Timothy Dalton or Daniel Craig?

thelivingroyale

Germanlady said:
What do you want him to say? "Oh thanks so much to TD, because he was the first actor trying to be darker and more real again?" Slightly ridiculous now, isnt it? BTW - I don't think, any of them owes anything to the others. Its a film role, they were offered and with what they did the best they could. Each in their own way.

CR would have happened - Dalton or not. It was all down to the script. I don't think, DC does need to borrow from Dalton, because he succeeds in what Dalton tried to achieve and is better in the mind of most people even on this board (although its close here) - so why would he? He is his own man, as where the others probably.

How did Dalton not achieve it. Besides, Craig has had the benefit of a reboot, a great film and in the next one a really good cast. And apparently CR was down to Quentin Tarantino.

The concept was more succesful than the past 2 Moore films when TLD was released, it outgrossed both at the BO, most critics loved it, and Dalton's films are some of the higher rated Bond films on rotten tomatoes. Unfortunately some fans didn't like the realistic tone back then. But with Craig, post Bourne, people enjoyed the more realistic films.

Germanlady said:
Dalton followed the Moore films, which had become over the top and silly.
I saw them and felt "This is not Bond. He is way to serious." I didn't like them...

DC followed Brosnans films, which had become over the top and silly.
I saw CR and felt "This is not Bond. He is way too brutal" I liked it nevertheless, because DC made them worth watching for me - several times and I got used to the new approach.

Are you sure that this wasn't just because CR had Craig in swimming trunks?

Germanlady

CR was down to Q. Tarantino? HE likes to think so, but is pretty much alone with that.
And how much of the finished product would be due to him by all means?

So - CR was a great film - I wonder why? And the next one was a good cast but with a bad script...it was frontloaded due to CR, but it held well nevertheless and made good money.I give you, that if there is Thanks due to something or somebody, it might be true, that Bourne made the path for the more serious approach.

And about the trunks - I never liked that scene very much and you seem to run out of arguments...;)

Getafix

Germanlady said:
CR was down to Q. Tarantino? HE likes to think so, but is pretty much alone with that.
And how much of the finished product would be due to him by all means?

So - CR was a great film - I wonder why? And the next one was a good cast but with a bad script...it was frontloaded due to CR, but it held well nevertheless and made good money.I give you, that if there is Thanks due to something or somebody, it might be true, that Bourne made the path for the more serious approach.

And about the trunks - I never liked that scene very much and you seem to run out of arguments...;)

You are ingoring the fact that there were major changes in the direction of the series with previous actors - the Moore films changed tone and style several times to keep them popular and relevant. They could and probably would have done this for a third Dalton movie. If they still had Dalton in mind when they were writing GE, then it is obvious that this is exactly what they intended to do.

I am not disputing that LTK had problems. I suspect that a third Dalton film would have had a very different feel to it. I suspect Dalton would have felt he'd done what he wanted to do with LTK and would have been ready to do something lighter for his third film.

The 6 year break due to the legal issues was very significant as it took Bond out of public awareness. Also, the whole production team who had worked on the Bond films for decades were not kept in continuous employment - this created a big break in terms of continuity. Therefore, by the time of GE there was a genuine worry about whether Bond could still be a success. That is why they played it safe and went for a box-ticking Bond for GE.

Germanlady

I already answered to that. You changed your posts around...

thelivingroyale

Germanlady said:
CR was down to Q. Tarantino? HE likes to think so, but is pretty much alone with that.
And how much of the finished product would be due to him by all means?

So - CR was a great film - I wonder why? And the next one was a good cast but with a bad script...it was frontloaded due to CR, but it held well nevertheless and made good money.I give you, that if there is Thanks due to something or somebody, it might be true, that Bourne made the path for the more serious approach.

And about the trunks - I never liked that scene very much and you seem to run out of arguments...;)

But got lower reviews than both the Dalton films, who you like to say wasn't successful at all. Bourne made the path for the serious approach, but Craig is similar to Dalton, and I think they might have looked back for inspiration, as well as sideways at Bourne. I'm not saying Craig should go up and say "thanks tim for doing the dark thing first" but it would be nice to see somebody acknowledge that they were similar.

