72 replies to this topic

[The Ghost Who Walks]

A very easy way to derail an assault on Dalton especially ones that start with, "Dalton was an awful Bond," is to reply with, "No, Dalton was a terrible Roger Moore."

I am so going to use that line next time I'm talking about the subject with somebody.

[Della Leiter]

A very easy way to derail an assault on Dalton especially ones that start with, "Dalton was an awful Bond," is to reply with, "No, Dalton was a terrible Roger Moore."

I am so going to use that line next time I'm talking about the subject with somebody.

I second that.

[Turn]

Tim Dalton IS James Bond. Physically, psychologically, his manners...He had studied the character perfectly. Ian Fleming would have loved him. He's sophisticated and smooth. But look at his face when Saunders dies ! Terrific !!

He's always been my cinematic vision as most closely resembling the character from the books. I am always reminded of how closely he matches the character anytime I watch a Dalton Bond film.

I knew it right from the moment I first saw a clip of him as Bond. It was in the fall of '86 when TLD was filming and they showed John Glen in the editing room going over the scene when Bond follows Kara on the tram in Bratslava (available somewhere on You Tube). The promo materials also reflect this, especially the teaser poster with "The Most Dangerous Bond Ever" tagline is also one of my favorites.

[jaguar007]

I knew it right from the moment I first saw a clip of him as Bond. It was in the fall of '86 when TLD was filming and they showed John Glen in the editing room going over the scene when Bond follows Kara on the tram in Bratslava (available somewhere on You Tube). The promo materials also reflect this, especially the teaser poster with "The Most Dangerous Bond Ever" tagline is also one of my favorites.

I remember watching that show and seeing that clip as well

[volante]

Watch either TLD or LTK now, today, and they both measure up to any of the previous films.

The fight in the cargo net on the back of the 'plane is (for me)one of the best Bond moments ever.
Dalton undid all the harm the franchise suffered during the Roger Moore era.

[john.steed]

I would agree that Timothy Dalton was probably the most underrated of the Bonds by the general public. I think that his most important accomplishment was to ably offer a young, dynamic Bond after the long well received reign of Roger Moore as 007. I am particularly impressed with his first film which was one of the better films even though it lacked any strong villians. Unlike some other of the commentors however, while I enjoyed Dalton's different take on Bond, I am also a big fan of Moore.

Edited by john.steed, 19 April 2009 - 02:05 PM.

[double o ego]

Dalton most underrated?? Hmm, I don't think so. That title was and is probably still held by Lazenby. Most of the general audience don't even know he exists. As for Dalton, I think his efforts were underappreciated at the time and it was only around after the release of TWINE that I noticed a huge surge within the Bond community that, many fans started to appreciate Dalton and wanted Dalton-esque performances. I think many people just thought Dalton was too serious, particularly after he was Moore's successor and during a time where you had you Arnie's, Willis's, Van Dammes, Stallones and even Ford (Indiana Jones) who were taking over the whole action scenes and dropping their own one-liners, Dalton just wasn't cutting the mustered.

However, people and eras are fickle and as long as Fleming's matrial becomes more widely distributed and recognised and Craig's portrayal remains successful, Dalton would rise further up the ranks surpassing Moore and Brosnan.

[QWorm]

I agree that Lazenby is very underrated, he has almost no fan base, even here, but I don't really think that he is all that underrated really, just unnoticed. Dalton really does an impeccable job and people don't like it, while Lazenby does a decent job and people hate it.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The fight in the cargo net on the back of the 'plane is (for me)one of the best Bond moments ever

Agreed. The bit where Barry's awesome music kicks in as Necros hurls the cargo net over Bond is superb. I'll never forget the jolt in the cinema during that moment.

[Judo chop]

I wouldn’t say underrated. Maybe a little. But for the most part I think the ratings of him are fair because his Bond didn’t seem to click within the films he had. He obviously tried to take Bond to a new place – and it would have been a good place had anybody followed him. But they didn’t. The EON machine kept right on truckin’ like they always had with the Glenster as the creative head, and Dalton’s take on Bond consequently stuck out a like a sore thumb.

