73 replies to this topic

[ChandlerBing]

Ironic that they cut a scene where someone gets their heart cut out and a movie where someone gets their head chopped off in a car door and a surfboard in the face makes more money.

[Dr. Tynan]

My interest in Bond started to wain come 1992/3 but came back with the talk of GE.

[Bryan Harris]

Ironic that they cut a scene where someone gets their heart cut out and a movie where someone gets their head chopped off in a car door and a surfboard in the face makes more money.

Yeah, but to look at it from the opposite point of view, Lethal Weapon 2 was operating only from the standard of the previous film. LTK had to deal with sets of expectations created by very different films of ten, twenty, or thirty years previous, depending on the viewer. As even this board demonstrates, individual notions of A Proper Bond Film are highly variable (of course, this may be too movable a bar to be useful; one imagines that Star Wars fans could use my argument to defend the prequels. Perish the thought).

[Tarl_Cabot]

I don't know how you can forget LTK is a Bond film Loomis: that's the whole problem with it. They don't let you forget. The pointless inclusion of Q and the other antics you mention harken back to previous Bonds in a worthless 'effort' to appease the whiners after they had a field-day over TLD.

Infact, I wish LTK wasn't a Bond film; I wish it was just Dalton as a hard edge spy going out for revenge for his friend in the service. How much better would it have been then. I can only dream.

I always thought LTK was more like an episode of The Executioner aka Mack Bolan...

[Loomis]

The '15' rating in the U.K. and the PG-13 rating in the U.S. certainly didn't help.

That brings to mind a question I have: Weren't some scenes in LTK trimmed for the U.S. release because the film as presented to the MPAA received the dreaded "R" rating? I can't recall if that was just a rumor or not. I recall reading somewhere or other that Krest's death and Sanchez' beating of Lupe were originally more explicit than the stateside theatrical release would lead one to believe.

The British Board of Film Cens----, sorry, Classification ( ) was going to give the original cut of LICENCE TO A KILL an 18 certificate (the equivalent of an R rating). The pruned-for-excessive-violence version was given a 15 certificate.

I used to own a Japanese VHS copy of LTK, and Krest's death and Sanchez's whipping of Lupe are indeed more explicit in it (the way Krest's head swells up and explodes bloodily makes you think for a moment that you're watching an entry in the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SERIES, although I don't think we actually see the head exploding, as such, a la SCANNERS - but there's definitely more unpleasant detail in the Japanese cut, though). I'm also pretty sure that there's more footage of Sanchez ablaze and flailing about in agony. Presumably, the Japanese version of LTK is the most complete to be found anywhere?

[Gabe Vieira]

I hated Indy 3.

I have made it my life's mission to hunt down and kill you

JK, how can you hate Last Crusade? Not as good as Raiders but, come on, what was wrong with it?

[Loomis]

I guess I must be in your sights too, Gabe. THE LAST CRUSADE, IMO, is a stupid, sluggish and hideously boring affair. Whatever charm Ford once had has departed, while Connery is made to look ridiculous throughout. The opening sequence with River Phoenix is fairly clever, I'll grant you, but the rest of it is utter rubbish.

[Atariboy]

Watch Raiders and Last Crusade back-to-back and you'll see that LC is very nearly a remake of Raiders. Many of the scenes match up! I enjoyed it, but really it was just a cash-in on the first's successful formula.

That's a bit off-topic, though...

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

Oddly enough, Last Crusade was on cable just the other night. Airing opposite none other than ABC's broadcast of "Tommorow Never Dies".

I must confess, Crusade, was never a favorite of mine either, but I found myself rather impressed with it this time around. At least, I was impressed with the few moments I caught during commercial breaks of TND.

Say what you will about Crusade, however, one thing is for certain; FYEO's Julian Glover (Kristatos) makes a delicious bad guy in Crusade.

Edited by Roger_Moore's_Bad_Facelift, 07 June 2004 - 03:57 PM.

