|
Post by Premier Blah on Jan 19, 2010 20:34:42 GMT -5
I loved Dalton as Bond. To be fair, he's awesome in pretty much anything he's been in. Timothy Dalton IS 007 as he goes undercover as a Time Lord in the new Bond movie, "The End Of Time"! Seriously though, Dalton is one of my favorite actors. I think of him less as Bond and more as the Earl of Rochester in an adaptation of Jane Eyre. Which is funny as he's supposed to be a plain looking man and yet he's being played by a suave and handsome devil.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jan 20, 2010 8:22:00 GMT -5
I loved Dalton as Bond. To be fair, he's awesome in pretty much anything he's been in. Timothy Dalton IS 007 as he goes undercover as a Time Lord in the new Bond movie, "The End Of Time"! Stephen Moffat better find a way to bring him back somehow. His Rassilon was awesome for the little sceentime he got..
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Patti Mayonnaise
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 39,911
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Jan 20, 2010 19:51:22 GMT -5
He's my favorite James Bond. I agree with someone else who said he was too young at the time of OHMSS, though. But, while I like Roger Moore, when I watch the Bond franchise in order, I eventually find myself just waiting for Dalton to take over the role, and then he only gets 2 films and then he's out. I wish he would've gotten the role a little earlier, or gotten another picture in after Licence to Kill. Alas... Actually, Moore wanted to stop playing Bond after For Your Eyes Only, so the studio started casting a new Bond, with of course Dalton as the frontrunner & James Brolin as the backup choice, but Kevin McClory, who owned the rights to Thunderball, decided to remake it & release it the same year(1983)as Octopussy, under the title Never Say Never Again, as well as cast Connery as Bond. So the studio, worried that the more familiar Connery would earn more at the box office, asked Moore to return as Bond, which he agreed too & Octopussy did make more money than Never Say Never Again.
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 20, 2010 19:52:59 GMT -5
JoDaNa1281 - Interesting. So what is Moore's excuse for (the lousy) A View To a Kill? I mean even his biggest fans must admit that was one too many.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,348
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 20, 2010 20:07:01 GMT -5
JoDaNa1281 - Interesting. So what is Moore's excuse for (the lousy) A View To a Kill? I mean even his biggest fans must admit that was one too many. I believe that he first said no, but they threw a lot of money his way.
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Patti Mayonnaise
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 39,911
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Jan 20, 2010 21:07:01 GMT -5
JoDaNa1281 - Interesting. So what is Moore's excuse for (the lousy) A View To a Kill? I mean even his biggest fans must admit that was one too many. I think he signed a 2 pic deal & the turd that was AVTAK just happened to be that 2nd one, even Moore has said that he didn't like it, though it does have one of my favorite Bond themes & Walken is pretty good, of course it also has arguably the worst Bond girl ever.
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 20, 2010 21:18:04 GMT -5
I think he signed a 2 pic deal & the turd that was AVTAK just happened to be that 2nd one, even Moore has said that he didn't like it, though it does have one of my favorite Bond themes & Walken is pretty good, of course it also has arguably the worst Bond girl ever.[/quote] Plus, the innuendo of Moore naked in a bed with Grace Jones too is....sorta gross. Yet not as yeech as the fact that Moore wasn't just older than the Bond Girl. He was older than her mother. EWWWWW!
|
|
|
Post by Alexander The So-so on Jan 20, 2010 22:41:17 GMT -5
Aw, why all the View To A Kill hate? I like it, in a guilty pleasure sort of way. The only problems I had with it were Moore being older than Father Time by that point and, of course, Tanya "JAAAAAAAMMMMMESSSSS!!!!! JAAAAAAMMMMMMEESSSSSS!!!!!" Roberts. But it had Max freakin' Zorin, played by Christopher freakin' Walken.
