I actually resisted posting as I didn't want to turn this thread into one about the merits of Dalton , however I will make three quick comments:
1)He may very be an "excellent, dapper gentleman with a dangerous flair and maturity" in real life but on screen he came across to me as anything but that. The description which you used would IMO be best used to describe Moore and Brosnan, not Dalton. I know that will offend some Dalton fans but that's my view.
I agree with Alex - Dalton's Bond was far, far more dangerous than either Moore or Brosnan and, IMO, he conveys that on screen perfectly. Dalton is/was the best actor that Eon have employed to be Bond - Craig is the second best.
2)I don't really know what reading a novel has to do with this as I'm basing my views on his performance.
Liking Dalton's portrayal of Bond generally helps if you have read the books - it's been said by many that Dalton's Bond is the closest to Fleming's Bond.
3)When I use the words "ruined" and "weakened" I mean precisely that IMO Dalton's portrayal weakend TLD and ruined LTK, which I believe could have been a great film.
Those are your opinions and your are entitled to them. I personally think they are horsesh1t, but there you go
I agree with Alex - Dalton's Bond was far, far more dangerous than either Moore or Brosnan and, IMO, he conveys that on screen perfectly. Dalton is/was the best actor that Eon have employed to be Bond - Craig is the second best.
I would perhaps concede that Dalton was more dangerous than Moore (although I think Moore handled the ruthless/suave combination better) but I disagree that Dalton was more dangerous than Brosnan. As for being the best actor, well, I do think that Dalton was a good actor, but I don't think he was the best Bond actor. I think that Connery was. After that might come Dalton and Brosnan. I really can't split the two, although I obviously prefer Brosnan's Bond. As for Craig, he has never particularly impressed me. I'm not saying he's a bad actor; I just don't think he's a great actor and I think that almost all of the other Bonds are superior to him. That's my take on it and feel free to disregard it as horsesh1t.
I personally think they are horsesh1t, but there you go
Thanks.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,630Chief of Staff
I personally think they are horsesh1t, but there you go
Thanks.
My pleasure
I have to say that I believe that Connery is vastly over-rated as an actor - he must have played the only Irish cop with a Scottish accent and the only Spanish whatever-that-role-was with a Scottish accent and the only Russian Submarine Captain with a Scottish accent - anybody spot the trend yet But I take your point about him being the best Bond actor
Brosnan is a good actor but I don't think his Bond was anywhere near as dangerous as Dalton's. That's opinions for you
I have to say that I believe that Connery is vastly over-rated as an actor - he must have played the only Irish cop with a Scottish accent and the only Spanish whatever-that-role-was with a Scottish accent and the only Russian Submarine Captain with a Scottish accent - anybody spot the trend yet But I take your point about him being the best Bond actor
)
The thing about Connery is that he's simply os watchable...quite simply one of the most charismatic men in cinema. His acting is fine, but he's not by far the best. Other famous roles with a Scottish accent: A scimitar-wielding Moor and , of course, a thoroughly Scottish Agamemnon.
Anyway, to get back to the topic of the hypothetical Bond 17. Of course, everyone tends to view Dalton as the only weak link in the EON chain of films, but as MBE and Lady Rose mentioned, Bond was already performing with mediocre results before Dalton. Like Lady Rose said, I think Dalton would have benefited greatly from a new director. Glen's vision for Bond had grown incredibly stale. He was competent and I liked his films, but I don't think he has what it takes to take a good star, a good film and make them something incredible. This is the guy who tried to pass Tom Selleck off as the King of Spain in his Christopher Columbus movie! An interesting question to ponder is how TLD would fare if Pierce had actually gotten the role. People would have gone to see it, but I think at that point everyone would have realized that simply swapping out the actor isn't enough...the films needed an all new vision. Dalton kept it alive for two more films. The supposed third Dalton film would have had a lot more energy and creativity thrown at it in several areas, I think.
I think when Dalton first came in they should have changed most of the crew at the same time, and get a new screenwriter and director to freshen up the series.
Both LTK and TLD are to some extent unentertaining lacklusters, which could have been saved had Tim been able to express a little more relaxed approach.
Geez, Ben, As you can see by the pleasant air in the second or third post at the top of this page, everyone is A-OK. Why does a difference of opinion always draw you out like a magnet? You can be the king of argument at times, surely I'm allowed to have one once in a while.
Hell, if you counted all the times I've defended my view of a certain Bond you might have 1 or 2 for every silly year I've been a MOD. The critical views of TD have been airing for a while - so I threw my hat in the ring. Hope that meets with your approval.
I have to say that I believe that Connery is vastly over-rated as an actor - he must have played the only Irish cop with a Scottish accent and the only Spanish whatever-that-role-was with a Scottish accent and the only Russian Submarine Captain with a Scottish accent - anybody spot the trend yet But I take your point about him being the best Bond actor
Hmm... I don't see that. He's got great subtley and good range. He's a very powerful actor who just happens to be able to be a movie star as well. His is a very rare talent. I don't equate inability or reluctance to do accents to be the same as being a bad actor.
I have to say that I believe that Connery is vastly over-rated as an actor - he must have played the only Irish cop with a Scottish accent and the only Spanish whatever-that-role-was with a Scottish accent and the only Russian Submarine Captain with a Scottish accent - anybody spot the trend yet But I take your point about him being the best Bond actor
Hmm... I don't see that. He's got great subtley and good range. He's a very powerful actor who just happens to be able to be a movie star as well. His is a very rare talent. I don't equate inability or reluctance to do accents to be the same as being a bad actor.
I agree. I also think Connery is underrated as an actor by many. He's done some very fine work, from the powerful and iconic to the very subtle and nuanced. Charisma, I also think is a tool of an actor not just a star and I think it's an extremely underrated one. The ability to charm and enchant an audience can not be underestimated. There's absolutely no drawback to an actor being eminently watchable -- that's what they're there for. It is very much possible to be both a star and an actor.
I also don't think a facility with accents makes one a better actor, merely a better vocal mimic. It's good tool to have but it's not IMO a make or break tool when discussing an actor's performance. Olivier did accents but they were usually a tad over the top and vaguely outrageous more than being true accents -- that didn't make him any less than a brilliant actor. It's as much a valid choice as to do no accent than it is to do an inaccurate one.
