Seems like it's more of the pedestrian Bond fans who pan Dalton, thinking how underwhelming he is, falling short of the suave-Bond, sardonically-witty Bond, super-Bond mold...so it's no wonder that if someone from that camp sees praise about Dalton's interpretation of Bond, they conclude that it's unfounded. But for the objective fans of the "TRUE" Bond character, which BTW isn't bound by the Bond film series, going down the checklist Dalton nailed it the most.
Hello, old friend,
just to be complete, I entirely disagree with your points above and I count myself to the group that is a fan of the "true" Bond character, Dalton simply fails to convince me, that he's Bond by that definition. -{
I gracefully accept your dissention, since you are a very nice friend whom I will be asking an important favor from shortly )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
The only reason I'm posting this divisive opinion is that I'm rewatching these movies & went through the Moore ones first (Then OHMSS) because they are generally panned etc. Haven't watched A View To a A Kill because I'm waiting for the Never Say Never Again retirement doublebill. But man the Connery movies do not hold up especially FRWL & Goldfinger..put me & my friends to sleep(Thunderball is painfully bad) YOLT is entertainingly ridiculous like Moonraker..but my friends want to give up & we haven't even gotten to Dalton or Pierce....who I forgot was James Bond.
-{ -{
DiS, not to sound condescending, but it seems there’s a generational issue here, judging from the feedback from you and your friends. The stark reality is, any movie, even those outside of the Bond series, stands on its own merits against the pure, utilitarian standards anyone might hold based on their own, unique experiences and perspective. Particularly, if you are a young person and have taken in the most current movies at the cinema, the ones that would have drawn you have “up-ed the ante” in terms of entertainment value just so it can survive and make money at the box office, which is why today’s action block-buster movies are so visually complex, with over-the-top stunts and explosions where even mediocre examples, like Angelina Jolie’s “Salt” or the Jason Stratham movies which were technically well made to ensure they meet these entertaining standards of today’s audiences. So based purely on those things, yes, the older Bond movies will be dry, and since the action or coolness won’t necessarily hold out with today’s audiences, it’s no surprise that only the far-out and the absurd entries like YOLT and MR have held your interests.
On the other hand, if you want to enjoy these movies on their own merits, I suggest considering their context and how society and the world was like during that time, how people’s sensitivities and tastes were like, sort of like a time capsule. Also, I would not rely too much on peer consensus when trying to appreciate these movies, because the dynamics of group acceptance and views can really skew how you might potentially appreciate something. Be critical but in a good way, where you are looking at the various aspects of a film through those filters I mentioned, considering the music, set design, fashions, etc.
I’m actually surprised that you think Craig is overrated (though in fact, I think that too) since his movies and interpretation of the role are pretty cutting edge in view of today’s action movie standards, and the financials of his movies prove that; anyone's offering in the market will be rewarded by masses of satisfied people.
As far as what I’ve said about Dalton, I maintain that I think he is in fact under-rated, if judging just by the box-office returns of his movies and where his ranking generally falls among movie audiences (not just Bond fans), especially when ranked against the other Bond actors and their movies. But if you want to try to see what the buzz is all about among the smaller group of Dalton fans, I suggest reading one of the Bond novels, maybe a later one, since the character in the books is much darker and frankly, underwhelming in terms of personality, so unlike the typical suave and dashing persona most of the Bond actors went for. IMO, the charm of the Literary Bond is more internalized and relatable and what's attractive to the reader is not so much the flash of the person but his outlook on his world and how he muses on these things in the voice of Fleming himself and his own particularly interesting outlook and experiences in life that most people will themselves will not experience.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The only reason I'm posting this divisive opinion is that I'm rewatching these movies & went through the Moore ones first (Then OHMSS) because they are generally panned etc. Haven't watched A View To a A Kill because I'm waiting for the Never Say Never Again retirement doublebill. But man the Connery movies do not hold up especially FRWL & Goldfinger..put me & my friends to sleep(Thunderball is painfully bad) YOLT is entertainingly ridiculous like Moonraker..but my friends want to give up & we haven't even gotten to Dalton or Pierce....who I forgot was James Bond.
