32 replies to this topic

[DanMan]

As we all know, the Bond series took had a sharp decline in popularity during the 80's. With the exception of TLD, each film grossed less that the film before it from 1981-1989. Bond was being beat at the genre he invented by Die Hard, Rambo, and Lethal Weapon.

The 80's is also the only decade which fails to have it's own definitive Bond film. The 60's had Goldfinger, the 70's had The Spy Who Loved Me, and the 90's had Goldeneye, though some would argue that one.

So this is my question to you....

Your Cubby, it's 1986 and Bond XVI is getting ready for production, what would you do to put Bond back on top again? What kind of movie would you have made? Would it be similar to TLD or would of been something completely different? Keep in mind that your thinking as a producer and not as a hardcore Bond fan. What would you do to make Bond XVI a mega-hit?

[terminus]

Here's my suggestion:


Bond XVI: Risico

Risico was based on elements from Flemming that had not yet been used - the plot was heavily based on Moonraker, the secondary Bond girl and some story material taken from From A View To A Kill and further story material taken from The Hildebrand Rarity.

Bond: It's a race between Brosnan and Dalton - and whilst Dalton has a stage production, Brosnan has Remmington Steele. Dalton is a more serious Bond, Brosnan is capable of more humour - but could be considered too young for the role. In the end, Brosnan is contracted to more Remmington Steele and Dalton finds his stage production is a flop - so we're stuck with Dalton.

Bond Girls:

Solange: Iman Abdulmajid, then just a tv actress with a few tv credits to her name, including one role in Miami Vice, is hired to play the main Bond Girl under the belief that people want to see exotic, as opposed to plain, women in Bond movies - the exotic was what would differentiate Bond XVI from Die Hard.

Mary Ann Russell: Demi Moore, age 25 and fresh from success in the 1985 bratpack movie 'St Elmo's Fire' is approached about playing the secondary Bond girl, Mary Ann Russell (the Bond girl from the Flemming novel, From A View To A Kill) and, whilst she is at first hesitant, she agrees to the role since she has no movies booked for 1987. Russell, is, as in the novel, a low ranking MI6 field operative - not at all unlike Paula Caplan in Thunderball.


NOTE: in an early draft of the script, a third Bond girl, Vivien Michel, was featured as a femme fatale - not unlike Fiona Volpe in Thunderball. Sarah Douglas, who had played Ursa in 1980's Superman II was offered the part, but when the role was removed, she went on to film 1986 sci-fi trash 'Solarbabies' instead.

Villain:

Sir Edmund Risico: Canadian actor Donald Sutherland, then 52, is approached to play the titular villain of the movie. Ironically, Sutherland also stars in the Bond pastiche 'The Trouble With Spies' that debuted the six months after 'Risico' - the character is the owner of a weapons manufacturer that has a military contract, but who is planning to start a war in the Far East between Russia and China after selling weapons to both parties.

41 year old Alan Rickman is an alternative choice for the role but he is already contracted to play Hans Gruber in 1988's 'Die Hard'.

Henchman: Dolph Lundgren, who had a small part as a KGB operative in the last Bond movie is offered a much bigger part in 'Risico' - he is already optioned on 'Masters Of The Universe' by the time he is signed onto 'Risico', but 'Risico' comes out six months before 'Masters Of The Universe'. In the grand tradition of Bond henchmen, Lundgren plays his role as a muscle bound, but mute, Swedish thug called Vlad.

Theme: Kate Bush, Madonna, Cher - these are the names that are tossed round as candidates for the singer of the themesong. Madonna, although she has openly voiced her desire to do the themetune is considered too pop, Cher is considered too big - so, they settle on Kate Bush. Bush pens the song herself, in collaboration with John Barry, and the end product is reminiscent of Bush's 1985 hit 'The Hounds Of Love' which you can listen toHERE.

Locations: Although partly set in England, the movie also heavily features Beijing, China - this is the first movie to be allowed to film in China, narrowly beating 'The Last Emperor'.

