153 replies to this topic

[Sniperscope]

what I have said is that the sixties style- even if it isn't the original sixties aesthetic, but something with a retro flavor from that decade like CR, for instance- is what better suits to the EON series.

Whereas the eighties fad is the most inappropriate and worst atyle for Bond, And LTK is the Bond movie that suffers the most, by the display of this lousy fashion in every level.

Let it go Mr A-B. "Retro" is a relatively modern idea, since the early 1990s. It's a purely contemporary aesthetic born out of a recognition that popular culture has reached a certain exhaustion point and the only way forward is backwards (hence the rebooting obsession of this century - another idea from the 90s).
Once upon a time movies tended to reflect the visual and stylistic aesthetics of their era and noone had a problem with that. LTK in its look was 80s, as was DN of the 60s, LALD of the 70s etc. That was when the world was a lot smaller and eras/"cultures" had a more clearly defined "look".
These days there is no specific "look" to our era - it's so diverse and individualistic - so retro is a good way to give a film a kind of consistent style palette if you like. In the 60s for example - most men wore a suit and tie, slicked back their hair, etc. etc. What's the "look" of today??? Why criticise LTK for to an 80s "fad" when it's only a justifiable reflection of its zeitgeist which is what Bond has always been.

Why...??!!! I thought that I've already answered this in the same post that you quoted from me, and early on in this thread. So in this case, I feel forced to repeat my earlier answer to this subject: the eighties style is the most inappropriate for Bond, and not just because I don't like it, I said this because what makes different to Bond movies from other action thrillers, among other things, is the overall elegance- don't confuse this with cornyness- of the character and locations.

Do you even read your own posts - to quote you with your own typo "Whereas the eighties fad is the most inappropriate and worst atyle for Bond, And LTK is the Bond movie that suffers the most, by the display of this lousy fashion in every level." You are taking about fashion? No? "atyle" is "style," yeah? Then my response is perfectly correct.
We have already discussed the other points that you have so needlessly regurgitated.

And perhaps this a little bit subjective, but I believe that the eighties fad is considered by many people, as one of the most tacky trends in popular culture.. That goes from the clothes and hairdos, to the gorish violence of the action movies.

Yes it is subjective. Subjectivity should never be raised to the height of fact. The 80s are no more "inappropriate" than any other since the halcyon 60s.
And Bond movies have always been violent by the standards of their era.


Whereas in the other hand, we got the sixties style, which are absolutely opposed to what the eighties represent, and I'm not only talking about fashion here. And we all know that the sixties are the quintessential decade for the cinematic Bond, alongside with being the cradle of the Bondmania phenomenon.

In that case Mr A-B, you should be more than thrilled with the clear 60s styling of QoS! Oh I forgot, you don't like that film much either...

Regarding to your argument about "These days there is no specific "look" to our era", I think that's nonsense. There's an specific style distintive to this decade as it was for the nineties too. Obviously, is not so easy to distinguishe it right now, because we're still living in this first decade of the 21st century- you should know that the size of distance from a particular period in the history, is directly proportional to the deepness that you can get in the description of that time-.

Nonsense youself! Look around you. I can't help it if you're unobservant. The look of this era is the most diverse and non-homogenous of any preceeding it - and that's in fashion, aesthetic and cultural products.

As a conclusion, to what I have argued, I said that when you have such a tacky decade like the eighities that is so incompatible with the original and best style of EON's Bond- the sixties- the best thing that you can do is avoid the best you can, all the thing that could strongly anchor the Bond movie to such a lousy time. And I think they had a mild success (not flawless, but decent)in that, from FYEO to TLD, but they blow it with LTK and its Miami Vice style.

To finish I'll quote myself again. "Why criticise LTK for to an 80s "fad" when it's only a justifiable reflection of its zeitgeist [i]which is what Bond has always been." This point is extremely valid and you've singularly failed to notice how apt it is, especially in reference to your harping on about how appropriate the 60s are to the early success of Bond.

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 May 2009 - 12:03 PM.

[double o ego]

LTK, particularly the first 20mins does feel very 80s but the rest of the film imo could easily have been passed off as a early to mid 90s film. Are we arrogant enough to believe and expect that the films should have a timeless visual feel to it because that is just asking for the impossible.

