I really liked Timothy Dalton and his portrayal of James Bond.In fact, I like what all of the five actors have each done with the role,and while I'll always consider Sean Connery the definitive 007--Tim comes a mighty close second.
Tim wasn't a bit similar to Roger Moore and that alone probably created some problems for him.After all,there's an entire generation who grew up with Roger's 007.And through no fault of his own Tim Dalton wasn't the highly touted and originally announced Pierce Brosnan either.And that probably hurt Tim in the eyes of some filmgoers.Unfair but also understandable for anyone who was expecting Remington Steele.
However,Tim did an outstanding job as James Bond.He tried very hard to incarnate the literary James Bond--someone who'd only appeared occasionally on the screen after 1965--and did so with great style and skill.He looked and sounded believable and convincing.Both of his performances are excellent and I think Ian Fleming would have been delighted with Dalton's take on the character.
I like Pierce Brosnan too--but in a very different way.He's the movie star Bond and we all agree that he was very popular.In his own fashion Brosnan was probably as popular as Sean Connery was during the height of Bondmania, but I'd never call Pierce a "superior" actor to Tim or a "better" James Bond--merely a different one with his own unique interpretation.But that's only my opinion.
As for Clive Owen--nothing I've of him I've seen so far convinces me that he's James Bond material(and yes,I've seen Croupier) but in all fairness I haven't seen him in the role itself.However,compared to the previous five 007s he's rather ordinary looking with an ordinary speaking voice.That might be fine for another character, but I'm not at all sure that's right for 007-- who by the very nature of the motion pictures-- has always been a leading man in the classic sense and not a leading man because the producers say he is.Big difference.
Sorry folks...but i'm going to join the 'pro Clive Owen' bandwagon.
I used to be a bit dubious of him...as to what he could bring to the role of Bond. That was until i saw him in the series of short films from 'The Hire'. I'm sorry but once i saw these films, i knew he was a serious contender.
I can see why people say he would be right to play Bond, but i can also now see the other side of the coin and see how he can just about pull it off.
Quoting Agent Mayday:
Sorry folks...but i'm going to join the 'pro Clive Owen' bandwagon.
I used to be a bit dubious of him...as to what he could bring to the role of Bond. That was until i saw him in the series of short films from 'The Hire'. I'm sorry but once i saw these films, i knew he was a serious contender.
I can see why people say he would be right to play Bond, but i can also now see the other side of the coin and see how he can just about pull it off.
You experienced a similar change as I did. I had always been pro-Jackman, and couldn't believe anyone could want Owen to be Bond. I had only seen him in pictures. Then I saw him in Bourne Identity. Same thing. He was no Bond.Gosford Park.Also flop. Then I saw him in Croupier, and it somehow clicked. He has been my Bond of choice from then on.
I can see the other side of the coin too, but there has to be something special about this guy, that makes us change our minds.
FelixLeiter ♀Staffordshire or a pubPosts: 1,286MI6 Agent
If Clive gets the job I will be pleased. I too have slight concerns about him being too humourless, but his increased profile now means that his Bond career would be less likely to go the way of TD's (Great Bond, never truly accepted by the public, PB's later success was further evidence of this).
If we want hard-edged, a bit of SC, a bit of TD, then we could certainly try Clive. I don't think he'd be the greatest Bond of the 6, but I don't think he'd letanyone down.
If we want Pierce-lite then we should go with Julian McMahon. He would portray Bond in a very similar way and successful way and would ensure that CR has a bigger female audience.
IMHO these two are the safest bets and would be my first choices. However, I am a Bond fan and I will support whichever lucky actor gets the job.
FelixLeiter ♀Staffordshire or a pubPosts: 1,286MI6 Agent
quoting i never miss
However, I am a Bond fan and I will support whichever lucky actor gets the job.
If we want Pierce-lite then we should go with Julian McMahon. He would portray Bond in a very similar way and successful way and would ensure that CR has a bigger female audience.
.
You are quite right about the female audience. My sister, never a big Bond fan, says she would miss one if McMahon is casted.
Quoting I never miss:
If we want hard-edged, a bit of SC, a bit of TD, then we could certainly try Clive. I don't think he'd be the greatest Bond of the 6, but I don't think he'd letanyone down.
