6 replies to this topic

[daltonnery]

IMO, LTK looks more like an 80's TV movie than a Bond film in the way it was shot. TLD looks more like a bond film should IMO. Why is this? Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[Righty007]

The Ultimate Edition of Licence to Kill is visually stunning, in my opinion.

[Professor Dent]

The Ultimate Edition of Licence to Kill is visually stunning, in my opinion.

The Blu-ray looks impressive too.

[Righty007]

The Ultimate Edition of Licence to Kill is visually stunning, in my opinion.

The Blu-ray looks impressive too.

I would imagine so.

[Onyx2626]

I know what you mean, I think.

YOLT may be kind of boring, but it has that BIG SCREEN Hollywood look I like. LTK looks funny in the studio scenes. No shadows. The lighting is like a TV show. I wonder how many Dir.s of Photography Glen used in his five films. Was it the same person?

I like reading about aspect ratios and lenses and all that, but I don't pretend to understand it.

I read on this site that Guy Hamilton made some interesting lo-tech/old school choices that worked out well, but I only get it when I see TSWLM and MR. Like YOLT, they are Lewis Gilbert and they look different!

I don't like many of the digital films today, they say that digital cameras don't capture the nuance of sunlight as well as film, and that Speilberg still swears by film, so that makes LTK more frustrating because it was made before everyone went CGI\digital crazy.

I recently loaned Apocalypse Now Redux to a younger friend and he wasn't impressed. This made me crazy.

I hope it was because of it's horrendous length, because the cinematography by the great Vittorio Storraro is unparalleled!

It makes me nervous when younger people don't notice how awesome the older cameras were.

I know I am going on about this but all anyone has to do to see my point is look at Superman Returns and then peek at the original. Could they look any different?

[tim partridge]

IMO, LTK looks more like an 80's TV movie than a Bond film in the way it was shot. TLD looks more like a bond film should IMO. Why is this? Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Given that LTK was apparently shot on a budget in Mexico wouldn't have helped things, and I think alot of those bland, Florida/Mexican locations were familiar to many thanks to Miami Vice every week on TV. There is nothing inherently colour coordinated and contrasty like the Vienna and Afghan locations of TLD.

I have also always felt the murky saturation in the processing and printing on LTK was a bit below par compared to previous 007s of the 80s. There seemed to be a uniformly desaturated look on TLD that fit with Mills slightly edgeless lighting. In LTK it looks really inconsistent, from scene to scene, which is something you don't really expect from a big budget movie. Some of the skin tones seem to be well off too, with really unflattering red skinned faces. Deluxe Hollywood did the processing on LTK, as oppose to Rank in England who did TLD, but I am not sure where the film was printed.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I have also always felt the murky saturation in the processing and printing on LTK was a bit below par compared to previous 007s of the 80s. There seemed to be a uniformly desaturated look on TLD that fit with Mills slightly edgeless lighting. In LTK it looks really inconsistent, from scene to scene, which is something you don't really expect from a big budget movie. Some of the skin tones seem to be well off too, with really unflattering red skinned faces. Deluxe Hollywood did the processing on LTK, as oppose to Rank in England who did TLD, but I am not sure where the film was printed.

I always felt the differences in look between TLD and LTK was deliberate move. It wouldn't surprise me LTK was filmed to look more in keeping with American movies of its time. I think both film look great (although I prefer TLD) and the cinematography suited each film tonally. Its interesting to read that the look of each film could be attributable to the processing and printing.