49 replies to this topic

[Jim]

Apologies for getting back to the topic...

There's a dead giveaway on the DVDs, when Dalton is interviewed. He talks in terms of James Bond being the character he is playing. That's no good. There's not much character there, really. You have to "be" James Bond, it's an image (at least the cinema version) rather than a particularly engaging or complex character. The films aren't intended to be mood pieces, surely.

As an actor, fine, fair enough, and The Living Daylights is corking, but Dalton just doesn't seem to be in on the joke. Moore took the joke too far. Brosnan plays it about right. Dalton seemed to want to take the character seriously. OK, if he's a serious character James Bond is riddled with sexually transmitted disease, a psychotic depressive whose liver has exploded and whose ego is the size of Canada.
Serious enough for you, Mr Ac-Tor?

[zencat]

Jim (07 Aug, 2001 06:58 p.m.):
There's a dead giveaway on the DVDs, when Dalton is interviewed. He talks in terms of James Bond being the character he is playing. That's no good. There's not much character there, really. You have to "be" James Bond, it's an image (at least the cinema version) rather than a particularly engaging or complex character. The films aren't intended to be mood pieces, surely.

I'm with you on this one, Jim. While I enjoy the Dalton films as a fan, I think the James Bond of the films is a different creature from the James Bond of the books and that's the way it should stay. Sure, fans love the dark brooding Bond of the books...but the rest of the audience is there for the type of Bond experience they've come to know and love. I don't think the mass movie going public WANTS Fleming's Bond and I think the Dalton era proved that. That's not saying he was bad. Just wrong for the films.

My fantasy is to see Dalton in a faithful BBC adaptation of CASINO ROYALE. Wouldn

[Jim]

The principal problem with Licence to Kill is that it is too formulaic. I know it has the reputation for trying to operate outside of the formula, but I just don't agree.

It doesn't have the courage of its supposed convictions; neither is it Ian Fleming. Fleming was a risk taker; he turned what is objectively a rather unlikeable shallow individual into a hero. Furthermore, more importantly, he was prepared to mess around with his structure all the time. Consider the way that From Russi with Love is written, and (if you can hold back the tsunami o' puke) The Spy who Loved Me.

If EON had wanted to do something radical, a real Fleming Bond, they would have ditched their formula entirely, but because they were nervous, because they wanted to get as much cash cow as they could breed, because they didn't want the audience to stay away in droves (unlucky on that one), in goes Q, in goes M, in goes Moneypenny, in goes requisite girls, in goes big stunt sequences, in goes stupid gadgets (the explosive alarm clock...yeah. right) and these bog-standard elements totally undermine the rest of the film, and expose the formula even more nakedly than usual. They weren't brave enough. It's not because they went too far with Licence to Kill; it's because they didn't go far enough that it's a contemptible effort. It shows a lack of confidence and a lack of imagination.

It's not Fleming's Bond at all. Timothy Dalton may have been trying to play it that way, and fair enough, he seems to give it a go, but the poor bloke is hamstrung by the other requisite formula elements, which he has to play up against and unfortunately, he comes off badly because the formula will out.

And yet GoldenEye seems a confident film, as does The Spy who Loved Me. And why? Because they know they're done to a formula, they're self aware, playing along with the audience rather than trying to shoehorn the rules into a film which, had they been brave enough, they wouldn't have needed to do.

[White Persian]

That's very well argued, Jim, and you make some excellent points about LTK still being well within the "Bond template". I don't share your dislike of LTK, though I admit its flaws, and I'd like to consider your comments and then respond more fully.

One reason though that so many people claim LTK doesn't "feel" like Bond film could be the presence of so many faces from American TV in the cast. This is no reflection on the ability of actors like Robert Davi, Anthony Zerbe, Don Stroud et al, but they do give LTK a telemovie flavour, which is enhanced by the very American sound of Michael Kamen's score.
And as for Wayne Newton...

[B5Erik]

I don't think you're giving Licence To Kill enough credit, Jim.