-{ -{
DiS, not to sound condescending, but it seems there’s a generational issue here, judging from the feedback from you and your friends. The stark reality is, any movie, even those outside of the Bond series, stands on its own merits against the pure, utilitarian standards anyone might hold based on their own, unique experiences and perspective. Particularly, if you are a young person and have taken in the most current movies at the cinema, the ones that would have drawn you have “up-ed the ante” in terms of entertainment value just so it can survive and make money at the box office, which is why today’s action block-buster movies are so visually complex, with over-the-top stunts and explosions where even mediocre examples, like Angelina Jolie’s “Salt” or the Jason Stratham movies which were technically well made to ensure they meet these entertaining standards of today’s audiences. So based purely on those things, yes, the older Bond movies will be dry, and since the action or coolness won’t necessarily hold out with today’s audiences, it’s no surprise that only the far-out and the absurd entries like YOLT and MR have held your interests.
On the other hand, if you want to enjoy these movies on their own merits, I suggest considering their context and how society and the world was like during that time, how people’s sensitivities and tastes were like, sort of like a time capsule. Also, I would not rely too much on peer consensus when trying to appreciate these movies, because the dynamics of group acceptance and views can really skew how you might potentially appreciate something. Be critical but in a good way, where you are looking at the various aspects of a film through those filters I mentioned, considering the music, set design, fashions, etc.
I’m actually surprised that you think Craig is overrated (though in fact, I think that too) since his movies and interpretation of the role are pretty cutting edge in view of today’s action movie standards, and the financials of his movies prove that; anyone's offering in the market will be rewarded by masses of satisfied people.
As far as what I’ve said about Dalton, I maintain that I think he is in fact under-rated, if judging just by the box-office returns of his movies and where his ranking generally falls among movie audiences (not just Bond fans), especially when ranked against the other Bond actors and their movies. But if you want to try to see what the buzz is all about among the smaller group of Dalton fans, I suggest reading one of the Bond novels, maybe a later one, since the character in the books is much darker and frankly, underwhelming in terms of personality, so unlike the typical suave and dashing persona most of the Bond actors went for. IMO, the charm of the Literary Bond is more internalized and relatable and what's attractive to the reader is not so much the flash of the person but his outlook on his world and how he muses on these things in the voice of Fleming himself and his own particularly interesting outlook and experiences in life that most people will themselves will not experience.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
edited November 2013
Thank you, gentlemen! ...and thanks, Sir Miles! (Edited after the post below) -{
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
If nothing else, Dalton deserves grateful recognition for not allowing the late 1980's image of Bond to be polluted by the unmasculine, dated, shoulder padded, neon, male fashions of that era.
If nothing else, Dalton deserves grateful recognition for not allowing the late 1980's image of Bond to be polluted by the unmasculine, dated, shoulder padded, neon, male fashions of that era.
And for giving us the closest Depiction to Flemming's Bond then any other Actor who has played the Character.
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
The only reason I'm posting this divisive opinion is that I'm rewatching these movies & went through the Moore ones first (Then OHMSS) because they are generally panned etc. Haven't watched A View To a A Kill because I'm waiting for the Never Say Never Again retirement doublebill. But man the Connery movies do not hold up especially FRWL & Goldfinger..put me & my friends to sleep(Thunderball is painfully bad) YOLT is entertainingly ridiculous like Moonraker..but my friends want to give up & we haven't even gotten to Dalton or Pierce....who I forgot was James Bond.
-{ -{
DiS, not to sound condescending, but it seems there’s a generational issue here, judging from the feedback from you and your friends. The stark reality is, any movie, even those outside of the Bond series, stands on its own merits against the pure, utilitarian standards anyone might hold based on their own, unique experiences and perspective. Particularly, if you are a young person and have taken in the most current movies at the cinema, the ones that would have drawn you have “up-ed the ante” in terms of entertainment value just so it can survive and make money at the box office, which is why today’s action block-buster movies are so visually complex, with over-the-top stunts and explosions where even mediocre examples, like Angelina Jolie’s “Salt” or the Jason Stratham movies which were technically well made to ensure they meet these entertaining standards of today’s audiences. So based purely on those things, yes, the older Bond movies will be dry, and since the action or coolness won’t necessarily hold out with today’s audiences, it’s no surprise that only the far-out and the absurd entries like YOLT and MR have held your interests.
