153 replies to this topic

[Safari Suit]

The eighties style of LTK is only a big problem if you hate that eighties style. It's not any easier to tell when that film was made than it is with Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me or Die Another Day for example. To be fair, it could be argued that Goldfinger is so redolent of its era because the Bond films set much of the pop cultural tones of the time, but will that matter to many people watching it today?

Yes, I do hate the eighties!!

Nonetheless, I believe there are a few Bond films, where isn't that easy to tell to which decade belong, i.e. CR. And I'm not talking about historic references in the plot (like the one to the USA's 9/11), I'm pointing to the style of the film.

Well, I was talking about style as well. There are a few Bond films where I suppose its not that easy to tell what decade it was made in; the first two Moore films of the eighties could pass for seventies movies, as I suppose could parts of NSNA. On the whole though, I think it's pretty easy to tell which decade the Bond films were made in, as indeed I feel it is with most mainstream films.

[Sniperscope]

Nontheless, the main problem that I got with LTK is its heavy eighties style- unlike the rest of the Bond movies of that decade-. The vulgarity of that fad, with the role models of Miami Vice or Die Hard or almost every american action movie of that time, seems so inappropriate as inspiration for the characteristic elegance of Bond.

It's just too easy to relegate a Bond film that involves drugs or a South American villain to "Miami Vice" and the "Die Hard" reference I just can't see - seriously - completely different to LTK. I'm also not too sure what "heavy 80s style" means. After all, the film was made in the 80s... I mean you can't exactly miss that TSWLM was made in the 70s or GF in the 60s... CR isn't exactly immune to "inappropriate inspiration" from its zeitgeist either btw - Bond playing Texas Hold 'Em!?! Trendy and completely sans elegance. Anyone can sign up for that bastardisation in the local pub on a Thursday night...

By the "characteristic elegance of Bond" are you referring to the overall "look" of the film? I think there was meant to be more than a little "vulgarity" about it with Bond infiltrating a drug-lord's organisation.

To me LTK is more directly inspired by TMWTGG novel where Bond infiltrates Scaramanga's organisation, becoming a trusted gun for hire. If you've read it you may note there is no "characteristic elegance" in that book. In fact, like LTK, it's meant to be more than a little distasteful.

Anyway both films are really very different despite the revenge angles. LTK is very heavily underpinned by the whole undercover/infiltration storyline, whereas QoS relegates this to Camile briefly.

Edited by Sniperscope, 02 May 2009 - 02:12 PM.

[00Twelve]

Nontheless, the main problem that I got with LTK is its heavy eighties style- unlike the rest of the Bond movies of that decade-. The vulgarity of that fad, with the role models of Miami Vice or Die Hard or almost every american action movie of that time, seems so inappropriate as inspiration for the characteristic elegance of Bond.

It's just too easy to relegate a Bond film that involves drugs or a South American villain to "Miami Vice" and the "Die Hard" reference I just can't see - seriously - completely different to LTK. I'm also not too sure what "heavy 80s style" means. After all, the film was made in the 80s... I mean you can't exactly miss that TSWLM was made in the 70s or GF in the 60s... CR isn't exactly immune to "inappropriate inspiration" from its zeitgeist either btw - Bond playing Texas Hold 'Em!?! Trendy and completely sans elegance. Anyone can sign up for that bastardisation in the local pub on a Thursday night...

By the "characteristic elegance of Bond" are you referring to the overall "look" of the film? I think there was meant to be more than a little "vulgarity" about it with Bond infiltrating a drug-lord's organisation.

To me LTK is more directly inspired by TMWTGG novel where Bond infiltrates Scaramanga's organisation, becoming a trusted gun for hire. If you've read it you may note there is no "characteristic elegance" in that book. In fact, like LTK, it's meant to be more than a little distasteful.

Anyway both films are really very different despite the revenge angles. LTK is very heavily underpinned by the whole undercover/infiltration storyline, whereas QoS relegates this to Camile briefly.

You have to see the similarities to those other 80s action flicks. There was a tone to action movies in the 80s that had, by and large, left Bond in the dust. I can think of nary an 80s action movie that wasn't an R feature. Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Robocop, Schwarzenegger movies, Stallone movies (sans Rocky)...they're all replete with splashing squibs and other violent deaths. And scores by Michael Kamen.

