256 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

I found Dench as M pretty much expendable until CR came out. For once, she acted like a convincing head of MI6.

Edited by Mister E, 01 September 2008 - 06:30 PM.

[Safari Suit]

Helen Mirren? Sure she'd dabble with the role, she might even learn to love it for a while, but as soon as she learns playing the role helps to fund Nazis, she'd be out of there like The Flash.

This post may be confusing for those who don't keep up to date with news about 63 year old actresses.

[JimmyBond]

I found Dench as M pretty much expendable until CR came out. For once, she acted like a convincing head of MI6.

I wasnt too keen on her being in Casino Royale until I saw the clip of her admonishing Bond in her apartment for killing the bomb maker. That scene reminded me of some of the more tense standoffs between Lee and Connery in the 60s.

[byline]

Hubby and I rented "Notes on a Scandal" and watched it last night, and aside from the stern tone of voice, Ms. Dench's character bears little in common with M. In fact, her wholly unsympathetic character makes M seem all warm and fuzzy, by comparison.

[Gabriel]

I was initially appalled at Judi Dench being kept on for the Bond reboot, thing a clean slate would be essential. But the M she plays in CR (and Solace) is clearly a completely different character from the one in Brozzer's movies. Gone is the 'accountant' of GoldenEye and instead we have a hard-as-nails veteran of the Cold War! Finally, Dame Judi gets to play M the way she should have in the first place!

[trevanian]

TD gets better with every viewing. Unfortunately though, I am not convinced the camera loves him as much as it does Craig, who has that kind of Brando/Burton charisma and tends to overshadow everyone else on screen.

Craig OVERSHADOWS anybody? Migod the world's gone blind and to hell in a handbasket.

Connery has Burton/Brando charisma; Craig has the pallor and complexion of James Woods' standin.

Dalton is just plain good

[dee-bee-five]

I don't have a bedside collection on the Bond movies, just the Ian Fleming books, and maybe two or three of John Gardner, before I decided he was a sick SOB in the way he plotted his books.

As for the female M, I don't care how she spells her name; she's too limited as an actress. I've seen her on her Britcom, one performance as Queen Victoria and another as the wife of King George V, and in any case, she seemed to be essentially playing the same character.

So, by your own admission, you've seen a tiny percentage of her career and yet you still write her off as limited? Limited? - the actress rightly regarded as one of the finest, if not the finest, British actresses of her generation. Have you seen her on stage? I have. I've seen Maggie Smith and Vanessa Redgrave, too. And I'll tell you something, Judi Dench can act both of them off the stage, along the auditorium and out onto the street. Check out Notes On A Scandal and then tell me if she's limited. Or how about Shakespeare in Love, when she steals the entire movie with a glorified cameo. Limited? With all due respect, I've never read such tommyrot.

As for this Dalton v. Craig dymanic which seems to have established itself, I would have to agree with those who rate Craig higher than Dalton, even though I like and respect Timothy Dalton. Timothy Dalton undoubtedly looks like Ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor. But, for my money, Daniel Craig is ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor.

[trevanian]

As for this Dalton v. Craig dymanic which seems to have established itself, I would have to agree with those who rate Craig higher than Dalton, even though I like and respect Timothy Dalton. Timothy Dalton undoubtedly looks like Ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor. But, for my money, Daniel Craig is ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor.

Fleming's Bond was never the brat we see in CR. Impulsive at times, yes, but so damn immature? Never. That THING onscreen in CR isnt' a proto-Bond, it is MAVERICK from TOPGUN grounded, with an even sillier grin.

Craig isn't to blame for Bond being written so wrong, but accepting a role that is clearly meant to be somebody so much younger (director wanted a 27 or 22 year old, which I could have accepted given the writing) was wrongheaded in the extreme, given he sure can't play 27.

The only moment in CR when Craig works for me is when he is at dinner with Vesper and admits he is never going to understand what motivates her ... and it is because it doesn't even occur to me that he is playing James Bond. That is the key to watching CR for me... this ain't the same guy, it isn't becoming the same guy, it has precious little in common with the same guy, and it isn't the same guy 'reinterpreted' for a new millennium.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the writing in LTK, which to me still feels the most like early Fleming in tone and danger-sense. Except for Wilson recycling bon apetit from YOLT, that is ... the problem is the photography is nowhere near as edgy as the writing and subject matter.

And of course, the hair.