On the issue of Dalton's "grimness" ruining LTK. . .well, wait a minute--LTK itself is a pretty grim film, with the mutilation of Felix, the rape/murder of his wife, and villains who are ruthless drug dealers and not gentlemanly Drax types. Dalton's no-nonsense portrayal of Bond is in keeping with what the producers and Glen wanted for the film. Had LTK been written as a jolly romp on the lines of Diamonds Are Forever, then a scowling and revenge-minded Dalton would indeed be out of place. I think it's a matter of liking or disliking Licence to Kill for itself, with Dalton as part of the mix.
On the issue of Dalton's "grimness" ruining LTK. . .well, wait a minute--LTK itself is a pretty grim film, with the mutilation of Felix, the rape/murder of his wife, and villains who are ruthless drug dealers and not gentlemanly Drax types. Dalton's no-nonsense portrayal of Bond is in keeping with what the producers and Glen wanted for the film. Had LTK been written as a jolly romp on the lines of Diamonds Are Forever, then a scowling and revenge-minded Dalton would indeed be out of place. I think it's a matter of liking or disliking Licence to Kill for itself, with Dalton as part of the mix.
My problem with Dalton's performance (which is why I would have loved for LTK to have been made with either Connery, Brosnan or perhaps Moore) is that he seemed just as grim to me before Felix and his wife were attacked as after. I'm not asking for a jolly DAF-like romp. Rather I'm asking for a film in which I can get a sense of the main character changing emotions at some point.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Fair enough, Dan, and at risk of turning this into a debate on acting fundamentals, you could argue that Dalton's "grimness" (which I don't see, but I'll give you this) is actually appropriate for the wedding sequence. He makes it clear to Della that he doesn't appreciate her teasing him about getting married, and Felix explains it's because Bond WAS married. It's obvious that Felix's wedding brings up mixed--and painful--feelings in Bond. You could even say that his affection for Della isn't so much for herself, but because, as a tall, willowly blonde, she reminds him of Tracy. Bond's agonized cry of "Della!" when he finds her dead on the bed speaks volumes--he could be thinking, "It's happening again!"
Vox clamantis in deserto
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I personally think they are horsesh1t, but there you go
Thanks.
My pleasure
I have to say that I believe that Connery is vastly over-rated as an actor - he must have played the only Irish cop with a Scottish accent and the only Spanish whatever-that-role-was with a Scottish accent and the only Russian Submarine Captain with a Scottish accent - anybody spot the trend yet But I take your point about him being the best Bond actor
Brosnan is a good actor but I don't think his Bond was anywhere near as dangerous as Dalton's. That's opinions for you
At least Jean Claude Van Damme had the decency to take roles plausibly written for his French accent, Louisanna Cajun, French-Canadian, etc.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
edited October 2006
No doubt Van Damme's Oscar is right around the corner )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,630Chief of Staff
I have to say that I believe that Connery is vastly over-rated as an actor - he must have played the only Irish cop with a Scottish accent and the only Spanish whatever-that-role-was with a Scottish accent and the only Russian Submarine Captain with a Scottish accent - anybody spot the trend yet But I take your point about him being the best Bond actor
Hmm... I don't see that. He's got great subtley and good range. He's a very powerful actor who just happens to be able to be a movie star as well. His is a very rare talent. I don't equate inability or reluctance to do accents to be the same as being a bad actor.
Who called Connery a bad actor ?:)
I said he was over-rated not bad. He has screen-presence by the bucket load and that does cover-up a multitude of sins.
YNWA 97
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,630Chief of Staff
I just know that if I told someone on here their ideas or opinions were horsesh1t (that's really the remark I was responding to), I would be called out for making a 'personal attack'.
And out fly the toys {:) again
You would only be called out for a "personal attack" if you meant it and I was clearly having a little fun with Dan Same - which he obviously understood, as I ended the post with a smilie at the end.
Remember, benskelly, you can always report a post to the other mods if your unhappy with it's content.
My problem with Dalton's performance (which is why I would have loved for LTK to have been made with either Connery, Brosnan or perhaps Moore) is that he seemed just as grim to me before Felix and his wife were attacked as after. I'm not asking for a jolly DAF-like romp. Rather I'm asking for a film in which I can get a sense of the main character changing emotions at some point.
Excuse me?
You must have missed the excellence with which Dalton portrayed light-hearted delight in Felix and Della's wedding reception. See the playful exchange with Della and the cake and the demand that Felix forgo the Sanchez case to enjoy his company and his wedding day. You must have missed the quick transition from this to sorrow when Della offered him the garter, which arose memories of Tracy's death that resonated powerfully in Dalton's somber expressions in the scene. Two scenes before the attack on Felix and Della: a powerful transition between two polar opposite feelings and emotions, handled expertly by Dalton. None of the other actors besides maybe Brosnan would have been able to pull this off: Connery would have nailed the light-hearted reception scenes well, but would have failed in the sorrow of the garter scene; Lazenby would have been very believable in the garter scene (especially since it was his Bond that experienced Tracy's death first hand, in addition to his great portrayal of the final scene of OHMSS), but he would have come off as contrived when he attempted the reception scene in an expose of a lack of a range in his ability as an actor; Moore would have been good in the garter scene as well based on his performance at Tracy's gravesite in FYEO, but I never have gotten the sense that he had the ability to show unvarnished, unguaraded glee required in the reception scene.
While he was mainly grim and, quite frankly, ****ed throughout the film, he had great reason to be: he was portraying Fleming's choleric Bond who, having witnessed the murder of one dear friend and the dismemberment of his dearest friend, was on a war path for revenge. But that is not to say that he doesn't take a break from the mission: watch his annoyed quibbling with Bouvier on the boat and its progressively playful transition into, well... one of the things that Bond does best. In this scene, complementing the scene in which Bond is tossed the garter by Della (symbolizing Bond being the next to marry at the wedding), there is a sense of destiny: Bond quibbles with Bouvier over the professionalism of their duty, and their shared duty establishes their progressive attraction (albeit quite a quick one, almost unbelievably so) toward one another in what amounts to their being meant for each other as truly compatable soulmates into a tender kiss and onset of love scene. Dalton and Lowell handle this extremely well. In fact, it could be argued that LTK set up an excellent opportunity for Bond to be remarried (this time, with no Blofeld to take out his wife, as Sanchez was up in flames) and to conclude the chapter of the world-weariness and inner turmoil that had plagued Fleming's Bond for so long and would have made for a very fitting final novel by Fleming, and fittingly, Bond was portrayed by the one closest in spirit to the literary incarnation. (The pool scene at the end, in which Dalton does another terrific job of bringing down his guard and showing some unvarnished glee, seemed to have come straight from the mind of Fleming)
Dalton's portrayal in LTK was very elastic and well-handled, in my opinion the best so on such count.
