It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
"James Bond will Return". - Finally, I've been waiting since Licence to Kill.
Thats my big problem with the Brozzer years - after the Dalton era it seemed we had gone backwards.
But basically anything would've been a step backwards after the amazing Dalton years so I don't care. I think Dalton left a really tough act to follow and Brosnan did great, even if he didn't beat him (which nobody has done, and nobody will do)/
I'm glad they took a different approach with Brosnan instead of just trying to continue Daltons era without him.
The Dalton era had it's issues too. TLD was good but LTK felt like a TV film (despite Davi who was amazing) - in recent months I've felt iffy about that film and can at least see what they were trying to do with GE (bring back more spectacle).
Sadly it didn't last with Bond being more reliant on cheese.
GE, as Haphazard said, was what the series needed in 1995 to make it popular again. Despite what people here say I don't buy that the majority of people ever took to Dalton sadly - and I don't think they ever would either. I feel sorry for Dalton but I'm not entirely convinced he had what it took to charm audiences in the way Connery and Moore did before him (and Brosnan and Craig did after him).
Brosnan was cheesey and smarmy but, thinking about it, he probably is the more charismatic actor onscreen.
I've heard this so many times and I always respond with this: when have you ever seen an action sequence like the tanker chase in a TV film. And that's just one of many examples.
But that's not until the end though. What about the cheep looking sets (in Leiter's house, in the casino, in the factory at the end) and the crappy back projection in the boat.
It's not the only Bond film to have crappy back projection. The casino scene could've been better but what's wrong with the factory, and Leiters house? It's just a house. He's not going to live in a f*cking volcanoe lair or space station.
Alright, that's at the end. What about the start? How many TV films can afford something like the plane fishing?
People complain about LTK looking cheap, but I think the action disproves that. I will admit though they could've done a bit more with the locations.
Hmm ok the plane fishing was good but little of the film screams cinematic. That's the problem I have with it. Most of the best Bond films (FRWL, GF, CR etc) have that cinematic quality. I've said this before but the last time I saw LTK was as a double bill with OHMSS...and I was suprisingly disappointed with Kill because of the 'cheap' nature of it. Up until that point I'd considered it one of the best in the series.
I don't want to go too far off topic but GE does deliver in terms of spectacle where LTK didn't. The bunjee jump at the start is amazing - only re-watched that scene the other day.
Oh Bain.
Theres some cheap looking sets in GE such as most of Russia was filmed in Leavesden. Russia looks like an industrial estate off the A40.
If you want crappy back projection look at the PTS of GE with him dropping after the plane. 006 falling from a great height isn't that great either.
GE has nothing of the gorgeousness of Sanchezs' mansion on Acapulco bay.
I love how you talked about the crap rear projection then bought up GE, which has the awful back projection for the skydiving after a plane part :)) GE and LTK both look cinematic. They both have great action.
I think it's fair to say it was the lowest ebb for me in the 50 years of the series so far.
Its got the casino- which looks far more alluring than the one in LTK, shots of Monte Carlo at night, shots of MC during the day, shots of Cuba or even the single shot of the Grand hotel.
Plus there were the fancy computers in the Mi6 building (the heat television screen) and Alec's control room.
GE does have its cheap spots I agree but it looks more cinematic than Kill does.
Ha, yeah that is kind of silly :p I do like Brozza's face when he's trying to regain control of the plane though.
In terms of "crappy back projection" though I think EVERYONE on here knows which film takes the cake. THAT scene makes the freefall in GE look pretty good actually.
Would that scene also involve Brosnan? and maybe some floating chunks of frozen water?
Well, as someone who was there at the front of the cinema in 1989 as the tanker chase unfolded believe you me it was very cinematic.
No you are very wrong, DAD was horrible, TWINE had many redeeming moments to it .
Well I've talked to other people on here who were there in 1989 and said they were slightly disappointed when they left the cinema - partly due to the occasionally "poor" production values.
I think some of GE does look quite cheap now but a lot of it still looks good. I like the little things like the shots of Monte Carlo.
I have alot of fond memories of GE as it was the 1st Bond for 6 long years and remember all the hype and publicity! Plus Isabella Scorupco is still very hot!
Anecdotes and opinions of others are not evidence. I can find you just as many people who thought it was impressive.
The film as a whole or the chase? The tank chase is good - I admit that but there is some validity to people who say most of the film 'looks poor' or 'looks like a tv film'. Quite a lot of it does.
Kill is a controversial film amongst fans. Always has been.
Of course, but what I mean is that I would be more intrigued by a film if it shot in a real city. It heightens that intrigue I feel as the viewer.