I do agree that TMWTGG also looks a bit cheap, especially the funhouse which looks like a cast-off set from some weird alien domain in 1960s Star Trek. DAF is similar, though most of this can be blamed on poor location scouting in Amsterdam and Las Vegas. Visual splendour doesn't necessarily guarantee a strong plot and characters, though. (see MR and more egregiously the lushly photographed DAD.)
LTK may have expensive action sequences, however the point I think is that they lack gripping, exciting presentation. That's an indictment of a budget ($42,000,000 to be exact)badly spent.
Any other thoughts on the action sequences or the film's failure to handle the explosive contemporary geopolitics in Eastern Europe at the time?
I must say I knew LTK was one of the more controversial Bonds but didn't think this would provoke such a variety of interesting, civilised debates! Its an encouraging start to my time on this forum...
"That's largely why Scaramanga some people don't like too but could never put their finger on why, though decidedly he's a bit more exotic with his lair and stuff. "
I consider Scaramanga a more traditional Bond villain as his plan does eventually morph into "massive scheme to destabilise the world" with the Solex Agitator, increasing the stakes from merely wanting to kill Bond. Sanchez, though, wants to smuggle more drugs using the trucks. That's it. At least in FYEO the drug smuggling is a sideshow compared to the Soviets getting the ATAC, and in TLD the opium trafficking is small fry compared to rogue Russians hotting up the Cold War. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Sanchez's overarching plan is too basic in scope and small-scale for a Bond villain. The 'bad guy wants to start nuclear war between country A and country B in order to get control of item C' plot trope is overused for sure, but at least it involves huge stakes. Sanchez's ambitions, well, don't.
Any other thoughts on the action sequences or the film's failure to handle the explosive contemporary geopolitics in Eastern Europe at the time?
The action sequences in LTK fall flat for me.
But I agree with Number24 that setting LTK in late-80s Eastern Europe could have aged the film badly, even though we may not have known it at the time. Setting a Bond film among current geopolitical events is a risky approach -- one need look no further than the previous film, in which Bond partnered with the cute and cuddly Afghan mujahideen, who of course morphed into the Taliban.
Sanchez wants to divide up the north and south American markets among the drug lords of the world to minimise the drug wars between the cartels and maximise the output.
To be fair, it might well have been risky to send Bond hurtling into the midst of the Soviet collapse in 1989 given who Bond had allied with in the third act of TLD. I do seem to remember that some of the reason for LTK avoiding mention of the Cold War was because the writers felt they had to find new enemies for Bond to encounter in the future, given the way things in the Soviet Union had been going since Gorbachev's rise in 1985. It is notable that in his final two appearances- 1985's AVTAK and 1987's TLD- General Gogol is noticeably friendlier to Bond and MI6 than in FYEO, which was released at the height of Reagan-era tough rhetoric. In AVTAK Gogol even takes tea in M's office!
I guess it is strange for Bond to go to the US and face ruthless drug dealers rather than-as with DAF- bumbling comedy gangsters straight out of an overdone parody. With the exception of Felix Leiter, the other US officials are portrayed as unhelpful and incompetent, while Krest is weaselling and greedy, Joe Butcher is a slimy conman and Killifer is treacherous and corrupt. The film overall doesn't present a very positive portrait of the nation supposed to be Bond- and, by extension Britain's- closest ally abroad. Any thoughts on this apparent strand of anti-Americanism/ the move away from Cold War politics?
I remember pretty well the end of the cold war. I did my national service in 1991-92, just when the Soviet Union collapsed. It was obvious the USSR was expriencing huge proiblems, it wasn't obvious what would happen. A more competent and well planned coup by the conservative communist may have rolled back Perestroika. Setting LTK in that part of the world in 1991 would have been a huge gamble on history.
All the DEA agents other than Killifer were shown in a positive light, but the plot demanded that Bond played the more active part in what happened.
....with this incarnation of Bond was ‘tough’. Posters for Dalton’s first instalment in 1987, The Living Daylights, heralded ‘the most dangerous Bond ever’, a man who was ‘living on the edge'.
And here is the problem of both of Dalton movies!
You have the approach of a 'tough' 'most dangerous Bond ever' and then the main actor behaves like a cuddly teddybear in Love in longer parts of the movie!