[Loomis]

I've often wondered why LICENCE TO KILL (seemingly) brought the series to a halt for a long while, yet (for instance) THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and A VIEW TO A KILL didn't. I guess the MGM-related ligitation must have been a huge factor. (Would those legal problems have held up further Bond films for a long time even if LTK had been a huge hit?)

If all had been going smoothly from a business/legal POV, I suppose we'd have seen a new Bond flick with Dalton in 1991 (indeed, one went into pre-production and was advertised at Cannes before being quietly scrapped).

So perhaps the "failure" of LTK, in and of itself, really wasn't all that much of an issue at all.

[Qwerty]

Say what you will about Crusade, however, one thing is for certain; FYEO's Julian Glover (Kristatos) makes a delicious bad guy in Crusade.

I can agree. As Walter Donovan, paired with Allison Doody as the doctor, they make quite the match for Indy. Very fun film.

[Turn]

The summer of 1989 just may have been my favorite movie summer ever, there was just so much out there. I even like Road House (saw the LTK trailer before it). I also love Last Crusade. It may be like a Raiders remake, but I don't care. Its heart was in the right place.

It's one of the few Connery films where he doesn't seem to be playing Connery. Had Dr. Henry Jones been played by somebody else, I may not have liked it as much. I don't think he was ridiculous. The sad part was the way they made Sallah and especially Marcus Brody look like chumps. Still, I'll take this any day over that screaming shrew Willie Scott. She made Stacy Sutton look good in comparison (that was a bad era for movie women).

I remember getting the USA Today the Monday after LTK premiered to see how it fared at the box office (this was the only real source since there was no Internet and radio and television stations didn't care about box office back then). I was in a college economics course and sat stunned that it didn't premier in first place and barely made anything. It was out of the theaters in like two weeks, because I had to see it a second time with a friend of mine at the second-run theater.

I just think Bond had reached a burnout point. The departure from formula and the time it was released after numerous other action films hurt it. LTK took chances when the Lethal Weapons and Die Hards were fresh in people's minds.

[Onyx2626]

Loved LTK, but knew the tepid reception was bad news. Also, I didn't see any interviews with Dalton, didn't hear any reassurances about the next Dalton Bond.
Not a big a Clancy fan, Last Crusade was okay, Die Hard was good, but not very sophisticated.

Thought Brosnan was too skinny, and a chick choice. Goldeneye proved me wrong.

[Tarl_Cabot]

The opening sequence with River Phoenix is fairly clever, I'll grant you, but the rest of it is utter rubbish.

I don't think it is. It's another child abuse moment by Spielberg,ie he seems to think kids are sooooo cute that we just love to see them in movies...I waited 5 years to see Indiana Jones return after the vastly underrated Temple of Doom and I had to sit through 15 minutes of some tiger beat pin-up boy!

Also, the first film very clearly establishes that Marion's father,Abner, was his mentor-it even implied that Indy could have been an orphan but certainly didn't make any reference that Indy's father was also a scholar/archeologist...It was just contrived to have 'James Bond' be Indy's dad. The whole film felt contrived. The sets are also cheap looking. The other two films don't like they were made inside sound stages. This one does. The temple in Syria was already used in a cheap '70s Sinbad movie! Also, I hated some of the interviews I read of SS. He said Indy 3 "was an apology for Temple of Doom". I loved Temple. it was a radical change from the first film and that deserves respect.


Indy 3 sucks Gabe!

[Brian Flagg]

I like this thread!

When Moore left the series, I stayed away from Bond, as I was a hard-headed teenager who simply wouldn't accept a new Bond, as no one could replace Connery or Moore! I didin't follow the media coverage of the Bond troubles, but there was an air of "Bond is finished", at least in my mind. As the interregnum rolled on, I simply assumed that it was all over. That Bond had become dated and a Cold War relic . When Brosnan got the role, I thought "it's about time!"

I did watch other action pics, and I really enjoyed the Alec Baldwin incarnation of Jack Ryan. He was just bookish enough to be believable as an analyst, but you could also see him kicking some backside. I was more disappointed that Baldwin left the series than Dalton leaving 007, even though I hadn't even bothered to watch his two Bond outings. As a matter of fact, I had made up my mind to follow the Ryan series as a sort of "substitute" for Commander Bond, I lost interest when Harrison Ford took over, as I was big on Baldwin at that time. I still like him.

