scripts and everything else got worse)

[Double-0-7]

I was never a big Dalton fan, to paraphrase Wade, he comes across as an actor portraying Bond. When I watch Dalton, the word "thespian" comes to mind.

Craig seems to be a more natural actor, you get a sense of his personality coming across on the screen - similar to when Moore was Bond. Not that their styles are similar, but with Moore in the role, you could sense how much fun he was having.

[Hitmonk]

It hasn

[baerrtt]

I was never a big Dalton fan, to paraphrase Wade, he comes across as an actor portraying Bond. When I watch Dalton, the word "thespian" comes to mind.

Craig seems to be a more natural actor, you get a sense of his personality coming across on the screen - similar to when Moore was Bond. Not that their styles are similar, but with Moore in the role, you could sense how much fun he was having.

The one thing I appreciate about Tim's portrayal, which most ppl see as a criticism ('he was acting the part rather than BEING the part, 'he looked uncomfortable in the role etc), is that I feel that this was deliberate on his part. The point/subtext to Dalton's Bond is that he's a man who isn't entirely comfortable with his job/himself anymore, so the fact that nothing feels natural with him (humour for example) is part of his subtle take on the character.

[Milovy]

Dalton's portrayal of James Bond as "human" and capable of showing fear and capable of bleeding, etc, was heavily influenced by... not any other actor who played Bond before him, but by an actor who never played Bond: Harrison Ford.

Harrison Ford rose to prominence as an action hero in the early '80s, and Indiana Jones was the closest thing Ford played to a Bond type character. Of course, the Indiana Jones movies were wildly popular, but Ford also redefined what it meant to be an action hero: he could be someone who showed fear, someone vulnerable, kind of an everyman. Ford also made it clear that actors playing action heroes had to be very physical and do more of their own stunts than they had in the past.

That was very much the same presence that Timothy Dalton brought to his Bond several years later - along with his own attempt at making Bond more psychologically complex. By the time Dalton got around to playing James Bond, that was who an action hero was increasingly expected to be -- a guy who could get beat up and who could bleed, not just a guy who sailed through challenging situations unscathed (like Connery and Moore).

What we see Craig doing now, is really just a further continuation of what Ford did with Indiana Jones; and Brosnan did it too.

If the Dalton Bond films had not run into problems and had been better written, better promoted, etc, Dalton's career might have turned out very differently - he might have wound up as a British Harrison Ford. I don't think anyone can argue that Dalton wasn't superb at the action sequences in both his films, which was kind of a surprise no one could have expected, as he was a veteran of mainly costume dramas up to that point.

So if anything, I think Dalton was a critical link between the evolution of the male action screen hero in general (Harrison Ford leading the way) and the evolution of the James Bond character. Bond is now, I think, primarily seen as an action hero and it has become more acceptable for an actor like Craig to take over, someone who projects more of a physical presence than perhaps sophistication and suaveness. (Not that Craig is not capable of those) Brosnan was also very much an action hero as well.

I don't think James Bond will ever go back to the less-physical, more drawing-room-sophistication type of character that he was in the Connery-Lazenby-Moore era. That began with Dalton -- but it was all part of a general evolution of the Hollywood hero.

[ACE]

Dalton's portrayal of James Bond as "human" and capable of showing fear and capable of bleeding, etc, was heavily influenced by... not any other actor who played Bond before him, but by an actor who never played Bond: Harrison Ford.

Harrison Ford rose to prominence as an action hero in the early '80s, and Indiana Jones was the closest thing Ford played to a Bond type character. Of course, the Indiana Jones movies were wildly popular, but Ford also redefined what it meant to be an action hero: he could be someone who showed fear, someone vulnerable, kind of an everyman. Ford also made it clear that actors playing action heroes had to be very physical and do more of their own stunts than they had in the past.

That was very much the same presence that Timothy Dalton brought to his Bond several years later - along with his own attempt at making Bond more psychologically complex. By the time Dalton got around to playing James Bond, that was who an action hero was increasingly expected to be -- a guy who could get beat up and who could bleed, not just a guy who sailed through challenging situations unscathed (like Connery and Moore).

What we see Craig doing now, is really just a further continuation of what Ford did with Indiana Jones; and Brosnan did it too.

If the Dalton Bond films had not run into problems and had been better written, better promoted, etc, Dalton's career might have turned out very differently - he might have wound up as a British Harrison Ford. I don't think anyone can argue that Dalton wasn't superb at the action sequences in both his films, which was kind of a surprise no one could have expected, as he was a veteran of mainly costume dramas up to that point.

