The 1960s ones let the audience soak up the local sights. Indeed they very carefully scouted for such, and they embedded them in the films as much as possible. The newer films pay lip service -- just enough to suggest the film takes place where it claims but spending less time on locations and more time on sets and close ups of actors.
This is the culture aspect that MarcAngeDraco brought up. It's why most of the locations in the films from Cubby's era feel so alive, from the music in Puss Feller's bar to the casinos in Las Vegas to the Carnival in Rio to the opera in Vienna. Bond experiencing the culture of where he is what is missing in the new films and why the locations suffer no matter how beautifully they are shot. They tried to use that aspect with the horse race in QOS, but the horse race was just happening alongside the action and was not integrated with the action. There were always plenty of sets in the old films. In SP we saw PLENTY of Rome, but it was only used for a car chase that could have happened anywhere. Bond experienced none of the culture of Rome, and that was the problem. I see this as a script problem above all else.
Again, these are Bond movies...apples and oranges.
No, these are contemporary Bond films, and mostly just the Craig ones -- the 1960s ones got the details right. The problem isn't that they're a different kind of movie; the problem is that the lackluster sense of how to spend the money is a current SOP.
...and there's no going back. The Industry has just evolved too much. It's like the pipe dream of reversing globalization or wishing that type-writers and carbon paper come back into vogue, or trying to market a new car brand that doesn't use air bags. Try to make a Bond film in a way similar to the older ones, it would die an early death if it opened along side the newest Expendables movie.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
In five out of six of the first Bond films, EON was simply adapting Fleming's novels, which made it easy to put a good script together.
Casino Royale prove that not even Purvis and Wade can screw up a Fleming novel.
Bridging the 50-year gap was no easy task and it took some deft writing to contemporarize the extremely dated story of CR, not to mention bringing in Oscar winner, Paul Haggis to polish Purvis' and Wade's effort. You cannot make a straight-from-the-page adaptation in a contemporary setting, coupled with the standard fare of blockbuster movies in our digital age of a jaded and post-post-modern audience. As for the timing of the adaptations, the first 3 worked out. TB happened to have been developed from the start from a contemporary setting, but the original story of YOLT proved to be behind-the-times, necessitating (and providing an opportunity) for a radically different adaptation.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
In five out of six of the first Bond films, EON was simply adapting Fleming's novels, which made it easy to put a good script together.
Casino Royale prove that not even Purvis and Wade can screw up a Fleming novel.
Bridging the 50-year gap was no easy task and it took some deft writing to contemporarize the extremely dated story of CR, not to mention bringing in Oscar winner, Paul Haggis to polish Purvis' and Wade's effort. You cannot make a straight-from-the-page adaptation in a contemporary setting, coupled with the standard fare of blockbuster movies in our digital age of a jaded and post-post-modern audience.
All the more reason to set a Bond film in the 50's/60's.
In five out of six of the first Bond films, EON was simply adapting Fleming's novels, which made it easy to put a good script together.
Casino Royale prove that not even Purvis and Wade can screw up a Fleming novel.
Bridging the 50-year gap was no easy task and it took some deft writing to contemporarize the extremely dated story of CR, not to mention bringing in Oscar winner, Paul Haggis to polish Purvis' and Wade's effort. You cannot make a straight-from-the-page adaptation in a contemporary setting, coupled with the standard fare of blockbuster movies in our digital age of a jaded and post-post-modern audience.
All the more reason to set a Bond film in the 50's/60's.
But even then it would have to be made to a certain standard to be relevant to the audience who's watching it within the present.
In five out of six of the first Bond films, EON was simply adapting Fleming's novels, which made it easy to put a good script together.
Casino Royale prove that not even Purvis and Wade can screw up a Fleming novel.
Bridging the 50-year gap was no easy task and it took some deft writing to contemporarize the extremely dated story of CR, not to mention bringing in Oscar winner, Paul Haggis to polish Purvis' and Wade's effort. You cannot make a straight-from-the-page adaptation in a contemporary setting, coupled with the standard fare of blockbuster movies in our digital age of a jaded and post-post-modern audience.
