The Living Daylights was as close to a perfect Connery movie as I think we will ever get. I'm still so sad that LTK didn't have a Barry score, that would have elevated it to the same level IMHO. 8-)
The script for Living Daylights was a mess. Too many villains, confusing plot, 2nd half of the film is disconnected from 1st half.
I must have seen a different Living Daylights than you did. ) -{
Too Many Villains: Koskov and Whitaker are both considered main villains. Much like Octopussy had Kamal and Orlov.
Confusing Plot: The plot revolves around Koskov defecting to the west, but as a trick to lure Bond into killing Pushkin, who is being set up as a killer of British spies. Meanwhile, they are involved in a diamond smuggling operation. Whitaker is an arms dealer who is selling weapons to the Russians who are invading Afghanistan. What are Koskov and Whitaker scheming? I honestly don't remember. Again, fairly similar to Octopussy in the sense of being overly complex.
Disconnected: The first half is cold-war Bratislava and the 2nd half is war ravaged Afghanistan. I feel like I'm watching two completely different films.
Don't get me wrong, I really like TLD. I just don't buy the argument that the early 80's scripts would be somehow "better" with Dalton. TLD seems a typical John Glen 80's Bond film from the same mold as FYEO, OP, and AVTAK.
Glen fixed everything "wrong" with MR by making FYEO more realistic, and fixed everything wrong with FYEO by making OP more colorful, and fixed everything wrong with OP by making AVTAK more serious, and fixed everything wrong with AVTAK by having a younger Bond in TLD.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Glen fixed everything "wrong" with MR by making FYEO more realistic, and fixed everything wrong with FYEO by making OP more colorful, and fixed everything wrong with OP by making AVTAK more serious, and fixed everything wrong with AVTAK by having a younger Bond in TLD.
I personally would love to have seen a FYEO with Dalton. I think it would've been too much of a step at the time though, going from mega-blockbuster to new formula plus new actor would have been a big risk, a la OMHSS. The producers probably still felt a bit burned from that experience.
I still would have loved to seen a Dalton Goldeneye/whatever his 3rd film might have been, even more intriguing than Warhead.
I'll add fuel to the fire or some diplomacy re: Tim Dalton who I am very fond of and feel was taken out/opted out way too early.
1) There's a myth that Dalton wasn't box office and ticket sales were weak, which is SPECTRE baloney w'horseradish.
Living Daylights gross worldwide--191 million + 156 million for the sometimes maligned, misunderstood License to Kill.
That's 347 million total gross global. He more than held his own for 2 films against Roger M's grosses, bettered them in some cases.
License did poorly in the U.S. but kicked SMERSH heinie overseas. Why not? Bond is a man of the world anyway, America only a place he comes to do business once in a while. License also competed vs. Batman, Indy Jones w/Connery as Indy's dad, Lethal Weapon. It was a monster opening weekend that eventually led to altered movie release patterns. Decades later, studios carefully avoid each other, when they're launching a blockbuster to avoid this direct head to head clash if possible.
2) Dalton was a breath of fresh air--well trained, experienced, in blockbusters esp. when young--Lion in Winter, Mary Queen of Scots, held his own with Hepburn and Redgrave on screen, could handle pressure, etc. He dug into the books and found darker depths that Moore missed--under Roger M, the approach totally shifted and became more lightweight charming humorous to suit his talents. With Dalton it was the Fleming character come to life, a dark, cynical, grim man who sometimes disliked what he did but did it anyway because it was in his core, see the mission through. He took a sterotype bordering on self parody and brought it back to hard realism. He actually created a character.
3) A similar Dalton-Craig path-approach to the character is pretty obvious and producers turned them loose as they were younger fitter than Roger M who admitted he was 57 and too old for View to a Kill. Think about how Dalton is totally worked over at end of License. Ripped clothes, beaten to a pulp, but he saw the mission through. Ditto for Craig, who is worked over constantly but always comes back like we want Bond to. You can trace a line from Dalton looking wrecked to Craig looking wrecked and say, these guys totally went to distance, never went through the motions as Roger M did at his weakest points.