My problem with Dalton's performance (which is why I would have loved for LTK to have been made with either Connery, Brosnan or perhaps Moore) is that he seemed just as grim to me before Felix and his wife were attacked as after. I'm not asking for a jolly DAF-like romp. Rather I'm asking for a film in which I can get a sense of the main character changing emotions at some point.
Excuse me?
You must have missed the excellence with which Dalton portrayed light-hearted delight in Felix and Della's wedding reception. See the playful exchange with Della and the cake and the demand that Felix forgo the Sanchez case to enjoy his company and his wedding day. You must have missed the quick transition from this to sorrow when Della offered him the garter, which arose memories of Tracy's death that resonated powerfully in Dalton's somber expressions in the scene. Two scenes before the attack on Felix and Della: a powerful transition between two polar opposite feelings and emotions, handled expertly by Dalton.
Well, I wouldn't call his acting especially "jolly" in this half of the movie. I actually believe his acting was rather wooden and uncomfortable in all the scenes pre-****ed off Bond. Don't worry, I saw that garter scene just fine and through the whole thing he had this odd look on his face, because he wasn't particularly "sorrowful" looking at all. He was like "No, that's fine." Then he kept saying a variation of that and looked a bit funny and walked away. That Klaus, in my opinion, isn't the best acting of Dalton's. In fact, though I hate the ****ed-off character he brings to us for most of the movie, I think that part isn't as wooden as his acting during the happy, non-masochistic parts of the movie.
Well, I wouldn't call his acting especially "jolly" in this half of the movie. I actually believe his acting was rather wooden and uncomfortable in all the scenes pre-****ed off Bond. Don't worry, I saw that garter scene just fine and through the whole thing he had this odd look on his face, because he wasn't particularly "sorrowful" looking at all. He was like "No, that's fine." Then he kept saying a variation of that and looked a bit funny and walked away. That Klaus, in my opinion, isn't the best acting of Dalton's. In fact, though I hate the ****ed-off character he brings to us for most of the movie, I think that part isn't as wooden as his acting during the happy, non-masochistic parts of the movie.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think the substantial majority of viewers would disagree with you. I think your anti-Dalton bias factors heavily in your conclusion.
Watch the garter scene again, though, and freeze the frame. He begins by shaking his head very quickly and resolutely in response to Della's offer, as if he immediately was hit by memories of Tracy's death when given it. Sure, he smiles next, but his smile is very much an akward one: it's one to acknowledge Della's offering and to appreciate it, but one that he is straining to make in order to conceal something unpleasant he's feeling inside of him and to not be insulting. Look at the inflation of his cheeks, which indicates this strain. Most of all, look at his eyes: he squints quickly, and his eye lids inflame a little, as if his eyes were beginning to water slightly. He then strains to force "Thanks, Della" and to show appreciation for her and Felix and to not ruin the moment, and then he makes quickly for his car as if to get out of there before he does and before the memories of Tracy overwhelm him. When he catches it, he reacts with a shocked reaction: one in which he is compelled by Tracy, but one in which struggles to hold it together and put up a friendly gesture to Della. He ends the scene by looking down, for a slight moment of reflection, and then looks up with a tormented, forced, and very quick final pained smile in acknowledgement of Della. He turns quickly, and he gets out. All the while, if you focus on his eyes, you can begin to see signs of watering.
Well, I wouldn't call his acting especially "jolly" in this half of the movie. I actually believe his acting was rather wooden and uncomfortable in all the scenes pre-****ed off Bond. Don't worry, I saw that garter scene just fine and through the whole thing he had this odd look on his face, because he wasn't particularly "sorrowful" looking at all. He was like "No, that's fine." Then he kept saying a variation of that and looked a bit funny and walked away. That Klaus, in my opinion, isn't the best acting of Dalton's. In fact, though I hate the ****ed-off character he brings to us for most of the movie, I think that part isn't as wooden as his acting during the happy, non-masochistic parts of the movie.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think the substantial majority of viewers would disagree with you. I think your anti-Dalton bias factors heavily in your conclusion.
Watch the garter scene again, though, and freeze the frame. He begins by shaking his head very quickly and resolutely in response to Della's offer, as if he immediately was hit by memories of Tracy's death when given it. Sure, he smiles next, but his smile is very much an akward one: it's one to acknowledge Della's offering and to appreciate it, but one that he is straining to make in order to conceal something unpleasant he's feeling inside of him and to not be insulting. Look at the inflation of his cheeks, which indicates this strain. Most of all, look at his eyes: he squints quickly, and his eye lids inflame a little, as if his eyes were beginning to water slightly. He then strains to force "Thanks, Della" and to show appreciation for her and Felix and to not ruin the moment, and then he makes quickly for his car as if to get out of there before he does and before the memories of Tracy overwhelm him. When he catches it, he reacts with a shocked reaction: one in which he is compelled by Tracy, but one in which struggles to hold it together and put up a friendly gesture to Della. He ends the scene by looking down, for a slight moment of reflection, and then looks up with a tormented, forced, and very quick final pained smile in acknowledgement of Della. He turns quickly, and he gets out. All the while, if you focus on his eyes, you can begin to see signs of watering.
I see your point, to a degree that is, but the whole pre-angry Bond just seems so stilted, fake and poorly acted. The whole movie, IMO, is this way only it's worse in the beginning. The whole garter scene is beautifully written and I believe any Bond, even Dalton could tackle it but it just doesn't seem well-acted, and they should've spent more time on it. I wonder, did they film the Angry Bond parts first or the Nicer Bond parts first? Everyone seems uncomfortable in the first half methinks...
I see your point, to a degree that is, but the whole pre-angry Bond just seems so stilted, fake and poorly acted. The whole movie, IMO, is this way only it's worse in the beginning. The whole garter scene is beautifully written and I believe any Bond, even Dalton could tackle it but it just doesn't seem well-acted, and they should've spent more time on it. I wonder, did they film the Angry Bond parts first or the Nicer Bond parts first? Everyone seems uncomfortable in the first half methinks...