I don't know if you're pointing to me, but I have never stated that all the Bond films should have a timeless visual feel to it (it would be good, but I agree that it would be a little utopic ask for that), what I have said is that the sixties style- even if it isn't the original sixties aesthetic, but something with a retro flavor from that decade like CR, for instance- is what better suits to the EON series.

Whereas the eighties fad is the most inappropriate and worst atyle for Bond, And LTK is the Bond movie that suffers the most, by the display of this lousy fashion in every level.

I do think that the retro style definitely suits the EON series but I just don't see what is so blatantly 80s in LTK besides the first sunny miami vice-esque 20mins of the film and Gladys Knight's theme song. The clothing seemed fine to me. Bond didn't wear anything decade defining at all, unlike good ol' Rog did.

Edited by double o ego, 09 May 2009 - 04:44 PM.

[Revelator]

So what you're saying is that QoS does pay homage to the thrillers of the past - it's just the action that doesn't?

I'm saying that it's silly to acclaim the film's action scenes for paying homage to the past when its action scenes are trying to ape a very contemporary trend.

"Never before have the Bond pictures stooped to copying a specific director's style."
Cinema has always been about imitation.

Cinema is also always been about innovation. That's why we acclaim certain directors over overs and can tell when one is derivative of another. That's why Peter Hunt's editing and his direction of OHMSS are innovative whereas Forster's action scenes seem generic. Cinema is about imitation to the extent of less-inspired directors imitating more inspired ones. There's plenty of stooping involved.

Perhaps you've noticed over the last few decades that movies have become faster paced, highly edited and camera-conscious? Do you think that all just happens overnight with every director out there existing in a vacuum?

And perhaps you have noticed that your conception of directorial style is hopeless generic, all the better to let QoS off the hook? Style is about how one handles elements that one may not have invented but which one uses in an idiosyncratic manner. Greengrass is precisely the most "high profile" developer of the shakey-cam, diced editing, maximum confusion style because his style has taken those innovations to their limits, and QoS is trying to ape the extremity of his style. That is why he is the most relevant point of interest when discussing QoS. Do you really think that Forster told the two Bourne editors who cut QoS that he wanted the film to look as different from the Bourne films as possible? The film that resulted is a complete tribute to Greengrass's style, something that has never happened before with the Bonds.

There is no technique that Greengrass or indeed Forster use that has not been seen in dozens of films before.

Directorial style consists precisely in how one handles tenchique--if you're deaf to that then you won't understand why so many have understandably raised the Bourne issue with regard to QoS.
Take a look at every other Bond movie and tell me if the style seems copied from any other director. You can't put any of them up against a similar film from the period and say the style is an obvious imitation of another film's. But you can do when comparing the direction and editing in QoS next to the second and third Bournes. And for those of us who think the Bond series is at its strongest when it's doing the innovating--as with Hunt's direction--the style of QoS is doubly unfortunate. Forster's non-action scenes are stylish and successful. But the action scenes are nothing we haven't seen before done, and often done better, in the Bournes. There is no justification for trying to excuse blatantly derivative filmmaking by saying, "oh everybody copies each other."

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

what I have said is that the sixties style- even if it isn't the original sixties aesthetic, but something with a retro flavor from that decade like CR, for instance- is what better suits to the EON series.

Whereas the eighties fad is the most inappropriate and worst atyle for Bond, And LTK is the Bond movie that suffers the most, by the display of this lousy fashion in every level.

Let it go Mr A-B. "Retro" is a relatively modern idea, since the early 1990s. It's a purely contemporary aesthetic born out of a recognition that popular culture has reached a certain exhaustion point and the only way forward is backwards (hence the rebooting obsession of this century - another idea from the 90s).
Once upon a time movies tended to reflect the visual and stylistic aesthetics of their era and noone had a problem with that. LTK in its look was 80s, as was DN of the 60s, LALD of the 70s etc. That was when the world was a lot smaller and eras/"cultures" had a more clearly defined "look".
These days there is no specific "look" to our era - it's so diverse and individualistic - so retro is a good way to give a film a kind of consistent style palette if you like. In the 60s for example - most men wore a suit and tie, slicked back their hair, etc. etc. What's the "look" of today??? Why criticise LTK for to an 80s "fad" when it's only a justifiable reflection of its zeitgeist which is what Bond has always been.

