The TIMOTHY DALTON Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

1232426282964

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    not sure what your point is exactly, couldn't this apply to almost any celeb. how much do we actuallly know about any of their 'real' trials and tribulations.

    but sure, there could always be 'stuff' going on that we don't know about. but without specifics to back up what you're saying I find it hard to see Dalton as anything other than someone who attained moderate success, financial indpendence and just decided to sit back and cruise.

    fair play to him, it's just that as a fan I would have liked him to do more/aim higher in his later career.

    i actually think he has confidence issues. RADA broke him and he took years to recover after that. a miracle he stuck with acting really.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Getafix wrote: »
    RADA broke him and he took years to recover after that. a miracle he stuck with acting really.
    Now who is arguing off the cuff?
    But really, we know nothing of another person's pain or life trials.
    I'm just glad we got Dalton as Bond for the short time he saw fit.
  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RADA broke him and he took years to recover after that. a miracle he stuck with acting really.
    Now who is arguing off the cuff?
    But really, we know nothing of another person's pain or life trials.
    I'm just glad we got Dalton as Bond for the short time he saw fit.

    No, that's fact. He's spoken about it ininterviews. He left a year into the course. They tried to get rid of his regional accent and he found the whole experience very negative. He has spoken of how it took him a long time to rediscover his own voice as an actor.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Based purely on that short clip of Chuck it doesn't look like I'm missing much. Just a standard, lightweight American spy series that would show here on FX. The bloke who plays the son is terrible in that scene:

    "Mom seriously you're betraying me again"

    As for Dalton he's ok but I've seen him give better performances.

    His best post Bond performances for me are still Hot Fuzz and perhaps Penny Dreadful.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Based purely on that short clip of Chuck it doesn't look like I'm missing much. Just a standard American spy series that would show here on FX. The bloke who plays the son is terrible in that scene:

    "Mom seriously you're betraying me again"

    As for Dalton he's ok but I've seen him give better performances.

    His best post Bond performances for me are still Hot Fuzz and perhaps Penny Dreadful.

    Agreed. I didn't want to offend @chrisisall too much, but given that he's clearly a bit fo a wind up merchant himself, I have to say this clip looks pretty awful. And if that actor is the main character - 'Chuck' - it bodes pretty bad for the rest of the series.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Chuck is great, you are missing a really fun show. And Dalton was pretty amazing in that!
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,189
    It may well be good. As I said, that was just a short clip.

    Linda Hamilton as a protective mother with a gun. Where have I seen that before :-?
  • Posts: 11,425
    Linda's acting wasn't all that either. The whole scene seemed forced.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Shame because Linda's great in the Terminator films. I suspect she knew she was in lightwight nonsense so didn't really put much of an effort in. She gets some bad lines too ("if they don't...I will end you")
  • Posts: 11,425
    That's my point really. Tim and Linda are both good actors. Why do people like that end up doing stuff like this? Simple - they want the money. They show up, dial it in and take the cash.

    There's so much good quality TV around these days - but this isn't it.

    I haven't watched much of Penny Dreadful, but what I did watch seemed pretty badly written. Hopefully it'll raise Tim's profile though and lead on to bigger and better things.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Sandy wrote: »
    Chuck is great, you are missing a really fun show. And Dalton was pretty amazing in that!
    Yeah, a really good show already , then Dalton showed up for a season and my head exploded.
    B-)
  • Posts: 3,336
    Very interesting interview.
    Check it out if you haven't already seen it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Yeah, that's great stuff. Gotta love the Daltonator.
  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Yeah, that's great stuff. Gotta love the Daltonator.

    Sorry, had to say this, but can you ever, ever, imagine Brosnan saying anything like this about the character? That kind of insight, understanding. Or frankly any indication that he'd even given more than a moment's thought to who this guy - Bond - actually is?

    Even Roger was able to articulate the reasoning behind his take on the character and direction that he took. I never heard Brosnan ever say anything remotely perceptive about the Bond character and his interpretation. May be because he had nothing to say. Whatever the reason, I think it's very evident in Brosnan's performances that he had never really given serious thought to who 'his Bond' actually was.