Again, I think your anti-Dalton bias is clouding your judgement. Just because he doesn't fit your image of Bond doesn't mean you have to refuse to give him any credit in analyzing his abilities as an actor and his actual performance in the context of what he was attempting to accomplish. Any serious actor, director, screenwriter, or critic would tell you that Dalton's acting in the beginning, and his acting throughout, in LTK was expert and that he came off very naturally. Rewatch the scene with Della and the cake: he flowed right through it with sheer, good-natured, good-hearted cheer. His acting in this scene reminds of that of some of the warm-hearted, charming greats in old 40s, 50s, and 60s classic films: it oozes Clark Gable (who's role as Rhett Butler Dalton reprised, and did tremendous justice to, in the mini-series Scarlett, a sequal to Gone With The Wind), Cary Grant, and James Stewart in its sheer sincerity.
And to say that "even Dalton" could make that scene work... that is an outright disgrace. Timothy Dalton runs circles around the other Bond actors, including Craig, in terms of sheer ability. Years before you or I were ever born, Dalton was one of the most universally praised stage actors of his time, and he earned widespread praise for his film work up to that point. Ignoring him as Bond, watch him in Wuthering Heights (the role that first garnered him critical notice and acclaimed), Sexette, The Rocketeer, Scarlett, and Possessed. His serious work on stage and film blows away anything serious outside of Bond that any of the other actors have done. Connery, Moore, Brosnan, and Craig would all look like jokes on stage with Dalton at the same time in a proper Shakespearean production. (Don't even bring up Lazenby)
You may not like the style in which Dalton portrayed the role, and that's fine: everyone has their preference for Bond. But for what he did, it's rather disagreeable to slam his actual acting in the role, and it is downright sacrilege to slam him as an actor.
You must have missed the excellence with which Dalton portrayed light-hearted delight in Felix and Della's wedding reception. See the playful exchange with Della and the cake and the demand that Felix forgo the Sanchez case to enjoy his company and his wedding day. You must have missed the quick transition from this to sorrow when Della offered him the garter, which arose memories of Tracy's death that resonated powerfully in Dalton's somber expressions in the scene. Two scenes before the attack on Felix and Della: a powerful transition between two polar opposite feelings and emotions, handled expertly by Dalton. None of the other actors besides maybe Brosnan would have been able to pull this off: Connery would have nailed the light-hearted reception scenes well, but would have failed in the sorrow of the garter scene; Lazenby would have been very believable in the garter scene (especially since it was his Bond that experienced Tracy's death first hand, in addition to his great portrayal of the final scene of OHMSS), but he would have come off as contrived when he attempted the reception scene in an expose of a lack of a range in his ability as an actor; Moore would have been good in the garter scene as well based on his performance at Tracy's gravesite in FYEO, but I never have gotten the sense that he had the ability to show unvarnished, unguaraded glee required in the reception scene.
While he was mainly grim and, quite frankly, ****ed throughout the film, he had great reason to be: he was portraying Fleming's choleric Bond who, having witnessed the murder of one dear friend and the dismemberment of his dearest friend, was on a war path for revenge. But that is not to say that he doesn't take a break from the mission: watch his annoyed quibbling with Bouvier on the boat and its progressively playful transition into, well... one of the things that Bond does best. In this scene, complementing the scene in which Bond is tossed the garter by Della (symbolizing Bond being the next to marry at the wedding), there is a sense of destiny: Bond quibbles with Bouvier over the professionalism of their duty, and their shared duty establishes their progressive attraction (albeit quite a quick one, almost unbelievably so) toward one another in what amounts to their being meant for each other as truly compatable soulmates into a tender kiss and onset of love scene. Dalton and Lowell handle this extremely well. In fact, it could be argued that LTK set up an excellent opportunity for Bond to be remarried (this time, with no Blofeld to take out his wife, as Sanchez was up in flames) and to conclude the chapter of the world-weariness and inner turmoil that had plagued Fleming's Bond for so long and would have made for a very fitting final novel by Fleming, and fittingly, Bond was portrayed by the one closest in spirit to the literary incarnation. (The pool scene at the end, in which Dalton does another terrific job of bringing down his guard and showing some unvarnished glee, seemed to have come straight from the mind of Fleming)
Dalton's portrayal in LTK was very elastic and well-handled, in my opinion the best so on such count.
Actually, I didn't miss anything as I didn't find Dalton's portrayal of 'light-hearted delight' to be remotely excellent. I'm going to quote JFF who IMO said it best; "but the whole pre-angry Bond just seems so stilted, fake and poorly acted." I don't think that Dalton's performance was well handled, and I think that any of the other Bonds (particularly Connery, Moore and Brosnan) could have handled it much better. In fact regarding the so-called 'light-hearted delight,' well, not only did Dalton barely smile but IMO he came across as extremely uncomfortable. Then when he attempted to get revenge, I did not get any sense at all that he had changed emotion. It was almost like he was grim pre-attack of Felix and then was grim post-attack of Felix. I don't think that Dalton is a bad actor but there was not one moment (and I'm not exaggerating) in which I considered his acting to be of any merit. You may not like to hear this, but I consider LTK to be the worst Bond performance of all time.
So, yes, I think that Connery, Brosnan and possibly Moore (I'm not sure about Lazenby) could have handled it better. In fact I would have loved to have seen them try.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Again, I think your anti-Dalton bias is clouding your judgement. Just because he doesn't fit your image of Bond doesn't mean you have to refuse to give him any credit in analyzing his abilities as an actor and his actual performance in the context of what he was attempting to accomplish. Any serious actor, director, screenwriter, or critic would tell you that Dalton's acting in the beginning, and his acting throughout, in LTK was expert and that he came off very naturally. Rewatch the scene with Della and the cake: he flowed right through it with sheer, good-natured, good-hearted cheer. His acting in this scene reminds of that of some of the warm-hearted, charming greats in old 40s, 50s, and 60s classic films: it oozes Clark Gable (who's role as Rhett Butler Dalton reprised, and did tremendous justice to, in the mini-series Scarlett, a sequal to Gone With The Wind), Cary Grant, and James Stewart in its sheer sincerity.
And you know what serious actors, directors and critics would say about Dalton's performance how? You may think he's a great actor, fine, but don't bring up 'any serious actor, director, screenwriter, or critic' as if your opinion is anything more than that. JFF and I were not impressed by Dalton's acting in LTK. And it has nothing to do with an anti-Dalton bias. We simply disagree with you about the quality of the acting.
Speaking of which, the problem is that I personally think he made the wrong decision. I consider his acting choices to be completely inappropiate. Furthermore, although I think that Dalton is generally quite a good actor, I think that his performance, judged on its merits, was terrible. I would in no way compare Dalton's performance in LTK to Gable, Grant and Stewart. I am not anti-Dalton. Yes, he's my least favourite Bond but I have enjoyed some of his other work and I do consider him to be (along with Connery and Brosnan) one of the three best actors hired to play Bond. However I consider his performance in LTK, both from an acting perspective and from a Bondian perspective, to be absolutely terrible.
