OHMSS a seemingly very popular film with fans but why?

135

Comments

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Regan wrote:
    In response to @acoppola and @BAIN123, The cast of Chuck were really impressed with Dalton... I forget what it is exactly that they said, but paraphrasing, it was something along the lines of him being a truly great actor. The type that really knows what they're doing and that you just don't see around anymore.

    I think some people just mistake the fact that he is a bit more expressive than the other Bonds as "overacting". Who knows. All I know is after watching Dalton in some heart-wrenching scenes in Sins, I am sure he would have brought incredible dramatic gravitas to OHMSS. A lot of Lazenby's acting didn't seem all that natural to me.. it just seemed a bit green, someone trying to act. An amateur.

    As for Dalton, he was usually cast as the dashing, romantic lead a LOT, which is obviously more suitable for a younger actor. He played that part the most he could until age caught up with him. He got typecasted as that... royalty... dark romantic leads, etc. I think he once said that nobody gives him these roles anymore because they'll always cast someone younger. Also the Bond thing I assume hovers over anyone who has played Bond for quite a bit. It's huge, huge thing to shake off and it can be a double-edged sword. Remember Dalton got a lot of hate for a long time so some Hollywood bigwigs would have considered that a turn off.

    There's a lot to the circumstances surrounding each actor. Don't just say.. oh because he wasn't in many huge ass movies, then he is not movie caliber. That is too big and unfair a generalization. Yes, Dalton may have done plenty of TV but look at the roles he got... Julius Caesar, Rhett Buttler, Edward Rochester. It takes a hell of an actor, from both the physical and skills standpoint to take on these roles. You've got to look at the big picture.

    That's a good point. Maybe I'm being hard on Dalton. I don't doubt at all that he's talanted (he's certainly done far better than I ever would) . I just would have thought that he would have become a more well known name given his background- that's all. It may be harder these days but it IS possible to get a "good" role in a big film. Look at Judi Dench, look at Ralph Feinnes, look at Daniel Day Lewis. I still have a suspicion that TV (and theatre) is more suited for him. Re-watching him recently I did get that feeling if I'm being honest. He just has that sort of "TV" manner about him. Its weird because physically he IS impressive

    Actually, in regard to Gary Oldman, one of his most well known roles lately is as Comissioner Gordon. It's not really villanous at all...and I think Oldman does it well.

    The likes of Connery and Brosnan* seemed to have had mixed success. Connery got The Name of the Rose and Brosnan got The Greatest alongside Susan Sarandon and Carey Mulligan. I think he's doing a film with Emma Thompson at the moment too.

    *For the record I'm not above criticising him either. I've seen him in Taffin and I thought he was terrible in it but he seems to have got better as he's got older.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    In response to @acoppola and @BAIN123, The cast of Chuck were really impressed with Dalton... I forget what it is exactly that they said, but paraphrasing, it was something along the lines of him being a truly great actor. The type that really knows what they're doing and that you just don't see around anymore.

    I think some people just mistake the fact that he is a bit more expressive than the other Bonds as "overacting". Who knows. All I know is after watching Dalton in some heart-wrenching scenes in Sins, I am sure he would have brought incredible dramatic gravitas to OHMSS. A lot of Lazenby's acting didn't seem all that natural to me.. it just seemed a bit green, someone trying to act. An amateur.

    As for Dalton, he was usually cast as the dashing, romantic lead a LOT, which is obviously more suitable for a younger actor. He played that part the most he could until age caught up with him. He got typecasted as that... royalty... dark romantic leads, etc. I think he once said that nobody gives him these roles anymore because they'll always cast someone younger. Also the Bond thing I assume hovers over anyone who has played Bond for quite a bit. It's huge, huge thing to shake off and it can be a double-edged sword. Remember Dalton got a lot of hate for a long time so some Hollywood bigwigs would have considered that a turn off.

    There's a lot to the circumstances surrounding each actor. Don't just say.. oh because he wasn't in many huge ass movies, then he is not movie caliber. That is too big and unfair a generalization. Yes, Dalton may have done plenty of TV but look at the roles he got... Julius Caesar, Rhett Buttler, Edward Rochester. It takes a hell of an actor, from both the physical and skills standpoint to take on these roles. You've got to look at the big picture.

    That's a good point. Maybe I'm being hard on Dalton. I don't doubt at all that he's talanted. I just would have thought that he would have become a more well known name - that's all. It may be harder these days but it IS possible to get a good role in a big film. Look at Judi Dench, look at Ralph Feinnes. I still have a suspicion that TV (and theatre) is better for him.

