Controversial opinions about Bond films

ProfJoeButcher

I guess I consider tone differently. The hockey thing (yeah, it is a bit goofy) is played fairly straight and I believe without even a quip. I'd group it in with something like the cello case scene, or FRWL's Spectre Island. It's probably less silly than Spectre Island.

Uneven tone for me is more like the somber discussion of Tracy in TSWLM following the metal teeth man dropping a rock on his foot, and the comedy music cue that plays in the totaled van.

SomethingThatAteHim

The cello scene in TLD’s never stood out to me as jarring because it’s both logical to the situation and fits with the sort of romantic whimsy of their relationship, likewise the Spectre island in FRWL fits in with the sort of pop-art spy vibe that all the Connery movies had. With the hockey scene in FYEO it just seems like *such* a painstaking, specific, and inefficient means of eliminating Bond that it just feels so silly when you think about how the movie wants to be a more espionage driven tale without much of the larger than life Bond elements (to say nothing of Bond scoring goals with them). I don’t think it’s horrible or anything, I have a pretty high tolerance for silly non-sequitur scenes in Bond movies, but it’s jarring enough for me to think “hmm this movie doesn’t quite know what it wants to be”. I think it’s an issue I have with all the John Glen movies sans The Living Daylights, but none more so than FYEO.

MakeshiftPython

The hockey gag does feel like a leftover of the Gilbert films.

BT3366

Nobody finds AVTAK to be more glaring than FYEO or OP when it comes to tonal unevenness? That film is like one serious scene followed by a comic one. The somber beginning of the ski chase, California Girls interlude, the explosion scene followed by iceberg sub in the precredits alone. Later there's the Russian's horrid death followed by "it tickles my Tchaikovsky" and tape switch; escape from the City Hall fire interspersed with a drunk hobo's reaction; comic firetruck chase with an ooooing Moore and Keystone Cops followed a bit later by the villains mowing down innocent miners. Even on the Golden Gate Bridge you have a cackling Zorin and Mortner's "Max, Max" which are just out of place.

MakeshiftPython

Nostalgia really makes fans forgive a film’s flaws. After all, movies like HOOK and the Star Wars prequels have a generation of fans who adore those films.

ProfJoeButcher

I don't find AVTAK very inconsistent either. Sprinkling a few little jokes which may or may not work doesn't equate to tonal shifts in my book. And while it may not be well executed, I don't think the fire truck chase is meant to be entirely comic either.

Octopussy too. You could edit out probably less than two minutes and make a world of difference to the perceived tone.

Along with TSWLM, I find TND to be by far the most jarring. Bond and Dr Kaufman are in two different movies. Aggressively mourning Paris and them giggling in a gadget car five minutes later induces whiplash. Though to be fair to that movie, it's really only an issue during the Teri Hatcher section.

MakeshiftPython

There’s comic relief like Moneypenny informing M she dodged VW Beetles and then there’s dumb broad humor in AVTAK like the firetruck knocking over a trailer top to reveal a nude couple with Moore raising an eyebrow. Doesn’t really work when John Barry’s “He’s Dangerous is trying to set a tense mood.

Ludovico

BT3366 wrote: »

Nobody finds AVTAK to be more glaring than FYEO or OP when it comes to tonal unevenness? That film is like one serious scene followed by a comic one. The somber beginning of the ski chase, California Girls interlude, the explosion scene followed by iceberg sub in the precredits alone. Later there's the Russian's horrid death followed by "it tickles my Tchaikovsky" and tape switch; escape from the City Hall fire interspersed with a drunk hobo's reaction; comic firetruck chase with an ooooing Moore and Keystone Cops followed a bit later by the villains mowing down innocent miners. Even on the Golden Gate Bridge you have a cackling Zorin and Mortner's "Max, Max" which are just out of place.

I think the difference is that AVTAK is consistently more cartoonish, even in its darker moments. That's how I always felt about it anyway: more cartoonish, more ridiculous, more and too much of everything. I far prefer FYEO by the way.