[baerrtt]

As for this Dalton v. Craig dymanic which seems to have established itself, I would have to agree with those who rate Craig higher than Dalton, even though I like and respect Timothy Dalton. Timothy Dalton undoubtedly looks like Ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor. But, for my money, Daniel Craig is ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor.

Fleming's Bond was never the brat we see in CR. Impulsive at times, yes, but so damn immature? Never. That THING onscreen in CR isnt' a proto-Bond, it is MAVERICK from TOPGUN grounded, with an even sillier grin.

Craig isn't to blame for Bond being written so wrong, but accepting a role that is clearly meant to be somebody so much younger (director wanted a 27 or 22 year old, which I could have accepted given the writing) was wrongheaded in the extreme, given he sure can't play 27.

The only moment in CR when Craig works for me is when he is at dinner with Vesper and admits he is never going to understand what motivates her ... and it is because it doesn't even occur to me that he is playing James Bond. That is the key to watching CR for me... this ain't the same guy, it isn't becoming the same guy, it has precious little in common with the same guy, and it isn't the same guy 'reinterpreted' for a new millennium.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the writing in LTK, which to me still feels the most like early Fleming in tone and danger-sense. Except for Wilson recycling bon apetit from YOLT, that is ... the problem is the photography is nowhere near as edgy as the writing and subject matter.

And of course, the hair.

Fleming's Bond was also never the brat who assaults M's bodyguards when he's ORDERED to hand in his gun in LTK.

If you don't think Craig's Bond has anything to do with Fleming fair enough. Just don't pretend that Dalton's Bond was more 'faithful' when he pulls the kind of nonsense in LTK that Craig does (going on a personal vendetta when he's been ordered not to).

[trevanian]

As for this Dalton v. Craig dymanic which seems to have established itself, I would have to agree with those who rate Craig higher than Dalton, even though I like and respect Timothy Dalton. Timothy Dalton undoubtedly looks like Ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor. But, for my money, Daniel Craig is ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor.

Fleming's Bond was never the brat we see in CR. Impulsive at times, yes, but so damn immature? Never. That THING onscreen in CR isnt' a proto-Bond, it is MAVERICK from TOPGUN grounded, with an even sillier grin.

Craig isn't to blame for Bond being written so wrong, but accepting a role that is clearly meant to be somebody so much younger (director wanted a 27 or 22 year old, which I could have accepted given the writing) was wrongheaded in the extreme, given he sure can't play 27.

The only moment in CR when Craig works for me is when he is at dinner with Vesper and admits he is never going to understand what motivates her ... and it is because it doesn't even occur to me that he is playing James Bond. That is the key to watching CR for me... this ain't the same guy, it isn't becoming the same guy, it has precious little in common with the same guy, and it isn't the same guy 'reinterpreted' for a new millennium.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the writing in LTK, which to me still feels the most like early Fleming in tone and danger-sense. Except for Wilson recycling bon apetit from YOLT, that is ... the problem is the photography is nowhere near as edgy as the writing and subject matter.

And of course, the hair.

Fleming's Bond was also never the brat who assaults M's bodyguards when he's ORDERED to hand in his gun in LTK.

If you don't think Craig's Bond has anything to do with Fleming fair enough. Just don't pretend that Dalton's Bond was more 'faithful' when he pulls the kind of nonsense in LTK that Craig does (going on a personal vendetta when he's been ordered not to).

You're sounding like one of those folks who say 'our character wouldn't do that' in a pitch meeting. Given the extreme circumstances of LTK, of course he'd do that. Bond is ready to quit and go off on his own in the books like OHMSS, so why not for cause?

Are you the same guy trying to say I'm a troll in the 'pitching to eon' thread?

[Publius]

And when they did show there hands, it was conviently too late or just minor interference in Bond's plans. A cop out to the so called "fighting both sides" angle of the film.

It was a secondary angle, if that. It added a nice little touch, but wasn't the crux of the film. They interfered just enough without derailing the story, and given how tight a grip Sanchez had on Isthmus I have no problem accepting that Bond wasn't fending off agents from multiple directions.

Why is it I never fail to get this stupid reponse every time I debate the quality of films like these ? If your going have a good idea, plan it out. Give it some thought, don't just stick in there because then it will be a gimmick. This thought process dosen't require genius, it's called common sense. Also, I am a fan of the books first and the movies secound.