    Actually, in regard to Gary Oldman, one of his most well known roles lately is as Comissioner Gordon. It's not really villanous at all...and I think Oldman does it well.

    The likes of Connery and Brosnan* seemed to have had mixed success. Connery got The Name of the Rose and Brosnan got The Greatest alongside Susan Sarandon and Carey Mulligan. I think he's doing a film with Emma Thompson at the moment too.

    *For the record I'm not above criticising him either. I've seen him in Taffin and I thought he was terrible in it but he seems to have got better as he's got older.

    Oldman plays Commissioner Gordon but he is not the headline star of the films. Nolan was a fan of his when he was younger. In fact most of Oldman's films with him as the lead flopped and they were brilliant.

    Hopkins by getting an Oscar makes it easier for a casting director to justify the casting. As when you do a film promotion, you can say Oscar winner on the advertising and the public are known to respect that. Why do you think they spend a fortune on award ceremonies?

    Ironcially, Connery should have got an Oscar back in the 70's for The Man Who Would Be King. He got an Oscar for The Untouchables playing an Irishman with a Scottish accent :)

    And fans who grew up on Connery as Bond like Steven Spielberg were now in positions to cast him. Say I was Tarantino and a huge Dalton fan? What do you think I would do?:)

    And true, Brosnan has become a real good actor as he got older. But he is typecast because of also being seen as a romantic lead. He did great by landing Mama Mia.

    And Dalton got Hot Fuzz, because Pegg loved him in Flash Gordon as a kid.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    In response to @acoppola and @BAIN123, The cast of Chuck were really impressed with Dalton... I forget what it is exactly that they said, but paraphrasing, it was something along the lines of him being a truly great actor. The type that really knows what they're doing and that you just don't see around anymore.

    I think some people just mistake the fact that he is a bit more expressive than the other Bonds as "overacting". Who knows. All I know is after watching Dalton in some heart-wrenching scenes in Sins, I am sure he would have brought incredible dramatic gravitas to OHMSS. A lot of Lazenby's acting didn't seem all that natural to me.. it just seemed a bit green, someone trying to act. An amateur.

    As for Dalton, he was usually cast as the dashing, romantic lead a LOT, which is obviously more suitable for a younger actor. He played that part the most he could until age caught up with him. He got typecasted as that... royalty... dark romantic leads, etc. I think he once said that nobody gives him these roles anymore because they'll always cast someone younger. Also the Bond thing I assume hovers over anyone who has played Bond for quite a bit. It's huge, huge thing to shake off and it can be a double-edged sword. Remember Dalton got a lot of hate for a long time so some Hollywood bigwigs would have considered that a turn off.

    There's a lot to the circumstances surrounding each actor. Don't just say.. oh because he wasn't in many huge ass movies, then he is not movie caliber. That is too big and unfair a generalization. Yes, Dalton may have done plenty of TV but look at the roles he got... Julius Caesar, Rhett Buttler, Edward Rochester. It takes a hell of an actor, from both the physical and skills standpoint to take on these roles. You've got to look at the big picture.

    That's a good point. Maybe I'm being hard on Dalton. I don't doubt at all that he's talanted. I just would have thought that he would have become a more well known name - that's all. It may be harder these days but it IS possible to get a good role in a big film. Look at Judi Dench, look at Ralph Feinnes. I still have a suspicion that TV (and theatre) is better for him.

    Actually, in regard to Gary Oldman, one of his most well known roles lately is as Comissioner Gordon. It's not really villanous at all...and I think Oldman does it well.

    The likes of Connery and Brosnan* seemed to have had mixed success. Connery got The Name of the Rose and Brosnan got The Greatest alongside Susan Sarandon and Carey Mulligan. I think he's doing a film with Emma Thompson at the moment too.

    *For the record I'm not above criticising him either. I've seen him in Taffin and I thought he was terrible in it but he seems to have got better as he's got older.

    Oldman plays Commissioner Gordon but he is not the headline star of the films. Nolan was a fan of his when he was younger. In fact most of Oldman's films with him as the lead flopped and they were brilliant.

    Hopkins by getting an Oscar makes it easier for a casting director to justify the casting. As when you do a film promotion, you can say Oscar winner on the advertising and the public are known to respect that. Why do you think they spend a fortune on award ceremonies?