Thus, I’d prefer to call him the “Mismatched Bond”.

[Agent 0015]

Well yeah...When TLD came out, it was he was sort of up against Roger Moore who was Bond for a very long time. And TLD & LTK was very different that the Moore which was more fun action than a thriller action. And then when GE came out, a lot of regular movie goers forgot him. But when then CR & QoS, more people have rediscovered him.



My fun reply of the day...

[Harmsway]

I wouldn’t say underrated. Maybe a little. But for the most part I think the ratings of him are fair because his Bond didn’t seem to click within the films he had. He obviously tried to take Bond to a new place – and it would have been a good place had anybody followed him. But they didn’t. The EON machine kept right on truckin’ like they always had with the Glenster as the creative head, and Dalton’s take on Bond consequently stuck out a like a sore thumb.

Thus, I’d prefer to call him the “Mismatched Bond”.

Hm. I'm not sure I quite agree, just because I do think that his take on Bond mostly "fits" with the general tone and direction of his two films, aside from a few minor moments in either of 'em. The execution of those films might not always have been what they should have been (particularly in the case of LICENCE TO KILL), but I do think one sees a pretty notable shift in the tone of the flicks once he steps on board from what we had in the latter Moore flicks.

Still, I'm not Dalton's biggest fan ever. I like the guy, and I respect his take on Bond, but I don't find it all that engaging/compelling. Dalton's take is undeniably a more serious spin, but without a lot of the "coolness" that makes Bond the enduring figure that he is. It's hard to see anybody wanting to buy a particular watch because Dalton's Bond is the one wearing it, for example.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I don't agree with some of the comments about Moore, though. The guy's charm is legendary. Dalton was different, but that's what makes this series fun is there are so many interpretations.

I agree with you. Moore is incredibly charming, I think he ismore charming than Timothy Dalton. The problem is that when I read a Fleming book, I don't think of James Bond as being very charming. That is one reason I think Dalton is a better James Bond than Roger Moore. Was was basically still playing The Saint in his Bond movies where Dalton was playing James Bond.

That was my problem with Brosnan. When he wasn't trying to channel all the other Bonds, he seemed like he was still playing Remington Steele.

[Judo chop]

I do think one sees a pretty notable shift in the tone of the flicks once he steps on board from what we had in the latter Moore flicks.

I really don’t find the tone of TLD to be all that different from that of FYEO. They are John Glen’s two most similar films, I’d say. Glen sharpened up his sense of action and visuals a bit by 1985, but otherwise, I see two afghans (no pun intended) woven by the same threads.

Dalton's take is undeniably a more serious spin, but without a lot of the "coolness" that makes Bond the enduring figure that he is. It's hard to see anybody wanting to buy a particular watch because Dalton's Bond is the one wearing it, for example.

Dalton’s dour and dangerous demeanor needed a dour and dangerous tone. I agree that much of Dalton’s Bond's coolness is masked, but I don’t think it is purely absent. Take for example Dalton’s rather pissed-off look as he receives the underhanded compliment from Saunders that he is “the best”, or the complete lack of ‘wink-wink’ as he gives Saunders the “section twenty-six, paragraph five…” line before he drives away. Or the way he spits out “If M fires me, I’ll thank him for it.” There can be something very cool about no-nonsense, and I think those examples above were a great start to defining this new Bond.

A serious shift in tone to the darkside might have been able to emphasize what coolness was there. Of course the kind of darkness I’m talking about was (and probably still is) so far off of EON’s radar, it feels almost pointless to even hypothesize. I’m talking night, rain, smoke, and pain. And although I think a change in tone was the primary key, I definitely think some fresh vision was needed to pull it off. John Glen simply cannot escape his own mediocrity to create something dissimilar enough from his Moore entries. I think in Dalton’s films we are constantly reminded that he is sitting in someone else’s chair.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

And although I think a change in tone was the primary key, I definitely think some fresh vision was needed to pull it off. John Glen simply cannot escape his own mediocrity to create something dissimilar enough from his Moore entries. I think in Dalton’s films we are constantly reminded that he is sitting in someone else’s chair.