If we want Pierce-lite then we should go with Julian McMahon. He would portray Bond in a very similar way and successful way and would ensure that CR has a bigger female audience.
IMHO these two are the safest bets and would be my first choices. However, I am a Bond fan and I will support whichever lucky actor gets the job.
I agree, that Owen and McMahon seem the best bets; although Dominic West is getting greta reviews for his show The Wire, and he does look very good for Bond).
Owen would probably be a very tough, edgy Bond, but I suspect McMahon wouldn't play Bond quite so sensitive as Pierce Brosnan has. McMahon demonstrates a swaggering arrogance in Nip/Tuck which I imagine Eon like. I think he'd bring that quality to his Bond, and in that way, he'll also have a certain Connery air of supreme confidence.
I must admit, if it's not Owen, I really like the idea of McMahon.
Quoting M Hazard: Quoting I never miss:
If we want hard-edged, a bit of SC, a bit of TD, then we could certainly try Clive. I don't think he'd be the greatest Bond of the 6, but I don't think he'd letanyone down.
If we want Pierce-lite then we should go with Julian McMahon. He would portray Bond in a very similar way and successful way and would ensure that CR has a bigger female audience.
IMHO these two are the safest bets and would be my first choices. However, I am a Bond fan and I will support whichever lucky actor gets the job.
I agree, that Owen and McMahon seem the best bets; although Dominic West is getting greta reviews for his show The Wire, and he does look very good for Bond).
Owen would probably be a very tough, edgy Bond, but I suspect McMahon wouldn't play Bond quite so sensitive as Pierce Brosnan has. McMahon demonstrates a swaggering arrogance in Nip/Tuck which I imagine Eon like. I think he'd bring that quality to his Bond, and in that way, he'll also have a certain Connery air of supreme confidence.
I must admit, if it's not Owen, I really like the idea of McMahon.
At the very least one has to admit that McMahon and Owen are the two hottest rumors recently for whatever that is worth.
SeanConnery007The Bond Archive - London, EngPosts: 169MI6 Agent
Persoanlly I think McMahon is far to arrogent to be taken kindly as the new Bond. I'm a huge fan of Clive Owen and he is my personal favourite for the role. He's got to me what all the previous actors had; he can work Bond. Now, what that exactly means and how they've all got this I don't know, its somewhere within the actor, and I believe Owen has it. I just feel that McMahon would be the wrong choice, he doesn't credit much with me, and I don't think he would work onscreen.
I agree that Macmahon is wrong, I think he is just too perfect looking and, dare I say, slightly effeminate! He also reminds me somewhat of a Thunderbird puppet. Does he really look like he could handle himself in a fist fight? He would have to make sure no-one hit him in the face because I get the feeling that might really upset him!
Quoting Walther:
I agree that Macmahon is wrong, I think he is just too perfect looking and, dare I say, slightly effeminate! He also reminds me somewhat of a Thunderbird puppet. Does he really look like he could handle himself in a fist fight? He would have to make sure no-one hit him in the face because I get the feeling that might really upset him!
Yeah, can see where you're coming from re: McMahon. I do think McMahon is a charismatic actor (certainly on the small screen with Nip/Tuck) and he does have the swagger and a certain Bnd look (more in the Lazenby mold perhaps.)
My top choice is Owen and from the buzz on Sin City and his reported attitude and replies on the Conan interview; I think he may well be the one;and it's beginning to gradually slip out.
I can't believe EON are ignoring all this buzz around Owen as Bond. Perhaps in truth that's what they really want before they announce him, so that the general public, including the American audience, will be conditioned to instantly accept him as Bond. That's kind of what happened with Brosnan. He was the number one choice in the press for sometime and consequently the public saw it as no big surprise when he was finally announced as Bond.
If McMahon, or Craig or Butler were announced as the new Bond, I think the public would be a little bewildered (who is this guy?) and take a long time to adjust to the idea (a near repeat of the Lazenby and Dalton situations; and neither were ever truly accepted by the general public; many fans, liked them; but not the average punters) But if Owen is announced, after all the hype, the reaction from the press and public will clearly be very positive, and EON needs that to get over replacing the hugely popular Pierce Brosnan.
