This was the first Bond movie I liked, maybe because of Dalton & except for the 'cello ride' down the mountain, it wasn't as silly as the previous movies. I wish he had made more. Couldn't stand Brosnan. But my favorite Bond is Craig.

I've always felt that Dalton should have had a longer run. "Licence to Kill" was my favourite of his.

Some pleasantly unorthodox takes on Dalton in this little discussion-- which is a nice change. I've rarely heard anyone say anything good about Dalton's performances as Bond-- to the point where even some diehard Bond fans have said that he was a one-movie Bond, like they are trying to mentally block that he was a multi-movie actor in the Bond franchise (he did two Bond movies, to all those Dalton-haters out there --two!:)).

Though Dalton was by no means my favorite Bond, he was passable in the role, and I've always thought he should've gotten more respect in the role than he did.

@bratface said:

This was the first Bond movie I liked, maybe because of Dalton & except for the 'cello ride' down the mountain, it wasn't as silly as the previous movies. I wish he had made more. Couldn't stand Brosnan. But my favorite Bond is Craig.

"Silly" is a good word for what I call "Bond camp". For such a high stakes world, there's a goofiness to Bond movies that belies this is "just a movie, it's all in fun."

The motif of Bond falling in love, trying to get out, the "we have all the time in the world" thing being so cruelly taken away from him, could make him brooding (and, I suppose, should make him brooding). But then, I always thought Dalton's License to Kill (which I have not watched in full but will soon after I finish TLD) was too brooding and I didn't bother with it. And, while I've seen Craig's installments through, he was too brooding for me, no charm, no elegance... of course, I have not read any of the Bond novels, so, for all those who like Craig the best, it's possible - nay likely - I don't know what "Bond" really is supposed to be; to wit, I like Brosnan! Maybe when I've gotten through Dalton's two and get into Brosnan, I may see it differently, but I'll bet there's good reasons why a) Moore did the highest number of installments and b) Connery came back for NSNA (which I liked lots!), which is to say, can "Bond" be all serious and miserable, or has there got to be an element of whimsy, humor, brevity, shtick...?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

can "Bond" be all serious and miserable, or has there got to be an element of whimsy, humor, brevity, shtick...?

Great question. I think this is the reason why I never gave Timothy Dalton a fair shake. The role of Bond historically paired action with comedy and touches of camp. Dalton's immediate predecessor Roger Moore was probably the best comedian of the lot, as if his tongue was firmly planted in cheek for his whole tenure. I think that dark comedy vibe worked for the same reason I love the early comedy horror flicks like The Lost Boys, Fright Night and Vamp. In general I think the 80s was about breaking the 4th wall and letting the audience in on the joke: sure this is heart pounding action, horror and suspense, but we can still have a little fun.

So with that in mind, Timothy Dalton's era felt like a hard wrench back to serious spy/crime thrillers. Daniel Craig is also very much a serious Bond, but audiences accept him because they didn't necessarily grow up on the campy era of Bond, expecting more of Moore. For that reason, Dalton's era felt like it was missing something to me. The cello scene was the only part I remember, probably because it was the only nod to the original silliness of Bond (him throwing the cello over the gate and catching it on the other side was classic Bond!).

My faves will always be the Connery/Moore years where Bond films didn't take themselves too seriously, and plots were outright fantasy. I understand society's shift away from light hearted fluff into more gritty reality though. You probably couldn't pull off a campy Bond today.

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

can "Bond" be all serious and miserable, or has there got to be an element of whimsy, humor, brevity, shtick...?

Great question. I think this is the reason why I never gave Timothy Dalton a fair shake. The role of Bond historically paired action with comedy and touches of camp. Dalton's immediate predecessor Roger Moore was probably the best comedian of the lot, as if his tongue was firmly planted in cheek for his whole tenure. I think that dark comedy vibe worked for the same reason I love the early comedy horror flicks like The Lost Boys, Fright Night and Vamp. In general I think the 80s was about breaking the 4th wall and letting the audience in on the joke: sure this is heart pounding action, horror and suspense, but we can still have a little fun.

