›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…567568570572573…705

Comments

  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,883
    I've also heard of the alternating lead production duties but also can't point to the exact sources.

    Also read one of the bigger reasons for the split was Saltzman seemed to have less and less interest in Bond overall and always wanting to get juggle other projects while Cubby was solely focused on Bond. I think he also sold his share to pay off one of his failed ventures.

    Anybody read the recent book "When Cubby Met Harry" that explores their relationship? Maybe some answers there. I said years ago Harry's colorful life would make an interesting read. While Bond will be what his name was made on and always be associated with, he was involved in so many things it would be curious to know about. Very showbiz-like.
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    John Glen should have never been allowed to direct ( or cast ) so many Bond movies of the 80s.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    John Glen should have never been allowed to direct ( or cast ) so many Bond movies of the 80s.

    Yup! At the very least, AVTAK should have been the one that convinced Cubby to look elsewhere for TLD. Heck, LTK very DESPERATELY needed a new director that was more than just a technical point and shoot guy. After five John Glen films in a row, Martin Campbell’s directing felt like a breath of fresh air
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    I would agree with this but I think Glen actually fared far better in his last two films than his ones during the Moore era.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I don’t think there was much of a difference. He was very hit and miss overall. TLD was his best, and a needed improvement over AVTAK, but then with LTK all his weakness/inadequacies as a director really became highlighted.

    But none are worse than his last film THE POINT MEN, which feels like the kind of film he really wanted to make with Bond, but without all the constraints of a Bond franchise holding him down.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,896
    I wasn't dissatisfied with Glen's direction on any Bond aside from AVTAK, and that film seems like a clear case of exhaustion for everyone involved--Maibaum, Wilson, Broccoli, Moore, etc. The change of direction with Dalton revitalized the series and LTK has sometimes flat cinematography but lively direction. I would take Glen's last two Bonds over his first two.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited June 2020 Posts: 4,113
    I was reading in Nobody Does It Better that John Landis almost directed LTK and TD’s unmade third film. I think he would have worked, just keep him away from stunts, we know what happened before. John Glen is like Guy Hamilton, one Bond film too many. Ironically their worst films are in the middle of their tenures: DAF and AVTAK.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    edited June 2020 Posts: 12,270
    Though none of Glen's Bond films currently make my Top 10, I think he was a really efficient, solid director. I think FYEO, TLD, and LTK are all pretty strong, and though they don't rank near the top for me, I also really enjoy OP and AVTAK. None of his entries are "legendary," per se, but he helped bring us a solid collection of standalone Bond adventures IMO. I also love how much Fleming influence is in FYEO and LTK.
  • TracyTracy
    edited June 2020 Posts: 1,640
    Would Cubby let Laz do Game of Death if he had wanted or would Cubby force him to only do Bonds after DAF ?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    They might have let him as long as it didn’t interfere with their Bond schedule.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,293
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    I hope I've never written this one before, as I tend to repeat myself sometimes, but I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Harry Saltzman was the bigger genius of the two initial producers, if indeed anybody was.

    For me, there are two reasons to believe this. One is that we know that at some point they started trading production duties from film to film. We know Saltzman was the boss on OHMSS and LALD, and Cubby was on DAF and TMWTGG. Now, I truly love all four of these films, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of fans would say Harry's movies were much better. If the swapping goes as far back as YOLT, that doesn't really help Cubby's track record either, in my opinion.

    The other reason is a weird, contradictory one for me, as most of my favorite Bonds are from the post-Harry era, but something seems to have been lost after TMWTGG. Those first nine movies all seemed to have such a clear and distinct image about them. No two movies felt similar. The scope and vision of the films were clear, and the posters could be perfectly evocative of the films. TSWLM was the first proper globe-trotting Bond, wandering around to whatever was interesting-looking. The poster, to me, isn't a great representation of the aesthetic of the film, which is so scattered as to be unpresentable in a concise way.

    I don't know what Harry would have to do with any of that second point, but the change happened with TSWLM for me. There are other little things too, like how we went from slightly crazy characters like Tee-Hee and Nick Nack to rather more absurd characters like Jaws. And when I hear Cubby talk about Moonraker (a film I also do love) as "science fact" in promotional material, or the stainless steel delicatessen in FYEO, I have to wonder if he knew what he was doing all the time.

    Anyway, love both men, and am grateful they met and gave us this series, but I strongly feel Harry has been overlooked over the years, and as I said above, I feel he may have been the true genius on the production side.

    Interesting points, and I think I can agree with this too. Harry Saltzman was also the producer of one of my all time favourite films, The Ipcress File, and it's two sequels, Funeral in Berlin and Billion Dollar Brain. The former a really good film too, and the latter not so much – but still very enjoyable.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,883
    One thing to not overlook for us fans who were around in the '80s was Glen being available and getting the job done allowed us 5 films every other year during that decade (6 if you count NSNA), so we were pretty satisfied at the time.