All the more reason to set a Bond film in the 50's/60's.
I'm all for that and look forward to EON coming to the conclusion to make that kind of a reboot. However, as I said the imperative of nurturing the series' blockbuster status will prevent any faithful adaptations and I think at best we'll get The Man From UNCLE. I think outfits like PBS or the BBC at their production level are the best qualified to do Fleming, IMO.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The 1960s ones let the audience soak up the local sights. Indeed they very carefully scouted for such, and they embedded them in the films as much as possible. The newer films pay lip service -- just enough to suggest the film takes place where it claims but spending less time on locations and more time on sets and close ups of actors.
This is the culture aspect that MarcAngeDraco brought up. It's why most of the locations in the films from Cubby's era feel so alive, from the music in Puss Feller's bar to the casinos in Las Vegas to the Carnival in Rio to the opera in Vienna. Bond experiencing the culture of where he is what is missing in the new films and why the locations suffer no matter how beautifully they are shot. They tried to use that aspect with the horse race in QOS, but the horse race was just happening alongside the action and was not integrated with the action. There were always plenty of sets in the old films. In SP we saw PLENTY of Rome, but it was only used for a car chase that could have happened anywhere. Bond experienced none of the culture of Rome, and that was the problem. I see this as a script problem above all else.
I'm still talking about locations -- some people may see the importance of culture in that, but the problem is that one can then do an insert shot, show a few indigenous people in close up (you know, like Quantum of Solace), and then say they've given us a taste of the locale. I'm interested in the locale being integrated into the story itself.
Again, these are Bond movies...apples and oranges.
No, these are contemporary Bond films, and mostly just the Craig ones -- the 1960s ones got the details right. The problem isn't that they're a different kind of movie; the problem is that the lackluster sense of how to spend the money is a current SOP.
...and there's no going back. The Industry has just evolved too much. It's like the pipe dream of reversing globalization or wishing that type-writers and carbon paper come back into vogue, or trying to market a new car brand that doesn't use air bags. Try to make a Bond film in a way similar to the older ones, it would die an early death if it opened along side the newest Expendables movie.
Of course they can go back, the same way record players, 1890s beards, and 1960s suits have all come back. Or they can move forward, not to imitate the older films but to improve upon them. Make the volcanic lair twice as big and be staffed by thousands. But if the idea is to CGI some oil refinery in the desert, staffed by a couple dozen people whose only function is to watch TV sets, and then stage a shootout with the minimum number of people to play volleyball, it's not moving forward.
The 1960s ones let the audience soak up the local sights. Indeed they very carefully scouted for such, and they embedded them in the films as much as possible. The newer films pay lip service -- just enough to suggest the film takes place where it claims but spending less time on locations and more time on sets and close ups of actors.
This is the culture aspect that MarcAngeDraco brought up. It's why most of the locations in the films from Cubby's era feel so alive, from the music in Puss Feller's bar to the casinos in Las Vegas to the Carnival in Rio to the opera in Vienna. Bond experiencing the culture of where he is what is missing in the new films and why the locations suffer no matter how beautifully they are shot. They tried to use that aspect with the horse race in QOS, but the horse race was just happening alongside the action and was not integrated with the action. There were always plenty of sets in the old films. In SP we saw PLENTY of Rome, but it was only used for a car chase that could have happened anywhere. Bond experienced none of the culture of Rome, and that was the problem. I see this as a script problem above all else.
I'm still talking about locations -- some people may see the importance of culture in that, but the problem is that one can then do an insert shot, show a few indigenous people in close up (you know, like Quantum of Solace), and then say they've given us a taste of the locale. I'm interested in the locale being integrated into the story itself.