If Dalton reminds you he is sitting in someone else's chair I wouldn't be surprised. He only did two films after all. His predecessors had more opportunity to make their mark.
Personally, I think there was enough fresh vision in TLD. That film woke up the series. You can see that from the first 20 minutes alone. For me any memory of Moore was erased pretty damn quick by Dalton's physicality in the role alone.
That said I agree a fresh vision was needed in '89, Dalton's second film had problems beyond his control and misfired despite all its attempts. Its not a particularly bad film but it would have been great to have another screenwriter, director and a bit more money on board to help Dalton along.

[Harmsway]

I really don’t find the tone of TLD to be all that different from that of FYEO.

It's not strikingly different, though it is stripped of much of the outright goofiness that found its way into FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. I don't think it needed to be all that much different, if you ask me. And I daresay there's a significantly more romantic strand in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS than in most of the franchise.

Naturally, Glen's contribution as a director is rather similar (he's not capable of real stylistic variation), but on a script level, I think we're looking at something that was, more or less, appropriate to Dalton's Bond. In narrative, LICENCE TO KILL presents an even more striking contrast to what came before, despite a few moments of extremely awkward silliness.

They are John Glen’s two most similar films, I’d say.

Really? I think OCTOPUSSY and A VIEW TO A KILL are those.

There can be something very cool about no-nonsense, and I think those examples above were a great start to defining this new Bond.

There is undoubtedly something cool about no-nonsense, but that can only capture part of what makes Bond the figure he is. I'd argue that no matter how much Dalton excelled in those areas, his deficiencies in others would remain too notable. He was always really incapable of holding up the real Bond mystique.

Thanks to Craig, we now have a Bond who can be as serious and no-nonsense as Dalton ever was, but is also capable of being all the other things Bond needs to be. Really, we have a remarkable mix of traits in Craig's Bond.

I think in Dalton’s films we are constantly reminded that he is sitting in someone else’s chair.

I don't really think so. Most of the time, I think Dalton really does align with what's going around him aside from the occasional odd and inappropriate comedic moment that shows up in his flicks (but they do show up rather infrequently, when you get down to it, and are thus more the exception than the rule as far as the tone of his adventures are concerned).

Of course, I do see a lot of mediocrity in his two films, but I don't think that really has to do with the inherent Moore-ness of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, and just more to do with the failure of the team to properly handle what was already there.

[Judo chop]

Naturally, Glen's contribution as a director is rather similar (he's not capable of real stylistic variation), but on a script level, I think we're looking at something that was, more or less, appropriate to Dalton's Bond. In narrative, LICENCE TO KILL presents an even more striking contrast to what came before, despite a few moments of extremely awkward silliness.

I think LTK was the attempt to do it right for Dalton, but obviously (or at least it’s obvious to me) a fraction-hearted and ultimately failed one. The themes are there, but execution was as miserable as could be in just about every way possible (which the exception of casting Davi and DelToro). Q’s lab, Moneypenny, Krest baffoons, an uncharismatic Felix as the pivotal plot device, ugly locations, cardboard sets, irritating romantic conflicts all wrapped up with John Glen’s sensibilities… all horrible. And completely the opposite of what a brooding, dangerous DaltonBond requires to thrive.

They are John Glen’s two most similar films, I’d say.

Really? I think OCTOPUSSY and A VIEW TO A KILL are those.

Never in a million years would I have expected you to say that. I realize these things aren’t always easy to describe, but… how? To me, OP is the ultimate cartoon Bond: over-the-top, adventurous, colorful and wacky, whereas AVTAK is earth-dry, direly businesslike and serious. Taking LTK out of the picture, I would name those two films as the polar ends of John Glen.

There is undoubtedly something cool about no-nonsense, but that can only capture part of what makes Bond the figure he is. I'd argue that no matter how much Dalton excelled in those areas, his deficiencies in others would remain too notable. He was always really incapable of holding up the real Bond mystique.

