56 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

It's always been a massive treat when the cinematography in a Bond film has been absolutely top notch. Skyfall in particular (as well as the many early Bond films (Dr No - On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker) is absolutely beautiful. Amazing shots of beautiful locatons, which is probably where the Bond films satisfy the thirst for adventure. I did feel however, that the quality of the Bond films of the 80's showed a massive decline in quality. I feel that it's a bit of a mixture of John Glens bland direction, and really basic cinematography. I fully appreciate the tone they where going for, they wanted to make it more down to earth but they sadly sacrificed the sense of scope and beauty the Bond series had. it all just felt really safe for me and I do commend the choice of Dalton for trying to shake things up but I can't help thinking of how different the 80's could've been if the Bond films didn't fall into a decade of 'safe mode' and instead took advantage of the massive talent out there at the time. John Glen gave us 5 films, which is sadly an entire era that I often find myself skipping. Imagine if Speilberg directed For Your Eyes Only? Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch or John McTiernan took the reigns for a film or two? We could've had a really inventive era. I'm not saying the 80's was truly bad in terms of Bond films, but in terms of quality they all seem a little bit dull. Anyone have any suggestions or improvements for For Your Eyes Only - Licence to Kill regarding a different direction? Whether it be different editors, cinematographers or directors? Or is anyone completely fine with the way it already is?

 

It's a real shame because Bond is supposed to set the standard for action movies, but comparing any of Roger Moores final three films, and the Dalton era to any other action masterpieces of the 80's (Die Hard, Indiana Jones, etc..) is sadly a bit impossible for me. Anyone else felt this sense of decline?

Edited by DamnCoffee, 01 March 2015 - 12:33 AM.

[Odd Jobbies]

I absolutely agree - i've been singing that tune for some time. I think it echoes in most the choices made i the 80s; The antithesis of this safe-mode would've been casting Lewis Collins as the 80s Bond. The 80s (and truth be told the 90s) were lost somewhere between the comedic, but epic 70s and (eventually) the committed return to the gritty source material in 2006.

 

They tired with Dalton, but it was half measures, with much of the tone at odds with itself. As for pre-Dalton 80s, well that was just conveyor belt product we were being sold, milking poor Moore like a cash cow until they finally let him hobble off to rest.

 

Now, with hindsight, looking back at how the franchise lost its way and nearly went under throughout this midlife crises, i think that era is testament to how playing safe can actually be a an incredibly risky choice, as it patronises the audience to the point of indifference. Bold mistakes can be forgiven, whereas the diminishing returns for highly formatted storytelling simply diminish.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 28 February 2015 - 05:16 PM.

[plankattack]

I hate to be harsh, but instead of safe, I might use the word stale. The tragedy of TLD and LTK, is that any thought, any pretence, of the series looking to be on the leading edge was undone by the inability to completely commit to a new era.

 

The franchise had become very reactive during the 70s, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing if you're going "bigger and better" than those around you, there is a sense that mid-to late 80s Bond was bound by economy, both in budget and in inspiration. And right at the wrong time, when the action genre (that Bond had spawned in the 60s).

 

I just think EON just got complacent, rather than safe. 

[Royal Dalton]

Stale or not, I'll take the 80s films over anything that's come along since.

[tdalton]

I think that one could make the argument that the vast majority of the Bond films post-Connery have been playing it safe, not just the films of the 80s.  EON's unwillingness to ditch the checklist and really venture out onto a limb with the franchise was something that had been happening since before the 1980s, as the 70s was, as someone already stated, pretty much an assembly line for the Bond films, and has continued on into the current decade.

[Turn]

They were basically safe, also safe and in tune possibly with what the producers thought the public wanted. Indeed they thought why mess with a winning formula. Their idea of a big move was bringing FYEO "down to earth" in 1981. And this also applies to NSNA, although there were understandable limitations there.

 

Meanwhile the series' longevity was being challenged and pushed by other emerging franchises. I still recall being pretty much alone in being excited for AVTAK when most of my peers were focused on Rambo: First Blood 2, that came out the same weekend in May 1985. Dalton's emergence changed the tone somewhat, but you still felt they were holding back on a few things.

 

It can also be argued the Brosnan era was safe as well.

[dtuba]

I will agree that the films from '81 to '89 were a bit stale and safe in terms of stylistic and narrative innovation. However I think that Dalton was so good that he elevated his two films to a notch above their surroundings. LTK in particular can be seen as a reaction to the "family friendly" Moore films, although it has been (somewhat fairly) drawn from the same cloth as Miami Vice, etc.