So with that in mind, Timothy Dalton's era felt like a hard wrench back to serious spy/crime thrillers.

This was what I always thought. I'm now finally putting in some work to watch his two for myself and get more informed on his work, the writing, etc. TLD started on all the right beats, with a wild opening sequence that resolves on a boat with a bikini-clad babe whom Bond cannot not take an extra hour out of his busy schedule to...appreciate with the requisite attention, circumstances notwithstanding!

Daniel Craig is also very much a serious Bond, but audiences accept him because they didn't necessarily grow up on the campy era of Bond, expecting more of Moore.

Makes sense, but kinda too bad.

For that reason, Dalton's era felt like it was missing something to me. The cello scene was the only part I remember, probably because it was the only nod to the original silliness of Bond (him throwing the cello over the gate and catching it on the other side was classic Bond!).

Yes! That entire car on the lake sequence was hilarious. His tire gets blown out, so, hey, use it to cut the ice in a perfect circle, then hit a few buttons and, voila, skids and spikes because you just might be driving on a frozen lake and need them! And, I did chuckle with that gate toss and imagined them on set, actually alking about it, and setting up the scene to shoot it because of course!

My faves will always be the Connery/Moore years where Bond films didn't take themselves too seriously, and plots were outright fantasy.

We kind of want to be Connery's or Moore's Bond, but I'd never want to be Craig's Bond, and that just makes his work entirely less fun, for me, anyway.

I understand society's shift away from light hearted fluff into more gritty reality though. You probably couldn't pull off a campy Bond today.

Yep. Referencing M:I again, those plots were so confusing to me I can't differentiate them or tell you what any of them were actually about. But, I am wont to say, if there was humour, it couldn't have been campy.

Also, humour needs nuance, subtelty. Today's mindset is overt, no limits, no tension...from Adam Sandler to Will Farrell to Melissa McCarthy, long after the joke is over, they're still hitting the note till it's flat. Of these three, while I like some of Farrell, some of McCarthy, but hardly anything Sandler does, I generally just don't get their interpretation of "funny". But, I'm kinda rambling now :-)

Will finish up TLD soon and get back on track.

Dalton's Bonds were always near the bottom of my pile, although he has gained a lot of fan traction *lately" as a result of the Daniel Craig lost Bond tone efforts.

However I re-watched both his films recently and have to say I somewhat mellowed to them. TLD especially as it's essentially a Roger Moore film, with Dalton slightly sticking out with his humourless demeanour. I really think they should have left the flying carpet sequence in place as that was pure Moore Bond comedy gold...

Even LTK, which I absolutely loathed at the time for it's cheap spin on a Miami Vice episode, wasn't so bad. Q's appearance out in the field probably holds it together as worth watching but Dalton is way better in this one.

After watching these I subsequently relegated The World Is Not Enough to the bottom of my Bond pile.

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

After watching these I subsequently relegated The World Is Not Enough to the bottom of my Bond pile.

Was it Brosnan or the writing or...??

This convo is interesting to me because I always feel like I don't know enough about the original novels to truly grasp what "Bond" is supposed to be. Some say "Connery forever", some swear by Moore; when Casino Royale came out, people were saying "yes, finally, the real Bond!" I don't know how to, I dunno, calibrate HOW to approach Bond, so I end up just trying to gauge my feelings as I watch each one, knowing also I'll never "be there" as each was seen originally back in the day, and therefore ever somewhat removed from the entire socio-political milieu in which they were shown. Not to mention the technical aspects - many times, as Im watching, I think "that must have been exciting to watch...in 1967 or 1969"...but it looked almost lame by today's standards.

@rooprect said:

So with that in mind, Timothy Dalton's era felt like a hard wrench back to serious spy/crime thrillers. Daniel Craig is also very much a serious Bond, but audiences accept him because they didn't necessarily grow up on the campy era of Bond, expecting more of Moore. For that reason, Dalton's era felt like it was missing something to me. The cello scene was the only part I remember, probably because it was the only nod to the original silliness of Bond (him throwing the cello over the gate and catching it on the other side was classic Bond!).