Yes, LTK most certainly did take a queue from these movies. Out of nowhere we've got exploding heads, forklift impaling[!!], shredded henchmen, and point-blank uzi executions. Again, Michael Kamen came on board for the score. It's undeniable that he was invited because he scored Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. No coincidence whatsoever.

The evidence is plainly there to suggest that the Bond team thought that the action genre was headed in a single direction, and they thought at the time that it was wise to follow that trend. We have the benefit of hindsight to show us that the trend wasn't permanent and thus LTK is more obviously dated.

I sympathize with you but it's simply the truth-- LTK was an attempt to gravitate toward the more violent action films of the 80s.

[ChrissBond007]

QOS and LTK are both under average Bondmovies for me, but in different ways.

LTK feels, like many have said, like a Miami Vice episode. I don't really like the whole atmosphere and it's also too slow in my view. QOS is way too quick edited otherwise, especially the first half and it feels like a average action movie to me at some parts.

But looking at the plot with a more grittier Bond out for revenge, brutal fights, you can call QOS the new LTK. And there are also alot more similair scenes.

QOS is the better one for me, mostly because of the Bond girls and Daniel Craig's peformance. But I would say it are two similair movies, but the problem with both is that it looks like they try to copy other series.

Edited by ChrissBond007, 03 May 2009 - 02:07 AM.

[Sniperscope]

You have to see the similarities to those other 80s action flicks. There was a tone to action movies in the 80s that had, by and large, left Bond in the dust. I can think of nary an 80s action movie that wasn't an R feature. Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Robocop, Schwarzenegger movies, Stallone movies (sans Rocky)...they're all replete with splashing squibs and other violent deaths. And scores by Michael Kamen.

Yes, LTK most certainly did take a queue from these movies. Out of nowhere we've got exploding heads, forklift impaling[!!], shredded henchmen, and point-blank uzi executions. Again, Michael Kamen came on board for the score. It's undeniable that he was invited because he scored Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. No coincidence whatsoever.

Well, fair enough, but I can't see how a particular composer can be held up that Bond was attempting to emulate other 80s action films! By that logic would you say that GOLDENEYE was attempting to emulate LEON by bringing on Eric Serra?! No way.
As for exploding heads and impalements with forklifts well, the Bond series has not exactly been immune to grotesque death moments up to that point... certainly flims as recent as AVTAK had Zorin machine-gunning his workers, dropping a subordinate from an airship, as well as Patrick Macnee getting strangled and dumped. TLD had an embassy worker cut in half by a door, an agent has his faced forced onto a hotplate during the fight with Kristos...

The evidence is plainly there to suggest that the Bond team thought that the action genre was headed in a single direction, and they thought at the time that it was wise to follow that trend. We have the benefit of hindsight to show us that the trend wasn't permanent and thus LTK is more obviously dated.

Well yes of course, but with the benefit of hindsight we can also say that action films continually evolve and LTK was part of that process - no trend in cinema is permanent. If anything dates LTK it is more the pace of the film and its unimaginative camera work rather than the violence in itself.
However you are quite correct about the pressures during that period forcing Bond into a new direction - I don't think Bond could have pushed the same old, same old in the 80s anyway. Most average cinema goers weren't too interested in the cliched storylines that the Bond series had become which would have seemed tame and even camp by the standards of LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD.
Although I might also argue that rather than the production team thinking "that the action genre was headed in a single direction" they were actually much more concerned about not only the relevance of Bond in the 80s but also whether Dalton had a long term future in the part. I think the violence is an attempt to draw an audience to a franchise and an actor that EON had lost faith in...

Edited by Sniperscope, 03 May 2009 - 12:09 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Nontheless, the main problem that I got with LTK is its heavy eighties style- unlike the rest of the Bond movies of that decade-. The vulgarity of that fad, with the role models of Miami Vice or Die Hard or almost every american action movie of that time, seems so inappropriate as inspiration for the characteristic elegance of Bond.