Another scenario playing off the evasive Conan interview that I saw would have the key of Benicio Del Torio. He was interviewed saying he has the Broccoli's phone numbers and acquaintance from working for them--he then said he gave them a call to advocate his friend and Sin City co-star Clive Owen for Bond. Perhaps Clive wants the role hence his evasive response to would he like to be Bond and since he hasn't been asked his buddy Benicio called ,maybe on his own, his Eon friends to lobby. Maybe Eon wants to either go younger or get someone less hot and more pliable--this would fit in their old pattern for choosing a Bond. No big or rising names.
Quoting Seannery:
Another scenario playing off the evasive Conan interview that I saw would have the key of Benicio Del Torio. He was interviewed saying he has the Broccoli's phone numbers and acquaintance from working for them--he then said he gave them a call to advocate his friend and Sin City co-star Clive Owen for Bond. Perhaps Clive wants the role hence his evasive response to would he like to be Bond and since he hasn't been asked his buddy Benicio called ,maybe on his own, his Eon friends to lobby. Maybe Eon wants to either go younger or get someone less hot and more pliable--this would fit in their old pattern for choosing a Bond. No big or rising names.
Yesterday I read a trancript of the Conan interview at another site (and I did see it live, too), and it shined a little more light on what was said. Conan flat out said "You don't want to play Bond, do you?" and Clive's exact response was "I never said that" and he went on to his usual "all rumors" schtick. He didn't deny that he would do it, he denied that he WOULDN'T do it. I'm starting to think we have our new Bond.
Quoting MarJil: Quoting Seannery:
Another scenario playing off the evasive Conan interview that I saw would have the key of Benicio Del Torio. He was interviewed saying he has the Broccoli's phone numbers and acquaintance from working for them--he then said he gave them a call to advocate his friend and Sin City co-star Clive Owen for Bond. Perhaps Clive wants the role hence his evasive response to would he like to be Bond and since he hasn't been asked his buddy Benicio called ,maybe on his own, his Eon friends to lobby. Maybe Eon wants to either go younger or get someone less hot and more pliable--this would fit in their old pattern for choosing a Bond. No big or rising names.
Yesterday I read a trancript of the Conan interview at another site (and I did see it live, too), and it shined a little more light on what was said. Conan flat out said "You don't want to play Bond, do you?" and Clive's exact response was "I never said that" and he went on to his usual "all rumors" schtick. He didn't deny that he would do it, he denied that he WOULDN'T do it. I'm starting to think we have our new Bond.
It's possible Marjil I had some of the same vibes about it too BUT lets not get carried away. The scenario I layed out is possible too as our other possibilities. If Owen has it why would Benicio be lobbying for him?
I MUST believe in MM.:)) Seriously the context of the article indicates otherwise BUT I guess it is possible not probable. Not where you can state that with certainty. Even if correct that still doesn't change the possibility that Clive may want Bond and so states things ambivalently BUT Eon may not want him. It is possible as is the possibility he maybe Bond in waiting. NOTHING but wishful thinking at this point says Clive is absolutely Bond from his ambivalent statements. We still know too little and reading tea leaves is notoriously unreliable. Except for our soothsayer MM--what is sooth by the way.:))
Quoting Walther:
I agree that Macmahon is wrong, I think he is just too perfect looking and, dare I say, slightly effeminate! He also reminds me somewhat of a Thunderbird puppet. Does he really look like he could handle himself in a fist fight? He would have to make sure no-one hit him in the face because I get the feeling that might really upset him!
Lets not foget he'll be Doctor Doom in Fantastic Four this Summer.
It´s starting to bug me that Clive Owen doesn´t express any enthusiasm for the role. Does this bother anybody else? Most of the other commonly mentioned names for the role have expressed some degree of enthusiasm or interest. Not Clive. I mean, it´s the dream role for many men. The series has millions of fans of every age and race. Say what you´re thinking already!
I actually SAW both Benicio and CLive Owens'
interviews.
Imo, CLive Owen really couldn't care less about
playing Bond. he said that he's having a great
time doing indie films. he looked like the whole thing is humorous to him.
However, you just never
know--if they actually put an offer in his hands, the temptation to be BOND might be irresistible.
After seeing Gerard Butler on the Craig Ferguson show, I find myself rooting for HIM.
HARDYBOY-- thanks for the pic on page 4 from 'the anderson tapes'. I just about popped
my cork. Sean Connery is a STUD at any age!!
