The Living Daylights Tribute thread

[Count_Lippe]

[video][/video]

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

My favourite Bond film, and one that has almost everything I want from a Bond film and in the right quantities. I say 'almost' because Licence To Kill has the better villain(s).

[Kiwichris]

One of the more important Bond movies. Successfully continuing the character after a dozen long light hearted Moore years, establishing a new era of a serious Bond, straight from Fleming's pen to your eyeballs. A moderate success at the time but is getting ever more popular in hindsight. Dalton truly was ahead of his time, and most fans are only just catching up to him.

In the context of the time I'm amazed this film was made like this. In stark contrast to Moore, Dalton was dark and merciless he only has one Bond girl due to 1987 being around the height of STD scares so they took away Bond's trademark "super penis" as a result. It involved helping Afghan militants, as shaky an issue than as now and not only disobeys his orders constantly but says he would welcome being fired. Truly the film that does the literary character of Bond the most justice.

[Goldeneye]

It is to my mind one of the best Dalton movies I also enjoy License to Kill for giving Desmond Llewelyn a more important role.

[bjmdds]

He only did 2 though.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

One of the more important Bond movies. Successfully continuing the character after a dozen long light hearted Moore years, establishing a new era of a serious Bond, straight from Fleming's pen to your eyeballs. A moderate success at the time but is getting ever more popular in hindsight. Dalton truly was ahead of his time, and most fans are only just catching up to him.

In the context of the time I'm amazed this film was made like this. In stark contrast to Moore, Dalton was dark and merciless he only has one Bond girl due to 1987 being around the height of STD scares so they took away Bond's trademark "super penis" as a result. It involved helping Afghan militants, as shaky an issue than as now and not only disobeys his orders constantly but says he would welcome being fired. Truly the film that does the literary character of Bond the most justice.

And unlike the modern Bond, Dalton's experienced agent had the experience to change his objectives in the field. Had he followed M's orders, at the very least he would have killed Kara, an innocent.

[John P. Drake]

One of the more important Bond movies. Successfully continuing the character after a dozen long light hearted Moore years, establishing a new era of a serious Bond, straight from Fleming's pen to your eyeballs. A moderate success at the time but is getting ever more popular in hindsight. Dalton truly was ahead of his time, and most fans are only just catching up to him.

In the context of the time I'm amazed this film was made like this. In stark contrast to Moore, Dalton was dark and merciless he only has one Bond girl due to 1987 being around the height of STD scares so they took away Bond's trademark "super penis" as a result. It involved helping Afghan militants, as shaky an issue than as now and not only disobeys his orders constantly but says he would welcome being fired. Truly the film that does the literary character of Bond the most justice.

And unlike the modern Bond, Dalton's experienced agent had the experience to change his objectives in the field. Had he followed M's orders, at the very least he would have killed Kara, an innocent.

Indeed. He was a professional. He knew the girl didn't know the girl "didn't know one end of her rifle from the other". He noticed she wasn't an assassin at all, so there you go, he did what was right.

One thing I don't understand is that how CR-egg compares himself to Dalton when they exactly have nothing in common? Sure, Dalton was edgy, and CR-egg THINKS he's playing edgy while he's not. Behaving like a thug doesn't make you edgy, his fans should learn that as well. Dalton, on the other hand, was playing it rough and tough while being a real professional, an agent who noticed something was fishy in the case, and hunted for more intelligence on his own.

[Omega]

TLD was cool and fun while showing Bond more serious it is a hard mix to master and they were afraid to try it again because they took on the biggest movies of the 1980s in the summer blockbuster schedule and lost. If anything was wrong with Dalton movies it wasn't him, it was EON.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Kiwichris]

I've always had this thought that half of those disputes EON had with it's superiors was because of the new direction Dalton was taking the franchise in. From all I've read on it, it sounds like Cubby Broccoli was loyal to Dalton and had every intention of continuing on with him, whilst the studios, looking at Bond as a cash cow, wanted to hire Brosnan ASAP to milk his popularity from Remington Steele. Due to his health and not wanting to destroy the franchise Broccoli probably backed down so another film could be made, and to save face they let Dalton say he jumped rather than he was pushed.

Such a waste of time as in those 6 years of legal battles there was easily enough time for two more Dalton films in 1991 and 1993 before Brosnan taking over in 1995 as he ultimately did, a solution leaving both sides happy.

