Actually, the MIAMI VICE comparison is lazy and incorrect. It just became something a lot of reviewers just repeated.
Yes, LTK takes place in Florida. And the villain is a drugdealer. That‘s it.
LTK does not ape the pastel color scheme or the music video editing with contemporary pop hits as soundtrack.
Also, MV featured lots of interesting plots NOT about drug deals. I remember one particularly intriguing episode, SHADOW IN THE DARK, about a serial killer and Crockett becoming obsessed with him (hints at MANHUNTER), or THERESA about Crockett having to find out that the doctor he is in love with (played by Helena Bonham-Carter) is an addict.
That’s brilliant. I never thought of the symbolism of that. There’s the other Bond actor look alikes dispatched in the PTS announcing a shift as well.
Moonraker to For Your Eyes Only is quite a shift in tone. And scale. With Bernard Lee not appearing in FYEO, they seem like different universes. It’s like TSWLM had two sequels, each going off in different directions. You can think of Robert Brown as getting promoted to M’s position. Also, FYEO’s dumping of Blofeld in the PTS after they had to change TSWLM’s villain to Stromberg.
I always found LTK to be one of the most symbolic films. The way Dalton shakes off the money flying in his face when he steals the seaplane, his parachuting into the wedding announcing the arrival of a dark angel, nicely counter pointed at the end when Pam shows up in front of an orange circle in the background wearing a white robe. Dario hadn’t seen her since the Bimini bar where he thought he killed her. “You’re dead,” and then she takes him out and saves Bond’s life.
John Glen never got enough credit for that. LTK was a callback to the early violence of the Terence Young Bonds–DN, FRWL and TB.
John Glen, unfortunately, does not get enough credit for delivering five great Bond films in a row. Which other Bond director has achieved that quality?
This is why I label Glen my favorite Bond director. Other than perhaps Young and Campbell, no other Bond director was able to give us multiple entries of consistently high quality (yes, I have a soft spot for AVTAK, although I acknowledge it is the “least good” of the Glen run), and neither Young nor Campbell did that many total let alone consecutively (!).
Mendes and Hamilton are mixed bags (each had one masterpiece), and I think it’s very hard to judge a director who has done only one Bond film. Had Peter Hunt stayed on, his second contribution may have been nowhere near the quality of OHMSS (looking at you, Mendes); conversely, had Tamahori or Forster stayed on, they might have learned from their mistakes (both DAD and QoS do have redeeming qualities).
I actually really enjoy Gilbert’s efforts, but I recognize that his three were in many ways the same movie done slightly differently. Glen, on the other hand, managed five films that do feel somewhat distinct from one another (I love both OP and LTK, despite their tonal and stylistic differences).
Given some of the issues that have arisen in the Craig era, I think what the series needs right now is someone exactly like John Glen.
But the director has only been the issue once with Craig (the Boyle thing) the rest has been, more often than not, to do with studio management which wouldve happened regardless of who was directing - writers strike, Sony infighting, MGM going broke…mgm going broke…mgm going broke…virus outbreak…
In terms of the gaps, you are correct. I was referring also to some of the issues with the movies themselves: the going rogue in basically every film, “this time it’s personal,” Bond and M trust issues, Mendes and Forster’s artistic choices (some of which I do appreciate), the overeliance on nostalgia and the DB5.
Why showcase a luxury car from the 60s in 4/5 Craig films? They treat it like Bond’s lightsaber, unaware that its frequent reappearances (over 50 years later) instead give the impression that the series’ glory days are behind it. Let’s move the series forward rather than needlessly shove nostalgia down our throats.
Even something as innocuous as Tanner’s showing Bond Mi6’s “new digs” in SF was basically repeated frame by frame (including the shot when Tanner opens the door for Bond) when visiting Q’s lab in SP. It felt too “been there, done that.”
Death of a 00 agent puts Bond on a collision course with the head of the KGB, but fortunately, the man responsible is a rogue KGB agent so Gogol thanks him for it, but Bond is missing…or is he?
What John Glen film am I talking about?
It’s not a criticism, but modern movies get reprimanded for the crimes that the older films were just as guilty of. Mendes shouldn’t be judged for the same crime that Hamilton, Gilbert and Glen all get away with.
Damn, I really had forgotten about the rogue-ness of KGB agents in the Glen films.
Then again, it does say something when Bond remains the straight arrow and the films just seem to offer more variations despite the underlying same trope.
Fair point. And yes, I frequently make the same point about the double standard applied to newer movies when (often the same) issues with older ones get overlooked. Well played.
I considered that, yeah. Thing is, as much as I love FYEO and it’s one of my favourites, it is book-ended with two broadly comical scenes (the helicopter hijacking, and the parrot chatting up Thatcher) which felt like hang-overs from the TSWLM and MR portion of Roger’s tenure. TLD and LTK, on the other hand, though it maintained the dour tone and Dalton’s convincing dramatic performance throughout, differed in that the first could have been a 1950s or '60s film (the Russian occupation of Afghanistan aside), and the second had a more contemporary emphasis.
Saying all this, of course, I forgot how different DAD and CR were! The four year gap kept me from thinking how close they were chronologically. So I’d amend it to consecutive films, with same actor
I tend to support any director/writer/producer who doesn’t get too pretentious or draws attention to him/herself, and isn’t A list, so I’ll go with Glen too (similarly, I have a fondness for Purvis and Wade).
What I look forward to is when the series reaches the point where the references will be to prior references of earlier material.
The Bond franchise doesn’t really do anything original anymore, so I’m not expecting anything on that front until they prove me wrong. And, there’s no reason to expect that when their biggest grossing film to date is essentially a ripoff of The Dark Knight, which itself was a ripoff of Heat.
Miami Vice had a HUGE influence on LTK. You’re wearing blinders if you think reviewers comparing it to MV is lazy. MV was literally the biggest thing in pop culture at the time and Bond gave their spin on it.