    Ironcially, Connery should have got an Oscar back in the 70's for The Man Who Would Be King. He got an Oscar for The Untouchables playing an Irishman with a Scottish accent :)

    And fans who grew up on Connery as Bond like Steven Spielberg were now in positions to cast him. Say I was Tarantino and a huge Dalton fan? What do you think I would do?:)

    And true, Brosnan has become a real good actor as he got older. But he is typecast because of also being seen as a romantic lead. He did great by landing Mama Mia.

    And Dalton got Hot Fuzz, because Pegg loved him in Flash Gordon as a kid.

    But make no mistake, everyone on Dr Who said they were lucky to get Dalton. David Tennant loved him.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,175
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    In response to @acoppola and @BAIN123, The cast of Chuck were really impressed with Dalton... I forget what it is exactly that they said, but paraphrasing, it was something along the lines of him being a truly great actor. The type that really knows what they're doing and that you just don't see around anymore.

    I think some people just mistake the fact that he is a bit more expressive than the other Bonds as "overacting". Who knows. All I know is after watching Dalton in some heart-wrenching scenes in Sins, I am sure he would have brought incredible dramatic gravitas to OHMSS. A lot of Lazenby's acting didn't seem all that natural to me.. it just seemed a bit green, someone trying to act. An amateur.

    As for Dalton, he was usually cast as the dashing, romantic lead a LOT, which is obviously more suitable for a younger actor. He played that part the most he could until age caught up with him. He got typecasted as that... royalty... dark romantic leads, etc. I think he once said that nobody gives him these roles anymore because they'll always cast someone younger. Also the Bond thing I assume hovers over anyone who has played Bond for quite a bit. It's huge, huge thing to shake off and it can be a double-edged sword. Remember Dalton got a lot of hate for a long time so some Hollywood bigwigs would have considered that a turn off.

    There's a lot to the circumstances surrounding each actor. Don't just say.. oh because he wasn't in many huge ass movies, then he is not movie caliber. That is too big and unfair a generalization. Yes, Dalton may have done plenty of TV but look at the roles he got... Julius Caesar, Rhett Buttler, Edward Rochester. It takes a hell of an actor, from both the physical and skills standpoint to take on these roles. You've got to look at the big picture.

    That's a good point. Maybe I'm being hard on Dalton. I don't doubt at all that he's talanted. I just would have thought that he would have become a more well known name - that's all. It may be harder these days but it IS possible to get a good role in a big film. Look at Judi Dench, look at Ralph Feinnes. I still have a suspicion that TV (and theatre) is better for him.

    Actually, in regard to Gary Oldman, one of his most well known roles lately is as Comissioner Gordon. It's not really villanous at all...and I think Oldman does it well.

    The likes of Connery and Brosnan* seemed to have had mixed success. Connery got The Name of the Rose and Brosnan got The Greatest alongside Susan Sarandon and Carey Mulligan. I think he's doing a film with Emma Thompson at the moment too.

    *For the record I'm not above criticising him either. I've seen him in Taffin and I thought he was terrible in it but he seems to have got better as he's got older.

    Oldman plays Commissioner Gordon but he is not the headline star of the films. Nolan was a fan of his when he was younger. In fact most of Oldman's films with him as the lead flopped and they were brilliant.

    He still plays a fairly big part in those films though. They still require quite a lot out of him in terms of acting. I wouldn't say the role of Gordon is a "small" part

    Hopkins by getting an Oscar makes it easier for a casting director to justify the casting. As when you do a film promotion, you can say Oscar winner on the advertising and the public are known to respect that. Why do you think they spend a fortune on award ceremonies?

    Agreed. Funnily enough I actually re-watched SOTL the other night. Hopkins is great - even if he is somewhat OTT(he actually has a bit of a "theatre" look about him I noticed - I suppose one would expect that. I actually remember Hopkins once saying he hated the theatre). Foster is the star though.

    Ironcially, Connery should have got an Oscar back in the 70's for The Man Who Would Be King. He got an Oscar for The Untouchables playing an Irishman with a Scottish accent :)

    I liked Connery in TMWWBK :)

    And fans who grew up on Connery as Bond like Steven Spielberg were now in positions to cast him. Say I was Tarantino and a huge Dalton fan? What do you think I would do?:)

    And true, Brosnan has become a real good actor as he got older. But he is typecast because of also being seen as a romantic lead. He did great by landing Mama Mia.

