![Image](http://i.imgur.com/u112vKi.jpg)
[video][/video]
And unlike the modern Bond, Dalton's experienced agent had the experience to change his objectives in the field. Had he followed M's orders, at the very least he would have killed Kara, an innocent.Kiwichris wrote:One of the more important Bond movies. Successfully continuing the character after a dozen long light hearted Moore years, establishing a new era of a serious Bond, straight from Fleming's pen to your eyeballs. A moderate success at the time but is getting ever more popular in hindsight. Dalton truly was ahead of his time, and most fans are only just catching up to him.
In the context of the time I'm amazed this film was made like this. In stark contrast to Moore, Dalton was dark and merciless he only has one Bond girl due to 1987 being around the height of STD scares so they took away Bond's trademark "super penis" as a result. It involved helping Afghan militants, as shaky an issue than as now and not only disobeys his orders constantly but says he would welcome being fired. Truly the film that does the literary character of Bond the most justice.
Indeed. He was a professional. He knew the girl didn't know the girl "didn't know one end of her rifle from the other". He noticed she wasn't an assassin at all, so there you go, he did what was right.Daltonite Toothpaste wrote:And unlike the modern Bond, Dalton's experienced agent had the experience to change his objectives in the field. Had he followed M's orders, at the very least he would have killed Kara, an innocent.Kiwichris wrote:One of the more important Bond movies. Successfully continuing the character after a dozen long light hearted Moore years, establishing a new era of a serious Bond, straight from Fleming's pen to your eyeballs. A moderate success at the time but is getting ever more popular in hindsight. Dalton truly was ahead of his time, and most fans are only just catching up to him.
In the context of the time I'm amazed this film was made like this. In stark contrast to Moore, Dalton was dark and merciless he only has one Bond girl due to 1987 being around the height of STD scares so they took away Bond's trademark "super penis" as a result. It involved helping Afghan militants, as shaky an issue than as now and not only disobeys his orders constantly but says he would welcome being fired. Truly the film that does the literary character of Bond the most justice.
Exactly. However, in the actual short story the female cellist is actually the assassin and Bond still chooses to not kill her. I really wish that the filmmakers had stuck to this story bit in the Dalton film. Timothy Dalton made a great Bond who was darker and edgier, but he still is rather suave and a real charmer with the ladies. 'Tis a pity that he fails to deliver those Bond witticisms with aplomb.John P. Drake wrote: Indeed. He was a professional. He knew the girl "didn't know one end of her rifle from the other." He noticed she wasn't an assassin at all, so there you go, he did what was right.
One thing I don't understand is that how CR-egg compares himself to Dalton when they exactly have nothing in common? Sure, Dalton was edgy, and CR-egg THINKS he's playing edgy while he's not. Behaving like a thug doesn't make you edgy, his fans should learn that as well. Dalton, on the other hand, was playing it rough and tough while being a real professional, an agent who noticed something was fishy in the case, and hunted for more intelligence on his own.
Agreed, Largo. Bond does have a moral code. In the actual short story, he has made a mistake by not killing Trigger, the KGB assassin, because she was a woman. Women can be the most leathal weapons we could ever expect, there is a reason for why some are called la femme fatale. Take Fiona Volpe, for instance. She was a woman, but she was dangerous as hell. She could've killed the self-claimed "competent" Pussy Galore with a simple glare. Then comes Fatima Blush, then Xenia Onatopp, etc etc.Emilio Largo wrote:Exactly. However, in the actual short story the female cellist is actually the assassin and Bond still chooses to not kill her. I really wish that the filmmakers had stuck to this story bit in the Dalton film. Timothy Dalton made a great Bond who was darker and edgier, but he still is rather suave and a real charmer with the ladies. 'Tis a pity that he fails to deliver those Bond witticisms with aplomb.John P. Drake wrote: Indeed. He was a professional. He knew the girl "didn't know one end of her rifle from the other." He noticed she wasn't an assassin at all, so there you go, he did what was right.
One thing I don't understand is that how CR-egg compares himself to Dalton when they exactly have nothing in common? Sure, Dalton was edgy, and CR-egg THINKS he's playing edgy while he's not. Behaving like a thug doesn't make you edgy, his fans should learn that as well. Dalton, on the other hand, was playing it rough and tough while being a real professional, an agent who noticed something was fishy in the case, and hunted for more intelligence on his own.