[Emilio Largo]

Indeed. He was a professional. He knew the girl "didn't know one end of her rifle from the other." He noticed she wasn't an assassin at all, so there you go, he did what was right.

One thing I don't understand is that how CR-egg compares himself to Dalton when they exactly have nothing in common? Sure, Dalton was edgy, and CR-egg THINKS he's playing edgy while he's not. Behaving like a thug doesn't make you edgy, his fans should learn that as well. Dalton, on the other hand, was playing it rough and tough while being a real professional, an agent who noticed something was fishy in the case, and hunted for more intelligence on his own.

Exactly. However, in the actual short story the female cellist is actually the assassin and Bond still chooses to not kill her. I really wish that the filmmakers had stuck to this story bit in the Dalton film. Timothy Dalton made a great Bond who was darker and edgier, but he still is rather suave and a real charmer with the ladies. 'Tis a pity that he fails to deliver those Bond witticisms with aplomb.

Speaking of Bond's professional/personal code reminds me of the film Goldfinger, when Bond doesn't kill the little old woman gatekeeper (despite the fact that she's spraying a lot of lead at him with her machine gun) with his Aston Martin DB5. Once again, Bond's personal code of ethics shines through even within this humorous episode at Goldfinger's factory.
However, this code goes into the crapper once we get to The World Is Not Enough.

[John P. Drake]

Indeed. He was a professional. He knew the girl "didn't know one end of her rifle from the other." He noticed she wasn't an assassin at all, so there you go, he did what was right.

One thing I don't understand is that how CR-egg compares himself to Dalton when they exactly have nothing in common? Sure, Dalton was edgy, and CR-egg THINKS he's playing edgy while he's not. Behaving like a thug doesn't make you edgy, his fans should learn that as well. Dalton, on the other hand, was playing it rough and tough while being a real professional, an agent who noticed something was fishy in the case, and hunted for more intelligence on his own.

Exactly. However, in the actual short story the female cellist is actually the assassin and Bond still chooses to not kill her. I really wish that the filmmakers had stuck to this story bit in the Dalton film. Timothy Dalton made a great Bond who was darker and edgier, but he still is rather suave and a real charmer with the ladies. 'Tis a pity that he fails to deliver those Bond witticisms with aplomb.

Speaking of Bond's professional/personal code reminds me of the film Goldfinger, when Bond doesn't kill the little old woman gatekeeper (despite the fact that she's spraying a lot of lead at him with her machine gun) with his Aston Martin DB5. Once again, Bond's personal code of ethics shines through even within this humorous episode at Goldfinger's factory.
However, this code goes into the crapper once we get to The World Is Not Enough.

Agreed, Largo. Bond does have a moral code. In the actual short story, he has made a mistake by not killing Trigger, the KGB assassin, because she was a woman. Women can be the most leathal weapons we could ever expect, there is a reason for why some are called la femme fatale. Take Fiona Volpe, for instance. She was a woman, but she was dangerous as hell. She could've killed the self-claimed "competent" Pussy Galore with a simple glare. Then comes Fatima Blush, then Xenia Onatopp, etc etc.

EON did the right thing changing Trigger into Kara Milovy, so Bond's action wouldn't seem to be a mistake. As that would've been very unprofessional. The excuse in the film was "she didn't know one end of her rifle from the other", which gave the case more depth for Bond to investigate. Craig's films on the other hand, especially in Quantum of Solace, he almost pit two countries (the US and the UK) in a war against each other, by pulling off the wrong actions and disobeying M's orders. Felix Leiter was a better agent than he was, imagine that. And Felix, in the novels, was no more than a 'yes man' to Bond. Then, he was the responsible for the death of Special Branch agent, and one of MI6's own, Strawberry Fields. Are these actions he pulled forgivable?

And Pierce Brosnan's The World Is Not Enough, to me, was basically a Daniel Craig movie just with Pierce in it. Sure, it had some good action sequences all thanks to the good old Bruce Feirstein who was brought in the last minute to submit a rewrite. Near Pervert and Robert Waste are the ones who destroyed Bond. And John Logan added more insult into the injury, in fact, took it into a higher level, with pervert-minded elements inserting into the broken vase. Now, compare Craig's "Hyr me or fyr me" line with Dalton's "If M fires me, I'll thank him for it," some say they are the same, while they have nothing in common. Craig's reaction was "I don't give a $H!+ about it," while Dalton felt a little guilt over his disobedience despite knowing it was necessary, and that would've been the nicest thing for M to do. Craig does nothing but ballsing up his entire assignment, each time. Dalton, if there is a plot hole, he does his best to cover it and succeeds in it.

