256 replies to this topic

[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.

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.

Me too. You're not going to get much argument from me when it comes to LTK because after Octopussy, it's my favourite 80s Bond film (I love OP just because it's so utterly bonkers). And I am, of course, only presenting what seems to be the general audience response to LTK/Dalton.

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.

I think you're right. In many ways, Dalton-Bond was the blueprint for Craig-Bond. But Craig seems so much more comfortable in the role (in a PR circuit sense) than Dalton and that does make a difference; audiences do pick up on an actor's awkwardness or discomfort.

[Safari Suit]

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.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy into this theory. There were plenty of "gritty" films/characters from the era that were popular. Also consider that TLD sold more tickets than AVTAK. I think audiences were "ready" for Dalton. They just didn't go to see LTK in the quantities EON were hoping for.

[trevanian]

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.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy into this theory. There were plenty of "gritty" films/characters from the era that were popular. Also consider that TLD sold more tickets than AVTAK. I think audiences were "ready" for Dalton. They just didn't go to see LTK in the quantities EON were hoping for.

Well, between TLD and LTK, you had the Silver pictures happen, DIEHARD and LETHAL WEAPON, which changed the landscape for action toward working class guys. There wasn't any hit spy stories again till TRUE LIES, which came along years after the second DIE HARD.

The fact that Dalton initially played his role in TLD with the same kind of gruffness heard in LTK (before he revoiced most of his lines in post according to VIDEO WATCHDOG) suggests that producers were trying to modulate Bond's transformation from old guy to dynamic guy on TLD, but gave up any attempt to do likewise the second time out. Either that or they weren't allowed to or they thought audiences would apppreciate it. Clearly they were aware of the Silver picture influence, given that they hired the composer and some of the cast (Grand L. Bush and Robert Davi, the latter had appeared in two Silvers, DIE HARD 1 and ACTION JACKSON) from those pictures for LTK.

[tim partridge]

Did LTK even have much of a budget? It certainly wasn't anywhere near the money pumped into INDIANA JONES, GHOSTBUSTERS 2 or BATMAN from that same summer. Only the LTK title song seemed to have any money thrown on it. I think Glen probably had his work cut out just getting the thing made on time and below budget, which probably isn't really something that the later Bond directors have ever had to worry about to suh an extent with their £100M budgets. Perhaps this is why Glen could stomach doing five Bonds in a row, whereas there are no back to back Bond directors of today.

The action and violence in LTK was pretty intense, in my opinion. The grittiest until CR, for sure. I think the direction and editing in this department was first rate, and if ever Glen deserves credit it is in this area.

A bit of a tech thing but I always felt that compared to Rank's work on TLD, the Deluxe lab on LTK did some really underwhelming grade and print work that was obviously not in line with however Alec Mills was exposing the film. I'm not sure where they were supposed to be setting the printer lights. The overall effect is blotchier and grainier than TLD, less delicate and fine, especially on the exterior scenes that end up looking unintentionally washed out. Mills beautfiul work on CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS isn't anything like this. That said, Mills was quite complimentary about them in his AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER Bond quotes, so maybe it was stock/exposure, even the times of day they were allowed to shoot under the Mexican sun (with all of that pollution). The actual lighting and composition is great though, particularly all of Sanchez's scenes. I really love the theatrical portrait of him in the bedroom in the pretitle sequence, where the shadow lighting is DELAYED when he tears that curtain off (check it out)!!

[Royal Dalton]

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

Except that worldwide the film only made a sliver less than A View to a Kill (I don't recall anyone ever labelling that one a flop). And the film probably would have made a good chunk more if half the core audience wasn't prevented from seeing it.

So, I'd say that more than a few people on the planet did buy Dalton as Bond, whatever the revisionist history books have to say.

[byline]

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.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy into this theory. There were plenty of "gritty" films/characters from the era that were popular. Also consider that TLD sold more tickets than AVTAK. I think audiences were "ready" for Dalton. They just didn't go to see LTK in the quantities EON were hoping for.

