"The Living Daylights" Is...Awesome.

[Fried Gold]

I just watched TLD this morning and it is brilliant. Dalton was geat and although I dont think LTK is as good, I wish he had done GE.

He was going to do The Property of a Lady in 1991, but legal wrangling over Bond delayed that and Goldeneye was made instead.

 

[rogue trooper]

I think TLDL is one of the best Bond films!! Timothy Dalton, Sean Connery, and Daniel Craig are my favorite 007's!!!

 

[Batman Beyond]

Daniel Craig is the James Bond of a post 9/11 world. There are and will be distinct differences between his portrayal and the portrayal of the other actors who came before him.There was a detached sense of danger in the previous films, through no fault of their own, they were simply a product of their time. Much like CR is a product of its time.

Dalton and Brosnan dealt with Bond's cold bloodedness in a sophisticated manner, because they were playing a more mature, even tempered Bond. Hence Brosnan's line in TWINE, "I never miss." He was alluding to the fact that he's been down this cold, dark road before. Like Dalton, when confronting Pushkin, who pleads "you are a professional, you do not kill without reason." We can see throughout the past films that Bond was able to even out his cold bloodedness, murderous insensitivity and loyalty to her Majesty with intelligence, "humanity" and own self assurance.

It will be interesting to see how Craig deals with the evolution of his Bond. Can he segway the Bond of CR into a more sophisticated, calculating Bond we have seen before while keeping the absolute brutish physicality he has brought to the role.

Absolutely what I was thinking. Thats why I say Dalton/Brosnan play the same Bond. For me, Brosnan's work seems like a reasonable extension to what Dalton did as Bond.

Craig is his own Bond, and with his own history for a change. Lets see how he works it out.

 

[mister Lennon]

I loved this movie. I think that Tim Dalton was a great bond, probably the closest one to the original novels. And this movie is very good and very spectacular. I also liked licence to kill, but less than this one.

And i think that brosnan and dalton are very close in their style of bond. But i think that maybe dalton is more a bond in his own, mehanwhile brosnan taken more things from connery and moore's bonds.

 

[Cаrter]

I got the Volume One of the Ultimate Edition DVDs and was pleasantly surprised with how good this movie was. I was expecting crap and got a pretty decent Bond flick.

It's too bad Dalton only did 2 films.

 

[Eggyman]

I really liked the Dalton films, but I do think they would have been better either side of the '80s.

 

[Rizor]

Yep. I watched this from the UE set for the first time last week actually. great movie. In my ranking of the films, I've got it as no. 7. I really liked Dalton's portrayal of Bond and it's a shame he didn't do more after Licence to Kill.

 

[Dr Vigon Chaos]

TLD is one of my fav Bond films . My only pick was the amount of scenes Whitaker had. I mean the writers are to blame really for not giving this nearly classic villainous character more scenes or better dialogue.

Joe Don Baker did all he could given the time he got so maybe if Koskov had less scenes then the story could have been better for Whitaker's character.

He had all the makings of a classic badguy once learned of his background report and I'd bravely say he in real life would be considered a real threat unlike say past cartoonish goons like Stromberg.

If I ever met TLD Director John Glen my only question to him would be to ask if the writers left out some unused Whitaker scenes or did they plan to use him more?

I always wished he popped up during the opium deal scene to supervise Koskov properly maybe in one of those battletanks or something.

The guy is crazy on warfare so maybe small changes could improved his character.

 

[Furious Styles]

I'm willing to rank TLD Top 5 of all time, along GF, GE, CR and TSWLM. I do believe it is one of the quintessential Bond films.

 

[The Villain]

TLD is one of my fav Bond films . My only pick was the amount of scenes Whitaker had. I mean the writers are to blame really for not giving this nearly classic villainous character more scenes or better dialogue.

Joe Don Baker did all he could given the time he got so maybe if Koskov had less scenes then the story could have been better for Whitaker's character.

He had all the makings of a classic badguy once learned of his background report and I'd bravely say he in real life would be considered a real threat unlike say past cartoonish goons like Stromberg.

If I ever met TLD Director John Glen my only question to him would be to ask if the writers left out some unused Whitaker scenes or did they plan to use him more?

I always wished he popped up during the opium deal scene to supervise Koskov properly maybe in one of those battletanks or something.

The guy is crazy on warfare so maybe small changes could improved his character.