[DaveBond21]

Did you ever feel that there would never be another Bond film?

Yes. I thought LTK was the last ever Bond movie. In 1992, I bought the CD "The Best of Bond" themes and in the liner notes, it said "James Bond will Return". It gave me some hope, but I thought it was a bit optimistic.


I remember being happy when Brosnan was cast as Bond. There was talk of Hugh Grant or Denzel Washington! Compared to the other suggestions, he was easily the stand-out for 007.

[Napoleon Solo]

The thing is this: Of course there was going to be another Bond film. The only reason why there was a five year haitis, is because of the global revolution at the time; fall o' communism, Gorbachev, New World Order, Berlin Wall and so on. And that could happen right now, in fact, I think it is; New Iraqi government, Terrorist threats, half the middle east wants the US of the map, North Korea, Wepons of Mass destruction (even though there never was any, and Bush used them an as excuse to go into Iraq to avenge daddy) and so on. We might not see Bond for a while. And when we do, if my theory is true, the world may be very different.

No, the real reason was the legal fight between Eon and MGM, with Eon believing the studio had fallen into the hands of shady characters. Michael G. Wilson described this in 1995 at a fan convention in New York just before GoldenEye premiered in the U.S.

[Chula]

Of course we knew BOND WOULD RETURN!

In fact, I was glad for the long layover. I walked out of the theater after LICENCE TO KILL shaking my head...they are ending Bond films now by trying to copy Indiana Jones stunts?!? I enjoyed LTK, but it was a sad day for Bond. Once the originator, now an imitator getting its butt kicked by other action films.

But no matter how old you are, we have all seen that the Bond films are resilient as hell. When they are down, they get back up stronger than ever. It is a great series to be a lifelong fan of.

[Odd Job]

I remember the interregnum period very well. I first saw LTK in a cinema in Jakarta of all places in 1989. As much as I had liked Dalton in TLD, I just didn't get the usual Bond 'kick' out of this one. I was in the Navy at the time, and we would often watch Bond movies on the ship's video. I was about the only guy who would stick up for Dalton. I can still remember, when we returned to Sydney, a number of my shipmates going to see LTK, and nearly all came back with negative feelings. It didn't stay in the cinemas all that long either (the big hits at that time were Batman and Lethal Weapon 2). Yes, I was concerned but thought "Don't worry, the next one will get Bond back on track."

By late 1990 I was beginning to get concerned that I hadn't read anything about the next Bond movie, which I assumed would be due in 1991. I remember reading a small article about a proposed movie (with Dalton) due around 1992, but as 1991 wore on and eventually became 1992, I started to think that it was all over. In 1994, I remember hearing about plans to bring Bond back. My hopes were raised. Then I remember seeing a story on Entertainment Tonight (yes we get it here in Australia) about a poll on who should be the new James Bond. That was the first that I heard of Dalton exiting the role. It was a short time after that when the article appeared in the paper, announcing PB had won the role.

I was pleased that Pierce had been given the chance, especially as I had argued so much on his behalf in the mid 80's, when it had become apparent that Sir Rog would be leaving. I still had doubt's though, whether they could recapture the magic. As 1995 wore on, my anticipation increased. By the time the ad's started appearing on the TV, I started counting the sleeps until December 26th (very mature for a 29 year old, don't you think). Finally, the day arrived and with my best mate and my 16 year old nephew (and nursing a terrible hangover - I won't go into that) we head to cinema, with a big opening night crowd to see GE. Bond was back, and all was right with the world.

Someday I might just tell you about my anxieties about the future of JB after DAD and the four year gap.

[Simon]

Was curiously uninvolved in the gap years as they happily coincided with an extended bout of travelling and working abroad. So even if there were news and progress, I wouldn't have been able to follow any of it.

So by the time of my return to civilisation and a 'career', 1995 popped up as did an ability to follow something.