And yes Tarantino likes to think so, but really, if what he's saying IS true, then would EON really come out and say that their biggest hit in years was down to him and not them? No.

There was a thread a while back, and somebody had met someone Bond related who said Dalton was ahead of his time. And I think he was. And maybe not the trunks, but you always say how you thought Dalton was the least attractive and how much you love Craig, so maybe this had something to do with why you warmed to the serious approach.

Getafix

It's not about saying that Craig somehow stole Dalton's take on Bond. It's just that everyone raves about how DC brought back an edgier, more dangerous take on Bond, but actually, Dalton had done this 20 years earlier and every one makes out that what DC is doing is totally radical.

I just find it a bit annoying that Dalton had shown how Bond could continue to feel real and relevant 25 years ago, and then post-Cubby the producers just junked all that and turned out complete dross for a decade. And then finally woke up and said 'oh, actually, we should probably try and get back a bit to what we were doing in the late 80s...'

As others have said, Bourne was also a major game changer that allowed DC to go in his own direction. Matt Damon brought acting chops and high physicality to the role. In fact, to be fair, DC owes more to Matt Damon than to Dalts.

thelivingroyale

Getafix said:
It's not about saying that Craig somehow stole Dalton's take on Bond. It's just that everyone raves about how DC brought back an edgier, more dangerous take on Bond, but actually, Dalton had done this 20 years earlier and every one makes out that what DC is doing is totally radical. As others have said, Bourne was also a major game changer that allowed DC to go in his own direction. Matt Damon brought acting chops and high physicality to the role.

This. DC didn't rip off Dalton, but it annoys me that Dalton is forgotten even though he was a dark, serious Bond 20 years before CR.

Germanlady

@Royale - I have said in one of my last posts, that it was DC himself, who made me like the new approach, but this only highlights, what I say about Dalton..

but...see next post

Germanlady

Getafix said:
It's not about saying that Craig somehow stole Dalton's take on Bond. It's just that everyone raves about how DC brought back an edgier, more dangerous take on Bond, but actually, Dalton had done this 20 years earlier and every one makes out that what DC is doing is totally radical.

I just find it a bit annoying that Dalton had shown how Bond could continue to feel real and relevant 25 years ago, and then post-Cubby the producers just junked all that and turned out complete dross for a decade. And then finally woke up and said 'oh, actually, we should probably try and get back a bit to what we were doing in the late 80s...'

As others have said, Bourne was also a major game changer that allowed DC to go in his own direction. Matt Damon brought acting chops and high physicality to the role. In fact, to be fair, DC owes more to Matt Damon than to Dalts.

Just said that- I am not one, who cannot take any critisism or somesuch - I just need some logic to it. Therefore - well said and true, too. Agreed.

Getafix

Germanlady said:

Getafix said:
It's not about saying that Craig somehow stole Dalton's take on Bond. It's just that everyone raves about how DC brought back an edgier, more dangerous take on Bond, but actually, Dalton had done this 20 years earlier and every one makes out that what DC is doing is totally radical.

I just find it a bit annoying that Dalton had shown how Bond could continue to feel real and relevant 25 years ago, and then post-Cubby the producers just junked all that and turned out complete dross for a decade. And then finally woke up and said 'oh, actually, we should probably try and get back a bit to what we were doing in the late 80s...'

As others have said, Bourne was also a major game changer that allowed DC to go in his own direction. Matt Damon brought acting chops and high physicality to the role. In fact, to be fair, DC owes more to Matt Damon than to Dalts.

Just said that- I am not one, who cannot take any critisism or somesuch - I just need some logic to it. Therefore - well said and true, too. Agreed.

Yes, I'm glad we agree.

Germanlady

Getafix said:

Yes, I'm glad we agree.

We can do it - just takes a bit...

Getafix

All this talk of Bourne has reminded me what a remarkable, brilliant trilogy the Matt Damon films are. They knock the last 25 years of Bond into a cocked hat if I'm being really honest.