Why...??!!! I thought that I've already answered this in the same post that you quoted from me, and early on in this thread. So in this case, I feel forced to repeat my earlier answer to this subject: the eighties style is the most inappropriate for Bond, and not just because I don't like it, I said this because what makes different to Bond movies from other action thrillers, among other things, is the overall elegance- don't confuse this with cornyness- of the character and locations.

Do you even read your own posts - to quote you with your own typo "Whereas the eighties fad is the most inappropriate and worst atyle for Bond, And LTK is the Bond movie that suffers the most, by the display of this lousy fashion in every level." You are taking about fashion? No? "atyle" is "style," yeah? Then my response is perfectly correct.
We have already discussed the other points that you have so needlessly regurgitated.

My apologies if I didn't used the most accurate words (english is not my native language). Nonetheless, what I wanted to imply with the word style or fad wasn't only fashion on clothes and hairdos, but the whole trend of american action movies of the eighties implanted on Bond, for a further depiction of that, please see this: http://www.ruthlessr...-to-80s-action/

And perhaps this a little bit subjective, but I believe that the eighties fad is considered by many people, as one of the most tacky trends in popular culture.. That goes from the clothes and hairdos, to the gorish violence of the action movies.

Yes it is subjective. Subjectivity should never be raised to the height of fact. The 80s are no more "inappropriate" than any other since the halcyon 60s.
And Bond movies have always been violent by the standards of their era.

I think you're wrong about that. One thing is to have a realistic violence in the style of early Connery's and Craig era, and other thing is to have gorish or slasher type of violence, like some of the scenes that featured in LTK (i.e.the exploding head).

Whereas in the other hand, we got the sixties style, which are absolutely opposed to what the eighties represent, and I'm not only talking about fashion here. And we all know that the sixties are the quintessential decade for the cinematic Bond, alongside with being the cradle of the Bondmania phenomenon.

In that case Mr A-B, you should be more than thrilled with the clear 60s styling of QoS! Oh I forgot, you don't like that film much either...

I have never seen that so "clear 60s styling" in QOS, unlike in CR. I know that Forster and Gassner talked about paying a homage to Ken Adam, but I think that ended up only as kind of wishful thinking.

Regarding to your argument about "These days there is no specific "look" to our era", I think that's nonsense. There's an specific style distintive to this decade as it was for the nineties too. Obviously, is not so easy to distinguishe it right now, because we're still living in this first decade of the 21st century- you should know that the size of distance from a particular period in the history, is directly proportional to the deepness that you can get in the description of that time-.

Nonsense youself! Look around you. I can't help it if you're unobservant. The look of this era is the most diverse and non-homogenous of any preceeding it - and that's in fashion, aesthetic and cultural products.

Well, if you want to think that, you're free to do it, but I believe that historians may disagree with you, because at least until now, all the eras in the history have had an specific look.

As a conclusion, to what I have argued, I said that when you have such a tacky decade like the eighities that is so incompatible with the original and best style of EON's Bond- the sixties- the best thing that you can do is avoid the best you can, all the thing that could strongly anchor the Bond movie to such a lousy time. And I think they had a mild success (not flawless, but decent)in that, from FYEO to TLD, but they blow it with LTK and its Miami Vice style.

To finish I'll quote myself again. "Why criticise LTK for to an 80s "fad" when it's only a justifiable reflection of its zeitgeist [i]which is what Bond has always been." This point is extremely valid and you've singularly failed to notice how apt it is, especially in reference to your harping on about how appropriate the 60s are to the early success of Bond.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 May 2009 - 12:06 AM.

[Sniperscope]

And perhaps this a little bit subjective, but I believe that the eighties fad is considered by many people, as one of the most tacky trends in popular culture.. That goes from the clothes and hairdos, to the gorish violence of the action movies.

Yes it is subjective. Subjectivity should never be raised to the height of fact. The 80s are no more "inappropriate" than any other since the halcyon 60s.
And Bond movies have always been violent by the standards of their era.

I think you're wrong about that. One thing is to have a realistic violence in the style of early Connery's and Craig era, and other thing is to have gorish or slasher type of violence, like some of the scenes that featured in LTK (i.e.the exploding head).


