169 replies to this topic

[Christopher006]

Timothy Dalton was the favorite Bond of Fleming purists for several years. Their argument was that Dalton was more like Fleming's Bond than the other four actors to play the role. Now that Daniel Craig has emerged and become their new wet dream, are they still in support of Dalton? Or have they lost interest in him and are no longer appreciating his interpretation of the James Bond character? Do they think Craig is more like Fleming's Bond than Tim Dalton? Has their opinion of Dalton changed in any way since Craig has played Bond?

[Stephen Spotswood]

Timothy Dalton is still more like Fleming's Bond, the dark nature, somewhat moody and irriitable, but still glamorous, while Craig seems to be more like a Mickey Spillane character. TLD was too Mooresque, and LTK a little low budget looking, but Craig's 007 seems more like XXX or the Transporter.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 17 December 2008 - 01:58 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

Agreed. Timothy Dalton is still the actor who ranks the highest on the Fleming purity scale.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Actually comparing Bond to a knight of old is not so far-fetched. There were definite traces of Leslie Charteris's The Saint, Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu series with Bond as a less wooden Nayland Smith of Scotland Yard--and Dr. No as Fu Manchu.

And tales of daring knights are part of the British inheritence. If one reads The Mabinogion (my preference translated by Jeffrey Gantz), and Sir Thomas Mallory's Le Morte De'Arthur the knights were earthy and wont to hard partying, heavy drinking and wenching, when they weren't saving humanity from the ever encroaching forces of evil. The church tried to tame it and championed Sir Galahad the chaste, but never really promoted the Holy Grail, a tad too Pelagian for their taste.

[broadshoulder]

Dalton is still top of the Fleming scale with Craig not far behind.

Both actors have that lone wolf quality that Flemings Bond had. A sort of "damn your eyes" attitude combined with behind the eyes intelligence.

I read the novel Goldfinger the other day and it was Craig I envisioned when reading the book.

[00Twelve]

Apples and oranges for me, really.

Both play Fleming's Bond appropriately for the experience level of each of their interpretations.

Craig nails Fleming's early Bond. And well he should; he's playing Bond toward the beginning of his 00 career.

On the other hand, Dalton nails Fleming's late Bond. His Bond was the world-weary veteran agent who would supposedly thank M for firing him. After 14 films prior to his first, this makes perfect sense.

How I see it, anyway. I'm sure Craig's Bond will mature toward the agent we see in Fleming's middle period over the next couple films. I don't think he'll be touching Dalton's "late Bond" portrayal, though.

[Stephen Spotswood]

The only problem is at 37 or 38 Craig IS the age of the later Bond, who would be forced to retire from the field at 45.

Early Bond would be between 22-25.

[Hitmonk]

I like Craig - he's been a real shot in the arm for the series and has made two great films, but in some aspects I do not relate him to Fleming's Bond at all. Dalton is still No 1 for me.

[00Twelve]

The only problem is at 37 or 38 Craig IS the age of the later Bond, who would be forced to retire from the field at 45.

Early Bond would be between 22-25.

While he certainly wouldn't be Craig's age, early twenties for a 00 is a little conjectured. We've no idea how long he was a 00 (as opposed to a standard intelligence agent) before CR in '53, but he was apparently in his very early thirties in that story. This was long before the 1924 birthyear was later given. Continuity is a little shaky in that sense.

The point is that, while the actor is older than Fleming's Bond was at the similar time in his life, he's still playing Bond at the beginning of his 00 career. And he nails Bond's characterization from that period, age notwithstanding.

[jaguar007]

I agree 00twelve. Craig is more like Bond in the earlier books and Dalton more like Bond in the later novels. Ultimately I think Dalton is a tad closer to Fleming in their respected phases, but Craig is the better, more charismatic actor.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Here's the Robin Hood aspect of British heroics:

[dogmanstar]

I refuse to be any kind of actor purist--so maybe I shouldn't be posting in this thread--but each one of the EON actors who has played Bond has brought something unique and great to the role that the others could not do. So, even my least favorite Bond film is still a Bond film and I'm greatful for it. So, I wouldn't think that Craig changes how I view Dalton's two films at all.