4) Dalton could have totally done a great job with For Your Eyes Only--why not have a younger Bond at the grave of his wife? You'd need to recast Moneypenny to compensate for a younger guy. Bonds take place in a strange retro reality where we know how much time has gone by because we in the audience age but he ages very slowly until he is replaced. Dalton's younger man Bond might have lost his wife 2-3 years ago in what would have been a new Dalton reality. His love scenes with the superhot Carole Bouquet would have had a lot more heat, not so much older man Roger with young Frenchy babe. That grave scene is one of my fave Moore moments, by the way. In his time frame reality, it was long ago, far away, when Tracy died. Older actor with a different interpretation.
Just a few thoughts--really did miss getting more out of Dalton. But I will say Pierce took over and made the role his own, he was sometimes a nice compromise--the lighter charm of Moore, the general Bond handsomeness, with a tougher Dalton-Connery approach and he too was run through the gauntlet, physically and mentally, to a greater degree than Roger M.
Felix the Leitercat, you and I see this the same way. I like your bag of tricks! -{
Hello Chrisisall---Bag of tricks?? I like that old classic cartoon Felix the Cat. With the CIA it's more like a big Costco store of intell-spy gear. Or in 007 movies, it's as if Felix Leiter drives in the big ice cream truck to Bond's neighborhood and gives him access to all the goodies.
Always have defended Dalton on many grounds over the years--at the time he was a bit polarizing. Universal agreement he was darker, more dangerous, serious than Moore and that was refreshing. But some found him too brooding, wanted him to lighten up because they maybe were conditioned by Roger M. I think Dalton was onto something and would have made a great 3rd film, capitalizing on the foundation he established, but it was not to be.
nice try but most of what you say - has been previously mentioned.
I am aware, that some people on this board find Dalton cool. Together with some others, my take is that he's a wimpy not cool guy who always tries to come over gritty and tough but fails.
Different strokes, I guess.
As for the box office - yes his films made a good profit compared with the cost. But they failed to carry on the franchises success or put it to another level - just like Brosnan or particularly Craigs movies did:
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
you should read and understand my posts , I never said something else. Feel free to quote me.
The gross profit was much less on the Dalton movies than on any other actor and his movies are among the 3 lowest grossing movies of the franchise, so they stank at the bo. {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Hello Bondtoys, well, we meet at last for a statistics sword fight--Errol Flynn vs Basil Rathbone--I'll let you pick who's who. Those are wildly inflated numbers on your table compared to ones I've read. Here's one I think is more accurate:
Yours must have some kind of hyper-inflation index multiplier, but Dalton actually maintained the franchise quite well with a gross about 4.5 times the cost (as you concede) --Moore and good old George Lazenby are the only Bonds to not achieve a 100 million level gross for Man w/Golden Gun and OHMSS. And Dalton bettered Moore's View to a Kill numbers, so he certainly came out of the gate, stepped into the role and moved the box office effectively.
There's also the undeniable factor that today's mall movie complex w/12 to 16 screens will totally inflate Craig and Brosnan numbers. Dalton movies were released when big single screen theaters were still viable but slipping fast. Give Daylights, License or the Connery fab five - No to Live 2x - a chance to open on 3000 to 4000 screens at today's 10-12 dollars tix prices and you will see some enormous numbers. Your chartmasters may have done that in the table you present. Very hard to tell with these numerous tables.
Suffice it to say that Dalton was no flop at the box office and his work appeals to what I will call "the Bond Book Loving, Fleming Worshiping Purists" and/or those who respect the fact that he seized the role and swung it in a dramatically powerful direction--showing us a Bond who fought, bled and was again realistic on the big screen. He's continued w/BBC, animation voiceovers, Hot Fuzz, The Tourist (Depp-Jolie) and that crazy NBC TV, CIA chip is in some low level clerk's brain and Dalton is bad guy in the kid's alternate reality. could go on why bother? He's still talented, versatile and cast-able, didn't allow Bond to deep six his career.
But you don't like him, so oh well. One can argue about the merits of the Olivier Hamlet vs. Mel Gibson's Hamlet--or was Frank Langella better as Dracula than Gary Oldman. I'd give Dalton more respect than many of his critics, but there's no accounting for taste.
his movies are among the 3 lowest grossing movies of the franchise, so they stank at the bo.
See, we're back to this. )
"Stank" would indicate failure.
Replace "stank" with "underperformed compared with the top grossers" and you would be more correct.
