›

Does anyone know if there is a specific reason the James Bond movies got so silly in the 70s?

GumboldGumbold Atlantis
edited December 2016 in Bond Movies Posts: 118
I'm marathoning, and I've gotten to the Roger Moore era. Just finished watching Moonraker, and I'm just wondering why these movies got so silly at this point. Especially with The Man With The Golden Gun. I figured it might be because of Saltzman, to be honest, but does anyone have a clue as to why they got so goofy in this period? I'm sure theres more than one reason.
«1

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,530
    I think a lot of that was in response to OHMSS "underperforming". David Picker of UA is very outspoken about how the first couple of Bond films were going to be anything BUT OHMSS. UA treated that film like a disease and presented us DAF, the absolute antithesis to OHMSS. It wasn't until people left and right began screaming for another OHMSS, especially after MR, that they finally dropped us FYEO.
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think a lot of that was in response to OHMSS "underperforming". David Picker of UA is very outspoken about how the first couple of Bond films were going to be anything BUT OHMSS. UA treated that film like a disease and presented us DAF, the absolute antithesis to OHMSS. It wasn't until people left and right began screaming for another OHMSS, especially after MR, that they finally dropped us FYEO.
    But aside from JW Pepper, I'd say Live and Let Die is a serious Bond movie. If I'm not forgetting anything outrageous
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,530
    LALD is no OHMSS though. ;-)
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,421
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think a lot of that was in response to OHMSS "underperforming". David Picker of UA is very outspoken about how the first couple of Bond films were going to be anything BUT OHMSS. UA treated that film like a disease and presented us DAF, the absolute antithesis to OHMSS. It wasn't until people left and right began screaming for another OHMSS, especially after MR, that they finally dropped us FYEO.

    Couldn't have put it better myself.

  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    Can't believe people wanted more DAF type of movies than OHMSS. That's amazing
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,421
    Remember that OHMSS unperformed - for a Bond movie - so the producers and UA were worried that the Bond films were passe, and so radically reinvigorated the series with humour, fantasy and spectacle.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,530
    Sad but true. It's always been an enigma to me. Films of the 70s were bleak and grey, depressed and without happy endings. Not until Star Wars did we smile again when leaving the theatre. Of course light-hearted films were made but less than usual hit top rankings. Surprisingly enough, the Bond films didn't follow the unhappy trends and instead came up with silliness, outrageousness and a lot of fantasy. I understand the Bonds were following genres (blaxploitation, kung-fu, Star Wars, ...) but they weren't following the tone of the day.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Flairs
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,421
    Indeed. They followed the cinematic trend with OHMSS - an anti hero with a quite a bleak ending, similar to, say Easy Rider - yet the box office was "disappointing". In an era of increasingly nihilistic films, the Bond series bucked that trend, whilst still keeping the Bondian formula.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    The moon was in the Seventh House
    And Jupiter aligned with Mars ...... Simple really !
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,802
    Yes, but peace certainy didn't govern the planet, did it ?
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    in the 70's was a detente era, where anglo/american-soviet relations improved, so the films needed to reflect a less combative tone in the cold war.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think a lot of that was in response to OHMSS "underperforming". David Picker of UA is very outspoken about how the first couple of Bond films were going to be anything BUT OHMSS. UA treated that film like a disease and presented us DAF, the absolute antithesis to OHMSS. It wasn't until people left and right began screaming for another OHMSS, especially after MR, that they finally dropped us FYEO.
    I agree with your comment and believe Picker did play a part in the goofiness trend, though TMWTGG also underperformed, more so than OHMSS. I think the reason why FYEO is a tad more serious is due to Moore stating that MR would be his last Bond movie, hence why a more serious 007 story was tailored for a "new" Bond. When Moore came back for a bigger paycheque, the writers inserted the silliness back into the movie to suit Moore.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2016 Posts: 17,687
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Sad but true. It's always been an enigma to me. Films of the 70s were bleak and grey, depressed and without happy endings. Not until Star Wars did we smile again when leaving the theatre. Of course light-hearted films were made but less than usual hit top rankings. Surprisingly enough, the Bond films didn't follow the unhappy trends and instead came up with silliness, outrageousness and a lot of fantasy. I understand the Bonds were following genres (blaxploitation, kung-fu, Star Wars, ...) but they weren't following the tone of the day.
    Precisely.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,964
    I think three main things contributed to a "silly" tone to some of the 70s films. First, as each film tried to top the previous, some of the situations and stunts became more implausible. Second, the reaction to a bit of comic relief was successful in the 60s films so in the 70s a more is better mindset crept into the productions. Finally, while very capable of playing the serious aspects of Bond, Moore preferred the lighter moments. at times this got out of hand.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited December 2016 Posts: 6,778
    I always wonder why people consider FYEO so serious. No outlandish scheme doesn't necessarily mean that the film is more serious.

