29 replies to this topic

[Willowhugger]

I think that they did get The Living Daylights and License to Kill's Bond wrong but only slightly.

The problem with Timothy Dalton's Bond is that he always comes off as more emotional and highly strung than Bond should. He throws a hissy fit with the agent condemning him for not shooting the girl in The Living Daylights and he seems to be chewing his lips in his meeting with M in License to Kill.

In other words, Timmy's Bond really overacts and is acting less mature than he should. He also tends to get a lot more emotionally involved with the women that he's seducing. One of the main issues with LTK is that he and Pam seemed destined to go off and have a serious relationship together, something that really shouldn't have been implied in a Bond movie. Bond may care for the women he's involved with but his service to England precludes a relationship.

Timothy Dalton's Bond has more romantic scenes with the forgettable Kara Milovy than he does with any other woman in the Bond movies but Tracy. In fact, bizarrely, I believe she's the only Bond girl but Tracy that hes actually gone on a DATE with. Now Bond getting more emotionally involved with women should normally be a very good thing for character development but the emotional availability of Bond is a stark contrast to his central premise. I.e. James Bond is a reserved secret agent who keeps his feelings and thoughts to himself.

A main draw of James Bond is the fact that he's a character whose extremely cool under pressure. Roger Moore, Sean Connery, Lazenby, Craig, and Bronsen have all highlighted this quality. So, I think it's a fairly consistent quality across the James Bond series that Fleming's character is meant to be a man who handles stress in a subdued fashion. James Bond SIMMERS but he never boils over.

I have no problem with James Bond wanting revenge and going to elaborate lengths to get it. When he finds himself in a hotel room next to the deceased Jill Masterson, he has a look that says in no uncertain terms that he's going to make someone pay for this. It's a fortitous coincidence that Goldfinger is his next target but had the movie had Bond take a vacation day and then shoot Goldfinger in the back of the skull then I wouldn't consider it entirely out of character. Shocking, but James Bond's brutal sense of justice is a major portion of his appeal.

This is the main problem with License to Kill to some extent. James Bond forces the issue with M when he could well have gotten around it. James could have taken a leave of absence or vacation time or any other things to avoid resignation and carry out his scheme of revenge. Daniel Craig shows perfectly that Bond is fully capable of defying orders on his personal quests for justice/the security of Jolly Old England without "breaking character." However, the situation that Craig goes into is far deeper than the one that Timmy's Bond is in.

Another major issue is that if Bond is out for revenge, then why doesn't he take it? The Count of Monte Cristo explains it's not enough to kill the individuals who stole 14 years from his life (or so). He has to ruin them. James Bond could have killed Sanchez at least 3-5 different points before he finally decides to shoot him from a sniper position. On the boat, meeting in the casino, or when they're alone in Sanchez's palace. Why doesn't he? If Bond's mission was to destroy Sanchez's drug smuggling operation, waiting to blow up the drug factory makes sense. On a personal mission to kill Sanchez, that's not. The movie implies Bond intends to dismantle Sanchez's operation from the top down and drive him insane but it never articulates this.

Bond meeting with Leiter and the two of them discussing this would have done wonders for Timmy's Bond's credibility but the audience is left to follow a broken train of logic.

In effect, Timothy Daltons' Bond is Bond with no self-control and no ability to think on his feet. He does a magnificent bit of planning to bring down Sanchez but he screws up a lot because he gets emotionally involved. This is dissonate with the rest of the movies. Roger Moore's Bonds had gobs of silliness but he never lost his cool.

[00Twelve]

He throws a hissy fit with the agent condemning him for not shooting the girl in The Living Daylights and he seems to be chewing his lips in his meeting with M in License to Kill.

In all fairness, he plays it cooler than Fleming's Bond did. At least, he said his bit more concisely. I actually would have loved to see more of the original dialogue, which was even more of a "hissy fit."

Just my observation.

[Willowhugger]

In all fairness, he plays it cooler than Fleming's Bond did. At least, he said his bit more concisely. I actually would have loved to see more of the original dialogue, which was even more of a "hissy fit."

Just my observation.

