Roger Moore VS. Timothy Dalton

When it comes to ranking the bond actors, I find myself always putting these two at a tie, cause I can not decide who is better as they are both good ones, but in polar opposite ways. Which do you think was the better actor for Bond?

I'm rather in the same boat. Dalton is the much more proficient actor, whereas Moore gets by on personality and charisma, which is no doubt the reason he was a more popular Bond and moviestar. 

Had Dalton had a second Bond film in the same realm as TLD (as much as I like LTK), I think I'd have liked his Bond more. As it stands, they both have their pros and cons, which brings me to rank below Connery, Brosnan and Lazenby, and above Craig.

Dalton's main weakness compared to Moore IMO is that he doesn't have much charm with the women. He does have the serious parts down such as his encounter with Pushkin. He pulls that off better than Moore, where as Moore might have had better chemistry with Kara.

However, Pam Bouvier was better written for Dalton's take.

Moore certainly out-charms Dalton, however I disagree that Pam was more suited to Dalton's Bond than Kara. I thought he and d'Abo had good chemistry, and was one of the stronger relationships in the series. 

Moore would have been too old for d'Abo.

That's true, I meant if Moore was younger in age.  I actually thought Kara and Bond was one of the weakest relationships in the series as I just didn't see those two getting together as I felt they were polar opposite and Bond just seemed annoyed with her a lot of the time, and all of a sudden they just got together, cause the script said they had to.

Dalton's Bond was so hard edged, that I felt he would think that this woman is too happy and naive of a school girl type for me. But that was just how I saw it.

FieldsMan wrote:

Dalton is the much more proficient actor, whereas Moore gets by on personality and charisma, which is no doubt the reason he was a more popular Bond and moviestar. 
.

Yep.

At the end of the day, Moore is more fun to watch and has the advantage of 7 films to Dalton's 2.

ironpony wrote:

That's true, I meant if Moore was younger in age.  I actually thought Kara and Bond was one of the weakest relationships in the series as I just didn't see those two getting together as I felt they were polar opposite and Bond just seemed annoyed with her a lot of the time, and all of a sudden they just got together, cause the script said they had to.

Dalton's Bond was so hard edged, that I felt he would think that this woman is too happy and naive of a school girl type for me.  But that was just how I saw it.

That's why he feels so protective about her. But when she poisons him he realises that she's not as hapless as he had thought. I do not see a happy ever after for them either, but they are somewhat infatuated with each other. And it starts very early on, consider the scenes on the Prater in Vienna. It even starts when he does not shoot her, doesn't it? He's sorry for her because he knows that her boyfriend had been playing her all along, planning for her death throughout the process. He does not break these news to her and, in a way, keeps the illusion by claiming that her boyfriend would pay for her new clothing.
That's just the classical "bird with a wing down". In the end, she's found her way and starts her successful solo career. She's back on her feet. And that's what Bond does.

The difference in "charisma" between the Moore-Bond and Dalton-Bond is intended as Dalton wanted to go back to Fleming and Fleming's Bond is pretty much everything that Moore's Bond is not. Bond is not flippant, he is not overly charismatic; he's not constantly joking around. He's doing serious business and he knows it.

My vote always goes straight to Dalton, first, he's the most handsome Bond they have ever had, secondly, Dalton had understood Fleming in a way that others don't and managed to convey that, thirdly, I simply prefer the more serious Bond because he is closer to the original. This is not a question about which actor you do prefer, but whose interpretation of Bond you prefer, IMO.
I am very sure that Moore could have done a more serious Bond and Dalton a flippant one, had they wanted to do so.

Interestingly, when it came to Daylights there were some scenes that still had a hint of Moore's Bond to them ... the deleted 'magic carpet ride' and the cello-case escape, for example.

Kath wrote:

ironpony wrote:

That's true, I meant if Moore was younger in age.  I actually thought Kara and Bond was one of the weakest relationships in the series as I just didn't see those two getting together as I felt they were polar opposite and Bond just seemed annoyed with her a lot of the time, and all of a sudden they just got together, cause the script said they had to.