Plot:

Bond infiltrates a Black Market Arms Bazaar in the Khyber Pass - this has very little to do with the main plot of the movie, except for the fact that the villains henchman Vlad is there and Bond later recognises him.

After the standard Maurice Binder title sequence (the usual design with explosions, naked women painted with luminescent paint dancing silhouetted by ultraviolet light - very eighties and very dated in todays world) we launch into MI6 and a meeting attended by Frederick Gray, where Bond is informed that the MOD is concerned because weapons manufactured by arms contractor Risico have been showing up in both Russia and China - the MOD doesn't necessarily believe that Risico himself is involved, since he has strong government ties, but are worried that someone who works for him might be stealing and selling the equipment on the black market.

Bond will head to the Risico facility in Kent, paired with Mary Ann Russell from Q Branch, much to Q's chagrin - the usual assortment of gadgets are provided, but these are all practical and realistic.

Bond and Mary Ann spend some time investigating the facility in Kent - where Bond meets and seduces Risico's exotic and Amazonian Somalian wife, Solange. Mary Ann spots Vlad (though doesn't know he was at the Arms Bazaar in the Khyber Pass) and is suspicious, but is soon killed (in a sort of pottery kiln used in weapons manufacturing) when she tracks him to a storage warehouse where he is about to take a large shipment to a private airfield nearby. Bond expands his investigation into investigating her death and his seduction of Solange prooves fruitful when, after he eventually meets Vlad (Risico is unaware that Bond has seen him at the Arms Bazaar) and recognises him, she provides him with information about the private airfield. Bond sneaks into the warehouse and infiltrates the arms shipment, ending up at the airfield and on a plan with the weapons heading for - China!

But, Bond is discovered! Bond and Vlad fight, but Bond grabs a parachute and lands safely on a cruise ship in the Meditteranean where he suprises rich socialite Linda (Kell Tyler).

After a brief meeting with M, Bond is on a plane to China where he must operate under the watchful eye of Chinese operative Kwang (Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa) who turns out to be a staunch friend - very much the Chinese iteration of Bond movie stalwart Felix Leiter.

Bond and Kwang track Risico down - (after a motorbike chase along the Great Wall of China, one of the films major set pieces) - to his rural residence where he plans to fire nuclear weapons at Beijing and Moscow, causing them to fight each other and him to get rich since he's providing weapons to them both on the black market. He's already killed his Chinese contact by shoving the tail of a stingray down his throat. Bond and Kwang, with the help of the beautiful Solange, defeat Risico - whilst Kwang is seriously wounded by Vlad, Bond kills Vlad by roasting him alive with a flamethrower before pushing him into an icy lake ("He couldn't take the heat - so I helped him cool off") before rushing after Risico, who has kidnapped Solange, and is about to escape - but dies when he gets strapped to one of his own (deactivated by Kwang) missiles and it smashes into the ceiling causing the building to collapse around Bond, Solange and Kwang ("He brought the house down -") who rush to escape.

M meets with the Head of Chinese Intelligence in Beijing who is there with Kwang - but where is Bond? He's in some rural hut on the edge of a river, with Solange, being attended to by villagers and being adorned with flowers -




And that's what I think would have made THE quintessential eighties movie.

[stamper]

I would have hired John Mc Tiernan, and made an unknown novel into a different kind of Bond film, where Bond his trapped in MI5 headquarters by terrorists, and outside police force do not help. The movie would have been called, DIE HARD, and Bond would have redifined action movies for the decade to come.

[TheSaint]

It would be tough to top FYEO or Octopussy as the Ultimate '80s Bond film. TLD was a great film. Maybe a movie version of License Renewed or For Special Services instead of LTK to close out the '80s with a bang, instead of a whimper.

[Publius]

Your Cubby, it's 1986 and Bond XVI is getting ready for production, what would you do to put Bond back on top again? What kind of movie would you have made? Would it be similar to TLD or would of been something completely different? Keep in mind that your thinking as a producer and not as a hardcore Bond fan. What would you do to make Bond XVI a mega-hit?