Hi, Felix - i'm not challenging your defence of Tim (very robust) but i think you're using figures that don't really hold up. The figures bondtoys is quoting are more typical of meaningful, inflation adjusted takings - for example Thunderball will never show as the highest grossing Bond, but is often regarded as the most watched. As such, the argument is that - however much money was taken - fewer people were watching Dalton than were watching Moore. the audience "did" dip - not necessarily because there was anything wrong with Tim. As i've mentioned before, there seemed to be a big issue with Bond in the 80's.
Much as I love Dalton -{ , I can see Bondtoys point ( must be the tight throusers ) )
Dalton's films did do less well than the other Bonds, after Moore, I think the general
Public couldn't adjust to his harder edged Bond.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Well, FTLC, sorry to disappoint you but there will be no swordfight with me.
You want to think that Dalton was great in the role and his movies grossed outrageously - and most of this has been discussed previously and is simply mythbuilding.
1. Inflation: Your chart is not inflation - adjusted - you can't compare a GBP from 1962 with a GBP from 2014.
2. Myth 1: "Daltons movies where so successfully because their cost/BO ratio was so great":
Well, let's take Broccoli's chair for a moment You have one movie giving you a profit (after all cost) of 116 million (LTK) and another one that gives you 296 million (GE). Which one do you like more?
Or let's take TND which only returned it's cost "only" by the factor of 3:
It gave a profit of 229 million and people try to tell me that the producers prefer LTK because of the better ratio??
3. Growth: Franchises like all companies have to grow! Otherwise taxes will eat them up.
So producers had to stop the decreasing box office numbers due to Dalton's unpolularity. Everything else is sandbox-economy!
3. Myth 2: "LTK grossed so badly because the competition was so strong":
Yes, the competition was strong. But the Batman people never complained about the strong competition that season. Batman grossed 411 million! Same with Indiana Jones (474 million) , Lethal weapon 2( 277 million).
So it seems that LTK was the most unpopular choice for moviegoers when they had it!
You can turn it into every possible direction (and Timboys to that with a Scientologic fanatism) - Dalton was by far the most unpopular Bond for the audience.
And please don't start by comparing "casual audiences" with "serious Bond fans" - we had that already 8-)
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
fewer people were watching Dalton than were watching Moore.
This is in error IMHO. Moore was the 'fun' Bond. Fun or OTT movies do more repeat business than smaller more serious ones do... It's not that fewer people saw Dalton, just that fewer went back for a second or third viewing.
3. Growth: Franchises like all companies have to grow!
Heh heh, I suppose you also believe in Reaganomics, eh?
So, Skyfall made a billion. The next should make 1.5 billion... Bond #30 should make 4.5 billion? Is that it? I mean, how close to a COUNTRY'S GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT can a Bond box office take GET?
Continuous growth is not only not possible, it is often undesirable.
But, like other times, you won't and can't address my point.
I also think Dalton didn't realise or could handle the amount of public
Interest and intrusion that comes with playing Bond. I do remember a
Few uncomplimentary stories about how he was rather cold with some
Fans around Miami during the filming of LTK.
I agree with AOS, some of us like Dalton and some don't.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
I was thinking the same thing!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Too Many Villains: Koskov and Whitaker are both considered main villains. Much like Octopussy had Kamal and Orlov.
Confusing Plot: The plot revolves around Koskov defecting to the west, but as a trick to lure Bond into killing Pushkin, who is being set up as a killer of British spies. Meanwhile, they are involved in a diamond smuggling operation. Whitaker is an arms dealer who is selling weapons to the Russians who are invading Afghanistan. What are Koskov and Whitaker scheming? I honestly don't remember. Again, fairly similar to Octopussy in the sense of being overly complex.
Disconnected: The first half is cold-war Bratislava and the 2nd half is war ravaged Afghanistan. I feel like I'm watching two completely different films.
Don't get me wrong, I really like TLD. I just don't buy the argument that the early 80's scripts would be somehow "better" with Dalton. TLD seems a typical John Glen 80's Bond film from the same mold as FYEO, OP, and AVTAK.
Glen fixed everything "wrong" with MR by making FYEO more realistic, and fixed everything wrong with FYEO by making OP more colorful, and fixed everything wrong with OP by making AVTAK more serious, and fixed everything wrong with AVTAK by having a younger Bond in TLD.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Appropriate. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
James Bond- Licence To Kill
...and why would you think that???
