Timothy Dalton or Daniel Craig?

1252628303148

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    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.

    I think you're so blinded by inconsolable rage you can't tell your classic PTS from your average one. I am not saying the PTS for CR is bad, but simply that the PTS in TLD is one of the best in the entire series. If that doesn't leave you wanting more I don't know what would. The whole concept of a training exercise being infiltrated by a real killer is excellent. The entire sequence is shot, edited and scored to perfection.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    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.

    I think you're so blinded by inconsolable rage you can't tell your classic PTS from your average one. I am not saying the PTS for CR is bad, but simply that the PTS in TLD is one of the best in the entire series. If that doesn't leave you wanting more I don't know what would. The whole concept of a training exercise being infiltrated by a real killer is excellent. The entire sequence is shot, edited and scored to perfection.

    Agreed but so is a man finding a mysterious stranger sitting in the shadows of his office.

    I like the PTS in Daylights but I prefer the Royale one. Its mysterious, edgy but also humerous. I think even Timothy Dalton has been quoted as saying the first 20 minutes of CR were among the best in the series.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    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.

    I think you're so blinded by inconsolable rage you can't tell your classic PTS from your average one. I am not saying the PTS for CR is bad, but simply that the PTS in TLD is one of the best in the entire series. If that doesn't leave you wanting more I don't know what would. The whole concept of a training exercise being infiltrated by a real killer is excellent. The entire sequence is shot, edited and scored to perfection.

    Agreed but so is a man finding a mysterious stranger sitting in the shadows of his office.

    I like the PTS in Daylights but I prefer the Royale one. Its mysterious, edgy but also humerous. I think even Timothy Dalton has been quoted as saying the first 20 minutes of CR were among the best in the series.

    each to their own. bit meh IMo.it could have come from any thriller. nothing particularly bond about it.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Just found this, it talks about how Dalton was ahead of his time and how people seem to forget him when praising Craig for being so dark and realistic. http://adrian-peel.suite101.com/timothy-dalton-the-best-james-bond-a114350
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,500
    I'm really not sure. I was quizzing my girlfriend last night on which actor played Bond and when, and when we reached Dalton, I just sat back and thought about how much I enjoyed both of his films during his Bond years. TLD does have an awesome PTS - probably one of my favorites - but then again, so does CR, and QoS, while poorly edited with the camerawork, was really action-packed from start to finish, in terms of a PTS. CR's was great for me because it goes from a quiet conversation in his office to a brutal fist fight in that bathroom, but, as @Getafix said, the PTS of TLD was unique in that it goes from a routine training exercise to surviving an assassin's attempts. It's a hard choice.

    (Side note: If you haven't seen the extended opening of CR, you should give it a watch. Shows Bond tracking Fisher, the entirety of the setting outside of the bathroom, and the fight scene is a bit more brutal.)
  • Posts: 12,837
    @Creasy47 I've seen the extended opening and I think if they made it that long, with the cricket and everything included, then they should've added colour. Actually, I think they should've added colour anyway, I don't think the black and white is needed at all.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited May 2012 Posts: 40,500
    I liked the black and white; I agree, the entirety of the cricket scene did not require black and white, as well, but what they gave us in the final film looked awesome in black and white. But, as much as they added, I'm glad they took it out. I just felt that it took away from the gritty surprise of Bond and Fisher dueling it out as soon as the scene cuts. But, if they kept it, could have made for a longer PTS for fans who wanted it. Either way, they're both there.
  • Posts: 5,634
    I've seen the extended bit with the cricket match in Lahore was it, and why didn't they include that in the finished film, if only to add a bit more running time, CR pre credits sequence is really sub standard for action, a black mark on an otherwise standout release

    Here it is for anyone who has yet to see it, there can't be many, but in any event



  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Getafix wrote:
    Dalton. But I like DC. I remember coming back from seeing TLD in Plymouth and grinning on the drive home thinking 'we've got Bond back - at last'. For me he is the closest to Fleming's Bond. Just a shame he didn't make any more films…

    Bizarre - I also saw it in Plymouth. At the Drake, I seem to remember.

