178 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Wouldn't it be Moore since TLD was supposed to be for him originally?

Maybe.

I've read conflicting reports about who the script was originally written for. Some sources I've read say the script was written with Pierce in mind as Bond, and other places report that the script was written for Moore.

[Safari Suit]

I don't think either was actually the case. It wasn't written for Dalton but I don't think it was written specifically for anyone else either.

[DR76]

TLD is alright if a bit too boring in its length.

Don't agree. It's length is not a problem for me. The length of QoS is.

[byline]

(one of my favorite moments in the series because Dalton's barely suppressed rage is so utterly convincing).

I recall hearing a rumor that after that moment someone in the crowd asks "Should we call for an ambulance?" And Bond would have said "Better make that two" (referring to the fact that he now intends to kill Necros).

Are you sure? Maybe it referred to the fact that Saunders's body is now in two pieces? Blehhhhh...

After reading the explanation of this scene, that would be my take on it. Bleh, indeed. . . .

[volante]

I always have enjoyed TLD

Personally I think the end is weak but that is only because it comes directly after the fight scene on the cargo net, which I thought was outstanding.

[Colossus]

Wouldn't it be Moore since TLD was supposed to be for him originally?

Maybe.

I've read conflicting reports about who the script was originally written for. Some sources I've read say the script was written with Pierce in mind as Bond, and other places report that the script was written for Moore.

If i had to choose between the two it would be Moore because it doesn't seem realistic for them to actually tailor a script for an actor who had nothing to do with the series at all vs. an actor who was on the series for so long without any idea if he'd quit.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Wouldn't it be Moore since TLD was supposed to be for him originally?

Maybe.

I've read conflicting reports about who the script was originally written for. Some sources I've read say the script was written with Pierce in mind as Bond, and other places report that the script was written for Moore.

If i had to choose between the two it would be Moore because it doesn't seem realistic for them to actually tailor a script for an actor who had nothing to do with the series at all vs. an actor who was on the series for so long without any idea if he'd quit.

I don't know for sure about this either, but most of what I have read states "written with Moore in mind". This of course does not mean written for Roger Moore. My guess is whilst writing it they were thinking of Moore and someone in a similar vein taking over, and then they got Dalton and things were changed to suit him and his approach, which helped the film in spades IMO.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 17 June 2009 - 09:48 PM.

[Colossus]

Oh definitely, i meant the Moore rumor sounds more concrete than the Brosnan one.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

*Shudders at the thought of Old Rog starring in The Living Daylights*

*Shudders even more at the thought of Baby Faced Pierce starring in The Living Daylights*

Edited by The Ghost Who Walks, 18 June 2009 - 08:06 AM.

[Ambler]

TLD is not the best Bond ever, but it is, I would say, the last 'real' Bond film. After TLD they became generic action flicks with the possible exception of GE.

[B. Brown]

TLD is not the best Bond ever, but it is, I would say, the last 'real' Bond film. After TLD they became generic action flicks with the possible exception of GE.

I think GE struck very close to the line of "generic action flick", but overall, still held some "real Bond film" characteristics.

For the films following that, I can't say the same. Including the beloved "Casino Royale".

Many like to say that Craig's films are more realistic and "down to Earth", while Brosnan's weren't. Well, for me, I can dig up as many non-realistic features in Craig's films.

[Colossus]

Many like to say that Craig's films are more realistic and "down to Earth", while Brosnan's weren't. Well, for me, I can dig up as many non-realistic features in Craig's films.

Same here, he reminds me of Sonic the Hedgehog.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Many like to say that Craig's films are more realistic and "down to Earth", while Brosnan's weren't. Well, for me, I can dig up as many non-realistic features in Craig's films.

Same here, he reminds me of Sonic the Hedgehog.

Compared to Brosnan's Super Mario, then?

[KENDO NAGAZAKI]

Me too.

It's still the last great Bond film, as far as I'm concerned. And, in some ways, the last proper one, as well.

I can name three great Bond films since then: Licence to Kill, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace.

Yep, those three could be "proper" and "great" too... if only they had John Barry.

Daylights hasn't been topped since, IMO. And only four of the Bond films which preceded it managed that feat IMO.

