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
You didn't have to wait long, as LTK came out only the following year! ^:)^
\m/
As a Bond fan since the wee years, I truly felt in 1989 that Bond had lost the plot in comparison (as had everyone else - but it was more apparent with Bond because EON had been the standard setter in action movies for so long in the 60's through to the early 80's). In particular, it was Hans Gruber, played by Alan Rickman, who was such a revelation. Great villains had been Bond's domain for so long, and yet in the last Bond movie at that point, we had the pathetic Whitaker, who was a disappointment - so the contrast was quite telling.
Interestingly, I had a similar reaction to DAD after Bourne Identity in 2002, but for different reasons (not because of lack of action in comparison, but because of lack of realism and tension).
Having said all that, my appreciation for LTK has, like nearly everone else, improved tremendously as I've matured.
Somewhat unusually, so has my appreciation for DAD, but mainly because I see it for the dumbed down nonsense it is now and that makes it palatable. Plus I like Brosnan's performance in it.
Well may be not, but you're setting the bar pretty high there. How many films match Die Hard? It's a one-off classic, never surpassed by any of the following films from that franchise.
I look at LTK from a different angle. Not comparing it to just any other movie, but comparing it to other Bond films. I think it's a brilliant Bond movie and one that really enriches the series. Without it and without Dalton we'd be poorer as Bond fans. I cannot say that about all the other films and actors.
The original novel is ten times better. At least.
1. witty banter with villains - check (not only Die Hard but LW 2)
2. villain has class and knows about finer things like suits/tailoring etc. - check
3. excellent, tense action and set pieces- check
4. suspenseful plot - check
5. hero has some great lines and seemed to be having fun - check
While Die Hard in particular was doing the above (previously the exclusive domain of Bond), EON was dishing up average villains like Whittaker and Koskov, appeared not to care about Bondian witticisms (Davi had the best lines in LTK) and seemed to be going out of its way to make Bond appear disheveled and unkept, as well as seemingly depressed.
Now that I'm older I can appreciate what they were trying to do at the time with Bond during Dalton's tenure, but the movies must be considered in the context of the times in which they were made, and I personally remember Bond having lost his mojo against some of the American fare that was out there at the time for the reasons noted above.
Never knew it was based on an novel.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/novel-inspired-die-hard-returns-423586
It is much darker than the movie and the hero is so different. Imagine an aging Clint Eastwood (heck, Eastwood would have been perfect at the time) who had better days and is dealing with old age, recovering from alcoholism, and whathever life threw at him, fighting Eastern European terrorists in their 20s, at the top of their game and highly motivated. And victory is bitter.
There was a huge difference between the DH lot and James Bond: the heroes of action movies of the 80s were working class, fighting upper class villains.
Absolutely. It is the upper class nature of the villains that gave the movies their style/class, and they capitalized on that element.
Class/style was an almost exclusive domain of the James Bond films in the preceding years. During Dalton's time, that element of class/style appeared to be consciously removed, particularly with respect to the 5 points I noted above. I personally did not like that they appeared to downplay those above points, and I think a lot of moviegoers probably felt the same, which may be why relative box office returns were not so good as in the past.
All the above 5 points came back in full force in GE, and that could be why that movie did so well at the Box office.
I'm not referring to critical success, but rather relative box office success and the necessary element of 'cool'. Die Hard was gritty, but it was also very cool. So was CR, despite also having gritty aspects (the torture scene). I think EON has learnt from the Dalton era that one must inject that necessary element for general audience appeal. Even QoS had the cool factor despite the relatively dark approach.
That's 8 at least I'd put above Die Hard.
:-??
Christopher Wood's novel is an entirely other story. :)>-
I think it's a pointless comparison. TSWLM is one of my favourite Bonds, but the Die Hard is also an excellent movie.
This does not surprise me. They are two different mediums. One does not necessarily translate well without modifications to the other.
Die Hard got it right by injecting the witticisms, excellent dialogue, humour and fine style (villain).
EON got it wrong by dialling all those essential elements back consciously for LTK.
That's why I was referring to in my earlier posts - EON has a better idea of what the public sees as essential for Bond now, and are balancing it better in the Craig era imho.
As an example, despite current gritty Bond, they took time to discuss Rolex vs. Omega and food on the train as well as suits and tailoring in CR. None was mentioned during Dalton's run (and Dalton was almost intentionally unkept in LTK in particular).
What is not necessary is 'shaken not stirred' or contrived 'Bond, James Bond' (although I like this personally), or gadgets for the sake of gadgets, or 'Bond theme every five minutes'. They know that now, thankfully. I don't think they knew it during Dalton's time.
Some of the many misconceptions about Bond in the general public: he should always drink and ask for martinis "shaken, not stirred", introduce himself this way and wear a tuxedo.