    If it was the first Friday afternoon of release, then we saw it at the same time!
  • Forgive me for getting off topic, but it seems alot of people are stating that Dalts didn't have leading man screen power. However, I think he does. the scene where he prepares his gun in TLD is brilliant. He is calm, cool, collected and makes a simple scene memorable (atleast for me.)
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Forgive me for getting off topic, but it seems alot of people are stating that Dalts didn't have leading man screen power. However, I think he does. the scene where he prepares his gun in TLD is brilliant. He is calm, cool, collected and makes a simple scene memorable (atleast for me.)

    Totally agree. Dalts was a truly brilliant Bond. A total tragedy he never made number 3. The brief interview with him in the recent issue of Empire is quite interesting. He actually implies that the whole change of tone with LTK was much less to do with him and actually more down to the producers. He says he didn't actually see the script until 10 days before shooting. Quite interesting I thought. And the article makes the point that Dalts was doing much of what
    craig is now doing twenty five years ago - perhaps even better.

    I am getting a bit tired of the whole debate to be honest. I feel more strongly than ever that Dalts was one of the best. Craig is fine but not at Dalton's level, and Brosnan was a total disaster, whose period in the role is just best forgotten.
  • Posts: 6,601
    So here, you have another significant difference - DC ran away from Bond, because they had no script. Didn't know that, but obviously Dalton signed without seeing the script.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Germanlady wrote:
    So here, you have another significant difference - DC ran away from Bond, because they had no script. Didn't know that, but obviously Dalton signed without seeing the script.

    Yes, it's an interesting indication of how the power relationship has changed since DC arrived.
  • Posts: 1
    Craig all the way. He is in better shape, more realistic, and acts as if the pain of killing and fighting --- the whole physycal stress that comes with the career -- was really there.
  • Posts: 17
    Craig has that edgy non forced almost anger that a newly Bond would have just coming out of training and yet the "I don't give a damn" attitude . . . also extremely good looking in the tuxs . . . yes @ Rafbound.
  • Posts: 17
    Lowell was in Law&Order a few years back no ?

    Yes, she was.
  • Posts: 10
    DANIEL CRAIG all the way! favorite bond actor IMO. Dalton is just too dark in his movies.
  • Posts: 5,634
    What, and Craig isn't ?, they both share similar distinguishing characteristics

    That's the one thing I like about Craig, a no nonsense approach and serious etc, no poor humor, or silly Moore-like thespian antics etc, better than Lazenby, an improvement on Brosnan too, but as said before he still has a long way to go to get into the top two of James Bond actors

    License to Kill worked as a serious, more mature teenager focused adventure because of Dalton, as did Casino Royale and Solace with Craig, it has been a welcome relief after some of the nonsense antics of his predecessors

    Anyway, this will run and run and the time is upon us

    Goodnight I-)
  • Posts: 1,370
    Wow, 28 pages of comments...I'm late to the party...

    I'm old enough to have a slightly different perspective on this than some of the members here (I'm the same age as Craig) and I wonder if that changes things a bit. To see the older Bond films whenever you want on DVD (or, when I was younger, TV and VHS) makes you view them a bit differently than the current films. Or I guess it's more accurate to say that it changes how you view the current films - they're more "special"; more of an event.

    When I was a kid I loved the Connery films and could never make it all the way through a Moore one - they were too juvenile for my tastes, even at 13 years old! But in addition to that this Moore guy made me angry - why did they cast this wimpy clown as Bond? Why couldn't they have gotten someone cool and manly like Connery? So even though all of my schoolmates would see all the current Bond films in the theatres I never would. The one exception is when I saw Octopussy; that was simply because my friend and I couldn't get in to see NSNA!

