83 replies to this topic

[Bondpurist]

Yes, that's right! Considering some Roger Moore films that had crappy diologue from start to finish, one line in LTK isn't really much.

[Jim]

Originally posted by zencat
Creaky is well put. I think they should have used someone completely outside of the Bond box. Someone like, oh, I don't know...whoever was the Bret Ratner of 1989. You know, some young hot director who badly wanted to do a Bond and would have really treated it as his moment to shine. They wanted to "re-invent" Bond with LTK, but how could this happen when you're using a director and crew who had just done 4 in a row (3 of which were Moore films)?

Still, I like LTK for what it is and think it's a very unique part of the Bond canon.

The first paragraph I agree with. If they wanted revolution, they should have gone the whole hog, not just the half pig. This is why I don't give Licence to Kill much time. It's a bit like your grandfather trying to pretend that he's hip and with it, rock on daddio, and as convincing. You can't polish a turd, as the old song goes.

(An old song I just happen to have invented).

It's not so much Dalton's performance (although it is irritatingly mannered and artificial and he appears to forget he's playing to the camera rather than to row Z in the stalls) but the rot he's surrounded with. Licence to Kill didn't revolutionise the Bond series; it exposed its rotten core. Thank Christ they didn't give up entirely. Thank Christ they change directors every film now (a change of writers would be nice). Thank Christ the Bond films are still here.

The second paragraph I don't agree with in total, but I'd agree that it was unique.

[ChandlerBing]

I agree about the rusted vehicle Bond was by the time 1989 came around. Just to surprise Bondpurist, I'll write that Dalton might have been the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Any time you have a long-running series like Bond, it's going to hit some speed bumps and need to head into the garage to get tuned back up. Goldeneye represented a re-invigorated Bond for the 90s that acknowledged the passage of time and that Bond was in a different world now. I am actually kind of glad we didn't have Bond films in 1991 and 1993. The time off helped them get their ducks back in a row.

[Bondpurist]

I think LTK managed to reinvigorate and reinvent the Bond series without making Bond seem like a totally different entity like in Goldeneye. LTK was a good compromise between making Bond totally different and keeping the same tired, Moore style. At least it provided some sort of new direction and tried to be different in some way instead of sticking to the same old formula.

[Roebuck]

Don't get me wrong on this. I'm a huge fan of Roger Moore.
But how would cinema audiences have reacted to the seachange of Brosnan in Goldeneye immediately following AVTAK?
Imagine the culture shock!
It can be argued that the two Dalton films (plus the six year gap) were necessary to cleanse the pallet after the comedic excesses of Moore's outings.
Moore himself described his Bonds as pantomime; ''sadism for all the family'' was one of his favourite quotes. During his later films we heard a lot of talk about trying to give the films a harder edge but in many ways he was already past the point of no return. The audiences still came but the Bonds were been seen more and more as kids films. Like a hoary old cracker joke that appeared on TV every Christmas.
Like 'em or loathe 'em, the Dalton era can be viewed as a necessary transitional step to Brosnan and beyond.

[Bondpurist]

They were necessary to get rid of the horrible taste left by Moore. Plus they were damn good in themselves as well.......

[14 20 02]

Why do you always have to complain about Roger Moore Bondpursit?

[ChandlerBing]

On another post, they said that without Roger Moore's successes as Bond, the Dalton fans wouldn't have had their movies to revel in. If Moore would have bit the bullet as Bond, the series would have ended, and you guys wouldn't have had the Dalton movies. Like him or not, Bondpurist, you have to give Moore his due.

[Bondpurist]

Yes - without him there would of been no Dalton. So I respect him, but don't particularly like him. He was an important figure, and given his due I suppose he was imperative to Bond's success. Shame he wasn't any good though.