True, but they weren't Bond pictures. People have always had certain expectations of who Bond is. After all, look at the kerfuffle that ensued after Craig was first announced as Brosnan's successor. That was based primarily on people feeling that he didn't "look" the part. Of course, he made believers out of most of us with his performance, but again, I believe that the timing was in his favor, as well as there being more cohesion both in front of and behind the camera in terms of how to present Bond.

presenting Bond in this grittier fashion. But back in Dalton's time, I don't think there was a unified front on this, which created problems. And then I also think people's expectations -- some of which had to do with expecting that Brosnan would be the ideal person to take over the role at that point -- worked against "Licence to Kill" and not against "The Living Daylights" because that was more in keeping with the style that had preceded it.

I agree with your point that the rating also reduced the size of the audience, but if people really did buy what "Licence to Kill" had to offer, then the same numbers that flocked to see "Lethal Weapon 2" would have flocked to it, too. (I could have sworn that "Licence to Kill" had an R rating -- as did "Lethal Weapon 2" -- but both IMDb and Box Office Mojo list "Licence to Kill" as PG-13). Anyway, even with a more restricted rating, "Lethal Weapon 2" still made way more more at the box office than "Licence to Kill":

Licence to Kill:
Domestic: $34,667,015 22.2%
+ Foreign: $121,500,000 77.8%
= Worldwide: $156,167,015

Lethal Weapon 2:
Domestic: $147,253,986 64.6%
+ Foreign: $80,600,000 35.4%
= Worldwide: $227,853,986

Granted, "Lethal Weapon 2" was the bigger hit in the States, while "Licence to Kill" fared far better internationally. So maybe it's more accurate to say that folks in the States didn't buy this version of Bond, but others around the world did.

Edited by byline, 04 October 2008 - 05:25 PM.

[trevanian]

Did LTK even have much of a budget?

35mil, and I think it went to 38 by the time they were done, what with all the payola and such.

Less than most biggies from that summer, but more than HONEY I SHRUNK THE KIDS and STAR TREK 5, which were also that summer (and HONEY was I think the #2 pic for the year, and made for something in the 20s.)

Basically GE had twice the budget, and that isn't counting all the money they got from BMW.

[Turn]

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.

I take the opposite view in that if you watch those interviews and read them when Dalton did TLD that he enjoyed the challenge of bringing the character back from the original source material. That was his joy as an actor. Being pained was his challenge and what appealed to him as an actor in playing what had become a cartoonish character.

The general audience wouldn't have picked up on this, no, wondering why he wasn't funnier. But many fans, like me, did notice this approach and appreciated it now and then.

Then he released the DVDs (after I had bought the first films on VHS because he swore he wasn't going to release them on DVD until well after 2005), and he did THE UNFORGIVABLE: he erased Sebastian Shaw's image at the end of ROTJ and put Hayden Christiansen's image in its place. To me, that's simply Lucas s***ing all over the fans and basically telling them he doesn't give one crap about what they think. They're "his films".

I think history will judge Lucas as a revolutionary figure in the movie industry, but as a director he sucks like a black hole, and he's a horrible ambassador to the fan community. He's basically robbed the fan community and then blamed the victim for being stupid enough to be robbed in the first place.

And this is what I've always loathed about Lucas. If there's anything you can say are sure things they are death, taxes and George Lucas relenting after initially balking he wasn't going to do the fans bidding.

Here's your DVD, here's your original films, here's this and that. Where are all these supposed "serious" projects he had in mind he said he was doing back in 2005 when Episode 3 came out? I know of only one in development. I guess it takes time when you're counting all your money and flouting all the control you have.

