45 replies to this topic

[Turn]

In what way shape or form was TLD far better suited for Moore? The opening sniper scene alone wouldn't have worked.

 

And Odd Jobbies addressed the criticism of LTK as a Miami Vice retread if there had been fresh talent involved and the money would have been put into the locations to go to China. Dalton can hardly be blamed for that. Personally I find the Bond-Sanchez relationship and the revenge angle the strengths as opposed to the drug ring angle.

[saint mark]

In what way shape or form was TLD far better suited for Moore? The opening sniper scene alone wouldn't have worked.

 

And Odd Jobbies addressed the criticism of LTK as a Miami Vice retread if there had been fresh talent involved and the money would have been put into the locations to go to China. Dalton can hardly be blamed for that. Personally I find the Bond-Sanchez relationship and the revenge angle the strengths as opposed to the drug ring angle.

 

The overall tone of the movie was more suited for Roger Moore, and the opening scene with the sniper would have worked great with Moore, he is a far more versatile than most NAY Sayers will ever realize when it comes to Roger Moore.

 

 And while the Bond Sanchez relationship was good, the whole south American plot was at that time done so much every week in Miami Vice that 007 could add nothing new and did not. I do not blame Dalton for it but together with his lackluster charm and a lack of creativity from EON his future was quite clear after LTK.

[tdalton]

In what way shape or form was TLD far better suited for Moore? The opening sniper scene alone wouldn't have worked.

 

And Odd Jobbies addressed the criticism of LTK as a Miami Vice retread if there had been fresh talent involved and the money would have been put into the locations to go to China. Dalton can hardly be blamed for that. Personally I find the Bond-Sanchez relationship and the revenge angle the strengths as opposed to the drug ring angle.

 

I've always viewed The Living Daylights as having been written for a more generic Bond, and depending on who was cast, the tone of the film could have gone slightly in a variety of directions, but always staying relatively close to a more neutral core.  Moore could have starred in it, Brosnan could have starred in it, and Dalton could (and obviously did) star in it.  That said, I don't see it being anywhere near as entertaining with Moore or Dalton, as it's the sequences of the film where Dalton took things in a more serious direction that the film really elevates itself over the bulk of the other films (i.e. the interrogation scene, the sniper scene, etc.).  

[Guy Haines]

I'm sure I read somewhere that TLD was written for a generic Bond rather than for "Moore-Bond", "Brosnan-Bond", etc. I suppose the expectation was that there would be a new Bond actor in place - the initial assumption being that it would be Pierce Brosnan, but that the film shouldn't be geared one way or another to a particular actor, not least because if Brosnan wasn't available, and of course he wasn't, a different actor may have a different take on 007 - which of course, Timothy Dalton did.

 

(And in my view when Brosnan did finally become Bond, his interpretation wasn't quite as "light-weight" as many expected - or was that another example of a new actor performing in a "generic" Bond role?)

 

The first two Roger Moore films seemed to me to be written for James Bond - albeit an already lighter interpretation of him, following DAF - than Moore's Bond. Sir Roger's fully formed version of Bond only became apparent in his third movie, imho.

[Odd Jobbies]

I'd go along with that Mr Haines

[Turn]

A couple of things in response to the above: There's an interview somewhere with one of the TLD creative team that talks about when Dalton was brought on to star he requested more of his dialogue be cut to accommodate his take on the character. And there's also a claim that LTK wasn't written with his interpretation in mind. Sadly, I just don't have the sources at hand. You read and hear so many things over the years as a fan, some things stand out but I know I didn't imagine these.

 

And I agree with Guy Haines in that Brosnan wasn't as light-weight as I had originally thought he may be.

[Odd Jobbies]

Saint mark, i took your point as being that Dalton was dropped because the US audience didn't warm to him as Bond. I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that - it is a business after all.

 

My point was that it is very hard to discredit Dalton's performance when he was so underserved. As you said, LTK was perhaps written before Dalton was cast as generically as possible and then refined for Brosnan.... 

 

Brosnan becoming unnavailable because of Remmington Steel opened the door for Dalton. They probably gave the script a brief 'Dalton pass', and Dalton was left with a bit of a mess tonally.  Just guess work there, but that seems to be the narrative.

 

Personally i'd have preferred to have gotten Brosnan in his prime, or even Lewis Collins.