Visceral, gripping, action-thriller film-making at its absolute, twenty-first century best.

The Bourne trilogy was a massive challenge to EON to raise its game. However, Bourne itself does not represent a template for Bond. I think that was one of the mistakes with QoS - the Bourne-esque 'emotional journey' story arc simply doesn't suit Bond and felt derivative (both in terms of narrative and in the visual treatment of the film). Bond really is a much more 2 dimensional character, but that is his strength, not a weakness. We (or perhaps I should say 'I') don't actually want to know his back story. He is 'Bond' - inexplicably fully formed and ready to take on the world.

Most important of all, Bond films need to feel luxurious - absurdly, almost comically escapist. They should take you to an imagined other world of luxury, fast cars and beautiful women. And Bond absolutely must be seen to enjoy it all and to be comfortable and (most of the time) in control of that world. This is what makes Bond, Bond. In a sense it's a bit boring and predictable, but I do actually think it's essential to making a proper Bond film. Bond films are ultimately, escapist, fantasy, reassuring, enjoyable nonsense.

thelivingroyale

Exactly. Bourne is awesome but that doesn't mean Bond needs to be anything like it to compete. Bond should do what it does best.

BAIN123

It's just that everyone raves about how DC brought back an edgier, more dangerous take on Bond, but actually, Dalton had done this 20 years earlier and every one makes out that what DC is doing is totally radical.

It's because Craig has a rawness and a sex appeal Dalton just didn't have. The PTS in CR is an example. When Craig beats the crap out of Driden's contact in the toilet it gets your attention and grabs you by the balls. When Bond kills Draiden mid sentence we hadn't seen Bond be THAT cold since...the Sean Connery days (i.e. Dr No).

Dalton never quite achieved that. I think even he admits that now. I was watching a bit of LTK earlier today where he pretty much grimaces, snarls or shouts through the film. It suddenly occured to me:

DALTON'S NOT THAT DANGEROUS. HE'S A STAGE ACTOR PRETENDING TO BE DANGEROUS.

Craig looks like he could genuinely beat you to kingdom come.

Getafix

BAIN123 said:
It's just that everyone raves about how DC brought back an edgier, more dangerous take on Bond, but actually, Dalton had done this 20 years earlier and every one makes out that what DC is doing is totally radical.

It's because Craig has a rawness and a sex appeal Dalton just didn't have. The PTS is an example. When Craig beats the crap out of Driden's contact in the toilet it gets your attention and grabs you by the balls.

Dalton never quite achieved that. I think even he admits that now. I was watching a bit of LTK earlier today where he pretty much grimaces, snarls or shouts through the film. It suddenly occured to me:

DALTON'S NOT THAT DANGEROUS. HE'S A STAGE ACTOR PRETENDING TO BE DANGEROUS.

Craig looks like he could genuinely beat you to kingdom come.

You're having a laugh?!

The PTS of TLD is one of the best in the series.

BAIN123

It doesn't match Royale's PTS though. I get the chills watching that.

"How did he die?"
"You're contact?...Not well"

And besides, Bond isn't that cold in the TLD PTS. All he does is run down the rock of gibraltar, beat up a guy and score with a hot babe.

The "cold" bit isn't until after the opening titles ("stuff my orders")

Samuel001

Sometimes I feel Casino Royale's PTS is almost too short for its own good. It's no From Russia With Love, which was both short and sweet.

I too prefer The Living Daylights' PTS.

Univex

On a random note, the scene in the Hemingway House is superb. One of the best.

Univex

Samuel001 said:
Sometimes I feel Casino Royale's PTS is almost too short for its own good. It's no From Russia With Love, which was both short and sweet.

I too prefer The Living Daylights' PTS.

I agree.

Getafix

Univex said:

Samuel001 said:
Sometimes I feel Casino Royale's PTS is almost too short for its own good. It's no From Russia With Love, which was both short and sweet.

I too prefer The Living Daylights' PTS.

I agree.

