James Bond: The Ultimate Collection (1962-2012) + Volume Collections

[Professor Echo]

Never forget that the IGNORE button is your friend. I just used it and love how the air just suddenly cleared.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

License to Kill isn’t top-tier anything. Releasing LTK a year after Die Hard and two years after Lethal Weapon was a public humiliation.

What you need is a nice...honeymoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon.

[GuruAskew]

del Toro’s performance and that line reading in particular are pretty much the only elements of LTK worth remembering. It’s a bad line and he makes it great.

In hindsight he would have been much better than Robert Davis as Sanchez, but it was only his second movie so they couldn’t have known.

[Batman90]

Originally Posted by Vertigo2010

No time like the present...welcome back Mr Bond.

That’s like a title that would be out of the 80s. I like it.

[GuruAskew]

That’s bait^

[koberulz]

The graphic is horrendous though.

[GuruAskew]

I think it looks like the kind of type you’d see on a paperback book in the 1960s which is pretty spot-on giving the source material.

[Arawn]

"Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"

"I literally don't have time for that right now!"

[wicky_J]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

That’s bait^

That's real.

https://twitter.com/007/status/11638...403200/video/1

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

License to Kill isn’t top-tier anything. Releasing LTK a year after Die Hard and two years after Lethal Weapon was a public humiliation.

You're absolutely right...

[Show spoiler]

...too bad we're talking about Licence To Kill

[GuruAskew]

You mean how I wrote it every other time I used it? The correct usage that was obviously auto-corrected by my American phone?

The fact that you posted that is super pathetic.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

You mean how I wrote it every other time I used it? The correct usage that was obviously auto-corrected by my American phone?

The fact that you posted that is super pathetic.

Not as pathetic as not being able to take a joke.

[tennisball.]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

If modern Bond could be traced back to LTK then I wouldn’t consider it dated but as a disastrous disappointment that killed the series for 6 years and caused a massive course-correction

The only reason there was a gap of 6 years was down to the MGM money troubles. Nothing to do with the success or otherwise of LTK.
LTK had zilch to do with the course correction. In the 6 years before Goldeneye so many movies had come out that offered action previously almost exclusive to the 007 films so as they always did they moved with the times. Goldeneye would likely have been quite different had it appeared in 1991

[GuruAskew]

That’s the BS answer they give to save face. LTK flops and years later they come out with a real Hollywood budget, new producers, new director, new writers and new star. I guarantee you they wouldn’t have had those convenient excuses if LTK was successful.

They obviously wanted some continuity. Q. Cubby’s name in the credits and his children still involved. Creating a respectable version of the near-death of the franchise goes hand-in-hand with all that. This is a series where people knew NSNA was a fake Bond movie even with Connery starring, so LTK’s failure was swept under the rug.

They didn’t have to start Bond 17 with a clean slate. They could have hired John Glen and Timothy Dalton to keep doing them. 1995 wasn’t a busy year for Michael Kamen.

[hanshotfirst1138]

“Fashion dates. Style doesn’t.”
Yves St. Laurent

[Vertigo2010]

Originally Posted by Batman90

That’s like a title that would be out of the 80s. I like it.

It was rather famously used right at the beginning of the 80s...

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138

“Fashion dates. Style doesn’t.”
Yves St. Laurent

That sounds about right. The Bond series had a style all its own and they decided, on more than one occasion, to try to copy what was fashionable at the time.

The other obvious time they made that mistake was with Moonraker but I give that one a little bit of a break because even though the 3rd act is the worst thing in all of the Bond films the leading up to that is alright. As a TSWLM fan the pre-space station stuff is obviously in that vein.

Of course there’s Live and Let Die too, and I’ve always dug how bizarre it is. That isn’t to say what they did worked. There are more subtle examples too like Hitchcock influencing FRWL and Besson influencing GoldenEye and the Bourne series influencing the Craig films. LALD, Moonraker and LTK all deviate from the tried-and-true too much and did it horribly too. It makes you wonder how the course of the series would have changed if Moonraker had ended with a Star Wars or Close Encounters-grade ILM ending, or what a John McTiernan-directed Shane Black-written LTK with a big budget would have done. If anything it was a mercy that Moonraker and LTK were so bad because the series is better without those elements.

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

LALD, Moonraker and LTK all deviate from the tried-and-true too much and did it horribly too. It makes you wonder how the course of the series would have changed if Moonraker had ended with a Star Wars or Close Encounters-grade ILM ending, or what a John McTiernan-directed Shane Black-written LTK with a big budget would have done. If anything it was a mercy that Moonraker and LTK were so bad because the series is better without those elements.

But Licence To Kill is one of the best entries. And apart from a short bit with ninjas, it's also very much an early precursor to the modern Daniel Craig era. It was ahead of it's time. btw Live and Let Die is also pretty awesome imo.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

That’s the BS answer they give to save face. LTK flops and years later they come out with a real Hollywood budget, new producers, new director, new writers and new star. I guarantee you they wouldn’t have had those convenient excuses if LTK was successful.

They obviously wanted some continuity. Q. Cubby’s name in the credits and his children still involved. Creating a respectable version of the near-death of the franchise goes hand-in-hand with all that. This is a series where people knew NSNA was a fake Bond movie even with Connery starring, so LTK’s failure was swept under the rug.

They didn’t have to start Bond 17 with a clean slate. They could have hired John Glen and Timothy Dalton to keep doing them. 1995 wasn’t a busy year for Michael Kamen.

LOL, what? The legal case was well documented. Are you just ludicrously claiming that they made that up to cover up the fact LTK underperformed?

No one is disputing that LTK was not very successful. It wasn’t a flop by the way, it still made a profit. And it’s already patently obvious that they were giving the series a fresh overhaul with Goldeneye. You’re saying nothing that we haven’t already known for years.

[Jim Pez]

Why do some bond films get left out of the box sets ?