Why did Craig succeed when Dalton failed?

Ludovico

I hope Dalton fans do not find the question demeaning, it is not meant to be. And a warning: this is not a topic to bash either actors. What I mean is that Craig received praise for his new take on Bond and his movies, even QOS which received mixed reviews at best nobody criticized the quality of his interpretation (or not many people anyway). While his casting was at first highly controversial, probably far more than Dalton's, he won the fans, the critics and the general public. Dalton may have won the fans, but I am not sure he did at the start. People often compared the two as being very close take on the character, and both as going back to Fleming's original idea, being a faithful interpretation of it.

So my question is why? Why did it work this time? There are a number of reasons, I have my ideas about a few of them, but I was wondering what you thought. And I know there is a James Bond question thread, but this topic deserves his own thread.

MrBond

It's all about the timing, even though Dalton was great in the role and his films were succesful the whole concept of Bond had grown stale by the end of the 80's. There had been one film every second year since 1977 at the same time when the action-genre perhaps did it's largest jump forward. Bond wasn't unique anymore. So from my POV it wasn't Daltons fault, it were the franchise's fault in a way.

Craig came along and made Bond fresh again, after that the franchise once again had grown stale. His films made Bond contemporary and up-to date again. Even though it may be argued that the latest 3 films are like many other films, that may be good. Bond moves with the time. And perhaps Craig's era will be considered abdundant in a couple of years and the franchise need to be reinvigorated once again?

JohnBarryFan

Timothy Dalton didn't fail. The marketing around LTK failed. Make no mistake, Timothy Dalton was a tremendous James Bond. The best pure, professional actor of the franchise.

I had the great pleasure to see Timothy Dalton play James Bond two times, I'm grateful for that. Just as I'm please to see Daniel Craig play James Bond 3 times so far. IMO no actor "failed" when playing Bond. Some were cursed with bad scripts or plotlines, but no one "failed".

Germanlady

Either one of these two or a combination of both, with more weight on DC in my book (well, of course)

DoubleOhhSeven wrote:

I've often wondered the same thing. Many say that Dalton was simply ahead of his time and audiences weren't ready for such a gritty world-weary James Bond. Others say Craig succeeds where Dalton failed due to him being cooler and more appealing to women.

BeatlesSansEarmuffs

There's one very important reason why audiences were ready for Craig's grittier approach, but not for Dalton's: Craig's films were released AFTER 9/11, when the light-hearted approach favored by Moore would have been totally out of step with the audience's mood. Many hardcore Bond fans were happy with Dalton's take on the character when his films were first released, but the general public had been quite happy with the lighter touch that Moore had employed and they just weren't ready for the darker side of Bond. They weren't wanting to lose the camp element that Moore had been so good at, and I suspect they were happier with Brosnan than with Dalton for that reason. Brosnan was willing to bring back the camp, and that was what the audience of the time wanted. After 9/11, suddenly international espionage and the fight against terrorism wasn't all that funny...and the time was right for the vision that Dalton had offered a decade and a half too early.

doubleoego

By the time Dalton took over, Bond had become somewhat of a joke; as in Bond had become synonymous with silky hijinks and cheesy cliches and it had been that way for over a decade. It would have been jarring for audiences to now see a Bond that went around smirking and raising eyebrows and behaving caddishly to a no nonsense Bond who behaved more like an adult and is portrayed to execute people in the coldest of setups in hotel rooms. Dalton was waaaaaaay ahead if his time. We live in a more cynical time period than the days of the last few years if the Cold War. Craig is doing what Dalton did but now is the time audiences are willing to accept such a portrayal. In short, as Bond fans we are so lucky to have had Dalton but audiences in general didn't deserve him.

Ludovico

JohnBarryFan wrote:

Timothy Dalton didn't fail. The marketing around LTK failed. Make no mistake, Timothy Dalton was a tremendous James Bond. The best pure, professional actor of the franchise.

But this is not the question I asked. I did not ask anything about the quality of Dalton's take on Bond. I am asking why his interpretation was not accepted, by the general public at least, if not the critics.