This is a very pretty discussion we're having Mr A-B!
Your points are all fine by me - but I do think violence and zeitgeist are very much intertwined. For example we couldn't have had the CR torture scene as it was filmed in any other era because audiences and censorship have changed a lot.
By the same token - LTK is very violent for a Bond film but for the era of ROBOCOP, DIE HARD, RAMBO, etc. it fits very much within that cultural context. Sure, to me the head exploding part is terrible and unnecessary - and I still wince when I see it - but it was the 80s...
Still I'm enjoying our chat Mr A-B!

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 May 2009 - 02:32 AM.

[Sniperscope]

[deleted by user]

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 May 2009 - 02:31 AM.

[jamie00007]

I love LTK, one of my faves, but have to side with Mr Arlington Beach on this one. There is a strong 80's vibe in LTK which in many ways makes it feel more dated than the 60's films.

I know all Bond movies are reflections of their time, so its not a fault with the movie, I agree the 80's just werent suited for James Bond (maybe an explanation for why that decade had the lowest box office receipts in the series). The fashions, the music the style of violence, the sorts of villains (Sanchez and Dario would be equally at home in any other 80's action movie), the politics of feminism and safe sex etc. just didnt lend themselves particularly well to Bond.

Edited by jamie00007, 10 May 2009 - 03:37 AM.

[Royal Dalton]

Apart from the added gore (which was a misstep), I don't really think it's any more "80s" than the two films that preceded it.

[Safari Suit]

It's considerably less 80s than A View To A Kill if you ask me. Duran Duran and Grace Jones? Come on!

NSNA doesn't feel very 80s for most of its duration, but there is one scene that's very Flashdance/Jane Fonda workout video.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Apart from the added gore (which was a misstep), I don't really think it's any more "80s" than the two films that preceded it.

It's considerably less 80s than A View To A Kill if you ask me. Duran Duran and Grace Jones?

Oh, Come on!! What about the drug dealers & latin american dictatorship plot, the personal vendetta-'this time is personal'- type of story, and as jamie00007 said the fashions, the music the style of violence, the sorts of villains; it's all way too eighties. Unlike AVTAK, for instance, in which they forced the inclusion of just a couple of hype elements of the time like Grace Jones (and I don't know if should even consider Duran Duran as that, 'cause almost all the Bond movies have trendy singers form their time, for the main theme), but conserving a plot which is nothing more than a GF rehash, with chips instead of gold this time.

[00Twelve]

By the same token - LTK is very violent for a Bond film but for the era of ROBOCOP, DIE HARD, RAMBO, etc. it fits very much within that cultural context. Sure, to me the head exploding part is terrible and unnecessary - and I still wince when I see it - but it was the 80s...

See, Sniper? That was my point from a while back! LTK fits right in with those movies, and very much on purpose. All three of the franchises you cited came along before LTK. LTK was going after that style of action violence, but was still trying to hang on to the warm fuzzies of Rog's more lighthearted times. That's what I meant when I said that LTK was a departure for EON (which had never had that much graphic violence, no two ways about it), and that contrast is what made it an awkward movie to me.

[Safari Suit]

Apart from the added gore (which was a misstep), I don't really think it's any more "80s" than the two films that preceded it.

It's considerably less 80s than A View To A Kill if you ask me. Duran Duran and Grace Jones?

Oh, Come on!! What about the drug dealers & latin american dictatorship plot, the personal vendetta-'this time is personal'- type of story, and as jamie00007 said the fashions, the music the style of violence, the sorts of villains; it's all way too eighties.

Um, I don't consider drug dealers, Latin American dictators or personal vendetta stories (which have been an element of nearly every Bond movies since) or explicit violence to be inherently 80s. While Dirty Love is quite an 80s song, it's only in the movie briefly and I don't find anything particualrly 80s about Kamen's score; it's performed by an orchestra after all, not a Synclavier II or anything. I don't remember there being any egregiously conspicuous fashions either, certainly not when compared to the seventies films.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Apart from the added gore (which was a misstep), I don't really think it's any more "80s" than the two films that preceded it.

It's considerably less 80s than A View To A Kill if you ask me. Duran Duran and Grace Jones?

Oh, Come on!! What about the drug dealers & latin american dictatorship plot, the personal vendetta-'this time is personal'- type of story, and as jamie00007 said the fashions, the music the style of violence, the sorts of villains; it's all way too eighties.

