49 replies to this topic

[Gabriel]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I´d have loved to see that scene in the Bonus Section of the DVD...

Me, too, but I'm guessing all unused clips not compromising a finished scene were junked.

Would Eon have ditched such relatively recent footage? I know archiving of footage has notoriously been iffy down the years in the film business, but I'd be surprised if the source materials from Bond films were casually junked.

Edited by Gabriel, 10 October 2009 - 07:58 PM.

[bondrules]

In Licence to Kill James Bond kisses his best friend's wife twice on the mouth. We know James likes beautiful women but isn't that a step too far? Is it really a custom as Della says? I'd say a very strange one if that's true. Can someone enlighten this please?

Perhaps Della considered being shared by both men eventually.

[Publius]

It never really bothered me, to be honest. Just two harmless pecks on the lips, no tongue. Easy enough to imagine one friend doing to another who she may have had history with, especially after having had a bit to drink. Della comes across as the former sorority girl type, anyway.

In addition, the happy-go-lucky Felix at the end of the film was also a bit creepy, as well. Did he quickly forget his VERY recent maiming and death of his wife while he was making those fishing plans with James? (Ah, it must have been the drugs they were giving him!)

The above, however, does bother me. The only saving grace is the somewhat downbeat way they say goodbye to each other, offering the possibility that we only caught the end of a conversation, with Leiter trying in vain to pretend like these were old times, at least for a second - but while Dalton's acting allows that interpretation IMO, Hedison's blatantly precludes it.

I also hate Bond jumping into the pool for Pam at the end. Can somebody explain that scene to me?

I took it, much like the earlier scene where Bond briefly and oh-so-casually celebrates his recently acquired wealth after one epic, middle-finger-to-Krest-and-Sanchez of a battle, to be a moment where Bond is wringing whatever semblance of enjoyment and peace of mind he can out of an existence he knows to be fraught with loss and peril at every turn. He knows happiness is out of the question and contentment is fleeting, so he'll seize it when he can (and there's no business to be done at the time) - which explains, besides the obvious, why he slept with Lupe.

To be sure, Dalton's superb acting (and attempt to emulate the literary Bond) more than anything is what makes this interpretation so plausible and natural in my view. But it does jive with my impression of Dalton as the most utilitarian, the most "ruthlessly efficient" of all the Bonds.

Anyway, Pam crying was more of a problem for me than Bond jumping into the pool after her.

[Mr. Blofeld]

In addition, the happy-go-lucky Felix at the end of the film was also a bit creepy, as well. Did he quickly forget his VERY recent maiming and death of his wife while he was making those fishing plans with James? (Ah, it must have been the drugs they were giving him!)

The above, however, does bother me. The only saving grace is the somewhat downbeat way they say goodbye to each other, offering the possibility that we only caught the end of a conversation, with Leiter trying in vain to pretend like these were old times, at least for a second - but while Dalton's acting allows that interpretation IMO, Hedison's blatantly precludes it.

Am I going to have to post this again?

I never felt John Glen had the most creative grasp of a script or the overall tone of a film. There were a few ill-judged "cuts" made in LTK which favoured humour instead of trusting the drama. Example: The final scene at the party, when Bond is on the phone to Leiter, who's recovering in hospital from his torture.

Originally the scene was longer and much more sombre. Leiter is clearly grateful to Bond but still greatly hurt by the death of his wife, and Bond's tone is darker, less satisfied with what he's done; only in the last few seconds of the conversation did things lighten up a bit, but not too much: It was still a serious scene.

Unfortunately, John Glen felt the scene was too downbeat for the end, so the darker tone of the first two thirds were cut and the last third was made more upbeat by changing the takes, and thus the actors readings and performances, to make them appear as cheerful as possible.

I remember being bitterly disappointed at the time as I stood at the back of the dark cutting room, watching a strong and dramatically appropriate scene being sliced and reduced to a "happy little chat". It didn't work and stands out like a sore thumb, especially these days. I think that was a misjudgment of tone and of trusting the drama and the audience.

[Publius]

Am I going to have to post this again?

I'm going by what's actually on-screen and by how I interpreted it, not any novelizations, director commentary, inside knowledge, or whatever. I'm not discrediting Col. Sun (who if I recall correctly has been reliable before), I'm just basing my involvement in this discussion solely on what everyday people have access to - namely, the movie as has been cut for the masses.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm going by what's actually on-screen and by how I interpreted it, not any novelizations, director commentary, inside knowledge, or whatever. I'm not discrediting Col. Sun (who if I recall correctly has been reliable before), I'm just basing my involvement in this discussion solely on what everyday people have access to - namely, the movie as has been cut for the masses.

I'm sorry, then; guess I was a bit of a prat.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Little known fact!!: Suzanne Sommers was originally cast as Della Churchill, but became so unpopular and disruptive during rehearsals that Priscilla Barnes was brought in to replace her.

You know this... how?

[bondrules]

Little known fact!!: Suzanne Sommers was originally cast as Della Churchill, but became so unpopular and disruptive during rehearsals that Priscilla Barnes was brought in to replace her.

You know this... how?

I had no idea!!!

[byline]

In a way, I see this film as making up a bit for not giving us a revenge film after OHMSS. But of course on that level, it'll always be a consolation prize at best, not to mention incongruous. I mean, if he's not going to lose it over his own wife, why would he go ballistic over somebody else's?

That could be explained by transference. In other words, Bond buried his feelings for his dead wife, but was overwhelmed by those emotions at the sight of Della's murder. It makes sense; I just don't feel the film makes that connection strongly enough, hence lacks the emotional resonance it could've had. I don't want to be beaten over the head with an idea, but by the same token, it needs to be presented clearly enough so as to be understood by the audience.

