Dalton fear

Mister White · February 2009

I was wondering if anybody else was suffering from this.

First of all, I would like to say that I believe Daniel Craig is a fantastic bond. But I also think that Timothy Dalton made a fantastic Bond.

When Casino Royale came out, I was very happy to see a new, tougher Bond. Just like when the Living Daylights came out...

In his second movie we see the new tough Bond going on a mission of personal revenge. Justn like Liscence to Kill...

It even has a teaser in wich Bond captures the bad guy, only to have him escape moments later.

So what happened after Liscence to Kill? We didn't get another Bond movie for six years and Timothy Dalton had been replaced.

Don't get me wrong, Goldeneye was great. But I'm just not willing to let Craig go as easily as Timothy went.

So again, anybody else afraid of this?:(

Napoleon Plural · February 2009

No, Mister White, not really. You see, Dalton was offscreen for that time due to legal reasons, not creative.

What's more, Craig is universally popular amongst the media in a way that Dalton wasn't quite.

Thirdly, I think EON were at the end of their creative tether when Dalton came on board. Now here there may be some similarity, but I think Wade and Purvis may kind of get ditched round about now.

I do have misgivings however, simply because I don't quite get the feeling EON know what to do with their new Bond. As one member said on this board, gritty is a one-trick pony. And I don't feel the writers ever did much with Quantum, it's a McGuffin really.

Mister White · February 2009

Don't get me wrong, I would hate for something like that to happen. It's just that whenever I encounter something this good, I immediately start wondering what's going to go wrong.

I just noticed a lot of similarities and since I don't believe in coincidence, it got me nervous.

In my opinion Wade and Purvis did a great job with Casino, but I see your point on Quantum. Maybe after Bond got a reboot, SPECTRE did too?

By the way, Napoleon Plural, I love your nickname. Very funny!:D

Thunderpussy · February 2009

Even Roger Moore's Second outting TMWTGG was pretty weak along with Timothy Dalton's and IMHO Daniel Craigs second QOS is weak too. as i metioned on another post the second Bond film seems to be like a band's second album, never as good as the first, but usually by the third film they have fixed most of their faults.
i thought TSWLM was a huge improvement over TMWTGG.
as was Goldeneye Over LTK
with Brosnan IMHO the seemed to go a little stale as if they had become a little smugg.
Gritty, has it's points but if Bond was to be truly realistic He'd be in his office all day Handling informers and spys. so you have to start from the point that this is a fictionalised version of an intelligence officer so mix in some fantasy and humor. If anyone wants to see realistic intelligence work watch Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, spy.
I live in the real world, when i go to the cinema i want to live in Bond's so heres hoping the next outting won't split the fans so much.
But I agree EON don't seem to know what to do with this new Bond, they make him appear more ruthless then stick in a couple of "homages" to past movies from a lighter tongue in cheek time.

HowardB · February 2009

I'm not too worried. Although IMO CR was a better film than QOS, I still enjoyed QOS and it made tons of money for EON and will continue to be a cash cow after it is released on DVD. It seems to me that the folks running EON these days may have learned from the mistakes of the past and have more of a commitment to not repeating them. There is also the Craig factor. He seems committed to growing and developing his charactorization of Bond and he seems to have been given more input than EON has allowed its' Bond actors in the past. In a recent interview Craig said something to the effect that we are done with the story arc of the first two films, now lets bring on Q, Money Penny, some more fornicatin' to go along with the fightin' and how about we throw in a nice hidden submarine base for good measure. Bottom line is, you can stay gritty/real and still include a nice dose of dark humour, a bigger, better villain, and a scarier threat to the world.

Loeffelholz · February 2009

HowardB wrote:

I'm not too worried. Although IMO CR was a better film than QOS, I still enjoyed QOS and it made tons of money for EON and will continue to be a cash cow after it is released on DVD. It seems to me that the folks running EON these days may have learned from the mistakes of the past and have more of a commitment to not repeating them. There is also the Craig factor. He seems committed to growing and developing his charactorization of Bond and he seems to have been given more input than EON has allowed its' Bond actors in the past. In a recent interview Craig said something to the effect that we are done with the story arc of the first two films, now lets bring on Q, Money Penny, some more fornicatin' to go along with the fightin' and how about we throw in a nice hidden submarine base for good measure. Bottom line is, you can stay gritty/real and still include a nice dose of dark humour, a bigger, better villain, and a scarier threat to the world.

I'll go along with nearly all of HowardB's points here...

'Gritty and dark' for its own sake is fine, and IMRO they've done it ably with the past two films, particularly QoS. Craig's aim is clearly to continue to develop the character, and they won't be doing that if they simply repeat what they've done since '06.