 

 

If Casino Royale had been written as a rather generic piece more suited for Brosnan i'm sure Craig would have found it equally handicapping to have to adapt. As it was Craig's debut came as a fully formed commitment to this grittier change in direction.

 

Btw, i prefer Craig to Dalton as a candidate, mooting him for the role since 1998's Love Is The Devil. But it's clear that we never got to see the best of Dalton.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 25 June 2014 - 02:49 PM.

[Colossus]

A couple of things in response to the above: There's an interview somewhere with one of the TLD creative team that talks about when Dalton was brought on to star he requested more of his dialogue be cut to accommodate his take on the character. 

 

Wow that's actually awesome.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

A couple of things in response to the above: There's an interview somewhere with one of the TLD creative team that talks about when Dalton was brought on to star he requested more of his dialogue be cut to accommodate his take on the character. 

 

Wow that's actually awesome.

 

I bet he would've preferred a rewrite 'to accommodate his take on the character'.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 26 June 2014 - 11:56 AM.

[saint mark]

Saint mark, i took your point as being that Dalton was dropped because the US audience didn't warm to him as Bond. I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that - it is a business after all.

 

My point was that it is very hard to discredit Dalton's performance when he was so underserved. As you said, LTK was perhaps written before Dalton was cast as generically as possible and then refined for Brosnan.... 

 

Brosnan becoming unnavailable because of Remmington Steel opened the door for Dalton. They probably gave the script a brief 'Dalton pass', and Dalton was left with a bit of a mess tonally.  Just guess work there, but that seems to be the narrative.

 

Personally i'd have preferred to have gotten Brosnan in his prime, or even Lewis Collins.

 

 

If Casino Royale had been written as a rather generic piece more suited for Brosnan i'm sure Craig would have found it equally handicapping to have to adapt. As it was Craig's debut came as a fully formed commitment to this grittier change in direction.

 

Btw, i prefer Craig to Dalton as a candidate, mooting him for the role since 1998's Love Is The Devil. But it's clear that we never got to see the best of Dalton.

 

I believe that TLD was written for a generic 007, but in style would have fitted Roger Moore or Brosnan better, LTK being the 2nd Dalton vehicle was written more on his person, while his characterization was perhaps better the whole movie suffered from Miami Vice-itis. They should have gone for the Asian drug connection as there was for more barren ground.

 

Brosnan was always the better choice for the role of 007.

 

And indeed the script for CR was written with Craig in mind and that is easily seen. And on the whole I find that Craig was served better in the scripts than Dalton, even since it has gone downhill since CR. Quantum of Bourne was a poor movie and script and SF has plot holes of such a massive scale that the whole franchise can easily fit in them. SF is more style over content and substance,

And now we get a delay in the new Mendes movie, and apparently P&W are called back in to get the Logan script polished, if only we got a decent director instead of a ponce with a decent script.

Edited by saint mark, 28 June 2014 - 02:54 PM.

[Colossus]

seems each bond actor gets only one really good bond movie apiece. 

[saint mark]

seems each bond actor gets only one really good bond movie apiece. 

 

With the exception of Roger Moore with TSWLM, FYEO & OP

[Colossus]

and of course….. the Raker.

[saint mark]

and of course….. the Raker.

 

yes indeed, but that being my first 007 movie I ever saw, not knowing such a thing existed makes the Raker for me something special.

[00Kevin]

Thunderball-On Her Majesties Secret Service-You Only Live Twice - as a trilogy and all need to be in that order and played by a consistent pool of actors choose connery/lazeby for bond, savales/pleasence/von sydon/grey for blofeld

 

More Dalton films - I might have him as bond starting as early as For Your Eyes Only and continue through Goldeneye, also adding 1991's Property of a Lady plus another film for 1993.

 

Someone needs to finance an unofficial new version of casino royale: the Quentin Tarantino black and white 1950's vision starring pierce brosnan

[00Kevin]

TWINE - brosnan's third, should have been his best, he had grown into the character and his performance as bond was more convincing than his prior two attempts. unfortunately this film showed some potential but needed a number of major changes (especially new director, who decided to hire a documentary film maker for a bond film?)

 

DAD has potential but needs alot of work

 

and how about a conclusion to the quantum series? the Qos video game left a hint of a cliffhanger (which was cut from the film). if only 2010 could have produced the third in that 'trilogy'