Soundofthesinners

There are a combination of factors. First of all, the Craig movies were released following the 9/11 attacks, which marked a major shift in American culture and the way the world looked at itself, and there was no analogous event between the final Moore release and Dalton's first (9/11 happened before Die Another Day was released, but after it was filmed). Second of all, although this cultural shift is infinitely more minor, they were released following the Bourne Identity, which changed the way spy pictures were made.

Third, there had been more time between the Bond movies, including the six-year break between Licence to Kill and GoldenEye and the four-year gap between Die Another Day and Casino Royale, which increased audience demand for Bond, rather than the strict two year schedule that had been followed throughout the late 70's and 80's, which leads to my next point, box office returns. From The Spy Who Loved Me on, the Bond films were doing progressively worse at the box office, with the exception of a minor uptick from A View to a Kill to The Living Daylights, which was subsequently reversed by Licence to Kill. This is partially thanks to the stiff competition it faced, including Batman and Lethal Weapon II, but the market simply was not as favorable to Bond as it was in the 90's and 00's.

Finally, there is the problem of performances. Craig is, quite simply, more comfortable with acting on the big screen and handling the suavity, sexuality, and comedy required for the role. Dalton, for all his strengths, had a tendency to overact (compare his reaction to Saunders' death with Connery's reaction to Jill's, or Craig's whole performance in Quantum of Solace), and his delivery of "Bond, James Bond," in The Living Daylights was simply disastrous (again, compare it to any of Craig's deliveries). Dalton's one-liners were, as a rule, weaker than Craig's as well. This is not to dump on Dalton, his fights were believable, his look was good (certainly better than Craig's), and he portrayed the burnt-out agent on par with Craig, if not better, but he was simply too weak at other essential aspects of the performance to make a tonal shift work the way Craig has.

BAIN123

I think it's to do with the Connery style confidence Craig has. Craig, like Dalton, portrays a serious spy but also shows a laid back attitude and a love of life more convincingly than Dalts did overall. I think audiences like Bond to be more relaxed rather than really intense and serious. To quote my friends dad who liked Craig but not Tim: Craig is quite "blokey". His Bond would have no problem in shagging a woman then leaving her. That's what (I think) people like in Bond and why the likes of Connery are so admired. Dalts never really portrayed that sort of character. He was more business focused.

I think the "not ready for a mega serious tone in the 80s" has a ring of truth too. Recently I rewatched Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, made the same year as LTK in 1989. The former has more in common with lighter tongue in cheek Bond entries like Octopussy. When looked at it from that angle Kill/Dalton didnt really stand a much of a chance at the box office as the former had not one but two very popular stars featuring as a father/son comedy double act. Even Batman, despite being darker than the Adam West films, still had a fairly comic feel to it at times. Kill was just too grim for its own good.

Craig is in an era where we accept the "harder" action films more readily.

Gustav_Graves

I think it was, how weird it may sound, 'Cubby's' mistake. Compared to his heirs Barbara and Michael, Cubby was not willing to experiment much. He wanted to keep Roger Moore in the saddle as long as possible.

It made the actual public, ready to see Bond in cinema, kind of lazy. And also, it made the public get used to Moore's Bond too much. It's a bit like the Connery days and how George suffered partially from overnervous producers. Producers who were afraid that eventually Bond wouldn't survive.

I think this risk-less attitude....and the backlash from the actual public.....made it slightly more difficult to put Timothy Dalton on the forefront. Remember, it was Michael Wilson's idea back in 1987 to do something with Bond's origin (a la 'Casino Royale'). Cubby didn't want that. He was afraid the public would move away from the new Bond. I think that was a miscalculation.

JohnBarryFan

Ludovico wrote:

JohnBarryFan wrote:

Timothy Dalton didn't fail. The marketing around LTK failed. Make no mistake, Timothy Dalton was a tremendous James Bond. The best pure, professional actor of the franchise.