It BREAKS completely from the Roger Moore-era formula. It was a huge risk in that the last time they did a movie like that (For Your Eyes Only) they saw a significant drop in box office revenues. Furthermore they had a new unproven Bond, so by completely abandoning the Moore-era tongue in cheek humor and goofiness they were taking a big risk.

So as far as the plot goes they went with the OLD formula - the old Fleming-esque formula. Sure, had Fleming lived he might have tweaked his own "formula," but the point is that they went BACK to something that they hadn't really done for a while.

And what's wrong with the Bond "formula" anyway? It certainly worked beautifully in the Connery era! (It is a great "formula!") Besides, if you want to talk formulaic, then that's the Moore and Brosnan eras.

LTK works on many levels, and features a great performance from Dalton. Robert Davi is outstanding as well. LTK is easily the most underrated of the Bond movies. The ironic thing is that it scored the highest test scores of any Bond film tested. And it continues to win over NON-Bond fans to the Bond series each time it's shown on television.

[Jim]

That's not quite my point, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

The Moore and Brosnan films aren't ashamed of the formula; they embrace it, perhaps knowingly and a little archly at times. There's the odd little tweak here and there, but essentially they're giving the people what they want, or what they think they want. They play up to the public's perception of what a Bond film is. The wider public is larger than "Bond fans".

Through sheer frenzy (Tomorrow Never Dies) or all out row (TWINE), the formula can be artfully masked.

Licence to Kill could have been so much better. It's a schizophrenic film. There's a cold, hard film in there somewhere, but EON didn't trust the audience sufficiently, didn't think they'd get it (perhaps this is a problem when you have one of the producers raking in the profits writing the thing) that the formula elements are "tacked on" without any real tweaking at all. M is there. Q is there, and the size of Q's part (oo-er) is the biggest giveaway of the lack of spine on the filmmakers' part (oo-er again). The film doesn't do anything to disguise the formula, and as a result ends up one of the most formulaic of the series.

It's the biggest missed opportunity of the series. Second is making Diamonds are Forever a proper follow-up to OHMSS, but that's another story (called You Only Live Twice).

Sorry to bang on, but the whole thing looks as if they were so desparate for our hard earned pence that the audience had to be patronised and had to be convinced they were still watching "a James Bond film". Give us some credit, for Christ's sake. It's the exposed, unnecessary and downright intrusive "James Bond film" elements which bugger up what is otherwise a reasonable film and turn it into a half-hearted shambles.

Ergo, most formulaic.

[B5Erik]

Why would they do a James Bond movie without the James Bond film elements?

At that point they might as well be making another Die Hard movie! It's those very elements that make the Bond films stand apart from the rest of the Action/Adventure/Espionage films.

The "James Bond film elements" are kept to an absolute minimum in LTK - why do you think so many Bond die-hards hate it? They think that it strays TOO FAR from the Bond formula!

LTK is one of my two favorite Bond films (Dr No being the other). I LOVE the script for LTK and wouldn't change a thing.

[mrmoon]

I've a friend whose two favourites are Dr.No and LTK aswell. He's not a hardcore fan, he just loves watching them. So from his point of view looks like theres not too much wrong with LTK. I think it's great just too americanised.

[Sharkey]

God Save Our Queen. Good luck England v Germany 1/9/2001.
Tim Dalton has been underrated, a terrific actor who could still do the job now. Brosnan should have a little break to allow him to persue other things and Dalton could return for 1 movie! Brosnan can come back in a couple of years. He's not as old yet as Moore was in Moonraker!

[Jim]

B5Erik (16 Aug, 2001 05:44 p.m.):
Why would they do a James Bond movie without the James Bond film elements?

At that point they might as well be making another Die Hard movie!  It's those very elements that make the Bond films stand apart from the rest of the Action/Adventure/Espionage films.

The "James Bond film elements" are kept to an absolute minimum in LTK - why do you think so many Bond die-hards hate it?  They think that it strays TOO FAR from the Bond formula!

LTK is one of my two favorite Bond films (Dr No being the other).  I LOVE the script for LTK and wouldn't change a thing.

