To me License to Kill feels like the “final" Bond film
opal
Posts: 35MI6 Agent
To me, License to Kill feels like the "final" Bond film of the classic era. By 1989, the Cold War, which was the backdrop for many Bond missions, was over, and in the film Bond resigned from MI6 to get revenge on Sanchez for what he did to Felix and Felix's wife.
Once that was done, the film ends with Bond kissing Pam Bouvier, suggesting, maybe, that this could be a lasting relationship rather than just another of Bond’s one-night-stands. There is also no indication that he will rejoin MI6.
To me, the Brosnon Bond films that followed, while still based on some sort of continuity, felt like a semi-reboot with updated geopolitics and tone. Then, of course, there was the the full-blown reboot with Daniel Craig's Bond.
Could License to Kill be seen as the true end of the classic Bond universe?
Comments
There's a strong argument for that point of view. For several of the long term makers (Richard Maibaum, John Glen, Cubby Broccoli himself) it was their final Bond film.
Not forgetting Maurice Binder!
John Barry having bailed already.
Yes, it's the film that recalls that 'he was married once... but it was a long time ago.' However, when Brosnan was Bond Michael G Wilson said it wasn't clear he was the same guy who had been married, that he wasn't necessarily THAT James Bond.
On top of which, we had the pre-credits during the Cold War, then '9 Years Later' when Bond is in Monte Carlo so you have to wonder what Brosnan's Bond was doing for most of his 30s, in comparison to what Connery, say, was doing. Tbf the timeline was off when Dalton came to the role, him being younger, but they sort of fudged it. It went out the window when Brozzer came along. Similar to NSNA, where they make out Connery's Bond has been 'teaching' - not quite necessary, it made for an alternative timeline.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The argument can be made. But there is some indication that bond will return to MI6. when Leiter says M has a job got Bond, 007 doesn't seen dismissive.
(Note: a lot to read below as I was feeling creative :))
One thing about the Cold War setting is that the majority of the Bond films before the 90s did not reference the Cold War:
DN – No
FRWL – Yes
GF – No
TB – No
YOLT – Yes
OHMSS – No
DAF – No
LALD – No
TMWTGG – No
TSWLM – Yes
MR – No
FYEO – Yes
OP – Yes
AVTAK – Yes
TLD – Yes
LTK – No
That makes 7 out of 16 which had plots that referenced the Cold War and/or the Soviet Union so less than half. Even if you include the 3 unofficial films – CR54, CR67 (both yes) and NSNA (no) you get 9 out of 19 referring to the Cold War which again is less than half.
The first Bond film, DN, did not have a Cold War setting so the cinematic Bond was never originally a “quintessential cold war hero” which I have seen a few times even in official source Bond books. I am well aware that Fleming’s Bond is well and truly rooted in the Cold War but I don’t believe the filmmakers ever intended the cinematic Bond to be the same as the literary one.
Barbel has already pointed out that from a production perspective it was indeed the end of the traditional team working on the films.
To comment on the idea that LTK is chronologically the end of an era from a story making perspective, I fully agree. I don’t think it was intended that way but as there was no 3rd Dalton Bond film this was the one that ended the Dalton era.
Having watched the Brosnan era recently and if you assume Brosnan’s Bond is the same as Dalton’s, there are very a few subtle hints in GE that you could interpret as Bond returning to the service after being away for some time. He has a new M whom he has a frosty relationship with. It is subtly implied that she has taken the position recently as Bond says when he’s in her office “Your predecessor kept some cognac in the top drawer”. Also Zukovsky mentions that the new M is a lady.
Bond is being evaluated by the woman in his car in Monte Carlo. Q also makes a subtle quip with “May I remind you that you have a licence to kill, not to break the traffic laws”. He also mentions that the BMW has stinger missiles behind the headlights. He could have obtained the stingers when he was in Isthmus after scouring the truck area and then left them in storage. Once Bond returns to the service, he fits the BMW with stingers to interest Bond.
I also posted a theory a while back about how it could be possible that Bond spends his missing years between LTK and GE with Paris Carver from TND.
As for the comment Michael G Wilson made about the actor’s are playing different Bonds, could someone please send the original source of that quote? I believe that it is real but I would really like to know exactly what he said and when and where.
As for the idea that certain actors’ tenures are “different” Bonds, I have always been under the impression that with virtually every actor the series undergoes a soft reboot only to be realigned in later films.
With Lazenby, he utters the line “this never happened to the other fellow” which seemingly gave birth to the codename theory. The title sequence and items in his office suggest that Lazenby’s Bond is the same as Connery’s.
With Moore, his performance in LALD and TMWTGG is markedly different to how Bond had behaved previously. He smokes cigars, doesn’t wear tuxedos nor drinks vodka martinis. In LALD, Bond seemingly has no adverse reaction to hearing “Mrs Bond” when he arrives in San Monique. It is only until we get to TSWLM where we have Anya who brings up Bond’s previous marriage and deceased wife and Bond’s naval background. From here the story narrative for Moore begins to realign with Connery and Lazenby continuing again with the noticeable depiction of Tracy’s grave in FYEO.