Yet, on the other hand, the context of the scenes are greatly changed as well. Dalton is throwing a hissy fit while Bond is verbally dressing down a man that he considers to be a Peon.

Likewise, Dalton is upset about being ordered to kill an innocent woman. Bond is just being a gentleman to someone who ends up coming to a bad end anyway.

[Turn]

One of the main issues with LTK is that he and Pam seemed destined to go off and have a serious relationship together, something that really shouldn't have been implied in a Bond movie. Bond may care for the women he's involved with but his service to England precludes a relationship.

Two things stand out about your claim here: 1. What implies he is going to have a serious relationship with Pam? They seem more like partners than lovers the entire film. I didn't see any more of a relationship in LTK than with any other film, save for OHMSS and CR. She shows jealousy, but he seems to keep her more at a distance until the very end, which is pretty much in keeping with the end of nearly every other film in the series. It's closer to what Bond and Camille have in QoS.

2. Bond wasn't working for England in LTK. He went rogue and wasn't reinstated until the end of the film.

[Willowhugger]

James Bond jumping over the edge to join Pam is a pretty big movie visual cue that he's going to go be with her. My point regarding relationships is that it seems strange that he seems to be beginning one rather than just a moment of comfort (or as a joke "A Quantum of Solace.")

[Turn]

This is the main problem with License to Kill to some extent. James Bond forces the issue with M when he could well have gotten around it. James could have taken a leave of absence or vacation time or any other things to avoid resignation and carry out his scheme of revenge. Daniel Craig shows perfectly that Bond is fully capable of defying orders on his personal quests for justice/the security of Jolly Old England without "breaking character." However, the situation that Craig goes into is far deeper than the one that Timmy's Bond is in.

He was on leave for Leiter's wedding and was called back for a mission. The trail was there for him to follow and he was confronted by M and the service. He had no choice but to resign.

The difference between the Craig and Dalton mission was Bond was on a mission in QoS. You seem to be confusing what the actors' responsibilities are with those of the screenwriters.

[Willowhugger]

The difference between the Craig and Dalton mission was Bond was on a mission in QoS. You seem to be confusing what the actors' responsibilities are with those of the screenwriters.

No, I think that the situation is made more dire because of Bond's attitude given M seems alright to let him come back at the end. But that's a matter of interpretation.

[Turn]

Another major issue is that if Bond is out for revenge, then why doesn't he take it? The Count of Monte Cristo explains it's not enough to kill the individuals who stole 14 years from his life (or so). He has to ruin them. James Bond could have killed Sanchez at least 3-5 different points before he finally decides to shoot him from a sniper position. On the boat, meeting in the casino, or when they're alone in Sanchez's palace. Why doesn't he? If Bond's mission was to destroy Sanchez's drug smuggling operation, waiting to blow up the drug factory makes sense. On a personal mission to kill Sanchez, that's not. The movie implies Bond intends to dismantle Sanchez's operation from the top down and drive him insane but it never articulates this.

Bond meeting with Leiter and the two of them discussing this would have done wonders for Timmy's Bond's credibility but the audience is left to follow a broken train of logic.

We apparently weren't watching the same movie. Bond is out to kill Sanchez and as a bonus to ruin his operation. He's apparently doing it on the run. Did you actually think when he met Sanchez in the casino he could have killed him? He was surrounded by henchmen and unarmed. It wasn't a suicide mission. And think about it, Sanchez had a thing about loyalty and Bond did torture him by causing doubt within his own operation and having played him for a fool by trusting him.

When was he supposed to meet with Leiter to discuss this? When he was laying there with the note in his mouth? At the hospital? Months later? Again, what does this have to do with the actor playing the character?

In effect, Timothy Daltons' Bond is Bond with no self-control and no ability to think on his feet. He does a magnificent bit of planning to bring down Sanchez but he screws up a lot because he gets emotionally involved. This is dissonate with the rest of the movies. Roger Moore's Bonds had gobs of silliness but he never lost his cool.