 

I also think that while John Glen has been known as a bland director in terms of style, his films can be seen as an attempt to inject more of the elements of the Fleming novels in the wake of the fantastical TSWLM and MR. (although a bit less so  in AVTAK).   

Edited by dtuba, 28 February 2015 - 09:24 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

Get a better TV, and buy them on Blu-Ray.
They are filled with gorgeous moments. But it is more subtle than the over processed teal-and-orange style of Skyfall, so you have to look for it more carefully. What film can beat FYEO when it comes to underwater scenes?

[Grard Bond]

Eh... Thunderball?

[Mr_Wint]

Eh... Thunderball?

Only if you are suffering from insomnia.

[Grard Bond]

Come on, the underwaterbattle at the end of Thunderball is unrivalled imho.

Edited by Grard Bond, 01 March 2015 - 11:30 AM.

[DamnCoffee]

Get a better TV, and buy them on Blu-Ray.
They are filled with gorgeous moments. But it is more subtle than the over processed teal-and-orange style of Skyfall, so you have to look for it more carefully. What film can beat FYEO when it comes to underwater scenes?

 

I have the Blu Ray set, so I've seen every one in remarkable quality (on a 38 inch TV with surround sound), and as for underwater sequences I'd say Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, even the sequences in Tomorrow Never Dies had it's moments. The only remotely decent underwater moment in For Your Eyes Only is the shark attack, but even that's alright because it's lifted almost directly from the Live And Let Die novel. Something all of the 80's Bond films have in common is a same old sense of direction. Nothing stand out. (bar maybe the PTS in Octopussy and The Living Daylights, the Necros fight and Tanker Chase in Licence To Kill).  I find Moore's final 3 in particular had such a particularly plain look about them. Coupled with the fact that they seem to take themselves far too seriously (in alarming contrast with Roger Moore's light portrayal. Seriously, why is he even in those last few? I could escape to the 60's and 70's Bond movies. The 80's I'd visit begrudgingly. It has to be done, I can enjoy them but I definitely wouldn't consider them escapist entertainment. Something I wouldn't have a problem calling Moonraker or Die Another Day for not matter. Not that i'd say they were better films but even they have a certain quality about them that I consider quintessential Bond elements. 

Edited by DamnCoffee, 01 March 2015 - 01:50 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Personally, I do agree that the Glen-era features stunning photography-moments - but one can also see sequences which compare unfavorably to earlier or later Bonds, showing a restricted budget.

 

I guess that´s what is troubling the 80´s Bond films: the reality of filmmaking.  Even if TSWLM and MR were massive successes during the late 70´s, the box office take of the Bond films was dwarfed by the mega-blockbusters during that time.  

 

Bond only really performed in Europe while US moviegoers stayed away.  So EON had to make do with less money and more routine & proven elements, resulting in a cut-print-move along process.

 

Still, that was the way Bond films could be maintained during that time.

 

Hindsight thinking is always easy, but would it really have helped to have unusual filmmakers take on Bond during the 80´s?

 

I do not think so at all.  Nowadays, it´s almost natural that directors who got famous with arthouse fare are chosen for mainstream-blockbusters.  Back then, it was rarely done and mostly resulting in huge flops (David Lynch doing "Dune").  I don´t think any of those directors would have been able to make a Bond film that would have worked for an international mainstream audience.  (And Spielberg always was too expensive.)

 

By the way: why do so many high-profile directors work withing genre movies these days?  

 

Not because they are given more freedom or because audiences love to see their takes on a formula.  No, the real reason is that these blockbusters are the only movies who still get a green light rather quickly.  Sam Mendes, for example, would never have touched a Bond film with a stick during his first years because he just wasn´t interested in that kind of film.  But after experiencing a string of financial flops and projects not getting any green light, he just had to readjust.

 

In closing - was 80´s Bond a bit safe?  Yes.  It had to.

[Tiin007]

I've heard this argument before about the 80's Bond films, and I'm really not sure what to make of it.

 

Yes, I see how the 80's entries did not really take any directorial or cinematic risks, but I personally found the quality of those films to be fairly high. And the fact that John Glen directed both OP and LTK does, in my mind, showcase his versatility in terms of tone (albeit not directorial style).

 

I often wonder why Glen's films receive such a bad rap. Was the cinematography on LALD or TMWTGG really anything to write home about? Or, for that matter, the plots, scripts, and direction of those two films?

 

While it's certainly easy to contrast the 80's Bond films with the likes of TSWLM or MR, I still prefer every single entry in the Glen era (yes, including AVTAK) to LALD and TMWTGG, both of which feel rather bland to me.

 

Hmm, maybe this post belongs in the "Unorthodox Bond opinions" thread.

[SecretAgentFan]

I believe Glen´s style did not call attention to itself - which is something that has gone out of fashion these days.  Many critics love it when cinematography and editing are elements that are just as prominent as the actors.  There was a time, however, when that was called showing off, a sign of bad style.

[AMC Hornet]

Lee Tamahori has an attention-getting style, and that practically gets him lynched around here (NPI).

[Mr_Wint]

Imagine if Speilberg directed For Your Eyes Only? Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch or John McTiernan took the reigns for a film or two? We could've had a really inventive era.

Imagine if the director of The Empire Strikes Back did a Bond Movie in that era, togheter with the cinematographer from the Indiana Jones films! That would certainly have shown what a bunch of amateurs EON was back then.

[DamnCoffee]

I don't think that this does belong in the 'Unorthodox Opinions' Thread. A strange one I give you that, but quite a few people can see an obvious decline in quality during the 80's Bond films. Especially considering it's competition. (Lethal Weapon, Indiana Jones (one of the best action adventure heroes of all time.) Die Hard etc.) Most of the set pieces in the Indiana Jones trilogy are the pinnacle of action entertainment. I mean, that Desert Chase was what? 1981? And the Bond set piece equivalent? A Yellow Citroen CV Chase on a deserted stretch of countryside. You would think with that kind of competition the producers would up their game. 

 

 

Imagine if Speilberg directed For Your Eyes Only? Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch or John McTiernan took the reigns for a film or two? We could've had a really inventive era.

Imagine if the director of The Empire Strikes Back did a Bond Movie in that era, togheter with the cinematographer from the Indiana Jones films! That would certainly have shown what a bunch of amateurs EON was back then.

 

 

 

I'd be completely for Irvin Kershner and the Indy cinematographer doing an official Bond film in the 80's. Wasted talents. Even the most talented of cinematographers can't film something that isn't there. It's not their fault there's no decent action sequences in the film to make remotely exciting. (Although I am a fan of the bike chase)  The problem with Never Say Never Again isn't Kershners direction, it's more to do with a greedy douchebag of a producer wanting to create a rival James Bond film series and a really obnoxious main actor who only agreed to the thing to spite to producers that made him known in the first place. Its a mess of a film, but the cinematography and direction is not the main thing I worry about. All that film is, is one big slap in the face to Cubby Broccoli, Eon Productions and the everyone who worked so hard to create those films (especially the Connery era). A very horrible move on behalf of Connery. Probably one of the richest men in the world at that time. Why bother making this awful film? He may be the definitive James Bond, and I'll happily stand by that, but to piss all over your legacy, the thing that capitalised you to success and earned you millions upon millions of dollars just to prove some kind of point is really disrespectful. 

Edited by DamnCoffee, 01 March 2015 - 05:26 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

I guess that´s what is troubling the 80´s Bond films: the reality of filmmaking.  Even if TSWLM and MR were massive successes during the late 70´s, the box office take of the Bond films was dwarfed by the mega-blockbusters during that time. 

I certainly see your point, but hiring Moore again and again was not good on the budget, as he was quite the haggler.

 

If they really  had to save cash they could've re-cast with Brolin, Ogilvy, Gibson, Collins (my choice), or any number eager candidates, most of whom would no doubt have been cheaper than Moore.

 

Keeping Moore wasn't about budget, it was about the fear that the audience might not accept their new Bond. That's Eon spending more  cash in the hope of guaranteeing their return - playing it safe for prophet, rather than necessity.

 

BB may've felt tempted to play it safe like CB after the mauling that DAD received, but she didn't and the gamble paid off. I wish CB had been up for that gamble too in the 80s and we might have a far more interesting back catalogue for that decade.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 01 March 2015 - 05:45 PM.

[tdalton]

 

Yes, I see how the 80's entries did not really take any directorial or cinematic risks, but I personally found the quality of those films to be fairly high. And the fact that John Glen directed both OP and LTK does, in my mind, showcase his versatility in terms of tone (albeit not directorial style).

 

I often wonder why Glen's films receive such a bad rap. Was the cinematography on LALD or TMWTGG really anything to write home about? Or, for that matter, the plots, scripts, and direction of those two films?

 

Agreed.

 

The 80s films took very little, if any risks, but within the strict confines of what people think makes a Bond movie a "Bond movie", they're vastly superior to the dreck that EON was churning out during the 1970s.  If ever there was a decade of Bond films that should be accused of playing it safe and doing very little of note with the franchise, it's the 70s (and then, perhaps, the 90s).  The films of the 70s often make the cardinal sin of playing it rather safe while also being generally bad films, something which the films of the 80s, as a whole, don't do.  They could be said to play it safe to a degree, but no moreso than the films of the 70s, and are infinitely superior across the board.

[Professor Pi]

I found the 80s Bond to be fairly strong entries in the canon.  Bringing Bond back down to Earth was a risky move in a time when most studios would have opted for a Moonraker sequel (itself a TSWLM sequel.)  While they should have recast the role (and were considering it), sticking with Moore during the 83 rival NSNA with Connery was a smart move.  By the time they did get around to recasting a film too late, the "risky" move TLD made was making Bond a one woman man in the age of AIDS.  While technically perhaps not true (the PTS scene), this monogamy was trumpeted in the PR campaigns.  LTK made the risky choice to be more violent--the first Bond to get the PG-13 rating in the U.S. and the 15 certificate in the UK.  Ultimately, this gamble did not pay off.  Still, most of those films are aging better than 90s Bond movies.  And as noted, they are better than most of the 70s Bonds. 

[DamnCoffee]

I found the 80s Bond to be fairly strong entries in the canon.  Bringing Bond back down to Earth was a risky move in a time when most studios would have opted for a Moonraker sequel (itself a TSWLM sequel.)  While they should have recast the role (and were considering it), sticking with Moore during the 83 rival NSNA with Connery was a smart move.  By the time they did get around to recasting a film too late, the "risky" move TLD made was making Bond a one woman man in the age of AIDS.  While technically perhaps not true (the PTS scene), this monogamy was trumpeted in the PR campaigns.  LTK made the risky choice to be more violent--the first Bond to get the PG-13 rating in the U.S. and the 15 certificate in the UK.  Ultimately, this gamble did not pay off.  Still, most of those films are aging better than 90s Bond movies.  And as noted, they are better than most of the 70s Bonds. 

 

I do admire Daltons casting and out of all the 80's Bond I would say that Licence To Kill was the biggest step up in terms of doing something bold and different and thats something I admire. I do feel however, that John Glen directing both of Daltons outings was a bit unnecessary. If they were going for a bold new direction, hiring John Glen again doesn't really cut it. if Dalton was supposed to be the brutal Bond, why not hire a director thats capable of delivering hard hitting, brutal action. John McTiernan is the obvious contender for me but there are so many other directors out there that could've done a much better job than what we ended up with. I do love elements of both Dalton films and he gives a fine performance but with better direction he could've been a finer Bond than he already is. Same with Brosnan. 

[Odd Jobbies]

I do love elements of both Dalton films and he gives a fine performance but with better direction he could've been a finer Bond than he already is. Same with Brosnan. 

I think it's very difficult to argue with that statement, though i'm sure some will.

 

By keeping the same 'cottage-industry' of crew on on Dalton's movies it makes his casting hard to see as anything but a token gesture to convey a new direction to the audience. TLD  pretends to have more depth, but really it's a Moore film without the gags. There was a little more character depth in LTK, but not enough to keep Dalton interested for long.

[jaguar007]

The 80s suffered from Glen being a workmanlike director. He got the job done but lacked a creative style. That said I think FYEO and TLD are superior movies to any from the 70s (save perhaps TSWLM). As far as visual imagery, FYEO displays some of the most beautifully shot location scenery of the series.

[DaveBond21]

I actually think it was a 1980's trend, not a Bond trend.

 

It was the worst decade for cinematography but one of the best for action/fun.

[Pierceuhhh]

Glen was serviceable and all his movies are watchable fun, but he didn't bring ANY artistic point of view to the series. Young brought class, Hamilton brought snark, Gilbert (my pick for best director) brought surreal scope. Glen shot what was in the script and went home.

His worst crime was that he outstayed his welcome. A nice alternate 80s would be Glen doing FYEO-AVTAK, then someone else basic and British (Martin Campbell? John Mackenzie?) doing TLD-LTK.

A Spielberg Bond movie would be a disaster. He's all wrong for it - sexless, noisy, overbearing. He's not enough of a CHEEKY CHAPPIE to direct a Bond.

[Safari Suit]

Octopussy looks good. That aside I'd agree the 80s Bond films are not among the more spectacular, and sometimes (particularly FYEO and LTK) look/feel a little cheap. But so much of what we can say about these films is with the benefit of hindsight. No one knew about Raiders of the Lost Ark while they were filming FYEO. No one knew about John McTirenen until The Living Daylights was in the can. Plus if they had called him in for a meeting he'd have bugged it.

 

I think it's also highly debatable whether or not the 70s and 90s films compare all that favourably to the premier action films of their era. The Craig films have stood out rather more, but how much of that is due to lesser competition? And even then they are sometimes compared unfavourably with their contemporaries (the Nolan Batman films in particular).

[Guy Haines]

The arrival of a new Bond actor, whether Brosnan as planned or Dalton as it turned out, would have been the proper time to refresh the series. Not only a new director but new screenwriters - allowing Michael G. Wilson to concentrate on the production side. As it is, and much as I like TLD - and I do, an awful lot! - what we got for the first Dalton movie was an actor taking his portrayal of Bond in one direction whilst the production team carried on, to some extent, in the other, the one they were used to. In the second they tried to overcompensate - going out of their way to make the film really tough and violent, whilst leaving such familiar elements as "Q" in place by way of reassuring the fans of what went before. And the problem with that approach is that in trying to please those looking for a new take on Bond and those who are comfortable with the old you end up pleasing neither.

 

On reflection perhaps what was needed was a whole change of production team and of tone, rather than just a new man as Bond - as has happened to some degree since Daniel Craig took over in 2006. But twenty years before that, were the paying public ready for it? I wonder.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

I guess that´s what is troubling the 80´s Bond films: the reality of filmmaking.  Even if TSWLM and MR were massive successes during the late 70´s, the box office take of the Bond films was dwarfed by the mega-blockbusters during that time. 

I certainly see your point, but hiring Moore again and again was not good on the budget, as he was quite the haggler.

 

If they really  had to save cash they could've re-cast with Brolin, Ogilvy, Gibson, Collins (my choice), or any number eager candidates, most of whom would no doubt have been cheaper than Moore.

 

Keeping Moore wasn't about budget, it was about the fear that the audience might not accept their new Bond. That's Eon spending more  cash in the hope of guaranteeing their return - playing it safe for prophet, rather than necessity.

 

BB may've felt tempted to play it safe like CB after the mauling that DAD received, but she didn't and the gamble paid off. I wish CB had been up for that gamble too in the 80s and we might have a far more interesting back catalogue for that decade.

 

 

I disagree.  Keeping Moore was all about the budget - i.e. making sure that they got one big enough to do a Bond film.  Only when returns diminished EON knew they had to recast.  But to fire Moore after TSWLM, MR and FYEO would have been ridiculous.  OP did well enough, and the decision to keep him on was IMO wise since the Bond franchise was already entering a time of uncertainty, with other 80´s action films dominating the market and 007 getting not that much attention anymore.  To recast earlier would have endangered the franchise.

 

One cannot compare it with the re-casting after DAD, IMO, since at that point so many other factors played into it: creative questions, Brosnan asking for too much money, the MGM problems, the rights to CR becoming available, Bond films in general being high in demand again.  In short: it was a perfect situation to risk something.  In the 80´s: changing things up too much would have risked everything.  And with LTK it actually did.

[Mr_Wint]

Most of the set pieces in the Indiana Jones trilogy are the pinnacle of action entertainment. I mean, that Desert Chase was what? 1981? And the Bond set piece equivalent? A Yellow Citroen CV Chase on a deserted stretch of countryside. You would think with that kind of competition the producers would up their game.

Well, Indy is to 80s cinemagoers what Bond was in the 60s. It's a bit naive to pick out the most classic scene (the desert chase) in a legendary movie (ROTLA) and ask for all Bond movies to live up to that standard! It's totally unrealistic.

As for the actual comparison. You could've picked the ski case, but I guess the car suited you better given how pitiful a Citroen 2CV is compared to a Mercedes-Benz cargo truck, even if it is completely besides the point. Anyway, that car chase with the Citroen is nothing to look down on. It has plenty of great shots and sofisticated camera work. It's one of the best things Rémy Julienne ever did, and he is/was one of the best in the business.

And who could even suggest that FYEO didn't raise the stakes when it came to action? Last time I checked cargo trucks are pretty comfortable on the road, while skiers and motorcycles typically aren't in a bobsleigh run.