That may be true. All I’m saying is that Dalton’s potential, his real strengths, were not used to their full advantage. We didn’t get all that Dalton could be, even if that still might not have been enough. Every other Bond actor has had his shot in an appropriate niche. All were given something they could make use of based on their personal takes. Even Pierce, who I think got plenty of chance in GE and parts of TND. It’s always been my stance that I really can’t say how much I like Dalton as Bond, exactly for that reason. I don’t feel I ever got to see the full effect of his Bond.

Thanks to Craig, we now have a Bond who can be as serious and no-nonsense as Dalton ever was, but is also capable of being all the other things Bond needs to be. Really, we have a remarkable mix of traits in Craig's Bond.

No argument there.

I think in Dalton’s films we are constantly reminded that he is sitting in someone else’s chair.

I don't really think so. Most of the time, I think Dalton really does align with what's going around him aside from the occasional odd and inappropriate comedic moment that shows up in his flicks (but they do show up rather infrequently, when you get down to it, and are thus more the exception than the rule as far as the tone of his adventures are concerned).

Of course, I do see a lot of mediocrity in his two films, but I don't think that really has to do with the inherent Moore-ness of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, and just more to do with the failure of the team to properly handle what was already there.

I never meant to suggest that TLD and LTK were Moore-like in narrative. I simply meant they felt Moore-like by route of John Glen. Glen defined the latter half of the Moore era, and his ‘Glenness’ (for lack of a better word), which we agree he is not capable of shedding, carried over into Dalton’s tenure. Although, sticking Dalton with the crappiest Moneypenny imaginable and even worse Q-lab pranks can certainly be considered a layover from the Moore-era.

[Royal Dalton]

Tim Dalton IS James Bond.

[Harmsway]

They are John Glen’s two most similar films, I’d say.

Really? I think OCTOPUSSY and A VIEW TO A KILL are those.

Never in a million years would I have expected you to say that. I realize these things aren’t always easy to describe, but… how? To me, OP is the ultimate cartoon Bond: over-the-top, adventurous, colorful and wacky, whereas AVTAK is earth-dry, direly businesslike and serious. Taking LTK out of the picture, I would name those two films as the polar ends of John Glen.

A VIEW TO A KILL "earthy-dry, direly businesslike and serious"? Really? It's more serious than OCTOPUSSY in tone, but it's still pretty slapstick. And there seems to be very much a shared aesthetic between the two films, even though they don't quite align tonally.

We didn’t get all that Dalton could be, even if that still might not have been enough.

I'm not sure I quite agree. To the extent that Dalton sat in some mediocre flicks, yes, he was never really used to his full potential. But I do think THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL have more than enough to go on regarding his take on Bond. I don't really think we need go on about what the ideal film for Dalton would have been, because I don't think much could have changed in terms of how his effective or ineffective his Bond was.

I simply meant they felt Moore-like by route of John Glen. Glen defined the latter half of the Moore era, and his ‘Glenness’ (for lack of a better word), which we agree he is not capable of shedding, carried over into Dalton’s tenure.

Sure. But I don't see how that then makes Dalton somehow an odd fit. It's not like Glen's style is particularly notable - it's practically defined by its blandness - and could almost could go with anything and be equally ineffective/effective. So all this talk about Dalton sitting in someone else's chair just because his flicks were directed by John Glen doesn't make the least bit of sense to me.

[Judo chop]

I don't really think we need go on about what the ideal film for Dalton would have been, because I don't think much could have changed in terms of how his effective or ineffective his Bond was.

If you don’t want to go on that’s fine, but I stand by my statement. I think there is a definitely a relationship between a film’s tone and its characters, and how well they harmonize has a huge impact on how well the lead character sits. Obviously, then, I think Dalton’s Bond is something particularly different from the rest of the pack, and the pretty typical 80’s Glen-helmed Bond film vibe didn’t suit or benefit him.

Specifically, TLD is a great Bond film, but it takes a relatively scowling, unhappy Bond through romantic territories, a fawn-eyed MP, Q, and doughy villains. I really don’t see how someone can say that there isn’t a dissonance there.

