177 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

Moore's popularity was never that of Connerys, all I'm saying is that during the 77-80 years, his popularity was a bit bigger than that of either Brosnan or Craig. It might be because in the 70s, Bond was still the pinnacle of the action/adventure genre. It was not until Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981 that Bond had any real competition in that genre.

I think the "Brosnan as Bond" character was already established pre-1995 and stoked rather wonderfully by Brosnan throughout his tenure; knocking about L.A. in an Aston Martin, immaculate suits, Thomas Crown, etc.

YOu make a good point. People started associating Brosnan as the next Bond as early as 1983 while he was doing Remington Steele. He had 12 years of public association with Bond prior to the release of GE. It is even more impressive how popular Craig has become when you consider this as well as all the negative press he received before the cameras started to roll on CR.

[David_M]

Though I might mendaciously suggest that even after the huge success of Spy, Roger was no more than "that bloke playing Bond 'cos Connery won't do it any more" than popular in his own right as Brosnan and Craig were/are.

No, the way I remember it Roger was hugely popular in his own right and a much-loved icon of the 70s, right up there with Burt Reynolds and Lee Majors (and you can take that however you want! :-) ). Of course on the flip side of that, I always felt the vast majority of folks would have gladly sent Roger packing if Connery ever decided to come back, but that's different from saying they didn't like Roger.

The only analogy that springs to mind involves music; I knew a lot of guys who thought the group "Wings" was fantastic and considered the "Band on the Run" album a masterpiece, but if one day McCartney suddenly announced he'd reunite with the Beatles, those same fans would've have shed not a single tear over the prospect of "Wings" breaking up.

Look at it this way; every Bond actor has had to live in Connery's shadow, but Roger had to do it while Connery was actually still young enough to come back. In that light, the fact that he achieved as much success as he did is pretty impressive.

[Simon]

Look at it this way; every Bond actor has had to live in Connery's shadow, but Roger had to do it while Connery was actually still young enough to come back.

...and Did come back. (Let us not forget)

[David Schofield]

Though I might mendaciously suggest that even after the huge success of Spy, Roger was no more than "that bloke playing Bond 'cos Connery won't do it any more" than popular in his own right as Brosnan and Craig were/are.

No, the way I remember it Roger was hugely popular in his own right and a much-loved icon of the 70s, right up there with Burt Reynolds and Lee Majors (and you can take that however you want! :-) ). Of course on the flip side of that, I always felt the vast majority of folks would have gladly sent Roger packing if Connery ever decided to come back, but that's different from saying they didn't like Roger.

A perfectly fair and reasonable reading of the situation.

[BoogieBond]

Not really. He was 51 as of 2004, the earliest his next Bond movie could have been released. Besides, what better opportunity to move in a new direction than after your epic 40th anniversary adventure?

Also, anybody who thinks Quantum of Solace has anything to do with the current fiasco has no idea what they're talking about. Tomorrow Never Dies made almost $20 million less than GoldenEye (meanwhile, the drop-off from Casino Royale was only $8 million), and was much more widely panned than Quantum of Solace has been. Yet The World is not Enough was made no problem.

I agree about the age. I will agree when Craig gets to 49 as well that he should not linger in the role and they should move on. I am sure the producers will be moving on to Bond 7 by then, if not before. And Craig seems to be the type of actor that will move on, and find other projects to interest him as an actor.
I hope Craig gets 4 films under his belt, and has a couple more films of the calibre of CR under his belt.
With the Connery and Moore popularity thing, it was partly because a) Sean Connery was Bond for many people and also Both Moore and Connery did 7 films and were Bond over almost a decade. And while Moore may not have been as popular I think some of his films(I am thinking of "Spy" as well as maybe LALD and FYEO) are regarded as some peoples favourites, even though they may have preferred Connery in the role for say "Spy" they still like the film and therefore think of Connery and Moore when they think of Bond.

Edited by BoogieBond, 17 September 2010 - 03:44 PM.

[Fantomex]

None of these things are a knock on Brozza, but the reality for most franchises is that they must renovate or lose wider interest outside of their base. Look at the most recent Star Trek, for example. Good reviews, good box office, and a chance to reenter the national conversation, so to speak.

Unfortunately, not all Trekfans feel the same way....

[Zorin Industries]

None of these things are a knock on Brozza, but the reality for most franchises is that they must renovate or lose wider interest outside of their base. Look at the most recent Star Trek, for example. Good reviews, good box office, and a chance to reenter the national conversation, so to speak.