On the other hand, if you want to enjoy these movies on their own merits, I suggest considering their context and how society and the world was like during that time, how people’s sensitivities and tastes were like, sort of like a time capsule. Also, I would not rely too much on peer consensus when trying to appreciate these movies, because the dynamics of group acceptance and views can really skew how you might potentially appreciate something. Be critical but in a good way, where you are looking at the various aspects of a film through those filters I mentioned, considering the music, set design, fashions, etc.
I’m actually surprised that you think Craig is overrated (though in fact, I think that too) since his movies and interpretation of the role are pretty cutting edge in view of today’s action movie standards, and the financials of his movies prove that; anyone's offering in the market will be rewarded by masses of satisfied people.
As far as what I’ve said about Dalton, I maintain that I think he is in fact under-rated, if judging just by the box-office returns of his movies and where his ranking generally falls among movie audiences (not just Bond fans), especially when ranked against the other Bond actors and their movies. But if you want to try to see what the buzz is all about among the smaller group of Dalton fans, I suggest reading one of the Bond novels, maybe a later one, since the character in the books is much darker and frankly, underwhelming in terms of personality, so unlike the typical suave and dashing persona most of the Bond actors went for. IMO, the charm of the Literary Bond is more internalized and relatable and what's attractive to the reader is not so much the flash of the person but his outlook on his world and how he muses on these things in the voice of Fleming himself and his own particularly interesting outlook and experiences in life that most people will themselves will not experience.
I'm not a youngin..been watching Bond at least on TV since 73, read most of the books excluding Moonraker, Dr. No & From Russia with Love, and read all the Gardner books, first Theatrical was Moonraker and I've seen all of them in the theatres. Its with anything in life opinions change and so do likes.. my opinion of Dalton as an overactor I stand by but I love him because of it. Craig's last 2 movies have just been disappointing, I guess I realized that I stopped caring for Bond with the Living Daylights...but loved LTK & think Casino Royale is worthy of the classics. But now the rose colored glasses I had for the Connery movies are gone its a sad day even a few Roger Moore's have gone to the wayside....such is life. -{
The only reason I'm posting this divisive opinion is that I'm rewatching these movies & went through the Moore ones first (Then OHMSS) because they are generally panned etc. Haven't watched A View To a A Kill because I'm waiting for the Never Say Never Again retirement doublebill. But man the Connery movies do not hold up especially FRWL & Goldfinger..put me & my friends to sleep(Thunderball is painfully bad) YOLT is entertainingly ridiculous like Moonraker..but my friends want to give up & we haven't even gotten to Dalton or Pierce....who I forgot was James Bond.
-{ -{
DiS, not to sound condescending, but it seems there’s a generational issue here, judging from the feedback from you and your friends. The stark reality is, any movie, even those outside of the Bond series, stands on its own merits against the pure, utilitarian standards anyone might hold based on their own, unique experiences and perspective. Particularly, if you are a young person and have taken in the most current movies at the cinema, the ones that would have drawn you have “up-ed the ante” in terms of entertainment value just so it can survive and make money at the box office, which is why today’s action block-buster movies are so visually complex, with over-the-top stunts and explosions where even mediocre examples, like Angelina Jolie’s “Salt” or the Jason Stratham movies which were technically well made to ensure they meet these entertaining standards of today’s audiences. So based purely on those things, yes, the older Bond movies will be dry, and since the action or coolness won’t necessarily hold out with today’s audiences, it’s no surprise that only the far-out and the absurd entries like YOLT and MR have held your interests.
On the other hand, if you want to enjoy these movies on their own merits, I suggest considering their context and how society and the world was like during that time, how people’s sensitivities and tastes were like, sort of like a time capsule. Also, I would not rely too much on peer consensus when trying to appreciate these movies, because the dynamics of group acceptance and views can really skew how you might potentially appreciate something. Be critical but in a good way, where you are looking at the various aspects of a film through those filters I mentioned, considering the music, set design, fashions, etc.
I’m actually surprised that you think Craig is overrated (though in fact, I think that too) since his movies and interpretation of the role are pretty cutting edge in view of today’s action movie standards, and the financials of his movies prove that; anyone's offering in the market will be rewarded by masses of satisfied people.
