You find Dalton great, I find him weepy.
I can live with that.
What is laughable how you are ignoring that wide parts of audiences did not accept Dalton and pull one crazy explanation after another why his movies did so badly.
Have you checked and compared weather charts, lunar calendars and fuel prices yet?
Maybe there is a pattern ) ) )
Seems that everybody and everything is to blame but not Dalton.
Carry on, it‘s really entertaining ) )
All I'm saying, friend, is that they didn't neccessary dislike him in the same way you dislike him. I admit that LTK was not as successful as it was expected to be, and that it underperformed by a wide margin, by I still personally like the film and it's one of my favourites. And I maintain that you will not find a single scene in either film in which Dalton weeps.
A more interesting question - instead of us going round in circles - is what do you think would have worked instead of it? Another actor in the role (perhaps one of the others who were considered - Antony Hamilton, Neil Dickson, Simon MacCorkindale etc)? A plot which didn't involve drugs?
Just watch the TLD balloon popping scene and find yourself proven wrong again....
Brosnan was the first choice back then, but was unfortunately not available.
He‘d have pulled the franchise up instead of down.
That balloon moment is one of the best in the whole series. He's angry and frustrated, but he isn't crying. Unless there you can see at least one tear running down his cheek, which you can't.
You've uploaded GIFs before now in which you have had to digitally insert tears onto his face, thereby proving that there wasn't any there to begin with.
To continue with the 'How Could It Have Been Better' angle, which would be the friendliest way for this conversation to continue, I'd say that the drugs thing is probably not in keeping with the grand scope of a Bond film. Admittedly, this mission wasn't instigated by M16, and Bond would have gone after Sanchez even if the guy had been selling fake disabled badges for cars.
Do you think a film along the lines of AVTAK or TSWLM would have been better received?
You've uploaded GIFs before now in which you have had to digitally insert tears onto his face, thereby proving that there wasn't any there to begin with.
Calling you BS on this.
I have never inserted tears into a .gif
I don‘t even know how to do that
Feel free to prove me wrong.
And that‘s exactly the issue.
Whenever Dalton plays ‚emotions‘, his eyes get wet and that‘s the only thing that he really can do.
That‘s why I am calling him weepy - it‘s not necessary that tears are running down his cheeks.
His constant weeping is annoying an pathetic, Bond should not be like that.
Just look how Roger did serious scenes - and now compare how weepy Dalton did them.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You've uploaded GIFs before now in which you have had to digitally insert tears onto his face, thereby proving that there wasn't any there to begin with.
Calling you BS on this.
I have never inserted tears into a .gif
I don‘t even know how to do that
Feel free to prove me wrong.
And that‘s exactly the issue.
Whenever Dalton plays ‚emotions‘, his eyes get wet and that‘s the only thing that he really can do.
That‘s why I am calling him weepy - it‘s not necessary that tears are running down his cheeks.
His constant weeping is annoying an pathetic, Bond should not be like that.
Just look how Roger did serious scenes - and now compare how weepy Dalton did them.
In that case, I apologise whole-heartedly. A case of mistaken identity. I don't know how to work GIFs either
Thank you for clarifying the weepy thing, though I don't know how Dalton would be able to bring moisture to his eyes on cue. It isn't impossibly - Daily Ridley apparently cried for her Star Wars audition - but there must be some spray they put on, if it is indeed there at all.
Agreed, Roger handled the serious scenes well and he doesn't get remembered enough for those. A favourite of mine is the one with Orlov in OP.
The balloon scene, teary-eyed or not (and I've never noticed it myself) is a good scene regardless. He and Saunders rubbed each other up the wrong way, and then they began to appreciate each other's methods. By the time Saunders dies, Bond respects him, so he's livid. It's the sort of boiling anger which shows he isn't always cold-blooded; it's sometimes personal. This, of course, leads into LTK. That whole film is basically an extended version of the balloon scene. I can see why they went the vigilante route, as the Death Wish films were popular and resulted in various rip-offs. I wouldn't argue too much, though, if someone believes such grisly films are outside the purview of what Bond should be.
For the record, I don't mind Dalton. I actually think he did much more with the role than Brosnan, and he was the first actor to approach the character from a literary rather than a cinema perspective. For me, the problem was his films were miscalculations. The Living Daylights is actually pretty solid, weakened only by two boring villains. Licence to Kill might have fared better in 1981 or 1983, when the whole Latin American drug cartel issue was fairly new.
