Did the previous 3 actors get the same praise that Craig has now?

Absolutely_Cart

Today, Craig is seen as the actor who revitalized the series and seen by many as the most dynamic performance since Connery (or whoever their favorite Bond was). He also attracts lots of hate from some sects of fans, but it seems mostly positive.

Moore, Dalton and Brosnan are less talked about. That's probably because Craig is new and people already had their conversations about previous actors. But when the other actors debut, was there a sense of revitalization as well?

Because it seems like all actors go out poorly. Connery, by DAF, was in it for a paycheck and a namesake. Lazenby was in Connery's shadow and left with a sour taste. Moore was old. Dalton's films weren't selling. Brosnan left with Die Another Day.

I don't hear the same kind of hate for these actors as I do Craig, but that's because he's currently in it. I'm sure the other actors had groups of people who sharply criticized them as well.

Maybe every new actor seems like a new breath of fresh air.

Those older than me can correct me if I'm wrong.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Dalton's films weren't selling.
Those older than me can correct me if I'm wrong.

They did well although not stellar. No Bond movie has ever NOT made money. And 'older than you'? What Bond movie premiered when YOU were born?

Absolutely_Cart

I'm 23.

I started watching Bond films around March of 2014, and I started with the Connery films. So, in some sense, it gives me a little objectivity of not being partial or nostalgia to any era. At the same time, I never paid attention to Bond before so I lack the historical context of how people actually reacted to the older films.

On Dalton. His films sold - just not nearly as high as the other actors.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

On Dalton. His films sold - just not nearly as high as the other actors.

A testament to their high quality. -{
Read a few Fleming Bond novels Cart. Fast, easy and enjoyabe reads, and helpful in determining the best movies....

Barbel

Craig's Bond is around in the Internet age. That's it in a nutshell.

And Moore left with more grace than any other Bond actor (so far)- basically, he retired. Broccoli had to coax him back with ever-larger paychecks for OP* and AVTAK, despite Sir Rog wanting to quit.

* OP was squaring off against NSNA, starring Connery. This wasn't the time to launch a new actor.

Absolutely_Cart

The internet is the crucial factor.

It's mostly people today criticizing Moore for staying too long. Not so much people in 1985.

And yes, I'm sure if people had ubiquitous internet back then, there'd be way more Dalton/Brosnan hype/criticism too.

Virgil37

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

It's mostly people today criticizing Moore for staying too long.  Not so much people in 1985.

I remember reading movie mags in the 80s after he left and Dalton took over that he was way too old by FYEO (never mind AVTAK 4 years later).
There just wasn't internet, otherwise he would have been replaced in 1983. Imagine the OP reviews if ajb007 was around in 1983? "the movie is cool, but Rog looks like my grandad", and the inevitable replacerogermoore.com...

broadshoulder

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I'm 23.

I started watching Bond films around March of 2014, and I started with the Connery films. So, in some sense, it gives me a little objectivity of not being partial or nostalgia to any era. At the same time, I never paid attention to Bond before so I lack the historical context of how people actually reacted to the older films.

On Dalton. His films sold - just not nearly as high as the other actors.

23? I've got gas bills older then you ) ) ) )

Remember the books go back to 1953 and they are the heart of James Bond? Have you tried reading the books lateley?

As for the Dalton ones. He did sell. LTK made heaps of money.

Also, its good reading someones views about the Craig era. He touched on something not felt since Connery. One of the reasons he is so well liked.

Absolutely_Cart

I was wondering if what Craig did for the Bond films was really revolutionary, or if this is just a "Bond Cycle" where every Bond is initially praised until they fade away.

Barbel

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I was wondering if what Craig did for the Bond films was really revolutionary, or if this is just a "Bond Cycle" where every Bond is initially praised until they fade away.

The latter. The reboot came from the production team (Wilson, Broccoli & Co).

Higgins

Virgil37 wrote:

I remember reading movie mags in the 80s after he left and Dalton took over that he was way too old by FYEO (never mind AVTAK 4 years later)

Not sure which magazines you've read back then - I remember the contrary.
Everyone was happy with the way FYEO went and noone moaned about Sir Roger's age.

