280 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

While I will not argue that Harrison Ford was instrumental in the "everyman" action hero of the 80s (much like Connery brought a new type of action hero to film in the 60s), I am very doubtful that Ford was in Mr. Dalton's mind as he became Bond. I sincerly think it was Mr. Fleming (as Dalton stated he is a big fan of the books) that had the biggest impact on Dalton's portrayal of Bond.

[Jackanaples]

Interesting. I actually think that the "Americanization" of Bond began in the 1970's with DAF. From that point on, the movies made far less of Bond's snobbish taste for the finer things, featured many US locations and Bond girls. LTK was in many ways the pinnacle of this sort of thing... until the Brosnan era came along anyway. I don't know about anyone else, but CR really felt to me like the first Bond movie that felt unabashedly British for close to forty years.

Incidentally, James Bond was always intended by Broccoli and Saltzman to be a British hero done in an American style. So some US influence is clearly just the ticket. I agree that there has been mostly too much of it though.

[Milovy]

In dissecting Dalton's Bond, let's not forget that it was the entire James Bond series that had become less popular at that time than it used to be -- in large part due to the rise of Lucas and Spielberg and everything that came from their successful STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES films, E.T., other sci-fi extravaganzas with lots of special effects. And of course, the ending of the Cold War made Bond seem irrelevant. The summer release dates for both of Dalton's films, also, were almost the kiss of death. Bond just could not compete with these flashier, noisier summer extravaganzas. The studios' release schedules were jam-packed with them by then -- in a way that the Moore films never had to face.

Dalton just came in at a very bad time for the Bond series as a whole. People did not really care about James Bond any more. I remember very distinctly that anticipation for new Bond films was really lost in the shuffle in the mid-80's. The lack of excitement was palpable and it had nothing to do with disappointment over Dalton really. The lack of excitement had set in long before, with the later Moore films. They were not considered must-see films in that period. There is FAR more excitement over Bond films these days.

So I don't know if Craig himself is making people rediscover Dalton; what's happening is that people are seeing, in hindsight's clear light, all of the good things about what he brought to the role - and it has to do with the renewed interest in the Bond franchise in general. (I think even Lazenby is profiting from the renewed interest - nobody really seriously believes he was an "awful" Bond any more. If anything, it's the Connery years that have come up for questioning.)

But there is a recognition now that Dalton's vision of Bond was imperfectly served by the screenplays he was given. Now, in the Craig era, great pains are being taken to shake off past conventions and "simplify" and Craig has much more support from the producers, directors and screenwriters. (THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is still very much a Roger Moore script.)

While I will not argue that Harrison Ford was instrumental in the "everyman" action hero of the 80s (much like Connery brought a new type of action hero to film in the 60s), I am very doubtful that Ford was in Mr. Dalton's mind as he became Bond. I sincerly think it was Mr. Fleming (as Dalton stated he is a big fan of the books) that had the biggest impact on Dalton's portrayal of Bond.

I don't think Ford was in Dalton's mind either; but I have no doubt that the Bond producers had Ford in mind (or, more specifically, an action-hero ideal influenced by Ford) when they wrote and directed these films -- and Dalton did what he was required to do by the filmmakers, probably was of the same mind anyway, and did it pretty well.

Edited by Milovy, 03 February 2008 - 06:36 PM.

[Jackanaples]

Well made points, Milovy. I agree with you completely. Bond really was looking very old hat by the late 1980's. By contrast, Bond seems very much a relevant and intriguing character again.

Edited by Jackanaples, 03 February 2008 - 06:37 PM.

[Milovy]

One more thought (then maybe I'll shut up)...

The Bond films are, and have always been, basically a cottage industry of the Broccoli family. It's the biggest reason why the films are so tradition-bound (in a fun way -- the gunbarrel sequences, title song, Bond girls, gadgets, all the elements we love so much). However, I think for that reason also, the Bond films have been somewhat more insulated from keeping up with the times. When Roger Moore left, it was high time for them to really start experimenting wholeheartedly with new directions for the series, but because there was likely little studio pressure to do so (the Broccolis pretty much get to do whatever they want with 007), they didn't do it quickly enough... or didn't quite get the new formula right.

Dalton was, unfortunately, the guy playing Bond at this time and was unfairly blamed, far beyond any weaknesses he did have in the role.

By the time Brosnan started playing the role, the producers had finally caught up to what other films in the genre were doing. People felt like seeing action-adventures again, so I think the Brosnan films were pretty slick and au courant to the cinematic fashion of the time.