In fact, Dalton would have probably found more success if he'd taken the role in 1981, debuting in For Your Eyes Only. The follow up could have been Licence to Kill and then The Living Daylights. Moore could have gone out on a high note with Moonraker.
But that's not what happened, and Americans in particular never found Dalton very appealing. Perhaps his long face and saturnine looks didn't make him attractive enough, or maybe it's because while he's terrific playing intense emotions like anger and determination, he's not so good at the softer emotions. When he tries to look like he's having fun, he often just seems goofy and uncomfortable. Another problem is that there's always a darkness to his characterizations; even when playing a good guy he seems more like he is the bad guy.
I actually thought he could play Bond when at age 12 I saw him in Flash Gordon. I didn't know then that he'd been considered for the role.
Dalton got half of James Bond right, which is the semi-tragic, sometimes conflicted character from the books. He got the other half wrong, which is the cinematic character who not only seems to be having a good time, but who lives for that reason. By investing so much in the former, he forgot the latter, and they had to compromise with the movies, making them more like character studies in some ways that Bond movies, even with the few attempts to be light-hearted and fantasy-driven. The 1980s weren't the decade for that.
"It seemed fresh at the start of the 80s, when movies like Scarface were popular, but by the end, people were tired of it"
Same thing with Fist of Fury in '72 , it started a trend....... then came many other China vs Japan films : Hapkido , When TKD strikes , FoF II & III , New FoF etc
Jaws also started a monster movie trend
"Honey I Shrunk the Kids, The Karate Kid III, and When Harry Met Sally
IMO , LTK are just as good or better than these films imo
[He] got half of James Bond right, which is the semi-tragic, sometimes conflicted character from the books. He got the other half wrong, which is the cinematic character who not only seems to be having a good time, but who lives for that reason. By investing so much in the former, he forgot the latter, and they had to compromise with the movies, making them more like character studies in some ways that Bond movies, even with the few attempts to be light-hearted and fantasy-driven.
I'm not saying this doesn't apply to Dalton, but you could well be describing Craig here too.
1) Timing. People were still looking to Bond for high fantasy in the 80s. They wanted glitz and glamour, jokes and elaborate set pieces. Bond was only half way through its run then. A more personal Bond wasn't what they wanted on the menu. It might have worked if Dalton had taken over in 1981, but by 1987, it was both too late and too early. In terms of being hard-edged fantasy, movies like Die Hard just did the same thing better. In fact, Die Hard is just the last 15 minutes of every Bond movie stretched out.
2) Dalton isn't Craig. That may seem like a Coke versus Pepsi argument to some people, but though the general idea may be the same, the details count. People didn't like Dalton as much as Craig.
3) Dalton's film's never felt like they were completely committed. John Glen's journeyman directing, though a little better with Dalton's films than Moore's perhaps, nonetheless still felt like compromises. He'd worked mostly during Moore's tenure, and he couldn't quite give up the Moore elements. Maybe if they'd worked harder to play to Dalton's strengths, that might have improved the films, but the aforementioned weaknesses in his acting stood out by putting him into situations where he had to emote.
4) Craig's Bonds are much more tailored to his acting style, and the directors approach them as A films.
1) Timing. People were still looking to Bond for high fantasy in the 80s. They wanted glitz and glamour, jokes and elaborate set pieces. Bond was only half way through its run then. A more personal Bond wasn't what they wanted on the menu. It might have worked if Dalton had taken over in 1981, but by 1987, it was both too late and too early. In terms of being hard-edged fantasy, movies like Die Hard just did the same thing better. In fact, Die Hard is just the last 15 minutes of every Bond movie stretched out.
2) Dalton isn't Craig. That may seem like a Coke versus Pepsi argument to some people, but though the general idea may be the same, the details count. People didn't like Dalton as much as Craig.
3) Dalton's film's never felt like they were completely committed. John Glen's journeyman directing, though a little better with Dalton's films than Moore's perhaps, nonetheless still felt like compromises. He'd worked mostly during Moore's tenure, and he couldn't quite give up the Moore elements. Maybe if they'd worked harder to play to Dalton's strengths, that might have improved the films, but the aforementioned weaknesses in his acting stood out by putting him into situations where he had to emote.