What's "stupid" about it? You're making demands of LTK that I haven't seen you make of other Bond films. I could tear into FRWL, OHMSS, and CR for their many flaws (none of those is very good at being a spy thriller or romance, for instance), but I don't see the point given that they work as what they are.

Also, I prefer the better films to the novels, but the novels to the lesser films.

The only threats in the film, the British government and Sanchez's orginization. Yes, we did need more. Your ideas are just speculation, not what was presented in the film.

Why did we need more than two threats? Most Bond films only have one faction working against Bond. And what speculation are you talking about? I'm basing everything I say on what was either depicted or implied in the film.

No it wasn't because MI6 has numerous stations around the world. We all know that already. It was the Chinese who had the most interest in the film and for the one thousand time, they were quickly disposed of.

Convenient then that the MI6 agent in Isthmus just waltzed into the Hong Kong agents' hideout to tell them he was sending Bond back. One would think that to be present there without anyone so much as batting an eye they were either working together or at least closely associated (wouldn't be surprising given that Hong Kong was part of Britain at the time).

And I don't see why it matters how quickly the Hong Kong agents were disposed. They served their purpose in the story.

That's your evidence ? He attended Bond's wedding ? That's flimsy. You are just taking what you saw in OHMSS and none of his other appearances that define his character.

What? That's not my "evidence." That's just one of the many scenes which I think show the evolution in his character. Nothing radical, mind you, but neither do I think a huge shift in their relationship was necessary to justify Q using his leave to assist Bond on the field.

You don't think it could have been shot better ? I have been to Florida and dosen't look as banal as it did in LTK. Also nothing in Dr.No looked bland, the scenic beauty and Ken Adam's wonderful set deceration.

It could have, but I think the same about many a film I love. I guess I simply value other elements so much more that I can look past imperfect appearances, just like some of my favorite video games are still the crude-looking classics.

As for Dr. No, I can't think of any scene in it that was "beautiful." It was cheap-looking, and that's an understatement for the second half.

And I've lived in Florida for over 23 years, so trust me when I say most of it really does look like that.

Which wasn't enough to carry the film. A greater plot should have been constructed to keep the movie afloat, see Fleming's LIVE AND LET DIE and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE as proof.

Suit yourself. I don't always need epic or complex plots. I also enjoy stories when they're simple and direct.

I rather have a fun plot instead Miami Vice: The TV movie.

Having watched much of that series, I still don't see more than superficial similarities.

And I value enjoying a film more than FUN!™, hence why I prefer something like "A Fistful of Dollars" to, say, Moonraker.

[byline]

I rather have a fun plot instead Miami Vice: The TV movie.

Having watched much of that series, I still don't see more than superficial similarities.

It is true that the similarities are merely superficial, but that's the problem. Film is primarily a visual medium, and so those superficial first impressions -- most of which are visual -- have a way of sticking. Having said that, plenty of other Bond films suffered the same fate, especially the ones that insisted on sticking (name your current fad) into the film. So I don't think this one thing hinders "Licence to Kill" any more than the rest. But it combined with some of the other weaknessess, real or perceived, do.

Someone said the cinematography wasn't as edgy as the story, and I do think that is a significant problem with this film. And, adding yet another superficiality: My husband described the Bond films as being sort of like a "National Geographic" for him, especially as a kid. He got to travel to places in the world he'd never seen before. But with "Licence to Kill," we got a lot less of that. (Yes, I know that the Florida Keys and Mexico are part of the world, but they're a lot more familiar to me than most of the other locales chosen for Bond films.) It seems rather shallow to complain about such things, but again, film is a visual medium, and Bond films have traditionally had certain production values. So when those are lacking, people are going to notice.

Having said that, I still prefer "Licence to Kill" over much of what passed for Brosnan's time in the role. His films had the production values (well, except for that dreadful parasurfing tidal wave CGI scene), but IMO lacked the depth that Dalton brought to the role.

[dee-bee-five]

As for this Dalton v. Craig dymanic which seems to have established itself, I would have to agree with those who rate Craig higher than Dalton, even though I like and respect Timothy Dalton. Timothy Dalton undoubtedly looks like Ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor. But, for my money, Daniel Craig is ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor.

Fleming's Bond was never the brat we see in CR. Impulsive at times, yes, but so damn immature? Never. That THING onscreen in CR isnt' a proto-Bond, it is MAVERICK from TOPGUN grounded, with an even sillier grin.