The PTS of CR is (IMO) one of many wrong notes in that movie. It's not BAD, but it's hardly classic either. The black and white also looks naff.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Getafix said:
It's not about saying that Craig somehow stole Dalton's take on Bond. It's just that everyone raves about how DC brought back an edgier, more dangerous take on Bond, but actually, Dalton had done this 20 years earlier and every one makes out that what DC is doing is totally radical.

I agree completely, 1000%. From someone who saw their first Bond film in 1968, I only knew Connery and with Lazenby only doing one film before Sir Sean returned, he felt like a fill-in who never had a serious impact on the series as far as a defined and refined interpretation. Then I watched Sir Roger take the role, and I agreed that he did need to go in a different direction with the character, much as some of the changes he had to make (that included losing the tangible air of violence breaking out at any time that I loved about Sir Sean) pained me to see. Dalton brought the Connery edge back long before Craig and that's why I love the guy and his 2 Bond movies and it would be fairly stupid to insist Craig stole anything without putting Dalton in the same category. I think of both portrayals as paying homage to what Sir Sean laid down, it's a way of playing Bond. But what neither have yet in their respective films gotten is that certain lighter touch in certain situations, and of course that way of delivering a quip. Moore and Brosnan both got that aspect down. I think this aspect though is something that Craig can do, which we may see in November.

Getafix said:
I just find it a bit annoying that Dalton had shown how Bond could continue to feel real and relevant 25 years ago, and then post-Cubby the producers just junked all that and turned out complete dross for a decade. And then finally woke up and said 'oh, actually, we should probably try and get back a bit to what we were doing in the late 80s...'

I don't think EON junked what Dalton did either or decided that approach wouldn't work in 1995. GoldenEye has a lot of the Connery/Dalton attitude, and I see elements of both the Connery and the Moore eras in the Brosnan films. The problem I saw during Pierce's era was that it somehow all came out, and whether the blame lies with Brosnan or the scripts is subjective and open to interpretation, as a undefined portrayal. Probably closer to Moore than anyone else, but he doesn't have Sir Roger's panache nor charisma in my opinion. His character varies from film to film and never seems to settle into something steady. It was always a work in progress and I know his fans don't like to hear this, but the top Bonds (Connery, Moore, Dalton, and Craig) have an undeniable on screen presence that simply cannot be objectively denied, at least in my 40+ years of watching.

Getafix said:
As others have said, Bourne was also a major game changer that allowed DC to go in his own direction. Matt Damon brought acting chops and high physicality to the role. In fact, to be fair, DC owes more to Matt Damon than to Dalts.

I'm simply not convinced this is the case. I think this is a lot more coincidence due to lack of creativity of people who worked on the Bourne films first and didn't know how to differentiate in their style of filming. And what some people want to think because they can't come up with a better point of reference. I highly doubt Craig looked at Bourne films and said "Oh, I'm going to pattern my Bond like Bourne", he doesn't need to. He looked at those who came before, read Fleming, and made his interpretation as best as the script would allow. Connery was highly physical before Damon was wetting a diaper, I'd say that's where he got that aspect from. I also feel Dalton used considerable acting chops in giving Bond an air of malevolence that Craig has pulled off quite well.

Pushkin- "It's a question of trust. Who do you believe? Koskov? Or me?
Dalton Bond- If I trusted Koskov we wouldn't be talking"

Craig Bond to Corinne- "Do it now please. This man and I have some unfinished business"

Germanlady

BAIN123 said:
It's just that everyone raves about how DC brought back an edgier, more dangerous take on Bond, but actually, Dalton had done this 20 years earlier and every one makes out that what DC is doing is totally radical.

It's because Craig has a rawness and a sex appeal Dalton just didn't have. The PTS in CR is an example. When Craig beats the crap out of Driden's contact in the toilet it gets your attention and grabs you by the balls. When Bond kills Draiden mid sentence we hadn't seen Bond be THAT cold since...the Sean Connery days (i.e. Dr No).

Dalton never quite achieved that. I think even he admits that now. I was watching a bit of LTK earlier today where he pretty much grimaces, snarls or shouts through the film. It suddenly occured to me:

DALTON'S NOT THAT DANGEROUS. HE'S A STAGE ACTOR PRETENDING TO BE DANGEROUS.

