Black and White Opening

HGTB wrote:

I think LTK marked the end of an era and that there is a noticeable difference from GE onwards, but never that they were not of the series.

I still don't buy this. If you'd said 1962-1987 MAYBE I'd understand it, but since LTK is such a deviation from the traditional Bond film (not to the extent of CR) in terms of villain and scheme, tone and set up, likening it to the previous Bond films and separating them from the likes of GE, TND and TWINE seems illogical, unfounded and biased.

HGTB wrote:

I went through the "it must be me" phase, I tried to understand it, I tried to reason it out but ultimately just have to go with "maybe they just lost their way".

Ha me too. The Facebook groups would have you think you've gone completely bonkers for suggesting CR06 isn't a good film. They have just lost their way, I imagine because of Bab's blind love for Daniel Craig.

I think LTK was an experimental direction but the foundation and building blocks of the series are still there and it is clearly following TLD.
The six year gap and legal battles automatically seperate GE which when examined is the first time an entry was being made in a time of uncertainty post-Cold War AND in having to find its way in an industry that had significantly moved on.
I don't think it's illogical to point out that the four films that followed felt a little different because by that time Cubby and a good majority of the team was gone AND that for the first time EON was having to play catch up and prove relevance. But at least they were still about the character and of course you can't mess that up...oh crap.

Heck, at this point I'd settle for the simplest script in the world that had an actual good story. I have no hope, no confidence-no anything for Abomination #5. I would rather watch JB Jr. again or reread Carte Blanche. The worst of Gardner read aloud would be Shakespeare in comparison. I could go and shoot a Benson novel in a page for page direct adaptation and it would be magical in comparison.

But the tone of the 90s Bond films - and well, even DAD - is much more similar to that of the other Bonds prior to LTK. Tone is significant when it comes to the 007 films and I imagine it is (in part) this reason why we both don't think much of the Craig era (though SF is in line with the 1962-2002 era). Sure, Babs and Michael were steering the ship in GE but Cubby was still pulling their ropes. While LTK takes place during the Cold War, the villains and the scheme weren't geopolitically-oriented -- whereas GE is, and highlights a very familiar, yet sinister suspicion of the Russians anyway. It's not all that different. But we see what we want to see I guess.

But you're right about "Abomination #5". I'm not even bothered if I see it in cinemas at this stage.

I'd suggest the Cold War was all but over by the time LTK hit the screens. 1989 would see democratic upheavals in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia et al and the Berlin Wall would go within half a year of the film's release. The Soviets had also completely withdrawn from Afghanistan and detente had been accelerated by the newly minted President Bush who, indeed, flagged concerns that that the Eastern Bloc was disintegrating too quickly.

Though I always found the Floridian/Central American drug setting to be more Miami Vice than 007, to some extent having another film where Bond fights the Rooskiez at that stage may have looked like a desperate attempt to hang onto that which is familiar against a rapidly shifting tide.

LTK can be considered that but thankfully didn't go for the full Bond Vice nightmare with pastel coats etc. (Though there is some pastel here and there. The only downsides are that horrendous end title song and the unfortunate decision to do the slicked back hair. But of course the power of Dalton can overcome even that.) In fact, I think I'd view it as more of Bond once again tackling modern trends with style. In essence LTK is the Bond team doing the Die Hard/Lethal Weapon/80's darker action vehicle with far more style and class.

I can see what you mean Fields, but I still think they were more affected by the industry trends of that time than anything that had come before. Then of course it may just be that we have far more material to actually analyze with them as opposed to little more than the official blurbs on the older films.

hegottheboot wrote:

Oh no, I think the Brosnan era was a mixture of good ideas and missed opportunities but none of the films are ostensibly"bad" or untrue (the silliness stuck in DAD notwithstanding.)

I think LTK marked the end of an era and that there is a noticeable difference from GE onwards, but never that they were not of the series.

Nah, it was just trying to avoid naming every major player and writing a text block!
You know, it's hard to pin Michael down. He never intended to be involved, and yet came on board and wound up as co-writer, co-producer with great success-then eventually took the reigns and really seems to care much as Barbara does. They've really done a Herculean task in keeping the series going and navigating the legal nightmares and I will forever admire them for that. Plus they seem like genuinely good people which is an absolute rarity in the business. I don't think there is a person alive I would go into fanboy shock over meeting more than Wilson. Well, perhaps Sean, George, Timothy, Pierce, key crew members, Michael Caine (because of course) etc. (It absolutely kills me that I never had the chance to meet Roger but of course what could I do other than faint or stammer incomprehensibly?)

But I just cannot understand what has been going on with the films. Especially since they've been active participants for decades and tried to keep the flag flying with honor pre CR06. They seem be blind to the direction things have gone in. I went through the "it must be me" phase, I tried to understand it, I tried to reason it out but ultimately just have to go with "maybe they just lost their way".

It's all about timing. Back in the Brosnan era, MGM was a lot more assertive with what they wanted out of their Bond films and EON wanted to not just revive Bond but keep it afloat after the lukewarm reception of LTK. Mike always said since the 90s that they approach each Bond film with the mindset that it could be the last. I think LTK's performance really traumatized EON. They wanted to take Bond in new and interesting places with Dalton and got punished for it. So you have MGM that wants to have a Bond film that sells a lot of tickets and EON willing to concede for the sake of the franchise, while adding in a few touches to try to freshen things up like a female M, a Bond girl that was a former flame, the Bond girl being the villain, and a lot of the things in DAD that feels like a precursor to Craig's run like Bond getting captured and tortured.

Cut to 2005. MGM isn't as powerful, needing assistance from other production companies to make movies (with Sony's Amy Pascal becoming an giant ally for EON). Blockbuster action films have become more darker and interesting than what the 90s produced and were actually successful. All of this encourages EON to try to do what they did in the late 80s again, only this time it paid off.

hegottheboot wrote:

In essence LTK is the Bond team doing the Die Hard/Lethal Weapon/80's darker action vehicle with far more style and class.

Having just rewatched DIE HARD. Nah. That's got a lot more style than John Glen could ever dream. Just having Jan de Bont alone for LTK's cinematography would have done it wonders.

Agree to disagree. I'm a huge fan of McTiernan's work but I think LTK holds up just as well as Die Hard-particularly on a big screen.

I do think MGM did have some say here and there but they have always had a hands off approach because Cubby personally kept them that way for decades. When Transamerica took over UA that started the headaches which grew progressively worse, but after the Kerkorian merging of UA with MGM it was only Cubby's old school know how and strength that kept the madmen of MGM/UA from destroying the seeries with their meddling. The madness of what happened in the boardrooms of MGM under Kerkorian from the 70's onward and how UA was destroyed is just unbelievable.

I think economics, audience desires and market changes play far more important of a role than EON realizes or acknowledges. For example, Goldfinger would have been successful in any case since the audience had been built up with the first two films. So if Young had stayed on and the film was more in line with the established tone-thus less gadgetry and humor...the most beloved film in the series by most could have been more realistic and thus EON and the public majority wouldn't have viewed the humor/gadget GF approach to be the more successful method and the one to constantly chase after.

LTK would have been fine in 1989 had a major studio released it. Upon reflection it had a hideously underwhelming box office run. And I'm 100% convinced it was due to the absolutely criminal lack of proper promotion. '89 was a huge year and the debut of the modern era of promotional bonanza with Batman. And MGM/UA in its ever floundering perch on death's door just dumped out LTK in the middle of one of the biggest summers in film history with an absolutely awful ad campaign full of terrible poster design and very little spent on any promotion. Thus it was completely lost in the shuffle of blockbusters worldwide.