There must be two versions of Daniel Craig's Casino Royale out there because the splendid version I saw bears no relation to what you outline here.

[trevanian]

As for this Dalton v. Craig dymanic which seems to have established itself, I would have to agree with those who rate Craig higher than Dalton, even though I like and respect Timothy Dalton. Timothy Dalton undoubtedly looks like Ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor. But, for my money, Daniel Craig is ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor.

Fleming's Bond was never the brat we see in CR. Impulsive at times, yes, but so damn immature? Never. That THING onscreen in CR isnt' a proto-Bond, it is MAVERICK from TOPGUN grounded, with an even sillier grin.

There must be two versions of Daniel Craig's Casino Royale out there because the splendid version I saw bears no relation to what you outline here.

A Bond who will impulsively move to kill his quarry with the first handy knife in spite of orders to the contrary, just because he lost.

A Bond who is fresh to the world of killing, who immediately starts running up a body count by gunning down an unarmed man in public.

A Bond who seems more at home with killing in cold blood than hot (he seems more upset by the stair fight and toilet than the section head and embassy killings.)

I'm not saying that everything fails; the actor's chemistry with the hotel receptionist is great, and the scene where he tells Vesper he'll never figure out what drives her is nice as well. It just doesn't feel like Bond to me.

But I probably shouldn't go on, since these elements must not have been in the splendid version you saw.

[Stephen Spotswood]

As for this Dalton v. Craig dymanic which seems to have established itself, I would have to agree with those who rate Craig higher than Dalton, even though I like and respect Timothy Dalton. Timothy Dalton undoubtedly looks like Ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor. But, for my money, Daniel Craig is ian Fleming's James Bond more than any other actor.

Fleming's Bond was never the brat we see in CR. Impulsive at times, yes, but so damn immature? Never. That THING onscreen in CR isnt' a proto-Bond, it is MAVERICK from TOPGUN grounded, with an even sillier grin.

Craig isn't to blame for Bond being written so wrong, but accepting a role that is clearly meant to be somebody so much younger (director wanted a 27 or 22 year old, which I could have accepted given the writing) was wrongheaded in the extreme, given he sure can't play 27.

The only moment in CR when Craig works for me is when he is at dinner with Vesper and admits he is never going to understand what motivates her ... and it is because it doesn't even occur to me that he is playing James Bond. That is the key to watching CR for me... this ain't the same guy, it isn't becoming the same guy, it has precious little in common with the same guy, and it isn't the same guy 'reinterpreted' for a new millennium.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the writing in LTK, which to me still feels the most like early Fleming in tone and danger-sense. Except for Wilson recycling bon apetit from YOLT, that is ... the problem is the photography is nowhere near as edgy as the writing and subject matter.

And of course, the hair.

Fleming's Bond was also never the brat who assaults M's bodyguards when he's ORDERED to hand in his gun in LTK.

If you don't think Craig's Bond has anything to do with Fleming fair enough. Just don't pretend that Dalton's Bond was more 'faithful' when he pulls the kind of nonsense in LTK that Craig does (going on a personal vendetta when he's been ordered not to).

You're sounding like one of those folks who say 'our character wouldn't do that' in a pitch meeting. Given the extreme circumstances of LTK, of course he'd do that. Bond is ready to quit and go off on his own in the books like OHMSS, so why not for cause?

Are you the same guy trying to say I'm a troll in the 'pitching to eon' thread?

Actually James Bond tries to kill M in the beginning of the book The Man With the Golden Gun (he's brainwashed.) He routinely ignores orders and investigates his target instead of shooting on sight, so he breaks up even larger conspiracies. Moonraker was interesting, instead of his customary dark blue suit he was wearing houndstooth, interviewing witnesses, dusting for prints etc, as he headed the security at Sir Hugo Drax Moonraker project.

[byline]

A Bond who will impulsively move to kill his quarry with the first handy knife in spite of orders to the contrary, just because he lost.

A Bond who is fresh to the world of killing, who immediately starts running up a body count by gunning down an unarmed man in public.

A Bond who seems more at home with killing in cold blood than hot (he seems more upset by the stair fight and toilet than the section head and embassy killings.)

I'm not saying that everything fails; the actor's chemistry with the hotel receptionist is great, and the scene where he tells Vesper he'll never figure out what drives her is nice as well. It just doesn't feel like Bond to me.

But I probably shouldn't go on, since these elements must not have been in the splendid version you saw.