4) Craig's Bonds are much more tailored to his acting style, and the directors approach them as A films.
I'm not saying any of that is wrong, but Craig is clearly unsuited to the more romantic and dryly comedic side of the character. Roger always used to say that he played Bond like a lover, while Connery played him like a killer. Craig falls into the latter category for me. He can only seem to do brutal, cold, rugged, while there's no charm. Although Dalton could not really do the couple of quips they gave him, he was better, I think, at the romance. In TLD, Bond was certainly in love with Kara, or as much as he could be in their time together. I personally see both films as a roaring success, in particular in the character department. Kara is shocked when she sees her new man turn tough, for example, plus the aforementioned balloon scene.
Neither am I denying your Glen comment when I ask, in what way is he a journeyman director? I'm not really up on the directing side of things, you see, more the writing. In as much as I think of it at all, I tend to view the auteur idea as pretentious and am saddened when the people who craft the script - which is surely the most important part of the film, otherwise there would be nothing for the actors to do and no story for the audience to follow - are dismissed as hacks and on the level of the caterer when compared to the director.
1) Timing. People were still looking to Bond for high fantasy in the 80s. They wanted glitz and glamour, jokes and elaborate set pieces. Bond was only half way through its run then. A more personal Bond wasn't what they wanted on the menu. It might have worked if Dalton had taken over in 1981, but by 1987, it was both too late and too early. In terms of being hard-edged fantasy, movies like Die Hard just did the same thing better. In fact, Die Hard is just the last 15 minutes of every Bond movie stretched out.
2) Dalton isn't Craig. That may seem like a Coke versus Pepsi argument to some people, but though the general idea may be the same, the details count. People didn't like Dalton as much as Craig.
3) Dalton's film's never felt like they were completely committed. John Glen's journeyman directing, though a little better with Dalton's films than Moore's perhaps, nonetheless still felt like compromises. He'd worked mostly during Moore's tenure, and he couldn't quite give up the Moore elements. Maybe if they'd worked harder to play to Dalton's strengths, that might have improved the films, but the aforementioned weaknesses in his acting stood out by putting him into situations where he had to emote.
4) Craig's Bonds are much more tailored to his acting style, and the directors approach them as A films.
I'm not saying any of that is wrong, but Craig is clearly unsuited to the more romanic and dryly comedic side of the character. Roger always used to say that he played Bond like a lover, while Connery played him like a killer. Craig falls into the latter category for me. He can only seem to do brutal, cold, rugged, while there's no charm.
Neither am I denying your Glen comment when I ask, in what way is he a journeyman director? I'm not really up on the directing side of things, more the writing.
Depends on one's tastes, perhaps, but I don't think Craig handles either the romance or the humor badly. He did an excellent job in Casino Royale with both given what the script required. But in the follow ups, there was little for him to do in this regard, and with Spectre's more farcical moments, he seemed to underplay things, perhaps so they didn't seem camp.
Connery was the whole package. Of all the actors who played Bond, he was the only one that consistently and convincingly delivered on all levels -- anger, humor, romance, confidence. He could even be fearful without somehow seeming unmasculine. For all the derision George Lazenby gets, he had precisely the same quality -- just not as much experience or in the same way as Connery.
Moore started the trend of the more one-note Bonds, playing heavily to humor, but he still brought range to the character. Dalton tried too much to take it in the other direction. Brosnan, who should have played the part with more humor, ironically struggled in the tough guy moments.
Craig is playing to the type of "leading man" that's in action movies today -- Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt, Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark. These are characters who are psychologically troubled and therefore exhibit more limited comfort with themselves. That's certainly not the Bond that Connery, Lazenby, or Moore played -- their version was someone who had everything in balance but had to deal with a world where everyone else was lacking. This is another reason Dalton failed. At the time, people didn't want to see heroes with deep personal problems. The whole point of the hero was someone better than average. Even Bruce Willis' character in Die Hard didn't have psychological problems -- his big mouth is what got him into trouble, which is to say he didn't know when to keep his opinions to himself.
The Lethal Weapon movies arguably introduced a character who was psychologically troubled, though it was never quite clear whether they were real or something of an act, as Riggs seemed not only aware of them but able to turn them on and off in various moments. Tim Burton's Batman gave Bruce Wayne a screwed up sensibility, but Michael Keaton played him more as peculiar than as truly disturbed.