You may not like the style in which Dalton portrayed the role, and that's fine: everyone has their preference for Bond. But for what he did, it's rather disagreeable to slam his actual acting in the role, and it is downright sacrilege to slam him as an actor.
Sacrilege? He's just an actor. I could say it's sacrilege for people to insult GF, FRWL or TB but obviously many people do. As for it being disagreeable to slam Dalton's actual acting in the role, well, I could say the same for people who insult Moore's or Brosnan's acting and Connery's acting in DAF, but many people do it nonetheless.
Personally, as I have noted, I don't think that Dalton is a bad actor at all. However nor do I consider him to be the best actor to have played Bond. IMO Connery was. After that would come in equal second Dalton and Brosnan. However, I would probably pick Brosnan over Dalton purely because I consider Brosnan's Bond to be superior from an acting perspctive but really I can't split them. (Don't even get me started on Craig, whom I think is the most overrated actor to have played Bond.;))
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
One thing I suppose it is possible to agree upon is that Dalton's performance is highly subjective. He's an accomplished and acclaimed performer. I personally thought he was very good in LTK, and I think LTK is an exceptional Bond film, not just because of the actor but the story evokes something that is very much like
Fleming's novels, which I don't think we really saw on screen since OHMSS. Regardless, LTK still manages to really polarize Bond fans...some love it, some loathe it. I have a friend who thinks Dalton is great, yet disdains LTK.
But the topic is regarding the hypothetical Bond 17 with Dalton. Would it ruin Bond? If you can't stand Dalton, it might ruin Bond for you personally, but would it spell doom for the series? I don't think so. LTK performed poorly for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it was for the reasons that Dalton-haters want to believe (i.e. Dalton!). The reason I say this is that TLD did very well, and had even surpassed AVTAK, and it starred >gasp< Timothy Dalton as James Bond. TLD was a movie that appealed to
Bond fans moreso than LTK.
That is why I suspect that a Bond 17 with Dalton would be more geared toward the original Bond formula. And if, like the previous Bond films, this supposed Bond 17 were released in July, I think it would perform well since the only real action movies for that summer season was Terminator 2 and Robin Hood. Each performed well, but the market was pretty wide open…not like the flooded market of 89. I honestly don’t remember any summer season like that one. There were simply too many movies coming out, and I had to pick and choose which one I wanted to see. MBE correctly points out that LTK was released the same weekend as Peter Pan, but Peter Pan was not the only movie playing at the time. In fact, LTK performed better than Peter Pan on that opening weekend. No, LTK’s real competition was Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 (which was only its second weekend and growing in popularity). People had a HUGE choice of action movies to see throughout the months, and the market was straining. I know Hollywood likes to think that people will go see a movie anytime no matter what. But the ugly truth is that a market can only pull so much money from the consumer. That’s why we see reports saying that the movie season is a bust or a record-breaker. It doesn’t solely have to do with the quality of the films that are released, but also with the quantity, the marketing, theater dominance, and, ultimately, how much a family decides they are going to spend at the movies. Alternatively, 1991 releases were much more moderate. T2 and Robin Hood opened well, but weren’t busting the 30 mil mark. The opening dollar amounts are pretty balanced for the summer movies for that year because consumers weren’t being plied to stretch their entertainment dollars over too many selections.
So, knowing that Dalton can perform to an audiences satisfaction (TLD), knowing that the market in 91 was not nearly as flooded as it was in 89, and knowing that EON (who was still under Cubby Broccoli’s reign) would learn from their previous shortcomings with LTK in regards to theme and marketing, I think that Dalton’s Bond 17 would have done admirably. Combine it with the possibility that EON would look towards bringing in fresh writers and directors only adds to the likelihood of a successful movie.
Interesting thread...for the first page at least. I'll try to give an answer to the original question...
Whatever the reasons (marketing, rating, competition) LTK just never generated that buzz typically associated with a Bond film -- no one would dispute that. However, the assertion that Dalton was the reason simply has no basis in fact. He's not my favorite Bond by a longshot, but there's no reason a third Dalton film couldn't have been successful. As Lady Rose said, the producers have been remarkably adept at rescuing the series at its seemingly most vulnerable times, and I suspect they would have found a way to do so again. Alas, lawsuits intervened.
That said, a reasonable argument can be made that the 6-year hiatus was actually good for the series (although I hated that period at the time). Had the series continued at its steady clip of a film every 2-3 years, GoldenEye would not have been nearly the event that it was. Yes, the change in lead actors would have brought a buzz, but part of what makes GE a landmark film in the series, regardless of how you feel about how good it is, is that it was so long in coming. As such, it benefitted from all this pent up demand among loyalists and was also able to appeal to a whole new generation of fans. How many Bond fans, on this board and elsewhere, were introduced to the series through GE? Tons -- for them, Brosnan has been Bond for as long as they can remember. That wouldn't quite have been the same had the film come a mere 2-3 years after its predecessor.
On a separate note...at the risk of putting words in the mouths of the Mods, might I suggest to certain members of this board that the reason several Mods chimed in on this topic had less to do with their passion for Timothy Dalton and more with their feeling that the thread was hijacked by a few posters with an ax to grind? Presenting opinions as facts, then later vociferously defending them as "just being opinions" is pretty lame. So is, "I don't want to turn this into an anti-Dalton thread..." followed by multiple paragraphs of anti-Dalton riffs. So is quote-by-quote multi-paragraph refutation of others' posts, as if not having the absolute last word on a subject were somehow simply intolerable. Give it a rest, guys -- we know where you stand, because you tell us post after post, in thread after thread.
Recall the "rust corrosion" line. In this person's humble opinion - an example of dead pan delivery and excellent comic timing. Hey this guy also loved the part with the cello and the Aston Martin. Humor is subjective, but those aforementioned scenes surely are nice examples of a timeless and good natured chuckle.
Anyway, I think Bond actors should be different from each other. Just pick what mood you're in and enjoy a different texture. I don't want Bonds to imitate each other for pete's sake.
Anyway, I think Bond actors should be different from each other. Just pick what mood you're in and enjoy a different texture. I don't want Bonds to imitate each other for pete's sake.
Well exactly; what's the point in making more Bond films if they're all exactly the same?
Dalton trying do jolly is like watching Osama bin Laden audition for How Do You Solve a Problem like Maria?
