72 replies to this topic

[byline]

Except when they were planning the film they were originally intending to set the movie in China, not in Mexico, which would have rendered the Miami Vice-look a moot point.

Good point, but somewhere along the line they obviously dropped the China storyline and opted for the Mexico one. And let's not forget that "Miami Vice" was doing quite well in the ratings until about midway through its third season, when ratings started to slip. And even in its fourth season, Crockett's wedding was enough to put the series back in the top five. So I think it's fair to say that, as the powers that be were searching for a plausible "B" plan, "Miami Vice" still could have figured in because it still figured into the pop culture landscape. Maybe at the time, no one realized how quickly the show would slide (really, that happened during its fifth and final season). But, in hindsight, it seems inevitable, because "Miami Vice" was a figment of the '80s . . . and the '80s were drawing to a close.

Edited by byline, 05 February 2010 - 09:30 PM.

[Dekard77]

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.

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?

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.

True, especially with casino sets. However the grand finale is shot quite nicely unless the remastering team did some saturation.

[Publius]

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.

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?

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.

Then again, you'd be surprised at how much we love bad internal lighting down here in Miami and the Keys (don't know about Central America). I've gotten used to feeling like an oversized fly about to get zapped.

[byline]

Then again, you'd be surprised at how much we love bad internal lighting down here in Miami and the Keys (don't know about Central America). I've gotten used to feeling like an oversized fly about to get zapped.

It's interesting, because my grandparents lived in Homestead, and so my family visited them every Christmas for years, and I also spent some summers there (and vowed never again). I can't recall feeling that way then. Then, just this past December, my husband and I visited some friends in Miami, Kissimmee and Ft. Myers. While I felt that people went a little crazy with the Christmas lights, I didn't get a sense of the indoor lighting being any different from anywhere else. But maybe that's just the places we went to.

[Publius]

Then again, you'd be surprised at how much we love bad internal lighting down here in Miami and the Keys (don't know about Central America). I've gotten used to feeling like an oversized fly about to get zapped.

It's interesting, because my grandparents lived in Homestead, and so my family visited them every Christmas for years, and I also spent some summers there (and vowed never again). I can't recall feeling that way then. Then, just this past December, my husband and I visited some friends in Miami, Kissimmee and Ft. Myers. While I felt that people went a little crazy with the Christmas lights, I didn't get a sense of the indoor lighting being any different from anywhere else. But maybe that's just the places we went to.

I think it's the more old school Cuban neighborhoods and working-class areas that seem to have a fetish for bad lighting. I'm thinking exposed bulbs and lighting that borders on glowing green.

But, sadly, you'd be right to suggest that it's not as common nowadays. I feel like part of our culture is dying.

[byline]

I think it's the more old school Cuban neighborhoods and working-class areas that seem to have a fetish for bad lighting. I'm thinking exposed bulbs and lighting that borders on glowing green.

Ah, yes, I can see that!

But, sadly, you'd be right to suggest that it's not as common nowadays. I feel like part of our culture is dying.

On the other hand, it may be that with environmental/economic concerns, going with the various lower-wattage compact fluorescents and other such lighting is what people really want. Kind of like replacing the old Christmas tree bulbs with the newer LED variety; they don't look the same, and I do kinda miss the older, brighter bulbs (even though they've come up with some that are supposed to look like the old ones), I see it as being a sacrifice I can live with, given all the other considerations.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Found this on youtube, takes you back to the time. If people don't see the years on LTK itself, then this here is a reminder of how old the film is.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Found this on youtube, takes you back to the time. If people don't see the years on LTK itself, then this here is a reminder of how old the film is.

I particularly liked the bit where Carey Lowell is asked what it takes to be a Bond girl and the cameraman promptly zooms in on her cleavage.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I stumbled across the original Siskel & Ebert review for LTK:

http://bventertainme...t...&subsec=179

Interesting that Siskel actually brings up the film's look, saying:

“The film also has a sort of a dirty, unfinished look that I can’t explain. They spend so much money on these pictures that I can’t understand why this isn’t more crisp and just good looking."

The film actually looks much better in its blu-ray and recent DVD editions than it ever did in the theatre upon its original release.

[Dekard77]

I stumbled across the original Siskel & Ebert review for LTK:

http://bventertainme...t...&subsec=179

Interesting that Siskel actually brings up the film's look, saying:

“The film also has a sort of a dirty, unfinished look that I can’t explain. They spend so much money on these pictures that I can’t understand why this isn’t more crisp and just good looking."

The film actually looks much better in its blu-ray and recent DVD editions than it ever did in the theatre upon its original release.

Well if he noticed it then, I guess it does mean something.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I stumbled across the original Siskel & Ebert review for LTK:

http://bventertainme...t...&subsec=179

Interesting that Siskel actually brings up the film's look, saying:

“The film also has a sort of a dirty, unfinished look that I can’t explain. They spend so much money on these pictures that I can’t understand why this isn’t more crisp and just good looking."

The film actually looks much better in its blu-ray and recent DVD editions than it ever did in the theatre upon its original release.

Thanks for posting. I think its great to see how LTK was received at the time of its release in the USA. I agree with most of Ebert's review there. No bad word for Dalton as Bond either which is good.

[Syndicate]

Well technically speaking even caucasian is an incorrect term. Caucasian is used to refer to people from the Caucasus region (and according to some, the term excludes certain groups from the region, though from what I've gleaned the majority use it for the whole region), and yet, at least here in the States, caucasian is used to refer to us white folks in general. So conflatulations. We're one big mess of improper terminology. Oriental, caucasian, asian, african-american, it's all just wrong at some point or another. I salute our speechfail. And I'm gonna shut up now before I stray any more from whatever the hell I was trying to say when I first started typing this post.

If anyone seen that spy miniseries The Grid, you'll know it talk about the term Caucasus in a scence. It also said where it from.

[Attempting Re-entry]

Found this on youtube, takes you back to the time. If people don't see the years on LTK itself, then this here is a reminder of how old the film is.

Brilliant...thanks for that link.