There are loads to tell, but hell, they are endless...

[Emilio Largo]

Agreed, Largo. Bond does have a moral code. [highlight=#ffff00]In the actual short story, he has made a mistake by not killing Trigger, the KGB assassin, because she was a woman[/highlight]. Women can be the most lethal weapons we could ever expect, there is a reason for why some are called la femme fatale. Take Fiona Volpe, for instance. She was a woman, but she was dangerous as hell. [highlight=#ff4040]She could've killed the self-claimed "competent" Pussy Galore with a simple glare[/highlight]. Then comes Fatima Blush, then Xenia Onatopp, etc etc.

[highlight=#ffbf80]EON did the right thing changing Trigger into Kara Milovy, so Bond's action wouldn't seem to be a mistake. As that would've been very unprofessional. The excuse in the film was "she didn't know one end of her rifle from the other", which gave the case more depth for Bond to investigate[/highlight]. Craig's films on the other hand, especially in Quantum of Solace, he almost pit two countries (the US and the UK) in a war against each other, by pulling off the wrong actions and disobeying M's orders. Felix Leiter was a better agent than he was, imagine that. And Felix, in the novels, was no more than a 'yes man' to Bond. Then, he was the responsible for the death of Special Branch agent, and one of MI6's own, Strawberry Fields. Are these actions he pulled forgivable?

[highlight=#ffbf00]And Pierce Brosnan's The World Is Not Enough, to me, was basically a Daniel Craig movie just with Pierce in it[/highlight]. Sure, it had some good action sequences all thanks to the good old Bruce Feirstein who was brought in the last minute to submit a rewrite. Near Pervert and Robert Waste are the ones who destroyed Bond. And John Logan added more insult into the injury, in fact, took it into a higher level, with pervert-minded elements inserting into the broken vase. Now, compare Craig's "Hyr me or fyr me" line with Dalton's "If M fires me, I'll thank him for it," some say they are the same, while they have nothing in common. Craig's reaction was "I don't give a $H!+ about it," while Dalton felt a little guilt over his disobedience despite knowing it was necessary, and that would've been the nicest thing for M to do. Craig does nothing but ballsing up his entire assignment, each time. Dalton, if there is a plot hole, he does his best to cover it and succeeds in it.

There are loads to tell, but hell, they are endless...

Oh dear, John P. Drake! I apologize for not making myself totally clear on Bond's moral code and killing women. What I meant to say was whenever Bond has a clear choice (prior to WINE), he chooses not to kill -- unless he is clearly in mortal danger. [highlight=#ffff00]Now if I recall correctly, in "The Living Daylights" short story Bond quickly decides not to kill 'Trigger' and only severely wounds her arm so that her assassin days are basically over[/highlight]. I don't remember anything suggesting that Bond was going to be disciplined for this or that it would be viewed as a "mistake." I seem to remember that it was a type of moral triumph for Bond when he decided not to kill. I don't have this story readily at hand, so I can't just go and reread it. Please correct me if I've got this all wrong here.

[highlight=#ffbf80]I would have preferred if they had made Kara Milovy an actual assassin that Bond thwarts and then later this contributes to his investigation[/highlight]. Bond eventually encounters Milovy while in then midst of his investigation and some conflict and various complications occur and then later some give and take and ..... wait for it .... some romance ensues (that Bond charm will not be denied!). Or something like that, eh. So basically a serious rewrite of the original film plot to incorporate a more sophisticated and complicated turning of Milovy's character so that she eventually assists Bond and helps thwart the bad guys. Yes! However, this may just be me wanting a whole slew of sap-head sentimentality heaped on to the story. And believe you me, I am a sentimental sap-head.