Dalton's not a bad Bond, but imo, he's overshadowed by other Bond actors who brought more personality into the role. Roger Moore had the lighthearted likeability and charm, Daniel Craig has the formidable badass aura that makes you know that he can kick serious ass, Pierce Brosnan had the psychological complexity and humanness, and Sean Connery had the perfect balance of all three. It's not to say that the others like Dalton or Lazenby were bad, by any means, but the others brought more to the role, imho.
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 20, 2010 22:55:31 GMT -5
Aw, why all the View To A Kill hate? I like it, in a guilty pleasure sort of way. The only problems I had with it were Moore being older than Father Time by that point and, of course, Tanya "JAAAAAAAMMMMMESSSSS!!!!! JAAAAAAMMMMMMEESSSSSS!!!!!" Roberts. But it had Max freakin' Zorin, played by Christopher freakin' Walken. When Chris Walken has a good part, he is indeed rather awesome. But Zorin, such a generic villain. Heck he's a not-so-disguised Goldfinger clone. So because the part is thin, Walken has to go "Walken" with his acting, and you all know what that means. Dalton's not a bad Bond, but imo, he's overshadowed by other Bond actors who brought more personality into the role. Roger Moore had the lighthearted likeability and charm, Daniel Craig has the formidable badass aura that makes you know that he can kick serious ass, Pierce Brosnan had the psychological complexity and humanness, and Sean Connery had the perfect balance of all three. It's not to say that the others like Dalton or Lazenby were bad, by any means, but the others brought more to the role, imho. Dalton brought his own personality, and no it wasn't about one-liners or being pretty manwhores. I think with the derided "brooding Bond," Dalton is probably better than Craig. Except Craig has one good movie (Casino Royale) that is better than Dalton's entries combined. As for Lazenby, I think he gets a real bad rap. The idea of an Aussie model playing a British spy is sorta ludicrous you must admit. Not exactly intimidating physically or in sexual charisma. But in watching OHMSS....he actually won me over. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe its that he played a Bond that was less comic booky and more down to Earth real.
|
|
|
Post by neal on Jan 20, 2010 23:31:47 GMT -5
I loved Dalton as Bond. To be fair, he's awesome in pretty much anything he's been in. Even in Flash Gordon? ;D Especially in Flash Gordon. He was a great Prince Barin. I liked all the Bonds, even Lazenby. It's the stories that can sometime be crappy that ruins things. Never the actors. They all fit the role in their own way.
|
|
|
Post by paulbearer on Jan 22, 2010 3:23:14 GMT -5
I know 3 million reasons why Moore did AVTAK....lol Moore wanted out already after MR.......but money talks and so forth. IMO , Walken was one of the best 80s villains...... Look at the intensity when Dalton pops the baloon after Saunders is killed , you can feeeel his rage in that scene
|
|
Nr1Humanoid
Hank Scorpio
Is the #3 humanoid at best.
Posts: 5,470
|
Post by Nr1Humanoid on Jan 22, 2010 13:10:41 GMT -5
"I was about 400 years too old for Bond in A View to a Kill." - Roger Moore
|
|
|
Post by skykid on Jan 22, 2010 13:42:10 GMT -5
If were discussing Dalton's recent turn in Doctor Who we also must discuss his role as Simon Skinner in Hot Fuzz.
He's a slasher who's prices are criminal.
|
|
|
Post by Paco S. Loco on Jan 22, 2010 17:53:26 GMT -5
It's a shame that the newfound appreciation for a more serious, closer to the book Bond is more of a trendy thing that most people seem to feel only for the new movies.
You'll see them on the Casino Royale imdb board praising the portrayal of Bond : "It's closer to the book, the way it should be!" then hop over to the Licence to Kill board and say "It sucks because it's too serious. Who cares if that's how the books were. These aren't the books and no one wants them to be like the books!"
Even funnier are the ones who act like Timothy Dalton is entirely to blame for his movies being more serious, as if once a Bond actor gets hired they simply have a camera crew follow him around for a few months and he goes around doing what he thinks Bond would do and then they piece together a movie out of the footage.
They deliberately wanted the movies to be more serious after Moore left and they would've been more serious even if they had gotten Brosnan instead of Dalton at that time.
