It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
No one is cooler than Sir Roger of course, but I knew what he meant. At that time, he was the perfect Bond. Wish he had started a film earlier, and given us three.
Yeah; three films would have been good. Just replace Roger's AVTAK with a TLD, then either sandwich a film in between TLD and LTK or one after LTK. AVTAK is my least-favorite Bond film anyway so it would have worked out for me haha. Brosnan GE must remain though for me.
I forgot to mention Lazenby, didn't I? Well, that is because I did not see OHMSS until decades later and I do not think of Lazenby as Bond (that was my issue with the film) so he does not enter into my mind as James Bond often. Sorry, Laz. As far as ranking Dalton below Lazenby, I have to say that even if I had enjoyed Lazenby (talented, but not as an actor), there is no way I would rank him higher than Dalton, who is actually a very good actor. But we each have our own opinions, and that's ok. I am not trying to argue or convince anyone.
Just delving into what we like/dislike about Timothy's Bond. What makes Dalton's James Bond unique for you? Highlights/lowlights/paragraphs/bullet points/essays .. are all welcome!
It was about the historic OO7 GAP that I think I actually read ALL of Fleming. Previously I had read Thunderball, but this time I started at the beginning and went all the way through. Brosnan came & went, Craig had his first two, then I joined this site & AJB, and got to talking to folks that mostly all told me that I *NEEDED* to check out Dalton's movies again.
A new look at his movies with Fleming under my belt cemented it: THIS was the perfect Bond IMO.
As much as I geek-gasmed over Brosnan, as much as I revere classic Connery, Dalton just blew me away on my second look.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Yes, Dalton is totally worth checking out and perhaps some newer fans simply do not take the time (not looking at you, FoxRox). They are missing so much that is solid and gratifying and exciting and memorable about James Bond if they do not see Dalton's films, in my opinion.
By Salzman refusing to sell his shares to Cubby, this led to UA stepping in and now Bond was tied to more sheissters, bottom feeding lawyers and boards of directors. This led to the six year hiatus between LTK and GE. Imagine if Salzman had let Cubby buy him out and keot Bond as a one man show. We might not have had the six years and Dalton might have gotten that much anticipated third film in 1991.
Just an observation.
Looking forward to your in depth take on the Dalton era, too.
:)>-
I like Timothy Dalton and I'm glad that he was James Bond. I really respect the fact that he was able to mold the character into his own unique vision. He brought a very sharp edge to the character and showed reverence to the Fleming novels. He was a very cynical Bond which fit the mood of the late 80's very well. Even though I think that he was underrated back in the day, it's ironic to me that I think people tend to overrate him in the present. Well, it's just my personal opinion. I like him and think that he was a very capable and adequate Bond. I just don't regret the fact that he only starred in two films.
As far as the Dalton era goes, I like The Living Daylights quite a bit but have never been a huge fan of Licence To Kill. It's too bad that you can't somehow transplant Robert Davi into TLD because then you'd have a near perfect film. Despite it's weak villains, TLD still manages to be a very exciting and evocative Bond film. Dalton carries the film well and his chemistry with Maryam d'Abo helps to create one of the more believable romances in the series. John Rhys-Davies makes an excellent General Pushkin, Necros was a very formidable henchman and even a minor character like Saunders was fascinating. With LTK I feel that Dalton and Davi were up to the task but the script and the budget wasn't up to par. Except for Benicio del Toro I think that the rest of the cast is quite underwhelming. Once Bond resigns his licence to kill he is basically just a cold blooded murderer. With our hero falling so far off of the edge it's dubious to deliver a happy ending where Bond gets his job back without any consequences. Still, the film has it's moments and certainly isn't the worst of the series.
As a final thought, I do wish that Dalton would have had a chance to work with Campbell. It certainly would be interesting to see how that would have turned out.
In 1987 People posted a b&w photo of the new Bond, Timothy Dalton. He was with Vanessa Redgrave and not shaven. I thought he looked okay. The next time I saw him was a picture in Life with him pointing a PPK surrounded by old gadgets from earlier films. He was shaven in this photo. The article mentioned the title: TLD.
Prior to the release ABC ran a special hosted by Roger Moore, a reflection on the last 25 years of Bond. It was a well done special and Moore was his usual charming and humorous self. The special featured a few scenes from the upcoming TLD and it was my first time getting a good look at the new Bond.
I had heard positive things about the new Bond and the film. When I finally saw it I was blown away. I liked this new fresh approach. I found it interesting that Dalton had read the books and his interpretation has been called the closest to Flemings.
Dalton like the literary Bond is a brooding killer in Her Majesty's Service. He does not like his job but he does what is necessary for Queen and Country. He has no sense of humor and this is what rubbed a lot of people wrong.