But this is not the question I asked. I did not ask anything about the quality of Dalton's take on Bond. I am asking why his interpretation was not accepted, by the general public at least, if not the critics. [/quote

The accepted theory is that the public was too much accustomed to Roger Moore to embrace anyone else. If true, then the general public did not deserve Timothy Dalton.
Our loss.

doubleoego

BAIN123 wrote:

I think it's to do with the Connery style confidence Craig has. Craig, like Dalton, portrays a serious spy but also shows a laid back attitude and a love of life more convincingly than Dalts did overall. I think audiences like Bond to be more relaxed rather than really intense and serious. To quote my friends dad who liked Craig but not Tim: Craig is quite "blokey". His Bond would have no problem in shagging a woman then leaving her. That's what (I think) people like in Bond and why the likes of Connery are so admired. Dalts never really portrayed that sort of character. He was more business focused.

I think the "not ready for a mega serious tone in the 80s" has a ring of truth too. Recently I rewatched Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, made the same year as LTK in 1989. The former has more in common with lighter tongue in cheek Bond entries like Octopussy. When looked at it from that angle Kill/Dalton didnt really stand a much of a chance at the box office as the former had not one but two very popular stars featuring as a father/son comedy double act. Even Batman, despite being darker than the Adam West films, still had a fairly comic feel to it at times. Kill was just too grim for its own good.

Craig is in an era where we accept the "harder" action films more readily.

Yep! This sums things up perfectly.

OHMSS69

I always find it odd that Craig plays the part similar to Dalton's interpretation. Gritty and serious. Craig has been hailed while Dalton has been slammed. This is not fair. The public just was not ready for a serious Bond after 12 years of Roger Moore with his tongue in cheek approach and cartoonish henchmen.

I liked Timothy Dalton's two films and just wish the public had warmed up to him more. Maybe if he had done a third film….
Who knows?

Gustav_Graves

I also said something about the producer in the above post. It's NOT always the actor we should discuss. It also depends on the crew....and especially the producer and director.

MajorDSmythe

I'm in an extreme minority here, but Dalton succeeded, I for one, completely buy into him as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Craig's character is what used to be James Bond, but what made the character unique has been ripped.

Ludovico

MajorDSmythe wrote:

I'm in an extreme minority here, but Dalton succeeded, I for one, completely buy into him as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Craig's character is what used to be James Bond, but what made the character unique has been ripped.

But he did not succeed as he was not accepted by the general public at that time (and maybe not now).

Soundofthesinners wrote:

There are a combination of factors. First of all, the Craig movies were released following the 9/11 attacks, which marked a major shift in American culture and the way the world looked at itself, and there was no analogous event between the final Moore release and Dalton's first (9/11 happened before Die Another Day was released, but after it was filmed). Second of all, although this cultural shift is infinitely more minor, they were released following the Bourne Identity, which changed the way spy pictures were made.

Third, there had been more time between the Bond movies, including the six-year break between Licence to Kill and GoldenEye and the four-year gap between Die Another Day and Casino Royale, which increased audience demand for Bond, rather than the strict two year schedule that had been followed throughout the late 70's and 80's, which leads to my next point, box office returns. From The Spy Who Loved Me on, the Bond films were doing progressively worse at the box office, with the exception of a minor uptick from A View to a Kill to The Living Daylights, which was subsequently reversed by Licence to Kill. This is partially thanks to the stiff competition it faced, including Batman and Lethal Weapon II, but the market simply was not as favorable to Bond as it was in the 90's and 00's.

Finally, there is the problem of performances. Craig is, quite simply, more comfortable with acting on the big screen and handling the suavity, sexuality, and comedy required for the role. Dalton, for all his strengths, had a tendency to overact (compare his reaction to Saunders' death with Connery's reaction to Jill's, or Craig's whole performance in Quantum of Solace), and his delivery of "Bond, James Bond," in The Living Daylights was simply disastrous (again, compare it to any of Craig's deliveries). Dalton's one-liners were, as a rule, weaker than Craig's as well. This is not to dump on Dalton, his fights were believable, his look was good (certainly better than Craig's), and he portrayed the burnt-out agent on par with Craig, if not better, but he was simply too weak at other essential aspects of the performance to make a tonal shift work the way Craig has.