[highlight=#ffbf00]I hear you on this one, dude! WINE is a real mess on a whole host of fronts and Brosnan definitely is uncomfortable with it.[/highlight] I've only seen WINE once and that's the weekend it premiered here in the States. All I recall is feeling really queasy (besides with the whole rest of the film, eh!) when Bond killed Elektra King. I remember the torture chair, but I don't recall why Bond couldn't have incapacitated her after he escaped from same. Having Bond only kill the "I feel no pain" guy would've been just fine by me for the finale. But I dunno -- I'm tired and I've got to get back to work here. My lunch break is over now.

P. S. -- [highlight=#ff4040]About that .... let me think here for a minute .... ah, no. Please don't diss the Pussy like that, dude![/highlight]

[Kristatos]

Was it really necessary for Bond to kill Naomi in TSWLM (the first time he deliberately killed a woman), though? I mean, she didn't know that his car turned into a submarine, and so would have presumably thought that he had drowned when he failed to surface after a few minutes.

[Emilio Largo]

Was it really necessary for Bond to kill Naomi in TSWLM (the first time he deliberately killed a woman), though? I mean, she didn't know that his car turned into a submarine, and so would have presumably thought that he had drowned when he failed to surface after a few minutes.

But that was the beauty of it, eh!

Actually I had forgotten about this due to me being so stubborn with my "Bond has a moral code and won't needlessly kill a woman if he has a choice" bit. I agree that Bond dispatching Naomi (sweet, beautiful, and luscious Naomi with such fine lines ... and curves BTW ..... now where was I???) was completely gratuitous. This was only done for some cheap, dark laughs -- but I was thinking to myself when I first saw this, "Hey, that's Caroline Munro - the most beautiful woman in 1970s SF and Fantasy films and you can't do that to her!" But I digress ....

In the Bond films, the filmmakers are so inconsistent in this particular area. However, in the Bond novels, I recall that there were only two truly evil women: Rosa Klebb and Irma Bunt. The "Bad Bond Girl" syndrome is a product of the films and -- dammit -- it really throws a monkey wrench into my thesis .... or whatever I've been babbling about here.

[Problem Eliminator]

I'm fully on board with Bond not discriminating on the basis of gender when it comes to killing. But then, I'm not a Fleming purist. While he provided the basis for the character I don't see any reason to keep all of his eccentricities, particularly ones that are more dated (smoking a pack-or three-a day, and some of the attitudes on race come to mind).

TLD is a great Bond film imo. The only thing I really dislike is the scene with the mujahadeen and the Russians at the end. Some unlikely things happen in every Bond film, but the idea of the Russian foreign secretary being happy to meet a mujahadeen commander was one of those moments that make you say "come on!" It'd be like introducing John Kerry to a Taliban commander. I don't he'd react positively.

I haven't watched the end in awhile, but I always felt that the movie could have ended after "I know a good restaurant in Karachi."

Still pretty great. WHile there are similarities to the Craig films (going rogue etc) the difference is that the movie doesn't get too serious and doesn't stop being fun. You should walk out of Bond film with a smile on your face, not depressed.

I know we harp on Craig's aging, but Joe Don Baker looks 15 years older easily in GE than TLD.

[Emilio Largo]

I'm fully on board with Bond not discriminating on the basis of gender when it comes to killing. But then, [highlight=#ffbf80]I'm not a Fleming purist[/highlight].

I kid, I kid.

[Kiwichris]

The only thing I really dislike is the scene with the mujahadeen and the Russians at the end. Some unlikely things happen in every Bond film, but the idea of the Russian foreign secretary being happy to meet a mujahadeen commander was one of those moments that make you say "come on!" It'd be like introducing John Kerry to a Taliban commander. I don't he'd react positively.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Besides the US was actually aiding the Mujahadeen, trying to make the Soviets "bleed" in Afghanistan like the reds did to them in Vietnam.

[Kristatos]

Hindsight is always 20/20. Besides the US was actually aiding the Mujahadeen, trying to make the Soviets "bleed" in Afghanistan like the reds did to them in Vietnam.

It ought to at least give our governments pause for thought before they fund and arm the next batch of "friendly" rebels. But sadly, it won't.

[Problem Eliminator]

It didn't require foresight to realize that the Soviet foreign Secretary wouldn't be delighted to meet a commander for a group theyrr actively fighting and consider terrorists.

[Kiwichris]

I do love that line at the end where Shah says he was late because of trouble at the airport prompting M to say "I can't imagine why" to Gogol.