The one liners had been perfected by Connery and Moore carried the ball well. By 1987 EON figured that audiences expected this and they injected a lot of it in TLD. A mistake. Dalton's attempts at humor would just fall flat. "Salt corrosion. Some of the scenes with the chase in the new Aston Martin is full of humor and typical gadgetry we had come to expect but Dalton's seriousness did not jive with any of this. There was an OTT scene shot for Bond's escape in Tangiers but luckily the scenes were cut when everyone remebered that Dalton was to be a serious interpretation.
TLD was released during the AIDS scare of the 1980's and safe sex was preached all over the place.The writers note this and goes for "political correctness". Bond is not anxious to bed the leading lady and actually insists on separate bedrooms when he and Kara checks into the hotel. Monogamy for Bond.
Literary Bond was a chain smoker however after 1970 it was no longer cool to show Bond smoking. Although Roger lights up a cigar in LALD we never see him smoking in any later films. Dalton's Bond smokes. He is shown lighting up in both his films, all this in keeping this new Bond close Flemings character.
Personally I liked Dalton and loved his take on the character. He is a talented actor and in my opinion just what the doctor ordered. In his second film, the writers decided to concentrate on his stronger suits, the serious and intense Bond. And Dalton knocked it out of the ball park. He looks good, he wears his clothes well, his gritty take on the character was like a punch in the face to audiences who had a dozen years of the tongue in cheek approach of Roger Moore.
I feel he may have been ahead of his time and audiences were not ready for this serious take on James Bond. It can be said that he paved the way for Daniel Criag who is applauded for his gritty, kick in balls approach. All of this was introduced by Timothy Dalton back in the eighties.
I must confess I've come to admire Dalton and his take on the character more as I've got older - even if he can be a little too boring at times.
b-(
So when I saw TLD on the 1st night in The Netherlands I saw a fairly Roger Mooresque style adventure with some great setpieces, the fight on the nets outside of the plane remains indeed one of the great and original stunts in the whole of the franchise. But most of all it felt like a script written for Roger Moore performed by somebody who lacked the humorous skills of him. It was still a beautifull crafted movie though.
The largest weakness for me was the portrayal of Jeroen Krabbe's baddie, besides the fact that I dislike Krabbe and think that Rutger Hauer would be much better, but they played it safe and chose for the actor who would not outshine Timothy Dalton at any moment.
LTK another Dalton vehicle was less cinematic and the lack of humour was solved by dropping Q into the story, the movie felt far more generic. It felt more a Dalton vehicle than his previous exploit. However nothing in this movie felt really Bond-spectacular, more like something nicked from the Miami Vice tv show with some aspects of 007 thrown in. The drugs smuggling & powerboat sequences had been done better by a tv show and felt overused by this time. And Daltons performance while decent still lacked some personality where the previous actors had mastered their own 007, even Lazenby!
Sadly the franchise entered a 6 year hiatus in which Dalton did deserve a swansong, the definite Dalton 007 movie.
He shall remain to me the least liked actor to play the part, mostly due to his output in the two movies.
Thank you also for the background info, OHMSS69 - I didn't remember People magazine putting Brosnan on the cover too soon; that's amusing. And yes, you pointed out correctly I feel that the humor with Dalton was a sore spot; it was lacking, or too different, for audiences to embrace.
Pachazo, I think that is interesting - Campbell directing Dalton. That would have been something special, I think, if it had been possible. I do love GE and CR so very much; they are such excellent films.
OK, my further two cents' worth:
Dalton's Bond was a big change. I accepted him at once, and so did most of my friends at that time - but I heard that others did not quite know what to make of him.
I think that is because we had first had the very strong and memorable Connery - who imprinted Bond into our culture - a blip with Lazenby, and then 12 years of Roger Moore, who was very much his own man and his own Bond. I think the producers realized bringing Timothy in after Moore would be a fresh start, and it was. But I do not think they thought that apparently many people would find the change a bit startling, not know quite what to do with this new Bond.
After such a long, though varied, ride with Roger Moore, it was quite a big leap to the more grounded, serious Timothy Dalton. Roger had his own innate charm, suave, and wry humor was just an eyebrow lift or amusingly drawled line away ... Dalton was none of those things. Suave? He can wear a tux quite well, but Moore looked like he was born to wear one and mingle in that kind of society. Charm? Yes, actually I think Timothy had his own charm but it was more subtle that Moore's. Humor? Well, not really. I think Dalton handled the humor in TLD pretty well; his exasperated look at times seemed natural and amusing ... yet it was not his strong suit.
People were used to being entertained in a generally similar way, with Roger Moore's Bond films. Sure some were sillier at times than others, and Moore had some gritty moments I still love and appreciate ... but Dalton was portrayed, from the ground up so to speak, differently and more seriously - and audiences needed to adjust to that.