[Tubes]

For the longest time, I had TLD as my favorite Bond. It's dipped a bit since and may/may not be as good as it's successor LTK. Both films are high quality Bond flicks, despite their assorted flaws.

[Mr. Blofeld]

TLD is not the best Bond ever, but it is, I would say, the last 'real' Bond film. After TLD they became generic action flicks with the possible exception of GE.

Are you saying, therefore, that both of the Craig movies are "generic action flicks"? I can dig up a few pointers that prove you otherwise, including great character development (which was sorely lacking in the Brosnan, and even Dalton, eras)...

[jaguar007]

*Shudders at the thought of Old Rog starring in The Living Daylights*

*Shudders even more at the thought of Baby Faced Pierce starring in The Living Daylights*

Shudders at the thought of Pierce Brosnan replacing Timothy Dalton.
Dashes for the restroom.

[Ambler]

TLD is not the best Bond ever, but it is, I would say, the last 'real' Bond film. After TLD they became generic action flicks with the possible exception of GE.

Are you saying, therefore, that both of the Craig movies are "generic action flicks"? I can dig up a few pointers that prove you otherwise, including great character development (which was sorely lacking in the Brosnan, and even Dalton, eras)...

The question is whether either of the Craig films would be very different if he was not in them. I think not. Doesn't that suggest that they're generic?

[B. Brown]

TLD is not the best Bond ever, but it is, I would say, the last 'real' Bond film. After TLD they became generic action flicks with the possible exception of GE.

Are you saying, therefore, that both of the Craig movies are "generic action flicks"? I can dig up a few pointers that prove you otherwise, including great character development (which was sorely lacking in the Brosnan, and even Dalton, eras)...

The question is whether either of the Craig films would be very different if he was not in them. I think not. Doesn't that suggest that they're generic?

Great point here.

There are plenty of aspects of Craig's films that prove that they're generic action flicks. Though the half-assed characterization helped a bit in "Casino Royale", it still had the standard, generic action flick qualities -- things that don't belong in the Bond flicks. This include falling houses, tanker-hopping at Miami International, and crane-jumping. And aside from being a generic action flick, it also mucked up Fleming's story quite a bit. That whole "Ha Ha, my balls are being mutilated." bit was pathetic and shameful.

The main problems are Purvis and Wade. After "Die Another Day", how would you expect them to write anything of extremely high quality? And it doesn't seem like Paul Haggis helped a whole lot; wasn't he the one who suggested Vesper's death in an elevator?

Then, with "Quantum of Solace" ... non-stop action, lazy plot holes, the lack of characterization. As Ambler mentioned, you could've replaced Craig with any actor, and it would've came out the same way ... Vin Diesel would've fit perfectly.

[JimmyBond]

The question is whether either of the Craig films would be very different if he was not in them. I think not. Doesn't that suggest that they're generic?

Yeah, they would be quite different. He carries the two films he's in, and I can't imagine anyone else in the role.

There are plenty of aspects of Craig's films that prove that they're generic action flicks. Though the half-assed characterization helped a bit in "Casino Royale", it still had the standard, generic action flick qualities -- things that don't belong in the Bond flicks. This include falling houses, tanker-hopping at Miami International, and crane-jumping.

What? I thought those were all fairly wonderful Bondian action scenes myself.

Then, with "Quantum of Solace" ... non-stop action, lazy plot holes, the lack of characterization. As Ambler mentioned, you could've replaced Craig with any actor, and it would've came out the same way ... Vin Diesel would've fit perfectly.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Quantum had plenty of characterization. It showed more depth than any of the Bond films up to that point were capable of showing. With the exception of perhaps Casino Royale.

[jaguar007]

While I find QoS a bit more generic, I find CR anything but. I think CR is perhaps the best action/adventure (Bond or otherwise) film since Raiders of the Lost Ark.

It succeeded in updating the soul of Fleming's novel and had the most three dimentional characters of the entire series. More than any Bond film in years, it focused more on story and character than it did action.

The question is whether either of the Craig films would be very different if he was not in them. I think not. Doesn't that suggest that they're generic?

Sorry, but I can't see Casino Royale being at all the same movie if Pierce Brosnan had done it.



Just because CR is not a generic Bond movie does not mean it is a generic action movie.

