drewshi
Full Member
Goodfella
Posts: 102
|
Thanks
Apr 14, 2009 11:02:18 GMT -5
Post by drewshi on Apr 14, 2009 11:02:18 GMT -5
This was the best episode for me simply because For Your Eyes Only was the first Bond movie I ever saw. I had two friends of mine who went with me to see the Bond series through License to Kill.
I need to know who's talking smack about Dalton though. Even though I started with Moore, I prefer Dalton as Bond.
|
|
|
Thanks
Apr 14, 2009 20:10:02 GMT -5
Post by tombitd on Apr 14, 2009 20:10:02 GMT -5
I need to know who's talking smack about Dalton though. Even though I started with Moore, I prefer Dalton as Bond. Trust me, John--as you'll find out two Bond segments hence, both Derrick and I have much respect for Timothy Dalton. Hell, I consider Dalton the flat out best Bond of the series.
|
|
Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Thanks
Apr 15, 2009 2:48:10 GMT -5
Post by Dino on Apr 15, 2009 2:48:10 GMT -5
Many people consider Dalton to be the worst Bond and my theory is it's because many of those people grew up with Roger Moore, who was pretty campy as Bond, so it was a drastic change going from Moore to the very hard-edged Dalton.
Personally, Moore is my least favorite Bond. Dalton's not my favorite (gotta go with Connery for that distinction) but I definitely hold him in high regard.
|
|
|
Thanks
Apr 15, 2009 7:09:26 GMT -5
Post by tombitd on Apr 15, 2009 7:09:26 GMT -5
Many people consider Dalton to be the worst Bond and my theory is it's because many of those people grew up with Roger Moore, who was pretty campy as Bond, so it was a drastic change going from Moore to the very hard-edged Dalton. Personally, Moore is my least favorite Bond. Dalton's not my favorite (gotta go with Connery for that distinction) but I definitely hold him in high regard. I think there's also the perception that Dalton almost 'killed' the franchise. It's an entirely false perception based on the large gap between LICENSE TO KILL and GOLDENEYE--'hey, they didn't make Bond films for years after that one, he must've been bad.' That the gap was caused by a rights issue is not common knowledge, so that myth has been allowed to fester. I love Dalton because he was, more than any other, the closest to the Bond that Fleming wrote.
|
|
|
Thanks
Apr 15, 2009 11:05:23 GMT -5
Post by james on Apr 15, 2009 11:05:23 GMT -5
I think there's also the perception that Dalton almost 'killed' the franchise. It's an entirely false perception based on the large gap between LICENSE TO KILL and GOLDENEYE--'hey, they didn't make Bond films for years after that one, he must've been bad.' That the gap was caused by a rights issue is not common knowledge, so that myth has been allowed to fester. I think Licence to Kill had a couple of other problems that didn't help it's reputation. It was released in the summer of 1989, which meant it had to compete at the box office with Batman, Ghostbusters II, one of the Lethal Weapon films (III, I think?) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. (and, uh, also UHF, which I have to admit I've actually watched more often than any of those others). United Artists probably could have scheduled a better release date. Also, the movie (which I like but don't love) attempts to retain the traditional trappings of a Bond film with a new kind of story. So you have a revenge story with awkward "Bond" scenes shoehorned in (Q turning up in South America in disguise, with his wacky gadgets, for example - the story's interesting enough it doesn't need the crazy inventions, but someone decided they had to be in the movie). And, yes, Dalton was a great Bond.
|
|
|
Thanks
Apr 15, 2009 11:18:25 GMT -5
Post by tombitd on Apr 15, 2009 11:18:25 GMT -5
I think Licence to Kill had a couple of other problems that didn't help it's reputation. It was released in the summer of 1989, which meant it had to compete at the box office with Batman, Ghostbusters II, one of the Lethal Weapon films (III, I think?) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. (and, uh, also UHF, which I have to admit I've actually watched more often than any of those others). United Artists probably could have scheduled a better release date. Yeah, there was the fact that it got caught in The Biggest Summer ever, but Eon did attempt to forge on...until they found themselves caught in a battle for the movie rights to the character....and when those rights were straightened out, Dalton was offered the chance to be in what would become Goldeneye, but he felt that he had become too old for the role. I don't care much for License itself--its biggest sin is that it's, well, generic; there's nothing in the story itself that couldn't have been handled by any of a dozen other action stars (although oddly enough, the fact that Bond is taking on drug smugglers is very much in keeping with the Dalton Bond's remit of being close to the Bond of the books--drug smugglers was just the thing the literary Bond took on in the 50's and 60's). There's also the matter of Carrie Lowell having no chemistry with Dalton whereas Taliso Soto--awful actress thought she is--has tons of it, which makes Bond's choice to stay with Lowell, well, head-scratching. And we won't start on some of the silliest stunts in the series (just because you can make a truck drive on two wheels doesn't mean you should, especially if you're going to break my suspension of disbelief in doing it). But it does have some good nuggets in amongst the dross--the basic idea of how Sanchez smuggles his wares into the States is great, Soto is wicked hot, there's a refreshing return to the low-level sadism and hardcore attitude that had been missing since For Your Eyes Only (and will be gone from the series until Craig takes over). It's just not a really good Bond film overall. Damn skippy. Don't mess with TD (I already have to go kick the Whedon Writing Trust for all the Dalton bashing they did in Buffy Season Six).
|
|