[byline]

Bringing the subject back to LTK for a moment.......I watched it last night and, coupled with TLD, can again see why audiences, particularly women, were turned off by Dalton's portrayal. Look at how rough he is with Pushkin's wife in TLD: puts a gun to her face, rips at her clothing, forces her to stand half-naked in front of Pushkin's bodyguard...then in LTK he puts a knife to Lupe's throat and pulls her hair. It's one thing to be dangerous, but he's taking it out on innocents.

Taking it back off-topic again: Yes, Dalton was rough in that scene. But, by the same token (and this is a woman chiming in), Bond as played by Connery and Moore was never much of a gentleman with women, so I'm a little surprised that this particular scene would have been such a turnoff. Also, something I noticed with Dalton was how we got a glimpse of regret for the harshness with which he treated her. It's subtle, but it's there. But we, the audience, know he had to go that route because at that point he thought Pushkin was out to kill him. So he used any means necessary to get to Pushkin, and of course his wife was an obvious choice.

That gets back to the realism of the character. That scene, to me, is far more believable than most of what transpired during Brosnan's tenure, and much of Moore's. (And, for that matter, the latter portion of Connery's run as Bond.) So often, they came across as lounge lizards carting around guns, gadgets and weapons of mass destruction just for the fun of it. Yes, it made for an entertaining romp, but it was hardly believable in the context of them being hired guns for their government. Connery? I believed he could, and would, kill anyone who got in his way. Lazenby, I have mixed feelings about. Moore was actually quite believable, and somewhat menacing, early on, but that was gradually smoothed away the longer he stayed in the role. Brosnan was never believable to me, though I can see why people thought his movies were fun; they were fantasies, with fantastic gadgets and plots, but not exactly in the realm of plausibility. But Dalton? Now, he was believable. He brought that complex mix of emotions to his character which I found realistic, given his occupation. Same with Craig. After all, Bond is hired by his government to kill. For my money, the only actors who were genuinely believable in that context were Connery, Dalton and Craig. But that's just me.

[Dekard77]

The film was a success but no match for BatMan, Lethal Weapon, Ghostbusters 2 and Indiana Jones 3. I used to argue this with a lot of my buddies they had the imprsession that Bond was dead and Die Hards and Lethal Weapons were the new fads.
The sets look very cheap and cinematography is even worse at times. The tone of the film is cool but you need to give it Bond look otherwise it's like watching a tv show.
Dalton lacked a bit a of screen presence this is largely due to the fact that Moore is more recodnized as 007. The writers purposely gave Bond a sarcastic look cos they wanted to compete with Mel Gibson's loose cannon appeal.
Good Bond movie and I miss Dalton. Please have this film re-released with new music and better digital photography. It might be a risk but it will help the movie a lot.
Lucas may have crossed the line a bit with changing characters and adding stupid animal scenes but I like the fact he restored his movies as Sci Fi flicks need to be believable on many levels. It's painful to watch the Millenium Falcon fly in the older Vhs versions.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Bringing the subject back to LTK for a moment.......I watched it last night and, coupled with TLD, can again see why audiences, particularly women, were turned off by Dalton's portrayal. Look at how rough he is with Pushkin's wife in TLD: puts a gun to her face, rips at her clothing, forces her to stand half-naked in front of Pushkin's bodyguard...then in LTK he puts a knife to Lupe's throat and pulls her hair. It's one thing to be dangerous, but he's taking it out on innocents.

Taking it back off-topic again: Yes, Dalton was rough in that scene. But, by the same token (and this is a woman chiming in), Bond as played by Connery and Moore was never much of a gentleman with women, so I'm a little surprised that this particular scene would have been such a turnoff.

Actually, I remember when TLD came out Maria Shriver was interviewing Timothy Dalton about that scene with Pushkin's wife. She looked sooo eager for TD to snatch her blouse off too.