[Turn]

TLD is not the best Bond ever, but it is, I would say, the last 'real' Bond film. After TLD they became generic action flicks with the possible exception of GE.

Are you saying, therefore, that both of the Craig movies are "generic action flicks"? I can dig up a few pointers that prove you otherwise, including great character development (which was sorely lacking in the Brosnan, and even Dalton, eras)...

The question is whether either of the Craig films would be very different if he was not in them. I think not. Doesn't that suggest that they're generic?

Great point here.

There are plenty of aspects of Craig's films that prove that they're generic action flicks. Though the half-assed characterization helped a bit in "Casino Royale", it still had the standard, generic action flick qualities -- things that don't belong in the Bond flicks. This include falling houses, tanker-hopping at Miami International, and crane-jumping. And aside from being a generic action flick, it also mucked up Fleming's story quite a bit. That whole "Ha Ha, my balls are being mutilated." bit was pathetic and shameful.

The main problems are Purvis and Wade. After "Die Another Day", how would you expect them to write anything of extremely high quality? And it doesn't seem like Paul Haggis helped a whole lot; wasn't he the one who suggested Vesper's death in an elevator?

Then, with "Quantum of Solace" ... non-stop action, lazy plot holes, the lack of characterization. As Ambler mentioned, you could've replaced Craig with any actor, and it would've came out the same way ... Vin Diesel would've fit perfectly.

In saying TLD was the last "real" Bond film, you are also basically saying its predecessors, AVTAK for example, was more of a Bond film than Casino Royale.

And I'd hardly call LTK a generic action film as it actually had a story that tried to differentiate itself from what went before. To each his own, I guess.

The only generic action in a Bond film I can think of is TWINE, where nothing really stands out, DAD to a lesser degre. Other than that, I can think of numerous scenes in the other post TLD films that stand out from the likes of, say, Die Hard With a Vengance or practically anything in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Since when doesn't creative action, more so in the case of CR such as the parkour sequence, not belong in a Bond film? There was much less of it in that film and it created a better film. I don't see how that puts it in the same class as a Vin Diesel film, as you point out.

As for CR's script, if you hadn't read it ahead of time, who'd have seen the whole balls thing coming? I was shocked in a good way. That's creative screenwriting, IMO.
Many critics and fans pointed out the writing as a high point in CR along with several other elements, not just Craig.

To compare the Craig era with Vin Diesel, well, all I can say is enjoy your TLD DVDs. It's a great time to be a Bond fan for the rest of us.

[KENDO NAGAZAKI]

Since when doesn't creative action, more so in the case of CR such as the parkour sequence, not belong in a Bond film? There was much less of it in that film and it created a better film. I don't see how that puts it in the same class as a Vin Diesel film, as you point out.

The main problem I have with the action in CR is that, while action was there to pad out some previous recent Bond films which were basically action movies to begin with anyway, much of CR's action actually hurts the better intentions of the film. As you said, there's a lot more CR has going for it in the character and story department, but these qualities are severely undercut by the "necessity" to chuck in over-the-top and overlong action sequences which don't sit too comfortably with the more grounded feel of the rest of the film. We have James Bond throwing himself around like Sonic The Hedgehog in an almost unstoppable Rambo-esque way throughout the parkour sequence and shortly afterwards (as if the length and OTT nature of the parkour sequence wasn't enough), we have Bond running around an airport able to catch up with moving vehicles and throw himself on, off or around them at will, again with seemingly no physical limitations or injuries - fine in the context of a ridiculously OTT Brosnan Bond escapade but sorely out of place in a self-professed character piece. The film subsequently recovers superbly for the hour or so which follows, but then we get an absolutely pointless, tiresome and again OTT sinking building action sequence lifted straight from a Brosnan film with Bond again in Rambo mode as he unloads on the bad guys whilst again seeming completely oblivious to pain and injury as his Bond girl (yawn, four films running) is stuck underwater.

These gripes aside, I like CR a fair bit and find it easily the best Bond film since TLD and perhaps an all-time top six Bond film to boot. But (the PTS fight and stairwell fight aside) I feel it's action sequences really let the better intentions of the film down and the problem was compounded further by giving us even more of it in QOS. IMO, Bond should only go implausibly bouncing from one roof to another without pause or injury if the stuntman is actually able to do so without CGI or harness assistance. The wow factor of Bond action is lacking otherwise, as it's no longer believable if it can't be done in reality, just as with the ridiculous parasurfing in DAD.