That IS what I was talking about. Having Bond interact with the location. To me, that means the culture. In SP, Bond interacts with Rome without any aspect of the city's culture. The city of Rome is thoroughly integrated into the story. We get all kinds of shots of it and Bond drives through so much of it, and yet it hardly feels like Bond is there. How would you integrate the location into the story without considering the culture of the location? Without making Bond interact with the culture of a location, the location has no meaning to the story.
No, these are contemporary Bond films, and mostly just the Craig ones -- the 1960s ones got the details right. The problem isn't that they're a different kind of movie; the problem is that the lackluster sense of how to spend the money is a current SOP.
...and there's no going back. The Industry has just evolved too much. It's like the pipe dream of reversing globalization or wishing that type-writers and carbon paper come back into vogue, or trying to market a new car brand that doesn't use air bags. Try to make a Bond film in a way similar to the older ones, it would die an early death if it opened along side the newest Expendables movie.
Of course they can go back, the same way record players, 1890s beards, and 1960s suits have all come back. Or they can move forward, not to imitate the older films but to improve upon them. Make the volcanic lair twice as big and be staffed by thousands. But if the idea is to CGI some oil refinery in the desert, staffed by a couple dozen people whose only function is to watch TV sets, and then stage a shootout with the minimum number of people to play volleyball, it's not moving forward.
Whether that would work depends on the objective, and if that were to recreate the scope of a David Lean movie, then yes. I don’t think the movie needed such a large scale of militarized forces but if it did, CGI would certainly meet that need just as it was used to generate the hordes of revelers in the PTS. As far as location, they would likely use the same desert locations, albeit with tweaking to incorporate a digital cast of thousands, which brings it back to the state of film-making today in which digital effects has become indispensible, such as this modest use of CGI in this scene from The Imitation Game:
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
This is the culture aspect that MarcAngeDraco brought up. It's why most of the locations in the films from Cubby's era feel so alive, from the music in Puss Feller's bar to the casinos in Las Vegas to the Carnival in Rio to the opera in Vienna. Bond experiencing the culture of where he is what is missing in the new films and why the locations suffer no matter how beautifully they are shot. They tried to use that aspect with the horse race in QOS, but the horse race was just happening alongside the action and was not integrated with the action. There were always plenty of sets in the old films. In SP we saw PLENTY of Rome, but it was only used for a car chase that could have happened anywhere. Bond experienced none of the culture of Rome, and that was the problem. I see this as a script problem above all else.
I'm still talking about locations -- some people may see the importance of culture in that, but the problem is that one can then do an insert shot, show a few indigenous people in close up (you know, like Quantum of Solace), and then say they've given us a taste of the locale. I'm interested in the locale being integrated into the story itself.
That IS what I was talking about. Having Bond interact with the location. To me, that means the culture. In SP, Bond interacts with Rome without any aspect of the city's culture. The city of Rome is thoroughly integrated into the story. We get all kinds of shots of it and Bond drives through so much of it, and yet it hardly feels like Bond is there. How would you integrate the location into the story without considering the culture of the location? Without making Bond interact with the culture of a location, the location has no meaning to the story.
There was a recent thread about the films showcasing the culture of a particular locale, and I agree that in most cases, it worked to enhance the travelogue aspects of those sequences. And yes, I agree that these scenes have become anemic in some scenes (but not all) from the past 2 movies. However, I'm curious to know if this was deliberate. Do most viewers today really care? I read something about the current generation's viewing habits that's characterized by tweets and transitory snapchat posts. I personally like more meaning, but realize that I may be in the minority...so I just tap into my "video mode" and enjoy the ride!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
This is the culture aspect that MarcAngeDraco brought up. It's why most of the locations in the films from Cubby's era feel so alive, from the music in Puss Feller's bar to the casinos in Las Vegas to the Carnival in Rio to the opera in Vienna. Bond experiencing the culture of where he is what is missing in the new films and why the locations suffer no matter how beautifully they are shot. They tried to use that aspect with the horse race in QOS, but the horse race was just happening alongside the action and was not integrated with the action. There were always plenty of sets in the old films. In SP we saw PLENTY of Rome, but it was only used for a car chase that could have happened anywhere. Bond experienced none of the culture of Rome, and that was the problem. I see this as a script problem above all else.