Um, I don't consider drug dealers, Latin American dictators or personal vendetta stories (which have been an element of nearly every Bond movies since) or explicit violence to be inherently 80s.

It isn't just explicit violence, it's gorish violence. Which Bond movie have had, since LTK, drug dealers, Latin American dictators and 007's personal vendettas stories, in the main plot through the entire movie (besides- and only partially- QOS)???

And if you still insist in believing that these elements aren't inherently 80s, perhaps you should see a very useful site like the one, I have linked earlier:
http://www.ruthlessr...-to-80s-action/

[Safari Suit]

An insult sir! I know more of 80s action movies than you or anyone who has contributed to that site has forgotten! It is true that LTK upped the violence quota to keep up with rival action franchises. I don't deny that. It is still not the case that gore is an inherently 80s trait. Mainstream films got gorier in the 80s. Gore did not stop with mainstream films in the 80s. Gore is still featured in action films today.

[Sniperscope]

By the same token - LTK is very violent for a Bond film but for the era of ROBOCOP, DIE HARD, RAMBO, etc. it fits very much within that cultural context. Sure, to me the head exploding part is terrible and unnecessary - and I still wince when I see it - but it was the 80s...

See, Sniper? That was my point from a while back! LTK fits right in with those movies, and very much on purpose. All three of the franchises you cited came along before LTK. LTK was going after that style of action violence, but was still trying to hang on to the warm fuzzies of Rog's more lighthearted times. That's what I meant when I said that LTK was a departure for EON (which had never had that much graphic violence, no two ways about it), and that contrast is what made it an awkward movie to me.

Agreed on many points 0012- certainly the very silly humour in parts of LTK (especially that accursed winking fish and Felix and Bond yukking it up at the end) doesn't gel at all with the harder edged violence (at least for a Bond film anyway).
Agreed LTK was a departure for Bond but I'm not hung up about that because (like QoS) a departure from what we expect can take a franchise somewhere new and interesting. But like I've said before, movies reflect their zeitgeist and both LTK and QoS are no exception. The three films I sited not only show the trends of that era (which certainly LTK was following) but actually remind us that LTK was actually rather tame in comparison...

An insult sir! I know more of 80s action movies than you or anyone who has contributed to that site has forgotten! It is true that LTK upped the violence quota to keep up with rival action franchises. I don't deny that. It is still not the case that gore is an inherently 80s trait. Mainstream films got gorier in the 80s. Gore did not stop with mainstream films in the 80s. Gore is still featured in action films today.

All true - well said Safari!

It isn't just explicit violence, it's gorish violence. Which Bond movie have had, since LTK, drug dealers, Latin American dictators and 007's personal vendettas stories, in the main plot through the entire movie (besides- and only partially- QOS)???

I don't think it's a problem at all to have these elements! In fact it's what makes LTK unique! The whole SMERSH / Soviet Union as enemy angle had become very dated by 1989. EON, rightfully, chose a plot that was relevant to contemporary issues.
Bond films have always done that and Fleming did the same, afterall! His stories reflected the concerns of the late 1950s - especially fears over the Soviets and Nuclear weapons.
The Bond franchise shouldn't (and couldn't) be confined to a mindset that by the late 1980s had become more than a bit redundant.

Edited by Sniperscope, 11 May 2009 - 11:31 AM.

[double o ego]

I love LTK, one of my faves, but have to side with Mr Arlington Beach on this one. There is a strong 80's vibe in LTK which in many ways makes it feel more dated than the 60's films.

I know all Bond movies are reflections of their time, so its not a fault with the movie, I agree the 80's just werent suited for James Bond (maybe an explanation for why that decade had the lowest box office receipts in the series). The fashions, the music the style of violence, the sorts of villains (Sanchez and Dario would be equally at home in any other 80's action movie), the politics of feminism and safe sex etc. just didnt lend themselves particularly well to Bond.

I disagree to some extent. Bond is a man of the times and no matter how ghastly an era may be, there's always something good and worthy to extract from it. TLD is an 80s movie, released a mere 2 years before LTK and yet TLD feels like classic Bond imo. I think that perhaps, LTK's fault may lie with how the story was presented and the locations used. But yeah, the irony is, although LTK was at the end of the 80s decade, it felt more 80s than TLD did.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

the irony is, although LTK was at the end of the 80s decade, it felt more 80s than TLD did.

I agree.