But now, it seems they are just finally with Craig starting to make their own trends again, which is very exciting. It's what they SHOULD have done after Moore left but didn't understand that they had to.

No offense to Cubby, rest his soul, but I think Barbara Broccoli has a great deal to do with this and now that she has a brand-new actor in the role, they intend to take it much further.

Edited by Milovy, 03 February 2008 - 06:49 PM.

[tdalton]

Craig's turn in the role has done nothing to change my opinion of Dalton's time in the role, as I already considered Dalton to be the best of the Bond actors anyway. Dalton's two performances are, to me, far and away the two best performances by one of the Bond actors in the entire franchise. To be in only two films, and have both of those films be amongst the very few truly great films in the franchise, to me, speaks volumes about Dalton's talents as an actor and his understanding of the character.

[HH007]

Viewing Craig and Dalton together, I can see where the difference is; Craig did play the role seriously for the most part, but he knew when to have fun with it, whereas Dalton just seemed to play it seriously all the time. I think that's why audiences have embraced Craig, even though they didn't quite click with Dalton. So if anything has changed about my view of Dalton, I would say that even though his portrayal of Bond wasn't one note by any means, I do think they could've added a lighter side to him, just to make him a bit more human, especially in License To Kill.

[tdalton]

Viewing Craig and Dalton together, I can see where the difference is; Craig did play the role seriously for the most part, but he knew when to have fun with it, whereas Dalton just seemed to play it seriously all the time. I think that's why audiences have embraced Craig, even though they didn't quite click with Dalton. So if anything has changed about my view of Dalton, I would say that even though his portrayal of Bond wasn't one note by any means, I do think they could've added a lighter side to him, just to make him a bit more human, especially in License To Kill.

I thought that there was just the right amount of humor in both of Dalton's films, and that the amount of humor is a little low because of the plots of the films. In TLD, Bond (and MI6) is made to look absolutely foolish by Koskov because of their "failed" attempt at bringing him over for his defection. Being made that foolish would make anyone, at the very least, a bit irritated, which Dalton does a good job of portraying on screen. Also, Bond is asked to eliminate someone that he appears to have a great deal of respect for (Pushkin), which can't help but add to that irritation. There were, however, some lighter moments (although maybe not humorous) that were played very well by Dalton, which is basically his whole journey with Kara to find Koskov where he is using her to find Koskov, but also begins to fall for her a bit while he's in the process of using her for information. Scenes like the ferris wheel and the scene where he's buying the dress for her are examples of this, IMO.

In LTK, he was all business, as he should have been, IMO. His best friend was severely hurt and had lost his wife in eerily similar circumstances to the way that Bond lost his. But, I did think that the end of the film did show what Dalton could have done with lighter scenes as Bond (and that final moment of LTK has to be one of the best closes to a Bond film ever, IMO).

I do agree, though, that perhaps Dalton would have been more successful had there been more humor on his part, but I think that it would have taken a third film for him to be given that opportunity to show it, because, IMO, the two films that he did really didn't lend themselves to a great deal of humor (at least not in the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan style, anyway).

[HH007]

Viewing Craig and Dalton together, I can see where the difference is; Craig did play the role seriously for the most part, but he knew when to have fun with it, whereas Dalton just seemed to play it seriously all the time. I think that's why audiences have embraced Craig, even though they didn't quite click with Dalton. So if anything has changed about my view of Dalton, I would say that even though his portrayal of Bond wasn't one note by any means, I do think they could've added a lighter side to him, just to make him a bit more human, especially in License To Kill.

I thought that there was just the right amount of humor in both of Dalton's films, and that the amount of humor is a little low because of the plots of the films. In TLD, Bond (and MI6) is made to look absolutely foolish by Koskov because of their "failed" attempt at bringing him over for his defection. Being made that foolish would make anyone, at the very least, a bit irritated, which Dalton does a good job of portraying on screen. Also, Bond is asked to eliminate someone that he appears to have a great deal of respect for (Pushkin), which can't help but add to that irritation. There were, however, some lighter moments (although maybe not humorous) that were played very well by Dalton, which is basically his whole journey with Kara to find Koskov where he is using her to find Koskov, but also begins to fall for her a bit while he's in the process of using her for information. Scenes like the ferris wheel and the scene where he's buying the dress for her are examples of this, IMO.

In LTK, he was all business, as he should have been, IMO. His best friend was severely hurt and had lost his wife in eerily similar circumstances to the way that Bond lost his. But, I did think that the end of the film did show what Dalton could have done with lighter scenes as Bond (and that final moment of LTK has to be one of the best closes to a Bond film ever, IMO).

