Precisely.Of course LTK is dated. All of the films are dated, even CR and QoS.
How dated is LICENCE TO KILL?
#31
Posted 24 January 2010 - 11:46 AM
#32
Posted 24 January 2010 - 11:54 AM
#33
Posted 24 January 2010 - 12:33 PM
Yeah, I remember that. But that in itself may be an indication perspectives were changing about smoking on film, even back then.It fits Bond character wise, that I agree. I think its the world we live in now though, with the dumbing down of tobacco advertising and such like. It's probably enough to make film makers think twice about such things, whereas twenty years ago they may not have done. Forward six years from LTK and there was a big (almost publicity) thing about Bond not smoking, interviews from Campbell about it if I remember correctly. Then we had the 'filthy habit' line in TND two years later.I doubt we will see explosives hidden in cigarette packets anymore either.
Why? Despite it being less common-place, people still smoke. And I'm sure Bond would, particularly Craig's Bond. Seeing he doesn't seem like the type of man to care about health risks, and would need cigarettes to relieve stress.
Remember, LTK's end credits did display the surgeon general warning on smoking.
The warning in the credits wasn't due to the fact that there was smoking in the film per se. It was because a specific brand (Lark) was being advertised in the film. If you hop over to YouTube there is a Japanese advert featuring Timothy Dalton in a very Bondian advertisement for Lark cigarettes.
#34
Posted 03 February 2010 - 12:51 AM
#35
Posted 03 February 2010 - 02:25 PM
#36
Posted 03 February 2010 - 04:09 PM
Can anyone here explain why the word "oriental" is unacceptable? I'm not saying that it isn't, but I'd like to know why it's considered offensive. I know that it's an archaic term, and consequently it's one that I've never used in conversation (just as I've never spoken of "the occident"), but that's not necessarily the same as being pejorative or offensive. Britain is surely one of the more PC societies on earth, but when I went to university in London the college I attended was called the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), and it continues to trade under that name.
(I gather that Americans tend to use "Asian" to refer to people from China, Japan, Korea, etc., whereas if Brits talk about someone who's "Asian" they usually mean a person from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or that neck of the woods.)
An element in LTK that strikes me as somewhat strange is that Sanchez and co. welcome the Hong Kong drug squad agents in Japanese. Although that may have been deliberate to show the villains' ignorance of matters Orien----, I mean Asian.
I find "Asian" more offensive and rather ignorant. It implies all Asians look Chinese. Same with "African American". Not all Africans are black.
#37
Posted 03 February 2010 - 05:24 PM
If it dated, it be like the Miami Vice fashion and music, in the mid 80s. I don't think any orf that rubbed off on Bond. Bond had it own on that.
#38
Posted 03 February 2010 - 06:14 PM
Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 03 February 2010 - 06:14 PM.
#39
Posted 03 February 2010 - 10:32 PM
A bit late to the party, but it seems like I’m probably outdated as I’ve never thought of the term “oriental” as being particularly offensive. Literally, it just means “eastern” surely. A bit archaic admittedly. I am stuck in the Eighties though.
On a similar note, is the term "occidental" offensive to Europeans? Just curious.
#40
Posted 04 February 2010 - 01:09 AM
As my brother has had to point out to my mom before, "A rug is Oriental. A person is Asian."
I disagree. Notwithstanding that the reference mayn't be PC, the reference is part of a construction linking the Oriental World with the Occidental World.
I guess you could say we're all Occidents of birth.
How do y'all feel about the term chigroes?
Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 04 February 2010 - 01:08 AM.
#41
Posted 04 February 2010 - 03:37 AM
#42
Posted 04 February 2010 - 04:04 AM
#43
Posted 04 February 2010 - 09:54 AM
LTK is a mess in that sense. No wonder some would compare it to a tv movie. The casino sequence alone looks horrible. The costumes don't get any merits either. I think the use of cd rom is a pretty cool thing to see. Out of all the Bond movies made in the 80's this one looks the worse in terms of visuals.
The concept of LTK is more relevant now than it was a few years ago, drug dealers, threats against airlines and inside dealings with secret servicemen. Governments not being able to pursue criminals due technicalities. The script wasn't given a full chance and Dalton should have been kept on screen to make us used to him rather than rushing off with him. Some good scenes were cut out of film.
#44
Posted 04 February 2010 - 02:35 PM
"African-American" wasn't really adopted for "PC" reasons, but rather a practical one.Same with "African-American". Not all Africans are black.
The vast majority of black Americans have no idea what specific region of Africa their ancestors were stolen from. (And just what were the national boundaries within Africa during the 1600s thru early 1800s? In many instances such boundaries didn't really exist.) Slavers did not keep demographic statistics, and the slave state governments didn't care.
Thus the practicality of "African-American".
#45
Posted 04 February 2010 - 04:37 PM
I do think this is true, especially when you compare it with its immediate predecessor. "The Living Daylights" did have a sense of visual style, and used it quite well, so "Licence to Kill" really suffers by comparison, IMO.LTK is a mess in that sense. No wonder some would compare it to a tv movie. The casino sequence alone looks horrible. The costumes don't get any merits either. I think the use of cd rom is a pretty cool thing to see. Out of all the Bond movies made in the 80's this one looks the worse in terms of visuals.