Unfortunately, not all Trekfans feel the same way....

Well fortunately such films are not made for the fans. Otherwise nothing would get made or the end result would be awful.

[Guy Haines]

Whatever his merits, I doubt many people would care that much if Craig didn't come back. He isn't 'James Bond' in the public's eye. Not in the way Connery and Moore were, anyway.

Who is this mythic "public" folk bandy about when making blanket assumptions about how popular something is. There is no such thing as the general public and I doubt very much if people have questioned every cinemagoer in the last five years what they think. The box office does the only talking here that is remotely useful.

I have to concede that I haven't taken a worldwide census on the subject lately. However, I suspect that most people on the planet think of either the actor Sean Connery or the actor Roger Moore when they hear the name "James Bond". My personal opinion is that the vast majority of people on this planet would not suffer from sleepless nights if the character of James Bond was not played by the Cheshire-born actor Daniel Craig in the next film. I have no statistical data to support this opinion, however, and am fully prepared to accept that the vast majority of people on the planet may indeed endure sleepless nights if such an unlikely event were to occur.

People may well think of Connery or Moore when the name James Bond is mentioned, as they have been around in the public domain the longest. Those youngsters who viewed Bond in the 1990s will think first of Brosnan. Newcomers to Bond in the 2000s will associate Bond with Craig. Plus, many have good memories of Dalton's tenure - I certainly do - and for a number who came to Bond in 1970, such as me, the man of the moment was Lazenby.

But I would guess (I'll put it no higher than a guess!) that people on the whole don't reach for an insomnia cure because one particular actor may or may not appear in the next Bond film, any more than they bemoan the fact that their favourite "arguably most popular" actor is no longer Bond, or that someone else is, and has supposedly put the series in jeopardy (which seems to be the basis of this thread, and can be easily disproved by reference to the box office returns, critical reaction, and, at this time, the MGM situation.)

The Bond role is bigger than the actors concerned. Punters go to see a James Bond film, not a Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan/Craig star vehicle. If I'm wrong, how can one explain the series longevity? The star of a typical Hollywood hit is the actor at the top of the film poster. The star of a Bond movie is James Bond.

[WhiteKnight2000]

I think it's very premature to assume Craig is as big a Bond as Connery, Moore and Brosnan are.

If he comes back and does more films he stands a chance. If he doesn't he'll be about as fondly remembered in the role as Dalton is.

[jaguar007]

I think it's very premature to assume Craig is as big a Bond as Connery, Moore and Brosnan are.

If he comes back and does more films he stands a chance. If he doesn't he'll be about as fondly remembered in the role as Dalton is.

Based on the success of CR alone, I think he will be more fondly remembered with the general public than Dalton was if he does not make any more BOnd films.

[Guy Haines]

I think it's very premature to assume Craig is as big a Bond as Connery, Moore and Brosnan are.

If he comes back and does more films he stands a chance. If he doesn't he'll be about as fondly remembered in the role as Dalton is.

It's possible to make a big impact with just one film - not just in Bond, but generally. Craig did just that with CR. I'm glad to see you concede he could come back and do some more Bonds though, assuming the real reason for the Bond series' low estate - MGM - is finally sorted out. I thought it was "certain" he wouldn't be coming back and that the new studio bosses would want a "clean slate"? Ah well. Another two movies and on the basis of "longevity in the role equals bigness" he'll be way up there with Sean, Roger and Pierce.

(by the way, Dalton is very fondly remembered, certainly by quite a few on this site and - who knows? - by some of the paying public who saw TLD and LTK.)

Edited by Guy Haines, 17 September 2010 - 10:45 PM.

[David Schofield]

I think it's very premature to assume Craig is as big a Bond as Connery, Moore and Brosnan are.

If he comes back and does more films he stands a chance. If he doesn't he'll be about as fondly remembered in the role as Dalton is.

Based on the success of CR alone, I think he will be more fondly remembered with the general public than Dalton was if he does not make any more BOnd films.

I'd tend to agree.

Unless, of course, the re-appraisal of Craig questions how a short, muscular, blond-haired man who isn't particularly noticeably good-looking could ever truly portray Ian Fleming's character.

Crazier re-assessment has happened.

[jaguar007]

I think it's very premature to assume Craig is as big a Bond as Connery, Moore and Brosnan are.