MakeshiftPython

AVTAK is definitely closer to 80s action cartoonishness than any other Bond film of that decade. Stuff like Walken shooting up miners with machine guns is the kind of thing you would see in a Schwarzenegger or Cannon film. John Glenn seemed to want to emulate that kind of action film in order to bring Bond films up to date. By the late 80s he shifted more towards LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, especially with the violence.

mtm

BT3366 wrote: »

Nobody finds AVTAK to be more glaring than FYEO or OP when it comes to tonal unevenness? That film is like one serious scene followed by a comic one. The somber beginning of the ski chase, California Girls interlude, the explosion scene followed by iceberg sub in the precredits alone. Later there's the Russian's horrid death followed by "it tickles my Tchaikovsky" and tape switch; escape from the City Hall fire interspersed with a drunk hobo's reaction; comic firetruck chase with an ooooing Moore and Keystone Cops followed a bit later by the villains mowing down innocent miners. Even on the Golden Gate Bridge you have a cackling Zorin and Mortner's "Max, Max" which are just out of place.

I don't really see that: it handles jokes and dangerous bits, but it's hardly the only film to do so. I know it's nowhere near as deftly handled, but Raiders and Temple of Doom were doing much the same around the time.

MakeshiftPython

There's definitely a lot of Looney Tunes bits of humor in the Indy films. I think the biggest example of the 80s Indy films is this gag in the tunnel.




All it's missing is punctuating WAH WAH music.

mtm

Yeah, and there's loads of examples. The 'water!' gag in Temple is incredibly cheesy (in a good way!) and it's in the same film as a guy getting his heart ripped out and being set on fire. The tone is 'big and OTT operatic high adventure' though, so it fits together. AVTAK has its faults, but I wouldn't say the audience is ever wrong-footed by how we're supposed to be reacting.

Ludovico

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

AVTAK is definitely closer to 80s action cartoonishness than any other Bond film of that decade. Stuff like Walken shooting up miners with machine guns is the kind of thing you would see in a Schwarzenegger or Cannon film. John Glenn seemed to want to emulate that kind of action film in order to bring Bond films up to date. By the late 80s he shifted more towards LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, especially with the violence.

And here's my controversial opinion about John Glen: he lacked something, don't know what exactly, to make his Bond films truly distinctive from other action movies of the time. He seemed to be a sort of "sponge" director, picking up what was trendy at the time.

DarthDimi

Ludovico wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

AVTAK is definitely closer to 80s action cartoonishness than any other Bond film of that decade. Stuff like Walken shooting up miners with machine guns is the kind of thing you would see in a Schwarzenegger or Cannon film. John Glenn seemed to want to emulate that kind of action film in order to bring Bond films up to date. By the late 80s he shifted more towards LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, especially with the violence.

And here's my controversial opinion about John Glen: he lacked something, don't know what exactly, to make his Bond films truly distinctive from other action movies of the time. He seemed to be a sort of "sponge" director, picking up what was trendy at the time.

I don't think this is a controversial opinion; rather, I think it's a fairly popular opinion. I, for one, love Glen's directing style, and I've always taken that as the controversial opinion. ;-)

I agree that other action flicks were quickly catching up with the Bonds. At the same time, Glen received less and less money to work with, making it impossible for him to create standout action sequences. That said, the ski chase in FYEO and the truck fight in LTK are, at least in my opinion, among the very best action sequences of the entire series.

mtm

Ludovico wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

AVTAK is definitely closer to 80s action cartoonishness than any other Bond film of that decade. Stuff like Walken shooting up miners with machine guns is the kind of thing you would see in a Schwarzenegger or Cannon film. John Glenn seemed to want to emulate that kind of action film in order to bring Bond films up to date. By the late 80s he shifted more towards LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, especially with the violence.

And here's my controversial opinion about John Glen: he lacked something, don't know what exactly, to make his Bond films truly distinctive from other action movies of the time. He seemed to be a sort of "sponge" director, picking up what was trendy at the time.

Yep, I do think that he was certainly the wrong guy for LTK. If they wanted a new direction they needed a new director.

MakeshiftPython

I never thought he was a good Bond director. He lacks the flair that past directors possessed, and was clearly given the gig by Cubby because he was cheap and already in-house. Fans credit him too much for the action, when that should go to Arthur Wooster. You only have to look at his non-Bond output like THE POINT MEN to see how without the support of the Bond franchise he was barely passable as an action director. It’s all the worst impulses you’ve seen in his Bond output magnified. If you thought LTK felt amateurish then oh boy, THE POINT MEN is like a regression.

DarthDimi

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I never thought he was a good Bond director. He lacks the flair that past directors possessed, and was clearly given the gig by Cubby because he was cheap and already in-house. Fans credit him too much for the action, when that should go to Arthur Wooster. You only have to look at his non-Bond output like THE POINT MEN to see how without the support of the Bond franchise he was barely passable as an action director. It’s all the worst impulses you’ve seen in his Bond output magnified. If you thought LTK felt amateurish then oh boy, THE POINT MEN is like a regression.