[Royal Dalton]

Little known fact!!: Suzanne Sommers was originally cast as Della Churchill, but became so unpopular and disruptive during rehearsals that Priscilla Barnes was brought in to replace her.

You know this... how?

I had no idea!!!

That was a joke, chaps.

[bondrules]

Little known fact!!: Suzanne Sommers was originally cast as Della Churchill, but became so unpopular and disruptive during rehearsals that Priscilla Barnes was brought in to replace her.

You know this... how?

I had no idea!!!

That was a joke, chaps.

LOL, perhaps he thought it was April 1st.

[Mr. Blofeld]

What are you, boy? Some kind of cynical questioning machine?

Why, yes; yes, I am.

How do I know? Because I do my own research. And I also do my own lying.

Why don't you mess around with Wikipedia, while you're at it, then?

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Suzanne Sommers was originally cast as Della Churchill, but became so unpopular and disruptive during rehearsals that Priscilla Barnes was brought in to replace her.

And Tanya Roberts only came on board AVTAK after Farrah Fawcett and Cheryl Ladd both quit.

[JimmyBond]

Little known fact!!: Suzanne Sommers was originally cast as Della Churchill, but became so unpopular and disruptive during rehearsals that Priscilla Barnes was brought in to replace her.

You know this... how?

I had no idea!!!

That was a joke, chaps.

I bought that hook line and sinker as well! I never even thought to make the Three's Company connection until RD pointed out that it was a joke.

[St. John Smythe]

Nice Three's Company reference, gravity.

I just watched this the other day, and I found nothing awkward about the "double kiss." I chalked it up to Della being kind of drunk during her reception (which is understandable - I'd be drunk as f*** too), and nothing else.

On another note, I'd forgotten how great this film is - although, for a film that's supposed to be so dark it's extremely light . . . But still - Dalton kicks a**, and always will. Shame that he didn't have much shirtless time in his Bond films, though.

Edited by St. John Smythe, 03 January 2010 - 08:51 AM.

[Publius]

That could be explained by transference. In other words, Bond buried his feelings for his dead wife, but was overwhelmed by those emotions at the sight of Della's murder. It makes sense; I just don't feel the film makes that connection strongly enough, hence lacks the emotional resonance it could've had. I don't want to be beaten over the head with an idea, but by the same token, it needs to be presented clearly enough so as to be understood by the audience.

I thought it was presented clearly enough... for people who had seen OHMSS. And in that regard, I suppose it was a bad idea (as opposed to bad filmmaking) considering most people go into a Bond film expecting a stand alone adventure, yet LTK depended on familiarity with what was then the 20-year-old forgotten stepchild of the Bond series.

[byline]

That could be explained by transference. In other words, Bond buried his feelings for his dead wife, but was overwhelmed by those emotions at the sight of Della's murder. It makes sense; I just don't feel the film makes that connection strongly enough, hence lacks the emotional resonance it could've had. I don't want to be beaten over the head with an idea, but by the same token, it needs to be presented clearly enough so as to be understood by the audience.

I thought it was presented clearly enough... for people who had seen OHMSS. And in that regard, I suppose it was a bad idea (as opposed to bad filmmaking) considering most people go into a Bond film expecting a stand alone adventure, yet LTK depended on familiarity with what was then the 20-year-old forgotten stepchild of the Bond series.

That's my point. I had seen "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and knew full well what the connection was, but I also felt that so much time had passed between those films that the reference felt somewhat oblique. It really was a direct reference, of course, but not near enough in time (between films, that is) to really resonate the way it should have.

Just my take on it, of course.

[Publius]

That's my point. I had seen "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and knew full well what the connection was, but I also felt that so much time had passed between those films that the reference felt somewhat oblique. It really was a direct reference, of course, but not near enough in time (between films, that is) to really resonate the way it should have.

Just my take on it, of course.

Admittedly, you have to be willing to mentally shift Bond's timeline with each new actor for it to make any sense. In other words, you have to accept Dalton's Bond experienced the events of OHMSS, just not in 1969.

[byline]

That's my point. I had seen "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and knew full well what the connection was, but I also felt that so much time had passed between those films that the reference felt somewhat oblique. It really was a direct reference, of course, but not near enough in time (between films, that is) to really resonate the way it should have.

Just my take on it, of course.

Admittedly, you have to be willing to mentally shift Bond's timeline with each new actor for it to make any sense. In other words, you have to accept Dalton's Bond experienced the events of OHMSS, just not in 1969.

Right, I agree with that. And I think most Bond fans who have kept up with the series are willing to do that. I guess I'm not the average Bond fan, in that I came into the series pretty late and had to catch up retroactively. And there are probably plenty of folks in the general movie-going public (whomever they are) who are in a similar boat. They wouldn't necessarily have had that collective memory to make the emotional connection with Bond, Tracy and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," so the scene wouldn't have resonated as much with them. (Of course, the same could be said for that brief pre-titles scene in "For Your Eyes Only," too.) So maybe this is just yet another case of something that worked immediately for the longterm Bond fans, perhaps not so well for the casual viewer.

[col_007]

That's my point.

Just my take on it, of course.

Admittedly, you have to be willing to mentally shift Bond's timeline with each new actor for it to make any sense. In other words, you have to accept Dalton's Bond experienced the events of OHMSS, just not in 1969.

My take is he's the same guy obviously played by a different actor but he's still the same character if it works on other films and TV shows it can certainly work with James Bond why wouldn't he of experienced it in 1969