Why did Craig succeed when Dalton failed?

ics

I hope Dalton fans do not find the question demeaning (pst i am a MASSIVE Dalton fan), it is not meant to be. And a warning: this is not a topic to bash either actors. What I mean is that Craig received praise for his new take on Bond and his movies, even QOS which received mixed reviews at best nobody criticized the quality of his interpretation (or not many people anyway). While his casting was at first highly controversial, probably far more than Dalton's, he won the fans, the critics and the general public. Dalton may have won the fans, but I am not sure he did at the start. People often compared the two as being very close take on the character, and both as going back to Fleming's original idea, being a faithful interpretation of it.

So my question is why? Why did it work this time? There are a number of reasons, I have my ideas about a few of them, but I was wondering what you thought. And I know there is a James Bond question thread, but this topic deserves his own thread.

(Qest. taken fro mi6 but a nice one)

MilleniumForce

Craig's bond came in a time action movies were serious, dark, and could happen in the real world. Dalton's Bond came at a time of campiness, one liners, and fun movies.

Absolutely_Cart

Dalton was the right man at the wrong time. His character of Bond was starkly different from the long-established one by Moore, other action movies competed with Bond and MGM had a 6-year lawsuit which killed Dalton's career as Bond.

Craig happened to be at the right place at the right time. High-definition became popular, and therefore movies had more room to be realistic and gritty, dark, full of explosions and the like.

It's like asking why Bill Gates became so rich. He was immensely skillful, but rightplace/righttime is like 90% of anyone's success.

Thunderpussy

IMHO, Dalton did not fail, fools simply failed to appreciate him ! {[]
Thankfully, when they tried again , the audience was ready.

Flighty

Thunderpussy wrote:

IMHO, Dalton did not fail, fools simply failed to appreciate him ! {[]
Thankfully, when they tried again , the audience was ready.

So true!! I spent four years studying the Stanislavsky technique! And when you see a good actor fail because of the climate it's soul destroying !!

chrisisall

Most people don't read books, so any replacement for Moore had to funny, or super-suave. Dalton delivered the guy from the novels, and most were like, "Huh?"

Thunderpussy

Imagine if D Craig had been Bond straight after R Moore ? He'd have
Gotten the same reaction Dalton did.

Higgins

When I've seen this thread - I was expecting the worst!

And you guys don't disappoint so far

Thunderpussy

" We aim to please !"

broadshoulder

To be honest neither failed..

Dalton got plaudits there are some who consider him to be the best..

....and Craig is a god..

Neither failed with James Bond.

The_Commander

Although good (great?), Dalton was too smiley for my liking. He said in interviews that he wanted to show the literary character more, but in pretty much every scene in TLD, he's got a grin the Cheshire Cat would be proud of!!

Also, the producers' wish to put gadgets and gags in the films was a bad call too, as were the completely over-the-top posh accents from all concerned.

Craig however, nailed it from scene 1. Now if we could just get rid of certain product placements (Sony especially), then we're not far from what I'm sure Fleming imagined when he wrote. Apart from the hair colour!!

Virgil37

EON's marketing mistakes hindered terribly Dalton's tenure. First and foremost letting it be known that Pierce Brosnan tested for TLD. They made it look like Dalton was their second option, when in fact it was the other way round.

chrisisall

Virgil37 wrote:

EON's marketing mistakes hindered terribly Dalton's tenure. First and foremost letting it be known that Pierce Brosnan tested for TLD. They made it look like Dalton was their second option, when in fact it was the other way round.

Yes, Brosnan was always second to Dalton, who kept saying no... 8-)

Hardyboy

I'm another who doesn't believe Dalton failed. One of the main problems was that the series went dark after Dalton had made only two films, when audiences were still trying to get to know him. If he'd made a third film in 1991, audiences might have been used to him and would be ready for whatever he had in store.

Virgil37

Hardyboy wrote:

I'm another who doesn't believe Dalton failed. One of the main problems was that the series went dark after Dalton had made only two films, when audiences were still trying to get to know him. If he'd made a third film in 1991, audiences might have been used to him and would be ready for whatever he had in store.

Exactly, a third Dalton film, with a good story, and properly marketed could have done for Dalton what TSWLM did for Moore after TMWTGG had been a relative failure. Maybe with a lighter tone than LTK. GE could have worked for Dalton if it had been written with him in mind.

chrisisall

Virgil37 wrote:

GE could have worked for Dalton if it had been written with him in mind.