    When Dalton was cast as Bond I thought, interesting, who is this guy? He certainly *looked* more like Bond should look and I was relieved that he got the part rather than Brosnan. I loved Remington Steele and loved Brosnan in it but I feared that as Bond Brosnan would continue down the path of Moore (it didn't help that my skinny 16 year old self probably could have beaten up 80s era Brosnan). As the release of TLD approached I read more interviews and stories about it and I got excited by how serious Dalton was taking the role. TLD was the first contemporary Bond film that I actually wanted to see in a theatre besides NSNA, and I was really getting excited about it.

    So I saw TLD on the opening weekend and was blown away. My first thought was "At last! We have a real Bond again!". Dalton had won me over by the end of the PTS. He showed more physicality than Moore ever did and I loved the way that he threw away the "Bond, James Bond." line - this was an actor that didn't need a catch phrase to establish that he was Bond. The other thing that I loved was that you could always see the wheels turning in Bond's head - this was a man who was constantly thinking.

    So I was one of the many who thought Dalton "best Bond since Connery" and if anyone would have told me that a future actor would eclipse Dalton in my esteem I wouldn't have believed them. When GE came out I was relieved that Brosnan wasn't as bad as I thought he would be; he was more believable in the fight scenes (at least in GE) and wasn't as much of a clown as Moore. But I still put Dalton ahead of him.

    But a funny thing happened - with each Bond film Brosnan became more confident and comfortable in the role. By the time DAD came out I began to realize that Brosnan had a charisma that Dalton never had. I reluctantly moved Brosnan ahead of Dalton in my rankings. I rewatched LTK and realized that as much as I loved Dalton when the films were new there was something missing - not only did he not have the charisma but he seemed a little stiff and uncomfortable in the films.

    Then when CR came out I was blown away. Craig had the seriousness of Dalton but also far more screen presence and charm. He was also far more believable in the physical scenes and showed an even greater range of acting skill than Dalton. About a year after CR came out my local rep theatre showed a bunch of old Bond films and TLD was one of them. The audience really liked it (they even cheered when Dalton first showed his face!) but to rewatch the film something about Dalton just didn't click. He was just a bit too theatrical for my tastes.

    Having said that I do love Dalton and still have a soft spot for him. I still think he's a very good Bond, even a great one - it's just that since then we've had even better. I was probably influenced quite a bit by the fact that he wasn't Moore - like I said, context makes a difference. So my current ranking are:

    1) Connery
    2) Craig
    3) Brosnan
    4) Dalton
    5) Lazenby
    6) Moore

    Prior to DAD my rankings were

    1) Connery
    2) Dalton
    3) Brosnan
    4) Lazenby
    5) No one else matters

    Interesting how things change...
  • Posts: 12,837
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2006/nov/03/timothydalton

    Thought I'd bump because I found this. It's sort of intresting. I don't agree with all of it (I think Craig is a bit different to Dalton), but still worth a read.

    On topic, Dalton FTW!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Wow, 28 pages of comments...I'm late to the party...

    I'm old enough to have a slightly different perspective on this than some of the members here (I'm the same age as Craig) and I wonder if that changes things a bit. To see the older Bond films whenever you want on DVD (or, when I was younger, TV and VHS) makes you view them a bit differently than the current films. Or I guess it's more accurate to say that it changes how you view the current films - they're more "special"; more of an event.

    When I was a kid I loved the Connery films and could never make it all the way through a Moore one - they were too juvenile for my tastes, even at 13 years old! But in addition to that this Moore guy made me angry - why did they cast this wimpy clown as Bond? Why couldn't they have gotten someone cool and manly like Connery? So even though all of my schoolmates would see all the current Bond films in the theatres I never would. The one exception is when I saw Octopussy; that was simply because my friend and I couldn't get in to see NSNA!

