26 replies to this topic

[Miles Miservy]

I realize that every 007 film is a fantasy & you have to take a lot of it w/grains of salt.... (Brainwashing in OHMSS, Solar power the size of a pack of cigarettes in TMwtGG, Laser powered sattelite that destroys military installations in DAF) I get that.

But who in their right mind would mix millions of dollars worth of cocaine with gasoline? Even if it were impossible, I feel that the writers did not do enough to explain it to make it plausable, as well as entertaining. I think they just threw it in there and said, "Ok... that's what we'll do."

A movie like TRAFFIC, had a more clever aproach, compressing the drugs so densely they replicated statues.

I just think it wasn't thought out thouroghly and they just put in whatever, in order to make the stunt gags work.

[WhatMeWorry?]

except gasoline goes boom. A boy did those trucks go BOOM!

[Jim]

I'm pretty sure I read something somewhere sometime that someone somewhere sometime did actually try this, albeit on a much smaller scale.

True, it would make the cocaine smell a bit funny. But guaranteed to blow your mind, I s'pose.

Surprised they didn't do that rather awful joke, really.

[Dekard77]

Not a scientist but plot wise gives Bond the chance to set Sanchez operation ablaze.

[Perry]

Ha, Jim has friends in low places...

As for my general opinions on the movie, I've always enjoyed it. Infact, many of the points I've read detracting the picture, I feel, are it's qualities.

Edited by Perry, 14 May 2011 - 11:39 PM.

[00 Brosnan]

Ha, Jim has friends in low places...

What makes you think they are in low places...?

Speaking of angles.....this across-the-table-shot was probably the best angle of the movie:

http://3.bp.blogspot...lisa-Soto-3.JPG

Eh, I'm not really all that fond of that particular shot, but Talisa Soto is definitely beautiful and the much sexier of the two female leads in Licence to Kill.

[Perry]

Low/High. Anywhere infact. I noticed we share the same patch of Earth.

[iBond]

Ha, Jim has friends in low places...

What makes you think they are in low places...?

Speaking of angles.....this across-the-table-shot was probably the best angle of the movie:

http://3.bp.blogspot...lisa-Soto-3.JPG

Eh, I'm not really all that fond of that particular shot, but Talisa Soto is definitely beautiful and the much sexier of the two female leads in Licence to Kill.

I completely agree!

[Dekard77]

Agreed, even in the publicity photo's where she is dressed in black swimsuit she looks stunning.

[iBond]

If only she wore that in the film...

[right idea, wrong pussy]

I realize that every 007 film is a fantasy & you have to take a lot of it w/grains of salt.... (Brainwashing in OHMSS, Solar power the size of a pack of cigarettes in TMwtGG, Laser powered sattelite that destroys military installations in DAF) I get that.

But who in their right mind would mix millions of dollars worth of cocaine with gasoline? Even if it were impossible, I feel that the writers did not do enough to explain it to make it plausable, as well as entertaining. I think they just threw it in there and said, "Ok... that's what we'll do."

A movie like TRAFFIC, had a more clever aproach, compressing the drugs so densely they replicated statues.

I just think it wasn't thought out thouroghly and they just put in whatever, in order to make the stunt gags work.

I'm not sure there were any stunt gags using the gasoline tankers; it was played with all seriousness.

On top of that, we're talking about end-users (consumers) who will snort coke or inject heroin that has been transported in little plastic baggies shoved way up into a person's alimentary canal, and without the slightest hesitation to use it whatsoever. In light of that, I don't see how transporting the cocaine inside of a gasoline tanker is too far-fetched.

LICENSE REVOKED is one of my least favorite Bond films, but on this subject I will defend it. I thought the subplot was reasonable and realistic and one of the better angles in a movie desperately in need of good angles. Speaking of angles.....this across-the-table-shot was probably the best angle of the movie:


http://3.bp.blogspot...lisa-Soto-3.JPG

What he said.

I believe there is some ancient thread on these boards where GS and I took on all the LTK fans here in expressing our distaste for the movie (one of those debates about the film's marketing campaign). I've warmed to the film somewhat over the last few years. Some aspects of it still strike me as being utter (the only thing that keeps Michael Kamen's "score" from being the worst thing in any Bond film ever is the fact that Halle Berry was in a Bond film), but I'm now able to watch and genuinely enjoy the movie as I can all of the other 22 EON movies, NSNA and CRs 54 and 67 (well, everything except Halle Berry).

The reason I'm able to enjoy the film on its own terms now is because of some of the action sequences, chief among them the tanker chase. People often complain that Bond films burn out 2/3 of the way through. I think this happened a lot in Brosnan's era. LTK builds to a well-plotted finish. Actually, the film's problem is that is takes way too long building, but that's another story. John Glen goes out with a flourish with the tanker chase, because the geography of the scene is perfect. Unlike today's Jason Bourne shake-cam scenes where you can't tell what the hell is going on, you always know exactly where all the tankers are in the scene, who's where, and what they are doing. The fact that the tankers are highly flammable is a tremendously important part of the package. It helps build tension at many points, and it helps show how unhinged Sanchez has become, because in trying to kill Bond he knowingly shoots at his own product even though it could explode at any moment.

So I actually appreciate this little plot device by the screenwriters.