It's just too easy to relegate a Bond film that involves drugs or a South American villain to "Miami Vice" and the "Die Hard" reference I just can't see - seriously - completely different to LTK. I'm also not too sure what "heavy 80s style" means. After all, the film was made in the 80s... I mean you can't exactly miss that TSWLM was made in the 70s or GF in the 60s... CR isn't exactly immune to "inappropriate inspiration" from its zeitgeist either btw - Bond playing Texas Hold 'Em!?! Trendy and completely sans elegance. Anyone can sign up for that bastardisation in the local pub on a Thursday night...

Right! But Texas Hold 'Em is always showed in a very stylish environment, and that's what really matters in a movie (the visual aspect of it), unlike the fight in LTK which indeed happens in a lousy "local pub on a Thursday night".

I repeat the eighties style is the most inappropriate for Bond, and not just because I don't like it, I said this because what makes different to Bond movies from other action thrillers, among other things, is the overall elegance- don't confuse this with cornyness- of the character and locations.

And perhaps this a little bit subjective, but I believe that the eighties fad is considered by many people, as one of the most tacky trends in popular culture. That goes from the clothes and hairdos, to the gorish violence of the action movies.

Whereas in the other hand, we got the sixties style, which are absolutely opposed to what the eighties represent, and I'm not only talking about fashion here. And we all know that the sixties are the quintessential decade for the cinematic Bond, alongside with being the cradle of the Bondmania phenomenon.

[Mr. Blofeld]

And perhaps this a little bit subjective, but I believe that the eighties fad is considered by many people, as one of the most tacky trends in popular culture. That goes from the clothes and hairdos, to the gorish violence of the action movies.

Whereas in the other hand, we got the sixties style, which are absolutely opposed to what the eighties represent, and I'm not only talking about fashion here. And we all know that the sixties are the quintessential decade for the cinematic Bond, alongside with being the cradle of the Bondmania phenomenon.

Well, then, what do you think of the '70s, which alternately featured pink ties and flared trousers?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And perhaps this a little bit subjective, but I believe that the eighties fad is considered by many people, as one of the most tacky trends in popular culture. That goes from the clothes and hairdos, to the gorish violence of the action movies.

Whereas in the other hand, we got the sixties style, which are absolutely opposed to what the eighties represent, and I'm not only talking about fashion here. And we all know that the sixties are the quintessential decade for the cinematic Bond, alongside with being the cradle of the Bondmania phenomenon.

Well, then, what do you think of the '70s, which alternately featured pink ties and flared trousers?

The seventies were a funny transition not as stylish as the sixties, but not as tacky and boring as the eighties. In fact, if you do a deeper analysis, you will find that there's few really distinctive features about that decade (the disco fad could be the exception). The first half seems just leftovers of the hippies late sixties, while the second half appears as some kind of preview of the eighities- with all the punk influences-.

[Sniperscope]

Right! But Texas Hold 'Em is always showed in a very stylish environment, and that's what really matters in a movie (the visual aspect of it), unlike the fight in LTK which indeed happens in a lousy "local pub on a Thursday night".

LMAO - that's a nice one Mr A-B! I'll give you that one!

I repeat the eighties style is the most inappropriate for Bond, and not just because I don't like it, I said this because what makes different to Bond movies from other action thrillers, among other things, is the overall elegance- don't confuse this with cornyness- of the character and locations.
And perhaps this a little bit subjective, but I believe that the eighties fad is considered by many people, as one of the most tacky trends in popular culture. That goes from the clothes and hairdos, to the gorish violence of the action movies.

Well I'm pretty biased too - LTK was the first Bond film I saw at the movies so it holds a special place for me. As I grew up in the 80s it's an era I look back on with some considerable affection... Haven't you noticed Mr A-B? The 80s are coming back my friend!

Edited by Sniperscope, 03 May 2009 - 11:59 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

Doesn't this all depend on where you cite LICENCE TO KILL and QUANTAM OF SOLACE...?

If people don't like either film and it makes them categorise better by bracketing the films together then go ahead. But I like to look at the films in a wider context.

[00Twelve]

You have to see the similarities to those other 80s action flicks. There was a tone to action movies in the 80s that had, by and large, left Bond in the dust. I can think of nary an 80s action movie that wasn't an R feature. Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Robocop, Schwarzenegger movies, Stallone movies (sans Rocky)...they're all replete with splashing squibs and other violent deaths. And scores by Michael Kamen.