I may repeat myself here, just look at his interactions with Kara, Della, and his 'hurt feelings' play when his license is revoked and his terrible pathetic attempts to insert humor of any kind.
You have posted many good reasons, why Dalton's movies tanked at the Box office, but you disregard the main factor for that lack of success:
DALTON
Large parts of the US audience never accepted him, the US distribution wanted to have him fired and you simply ignore this factor.
With the exception of Lazenby every other "New" Bond actor was able to pull the BO numbers up significantly - not Dalton!
Now you compare TLD with AVTAK which had similar numbers at the BO:
AVTAK was the last movie of a visibly slightly too old main actor vs. a fresh new start with a much younger fresher actor.
As you are criticizing Moore's performance in the action scenes:
That is easily said in 2020, but you fail to understand the historical context that was at the beginning of the 80s
Until First Blood (1982) a movie with a mild BO success had to put action and violence in context with humor!
I challenge you to give me one blockbuster movie, which showed explicit violence in a family (non war) movie prior to First Blood.
So until then (1982) action in movies (which where all intended for cinema audiences and not nerds on computer/tv screens) had to be like what you see in the Moore age!
And you don't seriously expect Moore shifting to graphic violence in his final movies after having established his interpretation for the role for a decade.
So criticizing Moore for the execution and spirit in his action scenes is shallow and unfair.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
>> But the cartoonish antics of Moore’s tenure, occasionally violent as they are, stand a million miles away from the style, tone and direction of the repeated scenes of slaughter in Licence to Kill<<
I was not speaking about „lack of action“ in the Moore era but the context in which action and violence was embedded and which is often labeled as being „cartoonish“.
I am sure your occulist will confirm this
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
"You have the approach of a 'tough' 'most dangerous Bond ever' and then the main actor behaves like a cuddly teddybear in Love in longer parts of the movie!"
I think part of the intention of the film-makers here was to have Dalton do many of his own stunts, for example his increased participation in the Land Rover chase/fight in the PTS of TLD. Similarly as said earlier Dalton displays a greater level of ruthlessness throughout, for example when somewhat brutally despatching Necros in TLD and Sanchez in LTK. I suspect that the increased romantic aspect of TLD is supposed to hark back to Fleming, as part of Dalton's stated project to 'humanise'' Bond. The jury's out on whether that worked in his favour though, the clash of a strong romantic subplot against the characterisation of a less warm, distant version of Bond. I think it does (see Saunders' death in TLD and Bond's ensuing coldness towards Kara, one of Dalton's best moments in the role.)
As for Moore's less 'energetic' action scenes; by 1985 (the start year of the essay) we'd had Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981 and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in 1984. Both family franchise films and both displaying an increased level of violent sensibility in comparison, yet also with strong undercurrents of humour as well. LTK reacts with increased gore but lacks the matching humour or dynamic direction to make the transformation convincing. What do others think re the dated (or not) stylings of Moore's action scenes in comparison with Dalton's in LTK?
Actually I think Indy put a fire under their bottom to try and achieve what it did, thus we got Octopussy which obviously worked quite well imo because it was campy in a good way...sort of like how Indy did it. The reason VTAK drags on for me is the lack of that dynamic.
LTK wasn't much of a reaction to anything if you ask me, they were just doing their thing. Now that might be the reason for it but I agree largely with Higgins on the fact it was Dalton more than anything else.
OP though wasn't that big a draw regardless, anyway. 80s was an era of decline for Bond. That's why it "died".
"Now that might be the reason for it but I agree largely with Higgins on the fact it was Dalton more than anything else."
Another factor which wasn't really Dalton's fault per se was that Brosnan had come so close to being cast in 1986 that anyone else would have felt like a disappointment- thus leading to (unfair) perceptions that Dalton had been cast as 'only second best'. I do agree that while Dalton is undeniably tougher than Moore, he lacks a certain screen physicality when put in a line-up alongside other action heroes of the time such as Willis and Schwarzenegger. Maybe it was this disparity that put off American audiences, rather than pitchfork-waving mobs clamouring for Moore or Brosnan?
"OP though wasn't that big a draw regardless, anyway. 80s was an era of decline for Bond. That's why it "died"."