It SO could have. Plus an older Trevelyan would make more sense. The 'boyish charm' line would have to go, though.

Absolutely_Cart

Brosnan did an excellent job in GE. Dalton would've too.

But I agree the franchise needed a new face - nothing against lord Dalton.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Brosnan did an excellent job in GE. Dalton would've too.

But I agree the franchise needed a new face - nothing against lord Dalton.

Excellent diplomacy sir! -{

Gassy Man

Lots of factors.

The films in the 1980s were primarily made for Baby Boomers, largely overlooking Gen-X, who were the teens of the period. Craig's films are mostly made for Gen-Xers and Millennials, whose tastes are different and much more retro. The Craig films have answered a lot of my complaints during the 1980s about how pedestrian Bond films were.

Craig has a retro quality about him. With his cragginess, broader face, and macho toughness, he is cut more of the Connery vein than Dalton, whose long face, blowed dry hair, and saturnine looks never quite caught on with audiences. One critic said he looked like Joe Camel.

Craig's films are much more hard-hitting, and there have been more of them. Casino Royale out of the gate was a superb film, and lots of people keep going back because of the momentum of that hit. The Living Daylights did not have the same effect -- as a result, audiences could take or leave Licence to Kill, and many of them did.

Dalton came on after the Moore films, which had conditioned audiences to expect campiness and excess, not a reasonably taut spy fantasy. Brosnan's films, while goofy in their own way, still tried to maintain an air closer to what Craig's films would offer.

Dalton did not warm up to the press, nor to the character. Craig has made himself much more available, and he's been careful to present himself as more of a regular guy, which in particular in the U.S., people like.

Craig has benefitted from the Internet. Although he had to take merciless bashing from detractors in the early days, he was also able to experience a significant amount of support and publicity through Web pages and the like.

The Craig films have A-list (or at least B+) list directors and actors. Dalton was saddled with a C-level director and B-level actors.

There are no major competitors for the Craig films -- Dalton had to compete against Die Hard, Indiana Jones, Batman, and the like. If anything, the tentpole blockbusters like The Dark Knight and The Bourne Supremacy have helped Craig's Bonds, as they often imitate competitors.

The production team, now headed by Barbara Broccoli, have simply tried harder and better. In fact, I would credit her most for bringing the franchise back, as she was the one who saw in Craig qualities that others, primarily men, missed.

chrisisall

Gassy Man wrote:

Dalton was saddled with a C-level director and B-level actors.

Bond is pulp fiction. C-level directors & B-level supporting actors fit the mould better IMO. A certain 'roughness around the edges' is expected. Skyfall schmeared a velvet Oscar-level gloss over Bond, and though this is in some way responsible for its amazing success, undermines the Bond franchise's pedestrian roots.
Early Connery, Dalton, Goldeneye & Casino Royale are the true templates that should be followed. We're getting the YOLT/TSWLM/TND treatment now, and SPECTRE will no doubt be the biggest blast yet (I'm actually looking forward to it, mind you).
Then we'll go back to basics. My favourite place. :007)

Gassy Man

Unfortunately, that's what they thought in the 1980s. Thankfully, the Craig films took a different approach.

chrisisall

Gassy Man wrote:

Unfortunately, that's what they thought in the 1980s. Thankfully, the Craig films took a different approach.

The 80's? Seriously, as much as I have fun with FYEO, it's still silly poo for the most part. Even my exalted Daltonator had to contend with remnants of that mentality (not altogether for the worse- some absurd fun is welcome by me in a Bond movie).
The Craig films are similar to the Nolan Batman films in that they strip the absurd to give us grit.

B A L A N C E..... balance. Remember what Ramirez has taught you. )

Gassy Man

Maybe. They're all absurd in their own. But the Dalton films felt tired and less "A list" than the Craig ones do. I don't think the talent was as capable, and truth be told, I don't think they were working that hard. Bond was a franchise, and they felt that so long as they served up a product, people would come see it. The Craig films are different. They're closer to what the Bond films were in the 1960s than anything we've seen since then.

Absolutely_Cart

Gassy Man nailed it.

Generational differences, interpretations of masculinity, retroness, first impressions, relations with the press, previous expectations from fans, the writers, directors, actors, producers competition and the internet.

Blackleiter

The_Commander wrote:

Although good (great?), Dalton was too smiley for my liking. He said in interviews that he wanted to show the literary character more, but in pretty much every scene in TLD, he's got a grin the Cheshire Cat would be proud of!!