I'm guessing you've seen the Brosnan Bond films. He seems a lot more emotional in TWINE and DAD and prone to mistakes than anything I see in LTK. After all, this was the man who let his emotions for Elektra nearly get his boss killed. James Bond shouldn't get plated for a lovesick sap and that's how he comes across in TWINE. Many seem to forgive it due to the "I never miss" scene.

Not to mention his going on a personal quest for vengance in DAD, in which he also went rogue and was accepted back with open arms by M, much earlier in the movie.

[Piz Gloria 1969]

"forgettable Kara Milovy"

I disagree , if anything I found her to be one of the better Bond girls , she certainly was much more developed character wise than other I've seen....Kara is def underrated despite not being in quite the same league of say Tracy or Honey Ryder.

[Hitmonk]

He also tends to get a lot more emotionally involved with the women that he's seducing. One of the main issues with LTK is that he and Pam seemed destined to go off and have a serious relationship together, something that really shouldn't have been implied in a Bond movie.

I don't see why not. The literary Tiffiny Case stuck around for some time after the end of DAF.

I'd also mention the fact that Sylvia Trench re-appears at the start of FRWL, but then I'd hardly call that one a serious relationship.

[jaguar007]

I could not disagree with you (the OP) more. First, I felt there was much more possibility of a relationship with Kara in TLD than Pam in LTK. To you point I do despise the ending of LTK when Bond jumps in the water. I also think Dalton at the begining of TLD Z(the smiper scene) is one of the closest scenes in the entire film series to Fleming's Bond.

While TLD does have some flaws, I rate it as one of the 5 best Bond films due to a few scenes where I really feel Dalton nails Fleming's Bond like no other actor before him had done.

[Daylights]

I am a huge Timothy Dalton fan myself, especially after I started to read the Fleming novels and short stories. I feel that Dalton is either loved or hated by most Bond fans, never something in between. But whether people like him or not, I have never heard anyone say that he isn't the most Flemingesque Bond of all times. He seems to be widely recognized as the Bond closest to the books by just about everyone.

Edited by Daylights, 15 December 2008 - 01:29 PM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I always thought the scene in LTK with M was a set-up, so the English Secret Service could secretly help the CIA against Sanchez. It was professional courtesy. Then secretly they give Bond additional help with Q, but without letting allies like the Japanese secret service know about it. It added to the credibility that Bond was a rogue.

[Publius]

I always thought the scene in LTK with M was a set-up, so the English Secret Service could secretly help the CIA against Sanchez. It was professional courtesy. Then secretly they give Bond additional help with Q, but without letting allies like the Japanese secret service know about it. It added to the credibility that Bond was a rogue.

If we hadn't just had a semi-rogue Bond in QoS, I'd say that's an interesting premise they should explore for the next Bond film. That is, a secretly sanctioned rogue MI6 agent.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Timothy Dalton's one of my favorite Bonds,although that's not saying his movies were necessarily the best. But here's how Fleming saw the character:


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

He's the one not in the evening gown.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 15 December 2008 - 06:31 PM.

[DR76]

Kara is def underrated despite not being in quite the same league of say Tracy or Honey Ryder.

Actually, I consider Kara Milovy to be a more superior character than Honey Ryder. At least Kara had a major impact on TLD's story . . . which is more than I can say for Honey. I liked Honey, but she didn't do anything for the story but looked good.

Edited by DR76, 16 December 2008 - 04:35 AM.

[Willowhugger]

I'd like to take a moment to also refute the idea that Dalton's Bond is the closest to literary Bond. In fact, the movies The Living Daylights and License to Kill are amongst the most far REMOVED from Fleming's Bond. Sean Connery + George Lazenby, of course, did the most faithful adaptations of Ian Fleming's works with the first four James Bond movies being more or less faithful to the work plus OHMSS. The only thing remotely resembling any of the books after this is Casino Royale and believe me when I say "remotely."