Edited by right idea, wrong pussy, 11 July 2011 - 09:51 AM.

[Royal Dalton]

Yes, it was quite an explosive finale.

[DR76]

My nickname for "LICENSE TO KILL" is "MIAMI VICE 2.0". But I still enjoyed it a lot.

[OO7 is the man!!]

I loved the whole movie. It had an 'edge" too it, and I thought Dalton should've did one more. I was dissapointed that he did'nt do another one.

[Syndicate]

Looking over the poses on this one. You have to keep in mine that James Bond is a super spy, so it is NOT close to the real world type. As you all would know it is NOT like The Hunt For Red October, Clear And Present Danger, The Spy Who Came in From The Cold, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Siege, The Grid and The Assignment. It's more in line with the Mission Impossible movies and TV show, The Man From Uncle, The Saint, Red and From Paris With Love. You can't really compare it to Traffic, since it not really the same type thing. IF we did that , then it be bluring the line.

[Dell Deaton]

In reading the opening post for this thread, I can honestly say that it never occurred to me in any fashion to think about the cocaine in gasoline gimmick for plausibility. And now that I do, it simply seems Flemingesque, and, despite what too many in the new generation insist, entirely consistent with so much of what we've seen of the Eon Productions films: Yes, all the way back to Dr No.

With no criticism intended for those who've posed this question, I think the best thinking here is that things have swung much to far in the opposite direction of supposed commitments to reality. And I won't limit that respectfully submitted concern to just Quantum of Solace.

[Harmsway]

I won't say the idea of dissolving cocaine in gasoline is Fleminesque, per se. Fleming's approach to this would probably be more exotic and/or outlandish than to dissolve cocaine in something as generic and ordinary as gasoline. Nevertheless, complaining about its lack of "realism" or apparent "plausibility" strikes me as fairly daft, and kind of misses the point of James Bond to begin with.

[Dell Deaton]

I won't say the idea of dissolving cocaine in gasoline is Fleminesque, per se. Fleming's approach to this would probably be more exotic and/or outlandish than to dissolve cocaine in something as generic and ordinary as gasoline. Nevertheless, complaining about its lack of "realism" or apparent "plausibility" strikes me as fairly daft, and kind of misses the point of James Bond to begin with.

Sufficiently agreed on the larger point here. We're close enough for government work on this.

[univex]

I won't say the idea of dissolving cocaine in gasoline is Fleminesque, per se. Fleming's approach to this would probably be more exotic and/or outlandish than to dissolve cocaine in something as generic and ordinary as gasoline. Nevertheless, complaining about its lack of "realism" or apparent "plausibility" strikes me as fairly daft, and kind of misses the point of James Bond to begin with.

Sufficiently agreed on the larger point here. We're close enough for government work on this.

Cocaine flavoured bananas probably But I always found that plot to be quite suitable for a Bond story.

Edited by univex, 03 August 2011 - 11:00 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

I suspect that cocaine would not be "totally undetectable" when mixed with gasoline - there is a simple litmus test to indicate whether there are any impurities in avgas.

Moreover, the exact amount of ammonium hydroxide needed to reconstitute the muck was never specified in LTK.

I wonder whether anyone was stupid enough to ruin their coke by dumping it in a jerry can and strapping it to the back of their jeep?

I sure hope so.

Edited by AMC Hornet, 04 August 2011 - 04:05 PM.

[DR76]

Exactly how much money did "LICENSE TO KILL" make worldwide?

[Napoleon Solo]

Exactly how much money did "LICENSE TO KILL" make worldwide?

According to this site, it grossed $156 million, a bit below The Living Daylights.

http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Exactly how much money did "LICENSE TO KILL" make worldwide?

According to this site, it grossed $156 million, a bit below The Living Daylights.

http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

That looks about right to me, although they are not inflation adjusted.

[DaveBond21]

Exactly how much money did "LICENSE TO KILL" make worldwide?

According to this site, it grossed $156 million, a bit below The Living Daylights.

http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

That looks about right to me, although they are not inflation adjusted.

Has the shortfall ever been attributed to the fact that people under 15 were not able to see LTK in the cinemas?

This meant that I only saw one official Bond movie in the theater between the ages of 3 and 20.



__________________________

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Has the shortfall ever been attributed to the fact that people under 15 were not able to see LTK in the cinemas?

I don't know, I wonder if the film makers regretted keeping in all the cuts they did, as presumably they could have cut it further to satisfy the UK censor and get a 12A. Judging by the Premiere programme that ITV screened, the film makers certainly had high hopes for the film and wanted to toughen things up.
I think i'm right in saying box office figures never take into account fluctuating cinematic trends over the decades either. Aggregate cinema attendances tailed off in the mid to late eighties with the advent of home video/VHS rental shops. Very few films from the 80's feature in any "top 100 grossing" list or similar poll.

[DR76]

According to this site, it grossed $156 million, a bit below The Living Daylights.

Considering how much it cost to make the movie, that's pretty damn good. Even if it earned less than "THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS".

[Napoleon Solo]

Doing some rough calculations based on figures in that chart, LTK's worldwide drop from LTD was about 18 percent. Its drop in the U.S. was about 33 percent. Budgets, according to that chart, were pretty similar.