It's all a matter of what one expects to see in Bond, I suppose. If one expects . . . well, something different than the above, then of course you won't like Craig's take on the character. If, like me, one expects a hired gun (regardless of who he works for) to be capable of killing at any level. The problem I had with Connery (in his later years, not in his first four films), most (though not all) of Roger Moore's films and all of Brosnan's, is that they basically came across to me like lounge lizards carrying a gun. They were supposed to be assassins hired by their government to kill, yet IMO, there were far too many instances where they were not the least bit convincing to me.

Lazenby did have the physical presence to be convincing, though he lacked the acting chops (except at the very end) to convince me he was who he said he was. Dalton? One of the reasons I loved him was because I believed he was ready, willing and able to kill, and Dalton is such a good actor that I saw the inner conflict that brought him, even though he didn't discuss it. Craig? All that, and more. Yes, he's a hired gun for his government, and yes, he makes mistakes early on, yet also demonstrates that he is fully capable of executing that job under any circumstances. But he also feels conflicted about what that means, what his career choice means to his own life, which is why he saw Vesper as his savior, as a way out. But with Vesper gone, that saving grace is removed from him, possibly forever.

The Bond we see in "Casino Royale" is being shaped by circumstances, and his responses to them, to become what I see as Dalton's version of Bond later on. So all those things you're complaining about make perfect sense to me. But, again, that's because his actions conform to my expectations of the character. Obviously, they don't yours, which goes a long way toward explaining why you don't like Craig's take on the character.

Edited by byline, 02 October 2008 - 04:33 PM.

[trevanian]

Oh come on. Marketing was given a kickass poster by Bob Peak that they threw away in favor of a still pic thing recycled from TLD, they PISSED LTK away.

LTK supposedly tested higher than any Bond film, which in itself is of interest, since people respond to Bond films in a pretty traditional fashion with only rare exceptions. It'd be interesting to see WHY it tested so high, but I guess that ship has sailed.

Your notion that stuff finds it audience level is perplexing ... if so, how do artists like Welles fail to be considered commercial even though their work continues to generate revenue. Plenty of films, good films, fall through the cracks, though in the case of LTK it was more a matter of not giving folks what they wanted at the time. Personally I'm still hoping RETURN TO OZ and LOOKING FOR MR GOODBAR and TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING find an appreciative audience, but I'm not holding my breath.

Crummy photography aside, I am not sure what you had a prob with on it. Sure the song sucks, but a lot of them do. This at least had Bond functioning on a mild thinking level as he set the antagonists against one another, and it has the ONLY scene since Grant on the train in FRWL that actually had me leaning forward in my seat with worry, the 'pulled to surface by firing the spear gun into the plane' bit.

[Safari Suit]

I've never thought the posters for LTK were that bad. People say they looked too much like those of other action movies of the time, but that is the market they were going for.

Return to Oz is something of a cult classic isn't it?

[trevanian]

LTK supposedly tested higher than any Bond film...

Which is of no consequence, really. STAR WARS tested in the crapper back in 1977, and we know the rest of the story, don't we? I mean, I think we can both rattle off a list of movies that screen tested poorly and were huge hits, and movies that screen tested excellent and were DOA.

I haven't read the rest of your post yet, but I gotta call you on this right off. I've written and sold a lot of wordage on the making of the first STAR WARS, based on extensive interviews with a couple dozen people who worked the show, and there wasn't anything like you describe.

The only advance screening for the public was in the bay area and the response practically blew the roof off the place.

Now if you're talking about GL running a rough cut with no effects or music in it for some of his friends and Brian DePalma not liking it, fine, but remember Spielberg was also in the room and loved it. So this testing in the crapper for SW business is a load of it, and I hope the rest of your post is a little better informed.

EDIT ADDON: No prob with the rest of your points, I make fun of Soto's 'work' all the time myself, but figure there are usually bad performances in most of them. As for GL Bush, I've always wondered why he didn't catch on, given his exposure that summer with Bond and LETHAL WEAPON 2, after DIEHARD and before EXORCIST III.

I started a thread on another Bond site above Glenn's shortcomings a week or two back, and how I think he hurt Dalton's films by not directing him, except to tell him to keep his hands out of his pockets (?!!!?) Maybe he just works to lower standards than many viewers, or else he just wanted to get the hell out of Mexico.

Edited by trevanian, 02 October 2008 - 11:19 PM.