Dalton's Bond was so hard edged, that I felt he would think that this woman is too happy and naive of a school girl type for me.  But that was just how I saw it.

That's why he feels so protective about her. But when she poisons him he realises that she's not as hapless as he had thought. I do not see a happy ever after for them either, but they are somewhat infatuated with each other. And it starts very early on, consider the scenes on the Prater in Vienna.   It even starts when he does not shoot her, doesn't it? He's sorry for her because he knows that her boyfriend had been playing her all along, planning for her death throughout the process. He does not break these news to her and, in a way, keeps the illusion by claiming that her boyfriend would pay for her new clothing.
That's just the classical "bird with a wing down". In the end, she's found her way and starts her successful solo career. She's back on her feet. And that's what Bond does.

The difference in "charisma" between the Moore-Bond and Dalton-Bond is intended as Dalton wanted to go back to Fleming and Fleming's Bond is pretty much everything that Moore's Bond is not. Bond is not flippant, he is not overly charismatic; he's not constantly joking around. He's doing serious business and he knows it.

My vote always goes straight to Dalton, first, he's the most handsome Bond they have ever had, secondly, Dalton had understood Fleming in a way that others don't and managed to convey that, thirdly, I simply prefer the more serious Bond because he is closer to the original. This is not a question about which actor you do prefer, but whose interpretation of Bond you prefer, IMO.
I am very sure that Moore could have done a more serious Bond and Dalton a flippant one, had they wanted to do so.

Yeah that's true, he is all serious business which is a good thing, and perhaps when being that seriousness, it's hard to have a charisma like Moore. But I felt Craig has charisma with the women better than Dalton.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Interestingly, when it came to Daylights there were some scenes that still had a hint of Moore's Bond to them ... the deleted 'magic carpet ride' and the cello-case escape, for example.    

Well I read before that The Living Daylights was written for Moore in mind and it does feel like a Moore film, compared to LTK.

Kath wrote:

I am very sure that Moore could have done a more serious Bond and Dalton a flippant one, had they wanted to do so.

I think Dalton despised the flippant side of Bond, but I still adore his tenure anyway. Both of his films are in my Top 5.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Interestingly, when it came to Daylights there were some scenes that still had a hint of Moore's Bond to them ... the deleted 'magic carpet ride' and the cello-case escape, for example.    

Agreed. Or the key finder.

ironpony wrote:

But I felt Craig has charisma with the women better than Dalton.

Um, depends. I think he has a nice chemistry with Karla, but we have already said elsewhere that his relationship to Pam is a complete fail. But, in Dalton's defence, that's to blame on a poor script.

bitchcraft wrote:

I think Dalton despised the flippant side of Bond, but I still adore his tenure anyway. Both of his films are in my Top 5

Yes, that's more or less what I meant. Dalton wanted Bond to be that way.

Oh I'm surprised people think that his relationship with Pam is a complete fail cause I like his relationship with Pam better, and LTK is around my 5th favorite Bond movie with Pam being one of my favorite Bond girls.

I think the discussion is in "TLD ending" in the respective category for the film, in case you're interested.

Impossible. Each Bond in each film has a different flavor depending on the tone of the film and what aims the producers had.
Roger was my first Bond and an indelible presence to me personally, but so are Sean, George, Timothy and Pierce in different ways.

The distinction I make is that Dalton conveyed the truest Bond onscreen to both Fleming's original characterization and actual reality. But all five original actors do this in their own ways and to fully understand this it takes digging into performance nuances.

hegottheboot wrote:

But all five original actors do this [convey Fleming's original characterization] in their own ways and to fully understand this it takes digging into performance nuances. 

I agree with this (though maybe to a lesser extent with Moore than the others). 