Speaking of Bond's professional/personal code reminds me of the film Goldfinger, when Bond doesn't kill the little old woman gatekeeper (despite the fact that she's spraying a lot of lead at him with her machine gun) with his Aston Martin DB5. Once again, Bond's personal code of ethics shines through even within this humorous episode at Goldfinger's factory.
However, this code goes into the crapper once we get to The World Is Not Enough.
Oh dear, John P. Drake! I apologize for not making myself totally clear on Bond's moral code and killing women. What I meant to say was whenever Bond has a clear choice (prior to WINE), he chooses not to kill -- unless he is clearly in mortal danger. [highlight=#ffff00]Now if I recall correctly, in "The Living Daylights" short story Bond quickly decides not to kill 'Trigger' and only severely wounds her arm so that her assassin days are basically over[/highlight]. I don't remember anything suggesting that Bond was going to be disciplined for this or that it would be viewed as a "mistake." I seem to remember that it was a type of moral triumph for Bond when he decided not to kill. I don't have this story readily at hand, so I can't just go and reread it. Please correct me if I've got this all wrong here.John P. Drake wrote: Agreed, Largo. Bond does have a moral code. [highlight=#ffff00]In the actual short story, he has made a mistake by not killing Trigger, the KGB assassin, because she was a woman[/highlight]. Women can be the most lethal weapons we could ever expect, there is a reason for why some are called la femme fatale. Take Fiona Volpe, for instance. She was a woman, but she was dangerous as hell. [highlight=#ff4040]She could've killed the self-claimed "competent" Pussy Galore with a simple glare[/highlight]. Then comes Fatima Blush, then Xenia Onatopp, etc etc.
[highlight=#ffbf80]EON did the right thing changing Trigger into Kara Milovy, so Bond's action wouldn't seem to be a mistake. As that would've been very unprofessional. The excuse in the film was "she didn't know one end of her rifle from the other", which gave the case more depth for Bond to investigate[/highlight]. Craig's films on the other hand, especially in Quantum of Solace, he almost pit two countries (the US and the UK) in a war against each other, by pulling off the wrong actions and disobeying M's orders. Felix Leiter was a better agent than he was, imagine that. And Felix, in the novels, was no more than a 'yes man' to Bond. Then, he was the responsible for the death of Special Branch agent, and one of MI6's own, Strawberry Fields. Are these actions he pulled forgivable?
[highlight=#ffbf00]And Pierce Brosnan's The World Is Not Enough, to me, was basically a Daniel Craig movie just with Pierce in it[/highlight]. Sure, it had some good action sequences all thanks to the good old Bruce Feirstein who was brought in the last minute to submit a rewrite. Near Pervert and Robert Waste are the ones who destroyed Bond. And John Logan added more insult into the injury, in fact, took it into a higher level, with pervert-minded elements inserting into the broken vase. Now, compare Craig's "Hyr me or fyr me" line with Dalton's "If M fires me, I'll thank him for it," some say they are the same, while they have nothing in common. Craig's reaction was "I don't give a $H!+ about it," while Dalton felt a little guilt over his disobedience despite knowing it was necessary, and that would've been the nicest thing for M to do. Craig does nothing but ballsing up his entire assignment, each time. Dalton, if there is a plot hole, he does his best to cover it and succeeds in it.
There are loads to tell, but hell, they are endless...
But that was the beauty of it, eh!Kristatos wrote:Was it really necessary for Bond to kill Naomi in TSWLM (the first time he deliberately killed a woman), though? I mean, she didn't know that his car turned into a submarine, and so would have presumably thought that he had drowned when he failed to surface after a few minutes.
Problem Eliminator wrote:I'm fully on board with Bond not discriminating on the basis of gender when it comes to killing. But then, [highlight=#ffbf80]I'm not a Fleming purist[/highlight].
Hindsight is always 20/20. Besides the US was actually aiding the Mujahadeen, trying to make the Soviets "bleed" in Afghanistan like the reds did to them in Vietnam.Problem Eliminator wrote:The only thing I really dislike is the scene with the mujahadeen and the Russians at the end. Some unlikely things happen in every Bond film, but the idea of the Russian foreign secretary being happy to meet a mujahadeen commander was one of those moments that make you say "come on!" It'd be like introducing John Kerry to a Taliban commander. I don't he'd react positively.
It ought to at least give our governments pause for thought before they fund and arm the next batch of "friendly" rebels. But sadly, it won't.Kiwichris wrote: Hindsight is always 20/20. Besides the US was actually aiding the Mujahadeen, trying to make the Soviets "bleed" in Afghanistan like the reds did to them in Vietnam.