[Stephen Spotswood]

The only problem is at 37 or 38 Craig IS the age of the later Bond, who would be forced to retire from the field at 45.

Early Bond would be between 22-25.

While he certainly wouldn't be Craig's age, early twenties for a 00 is a little conjectured. We've no idea how long he was a 00 (as opposed to a standard intelligence agent) before CR in '53, but he was apparently in his very early thirties in that story. This was long before the 1924 birthyear was later given. Continuity is a little shaky in that sense.

The point is that, while the actor is older than Fleming's Bond was at the similar time in his life, he's still playing Bond at the beginning of his 00 career. And he nails Bond's characterization from that period, age notwithstanding.

______________________________________________________________________________

He probably wouldn't be a 00 right out of college, but working intelligence during WWII. The image of spying that Bond typified was the upper-class, public school sort, who during the war effort probably volunteered, and because they knew multiple languages were put into intelligence. The book Casino Royale didn't even mention how long he was a 00, and the idea that he killed a couple of people to become 00 was in a later book, I believe From Russia With Love, although the details differed from the movie CR.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 17 December 2008 - 05:07 PM.

[tdalton]

I agree 00twelve. Craig is more like Bond in the earlier books and Dalton more like Bond in the later novels. Ultimately I think Dalton is a tad closer to Fleming in their respected phases, but Craig is the better, more charismatic actor.

Agreed. Craig perfectly captures the more arrogant aspects of Bond's personality, whereas Dalton has the world-weariness that we see in the later Fleming novels, which works out very well for each of their tenures seeing as how Dalton came along at the tail end of the "first" series of Bond films and Craig is just starting out the "second" series of Bond films.

Both actors are, however, brilliant in the role, even though I give the slight edge to Craig.

[Dell Deaton]

There's never been a question in my mind when looking at the books that Timothy Dalton is the closest to Ian Fleming's vision of James Bond (hence by CBn image). Didn't flex an inch when Craig became 007.

Don't see any of the others as a contender. Mind you, that doesn't mean I can't or won't like them for what they are; I'm just answering the question as asked.

[Eurospy]

I'm not a purist per se, but where Dalton used to be my favourite Bond, now both Dalton and Craig are my favourite Bonds, on equal terms. Actually, I even perceive Dalton as representing what Craig will become, in terms of character.

Edited by Eurospy, 18 December 2008 - 12:49 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I refuse to be any kind of actor purist--so maybe I shouldn't be posting in this thread--but each one of the EON actors who has played Bond has brought something unique and great to the role that the others could not do. So, even my least favorite Bond film is still a Bond film and I'm greatful for it. So, I wouldn't think that Craig changes how I view Dalton's two films at all.

Maybe a little offtopic but... what unique thing brought Brosnan to the role??

[00Twelve]

Actually, I even perceive Dalton as representing what Craig will become, in terms of character.

Bingo.

[dogmanstar]

I refuse to be any kind of actor purist--so maybe I shouldn't be posting in this thread--but each one of the EON actors who has played Bond has brought something unique and great to the role that the others could not do. So, even my least favorite Bond film is still a Bond film and I'm greatful for it. So, I wouldn't think that Craig changes how I view Dalton's two films at all.

Maybe a little offtopic but... what unique thing brought Brosnan to the role??

I thought his scenes after the deaths of Paris and Electra were both some of the best of his tenure and of any of the Bonds. His scenes with Paris all round were quite good.

[David Schofield]

Taking Arlington Beach's post about Brosnan, it should be compulsory to have to read the Benson novels in preparation for watching Brosnan's films.

Brosnan is Raymond Benson's James Bond.

And if you accept that, and understand that is what you are watching, it makes it a lot easier.