I have a couple of thoughts about the fear that Clive would turn out to be another Dalton and that it would hurt the series. First, Dalton did an excellent job in the role, but he had a few things going against him. People were used to the comedy of the Moore films and probably were put off by the heavier tone, something they hadn't expected in a Bond film. Dalton was an unknown quantity in the US especially, so people probably didn't realize that there was going to be a change in direction with the new Bond unless they were paying attention beforehand. Clive, on the other hand, in the past year has attained a much higher profile than Dalton had, and people know that his personna is darker than the one who preceeded him as Bond. They would know what to expect with Clive, and I believe it would be accepted easier than it was with Dalton. Also, he does have a sense of humor, it is just very dry.
I for one find his nonchalance about the role to be kind of appealling. The essence of cool is to do things the way you want and not to care what others think about it, or displaying pure ambivalence, and Clive seems to have that down.
Having said that, he still ranks behind Butler in my book. Butler is very engaging, has a great look, can handle the role, and would be a great ambassador for the Bond films. Just casting him would signal a return to the roots of the film series anyway, and he's the perfect age. But Clive would do just fine, too.
In my own personal opinion, Dalton's big problem had nothing at all to do with circumstances beyond his control, audience preconceptions, legal issues, the phases of the moon and tides or the way Saturn was lined up against Uranus.
His biggest problem was that he simply wasn't LIKEABLE enough as Bond. Everything else set aside, when a series is made about a spy and an assassin, a "blunt instrument" on Her Majesty's behalf, he'd better have that loveable charm. Otherwise, why do we care so much what happens to him? To Brits, sure, he's one of us. Maybe we can side with him on that alone. To fans of the Fleming literature, certainly. We've read his adventures and know he's "our guy". We can support him on that. But the gen.pub. could give real support to Connery, Moore and Brosnan for one big reason: they had magnetic, concrete, likeable charm and charisma. To requote the old adage, guys wanted to be them and girls wanted to...well, you know the rest! This is SO important if we are to empathize and side with someone who has such a harsh job. How many of us condone killing in any way? I certainly don't. But Bond I can watch and enjoy because:
a) He's clearly the good guy, battling the world's evil!
b) The circumstances are far from mundane and usual. He's doing what he HAS to do.
c) He has the AURA of a hero, despite the unpleasant actions he must perform at times. He is likeable and charming and we can put ourselves into his shoes, in this fantasy realm anyway. When the hero disposes of the villain, we know he hd to do it for the greater good. And we support him because his magnetism DEMANDS that we do.
Dalton failed IMO on (c), and to some extent on (a) too. Had he not, I think public reaction & Box-Office would have been better and excuse wouldn't have to be made for him. After all, GE wasn't exactly assured of success in IT's circumstances. And I am unconvinced by the argument that timing worked AGAINST Dalton and yet FOR Brosnan. And the issue of public support is an over-simplification and not necessarily accurate in all cases, being as it is largely retrospective conjecture anyway.
Brosnan was endearing to the people - the majority anyway - like Connery and, to a lesser extent, Moore before him. Simply put, Lazenby and Dalton were not.
Now this is just my opinion, but for me that is the bottm line on that point.
And I certainly feel Clive Owen has the same "lack of" that Lazenby and Dalton had - only more so. Whatever the other circumstances, that remains.
Very well argued as per usual royalmile but I will have to disagree with you on a couple of points.
I find it interesting that you say you say Dalton 'wasn't likable enough' as Bond. To me Flemings Bond is many things,but he is not 'likable'.He is arrogant,charming when needed and charismatic.He is also quite cold and ruthless.But perhaps thats were the problem is.Fleming & cinema Bond had become so far removed that people just dont get what was going on.Anyway,I think Dalton helped Pierce enormously in trying to bring a colder edge back to Bond and from that point I think Owen wouldn't fair as badly as Dalton because the public are more used to a more serious Bond.
I also agree with you in that in LTK the good
/bad guy may have been slightly blurred,but ultimately Bond was showing loyalty to his closest friend,which makes him a good guy in my book.
I do find it odd that I dont rank Owen as one of my favourites.As a Dalton loyalist I feel I should welcome Owen but I just dont.He just don't press my buttons and I cant work it out.He ticks all my boxes but is missing something non the less.Dalton's Bond certainly wasn't an affable charmer but he had an edge and a coldness that was intriguing.John Glen said of Dalton 'you look at his face and you have no idea what he is thinking'.He was quite mysterious.Owen doesn't have that mystery,he's just there.