    And Dalton got Hot Fuzz, because Pegg loved him in Flash Gordon as a kid.

    But make no mistake, everyone on Dr Who said they were lucky to get Dalton. David Tennant loved him.



  • acoppola wrote:
    And Dalton got Hot Fuzz, because Pegg loved him in Flash Gordon as a kid.

    Pegg also said he was his favourite Bond.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    In response to @acoppola and @BAIN123, The cast of Chuck were really impressed with Dalton... I forget what it is exactly that they said, but paraphrasing, it was something along the lines of him being a truly great actor. The type that really knows what they're doing and that you just don't see around anymore.

    I think some people just mistake the fact that he is a bit more expressive than the other Bonds as "overacting". Who knows. All I know is after watching Dalton in some heart-wrenching scenes in Sins, I am sure he would have brought incredible dramatic gravitas to OHMSS. A lot of Lazenby's acting didn't seem all that natural to me.. it just seemed a bit green, someone trying to act. An amateur.

    As for Dalton, he was usually cast as the dashing, romantic lead a LOT, which is obviously more suitable for a younger actor. He played that part the most he could until age caught up with him. He got typecasted as that... royalty... dark romantic leads, etc. I think he once said that nobody gives him these roles anymore because they'll always cast someone younger. Also the Bond thing I assume hovers over anyone who has played Bond for quite a bit. It's huge, huge thing to shake off and it can be a double-edged sword. Remember Dalton got a lot of hate for a long time so some Hollywood bigwigs would have considered that a turn off.

    There's a lot to the circumstances surrounding each actor. Don't just say.. oh because he wasn't in many huge ass movies, then he is not movie caliber. That is too big and unfair a generalization. Yes, Dalton may have done plenty of TV but look at the roles he got... Julius Caesar, Rhett Buttler, Edward Rochester. It takes a hell of an actor, from both the physical and skills standpoint to take on these roles. You've got to look at the big picture.

    That's a good point. Maybe I'm being hard on Dalton. I don't doubt at all that he's talanted. I just would have thought that he would have become a more well known name - that's all. It may be harder these days but it IS possible to get a good role in a big film. Look at Judi Dench, look at Ralph Feinnes. I still have a suspicion that TV (and theatre) is better for him.

    Actually, in regard to Gary Oldman, one of his most well known roles lately is as Comissioner Gordon. It's not really villanous at all...and I think Oldman does it well.

    The likes of Connery and Brosnan* seemed to have had mixed success. Connery got The Name of the Rose and Brosnan got The Greatest alongside Susan Sarandon and Carey Mulligan. I think he's doing a film with Emma Thompson at the moment too.

    *For the record I'm not above criticising him either. I've seen him in Taffin and I thought he was terrible in it but he seems to have got better as he's got older.

    Oldman plays Commissioner Gordon but he is not the headline star of the films. Nolan was a fan of his when he was younger. In fact most of Oldman's films with him as the lead flopped and they were brilliant.

    He still plays a fairly big part in those films though. They still require quite a lot out of him in terms of acting. I wouldn't say the role of Gordon is a "small" part

    Hopkins by getting an Oscar makes it easier for a casting director to justify the casting. As when you do a film promotion, you can say Oscar winner on the advertising and the public are known to respect that. Why do you think they spend a fortune on award ceremonies?

    Agreed. Funnily enough I actually re-watched SOTL the other night. Hopkins is great - even if he is somewhat OTT(he actually has a bit of a "theatre" look about him I noticed - I suppose one would expect that. I actually remember Hopkins once saying he hated the theatre). Foster is the star though.

    Ironcially, Connery should have got an Oscar back in the 70's for The Man Who Would Be King. He got an Oscar for The Untouchables playing an Irishman with a Scottish accent :)

    I liked Connery in TMWWBK :)

    And fans who grew up on Connery as Bond like Steven Spielberg were now in positions to cast him. Say I was Tarantino and a huge Dalton fan? What do you think I would do?:)

    And true, Brosnan has become a real good actor as he got older. But he is typecast because of also being seen as a romantic lead. He did great by landing Mama Mia.

    And Dalton got Hot Fuzz, because Pegg loved him in Flash Gordon as a kid.

    But make no mistake, everyone on Dr Who said they were lucky to get Dalton. David Tennant loved him.



    Ah indeed. Hopkins is so good because of his theatre background and as you can see, that is why he was scary in SOTL. Theatre actors can trounce movie stars who essentially play themselves in every film.

