49 replies to this topic

[Digitarius]

I think that Timothy Dalton was underrated, and suffered from Roger Moore's long reign as Bond.
As Bond, Dalton was a serious, straightfaced man who I could believe was a secret agent. He used a serious approach, which was contrary to Roger Moore's light-hearted humour. This makes him unpopular to Moore fans.
Some say that Licence to Kill was a poor Bond film, but I disagree, for it was realistic. The villain, for once, wasn't somebody who is hiding out in a hollowed out volcano surrounded by thugs who can rip a five-inch metal armour with their bare hands, but believable characters. 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?)

[Digitarius]

I would say the biggest weakness of Dalton is his seriousness, and he finds it uneasy to deliver one-liners which all Bonds have to. If you look at his one-liners in both his films, particularly in Licence to Kill, then you can see my point.
Also, Licence to Kill was the first Bond film not named after an Ian Fleming novel or short story, and so maybe that's got something to do with the poor advertising. There's also a dispute then about whether it should be Licence Rebuked (nobody knew what Rebuked meant), License to Kill (yank version) or Licence to Kill (Queen's English).

[Mr Trump]

I agree that he was probably underated but he was still brought back to do Liscense to kill and they wanted to do a remake of Thunderball starring Dalton in the early 90's but it was stopped from been made.

[White Persian]

I believe it was "Licence Revoked" i.e. cancelled, rather than "rebuked", but the argument that it should be changed (to something blander) because some research group didn't know the meaning doesn't hold water. What on earth does "GoldenEye' mean? Or "Octopussy" (don't answer that!)? Who goes to a Bond film because they've thought deeply about the title - audiences go simply to see the latest Bond film. It's only us diehards who discuss the titles.

[Blue Eyes]

It was going to be Licence Revoked. I have the original teaser poster sitting on my hard drive.

[Digitarius]

Well, each Bond film title has its meaning:
Dr. No - the villain's name
From Russia With Love - a double meaning. Connery wrote that to Moneypenny before he left for Turkey, and it also means that Bond was coming back to Britain with his Love.
Goldfinger - Villian's name
Thunderball - Operation Thunderball
You Only Live Twice - Bond died right at the start, and also signifies death in the film
On Her Majesty's Secret Service - could mean Bond being in MI6 and also Her Majesty being Tracy and Bond at her service
Diamonds are Forever - well, the whole film's about diamonds
Live and Let Die - as supposed to live and let live, I suppose
The Man With the Golden Gun - the villian.
The Spy Who Loved Me - the Bond girl
Moonraker - the rocket
For Your Eyes Only - again, Bond in MI6
Octopussy - the girl's name
A View to A Kill - the way Zorin looked down at the world
The Living Daylights - um

[White Persian]

Sorry, I didn't express myself well. What I meant about GoldenEye or Octopussy is that the meaning only became clear as the movie progressed, but on its own wouldn't make much sense to someone trying to get an idea what the story was about. This seemed to be the objection by MGM/UA to the "Licence Revoked" title.

[Blue Eyes]

This is really funny. Today's Melbourne Express (newspaper) had a little trivia thing on Bond saying it LTK was originally License Revoked.... why the name change? It was found over 80% of American audiences didn't know what Revoked meant

[Digitarius]

That was what I read in a official Bond movie guidebook. 80% of Yanks couldn't understand what revoked means, and they thought that it was something to do with one losing his/her driving licence! And then there was an argument as to whether licence should be spelt Licence or License, and fortunately Queen's English won through.

[Blue Eyes]

Bloody Yanks thinking they can make their own language. Go the Brits!

[Digitarius]

And especially when Bond is clearly British.
I simply dispise to see words spelled the wrong way, like the new movie Pearl Harbor (should be H-A-R-B-O-U-R), which is simply expensive Hollywood rubbish.

[The Mastermind III]

THAT!! I live in Hawaii and here's it's Pearl Harbor and that's the way it should be spelled!! I just went to the site yesterday and lo and behold which spelling is on the sign? "Pearl harbor"

I do spell LTk, Licence To Kill, btw.

[Blue Eyes]

I agree with Pearl Harbor. If that's how they place is officially spelt then so be it. It's like people pronoucning Paris as Paris rather than Pari. It should be called Pari.

Anyhow. Did you ever see Kate Beckinsale at the premiere? Did you???? Sheez, she is a babe!!

[White Persian]

Have we wandered ever so slightly from the topic, gentlemen?

[Digitarius]

Back to Mr. Dalton.
Do anyone of you think that he was sacrificed for the violent portrayal of Bond in LicenCe to Kill? I certainly think so.

[General Orlov]

Digitarius (04 Jun, 2001 04:14 p.m.):
Do anyone of you think that he was sacrificed for the violent portrayal of Bond in LicenCe to Kill?  I certainly think so.

No, I wouldn't think so.

First: The filmmakers tried a more realistic approach with Roger Moore in FYEO. It wasn't exactly a violent movie, but it was certainly a change of style compared the previous movies. They changed the style again after FYEO and returned to comedy - but they did it with Moore (mainly because Moore liked it that way).

Second: When Dalton took over the role, the style of the movies changed again to a serious (and more realistic or even violent) tone. Why did they do it? For once, because Dalton wanted it. But did he have that much say about how the movies should be? I wouldn't think so. So the people at EON obviously decided that a change of tone would do the movies good. And in Dalton they had the right actor to perform that change.
The point here is that EON decided to change the style. And it worked. The movies did well (yes, they really did!).

So why change anything about it?

I am pretty much certain that if Dalton had done another Bond, the tone of the movie wouldn't have changed very much. Actually it didn't, if you look at GoldenEye. That one could easily have been a Dalton-Bond, as far as the tone is concerned.