People seem to either love Dalton or not.There is not much in between.He does provoke a passion one way or the other.I just think Owen would be OK,which is not a good feeling IMO.
Personally, I do find Fleming's Bond likeable. His dialogues with Vesper, Gala, Tiffany, Leiter and others make me empathize with him and see it all from his point of view. I smile when I read the novels, at his words and at the way Fleming describes his reactions and thoughts. At the risk of sounding cheesy, he is, like many great literary characters, someone you could almost think of as a friend. For me, Dalton captured none of this. Whatsoever.
It all depends on how you translate what you see though, both when reading and when viewing. And although LTK was a disappointment to me, I am certainly glad that others enjoy it, as that makes it worthwhile.
I agree about the precedent set by Dalton to allow Bond to be a more serious character after the fun and laughter of Sir Rog. Though I feel Brosnan's abilities would have allowed him HIS take on Bond no matter what. I think his Bond would have resonated anyway. That's conjecture either way, of course.
And I agree that Owen is more wallpaper than spotlight. The way I feel about it is, I just can't ever see myself thinking, "Come on James, get out of it!" when it's that 'suit full of bugger-all' up there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I said royalmile,you either love Dalton or you dont.He stirs the passions which I think is a good thing.We will have to agree to disagree on this occasion but as I do generally agree with your posts, I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet.
And I know we agree about Owen.What upsets me about Owen most is my indifference to him.All the other candidates that are bandied about I have a definite yes/no about them.Owen if picked would be passable,but Bond deserves more than that.
Comments
But we can't say for definite - with absolute surety - until the next movie comes out without him............
Tim wasn't a bit similar to Roger Moore and that alone probably created some problems for him.After all,there's an entire generation who grew up with Roger's 007.And through no fault of his own Tim Dalton wasn't the highly touted and originally announced Pierce Brosnan either.And that probably hurt Tim in the eyes of some filmgoers.Unfair but also understandable for anyone who was expecting Remington Steele.
However,Tim did an outstanding job as James Bond.He tried very hard to incarnate the literary James Bond--someone who'd only appeared occasionally on the screen after 1965--and did so with great style and skill.He looked and sounded believable and convincing.Both of his performances are excellent and I think Ian Fleming would have been delighted with Dalton's take on the character.
I like Pierce Brosnan too--but in a very different way.He's the movie star Bond and we all agree that he was very popular.In his own fashion Brosnan was probably as popular as Sean Connery was during the height of Bondmania, but I'd never call Pierce a "superior" actor to Tim or a "better" James Bond--merely a different one with his own unique interpretation.But that's only my opinion.
As for Clive Owen--nothing I've of him I've seen so far convinces me that he's James Bond material(and yes,I've seen Croupier) but in all fairness I haven't seen him in the role itself.However,compared to the previous five 007s he's rather ordinary looking with an ordinary speaking voice.That might be fine for another character, but I'm not at all sure that's right for 007-- who by the very nature of the motion pictures-- has always been a leading man in the classic sense and not a leading man because the producers say he is.Big difference.
I used to be a bit dubious of him...as to what he could bring to the role of Bond. That was until i saw him in the series of short films from 'The Hire'. I'm sorry but once i saw these films, i knew he was a serious contender.
I can see why people say he would be right to play Bond, but i can also now see the other side of the coin and see how he can just about pull it off.
You experienced a similar change as I did. I had always been pro-Jackman, and couldn't believe anyone could want Owen to be Bond. I had only seen him in pictures. Then I saw him in Bourne Identity. Same thing. He was no Bond.Gosford Park.Also flop. Then I saw him in Croupier, and it somehow clicked. He has been my Bond of choice from then on.
I can see the other side of the coin too, but there has to be something special about this guy, that makes us change our minds.
If we want hard-edged, a bit of SC, a bit of TD, then we could certainly try Clive. I don't think he'd be the greatest Bond of the 6, but I don't think he'd letanyone down.
If we want Pierce-lite then we should go with Julian McMahon. He would portray Bond in a very similar way and successful way and would ensure that CR has a bigger female audience.
IMHO these two are the safest bets and would be my first choices. However, I am a Bond fan and I will support whichever lucky actor gets the job.