    Hopkins gave up theatre because he was sick of critics giving him a hard time and effectively making his plays runs shorter due to bad reviews. He resented them so much that when he was playing Lecter he would motivate his performance by visualising the critics of actors as the victims of Lecter. It helped with his viciousness.

    Oldman has a reasonable role as the commissioner but Bale is the star. And being Nolan directed as well as the huge fanbase of Batman, an unknown could play Gordon.

    So Mr @Bain123 Take a fresher look at Dalton and realise we have one of the best actors in the Bond role ever. Did you know when Dalton left the Bond role, Hopkins also despite being interested, refused the villain role in Tomorrow Never Dies.

    He was only attached to Dalton's third Bond and industry rumours are that without Dalton, he was not interested. The two started out in the business and both were seen as future talents by Peter O'Toole.

    I always thought Dalton was amazing as Bond and gave too rich a performance for those who expected a nice man in a nice suit and nothing much more than that.

    Apart from early Connery, with the advent of Dalton,I believed in the character once again. I love Moore, but only for the comedy rather than his dramatic skills.




  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Did you know when Dalton left the Bond role, Hopkins also despite being interested, refused the villain role in Tomorrow Never Dies.

    Yes I heard about that. Wasn't he once considered as a possibility for Alec Trevelyan in GE or was that just a rumour?

    I rewatched Dalton in TLD fairly recently (about a month ago) but maybe I need to give it some space before I give him another re-visit.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Did you know when Dalton left the Bond role, Hopkins also despite being interested, refused the villain role in Tomorrow Never Dies.

    Yes I heard about that. Wasn't he once considered as a possibility for Alec Trevelyan in GE or was that just a rumour?

    I rewatched Dalton in TLD fairly recently (about a month ago) but maybe I need to give it some space before I give him another re-visit.

    Hopkins was in talks for the villain for Dalton's third and was interested. He bowed out when Dalton left.No coincidence, but he respected Tim as an actor.

    He turned down TND as he was approached to play Carver. I wonder why? :)

    I never heard the rumour he was supposed to play Alec. Bond 17 had a different script to Goldeneye. In fact I think this site MI6 has the story outline.

    You give Dalton some space and rewatch. I do not say it lightly, but he is one of the few actors that even in small parts is brilliant. And I am a huge fan of Oldman who is phenomenal. Even he got accused of over acting and in truth he is to me better than Colin firth who got an Oscar.

    In fact, I always tend to gravitate to really good actors. Johnny Depp I love too!

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,175
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Did you know when Dalton left the Bond role, Hopkins also despite being interested, refused the villain role in Tomorrow Never Dies.

    Yes I heard about that. Wasn't he once considered as a possibility for Alec Trevelyan in GE or was that just a rumour?

    I rewatched Dalton in TLD fairly recently (about a month ago) but maybe I need to give it some space before I give him another re-visit.

    Hopkins was in talks for the villain for Dalton's third and was interested. He bowed out when Dalton left.No coincidence, but he respected Tim as an actor.

    He turned down TND as he was approached to play Carver. I wonder why? :)

    I never heard the rumour he was supposed to play Alec. Bond 17 had a different script to Goldeneye. In fact I think this site MI6 has the story outline.

    You give Dalton some space and rewatch. I do not say it lightly, but he is one of the few actors that even in small parts is brilliant. And I am a huge fan of Oldman who is phenomenal. Even he got accused of over acting and in truth he is to me better than Colin firth who got an Oscar.

    In fact, I always tend to gravitate to really good actors. Johnny Depp I love too!

    Maybe I'm getting mixed up with the rumours for Dalton's 3rd film.

    As I've said before I LOVE Dalton in Hot Fuzz and I agree that he seems to be great when it comes to "scene stealing" small parts.

    I've said this before too. Part of me puts Dalton in the same category as Charles Dance. Undoubtably a gifted actor but perhaps more suited to other types of medium (Dance, like Dalts, has been a fair few scene stealing "side roles" in films and is rarely, if ever, a lead).

    Oldman maybe does overact a bit sometimes but only when the role enables him to. I always like watching him because he seems to really become each character he plays. Suprisingly not many actors can really do that.

    I like Johnny Depp too but I like him more in Finding Neverland and Ed Wood than I do in POTC (although he is funny in those).
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Shardlake wrote:
    I'll take it over all the PB's. I also think GL is fine not amazing but a solid Bond, I prefer him to RM as well. As for the film it's still no. 1 for me.

