› ›

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

1…616263646567»

Comments

  • IGotTheMessageIGotTheMessage United States
    Posts: 217
    Dalton was fantastic. It is a shame that TLD and LTK didn’t do better than they did. They did well, don’t get me wrong, but they deserved to succeed to the degree that Goldeneye did.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,686
    mtm wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »

    Ironically my problem with Brosnan was that he lacked energy and dynamism--I always found him too laid back in the role, which is why I tend to still view as a lightweight Bond. But he enjoyed many advantages over Dalton. American audiences were already familiar with and liked him, thanks to Remington Steele. And he had the immense good fortune to take over as Bond after (1) the American 80s action film cycle had crested and (2) MGM/UA had been bought and revived by Sony.

    I disagree. Aside from Connery, I think Brosnan is the only other Bond actor who really manages to nail down what makes the character work on screen without sacrificing elements of the character that audiences know and love. I find his portrayal in Goldeneye to be perfect and perhaps it's my favorite interpretation of the character on film precisely because of Pierce's approach to the character; he's a suave, debonair, and ruthless killer who can easily overcome obstacles thanks to his resourcefulness. Perhaps he gets dismissed by some because they perceive him as having "boyish" looks (he's certainly no more "boyish" looking than Lazenby) or having a smaller build when compared to the likes of Connery and Craig - but what's often overlooked is his ability to convey the cold blooded aspects of Bond and his emotional vulnerability while still remaining cool/aloof and humorous at times. For me that's what I think makes him one of the best and my personal favorite.

    I think Brosnan is somewhat cheesy and not very believable as a killer or even a fighter really, but I do otherwise agree with this; he hits all of the notes needed and, as Revelator says, the audience just likes him. I don't think that's just because they'd seen him in Remington Steele, I think he's a naturally charismatic star and just works well in the lead of a movie. And I think that's a quality which Dalton didn't possess and no matter of extra movies would have made audiences like him as much as they took to Brosnan.
    For me Craig outclasses him in pretty much every way as a screen Bond, whereas Roger's natural charm and twinkle probably makes him my favourite, but I can never dismiss Brosnan as he did a terrific job and was exactly what the series needed: a star.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I've never found Brosnan cheesy at all and I found him quite convincing as a killer (perhaps the most ruthless I'd say in some circumstances), and I think he's much better than Craig, who never really nailed the character down fully down for various reasons.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited April 11 Posts: 6,035
    mtm wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »

    Ironically my problem with Brosnan was that he lacked energy and dynamism--I always found him too laid back in the role, which is why I tend to still view as a lightweight Bond. But he enjoyed many advantages over Dalton. American audiences were already familiar with and liked him, thanks to Remington Steele. And he had the immense good fortune to take over as Bond after (1) the American 80s action film cycle had crested and (2) MGM/UA had been bought and revived by Sony.

    I disagree. Aside from Connery, I think Brosnan is the only other Bond actor who really manages to nail down what makes the character work on screen without sacrificing elements of the character that audiences know and love. I find his portrayal in Goldeneye to be perfect and perhaps it's my favorite interpretation of the character on film precisely because of Pierce's approach to the character; he's a suave, debonair, and ruthless killer who can easily overcome obstacles thanks to his resourcefulness. Perhaps he gets dismissed by some because they perceive him as having "boyish" looks (he's certainly no more "boyish" looking than Lazenby) or having a smaller build when compared to the likes of Connery and Craig - but what's often overlooked is his ability to convey the cold blooded aspects of Bond and his emotional vulnerability while still remaining cool/aloof and humorous at times. For me that's what I think makes him one of the best and my personal favorite.

    I think Brosnan is somewhat cheesy and not very believable as a killer or even a fighter really, but I do otherwise agree with this; he hits all of the notes needed and, as Revelator says, the audience just likes him. I don't think that's just because they'd seen him in Remington Steele, I think he's a naturally charismatic star and just works well in the lead of a movie. And I think that's a quality which Dalton didn't possess and no matter of extra movies would have made audiences like him as much as they took to Brosnan.
    For me Craig outclasses him in pretty much every way as a screen Bond, whereas Roger's natural charm and twinkle probably makes him my favourite, but I can never dismiss Brosnan as he did a terrific job and was exactly what the series needed: a star.