I think Dalton's lack of widespread appeal is in part because of his own arguable shortcomings as a leading man and that he wanted layers to a character that weren't really wanted or necessary at the time. Craig fits better not only because he can do all that but also because he is in many ways a return to the Connery-esque Bond physically.
Glen is a journeyman director because there is nothing particularly memorable or imaginative about his staging or set ups. He frames scenes in a very conventional way -- which I will admit I prefer to the shaky cam, documentary approach now, where framing seems completely ignored -- and does little other than play it conservative. He gets good performances, but he also relies too much on stock actions and reactions from the actors, who say the lines and move on to the next scene. The pacing of his films is sometimes plodding as well, though that seems more a problem in his later Moore films, Octopussy and A View to a Kill, than in the others. His best effort was The Living Daylights. He seemed to pull out all of the stops there, and yet because the villains are so weak, the film loses energy in the last third. His second best effort was For Your Eyes Only. The rest is pretty pedestrian. He is what might be called a competent film maker.
In my opinion, the big difference is, if Craig shows weakness, you can see him coming back even with more force, while Dalton remains just - weak. And it‘s eating him up.
A big difference also in the actor’s character.
Connery, Moore, and in large parts Brosnan and Craig are clearly Alpha-Males (also in private life), while Dalton seems to be overly sensitive, weak and personally conflicted.
I agree with TLD‘s villain being probably the worst in the series.
Toy soldiers....
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I agree with TLD‘s villain being probably the worst in the series.
Toy soldiers....
Higgins, Whitaker isn't the villain: Koskov is.
(a) 007 and Whitaker have no relationship- they don't meet until the end of the film.
(b) Koskov and Bond know each other, and have a relationship (basically, Georgi betrays James' trust).
(c) They have whole dialogue scenes, including both friendly
and normal Bond/villain
(d) The plot isn't over when Whitaker dies- it's over when Koskov meets his fate
and
(e) The clincher: Bond and Koskov vie for the affections of the leading lady, a standard Bond/villain film trope*. Bond wins, of course.
It's also irrelevant if Whitaker "outranks" Koskov in their hierarchy- Blofeld (or "Number One", to be accurate) quite clearly outranks both Rosa Klebb and Emilio Largo in their respective movies, but they are obviously the villains.
Having said all that, I do agree that Koskov is one of the weaker Bond villains.
* many examples- Klebb, Goldfinger, Largo, Blofeld (in OHMSS), Dr Kananga, Kamal Khan....
1) Timing. People were still looking to Bond for high fantasy in the 80s. They wanted glitz and glamour, jokes and elaborate set pieces. Bond was only half way through its run then. A more personal Bond wasn't what they wanted on the menu. It might have worked if Dalton had taken over in 1981, but by 1987, it was both too late and too early. In terms of being hard-edged fantasy, movies like Die Hard just did the same thing better. In fact, Die Hard is just the last 15 minutes of every Bond movie stretched out.
2) Dalton isn't Craig. That may seem like a Coke versus Pepsi argument to some people, but though the general idea may be the same, the details count. People didn't like Dalton as much as Craig.
3) Dalton's film's never felt like they were completely committed. John Glen's journeyman directing, though a little better with Dalton's films than Moore's perhaps, nonetheless still felt like compromises. He'd worked mostly during Moore's tenure, and he couldn't quite give up the Moore elements. Maybe if they'd worked harder to play to Dalton's strengths, that might have improved the films, but the aforementioned weaknesses in his acting stood out by putting him into situations where he had to emote.
4) Craig's Bonds are much more tailored to his acting style, and the directors approach them as A films.
I'm not saying any of that is wrong, but Craig is clearly unsuited to the more romanic and dryly comedic side of the character. Roger always used to say that he played Bond like a lover, while Connery played him like a killer. Craig falls into the latter category for me. He can only seem to do brutal, cold, rugged, while there's no charm.
Neither am I denying your Glen comment when I ask, in what way is he a journeyman director? I'm not really up on the directing side of things, more the writing.