    When Dalton was cast as Bond I thought, interesting, who is this guy? He certainly *looked* more like Bond should look and I was relieved that he got the part rather than Brosnan. I loved Remington Steele and loved Brosnan in it but I feared that as Bond Brosnan would continue down the path of Moore (it didn't help that my skinny 16 year old self probably could have beaten up 80s era Brosnan). As the release of TLD approached I read more interviews and stories about it and I got excited by how serious Dalton was taking the role. TLD was the first contemporary Bond film that I actually wanted to see in a theatre besides NSNA, and I was really getting excited about it.

    So I saw TLD on the opening weekend and was blown away. My first thought was "At last! We have a real Bond again!". Dalton had won me over by the end of the PTS. He showed more physicality than Moore ever did and I loved the way that he threw away the "Bond, James Bond." line - this was an actor that didn't need a catch phrase to establish that he was Bond. The other thing that I loved was that you could always see the wheels turning in Bond's head - this was a man who was constantly thinking.

    So I was one of the many who thought Dalton "best Bond since Connery" and if anyone would have told me that a future actor would eclipse Dalton in my esteem I wouldn't have believed them. When GE came out I was relieved that Brosnan wasn't as bad as I thought he would be; he was more believable in the fight scenes (at least in GE) and wasn't as much of a clown as Moore. But I still put Dalton ahead of him.

    But a funny thing happened - with each Bond film Brosnan became more confident and comfortable in the role. By the time DAD came out I began to realize that Brosnan had a charisma that Dalton never had. I reluctantly moved Brosnan ahead of Dalton in my rankings. I rewatched LTK and realized that as much as I loved Dalton when the films were new there was something missing - not only did he not have the charisma but he seemed a little stiff and uncomfortable in the films.

    Then when CR came out I was blown away. Craig had the seriousness of Dalton but also far more screen presence and charm. He was also far more believable in the physical scenes and showed an even greater range of acting skill than Dalton. About a year after CR came out my local rep theatre showed a bunch of old Bond films and TLD was one of them. The audience really liked it (they even cheered when Dalton first showed his face!) but to rewatch the film something about Dalton just didn't click. He was just a bit too theatrical for my tastes.

    Having said that I do love Dalton and still have a soft spot for him. I still think he's a very good Bond, even a great one - it's just that since then we've had even better. I was probably influenced quite a bit by the fact that he wasn't Moore - like I said, context makes a difference. So my current ranking are:

    1) Connery
    2) Craig
    3) Brosnan
    4) Dalton
    5) Lazenby
    6) Moore

    Prior to DAD my rankings were

    1) Connery
    2) Dalton
    3) Brosnan
    4) Lazenby
    5) No one else matters

    Interesting how things change...

    Very interesting, but have to say I find it difficult to understand how DAD convinced you that Brosnan was better than Bond. I'd have thought as someone who disliked Moore, DAD would not have been to your tastes.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    I agree that Dalton and Craig both opted for a more world weary Bond who seems as troubled by his job as he is thrilled (I would rather explain Bond than use wishy washy terms like 'darker' and 'grittier'), however it doesn't mean that they can necessarilly be compared. Nor can we say that Craig is playing Bond the way Dalton did.

    In other words, just because the two actors offer something similar in the character doesn't mean they play the role the same way.

    They are both troubled Bonds but Craig offers it in a more subtle, understated way. They are both playful (Dalton on the boat with Pam, Craig in the car with Vesper or in the hotel with Fields) but where Dalton is awkward in those scenes Craig is relaxed.

    I just think Craig is a great film actor with an understanding about how to play the camera; Dalton isn't. Which is why he has never nailed a career as a top film actor ( unless I accept an explanation someone put on here along the lines of 'Dalton wasn't a big star because he didn't want to be'!! Erm, well that or the fact he never got offered the roles).
    Anyways, I prefer DC ;-)

  • Posts: 11,425
    NicNac wrote:
    I agree that Dalton and Craig both opted for a more world weary Bond who seems as troubled by his job as he is thrilled (I would rather explain Bond than use wishy washy terms like 'darker' and 'grittier'), however it doesn't mean that they can necessarilly be compared. Nor can we say that Craig is playing Bond the way Dalton did.