Well, he sings the first line. Then he screams that she is an infedel and declares jihad.
But seriously, you make it sound as if Dalton sucked the joy out of everything. I think that the whole car chase scene was filled with some nice timing - such as the salt corrosion or the nothing to declare remark.
And dalton being funny while serious works well for him - such scenes as when hes loading Koskov into the pig at the start of the movie, very nice comedic touches.
The Aston Martin chase is an example of Dalton at his most comedic; slightly arch and aloof, but witty. It's not just "salt corrosion" and "we've nothing to declare", it's subtler than that. One of my favourite moments in TLD is when they are racing across the frozen lake on ice riggers, and the camera just watches Dalton and d'Abo; there's no dialogue. She has an expression which says, "so this is what I should expect?" and Dalton's face just says. "yes, it's an amazing gadget - deal with it".
I don't think Dalton does "jolly" well. There are moments in the wedding scenes when - as happened with Denise Richards a few years later - it's as though someone has told him it's a joke line, but he doesn't know where the joke is. The little interplay about lures as a wedding gift comes to mind. It's forced and unnatural (though the bad looping doesn't help). The comedy of Dalton was much less broad than that of his predecessor, and audiences who'd just witnessed the debacle of the firetruck chase of AVTAK probably welcomed it with open arms. Moments like Dalton shoving Koskov in the pig, or his utterly charming seduction of Pam in LTK (Dalton used humour in his seductions so much better than Moore! He looks like he is genuinely trying to get a woman to sleep with him, rather than acting up for an unseen audience) show he can handle a particular type of comedy.
Comments
I agree with Alex - Dalton's Bond was far, far more dangerous than either Moore or Brosnan and, IMO, he conveys that on screen perfectly. Dalton is/was the best actor that Eon have employed to be Bond - Craig is the second best.
Liking Dalton's portrayal of Bond generally helps if you have read the books - it's been said by many that Dalton's Bond is the closest to Fleming's Bond.
Those are your opinions and your are entitled to them. I personally think they are horsesh1t, but there you go
Thanks.
My pleasure
I have to say that I believe that Connery is vastly over-rated as an actor - he must have played the only Irish cop with a Scottish accent and the only Spanish whatever-that-role-was with a Scottish accent and the only Russian Submarine Captain with a Scottish accent - anybody spot the trend yet
Brosnan is a good actor but I don't think his Bond was anywhere near as dangerous as Dalton's. That's opinions for you
The thing about Connery is that he's simply os watchable...quite simply one of the most charismatic men in cinema. His acting is fine, but he's not by far the best. Other famous roles with a Scottish accent: A scimitar-wielding Moor and , of course, a thoroughly Scottish Agamemnon.
Anyway, to get back to the topic of the hypothetical Bond 17. Of course, everyone tends to view Dalton as the only weak link in the EON chain of films, but as MBE and Lady Rose mentioned, Bond was already performing with mediocre results before Dalton. Like Lady Rose said, I think Dalton would have benefited greatly from a new director. Glen's vision for Bond had grown incredibly stale. He was competent and I liked his films, but I don't think he has what it takes to take a good star, a good film and make them something incredible. This is the guy who tried to pass Tom Selleck off as the King of Spain in his Christopher Columbus movie! An interesting question to ponder is how TLD would fare if Pierce had actually gotten the role. People would have gone to see it, but I think at that point everyone would have realized that simply swapping out the actor isn't enough...the films needed an all new vision. Dalton kept it alive for two more films. The supposed third Dalton film would have had a lot more energy and creativity thrown at it in several areas, I think.
That's what they WANT you to think. Hahahahaha! (starts lauging maniacally like the Dalton-hating-obsessed person that HE is)
Both LTK and TLD are to some extent unentertaining lacklusters, which could have been saved had Tim been able to express a little more relaxed approach.
Hell, if you counted all the times I've defended my view of a certain Bond you might have 1 or 2 for every silly year I've been a MOD. The critical views of TD have been airing for a while - so I threw my hat in the ring. Hope that meets with your approval.
Hmm... I don't see that. He's got great subtley and good range. He's a very powerful actor who just happens to be able to be a movie star as well. His is a very rare talent. I don't equate inability or reluctance to do accents to be the same as being a bad actor.
I agree. I also think Connery is underrated as an actor by many. He's done some very fine work, from the powerful and iconic to the very subtle and nuanced. Charisma, I also think is a tool of an actor not just a star and I think it's an extremely underrated one. The ability to charm and enchant an audience can not be underestimated. There's absolutely no drawback to an actor being eminently watchable -- that's what they're there for. It is very much possible to be both a star and an actor.
I also don't think a facility with accents makes one a better actor, merely a better vocal mimic. It's good tool to have but it's not IMO a make or break tool when discussing an actor's performance. Olivier did accents but they were usually a tad over the top and vaguely outrageous more than being true accents -- that didn't make him any less than a brilliant actor. It's as much a valid choice as to do no accent than it is to do an inaccurate one.
MBE
At least Jean Claude Van Damme had the decency to take roles plausibly written for his French accent, Louisanna Cajun, French-Canadian, etc.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Who called Connery a bad actor ?:)
I said he was over-rated not bad. He has screen-presence by the bucket load and that does cover-up a multitude of sins.
And out fly the toys {:) again
You would only be called out for a "personal attack" if you meant it and I was clearly having a little fun with Dan Same - which he obviously understood, as I ended the post with a
Remember, benskelly, you can always report a post to the other mods if your unhappy with it's content.
Excuse me?
You must have missed the excellence with which Dalton portrayed light-hearted delight in Felix and Della's wedding reception. See the playful exchange with Della and the cake and the demand that Felix forgo the Sanchez case to enjoy his company and his wedding day. You must have missed the quick transition from this to sorrow when Della offered him the garter, which arose memories of Tracy's death that resonated powerfully in Dalton's somber expressions in the scene. Two scenes before the attack on Felix and Della: a powerful transition between two polar opposite feelings and emotions, handled expertly by Dalton. None of the other actors besides maybe Brosnan would have been able to pull this off: Connery would have nailed the light-hearted reception scenes well, but would have failed in the sorrow of the garter scene; Lazenby would have been very believable in the garter scene (especially since it was his Bond that experienced Tracy's death first hand, in addition to his great portrayal of the final scene of OHMSS), but he would have come off as contrived when he attempted the reception scene in an expose of a lack of a range in his ability as an actor; Moore would have been good in the garter scene as well based on his performance at Tracy's gravesite in FYEO, but I never have gotten the sense that he had the ability to show unvarnished, unguaraded glee required in the reception scene.