I do agree, though, that perhaps Dalton would have been more successful had there been more humor on his part, but I think that it would have taken a third film for him to be given that opportunity to show it, because, IMO, the two films that he did really didn't lend themselves to a great deal of humor (at least not in the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan style, anyway).

Well, LTK definitely had a darker plot, because it was a bit close to home for Bond that time, but he still managed to sleep with two women while pursuing personal revenge, and I think the screenwriters could have turned on the charm a bit more and given him some nice banter with the girls (Like the Bond/Solange & Bond/Vesper scenes in CR).

[jaguar007]

Well, LTK definitely had a darker plot, because it was a bit close to home for Bond that time, but he still managed to sleep with two women while pursuing personal revenge, and I think the screenwriters could have turned on the charm a bit more and given him some nice banter with the girls (Like the Bond/Solange & Bond/Vesper scenes in CR).

Agreed, the banter between Bond and Pam Bouvier was cringeworthy (why don't you wait till your asked, why don't you ask me). I am a big Dalton fan and TLD is in my top 5 Bond movies, but what Dalton lacked where Craig succeded in the role was sexieness. Dalton was intense in the role but really played down the sexuality of the character. Craig borught back that macho sexieness that Connery had. I think it was the lack of sexuality more than the lack of humor is why the public did not embrace him at the time.

[Loomis]

This may sound harsh, but I view Craig as the Dalton who got everything right (so far, at least). Dalton was the John the Baptist to Craig's Jesus. Erm, y'know, as it were.

Dalton is superb in parts of his two Bond outings, and particularly good in his first one, but both THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL have moments where, for whatever reason or reasons, his acting and screen presence fall a little flat. Purely a subjective view, and I know that many 007 fans would vehemently disagree.

For me, Craig manages to be 100% dead-on perfect throughout all of CASINO ROYALE, with one of the most brilliant, flawless performances I've ever seen on film. (That he achieved this at a time when he was being mocked to shreds by large sections of "fandom" and the media makes it all the more remarkable.) Let's hope he can surpass himself in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, 'coz he's set the bar incredibly high.

[Royal Dalton]

Dalton is superb in parts of his two Bond outings, and particularly good in his first one, but both THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL have moments where, for whatever reason or reasons, his acting and screen presence fall a little flat. Purely a subjective view, and I know that many 007 fans would vehemently disagree.

Well, not me. I can see the flaws in Dalton's performance. I can see them in Craig's, too.

[Sbott]

Dalton is superb in parts of his two Bond outings, and particularly good in his first one, but both THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL have moments where, for whatever reason or reasons, his acting and screen presence fall a little flat. Purely a subjective view, and I know that many 007 fans would vehemently disagree.

For me, Craig manages to be 100% dead-on perfect throughout all of CASINO ROYALE, with one of the most brilliant, flawless performances I've ever seen on film. (That he achieved this at a time when he was being mocked to shreds by large sections of "fandom" and the media makes it all the more remarkable.) Let's hope he can surpass himself in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, 'coz he's set the bar incredibly high.

I suppose this is the chicken and the egg conundrum. Was Dalton's performance lacking "presence" because he didn't act well or was it that the material and support he was given was not up to scratch.

[Jackanaples]

Dalton is superb in parts of his two Bond outings, and particularly good in his first one, but both THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL have moments where, for whatever reason or reasons, his acting and screen presence fall a little flat. Purely a subjective view, and I know that many 007 fans would vehemently disagree.

For me, Craig manages to be 100% dead-on perfect throughout all of CASINO ROYALE, with one of the most brilliant, flawless performances I've ever seen on film. (That he achieved this at a time when he was being mocked to shreds by large sections of "fandom" and the media makes it all the more remarkable.) Let's hope he can surpass himself in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, 'coz he's set the bar incredibly high.

I suppose this is the chicken and the egg conundrum. Was Dalton's performance lacking "presence" because he didn't act well or was it that the material and support he was given was not up to scratch.

Prior to seeing that Good Morning, America interview I'd have said the former. After watching it my opinion leans more toward the latter. In the clip I felt he had all the qualities needed to play a rugged, sexy, very dangerous 007. What I feel was needed proper writing and direction to help him bring that out in his performance.

[Milovy]

Well, any actor ultimately has to play the script and character that is set before them. Objectively speaking as a Dalton fan, it's true that he seemed sometimes uncomfortable with the one-liners (as awful as they were) and although I personally found him highly attractive and very manly, "animal magnetism" is not a phrase I'd use to describe him or his onscreen approach to love scenes.