I'm still talking about locations -- some people may see the importance of culture in that, but the problem is that one can then do an insert shot, show a few indigenous people in close up (you know, like Quantum of Solace), and then say they've given us a taste of the locale. I'm interested in the locale being integrated into the story itself.
That IS what I was talking about. Having Bond interact with the location. To me, that means the culture. In SP, Bond interacts with Rome without any aspect of the city's culture. The city of Rome is thoroughly integrated into the story. We get all kinds of shots of it and Bond drives through so much of it, and yet it hardly feels like Bond is there. How would you integrate the location into the story without considering the culture of the location? Without making Bond interact with the culture of a location, the location has no meaning to the story.
There's nothing to say the location and a culture have to be tied together at all. If a scene takes place along the Nile but Bond never once encounters another person, the sweep and scale of the Nile alone can provide the breathtaking elements I'm talking about. The same could be said if he climbs an Alp. Location and culture can be mutually exclusive. There's no reason they have to be, but there's no reason they must be, either. So, we could easily have a stunning locale without any culture at all.
Ironically, they came close in Skyfall with the manor house. We don't meet a single other person native to Scotland besides Kincaid, who seems rather more a stereotype than a fleshed out character. He might as well have shown up in a kilt and with bagpipes. And truthfully, his character could have been taken out of the scene altogether with little problem. His main function was to provide comic relief and backstory for Bond.
If the story wants to be more immersive with culture, that's fine. That's great. But right now, I want to see big locales integral to the storytelling -- and back to the original topic -- demonstrative of the staggering amounts of money they spend to make a Bond film. I'm not sure the budget affects how much culture we get in the same way it does the amount of location filming they do and how well.
...and there's no going back. The Industry has just evolved too much. It's like the pipe dream of reversing globalization or wishing that type-writers and carbon paper come back into vogue, or trying to market a new car brand that doesn't use air bags. Try to make a Bond film in a way similar to the older ones, it would die an early death if it opened along side the newest Expendables movie.
Of course they can go back, the same way record players, 1890s beards, and 1960s suits have all come back. Or they can move forward, not to imitate the older films but to improve upon them. Make the volcanic lair twice as big and be staffed by thousands. But if the idea is to CGI some oil refinery in the desert, staffed by a couple dozen people whose only function is to watch TV sets, and then stage a shootout with the minimum number of people to play volleyball, it's not moving forward.
Whether that would work depends on the objective, and if that were to recreate the scope of a David Lean movie, then yes. I don’t think the movie needed such a large scale of militarized forces but if it did, CGI would certainly meet that need just as it was used to generate the hordes of revelers in the PTS. As far as location, they would likely use the same desert locations, albeit with tweaking to incorporate a digital cast of thousands, which brings it back to the state of film-making today in which digital effects has become indispensible, such as this modest use of CGI in this scene from The Imitation Game:
I'd be happy if they just recreate the scale and scope of a Terrence Young, Guy Hamilton, or Lewis Gilbert Bond of the 60s, let alone Lean. And dotting some bland desert scene with CGI video game people wouldn't do it for me. It's not just the number of objects on the screen but how well they translate the world. In those terms, the miniseries The Night Manager did a better job populating the screen than most Craig Bonds.
This is the culture aspect that MarcAngeDraco brought up. It's why most of the locations in the films from Cubby's era feel so alive, from the music in Puss Feller's bar to the casinos in Las Vegas to the Carnival in Rio to the opera in Vienna. Bond experiencing the culture of where he is what is missing in the new films and why the locations suffer no matter how beautifully they are shot. They tried to use that aspect with the horse race in QOS, but the horse race was just happening alongside the action and was not integrated with the action. There were always plenty of sets in the old films. In SP we saw PLENTY of Rome, but it was only used for a car chase that could have happened anywhere. Bond experienced none of the culture of Rome, and that was the problem. I see this as a script problem above all else.
