The Man who Should Have

NicNac

thelivingroyale wrote:

NicNac wrote:

Dalton blew it with the critics, the audiences, but not the Bond fans

Not entirely true. TLD seemed pretty popular when it came out, I remember the audience cheering at one part. And TLD and LTK have 73% and 71% on rottentomatoes, not bad, better than lots of the other Bond films, so they weren't failures critically.

LTK didn't do as well at the box office as past Bond films (but it didn't do that badly at all), and people use that as an excuse to say Dalton wasn't popular. BUT (and I know this response has been used time and time again), look at the competition. Batman, Indiana Jones, etc. Let's look at the latest Bond film, released in 2008, if QOS had been released in the summer, at the same time as The Dark Knight, that wouldn't have done as well.

Dalton might not have been as popular as Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig, but people did like him and his films weren't really failures.

No, the curiosity value of a new Bond after 12 years was overwhelming, and TLD rode the wave of that. It was an excellent Bond film I agree @thelivingroyale but early on the cracks were showing regarding Dalton himself. He simply was not popular enough with the public to last. Bond films would always find an audience, but sometimes things need to change to stop the rot setting in. ie Moore had to go because he was too old, Dalton had to go because he wasn't popular enough with the punters. Brosnan was popular so another film would not have harmed the series.
Dalton is now popular with the fans and critics are maybe a little kinder, but history is unforgiving (as with Lazenby) so new critics will dismiss his films simply because he only made two. TLD, as with OHMSS is a fine film, but they will be tarred and feathered because the actors didn't last.

What I remember most about TD's time as Bond was that he never whipped up enthusiasm with the public between Bond films. He never excited audiences. The four prominent Bond actors had big film careers going on at the same time (thanks to Bond), but Dalton didn't.
Also Kingsley Amis made the observation (paraphrasing) that unlike previous actors when Dalton was on screen you looked at the chap behind him bringing the tea in.

I can hear myself Dalton bashing constantly, and I don't mean to. He looked perfect for the role, but he lacked something for me.

actonsteve

OHMSS69 wrote:

Like old Desmond said: "Our favorite Bond is the one we first saw...."

Well my first was Rog in Spy but I much prefer Tim and Dan. I love Rog - he's a great human being and he is in my favourite films but the other two beat him.

Laz wasnt an actor. No amount of moulding clay can work if the raw material isnt there. They shouldnt have chosen him and probably wanted another unknown like Connery. But for his one role he did well in some scenes.

Brosnan. I am fed up bashing him. He is a nice guy and the ultimate responsibility must lie with the producers for hiring the directors and screenwriters. Babs and Mickey didnt really have clout with the studios until CR - so how much of the casting was down to the studios.

However a good Bond moulds the direction of the films to his portrayal. Brosnan just went along for the ride.

007RogerMoore

I don't think Lazenby failed at all. He was just immature and had a clueless agent. I like him more than OHMSS itself, actually. From a finacial standpoint, OHMSS did well also.

And Brosnan didn't fail on any level IMO. The only failure in hus tenure was IMO letting him go too early. He should have done another two films IMO. I like his movies and think he was a very good Bond for the 1990's. He hardly failed from a critical or finacial standpoint either. And he left his mark on my generation (From what I gather, having asked several people near my age who their favorite Bond is, Brosnan is the most popular choice).

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

A financial success doesn't mean that a film is good, ie. Transformers, Twilight, Pirates of the Caribbean, and stupid reboots to the hilt.

007RogerMoore

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

A financial success doesn't mean that a film is good, ie. Transformers, Twilight, Pirates of the Caribbean, and stupid reboots to the hilt.

Agreed. But I don't think a blockbuster with atleast decent reviews is a failure either. So I don't think Brosnan failed as Bond, even though I respect if someone doesn't like him or his movies.

myworldisenough

Lazenby blew it because he had the opportunity to have done more movies and make the role his own.

Brosnan blew it? .... Was that because he did a good job, was a box office success, did four movies & was a big favourite with the public at the time.... His movies may not be the very best of the series but he did his job and played to his strenghs. And the 90's Bond was the right time for Brosnan for the right reasons. He took his opportunity, was a success and at the end of the day people who constantly knock him need to get over it.

thelivingroyale

myworldisenough wrote:

Lazenby blew it because he had the opportunity to have done more movies and make the role his own.

Brosnan blew it? .... Was that because he did a good job, was a box office success, did four movies & was a big favourite with the public at the time.... His movies may not be the very best of the series but he did his job and played to his strenghs. And the 90's Bond was the right time for Brosnan for the right reasons. He took his opportunity, was a success and at the end of the day people who constantly knock him need to get over it.

Basically, this. You summed it up perfectly. Lazenby blew it by quitting so early, but Brosnan didn't blow it at all. Just because some people don't like him, it doesn't mean he blew it, because overall, he was/is a popular Bond.