I simply meant they felt Moore-like by route of John Glen. Glen defined the latter half of the Moore era, and his ‘Glenness’ (for lack of a better word), which we agree he is not capable of shedding, carried over into Dalton’s tenure.

Sure. But I don't see how that then makes Dalton somehow an odd fit. It's not like Glen's style is particularly notable - it's practically defined by its blandness - and could almost could go with anything and be equally ineffective/effective. So all this talk about Dalton sitting in someone else's chair just because his flicks were directed by John Glen doesn't make the least bit of sense to me.

I don’t see why not. I think Glen’s direction has a lot to do with the general blasé feel of his films. There is a definite lack of menace in the way he goes about things, and I would like to have seen Dalton dealing with menace at every turn. I think his scowl would sit better with the world, if the world around Bond was scowling as well. I think Dalton’s Bond would have had a better chance of succeeding (perhaps only now, if not then as well) had he been the Bond first getting tortured a la Fleming, drinking heavily, being battered and bruised along the way, dealing with heavy betrayals, etc…

Am I really not making any sense to anyone here? It seems clear as day to me.

[Harmsway]

Specifically, TLD is a great Bond film, but it takes a relatively scowling, unhappy Bond through romantic territories, a fawn-eyed MP, Q, and doughy villains. I really don’t see how someone can say that there isn’t a dissonance there.

Well, I think the "romantic territories" of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS suit Dalton to a tea. Dalton as the "manly womanizer" makes little sense to me - he doesn't have the raw sexuality to pull that off, and the few efforts to make it work in LICENCE TO KILL fall flat. As the tender romantic, I can buy him.

I think his scowl would sit better with the world, if the world around Bond was scowling as well.

I don't think so. A Dalton Bond flick set in such a morose world would be positively insufferable.

But this goes back to my original point: I really don't think Dalton entirely "works" no matter what you try to do with him. He's just the oddly-cast Bond, incapable of really doing all of what the part needs him to do, despite putting in a great deal of admirable effort.

[Tybre]

There is undoubtedly something cool about no-nonsense, but that can only capture part of what makes Bond the figure he is. I'd argue that no matter how much Dalton excelled in those areas, his deficiencies in others would remain too notable. He was always really incapable of holding up the real Bond mystique.

I don't know, I think if Dalton had been given more time to prove himself, the character would have fleshed out to be more similar to Craig. Obviously they wouldn't be entirely similar. But even going back to the very first Dalton film, there are the occasional moments that suggest parts of the usual Bond "mystique". I think another part of the problem isn't so much Dalton himself, but the era these films were created in. One of the key facets of Bond is being a veritable man-whore, and Dalton remains fairly monogamist. Reasoning behind this is problem because of increased awareness of AIDS or something, but who knows? Maybe Dalton asked for things to be that way (though I doubt it).

[uncanny]

I think that he is underrated and unknown to the public as a figure in the James Bond community. Today, if you say "I like Timothy Dalton as James Bond." to a non-Bond fan (or someone who sportatically watches the films), they'll ask you who that person is. George Lazenby is recognized due to his infamous resignation of the role, but Timothy should at least gane some notoriaty for the role in the eyes of the public. That's a shame, considering that he is one of six key actors of the greatest film series ever made.

[Loomis]

I really don't think Dalton entirely "works" no matter what you try to do with him. He's just the oddly-cast Bond, incapable of really doing all of what the part needs him to do, despite putting in a great deal of admirable effort.

Agreed. For years I've tried to like Dalton more than I actually do. I know that trying to like something kinda defeats the point of, uh, liking something, but in the past I always endeavoured to see the good (read: The Flemmmmmmmming™) in Dalton while turning a blind eye to his stiff-assed limey theatrical ac-tor awkwardness and near zero celluloid appeal. I thought with my head, not my heart. During the Brosnan era, before Craig came along, being a Daltonite was a whole lot easier - it sorta went with the territory of being a hardcore, informed Bond fan who didn't just watch the movies but who also read the books.

Now, though....

Well, Craig has simply put Dalton out of business. There's a new boy on the corner and Dalton won't be selling his drugs no more. Ain't nuthin' Dalton ever did that Craig don't do better and more besides (dunno why I'm attempting to phrase things this way - probably 'coz I've just been watching THE WIRE ).