Dalton's James Bond is a Heroic Knight/Robin Hood style figure who goes to elaborate lengths for the girl in TLD to spare her emotional pain and try to save her. Fleming's Bond would have called her a silly twit and I think Sean would have either bedded her or Roger Moore would have just dismissed her ignorant support of the General at the start. The entire opening scene of TLD changes the context of Fleming's Bond scene completely. Dalton uses it to reinforce James Bond's fundamental goodness, he only kills professionals. Fleming's Bond doesn't kill the assassin as a whim, a way to show professional courtesy for someone whose doomed anyway.

LTK also doesn't work very well with Ian Fleming's work. The Dalton Bond is another too decent man that essentially plays the part of the Count of Monte Cristo for the entire movie, rather than anything resembling James Bond. I have no doubt Fleming's Bond would have killed Franz Sanchez but it would have been with the same cold that Roger Moore cooly dispatches individuals. The only time that Fleming Bond goes utterly and completely revenge crazed is in You Only Live Twice and its with a barely simmering rage he resolves by strangling the man. Dalton's Bond is far more than the Saint. He systematically dismantles the organization of Sanchez and his sanity in true Dumas style. They might as well have named Pam Bolliver, Haydee or Mercedes.

This isn't a *BAD* thing by any stretch of the imagination. Dalton's Bond certainly is a valid interpretation of the character. James Bond no longer belongs exclusively to Ian Fleming and he was quite happy with what he saw of Cubby Broccolli's work with Sean Connery. Like Hamlet, Superman, and Ivanhoe; he belongs to those who interpret his character now. Dalton's Bond is wonderful to watch upon the screen but he's the most moral and heroic of the James Bonds by far. A far cry from Fleming's anti-hero.

Edited by Willowhugger, 16 December 2008 - 11:32 AM.

[Major Tallon]

Dalton's James Bond is a Heroic Knight/Robin Hood style figure who goes to elaborate lengths for the girl in TLD to spare her emotional pain and try to save her. Fleming's Bond would have called her a silly twit and I think Sean would have either bedded her or Roger Moore would have just dismissed her ignorant support of the General at the start. The entire opening scene of TLD changes the context of Fleming's Bond scene completely. Dalton uses it to reinforce James Bond's fundamental goodness, he only kills professionals. Fleming's Bond doesn't kill the assassin as a whim, a way to show professional courtesy for someone whose doomed anyway.

Erm, no. Ian Fleming's James Bond is precisely the character you describe, a modern knight errant, updated for his time, but nevertheless a heroic figure dispatched to fight the forces of "evil" that threaten to disrupt the right order of the world. As for the character of Kara, Bond might well have had some dismissive thoughts about aspects of her personality, but his overall attitude toward women was protective and sentimental.

In the short story, Fleming's Bond didn't kill "Trigger" precisely because of the sentimental feelings that he'd developed for her. It wasn't some kind of professional courtesy for another killer. He'd had a "long-range, one-sided romance" with the image of a beautiful girl observed through a Sniperscope, and it was that sentiment that caused him to shift his aim and merely scare "the living daylights out of her." Bond's a hard man, but with a soft center, and Dalton captures that beautifully.

[DR76]

I'd like to take a moment to also refute the idea that Dalton's Bond is the closest to literary Bond. In fact, the movies The Living Daylights and License to Kill are amongst the most far REMOVED from Fleming's Bond. Sean Connery + George Lazenby, of course, did the most faithful adaptations of Ian Fleming's works with the first four James Bond movies being more or less faithful to the work plus OHMSS. The only thing remotely resembling any of the books after this is Casino Royale and believe me when I say "remotely."

I don't see it. I don't see how Connery and Lazenby were the closest to the literary Bond. Frankly, all of the Bonds were vaguely similar to the literary Bond . . . at least to me. I suspect that if EON Productions had allowed one of their actors to be an exact replica of the literary Bond, I would have stopped watching the movies a long time ago. I'm really not that fond of Fleming's Bond.

As for the character of Kara, Bond might well have had some dismissive thoughts about aspects of her personality, but his overall attitude toward women was protective and sentimental.

What exactly do you mean by this? Why would Bond be dismissive of Kara Milovy's personality?

Edited by DR76, 16 December 2008 - 07:04 PM.

[Willowhugger]

What exactly do you mean by this? Why would Bond be dismissive of Kara Milovy's personality?

