Licence To Kill

[Flangepart]

Hummm....likely some did. Maby i'm being too subjective? But then agine...what else could i be?

[Fearless Freep]

Maby i'm being too subjective? But then agine...what else could i be?

One thing I try very hard not to do is to judge things subjectively on my own generational biases.

 Sean Connery's Bond was a particular character in a particular cultural and geo-political climate and he only made sense within that climate.  Brosnan's Bond belongs in a different world.  You can compare Connery's Bond to Vaughn's Man From Uncle; you can compare Brosnan's Bond to Diesel's XxX, but the only way you can really compare Connery to Brosnan is not in who they are directly but in how well the fit in and work against their own time

A few months ago I watched all the "Freddy" movies, I found myself thinking they were a bit silly, but then I realized something.  I'm 34 years old, I'm *really*  not the target audience these movies were aimed at, so naturally my  opinion of them is not going to be as good as someone who actually is in the target audience

[Paul Hotbranch]

You are not the target audience for Pierce Brosnan Bond either.

[dean]

i think the problem is that the bond series has developed into a big money making business rather than a movie.  how much money did they make for die another day for advertising products?  more than enough to cover the $200 million or so budget.  thats a s**tload of money.  so they justify this with big explosions and whatnot.

i actually thought that judi dench was a good choice to play M, though the old one will be missed.

and Q/ Desmond Llweyn will also be sorely missed.  he was just starting to become the character he should have been made years ago and was a fantastic asset to the series.

in terms of who to fight next, megalomaniacs have been done to death, but rather than break from convention, each knew bond movie sticks to the formulae that has become the conventional bond idea: bond gets with a chick at the start of the movie, theres a big action scene at the start, then the credits start with lots of naked women dancing around.  bond gets some assignment, gets help from some friends and makes a sexy female ally, whilst, in some cases, also having to deal with a sexy female enemy, who is working for the 'genius' behind wanting to make loads of money and become powerful.  bond gets some gadgets, kicks their butts, says some smart witty lines, then goes off and sleeps with his sexy ally.

the series is starting to fail, and drastically needs a revamp if it wants to survive.  there'll always be an audience, but we don't want it to be remembered as crap now do we?


tamahori tried to mess with the film, but ended up making the most 'bond' film of them all, in terms of the conventions i just mentioned.

like i said earlier, i think it needs to go back to it's cloak and dagger roots, and cut back on the gadgets, and focus more on the whole spy thing.  it is still allowed plenty of action mind you [we can't alienate our audience can we! :P ] but more 'smart' action instead of this other crap thats been going on [by smart i mean it actually has a point].

but yes, unfortunately, ppl are right in saying that bond is a victim of cultural circumstance, and now bond films can now be more likened to the fast and furious movies than the old classics.

but on a similar note, who should play bond when brosnan hangs up his walther ppk?  i heard someone mention jude law once, and i almost had a heart attack.

i just can't see anyone playing bond anytime soon...  how sad.

[fritz21]

Lazenby's agent was tipped off that Bond was a "Woodstock character" and advised him not to do DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, which is a shame. They had written more of a revenge script, with the diamond smuggling thrown in. It would have been a lot like LICENCE TO KILL, with Bond strangling Blofeld and boiling Irma Bunt. I would've liked that with Lazenby more than Connery, frankly. Lazenby and Dalton were the only actors who really understood the literary character, which is why I prefer them over Sean Connery. I understand why people would like Sean, but, having read the books first, he was never Bond for me.

[raj]

They could get a young unknown, and have him play Bond's son (James has got to have a bunch of kids all over the world.)  Then Bond gets to groom him to take over.  They could even trot out Sean to play him one last time, he is old enough.

[George]

yes, you are crazy.

I rank Moore and Brosnan above him.

[Paul Hotbranch]

That has already been done,in the cartoon"James Bond Junior".

[BoyScoutKevin]

Yes, and since I answered that question, let me say what I liked about "Licence to Kill." I liked the villians. There was such a range of them from the drug dealer (Robert Davi), to the corrupt DEA agent (Anthony Zerbe), to the ex-Green Beret (Don Stroud) to the televangelist (Wayne Newton) to the Wall Street Whiz Kid, who's name I have forgotten, who had to flee the U.S., after he was caught in some sort of financial shenaigans, to Davi's hired muscle, who really looked like hired muscle, and not actors playing hired muscle.

[Deej]

In the intro to Diamonds Are Forever, when Bond is killing all the baddies in his search for Blofeld, wasn't that intended as revenge for killing Tracy in OHMSS? Kind of a follow up, I guess.

I liked Dalton, I think he gets a bad rap. But, I do think that License To Kill has a Golan-Globus meets Miami Vice kinda feel to it...that's the 80's though.

"And the Jam Trousers...were they your idea? F*cking useless!"

[Funk, E.]

We always called it "Excuse to Spew" Not a good film and killed Dalton's chances as a viable bond successor. At least it wasn't Moonraker

[raj]

Moonraker was definitely the Jump the Shark film.  Specifically the battle in space.