I think it is by far the best analysis. I would also add that, while Brosnan was popular, he was not near the stature of Roger Moore when he left. In a way, Dalton was competing against two Bonds when he had the role: the Bond he succeeded to and the Bond people expected to find, Brosnan's. It is never good to be second choice in public's perception. Nothing of the sort happened with Craig: I think the public understood Brosnan had to go, yet he had no known successor Craig took the role from.

chrisisall

For all the talk of Brosnan being a 'generic action' Bond, I have to say, Craig fits that bill as well IMO.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

I'll always think that the public had embraced and gotten so used to the "Bond lite" of the Moore era that many couldn't handle the change. Not so dissimilar to what happened with Connery and Lazenby, but not quite as severe. Like Tim says in the EON documentary, people wanted to take their kids to see the latest romp with peaceful and kind dear old Uncle Roger and got mad when all of a sudden Bond was inappropriate, not realizing that this was never how Bond was supposed to be nor how Fleming had ever intended. The old man would have recoiled in abject horror at the hijinks of that era. And as for Brosnan, indeed 9/11 had a sobering effect on everyone and as Barb stated in said documentary, they needed less flippancy and a tougher Bond for the new war on terror as opposed to a post Cold War atmosphere where everyone breathed a sigh of relief, and wanted to relax a little and have more fun and less worry. Quite simply, they were more ready for a serious Bond. But it still wasn't much easier on Craig. He had to work very hard to earn the respect he achieved, and some still refuse to accept him because of his image alone.

There's your answer as far as I am concerned.

Ludovico

I also think that 9/11 did Brosnan in, so to speak. It may have contributed to end his tenure anyway.

Soundofthesinners

Yes, @Ludovico, that was one piece of the puzzle that I missed. Brosnan was very nearly cast and very positively received, so it's no wonder audiences were disappointed with a portrayal that was different from the one they came so close to getting.

chrisisall wrote:

For all the talk of Brosnan being a 'generic action' Bond, I have to say, Craig fits that bill as well IMO.

What about Craig makes you say that? He gets far more introspection than just about any other Bond. Brosnan had brief flashes, but nothing quite like Craig did, though whether that's down to the scripts, the producers, or Brosnan is another question.

chrisisall

Soundofthesinners wrote:

What about Craig makes you say that?

Oh, all this tosh about Brosnan's Bond shooting machine guns & being like Rambo, then we get Craig's T-1000 version of Bond and that's suddenly okay apparently.
[-(

WillyGalore

chrisisall wrote:

Soundofthesinners wrote:

What about Craig makes you say that?

Oh, all this tosh about Brosnan's Bond shooting machine guns & being like Rambo, then we get Craig's T-1000 version of Bond and that's suddenly okay apparently.
[-(

But I don't ever recall Brosnan's Bond having to clean up his wounds after he's been slashed with a machete or getting shot (twice) or having his plums whacked so hard, they end up in his stomach requiring a fairly long convalescence in hospital.

Watch how Brosnan shoots with a machine gun in the PTS of TND. He's holding it sideways for christ sake!

pachazo

I agree with much of what has been said above. I would like to point out though that I don't think it's entirely fair to act as if Dalton and Craig are completely identical. It's a bit of a disservice to both actors. While there are similarities to their approach there are also some major differences.

As mentioned, the change in tone and acting style was really quite jarring for audiences in 1987. Moore and Dalton are polar opposites to each other in regards to how they played the character. Having Brosnan follow Moore would have allowed for a smoother transition. Plus the fact that Brosnan was initially cast as the next James Bond and a lot of people were very disappointed when this didn't happen. Dalton was just up against so much at the time.

To be fair Craig also had his own problems as there were a large number of people upset over his casting. I think that the 9/11 attacks and (I hate to say it) the success of the Bourne movies helped audiences to accept his style of Bond. Plus, I think that his Bond is more likeable than Dalton's version. I'm not saying that this is a good or a bad thing but perhaps the idea of a rookie agent was more appealing to general audiences than that of world weary, burnt out spy.

chrisisall

WillyGalore wrote:

But I don't ever recall Brosnan's Bond having to clean up his wounds after he's been slashed with a machete

That's cuz he was never slashed with a machete. 8-}

Anyway, if it's okay for Craig to be unstoppable, I say it was okay for Broz to fire machine guns (even one-handed around corners)!

