There are similarities between LTK & Clear and Present Danger...
GothamKnight1902
Posts: 37MI6 Agent
If you've never seen Clear and Present Danger on TV, or in the movie theater, this will be entirely lost on you, but if you have seen it, and if you've seen Licence to Kill too, then you should take notice of the atmosphere in both films. Licence to Kill and Clear and Present Danger have almost identical surroundings and the heroes of both films were dealing with a drug dealer.
Comments
This is something within the Bond series that I often think about - although my favourite character and film series, none of the Bond films are truly great in film terms. None of the Bond's are a cinematic masterpiece. They serve to entertain, provide a certain formula (that has almost become lost of late) and turn a cinematic profit that along with merchandising and product placement, roles on and on and on...
This is something the Bond machine should start to think about. Look at what makes great (stand alone ) films in terms of casting, locations, stunts and action sequences, dialogue, script and direction and try to apply it to the film. Forget terrible product placement like that awful, awful scene on the train in CR (Omega - Beautiful - aahhhhh!) and take the franchise a little more seriously.
http://apbateman.com
Well, even though most of the Bond series isn't great, I think the first Bond film, Dr. No was the most rewatchable. And enjoyable. There's just something about Dr No in my humble opinion, that makes it stand out from the pack.
Well they aren't really suppose to be masterpieces just like Fleming's novels weren't intelligent spy thrillers. However if they want REALLY improve this series they should actually examine Fleming. The series has never really represented Fleming's books on film. For example the extent of Goldfinger's fanscination with Gold was limited in the film; Never his mention for his gold bound pornographic books or his need to have sex with woman painted with gold. Also as good as Doctor No was preformed by Joesph Wiseman, the character was toned down signfigantly. He wasn't the sadist with a god complex, more of a henchmen proud to be a part of a great criminal orginization. I am sure if they really sit down and look at his work, something great could come out of it.
Still they continue the route they always have but write something more intelligent. I would LOVE to see a Bond film as good as North by Northwest. It's style over substance but no Bond film could touch it; It's freaken brilliant.
And yes, I see Dr. No as a seperate entity, but then again it was. There was no pretence to it, because it was the first. It could have been another film with another character, but it was Bond. Everything afterwards was not as pristine. Everything afterwards was building on its parts, evolving into the series.
http://apbateman.com
First of all Batman: The Animated Series was being held back from becoming a truly great TV Show because of BS&P (Broadcasting Standards and Practrices) a lot of the stuff the creators wanted to do on the television show they couldn't do because it was considered to be "TOO DARK" for children's programming. And that's why you have a television show that tries to be "Dark and Edgy" but it ultimately fails because of Standards and Practices.
As for James Bond, I don't know if this is true or not, but this my theory, back in the early 1960's I think Chubby Broccoli and Terence Young couldn't make the early Bond films as dark as they wanted to, because back then most movies were either Rated PG or Rated R, they didn't have a rating in between PG & R until Steven Spielberg asked the Motion Picture Association of America to create one.
They weren't really intent on making a dark film; Just a fun one. That's why they toned down some of more grisly stuff but kept the edge. I still enjoy Dr.No on it's own. I always found it to be unique because it's seemless combination of genres. The beginning starts off as a mystery, everything on No's Island is an adventure, and finally when we get to No's underground facility it's a Sci-Fi film. The other Bond films never felt un-worldly as that first film.
GF works very well of its own accord, but the others are trying to outdo the previous usually, or redress some recent imbalance so they can't be standalone.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
This is something that has nagged at me for years. The Bonds have always been laughed at by the general critical establishment for being merely entertainments.
This is why I have decided to write my critical thesis on the James Bond films. They have an impact and legacy unlike anything else in the cinematic world.
The films themselves are all good (save for a few exceptions) and several of them really are great films: Dr. No, FRWL, Goldfinger, OHMSS. combine this with the fact that they are full of well crafted technique and are just so much fun.
The films were made to adapt the novels for the general audiences of the time. They have always reflected their times and that is the secret of their staying power. The film bond and the book bond are two entirely different characters.
Batman the Animated Series does not fail by any means. By not being able to completely go where they wanted to, the creators allowed for the viewer to fill in things with imagination. The shorter canvas worked with also reminds the viewer of the original comic that has little room for full development. I think it is definitive.
Please let's not have Christopher Nolan do a Bond film. It would look and feel just like the Awful Knight and what little is left of the Bond magic would be completely eroded.
With the dire status of Bond 23 I would welcome Woody Allen to Direct at the moment
I think the movie should have been made for TV - it looked like a good Miami Vice TV episode rather than a motion picture.