As AJB's charter Flemingist^TM, I don't share the same degree of 'anti-traditionalism' that some pro-Craigger, pro-rebooters might. In the vernacular, ultimately you have to dance with the one who 'brung ya,' and Cinematic Bond wouldn't still be alive and well in the 21st Century without much of the Precious Classic Formula^TM. Eon's challenge is to take this brilliantly retooled James Bond, and marry him up with some of the elements crucial to his longevity. The trick will be recognizing which elements are essential

I'd argue that these would include a traditional gunbarrel, a bigger villain (ideally building on the solid foundation they've laid with Quantum!) with a grand scheme, and a physically imposing henchman to provide a serious threat to Bond's survival. Also important, I think, is more casual sex,* and a slightly lighter approach, on Craig's part, to the material in general.**

And, while clearly more important to some Bond fans than others, IMO the return of Moneypenny and Q are less crucial than the ingredients listed above---unless Eon does something fresh and original with them. If they do, it would yield great dividends.

As much as I appreciated Tim Dalton, particularly after Moore (!), his two films (for all their relative freshness and vigour), remained saddled with excessive baggage from the previous era. It was akin to attempting to swim the English channel with an anvil around one's neck. I'd assert that Daniel Craig is not so burdened, and his prospects are much richer for it.

* Very important, this. IMRO, it should be the cornerstone of Bond's character development in #23---Womanizing as Coping Mechanism. Everybody wins, here: Craig gets some character 'red meat' to chew on...and we, the audience, get more babes :x

** Great care and caution are needed here. We don't want a return to Dinner Theatre Bond^TM, with self-consciously comedic winks to the audience. We simply need a Bond, now (after CR and QoS) with a greater sense of his place in the proceedings, enjoying himself a bit more. I think Sean Connery, in GF and TB, are the best examples to cite.

Just one fan's thoughts... :007)

Lexi · February 2009

Loeffelholz wrote:

HowardB wrote:

It seems to me that the folks running EON these days may have learned from the mistakes of the past and have more of a commitment to not repeating them. There is also the Craig factor. He seems committed to growing and developing his charactorization of Bond and he seems to have been given more input than EON has allowed its' Bond actors in the past. In a recent interview Craig said something to the effect that we are done with the story arc of the first two films, now lets bring on Q, Money Penny, some more fornicatin' to go along with the fightin'bottom line is, you can stay gritty/real and still include a nice dose of dark humour, a bigger, better villain, and a scarier threat to the world.

Craig's aim is clearly to continue to develop the character, and they won't be doing that if they simply repeat what they've done since '06.

Eon's challenge is to take this brilliantly retooled James Bond, and marry him up with some of the elements crucial to his longevity. The trick will be recognizing which elements are essential

I'd argue that these would include a traditional gunbarrel, a bigger villain (ideally building on the solid foundation they've laid with Quantum!) with a grand scheme, and a physically imposing henchman to provide a serious threat to Bond's survival. Also important, I think, is more casual sex,* and a slightly lighter approach, on Craig's part, to the material in general.**

And, while clearly more important to some Bond fans than others, IMO the return of Moneypenny and Q are less crucial than the ingredients listed above---unless Eon does something fresh and original with them. If they do, it would yield great dividends.

* Very important, this. IMRO, it should be the cornerstone of Bond's character development in #23---Womanizing as Coping Mechanism. Everybody wins, here: Craig gets some character 'red meat' to chew on...and we, the audience, get more babes :x

** Great care and caution are needed here. We don't want a return to Dinner Theatre Bond^TM, with self-consciously comedic winks to the audience. We simply need a Bond, now (after CR and QoS) with a greater sense of his place in the proceedings, enjoying himself a bit more. I think Sean Connery, in GF and TB, are the best examples to cite.

Just one fan's thoughts... :007)

I agree with both of you. {[] I think the third outing for Craig should be aiming for some of the 'more traditional' elements which made Bond so popular, but not so obvious that it looks like a heavy handed "cut and paste" effort. I think the introduction of these ingredients should be done with a very light handed touch, like a master chef, when re-inventing an old classic. Don't mess with the formula so that it's unreconisable, but add a twist of something new to make it fresh and exciting. I have great faith in Craig, (and EON who seem to listen to him) to get this balance right. He is serious enough in taking this role to where the fans want it, and not necessarliy what might make 'more money' and I'm very much looking forward to seeing what he and EON come up with next.

Loeffelholz · February 2009

{[]

Mister White · July 2010

Well, I hate to say it, but it now seems that my 'Dalton fear' is going to become the truth....

With MGM going bottoms up the Craig era may well be reduced to two movies.

I hate that! X-(

Clarkey · July 2010

"Maybe I could help ?...No ?..."

thesecretagent · August 2010

It's been so long since the last Bond film already. I liked Craig, but I'm becoming less bothered the longer I wait, especially with the future of the films so uncertain. Just get the legal crap over and done with, find a guy who can play the role well and get another Bond movie made! NOWWWWWWW!!!!!! X-(

Willie Garvin · October 2010

My two bents.When I saw Tim plating Bons,I felt I was really really seeing the Ian Flemind Bond.The last time I felt that wa wi th Connert first fout film. I tried but never really war with Pierde.

russianhat · December 2010

I don't think you will be waiting another 6 years, whether they use Craig or not, it is a concept like postalgold and someone will want to continue to get paid for it. I liked the new, tougher Bond too...but think the next movie does, as someone else mentioned, need to go back to some of its roots.

Dalton fear

Comments