Have always been more interested in the character than the actor portraying him, save for Mr Moore, so Dalton / Brosnan made no impact - just that there was a return to the cinema of a character.

[Double-Oh Agent]

- At what point did you realise that the Bond franchise was in serious jeopardy/that Dalton was not going to return?

Maybe it was because I'm a die-hard, lifelong Bond fan, or maybe it's because Licence To Kill is my favorite 007 film, I don't know, but I never really thought that the Bond franchise was in serious jeopardy. I do know, however, that the first time I thought Dalton wasn't going to return as Bond was when he stepped down in the spring of 1994. But when he did it, I realized it probably was for the best. After a then-five years gap between films, and him not being an overly popular 007 with the general public, it made sense for a new Bond to take over. Had there been a Bond film in 1991, I'm sure Dalton would have gotten his third Bond film and then who knows? But with the long break and the lackluster box office of LTK, it was time to hang up his holster.

- Did you ever feel that there would never be another Bond film? If so, how did you feel about that? (Which sounds a silly question since this is a forum full of hardcore Bond geeks, but it would have all hinged on your level of addic----, sorry, fandom at the time.)

I was always confident that Bond would return, but it seemed that every year from 1991-1994 there was talk that the next film would be coming out and it never happened. I was like, come on already.

- Did you switch your allegiance to another series of films, such as the DIE HARDs, the Jack Ryans....?

I never switched my allegiance. I'd keep watching the old films and reading the books (John Gardner's novels helped fill part of the void). But I always enjoyed the Jack Ryan films (particularly The Hunt For Red October with Alec Baldwin--THE definitive version of J.R.) and especially the Die Hard films.

- Did you have strong views on who ought to replace Dalton?

Yes. There was only one ideal candidate and his name was Brosnan. Pierce Brosnan.

- How did you feel when you learned that Brosnan had been cast?

Thrilled and excited to see the new film. I'd wanted him to be Bond since 1986. (Although looking back, I have to admit he probably looked too young back then. By 1995, he'd aged perfectly into the role.) And he didn't disappoint me.

[john.steed]

- At what point did you realize that the Bond franchise was in serious jeopardy/that Dalton was not going to return?
As time went on I was concerned that Bond about the return of Bond. As others have noted there was a lot less information about things like films at the time so I did not know about any legal issues. I had a fixed view about Dalton. At the end of the Moore period, one of my games when I watched British TV here in the states was to see if I could spot possible future Bonds and the one actor that really got my attention was Timothy Dalton. Hence, it first looked liked it would be Pierce Brosdan, I was disappointed. Then, I was quite happy to find out that it would be Dalton, who I did not even know was being considered, got the job after all. I really liked his first Bond films but I have found the second more problematic. I knew what the director and writer was doing, going back to original source in a couple instances, but it seemed to different from most of the movies. There was also the incident of my then girlfriend getting sick from the violence. (Later my wife would have the same problem.) Hence, I wanted Dalton back, but in a film more like the first one.

- Did you ever feel that there would never be another Bond film? If so, how did you feel about that? (Which sounds a silly question since this is a forum full of hardcore Bond geeks, but it would have all hinged on your level of addic----, sorry, fandom at the time.)

I hoped that Bond would return though I do not remember how concerned I was that he would not.

- Did you switch your allegiance to another series of films, such as the DIE HARDs, the Jack Ryans....?

I liked those films quite a bit but my favorite action hero has remained James Bond. That said, there was something going on in the late eighties/early nineties that made up for Bond but it was not on film. At the time Star Trek returned to the small screen and that was and by the third year, it was going strong.

- Did you have strong views on who ought to replace Dalton?

I knew that Pierce Brosnan had almost got the job back in the 1980s. I had not seen anyone else who I liked.

- How did you feel when you learned that Brosnan had been cast?

I was mostly familiar with him from Remington Steele a show that I enjoyed. I was concerned with his physique. While Moore had a light touch in his acting, he came off as a big man, solid enough not to seem too overmatched in a fit with an Oddjob type. Brosdan in his Remington Steele phase looked like he would have been crushed against Jaws for example. However, Brosdan later did some spy film (Eye of a Needle??) in which he seemed better suited for the role. Hence, while I would have liked to see Dalton return in film more like TLD, I was content with Brosdan.