The biggest dilemma for the producers was actually after Moore retired from the role. It could always have been entirely possible from a timeline perspective that one man could have lived and breathed all the missions from DN to AVTAK in one single career. If you watch AVTAK, it does seem there is subtle subtext that Moore’s Bond is in fact ageing and nearing retirement such as the score and the classic elements like Bond’s attire and the Rolls Royce. Also Bond stays up and guards Stacy in the night when he first meets her in the house implying he’s become a kind of paternal figure. However this of course gets turned upside down as he ends up in the shower with her right at the end.
With Dalton they had the dilemma of whether they could continue with the idea that Bond was the same man as before. Maibaum was pushing for a prequel idea which Broccoli rejected. In the end I think they settled on the idea of again a soft reboot. Bond’s persona is markedly different having an altercation with M and at times being very blunt with lines like “stuff my orders” and “if he fires me, I’ll thank him for it”. The only trace of similarity is that Bond drinks martinis shaken not stirred. Again this reboot didn’t go that far, as LTK depicted the same Leiter from LALD, and contained the lines about Bond being married once but it was a long time ago. So I think the age idea was simply swept under the carpet and the Bond character was simply one that would not age. In fact, Bond’s age is never mentioned in any of the films with the only exception being SP which shows Bond’s age on the guardianship papers.
Despite the points I mentioned above, you could argue that Brosnan’s Bond was again a kind of soft reboot. TWINE however contained subtle hints that Brosnan was again the same Bond as before with him refusing to respond to Elektra’s question “Have you ever lost a loved one?” and Bond’s family motto reference connecting to OHMSS. The last film, DAD, has full on fan service references especially with Bond entering Q’s workshop and handling some of the gadgets from some of the other films – the briefcase from FRWL, the jetpack from TB and the jetplane and crocodile submarine from OP (there are others but these are the obvious ones).
Craig’s era was indeed the most obvious attempt at trying to reboot Bond. However if you analyse CR, there are only really 4 moments in the whole film with which you could argue that Craig’s Bond is no way the same as the others. However I tried to debunk these (as well as mentioning other things) and have always seen CR as a natural progression from the Brosnan era. And then you get to SF where again the filmmakers tried to realign the Craig era with what had gone before with the original Aston Martin and clarifying that Bond was an orphan and grew up in Scotland. NTTD also had fan service elements and lines like “We have all the time in the world” again referencing OHMSS and gleefully irritating the fans who see the Craig era as a reboot.
But on the other hand, he doesn't say to Leiter that he will call M back and seems to want to end the call quickly 😁
good analysis of all the various clues @sinlum , but I gotta question about this one, which many others have also pointed out as proof of continuity
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TWINE however contained subtle hints that Brosnan was again the same Bond as before with ... Bond’s family motto reference connecting to OHMSS
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
would not anybody named Bond have this same old family motto? if Bond26 were reinvented as Jane Bond, she too would have this old family motto. doesnt really prove LazenbyBond and Brosnanbond are the same person.
maybe its not so much a codename, as MI6 just tends to hire many new staff all coincidentally named James Bond.
anyway I agree with the premise of the thread: License to Kill > Goldeneye is the hardest break in the series, with a generational change behind the scenes and an almost entirely different team hired before the next one could be produced. Even when Goldeneye came out, I didnt know the behind the scenes changes, but it sure felt like a younger generation trying to remake a film style that worked best in an earlier era.
Thanks for such a detailed and thoughtful reply. I appreciate the time and effort you put into breaking down the Cold War references across the films and how Bond's character evolved with each actor.
I agree with the broad thrust of your argument, especially your point about how the cinematic Bond was never meant to be as tightly tied to the Cold War as Fleming’s literary Bond. The producers having taken a more flexible approach to Bond’s setting and missions, which allowed the films to remain relevant over the years.
That said, my original post wasn’t suggesting that every Bond mission was Cold War-themed, as such, but rather that the Cold War was a backdrop for many of the earlier films. Even when the missions didn’t explicitly involve Soviet villains or Cold War geopolitics, the era’s tensions were often in the background. Films like From Russia with Love and The Spy Who Loved Me are examples of this, but even others, like Thunderball, benefited from the Cold War’s influence on audience expectations and context.
So, while you’re absolutely right that fewer than half of the classic Bond films directly referenced the Cold War, I think it’s fair to say that the era as a whole provided a sort of thematic backdrop to Bond’s universe — even if it wasn’t always directly related to the plots.
I’ve often posted that for me the Bond canon runs from DN thru LTK. What follows is not the original Bond, and only CR is worthy of mention.
My head canon has always been that in GE, the new M is having Bond evaluated because she saw on his file he went rogue a few years back to chase Sanchez.