Yes, LTK most certainly did take a queue from these movies. Out of nowhere we've got exploding heads, forklift impaling[!!], shredded henchmen, and point-blank uzi executions. Again, Michael Kamen came on board for the score. It's undeniable that he was invited because he scored Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. No coincidence whatsoever.

Well, fair enough, but I can't see how a particular composer can be held up that Bond was attempting to emulate other 80s action films! By that logic would you say that GOLDENEYE was attempting to emulate LEON by bringing on Eric Serra?! No way.
As for exploding heads and impalements with forklifts well, the Bond series has not exactly been immune to grotesque death moments up to that point... certainly flims as recent as AVTAK had Zorin machine-gunning his workers, dropping a subordinate from an airship, as well as Patrick Macnee getting strangled and dumped. TLD had an embassy worker cut in half by a door, an agent has his faced forced onto a hotplate during the fight with Kristos...

I'll go ahead and admit that I'm probably splitting hairs here, but how popular was LEON worldwide? Sorta somewhat. But how popular were Lethal Weapon and Die Hard? Colossal. Kamen was THE hot new composer for action movies at the moment. EON hired him because of that. I'm not saying the score was bad (though it WAS badly translated to the CD), just that the composer was hired because he scored two of the biggest action movies of the decade, and did so just a couple of years prior.

LW and DH weren't at all the only movies with heightened violence at the time. I thought I said that clearly. It was an overall trend in movies at the time. The 80s were the rise of the slasher genre. The scifi genre became darker. Action movies were legitimizing the violence only before seen in 70s exploitation cinema. Until LTK, the Bond franchise was entirely devoid of graphic violence (Did we see the bullets ripping into the miners? No, and that's why it was a PG movie.). LTK was made with the intent on following a very popular trend to attempt to keep Bond relevant. It's really no different than the cartoonish car chases of the early 70s Bonds.

The difference here is that there was such a backlash against 80s mega-violence that LTK stands out like a sore thumb against the rest of the Bonds. And if there's a specific movie that can claim influence on LTK, it's Scarface.

The evidence is plainly there to suggest that the Bond team thought that the action genre was headed in a single direction, and they thought at the time that it was wise to follow that trend. We have the benefit of hindsight to show us that the trend wasn't permanent and thus LTK is more obviously dated.

Well yes of course, but with the benefit of hindsight we can also say that action films continually evolve and LTK was part of that process - no trend in cinema is permanent. If anything dates LTK it is more the pace of the film and its unimaginative camera work rather than the violence in itself.
However you are quite correct about the pressures during that period forcing Bond into a new direction - I don't think Bond could have pushed the same old, same old in the 80s anyway. Most average cinema goers weren't too interested in the cliched storylines that the Bond series had become which would have seemed tame and even camp by the standards of LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD.
Although I might also argue that rather than the production team thinking "that the action genre was headed in a single direction" they were actually much more concerned about not only the relevance of Bond in the 80s but also whether Dalton had a long term future in the part. I think the violence is an attempt to draw an audience to a franchise and an actor that EON had lost faith in...

Yes. EON was trying to draw in the audience that made McTiernan and Cameron and Veroheven movies into hits. That audience had largely ignored FYEO-TLD, judging by the continually dropping box office. The producers decided to go with the grain and make Bond a little more tonally similar to the rest of the big 80s action franchises. The *problem* was, it was an awkward combination. Part of the film had the feeling of those R movies, but another part was trying to keep the lighthearted tone of the PG Bonds. It was a stark and awkward contrast IMO, and ultimately it proved to be a failed effort*.


* While I say that, I am glad that it paved the way for more serious tone later on in the series.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

* While I say that, I am glad that it paved the way for more serious tone later on in the series.

I don't think that LTK have paved the way for anything in the EON series, because it is until now- with the numbers adjusted by inflation- the least successful Bond movie in the franchise history.

If any film paved the way for more serious tone later on in the series, those movies were the more successful DN and FRWL.