    I definitely think Brosnan does the darker and even harder edged stuff best in GE. He was never as brooding as Dalton of course, and I think the appeal of his Bond was that you could easily imagine him jetting off to some exotic location, driving a fancy car and walking into a casino - that sort of adventurer/man of mystery vibe, which for a cinematic Bond is completely fine. There’s definitely a reason audiences took to him over Dalton beyond the time they were in, agreed.
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »

    Ironically my problem with Brosnan was that he lacked energy and dynamism--I always found him too laid back in the role, which is why I tend to still view as a lightweight Bond. But he enjoyed many advantages over Dalton. American audiences were already familiar with and liked him, thanks to Remington Steele. And he had the immense good fortune to take over as Bond after (1) the American 80s action film cycle had crested and (2) MGM/UA had been bought and revived by Sony.

    I disagree. Aside from Connery, I think Brosnan is the only other Bond actor who really manages to nail down what makes the character work on screen without sacrificing elements of the character that audiences know and love. I find his portrayal in Goldeneye to be perfect and perhaps it's my favorite interpretation of the character on film precisely because of Pierce's approach to the character; he's a suave, debonair, and ruthless killer who can easily overcome obstacles thanks to his resourcefulness. Perhaps he gets dismissed by some because they perceive him as having "boyish" looks (he's certainly no more "boyish" looking than Lazenby) or having a smaller build when compared to the likes of Connery and Craig - but what's often overlooked is his ability to convey the cold blooded aspects of Bond and his emotional vulnerability while still remaining cool/aloof and humorous at times. For me that's what I think makes him one of the best and my personal favorite.

    I think Brosnan is somewhat cheesy and not very believable as a killer or even a fighter really, but I do otherwise agree with this; he hits all of the notes needed and, as Revelator says, the audience just likes him. I don't think that's just because they'd seen him in Remington Steele, I think he's a naturally charismatic star and just works well in the lead of a movie. And I think that's a quality which Dalton didn't possess and no matter of extra movies would have made audiences like him as much as they took to Brosnan.
    For me Craig outclasses him in pretty much every way as a screen Bond, whereas Roger's natural charm and twinkle probably makes him my favourite, but I can never dismiss Brosnan as he did a terrific job and was exactly what the series needed: a star.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I've never found Brosnan cheesy at all and I found him quite convincing as a killer (perhaps the most ruthless I'd say in some circumstances), and I think he's much better than Craig, who never really nailed the character down fully down for various reasons.

    I’d say they’re different actors for what it’s worth. Craig’s a much harder edged Bond but that’s completely fine (I’d personally say he’s a much better screen actor and this was a major reason he was was more comfortable moulding himself to different films/phases of his Bond’s life. For me Brosnan didn’t seem quite as comfortable in his last two films, but that’s just me and he certainly has his moments).

    I mean, I don’t think it’s a case where either actor will be looked on with overbearing critique as time passes after their tenure. I don’t think that’s quite the case with any Bond. With Brosnan he had short term criticism (especially after DAD) but I think his films have had a bit of a revaluation among fans and he’s rightfully looked on more fondly. I think the same will happen with Craig (again, shorter term criticism which is there now for some, followed by that nostalgia). It’s what happened with Dalton, and both Craig and Brosnan were far longer running and arguably popular Bonds.
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 531
    I think from Skyfall onward Craig takes the role further away from Ian Fleming's James Bond and more into Daniel Craig's Fleming-inspired James Bond. Emotionally, there's not much meat really in Ian Fleming's character in a "dramatic" perspective. There's a distaste for cold-blooded murder, a dislike a long stretches without action, a fierce loyalty of country and friends and a professionalism streak.

    The emotional content of the Craig films tries to stretch beyond this based mostly on the success of Skyfall. Bond becomes Byronic essentially.

    Dalton is a bit closer because he plays it less like Byron and more jaded on occasions.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited April 11 Posts: 6,035
    Well, I’m sure there are people who find Fleming’s Bond to have Byronic traits (in fact pretty sure it’s been written about). I think it’s a legitimate take on Bond, and I personally got a sense of those later Fleming novels in the later Craig movies.

    I’m not sure if I quite see the deep seated emotional content in SP to be completely honest. I actually think it’s quite thin for Bond in that film. There’s more going on with NTTD and Bond believing Madeline betrays him, but I definitely think the film as a whole has that link with Fleming, particularly his later novels, and I think it adapts the tragedy of fate/his duty never allowing him a normal life. SF has it too with Bond being jaded and going through mid career burn out. Ultimately though it’s about creating the most compelling film possible even with that source material in mind, and it’s of debatable importance analysing how close it is rather than considering what the film itself is doing.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,763
    SF has Bond being confronted with his childhood, something he surely never expected to revisit.

    Not to take away from NTTD.

  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited April 12 Posts: 6,035
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    SF has Bond being confronted with his childhood, something he surely never expected to revisit.

    Not to take away from NTTD.

