Salt Corrosion


Terrible line.

Encapsulates exactly why Timothy was never going to succeed as Bond.

A shame really as the Living Daylights is a kindred spirit to say A View To A Kill or For Your Eyes Only. With the correct actor it could have worked.

However the delivery of that line and indeed the line itself showed Bond was on a path to disaster which would culminate with Dalton's Bond in License To Kill, a film which brought the franchise to it's knees.

Of course the correct response to "What happened?", as any real Bond fan would know, should have been "They had to split" - delivered with a slightly raised eyebrow...

reply

Whether it was the correct line or not has nothing to do with Dalton. He didn't write the movie.

reply

No he did not. But the movie was written with him playing Bond in mind.

No way that line would have been used had Sir Roger still be in place.

reply

Roger had to utter one-liners that were far worse.

reply

Licence To Kill brought the franchise to its knees...utter bollocks.

It practically reinvigorated the franchise, even though Dalton did not continue in the role. And I loved Dalton as Bond.

LTK was a template for the harder edged Craig Bond movies.

People can piss and moan about Craig, why Connery was the best, or Moore etc.

I lived through them all, liked them all for the era in which they existed. Can't say I hate any of them.

The whole "dispatching a villain with a witty quip" thing is old. Does not work in 2020.

reply

Licence To Kill brought the franchise to its knees...utter bollocks.

It practically reinvigorated the franchise, even though Dalton did not continue in the role.

Utter, utter revisionist pish.

LTK is the LOWEST grossing James Bond film of all time no matter which way you want to look at it. And it was only Dalton's second film! There is no denying that.

They didn't make another one for years after it. Legal wrangles yes, but there was also huge concerns as to whether they should continue with Dalton given his Box Office failure, especially as time passed.

If it was a "template" for "harder edged" Bond films it was certainly one which was ignored for decades since Craig's "Bond" didn't come along for another 20 years near enough. It was utterly ignored when they moved forward with Brosnan so it quite obviously "reinvigorated" nothing.

Cannot stand the Daniel Craig revisionst b-llsh-t you get re this era nowadays. Absolute rubbish!

reply

It was clear that after LTK the series needed to change, and hence Brosnan was brought in.

I still loves Daltons take on Bond though.

But the franchise was re invigorated with Brosnan, even if he was never my fave Bond. I thought he had a mixture of Connery and Moore in his portrayal. He had the suave nature, and yet the killer instinct when needed.

reply

That's fair enough if you loved Dalton. Each to their own and all that and I certainly wouldn't want to dissuade anyone who was / is a fan. I'm just not a fan of the retrospective boost his take seems to get post Craig.

Have you seen the deleted magic carpet scene from TLD? I think that makes interesting viewing as it shows the writers were still somewhat in Moore mode as it really just doesn't fit for Dalton...

I agree re Brosnan - wasn't my favourite either but he did characterise Bond pretty well even if his films aren't right up there with the best.

reply

I love Licence to Kill. It's got a great hard edge and I love that Bond goes undercover and starts driving wedges between the enemies before he goes full-out action rampage. It's like he's a spy or something...

reply

[deleted]