James Bond In Skyfall - Part 3

[Dark Raven]

"License to Kill" did mediocre business partly because it was released in 1989, alongside "Batman". The former seemed old hat, the latter seemed new and exciting.

Timothy Dalton played Bond very straight, which was probably a conscious move away from Roger Moore's knowing wink. The problem with that is that his Bond was quite underwritten, anyway. It's a very competent performance, but it seems to lack the charisma of Connery or Craig.

Robert Davi was a pretty good villain, I think.

1989 had a lot of other releases that year. Die Hard and some others I can't remember. Bond released in the summer was up against some very stiff competition. Since then they've released it in the winter.

Dalton played it as a world weary, hardened yet understated spy who tried to keep a low profile and wasn't trying to be too over the top so that the could better blend in. I think he could've been as successful as Craig had he been around now.

Davi was good, and I imagine Bardem would be a bit similar. Benico Del Toro was also in Licence To Kill.

 

[KenK]

Can we all agree that Phil Noto should be involved in the design of Skyfall's opening title sequence?

 

[Dark Knight]

The Connery movies are not just classic Bond films. They're classic films in themselves, especially the first three. You could watch them not even for the action (although there is plenty of action there) but just for the story or the style or the whole 60s feel.

Exactly! I hope Mendes brings back a sense of those classic 60's Connery films on Skyfall.

At least when it comes to the cinematography and editing.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

But you must watch Diamonds are Forever. You MUST!

No, no one needs to watch Diamonds are Forever..... Ever.

When it comes to the James Bond films, each actor's era is very different than the rest.

Connery era: This era is hailed by many as the best of the bunch. It is classic, fresh, exciting, and all around damn good, with the exception of "Diamonds are Forever" and "You Only Live Twice." It's always difficult to best the original.

Lazenby era: It's hard to call one film an "era," but Lazenby did have his own flavor as Bond. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is a good film, but does have it's flaws. It tries to stand with the Connery canon, but really is a separate entity.

Moore era: The era that went on the longest is, in my opinion, the worst. The Bond films were turned in to campy schlock with Moore prancing about as a smarmy caricature of 007. Bad pun and stupidity abound, these films are all very weak and annoying, and stray furthest from Fleming's idea of Bond.

Dalton: Dalton's two Bond films were the first to take the gritty, more realistic and somewhat dark route. Dalton was suave, brutal, and awesome. These films were, however, before their time, thus the poor reception.

Brosnan: After experimenting with a more mature and realistic Bond, EON returned to the Moore formula of camp and tomfoolery. With the exception of "GoldenEye," which I think is one of the best Bond films, this era is on the same low level as Moore's.

Craig: It was apparent that Bond needed an edge for the 2000s. Craig's casting was controversial and a radical departure from all who came before, but it paid off. Craig is definitely the most physically capable and imposing Bond actor to date, and while a raw machine for action, he is also a cool and cunning spy. I also believe Craig's Bond is closest to the Bond of Fleming's canon.

Connery and Craig are very different Bonds in very different iterations of character, so it is hard to say one is better than the other. But it is easy to say that they are the best of the bunch. All of the eras have their merits, with some good films sprinkled in with the bad, but with CR and QoS, and soon SkyFall, Bond films have been reenergized, matured, and retooled to create a fresh and exciting franchise out of one that almost died many times over a record-holding span of time.

- You Only Live Twice wasn't a bad one. I think it's one of the prettiest looking Bond movies and the fact that's it's not only in Japan, but that 99% of the movie is one country is not only unheard of for a Bond movie, but quite an achievement for the series that may never happen again.

- Roger Moore gets too little credit. I mean, how can people watch The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only and say that Roger Moore played the role like a joke. His first two outings weren't that good (though I think LALD wasn't a bad movie, but TMWTGG was so f**king awful.), but he had gotten much better in the role. He should've left when he had the chance after FYEO.

-

TSWLM and FYEO are definitely Moore's best two outings as Bond.

Agreed.

"License to Kill" did mediocre business partly because it was released in 1989, alongside "Batman". The former seemed old hat, the latter seemed new and exciting.

Timothy Dalton played Bond very straight, which was probably a conscious move away from Roger Moore's knowing wink. The problem with that is that his Bond was quite underwritten, anyway. It's a very competent performance, but it seems to lack the charisma of Connery or Craig.