While he was mainly grim and, quite frankly, ****ed throughout the film, he had great reason to be: he was portraying Fleming's choleric Bond who, having witnessed the murder of one dear friend and the dismemberment of his dearest friend, was on a war path for revenge. But that is not to say that he doesn't take a break from the mission: watch his annoyed quibbling with Bouvier on the boat and its progressively playful transition into, well... one of the things that Bond does best. In this scene, complementing the scene in which Bond is tossed the garter by Della (symbolizing Bond being the next to marry at the wedding), there is a sense of destiny: Bond quibbles with Bouvier over the professionalism of their duty, and their shared duty establishes their progressive attraction (albeit quite a quick one, almost unbelievably so) toward one another in what amounts to their being meant for each other as truly compatable soulmates into a tender kiss and onset of love scene. Dalton and Lowell handle this extremely well. In fact, it could be argued that LTK set up an excellent opportunity for Bond to be remarried (this time, with no Blofeld to take out his wife, as Sanchez was up in flames) and to conclude the chapter of the world-weariness and inner turmoil that had plagued Fleming's Bond for so long and would have made for a very fitting final novel by Fleming, and fittingly, Bond was portrayed by the one closest in spirit to the literary incarnation. (The pool scene at the end, in which Dalton does another terrific job of bringing down his guard and showing some unvarnished glee, seemed to have come straight from the mind of Fleming)
Dalton's portrayal in LTK was very elastic and well-handled, in my opinion the best so on such count.
Well, I wouldn't call his acting especially "jolly" in this half of the movie. I actually believe his acting was rather wooden and uncomfortable in all the scenes pre-****ed off Bond. Don't worry, I saw that garter scene just fine and through the whole thing he had this odd look on his face, because he wasn't particularly "sorrowful" looking at all. He was like "No, that's fine." Then he kept saying a variation of that and looked a bit funny and walked away. That Klaus, in my opinion, isn't the best acting of Dalton's. In fact, though I hate the ****ed-off character he brings to us for most of the movie, I think that part isn't as wooden as his acting during the happy, non-masochistic
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think the substantial majority of viewers would disagree with you. I think your anti-Dalton bias factors heavily in your conclusion.
Watch the garter scene again, though, and freeze the frame. He begins by shaking his head very quickly and resolutely in response to Della's offer, as if he immediately was hit by memories of Tracy's death when given it. Sure, he smiles next, but his smile is very much an akward one: it's one to acknowledge Della's offering and to appreciate it, but one that he is straining to make in order to conceal something unpleasant he's feeling inside of him and to not be insulting. Look at the inflation of his cheeks, which indicates this strain. Most of all, look at his eyes: he squints quickly, and his eye lids inflame a little, as if his eyes were beginning to water slightly. He then strains to force "Thanks, Della" and to show appreciation for her and Felix and to not ruin the moment, and then he makes quickly for his car as if to get out of there before he does and before the memories of Tracy overwhelm him. When he catches it, he reacts with a shocked reaction: one in which he is compelled by Tracy, but one in which struggles to hold it together and put up a friendly gesture to Della. He ends the scene by looking down, for a slight moment of reflection, and then looks up with a tormented, forced, and very quick final pained smile in acknowledgement of Della. He turns quickly, and he gets out. All the while, if you focus on his eyes, you can begin to see signs of watering.
I see your point, to a degree that is, but the whole pre-angry Bond just seems so stilted, fake and poorly acted. The whole movie, IMO, is this way only it's worse in the beginning. The whole garter scene is beautifully written and I believe any Bond, even Dalton could tackle it but it just doesn't seem well-acted, and they should've spent more time on it. I wonder, did they film the Angry Bond parts first or the Nicer Bond parts first? Everyone seems uncomfortable in the first half methinks...
Again, I think your anti-Dalton bias is clouding your judgement. Just because he doesn't fit your image of Bond doesn't mean you have to refuse to give him any credit in analyzing his abilities as an actor and his actual performance in the context of what he was attempting to accomplish. Any serious actor, director, screenwriter, or critic would tell you that Dalton's acting in the beginning, and his acting throughout, in LTK was expert and that he came off very naturally. Rewatch the scene with Della and the cake: he flowed right through it with sheer, good-natured, good-hearted cheer. His acting in this scene reminds of that of some of the warm-hearted, charming greats in old 40s, 50s, and 60s classic films: it oozes Clark Gable (who's role as Rhett Butler Dalton reprised, and did tremendous justice to, in the mini-series Scarlett, a sequal to Gone With The Wind), Cary Grant, and James Stewart in its sheer sincerity.
And to say that "even Dalton" could make that scene work... that is an outright disgrace. Timothy Dalton runs circles around the other Bond actors, including Craig, in terms of sheer ability. Years before you or I were ever born, Dalton was one of the most universally praised stage actors of his time, and he earned widespread praise for his film work up to that point. Ignoring him as Bond, watch him in Wuthering Heights (the role that first garnered him critical notice and acclaimed), Sexette, The Rocketeer, Scarlett, and Possessed. His serious work on stage and film blows away anything serious outside of Bond that any of the other actors have done. Connery, Moore, Brosnan, and Craig would all look like jokes on stage with Dalton at the same time in a proper Shakespearean production. (Don't even bring up Lazenby)
You may not like the style in which Dalton portrayed the role, and that's fine: everyone has their preference for Bond. But for what he did, it's rather disagreeable to slam his actual acting in the role, and it is downright sacrilege to slam him as an actor.
So, yes, I think that Connery, Brosnan and possibly Moore (I'm not sure about Lazenby) could have handled it better. In fact I would have loved to have seen them try.
And you know what serious actors, directors and critics would say about Dalton's performance how? You may think he's a great actor, fine, but don't bring up 'any serious actor, director, screenwriter, or critic' as if your opinion is anything more than that. JFF and I were not impressed by Dalton's acting in LTK. And it has nothing to do with an anti-Dalton bias. We simply disagree with you about the quality of the acting.
Speaking of which, the problem is that I personally think he made the wrong decision. I consider his acting choices to be completely inappropiate. Furthermore, although I think that Dalton is generally quite a good actor, I think that his performance, judged on its merits, was terrible. I would in no way compare Dalton's performance in LTK to Gable, Grant and Stewart. I am not anti-Dalton. Yes, he's my least favourite Bond but I have enjoyed some of his other work and I do consider him to be (along with Connery and Brosnan) one of the three best actors hired to play Bond. However I consider his performance in LTK, both from an acting perspective and from a Bondian perspective, to be absolutely terrible.