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I still would have loved to seen a Dalton Goldeneye/whatever his 3rd film might have been, even more intriguing than Warhead.
I'll add fuel to the fire or some diplomacy re: Tim Dalton who I am very fond of and feel was taken out/opted out way too early.
1) There's a myth that Dalton wasn't box office and ticket sales were weak, which is SPECTRE baloney w'horseradish.
Living Daylights gross worldwide--191 million + 156 million for the sometimes maligned, misunderstood License to Kill.
That's 347 million total gross global. He more than held his own for 2 films against Roger M's grosses, bettered them in some cases.
License did poorly in the U.S. but kicked SMERSH heinie overseas. Why not? Bond is a man of the world anyway, America only a place he comes to do business once in a while. License also competed vs. Batman, Indy Jones w/Connery as Indy's dad, Lethal Weapon. It was a monster opening weekend that eventually led to altered movie release patterns. Decades later, studios carefully avoid each other, when they're launching a blockbuster to avoid this direct head to head clash if possible.
2) Dalton was a breath of fresh air--well trained, experienced, in blockbusters esp. when young--Lion in Winter, Mary Queen of Scots, held his own with Hepburn and Redgrave on screen, could handle pressure, etc. He dug into the books and found darker depths that Moore missed--under Roger M, the approach totally shifted and became more lightweight charming humorous to suit his talents. With Dalton it was the Fleming character come to life, a dark, cynical, grim man who sometimes disliked what he did but did it anyway because it was in his core, see the mission through. He took a sterotype bordering on self parody and brought it back to hard realism. He actually created a character.
3) A similar Dalton-Craig path-approach to the character is pretty obvious and producers turned them loose as they were younger fitter than Roger M who admitted he was 57 and too old for View to a Kill. Think about how Dalton is totally worked over at end of License. Ripped clothes, beaten to a pulp, but he saw the mission through. Ditto for Craig, who is worked over constantly but always comes back like we want Bond to. You can trace a line from Dalton looking wrecked to Craig looking wrecked and say, these guys totally went to distance, never went through the motions as Roger M did at his weakest points.
4) Dalton could have totally done a great job with For Your Eyes Only--why not have a younger Bond at the grave of his wife? You'd need to recast Moneypenny to compensate for a younger guy. Bonds take place in a strange retro reality where we know how much time has gone by because we in the audience age but he ages very slowly until he is replaced. Dalton's younger man Bond might have lost his wife 2-3 years ago in what would have been a new Dalton reality. His love scenes with the superhot Carole Bouquet would have had a lot more heat, not so much older man Roger with young Frenchy babe. That grave scene is one of my fave Moore moments, by the way. In his time frame reality, it was long ago, far away, when Tracy died. Older actor with a different interpretation.
Just a few thoughts--really did miss getting more out of Dalton. But I will say Pierce took over and made the role his own, he was sometimes a nice compromise--the lighter charm of Moore, the general Bond handsomeness, with a tougher Dalton-Connery approach and he too was run through the gauntlet, physically and mentally, to a greater degree than Roger M.
Adios Felix the Leiter Cat -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Hello Chrisisall---Bag of tricks?? I like that old classic cartoon Felix the Cat. With the CIA it's more like a big Costco store of intell-spy gear. Or in 007 movies, it's as if Felix Leiter drives in the big ice cream truck to Bond's neighborhood and gives him access to all the goodies.
Always have defended Dalton on many grounds over the years--at the time he was a bit polarizing. Universal agreement he was darker, more dangerous, serious than Moore and that was refreshing. But some found him too brooding, wanted him to lighten up because they maybe were conditioned by Roger M. I think Dalton was onto something and would have made a great 3rd film, capitalizing on the foundation he established, but it was not to be.
Felix the Leiter Cat, thanks, regards -{
nice try but most of what you say - has been previously mentioned.
I am aware, that some people on this board find Dalton cool. Together with some others, my take is that he's a wimpy not cool guy who always tries to come over gritty and tough but fails.
Different strokes, I guess.