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Patti Mayonnaise
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 39,911
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Jan 22, 2010 18:08:23 GMT -5
It's a shame that the newfound appreciation for a more serious, closer to the book Bond is more of a trendy thing that most people seem to feel only for the new movies. You'll see them on the Casino Royale imdb board praising the portrayal of Bond : "It's closer to the book, the way it should be!" then hop over to the Licence to Kill board and say "It sucks because it's too serious. Who cares if that's how the books were. These aren't the books and no one wants them to be like the books!" Even funnier are the ones who act like Timothy Dalton is entirely to blame for his movies being more serious, as if once a Bond actor gets hired they simply have a camera crew follow him around for a few months and he goes around doing what he thinks Bond would do and then they piece together a movie out of the footage. They deliberately wanted the movies to be more serious after Moore left and they would've been more serious even if they had gotten Brosnan instead of Dalton at that time. Exactly, John Glen as director had more to do with the serious movies than possibly anyone. For Your Eyes Only, which starred Moore, was a really serious one compared to his previous & following ones, & as far as Lazenby, I think time has been kind to him because when he was first cast at the time, people just weren't used to anyone but Connery as Bond, but now that we've had 6 different Bonds, he is looked at differently plus OHMSS was as close to it's book as any Bond film.
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 22, 2010 19:18:54 GMT -5
It's a shame that the newfound appreciation for a more serious, closer to the book Bond is more of a trendy thing that most people seem to feel only for the new movies. You'll see them on the Casino Royale imdb board praising the portrayal of Bond : "It's closer to the book, the way it should be!" then hop over to the Licence to Kill board and say "It sucks because it's too serious. Who cares if that's how the books were. These aren't the books and no one wants them to be like the books!" Even funnier are the ones who act like Timothy Dalton is entirely to blame for his movies being more serious, as if once a Bond actor gets hired they simply have a camera crew follow him around for a few months and he goes around doing what he thinks Bond would do and then they piece together a movie out of the footage. They deliberately wanted the movies to be more serious after Moore left and they would've been more serious even if they had gotten Brosnan instead of Dalton at that time. Yeah unfortunately this is the truth. You want my hypothesis why this is? (1) Dalton, fairly or not, is still stuck with the stigma of a failed Bond because he only did 2 movies and because of that lawsuit (and LTK getting clobbered in busy '89) delayed that franchise for like 6 years. Its hard to topple a mindset. (2) His entries rarely screen on TV, unless its 6 in the morning or nonsense like that. Goldfinger, Spy Who Loved Me, and those other classic entries always air at good times because assumingly what people want to watch. (3) Lets admit it, most Bond movies honestly don't play well on TV with the constant commercial interruptions. The more action-oriented, plot-free entries like the Pierce Brosnan pictures...they play well on TV. Well his first two at least. The Living Daylights doesn't do well with that ADD-friendly TV rhythm.