WillyGalore

chrisisall wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

But I don't ever recall Brosnan's Bond having to clean up his wounds after he's been slashed with a machete

That's cuz he was never slashed with a machete. 8-}

Check that at 0.04. What is it, a bloody shaving cut?! 8-}

chrisisall

I was referring to BROSNAN'S Bond, silly. :)

WillyGalore

chrisisall wrote:

I was referring to BROSNAN'S Bond, silly. :)

Which kind of proves the point that at no time during his tenure did you ever think he was in any kind of danger. That's about as generic as it gets.

SaintMark

WillyGalore wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

I was referring to BROSNAN'S Bond, silly. :)

Which kind of proves the point that at no time during his tenure did you ever think he was in any kind of danger. That's about as generic as it gets.

I never had any doubt at the outcome of any dangerous situation with ANY 007 involved. SF was so predictable that you knew that M was going to die all along, it took the genius of her and 007 to actually make it happen. Silva was just in for the fun.

Ludovico

pachazo wrote:

To be fair Craig also had his own problems as there were a large number of people upset over his casting. I think that the 9/11 attacks and (I hate to say it) the success of the Bourne movies helped audiences to accept his style of Bond. Plus, I think that his Bond is more likeable than Dalton's version. I'm not saying that this is a good or a bad thing but perhaps the idea of a rookie agent was more appealing to general audiences than that of world weary, burnt out spy.

Craig had to earn it, no doubt about it. But unlike Dalton, he did not have a clear competitor in people's mind. Brosnan was perceived as Moore's successor, but he had no clear successor himself. And however many nostalgics there were of the Brosnan era, I think the public understood that at around 50, he had to go. Whatever reservations people had about Craig, nobody felt he was stealing the role from somebody else, that he was second choice.

DoubleOhhSeven

I've wondered the same thing for years. However something occurred to me after seeing the Bond films on the big screen with an audience. I saw 2 of Connery's and 6 of Moore's. I was set to watch both of Dalton's back to back and afterwards 2 things occurred to me for the first time. Firstly on the big screen Dalton isn't as larger-than-life as Connery or Moore. Secondly for whatever reason Dalton isn't as cool on screen as Connery, Moore, or Craig. When I say "cool" I mean he just doesn't have that effortless devil-may-care attitude that is so associated with Bond. He comes off as a bit nervous.

On top of that Dalton was never given as much to do as Craig. Dalton's Bond was never allowed to fall in love and get his heart broken. He was never allowed to play an aging and physically wounded Bond dealing with the possibility that he's been played out. Dalton's films, although very good, are more standard adventures than CR or Skyfall. Imagine Dalton what could've done with Craig's scripts and Craig's directors.

It also helps that Craig has a more manly macho vibe than Dalton. I remember @Jarrod telling me he was sitting in a theater shortly after it was announced that Dalton was to play Bond. In a movie theaters, before the trailers came up, they had that "first look trivia" thing going on. A picture of Dalton came up from Flash Gordon saying something like "Shakespearian Welsh actor Timothy Dalton will play the new James Bond". At which point someone in the audience yelled out "Great James Bond is gonna be played by a f--". Yes that statement breaks new grounds of ignorance and stupidity but I can't help but feel that general audiences weren't even willing to give him a chance back in 1987. Maybe they wanted a known actor. In 2006 people are more open to unknown actors playing iconic roles.

chrisisall

My memories of Dalton from back in '87/'89 were that he was good, but too...intense. After I read the books, I felt that he'd nailed it. I also felt that Connery played it too nonchalantly. If you want to say Dalton's Bond was too theatrical, so be it. I think Craig's Bond is way too physical. So there ya go.
That said, I like ALL the Bonds for their different strengths in the role.