You know...the Dalton films were horribly underrated. The Living Daylights is one of my favorite post-Connery Bond films, and Licence To Kill is tasty just for really running with it's gritty, Fleming-esque violence. Dalton deserved a third movie, and it's a shame it never happened.
Dalton didn't "kill" the franchise so much as the SIX-YEAR GAP between movies coupled with the end of the Cold War did. I hope that MGM can iron out their problems so we can get a third Craig movie out for the fiftieth anniversary(!) of the Bond franchise in 2012.
Originally Posted by Brisby
You know...the Dalton films were horribly underrated. The Living Daylights is one of my favorite post-Connery Bond films, and Licence To Kill is tasty just for really running with it's gritty, Fleming-esque violence. Dalton deserved a third movie, and it's a shame it never happened.
I agree that Daylights is a great one, but Licence (which I watched recently on BD) plays like a typical 80s revenge flick, the likes of which could have starred Jean-Claude Van Damme or Steven Seagal. It's really a weak entry in the series. It also didn't help that it came out mid-summer 1989, after Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Star Trek V, Ghostbusters II, Batman, Lethal Weapon 2, etc. It was a big year for summer movies, most of which were sequels. There was no room in that summer for a weak movie (See: Star Trek V's box office), and the juggernaut that was Batman made it even harder to get noticed.
That wasn't true in the 1980s. People who have that impression today are under a misunderstanding. Many fans and critics credited Dalton with restoring credibility to the series. In interviews, he impressed everyone with his knowledge of Fleming and his insights into the character. After his first film The Living Daylights (1987) came out, Dalton was praised for doing his own action scenes and for restoring a dramatic edge to James Bond. Praise for Dalton was unanimous, and audience response to him was overwhelmingly positive. Behind the scenes, that was not the case with director John Glen. After the problematic A View to a Kill (1985), MGM did not want John Glen to direct the next installment and first Dalton film, but they acquiesced to Eon. Later Glen was roundly criticized for the general sloppiness and inattentiveness of Licence to Kill. When the Bond series was rebooted in 1995, MGM told Eon that they would not entertain any association that included Glen as a director. So Eon finally dropped Glen after encouraging him to mis-direct a decade of Bond films.
Also, A View To A Kill was widely (and correctly IMO) criticized for new lows in the series, and for making it into something of a parody of its former self. Daylights reversed that trend and then some. Dalton was considered the critical and dramatic savior of the series, although he did lack some of the name recognition and appeal of Roger Moore.
True, and then Glen steered Licence to Kill toward the same lows all over again. The buddy-buddy team of Michael G. Wilson and John Glen was catastrophic to the Bond series. Wilson would rewrite Richard Maibaum's spirited and carefully crafted scripts instead of just leaving them alone, and then Glen would pound them to death. Still, there was enough action and drama to keep the series afloat even though people were losing respect for it.
I bought My Word Is My Bond but I know I'll never get around to reading it. Celebrity bios are heavy sledding. I'm quite a fan of Roger Moore, however. Not many actors are as good-natured and charismatic as Moore. He is a fine consummate actor in The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970), Gold (1974), ffolkes (1976), Shout at the Devil (1976) and in odd moments of his Bond films when he is given something to work with. I read his first book, Roger Moore's James Bond Diary, written on the set of his first outing Live and Let Die (1973). He realizes early on that all his expectations for playing Bond were not realistic under the circumstances. Off the screen, by all reports his leadership of Unicef has been dedicated, sincere, selfless, admirable, and enormously beneficial to the organization. Roger Moore feeds the poor. That's a James Bond in real life.
Dalton didn't kill the franchise, he rescued it. I wish Dalton would write a reminiscence of his ordeal on the set of Licence to Kill. He had signed on to do three films, but he was never asked to come back for a third. Although he was popular with audiences, with the fans, with the cast and crew, and with MGM, the producers understood that James Bond is a star regardless of who plays him. I'd like to know how that contract was resolved. Did they have to pay Dalton anyway for the third film he didn't make? Maintaining professional silence is a clause in every Bond contract, and so far, it's worked. Moore seems to be keeping his professional silence over his disappointments, and Dalton is simply not talking. If and when an objective behind-the-scenes history is written, one that is not dependent on permission from the producers, it won't reflect on them favorably.Originally Posted by Brisby
You know...the Dalton films were horribly underrated. The Living Daylights is one of my favorite post-Connery Bond films, and Licence To Kill is tasty just for really running with it's gritty, Fleming-esque violence. Dalton deserved a third movie, and it's a shame it never happened.
I've never really believed in the 'too many cooks in the kitchen' theory in these situations. I can even imagine what probably happens with the Bond scripts at this point. Wade and Purvis (I think those are their names, close enough) scribble together some basic action plot. Then they get someone to come in and give it some "drama" or "character," and punch up the dialogue. And then they might feel they need some more work but by this time the last writer could very well have moved on and is no longer available to continue working on it, so they've got to bring in someone else. (because they know damn well Wade and Purvis can't do it!!!!)