Craig looks like he could genuinely beat you to kingdom come.

What I tried to say all the time...both tried, one succeeded.

I feel, the b/w and short running time of CR's PTS make it even better and more outstanding. It sets the tone and leaves you all the more excited about what's to come...

Getafix

I guess this is one area where we'll have to agree to disagree.

The idea that Dalton wasn't suited to the screen is absurd, as is the bogus argument that his films were a failure. TLD was a commercial success and remains one of the most popular films in the series. LTK had some issues, but then so did a lot of the other movies. It remains highly rated by many Bond fans and is IMO a middling to high entry in the series. Had Dalts done a third, no doubt it would again have been very different.

Oh, and the PTS of CR is lame compared to the PTS in TLD.

Germanlady

Getafix said:
I guess this one area where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Its just parts, not the whole bit. What you said earlier still rings true...

thelivingroyale

Getafix said:
I guess this is one area where we'll have to agree to disagree.

The idea that Dalton wasn't suited to the screen is absurd, as is the bogus argument that his films were a failure. TLD was a commercial success and remains one of the most popular films in the series. LTK had some issues, but then so did a lot of the other movies. It remains highly rated by many Bond fans and is IMO a middling to high entry in the series. Had Dalts done a third, no doubt it would again have been very different.

Oh, and the PTS of CR is lame compared to the PTS in TLD.

I wouldn't call the CR PTS lame, but still I prefer the TLD one by a mile. And yeah, I don't like it when people make Dalton out to be a total failure. TLD outgrossed the past 2 Moore films and is one of the higher critically rated Bond films. LTK didn't make alot of money but was more or less a critical success and to be fair it had alot of competition and bad advertising. I'm sure if Dalton was in GE that would've still been successful and would've outgrossed his past 2 films.

BAIN123

Again @Getafix we disagree. I'd say the PTS in CR is one of the very best in the series.

While the PTS in TLD is great I personally prefer the one in Royale because it sets the tone STRAIGHT AWAY and leaves you wanting more. It feels brutal and mysterious but at the same time stylish and slick (the black and white photography and the Prague setting). I love the way Craig delivers the final line: "yes...considerably".

In regard to the success of Dalton's films I certainly wouldn't call TLD a commercial failure (far from it) but when you have to scroll down the 1989 US box office chart to find LTK crouching at number 36 thats just sad for a Bond film :'(

Dalton's films certainly didn't outgross Octopussy either - which was extremely popular in the US.

identigraph

All the negative press before CR definitley helped Craig, there was so much publicity and then all the film reviewers decided that Craig and CR were the best thing ever and it just creates a wave of hype etc, I don't beleive Dalton ever got this sort of support from the mass media, his debut was well reviewed but not in the same manner as CR.

thelivingroyale

BAIN123 said:
Dalton's films certainly didn't outgross Octopussy either - which was extremely popular in the US.

The Americans do seem to like Octopussy. I think the simpsons referenced it before.

TLD grossed $191.2 million worldwide, Octopussy got $187,500,000, so even though Octopussy beat TLD in the US, TLD won worldwide. (I am getting this of wikipedia though so I don't know how accurate it is). And it got decent reviews, one of the higher rated Bond films. LTK didn't make much money but it was a better critical success than alot of other Bond films.

identigraph said:
All the negative press before CR definitley helped Craig, there was so much publicity and then all the film reviewers decided that Craig and CR were the best thing ever and it just creates a wave of hype etc, I don't beleive Dalton ever got this sort of support from the mass media, his debut was well reviewed but not in the same manner as CR.

This. I think the reboot helped as well.

identigraph

I think Octopussy sold more tickets than TLD but the gross at the time was more for TLD.

LTK did pretty well internationally, the US box office is what really let it down.

AgentJackrich006

craig is too stiff but i like him, he is strong and bold. dalton is cunning just like roger moore. (rather depend on d gadgets and tricks). dalton is my man

Categories

Poll

Who do you prefer?

In this Discussion

Announcements