I'm still talking about locations -- some people may see the importance of culture in that, but the problem is that one can then do an insert shot, show a few indigenous people in close up (you know, like Quantum of Solace), and then say they've given us a taste of the locale. I'm interested in the locale being integrated into the story itself.
That IS what I was talking about. Having Bond interact with the location. To me, that means the culture. In SP, Bond interacts with Rome without any aspect of the city's culture. The city of Rome is thoroughly integrated into the story. We get all kinds of shots of it and Bond drives through so much of it, and yet it hardly feels like Bond is there. How would you integrate the location into the story without considering the culture of the location? Without making Bond interact with the culture of a location, the location has no meaning to the story.
Precisely.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Of course they can go back, the same way record players, 1890s beards, and 1960s suits have all come back. Or they can move forward, not to imitate the older films but to improve upon them. Make the volcanic lair twice as big and be staffed by thousands. But if the idea is to CGI some oil refinery in the desert, staffed by a couple dozen people whose only function is to watch TV sets, and then stage a shootout with the minimum number of people to play volleyball, it's not moving forward.
Whether that would work depends on the objective, and if that were to recreate the scope of a David Lean movie, then yes. I don’t think the movie needed such a large scale of militarized forces but if it did, CGI would certainly meet that need just as it was used to generate the hordes of revelers in the PTS. As far as location, they would likely use the same desert locations, albeit with tweaking to incorporate a digital cast of thousands, which brings it back to the state of film-making today in which digital effects has become indispensible, such as this modest use of CGI in this scene from The Imitation Game:
I'd be happy if they just recreate the scale and scope of a Terrence Young, Guy Hamilton, or Lewis Gilbert Bond of the 60s, let alone Lean. And dotting some bland desert scene with CGI video game people wouldn't do it for me. It's not just the number of objects on the screen but how well they translate the world. In those terms, the miniseries The Night Manager did a better job populating the screen than most Craig Bonds.
I agree with you there re: cinematography. In my saying that there's no going back, my analogies were about the technology and modern cinematic and industry standards that move forward and cannot be undone. In terms of stylistic elements, unfortunately your (and my) preferences are in the minority and it's modern audiences that will always be given primary consideration, which will dictate production and spending...and also, unfortunately, it is a generation used to transitory stimuli. That for now will dictate style and 1,500+ fx shots will be commonplace to deliver those goods.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Since this thread is about budget and cinematography, LTK was visually lush and atmospheric, among the best to use the Bahamas or wherever the ocean scenes were shot so that you felt you were there. Since there's been discussion about the desert scenes in SP, in LTK, you also felt you were there.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Since this thread is about budget and cinematography, LTK was visually lush and atmospheric, among the best to use the Bahamas or wherever the ocean scenes were shot so that you felt you were there. Since there's been discussion about the desert scenes in SP, in LTK, you also felt you were there.
Comments
This is the culture aspect that MarcAngeDraco brought up. It's why most of the locations in the films from Cubby's era feel so alive, from the music in Puss Feller's bar to the casinos in Las Vegas to the Carnival in Rio to the opera in Vienna. Bond experiencing the culture of where he is what is missing in the new films and why the locations suffer no matter how beautifully they are shot. They tried to use that aspect with the horse race in QOS, but the horse race was just happening alongside the action and was not integrated with the action. There were always plenty of sets in the old films. In SP we saw PLENTY of Rome, but it was only used for a car chase that could have happened anywhere. Bond experienced none of the culture of Rome, and that was the problem. I see this as a script problem above all else.
Casino Royale prove that not even Purvis and Wade can screw up a Fleming novel.
...and there's no going back. The Industry has just evolved too much. It's like the pipe dream of reversing globalization or wishing that type-writers and carbon paper come back into vogue, or trying to market a new car brand that doesn't use air bags. Try to make a Bond film in a way similar to the older ones, it would die an early death if it opened along side the newest Expendables movie.