    And to go back to your point from the thesis thread, are you going to try and tell me Dalton didn't have a massive input into how his films turned out?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited October 2014 Posts: 17,691
    Getafix wrote: »
    And to go back to your point from the thesis thread, are you going to try and tell me Dalton didn't have a massive input into how his films turned out?
    No, because they WANTED Dalton, just like they WANTED Craig. When an actor is WANTED, that ups their inherent control over a project. Brosnan WANTED to play Bond, and that put him at a relative disadvantage. Add to that that Brosnan is an actor ONLY with no skills as a producer or writer and you get what you got, a Bond DEFINED mostly by people OTHER than Brosnan.
    Another point: Chris Reeve was WANTED by Cannon to make another Superman film, but much like Brosnan, he was an actor defined by his script & director, so even though he had a HUGE amount of input, Superman 4 sucked big time.
    Are we learning yet? :))
  • Posts: 3,336
    Fun at the set of The living daylights =)
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    And to go back to your point from the thesis thread, are you going to try and tell me Dalton didn't have a massive input into how his films turned out?
    No, because they WANTED Dalton, just like they WANTED Craig. When an actor is WANTED, that ups their inherent control over a project. Brosnan WANTED to play Bond, and that put him at a relative disadvantage. Add to that that Brosnan is an actor ONLY with no skills as a producer or writer and you get what you got, a Bond DEFINED mostly by people OTHER than Brosnan.
    Another point: Chris Reeve was WANTED by Cannon to make another Superman film, but much like Brosnan, he was an actor defined by his script & director, so even though he had a HUGE amount of input, Superman 4 sucked big time.
    Are we learning yet? :))

    what nonsense about EON wanting Dalton but not wanting Brosnan. Dalton was the guy who stepped in when they couldn't get Brozza.

    And what does Chris reeve have to do with it?

    You seem to be making the point that Brosnan is an actor of rather limited ability who is only able to turn in decent performances when given exceptional scripts and direction, which is what I've been saying all along.

    By contrast Dalton, Craig, Sean and Rog to a degree were all able to craft magic from sometimes rather weak plots or scripts, regardless of the quality of director. And as a consequence, through the strength of their own performances these actors gave the producers myriad more options in terms of where the films could go.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited October 2014 Posts: 13,894
    Getafix wrote: »
    what nonsense about EON wanting Dalton but not wanting Brosnan. Dalton was the guy who stepped in when they couldn't get Brozza.

    Actually, Dalton had to turn the role down, before Brosnan was offered. Thanks to theatre commitments, if I remember correctly. It was then that Brosnan entered the scene, only to have to vacate the role due to his Remington Steele contract. EON then went back to Dalton, and re-offered him the role.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,425
    My point is that it's stretching things to imply EON didn't also want Brosnan. Cubby had had his eye on him for years. If EON didn't him, why did they go back and get him for GE?

    @chrisisall is just making excuses for Brosnan's weak performances.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I've seen that excellent interview with Dalton before. Much better and more genuine than the acting performance he gave in the EoN documentary.

    Tbh I don't remember Sean going into as much detail during his interviews while he was Bond.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    That is indeed a fantastic interview, as are all Dalton's interviews where he displays his knowledge of the literary Bond. You'd never catch Dalton calling Dr No the first Bond book. ;)

    As for Connery, that's not surprising as he was playing Terrance Young's Bond, not Fleming's. And I doubt Connery read that many of the books, probaby just those that would be adapted into whatever film he was in next.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 12,837
    Getafix wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Yeah, that's great stuff. Gotta love the Daltonator.

    Sorry, had to say this

    No. No you didn't have to say that. Nobody mentioned Brosnan, the thread has nothing to do with Brosnan, but yet again you bought him up. We get it. You don't like the guy. But hearing about how shit he was from you over and over does get annoying for those of us that did enjoy his Bond. I normally try to stay out of threads debating Brosnan's Bond for that reason: the whole was he a good Bond or not debate is an argument I've had too many times to count and I'm never going to change the minds of those that don't like him, plus I know that most of the posts in there will just irritate me so I don't go on them.

    But then I click on a thread that has nothing to do with the bloke. A thread that's supposed to be about appreciating Dalton, my favourite James Bond. And then I still have to see you telling us all how terrible Pierce was. We all have films and actors we don't like but you never shut up about how you hate Brosnans Bond. I'd say over half of your posts on here have been about Brosnan's Bond and you never have anything nice to say about his performances.