    We have the parrot, the Thatcher joke, the ice hockey scene, the 2CV chase, the guy with the wine, and all that to the most goofy music of the series.

    I'd say AVTAK isn't any less serious than FYEO. Some stupid police officers and that moment when Bond's crotch hits the building don't do it any favours, but the tone is less light-hearted than other Moore films (including FYEO in my opinion).
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,816
    Gumbold wrote: »
    Can't believe people wanted more DAF type of movies than OHMSS. That's amazing

    Another movie like OHMSS in tone may have sunk the franchise. It pains me to say it but DAF was a necessary evil.

    Ironic that Bond went the completely opposite way of the movie industry at that time.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,778
    Maybe that's why the Bond films survived. If you wanted some light-hearted entertainment there wasn't too much to go to except dear old James.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited December 2016 Posts: 4,554
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I always wonder why people consider FYEO so serious. No outlandish scheme doesn't necessarily mean that the film is more serious.

    We have the parrot, the Thatcher joke, the ice hockey scene, the 2CV chase, the guy with the wine, and all that to the most goofy music of the series.

    I'd say AVTAK isn't any less serious than FYEO. Some stupid police officers and that moment when Bond's crotch hits the building don't do it any favours, but the tone is less light-hearted than other Moore films (including FYEO in my opinion).

    I agree with your take on FYEO and AVTAK.

    As for the overall tone, I'd make the following arguments:

    1. The aforementioned OHMSS influence
    2. The relative success of Flint and In Like Flint
    3. The counter to the times. While the ratings system gave rise to more serious and violent films, like The Godfather and Taxi Driver, it seems to that EON wanted to keep Bond light (and the films still are, relatively speaking). But they overcompensated a bit.
    4. The silliness didn't end in the 70s. As @GoldenGun suggests, FYEO didn't exactly put a cap on that era and start anew in the 80s.
  • BlandingsCastleBlandingsCastle
    Posts: 19
    I thought it began with YOLT, imo the influence of Japanese monster movies is obvious, and a move toward campy-ness in the arts in general, in the late 60s-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_(style)
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 1,514
    OHMSS gets the last laugh. The Moore films may have been a cash cow, but they don't hold up like OHMSS.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I don't have anything to add on why the Bond films were more light hearted during the 70's. Most of the key points have been covered here. I'd just like to add that I'm deeply grateful for the Bond 70's era.

    It remains one of my favourite periods, not only because of the lead Bond actor (I really like DAF too these days, after years of dismissing it), but precisely because the films were so different from other product from that era. To an extent, these films were charismatic and escapist counter programming to the dour reality show that was underway on other networks if you will.

    I for one am feeling the need for a little '70's style ebullient fun' going forward after our hero's recent pointed navel gazing.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,564
    Gumbold wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think a lot of that was in response to OHMSS "underperforming". David Picker of UA is very outspoken about how the first couple of Bond films were going to be anything BUT OHMSS. UA treated that film like a disease and presented us DAF, the absolute antithesis to OHMSS. It wasn't until people left and right began screaming for another OHMSS, especially after MR, that they finally dropped us FYEO.
    But aside from JW Pepper, I'd say Live and Let Die is a serious Bond movie. If I'm not forgetting anything outrageous

    You've forgotten Mrs. Bell's flying lesson. And the incredible exploding balloon Kananga. And Bond escaping the crocodiles by running across their backs. LALD can be pretty silly, but it's nowhere near as bad as TMWTGG in this regard.