    Glen was initially chosen because of his work as second unit director, capturing things like the ski jump in TSWLM and MR freefall sequence. It was during the period Cubby was loyal to people he liked and was comfortable with and Glen fit that bill at the time.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited June 2020 Posts: 17,293
    I absolutely love the Glen films. No matter what people might think of them, I always have a good time watching his films. This is not the case with all the other directors (Mendes in particular).
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,818
    I find John Glen to be one of the most underrated Bond directors. Love all of his films.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,500
    Nobody in the series has ever directed action sequences better than John Glen!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I find John Glen to be one of the most underrated Bond directors. Love all of his films.

    Agreed... especially the Dalton films.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited June 2020 Posts: 6,788
    Funnily enough only FYEO doesn't really do it for me. AVTAK, despite its flaws, is enjoyable. OP is one of my favourites.

    Having said that, Glen's Dalton efforts aren't just personal favourites, they are franchise highs.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Glen's films are the most consistent five film run in the series. I was growing up watching them though, and they coincided with my formative Bond years. So perhaps I am biased. Either way, I stand by my view.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    FatherValentine wrote: »
    Glen's films are the most consistent five film run in the series. I was growing up watching them though, and they coincided with my formative Bond years. So perhaps I am biased. Either way, I stand by my view.

    Agreed.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,819
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I find John Glen to be one of the most underrated Bond directors. Love all of his films.

    +1
    He did Bond better than a lot of the Directors chosen after him!!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I find John Glen to be one of the most underrated Bond directors. Love all of his films.

    Agreed... especially the Dalton films.

    My controversial opinion, I think Glen is actually overrated, at least in these here forums. LTK is also quite overrated here.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I find John Glen to be one of the most underrated Bond directors. Love all of his films.

    Agreed... especially the Dalton films.

    My controversial opinion, I think Glen is actually overrated, at least in these here forums. LTK is also quite overrated here.

    Honestly, as far as directing goes he’s a step down after Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, and Hunt.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,896
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Honestly, as far as directing goes he’s a step down after Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, and Hunt.

    Hunt was probably the most gifted of the bunch. But it also helped that his second unit director and editor on OHMSS was...John Glen. As for the rest, I think Glen handled action and set-pieces as well as Gilbert (and of course Glen edited MR and TSWLM). Hamilton's claim to fame is GF, admittedly a slick job, but everything later was mediocre. Young was lucky in having Hunt, a young Connery, and a lot of untapped Fleming to work with. But he was ultimately a journeyman director like Glen. Hunt was the only one who had a distinct style.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,113
    Revelator wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Honestly, as far as directing goes he’s a step down after Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, and Hunt.

    Hunt was probably the most gifted of the bunch. But it also helped that his second unit director and editor on OHMSS was...John Glen. As for the rest, I think Glen handled action and set-pieces as well as Gilbert (and of course Glen edited MR and TSWLM). Hamilton's claim to fame is GF, admittedly a slick job, but everything later was mediocre. Young was lucky in having Hunt, a young Connery, and a lot of untapped Fleming to work with. But he was ultimately a journeyman director like Glen. Hunt was the only one who had a distinct style.

    I think Hunt’s distinct style is due to him saving EON more than once in the editing process, namely FRWL and YOLT. He was allowed a bit more freedom, on Harry Saltzman’s part.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited June 2020 Posts: 8,025
    I can give credit to Glen for his second unit work (though I think Arthur Wooster deserves a shout out for his 80s work), but as far as non-action goes he’s pretty flat with a lot of his scenes. Cubby might have found him reliable (and probably cheap) but I want more than that from a Bond director.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Honestly, as far as directing goes he’s a step down after Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, and Hunt.

    Hunt was probably the most gifted of the bunch. But it also helped that his second unit director and editor on OHMSS was...John Glen. As for the rest, I think Glen handled action and set-pieces as well as Gilbert (and of course Glen edited MR and TSWLM). Hamilton's claim to fame is GF, admittedly a slick job, but everything later was mediocre. Young was lucky in having Hunt, a young Connery, and a lot of untapped Fleming to work with. But he was ultimately a journeyman director like Glen. Hunt was the only one who had a distinct style.

    I think Hunt’s distinct style is due to him saving EON more than once in the editing process, namely FRWL and YOLT. He was allowed a bit more freedom, on Harry Saltzman’s part.

    Interested in hearing more about this!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    My controversial opinion.....the Villains in Licence to Kill could be deemed the best in the entire series.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion.....the Villains in Licence to Kill could be deemed the best in the entire series.

    Sanchez is right up there for me as well.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion.....the Villains in Licence to Kill could be deemed the best in the entire series.

    Sanchez is right up there for me as well.

    Yup, he's not far off the top spot for me either.
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion.....the Villains in Licence to Kill could be deemed the best in the entire series.

    They are definetly up there.Sanchez for all his cruelty,i actually found kind of likeable in a way.How many Bond villains cared more about loyalty than money? Ok so he was posessive about Lupe but if you worked hard and were loyal to him,i get the impression that he was a good employer.
Sign In or Register to comment.