[DaveBond21]

I actually think that the Bond franchise can run and run, as long as it gets these gaps every now and then.

I think we needed the breaks of 89-95 and 02-06.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I actually think that the Bond franchise can run and run, as long as it gets these gaps every now and then.

I think we needed the breaks of 89-95 and 02-06.

In hindsight, you're probably right, but at the time it was tough waiting for the next thrill ride starring 007.

[DaveBond21]

I actually think that the Bond franchise can run and run, as long as it gets these gaps every now and then.

I think we needed the breaks of 89-95 and 02-06.

In hindsight, you're probably right, but at the time it was tough waiting for the next thrill ride starring 007.

True! It's even hard waiting just 2 years between Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace!! But I'd rather sometimes wait longer for a quality 007 movie than get a mediocre one every 2 years.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I actually think that the Bond franchise can run and run, as long as it gets these gaps every now and then.

I think we needed the breaks of 89-95 and 02-06.

In hindsight, you're probably right, but at the time it was tough waiting for the next thrill ride starring 007.

True! It's even hard waiting just 2 years between Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace!! But I'd rather sometimes wait longer for a quality 007 movie than get a mediocre one every 2 years.

You seem to have forgotten the break between '74-'77, mes amis.

[DaveBond21]

I actually think that the Bond franchise can run and run, as long as it gets these gaps every now and then.

I think we needed the breaks of 89-95 and 02-06.

In hindsight, you're probably right, but at the time it was tough waiting for the next thrill ride starring 007.

True! It's even hard waiting just 2 years between Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace!! But I'd rather sometimes wait longer for a quality 007 movie than get a mediocre one every 2 years.

You seem to have forgotten the break between '74-'77, mes amis.

Well there was also 1999-2002, but 3 years isn't a long gap.

[tdalton]

I actually think that the Bond franchise can run and run, as long as it gets these gaps every now and then.

I think we needed the breaks of 89-95 and 02-06.

Agreed, even though the gap from 89-95 resulted in not having a third Dalton film. At this point in the franchise, long gaps are necessary to keep things fresh. If they kept churning out a new film every two years without a longer break at some point, then things would become very stale and very quickly. I would imagine that, once Craig leaves the role, that we'll probably be faced with another long break, unless they decide to cast Henry Cavill in the role without going through another long search (seeing as how he supposedly made it very far into the process the last time around). Otherwise, I would expect at least a 1-2 year search for his replacement, like the last time around, and I think that such a gap between actors now is not only a good thing, but perhaps even something that will become necessary.

[DaveBond21]

Yes, there may be a 3 year gap between the last Craig 007 movie and the next one by the new actor.

[Milovy]

- At what point did you realize that the Bond franchise was in serious jeopardy/that Dalton was not going to return?

To be honest I completely lost track of the matter after LTK... just kept noticing there was no new Bond film.


- Did you ever feel that there would never be another Bond film? If so, how did you feel about that? (Which sounds a silly question since this is a forum full of hardcore Bond geeks, but it would have all hinged on your level of addic----, sorry, fandom at the time.)

Never felt as if there would be another Bond film. I was not familiar with the time frame of releases for the older films so a large gap did not seem strange to me.



- Did you switch your allegiance to another series of films, such as the DIE HARDs, the Jack Ryans....?

No.


- Did you have strong views on who ought to replace Dalton?

No.


- How did you feel when you learned that Brosnan had been cast?

Mildly disappointed because I missed Dalton. My feeling was that they were years too late in casting Brosnan who was no longer so "hot."


Also, there was no Internet back then so there was no quick way to share news and rumors about what was going on. The Bond films, for most people, simply disappeared and very little was reported on them in the standard entertainment media (Entertainment Tonight, Variety, Premiere etc). If my answers seem boring, that's probably why.

Edited by Milovy, 03 March 2008 - 10:58 PM.