Blowfeld wrote:The Sweeney wrote:Dalton exMI6 wrote:The Sweeney wrote:As I've said before on here, if a black actor becomes Bond I am done with the franchise.
I just watched TLD and LTK back to back today and forgot what a great time it was to be a Bond fan back then. I was never happy with the Brosnan era, but seeing Dalton in the role again, I had forgotten how perfect he was for the role - far more than Craig.
Dalton really got the character, and the producers back then also went to great lengths to honour the Fleming books too. LTK really feels like a Fleming novel, helped on by a few key scenes taken from the books. It also helps that Dalton looked the part too.
After CR, I really feel now looking back on DC's tenure is that it all went downhill. QoS was a bit of a mess, and SF and SP don't excite me watching them anymore, particularly when there are no moments from the novels, and Bond became superhuman again. We are basically back to the Brosnan era MkII.
Since 1987, there are only 2 movies that I rate highly as Bond films - LTK and CR. 2 out of 9 films isn't very good, particularly when that time span stretches over 30 years.
Good to see appreciation of Dalton and the effort he put into the authenticity of the character. It p**ses me off no end, how some so called Bond fans give Craig the credit for Dalton's work.
And you are right about the more miss than hit quality of EON under Babs. I very much like Brosnan, but, the producers reduced the dimensions of the Bond character during his reign to make an easier buck at the box office. Yes, Goldeneye was fine, but, that was developed before Dalton quit the role. Michael France wrote the story with Dalton in mind and it is Brosnan's best film.
And had Casino Royale had a younger Dalton, then it would have been infinitely better than the Craggers film. There is a reason Fleming gave Bond Byronic qualities and Craig is the antithesis of Byronic.
I to this day regret that Clive Owen was not cast as Bond for CR.
I am reading the Fleming novels and it becomes apparent that some Bond fans have not invested the time in reading them, because page after page, it becomes obvious that Craig is NOT Fleming's Bond by any stretch. Only an illiterate moron would say Craig got closer to Fleming than Dalton.
When I read the novels I visualise Connery and Dalton the most.
Agree totally.
Incidentally, I just saw the making of TLD, and Michael Wilson says on camera that they were looking at the possibility of exploring Bond's childhood, but Cubby was dead against the idea and told them to focus more on existing Fleming material instead.
Cubby was 100% right. He probably wouldn't be too happy with what the producers and writers came up with in SF and particularly SP, having Bond and Blofeld being brothers.
Reading Fleming's 007 I often picture Sir Sean, especially The Hildebrand Rarity. Carte Blanche (Jeffery Deaver's attempt) I pictured a totally different young James Bond.
Michael Wilson has flip flopped all over the place on who 007 is supposed to be, from classic definition of a hero to Bond is the anti-hero encapsulating what his sister and Daniel believe so vehemently. Michael in once sense was twenty years ahead of the out of idea Hollywood notion to recycle proven characters with origin stories. Cubby wisely put the kibosh on any such notions nine years after his passing his children were full speed ahead on 'Bond Begins', unceremoniously jettisoning Cubbys last 007 and legacy with a 'do I look like I gave a d**n' attitude.
Daniel is Barbara's 007, not Ian's, not Cubby's. I suppose she has the right to her own interpretation, the market has not failed her as of yet which is the only approval she has to have. However it is in large part the good graces of the the original series and Bondmania which continue to fuel the idea what a James Bond adventure is today.
Far as Daniel goes I hope he is done with the role because he has clearly shown destain for the series which put him on the map, doubtful Daniel Craig without Barbara's decision to make him a leading man would be anywhere in his career, certainly not getting in million dollar quibbles with his posh neighbours over a few rouge trees. Even if Daniel does depart I have no real expectation of Barbara returning to a 007 her father would have chosen, even if she does get the actor right I can not help but question if will she get the rest of the trappings right.
By the way after viewing Star Trek Beyond I half expect Idris Elba to be chosen simply because he is everywhere.
It is easy to picture Connery as he is very close to the time in which Fleming wrote the books. Dalton captures those outbursts of anger as well as the nervousness Bond has in some situations. He also captures the guilt Bond feels from people dying by association with Bond. And he has that face as well as hair colour down. However, the novels that the Connery films were based on makes it impossible not to visualise Connery. I have a bit of a way to go with the books.
Agree with your observations on the future of the series. And absolutely right that Daniel is Barbara's Bond. Had Cubby been casting Casino Royale back in 2004, I feel we would have got Clive Owen. Cubby respected the Bond fans and never compromised on the image of Bond.
As for speculation with the casting of the next Bond, if you can cast Craig then you open the door that anyone can be Bond. Craig is so far from the description, that the damage has been done.
As for financial success, the Craggers era is more born out of focus groups and lacks that originality the old series had in abundance. And the advertisement costs must have been astronomical even making past Bonds budgets miniscule in contrast.
And despite the huge advertising for Spectre, it took far less than Skyfall. Yet, Connery's, Moore's and Brosnan's fourth films were their biggest box office. And cinema ticket prices inflated in anticipation of the Star Wars film The Force Awakens. It was a 40% increase on 2012 prices in my area. So, that tells you something.