    Barry, Hunt, Rigg, I could go on and feels like a Bond film so much, couldn'nt disagree more.

    I thought that was Skyfall? ;)

    Skyfall is my no. 2, I completely disagree with those saying if Connery was in it would have been better, Connery's take on Bond wouldn't have worked plus he was bored in the role and it showed in YOLT.

    I can't even comprehend why someone would think Goldeneye was better so 00Beast I'll never fathom you out but I guess that's what makes this forum so interesting.

    I'd never claim Laz was utterly personifying Fleming's Bond but he gets far closer to it than Brozzer ever did and I buy far him far more convincingly as 007.

    Considering he'd never acted before in a feature film he does a admirable job and he if he'd got a chance to do another one we'd have seen even more of an improvement. I know it was his own fault for believing his agent but he can have comfort in the fact quite a few fans see his entry as the best ever.

    That Barry score does help it's greatness, it's simply a masterpiece and the other elements are very strong and help but I don't believe that like some that George is a failure in the role far from it in fact.

    I think it comes down to if you need the clichés in place to convince you it's a Bond film, the gadgets etc, (OHMSS is refreshingly free of those) then maybe it is slow moving and takes it's time but I prefer it's pace and think from beginning to end it's as close to perfect we have got with a Bond film yet. I could only see Dalton or Craig being better, Connery or Moore would be wrong for this and as for Brozzer, I'm not even dignifying that one with an answer.

    I'm working on my review of it at the moment and will post it as soon as it's finished along with my Skyfall one.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,175
    It would have been interesting to see how Connery would have performed in OHMSS. Given that he was after more "character driven" scripts, Majesty's may have given him the motivation to up his game.

    Also, seeing Connery, a man people grew to love in the role, become truely vulnerable at the end of OHMSS?? One has to wonder.
  • Posts: 259
    Just a shame that it wasn't Connery's last film instead of DAF. That would have made an awesome story arc - especially if he had been in car with Tracy when Blofeld shot at them, and the film had been ambiguous as to whether or not he had lived or died.
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,139
    When I saw ohmss I was to young to understand it first time round on the telly in the uk
    Then it went away and much later on I read the story and woke up and watched it again
    It is without a doubt one of the best bond films and to be honest I feel the only way to make any
    Improvement on the original would have been to remake it with Tim Dalton as bond
    One other thing to think about is how bad would it have been with Connery in the role !
    Regards coggins .
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Did you know when Dalton left the Bond role, Hopkins also despite being interested, refused the villain role in Tomorrow Never Dies.

    Yes I heard about that. Wasn't he once considered as a possibility for Alec Trevelyan in GE or was that just a rumour?

    I rewatched Dalton in TLD fairly recently (about a month ago) but maybe I need to give it some space before I give him another re-visit.

    Hopkins was in talks for the villain for Dalton's third and was interested. He bowed out when Dalton left.No coincidence, but he respected Tim as an actor.

    He turned down TND as he was approached to play Carver. I wonder why? :)

    I never heard the rumour he was supposed to play Alec. Bond 17 had a different script to Goldeneye. In fact I think this site MI6 has the story outline.

    You give Dalton some space and rewatch. I do not say it lightly, but he is one of the few actors that even in small parts is brilliant. And I am a huge fan of Oldman who is phenomenal. Even he got accused of over acting and in truth he is to me better than Colin firth who got an Oscar.

    In fact, I always tend to gravitate to really good actors. Johnny Depp I love too!

    Maybe I'm getting mixed up with the rumours for Dalton's 3rd film.

    As I've said before I LOVE Dalton in Hot Fuzz and I agree that he seems to be great when it comes to "scene stealing" small parts.

    I've said this before too. Part of me puts Dalton in the same category as Charles Dance. Undoubtably a gifted actor but perhaps more suited to other types of medium (Dance, like Dalts, has been a fair few scene stealing "side roles" in films and is rarely, if ever, a lead).

    Oldman maybe does overact a bit sometimes but only when the role enables him to. I always like watching him because he seems to really become each character he plays. Suprisingly not many actors can really do that.

    I like Johnny Depp too but I like him more in Finding Neverland and Ed Wood than I do in POTC (although he is funny in those).

    Oldman is an actor that will research his roles. But Oldman is a different generation to Hopkins or Dalton. Each acting generation finds their own technique. Same with music.