Depends on one's tastes, perhaps, but I don't think Craig handles either the romance or the humor badly. He did an excellent job in Casino Royale with both given what the script required. But in the follow ups, there was little for him to do in this regard, and with Spectre's more farcical moments, he seemed to underplay things, perhaps so they didn't seem camp.
Connery was the whole package. Of all the actors who played Bond, he was the only one that consistently and convincingly delivered on all levels -- anger, humor, romance, confidence. He could even be fearful without somehow seeming unmasculine. For all the derision George Lazenby gets, he had precisely the same quality -- just not as much experience or in the same way as Connery.
Moore started the trend of the more one-note Bonds, playing heavily to humor, but he still brought range to the character. Dalton tried too much to take it in the other direction. Brosnan, who should have played the part with more humor, ironically struggled in the tough guy moments.
Craig is playing to the type of "leading man" that's in action movies today -- Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt, Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark. These are characters who are psychologically troubled and therefore exhibit more limited comfort with themselves. That's certainly not the Bond that Connery, Lazenby, or Moore played -- their version was someone who had everything in balance but had to deal with a world where everyone else was lacking. This is another reason Dalton failed. At the time, people didn't want to see heroes with deep personal problems. The whole point of the hero was someone better than average. Even Bruce Willis' character in Die Hard didn't have psychological problems -- his big mouth is what got him into trouble, which is to say he didn't know when to keep his opinions to himself.
The Lethal Weapon movies arguably introduced a character who was psychologically troubled, though it was never quite clear whether they were real or something of an act, as Riggs seemed not only aware of them but able to turn them on and off in various moments. Tim Burton's Batman gave Bruce Wayne a screwed up sensibility, but Michael Keaton played him more as peculiar than as truly disturbed.
I think Dalton's lack of widespread appeal is in part because of his own arguable shortcomings as a leading man and that he wanted layers to a character that weren't really wanted or necessary at the time. Craig fits better not only because he can do all that but also because he is in many ways a return to the Connery-esque Bond physically.
Glen is a journeyman director because there is nothing particularly memorable or imaginative about his staging or set ups. He frames scenes in a very conventional way -- which I will admit I prefer to the shaky cam, documentary approach now, where framing seems completely ignored -- and does little other than play it conservative. He gets good performances, but he also relies too much on stock actions and reactions from the actors, who say the lines and move on to the next scene. The pacing of his films is sometimes plodding as well, though that seems more a problem in his later Moore films, Octopussy and A View to a Kill, than in the others. His best effort was The Living Daylights. He seemed to pull out all of the stops there, and yet because the villains are so weak, the film loses energy in the last third. His second best effort was For Your Eyes Only. The rest is pretty pedestrian. He is what might be called a competent film maker.
Comments
All I'm saying, friend, is that they didn't neccessary dislike him in the same way you dislike him. I admit that LTK was not as successful as it was expected to be, and that it underperformed by a wide margin, by I still personally like the film and it's one of my favourites. And I maintain that you will not find a single scene in either film in which Dalton weeps.
A more interesting question - instead of us going round in circles - is what do you think would have worked instead of it? Another actor in the role (perhaps one of the others who were considered - Antony Hamilton, Neil Dickson, Simon MacCorkindale etc)? A plot which didn't involve drugs?
Brosnan was the first choice back then, but was unfortunately not available.
He‘d have pulled the franchise up instead of down.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That balloon moment is one of the best in the whole series. He's angry and frustrated, but he isn't crying. Unless there you can see at least one tear running down his cheek, which you can't.
You've uploaded GIFs before now in which you have had to digitally insert tears onto his face, thereby proving that there wasn't any there to begin with.
To continue with the 'How Could It Have Been Better' angle, which would be the friendliest way for this conversation to continue, I'd say that the drugs thing is probably not in keeping with the grand scope of a Bond film. Admittedly, this mission wasn't instigated by M16, and Bond would have gone after Sanchez even if the guy had been selling fake disabled badges for cars.
Do you think a film along the lines of AVTAK or TSWLM would have been better received?
Calling you BS on this.
I have never inserted tears into a .gif
I don‘t even know how to do that
Feel free to prove me wrong.
And that‘s exactly the issue.
Whenever Dalton plays ‚emotions‘, his eyes get wet and that‘s the only thing that he really can do.
That‘s why I am calling him weepy - it‘s not necessary that tears are running down his cheeks.