[byline]

TLD is an 80s movie, released a mere 2 years before LTK and yet TLD feels like classic Bond imo. I think that perhaps, LTK's fault may lie with how the story was presented and the locations used. But yeah, the irony is, although LTK was at the end of the 80s decade, it felt more 80s than TLD did.

I agree with this. "The Living Daylights," while dated in some ways, has much more of a timeless quality than "Licence to Kill," which feels very much like a product of its time. Of course, it's hardly alone there, as many other Bond films suffer the same fate ("Live and Let Die" immediately comes to mind).

Edited by byline, 11 May 2009 - 03:10 PM.

[blueman]

70s: would've loved to see Lazenby go all tough-guy Bond for a couple few films. I like the early Moore Bonds but they come off like an offshoot Bond, much more cute and cuddly than Fleming ever wrote. Not sure what to do about the late 70s, those kitchen-sink Bonds sold too many tickets to diss on too much.

80s: Ah, would that EON had cast Dalton in FYEO, gone for a real reboot, and even gotten a legit director to hit the character moments in that character-driven Bond story. Then a decade of exploring Dalton Bond the way EON is currently exploring Craig Bond... such a missed opportunity, damn Cubby's (understandable in context) fears re recasting Bond.

Both decades, Bond epitomizes more of the glitz and glam of the respective eras, a follower of fashion and trends that resulted IMO in a lesser Bond. In contrast to the 60s, when Bond was a creative force and blazing a trail that others aped. I suppose that's the nature of franchises, lather rinse repeat (just wish there'd been more hard-boiledish Fleming shampoo in the mix all along the way, instead of so much Cubby conditioner softening everything up... but dude sold tickets, whadayagonnado). Just interesting that in both decades, examples existed of successful and more hard-edged films grabbing imaginations the way Bond did in its infancy, always stirs my alternative universe imaginings. Ah well, at least we have the mini-sub/car, and that ain't bad.

[byline]

80s: Ah, would that EON had cast Dalton in FYEO, gone for a real reboot, and even gotten a legit director to hit the character moments in that character-driven Bond story.

Yes! *sigh*

[BoogieBond]

80s: Ah, would that EON had cast Dalton in FYEO, gone for a real reboot, and even gotten a legit director to hit the character moments in that character-driven Bond story. Then a decade of exploring Dalton Bond the way EON is currently exploring Craig Bond... such a missed opportunity, damn Cubby's (understandable in context) fears re recasting Bond.

I see your point, but I like FYEO the way it is, and I think Roger just about gets away with FYEO. By OP he is looking too old, and I am saying this as a Rog fan, and they should have brought Dalton in for OP. This may have made it slightly easier, as FYEO is more grounded, and therefore OP could have suited Dalton better.
But look who was actually screentesting for OP, James Brolin, there was no clues to say that Dalton was on the horizon in 1983. Who knows. Its good theorizing though.

[Mr_Wint]

TLD is an 80s movie, released a mere 2 years before LTK and yet TLD feels like classic Bond imo. I think that perhaps, LTK's fault may lie with how the story was presented and the locations used. But yeah, the irony is, although LTK was at the end of the 80s decade, it felt more 80s than TLD did.

I agree with this. "The Living Daylights," while dated in some ways, has much more of a timeless quality than "Licence to Kill," which feels very much like a product of its time. Of course, it's hardly alone there, as many other Bond films suffer the same fate ("Live and Let Die" immediately comes to mind).

You can talk about a feeling or a fate that made some movies less timeless...

...or to make it even easier: John Barry wasn't available!

[tdalton]

80s: Ah, would that EON had cast Dalton in FYEO, gone for a real reboot, and even gotten a legit director to hit the character moments in that character-driven Bond story. Then a decade of exploring Dalton Bond the way EON is currently exploring Craig Bond... such a missed opportunity, damn Cubby's (understandable in context) fears re recasting Bond.

I see your point, but I like FYEO the way it is, and I think Roger just about gets away with FYEO. By OP he is looking too old, and I am saying this as a Rog fan, and they should have brought Dalton in for OP. This may have made it slightly easier, as FYEO is more grounded, and therefore OP could have suited Dalton better.
But look who was actually screentesting for OP, James Brolin, there was no clues to say that Dalton was on the horizon in 1983. Who knows. Its good theorizing though.