    There is a story that Oldman was researching a part of an alcoholic and started drinking in an Irish bar to get a feel for the character.And he became an alcoholic by accident as he got addicted.

    Theatre actors will just read the part on the page and create it. Hopkins and Dalton do that. They are trained in how to inject their own emotions and when these guys show anger it is scary. When Dalton shouts as Bond it is unsettling. Because he is drawing the characters rage.

    Actors like Dalton are skilled enough to understand every aspect of life.

    Unlike Dance, Dalton never wanted to be too famous. He values his privacy and knows that fame means you lose your freedom. Dalton chose not to have a huge film career. But it is known he gets offers but turns them down. He is fussy and only does work that interests him. That is ego but healthy. He does not do it for the fans as it were.

    Dalton once said you can become very big as an actor if you want but he was never prepared to pay that price. Connery became a prisoner of his fame and hated it. He became so isolated from the real world because you cannot get any peace.

    Are you aware than throughout the seventies Dalton turned down major film roles as he wanted to improve his acting in the theatre? He had the perfect looks fora leading man and like Cubby, any other producer is going to see that.

    Are you also aware it was Roger Moore who also suggested him for Bond to Cubby.
    Connery too said he is a very good actor and liked the idea back in '86





  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Are you also aware it was Roger Moore who suggested him for Bond to Cubby. Obviously Cubby would never have told him that Dalton was on his radar. :)

    I did not know that actually.

    It still seems a shame (to me) that Dalton wouldn't want to do more dramatic roles that are offered to him. Given his background I would have thought he would seek roles that challenge his talent.

    Hey, that's just me. I'm not him.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Are you also aware it was Roger Moore who suggested him for Bond to Cubby. Obviously Cubby would never have told him that Dalton was on his radar. :)

    I did not know that actually.


    It still seems a shame (to me) that Dalton wouldn't want to do more dramatic roles that are offered to him. Given his background I would have thought he would seek roles that challenge his talent.

    Hey, that's just me. I'm not him.

    Cubby Broccoli said in his book that Dalton did not take on Bond to become more famous. He took it as a challenge when the media said Bond was finished after Moore and the series had got stale. He was Cubby's friend over the years and did it for him more than anything.

    He even said that Dalton at first refused promotion of the TLD but was persuaded he has to. Dalton is an actor that once filming finishes, he is not obligated. But he did do the promotion as Cubby requested. You should read Cubby's book.

    I tell you this, but no way was Lazenby going to do another Bond. Cubby makes it clear despite the rumours you hear all the time. Cubby did not like him as a person and Lazenby to this day says he could have done seven films. No! Connery was coming back and Lazenby looks stupid when after 40 years he keeps talking like he had Roger Moore's success.

    But Dalton is a man who values his privacy and does not like being bothered. Being very famous means you get no escape from others demands. Dalton does his work and then leaves. He does not get attached. I read he has only seen his Bond films once like most of his work. He is not vain but nevertheless proud.





  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Quick! Which do I put on, LTK or TLD ????
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,175
    doubleoego wrote:
    Quick! Which do I put on, LTK or TLD ????

    TLD. Dalton prefers it!

    @accopola. So this stuff about Laz turning down a 7 film deal isn't true? I remember first hearing about that in Roger's book.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    doubleoego wrote:
    Quick! Which do I put on, LTK or TLD ????

    TLD. I lost my copy and badly wanted to watch it. LTK is a killer Bond film too!

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Cheers. TLD it is.
  • Posts: 173
    acoppola wrote:
    Are you also aware it was Roger Moore who also suggested him for Bond to Cubby.
    Connery too said he is a very good actor and liked the idea back in '86

    :| you learn something new every day
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,585
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Did you know when Dalton left the Bond role, Hopkins also despite being interested, refused the villain role in Tomorrow Never Dies.

    Yes I heard about that. Wasn't he once considered as a possibility for Alec Trevelyan in GE or was that just a rumour?

    It wasn't TND, it was GE. Trevelyan was written for Hopkins. That also explains why Sean Bean is too young for that role--he wasn't the initial choice.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 70
    Because everything comes together perfectly. It's a bond film through and through, and there is some incredible talent and a brilliant albeit one-off director. George Lazenby honestly did a great job; he's still the toughest, yet most emotional Bond. The film is exciting, romantic, stylish, beautiful, and is up there with the likes of From Russia With Love as a perfect 007 film & an excellent part of cinema history.