His constant weeping is annoying an pathetic, Bond should not be like that.
Just look how Roger did serious scenes - and now compare how weepy Dalton did them.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
In that case, I apologise whole-heartedly. A case of mistaken identity. I don't know how to work GIFs either
Thank you for clarifying the weepy thing, though I don't know how Dalton would be able to bring moisture to his eyes on cue. It isn't impossibly - Daily Ridley apparently cried for her Star Wars audition - but there must be some spray they put on, if it is indeed there at all.
Agreed, Roger handled the serious scenes well and he doesn't get remembered enough for those. A favourite of mine is the one with Orlov in OP.
The balloon scene, teary-eyed or not (and I've never noticed it myself) is a good scene regardless. He and Saunders rubbed each other up the wrong way, and then they began to appreciate each other's methods. By the time Saunders dies, Bond respects him, so he's livid. It's the sort of boiling anger which shows he isn't always cold-blooded; it's sometimes personal. This, of course, leads into LTK. That whole film is basically an extended version of the balloon scene. I can see why they went the vigilante route, as the Death Wish films were popular and resulted in various rip-offs. I wouldn't argue too much, though, if someone believes such grisly films are outside the purview of what Bond should be.
In fact, Dalton would have probably found more success if he'd taken the role in 1981, debuting in For Your Eyes Only. The follow up could have been Licence to Kill and then The Living Daylights. Moore could have gone out on a high note with Moonraker.
But that's not what happened, and Americans in particular never found Dalton very appealing. Perhaps his long face and saturnine looks didn't make him attractive enough, or maybe it's because while he's terrific playing intense emotions like anger and determination, he's not so good at the softer emotions. When he tries to look like he's having fun, he often just seems goofy and uncomfortable. Another problem is that there's always a darkness to his characterizations; even when playing a good guy he seems more like he is the bad guy.
I actually thought he could play Bond when at age 12 I saw him in Flash Gordon. I didn't know then that he'd been considered for the role.
Dalton got half of James Bond right, which is the semi-tragic, sometimes conflicted character from the books. He got the other half wrong, which is the cinematic character who not only seems to be having a good time, but who lives for that reason. By investing so much in the former, he forgot the latter, and they had to compromise with the movies, making them more like character studies in some ways that Bond movies, even with the few attempts to be light-hearted and fantasy-driven. The 1980s weren't the decade for that.
Same thing with Fist of Fury in '72 , it started a trend....... then came many other China vs Japan films : Hapkido , When TKD strikes , FoF II & III , New FoF etc
Jaws also started a monster movie trend
"Honey I Shrunk the Kids, The Karate Kid III, and When Harry Met Sally
IMO , LTK are just as good or better than these films imo
I'm not saying this doesn't apply to Dalton, but you could well be describing Craig here too.
1) Timing. People were still looking to Bond for high fantasy in the 80s. They wanted glitz and glamour, jokes and elaborate set pieces. Bond was only half way through its run then. A more personal Bond wasn't what they wanted on the menu. It might have worked if Dalton had taken over in 1981, but by 1987, it was both too late and too early. In terms of being hard-edged fantasy, movies like Die Hard just did the same thing better. In fact, Die Hard is just the last 15 minutes of every Bond movie stretched out.
2) Dalton isn't Craig. That may seem like a Coke versus Pepsi argument to some people, but though the general idea may be the same, the details count. People didn't like Dalton as much as Craig.
3) Dalton's film's never felt like they were completely committed. John Glen's journeyman directing, though a little better with Dalton's films than Moore's perhaps, nonetheless still felt like compromises. He'd worked mostly during Moore's tenure, and he couldn't quite give up the Moore elements. Maybe if they'd worked harder to play to Dalton's strengths, that might have improved the films, but the aforementioned weaknesses in his acting stood out by putting him into situations where he had to emote.
4) Craig's Bonds are much more tailored to his acting style, and the directors approach them as A films.
I'm not saying any of that is wrong, but Craig is clearly unsuited to the more romantic and dryly comedic side of the character. Roger always used to say that he played Bond like a lover, while Connery played him like a killer. Craig falls into the latter category for me. He can only seem to do brutal, cold, rugged, while there's no charm. Although Dalton could not really do the couple of quips they gave him, he was better, I think, at the romance. In TLD, Bond was certainly in love with Kara, or as much as he could be in their time together. I personally see both films as a roaring success, in particular in the character department. Kara is shocked when she sees her new man turn tough, for example, plus the aforementioned balloon scene.