So IMO, Dalton was not sacrificed for the violent portrayal of Bond in Licence to Kill.

[White Persian]

Licence To Kill performed well everywhere except the crucial American market. I firmly believe the lacklustre ad campaign (you can see some of it on the video and DVD) had a lot to do with that. The poster was uninspired, a photo montage lacking any of the distinctive Bond iconography - Dalton is depicted smaller than Sanchez, running towards the camera, no tux, no gun across the shoulder. A muted exploding truck and Pam's plane but none of the larger than life stuff that screams Bond. The trailer was grim with ominous music (no Bond theme, no gunbarrel sequence). No sense of exhilaration at all. It was as if MGM/UA were trying to keep it secret that this was a James Bond movie.
But Dalton got the blame. From what I understand the Broccoli camp wanted to keep him but the studio (not being prepared to admit that they'd mishandled the marketing) wanted a new Bond.

[Digitarius]

From what I've heard, Dalton was sacrificed in the end for several reasons, with his casual attitude towards Bond being one of them.
The director was sacrificed (was it John Glen), ultimately because of the violence (it was OK in the 80s, but not in the 90s).
And Dalton has major disagreements with the director. Glen (was it him?) said that Dalton wanted to play Bond in a T-shirt and track-suit bottoms, with his hands in his pockets and slouching.
Um

[Blue Eyes]

The official verdict was that Dalton quit. I'm fairly sure I've seen him say the same thing. What makes one suggest he was 'sacrificed'? Didn't they write GoldenEye with him in mind?

[Digitarius]

I'm not so sure about Dalton, but the director was crucified for his usage of excess violence.

[R]

This info may have appeared elsewhere on these boards, so apologies for any repetition.

Dalton was in fact offered the role of Bond first for OHMSS, and again for FYEO. Which would explain both films' harder edges.

One thing I would love to see (if it actually exists) is the gun barrel sequence that Brosnan allegedly(sp?) filmed for The Living Daylights. Can you imagine how the series would have gone if Dalton had been there from OHMSS to AVTAK and Brosnan from LTK to present? Possibly even with no gap in the 90's?

[Digitarius]

Dalton rejected the chance to play Bond at OHMSS because he said he was too young. He eventually came in at TLD, although he should have came in at AVTAK because Moore was clearly too old in that film.

[White Persian]

I'd love to see Brosnan's 87 screen test too, if only to confirm my feelings that he'd have been too young then ( and may have gone more the "Remington Steele" tongue-in-cheek route.
If we're going to get into "alternative Bond history" territory ( thank God I'm not the only one) - I'd like to have seen Connery film Moonraker in 67 in stead of YOLT [with Anthony Quayle as Drax and Julie Christie as Gala Brand, SFX by Derek Meddings], then do OHMSS and YOLT in the right order.
George Lazenby then does TMWTGG [with the assassination attempt on M as teaser -his changed appearence "explained" by his amnesiac stay in Russia], following up with DAF, LALD (imagine George in the trainboard fight with TeeHee), TSWLM and Dalton coming on board for FYEO through to LTK ( which since this is my fantasy retained the Licence Revoked title).
Pierce Brosnan commencing during the"gap" with Colonel Sun ( a chance for Robert Brown to have his moment as the kidnapped old M) followed by GoldenEye etc.
Do I need to get a life?

[Digitarius]

Yes, White Persian, but then, we all do.

I've read somewhere that Brosnan was actually offered the role at TLD, but was held back when his contract with a TV show was revived by a stupid company, therefore making him unavailable. Thence, Dalton came in.

[zencat]

There's a picture I once saw in a UK movie magazine (and I CURSE myself for not buying it) of Brosnan standing with John Glen next to a slate for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. It's Brosnan as Bond in 1986! He's even giving a Bond look. Does anyone have this pic? If you do, please post it!

[mccartney007]

zencat (20 Jun, 2001 08:44 p.m.):
There's a picture I once saw in a UK movie magazine (and I CURSE myself for not buying it) of Brosnan standing with John Glen next to a slate for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. It's Brosnan as Bond in 1986! He's even giving a Bond look. Does anyone have this pic? If you do, please post it!

I think I might have a copy of that! I've got a massive still collection so it may take me a few days. If I don't have it I'll ask around or I'll give John Glen a holler and see if he can't point me in the right direction. I'll let you all know.

[zencat]

Great! I look forward to it.

[B5Erik]

A lot of people think I'm crazy, but Timothy Dalton is my favorite Bond.

He is the closest to Ian Fleming's original character, and he is the most believable as a secret agent/spy.

I love Sean Connery, and I like Pierce Brosnan a lot, but Dalton gave the truest performance as Bond with respect to Ian Fleming's original novels. His performances as Bond are great on their own, but when you compare them to Fleming's Bond they seem even better.

[White Persian]

I sure don't think you're crazy, in fact I pretty much agree. His performances gain depth on repeated viewing, too, when you can concentrate more on how he suggests the subtext to Bond's words and actions. It's a shame he didn't have the opportunity to make a film that was pure Fleming. I'd love to have seen him do CASINO ROYALE!

[B5Erik]

I've been saying for over a decade that Dalton is the only guy who can play Bond "right" in a serious version of Casino Royale.

When you read the book the image that comes to mind is DALTON saying those lines and doing those things. It's like the book was written for Dalton - too bad he's too old now to play the part. (MAYBE he could pull it off if it was done in the next year or two, but he is not as young as he used to be.) Brosnan would be OK in CR, but not ideal. I don't think that ANY actor out there other than Dalton would be ideal for Casino Royale!

Oh well. We'll just have to be satisfied IMAGINING how good that film would have been....