I think that this would have been the way to go in regards to transitioning over from Moore to Dalton. FYEO was a fantastic Bond film, and featured, IMO, Moore's best performance, and would have been a pretty good way to leave the franchise (certainly much better than the other swan songs that were DAF & DAD). I would imagine that Dalton was somewhat on EON's radar at that point, since he had been supposedly offered either a screentest or the role itself for OHMSS.

As for the discussion about the 80s influence in LTK, I can't say that it bothers me at all. The Bond films are always meant to take place in, more or less, the present time, which for LTK was the 80s. I think that it gives the film a more realistic feel as it establishes Bond in the real world of the time, rather than trying to recreate the real world in order to avoid having an 80s influence in the film.

[byline]

80s: Ah, would that EON had cast Dalton in FYEO, gone for a real reboot, and even gotten a legit director to hit the character moments in that character-driven Bond story. Then a decade of exploring Dalton Bond the way EON is currently exploring Craig Bond... such a missed opportunity, damn Cubby's (understandable in context) fears re recasting Bond.

I see your point, but I like FYEO the way it is, and I think Roger just about gets away with FYEO.

While "For Your Eyes Only" is one of my favorites, and certainly my favorite of the Moore era, I do think Moore is pushing it, age-wise. I can easily see Dalton in the role, and I can imagine how he would've improved it in so many ways. If nothing else, the crush that Bibi had on Bond would've been far more believable with him in the role. Even the relationship with Melina (since Carole Bouquet was only a few years older than Lynn-Holly Johnson) was a little . . . well, creepy, if you gave it too much thought. Given how it was actually a rather romantic relationship, similar to the one in "The Living Daylights," I think Dalton would've been perfect casting at that point, and find myself thinking of that every time I watch "For Your Eyes Only."

[Mr_Wint]

80s: Ah, would that EON had cast Dalton in FYEO, gone for a real reboot, and even gotten a legit director to hit the character moments in that character-driven Bond story. Then a decade of exploring Dalton Bond the way EON is currently exploring Craig Bond... such a missed opportunity, damn Cubby's (understandable in context) fears re recasting Bond.

I see your point, but I like FYEO the way it is, and I think Roger just about gets away with FYEO.

While "For Your Eyes Only" is one of my favorites, and certainly my favorite of the Moore era, I do think Moore is pushing it, age-wise. I can easily see Dalton in the role, and I can imagine how he would've improved it in so many ways. If nothing else, the crush that Bibi had on Bond would've been far more believable with him in the role. Even the relationship with Melina (since Carole Bouquet was only a few years older than Lynn-Holly Johnson) was a little . . . well, creepy, if you gave it too much thought. Given how it was actually a rather romantic relationship, similar to the one in "The Living Daylights," I think Dalton would've been perfect casting at that point, and find myself thinking of that every time I watch "For Your Eyes Only."

For Your Eyes Only is a rather restrained Bondfilm and a little bit similar to FRWL, TB and OHMSS in style. I don't think it would've been a good idea to combine that with a dull and pretentious actor as Bond. The film clearly needed a charismatic actor in the lead role. A star. Dalton has the good looks and can probably outrun all of his co-actors, but FYEO perfectly shows why he can't even touch Moore's level of excellence.

[Royal Dalton]

Of course it should (and probably would) have starred Dalton. He was a shoo-in for that film.

[byline]

80s: Ah, would that EON had cast Dalton in FYEO, gone for a real reboot, and even gotten a legit director to hit the character moments in that character-driven Bond story. Then a decade of exploring Dalton Bond the way EON is currently exploring Craig Bond... such a missed opportunity, damn Cubby's (understandable in context) fears re recasting Bond.

I see your point, but I like FYEO the way it is, and I think Roger just about gets away with FYEO.

While "For Your Eyes Only" is one of my favorites, and certainly my favorite of the Moore era, I do think Moore is pushing it, age-wise. I can easily see Dalton in the role, and I can imagine how he would've improved it in so many ways. If nothing else, the crush that Bibi had on Bond would've been far more believable with him in the role. Even the relationship with Melina (since Carole Bouquet was only a few years older than Lynn-Holly Johnson) was a little . . . well, creepy, if you gave it too much thought. Given how it was actually a rather romantic relationship, similar to the one in "The Living Daylights," I think Dalton would've been perfect casting at that point, and find myself thinking of that every time I watch "For Your Eyes Only."