#46
Posted 04 February 2010 - 05:45 PM
Personally though, I think its major problem in the looks dept. is down to it the fact that it looks so cheap (in a way that TLD doesn't).
#47
Posted 04 February 2010 - 07:13 PM
#48
Posted 04 February 2010 - 07:23 PM
#49
Posted 05 February 2010 - 04:16 AM
Actually, I think that's one of the things they did very well. It really has the look of some gaudy yet sleazy Latin American casino.The casino sequence alone looks horrible.
#50
Posted 05 February 2010 - 04:34 AM
#51
Posted 05 February 2010 - 04:45 AM
It reminds me of the scene in Austin Powers where Austin is on the cart and the henchman is standing there screaming at a reasonable distance.
#52
Posted 05 February 2010 - 07:26 AM
#53
Posted 05 February 2010 - 12:11 PM
#54
Posted 05 February 2010 - 01:10 PM
#55
Posted 05 February 2010 - 02:13 PM
LTK certainly isn't the first Bond film to be influenced by trends in pop culture, but at least LALD, TMWTGG and MR felt current upon release.
LALD came out in the midst of the blaxploitation craze, TMWTGG in the middle of the kung-fu fad, and sci-fi was still big on the silver screen and television when MR came out.
But LTK, with its Miami Vice inspiration, came a full five years after the peak of that show's influence. It was the cinematic equivalent of a middle-aged guy dying the grey out of his hair, dressing like a teenager and hitting on a twenty year-old. It was past-it before it came out - a movie made by aging filmmakers desperately trying to be current without realising that the trend they were trying to latch onto had come and gone already.
#56
Posted 05 February 2010 - 04:19 PM
Well, I suspect that hiring Jodie Tillen, the costume designer from the first season of "Miami Vice," was not just a coincidence . . . though I think they failed on that count, too, as the "Licence to Kill" wardrobe is nothing special. (The only garment I found distinctive was Pam's sequined dress with the Velcroed breakaway panel.)I don't think anyone on the team even had the creativity or imagination at that point to even know to steal or nick ideas from the Miami Vice production.
I think RF's observation is bang-on. It would've been hard to ignore the all-pervasive influence that "Miami Vice" had on fashion, as well as TV and film, at the time. If nothing else, it heightened the TV audience's expectation for higher production values. Its influence on film is more subtle, but there's no question in my mind that many cop films of that period took at least a few cues from the "Miami Vice" style. So maybe the question of whether the producers were trying to copy "Miami Vice" is up in the air, but I do think it had at least some influence on the look and theme they chose, simply because you couldn't escape the pop cultural reference.
But, as RF pointed out, they were a day late and a dollar short, as "Miami Vice" was well past its peak by that time (and, in fact, would have seen its fifth and final season over and done with by the time "Licence to Kill" was released). But in fairness, when they were actually planning and shooting the film, "Miami Vice" still would have loomed large in the realm of pop culture.
Edited by byline, 05 February 2010 - 06:22 PM.
#57
Posted 05 February 2010 - 04:37 PM
I think the MIAMI VICE parallels are mostly projected onto the film in hindsight via the Miami location, drug lords and Michael Kamen. You could easily say that THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was heavily influenced by THE LION IN WINTER as Barry worked on both, both starred Timothy Dalton and both had dirty political oneupmanship as their narrative spine.
Is it? Compared to what though? It was set in Florida and Mexico which - by their very geographical nature - require the story to be bathed in light inside and out...well, certainly a Bond film would go down that path. You could say the same about some of ROYALE's early scenes but the Nassau location necessitates that surely?I may have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but one of the biggest problems I have always had with LTK visually is the lighting. It is over lit.
#58
Posted 05 February 2010 - 06:05 PM
True, but I tend to think of the poster referring not to natural, but artificial, lighting (and yes, I realize that most of what we in the audience perceive to be "natural" was, in reality, probably artificially lit in some form or fashion, and then subsequently enhanced in the studio). In "Casino Royale" those scenes are saturated with color almost to the point of oversaturation, which IMO is true to the spirit of the locale. I agree that in the case of "Licence to Kill"'s indoor scenes, in particular, many of those scenes seem harshly lit, as if they're in a studio. Rather than giving a vivid, organic feel to the scenes, they appear to be almost washed out and bland . . . which I would think was the opposite of the effect that they were aiming for.Is it? Compared to what though? It was set in Florida and Mexico which - by their very geographical nature - require the story to be bathed in light inside and out...well, certainly a Bond film would go down that path. You could say the same about some of ROYALE's early scenes but the Nassau location necessitates that surely?I may have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but one of the biggest problems I have always had with LTK visually is the lighting. It is over lit.
Edited by byline, 05 February 2010 - 06:22 PM.
#59
Posted 05 February 2010 - 06:21 PM
But in fairness, when they were actually planning and shooting the film, "Miami Vice" still would have loomed large in the realm of pop culture.
Good point. It's easy to say MV was "over" by the time LTK went into production in retrospect, and I guess it pretty much was. But if you had asked someone on the street back in 87/88 would they have told you it was passe? Impossible to say really. And lets not forget in the 80s the UK generally didn't get UK shows and films until quite a while after they came out in the US.
#60
Posted 05 February 2010 - 07:24 PM