OK, OK. Just find the "Bond film" elements to be more instrucive than usual, more noticeable than usual, and because they've been tacked onto a film which ultimately doesn't need them and isn't well served by them.

[Simon]

Referring back up the list of posts;
1. Dalton was fired, or "let go". I was offering competition prize Garth Pearce written books on the Making of GE while I was working for a TV station. He came in to sign the books and he said that he was the first person Dalton called to say that while the official version was that he stepped down, he was asked to leave.

2. Jim - totally agree with your comments on formulaic stuff and when to embrace it or to have the courage to fully go down another route without compromising the two. I have said the same in the What should be in Bond 20 thread.

[White Persian]

Simon, that's very interesting! Did Dalton indicate whether the boot came from EON, or from MGM/UA? EON always seemed to have a good relationship with him, and I suspect that the suits at MGM/UA exerted pressure. A great pity, though, because with a good script like Goldeneye, I think Dalton would have been terrific.

Hey, wouldn't it have been neat (if confising) to have Dalton play Trevelyan yo Pierce's Bond?

[White Persian]

Simon, that's very interesting! Did Dalton indicate whether the boot came from EON, or from MGM/UA? EON always seemed to have a good relationship with him, and I suspect that the suits at MGM/UA exerted pressure. A great pity, though, because with a good script like Goldeneye, I think Dalton would have been terrific.

Hey, wouldn't it have been neat (if confusing) to have Dalton play Trevelyan yo Pierce's Bond?

[The Admiral]

I agree with you again. It was very realistic, however, I wouldn't mind seeing some more hollowed out volcanoes like in Goldeneye, where 007 had his underground complex.

[Blue Eyes]

Digitarius (19 May, 2001 01:18 p.m.):
I think that Timothy Dalton was underrated, and suffered from Roger Moore's long reign as Bond.

True. People's perception of Bond was drastically changed by Moore. If Brosnan had played Bond straight after Moore I feel he would have failed as well because he was still too serious!

It was also a very nice touch to have El Presidente in there, who was played by the son of the actor who played somebody in From Russia With Love (damn! forgot his name.  The guy in Istanbul.  What's his name?)

I think it's Kerim Bay you're thinking of!

[mrmoon]

actor-Pedro Armendariz

[White Persian]

I'm very fond of Timothy Dalton's portrayal of 007, which more than any actor's seems to be the Bond Ian Fleming wrote about.
I get quite irritated with the rewriting of history that says his Bond wasn't accepted (partly a marketing ploy to push Pierce Brosnan as "the one we really wanted all along"). People forget that "Living Daylights" garnered terrific reviews and did excellent business around the world. The problem, I think, with Dalton's second film was a terribly low key advertising campaign and a hackneyed title that sounded like one of Bond's imitators.
I'm really sorry we didn't get a couple more Dalton entries before Pierce Brosnan (who I've found unexpectedly good in the role) got his turn.

[Blue Eyes]

I don't remember the LTK campaign surprisingly, which may add some effect to what you've said Persian.

What I can't help but wonder is what GoldenEye would have been like had Dalton not stepped down from the role.

As an added thought, surely Dalton's era would have suffered from the end of Moore's era where it just went too long and too rediculous. I mean Moore looked old! It's a fact!!

[White Persian]

I agree that dear old Rog stayed about two films two long. Imagine if Timothy Dalton had started playing Bond in Octopussy, say, and then done AVTAK. I think both those films would have benefitted from a less comedic approach in places (I suspect they veered towards comedy because Roger Moore was getting a bit long in the tooth for vigorous action sequences), and he (Dalton) might have had more opportunity to make the part his own. Of course if there hadn't been the protracted legal case, he'd have been able to do a couple more before bowing out.

[Blue Eyes]

That's a brilliant thought Persian. Thinkign about it now Dalton would have been brilliant in Octopussy. It would have suited him brilliantly. He would have still held the Bond dry wit but the action would have been brilliant. Especially when Bond is escaping for Khamal!!