This is true. After the high of MR's release in 1979 the box office receipts started to decline gradually from FYEO onwards, as said. It's also notable that the tone of the series becomes generally flip-flopping around this point. You have the campy Moonraker, the serious FYEO, the mostly campy OP, the zany weird stylings of AVTAK, the mostly serious TLD and finally the much more gritty LTK. Perhaps by the time of LTK general audiences (and critics) were a little confused, and unsure of what to expect out of a typical Bond film anymore?
thus leading to (unfair) perceptions that Dalton had been cast as 'only second best'. I do agree that while Dalton is undeniably tougher than Moore, he lacks a certain screen physicality when put in a line-up alongside other action heroes of the time such as Willis and Schwarzenegger.
As far as I know, the story was exactly this!
EON where ready to sign with Brosnan but Remington Steele went into another ( last and short) season and that‘s why Eon had to look for another main actor.
And Dalton not only lacks physicality ( that was not Moore‘s and Brosnan‘s asset too), he lacks personality and could not convince large parts of the audiences with his flip-flop performance which went to both extremes ( trying to act tough and human and vulnerable at the same time).
Say what you want about Craig, but he manages to cover all these bases much better than Timmyboy.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
On the topic of Dalton's physicality: Dalton was fit and did a fair amount of the stunts. But he came directly from another production to filming scenes for TLD so he didn't have time to prepare physically for the film and otehr than scuba training I don't know of any training he did for LTK. I think Dalton is the kind of actor who could have really thrown himself into preparing and training for the role of Bond. He could have teamed up with a SAS trooper and gotten into peak shape (not Schwartzenegger style, but like an athlete) and learned gun handling, martial arts etc. This type of preperation has become almost standard for actors doing action movies now. Back then it was much rarer I think, but Daniel Day-Lewis spent a lot of time in the forrest and trained with an Airborne Ranger survival expert for The Last of the Mohicans in 1992. That kind of preperation may have suited Dalton as an actor and his personality, and the result may have given him an edge as an action star. One example is the very good PTS of TLD. After 007 is "shot" ("Hang on, you're dead!") he tackles the SAS guard by bumping into him ....
Imagine if Bond instead used a martial arts move used by special forces? it would have looked cooler and more real. Dalton would also have more to talk about to the press that he felt comfortable talking about.
"Dalton was 43 when he did LTK.
Moore was 46 when he did LALD, if anything you should compare those two."
I think Moore's casting in LALD had forced the action sequences to evolve in style even as far back as 1973. Moore even jokes in his book Bond on Bond (2012) that the Louisiana speedboat chase mostly involved him sitting down. Other than his fight with Kananga, which ends in a very cartoonish manner, I can't think of much action in LALD that calls for real displays of physicality/toughness. Compare the action in LALD with the elevator fight in DAF or the beach fight in OHMSS and you can see that Eon knew that tough fight scenes weren't really Moore's strong suit.
"On the topic of Dalton's physicality: Dalton was fit and did a fair amount of the stunts. But he came directly from another production to filming scenes for TLD so he didn't have time to prepare physically for the film and otehr than scuba training I don't know of any training he did for LTK."
I agree that Dalton coming straight from another production may have hurt his readiness for the demands of filming TLD; however, there is still an immediate increase in the general intensity of the action sequences compared to the Moore years (for example, the Afghanistan jail fight and the Land Rover scuffle.) I think it does comes down to presentation. For example, Brosnan may lack a physically intimidating air but the fight with Trevelyan on the satellite dish in GE is still one of the better final fights in the series for my money, a case of careful direction and editing to disguise Brosnan's deficiencies in this area.
"Imagine if Bond instead used a martial arts move used by special forces? it would have looked cooler and more real. Dalton would also have more to talk about to the press that he felt comfortable talking about."
I agree, especially given the Bond character's own military background and Dalton's desire to take the series back to its roots. Its little touches like this that make a Bond performance more convincing and perhaps give that polished edge that I feel is missing from much of LTK more generally.
So Kananga‘s death is cartoonish while Krest‘s death is brutal* just because Dalton plays Bond?
* they look pretty much the same to me...
As for Dalton having been rushed to TLD, that‘s just another excuse that holds no water.
At least he had enough time to read most of the novels to prepare for the role- as he repeatedly praised himself having done - as if other actors would not have done the same.
