It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
The worst possible scenario. Something similar is likely to happen, though.
Dalton's films are without a underlying current of cheese? cello chase anyone?
Don't forget Dalton filmed a scene when he sailed on a magic carpet.
Dalton couldn't play the full package, his limited range would have ran out of steam in no time, Craig has actually shown some variety, Dalton would have just played serious and gritty for is whole tenure had he continued The more I see Craig the more I think that Dalton is getting more overrated as time goes by.
I really don't think he would have evolved into anything past what he gave us.
I'm a huge Dalton fan but there is some truth to this. He was almost to slavish to the books. He simply had to play it that way. Those theater actors sometimes have a bug up their bums about acting. (I know this because my wife is a lifelong theater actress). :))
What do you need from the next Bond? Do tell.
Yeah I always thought he said 'considerably' in quite a posh way in CR, but doesn't really speak like that across the board.
Dalton perfectly caught the gritty introspective brooding Bond of the books, but for me whilst that is Fleming to a tee, his 2 films missed the fantastical and the bizarre which is also absolutely Fleming - which they've brought back in Spectre. The villains in the Dalton films for example miss the bizarre and outlandish of a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or an Oddjob - all Fleming creations.
I just want a good movie. Look, the series has changed, along with audiences, and adhering to the Connery formula simply won't cut it anymore. SP was pretty darn close IMO to the "classic" Bond without being too cliched and fake seeming like Brosnan's films. They have built a new mythology with Craig and it works. The fact that his 4 films will total over 3 billion dollars is quite insane. This series has lasted this long because they know how to adapt yet stay true to what Fleming wrote. That's a tough job. It can't be exactly like Fleming because it's not 1954 anymore. Espionage has changed. James Bond must change as well. That's the only way this franchise can stay relevant.
Agreed. Again, I love Dalton and the fact he never made a 3rd is my biggest cinematic disappointment ever. But it's like they toned it down too far, swung the pendulum too much the other way and swept away the remnants that had anything to do with that OTT stuff. They did the same with CR and QoS but were lucky enough to swing it back for Craig's last two. They've been smart about trickling back in the weirder stuff slowly; Silva's mouth, crazy big henchman in Hinx with his thumbs, Blofeld's scar and cat, etc. It's too bad Dalton never got a chance to play that way a little more. I've read the treatment for his 3rd (the alternate 17th film in the series to be released in 1991/2), and it had some elements of that. I think they would have swung things back a bit more down the line had he stayed.
If Dalton had taken the role in 1980 (if I remember correctly he was offered it in 1968 and '80 before actually taking it in '86) he would undoubtedly have become the defining interpretation of 007. The series would not have gone through the hiatus after '89 and we probably would have quite a few more quality entries than we currently do...
There is no evidence that Dalton would have been any more accepted commercially in 1980 than he was in 1987. Replacing an 'in-form' and young Moore post_MR (a massive financial success) would have been more of a challenge than replacing an 'out of form' and old Moore post-AVTAK.
Critically he may have been good. Commercially, he wasn't though.
Agreed. The almost ridiculous knowledge of fine drink & food was one of the hallmarks of Fleming's Bond, and to a lesser extent early Connery.
The sequence about the '...rather disappointing brandy' in GF is one of the best comedic moments int he series :>
I believe Craig wanted to smoke as well but wasn't allowed to. He so should, he's Bond, he smokes.
I so assuredly say this because I checked my crystal ball only just this morningsome :D
But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's (MR was a product of it's past, the glitzy, indulgent late 1970's), having the time to prove & establish himself much like DC did, before the landscape of cinema & blockbusters changed in the late 80's. He would have left the series 'naturally', and we wouldn't have had the rather reactionary Brosnan era.
I re-watched OP yesterday. What struck me was how there is a real attempt at gritty, FYEO style realism in the way the Berlin opening scene (009 being hunted down) is filmed and tonally presented. There is a Dalton-film lurking in OP that just couldn't fully get out, imho... it has the feel of TLD in some parts.
Yes, that should have been part of him from the get go. Bond's a snob and snobbery generally is something you're born to, though it can be acquired, his knowledge of wine and food etc would have been something passed on from generations and upbringing.
I don't actually think Bond is portrayed as a true snob by Fleming - he comes across as enjoying these finer things but never really buying into the idea of 'the elite'.
He despises the idle upper classes and almost hates himself for coming from a well-to-do background... hence the chip on his shoulder.
I don't regard Connery's Bond as old school. Craig comes as close as any actor: a little rougher around the edges, but less droll. DC probably owes as much to Jason Bourne as Bond. He's not as good with the wit and sophistication. The box-office and the superior film techniques do not interest me. Neither can be compared meaningfully to films made in the 60s. But the style, tone, and attitude can be.
What we are concerned with here is the next Bond. If we assume the DC series is a reboot, erasing all previous films by previous actors, will the next Bond begin a series unto himself, or will we simply carry on with the "same" Bond, only with a new face?
I am ready for the new Bond to evolve into the original Bond. Rough hewn DC type Bond finally becomes the Connery Bond. Suave, witty, masculine. Qualities that seem to me never to go out of date.
I like both SF and SP, but both are saddled with parent-child issues. Silva is upset because M likes James better, and ESB is upset because his own father liked James more than Franz, and Bond's past is in play. It should be noted that in the YOLT commentary, Lewis Gilbert in discussing a direction for the film says they didn't want to get caught up in Bond's childhood and psychological problems. Too bad later writers didn't take that hint. Linking ESB to Bond's childhood was one of the biggest mistakes in the entire film series.
Neither SF or SP are bad films, but they are burdened by a story line quite unnecessary.
The superiority of CR is that LeChiffre is motivated by money--not personal revenge.
I never want to see the series return to silliness of RM and PB. I am ready for a Bond of style, wit, culture, sophistication, and charm. I want to see villains with big plans but on a realistic scale. I don't want to see more Bourne or Batman influenced sequences. I hated the Silva teeth segment in SF. ESB's makeup in SP was as silly looking as the ESB of YOLT.
The qualities as an actor that SC brought to Bond never go out style.
Head of nail hit.