[Dekard77]

Bringing the subject back to LTK for a moment.......I watched it last night and, coupled with TLD, can again see why audiences, particularly women, were turned off by Dalton's portrayal. Look at how rough he is with Pushkin's wife in TLD: puts a gun to her face, rips at her clothing, forces her to stand half-naked in front of Pushkin's bodyguard...then in LTK he puts a knife to Lupe's throat and pulls her hair. It's one thing to be dangerous, but he's taking it out on innocents.

Taking it back off-topic again: Yes, Dalton was rough in that scene. But, by the same token (and this is a woman chiming in), Bond as played by Connery and Moore was never much of a gentleman with women, so I'm a little surprised that this particular scene would have been such a turnoff.

I believe Dalton played Bond completely as two different actors. In LDL he is more relaxed and cool and in LTK you can certainly feel the tension and for some parts the movie did need to lighten up a bit. I don't mean stupid one liners.
The way the film is made you can tell that there is a lot of cost cutting usually there are only two films I've felt like that AWTAK and LTK. They simply don't have the Bond gloss.

Overall quite a good movie and my interest in Bond sparked when I saw LTK. So they must have done something right. Also I love the two leading ladies they have the potential to keep the story going. Which is important. If Glen was replaced in this movie or had it been filmed in Spain/Turkey it would have looked and felt much better.









Actually, I remember when TLD came out Maria Shriver was interviewing Timothy Dalton about that scene with Pushkin's wife. She looked sooo eager for TD to snatch her blouse off too.

[baerrtt]

Bringing the subject back to LTK for a moment.......I watched it last night and, coupled with TLD, can again see why audiences, particularly women, were turned off by Dalton's portrayal. Look at how rough he is with Pushkin's wife in TLD: puts a gun to her face, rips at her clothing, forces her to stand half-naked in front of Pushkin's bodyguard...then in LTK he puts a knife to Lupe's throat and pulls her hair. It's one thing to be dangerous, but he's taking it out on innocents.

Taking it back off-topic again: Yes, Dalton was rough in that scene. But, by the same token (and this is a woman chiming in), Bond as played by Connery and Moore was never much of a gentleman with women, so I'm a little surprised that this particular scene would have been such a turnoff. Also, something I noticed with Dalton was how we got a glimpse of regret for the harshness with which he treated her. It's subtle, but it's there. But we, the audience, know he had to go that route because at that point he thought Pushkin was out to kill him. So he used any means necessary to get to Pushkin, and of course his wife was an obvious choice.

That gets back to the realism of the character. That scene, to me, is far more believable than most of what transpired during Brosnan's tenure, and much of Moore's. (And, for that matter, the latter portion of Connery's run as Bond.) So often, they came across as lounge lizards carting around guns, gadgets and weapons of mass destruction just for the fun of it. Yes, it made for an entertaining romp, but it was hardly believable in the context of them being hired guns for their government. Connery? I believed he could, and would, kill anyone who got in his way. Lazenby, I have mixed feelings about. Moore was actually quite believable, and somewhat menacing, early on, but that was gradually smoothed away the longer he stayed in the role. Brosnan was never believable to me, though I can see why people thought his movies were fun; they were fantasies, with fantastic gadgets and plots, but not exactly in the realm of plausibility. But Dalton? Now, he was believable. He brought that complex mix of emotions to his character which I found realistic, given his occupation. Same with Craig. After all, Bond is hired by his government to kill. For my money, the only actors who were genuinely believable in that context were Connery, Dalton and Craig. But that's just me.

My appreciation for Dalton in the role is that he tried, in his performances, bringing back the idea that you shouldn't be rooting for Bond in everything he does if the character himself (Dalton's Bond) doesn't neccessarily care for certain things he has no choice in doing.

Brosnan wanted this mix as well but the 'ruthless' moments given his Bond (and I include the shooting of Elektra in TWINE) weren't written or acted well enough to challenge complacent viewers that being Bond isn't always fun (particularly in Brosnan's shoot em up era).

Connery, likewise, played up the charisma so well that moments that define Bond as a hero who isn't whiter than white are glossed over (the barn scene in GOLDFINGER).