He wasn't quite comfortable in the role as written. It was arguably written kind of strangely during that period. His James Bond had moments of brilliance, and he was much better than he has been taken for up to now; but there is no arguing, his tenure as Bond was not very successful, for a variety of reasons - mostly due to things beyond his control - but a few things had to do with his own acting style, too.

However -- most maddeningly and tantalizingly -- there is still enough to debate over from his very short tenure, that makes you really wonder what might have been "if only."

Edited by Milovy, 03 February 2008 - 11:54 PM.

[Gobi-1]

I actually like Dalton less now. Daniel Craig is the Bond Dalton should have been.

[Harmsway]

This may sound harsh, but I view Craig as the Dalton who got everything right (so far, at least).

I entirely agree. Dalton was great for what we he succeeded at, but he was hardly successful at everything. Craig managed to capture everything great about Dalton's performance, but also managed to succeed where he failed.

Let's hope he can surpass himself in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, 'coz he's set the bar incredibly high.

I think that will somewhat depend on what the material allows him to do.

[Judo chop]

Craig himself has done nothing to alter my perception of Dalton, but the Craig era certainly has had an effect on my perception of the Dalton era.

The effect... rancorous regret. Impossible to say what could have been, but all things being equal, the Dalton era could have been just that - an independent and glorious new ERA of Bond. And not the echoing pangs of a dying civilization.

[ACE]

an independent and glorious new ERA of Bond. And not the echoing pangs of a dying civilization.

You sound like Drax on Krypton!

[R. Dittmar]

Viewing Craig and Dalton together, I can see where the difference is; Craig did play the role seriously for the most part, but he knew when to have fun with it, whereas Dalton just seemed to play it seriously all the time. I think that's why audiences have embraced Craig, even though they didn't quite click with Dalton. So if anything has changed about my view of Dalton, I would say that even though his portrayal of Bond wasn't one note by any means, I do think they could've added a lighter side to him, just to make him a bit more human, especially in License To Kill.

HH,

Let me riff on your post here because I think you

[HH007]

[quote name='R. Dittmar' post='833431' date='4 February 2008 - 20:16'][quote name='HH007' post='833042' date='3 February 2008 - 15:35']Viewing Craig and Dalton together, I can see where the difference is; Craig did play the role seriously for the most part, but he knew when to have fun with it, whereas Dalton just seemed to play it seriously all the time. I think that's why audiences have embraced Craig, even though they didn't quite click with Dalton. So if anything has changed about my view of Dalton, I would say that even though his portrayal of Bond wasn't one note by any means, I do think they could've added a lighter side to him, just to make him a bit more human, especially in License To Kill.[/quote]

HH,

Let me riff on your post here because I think you

[plankattack]

It hasn't changed my opinion of Dalton (whose Bond I liked) but it has changed my mind about EON. One of the reasons that Dalton's Bond is underappreciated is, because of the scripts and styles of his films, he is very much the odd person out. Whereas DC's Bond, drawing from the original text, and working with a script with much of the original text coursing through it, complement each other. And EON have finally (after experiementing with Brozza) have finally understood that.

Dalton was stuck in films that couldn't, or wouldn't, shed their Sir Rog-era DNA. In the way that a camera makes a movie star look good, then a script should make it's leading actor shine, but the unevenness in tone of TLD (with 70s EON jokes trying to get out) and LTK (with anything of EON's family-friendly atmosphere trying to break whenever it can) didn't help the lead who was upfront about wanting to bring the literal character into film character's universe.

EON have finally realised that to do that, you have be at least somewhat faithful to the tone of the text, and so DC's Bond seems so much more successful.

[J.C.D'Arc]

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?(Emphasis mine.)

So far, I think that Dalton has come closest to playing the character from Fleming's books, especially in Living Daylights, so this apparently doesn't apply to me... I guess I'd have to say that Craig's got a lot to live up to, in my view. And he's headed in generally the right direction.

[Bondian]

It hasn't changed my opinion of Dalton (whose Bond I liked) but it has changed my mind about EON. One of the reasons that Dalton's Bond is underappreciated is, because of the scripts and styles of his films, he is very much the odd person out. Whereas DC's Bond, drawing from the original text, and working with a script with much of the original text coursing through it, complement each other. And EON have finally (after experiementing with Brozza) have finally understood that.