I find all those excuses pretty funny and creative as it just shows how much effort is there to distract from the main issue: Dalton himself
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
"So Kananga‘s death is cartoonish while Krest‘s death is brutal* just because Dalton plays Bond?
* they look pretty much the same to me..."
Inflating and exploding after eating a compressed-air pellet is scientifically impossible. Sanchez's demise (burning to death) is a little more realistic and comes in the context of a deadly serious Bond film (LTK) rather than a deeply silly one (LALD).
"As for Dalton having been rushed to TLD, that‘s just another excuse that holds no water.
At least he had enough time to read most of the novels to prepare for the role- as he repeatedly praised himself having done - as if other actors would not have done the same."
Surely having read the novels is a plus in Dalton's general favour rather than a criticism? I read somewhere that Lazenby read Fleming's OHMSS and Brosnan read Fleming's GF but not sure about the others.
By the time of LTK Dalton was two years into his official tenure and as such his performance ought to have improved from TLD. Unfortunately the writing and direction couldn't keep up...
"So Kananga‘s death is cartoonish while Krest‘s death is brutal* just because Dalton plays Bond?
* they look pretty much the same to me..."
Inflating and exploding after eating a compressed-air pellet is scientifically impossible. Sanchez's demise (burning to death) is a little more realistic and comes in the context of a deadly serious Bond film (LTK) rather than a deeply silly one (LALD).
"As for Dalton having been rushed to TLD, that‘s just another excuse that holds no water.
At least he had enough time to read most of the novels to prepare for the role- as he repeatedly praised himself having done - as if other actors would not have done the same."
Surely having read the novels is a plus in Dalton's general favour rather than a criticism? I read somewhere that Lazenby read Fleming's OHMSS and Brosnan read Fleming's GF but not sure about the others.
By the time of LTK Dalton was two years into his official tenure and as such his performance ought to have improved from TLD. Unfortunately the writing and direction couldn't keep up...
You are missing my point - again.
The excuse ( and that was a new one for me) was, that Dalton did not have enough time to physically prepare for LTK.
He had time to read most or all the novels though.
And I was speaking about Krest‘s death and not Sanchez
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
... and into which level of ‚cartoonishness‘ falls the 90 degree bend in the pipeline When Koskow is being smuggled out of Bratislava if we are talking seriously?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
LTK may have expensive action sequences, however the point I think is that they lack gripping, exciting presentation. That's an indictment of a budget ($42,000,000 to be exact)badly spent.
"The spectre of defeat..."
I must say I knew LTK was one of the more controversial Bonds but didn't think this would provoke such a variety of interesting, civilised debates! Its an encouraging start to my time on this forum...
"The spectre of defeat..."
I consider Scaramanga a more traditional Bond villain as his plan does eventually morph into "massive scheme to destabilise the world" with the Solex Agitator, increasing the stakes from merely wanting to kill Bond. Sanchez, though, wants to smuggle more drugs using the trucks. That's it. At least in FYEO the drug smuggling is a sideshow compared to the Soviets getting the ATAC, and in TLD the opium trafficking is small fry compared to rogue Russians hotting up the Cold War. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Sanchez's overarching plan is too basic in scope and small-scale for a Bond villain. The 'bad guy wants to start nuclear war between country A and country B in order to get control of item C' plot trope is overused for sure, but at least it involves huge stakes. Sanchez's ambitions, well, don't.
"The spectre of defeat..."
But I agree with Number24 that setting LTK in late-80s Eastern Europe could have aged the film badly, even though we may not have known it at the time. Setting a Bond film among current geopolitical events is a risky approach -- one need look no further than the previous film, in which Bond partnered with the cute and cuddly Afghan mujahideen, who of course morphed into the Taliban.
I guess it is strange for Bond to go to the US and face ruthless drug dealers rather than-as with DAF- bumbling comedy gangsters straight out of an overdone parody. With the exception of Felix Leiter, the other US officials are portrayed as unhelpful and incompetent, while Krest is weaselling and greedy, Joe Butcher is a slimy conman and Killifer is treacherous and corrupt. The film overall doesn't present a very positive portrait of the nation supposed to be Bond- and, by extension Britain's- closest ally abroad. Any thoughts on this apparent strand of anti-Americanism/ the move away from Cold War politics?
"The spectre of defeat..."