    Look, obviously I can't tell you what you can and can't post and you're entitled to your opinion and all the rest of it but do you not get as bored with posting this stuff as the rest of us are of reading it? Slagging the same actor off over and over? Do you actually enjoy being that negative about something?
  • Posts: 11,425
    it was in response to something @chrisisall had said about Brosnan in another thread. I felt this interview exactly highlighted what I had been saying about the other Bond actors having much more coherent engagement with the character and creative input into their films.

    but it's relevant to talk about Brozza here any way as their Bond stories are so intertwined. Brozza could have been cast in TLD and Dalts could have done GE. It's natural to compare performances.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    appreciating Dalton, my favourite James Bond.
    My take here is that Connery created his Bond with loads of help from Terrence Young. that would make Connery's Bond Terence Young's version of Ian Fleming's Bond. Lazenby subbed. Moore gave us a Saintly Bond. Brosnan gave us a cinematic amalgam Bond. Craig is giving us his tough Bond.
    ONLY Dalton POURED through Fleming, researched Bond, tried to understand him, and finally give us, as close as possible, the literary Bond within the constraints of James Bond Industrial Complex. THAT'S why he's my favourite Bond actor.
    ^:)^
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    appreciating Dalton, my favourite James Bond.
    My take here is that Connery created his Bond with loads of help from Terrence Young. that would make Connery's Bond Terence Young's version of Ian Fleming's Bond. Lazenby subbed. Moore gave us a Saintly Bond. Brosnan gave us a cinematic amalgam Bond. Craig is giving us his tough Bond.
    ONLY Dalton POURED through Fleming, researched Bond, tried to understand him, and finally give us, as close as possible, the literary Bond within the constraints of James Bond Industrial Complex. THAT'S why he's my favourite Bond actor.
    ^:)^

    I'm no expert on literary Bond, having only read MR, but on that lone reading, I'd say that in tone and style, the early Connery films are closest to the books (or at least the one I read). They seem to capture that perfect blend of a believable human character set amidst a fantastical world of romance and espionage. I agree that Connery's Bond is a step removed from the character on the page though - Bond on screen is given extra oomph and presensce that perhaps he doesn't quite have to the same extent in the books. He is less ordinary than Fleming's Bond. But that seems an inevitable adjustment that needed to be made for the big screen to make the films commercially viable. Or at least, that's the almost inevitable result of casting someone with Connery's charisma.

    In terms of individual performance though, I can see why people say Dalton's Bond is closest to Fleming. He is much more toned down. He has his moments of being sick of it all and isn't a superman. May be that's one of the reasons he's seen by so many as a 'failure'. May be the literary Bond, while more interesting, is just less sexy and appealing to the average viewer than the screen Bond developed by Sean and Rog.

    But overall, I still think Dr No, FRWL and GF better capture the essence of the books than either TLD or LTK. It's partly something to do with the era in which they're set - much closer to the source material. But I also just think there's a genius in the entire production team. Barry and Adam just create something with the look and sound of the films that seems to channel the tone of the books into an audio-visual experience that is the perfect realisation of the books.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Getafix wrote: »
    the literary Bond, while more interesting, is just less sexy and appealing to the average viewer than the screen Bond developed by Sean and Rog.
    I'd say this is pretty accurate, @Getafix.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I'd say Tim has one big advantage over Craig and that's that his films are set before the introduction of widespread mobile telephone use. Mobile telephones (and bloody ear pieces) are a real pain in the world of Bond. The fact Tim's films are set in the era before all this high tech consumer stuff became available more widely makes his films more authentic in the old Cold War espionage sense.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    @Getafix, nice to know we can completely agree on something!
    In my opinion, Tim's movies are the highpoint of the entire franchise. \m/
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,189
    @Getafix is right about Fleming's Bond having less "oomph" on the page. This may sound a bit controversial but I think the literary character does indeed come off as quite boring a lot of the time. Fleming once said he was intended to be an "anonymous" character, someone who DIDN'T stand out. There are some great moments where we get some deeper insights into Bond's thoughts (the last few paragraphs of MR) but to me it felt like the more interesting "meaty" characters were the people around him and Bond was merely the link to move the story forward. I recently listened to the short story OP for the first time (yep, I'm ashamed of that too), Bond's barely in it. Almost the entire story is spent talking about Dexter Smythe, a man we'd never heard of before.
  • Posts: 1,146
    I'd rather watch both of the Dalton films than any of the Moore films, though Tim does seem a little on the scrawny side.
Sign In or Register to comment.