[trevanian]

I've had a little time on my hands recently, so I've been going through the DVD collection (nearing 400 at this point). I just played the bonus disc from my Star Wars DVD collection, and in the documentary that covers A New Hope, they stated that the studio screened the film for a test audience either late '76 or early '77 and the response was bad. And no, I'm not referring to the rough cut that GL played for Spielberg and DePalma; in the doco Spielberg said he was the only one of Lucas' friends who liked what he saw. So I know what you're referring to and that's not what I was talking about.

Probably another reason to hang onto pre-specialedition laserdiscs, before even more history gets rewritten.

This is a sore spot for me, because I have covered visual effects and filmmaking for nearly two decades now, and the revisionism that goes on with all of this is very disconcerting. There wouldn't have been anything to preview anywhere, because the film hadn't been cut together; they had three editors going full-out because the original one from the UK was fired by GL and that put them way behind.

There is a MAKING OF SW book out that has got many details correct, but even a comprehensive volume like that ENTIRELY OMITS the fact that ILM was SHUT DOWN for a time in 1976, more than a year after it was formed. This was when GL had only approved 3 or 4 shots, so they were way behind, but in part due to so many aspects changing as production progressed. Jon Erland, a british subject who has done a lot of good vfx work in the last few decades but had SW as one of his first jobs, told me about this in some detail back in 1995, and a few other folks confirmed it, so the mention DOES appear in CINEFEX 65, which has a truncated (14,000 word) version of my article.

There is a ton of revisionism going on with Lucas, always has been, with the number of films envisioned magically shifting from 12 to 9 in the late 70s, with him being inspired by Joseph Campbell to write SW even though it doesn't seem like he read Campbell till AFTER SW came out ...

STAR TREK is the same way. Most people think the klingon blood color is to keep from getting an R rating, which is utter horse[censored], it was a plot point so you'd be able to tell humans from nonhumans. Ratings are about volume of gore and context, so unless you kicked it to Peckinpah levels, there would never be a problem with an R rating in a trek movie, regardless of blood color. But somebody asked the guy who ran (into the ground) the ModernTrek tv series about it and he said it was ratings-related. This, coming from somebody who had nothing to do with the film, but suddenly it is 'fact' ... like LIBERTY VALLANCE, where you 'print the legend.'

Didn't mean to spew on this, but as I said, it pisses me off. Like the guy who won an oscar for DEATH BECOMES HER, but he was fired the day he delivered his makeup because it was so bad ... it only worked due to trick lighting and an effects guy sewing BBs into a fat suit to give it weight. Yet he was among those who got an Oscar ... for basically NOT delivering the goods.

[trevanian]

As a director he sucks like a black hole.

Man, that is GOOD! I'd like to use that sometime. It's like he stopped making films for 14-year-olds and started making them for toddlers, isn't it?

I saw TPM because I was paid to see it ... after doing 42 interviews in 3 days with tech guys, most of whom spoke with very thick accents making them almost untranscribable, I had had enough of TPM months before it came out. But when I tried to see the next one, CLONES, I had to keep fast-forwarding, it was just too damned painful to listen to (and look at, the digital image seemed like an old Barney Miller episode to me, like 70s video at times.)

Back in the 70s, GL knew how to cut a scene to make it work, and that was a saving grace. Parts of SW are so well-cut, I study them like I do movies that I really respect; but the tributes run out very shortly thereafter.

The guy never made a really good SW movie without Gary Kurtz around to produce it for him. That Rick guy who does all his stuff now just must be a yes man who makes the trains run on time, and maybe never says 'no' to GL.

[dee-bee-five]

Oh come on. Marketing was given a kickass poster by Bob Peak that they threw away in favor of a still pic thing recycled from TLD, they PISSED LTK away.

LTK supposedly tested higher than any Bond film, which in itself is of interest, since people respond to Bond films in a pretty traditional fashion with only rare exceptions. It'd be interesting to see WHY it tested so high, but I guess that ship has sailed.

Your notion that stuff finds it audience level is perplexing ... if so, how do artists like Welles fail to be considered commercial even though their work continues to generate revenue. Plenty of films, good films, fall through the cracks, though in the case of LTK it was more a matter of not giving folks what they wanted at the time. Personally I'm still hoping RETURN TO OZ and LOOKING FOR MR GOODBAR and TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING find an appreciative audience, but I'm not holding my breath.