I also would have liked a few more scenes for Whitaker. He was meant to be the main badguy but sadly got overshadowed by Koskov.

I found Koskov too weak to be able to match up or even order around Necros.

Nothing against Koskov but Necros might have been more sure about the mission if Whitaker made a surprise appearance as you said in a battlewagon etc.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

If The Living Daylights had better villains, I would rate it higher. They come across as clowns and losers most of the time.

 

[The Chairman]

If The Living Daylights had better villains, I would rate it higher. They come across as clowns and losers most of the time.

They were better than Sanchez.

 

[Mr.E.Nygma]

^^I think so Anthony. Sanchez was perhaps cruel and a good villain, but not as original as the TLD ones. Necros, the big thug acting discreetly and being informed well (Dario equivalent let's say). Whitaker, the suposed main bad guy, military fanatic, even bad guys can have a weakness in their passions you know. And of course Koskov that many people find weak. I think not, because a funny and friendly behavior like his gets him out of any suspects list for the Smiert Spionom plan. That's brilliant from him. He's acting evil incognito, until Bind finds out of course.
They're humans, not some cold world dominators that are evil and want to show their evilness...For God's sake keep that in mind

 

[chamber-music]

I liked the Aha Theme song

 

[The Villain]

I liked the Aha Theme song

If you like A-ha then you should listen to live version of The Living Daylights on You Tube.

It was sung live 2001 at IM Park so you should find it easy to play.

Hope you like it when you find it.

 

[Mr Jide]

I'm willing to rank TLD Top 5 of all time, along GF, GE, CR and TSWLM. I do believe it is one of the quintessential Bond films.

Agreed.

 

[Furious Styles]

They were better than Sanchez.

Blasphemy!

Sanchez avec Iguana > Rest of known universe

 

[Catman]

No, he attacks Bond with military souvenirs and memorobilia.

It was still a horrible scene!

Anyway, you're saying that makes it worse than the entire two hours of misery that is Die Another Day?

Die Another Day had a good beginning. Everything with Bond as a prisoner and him at the hospital or whatever was good. It was afterwards when the movie turned into crap.

The Living Daylights had a good pre-title and some good moments, but for the most part it sucked.

Nobody said anything about hating it, I simply said it was ridiculous, and it is, and that's why Austin Powers spoofs it.

If you think about it most Bond films are ridiculous. People just like to pick on YOLT because Austin Powers spoofed it.

Without THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, GOLDENEYE would never have been made the way it was. GOLDENEYE is essentially the third Dalton film, just with a little Roger Moore thrown in.

Not really! You have to remember that GoldenEye, released in 1995, was the first Bond film since 1989. They didn't make any Bond films for a while because of some legal issues. So, when GoldenEye was made the mentality of the filmmakers was, "hey, Bond is back, so lets make it great."

Also, had GoldenEye been released in 1991 as originally intended with Dalton in the role I can guarantee that it would have been a different film. For starters John Glenn would have directed. I read an interview with him and he said that his GoldenEye would have been different from Martin Campbell's interpretation. Secondly, no female M would have been included. And, James Bond would probably be the same guy we got in License to Kill chasing drug dealers in Latin America. Pierce Brosnan took Bond back to its Sean Connery roots. Something Dalton would not have done.

GoldenEye was written for Monsieur Dalton. The stuff on the beach - "It's what keeps me alive," "No, it's what keeps you alone" - is pure Dalton.

That line has NOTHING to do with Dalton. The reason we have that scene in the film is because the filmmakers wanted to point out that this is James Bond in 1995. It's like in `87 when Living Daylights was released. The reason we didn't have James Bond having sex with a bunch of women was because of the AIDS scare.

Although LTK garners very distinct reactions within the Bond fan community, LTK has been given a second look since Craig's performance and I think people should be willing to re-examine the parameters through which they view Bond.

Craig and Dalton are similar but different at the same time. Let's face it, man, James Bond is male fantasy. If every boy wants to be Superman then every man wants to be James Bond. And, thats how you're supposed to approach the character. What Craig does is acknowledge that Bond is male fantasy but just ground him in reality. What Dalton did was try to make Bond as realistic as possible. He just never saw Bond as male fantasy. And, that was his mistake. If you're an actor you can be serious as Bond but you also need to have fun with it. Thats what Craig is doing. Dalton was just being too serious. The guy just didn't get it.