Rooprect, damn you and your many cogent points in this discussion (along with DRD and the others). Just when I'm ready to call it a day and pack it in on the Interwebs, your insightfulness compels me to respond:

Good point on Craig: I don't care for him being casted as Bond, but as you hit on, I didn't grow up with him as Bond, and have no desire to see any of his roles as Bond; but also, I just have Bond fatigue (the same with Star Wars. I'm done with it; but, who knows, Never Say Never . . . since we are on the subject of Bond . . . Again ;)).

And my favorite will always be the lighthearted Roger Moore (I know this makes the blood of the Connery crew boil).

You know, posters better than me (a large group) have said it before, but the ratio of quality discourse-to-pabulum on this website as compared to the old IMDB constantly refreshes me. It's like it is 80% quality vs. 20% forgettable, as compared to 70% trash with IMDB. Yes the TMDB user base is infinitely smaller, but I'll take the quality over the quantity.

Now, have a good day;)

And bother me no more with your intelligent discussion.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

After watching these I subsequently relegated The World Is Not Enough to the bottom of my Bond pile.

Was it Brosnan or the writing or...??

This convo is interesting to me because I always feel like I don't know enough about the original novels to truly grasp what "Bond" is supposed to be. Some say "Connery forever", some swear by Moore; when Casino Royale came out, people were saying "yes, finally, the real Bond!" I don't know how to, I dunno, calibrate HOW to approach Bond, so I end up just trying to gauge my feelings as I watch each one, knowing also I'll never "be there" as each was seen originally back in the day, and therefore ever somewhat removed from the entire socio-political milieu in which they were shown. Not to mention the technical aspects - many times, as Im watching, I think "that must have been exciting to watch...in 1967 or 1969"...but it looked almost lame by today's standards.

What can the writers think of that could still surprise the audience who have seen all?

@wonder2wonder said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

After watching these I subsequently relegated The World Is Not Enough to the bottom of my Bond pile.

Was it Brosnan or the writing or...??

This convo is interesting to me because I always feel like I don't know enough about the original novels to truly grasp what "Bond" is supposed to be. Some say "Connery forever", some swear by Moore; when Casino Royale came out, people were saying "yes, finally, the real Bond!" I don't know how to, I dunno, calibrate HOW to approach Bond, so I end up just trying to gauge my feelings as I watch each one, knowing also I'll never "be there" as each was seen originally back in the day, and therefore ever somewhat removed from the entire socio-political milieu in which they were shown. Not to mention the technical aspects - many times, as Im watching, I think "that must have been exciting to watch...in 1967 or 1969"...but it looked almost lame by today's standards.

What can the writers think of that could still surprise the audience who have seen all?

Yep, that is a problem of sorts, isn't it? It's like chefs — menu items get longer, with many more syllables, punctuation, paragraphs and essays, pulling together increasingly non-related ingredients in the exhausting effort to be original, pushing beyond the sublime to wallow in the ridiculous... this is why crews on a Tom Cruise set must hold their breath with each "next level stunt" they create. The motion picture is indeed a visual medium, and tantalizing the eyes is a key driver in making movies.

But, creatives will create. They can't help it, it's what they are, it's what they know, it's what they do, so the supply side remains driven by the human condition. And we the audience want to be awed when they do come up with something we haven't seen before, so the demand side will always be there to absorb the offerings from the supply side.

Of course, stunts aren't the only way to tantalize the eye. Immersive camera angles, sumptuous set design, intriguing style, beauty - there's plenty of room for craft in shooting a movie, knowing it is a visual medium. Striking the right balance is magic.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

This convo is interesting to me because I always feel like I don't know enough about the original novels to truly grasp what "Bond" is supposed to be. Some say "Connery forever", some swear by Moore; when Casino Royale came out, people were saying "yes, finally, the real Bond!" I don't know how to, I dunno, calibrate HOW to approach Bond, so I end up just trying to gauge my feelings as I watch each one, knowing also I'll never "be there" as each was seen originally back in the day, and therefore ever somewhat removed from the entire socio-political milieu in which they were shown. Not to mention the technical aspects - many times, as Im watching, I think "that must have been exciting to watch...in 1967 or 1969"...but it looked almost lame by today's standards.