However, I am a Bond fan and I will support whichever lucky actor gets the job.
Here here
You are quite right about the female audience. My sister, never a big Bond fan, says she would miss one if McMahon is casted.
I agree, that Owen and McMahon seem the best bets; although Dominic West is getting greta reviews for his show The Wire, and he does look very good for Bond).
Owen would probably be a very tough, edgy Bond, but I suspect McMahon wouldn't play Bond quite so sensitive as Pierce Brosnan has. McMahon demonstrates a swaggering arrogance in Nip/Tuck which I imagine Eon like. I think he'd bring that quality to his Bond, and in that way, he'll also have a certain Connery air of supreme confidence.
I must admit, if it's not Owen, I really like the idea of McMahon.
At the very least one has to admit that McMahon and Owen are the two hottest rumors recently for whatever that is worth.
Yeah, can see where you're coming from re: McMahon. I do think McMahon is a charismatic actor (certainly on the small screen with Nip/Tuck) and he does have the swagger and a certain Bnd look (more in the Lazenby mold perhaps.)
My top choice is Owen and from the buzz on Sin City and his reported attitude and replies on the Conan interview; I think he may well be the one;and it's beginning to gradually slip out.
I can't believe EON are ignoring all this buzz around Owen as Bond. Perhaps in truth that's what they really want before they announce him, so that the general public, including the American audience, will be conditioned to instantly accept him as Bond. That's kind of what happened with Brosnan. He was the number one choice in the press for sometime and consequently the public saw it as no big surprise when he was finally announced as Bond.
If McMahon, or Craig or Butler were announced as the new Bond, I think the public would be a little bewildered (who is this guy?) and take a long time to adjust to the idea (a near repeat of the Lazenby and Dalton situations; and neither were ever truly accepted by the general public; many fans, liked them; but not the average punters) But if Owen is announced, after all the hype, the reaction from the press and public will clearly be very positive, and EON needs that to get over replacing the hugely popular Pierce Brosnan.
It's Owen!
Yesterday I read a trancript of the Conan interview at another site (and I did see it live, too), and it shined a little more light on what was said. Conan flat out said "You don't want to play Bond, do you?" and Clive's exact response was "I never said that" and he went on to his usual "all rumors" schtick. He didn't deny that he would do it, he denied that he WOULDN'T do it. I'm starting to think we have our new Bond.
It's possible Marjil I had some of the same vibes about it too BUT lets not get carried away. The scenario I layed out is possible too as our other possibilities. If Owen has it why would Benicio be lobbying for him?
MM
I don't think so MM. You can spin it that way BUT that would be a stretch at best--the article indicates otherwise.
MM
I MUST believe in MM.:)) Seriously the context of the article indicates otherwise BUT I guess it is possible not probable. Not where you can state that with certainty. Even if correct that still doesn't change the possibility that Clive may want Bond and so states things ambivalently BUT Eon may not want him. It is possible as is the possibility he maybe Bond in waiting. NOTHING but wishful thinking at this point says Clive is absolutely Bond from his ambivalent statements. We still know too little and reading tea leaves is notoriously unreliable. Except for our soothsayer MM--what is sooth by the way.:))
Lets not foget he'll be Doctor Doom in Fantastic Four this Summer.
interviews.
Imo, CLive Owen really couldn't care less about
playing Bond. he said that he's having a great
time doing indie films. he looked like the whole thing is humorous to him.
However, you just never
know--if they actually put an offer in his hands, the temptation to be BOND might be irresistible.
After seeing Gerard Butler on the Craig Ferguson show, I find myself rooting for HIM.
HARDYBOY-- thanks for the pic on page 4 from 'the anderson tapes'. I just about popped
my cork. Sean Connery is a STUD at any age!!
I for one find his nonchalance about the role to be kind of appealling. The essence of cool is to do things the way you want and not to care what others think about it, or displaying pure ambivalence, and Clive seems to have that down.
Having said that, he still ranks behind Butler in my book. Butler is very engaging, has a great look, can handle the role, and would be a great ambassador for the Bond films. Just casting him would signal a return to the roots of the film series anyway, and he's the perfect age. But Clive would do just fine, too.