I tend to agree that the continuity is fuzzy though and each Bond can kind of be seen as a different version of the character. To be honest with a lot of them I'm not sure I even feel much continuity within the same version of the character: does the 007 in FYEO remember going on a space shuttle a couple of years before? It's not something I particularly feel.
I agree that the line in TWINE could be applied to anyone with that family motto. However I like to think it was a slight wink at the Bond fans. You could also argue that Dalton’s Bond in TLD is also a different guy since the only similar character trait he has with the previous actors is that he likes to drink martinis shaken not stirred. A lot of agents might also like to drink their martinis this way )))
I get the impression that TWINE was possibly originally meant to contain more emotional grounding for the Bond character which was something that Brosnan was also apparently pushing for at the time. I think the emotional grounding could have been borne out by referencing more of Bond’s past (which indeed started to appear later in SF).
Unfortunately the past reference elements in TWINE are virtually non-existent but there are a few fleeting references. Elektra is somewhat reminiscent of Tracy. The skiing scenes seem to be an attempt to revive the scenes of Bond and Tracy together in OHMSS. There’s the family motto reference and Elektra’s question “Have you ever lost a loved one?”.
Having watched the Brosnan era recently, I came up with the idea that there is a subtext that runs across his era. He has to face his “ghosts” from the past.
In GE, he has to face his former best friend as an enemy. In TND, he comes across his former lover Paris Carver. In TWINE, he comes across Elektra who is somewhat reminiscent of Tracy. In DAD, he faces the prospect that his previous time in the service has no more relevance – M’s behaviour towards him rescinding his 00 status, and Bond going through the room with his old gadgets calling them “the old relics”.
I definitely agree with this! Love that film
@sinlum your list concerns only the films directly dealing with the Cold War but don't forget the films with stakes clearly connected. For example, GF doesn't directly deal with the conflict but one must not forget the geopolitical consequences of Operation Grand Slam. It's the Chinese who provide the device Goldfinger intends to use, and I would even say the economic chaos of the West is much more important in terms of stakes than Goldfinger's personal enrichment. In DAF, Blofeld becomes the arbitrator of nuclear deterrence between the three superpowers (the US, China and USSR), which is quite important considering the global context back then. In TMWTGG, Scaramanga has been hired by the KGB and remains connected to the Chinese authorities (the call he receives from the military about a plane approaching the island), not forgetting what he intends to do with the solex agitator relies on the energy dependency of the West after the first oil crisis, an element clearly providing a strategic advantage to the eastern bloc.
Although most of the movies of the Cubby Broccoli era do not directly deal with the Cold War, we can see the conflict remains a very important background of Bond's missions for at least ten movies out of sixteen, which is not so insignificant.
True. I'd say it leaves things open for more movies, but it could've also function as the last bond movie ever (shudder ...). But it is an indication that Bond may return to MI6. Indications and confirmations are of course different things.
I don't think it's a stretch to consider LTK the last film in the original Bond series and GE the start of a second, continuation series. The situation is similar to that of a restaurant that changes management but keeps the same name and serves the same type of food. The original manager and maître d and most of the original waiters and cooks have left, but the new staff were brought up by the old and are familiar with how the restaurant is run.
After 1989 none of the movers and shakers behind the previous Bond films--Broccoli, Maibaum, Binder, and Barry--were in power. True, Michael Wilson was still around and had risen to become a co-producer, but he never co-wrote another Bond film, and while he still pitched occasional ideas, it was Barbara handled most of the creative decisions.
While LTK ended by setting up a third Dalton film, with M letting Bond back into the service, GE was not merely a reboot but the start of the new series. It had no interest in acknowledging the commercially disappointing Dalton era, so GE entirely bypassed it. Brosnan was hailed as a mix of Connery and Moore because that's what the Sony and EON wanted: to hark back to audiences' classic memory of Bond but give it a '90s action film overlay. The strategy paid off, but by 2006 the formula was exhausted, so the Craig cycle tried for a more modern series of overlays--Bourne, Nolan-Batman, Marvel, etc. Again successful, but we're due for another cycle and change in approach, which will likely depend on the personality of whoever is the next Bond.
@SeanIsTheOnlyOne
I don't think the Scaramanga's history of working for the KGB really plays any kind of role in the plot or stakes of the film. Renard in TWINE was also supposedly recruited by the KGB according to what Zukovsky says and this character history also makes no significant impact on the plot or stakes in the film.
The plot of TMWTGG could still be set in today's world. The Chinese still guard islands nowadays similar to how they protect Scaramanga's.
The plots of GF and DAF could also still take place in the modern world. The Chinese could still sponsor a Goldfinger type character to blow up Fort Knox. Also a laser satellite could still be used to threaten the USA, Russia and China much the same like the setting of DAF in the 70s.
I could agree with you if one could provide the ultimate proof the Cold War is definitely over, but looking at today's world like you say, I tend to think the conflict never really ended.