Who’s your vote for the next James Bond?

[Paul Farquhar]

if it's an 80s Bond movie, I expect some 80s-isms

I think the early 80s was a time that Bond got kind of stuck - in the 70s, and with a far-too-old Moore. The Dalton movies at the end of the decade were distinctively different to what was going on elsewhere. Perhaps too ahead-of-their-time to be massively successful. We know they had wanted Brosnan, but he couldn’t get out of his Remington Steele commitments. Dalton was very much second choice, and without him, Bond in those movies would have been a lot less empathic.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think the early 80s was a time that Bond got kind of stuck - in the 70s, and with a far-too-old Moore. The Dalton movies at the end of the decade were distinctively different to what was going on elsewhere. Perhaps too ahead-of-their-time to be massively successful. We know they had wanted Brosnan, but he couldn’t get out of his Remington Steele commitments. Dalton was very much second choice, and without him, Bond in those movies would have been a lot less empathic.

I liked Dalton. But I also remember he was not very popular. In retrospect, he thankfully is getting his due now. But I remember people looking at me funny when I said how much I liked the Living Daylights back when it came out

 

[Mannahnin]

I think not only is this not true, I don't even think this is what they were going for. I think they wanted a bold break from Bond tradition with Craig and as much as Craig isn't my favorite Bond, I have to admit they succeeded. Just look at some of the praises people in this thread give the action. It is more realistic, it is more grounded. The tone is way more gritty and real. That feels like a very sharp break from Bond tradition (and I think that is why of people would defend the Craig era).

Eh. I think the Craig movies still hit almost all the Bond tropes, and it's more a matter of tone, as you say. Just don't go QUITE as over the top with it. Make him look like a guy who could really pull those parkour stunts. Lampshade him being a dinosaur then have him kick ass anyway, which as people pointed out earlier is its own kind of fantasy.

 

[Guest 85555]

Eh. I think the Craig movies still hit almost all the Bond tropes, and it's more a matter of tone, as you say. Just don't go QUITE as over the top with it. Make him look like a guy who could really pull those parkour stunts. Lampshade him being a dinosaur then have him kick ass anyway, which as people pointed out earlier is its own kind of fantasy.

Well the most realistic Bond movie would be him getting shot and killed in the first five minutes lol. I do agree tone was a big part of it here. Casino Royale got very gritty, to the point of feeling like a movie about The Passion or something

On parkour, I think it had its day and added to some films (there is a great sequence in Wu Xia/Dragon featuring that kind of stonework) and some of theCraig stuff with that was good. But if I never see another parkour based action scene I think I will be a happy man lol

 

[TiQuinn]

I feel like every era's Bond was kind of influenced by contemporary action movies though?

Brosnan Bond was definitely influenced by '90s action movies, Dalton-Bond was completely unarguably influenced by '80s ones (particularly when he goes on a Roaring Rampage of Revenge), Moore's Bond was a little all over the place but comparable to a lot of the '70s action stuff of the broader kind, and Connery-era was pretty much defining what '60s action was like in a lot of ways.

Craig-Bond is maybe just continuing a tradition here?

I think this is often true but not always. There were definitely times during the Moore era where it felt they needed to copy a trend to have a plot for the movie. They were often stuck in whatever trend was popular at the time (or what they thought was popular). Live and Let Die was Blaxploitation. Man with the Golden Gun was martial arts heavy. Moonraker was clearly a reaction to Star Wars. But on the other hand, Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only were pretty different movies that didn’t seem to be apeing other stuff.

I think the Dalton movies were trying to be topical, with Afghanistan and Russia’s war being a thing for movies to dramatize at the time. And of course, License to Kill, which to me was basically a Miami Vice/Lethal Weapon take.

 

[Mannahnin]

Well the most realistic Bond movie would be him getting shot and killed in the first five minutes lol. I do agree tone was a big part of it here. Casino Royale got very gritty, to the point of feeling like a movie about The Passion or something

On parkour, I think it had its day and added to some films (there is a great sequence in Wu Xia/Dragon featuring that kind of stonework) and some of theCraig stuff with that was good. But if I never see another parkour based action scene I think I will be a happy man lol

Sure, yeah, it was a trendy thing. But that opening chase sequence in Casino Royale was frickin' amazing.

And while there's more grit and blood, even the Craig ones still go for fun and are over the top and kind of silly in places. The hands in the poker game, for example, are hilarious if you actually play the game.

 

[TiQuinn]

Sure, yeah, it was a trendy thing. But that opening chase sequence in Casino Royale was frickin' amazing.

And while there's more grit and blood, even the Craig ones still go for fun and are over the top and kind of silly in places. The hands in the poker game, for example, are hilarious if you actually play the game.

Yeah that was the most unbelievable hand I’ve seen in the movies.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We know they had wanted Brosnan, but he couldn’t get out of his Remington Steele commitments. Dalton was very much second choice, and without him, Bond in those movies would have been a lot less empathic.

That's not actually quite right.

Pretty much all of the Moore movies were originally intended to be Dalton movies. The producers said they first approached Dalton in 1968, for On Her Majesty's Secret Service (the Lazenby one), but Dalton doesn't remember them approaching him until what would have been Live and Let Die in 1971. He thought he was too young for the role.

They were absolutely desperate for him to be Bond so kept approached re-approaching him over and over (good taste honestly!).

With For Your Eyes Only they were so absolutely sure they were going to get him this time, that they literally wrote the movie with him in mind, and then had to re-write it when he refused once more and the increasingly geratric-seeming (although not actually that old) Moore was brought back in.

And he was in fact first choice for The Living Daylights, not Brosnan. But Dalton said "You've got to wait six weeks for me to finish what I'm doing", and the producers said "Argh no" and cast Brosnan who could appear immediately. But the Remington Steele people then re-upped Brosnan's contract. So that was a movie written for Dalton and he was first choice.

Sources can be found in this Wikipedia article: Timothy Dalton - Wikipedia

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's true. But he still has a kind face. It just turns into a creep, but not what I think of as Bond. But you're right, he'd pull it off somehow.

Idk his first role in Skins showed a smug a-hole of very high intelligence and charm, without ever seeming creepy.

 

[Morrus]

and the increasingly geratric-seeming (although not actually that old) Moore was brought back in.

I've been watching them through.

In Live and Let Die, Moore looks really young. Youthful and fresh-faced. He was 45.

By The Spy Who Loved Me, just two movies later, he's visibly showing his age. He's 49 and there's just 4 years between them. I think he looks considerably older than me, and I'm 51 this year. But then I might be biased!