I think Bond would be more like Sean Connery in Thunderball with Domino. He'd make Kara aware of her lover's ties to a horrible human being rather than attempt to assuage her fears.

[marktmurphy]

Bond exudes massive self confidence; whether that's shown by Roger and Pierce's smugness, Sean's sheer presence or Daniel's exciting arrogance, all of them know that they have the biggest balls in the room.
Tim just doesn't- he's the Bond least comfortable in his own skin; he just seems a little too unsure of himself and just fails to fill the big old boots of Bond- he's not big enough.

[Major Tallon]

As for the character of Kara, Bond might well have had some dismissive thoughts about aspects of her personality, but his overall attitude toward women was protective and sentimental.

What exactly do you mean by this? Why would Bond be dismissive of Kara Milovy's personality?

Not in her entire personality, but aspects, and Dalton portrayed those. Her focus on the cello (the equivalent of "hanging on my gun arm"), which jeopardized their escape, her illogical devotion to Koskov, whom Bond knew to be an unreliable man and likely worse, some of her flightiness. These are things that would have irritated Bond. On the other hand, Bond was protective of "Birds with a wing down," and frequently displayed great sentimentality where women were concerned. Bond wouldn't have dismissed Kara's vulnerability.

In the film of TLD, Dalton's Bond reflected that attitude. From the moment he saw her through the Sniperscope, to the finale, where he waited in her dressing room with two glasses and a rose on a tray, Dalton's Bond formed a sentimental attachment to Kara and grew genuinely to care for her. More even than Bond's relationship with the movies' Tracy or Vesper, this may have been the best depicted romance in the Fleming mode in the series.

[Gothamite]

My biggest problem with Dalton's Bond is that he just isn't sexual enough. He really doesn't seem to have much of an interest in sexual conquest, the way Fleming's Bond and the other Bond actors always did. He's more of a romantic than ever in TLD and in LTK, HE'S the one who gets seduced BOTH times.

Dalton's whole thing was that he was the 'darkest Bond ever'. One of the darkest things about Bond is his rabid sexuality and this just wasn't there for Dalton. I am inclined to believe however that this was a result of his movies coming out in the 80s with the AIDS scare and whatnot going on (this is mentioned in Bond Girls are Forever).

Can anyone comment on this?

Bond exudes massive self confidence; whether that's shown by Roger and Pierce's smugness, Sean's sheer presence or Daniel's exciting arrogance, all of them know that they have the biggest balls in the room.
Tim just doesn't- he's the Bond least comfortable in his own skin; he just seems a little too unsure of himself and just fails to fill the big old boots of Bond- he's not big enough.

I also agree here, in a big way and this to me is the deciding factor that makes Craig better than Dalton. I have a feeling that under a better director, Dalton would have been a more charismatic Bond, but with John Glen's "another day, another dollar" style of serviceable direction, the focus and scope a Bond newcomer needs just wasn't really there and made Dalton slip into the background too often.

Look at the scene in TLD where Bond visits the MI6 safehouse. Dalton sits smoking, sinisterly (probably the first time a Bond actor has been seen doing so since OHMSS) as the other men discuss matters. We are only given a disappointingly brief, fairly wide view of Dalton and his cigarette before the focus returns to Koskov and his over-acting. Moments such as this should have been exploited a lot more.

Edited by Gothamite, 14 January 2009 - 01:46 AM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I would say every actor who played Bond captured something of Fleming's character except Brosan and Craig. Connery was steely, determined and violent. Lazenby was the playboy, used to the good life, the stereos the women, the kind of guy Playboy magazine would exult. Moore captured the foppish quality of a man who was insistant that his eggs be boiled 3 1/2 minutes, and could tell if they were boiled even just a little too long or too short. Ian Fleming said in an interview he thought this somewhat effeminate. Dalton was the darkest, moodiest Bond, but saddled with weak screeplays.

Brosnan attempted an ombnibus of an all of the above approach and captured none of them. Craig tries to be combining the toughness of Connery with the dark moods of Dalton. However, the movie Casino Royale was the first attempt to do a movie like the Fleming novel since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but in it's ending went further afield.