Dalton is over! You hear me, boy? Finished! Done!

That's better. You just keep walking.

But, yeah, no, yeah, no, yeah, Dalton's the overrated Bond. On sites like this one, anyway.

What, you gonna argue with me now?

[Tybre]

But, yeah, no, yeah, no, yeah, Dalton's the overrated Bond. On sites like this one, anyway.

On sites such as this, perhaps. But you have to admit, to the general public, well, most folks who weren't teenagers in the 1980s have never heard of him. My godfather only knows who he is because the first Bond film he saw was The Living Daylights, back when he was 13 in '87. Casual Bond fans have probably never even heard of the fellow. Lazenby at least has made something of a name for himself, even if in a negative light -- it's quite commonplace in the movie industry to refer to a terrible one-off actor in a franchise as "The George Lazenby of XYZ".

[Royal Dalton]

Dalton kicks Craig's down the street. Then gives him a Chinese burn.

[Turn]

During the Brosnan era, before Craig came along, being a Daltonite was a whole lot easier - it sorta went with the territory of being a hardcore, informed Bond fan who didn't just watch the movies but who also read the books.

Now, though....

Well, Craig has simply put Dalton out of business. There's a new boy on the corner and Dalton won't be selling his drugs no more. Ain't nuthin' Dalton ever did that Craig don't do better and more besides (dunno why I'm attempting to phrase things this way - probably 'coz I've just been watching THE WIRE ).

Craig is a better Bond than Dalton, no question there. However, I think what has grown out of this is more attention to what Dalton was trying to do with the role 20-plus years ago and gaining a bit more appreciation in some circles, although there will likely always be a mainstream snobbish upturned nose at Dalton and Lazenby.

The other byproduct of this is it makes Brosnan's portrayal seem that much less distinctive.

[LordAsriel]

During the Brosnan era, before Craig came along, being a Daltonite was a whole lot easier - ....

Well, Craig has simply put Dalton out of business. .

Craig is a better Bond than Dalton, no question there. However, I think what has grown out of this is more attention to what Dalton was trying to do with the role 20-plus years ago and gaining a bit more appreciation in some circles, although there will likely always be a mainstream snobbish upturned nose at Dalton and Lazenby.

Dalton is a better Bond than Craig, no question there . Well, actually it is only what I think, and I always find surprising to see people expressing their opinion as if it where an undeniable truth. Well, after seing Casino Royale, I struggled to decide who I like more, but after QOS, I have no doubt any more that my preference goes to Timothy (even is a for now my absolute favorite is Sean Connery).
Maybe it was easier being a daltonite during the brosnan era, but only on such fan sites. In the "real" world, it is far easier to be a Dalton fan now that Craig is there, and for two good reasons. Now the general public know more who Fleming's Bond is, so the Dalton era appears more appealing, and secondly when watching a Dalton Bond movie, the general audience now realise how terrific Timothy was .

Edited by LordAsriel, 27 April 2009 - 12:23 PM.

[Sniperscope]

I wonder how many threads we have here about how underrated Dalton is. I don't think Dalton is very underrated, especially here on this forum many consider him as one of the best Bonds, if not the best.

I don't think he's underrated around here, but if you wheeled his name around to the average cinema-goer, they'd give you a blank look; nobody seems to remember he even was James Bond.

That's so true! It really irritates me when I'm talking about Bond with anyone and I mention that Dalton is probably my favourite the response is always "Who?"
Imagine CR or QoS with Dalton. Both of those films would have suited his serious interpretation of Bond perfectly but he would also bring a certain suave (esp. from TLD) that Craig (as much as I like him too) hasn't quite got yet.

Edited by Sniperscope, 26 April 2009 - 02:59 PM.

[Tybre]

Dalton also had this very smug way of delivering certainly lines that, at least for me, really just make the moment, such as the way he says "Mhm" after Whitaker asks him if he really got rid of all that opium. Craig just hasn't got anything like that. At least not yet.