After the balanced, more serious yet also highly exciting and entertaining The Living Daylights, I eagerly went to see Licence to Kill. I felt saddened, disappointed, and almost like they had bludgeoned me with this film.
So bear with me, because I know many of you disagree. But as we are going over Dalton's era, I want to explain a little why I was so disappointed in LTK, having already been a big Dalton fan from TLD.
Most members on here, what what I have seen, really love Licence to Kill. I don't because it bothered me, it didn't entertain me. It wore me down, had too much sadism, and although I still loved Dalton in it, the whole story and presentation (as a Bond film) was disappointing to me. I felt Timothy deserved better. It had the look and feel of a drug cartel movie - not an exciting, adventurous, glamorous and at times fun Bond film. Please understand that I was fine with a more serious film, but it took on the same old tread of Hispanic drug lord, with details I found gruesome and not enjoyable. I do not like to watch this film; I get almost no pleasure from it, even though Pam is a great Bond girl, in my opinion.
For me, Licence to Kill went far too far in the grim and killing/revenge mode, with sadism thrown in and a main villain (although well acted by Davi) who was exciting or creatively original for me as a fan. The 1980's was a glut of crime/drug lords. It was the Miami Vice era (which I really enjoyed, by the way). I don't go to a Bond movie to see a drug cartel baddie that seems like he would fit into another TV show. This film lacked balance for me. I remember leaving the theatre with a friend, both of us grumbling a good deal. I still had faith in Timothy but I strongly wanted a different kind of film for Timothy's third Bond film. Alas, that was not to be. No third film from Dalton to this day makes me want to cry. =((
@MajorDSmythe's not gonna like this! ;-)
But this is a time for all of us to give our honest take on the Dalton era.
I'm filling the moat around my home now, while typing this, and drawing up the drawbridge. ;)
Thanks, @SaintMark, for giving us your thoughts. I agree with much of what you wrote. Especially this: However nothing in this movie felt really Bond-spectacular, more like something nicked from the Miami Vice tv show with some aspects of 007 thrown in. The drugs smuggling & powerboat sequences had been done better by a tv show and felt overused by this time.
Mind you, I liked Dalton. Just not his second film.
All other Bond performers had that movie and perhaps with the possible "Property of a lady" Dalton would have had his ultimate 007 movie.
I do like Dalton best in his more villainous choice of roles, he is a right basterd.
;)
Several have correctly noted the Miami vice influence. Since the 1970's the Bond movies had been following current trends instead of being trend setters themselves. (As had been the case in the early 60's films).
I have always felt that from the opening gun barrell sequence one get the feeling that this film, LTK is going to be different. I urge you to go back and watch the gun barrel sequence and pay close attention to the music. It is different and I got the impression that "better hang on to my butt".
The large number of sacrificial lamb fatalities and the graphic brutal deaths of the villains may have been much to bear, but I felt it was in keeping to the violent world of drug trafficking. I must admit, when Bond lit Sanchez's fire, it made my day.
Like 4EverBonded, I was drained but I felt like it had been a satisfying experience.
I looked forward to Dalton's third film in two years. Unfortunately this was not to be.
Bond, he could not handle.
I would like to submit to my fellow originals other action films that hit the theaters about the time LTK was playing. Predator (1987), Die Hard (1988) and Total Recall (1990). Predator and Die Hard are both violent an received "R" ratings for the violence. I was never bothered by these films because I felt the violence was in keeping with the narrative. Total Recall, I felt went too far.
By comparison, the violence in LTK is tastefully done and much is left to the imagination. This technique was perfected by and used by directors like Alfred Hitchcock, et al. We hardly see any blood when Killifer meets his demise by shark; Della's rape and murder is not shown on camera, and same can be said for Dario's killing of Lupe's lover in the PTS. I thought the killing of Kang and his lover were pretty disturbing but no more than the death of Strangeways' secretary in DN.
As for the villains' deaths, I cheered seeing them meet their maker. Krest, Dario, Keller, Truman Lodge and finally Sanchez.
None of this hurt LTK at box office. The film did not gross as much as TLD and it came out amidst stiff competition that summer. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Batman, Ghostbusters II, another Friday the 13th, Star Trek V, etc. This is what LTK went up against.
It is True that this 007 had a lot of competition, and it keeps being given as a reason for the lesser boxoffice. I am still of the opinion that Timothy Dalton was the other reason, he just did not work for the general audience as Sean Connery & Roger Moore had done. His performance in the 007 franchise made people look for other options and there were plenty movies that summer I rate higher than LTK as did the general audience.
And after all it is not the fans but the general audience attendance that pay the bills. Had Daniel Craigs first movie CR been a box Office dissapointment I am not sure we would have had QoB.
And Timothy had a birthday a few days ago. So good timing, this discussion!