As far as what I’ve said about Dalton, I maintain that I think he is in fact under-rated, if judging just by the box-office returns of his movies and where his ranking generally falls among movie audiences (not just Bond fans), especially when ranked against the other Bond actors and their movies. But if you want to try to see what the buzz is all about among the smaller group of Dalton fans, I suggest reading one of the Bond novels, maybe a later one, since the character in the books is much darker and frankly, underwhelming in terms of personality, so unlike the typical suave and dashing persona most of the Bond actors went for. IMO, the charm of the Literary Bond is more internalized and relatable and what's attractive to the reader is not so much the flash of the person but his outlook on his world and how he muses on these things in the voice of Fleming himself and his own particularly interesting outlook and experiences in life that most people will themselves will not experience.
I'm not a youngin..been watching Bond at least on TV since 73, read most of the books excluding Moonraker, Dr. No & From Russia with Love, and read all the Gardner books, first Theatrical was Moonraker and I've seen all of them in the theatres. Its with anything in life opinions change and so do likes.. my opinion of Dalton as an overactor I stand by but I love him because of it. Craig's last 2 movies have just been disappointing, I guess I realized that I stopped caring for Bond with the Living Daylights...but loved LTK & think Casino Royale is worthy of the classics. But now the rose colored glasses I had for the Connery movies are gone its a sad day even a few Roger Moore's have gone to the wayside....such is life. -{
Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle to presume all those things! You and I pretty much started watching Bond on TV at the same time and TSWLM was my first theatrical Bond experience. Regarding your views on Connery, I suppose you are one of the statistically few, dissatisfied viewers in light of just how he clicked with audiences especially the older ones, though I have come across sentiments from fans who began with Moore expressing the same experience as you. What really colored my perception on how you evaluated Bond was the involvement of your friends, which frankly I think happens more with a younger age group (I remember my younger co-workers during the 90's having Buffy watching parties).
As for Dalton, for the record, despite my high respect for his interpretation I agree about the overacting among a few other flaws.
I’m also curious with how Craig measured with your expectations of the character and what about his movies you liked or not, considering that you’ve read CR. The strength of CR the movie IMO is that it was sincerely made, though I felt that many hallmarks of the Bond character from both book and film were missing. But I would also categorize Connery’s 1st three movies similarly “sincere” in that they did not suffer from the trap of the later films being too self-conscious as it's expected with needing to outdo the earlier entries.
I am surprised that you’ve read many of the Fleming books and even Gardner, but that you’ve found Connery’s FRWL, GF and TB sleep-inducing (or was it your friends' opinion?) I say this because it seems most fans of the movies that aren't fans of the books generally don't have the patience to read, vs. the instant gratification of the movies, yet you and your friends find some of the films boring despite you having been a reader of the novels. I take it that you’ve read TB; wasn’t that similarly boring to read? I also gather from your posts that you haven’t come up to the Brosnan era yet and I’d be interested to know what you think of those, since detractors of Brosnan consider those rehashes of older Bonds and not neccessarily the best elements. You seem to have also read OHMSS, and have seen the movie as well (?) What do you think of it? BTW, DiS, it's not my intention to pick on you, but I'm genuinely curious about divergent fan opinions and the "whys" behind them, since I'm sometimes also "divergent" with my Bond views. Cheers! -{
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
I gracefully accept your dissention, since you are a very nice friend whom I will be asking an important favor from shortly
DiS, not to sound condescending, but it seems there’s a generational issue here, judging from the feedback from you and your friends. The stark reality is, any movie, even those outside of the Bond series, stands on its own merits against the pure, utilitarian standards anyone might hold based on their own, unique experiences and perspective. Particularly, if you are a young person and have taken in the most current movies at the cinema, the ones that would have drawn you have “up-ed the ante” in terms of entertainment value just so it can survive and make money at the box office, which is why today’s action block-buster movies are so visually complex, with over-the-top stunts and explosions where even mediocre examples, like Angelina Jolie’s “Salt” or the Jason Stratham movies which were technically well made to ensure they meet these entertaining standards of today’s audiences. So based purely on those things, yes, the older Bond movies will be dry, and since the action or coolness won’t necessarily hold out with today’s audiences, it’s no surprise that only the far-out and the absurd entries like YOLT and MR have held your interests.