[sharpshooter]

As has been said, they are playing Bond at different points in his career. Still, I think that overall Dalton is good, but Craig is better.

[BoogieBond]

I am afraid I don't see Dalton as the literary Bond on the printed page, Never have done. I never see any of the Movie Bonds really. Maybe this makes me less of a purist
In terms of looks, I suppose he is the closest. But in the novels Bond is described as handsome, but in a cruel and dangerous way. And he is also described as very tough(backed up by some of his adventures, surviving the Dr. No survival course etc...) That side to Bonds character never came over in Dalton's interpretation for me. Connery and Craig both look cruel and tough and dangerous, Dalton, to me, just does not.
I do like Dalton though, and can see in some of the later novels, some of the weariness Bond displays coming out in Dalton's portrayal, also his moody sometimes gruff portrayal of the fictional character comes across very well. And I do like Dalton as Bond and glad we got him.
I like the comparison of Craig as early Bond and Dalton as late Bond. But as above neither is the exact picture I have of the guy in the books

Edited by BoogieBond, 18 December 2008 - 04:00 PM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Dalton's Bond was the Bond of the book who was badly injured or dying every other book. A guy who did almost superhuman feats, especially in endurance but paid the price. And while Connery has reptillian glare, Dalton seemed to have a glitter of barely repressed rage.

[Publius]

I still think he's the most like Fleming's Bond, but Craig is like a mix of that and Connery's Cinematic Bond.

[Eurospy]

Dalton's Bond was the Bond of the book who was badly injured or dying every other book. A guy who did almost superhuman feats, especially in endurance but paid the price. And while Connery has reptillian glare, Dalton seemed to have a glitter of barely repressed rage.

Quite well put. Quite well indeed.

[Harmsway]

In my mind, early Connery (DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE) is the closest the franchise has ever been to Fleming's character.

Dalton is close in many respects (the world weariness definitely seems to connect to later Fleming Bond), but he definitely misses the boat on others. So as to whether Craig or Dalton is closer, who can say? In some sense, they're equally distanced from the character, but in different ways. I certainly prefer Craig by a vast margin, but that ultimately has little to do with his proximity to Fleming's Bond.

[Blonde Bond]

I still think he's the most like Fleming's Bond, but Craig is like a mix of that and Connery's Cinematic Bond.

Ditto.

You stole the words... right outta my pocket.

[Stephen Spotswood]

As I mentioned above, I think it was the book From Russia With Love that described Bond's first two kills that made him a 00. It was during World War II. He liked the first hit, it was of a Japanese radio operator. From another building Bond squeezed off one shot through an open window to make the man turn around, and then shot him through his open mouth, and the radio operator collaped so that the window ledge covered Bond's view of the carnage. The second killing, if I remember aright, was a Swiss or a Swede who was a double agent working for the Nazis. Bond decided to take him out with a knife. This was hand to hand combat and he was repulsed by the amount of blood that poured out, like he was later in the book while pinned under "Grant's" body.

So even from the beginning Bond seemed to find violence necessary, and was good at it, but it always seemed to disgust him. In the book, OHMSS, Bond did a flying leap on skis, and when one of the bad guys followed him he fell into a giant snow blower, and was chopped to pieces and some of the spray hit Bond, and he felt queasy. In the movie with George Lazenby all he did was say, "That man had guts."

[Turn]

I liked Dalton in 1987 and he was my vision of the closest portrayal of Fleming's Bond and I still like him today.

I like Craig because he's brought something that seems new and fresh to the role. So I see this question not so much as a comparison or a preferrence, but two sides of the same coin I really enjoy.

I am also glad to see Craig's portrayal has helped some people gain a new appreciation for Dalton's Bond and what he tried to do at the time. If anything it makes me dread whoever has to follow Craig in the role.

[sharpshooter]

In my mind, early Connery (DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE) is the closest the franchise has ever been to Fleming's character.

Yes, I agree.