If he comes back and does more films he stands a chance. If he doesn't he'll be about as fondly remembered in the role as Dalton is.

Based on the success of CR alone, I think he will be more fondly remembered with the general public than Dalton was if he does not make any more BOnd films.

I'd tend to agree.

Unless, of course, the re-appraisal of Craig questions how a short, muscular, blond-haired man who isn't particularly noticeably good-looking could ever truly portray Ian Fleming's character.

Crazier re-assessment has happened.

It can also be said that how could someone so scrawny, pretty boy with big poofy hair could ever truly portray Ian Fleming's character. Pierce is just as far away from Fleming's character as Craig is, just in an opposite direction. Also the height difference between Craig and Fleming's Bond is the same as Connery and Fleming's Bond. Two inches (in height, lets keep it clean) does not make that much of a difference in someones presence.

[SecretAgentFan]

There's a reality tv show going on at the moment based on the premise that if you surround yourself with things from n years ago, you feel n years younger - http://www.bbc.co.uk...oung-ones.shtml

I've always thought it was nonsense. However, this thread has me believing it is 2005 and I am 32. It's taken an inch off my waist, regrown some hair, undone my vasectomy and made the school fees much cheaper. I love you.

Since I liked this reply so much and it still applies to this thread so very well...

[David Schofield]

I think it's very premature to assume Craig is as big a Bond as Connery, Moore and Brosnan are.

If he comes back and does more films he stands a chance. If he doesn't he'll be about as fondly remembered in the role as Dalton is.

Based on the success of CR alone, I think he will be more fondly remembered with the general public than Dalton was if he does not make any more BOnd films.

I'd tend to agree.

Unless, of course, the re-appraisal of Craig questions how a short, muscular, blond-haired man who isn't particularly noticeably good-looking could ever truly portray Ian Fleming's character.

Crazier re-assessment has happened.

It can also be said that how could someone so scrawny, pretty boy with big poofy hair could ever truly portray Ian Fleming's character. Pierce is just as far away from Fleming's character as Craig is, just in an opposite direction. Also the height difference between Craig and Fleming's Bond is the same as Connery and Fleming's Bond. Two inches (in height, lets keep it clean) does not make that much of a difference in someones presence.

Oh, I agree with you.

But sadly to the great unwashed "public" the perception is that Brosnan is closer to the Fleming original (and, hey, I suspect Fleming was really writing about someone as scrawny as Brosnan, and not as bulky as Connery, Laz, or Craig, but that's beside the point ).

Anf weight of numbers will decide. Me, I think they were both wide of the mark, and that the best Bond is Dalton by some way. But the majority don't agree with me.

[Guy Haines]

I think it's very premature to assume Craig is as big a Bond as Connery, Moore and Brosnan are.

If he comes back and does more films he stands a chance. If he doesn't he'll be about as fondly remembered in the role as Dalton is.

Based on the success of CR alone, I think he will be more fondly remembered with the general public than Dalton was if he does not make any more BOnd films.

I'd tend to agree.

Unless, of course, the re-appraisal of Craig questions how a short, muscular, blond-haired man who isn't particularly noticeably good-looking could ever truly portray Ian Fleming's character.

Crazier re-assessment has happened.

It can also be said that how could someone so scrawny, pretty boy with big poofy hair could ever truly portray Ian Fleming's character. Pierce is just as far away from Fleming's character as Craig is, just in an opposite direction. Also the height difference between Craig and Fleming's Bond is the same as Connery and Fleming's Bond. Two inches (in height, lets keep it clean) does not make that much of a difference in someones presence.

If there is a definitive version of Bond it is, surely, the one in the Fleming books. Just as there is more than one way to play the role of Hamlet, what you see on the screen is one actor's interpretation of Bond. Personally, I think there has been much to commend in all six interpretations, and while I may prefer one over another, I wouldn't say that the casting of any one of them has been baleful for the series, let alone catastrophic.

[jaguar007]

Anf weight of numbers will decide. Me, I think they were both wide of the mark, and that the best Bond is Dalton by some way. But the majority don't agree with me.

I agree that Dalton is probably the closest to the books that we have yet seen. Connery was far cooler than Fleming's Bond and I think Craig is as well. As far as the movies go, I can see Craig as Bond early in his career, developing into Connery and becoming Dalton closer to the end. As is stands, those are my three favorite actors in the role. I could put Laz between Craig and Connery in my "developing Bond" chart. I like both Moore and Brosnan, but I still tend to think of them as "The Saint" and "Remington Steele"'s take on Bond than actual Bond.