On the other hand, if you want to enjoy these movies on their own merits, I suggest considering their context and how society and the world was like during that time, how people’s sensitivities and tastes were like, sort of like a time capsule. Also, I would not rely too much on peer consensus when trying to appreciate these movies, because the dynamics of group acceptance and views can really skew how you might potentially appreciate something. Be critical but in a good way, where you are looking at the various aspects of a film through those filters I mentioned, considering the music, set design, fashions, etc.
I’m actually surprised that you think Craig is overrated (though in fact, I think that too) since his movies and interpretation of the role are pretty cutting edge in view of today’s action movie standards, and the financials of his movies prove that; anyone's offering in the market will be rewarded by masses of satisfied people.
As far as what I’ve said about Dalton, I maintain that I think he is in fact under-rated, if judging just by the box-office returns of his movies and where his ranking generally falls among movie audiences (not just Bond fans), especially when ranked against the other Bond actors and their movies. But if you want to try to see what the buzz is all about among the smaller group of Dalton fans, I suggest reading one of the Bond novels, maybe a later one, since the character in the books is much darker and frankly, underwhelming in terms of personality, so unlike the typical suave and dashing persona most of the Bond actors went for. IMO, the charm of the Literary Bond is more internalized and relatable and what's attractive to the reader is not so much the flash of the person but his outlook on his world and how he muses on these things in the voice of Fleming himself and his own particularly interesting outlook and experiences in life that most people will themselves will not experience.
Very well-said, my friend! -{
Very well put...and essential reading...as always -{
And for giving us the closest Depiction to Flemming's Bond then any other Actor who has played the Character.
I'm not a youngin..been watching Bond at least on TV since 73, read most of the books excluding Moonraker, Dr. No & From Russia with Love, and read all the Gardner books, first Theatrical was Moonraker and I've seen all of them in the theatres. Its with anything in life opinions change and so do likes.. my opinion of Dalton as an overactor I stand by but I love him because of it. Craig's last 2 movies have just been disappointing, I guess I realized that I stopped caring for Bond with the Living Daylights...but loved LTK & think Casino Royale is worthy of the classics. But now the rose colored glasses I had for the Connery movies are gone its a sad day even a few Roger Moore's have gone to the wayside....such is life. -{
Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle to presume all those things! You and I pretty much started watching Bond on TV at the same time and TSWLM was my first theatrical Bond experience. Regarding your views on Connery, I suppose you are one of the statistically few, dissatisfied viewers in light of just how he clicked with audiences especially the older ones, though I have come across sentiments from fans who began with Moore expressing the same experience as you. What really colored my perception on how you evaluated Bond was the involvement of your friends, which frankly I think happens more with a younger age group (I remember my younger co-workers during the 90's having Buffy watching parties).
As for Dalton, for the record, despite my high respect for his interpretation I agree about the overacting among a few other flaws.
I’m also curious with how Craig measured with your expectations of the character and what about his movies you liked or not, considering that you’ve read CR. The strength of CR the movie IMO is that it was sincerely made, though I felt that many hallmarks of the Bond character from both book and film were missing. But I would also categorize Connery’s 1st three movies similarly “sincere” in that they did not suffer from the trap of the later films being too self-conscious as it's expected with needing to outdo the earlier entries.
I am surprised that you’ve read many of the Fleming books and even Gardner, but that you’ve found Connery’s FRWL, GF and TB sleep-inducing (or was it your friends' opinion?) I say this because it seems most fans of the movies that aren't fans of the books generally don't have the patience to read, vs. the instant gratification of the movies, yet you and your friends find some of the films boring despite you having been a reader of the novels. I take it that you’ve read TB; wasn’t that similarly boring to read? I also gather from your posts that you haven’t come up to the Brosnan era yet and I’d be interested to know what you think of those, since detractors of Brosnan consider those rehashes of older Bonds and not neccessarily the best elements. You seem to have also read OHMSS, and have seen the movie as well (?) What do you think of it? BTW, DiS, it's not my intention to pick on you, but I'm genuinely curious about divergent fan opinions and the "whys" behind them, since I'm sometimes also "divergent" with my Bond views. Cheers! -{
So true on the first part of your point...so wrong on the other...ying & yang is so awesome