    In other words, just because the two actors offer something similar in the character doesn't mean they play the role the same way.

    They are both troubled Bonds but Craig offers it in a more subtle, understated way. They are both playful (Dalton on the boat with Pam, Craig in the car with Vesper or in the hotel with Fields) but where Dalton is awkward in those scenes Craig is relaxed.

    I just think Craig is a great film actor with an understanding about how to play the camera; Dalton isn't. Which is why he has never nailed a career as a top film actor ( unless I accept an explanation someone put on here along the lines of 'Dalton wasn't a big star because he didn't want to be'!! Erm, well that or the fact he never got offered the roles).
    Anyways, I prefer DC ;-)

    You found the right thread!
  • Posts: 11,189
    ( unless I accept an explanation someone put on here along the lines of 'Dalton wasn't a big star because he didn't want to be'!!)

    I've never really got that argument. If you don't want to be (or aren't prepared to be) a big star then you shouldn't really take on a role like James Bond.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    ( unless I accept an explanation someone put on here along the lines of 'Dalton wasn't a big star because he didn't want to be'!!)

    I've never really got that argument. If you don't want to be (or aren't prepared to be) a big star then you shouldn't really take on a role like James Bond.

    That argument is total garbage. Dalton lives in LA and does bit parts in really dire TV series. As much as I love his Bond, he is total loser. It's nothing to do with him not wanting to be a star and everything to do with him being a bit pretentious and ultimately, a loser.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    @-) @-) @-)

    Harsh words @Getafix. I'd certainly agree that he's not really "star" material but even so...wow. The Dalton fanboys (excluding you) are going to go nuts.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @-) @-) @-)

    Harsh words @Getafix. I'd certainly agree that he's not really "star" material but even so...wow. The Dalton fanboys (excluding you) are going to go nuts.

    Well, I'm not a fan boy (or may be I am - never sure what it means) so I don't care. It's entirely possible to have seperate views on an actor's performance and their off-screen personas. I think Brozza's Bond was a total catastrophe, but he seems like a thoroughly nice guy. Sean seems like a chippy Scot, but you can't fault his performance as Bond. Roger comes across as the most decent and likeable guy you could come across, and I happen to also love his take on Bond. Dalton for me was excellent in the role, but strikes me as a slightly deluded and pretentious has-been, who was perhaps ever so slightly snooty about the role and therefore never fully embraced his star status. As a consequence of this (and perhaps his lack of wider appeal) he ended up sinking without trace.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,691
    I always thought Dalton was a class-act guy.... but maybe you are right. Apart from Hot Fuzz, he hasn't accomplished many things recently. I think it's safe to say Dalton is 'has-been today'.... but maybe soon he will get a big role in a very good film !!!!!

    this is like grand prix driver jacques villeneuve.... completly has-been for the last 14 years (since he won the world title)... but this weekend he will join Sky F1's expert team for the canadian GP... so maybe the same thing will happen to Dalton, in a couple of years he may well play a big role in a major critical success, and his career will start again. after all, he is not even 70 yet, so he has atleast 10 years of acting infront of him.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think Dalton in some ways can be compared to someone like Charles Dance. Great on the small screen or in side roles in big films but doesn't quite have the "X-Factor" as a lead on the big screen. Before I'm crucified I'm merely trying to provide an explination as to why Dalton hasn't been seen that much in the last 20 years.

    Nonetheless Dalton seems like a nice enough guy to me and it would be very interesting to have a chat with him.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited June 2012 Posts: 7,571
    Getafix wrote:
    You found the right thread!

    Did you notice that then ;-)
    I was sure I was in the right thread, then before I knew it, I was posting stuff about Dalton and Craig in a thread about which Bond would win in a punch up! Can't figure what happened there 8-X
Sign In or Register to comment.