All the DEA agents other than Killifer were shown in a positive light, but the plot demanded that Bond played the more active part in what happened.
You have the approach of a 'tough' 'most dangerous Bond ever' and then the main actor behaves like a cuddly teddybear in Love in longer parts of the movie!
I may repeat myself here, just look at his interactions with Kara, Della, and his 'hurt feelings' play when his license is revoked and his terrible pathetic attempts to insert humor of any kind.
You have posted many good reasons, why Dalton's movies tanked at the Box office, but you disregard the main factor for that lack of success:
DALTON
Large parts of the US audience never accepted him, the US distribution wanted to have him fired and you simply ignore this factor.
With the exception of Lazenby every other "New" Bond actor was able to pull the BO numbers up significantly - not Dalton!
Now you compare TLD with AVTAK which had similar numbers at the BO:
AVTAK was the last movie of a visibly slightly too old main actor vs. a fresh new start with a much younger fresher actor.
As you are criticizing Moore's performance in the action scenes:
That is easily said in 2020, but you fail to understand the historical context that was at the beginning of the 80s
Until First Blood (1982) a movie with a mild BO success had to put action and violence in context with humor!
I challenge you to give me one blockbuster movie, which showed explicit violence in a family (non war) movie prior to First Blood.
So until then (1982) action in movies (which where all intended for cinema audiences and not nerds on computer/tv screens) had to be like what you see in the Moore age!
And you don't seriously expect Moore shifting to graphic violence in his final movies after having established his interpretation for the role for a decade.
So criticizing Moore for the execution and spirit in his action scenes is shallow and unfair.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I was not speaking about „lack of action“ in the Moore era but the context in which action and violence was embedded and which is often labeled as being „cartoonish“.
I am sure your occulist will confirm this
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I'll keep the glasses I have now for a few more years
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
(Collapses in shock at the very thought)
No need for that casual sarcasm
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think part of the intention of the film-makers here was to have Dalton do many of his own stunts, for example his increased participation in the Land Rover chase/fight in the PTS of TLD. Similarly as said earlier Dalton displays a greater level of ruthlessness throughout, for example when somewhat brutally despatching Necros in TLD and Sanchez in LTK. I suspect that the increased romantic aspect of TLD is supposed to hark back to Fleming, as part of Dalton's stated project to 'humanise'' Bond. The jury's out on whether that worked in his favour though, the clash of a strong romantic subplot against the characterisation of a less warm, distant version of Bond. I think it does (see Saunders' death in TLD and Bond's ensuing coldness towards Kara, one of Dalton's best moments in the role.)
As for Moore's less 'energetic' action scenes; by 1985 (the start year of the essay) we'd had Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981 and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in 1984. Both family franchise films and both displaying an increased level of violent sensibility in comparison, yet also with strong undercurrents of humour as well. LTK reacts with increased gore but lacks the matching humour or dynamic direction to make the transformation convincing. What do others think re the dated (or not) stylings of Moore's action scenes in comparison with Dalton's in LTK?
"The spectre of defeat..."
LTK wasn't much of a reaction to anything if you ask me, they were just doing their thing. Now that might be the reason for it but I agree largely with Higgins on the fact it was Dalton more than anything else.
OP though wasn't that big a draw regardless, anyway. 80s was an era of decline for Bond. That's why it "died".
Another factor which wasn't really Dalton's fault per se was that Brosnan had come so close to being cast in 1986 that anyone else would have felt like a disappointment- thus leading to (unfair) perceptions that Dalton had been cast as 'only second best'. I do agree that while Dalton is undeniably tougher than Moore, he lacks a certain screen physicality when put in a line-up alongside other action heroes of the time such as Willis and Schwarzenegger. Maybe it was this disparity that put off American audiences, rather than pitchfork-waving mobs clamouring for Moore or Brosnan?
"OP though wasn't that big a draw regardless, anyway. 80s was an era of decline for Bond. That's why it "died"."
This is true. After the high of MR's release in 1979 the box office receipts started to decline gradually from FYEO onwards, as said. It's also notable that the tone of the series becomes generally flip-flopping around this point. You have the campy Moonraker, the serious FYEO, the mostly campy OP, the zany weird stylings of AVTAK, the mostly serious TLD and finally the much more gritty LTK. Perhaps by the time of LTK general audiences (and critics) were a little confused, and unsure of what to expect out of a typical Bond film anymore?