Once the Craig films ditch their Bourne and Transporter action influences, we're in for some real potential greatness. Until then, I'll continue to find myself rather shockingly going into Bond movies actually dreading the action sequences, whereas they used to be one of the main highlights.

[jaguar007]

I found the action scenes in CR (such as the Miami airport) to be more realistic than many BOnd film. At the end of the scene, BOnd falls out of the truck, exhausted. In many past Bond films, after running around on top of the truck etc, he would have gotten out of the truck and dusted off his jacket.

I do see your point about some of the action scenes being thrown in there a bit to have an action scene, but tell me what Bond movie over the past 30 years is not guilty of doing that. It is a Bond movie, it needs to have some ott action, it is expected by the audience.

[saint007]

TLD IS A GREAT BOND MOVIE! TIM DALTON BROUGHT TONS OF ENERGY AND WAS VERY
DETERMINED TO BRING THE FLAVOR OF THE BOOKS TO HIS 007. AS MUCH AS I ENJOYED PIERCE
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT TO TO SEE DALTON DO A 3RD PICTURE. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
IN HIS LATE FORTIES BUT HE STILL COULD HAVE PULLED IT OFF. (BETTER HAIRCUT)

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Quantum had plenty of characterization. It showed more depth than any of the Bond films up to that point were capable of showing. With the exception of perhaps Casino Royale.

*Cough* On Her Majesty's Secret Service *Cough*

[Safari Suit]

Many like to say that Craig's films are more realistic and "down to Earth", while Brosnan's weren't. Well, for me, I can dig up as many non-realistic features in Craig's films.

Same here, he reminds me of Sonic the Hedgehog.

Compared to Brosnan's Super Mario, then?

The problem with that is that Mario is more realistic than Sonic

[Satorious]

I absolutely love TLD, definitely one of my favourites (being an 80's child, it was the film to beat during my youth - although I also had a great fondness for FYEO which was my first Bond in the cinema). Now I appreciate FRWL more than I did, and OHMSS is another which I have always loved. I kept hoping with each subsequent Bond since TLD there would be another which matched the quality of any of these movies. After much disappointment CR finally came along. TLD is the Bond film I've watched the most - I remember always trying to save up enough pocket-money to rent it when I was a teenager. It's certainly not perfect, the villains are a bit weak and the whole "Bond effectively helping the Taliban" leaves a slightly queasy feeling in today's world. But damn, if what they got right wasn't near perfect. So many awesome things: the Score (awesome, John Barry's abscence is a hole which really needs plugging), the fantastic locations, the PTS, kitchen fight, the dangling Hercules fight - I could go on and on.

With regards to the script, I have a signed copy by the film-makers, and it's an earlier draft (a partial script which is unfinished in some parts) - dated sometime early 1986. I think it's safe to say this wasn't specifically written for any Bond in particular - although some Moore-isms were still present (and were dropped). There were also a few alterations from the final version, but I'd have to re-read it to remember what these were.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Quantum had plenty of characterization. It showed more depth than any of the Bond films up to that point were capable of showing. With the exception of perhaps Casino Royale.

*Cough* On Her Majesty's Secret Service *Cough*

That, too, but I think Jimmy was trying to make a point; weren't you, Jimmy?

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Many like to say that Craig's films are more realistic and "down to Earth", while Brosnan's weren't. Well, for me, I can dig up as many non-realistic features in Craig's films.

Same here, he reminds me of Sonic the Hedgehog.

Compared to Brosnan's Super Mario, then?

The problem with that is that Mario is more realistic than Sonic

Off course.

It's certainly not perfect, the villains are a bit weak

I love the villains in TLD, actually. Whitaker is colourful while avoiding drifting into parody (unlike, say, Gustav Graves or Charles Gray's Blofeld), and Koskov is just a wonderful coward, the kind of guy you love to hate (Jeroen Krabbe always makes a great bad guy no matter what film he appears in). Necros is an underrated henchman too. His physical appearance somehow makes a very nice contrast to that of Dalton Bond. Plus, anybody who can dress up as a milkman and still look scary as hell clearly has the right evildoer attitude.