Well, the Bonds have a fairly stable track record of having others than the director take care of the action bits. So yes, I fully agree that Wooster deserves most credit for the action in Glen's films.

Also, I doubt that looking at a director's other work will help. Campbell had made more sex comedies than action flicks before GE. Apted had done little to no action prior to TWINE. Forster hadn't touched action before doing QOS. Same with Fukunaga, Mendes, ...

Drama and thriller directors is clearly what they want, while the action will, indeed, be handled by a team specialized in that.

Ludovico

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

AVTAK is definitely closer to 80s action cartoonishness than any other Bond film of that decade. Stuff like Walken shooting up miners with machine guns is the kind of thing you would see in a Schwarzenegger or Cannon film. John Glenn seemed to want to emulate that kind of action film in order to bring Bond films up to date. By the late 80s he shifted more towards LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, especially with the violence.

And here's my controversial opinion about John Glen: he lacked

DarthDimi wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

AVTAK is definitely closer to 80s action cartoonishness than any other Bond film of that decade. Stuff like Walken shooting up miners with machine guns is the kind of thing you would see in a Schwarzenegger or Cannon film. John Glenn seemed to want to emulate that kind of action film in order to bring Bond films up to date. By the late 80s he shifted more towards LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, especially with the violence.

And here's my controversial opinion about John Glen: he lacked something, don't know what exactly, to make his Bond films truly distinctive from other action movies of the time. He seemed to be a sort of "sponge" director, picking up what was trendy at the time.

I don't think this is a controversial opinion; rather, I think it's a fairly popular opinion. I, for one, love Glen's directing style, and I've always taken that as the controversial opinion. ;-)

I agree that other action flicks were quickly catching up with the Bonds. At the same time, Glen received less and less money to work with, making it impossible for him to create standout action sequences. That said, the ski chase in FYEO and the truck fight in LTK are, at least in my opinion, among the very best action sequences of the entire series.

It's not the action I don't like with Glen, it's more the general atmosphere. Acting direction is also not his forte.

mtm wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

AVTAK is definitely closer to 80s action cartoonishness than any other Bond film of that decade. Stuff like Walken shooting up miners with machine guns is the kind of thing you would see in a Schwarzenegger or Cannon film. John Glenn seemed to want to emulate that kind of action film in order to bring Bond films up to date. By the late 80s he shifted more towards LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, especially with the violence.

And here's my controversial opinion about John Glen: he lacked something, don't know what exactly, to make his Bond films truly distinctive from other action movies of the time. He seemed to be a sort of "sponge" director, picking up what was trendy at the time.

Yep, I do think that he was certainly the wrong guy for LTK. If they wanted a new direction they needed a new director.

I think he was the wrong guy for Dalton, period. I understand they clashed a fair deal, or at least Dalton was frustrated a lot by Glen.

w2bond

From what I've heard and read that, it all seems true. Yet the movies turned out quite well

DarthDimi

Also, I want to point out that Glen edited films like OHMSS and TSWLM, two rather fine action films in my opinion. Editing is not, of course, the same thing as directing, but as an editor, one must at least have some feeling for action to be able to pull it off, no?

w2bond

Would he have storyboarded the sequences?

MakeshiftPython

I’d love to be a fly on the wall during those conversations.

My understanding is that Dalton thought Glen didn’t give as much attention to the actors as he felt he should have, that Glen was a more technical director that was focused on getting the shoot done on time and basically left it to the actors to work it out themselves. So Dalton would take it upon himself work with the actors to get their best performances, which is probably why scenes like the Pushkin interrogation plays out so much better than you typically saw in previous Glen films, as far as acting goes. Of course, that didn’t always work for Dalton (hi Talisa Soto!). I think that’s partly why Desmond Llewelyn was so highly complimenting of Dalton because he not only did his Fleming homework but really collaborated with the cast in a way other actors don’t typically take the time to do.

That’s all just supposition from everything I’ve read, so take that for what it’s worth. It is notable that Dalton opted out of COLUMBUS once Glen was brought in as a replacement director. Sure, the Salkinds breached the contract where Dalton had a director of his choice. I’m sure the Salkind partly picked Glen because they thought his past experience with Dalton would smooth things out. NOPE!

w2bond

I might have to read Helfenstein's book again, to see if it sheds any light on this

MakeshiftPython

Cubby left go of Glen after LTK. You’d think it was because of the box office, but I think Dalton might have had a say in it.