Dalton was stuck in films that couldn't, or wouldn't, shed their Sir Rog-era DNA. In the way that a camera makes a movie star look good, then a script should make it's leading actor shine, but the unevenness in tone of TLD (with 70s EON jokes trying to get out) and LTK (with anything of EON's family-friendly atmosphere trying to break whenever it can) didn't help the lead who was upfront about wanting to bring the literal character into film character's universe.

EON have finally realised that to do that, you have be at least somewhat faithful to the tone of the text, and so DC's Bond seems so much more successful.

Agreed. But I wouldn't put the entire onus on Roger's Bond.

We have an actor who least resembles the Ian Fleming Bond. But Casino Royale. pulls out all the stops in a fight to make the best movie. If any other actor had been in such a 'realistic' film as Casino Royale, then Craig wouldn't have stood a chance. Casino Royale would have already been made.

Love Craig. But as I always say, "an actor is only as good as the film".

If Dalton or even Brosnan had this kind of 'attention to detail', the last six movies would have been epics.

EON this time has gone for progression. They HAVE been influenced by the 'Bourne Movie' as is apparent in the action, and using continuity.

Cheers,


Ian

[Milovy]

I'm not sure I ever got the impression of James Bond as a guy one was supposed to be able to have a pint with. He's a secret agent, living a life of danger, trusting few or none... so I don't require that an actor playing him be buddy material.

Dalton's Bond was very much an aloof loner (as is Craig's, I think - although his Bond doesn't seem aloof, just taciturn). Someone who naturally didn't like crowds, unlike the more gregarious and smooth Connery and Moore incarnations. I personally like that sort of Bond, who has some mystery.

I do know that I no longer care for Bond as Alpha Dog, in the Connery style.

[Skudor]

Daniel hasn't changed my opinion of Dalton - although he's replaced Dalton as the best actor in the role. Dalton was arguably the most solid actor to play Bond, which you can really see in some scenes in The Living Daylights. However, I think Craig is actually better - in particular the way he enhances the action with acting - something i haven't really seen before in a Bond film. You can tell what Bond is going through while running around, or jumping on oil tankers. I don't remember seeing that from Dalton.

[puck]

It hasn't changed my opinion of Dalton (whose Bond I liked) but it has changed my mind about EON. One of the reasons that Dalton's Bond is underappreciated is, because of the scripts and styles of his films, he is very much the odd person out. Whereas DC's Bond, drawing from the original text, and working with a script with much of the original text coursing through it, complement each other. And EON have finally (after experiementing with Brozza) have finally understood that.

Dalton was stuck in films that couldn't, or wouldn't, shed their Sir Rog-era DNA. In the way that a camera makes a movie star look good, then a script should make it's leading actor shine, but the unevenness in tone of TLD (with 70s EON jokes trying to get out) and LTK (with anything of EON's family-friendly atmosphere trying to break whenever it can) didn't help the lead who was upfront about wanting to bring the literal character into film character's universe.

EON have finally realised that to do that, you have be at least somewhat faithful to the tone of the text, and so DC's Bond seems so much more successful.

AMEN! Craigs material is better thought out and much more aligned with what they were trying to do in the Dalton era. And a lot more and playable for the actor, I would think.

Edited by puck, 05 February 2008 - 08:54 AM.

[Sbott]

EON have finally realised that to do that, you have be at least somewhat faithful to the tone of the text, and so DC's Bond seems so much more successful.

Let's hope they stick to the same strategy with QoS!!

[dodge]

This may sound harsh, but I view Craig as the Dalton who got everything right (so far, at least).

I entirely agree. Dalton was great for what we he succeeded at, but he was hardly successful at everything. Craig managed to capture everything great about Dalton's performance, but also managed to succeed where he failed.

Let's hope he can surpass himself in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, 'coz he's set the bar incredibly high.

I think that will somewhat depend on what the material allows him to do.

This comes the closest so far to expressing my own feelings. Dalton's efforts, to me, were heroic. But what's actually there on the screen (thanks to two middling scripts)? Nothing with a tenth of the humor, passion and power of what Craig was privileged to actually pull off. Luck willing, after 22 we'll be far better able to sum up Dan's accomplishments.

[Licence_007]

I love Dalton as Bond and have since I got past 13. I wouldn't say anything apart from maturity has changed my opinion on Dalton since I used to rate Moore highest in my very young years.

It actually annoys me today how Craig is so highly praised for a dark performace and how his Bond seems to have broken new ground, when 20 years prior Dalton had the same kind of portrayal criticised. I don't know why a lot of people act like Bond has never been a darker character before when he has.