Robert Davi was a pretty good villain, I think.

Dalton tried to play the role like novel Bond. I've only read Casino Royale and From Russia With Love, but I when I was reading it, I imagined Timothy Dalton. Maybe it's because of all the actors who played Bond, he's physically the closest to Ian Fleming's visual depiction of James Bond.

EON wanted to make the series more like the novels with License to Kill, but the problem is there LTK wasn't as fun a movie as The Living Daylights. It's too serious at times. I remember there were several spans between witty Bond humor and the lack of one liners. At times, it didn't feel like James Bond.

Maybe it's because the villain felt so small. Robert Davi did a great job, but I would've like to see him be an international terrorist than a petty drug dealer (and yes, I still say petty even though he was incredibly rich and owned a city). At least in LALD, Karananga provoked MI6 by killing several agents.

Dalton got the feel right, but at the same time, he played the role too seriously and didn't utilize that charisma he had in TLD as much.

1989 had a lot of other releases that year. Die Hard and some others I can't remember. Bond released in the summer was up against some very stiff competition. Since then they've released it in the winter.

Not only that, but there were also marketing problems with the movie. EON f**ked up big time with the marketing materials, including renaming the title late in the process.

 

[Octoberist]

Eon is the type of a company that needs a push (kick in the arse) in order to create successful quality work like a Goldeneye or Caisno Royale If not, you'll end up with very standard or subpar stuff.

 

[jmc]

Dalton cops a lot of flack for his Bond. Roger Moore gave us 14 years of James Bond buffoonery, Dalton went for the grounded Bond, and was far better IMO.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Dalton cops a lot of flack for his Bond. Roger Moore gave us 14 years of James Bond buffoonery, Dalton went for the grounded Bond, and was far better IMO.

As far as I recall, the general public found Dalton to be very boring as Bond, I recall reading an argument about that on these very boards, and one of the more articulate posters on here argued that point very well, pointing out the fact that the public didn't take to him positively like the other Bonds(excluding Lazenby).

 

[Dark Raven]

Dalton was too much of a contrast to Moore, whom the public had become thoroughly used to by then. Had it been Brosnan and then Dalton following Mooore, instead of the other way round (ie if they had the correct ages to pull it off) then I believe the public would've possibly been more accepting. But then, Brosnan directly after Moore might've meant that he played the role in much the same way as Sir Rog and also more like Remmington Steele. But if Brosnan played it the way he did play it and was followed by Dalton, then I think the public would've been more eased into the possibility of Dalton.

 

[The Batman]

Dalton was just...Ok. IMO, most of the time he only gets praise cause he resembles fleming Bond. On the internet, he and Lazenby get more praise than they deserve. They weren't awful, but they're not all that special.

As a guy who's read the books, Connery and Moore are the best Bonds, and as far as I'm concerned, everyone else lives in their shadow. They both defined the cinematic version of the character.

 

[Antithesis_SD]

And as another guy who has also read the books, I digress and say Connery, Dalton, and Craig are the best Bonds, and best represent what Fleming put to page.

 

[Van Petrol]

Dalton cops a lot of flack for his Bond. Roger Moore gave us 14 years of James Bond buffoonery, Dalton went for the grounded Bond, and was far better IMO.

Agreed.

 

[Dark Raven]

And as another guy who has also read the books, I digress and say Connery, Dalton, and Craig are the best Bonds, and best represent what Fleming put to page.

Exactly how are you digressing from the current topic of conversation?

 

[baerrtt]

The general public were used to the character of James Bond as a perfect, bow tie wearing, jokey superhero (Connery as well as Moore brought this perception forth) and Dalton playing him as a flawed, hates his job, down to earth agent based on original books that the majority audience worldwide hadn't probably read was as far as they were concerned a complete deviation.

 

[chamber-music]

I agree with Baerrtt. Audiences were used to the Roger Moore, Sean Connery, Lazenby Bond and a bit more serious darker Bond was a bit of a culture shock for them at that time.

In a different era Dalton might of been more successful.

 

[Raiden]

Dalton was just...Ok. IMO, most of the time he only gets praise cause he resembles fleming Bond. On the internet, he and Lazenby get more praise than they deserve. They weren't awful, but they're not all that special.