Neither am I denying your Glen comment when I ask, in what way is he a journeyman director? I'm not really up on the directing side of things, you see, more the writing. In as much as I think of it at all, I tend to view the auteur idea as pretentious and am saddened when the people who craft the script - which is surely the most important part of the film, otherwise there would be nothing for the actors to do and no story for the audience to follow - are dismissed as hacks and on the level of the caterer when compared to the director.
Connery was the whole package. Of all the actors who played Bond, he was the only one that consistently and convincingly delivered on all levels -- anger, humor, romance, confidence. He could even be fearful without somehow seeming unmasculine. For all the derision George Lazenby gets, he had precisely the same quality -- just not as much experience or in the same way as Connery.
Moore started the trend of the more one-note Bonds, playing heavily to humor, but he still brought range to the character. Dalton tried too much to take it in the other direction. Brosnan, who should have played the part with more humor, ironically struggled in the tough guy moments.
Craig is playing to the type of "leading man" that's in action movies today -- Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt, Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark. These are characters who are psychologically troubled and therefore exhibit more limited comfort with themselves. That's certainly not the Bond that Connery, Lazenby, or Moore played -- their version was someone who had everything in balance but had to deal with a world where everyone else was lacking. This is another reason Dalton failed. At the time, people didn't want to see heroes with deep personal problems. The whole point of the hero was someone better than average. Even Bruce Willis' character in Die Hard didn't have psychological problems -- his big mouth is what got him into trouble, which is to say he didn't know when to keep his opinions to himself.
The Lethal Weapon movies arguably introduced a character who was psychologically troubled, though it was never quite clear whether they were real or something of an act, as Riggs seemed not only aware of them but able to turn them on and off in various moments. Tim Burton's Batman gave Bruce Wayne a screwed up sensibility, but Michael Keaton played him more as peculiar than as truly disturbed.
I think Dalton's lack of widespread appeal is in part because of his own arguable shortcomings as a leading man and that he wanted layers to a character that weren't really wanted or necessary at the time. Craig fits better not only because he can do all that but also because he is in many ways a return to the Connery-esque Bond physically.
Glen is a journeyman director because there is nothing particularly memorable or imaginative about his staging or set ups. He frames scenes in a very conventional way -- which I will admit I prefer to the shaky cam, documentary approach now, where framing seems completely ignored -- and does little other than play it conservative. He gets good performances, but he also relies too much on stock actions and reactions from the actors, who say the lines and move on to the next scene. The pacing of his films is sometimes plodding as well, though that seems more a problem in his later Moore films, Octopussy and A View to a Kill, than in the others. His best effort was The Living Daylights. He seemed to pull out all of the stops there, and yet because the villains are so weak, the film loses energy in the last third. His second best effort was For Your Eyes Only. The rest is pretty pedestrian. He is what might be called a competent film maker.
A big difference also in the actor’s character.
Connery, Moore, and in large parts Brosnan and Craig are clearly Alpha-Males (also in private life), while Dalton seems to be overly sensitive, weak and personally conflicted.
I agree with TLD‘s villain being probably the worst in the series.
Toy soldiers....
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Higgins, Whitaker isn't the villain: Koskov is.
(a) 007 and Whitaker have no relationship- they don't meet until the end of the film.
(b) Koskov and Bond know each other, and have a relationship (basically, Georgi betrays James' trust).
(c) They have whole dialogue scenes, including both friendly
and normal Bond/villain
(d) The plot isn't over when Whitaker dies- it's over when Koskov meets his fate
and
(e) The clincher: Bond and Koskov vie for the affections of the leading lady, a standard Bond/villain film trope*. Bond wins, of course.
It's also irrelevant if Whitaker "outranks" Koskov in their hierarchy- Blofeld (or "Number One", to be accurate) quite clearly outranks both Rosa Klebb and Emilio Largo in their respective movies, but they are obviously the villains.
Having said all that, I do agree that Koskov is one of the weaker Bond villains.
* many examples- Klebb, Goldfinger, Largo, Blofeld (in OHMSS), Dr Kananga, Kamal Khan....
Very interesting reading.