CommanderRoss

DarthDimi wrote: »

Also, I want to point out that Glen edited films like OHMSS and TSWLM, two rather fine action films in my opinion. Editing is not, of course, the same thing as directing, but as an editor, one must at least have some feeling for action to be able to pull it off, no?

AFAK it's up to the director to instruct the editor. The editor is responsible for the exact cuts and how transitions work, sound corresponds to what you see on screen and all that jazz. A very particular job for sure, but hardly the person who calls the shots on what the film eventually looks like (except for very bad editors of course, they can still ruin the best of the directors' intentions).

So in the end his rather good work on OHMSS and TSWLM would hardly say anything aabout his skills as a director (sadly).

FatherValentine

My own controversial opinion regarding John Glen is that he directed the most consistent five film run in the franchise. AVTAK is a slight downturn, but otherwise he made four outstanding Bond films.

echo

FatherValentine wrote: »

My own controversial opinion regarding John Glen is that he directed the most consistent five film run in the franchise. AVTAK is a slight downturn, but otherwise he made four outstanding Bond films.

I don't think that's controversial at all. I think Glen is weaker/almost disinterested in the dramatic scenes than most of the other Bond directors, but his action scenes are some of the strongest in the series. Even in AVTAK.

Compare all the non-Campbell directors who came after Glen. *None* of their action scenes have the shape and momentum of Glen's scenes at his peak in the '80s.

Glen knew how to edit together an action sequence, because he learned from the best, Peter Hunt.

mtm

DarthDimi wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I never thought he was a good Bond director. He lacks the flair that past directors possessed, and was clearly given the gig by Cubby because he was cheap and already in-house. Fans credit him too much for the action, when that should go to Arthur Wooster. You only have to look at his non-Bond output like THE POINT MEN to see how without the support of the Bond franchise he was barely passable as an action director. It’s all the worst impulses you’ve seen in his Bond output magnified. If you thought LTK felt amateurish then oh boy, THE POINT MEN is like a regression.

Well, the Bonds have a fairly stable track record of having others than the director take care of the action bits. So yes, I fully agree that Wooster deserves most credit for the action in Glen's films.

He did 2nd directing for, erm, Moonraker; but also TSWLM and OHMSS I think.

Ludovico wrote: »

I think he was the wrong guy for Dalton, period. I understand they clashed a fair deal, or at least Dalton was frustrated a lot by Glen.

I suspect you're right. As I've said before, I always think Dalton is better onscreen in his non-Bond films, so something is up there.

echo wrote: »

Compare all the non-Campbell directors who came after Glen. *None* of their action scenes have the shape and momentum of Glen's scenes at his peak in the '80s.

Not really seeing that, to be honest. TND has a couple of the series best action scenes for my money, Skyfall is up there too with its big ones.

FatherValentine

echo wrote: »

FatherValentine wrote: »

My own controversial opinion regarding John Glen is that he directed the most consistent five film run in the franchise. AVTAK is a slight downturn, but otherwise he made four outstanding Bond films.

I don't think that's controversial at all. I think Glen is weaker/almost disinterested in the dramatic scenes than most of the other Bond directors, but his action scenes are some of the strongest in the series. Even in AVTAK.

Compare all the non-Campbell directors who came after Glen. *None* of their action scenes have the shape and momentum of Glen's scenes at his peak in the '80s.

Glen knew how to edit together an action sequence, because he learned from the best, Peter Hunt.

Thanks. Agreed.

MaxCasino

FatherValentine wrote: »

echo wrote: »

FatherValentine wrote: »

My own controversial opinion regarding John Glen is that he directed the most consistent five film run in the franchise. AVTAK is a slight downturn, but otherwise he made four outstanding Bond films.

I don't think that's controversial at all. I think Glen is weaker/almost disinterested in the dramatic scenes than most of the other Bond directors, but his action scenes are some of the strongest in the series. Even in AVTAK.

Compare all the non-Campbell directors who came after Glen. *None* of their action scenes have the shape and momentum of Glen's scenes at his peak in the '80s.

Glen knew how to edit together an action sequence, because he learned from the best, Peter Hunt.

Thanks. Agreed.

One area that I can slightly defend Glen is the extremely 80s screenplays. Richard Maibaum had been on the series too long and Michael G Wilson is a horrible ideas man. Once again, Timothy Dalton got screwed over, in more ways than one.