As for the Dalton era, it's pretty simple:
The producers went: "Well Roger is not available - so let's do 2 cheap and absolute stinkers with a weepy main actor - until Brosnan becomes available again"

Higgins

Barbel wrote:

* OP was squaring off against NSNA, starring Connery. This wasn't the time to launch a new actor.

Hey Barbel - pretty sensible and true statement. In those years Roger was like money in the bank and the producers did their best to show audiences, which are the ingredients of the "true" Bond.

Higgins

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I'm 23.

I started watching Bond films around March of 2014, and I started with the Connery films. So, in some sense, it gives me a little objectivity of not being partial or nostalgia to any era. At the same time, I never paid attention to Bond before so I lack the historical context of how people actually reacted to the older films.

On Dalton. His films sold - just not nearly as high as the other actors.

While I partly agree on your take on Dalton - I think, that you are a bit harsh.
Give your judgements and opinions time.

The Bond movies are there for over 50 years, many of us have been seeing them again and again - paused - came back - discovered new elements and so on.

The Bond movies take a kind of development in our personal opinions and so do we develop over the years.
You have started with the Bonds some months ago and you'll have a fantastic ride still ahead!

Many of us grow in a good way and Thunderpussy in a bad way

You should be aware that looking down on certain key elements equals to stepping on other members' toes, so you may receive harsh reactions now and then.

There is one exception: If you despise Dalton, you are always right! {[]

And if you really regard yourself having an unbiased opinion - you are certainly at the wrong place.
We are passionate and highly subjective on every little aspect in the Bond Universe - and that's what makes the strength of the community.

Barbel

Well said, Higgins- mostly.... )
We all disagree on certain points (Higgins doesn't like Dalton; Sir Miles likes "Another Way To Die"; Thunderpussy believes he is funny; I think Brosnan was better than Craig) to the extent that they become running jokes.
And that's what makes it fun!

AlphaOmegaSin

And I still think the Moon is made of Cheese )

Higgins

Barbel wrote:

Higgins doesn't like Dalton

.... and rightly so! {[]

Barbel wrote:

Sir Miles likes "Another Way To Die"

.... and he's also eating little kids

Sir Miles

And I like CR '67 -{

But not kids X-(

MooseWithFleas

Moore was pretty widely accepted as Bond after TSWLM. LALD got audiences excited for Bond again, TMWTGG put some doubt in the picture, and then TSWLM solidified his acceptance. He received much praise from the contemporary critics and got criticism from the Connery fans for not being Connery. At that time, it was much more understandable, since those were the only two Bond Actors (Lazenby at the time was so largely forgotten in the pre VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray era).

Brosnan was accepted with great approval as Bond by my age group, but I think for older generations, especially by TWINE/DAD Brosnan was not widely received.

Dalton, I think the jury was still out on. I'm sure with each passing year after LTK, Dalton was seen as a blame point for the hiatus of the series.

Absolutely_Cart

The "Bond Cycle" lives on!

Gassy Man

Connery has really been the only actor with "universal" acclaim, which is to say with fewest criticisms as Bond. For mainstream critics (read: not rabid fans), Moore probably came closest to general acceptance, with Brosnan not far behind. Dalton took major flack for being Bond. One reviewer said he resembled Joe Camel, or something to that effect. When I saw The Living Daylights in college (second run a few months after it had finished in the theaters), a 50-something fellow from England remarked to us "Yes, it was good, but he really isn't Bond, is he?" Growing up, I heard how awful Lazenby was -- ABC would show Bond films as edited movies and got great ratings . . . but when On Her Majesty's Secret Service was up on the rotation, people would groan. I finally saw the whole film on video and realized its greatness.

But interest in Bond vacillates not just because of the actor but also because of the time period The 80s, in particular, saw the rise of much more graphic and intense action films that built upon what the Bond films offered but in a brutal way. Plus, Bond seemed passe in that gender-bending period.

Now, Craig is probably second only to Connery in acceptance -- and depending on the age group, he might even be first. He may actually go out on top, too, if the creative team tries more for the quality of Casino Royale than Quantum of Solace. The beauty is that none of his Bonds have approached the spectacle of the classic ones, but they certainly could. That means a Craig version of You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me could be right around the corner. Imagine a film of that scope with a cast of real actors. The only things holding it back are the creative limits of writers and directors.