And where credit is due, Craig does tap into the psyche of Fleming's Bond in SF, but this is mostly due to the writing than anything else. He's just not a strong enough actor to do it well. And in a film like Skyfall, amongst some of the top actors of today (Dench, Fiennes, Bardem, Whishaw, Finney), he pales in comparison. They run circles around him - even newcomer Marlohe.

It's problematic to equal Dalton with the others because he is the only one who put emphasis on a faithful Fleming adaption. As far as I know he is the only actor who carried the novels around on set.

Apart of that personal effort on side of Dalton it is a bit unfair to compare them. This is, as has been said before, a question of production and script. They could only play the Bond that EON wanted at the moment. As I have said before, Moore would have been capable of playing a more serious and sinister Bond and Dalton, as a Shakespearean actor, well, should be able to play pretty much everything. The difference for Dalton is that he has taken a his own decision what Bond should be like. Dalton was a Fleming fan before he was contacted. That is the only detail that makes him different; but this is a huge difference, indeed. Dalton didn't want the pay-check that comes with the Bond franchise, Dalton wanted a faithful adaption of his favourite novels. If you criticise Craig for that, then how about the others?

Well, I personally do like Craig's I'm not fussed attitude because that simply IS Bond's characterisation in SF. He doesn't care about his surroundings anymore. I mean, he risks being stung by a scorpion for the fun of it. How much do you value your life if you do that? He's broken. The Bond in SF has lost something and this inner hole shows very clearly.
When you lose your inner life force, when you do everything perfunctorily, this is what you will become.

I will give you an even better example. IIRC, during the psychological test he says "bitch" when he is asked after "M" - of course in the full knowledge that she is behind the mirror. You don't do that when you are all eager to get a job. But he doesn't look at the mirror, either, or gnash his teeth to provoke his boss. He's just saying this as a matter of fact - which is even more provocative. Because it says "if you want to fire me for saying that, just go ahead. Couldn't care less."

It's not much of a point on my end I suppose but Lazenby apparently had a copy of OHMSS with him when he did the final scene. Though Dalton is always my favourite Bond -the closest personification of IF's Bond.

Can't see how Craig is outclassed by everyone else in Skyfall at all ... with Harris he has a convincingly warm 'sparring' relationship as the movie progresses, the first scene with Wishaw's Q is a pleasingly amusing update of all those preceding scenes in the series, and he's immensely moving in his final scene with Dench's dying M.

Bond as a character started growing less important in the writing during the 90's I think and has a lack of definition that exploded with Craig's tenure. While I think he is a good actor-if the material isn't there there's little you can do unless you try 1000% to elevate every throwaway moment.

As always Mank put it best: "Roger was far more of the Etonian dropout Fleming first conceived. But Sean could be nasty and the audience loved him for it." I feel Roger is perhaps closer to the way David Niven would have played Bond in a straight adaptation. If you look at Niven in Guns of Navarone that's very largely Bond in a lot of ways on a WWII suicide mission. And going from fiction to films there must always be room for interpretation so it will never be 100% identical.

Sean read some of the novels, George carries OHMSS with him and had it on his lap during the final scene so he could re-read the last pages to cry on cue, Roger read some but primarily took Bond's dislike of killing in cold blood from the opening of GF.
I'd be interested to hear Bozzer's take on Fleming as I don't think he ever gave a detailed explanation of his methodology.


To me I can never answer the question so I look at it as different flavors of the same person in differently toned tales much as you would reading Batman stories that all depend on the writers and time period.

But Craig plays a completely different person. I doubt if this character would last one day as a real field intelligence officer.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Can't see how Craig is outclassed by everyone else in Skyfall at all ... with Harris he has a convincingly warm 'sparring' relationship as the movie progresses, the first scene with Wishaw's Q is a pleasingly amusing update of all those preceding scenes in the series, and he's immensely moving in his final scene with Dench's dying M.

The writing is there for the Bond/Eve relationship, but, for example, his head bobbling about as he approaches M's new office is ridiculously OTT. He can't do charm, that's all. Like Marlohe, Harris does her best to spice him up, but as lachesis says, he's a 'charisma vacuum'. 