[David_M]

But sadly to the great unwashed "public" the perception is that Brosnan is closer to the Fleming original (and, hey, I suspect Fleming was really writing about someone as scrawny as Brosnan, and not as bulky as Connery, Laz, or Craig, but that's beside the point ).

I think it goes beyond "suspecting." The stats Fleming gives for Bond make him out to be much leaner than either Connery or Lazenby. In fact, he's roughly my height and weight, and I probably couldn't take down a girl scout in a fair fight. And for all the talk of Sean being "definitive" I can't recall a single scene from Fleming that sounded remotely like "and then Bond picked up the sofa and smashed his Sumo-like attacker with it."

I like both Moore and Brosnan, but I still tend to think of them as "The Saint" and "Remington Steele"'s take on Bond than actual Bond.

I only wish we HAD gotten "Remington Steele as Bond." Brosnan exhibited a mastery of light comedy in "Steele" that is nowhere to be found in his Bond. What "humor" there is consists of badly written puns, which he delivers without enthusiasm ("Oh yes, the script says there's a pun at this point, so here it is...")

[zencat]

I only wish we HAD gotten "Remington Steele as Bond." Brosnan exhibited a mastery of light comedy in "Steele" that is nowhere to be found in his Bond.

Yep. This is my #1 complaint with Brozzo. (Although he had his moments in GE.)

[plankattack]

I think it's very premature to assume Craig is as big a Bond as Connery, Moore and Brosnan are.

If he comes back and does more films he stands a chance. If he doesn't he'll be about as fondly remembered in the role as Dalton is.

Based on the success of CR alone, I think he will be more fondly remembered with the general public than Dalton was if he does not make any more BOnd films.

The difference between DC and TD is that, based on upcoming projects alone - Spielberg's TinTin (don't know if that's actually happening), Cowboys v Aliens, and then the Dragon Tattoo series - DC is building up a resume outside of Bond. TD never really did that (at least in A-list Hollywood projects), so DC is going to stay in the "public" memory regardless. What makes DC slightly different from every Bond (except perhaps SC), is that the public had no artistic preconception of him before he was cast (e.g he wasn't The Saint, or Remington Steele), and he's building an impressive resume outside of the character while still in the role.

Even if he was to be done with Bond after two films, I suspect that Bond will part of how he's identified as an actor, rather than being the only thing that identifies him. TD, great actor that he undoubtedly is, is probably remembered by the great unwashed as that other guy that played Bond before Brozza.

Two great actors, but two very different public reputations.

[coco1997]

That's not what the public at large felt.

Bond is pretty much a forgotten property and hasn't been as big since Brosnan left. These are the harsh facts we must face.

That's funny, especially when you consider how huge of a success "Casino Royale" was.

[jaguar007]

I only wish we HAD gotten "Remington Steele as Bond." Brosnan exhibited a mastery of light comedy in "Steele" that is nowhere to be found in his Bond.

Yep. This is my #1 complaint with Brozzo. (Although he had his moments in GE.)

I totally agree. I may bad mouth Brosnan as Bond, but I do like him as an actor. He excels with light humor. I religiously watched Remington Steele in the 80s and would love to see him do more work like that. It is when he tries to be dramatic that he tends to fall a little flat.

I know Brosnan "trys" to be a more serious actor than Roger Moore did (or at least publically stated he is), Moore is actually a more rounded actor and is quite good and both light comedy and the more dramatic.

[Simon]

Unfortunately, not all Trekfans feel the same way....

Well fortunately such films are not made for the fans. Otherwise nothing would get made or the end result would be awful.

And so say all of us, if I can say this without being accused of speaking for the populace without the benefit of a poll.

[Simon]

Brosnan exhibited a mastery of light comedy in "Steele" that is nowhere to be found in his Bond.

Yep. This is my #1 complaint with Brozzo. (Although he had his moments in GE.)

Hmm, but this may have been due more to consistently clunky scripts that even Moore's light touch might have had trouble with to deliver.

I think we can thank all that is holy that the Brosnan era scripts were Not paired up with Clive Owen and all of his dour wooden-ness.

[Guy Haines]

I think it's very premature to assume Craig is as big a Bond as Connery, Moore and Brosnan are.