In the other hand, I agree with you, when you say that "until LTK, the Bond franchise was entirely devoid of graphic violence", because the kind of violence presented in this Dalton's second entry is, for the first time in the series, somewhat gorish or slasher.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 04 May 2009 - 04:14 AM.

[00Twelve]

* While I say that, I am glad that it paved the way for more serious tone later on in the series.

I don't think that LTK have paved the way for anything in the EON series, because it is until now- with the numbers adjusted by inflation- the least successful Bond movie in the franchise history.

If any film paved the way for more serious tone later on in the series, those movies were the more successful DN and FRWL.

More than "paving," I really mean that it was the first movie to get a good distance away from the lighter touch of the Moore Bonds, and ushered in the era of the PG-13 Bond movie.

In the other hand, I agree with you, when you say that "until LTK, the Bond franchise was entirely devoid of graphic violence", because the kind of violence presented in this Dalton's second entry is, for the first time in the series, somewhat gorish or slasher.

Indeed.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Right! But Texas Hold 'Em is always showed in a very stylish environment, and that's what really matters in a movie (the visual aspect of it), unlike the fight in LTK which indeed happens in a lousy "local pub on a Thursday night".

LMAO - that's a nice one Mr A-B! I'll give you that one!

I repeat the eighties style is the most inappropriate for Bond, and not just because I don't like it, I said this because what makes different to Bond movies from other action thrillers, among other things, is the overall elegance- don't confuse this with cornyness- of the character and locations.
And perhaps this a little bit subjective, but I believe that the eighties fad is considered by many people, as one of the most tacky trends in popular culture. That goes from the clothes and hairdos, to the gorish violence of the action movies.

Well I'm pretty biased too - LTK was the first Bond film I saw at the movies so it holds a special place for me. As I grew up in the 80s it's an era I look back on with some considerable affection... Haven't you noticed Mr A-B? The 80s are coming back my friend!

I understand your feeling for LTK, 'cause it's similar to what I feel for FYEO- which is the first Bond movie that I ever saw, which happened in 1989 on VHS-.

But let me tell you something... the eighties already came back in the current decade, however, as this first decade of the 21th century is coming to an end, the 80s are about to be gone for good this time, and it's actually the nineties who are really coming back (I hope without someone like Brosnan as Bond, who, by the way, had a very eighties yuppie look, particularly in GE, LOL)

[Safari Suit]

Just as a by the by I don't think Die Hard was a particular influence on LTK, because it opened about a year before LTK, by which time I would imagine it was well along in its production. Also this may or may not be significant but Die Hard did not open in the UK until Feburary 1989. I suspect that Die Hard might have inspired EON to hire Kamen, but nothing else directly.

Also as a point of interest The Living Daylights actually made more than Die Hard or Lethal Weapon worldwide.

[tim partridge]

Yes, LTK most certainly did take a queue from these movies. Out of nowhere we've got exploding heads, forklift impaling[!!], shredded henchmen, and point-blank uzi executions. Again, Michael Kamen came on board for the score. It's undeniable that he was invited because he scored Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. No coincidence whatsoever.

The evidence is plainly there to suggest that the Bond team thought that the action genre was headed in a single direction, and they thought at the time that it was wise to follow that trend. We have the benefit of hindsight to show us that the trend wasn't permanent and thus LTK is more obviously dated.

I think (and I cannot believe you guys are tiptoeing around this so much) the influence of Greengrass Bourne dominates the action scenes in QOS with a far FAAAR more negative and dated influence than what got LTK. "No coincidence whatsoever" that Dan Bradley was chosen as second unit director AND Richard Pearson was chosen as co-editor, both celebrated for their work together on Bourne 2. ALL of what you have written above, but MUCH moreso is applicable to QOS and the Greengrass Bourne influence. Particularly given that the Greengrass Bourne influence isn't anywhere else in QOS outside of the action scenes (in my opinion).


Remember also, the difference here is that Kamen wasn't the first choice for composer on LTK. He was picked because he was available when John Barry couldn't commit. Had Barry been available, I doubt we'd have had the classic Kamen Die Hard sound on LTK. Kamen was a largely British based composer who knew how to do big orchestra work in London. So it really is partly coincidence, unlike the very decided Bradley/Pearson participation on QOS.