And let's not forget "you know the whoollle stor-reee" scene. Sounds like Ellen's Dory. Compared to one of the finest non-Bond-centric scenes in the film between M and Mallory (the first scene), which I get more excited watching than a lot of other Craig-Bond oriented scenes. 

Granted, he does well with M's death scene. 

RE: Brosnan and Fleming, I believe he read all of the novels and carried a copy of Fleming's GF on set whilst playing Bond, which he'd refer to.

So, I apologize for Dalton was not the only one to do his homework.

hegottheboot wrote:

Bond as a character started growing less important in the writing during the 90's

Agreed.

hegottheboot wrote:

To me I can never answer the question so I look at it as different flavors of the same person in differently toned tales much as you would reading Batman stories that all depend on the writers and time period.

For Bond, we only have one author and still we get different flavours and an extreme complexity. On the one hand, we are given a "blunt instrument", yet, we are also given a very detailed biography about personal development: the failed engagement with Vesper; the friendship with Felix; the fact that M is a father figure to Bond; Tiffany Case's break-up with Bond which is described as a hurting experience for him; the death of Tracy; the subsequent breakdown; Suzuki's betrayal (which in a way, it is), taking advantage of his amnesia which results in a son; the attempt to murder M; knighthood and final reunion with Felix...
That is a lot of detail and emotional development for a "blunt instrument". Bond already has many facets in the original version.

hegottheboot wrote:

But Craig plays a completely different person. I doubt if this character would last one day as a real field intelligence officer.

Neither does the Bond of the latter novels…

FieldsMan wrote:

The writing is there for the Bond/Eve relationship, but, for example, his head bobbling about as he approaches M's new office is ridiculously OTT. He can't do charm, that's all. Like Marlohe, Harris does her best to spice him up, but as lachesis says, he's a 'charisma vacuum'.

I know of some women who find him extremely attractive, so I am not sure if he really has no charm at all...There must be alternatives to greasy and silky.

Kath wrote:

ironpony wrote:

That's true, I meant if Moore was younger in age.  I actually thought Kara and Bond was one of the weakest relationships in the series as I just didn't see those two getting together as I felt they were polar opposite and Bond just seemed annoyed with her a lot of the time, and all of a sudden they just got together, cause the script said they had to.

Dalton's Bond was so hard edged, that I felt he would think that this woman is too happy and naive of a school girl type for me.  But that was just how I saw it.

That's why he feels so protective about her. But when she poisons him he realises that she's not as hapless as he had thought. I do not see a happy ever after for them either, but they are somewhat infatuated with each other. And it starts very early on, consider the scenes on the Prater in Vienna.   It even starts when he does not shoot her, doesn't it? He's sorry for her because he knows that her boyfriend had been playing her all along, planning for her death throughout the process. He does not break these news to her and, in a way, keeps the illusion by claiming that her boyfriend would pay for her new clothing.
That's just the classical "bird with a wing down". In the end, she's found her way and starts her successful solo career. She's back on her feet. And that's what Bond does.

The difference in "charisma" between the Moore-Bond and Dalton-Bond is intended as Dalton wanted to go back to Fleming and Fleming's Bond is pretty much everything that Moore's Bond is not. Bond is not flippant, he is not overly charismatic; he's not constantly joking around. He's doing serious business and he knows it.

My vote always goes straight to Dalton, first, he's the most handsome Bond they have ever had, secondly, Dalton had understood Fleming in a way that others don't and managed to convey that, thirdly, I simply prefer the more serious Bond because he is closer to the original. This is not a question about which actor you do prefer, but whose interpretation of Bond you prefer, IMO.
I am very sure that Moore could have done a more serious Bond and Dalton a flippant one, had they wanted to do so.

The only reason why Kara poisons Bond is cause Necros and Koskov were there, to influence her into doing it. If she were on her own, she wouldn't have done it.