BAIN123

Also Kingsley Amis made the observation (paraphrasing) that unlike previous actors when Dalton was on screen you looked at the chap behind him bringing the tea in.

Did he? If so ouch! #-o

I should get round to reading Amis as never have read him.

Ha, in regard to "going along for the ride" Broz says those EXACT words at the end of the DAD commentary.

HOWEVER part of me does feel that Broz is just "more fun" to watch than the likes of Dalton and Laz. He has a screen charisma that the other 2 don't really have.

Regarding Laz I remember when I last re-watched OHMSS I thought "he'd be great as a stuntman but as an actor? Perhaps not as much" (although he's perfect at the end).

Back to Broz, I just love his expressions (pain face excluded) the way he walks and his little smiles. When he has to he can act a bit too. He sells the Kaulfman scene well as well as the killing of Electra and the attempted killing of Miranda (love his "occupational hazard"line/delivery).

I think Dalton deserves credit for trying to go back to Fleming but, as NicNac points out, he just doesn't have enough of that "cool aura" on film like "the big 4". He's not a movie star. Don't want to go too far off topic anyway. I don't dislike Dalts the way NN does but I am a bit on the fence. Part of me can see why he's perceived to be a "lesser Bond" (and before people accuse me of generalising, I'm yet to be convinced that he's not).

Samuel001

For the literary character of the books, that "cool aura" isn't really needed. In that sense Dalton was fine but for the screen it is needed, therefore maybe he lacked the thing one could argue is needed the most.

LeQueux

Gentlemen, Gentlemen can't we all just get along? Right in no particular order, Dalton talented guy, probably the first to bring the brooding seriesness that is so evident in our current incarnation. Dramatic yes, but by way of theatre hence something lacking in the fisticuff scenes - Barrelhead Bar anyone? Which was odd considering the viciousness of the frogman fight and the sheer Bond at his coolest and deadliest when he dispatches Sharkey's killer! So after two 007 films that benefitted greatly from elements taken from the original novels enter Brosnan. He was always in the mix of possibles and the main reason he was selected was to give the public someone they would recognise. He was Roger for the 90's, only this guy was physical and the only guy running faster in movies was Tom. Cambell gave him a stylish debut and he should have been off and running but for one thing, the cupboard was bare of Fleming material to draw on. That and that for the most part is what limited his potential, the fact that he would also be the first to make his journey with different directors probably didn't help much. One of few plusses was complimenting him with a new M played by an excellent and very experienced actress. You can only do as good as the material permits you to, some of the material was very good indeed and forshadowed the tone to come. Craig would not have improved on the scene featuring Electra's elimination - that was an execution and witnessed mind you by the woman that could have been her mother! DAD's title collage thru Cuba - that's Craig. Gotta say every time I watch Brosnan say "Jinx, you say?" I crack up! So Pierce an uneven run but you made a fist of it, I'll take you're 4 over Roger's 7 any day! Oh before I forget, check the age of Lazenby when he made OHMSS, I think he was the youngest, but did that guy look like a man or what, oh that's right he was an Australian, so no problems with the physical presence. I would imagine that some of the actresses/models might have been looking forward to working with Connery but came round pretty fast. So have you any idea of the pressures on this guy to follow Sean? Do you honestly think Roger would have pulled that off? The one outstanding trick going for him was he had the most complete unadulterated Fleming script and a courageous director. That would never happen again! Next we would get DAF?!

Baltimore_007

Well, Tim Dalton first as you say, hard to argue. Never was one for Brosnans humor sometimes, not my favorite of the actors either I'm afraid, Lazenby was indeed the youngest at 29 in 1968/69, I didn't care thereafter if he was an antipodean, let alone non British, he did an adequate job. Good post Le Queux

Just noticed again that it was no order, but Dalton came first, but you gave the man justifiable accolades and there's no disputing that

BAIN123

He was Roger for the 90's, only this guy was physical and the only guy running faster in movies was Tom.

Ha, that made me chuckle :)) :))

One thing Broz could certainly do (better than Rog) was run.

forgotmyusername

Ladies ladies ladies...i really don't thing any Bond actor blew it. They were right for their time. Being a bit mystical and thinking about kismet and things happen for a reason...this is what happened with each bond era. Their actions trigger the right reaction for the next bond era. Gl to Rm to Td to Pb to Dc. Each Bonds created a path for the style of the next.

Gl tried to mimic the great man...could he have done this into the 70s? If you look at the cinema produced in that era they were outstanding classics at every level. And I don't think Bond then could have gone down the French connection, godfather, the conversation, deer hunter etc route with both direction and writing. Rm started off hard boiled but ended up as escapist fun apart from one and only classic bond film. Td was a reaction to the light hearted fun of Rm and so on...

So all bonds were great and served their purpose. They are blunt instruments for our pleasure minus the batteries and ky.