The same can be said of LTK's costume work- Jodie Tillen, who at the time was well known as the costume designer of Miami Vice, oversaw LTK. Again though, she wasn't the producer's first choice. Bob Ringwood is documented as being LTK's original costume designer, but he ended up doing BATMAN instead. Again, I am sure his style would have been different to Tillen's.


In a year or so I think this QOS Greengrass influence on the action scenes is going to look as awkwardly dated as the Miami Vice influence on LTK or the speedramps from DAD.

Edited by tim partridge, 04 May 2009 - 11:46 AM.

[Harmsway]

In a year or so I think this QOS Greengrass influence on the action scenes is going to look as awkwardly dated as the Miami Vice influence on LTK or the speedramps from DAD.

I'm not sure I agree. The tight-edited action sequences are undoubtedly very "now," and as such will date the flick. But the action scenes also suit the overall aesthetic of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which seems to have really been Forster's stylistic tribute to the thrillers of the late 60s/early 70s, through and through. Some/most people will always have a problem with it - but I don't think we'll ever look back on it as tacky, as we do with the MIAMI VICE-esque aesthetic of LICENCE TO KILL or the speed-ramps in DIE ANOTHER DAY. It's too elegant, too "arthouse" (even if it is derivative) for that.

[Royal Dalton]

Yeah, well, you can't do "arthouse" on £32m.

But the Bourne point still stands. And it applies to both of Craig's films in their own way.

[Safari Suit]

DAD and LTK, whatever their faults, are still reasonably elegent films sartorially and architecturally, and in these areas they have dated considerably less than, say, Live and Let Die.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Some/most people will always have a problem with it - but I don't think we'll ever look back on it as tacky, as we do with the MIAMI VICE-esque aesthetic of LICENCE TO KILL or the speed-ramps in DIE ANOTHER DAY. It's too elegant, too "arthouse" (even if it is derivative) for that.

True. You got a good point there.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

DAD and LTK, whatever their faults, are still reasonably elegent films sartorially and architecturally, and in these areas they have dated considerably less than, say, Live and Let Die.

I disagree. I think if LTK is something, that isn't elegant at all.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Yeah, well, you can't do "arthouse" on £32m.

Perhaps. But you can still pretend that you're doing an arthouse film if you reproduce many of the clichés commonly associated with that type of movies.

But the Bourne point still stands. And it applies to both of Craig's films in their own way.
I don't think it can really applies to CR, unlike QOS. I mean, can you tell me where the "Bourne point" is applied to Craig's debut?? Because I don't see that at all- and I have discussed this with many people before, and still no one can prove me the presence of any authentic Bourne style in CR-.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 04 May 2009 - 06:55 PM.

[double o ego]

I think it's too premature to decide if QoS is the modern day LTK. Both films are very different and are driven by very different motives. However, there are parallels, showcasing similarities between the 2 movies.

QoS was hyped and is still touted as a revenge thriller when in fact, it's a lot more obscure than that. In QoS Bond is very much working for Queen and Country but is fueled by vengence, killing most of the people actually trying to kill him in the process. By and large, Bond is throughout doing what he's paid to do and never actually kills or harms (on screen) the man directly responsible for the emotional pain he's been feeling.
As for LTK, there's no question about it, the film is a straight up revenge thriller that sees Bond abandon an assignment in favour of a personal vendetta. I particularly love the scene where Bond sees sharkey dead and the rage he feels coupled with what happened to the Leiters is expressed through his facial expression, noticably through his eyes and Bond snipes at Lupe, telling her she needs to find a new lover or something along those lines.

If there's any similarity between QoS and LTK is, that the leading actors, Dalton and Craig are spectacularly marvelous in portraying Bond.

LTK, particularly the first 20mins does feel very 80s but the rest of the film imo could easily have been passed off as a early to mid 90s film. Realy though does it matter if a Bond film visually is a reflection of it's time? Are we arrogant enough to believe and expect that the films should have a timeless visual feel to it because that is just asking for the impossible. Imo the films refelcting the times they were made give the film and the series itself character and a uniqueness that explores and illustrates the evolution of a classic and timeless character.