Crummy photography aside, I am not sure what you had a prob with on it. Sure the song sucks, but a lot of them do. This at least had Bond functioning on a mild thinking level as he set the antagonists against one another, and it has the ONLY scene since Grant on the train in FRWL that actually had me leaning forward in my seat with worry, the 'pulled to surface by firing the spear gun into the plane' bit.

We may disagree profoundly about Casino Royale, but I support you over Licence To Kill, which I rate far higher than TLD. However, I think the problem lay with Timothy Dalton.

Now before you jump down my throat, let me say from the outset that I think Dalton is a terrific actor. A terrfic stage actor, that is. And anyone who's seen him onstage, as I have, will know that. As a screen actor, he's also very good but not, for me, in the same league as Daniel Craig, who is, for my money, by far and away the best screen actor to play Bond. There's no doubt that for many Fleming fans - myself included - Dalton looks closer to the literary character than anyone else. But the fact is, cinema audiences, most of whom have never read a Bond book, don't give a toss about that. Sean Connery was not Fleming's Bond. Nor was Roger Moore. But that was no handicap to their success. Craig doesn't look much like Fleming's Bond either, but for me he exudes the character in Fleming's Casino Royale (and let us remember that Fleming's Bond developed over the course of the books and I'm sure that is what Craig, an intelligent actor, will show us over the course of his films). But this is a matter for fans and, actually, we don't - and shouldn't - matter because we're too close to it. It's the general audience that matters and they measure things differently.

Over the years, audiences for Bond films have proved remarkably catholic in their tastes. The general Bond audience has embraced Moonraker as well as From Russia With Love. For decades they may have stuck to the belief that Connery was the best, but that didn't stop them flocking to see Moore. But Dalton - undoubtedly a better actor than either - was a turn-off for them. Why?

Many years ago, someone asked the Queen is it was fun being queen. After a pause, she said, yes, it was enormous fun. As with the Queen, so it is with Bond. But Dalton never gave the impression of having fun. In some scenes he looks positively pained, as though he's aware some of his contemporaries were pointing the finger and thinking the material was beneath him. In interviews, he always said he respected the material and Fleming, but the performance sometimes gave the impression that the opposite was true. In contrast, although I believe Daniel Craig is the better actor, never once did he give me that impression in Casino Royale. As a result, although Craig's take is much tougher, rugged and, yes, even more uncouth than Dalton's, it's Craig's Bond who is, for the vast majority, the more appealing figure because, whether we like it or not, Dalton's Bond was regarded as being joyless. That I believe was why audiences didn't buy him.

[BoogieBond]

I would agree that Dalton looks like Flemings Bond, but Craig is equally if not more, true to the character.

One thing I like about both is they seem loners, just like JB. One thing that jarred my with Tomorrow Never dies(not knocking Brozza, just this part of the script) is when Bond says to Wai Lin "You've chosen the right decadent agent as a partner" It seems so Un-Bond to me, that line. Whereas, Dalton and Craig, prefer to work alone. They both also seem Taciturn/Laconic individuals, they also take a pasting and get injured. Think a crawling Dalton from the tanker before the final confrontation with Sanchez - And Craig after the CR torture scene, and that is the impression I always get from Fleming's Bond. In TND, for some of the writing the "Outgoing" Bond, just doesn't feel right for me for the character.
Back to LTK. I think if you look at QOS and CR, one thing that I think LTK lacked, was great action scenes. It had the Waterskiing scene, but that was one scene, it needed more Wow, perhaps that would have got more audiences to go. To me TLD has more Wow scenes(To me the action scenes are far superior and there are more of them, The cracking PTS in TLD is an example) in it, and I personally prefer it to LTK, I am not sure if this also translated to the audiences at the time.

Edited by BoogieBond, 03 October 2008 - 11:56 AM.

[Royal Dalton]

That I believe was why audiences didn't buy him.

Who says they didn't?

I wouldn't say Dalton was joyless, either. Whatever the popular opinion (for what that's worth) is supposed to be.

It's not as if Craig's going to be a barrel of laughs in the new film, anyway.

[dee-bee-five]

That I believe was why audiences didn't buy him.

Who says they didn't?

I wouldn't say Dalton was joyless, either. Whatever the popular opinion (for what that's worth) is supposed to be.

It's not as if Craig's going to be a barrel of laughs in the new film, anyway.

The box office receipts for LTK, particularly in America, suggest the general audience didn't buy him.