For Your Eyes Only is a rather restrained Bondfilm and a little bit similar to FRWL, TB and OHMSS in style. I don't think it would've been a good idea to combine that with a dull and pretentious actor as Bond. The film clearly needed a charismatic actor in the lead role. A star. Dalton has the good looks and can probably outrun all of his co-actors, but FYEO perfectly shows why he can't even touch Moore's level of excellence.

I think with the right script, Dalton oozes charisma. I think he works well in "The Living Daylights" and, with a better script and production values, he could've done just as well with "Licence to Kill." I think an actor's tendency, when certain things are lacking, is to try to overcompensate, and IMO that's what happened in "Licence to Kill." All other things staying the same, that wouldn't have been the case in "For Your Eyes Only" and I think it would've suited him perfectly.

[blueman]

With a different director, Dalton, and a slightly reworked script, FYEO could've been the 80s equivalent of OHMSS or FRWL. Okay, maybe not, but at least a far superior film to the one we got stuck with. Sigh.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

80s: Ah, would that EON had cast Dalton in FYEO, gone for a real reboot, and even gotten a legit director to hit the character moments in that character-driven Bond story. Then a decade of exploring Dalton Bond the way EON is currently exploring Craig Bond... such a missed opportunity, damn Cubby's (understandable in context) fears re recasting Bond.

I see your point, but I like FYEO the way it is, and I think Roger just about gets away with FYEO.

While "For Your Eyes Only" is one of my favorites, and certainly my favorite of the Moore era, I do think Moore is pushing it, age-wise. I can easily see Dalton in the role, and I can imagine how he would've improved it in so many ways. If nothing else, the crush that Bibi had on Bond would've been far more believable with him in the role. Even the relationship with Melina (since Carole Bouquet was only a few years older than Lynn-Holly Johnson) was a little . . . well, creepy, if you gave it too much thought. Given how it was actually a rather romantic relationship, similar to the one in "The Living Daylights," I think Dalton would've been perfect casting at that point, and find myself thinking of that every time I watch "For Your Eyes Only."

For Your Eyes Only is a rather restrained Bondfilm and a little bit similar to FRWL, TB and OHMSS in style. I don't think it would've been a good idea to combine that with a dull and pretentious actor as Bond. The film clearly needed a charismatic actor in the lead role. A star. Dalton has the good looks and can probably outrun all of his co-actors, but FYEO perfectly shows why he can't even touch Moore's level of excellence.

I think with the right script, Dalton oozes charisma. I think he works well in "The Living Daylights" and, with a better script and production values, he could've done just as well with "Licence to Kill." I think an actor's tendency, when certain things are lacking, is to try to overcompensate, and IMO that's what happened in "Licence to Kill." All other things staying the same, that wouldn't have been the case in "For Your Eyes Only" and I think it would've suited him perfectly.

I think Dalton displays more charisma, enthusiasm and presence in the part than both Connery and Moore did in their later films.

With a different director, Dalton, and a slightly reworked script, FYEO could've been the 80s equivalent of OHMSS or FRWL. Okay, maybe not, but at least a far superior film to the one we got stuck with. Sigh.

Though I love the film the way it is, I very much agree.

[A Kristatos]

It's obvious that QoS is a modern LTK. A boat chase, a "cocky" girl, a "down to earth" villain, rivalry between M and Bond...Killifer (DEA) worked for Sanchez, the Colonel of Police worked with Medrano...

Funny you mention the "cocky" girls. Both movies feature a "cocky" girl ordering Bond to "get in" a vehicle.

Coincidence? You make the call.

Both movies have the Bond girl pullin up in a car / truck and saying "get in !"

Oops, you beat me to it Stamper!

...The filmmakers try to compensate for this by making Bond more ruthless. As a result, Bond is almost constantly out-of-character compared to the character we know from the other 20 films...

How is ruthless out of character for 007? How is Bond in QOS out of character with Bond you know from 20 other films?

Yeah, I second that question Frimmel. Mr Wint, how is Bond out of character in LTK and QOS? Because we aren't treated to such "gems" as "I think he got the thrust of it" and "They feast like there's no tomorrow"?!

Puhleeze!

Edited by A Kristatos, 19 May 2009 - 02:48 AM.