    I’m not sure if it’s about him confronting his childhood though. While his parents dying understandably comes under childhood trauma it’s something he seems to want to leave behind him. He seems pissed off when it’s mention during the association test, but other than that Bond’s issues in the film don’t come from him suddenly remembering his childhood. He’s less overly reflective about his past than Fleming’s Bond could be, and he’s almost completely unsentimental about the house throughout the third act to the point he blows it up. Him luring Silva to Skyfall is more a story idea I think - that idea of going off grid, fighting Silva on his own turf etc. It’s not directly a reconciliation for Bond.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,686
    007HallY wrote: »

    I’d say they’re different actors for what it’s worth. Craig’s a much harder edged Bond but that’s completely fine (I’d personally say he’s a much better screen actor and this was a major reason he was was more comfortable moulding himself to different films/phases of his Bond’s life. For me Brosnan didn’t seem quite as comfortable in his last two films, but that’s just me and he certainly has his moments).

    I would say that when you take into consideration both actors work outside of the series - then yes Craig is the stronger actor of the two. One need only look at the string of films he’s chosen throughout his career to reach that conclusion. But I don’t think that translated to him being a better Bond than Brosnan was. For one thing, Craig wasn’t nearly as sophisticated, charming, nor humorous as Brosnan was - which are the crucial elements that make Bond stand out when compared to other action heroes - and because Craig was never comfortable playing a more traditional interpretation of Bond - I found that the more creative decisions that were made to play to his strengths - the further and further away his portrayal had gotten away from what I find enjoyable about the character.

    I don’t think I’m right/wrong and anyone else right/wrong either. If they love Craig’s Bond then more power to them, but I just happen to think that Brosnan was genetically bred in a lab to be the best James Bond and science always triumphs ;).
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited April 12 Posts: 6,035
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    I’d say they’re different actors for what it’s worth. Craig’s a much harder edged Bond but that’s completely fine (I’d personally say he’s a much better screen actor and this was a major reason he was was more comfortable moulding himself to different films/phases of his Bond’s life. For me Brosnan didn’t seem quite as comfortable in his last two films, but that’s just me and he certainly has his moments).

    I would say that when you take into consideration both actors work outside of the series - then yes Craig is the stronger actor of the two. One need only look at the string of films he’s chosen throughout his career to reach that conclusion. But I don’t think that translated to him being a better Bond than Brosnan was. For one thing, Craig wasn’t nearly as sophisticated, charming, nor humorous as Brosnan was - which are the crucial elements that make Bond stand out when compared to other action heroes - and because Craig was never comfortable playing a more traditional interpretation of Bond - I found that the more creative decisions that were made to play to his strengths - the further and further away his portrayal had gotten away from what I find enjoyable about the character.

    I definitely get a sense of sophistication, charm, and humour from Craig for what it’s worth, and I’d personally say by SP he plays quite a traditional cinematic Bond (I wouldn’t say his portrayal prior to that was completely left field for Bond either - distinct but ultimately recognisably James Bond). It’s also just a case where I’m personally more drawn to Craig’s Bond in more of his films (I find him a more natural actor with the same swagger and charisma as the other Bonds. Brosnan’s a slightly different actor - there’s something a bit more theatrical about him, which isn’t bad and arguably Moore and even Dalton were similar as actors, albeit in different ways if that makes sense). It’s all subjective though and I like both (I always say I think Brosnan’s GE performance is one of the best Bond performances).
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I don’t think I’m right/wrong and anyone else right/wrong either. If they love Craig’s Bond then more power to them, but I just happen to think that Brosnan was genetically bred in a lab to be the best James Bond and science always triumphs ;).

    Well, I’m not sure if that’s a particularly endearing description for an actor or fair to Brosnan (I get what you mean incidentally and I know it’s meant to be a positive! But I think he’s got a lot of personality as an actor and as Bond. He’s quite an offbeat and idiosyncratic actor - there’s not anyone quite like him. Again, I’d say the same about Moore).
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    edited April 12 Posts: 2,686
    007HallY wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    I’d say they’re different actors for what it’s worth. Craig’s a much harder edged Bond but that’s completely fine (I’d personally say he’s a much better screen actor and this was a major reason he was was more comfortable moulding himself to different films/phases of his Bond’s life. For me Brosnan didn’t seem quite as comfortable in his last two films, but that’s just me and he certainly has his moments).

    I would say that when you take into consideration both actors work outside of the series - then yes Craig is the stronger actor of the two. One need only look at the string of films he’s chosen throughout his career to reach that conclusion. But I don’t think that translated to him being a better Bond than Brosnan was. For one thing, Craig wasn’t nearly as sophisticated, charming, nor humorous as Brosnan was - which are the crucial elements that make Bond stand out when compared to other action heroes - and because Craig was never comfortable playing a more traditional interpretation of Bond - I found that the more creative decisions that were made to play to his strengths - the further and further away his portrayal had gotten away from what I find enjoyable about the character.