    It's a shame Lazenby didn't get a second film; his revenge story in Diamonds Are Forever would have been fantastic. When George swings a punch, you know it just has to hurt! The people who argue that Lazenby is quite stiff in his acting, what about Connery's effort in DAF? Isn't that worse? Oddly I know someone who owns every James Bond film except OHMSS. They seem to think that because George only shot one, it must not have been good; the truth is OHMSS is indeed one of the best entries!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,986
    Brendoge wrote:
    Oddly I know someone who owns every James Bond film except OHMSS. They seem to think that because George only shot one, it must not have been good
    He will be dynamited!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,986
    For those that say Lazenby had a 'stiffness' about him- that was a 'boner' joke in the movie... :))
  • Posts: 1,492
    acoppola wrote:
    [
    I always thought Dalton was amazing as Bond and gave too rich a performance for those who expected a nice man in a nice suit and nothing much more than that.

    This is very true. Also I have noticed those who don't know much about acting often describe intense performances as "overacting" because they are not comfortable with it. This is particularly true of teenagers who have not got the experience of telling good acting from bad yet.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,417
    actonsteve wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    [
    I always thought Dalton was amazing as Bond and gave too rich a performance for those who expected a nice man in a nice suit and nothing much more than that.

    This is very true. Also I have noticed those who don't know much about acting often describe intense performances as "overacting" because they are not comfortable with it. This is particularly true of teenagers who have not got the experience of telling good acting from bad yet.

    And I think Tim was a big surprise after years of campy Moore.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    actonsteve wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    [
    I always thought Dalton was amazing as Bond and gave too rich a performance for those who expected a nice man in a nice suit and nothing much more than that.

    This is very true. Also I have noticed those who don't know much about acting often describe intense performances as "overacting" because they are not comfortable with it. This is particularly true of teenagers who have not got the experience of telling good acting from bad yet.

    Dalton in two films to me made a bigger impact than Moore in seven. Moore's Bond though highly entertaining was a hand to mouth existence for the character. With Moore the character survived but did not soar.

    Dalton took the franchise by the scruff of the neck and told the producers how it is going to be. Cubby liked that because it showed he cared about the franchise and it's evolution.

    With the Moore films you were in for a safe ride. Nothing controversial and very predictable once you saw a few films. Dalton in contrast was a terrifying roller coaster who was too radical for some fans.

    In LALD, to me the villain Kananga is the best part of the film. Yaphet Kotto was amazing whilst Mr Moore was just charming and comical. But Kananga was the real threat and Moore's Bond psychologically was no match if we were to apply it to the real world.

    But LALD is a masterpiece of camp and is truly a standout of the series. It is a curious and charming film no doubt.



  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    actonsteve wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    [
    I always thought Dalton was amazing as Bond and gave too rich a performance for those who expected a nice man in a nice suit and nothing much more than that.

    This is very true. Also I have noticed those who don't know much about acting often describe intense performances as "overacting" because they are not comfortable with it. This is particularly true of teenagers who have not got the experience of telling good acting from bad yet.

    And I think Tim was a big surprise after years of campy Moore.

    He sure was. Many cinema goers because Connery's films were not available on home video had only seen Moore's portrayal. I used to work in a video store back in '87 and the only Bond film we had was AVTAK. And at the time it would cost you £79.95 to buy it. We got it at trade price of £50.

    But before TLD came out, I bought books on Bond and his history. I bought the Peter Haining book and knew in advance what the aims of Dalton were. And I was at the time reading books about spies and the harsh reality, so I was looking forward to the serious approach.

    Some of my friends were also tired of Moore's ultra unrealistic approach. But sadly movie audiences were not as ready for it as I was.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    echo wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Did you know when Dalton left the Bond role, Hopkins also despite being interested, refused the villain role in Tomorrow Never Dies.

    Yes I heard about that. Wasn't he once considered as a possibility for Alec Trevelyan in GE or was that just a rumour?

    It wasn't TND, it was GE. Trevelyan was written for Hopkins. That also explains why Sean Bean is too young for that role--he wasn't the initial choice.

    Hopkins was in talks in the early 90's. It was at the time they were working on Bond 17 set in China. But that is the first I heard he was supposed to play Alec. As far as I know, Bond 17 was supposed to be shot in 1990. And Hopkins had not yet hit super fame with Silence Of The Lambs.

    But he did turn down TND. He was the first choice for the role of Elliot that then went to Jonathan Pryce.

Sign In or Register to comment.