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Patti Mayonnaise
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 39,911
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Jan 22, 2010 20:39:21 GMT -5
It's a shame that the newfound appreciation for a more serious, closer to the book Bond is more of a trendy thing that most people seem to feel only for the new movies. You'll see them on the Casino Royale imdb board praising the portrayal of Bond : "It's closer to the book, the way it should be!" then hop over to the Licence to Kill board and say "It sucks because it's too serious. Who cares if that's how the books were. These aren't the books and no one wants them to be like the books!" Even funnier are the ones who act like Timothy Dalton is entirely to blame for his movies being more serious, as if once a Bond actor gets hired they simply have a camera crew follow him around for a few months and he goes around doing what he thinks Bond would do and then they piece together a movie out of the footage. They deliberately wanted the movies to be more serious after Moore left and they would've been more serious even if they had gotten Brosnan instead of Dalton at that time. Yeah unfortunately this is the truth. You want my hypothesis why this is? (1) Dalton, fairly or not, is still stuck with the stigma of a failed Bond because he only did 2 movies and because of that lawsuit (and LTK getting clobbered in busy '89) delayed that franchise for like 6 years. Its hard to topple a mindset. (2) His entries rarely screen on TV, unless its 6 in the morning or nonsense like that. Goldfinger, Spy Who Loved Me, and those other classic entries always air at good times because assumingly what people want to watch. (3) Lets admit it, most Bond movies honestly don't play well on TV with the constant commercial interruptions. The more action-oriented, plot-free entries like the Pierce Brosnan pictures...they play well on TV. Well his first two at least. The Living Daylights doesn't do well with that ADD-friendly TV rhythm. They've shown License to Kill on TV a lot, but I can't remember the last time Living Daylights was on TV
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Jan 23, 2010 2:24:48 GMT -5
Yeah unfortunately this is the truth. You want my hypothesis why this is? (1) Dalton, fairly or not, is still stuck with the stigma of a failed Bond because he only did 2 movies and because of that lawsuit (and LTK getting clobbered in busy '89) delayed that franchise for like 6 years. Its hard to topple a mindset. (2) His entries rarely screen on TV, unless its 6 in the morning or nonsense like that. Goldfinger, Spy Who Loved Me, and those other classic entries always air at good times because assumingly what people want to watch. (3) Lets admit it, most Bond movies honestly don't play well on TV with the constant commercial interruptions. The more action-oriented, plot-free entries like the Pierce Brosnan pictures...they play well on TV. Well his first two at least. The Living Daylights doesn't do well with that ADD-friendly TV rhythm. They've shown License to Kill on TV a lot, but I can't remember the last time Living Daylights was on TV I will admit, I've only seen The Living Daylights on TV(same for LTK) so I have no idea what its like uncut and commercial free. I hated TLD but loved LTK
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Jan 23, 2010 2:53:42 GMT -5
He's my favorite James Bond. I agree with someone else who said he was too young at the time of OHMSS, though. But, while I like Roger Moore, when I watch the Bond franchise in order, I eventually find myself just waiting for Dalton to take over the role, and then he only gets 2 films and then he's out. I wish he would've gotten the role a little earlier, or gotten another picture in after Licence to Kill. Alas... Actually, Moore wanted to stop playing Bond after For Your Eyes Only, so the studio started casting a new Bond, with of course Dalton as the frontrunner & James Brolin as the backup choice, but Kevin McClory, who owned the rights to Thunderball, decided to remake it & release it the same year(1983)as Octopussy, under the title Never Say Never Again, as well as cast Connery as Bond. So the studio, worried that the more familiar Connery would earn more at the box office, asked Moore to return as Bond, which he agreed too & Octopussy did make more money than Never Say Never Again. Yeah, I have Never Say Never Again. I'm aware of why they chose to bring Moore back to the role, I just disagree with it. For me its one of those "what if" scenarios: if they put a brand new Bond against the aged Connery version, maybe that might've still done well. And also, in regards to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, I think tv stations are less likely to air the film basically because Bond winds up on the side of the group that would later on become the Taliban. Nobody knew that was gonna happen at the time, obviously, but to show that kinda thing NOW probably isn't gonna sit well with some people.
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 23, 2010 2:54:39 GMT -5
I will admit, I've only seen The Living Daylights on TV(same for LTK) so I have no idea what its like uncut and commercial free. I hated TLD but loved LTK I would actually recommend you watch it on DVD sometime. Why it doesn't work on TV is that its a real spy thriller, with a complicated-but-not-convoluted plot full of danger, intrigue, suspicions, double crosses...you know, a spy movie. Hitchcock doesn't really do well with commercial breaks either. Its not one of those giant action toys which you don't need a plot or story to figure out for you to enjoy it, like say Goldeneye or even LTK. Sure TLD has alot of the same problems many 007 movies have. The awkward shoehorned formula obligations (Q, gadgets, super car), and not exactly sharp or thrilling action cinematography. But otherwise, its a good entry. And pretty underrated. Also that climax where Bond is gangsta cold blooded...wow.
|
|