"The spectre of defeat..."
As far as I know, the story was exactly this!
EON where ready to sign with Brosnan but Remington Steele went into another ( last and short) season and that‘s why Eon had to look for another main actor.
And Dalton not only lacks physicality ( that was not Moore‘s and Brosnan‘s asset too), he lacks personality and could not convince large parts of the audiences with his flip-flop performance which went to both extremes ( trying to act tough and human and vulnerable at the same time).
Say what you want about Craig, but he manages to cover all these bases much better than Timmyboy.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Moore was 58 when AVTAK was in the theatres and had established his own kind of Bond.
Actually he was Roger Moore playing Roger Moore imo.
Dalton was 43 when he did LTK.
Moore was 46 when he did LALD, if anything you should compare those two
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Imagine if Bond instead used a martial arts move used by special forces? it would have looked cooler and more real. Dalton would also have more to talk about to the press that he felt comfortable talking about.
Moore was 46 when he did LALD, if anything you should compare those two."
I think Moore's casting in LALD had forced the action sequences to evolve in style even as far back as 1973. Moore even jokes in his book Bond on Bond (2012) that the Louisiana speedboat chase mostly involved him sitting down. Other than his fight with Kananga, which ends in a very cartoonish manner, I can't think of much action in LALD that calls for real displays of physicality/toughness. Compare the action in LALD with the elevator fight in DAF or the beach fight in OHMSS and you can see that Eon knew that tough fight scenes weren't really Moore's strong suit.
"On the topic of Dalton's physicality: Dalton was fit and did a fair amount of the stunts. But he came directly from another production to filming scenes for TLD so he didn't have time to prepare physically for the film and otehr than scuba training I don't know of any training he did for LTK."
I agree that Dalton coming straight from another production may have hurt his readiness for the demands of filming TLD; however, there is still an immediate increase in the general intensity of the action sequences compared to the Moore years (for example, the Afghanistan jail fight and the Land Rover scuffle.) I think it does comes down to presentation. For example, Brosnan may lack a physically intimidating air but the fight with Trevelyan on the satellite dish in GE is still one of the better final fights in the series for my money, a case of careful direction and editing to disguise Brosnan's deficiencies in this area.
"Imagine if Bond instead used a martial arts move used by special forces? it would have looked cooler and more real. Dalton would also have more to talk about to the press that he felt comfortable talking about."
I agree, especially given the Bond character's own military background and Dalton's desire to take the series back to its roots. Its little touches like this that make a Bond performance more convincing and perhaps give that polished edge that I feel is missing from much of LTK more generally.
"The spectre of defeat..."
* they look pretty much the same to me...
As for Dalton having been rushed to TLD, that‘s just another excuse that holds no water.
At least he had enough time to read most of the novels to prepare for the role- as he repeatedly praised himself having done - as if other actors would not have done the same.
I find all those excuses pretty funny and creative as it just shows how much effort is there to distract from the main issue: Dalton himself
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You're inflating Moore's age. He was 57 when AVTAK was in the cinema (56 when he began filming) and 45 when he made LALD.
* they look pretty much the same to me..."
Inflating and exploding after eating a compressed-air pellet is scientifically impossible. Sanchez's demise (burning to death) is a little more realistic and comes in the context of a deadly serious Bond film (LTK) rather than a deeply silly one (LALD).
"As for Dalton having been rushed to TLD, that‘s just another excuse that holds no water.
At least he had enough time to read most of the novels to prepare for the role- as he repeatedly praised himself having done - as if other actors would not have done the same."
Surely having read the novels is a plus in Dalton's general favour rather than a criticism? I read somewhere that Lazenby read Fleming's OHMSS and Brosnan read Fleming's GF but not sure about the others.
By the time of LTK Dalton was two years into his official tenure and as such his performance ought to have improved from TLD. Unfortunately the writing and direction couldn't keep up...
"The spectre of defeat..."
I was lazy, simply took the year of the premiere and subtracted the birthyear
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You are missing my point - again.
The excuse ( and that was a new one for me) was, that Dalton did not have enough time to physically prepare for LTK.
He had time to read most or all the novels though.
And I was speaking about Krest‘s death and not Sanchez
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!