    '70s movies may be pretty dark, but '70s American TV was largely "ebullient fun" as @bondjames puts it. I think the Bond series at this time was simply positioning itself to satisfy that market. While I personally prefer the type of Bond we saw in the '60s, I do think David Pickering was correct and the lighter Bond we got with Roger Moore helped preserve the commercial viability of the Bond series on a long term basis.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,816
    Maybe Moore having a TV career until he became Bond was of some influence too. His first two Bond movies had a TV feel as well.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Moore was a comical guy. A lot of writers will write everything based off the actors acting abilities and it just worked really well for Moore's Bond. Every single Moore filmfeels like a typical 70's movie. I am honestly glad they made them the way they are, it is really different and something fresh. Imagine making the Bond films somewhat silly and Moore-ish today, totally wouldn't work.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I always wonder why people consider FYEO so serious. No outlandish scheme doesn't necessarily mean that the film is more serious.

    We have the parrot, the Thatcher joke, the ice hockey scene, the 2CV chase, the guy with the wine, and all that to the most goofy music of the series.

    I'd say AVTAK isn't any less serious than FYEO. Some stupid police officers and that moment when Bond's crotch hits the building don't do it any favours, but the tone is less light-hearted than other Moore films (including FYEO in my opinion).

    I think differently. FYEO is a film that is ostensibly serious but lapses into moments of comedy, whereas AVTAK is a film that is ostensibly comedic but lapses into moments of seriousness. The two are not the same.

    For example, the ice hockey scene is one that takes you out of the picture for FYEO because it is jokey and disrupts the overall 'serious' flow. Conversely, the mine massacre takes you out of the picture for AVTAK because it is dark and grisly and disrupts the overall 'comedic' flow.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    I disagree - I think AVTAK has a dark beating heart in May Day and Zorin and Bond being a little out of his depth in the cruel insanity surrounding him. Really the comedy moments are surface - the California girls, Tibbet and Bond's banter, cop car smash ups - none of them impact on the dark storyline and sinister atmosphere which is provided by the villains. Tibbet's death in the car wash, bond being pushed into a lake with his friend's corpse, the creepy nazi baby backstory of Zorin, the serious KGB standoff between Zorin and Gogol, dropping the investor from the blimp, chuck lee's death, throwing the KGB agent into the pump fan, the cold blooded shooting of Howe at City hall, the drama of saving Stacey from a burning building, the massacre of the miners and the sacrifice of May Day. These are all brutal, cold or serious moments driving the narrative and accompanied by Barry's most serious score.
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    I disagree - I think AVTAK has a dark beating heart in May Day and Zorin and Bond being a little out of his depth in the cruel insanity surrounding him. Really the comedy moments are surface - the California girls, Tibbet and Bond's banter, cop car smash ups - none of them impact on the dark storyline and sinister atmosphere which is provided by the villains. Tibbet's death in the car wash, bond being pushed into a lake with his friend's corpse, the creepy nazi baby backstory of Zorin, the serious KGB standoff between Zorin and Gogol, dropping the investor from the blimp, chuck lee's death, throwing the KGB agent into the pump fan, the cold blooded shooting of Howe at City hall, the drama of saving Stacey from a burning building, the massacre of the miners and the sacrifice of May Day. These are all brutal, cold or serious moments driving the narrative and accompanied by Barry's most serious score.

    Still, the point is that the tone of FYEO is serious where as AVTAK is not. Emphasis on tone
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Glen's films are very inconsistent in tone. Everyone remembers the clown suit but underneath all the jokes and silliness is a deadly serious plot
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    edited December 2016 Posts: 1,817
    w2bond wrote: »
    Glen's films are very inconsistent in tone. Everyone remembers the clown suit but underneath all the jokes and silliness is a deadly serious plot

    I've always championed this. AVTAK is the worst of the bunch because the tone is sort of everywhere. FYEO and OP rather out of whack as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.