Virgil37

Higgins wrote:

Virgil37 wrote:

I remember reading movie mags in the 80s after he left and Dalton took over that he was way too old by FYEO (never mind AVTAK 4 years later)

Not sure which magazines you've read back then - I remember the contrary.
Everyone was happy with the way FYEO went and noone moaned about Sir Roger's age.

As for the Dalton era, it's pretty simple:
The producers went: "Well Roger is not available - so let's do 2 cheap and absolute stinkers with a weepy main actor - until Brosnan becomes available again"

I remember very well an interview with one of Roger's co-stars in FYEO . The interviewer asked "isn't Roger too old for the character?". The co-star did not want to comment. If you wanted to look the other way back then is fine with me. But everyone, including Roger himself and the producers, thought he was becoming too old for the character (that's why they auditioned new Bonds in 1982). Also the public, who after FYEO didn't go to Rog's last two movies as much (look at that box office list of yours).

As for Dalton, if Broccoli was alive and posted in ajb007, he would tell you himself about wanting to cast Dalton back in 1969,again in 1980, and finally getting him in 1986. He was the first choice,but was unavailable because of other commitments. Only then they went to Brosnan,who became unavailable himself.

Barbel

After the huge success of MR, Broccoli and Moore entered a game of brinksmanship. Moore publicly stated he did not want to play Bond again, Broccoli let it be known that he was testing other actors. Meanwhile, agents were negotiating. Eventually terms were agreed.
Moore knew he could get better terms if he held out (the huge profits from MR left him in a position of strength). Broccoli wanted to get the best deal he could.
And that is why new actors were auditioned for FYEO.

chrisisall

Barbel wrote:

I think Brosnan was better than Craig

Of course, but Craig's good too!

superado

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I'm 23.

I started watching Bond films around March of 2014, and I started with the Connery films. So, in some sense, it gives me a little objectivity of not being partial or nostalgia to any era. At the same time, I never paid attention to Bond before so I lack the historical context of how people actually reacted to the older films.

On Dalton. His films sold - just not nearly as high as the other actors.

When you started watching Bond movies in March 2014, that includes the Craig films, as in, you haven't seen any of his 3 Bond movies until this year?

Absolutely_Cart

I haven't seen ANY Bond films prior to this year.

So far I've watched all 3 Craigs and the first 3 Connery's. And some snippets/interviews of the other actors.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I haven't seen ANY Bond films prior to this year.

So far I've watched all 3 Craigs and the first 3 Connery's. And some snippets/interviews of the other actors.

The best is yet to come: Dalton! -{

Absolutely_Cart

I want to try Dalton, Moore and Brosnan.

I'm wondering what I should do.

Should I watch them in order, finishing out Connery? Or should I mix it up and do one movie from each actor.

Also, I'm wondering whether I should go for the acclaimed films (like Goldeneye) first or chance on a few (like Die Another Day) spread them out to give myself something to look forward to. To be fair, I was expecting a grueling punishment while watching Quantum of Solace but I enjoyed it.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I'm wondering what I should do.

Were I you, I'd simply watch them in order to see how they evolved. From that you will easily be able to draw up your personal favourites list, as well as getting a sense of Bond cinematic history. Reading the Fleming novels will also expand your appreciation of particular films (*COUGHDALTON*) exqueeze me.

Absolutely_Cart

I think that's a good idea. So that way, I can kind of get the same sense of what it was like for people back in the day watching them.

Seeing Moore replace Connery for the first time would have more of a magical context to it if I had seen all the Connery films first, and perhaps, got a little bit tired of Connery.

broadshoulder

Treat yourself to them in order....so Thunderball next.

Try and read the Fleming books which enhances my enjoyment. You get to know Dr No, Klebb, Goldfinger, Blofeld through the novels.

Also can you drop us a line when you watch the films - to see if your tastes match ours...

DEFIANT 74205

I would say that you should read the Fleming novels first. They are the original source material and in my opinion, the standard by which all Bonds should be judged.

Perhaps you'll also understand why some of us rate Dalton extremely highly. In my view, he was the literary Bond personified on the big screen.