I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopussy_and_The_Living_Daylights a very long time ago and was not at all impressed by the style. That said, it may have been something that I just wasn't in the right frame of mind for - though I have a memory of wondering if Fleming got a bonus every time he typed "Bond". It could also have been that I was expecting something more like the movies (probably Moore at the time).

I find many shows that I loved back in the 70s/80s are painful to watch today. Even the ones that seemed action-packed are pretty staid. I bought the complete "Airwolf" set recently (the real show, not including the awful recast thing) and haven't started in on it because I'm scared that it won't live up to my memories of watching in on a Saturday morning and then firing up a helicopter sim/action game that I'd set up a two joystick control system for on my Spectrum. I suspect the pilot will be OK (here in the UK it was released as a movie with dubbed-in swearing) as it was surprisingly hard-edged. Not so sure about later eps.

@northcoast said:

You know, posters better than me (a large group) have said it before, but the ratio of quality discourse-to-pabulum on this website as compared to the old IMDB constantly refreshes me. It's like it is 80% quality vs. 20% forgettable, as compared to 70% trash with IMDB. Yes the TMDB user base is infinitely smaller, but I'll take the quality over the quantity.

Now, have a good day;)

And bother me no more with your intelligent discussion.

Depends where you venture. I've given up on some areas where diverging from the allowed way of thinking will cause the natives to grab their pitchforks.

@M.LeMarchand said:

Depends where you venture. I've given up on some areas where diverging from the allowed way of thinking will cause the natives to grab their pitchforks.

Yes, LeMarchand, sadly I agree with you.

TMDB in particular is very touchy when it comes to bringing politics into a movie discussion-- which is understandable given the website's presumably very limited moderation capabilities --but it can make a straightforward discussion of cinema very difficult, as, as others have said, "everything is politics". I use politics as just one example; there are others.

Without getting too far off topic-- and I'll not belabor my responses to this topic since this is not the proper board --I think you will find the action sequences of Airwolf still hold up-- gotta love those practical effects and the real (as opposed to CGI) explosions. And the tragic scenes in the pilot movie where Stringfellow finds his lover abandoned in the desert, as he holds her dying, sunburned body in his hands. Still a tear-jerker. But the rest of the series? Watching it all these years later, the acting is cheesy as heck, and just beyond belief. I remember one episode String goes to East Germany to rescue his boss, lands Airwolf-- unnoticed --practically right next to the Stasi HQ, and then stands impossibly unobtrusively next to a main entryway in a cool leather jacket, until he finally manages to get in. In the 1980s as a young teenager I believed it; today, not so much! :)

@northcoast said:

TMDB in particular is very touchy when it comes to bringing politics into a movie discussion-- which is understandable given the website's presumably very limited moderation capabilities --but it can make a straightforward discussion of cinema very difficult, as, as others have said, "everything is politics". I use politics as just one example; there are others.

The areas I avoid are more because if you dare to actually like the show, you are evil and WRONG. People on YouTube can prove it. Politics does factor in tangentially because the shows are WOKE and support COMMUNISM. Though I've never seen anything as bad here as on, say, the Game of Thrones board at IMDb where people were hero-worshipping rapists. There does seem to have been a bit more moderation here recently, as I have noticed some of the people I had put on/was about to put on ignore have disappeared.

Back to Bond: I'd go Connery, Dalton, Craig, Moore, Brosnan. Not included Lazenby as it's hard to judge from the one movie that was quite different to its predecessors. Moore started out OK, but went too comedic for me and I struggle to remember much about the Brosnan movies apart from them gifting us Famke Janssen.