Being a trend setter is great. Trying to set trends all the time will eventually lead to stagnation. Sometimes, it's much more effective to step bac, absorb and utilise what else is out there. LTK and QoS aren't the only moies in the Bond series to have done this.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

LTK, particularly the first 20mins does feel very 80s but the rest of the film imo could easily have been passed off as a early to mid 90s film. Are we arrogant enough to believe and expect that the films should have a timeless visual feel to it because that is just asking for the impossible.

I don't know if you're pointing to me, but I have never stated that all the Bond films should have a timeless visual feel to it (it would be good, but I agree that it would be a little utopic ask for that), what I have said is that the sixties style- even if it isn't the original sixties aesthetic, but something with a retro flavor from that decade like CR, for instance- is what better suits to the EON series.

Whereas the eighties fad is the most inappropriate and worst atyle for Bond, And LTK is the Bond movie that suffers the most, by the display of this lousy fashion in every level.

[Safari Suit]

Whereas the eighties fad is the most inappropriate and worst atyle for Bond, And LTK is the Bond movie that suffers the most, by the display of this lousy fashion in every level.

I don't think there's anything in LTK that sticks out as much as Rog's checkered jacket in TMWTGG!

[Revelator]

I'm not sure I agree. The tight-edited action sequences are undoubtedly very "now," and as such will date the flick. But the action scenes also suit the overall aesthetic of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which seems to have really been Forster's stylistic tribute to the thrillers of the late 60s/early 70s, through and through. Some/most people will always have a problem with it - but I don't think we'll ever look back on it as tacky, as we do with the MIAMI VICE-esque aesthetic of LICENCE TO KILL or the speed-ramps in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

I'm definitely sure that I don't agree. If the overall aesthetic of QoS involves paying stylistic tribute to the thrillers of the late 60s/early 70s than the tribute failed--thrillers back then had coherently framed action, no matter how splintered the editing was. The action scenes in QoS will, in the coming decades, look worse than tacky--they'll look blatantly derivative. And unlike the speed ramps in DAD, which only consist of using one tacky, trendy stylistic device, almost all of QoS's action scenes suffer from the same overall blight of trying to incompetently ape the Greengrass visual aesthetic. Never before have the Bond pictures stooped to copying a specific director's style. Next to this, a few speedramps or 80s fashions and a Michael Kamen score seem like very small potatoes. And it's doubly a pity because the non-action scenes of QoS truly are stylish and pay tribute to past thrillers.

[Harmsway]

Never before have the Bond pictures stooped to copying a specific director's style. Next to this, a few speedramps or 80s fashions and a Michael Kamen score seem like very small potatoes.

Nah.

[Sniperscope]

I'm definitely sure that I don't agree. If the overall aesthetic of QoS involves paying stylistic tribute to the thrillers of the late 60s/early 70s than the tribute failed--thrillers back then had coherently framed action, no matter how splintered the editing was. The action scenes in QoS will, in the coming decades, look worse than tacky--they'll look blatantly derivative. And unlike the speed ramps in DAD, which only consist of using one tacky, trendy stylistic device, almost all of QoS's action scenes suffer from the same overall blight of trying to incompetently ape the Greengrass visual aesthetic. Never before have the Bond pictures stooped to copying a specific director's style. Next to this, a few speedramps or 80s fashions and a Michael Kamen score seem like very small potatoes. And it's doubly a pity because the non-action scenes of QoS truly are stylish and pay tribute to past thrillers.

So what you're saying is that QoS does pay homage to the thrillers of the past - it's just the action that doesn't?
"Never before have the Bond pictures stooped to copying a specific director's style."
Cinema has always been about imitation.
Directors study their peers and predecessors; that is how movies evolve there's no "stooping" about it.
Perhaps you've noticed over the last few decades that movies have become faster paced, highly edited and camera-conscious? Do you think that all just happens overnight with every director out there existing in a vacuum? Do you think Greengrass woke up one morning and in a flash of divine insipration said "How 'bout I just shake the camera up a bit during fights..."
Sure Greengrass is the most high profile and recent developer of a particular style - but it has been evolving for the last 20 or so years - he is not the pioneer or its only point of reference.
There is no technique that Greengrass or indeed Forster use that has not been seen in dozens of films before.