So if anything, I think Dalton was a critical link between the evolution of the male action screen hero in general (Harrison Ford leading the way) and the evolution of the James Bond character. Bond is now, I think, primarily seen as an action hero and it has become more acceptable for an actor like Craig to take over, someone who projects more of a physical presence than perhaps sophistication and suaveness. (Not that Craig is not capable of those) Brosnan was also very much an action hero as well.

I don't think James Bond will ever go back to the less-physical, more drawing-room-sophistication type of character that he was in the Connery-Lazenby-Moore era. That began with Dalton -- but it was all part of a general evolution of the Hollywood hero.

Excellent post.

[Milovy]

Thanks. Actually I'd just like to add a PS to that...

"Never say never again" when it comes to how Bond is portrayed. Bond is part of Hollywood conventions, but Hollywood conventions are also a part of the times. If the times change, if the whole zeitgeist of American cultural hegemony (sorry for using that "big word"!) begins to hold less sway, I think you MAY see a different sort of Bond in the future, if the series survives.

But you won't see any change manifested until there is someone besides Craig playing Bond. Craig is now playing the perfect Americanized, Harrison-Ford-ized action-hero Bond, although he too is trying to remain true to the very British psychological interior reserve of the character, in his own way. (Or is that the interior reserve of the hero of the American western?) The theme song of Craig's Bond definitely should be The Who's "Behind Blue Eyes." Not even Dalton was that cagey.

[baerrtt]

Dalton's portrayal of James Bond as "human" and capable of showing fear and capable of bleeding, etc, was heavily influenced by... not any other actor who played Bond before him, but by an actor who never played Bond: Harrison Ford.

Harrison Ford rose to prominence as an action hero in the early '80s, and Indiana Jones was the closest thing Ford played to a Bond type character. Of course, the Indiana Jones movies were wildly popular, but Ford also redefined what it meant to be an action hero: he could be someone who showed fear, someone vulnerable, kind of an everyman. Ford also made it clear that actors playing action heroes had to be very physical and do more of their own stunts than they had in the past.

That was very much the same presence that Timothy Dalton brought to his Bond several years later - along with his own attempt at making Bond more psychologically complex. By the time Dalton got around to playing James Bond, that was who an action hero was increasingly expected to be -- a guy who could get beat up and who could bleed, not just a guy who sailed through challenging situations unscathed (like Connery and Moore).

What we see Craig doing now, is really just a further continuation of what Ford did with Indiana Jones; and Brosnan did it too.

If the Dalton Bond films had not run into problems and had been better written, better promoted, etc, Dalton's career might have turned out very differently - he might have wound up as a British Harrison Ford. I don't think anyone can argue that Dalton wasn't superb at the action sequences in both his films, which was kind of a surprise no one could have expected, as he was a veteran of mainly costume dramas up to that point.

So if anything, I think Dalton was a critical link between the evolution of the male action screen hero in general (Harrison Ford leading the way) and the evolution of the James Bond character. Bond is now, I think, primarily seen as an action hero and it has become more acceptable for an actor like Craig to take over, someone who projects more of a physical presence than perhaps sophistication and suaveness. (Not that Craig is not capable of those) Brosnan was also very much an action hero as well.

I don't think James Bond will ever go back to the less-physical, more drawing-room-sophistication type of character that he was in the Connery-Lazenby-Moore era. That began with Dalton -- but it was all part of a general evolution of the Hollywood hero.

It is true that Ford's Indiana Jones paved the way for more vulnerable characters in the action genre (relatively speaking). The difference though is that the general public then didn't take to Dalton's interpretation of Bond as a mere mortal. The key to a characters like Indy is that there was (particularly in THE LAST CRUSADE)a humourous, comical element to the trouble he always found himself in. I'm not criticising Spielberg's films but they, imo, are given far too much credit for the everyman action hero. The difference between Dalton and Ford (and why the Dalton films are/were ahead of their time) is that they took the vulnerability and danger the hero found himself in seriously (for most of the time). The public, in the 80s, still expected (and got) one liners (after kills) and violence without any subtext or portrayal of it's consequences.

IMO today's action movies (the Bourne movies, Gladiator,Spider man 2,CR etc) follow the Dalton route more than the Indy route by emphasising that if the viewer were the character we wouldn't be throwing quips in such situations (that's realism).