Bridging the 50-year gap was no easy task and it took some deft writing to contemporarize the extremely dated story of CR, not to mention bringing in Oscar winner, Paul Haggis to polish Purvis' and Wade's effort. You cannot make a straight-from-the-page adaptation in a contemporary setting, coupled with the standard fare of blockbuster movies in our digital age of a jaded and post-post-modern audience. As for the timing of the adaptations, the first 3 worked out. TB happened to have been developed from the start from a contemporary setting, but the original story of YOLT proved to be behind-the-times, necessitating (and providing an opportunity) for a radically different adaptation.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
But even then it would have to be made to a certain standard to be relevant to the audience who's watching it within the present.
It would also be full of CGI!!
"Better make that two."
I'm all for that and look forward to EON coming to the conclusion to make that kind of a reboot. However, as I said the imperative of nurturing the series' blockbuster status will prevent any faithful adaptations and I think at best we'll get The Man From UNCLE. I think outfits like PBS or the BBC at their production level are the best qualified to do Fleming, IMO.
If Purvis and Wade didn't screw it up, is Paul Haggis to blame?
That IS what I was talking about. Having Bond interact with the location. To me, that means the culture. In SP, Bond interacts with Rome without any aspect of the city's culture. The city of Rome is thoroughly integrated into the story. We get all kinds of shots of it and Bond drives through so much of it, and yet it hardly feels like Bond is there. How would you integrate the location into the story without considering the culture of the location? Without making Bond interact with the culture of a location, the location has no meaning to the story.
Whether that would work depends on the objective, and if that were to recreate the scope of a David Lean movie, then yes. I don’t think the movie needed such a large scale of militarized forces but if it did, CGI would certainly meet that need just as it was used to generate the hordes of revelers in the PTS. As far as location, they would likely use the same desert locations, albeit with tweaking to incorporate a digital cast of thousands, which brings it back to the state of film-making today in which digital effects has become indispensible, such as this modest use of CGI in this scene from The Imitation Game:
There was a recent thread about the films showcasing the culture of a particular locale, and I agree that in most cases, it worked to enhance the travelogue aspects of those sequences. And yes, I agree that these scenes have become anemic in some scenes (but not all) from the past 2 movies. However, I'm curious to know if this was deliberate. Do most viewers today really care? I read something about the current generation's viewing habits that's characterized by tweets and transitory snapchat posts. I personally like more meaning, but realize that I may be in the minority...so I just tap into my "video mode" and enjoy the ride!
Ironically, they came close in Skyfall with the manor house. We don't meet a single other person native to Scotland besides Kincaid, who seems rather more a stereotype than a fleshed out character. He might as well have shown up in a kilt and with bagpipes. And truthfully, his character could have been taken out of the scene altogether with little problem. His main function was to provide comic relief and backstory for Bond.
If the story wants to be more immersive with culture, that's fine. That's great. But right now, I want to see big locales integral to the storytelling -- and back to the original topic -- demonstrative of the staggering amounts of money they spend to make a Bond film. I'm not sure the budget affects how much culture we get in the same way it does the amount of location filming they do and how well.
Yes, it's definitely Haggis.
Precisely.
I agree with you there re: cinematography. In my saying that there's no going back, my analogies were about the technology and modern cinematic and industry standards that move forward and cannot be undone. In terms of stylistic elements, unfortunately your (and my) preferences are in the minority and it's modern audiences that will always be given primary consideration, which will dictate production and spending...and also, unfortunately, it is a generation used to transitory stimuli. That for now will dictate style and 1,500+ fx shots will be commonplace to deliver those goods.
Even when it wasn't really real, it was still, y'know, real!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Some of us actually like TLD & LTK. :v
Yes. Both Dalton films are in my top 6.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
You don't have to tell that to Higgins.
+1. But not due to but despite the production values, which were average at best. LTK was quite cheap looking.
More like "trainers" and "green" :v