It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
And allow me to be clear, SirHenry. I never said that Moore was better than Connery. I said that Moore is the more definitive of the two. There's a difference.
Furthermore, when I say that most people came to think of James Bond as a Moore-type character, the people I'm talking about actually are not serious Bond fans. The people in question are the wider populace, the folks we like to refer to as the General Public.
My thesis, which I've been arguing for years now, is that by the time the 1980s rolled around, the abstract concept of the James Bond character in the public consciousness had come to resemble Roger Moore more than Sean Connery, a state of affairs that has prevailed ever since.
Exhibit A in support of my thesis is Pierce Brosnan. The way I see it, if people still saw James Bond as primarily a Connery-type character, it's highly unlikely that they would have turned around and concluded that The Remington Steele Guy was the perfect choice to take over the role. The idea that "James Bond is the role that Pierce Brosnan was born to play" only makes sense if you're starting from the assumption that James Bond is supposed to be a Roger Moore-type character (but with black hair).
This was before I read the books of course. The books always seem to lead me to someone less pretty. Handsome but not as pretty as Broz. Lazenby was a model but he wasn't pretty - just to be clear.
Anyway... I think many back then were not saying James Bond is supposed to be a Connery-type or a Moore-type. They were saying he's supposed to be a Brosnan-type. It's that simple really.
That's an interesting perspective. But what I'm talking about isn't what people were saying, per se. It's more subtle than that, almost subconscious.
For example, I believe that most people (most people in the world, not just Bond fans) continued to say that Sean Connery was the best James Bond, even as the concept of the James Bond character subtly took on a greater resemblance to Moore.
So I think the time was wrong for Dalton, people expected easy going charisma not intense character acting.
So what are you saying? Dalton has no charisma? What a joke.
That makes more sense now. For a guy like me who was exposed to TB in 1968 at age 7, Connery was my first cinematic hero. Every new Bond for me since automatically gets compared to him. Are you an original Ed? If so, you should come and join us in our special thread, you don't have to do reviews if you don't want to. If not, check it out anyway, non-original fans are naturally welcomed and we have a good time.
For the general public, it's only been Dalton and Lazenby that didn't catch on after their first film. The public wanted to hate Craig but it's obvious he won a ton of the naysayers over and I was one of those he did. He definitely throws a monkey wrench into the theory that only the Moore/Brosnan type could be successful. I personally thought after DAD that it was time for Brosnan to go so I wasn't disappointed.
I'm not sure she's saying exactly that, but she will address that I'm sure.
For myself, while I was ready for Rog to hang up the Walther after OP, it took me a little while to warm to Dalton while I was watching TLD in the theater. He doesn't have what you'd call an overt charisma like Connery and Moore had. It's been a long held notion that Dalton is much more literary Bond than cinematic Bond, and those who didn't read the books usually didn't get what he was doing. It was a very radical change from Moore, both he and Brosnan were a much more well known commodity to the public and popular choices. This is what makes what Craig's done so amazing, he was set up to fail by almost everyone and now almost everyone loves him as Bond. Anyway, what I look for first with a new Bond is a certain look in the eyes, a look that tells me the actor knows his character is a paid assassin and stone killer. Brosnan and Moore didn't have that consistently enough for my taste, and Lazenby was too green at the time to understand that himself. Connery, Dalton, and Craig have that quality in spades and aren't afraid to convey that to the audience.
For me, when you first see Dalton's more subtle charisma is when Saunders gets killed, but where it comes out full blast is during the Pushkin interrogation. Dalton is an "everyman Bond" for those willing to take the chance on him. He's just not an A type of personality, and that includes him in real life. We Daltonites get it and love him anyway, but you have to remember that not everyone else gets that.
Its all a matter of taste.But to blame his failure back then solely to the times not being ready is a bit overprotective IMO. Sir Henry maybe put it right
He's just not an A type of personality, and that includes him in real life. We Daltonites get it and love him anyway, but you have to remember that not everyone else gets that.
And yes, he lacks charima and the certain something for me. I am old enough to be in the theater, when the film came out and one, who easily fangirled over actors. He never even came close. Seems I was not the only one,
For his fans, it will remain an unanswered question though. Why didn't he succeed, when there was so much he did right?