    I definitely get a sense of sophistication, charm, and humour from Craig for what it’s worth, and I’d personally say by SP he plays quite a traditional cinematic Bond (I wouldn’t say his portrayal prior to that was completely left field for Bond either - distinct but ultimately recognisably James Bond). It’s also just a case where I’m personally more drawn to Craig’s Bond in more of his films (I find him a more natural actor with the same swagger and charisma as the other Bonds. Brosnan’s a slightly different actor - there’s something a bit more theatrical about him, which isn’t bad and arguably Moore and even Dalton were similar as actors, albeit in different ways if that makes sense). It’s all subjective though and I like both (I always say I think Brosnan’s GE performance is one of the best Bond performances).
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I don’t think I’m right/wrong and anyone else right/wrong either. If they love Craig’s Bond then more power to them, but I just happen to think that Brosnan was genetically bred in a lab to be the best James Bond and science always triumphs ;).

    Well, I’m not sure if that’s a particularly endearing description for an actor or fair to Brosnan (I get what you mean incidentally and I know it’s meant to be a positive! But I think he’s got a lot of personality as an actor and as Bond. He’s quite an offbeat and idiosyncratic actor - there’s not anyone quite like him. Again, I’d say the same about Moore).

    If I had to nitpick, I will say that I do wish we got to see Brosnan play Bond as a bit more of a bastard. He does it quite well in Goldeneye in certain scenes but I just felt the filmmakers lightened up his portrayal as his films went on. Compare those later portrayals to what Brosnan was doing in Tailor of Panama, Thomas Crown Affair, and The Matador and I can see how lightweight things got with Brosnan following Goldeneye. Still never his fault and a damn great Bond regardless.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 6,035
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    I’d say they’re different actors for what it’s worth. Craig’s a much harder edged Bond but that’s completely fine (I’d personally say he’s a much better screen actor and this was a major reason he was was more comfortable moulding himself to different films/phases of his Bond’s life. For me Brosnan didn’t seem quite as comfortable in his last two films, but that’s just me and he certainly has his moments).

    I would say that when you take into consideration both actors work outside of the series - then yes Craig is the stronger actor of the two. One need only look at the string of films he’s chosen throughout his career to reach that conclusion. But I don’t think that translated to him being a better Bond than Brosnan was. For one thing, Craig wasn’t nearly as sophisticated, charming, nor humorous as Brosnan was - which are the crucial elements that make Bond stand out when compared to other action heroes - and because Craig was never comfortable playing a more traditional interpretation of Bond - I found that the more creative decisions that were made to play to his strengths - the further and further away his portrayal had gotten away from what I find enjoyable about the character.

    I definitely get a sense of sophistication, charm, and humour from Craig for what it’s worth, and I’d personally say by SP he plays quite a traditional cinematic Bond (I wouldn’t say his portrayal prior to that was completely left field for Bond either - distinct but ultimately recognisably James Bond). It’s also just a case where I’m personally more drawn to Craig’s Bond in more of his films (I find him a more natural actor with the same swagger and charisma as the other Bonds. Brosnan’s a slightly different actor - there’s something a bit more theatrical about him, which isn’t bad and arguably Moore and even Dalton were similar as actors, albeit in different ways if that makes sense). It’s all subjective though and I like both (I always say I think Brosnan’s GE performance is one of the best Bond performances).
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I don’t think I’m right/wrong and anyone else right/wrong either. If they love Craig’s Bond then more power to them, but I just happen to think that Brosnan was genetically bred in a lab to be the best James Bond and science always triumphs ;).

    Well, I’m not sure if that’s a particularly endearing description for an actor or fair to Brosnan (I get what you mean incidentally and I know it’s meant to be a positive! But I think he’s got a lot of personality as an actor and as Bond. He’s quite an offbeat and idiosyncratic actor - there’s not anyone quite like him. Again, I’d say the same about Moore).

    If I had to nitpick, I will say that I do wish we got to see Brosnan play Bond as a bit more of a bastard. He does it quite well in Goldeneye in certain scenes but I just felt the filmmakers lightened up his portrayal as his films went on. Compare those later portrayals to what Brosnan was doing in Tailor of Panama, Thomas Crown Affair, and The Matador and I can see how lightweight things got with Brosnan following Goldeneye. Still never his fault and a damn great Bond regardless.

