It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
X(
My thoughts exactly. But there's no accounting for taste in democracy....
A lean, mean, brutal Bond film, with 007 as the blunt instrument he should be.
If Craig's Bond had been in LTK he would have nutted sanchez in his office and stuck that Chameleon where the sun don't shine. And we'd have a mercifully shorter film to boot.
I disagree. I have been watching the Netflix TV-Series "Narcos" heavily as of late. And because of that I actually really started appreciating LTK. It's a very 'Craig-esque' film, in that it bulks from realism and it mirrors Pablo Escobar so wonderfully (Just like, in a way, Silva mirrors Julian Assange).
LTK and QOS are in many ways very comparable though, violence-wise, the amount of realism, a tormented Bond character, etc. But I think LTK is the better film: Better edited, better storyline, great Leiter-side story, and at the end Dalton is so wonderfully charming when he jumps in the pool.
By the way, as of tomorrow I will post one result a day :-). So it's a bit more exciting.
QoS, while decent enough, is more of its time. It borrows heavily from the contemporary actioners of the day (most notably The Bourne Supremacy) in story and style. Moreover, those elements which it borrowed weren't entirely necessary in my view. The film would have functioned perfectly well without the crazy cam editing.
I like them both, but am quite happy LTK still survives, although I'm pretty sure we'll see it pop up shortly.
Sadly those were the days of Batman, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon and Die Hard... no place for British Intelligence.
But it's a good comparison: Bond was not as relevant back then as it is today. If SF (and SP, too) showed one thing it's that following CR there was and is a great increase of ticket sales for Bond movies. So whatever things the Craig era was missing for Bond afficionados - it definitley broadened the demand (again) for more of it throughout the general audience.
I like the Dalton movies (TLD better than LTK) - but with his 2 entries he was unable to bring a peak performance movie like Connery, Moore and Craig have been able to during their times. Maybe it was really the climate back then that lowered interest in Bond - the cold war agent with all the gadgets.
So BB and MW definitely did something right back in 2005 when they opened that completely new chapter.
I guess LTK will not make the top 10 which is a shame.
Keep in mind that back in the 80s there have been Bond Films everyone two years. I guess Craig benefits from the fact that the frequency of Bond film making has been reduced cosiderably. I also think that Craig benefits from the amazing Bond tradition. A Bond film today is sonething very special and watched by several generations of Bond fans. In the 80s things might have been different.
Do you want SF to die? Or to obliterate from our timeline? Or does SF need to get the Ebola disease? Or does SF create mass self-destruction :-P?
Absolutely not.
Just re-shoot all scenes with Silva with Tom Hardy or another decent actor that will not ruin the character.
Furthermore just omit the stupid underground wagon through floor crash and replace boring Newman with exciting David Arnold and SF would make it into my Top 12 or higher.