His biggest problem was that he simply wasn't LIKEABLE enough as Bond. Everything else set aside, when a series is made about a spy and an assassin, a "blunt instrument" on Her Majesty's behalf, he'd better have that loveable charm. Otherwise, why do we care so much what happens to him? To Brits, sure, he's one of us. Maybe we can side with him on that alone. To fans of the Fleming literature, certainly. We've read his adventures and know he's "our guy". We can support him on that. But the gen.pub. could give real support to Connery, Moore and Brosnan for one big reason: they had magnetic, concrete, likeable charm and charisma. To requote the old adage, guys wanted to be them and girls wanted to...well, you know the rest! This is SO important if we are to empathize and side with someone who has such a harsh job. How many of us condone killing in any way? I certainly don't. But Bond I can watch and enjoy because:
a) He's clearly the good guy, battling the world's evil!
b) The circumstances are far from mundane and usual. He's doing what he HAS to do.
c) He has the AURA of a hero, despite the unpleasant actions he must perform at times. He is likeable and charming and we can put ourselves into his shoes, in this fantasy realm anyway. When the hero disposes of the villain, we know he hd to do it for the greater good. And we support him because his magnetism DEMANDS that we do.
Dalton failed IMO on (c), and to some extent on (a) too. Had he not, I think public reaction & Box-Office would have been better and excuse wouldn't have to be made for him. After all, GE wasn't exactly assured of success in IT's circumstances. And I am unconvinced by the argument that timing worked AGAINST Dalton and yet FOR Brosnan. And the issue of public support is an over-simplification and not necessarily accurate in all cases, being as it is largely retrospective conjecture anyway.
Brosnan was endearing to the people - the majority anyway - like Connery and, to a lesser extent, Moore before him. Simply put, Lazenby and Dalton were not.
Now this is just my opinion, but for me that is the bottm line on that point.
And I certainly feel Clive Owen has the same "lack of" that Lazenby and Dalton had - only more so. Whatever the other circumstances, that remains.
I find it interesting that you say you say Dalton 'wasn't likable enough' as Bond. To me Flemings Bond is many things,but he is not 'likable'.He is arrogant,charming when needed and charismatic.He is also quite cold and ruthless.But perhaps thats were the problem is.Fleming & cinema Bond had become so far removed that people just dont get what was going on.Anyway,I think Dalton helped Pierce enormously in trying to bring a colder edge back to Bond and from that point I think Owen wouldn't fair as badly as Dalton because the public are more used to a more serious Bond.
I also agree with you in that in LTK the good
/bad guy may have been slightly blurred,but ultimately Bond was showing loyalty to his closest friend,which makes him a good guy in my book.
I do find it odd that I dont rank Owen as one of my favourites.As a Dalton loyalist I feel I should welcome Owen but I just dont.He just don't press my buttons and I cant work it out.He ticks all my boxes but is missing something non the less.Dalton's Bond certainly wasn't an affable charmer but he had an edge and a coldness that was intriguing.John Glen said of Dalton 'you look at his face and you have no idea what he is thinking'.He was quite mysterious.Owen doesn't have that mystery,he's just there.
People seem to either love Dalton or not.There is not much in between.He does provoke a passion one way or the other.I just think Owen would be OK,which is not a good feeling IMO.
Personally, I do find Fleming's Bond likeable. His dialogues with Vesper, Gala, Tiffany, Leiter and others make me empathize with him and see it all from his point of view. I smile when I read the novels, at his words and at the way Fleming describes his reactions and thoughts. At the risk of sounding cheesy, he is, like many great literary characters, someone you could almost think of as a friend. For me, Dalton captured none of this. Whatsoever.
It all depends on how you translate what you see though, both when reading and when viewing. And although LTK was a disappointment to me, I am certainly glad that others enjoy it, as that makes it worthwhile.
I agree about the precedent set by Dalton to allow Bond to be a more serious character after the fun and laughter of Sir Rog. Though I feel Brosnan's abilities would have allowed him HIS take on Bond no matter what. I think his Bond would have resonated anyway. That's conjecture either way, of course.
And I agree that Owen is more wallpaper than spotlight. The way I feel about it is, I just can't ever see myself thinking, "Come on James, get out of it!" when it's that 'suit full of bugger-all' up there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I know we agree about Owen.What upsets me about Owen most is my indifference to him.All the other candidates that are bandied about I have a definite yes/no about them.Owen if picked would be passable,but Bond deserves more than that.