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 May 2009 - 12:12 AM.

[Sniperscope]

what I have said is that the sixties style- even if it isn't the original sixties aesthetic, but something with a retro flavor from that decade like CR, for instance- is what better suits to the EON series.

Whereas the eighties fad is the most inappropriate and worst atyle for Bond, And LTK is the Bond movie that suffers the most, by the display of this lousy fashion in every level.

Let it go Mr A-B. "Retro" is a relatively modern idea, since the early 1990s. It's a purely contemporary aesthetic born out of a recognition that popular culture has reached a certain exhaustion point and the only way forward is backwards (hence the rebooting obsession of this century - another idea from the 90s).
Once upon a time movies tended to reflect the visual and stylistic aesthetics of their era and noone had a problem with that. LTK in its look was 80s, as was DN of the 60s, LALD of the 70s etc. That was when the world was a lot smaller and eras/"cultures" had a more clearly defined "look".
These days there is no specific "look" to our era - it's so diverse and individualistic - so retro is a good way to give a film a kind of consistent style palette if you like. In the 60s for example - most men wore a suit and tie, slicked back their hair, etc. etc. What's the "look" of today??? Why criticise LTK for to an 80s "fad" when it's only a justifiable reflection of its zeitgeist which is what Bond has always been.

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 May 2009 - 12:10 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

what I have said is that the sixties style- even if it isn't the original sixties aesthetic, but something with a retro flavor from that decade like CR, for instance- is what better suits to the EON series.

Whereas the eighties fad is the most inappropriate and worst atyle for Bond, And LTK is the Bond movie that suffers the most, by the display of this lousy fashion in every level.

Let it go Mr A-B. "Retro" is a relatively modern idea, since the early 1990s. It's a purely contemporary aesthetic born out of a recognition that popular culture has reached a certain exhaustion point and the only way forward is backwards (hence the rebooting obsession of this century - another idea from the 90s).
Once upon a time movies tended to reflect the visual and stylistic aesthetics of their era and noone had a problem with that. LTK in its look was 80s, as was DN of the 60s, LALD of the 70s etc. That was when the world was a lot smaller and eras/"cultures" had a more clearly defined "look".
These days there is no specific "look" to our era - it's so diverse and individualistic - so retro is a good way to give a film a kind of consistent style palette if you like. In the 60s for example - most men wore a suit and tie, slicked back their hair, etc. etc. What's the "look" of today??? Why criticise LTK for to an 80s "fad" when it's only a justifiable reflection of its zeitgeist which is what Bond has always been.

Why...??!!! I thought that I've already answered this in the same post that you quoted from me, and early on in this thread. So in this case, I feel forced to repeat my earlier answer to this subject: the eighties style is the most inappropriate for Bond, and not just because I don't like it, I said this because what makes different to Bond movies from other action thrillers, among other things, is the overall elegance- don't confuse this with cornyness- of the character and locations.

And perhaps this a little bit subjective, but I believe that the eighties fad is considered by many people, as one of the most tacky trends in popular culture.. That goes from the clothes and hairdos, to the gorish violence of the action movies.

Whereas in the other hand, we got the sixties style, which are absolutely opposed to what the eighties represent, and I'm not only talking about fashion here. And we all know that the sixties are the quintessential decade for the cinematic Bond, alongside with being the cradle of the Bondmania phenomenon.







Regarding to your argument about "These days there is no specific "look" to our era", I think that's nonsense. There's an specific style distintive to this decade as it was for the nineties too. Obviously, is not so easy to distinguishe it right now, because we're still living in this first decade of the 21st century- you should know that the size of distance from a particular period in the history, is directly proportional to the deepness that you can get in the description of that time-.

As a conclusion, to what I have argued, I said that when you have such a tacky decade like the eighities that is so incompatible with the original and best style of EON's Bond- the sixties- the best thing that you can do is avoid the best you can, all the thing that could strongly anchor the Bond movie to such a lousy time. And I think they had a mild success (not flawless, but decent)in that, from FYEO to TLD, but they blow it with LTK and its Miami Vice style.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 May 2009 - 03:44 AM.