153 replies to this topic

[Tybre]

First off, sorry if there's already a thread like this. Merge or delete or move it or something in that case.

---

Anyways, in my boredom and reading old threads in the TD section, I've noticed a lot of similarities between complaints people have with LTK and QoS. I can also find quite a few similarities, both in plot and production, of the two films. Ordinarily I would rack these off, but I'm tired, so I'll come back and do it when I've had a good sleep. But I've been thinking a few things:

1. The title of this thread
2. If the title holds true, what does it bode for Craig?

Edited by Tybre, 28 April 2009 - 02:57 AM.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I see a lot of similarities between Licence to Kill and Quantum of Solace. They're both very dark in tone. Both feature some form of water (the skiing scene and the boat chase), and an airplane. I know that some of this is small and insubstantial, but these are just some of the things that I noticed.
(Something else I noticed: both films take place in South/Central America. Coincidence? )

What does this mean for Craig? Well, I don't know that it means for him as an actor, but I can say this. Perhaps Quantum was TOO dark. Maybe the next movie needs to be lighter in tone (not campy, just more...optimistic).

[jaguar007]

Yes, there are some sililarities as to how Bond fans and the public were divided about both films. QOS however was much more successful a film than LTK was. Also, while some did not like the movie, the public as a whole is still singing the praises of Daniel Crag where in 1989, the public was not with Dalton (unfortunately).

[Tarl_Cabot]

QOS is alot better than LTK in terms of tone, pacing and execution.I enjoy both films very much but I think QOS is a top 2 all timer.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Well, they have some similarities, but QOS isn't as bad (and tacky with all the eighties rubbish style) as LTK.

[MrDraco]

Both are awesome bond movies in my opinion...

[Germanlady]

I have recently rewatched LTK after not liking it in the theatre and that hasn´t changed. For me its a bit like a film, that was meant to be dark and serious but I couldn´t - take it serious.

[Baines]

It's obvious that QoS is a modern LTK. A boat chase, a "cocky" girl, a "down to earth" villain, rivalry between M and Bond...Killifer (DEA) worked for Sanchez, the Colonel of Police worked with Medrano...

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Licence to Kill is the better film of the two in my eyes, though I like QoS better and better for each viewing. However, none of them really has the balls to let Bond hunt the bad guys completely on his own; LTK has Pam, and Q showing up on "holiday" and in QoS he "shares" his vendetta with Camille. And M. And Mathis. And...

Both films also feature less "gags" and a more adult, toned down sense of humour than the average Bond film, which I appreciate. I also assume they were both tailored to their leading man's abilities and characteristics.

[Safari Suit]

Also, while some did not like the movie, the public as a whole is still singing the praises of Daniel Crag where in 1989, the public was not with Dalton (unfortunately).

I think that perhaps the main reason for this difference is that the public liked Casino Royale much more than they did The Living Daylights.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Licence to Kill is the better film of the two in my eyes, though I like QoS better and better for each viewing. However, none of them really has the balls to let Bond hunt the bad guys completely on his own

Because all of them are completely aware that they're telling the adventures of James Bond, a british agent on her majesty's secret service ('the gentleman spy'), not the story of an american type of hero in the vein of John McClaine or Rambo, who is very keen on saying cheesy lines similars to "this time is personal", alongside to gorish action.

P.S.: Sorry, if I'm sound too harsh, but LTK for me is the worst movie in the series.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 28 April 2009 - 08:59 AM.

[stamper]

Both movies have the Bond girl pullin up in a car / truck and saying "get in !"

There are about a hundred other similarities

The wost is that both films halted the series for a while -- which will become true to QOS as the years will go on...

[blueman]

Also, while some did not like the movie, the public as a whole is still singing the praises of Daniel Crag where in 1989, the public was not with Dalton (unfortunately).

I think that perhaps the main reason for this difference is that the public liked Casino Royale much more than they did The Living Daylights.

Or cuz LTK was a bad film?

[Safari Suit]

Also, while some did not like the movie, the public as a whole is still singing the praises of Daniel Crag where in 1989, the public was not with Dalton (unfortunately).

I think that perhaps the main reason for this difference is that the public liked Casino Royale much more than they did The Living Daylights.

Or cuz LTK was a bad film?

Perhaps (although not in my opinion) but the point was that the public still love Craig as Bond even those who didn't go for Quantum of Solace, whereas the public (according to jaguar) were not in love with Dalton in 89, and I think the reason for this is that there was a lot of goodwill generated from Casino Royale.

[00Twelve]

The wost is that both films halted the series for a while -- which will become true to QOS as the years will go on...

[Judo chop]

The wost is that both films halted the series for a while -- which will become true to QOS as the years will go on...

Stamper… you’re either an idiot or a genius.

“QOS is going to halt the series for a while, but it won’t start doing so until some years down the road.”

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. You know… I think Goldfinger is going to halt the series too. Not quite yet though. In a few years, probably after Bond 23. Yes, in a few years, Bond will start to feel the affects of that lazy last hour of Goldfinger in which Bond is rendered passive and Goldfinger performs his plot exposing monologue. The series will never be the same, and may in fact never recover.

But, that’s all starting in 2012. We’re fine for now.



Anyway. QOS vs. LTK. Both dark in tone. Rogue agent theme directly or indirectly incorporated. Both flawed. LTK is insufferable, while QOS is watchable, mostly because QOS was ready for its tone.

[Mr_Wint]

I am not a big fan of either LTK or QOS. I would say that QOS is slightly better as a Bondfilm, but LTK has much better action and somewhat better writing. LTK simply works better as a standard action/thriller-movie.

There's a serious attempt to be ground-breaking and bold in both LTK and QOS. But both films struggle with a weak script and a clear lack of good ideas. The filmmakers try to compensate for this by making Bond more ruthless. As a result, Bond is almost constantly out-of-character compared to the character we know from the other 20 films. Ironically, Bond becomes less interesting during the journey.

In LTK they also try to hide the unoriginality by showing more blood and violence than usual. In QOS, they try to cover it up in the post-production with "bold" editing.

[Frimmel]

...The filmmakers try to compensate for this by making Bond more ruthless. As a result, Bond is almost constantly out-of-character compared to the character we know from the other 20 films...

How is ruthless out of character for 007? How is Bond in QOS out of character with Bond you know from 20 other films?

[tim partridge]

What a coincidence you brought this up, because I recently unravelled the missing link




SPOILER AHEAD:






































Crawl, End Crawl is actually Dirty Love played backwards halfspeed at director Marc Forster's insistence






































End Spoiler























Not really.

[DR76]

What does this mean for Craig? Well, I don't know that it means for him as an actor, but I can say this. Perhaps Quantum was TOO dark. Maybe the next movie needs to be lighter in tone (not campy, just more...optimistic).

Daniel Craig's Bond career hasn't been harmed by QoS. Where do people get this idea from? Unlike LTK, QoS was a major hit at the box office - at least here in the U.S. Fans are already waiting for the next Bond film.


Also, I feel that both movies were pretty damn good. Neither of them are not mediocre or poorly made, as far as I'm concerned. But I don't consider them to be the best among the Bond films. LTK was slightly marred by a strong similarity to a MIAMI VICE episode and QoS was probably marred by the editing and short running time.

What is this overreaction to QoS? Are we really such slaves to tradition that we'll make a big fuss over something that's different from the usual crap?

Edited by DR76, 28 April 2009 - 03:44 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Personally I see very few similarities, other than they are both a bit dark and the second film for each actor.
QOS is way ahead of LTK in almost all respects IMO. Better production values, better scripted and directed. Most of all though QOS does not look cheap.

[plankattack]

Sure, you can list similarities/coincidences all you like. But you can do that if you pick at random any two films in the series (well, just about).

It's the differences that count though. LTK was a darker Bond film trying to wear some of the bells and whistles of the consistently lighter tone of the preceeding five or six films. That's it's biggest weakness IMHO, in that it's attempt to be serious and edgy is undone by some pretty moronic moments that undermine the film, or more importantly the performance of its leading man. I've said before that TD in LTK gives one of the best three performances of James Bond, the man. He is the single most compeelling part of the film.

QoS on the other hand is a far more even film. Whether or not you like it isn't the point. It sets out to be darker, more serious, a character study even, and to it's credit, refuses (like CR before it) to compromise what it's set out to do.

QoS is unabashedly a take-it-or-leave-it Bond. If you don't like your Bonds dark then you probably won't enjoy it. LTK fails because (perhaps only because it was twenty years too early) it's saddled with the 80s EON attitude of "something for everyone."

Nope, two very different entries in the series.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

What does this mean for Craig? Well, I don't know that it means for him as an actor, but I can say this. Perhaps Quantum was TOO dark. Maybe the next movie needs to be lighter in tone (not campy, just more...optimistic).

Daniel Craig's Bond career hasn't been harmed by QoS. Where do people get this idea from? Unlike LTK, QoS was a major hit at the box office - at least here in the U.S. Fans are already waiting for the next Bond film.


Also, I feel that both movies were pretty damn good. Neither of them are not mediocre or poorly made, as far as I'm concerned. But I don't consider them to be the best among the Bond films. LTK was slightly marred by a strong similarity to a MIAMI VICE episode and QoS was probably marred by the editing and short running time.

What is this overreaction to QoS? Are we really such slaves to tradition that we'll make a big fuss over something that's different from the usual crap?

I never said that Quantum "harmed" Craig's career. On the contrary, Quantum just further established his role as 007. With all of the money that Quantum's garnered, he's sure to see his career skyrocket.
I think that Quantum is done FAR better than Licence to Kill was. Licence to Kill seems like a Miami Vice episode, and Quantum despite a weak plotline, had an original story.

[00Twelve]

I would say that QOS is slightly better as a Bondfilm, but LTK has much better action and somewhat better writing.

Please elaborate.

[Professor Pi]

If you look at how both films handle the punch line "a dead end," I think you can see what's right and wrong with both films. Although I prefer LTK over QoS.

[Revelator]

I would say that QOS is slightly better as a Bondfilm, but LTK has much better action and somewhat better writing.

Please elaborate.

LTK has comprehensible action scenes and a coherent plot. But I personally have no wish to make the film engage in a pissing contest--I liked them both, and feel they're actually quite different.

[Mr_Wint]

Sure, you can list similarities/coincidences all you like. But you can do that if you pick at random any two films in the series (well, just about).

It's the differences that count though. LTK was a darker Bond film trying to wear some of the bells and whistles of the consistently lighter tone of the preceeding five or six films. That's it's biggest weakness IMHO, in that it's attempt to be serious and edgy is undone by some pretty moronic moments that undermine the film, or more importantly the performance of its leading man. I've said before that TD in LTK gives one of the best three performances of James Bond, the man. He is the single most compeelling part of the film.

QoS on the other hand is a far more even film. Whether or not you like it isn't the point. It sets out to be darker, more serious, a character study even, and to it's credit, refuses (like CR before it) to compromise what it's set out to do.

QoS is unabashedly a take-it-or-leave-it Bond. If you don't like your Bonds dark then you probably won't enjoy it. LTK fails because (perhaps only because it was twenty years too early) it's saddled with the 80s EON attitude of "something for everyone."

I am trying to compare the feeling I had after watching LTK -89 with QOS -08, and nothing you say make sense to me. LTK didn't feel like "something for everyone". It felt like a totally different filmseries.

QOS, on the other hand, had elements that we have seen in previous Bondfilms (especially the Brosnan era). Bond being a rough agent and escaping from MI-6 was done already in DAD. A free-running sequence 5 minutes after the title sequence as in CR. Greene is more or less the same type of villain as Graves. We get big action scenes every 10 min as established in TND, and an inserted loud climax in a vehicle or building that destroys itself (as shown in the last 5 films). 'M' pops up everywhere as established in TWINE and the traditional villain speech and sacrificial lamb are squeezed in there. Just to give some few examples.

While QOS is more formula in its story, I still think that both films got the balance completely wrong when it comes to the Bond character. Forced to choose between them, I would pick QOS as it has a better title, better music and feels slightly more epic.

I would say that QOS is slightly better as a Bondfilm, but LTK has much better action and somewhat better writing.

Please elaborate.

LTK has fewer action scenes and they are better integrated into the film and better directed and edited. Hence, it works better as a traditional action movie. The truck sequence just feels a little bit more effective than anything in QOS. The latter fails so much with the action because there is no tension whatsoever.

[tim partridge]

I would say that QOS is slightly better as a Bondfilm, but LTK has much better action and somewhat better writing.

Please elaborate.

To me, if you had the approach to action as seen in LTK (and I mean direction/editing of the action as seen in the film, not what was written on paper) in QOS instead of all of that incomprehensible Bourne cut and paste, you'd have one of the strongest Bond movies ever.

[plankattack]

I am trying to compare the feeling I had after watching LTK -89 with QOS -08, and nothing you say make sense to me. LTK didn't feel like "something for everyone". It felt like a totally different filmseries.

Let me take another at what I was trying to say. I've said before that while I enjoy LTK, I feel that it's let down by trying to force in some of the stock moments that were par for the course during the Bonds of that era - some of the things even, that we all debate about when we discuss "what is a Bond-film." The use of humour stands out in LTK, and not as a positive (in fact, a lot of the humour seems out-of-place in both of TD's outings).

But even something as insignificant as the Moneypenny scene. Yes, I know, it's the reason Q shows up, but I still feel that it's in there so that "we can get out Moneypenny scene in."

CR, and QoS by extension, were almost unabashed in their desire to appear not to wedge in familiar EON "moments" and that's why I feel QoS is more consistent piece of entertainment. LTK is almost hampered by it's inability to go all the way and commit.

Hope this helps, Mr W!

[Tybre]

I am trying to compare the feeling I had after watching LTK -89 with QOS -08, and nothing you say make sense to me. LTK didn't feel like "something for everyone". It felt like a totally different filmseries.

Let me take another at what I was trying to say. I've said before that while I enjoy LTK, I feel that it's let down by trying to force in some of the stock moments that were par for the course during the Bonds of that era - some of the things even, that we all debate about when we discuss "what is a Bond-film." The use of humour stands out in LTK, and not as a positive (in fact, a lot of the humour seems out-of-place in both of TD's outings).

Yeah, I agree a bit there. I do place LTK in my top 5, personally, but the humor is at points...a bit off. Although personally I derive great amusement from things that probably aren't intended to be funny, like when Q just tosses his radio-broom in the bushes and goes walking off.

And mind, I'm not saying either film is bad. Again, LTK is in my top 5 and QoS is in my top 10, but a lot of critical reaction to the films as a whole, whether from fans or third parties, has been fairly similar. Granted, I haven't read a lot of reviews of LTK from 89, but the two that I have are similar to the reviews of QoS. "Bond is good, xyz is good, the rest was rubbish" is basically what they amount to.

Iunno, it was just a general observation I made last night I guess. I remember reading on another site a few weeks before I even discovered CBn that LTK went in with an incomplete script. Look at what happened to QoS. Both have more realistic villains with simple money making schemes (cocaine/water, respectively). But I'm not gonna rack off the whole list. It's a long one and would probably just be redundant of things said in this thread.