As a guy who's read the books, Connery and Moore are the best Bonds, and as far as I'm concerned, everyone else lives in their shadow. They both defined the cinematic version of the character.

Moore's Bond movies degenerated into campiness and silliness later on, and the best example is Moonraker. From what I know about Fleming's novels, they are often quite serious so I don't see how Moore's version is a faithful adaptation of the novel Bond.

 

[Antithesis_SD]

Exactly how are you digressing from the current topic of conversation?

I disagree with Batman's opinion, which is not an attack on him, just a different viewpoint. Sorry?

 

[ChickenScratch]

I always said that Dalton was my favorite Bond. He really did play him as written. Talk about a contrast to Moore's almost caricature of Ian's assassin? I really do wish Dalton really did get the chance to do GE because LTK looked cheap, almost TV movie cheap.

 

[Dark Raven]

I disagree with Batman's opinion, which is not an attack on him, just a different viewpoint. Sorry?

Never said it was an attack. You said you digress. That means you're straying from the topic of conversation, which you weren't - hence the confusion.

 

[Spoonman]

I find it really noteworthy that not only Dalton was the first actor to play the role so close to the books, but he (even to this date, IMO) looked the most like the visual depiction Ian Fleming wrote for Bond, a weird but nice coincidence I would say. Craig plays bond a lot like Dalton but has a very different physical type IMO, I still like him on the role and hope he has more Bond movies beyond Skyfall.

 

[Antithesis_SD]

Never said it was an attack. You said you digress. That means you're straying from the topic of conversation, which you weren't - hence the confusion.

Ah, my mistake. I meant disagree in the first place. Gotta love late night typing mistakes haha.

 

[xwolverine2]

the plot description sounds great... i love when M is on screen and has a real role in the movie like goldeneye or casino royale

 

[Dark Raven]

I always said that Dalton was my favorite Bond. He really did play him as written. Talk about a contrast to Moore's almost caricature of Ian's assassin? I really do wish Dalton really did get the chance to do GE because LTK looked cheap, almost TV movie cheap.

I wish Dalton did Casino Royale. Of course, he would've been too old at the time, but had he been the age he was in TLD, he would've been perfect. Craig is fine and all, but Dalton would also have had the classic look. The public probably would've accepted Dalton in the role as well.

Had EON had the rights to CR at the time, maybe they could've rebooted the series with that movie after A View To A Kill and used Dalton.

 

[Metallo]

I wish Dalton did Casino Royale. Of course, he would've been too old at the time, but had he been the age he was in TLD, he would've been perfect. Craig is fine and all, but Dalton would also have had the classic look. The public probably would've accepted Dalton in the role as well.

Had EON had the rights to CR at the time, maybe they could've rebooted the series with that movie after A View To A Kill and used Dalton.

If Dalton had taken over for Moore after FYEO he would have been a good age for a hypothetical CR movie. Theres a lot of "what ifs" about Dalton as Bond. Maybe more than any other actor that got it since he was considered for the role at various points before he was finally locked in or his Bond films got stalled.

I've often wondered what it would have been been like if He'd taken the role earlier. or if Connery had stayed for OHMSS. Or if Brosnan had been allowed to do TLD. Or if Moore had done DAF. I feel like Dalton's short tenure is the biggest missed opportunity. My imagination runs wild.

The world wasn't used to or ready for his portrayal after Moore's long run as Bond but I think what Dalton did needed to be done. Bond needed to change with the times (without loosing his unique charm and fun of course). It wasn't the 60's or the 70's anymore and new types of film heroes were rising in the 80's. I certainly couldn't have taken Moore seriously in the role the late 80s and it would have been silly to go with someone that was a Moore clone.

I suppose Brosnan would have been the ideal choice since he had a lot of charm but to be honest I always felt Brosnan was a wee bit too young at that point.

 

[DyeLorean]

Tomorrow I'm embarking in my 22-film James Bond marathon! (Even though I've seen them all starting in GoldenEye, I don't remember them completely)

 

[Rocketman]

I rank the Bonds:

1. Daniel Craig
2. Sean Connery
3. Pierce Brosnan
4. Timothy Dalton
5. George Lazenby
6. Roger Moore