As for the box office - yes his films made a good profit compared with the cost. But they failed to carry on the franchises success or put it to another level - just like Brosnan or particularly Craigs movies did:
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The gross profit was much less on the Dalton movies than on any other actor and his movies are among the 3 lowest grossing movies of the franchise, so they stank at the bo. {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/James-Bond
Yours must have some kind of hyper-inflation index multiplier, but Dalton actually maintained the franchise quite well with a gross about 4.5 times the cost (as you concede) --Moore and good old George Lazenby are the only Bonds to not achieve a 100 million level gross for Man w/Golden Gun and OHMSS. And Dalton bettered Moore's View to a Kill numbers, so he certainly came out of the gate, stepped into the role and moved the box office effectively.
There's also the undeniable factor that today's mall movie complex w/12 to 16 screens will totally inflate Craig and Brosnan numbers. Dalton movies were released when big single screen theaters were still viable but slipping fast. Give Daylights, License or the Connery fab five - No to Live 2x - a chance to open on 3000 to 4000 screens at today's 10-12 dollars tix prices and you will see some enormous numbers. Your chartmasters may have done that in the table you present. Very hard to tell with these numerous tables.
Suffice it to say that Dalton was no flop at the box office and his work appeals to what I will call "the Bond Book Loving, Fleming Worshiping Purists" and/or those who respect the fact that he seized the role and swung it in a dramatically powerful direction--showing us a Bond who fought, bled and was again realistic on the big screen. He's continued w/BBC, animation voiceovers, Hot Fuzz, The Tourist (Depp-Jolie) and that crazy NBC TV, CIA chip is in some low level clerk's brain and Dalton is bad guy in the kid's alternate reality. could go on why bother? He's still talented, versatile and cast-able, didn't allow Bond to deep six his career.
But you don't like him, so oh well. One can argue about the merits of the Olivier Hamlet vs. Mel Gibson's Hamlet--or was Frank Langella better as Dracula than Gary Oldman. I'd give Dalton more respect than many of his critics, but there's no accounting for taste.
Adios, Felix The Leiter Cat B-)
The very best Bonds. {[]
"Stank" would indicate failure.
Replace "stank" with "underperformed compared with the top grossers" and you would be more correct.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Dalton's films did do less well than the other Bonds, after Moore, I think the general
Public couldn't adjust to his harder edged Bond.
You want to think that Dalton was great in the role and his movies grossed outrageously - and most of this has been discussed previously and is simply mythbuilding.
1. Inflation: Your chart is not inflation - adjusted - you can't compare a GBP from 1962 with a GBP from 2014.
2. Myth 1: "Daltons movies where so successfully because their cost/BO ratio was so great":
Well, let's take Broccoli's chair for a moment You have one movie giving you a profit (after all cost) of 116 million (LTK) and another one that gives you 296 million (GE). Which one do you like more?
Or let's take TND which only returned it's cost "only" by the factor of 3:
It gave a profit of 229 million and people try to tell me that the producers prefer LTK because of the better ratio??
3. Growth: Franchises like all companies have to grow! Otherwise taxes will eat them up.
So producers had to stop the decreasing box office numbers due to Dalton's unpolularity. Everything else is sandbox-economy!
3. Myth 2: "LTK grossed so badly because the competition was so strong":
Yes, the competition was strong. But the Batman people never complained about the strong competition that season. Batman grossed 411 million! Same with Indiana Jones (474 million) , Lethal weapon 2( 277 million).
So it seems that LTK was the most unpopular choice for moviegoers when they had it!
You can turn it into every possible direction (and Timboys to that with a Scientologic fanatism) - Dalton was by far the most unpopular Bond for the audience.
And please don't start by comparing "casual audiences" with "serious Bond fans" - we had that already 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Your last point may be one factor but from what I have discussed with all kind of people back then - Dalton simply did not look the role.
He did not convince with his looks, with his approach and with his performance.
He's just the guy that says that he's cool but he's not.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
So, Skyfall made a billion. The next should make 1.5 billion... Bond #30 should make 4.5 billion? Is that it? I mean, how close to a COUNTRY'S GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT can a Bond box office take GET?
Continuous growth is not only not possible, it is often undesirable.
But, like other times, you won't and can't address my point. Like a Pac-Man---? ?:)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Interest and intrusion that comes with playing Bond. I do remember a
Few uncomplimentary stories about how he was rather cold with some
Fans around Miami during the filming of LTK.
I agree with AOS, some of us like Dalton and some don't.
No, I KNOW a bit about real world economics.
If you believe in that or what I believe in is not really relevant
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS