Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Dalton VS Glen


59 replies to this topic

#1 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 08:10 AM

I recently visited the Timothy Dalton IMDb page (I occasionally check it out, as I like to be updated on what the guy is doing with his career). On the boards, a member called PanteraRosado posted the following:

Does anyone know about a film that Tim was supposed to star in in the early to mid 90's called Centrifuge. I'm curious as to what it was about. I heard one of the bumps in the pre-production was that John Glen was being considered/hired to direct. I wouldn't say that Dalton hates Glen, but he was certainly trying to avoid having to work with him again as Glen didn't really do him any favors in LTK.


http://www.imdb.com/...hread/142752733

I also recall Timothy apparently exiting Christopher Columbus: The Discovery after Glen came onboard, which makes me curious: is there any bad blood between the two? I always imagined they'd had a pretty good working relationship, with all the praise Glen has given Dalton in his biography and in countless interviews.

#2 Pierce - Daniel

Pierce - Daniel

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 12:34 PM

It was known that Dalton wasn't the biggest fan of Glen. His working relationship I don't think was anything near as bad as Hunt and Lazenby, all I know is that when Dalton finished work on LTK and work was being done on his 3rd movie, Dalton asked for Glen not to be asked back. So....EON didn't ask Glen to return for a sixth film, otherwise I'd guess he would.

I think Glen is an ok director though, His best film is TLD by far. It is fantastic, but OP and AVTAk are poor, LTK is very good albeit a bit messy, and FYEO is a bit bland. TLD is fantastic, great acting, great story, great dialogue. Like any director Glen was only as good as his script, Forster is a great director...but the QOS script stunk.

#3 Conlazmoodalbrocra

Conlazmoodalbrocra

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3546 posts
  • Location:Harrogate, England

Posted 17 July 2009 - 12:42 PM

Timothy Dalton is my favourite Bond, but John Glen is my joint favourite Bond director with Martin Campbell. I don't think Glen ever directed a bad Bond movie. (que the Octopussy and A View To A Kill haters)

Licence to Kill is one of my favourite movies of all time, and I love all of Glen's other Bond movies, so to hear that Glen was effectively blacklisted by Dalton pains me slightly. Then again, perhaps five films was enough for Glen. I certainly don't see how he could have made Goldeneye any better. (que the Goldeneye haters)

Still, it's a shame Glen seems to have gone out on a fairly negative note, when I personally believe he should have been commended for a huge contribution to the world of Bond, not just directing, but editing as well. Fingers crossed we find another Glen-figure in the near future, to take Bond well and truly into the future.

Like any director Glen was only as good as his script, Forster is a great director...but the QOS script stunk.


Agreed.

#4 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 July 2009 - 03:49 PM

I think AVTAK was as good as anybody could have made it with an aging cast and a really bad lead actress.


Out of interest, why does the aging cast bother you so much? I mean, I can understand why it might have been disconcerting when you watched it in 1985, but surely it can't be that much of a distraction 25 years and however many viewings later? Again, I'm not picking on you because it is, of course, a very common comment, I'm just curious.

#5 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 17 July 2009 - 03:58 PM

Dalton vs. Glen?


Winner: Dalton

#6 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 17 July 2009 - 04:14 PM

Out of interest, why does the aging cast bother you so much? I mean, I can understand why it might have been disconcerting when you watched it in 1985, but surely it can't be that much of a distraction 25 years and however many viewings later? Again, I'm not picking on you because it is, of course, a very common comment, I'm just curious.

The cast were well past their sell by date then as they are now. It doesn't matter how long ago it was, Roger Moore stayed, or was allowed to stay on too long. Watching the film at the premier all those years ago it was wrong and faintly embarrassing and it still is.

#7 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 July 2009 - 04:18 PM

With all due respect that doesn't really answer my question, just going "but they're so oooooooooold" again. Is it literally impossible for some people to accept aged faces?

#8 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 17 July 2009 - 05:08 PM

With all due respect that doesn't really answer my question, just going "but they're so oooooooooold" again. Is it literally impossible for some people to accept aged faces?

It’s probably the face as well as the rest of the package that unsettles things. Roger in action is hard enough to believe as it is at a youthful 40 years when he started off in Bond. He’s clearly ‘old’ in AVTAK, and he’s jumping from bridges onto boats, onto drawbridges, dangling from ropes, and showering with 20-something pinups.

Of course that can be looked past, which others as well as I personally can do and have done. But to do so is to trick the mind. The natural position is, “Sorry. No way.” Which, of course, is the natural position for most of Bond’s antics across all actors and eras. I just think there are only so many suspensions one’s disbelief can handle before the suspenders snap.


And why did Dalton want Glen replaced again?

#9 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 July 2009 - 05:23 PM

Glen is hands down the worst director in the series. Doesn't seem like a bad guy, just not a particularly exciting director. As I've said before, his films look as though he kind of just ordered the cameras to be put in front of stuff.

Come to think of it, Apted committed the same crimes.

#10 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:54 PM

I love old people. I just don't necessarily want to see a whole bunch of them up on screen, all at the same time

.

Agreed totally. As as for Safari suit is concerned I think it answers the question perfectly. I quite frankly think AVTAK is a crap film and I am sorry nothing will convince me otherwise. As far as John Glen is concerned, I think he is a great technician as far as editing and maybe second unit direction but is very workmanlike to the point of being average as a director. In my opinion he oversaw the worst era in cinemas Bond's history.

Edited by MarkA, 17 July 2009 - 11:11 PM.


#11 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:05 PM

I have to preface my response to Safari Suit's question with the admission that Roger Moore is my favorite 007. Having said that....it was getting harder to find suitable stunt-doubles for Roger in this film. The quality of the stunt-doubling ranged from hit-or-miss in the fight sequence inside of Stacy's mansion, and on top of The Golden Gate Bridge, to downright abysmal in the taxi cab chase through Paris.


My favorite Rog stunt double is the one in Octopussy who jumps off the train. The man is quite clearly GINGER and they're trying to pass him off as Rog.

#12 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:41 AM

It might be trendy around these parts to knock Glen, but he's a far better director than he's given credit for. And, Forster aside, he's certainly no worse than any of the directors that have come along since.

And why did Dalton want Glen replaced again?

Who says he did?

#13 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 11:55 AM

It might be trendy around these parts to knock Glen, but he's a far better director than he's given credit for.


I agree he is very underrated among hardcore fans. It would have been interesting to see what a new, more "hungry" director would have done with the Dalton films, instead of the director of three Moore films (two great, one rather mediocre). Nevertheless, he did an excellent job with them both. They have some of the most thrilling and well directed action scenes of the entire series.

#14 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:44 PM

Moore kept getting older (...)

Yes. Were you expecting anything else?

Moore was tired at this point (...)

Maybe he was, but he didn't show it on screen. Connery phoned in his performance for YOLT. Moore in AVTAK is nothing like that, IMO.

#15 Conlazmoodalbrocra

Conlazmoodalbrocra

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3546 posts
  • Location:Harrogate, England

Posted 18 July 2009 - 01:46 PM

I would still take Glen over any of the directors that followed him, perhaps with the exception of Marc Foster. In my view, he added 3 amazing (FYEO, TLD, LTK) and 2 acceptable movies (OP, AVTAK) to the canon. But what is most important, his Bond still had style, especially when you compare the Glen films to the Brosnan era. He definitely knew how to make use of stunning locations, how to make the films look beautiful and exotic. Just compare the look of any of the 80s movies to the dullness of all the fake locations shot on the Pinewood backlot in the 90s. Apart, he very well knew how to craft interesting story-driven action sequences, and not just compile the highest number of explosions possible. BTW, sorry for posting off-topic.


I'm of the same view Kamran, apart from I'd count A View To A Kill as one of his amazing films! B)

#16 broadshoulder

broadshoulder

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 235 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:17 PM

Getting back on topic....

I've heard they didnt get along at the end of the big shoot in Mexico for LTK. But I sort of had my suspicions on the Hot Fuzz DVD commentary with Edward Woodward, Mrtin Freeman and Kenneth Cranham. Tim loves this film and enjoys being in it but David Arnolds contribution came up and Edward Woodward mentions that he does the Bonds now.

Kenneth Cranham asks

"Who was the director on your Bonds?"

You can almosst feel the frost develope.

"A man called John Glen"

"Has he done much?"

"He was an Editor before doing my films.."

Then Edward Woodward quickly changes the subject. But Tims change of personality was very obvious when Glens name was mentioned.

I'm surprised because I always thought Glen had an amiable personality - although a alightly boring way of talking.

#17 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:34 PM

I have said this before and ended up getting slapped online but there is some rift between Dalton and Glen.
I remember reading about it where they would argue on set but it was said later that Dalton was just trying to find his own way as the new Bond. This was in a Bond book as well written after TLD.
There is definitely some miscommunication between the two. Some nice scenes with Dalton are cut out of LTK. Adding to that when Dalton shoots the diver who killed Sharkey and delivers the line Compliments From Sharkey ... you see everyone else except Dalton delivering the line. More over DI wish Glen would have given some establishing scenes for Dalton without rushing over. Brosnan was given a few moments where we could get used to seeing him being Bond not just the action sequences and that's very important I feel.
It was a big story as to how Dalton dropped out of Columbus when the director changed but it's said that the producers failed to guarantee the stars and the director promised when the film was being made so it sounds reasonable why he left the project but on the other hand knowing Glen why would he leave???
Either way one of my biggest complaints about LTK is the way Dalton was handled by the director. In the Casino scenes and Tanker chase we see a lot of him but the rest of the time Dalton is rushed away.

#18 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 08:08 PM

I highly doubt a director would sabotage their own film just to get one over on the lead actor.

Anyway, even if it was true, who cares? David Lean and Alec Guinness hated each others' guts, and they made several films together where they weren't even on speaking terms and communicated through a third party.

There's no rule out there saying that a director and an actor have to get along.

#19 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 18 July 2009 - 08:17 PM

Blake Edwards and Peter Sellers are the same. They don't like each other but worked well, But not incase of Dalton and Glen.

#20 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 18 July 2009 - 08:17 PM

I highly doubt a director would sabotage their own film just to get one over on the lead actor.

Anyway, even if it was true, who cares? David Lean and Alec Guinness hated each others' guts, and they made several films together where they weren't even on speaking terms and communicated through a third party.

There's no rule out there saying that a director and an actor have to get along.


Well David Lean wasn't exactly the nicest of fellows to begin with. Leastways that's what I've gathered from anything I've ever read of and from the man.

#21 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 19 July 2009 - 07:54 AM

Getting back on topic....

I've heard they didnt get along at the end of the big shoot in Mexico for LTK. But I sort of had my suspicions on the Hot Fuzz DVD commentary with Edward Woodward, Mrtin Freeman and Kenneth Cranham. Tim loves this film and enjoys being in it but David Arnolds contribution came up and Edward Woodward mentions that he does the Bonds now.

Kenneth Cranham asks

"Who was the director on your Bonds?"

You can almosst feel the frost develope.

"A man called John Glen"

"Has he done much?"

"He was an Editor before doing my films.."

Then Edward Woodward quickly changes the subject. But Tims change of personality was very obvious when Glens name was mentioned.

I'm surprised because I always thought Glen had an amiable personality - although a alightly boring way of talking.


Interesting. Need to get that DVD (absolutely love Dalton in it, it amazes me how anybody can still doubt his comedic abilities after it).

Either way one of my biggest complaints about LTK is the way Dalton was handled by the director. In the Casino scenes and Tanker chase we see a lot of him but the rest of the time Dalton is rushed away.


I'm always too busy enjoying the movie to think about these things when watching it, but I'll try to keep it in mind next time I put it into my DVD-player.

More over DI wish Glen would have given some establishing scenes for Dalton without rushing over. Brosnan was given a few moments where we could get used to seeing him being Bond not just the action sequences and that's very important I feel.


I have to say I think Dalton got the second best introduction as Bond in the series (after Connery), and I wouldn't really want it changed much personally.

#22 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 19 July 2009 - 08:07 AM

Getting back on topic....

I've heard they didnt get along at the end of the big shoot in Mexico for LTK. But I sort of had my suspicions on the Hot Fuzz DVD commentary with Edward Woodward, Mrtin Freeman and Kenneth Cranham. Tim loves this film and enjoys being in it but David Arnolds contribution came up and Edward Woodward mentions that he does the Bonds now.

Kenneth Cranham asks

"Who was the director on your Bonds?"

You can almosst feel the frost develope.

"A man called John Glen"

"Has he done much?"

"He was an Editor before doing my films.."

Then Edward Woodward quickly changes the subject. But Tims change of personality was very obvious when Glens name was mentioned.

I'm surprised because I always thought Glen had an amiable personality - although a alightly boring way of talking.


Interesting. Need to get that DVD (absolutely love Dalton in it, it amazes me how anybody can still doubt his comedic abilities after it).

Either way one of my biggest complaints about LTK is the way Dalton was handled by the director. In the Casino scenes and Tanker chase we see a lot of him but the rest of the time Dalton is rushed away.


I'm always too busy enjoying the movie to think about these things when watching it, but I'll try to keep it in mind next time I put it into my DVD-player.

More over DI wish Glen would have given some establishing scenes for Dalton without rushing over. Brosnan was given a few moments where we could get used to seeing him being Bond not just the action sequences and that's very important I feel.


I have to say I think Dalton got the second best introduction as Bond in the series (after Connery), and I wouldn't really want it changed much personally.


Hi, I meant in LTK. Scenes that we need to get used to him being Bond is kinda missing. Just an observation.Even the deeted scenes with Dalton on LTK are good ones. Bond needs to be shown off a bit in every movie. Been watching LTK since 89. I owned a pirate copy of film for an year until original was released in UK. Just ordered the Blu ray.

#23 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 12:44 AM

Glen is hands down the worst director in the series. Doesn't seem like a bad guy, just not a particularly exciting director. As I've said before, his films look as though he kind of just ordered the cameras to be put in front of stuff.

Come to think of it, Apted committed the same crimes.

Ditto both those observations. Sad.

#24 CaptainPower

CaptainPower

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 20 July 2009 - 12:54 AM

Ah, the famous Director/Star feudes of cinema history.. Lean & Guiness, Edwards & Sellers.. and of course, Glen & Dalton B)

Edited by CaptainPower, 20 July 2009 - 12:54 AM.


#25 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 01:17 AM

Ah, the famous Director/Star feudes of cinema history.. Lean & Guiness, Edwards & Sellers.. and of course, Glen & Dalton B)

:tdown:

#26 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 20 July 2009 - 01:28 AM

Ah, the famous Director/Star feudes of cinema history.. Lean & Guiness, Edwards & Sellers.. and of course, Glen & Dalton B)

:tdown:

You forgot Hunt & Lazenby, silly... :tdown:

#27 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 20 July 2009 - 02:09 AM

And Connery & Everyone Else B)

#28 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 20 July 2009 - 06:44 AM

Ah, the famous Director/Star feudes of cinema history.. Lean & Guiness, Edwards & Sellers.. and of course, Glen & Dalton B)

:tdown:

You forgot Hunt & Lazenby, silly... :tdown:


Ok can you explain a bit on Hunt and Lazenby?? I am very curious. Thought they were ok and Hunt protected Lazenby from Eon. Thanks.

#29 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 03:36 PM

With all due respect that doesn't really answer my question, just going "but they're so oooooooooold" again. Is it literally impossible for some people to accept aged faces?



Yes it is. We live in a shallow society that is obssessed with youth. And I'm talking about many countries, all over the world.

Personally, I had no trouble with Moore in 80s films. Regardless of his age, he looked as if he was in pretty good shape. So did Connery in NSNA. As for Moore in AVTAK, he was sick during part of the production, which is why he looked haggard in some of the scenes. But . . . like I said before, this world is filled with shallow people obssessed with youth.

#30 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 20 July 2009 - 05:05 PM

It might be trendy around these parts to knock Glen, but he's a far better director than he's given credit for. And, Forster aside, he's certainly no worse than any of the directors that have come along since.

It may be as trendy around these parts to label popular opinions that don’t coincide with yours as being merely trend following. For my part, I criticize Glen for his work on the five Bond films he directed, all of which consistently fail to make my top-10 list. I don’t criticize the work because it’s fun to find new ways to pick on Glen. That’s just a bonus. B)

Glen never had anything like CASINO ROYALE, but had actors and scripts as worthy, so I’d have to argue against the stance that Glen is no worse than Campbell. As for Apted, Spottiswoode and Tamahori, I won’t argue. Glen may be no worse a director than they. I’d say he’s actually more capable in some respects, less in others, but overall probably no worse. Do you really think that’s saying much, though?

I’ve tried to catch you on this subject before, RD, and I always seem to miss. In my opinion, John Glen epitomizes bland, pedestrian, uninventive direction. If such direction exists anywhere in the world, it exists when John Glen is in the chair. What films would you cite when trying to describe ‘bland direction’ and in what way and where does Glen rise above that?

I don’t deny that his direction has some qualities worth applauding, and a few moments of inspiration seem to pop up here and there, but the overall vision is just dead-on mediocre. His vision has no sticking power and his films practically scream “Made on Assembly Line”.

Anyway, even if it was true, who cares? David Lean and Alec Guinness hated each others' guts, and they made several films together where they weren't even on speaking terms and communicated through a third party.
There's no rule out there saying that a director and an actor have to get along.

Oh, come on now. We’re not talking about personality differences. I don’t care if John Glen was a morning person who wanted to start shooting @ 5:00 am, and Dalton a prima donna refusing to leave his trailer until noon when he’d completed his beauty sleep. We’re talking about the potential that the two men had two distinct views of who Bond was to be. I would call it a ‘rule’, as much as it can be called that, that a director and lead actor should not have opposite visions regarding who the lead character is. You don’t agree?

And why did Dalton want Glen replaced again?

Who says he did?

The original post suggests it. I’m not taking it as fact, but at the same time I don’t find it difficult to believe at all. More importantly, why do you say Dalton didn’t want Glen replaced? If you know something on the matter RD, share. Please. Inquiring minds like mine want to know.