If he comes back and does more films he stands a chance. If he doesn't he'll be about as fondly remembered in the role as Dalton is.

Based on the success of CR alone, I think he will be more fondly remembered with the general public than Dalton was if he does not make any more BOnd films.

I'd tend to agree.

Unless, of course, the re-appraisal of Craig questions how a short, muscular, blond-haired man who isn't particularly noticeably good-looking could ever truly portray Ian Fleming's character.

Crazier re-assessment has happened.

It can also be said that how could someone so scrawny, pretty boy with big poofy hair could ever truly portray Ian Fleming's character. Pierce is just as far away from Fleming's character as Craig is, just in an opposite direction. Also the height difference between Craig and Fleming's Bond is the same as Connery and Fleming's Bond. Two inches (in height, lets keep it clean) does not make that much of a difference in someones presence.

Oh, I agree with you.

But sadly to the great unwashed "public" the perception is that Brosnan is closer to the Fleming original (and, hey, I suspect Fleming was really writing about someone as scrawny as Brosnan, and not as bulky as Connery, Laz, or Craig, but that's beside the point ).

Anf weight of numbers will decide. Me, I think they were both wide of the mark, and that the best Bond is Dalton by some way. But the majority don't agree with me.

I watched TLD in 1987 and left the cinema happier with a Bond film than I had been in a decade. At last, something close to Fleming's Bond on screen. There is no telling how the series might have gone if he had stayed on. Unfortunately, we had an actor pulling the series one way, with a production team who were used to a different sort of Bond film. Call it old pals loyalty on the producers' part, or what you will. I think the new Bond in 1987 would have benefited from a clean sweep. A re-boot, you might say. Dalton could have put his stamp on the series in one film, much as Craig has done. I was looking forward to a third or fourth Dalton movie, but yet another studio mess stymied it. I'm not sorry about Brosnan taking over - I think he did well. But I can't help wondering about what might have been.

[Jim]

There's a reality tv show going on at the moment based on the premise that if you surround yourself with things from n years ago, you feel n years younger - http://www.bbc.co.uk...oung-ones.shtml

I've always thought it was nonsense. However, this thread has me believing it is 2005 and I am 32. It's taken an inch off my waist, regrown some hair, undone my vasectomy and made the school fees much cheaper. I love you.

Since I liked this reply so much and it still applies to this thread so very well...

In the same vein, I do hope that for its next funny trick this person comes up with the equally logical "If the producers had never cast Dalton we would have a Bond film now", so I can convince myself it's 1991 and I'm eighteen and just married, no kids, honeymoon, two feet and some really great hair and a perceptible abdomen and that'd be just brilliant.

Please do this.

A step too far may be "For Your Eyes Only - Moore looks knackered, bring in Lewis Collins NOW" because I'd only be eight and that was a difficult year - my doggy died - although it's entirely possible that I may be better able to join in some of the conversations around here.

[Guy Haines]

There's a reality tv show going on at the moment based on the premise that if you surround yourself with things from n years ago, you feel n years younger - http://www.bbc.co.uk...oung-ones.shtml

I've always thought it was nonsense. However, this thread has me believing it is 2005 and I am 32. It's taken an inch off my waist, regrown some hair, undone my vasectomy and made the school fees much cheaper. I love you.

Since I liked this reply so much and it still applies to this thread so very well...

In the same vein, I do hope that for its next funny trick this person comes up with the equally logical "If the producers had never cast Dalton we would have a Bond film now", so I can convince myself it's 1991 and I'm eighteen and just married, no kids, honeymoon, two feet and some really great hair and a perceptible abdomen and that'd be just brilliant.

Please do this.

A step too far may be "For Your Eyes Only - Moore looks knackered, bring in Lewis Collins NOW" because I'd only be eight and that was a difficult year - my doggy died - although it's entirely possible that I may be better able to join in some of the conversations around here.

I had quite a happy childhood. I miss seeing my grandparents every day - they only lived at the end of our street, as did an uncle and aunty, what we used to call in the UK a "close knit community" -, my school, my obsessive collection of Airfix models, and being able to watch an Apollo moon mission every few months on the TV. Plus those classic early Bond films. So I hope we take this thread one step beyond and ask "Do you think the producers regret letting Sean Connery leave the series?", so I can pretend its now somewhere between 1967 and 1972!