How bad was the marketing?

People blame the marketing but the film underperformed because American audiences wanted to watch a James Bond movie not a Lethal Weapon/Die Hard wannabe. LTK was trying to cash in on the recent success of films at the time. Think about it. Why else would they change Felix from a CIA agent to a DEA agent? The film could have had the same story but just keep Felix as CIA and have the villain be a terrorist or something. Instead we get a cliche' `80s drug dealer.

 

[Catman]

^ The above is from another thread.

the first true attempt at a completely serious Bond film in quite some time

For Your Eyes Only was released 6 years earlier.

 

[Fried Gold]

Also, had GoldenEye been released in 1991 as originally intended with Dalton in the role I can guarantee that it would have been a different film.

 

[Catman]

okay.

 

[Agentsands77]

Also, had GoldenEye been released in 1991 as originally intended with Dalton in the role I can guarantee that it would have been a different film.

You misunderstand this history of this all.

A very different BOND 17 was planned for 1991, dealing with a story about a microchip producer and Hong Kong and was very outlandish and different to the first two Dalton entries. However, legal trouble got in the way. It stalled.

When Bond finally had another window in 93-94, Dalton was still attached to the role, and Michael France's first draft of GOLDENEYE was written for him. Michael France's draft of GOLDENEYE, while different from the final product, is fairly similar in tone to the finished film. However, after the draft had been written, MGM put its foot down and said there was no way another Dalton film would be produced.

Pierce Brosnan took Bond back to its Sean Connery roots. Something Dalton would not have done.

No, Pierce Brosnan took Dalton's Bond and added a Moore-style edge. There's very little "Connery-esque" about his performance, characterization, or dialogue.

What Craig does is acknowledge that Bond is male fantasy but just ground him in reality. What Dalton did was try to make Bond as realistic as possible. He just never saw Bond as male fantasy. And, that was his mistake. If you're an actor you can be serious as Bond but you also need to have fun with it. Thats what Craig is doing. Dalton was just being too serious. The guy just didn't get it.

I agree with this, actually, as far as why Craig has succeeded with audiences where Dalton failed. I've said before that Craig has everything Dalton has, and a lot more.

But in the end, Dalton qualities as an actor hold him up for me. He may not be the most charismatic actor, but his performance in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS quite well-done, and in moments, he does manage to be quite cool (the interrogation of Pushkin, for one).

Instead we get a cliche' `80s drug dealer.

Thanks to Davi, though, Sanchez is one of the best villains in the franchise.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

If you think about it most Bond films are ridiculous. People just like to pick on YOLT because Austin Powers spoofed it.

Again, no-one is picking on YOLT! I am merely saying it's ridiculous (I'm a big fan of ridiculous). And whilst most Bond films are ridiculous to some extent, YOLT is certainly far more over-the-top than most Bond movies, which is why Austin Powers is based on it.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Thanks to Davi, though, Sanchez is one of the best villains in the franchise.

Sanchez is far better than merely a drug dealer. He is a villain who actually likes Bond and is upset that he betrayed him.

 

[Catman]

However, after the draft had been written, MGM put its foot down and said there was no way another Dalton film would be produced.

I recall Dalton saying that he quit. Then again, George Lazenby says the same thing.

No, Pierce Brosnan took Dalton's Bond and added a Moore-style edge. There's very little "Connery-esque" about his performance, characterization, or dialogue.

I can't believe you're saying Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore are the same s--t. Roger Moore was the guy who snowboarded to Beach Boys music.

Thanks to Davi, though, Sanchez is one of the best villains in the franchise.

Dude, there's 21 official Bond films and I can name 15 villians (henchmen included) who are better than Sanchez.

1. Dr. No
2. Blofeld
3. Rosa Kleb (henchwoman)
4. Goldfinger
5. Oddjob (henchmen)
6. Emilio Largo
7. Mr. Big
8. Scaramanga
9. The midget from Fantasy Island (henchmidget)
10. Stromberg (as lame as he was)
11. Jaws (henchmen)
12. Aris Kristatos
13. Max Zorin
14. 006
15. Le Chiffre

EDIT:

Oh, and I forgot Red Grant, Professor Dent, Mr. Wint and Mr. Kid, Tee Hee, Baron Samedi, May Day, Ourumov, and Xenia Onatopp.

So, there's atleast 24 bad people better than Sanchez