The problem was so much fantasy(Bond's 'hero' staus being unchallenged, the increase of gadgets, gizmos and babes that added to Bond's status etc) had been intergrated into the world of Bond by the time Dalton took the role that both the audiences and the production team couldn't entirely see how you could take THAT universe seriously.

[byline]

The problem was so much fantasy(Bond's 'hero' staus being unchallenged, the increase of gadgets, gizmos and babes that added to Bond's status etc) had been intergrated into the world of Bond by the time Dalton took the role that both the audiences and the production team couldn't entirely see how you could take THAT universe seriously.

Very good points! I think that's why the periodic "reboot" is necessary, to pull things back to a more believable footing. Otherwise, the franchise just tips over into self-mockery.

[Ultraussie (Jordan.adams)]

Your speaking nonsense.
License to Kill was a great movie, filled with Tanker Trucks on their sides (Take that DAF Mustang Chase!!!!) ,Q out on the feild, a plane tower by a helicopter, bond kissing someone elses wife, and even a Beretta Jetfire .25 Cameo!!!!

[Aris Kristatos]

I've read just about all of this thread so thought I'd add in my opinion.

I liked Licence to Kill and I liked Timothy Daltons Bond character. I also wish he had taken over from Roger Moore after For Your Eyes Only.

Any as stupid as this will sound I enjoyed Licence to Kill because it was slightly different from what we were used ie a personal vendetta rather than a misson on her majestys secret service, however I'm not a huge fan of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace for the same reason!!!

I'd never thought about it before but the fact Bond goes after revenege for Felix and Della like that but didnt for Tracy is a bizare one and the best fill in the gaps I can come with is because Della is innocent.

Felix is part of the CIA he is in the job he knows what might happen. Tracy was involved slightly with gangsters I think and her father was head of some sort of crime syndicate. She was in at least some way involved in crime where as Della as far as we know was just Felix wife!

The whole revenge thing could also be in part, due to the fact that Sanchez had actually been caught and someone (killifer was it?)has basically let him go free to find Felix. The system Bond worked for had failed him.

Of course this is all fill in the gaps nonsense.

Bond does actually seek revenge at the start of Diamonds are Forever, although in the coolest way properly. Wheres Blofeld? Wheres Blofeld? etc etc and at the start of the film he doesnt believe he has actually killed Blofeld. It isnt untill he gets to the top of the whyte house he realises he hasnt actually killed Blofeld.

Either way I enjoy the film (but then I enjoy them all) altohugh like most films it had its good points and bad points. I liked the ending dont you want to know why? but was there really a need for Q to be there?

[DR76]

With that in mind, Bond's attitude in Licence To Kill surprises me. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a cracking movie, and I think Timothy Dalton is brilliant in it. But his hang em high attitude really surprises me, I feel it's at odds with the way we've previously seen the character. His actions were kind of irresponsible, and in previous times, he'd been able to keep his cool when friends and lovers were killed/injured.

It's easy giving good advice to others. It's another matter when a similar situation applies to you. It was easy for Bond to give that advice to Melina. But when faced with Felix's injuries and Della's death, it became personal to him. Probably too personal and he forgot his own advice. That's human nature.

Bond does actually seek revenge at the start of Diamonds are Forever, although in the coolest way properly.

I don't see anything cool about seeking revenge. Apparently, neither did 'M', who seemed to be in a bitch mode when Bond returned to London for another assignment. Besides, I thought that "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" handled Bond's reaction to Tracy's murder rather shabbily.

I'd never thought about it before but the fact Bond goes after revenege for Felix and Della like that but didnt for Tracy is a bizare one and the best fill in the gaps I can come with is because Della is innocent.

Frankly, I thought it was just bad writing on the part of the screenwriter for "DAF" . . . and a bad production decision on the part of Broccoli and Saltzman.

Edited by DR76, 14 November 2008 - 02:55 AM.