And I'm not saying I found Dalton joyless; I actually like his (limited) humour in his two films, even if he can't deliver a wisecrack to save his life. And I really rate Dalton's Bond; I think LTK is, along with TWINE, one of the most underrated Bond films. But most people I've discussed this with do find him joyless, whether we like it or not.

As for Craig in Casino Royale, I have to say I found lots of sly, understated humour to enjoy.

[Safari Suit]

A Film fails for a number of reasons.

People often like to blame it solely on marketing, or competition, or reviews, or audience apathy or a lack of Box Office draws in the cast but it's never that simple.

And many films would have killed to have "failed" the way LTK did.

[dee-bee-five]

Many films would have killed to have "failed" the way LTK did.

That is indeed true. "Failed to meet expectations" might be more apt.

[trevanian]

That I believe was why audiences didn't buy him.

Who says they didn't?

I wouldn't say Dalton was joyless, either. Whatever the popular opinion (for what that's worth) is supposed to be.

It's not as if Craig's going to be a barrel of laughs in the new film, anyway.

The box office receipts for LTK, particularly in America, suggest the general audience didn't buy him.

And I'm not saying I found Dalton joyless; I actually like his (limited) humour in his two films, even if he can't deliver a wisecrack to save his life. And I really rate Dalton's Bond; I think LTK is, along with TWINE, one of the most underrated Bond films. But most people I've discussed this with do find him joyless, whether we like it or not.

As for Craig in Casino Royale, I have to say I found lots of sly, understated humour to enjoy.

The one aspect I do agree about Craig on over Dalton is that there is a comfort in his own skin, and his own sexuality (except when he picks up Solange, where he just looks geeky), that is not present in Dalton AS BOND (though he seems okay with it in other roles.) That is where I think Glenn fell down, not telling him to step it up.

I love it when Dalton grins as the money blows around his face in the plane in LTK, but maybe there should have been a couple more of those ... then again, he is loving life at that moment after a narrow escape, so the counterargument is you don't trot that out too regularly or you trivialize the response.

[BoogieBond]

Many films would have killed to have "failed" the way LTK did.

That is indeed true. "Failed to meet expectations" might be more apt.

I agree a box office take of $156 mill on a budget of $42 mill is not exactly a disaster, considering quite a few big budget film flops have failed to make a worldwide gross to cover their budget. Then there's the DVD income and TV rights. But I suppose when they try to get finance, the guys would look at the general downward trend of the profit, and the profit between this and TLD, that's the way I guess it failed to meet expectations(And the US box office take).

Edited by BoogieBond, 03 October 2008 - 01:12 PM.

[byline]

As a result, although Craig's take is much tougher, rugged and, yes, even more uncouth than Dalton's, it's Craig's Bond who is, for the vast majority, the more appealing figure because, whether we like it or not, Dalton's Bond was regarded as being joyless. That I believe was why audiences didn't buy him.

However, I have read the same complaint about Craig. Granted, it appears to be far fewer who are saying it than said it about Dalton, but the perception does exist. Which leads me to believe something that I've said multiple times: I think that emotionally the public is far more open to this characterization than it was in Dalton's day. After all, the only film version of Bond they'd seen up to that point in time was Connery, a brief turn by Lazenby, followed by a prolonged turn by Moore. And Moore's "comic with a gun" routine (yes, I know he was more than that, but in the general public's eye, I think that's the perception that stuck) was in stark contrast to the darker, more complex portrayal that Dalton delivered.

Then, after Dalton, we got Brosnan, who to me was pretty much a throwback to the Moore era: more and more gadgets, over-the-top gags, etc. That wore thin, times got bleaker, and then Craig entered the picture. And this time (unlike with Dalton) there was a unified idea of how to present the camera, so that Craig had support both in front of and behind the camera. That created a consistent style, rather than one that appeared to be at odds with itself during Dalton's time. In my opinion, "The Living Daylights" works, but watching "Licence to Kill," it's as if the powers that be told Dalton they supported his initiative to deliver a portrayal closer to the one Fleming created, but then behind his back they kept coming up with leftover schtick from the Moore era to pacify the fans. This clashed within the film, rather than creating the necessary cohesion to help the story flow.

So I believe that this, as with many things, was simply a case of timing. Most people were ready for Craig. But for a variety of reasons, it seems they weren't ready for Dalton.

Edited by byline, 03 October 2008 - 03:11 PM.