[stromberg]

There's a reality tv show going on at the moment based on the premise that if you surround yourself with things from n years ago, you feel n years younger - http://www.bbc.co.uk...oung-ones.shtml

I've always thought it was nonsense. However, this thread has me believing it is 2005 and I am 32. It's taken an inch off my waist, regrown some hair, undone my vasectomy and made the school fees much cheaper. I love you.

Since I liked this reply so much and it still applies to this thread so very well...

In the same vein, I do hope that for its next funny trick this person comes up with the equally logical "If the producers had never cast Dalton we would have a Bond film now", so I can convince myself it's 1991 and I'm eighteen and just married, no kids, honeymoon, two feet and some really great hair and a perceptible abdomen and that'd be just brilliant.

Please do this.

A step too far may be "For Your Eyes Only - Moore looks knackered, bring in Lewis Collins NOW" because I'd only be eight and that was a difficult year - my doggy died - although it's entirely possible that I may be better able to join in some of the conversations around here.

I had quite a happy childhood. I miss seeing my grandparents every day - they only lived at the end of our street, as did an uncle and aunty, what we used to call in the UK a "close knit community" -, my school, my obsessive collection of Airfix models, and being able to watch an Apollo moon mission every few months on the TV. Plus those classic early Bond films. So I hope we take this thread one step beyond and ask "Do you think the producers regret letting Sean Connery leave the series?", so I can pretend its now somewhere between 1967 and 1972!

Do you think the producers regret sacking John Gavin? It's the second actor in a row (after Lazenby), this one even without doing a single Bond movie. Looks like the series is doomed and hiring Connery back is their last straw. If they don't hire a younger actor, I doubt we'll see much more Bond movies...


Anyone remember this one: http://debrief.comma...m-the-interweb/

[jaguar007]

I watched TLD in 1987 and left the cinema happier with a Bond film than I had been in a decade. At last, something close to Fleming's Bond on screen. There is no telling how the series might have gone if he had stayed on. Unfortunately, we had an actor pulling the series one way, with a production team who were used to a different sort of Bond film. Call it old pals loyalty on the producers' part, or what you will. I think the new Bond in 1987 would have benefited from a clean sweep. A re-boot, you might say. Dalton could have put his stamp on the series in one film, much as Craig has done. I was looking forward to a third or fourth Dalton movie, but yet another studio mess stymied it. I'm not sorry about Brosnan taking over - I think he did well. But I can't help wondering about what might have been.

I love TLD as well. Until CR came along, I felt it was the last really good Bond movie. I wish Dalton had done a couple more films as well, but unfortunately the public in general never accepted him as much as I did. The public acceptance of Craig is totally different than that of Dalton.

[Guy Haines]

I watched TLD in 1987 and left the cinema happier with a Bond film than I had been in a decade. At last, something close to Fleming's Bond on screen. There is no telling how the series might have gone if he had stayed on. Unfortunately, we had an actor pulling the series one way, with a production team who were used to a different sort of Bond film. Call it old pals loyalty on the producers' part, or what you will. I think the new Bond in 1987 would have benefited from a clean sweep. A re-boot, you might say. Dalton could have put his stamp on the series in one film, much as Craig has done. I was looking forward to a third or fourth Dalton movie, but yet another studio mess stymied it. I'm not sorry about Brosnan taking over - I think he did well. But I can't help wondering about what might have been.

I love TLD as well. Until CR came along, I felt it was the last really good Bond movie. I wish Dalton had done a couple more films as well, but unfortunately the public in general never accepted him as much as I did. The public acceptance of Craig is totally different than that of Dalton.

It might have helped if, as I suggested above, the producers had gone for a "clean sweep", rather than try to carry on with, essentially, a typical 1980s Bond movie, but with an actor whose style was completely different to his immediate predecessor. Then again, who knows? Perhaps Dalton was the right man, but at the wrong moment. TLD is a much better film all round because he's in it, not just because of his performance, which seems to bring out the best in his fellow performers (the Bond/M scenes are particularly good), but also because his approach meant a number of scenes that, frankly, didn't belong had to remain on the cutting room floor (I'm thinking here of the "magic carpet ride", which the film makers must have thought was clever at the time, until they saw it in conjunction with the rest of the film - and, rightly, cut it.)

You are right about Craig and public acceptance of him. It is of a different order. While nothing is certain about Bond at the moment, I'd be surprised if any new studio chiefs didn't want Eon to retain his services as Bond. Assuming "23" gets started in a reasonable time, of course.