MovieChat Forums > The Living Daylights (1987) Discussion > this is almost a Roger Moore film withou...

this is almost a Roger Moore film without Roger Moore:

posted 17 years ago by frana43
40 replies | jump to latest

There are some scenes in this film that are very laugh-out-loud, for a serious Bond film:

(1) the guy who is forced to lie down in the transporter device, and finds out he's the first to try it out;

(2) the woman in the overalls who briefly seduces a man to distract him from his security checks;

(3) the villain bursting into a hotel room, and gasping in surprise at the topless Maryam D'Abo whom he sees;

(4) during the battle scene, some tanks knock over a showering cubicle, revealing a pair of naked men with their backs to the camera;

(5) 'Put him on the next plane to Moscow...in the diplomatic bag'.

But otherwise, this is a more serious Bond film than "Diamonds Are Forever"
or some of the Moore vehicles - while, of course, "License To Kill" has NO funny scenes at all.

[–] Superman_Is_Not_Depressed 15 years ago

Don't forget people, this movie was writting specifically for Moore hence the similarities between the earlier Moore films. The fact that it seemed darker was entirely due to Daltons inability to convey humor et all. And yes I said "et" as I am a sophisticated British man in his late 70's therefore you shall all respect my authoritay. I bid you all farewell.

[–] Superunknovvn 12 years ago

really, it was written for Moore? then how come he wasn't in it?

"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school"

[–] Mr_Blonde3 12 years ago

"The fact that it seemed darker was entirely due to Daltons inability to convey humor et all."

Really? So was that a Timothy Dalton impersonator who stole the show in "Hot Fuzz" with his humor?

It was darker because Dalton felt going into it that Bond was a farce, and he was. The butler who fights Necros was tougher than Roger Moore in all of his films. When James Bond is snowboarding to "California Girls", you've lost your way entirely. And lets not forget the Tarzan yell.

I liked Moore. But be honest. YOU say the role was darker because Dalton couldn't do one liners. Well, on the flip side, Roger Moore has said his Bond was silly because he couldn't be dangerous. He knew he couldn't play the role the Connery way, so went for farce.

I'm more than pleased with Dalton's return of the role to it's roots. Bond was actually a spy again when Dalton took over.

I love to love my Lisa.

[–] Superunknovvn 12 years ago

i wonder why people always act as if it was solely for the actor who played bond to decide where those movies were going. sure, their portrayal made a huge part of the movies, but screenplay, direction, production were surely far more important. they wouldn't have gone to dalton and asked him: what do you want this new bond movie to be like?

"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school"

[–] Mr_Blonde3 12 years ago

Well.....

"“I think Roger was fine as Bond, but the films had become too much techno-pop and had lost track of their sense of story,” Dalton said in a 1989 interview. “I mean, every film seemed to have a villain who had to rule or destroy the world. If you want to believe in the fantasy on screen, then you have to believe in the characters and use them as a stepping-stone to lead you into this fantasy world. That's a demand I made, and Albert Broccoli agreed with me.”

Sounds like they did ask him. *shrug*

I love to love my Lisa.

[–] Simian_Jack 11 years ago

Reports at the time were that Dalton - a last-minute replacement for Brosnan - was delivering a performance that didn't well carry the Moore-esque script, thus the script was altered in progress to better reflect Dalton's take. Brosnan had been fully expected to continue Moore's lighter portrayal ala Remington Steele, and some of that remains in the movie. The end result is a movie that's a little tonally imbalanced.

I agree with your point, though. People like myself who don't care as much for the Moore era tend to say thoughtless things like "Moore ruined Bond". The truth is that his take on the movies was greatly molded by the writers and directors who thought of the films as comedies (per the commentaries on the DVDs). The flavor of Moore's earliest was already seen in Diamonds are Forever, and to a lesser degree Goldfinger. The era also made a difference as people were responding favorably to cheekier fare, and the spy parodies like the Flint and Matt Helm movies.

[–] PatrickS77 10 years ago

i wonder why people always act as if it was solely for the actor who played bond to decide where those movies were going. sure, their portrayal made a huge part of the movies, but screenplay, direction, production were surely far more important. they wouldn't have gone to dalton and asked him: what do you want this new bond movie to be like?

Because people are stupid. Totally stupid and ignorant. I'm puzzled by that myself.

[–] perfectpawn 9 years ago

Because people are stupid. Totally stupid and ignorant. I'm puzzled by that myself.

This explains the success and popularity of Daniel Craig's so-called "James Bond" movies.

[–] TMC-4 11 years ago

The most bad ass Roger Moore's Bond got was arguably the scene in For Your Eyes Only (which if you ask me, I could've easily scene Timothy Dalton in w/ some minor adjustments to suit his personality) when he kicks the car down the cliff.

[–] Mr_Blonde3 11 years ago

Roger Moore waits until the car is already rolling before he kicks it. Dalton would have held up the pin, said, "You left this with Ferraro, I believe." Kicked the car himself to get it rolling, and then tossed it at the car as it was going down.

Then, after it landed, he'd have probably shot the gas tank from the top of the cliff to blow it up, for good measure. Because Dalton was a bad@ss.

The scene works with Moore, and is definitely his bad@ss highpoint in the franchise, but he still takes the easy way out somewhat, as opposed to Dalton, who would have likely had no problem doing everything I just described above.

I love to love my Lisa.

[–] wilson-l 10 years ago

There are so many conflicting ideas about who/what Bond is, like is he a badass that feels nothing all the time, I don't think so, it's clear in the Bond films and in the fandom that everyone seems to like Bond when he feels something (Craig and Dalton, in particular, are heralded for displaying emotion occasionally)so is it that big of a deal if Moore kicked it while it was moving or not?
Blowing up the car for good measure seems like overkill to me, from any of the Bonds, I think a quip about killing a guy is pretty ruthless. I sure wouldn't want my death to be followed by a quip, it makes it seem worthless.

Don't get me wrong, I love both of these actors as Bond, I just don't think this film and the Bond portrayed in it is that far removed from the portrayals before it, in terms of silliness or ruthlessness.
I also think we all like to forget that the silliness kind of began with You Only Live Twice (Volcano Lair, Little Nellie, Ninja School, etc).

[–] Doc110894 10 years ago

Interesting.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Xcalat3 12 years ago

a Roger Moore film without Roger Moore

very true.

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

[–] Superunknovvn 12 years ago

Not to forget the way they crossed the border on the cello

"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school"

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]