Sacrilege? He's just an actor. I could say it's sacrilege for people to insult GF, FRWL or TB but obviously many people do. As for it being disagreeable to slam Dalton's actual acting in the role, well, I could say the same for people who insult Moore's or Brosnan's acting and Connery's acting in DAF, but many people do it nonetheless.
Personally, as I have noted, I don't think that Dalton is a bad actor at all. However nor do I consider him to be the best actor to have played Bond. IMO Connery was. After that would come in equal second Dalton and Brosnan. However, I would probably pick Brosnan over Dalton purely because I consider Brosnan's Bond to be superior from an acting perspctive but really I can't split them. (Don't even get me started on Craig, whom I think is the most overrated actor to have played Bond.;))
Fleming's novels, which I don't think we really saw on screen since OHMSS. Regardless, LTK still manages to really polarize Bond fans...some love it, some loathe it. I have a friend who thinks Dalton is great, yet disdains LTK.
But the topic is regarding the hypothetical Bond 17 with Dalton. Would it ruin Bond? If you can't stand Dalton, it might ruin Bond for you personally, but would it spell doom for the series? I don't think so. LTK performed poorly for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it was for the reasons that Dalton-haters want to believe (i.e. Dalton!). The reason I say this is that TLD did very well, and had even surpassed AVTAK, and it starred >gasp< Timothy Dalton as James Bond. TLD was a movie that appealed to
Bond fans moreso than LTK.
That is why I suspect that a Bond 17 with Dalton would be more geared toward the original Bond formula. And if, like the previous Bond films, this supposed Bond 17 were released in July, I think it would perform well since the only real action movies for that summer season was Terminator 2 and Robin Hood. Each performed well, but the market was pretty wide open…not like the flooded market of 89. I honestly don’t remember any summer season like that one. There were simply too many movies coming out, and I had to pick and choose which one I wanted to see. MBE correctly points out that LTK was released the same weekend as Peter Pan, but Peter Pan was not the only movie playing at the time. In fact, LTK performed better than Peter Pan on that opening weekend. No, LTK’s real competition was Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 (which was only its second weekend and growing in popularity). People had a HUGE choice of action movies to see throughout the months, and the market was straining. I know Hollywood likes to think that people will go see a movie anytime no matter what. But the ugly truth is that a market can only pull so much money from the consumer. That’s why we see reports saying that the movie season is a bust or a record-breaker. It doesn’t solely have to do with the quality of the films that are released, but also with the quantity, the marketing, theater dominance, and, ultimately, how much a family decides they are going to spend at the movies. Alternatively, 1991 releases were much more moderate. T2 and Robin Hood opened well, but weren’t busting the 30 mil mark. The opening dollar amounts are pretty balanced for the summer movies for that year because consumers weren’t being plied to stretch their entertainment dollars over too many selections.
So, knowing that Dalton can perform to an audiences satisfaction (TLD), knowing that the market in 91 was not nearly as flooded as it was in 89, and knowing that EON (who was still under Cubby Broccoli’s reign) would learn from their previous shortcomings with LTK in regards to theme and marketing, I think that Dalton’s Bond 17 would have done admirably. Combine it with the possibility that EON would look towards bringing in fresh writers and directors only adds to the likelihood of a successful movie.
Whatever the reasons (marketing, rating, competition) LTK just never generated that buzz typically associated with a Bond film -- no one would dispute that. However, the assertion that Dalton was the reason simply has no basis in fact. He's not my favorite Bond by a longshot, but there's no reason a third Dalton film couldn't have been successful. As Lady Rose said, the producers have been remarkably adept at rescuing the series at its seemingly most vulnerable times, and I suspect they would have found a way to do so again. Alas, lawsuits intervened.
That said, a reasonable argument can be made that the 6-year hiatus was actually good for the series (although I hated that period at the time). Had the series continued at its steady clip of a film every 2-3 years, GoldenEye would not have been nearly the event that it was. Yes, the change in lead actors would have brought a buzz, but part of what makes GE a landmark film in the series, regardless of how you feel about how good it is, is that it was so long in coming. As such, it benefitted from all this pent up demand among loyalists and was also able to appeal to a whole new generation of fans. How many Bond fans, on this board and elsewhere, were introduced to the series through GE? Tons -- for them, Brosnan has been Bond for as long as they can remember. That wouldn't quite have been the same had the film come a mere 2-3 years after its predecessor.
On a separate note...at the risk of putting words in the mouths of the Mods, might I suggest to certain members of this board that the reason several Mods chimed in on this topic had less to do with their passion for Timothy Dalton and more with their feeling that the thread was hijacked by a few posters with an ax to grind? Presenting opinions as facts, then later vociferously defending them as "just being opinions" is pretty lame. So is, "I don't want to turn this into an anti-Dalton thread..." followed by multiple paragraphs of anti-Dalton riffs. So is quote-by-quote multi-paragraph refutation of others' posts, as if not having the absolute last word on a subject were somehow simply intolerable. Give it a rest, guys -- we know where you stand, because you tell us post after post, in thread after thread.
Anyway, I think Bond actors should be different from each other. Just pick what mood you're in and enjoy a different texture. I don't want Bonds to imitate each other for pete's sake.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well exactly; what's the point in making more Bond films if they're all exactly the same?
Well, he sings the first line. Then he screams that she is an infedel and declares jihad.
But seriously, you make it sound as if Dalton sucked the joy out of everything. I think that the whole car chase scene was filled with some nice timing - such as the salt corrosion or the nothing to declare remark.
And dalton being funny while serious works well for him - such scenes as when hes loading Koskov into the pig at the start of the movie, very nice comedic touches.
I don't think Dalton does "jolly" well. There are moments in the wedding scenes when - as happened with Denise Richards a few years later - it's as though someone has told him it's a joke line, but he doesn't know where the joke is. The little interplay about lures as a wedding gift comes to mind. It's forced and unnatural (though the bad looping doesn't help). The comedy of Dalton was much less broad than that of his predecessor, and audiences who'd just witnessed the debacle of the firetruck chase of AVTAK probably welcomed it with open arms. Moments like Dalton shoving Koskov in the pig, or his utterly charming seduction of Pam in LTK (Dalton used humour in his seductions so much better than Moore! He looks like he is genuinely trying to get a woman to sleep with him, rather than acting up for an unseen audience) show he can handle a particular type of comedy.
@merseytart