[Roebuck]

Ever seen 'Spartacus' Chandler? Sure you have.
Remember the speech about oysters and mussels?
It is possible to like more than one Bond actor.
I'm sure even Bondpurist doesn't favour Dalton
to the total exclusion of all other Bonds.
He has his preferences, just like most others on this forum

[ChandlerBing]

Why yes I have, Roebuck. Fine movie, by the way. I also like more than one Bond actor. If you have interpreted that I only like one Bond actor, you are mistaken. I just cannot stand Dalton. It's almost a toss-up for me between Connery and Brosnan. I like Moore and Lazenby, but Dalton just wasn't believable for me as Bond. As I have stated before, I have no problem with people who have their own opinions. Bondpurist's attitudes about Bond however really got under my skin, and I felt compelled to respond. However, as I have also stated on another board, in order to stop the accusations of spamming against me, I am not going out of my way to respond to Bondpurist's postings. He's on his own. If anyone else wants to step up to the plate with him and spar with him, they are more than welcome.

[Bondpurist]

Spot on Roebuck! I like all the Bonds except Moore, and even he I have respect for.

[14 20 02]

BondPursit is not so mean on Moores Bond after all.

[JimmyBond]

I hate to start up another debate with BP (lord knows it forced a thread closed in another forum). But saying that LTK reinvigorated and reinvented the Bond series is laughable. Yes, I am a fan of Dalton, yes, I am a fan of LTK, but LTK is nothing more than "just another Bond film"

It is not the land mark film GoldEneye is. If LTK jumpstarted the franchise as you put it, then why the six year gap? Yes yes, you're gonna retort with "It was not LTK's fault" and thats true, but if LTK was as groundbreaking as you say it was, then they would have got another Bond film out, regardless of the behind the scenes legal battles.

[Blue Eyes]

Well said JimmyBond

[ThomasCrown76]

The box office failure of License To Kill left MGM and Danjaq very vulnerable to what was going on behind the scenes. As I have stated before, MGM unfortunately relies heavily on Bond to keep its pocket book flowing. When Bond tanked that year, they were in serious trouble.

[Predator_007]

Shame BP has left us, as his reply to this will have been pretty enlightening ... (sorry, just had to look see what this thread was about again before continuing - BP makes them fairly homogenous).

IMO I think it was the studio hiatus that did it for Dalton. By no means is he my favourite Bond, but he did deserve another ...

[ThomasCrown76]

BP has really left us? Are you sure? Too bad because I'm really going to miss him. I was going to send hima fruit basket...ok, maybe not. If Dalton were to do another one in 1991 or 1992, things would have to change. New writers, a new director...it would have to be shook up. Which they did in 1995, thank God.

[14 20 02]

I think he has as in the Moore forum "Critics are saying to often" he said everyone can stop ranting at him now because he won't read them. Something like that so i think that means he has left the forums.

[JimmyBond]

About that, I just cant understand why its ok he can argue about Dalton till he's blue in the face, but when we try to form a rebuttal, he yells "Stop arguing with me" doesnt make any sense.

To keep this on topic, if LTK had been a smash (as GE was) then even the behind the scenes turmoil wouldnt have kept Bond down, but then again, I'm just reiterating stuff that has already been said.

[gkgyver]

For me, Dalton IS James Bond. Period.
Like some others said before, Fleming's Bond isn't a throughout cool guy, isn't self- ironical and hardly makes any joke.
Dalton's two Bond movies show us the original Bond and IMO this can't be bad.

[ThomasCrown76]

Dalton's a fine actor, but he wasn't James Bond to me.

[Max Zorin007]

i was looking at the showtime section in the newspaper and it says tonight licence to kill is on. heres what it sed......."this 1989 james bond adventure is one of the better recent entries in the series"........then it tells about the movie.
better recent entries? So are they saying none of brosnans movies were good? gimme a break any of brosnans movies could beat out ltk!!

[ThomasCrown76]

I agree with you. TV Guide actually gives License To Kill *** as opposed to Tomorrow Never Dies getting a measly **, which really makes me laugh. They only official Bonds they give ** to were A View To A Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies. Gimme a break, people.

I tuned in for a bit when Dalton's movie was on TBS last night, and I DID like Carey Lowell. She looked pretty hot on that boat. Dalton however was just an *******. He was always angry all the time, trying out-intensify Al Pacino, and it sucked really bad.