    Yeah I can see that. I do think GE gets a good balance with that (he's a b*stard at points but we also get him being quite stoic about the idea of killing Alec during the scene on the beach with Natalya. For me that's perfect and very Bond).
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,956
    Honest, speculative question: Do you think Tim would've been cast as Bond if Brenda Starr had come out in '86? I'm not talking about him being available or not, but about the extremely negative reception of that film.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,424
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Honest, speculative question: Do you think Tim would've been cast as Bond if Brenda Starr had come out in '86? I'm not talking about him being available or not, but about the extremely negative reception of that film.

    I don't think anyone would have seen it, to be honest.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,551
    So what does everyone think of the two available scripts for Dalton's unmade third film? I quite enjoy the first draft by MGW and Ruggiero, but I think the second draft just doesn't work beyond the elements carried over from the previous script and a few cool ideas like Bond's age catching up to him.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited September 22 Posts: 763
    I like to try and identify other movies that Bond actors may have done during their careers which might be in a similar vein, that I can track down and watch.

    Being a bit slow I've only recently recogised the possibilities of looking at the TV section of the filmographies

    You may or may not be aware of these two Mini-series that Timothy Dalton appeared in post Bond, which are both available to view for free on Youtube

    "Framed" (1992)

    A cat-and-mouse game between a charismatic and manipulative criminal and his interrogator, played out over the four episodes of the miniseries.

    Penelope Cruz, Timothy West and David Morrissey also feature



    And three other episodes


    "Lie Down With Lions" aka "Red Eagle" (1994)

    Based on the 1985 spy novel Lie Down with Lions by Ken Follett. The novel focuses on a love triangle set in Afghanistan during the Cold War.

    Dalton meets nurse Marg Helgenberger, and they fall in love. Marg leaves Tim when she learns he is a CIA agent and marries his friend, Dr. Nigel Havers. They travel to a conflict zone, where Marg discovers Nigel is also working with the KGB. She enlists Tim's help to escape with her and her baby, leading to a dangerous flight from the dangerous region...

    Omar Sharif and Jurgen Prochnow also feature.


  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,991
    Remington wrote: »
    So what does everyone think of the two available scripts for Dalton's unmade third film? I quite enjoy the first draft by MGW and Ruggiero, but I think the second draft just doesn't work beyond the elements carried over from the previous script and a few cool ideas like Bond's age catching up to him.

    I also enjoyed the MGW and Ruggiero draft, and think that with a few tweaks it would have made a good third film for Dalton. The second script I also had problems with. It has some interesting plot adjustments, but the dialogue is relentlessly inappropriate. And Bond's bellyaching about getting old doesn't work, in my view: (1) It calls to mind Lethal Weapon and (2) Dalton wouldn't have looked that old in 1991 or 1992. I would have stuck to the Wilson/Ruggiero script and perhaps have incoporated a few ideas from the second one. Incidentally, I find it interesting that Wilson stopped scripting Bond films after LTK. I wonder if Sony wanted him to stick to producing.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,828
    Seve wrote: »
    I like to try and identify other movies that Bond actors may have done during their careers which might be in a similar vein, that I can track down and watch.

    Being a bit slow I've only recently recogised the possibilities of looking at the TV section of the filmographies

    You may or may not be aware of these two Mini-series that Timothy Dalton appeared in post Bond, which are both available to view for free on Youtube

    "Framed" (1992)

    A cat-and-mouse game between a charismatic and manipulative criminal and his interrogator, played out over the four episodes of the miniseries.

    Penelope Cruz, Timothy West and David Morrissey also feature



    And three other episodes


    "Lie Down With Lions" aka "Red Eagle" (1994)

    Based on the 1985 spy novel Lie Down with Lions by Ken Follett. The novel focuses on a love triangle set in Afghanistan during the Cold War.

    Dalton meets nurse Marg Helgenberger, and they fall in love. Marg leaves Tim when she learns he is a CIA agent and marries his friend, Dr. Nigel Havers. They travel to a conflict zone, where Marg discovers Nigel is also working with the KGB. She enlists Tim's help to escape with her and her baby, leading to a dangerous flight from the dangerous region...

    Omar Sharif and Jurgen Prochnow also feature.


    Interesting, thanks for reminding me I should give these two a watch :)
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 8,551
    'Framed' was on telly the other night. Taped it, remember it being pretty good!
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited September 23 Posts: 4,506
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    'Framed' was on telly the other night. Taped it, remember it being pretty good!

    Damn i wish i'd known that! I remember it being excellent. And Dalton outstanding in it.

    *Edit - Apparently it's available to view on Youtube!
Sign In or Register to comment.