Also, the producers' wish to put gadgets and gags in the films was a bad call too, as were the completely over-the-top posh accents from all concerned.

Craig however, nailed it from scene 1. Now if we could just get rid of certain product placements (Sony especially), then we're not far from what I'm sure Fleming imagined when he wrote. Apart from the hair colour!!

I agree with some of what you say here. Although I don't consider Dalton to be a failure by any means, I believe his tenure is undermined to some extent by a bit of schizophrenia. By that I mean that it's clear the filmmakers intended to make a break from the breezy Roger Moore era and present us with a harder-edged, more Fleming-esque Bond. However, at the same time there was an apparent reluctance to ditch the previous era completely, so some remnants of the past appear, such as the gadget-laden car, attempted witty one-liners ("I had a few optional extras installed."), and cute moments (sliding on the snow in the cello case - thank goodness the "flying carpet" scene was deleted!) Craig's first film, on the other hand, made it clear that this was going to be an entirely new Bond. Any witty retorts would be kept to a minimum and they would have an unfamiliar bite to them ("Do I look like I give a damn?"). The "cute" moments, if any, were completely realistic and in keeping with the characters' actions (e.g. the exchanges between Bond and Vesper on the train). There's no significant gadgetry to speak of (except, of course, the convenient defibrilator in Bond's car - one of Casino Royale's rare misteps in my opinion). All that being said, I believe if Dalton had appeared in more than two films, his brand of Bond would have ultimately been widely accepted and reasonably successful.

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

Although I don't consider Dalton to be a failure by any means, I believe his tenure is undermined to some extent by a bit of schizophrenia. By that I mean that it's clear the filmmakers intended to make a break from the breezy Roger Moore era and present us with a harder-edged, more Fleming-esque Bond. However, at the same time there was an apparent reluctance to ditch the previous era completely, so some remnants of the past appear, such as the gadget-laden car, attempted witty one-liners ("I had a few optional extras installed."), and cute moments (sliding on the snow in the cello case

I still like all that stuff. I might have curtailed some of that myself were I the director, but it by no means detracts for me like say, a Tarzan yell... )

Blackleiter

chrisisall wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

Although I don't consider Dalton to be a failure by any means, I believe his tenure is undermined to some extent by a bit of schizophrenia. By that I mean that it's clear the filmmakers intended to make a break from the breezy Roger Moore era and present us with a harder-edged, more Fleming-esque Bond. However, at the same time there was an apparent reluctance to ditch the previous era completely, so some remnants of the past appear, such as the gadget-laden car, attempted witty one-liners ("I had a few optional extras installed."), and cute moments (sliding on the snow in the cello case

I still like all that stuff. I might have curtailed some of that myself were I the director, but it by no means detracts for me like say, a Tarzan yell... )

I hate that stuff, especially the Tarzan yell. X-( )

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

I hate that stuff, especially the Tarzan yell. X-( )

I'll tell ya, Dalton's Aston with the laser, wow did I get a kick out of it (it's all about the lasers, remember?) )
When Dan gets hold of a laser, then I will truly and finally accept him as Bond. :007)

superado

The_Commander wrote:

Although good (great?), Dalton was too smiley for my liking. He said in interviews that he wanted to show the literary character more, but in pretty much every scene in TLD, he's got a grin the Cheshire Cat would be proud of!!

Also, the producers' wish to put gadgets and gags in the films was a bad call too, as were the completely over-the-top posh accents from all concerned.

Craig however, nailed it from scene 1. Now if we could just get rid of certain product placements (Sony especially), then we're not far from what I'm sure Fleming imagined when he wrote. Apart from the hair colour!!

Sorry, but...

Serious, intense, gadgetless Bond ≠ Fleming's Bond
Doing Bond unlike predecessors ≠ Fleming's Bond

And Bond was known to grin in the books

chrisisall

superado wrote:

Sorry, but...

Serious, intense, gadgetless Bond ≠ Fleming's Bond
Doing Bond unlike predecessors ≠ Fleming's Bond

And Bond was known to grin in the books

THANK YOU. -{

superado

chrisisall wrote:

superado wrote:

Sorry, but...

Serious, intense, gadgetless Bond ≠ Fleming's Bond
Doing Bond unlike predecessors ≠ Fleming's Bond

And Bond was known to grin in the books

THANK YOU. -{

You're very welcome!