[Red Barchetta]

Dalton is closest to the novel Bond. Make him somewhat taller, and place a scar on hs face, and you have him.

I believe most of his problems on screen came from the screenplay. And, he isn't the first Bond to resign, only the latest- this in reference to an earlier poster that said he could have taken leave, or a vacation in LTK.

My impression is Bond doesn't take leave, or holiday just because it's available. Men like him either fight, or walk away. Bond walked away (resigned) from MI6, and then took the fight to Sanchez. For him it's still business, he's just not on the clock.

For TLD I thought he played the part very well, which is why LTK was somewhat of a letdown, at least for me, but again I blame the screenplay, not Dalton.

My 2cc's.

[plankattack]

Dalton is closest to the novel Bond. Make him somewhat taller, and place a scar on hs face, and you have him.

Really? IMDB lists Dalton at 6'2. I've always assumed that Bond was 183cm (according to his SMERSH file in FRWL) which is almost 6ft exactly. Fleming buffs - am I incorrect? Or is my arithmatic wonky?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I am a huge Timothy Dalton fan myself, especially after I started to read the Fleming novels and short stories. I feel that Dalton is either loved or hated by most Bond fans, never something in between.

Not for me. I rank him as my fourth fauvorite Bond, above Lazenby and Brosnan, but under Craig, Connery and Moore. I love TLD, but I despise LTK.

[Major Tallon]

Dalton is closest to the novel Bond. Make him somewhat taller, and place a scar on hs face, and you have him.

Really? IMDB lists Dalton at 6'2. I've always assumed that Bond was 183cm (according to his SMERSH file in FRWL) which is almost 6ft exactly. Fleming buffs - am I incorrect? Or is my arithmatic wonky?

Your calculations are fine. An inch is 2.54 centimeters, and 183 cm. is 72.047244 inches, or a shade over six feet.

Edited by Major Tallon, 14 January 2009 - 11:21 PM.

[Turn]

I have a feeling that under a better director, Dalton would have been a more charismatic Bond, but with John Glen's "another day, another dollar" style of serviceable direction, the focus and scope a Bond newcomer needs just wasn't really there and made Dalton slip into the background too often.

Look at the scene in TLD where Bond visits the MI6 safehouse. Dalton sits smoking, sinisterly (probably the first time a Bond actor has been seen doing so since OHMSS) as the other men discuss matters. We are only given a disappointingly brief, fairly wide view of Dalton and his cigarette before the focus returns to Koskov and his over-acting. Moments such as this should have been exploited a lot more.

I disagree about Dalton's presence in that scene. He looks incredibly cool, the way I would imagine Fleming's Bond to look in such a scene. It says a lot without really saying anything.

I also like that Bond isn't made the center of attention, except for explaining what Spiert Spionam stands for, he's taking it in, observing and sizing up Koskov, probably beginning to doubt him. Back in London after that it shows when he expresses doubt about Puskin's motives.

It's also one of the better scenes with M and the Minister. If it had been a Moore film, he'd have been the center of it, playing the know-it-all.

One of the things I like about Dalton, and I'm probably one of the few, is that in his two films my attention is more focused on him than on the action or what is going to happen next. And I feel the same way about Craig.

[DR76]

I think Bond would be more like Sean Connery in Thunderball with Domino. He'd make Kara aware of her lover's ties to a horrible human being rather than attempt to assuage her fears.

Was anyone actually aware of Kara's role in TLD? She had already been Georgi Koskov's girlfriend by the time the movie started. Bond LIED TO HER from the moment they first met, claiming that he and Koskov were good buddies and knew about the latter's plot to fake the assassination attempt. Bond did this to find out from her what was really going on. He had a chance to tell Kara what he had learned from Saunders about Koskov and Whittaker, based upon Kara's own revelations, but instead allowed his emotions - both anger and jealousy - to get the best of him by remaining silent. By the time they had reached Tangiers, Kara - quite rightly - suspected that Bond was lying to her. Or keeping a secret from her. He finally told her the truth. But Bond was just too damn late.