A tightened up TLD in '87 would probably be as good as it gets. Basically, refine the Afghanistan scenes and beef up Whitaker, giving Bond a solid final confrontation with him. The movie's tendency to drag (as usual for most Bonds) and the weak villain without a big fight even were the biggest "downers" for me first time watching it.

Overall, after the commercial flop that was AVTAK, TLD would seem the best approach to me. Classic, rejuvenated Bond. And the most dangerous, ever.

But I'm still happy with what we did get. My two favorite Bond films and favorite Bond actor over the course of two years make for the definitive Bond era in the latter 80s. And Licence to Kill has a quintessential late 80s, early 90s vibe, and was a hell of a great way to end the decade.

[TheSaint]

after the commercial flop that was AVTAK

Really? Proof, please?

[Publius]

after the commercial flop that was AVTAK

Really? Proof, please?

Second-lowest grossing Bond film.

Of course, that's all relative to the others. Same goes for the other "flops" of the series. I should think that goes without saying.

But if it's 1986 and your job is to be concerned about box office revenue, you'll still be worried. They were in those days, if I'm not mistaken.

[DaltonCraig]

The problem with the decline was rooted in marketing IMHO. I would have more agressively marketed Dalton as the new Bond and the Dalton films. And Licence to Kill! What a shame that ad campaign was!

Goldeneye, in contract had a brilliant marketing campaign, as we all know...

It seems the studio heads figured this out in the 90s on...

[K1Bond007]

Personally, I would have gone with new writers. I have nothing against Michael G. Wilson and Maibaum. Maibaum was great, but he was tired in the 80s. They really needed someone new who could write a really good script that encompassed Dalton's portrayal and bring something new to the series. There really wasn't a new direction. It was the same ol same ol with Dalton doing something different against the grain of the rest of the film. I think they tried to come around with Licence to Kill, and although I feel it is a good movie, I just don't think it was as good as it could have been, unfortunately.

And obviously much better marketing.

[Mr_Wint]

As we all know, the Bond series took had a sharp decline in popularity during the 80's. With the exception of TLD, each film grossed less that the film before it from 1981-1989. Bond was being beat at the genre he invented by Die Hard, Rambo, and Lethal Weapon.

I feel that Bond was very popular during the period 1980-1987. Much more popular than he his today. Shouldn't we consider adjusted boxoffice and video rentals to get a fair comparison?

The 80's is also the only decade which fails to have it's own definitive Bond film. The 60's had Goldfinger, the 70's had The Spy Who Loved Me, and the 90's had Goldeneye, though some would argue that one.

So what makes a 'definitive' Bond film? Both GF and GE are overated... and FYEO/OP beats both of them if you ask me

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think the 80s were much richer than you do Danman: 6 films, 3 actors, including the meastro himself,Sean Connery, a new actor with a radically different approach to Bond than Roger Moore and a revived literary 007. The 80s were an amazing time to be a Bond fan and I know because I was there. The 90s gave us two lost films(91,93) and a pretty mediocre trilogy. Brosnan was a trooper but he didn't get the guns. The 'quinetessential 80s Bond film' can be any 80s offering: FYEO was Roger's finest, Octopussy was Indiana Jonesesque, Never Say Never again is drenched in 80s nostagia, AVTAK has Duran Duran(could that be any more 80sish?) and the TLD was like an 80s FRWL and LTK is the "Miami Vice rip off" so it's 80s credentials are more than worthy.

Anyway, I wish we coulda seen Icebreaker in 91 with Dalton and Jurgon Prochnow as the baddie. Woulda been sweet.

[Harmsway]

I'm not a fan of the 80s Bond film, namely because of John Glen's positively lackluster direction on the Bond films. The visual flair and cinematic feel that had characterized most of the series to that point just went out to the window, and with it went a lot of the appeal.

And, to be honest, I don't like the 80s Moore flicks all that much, though I do really like THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL. Moore was much better earlier than later - his films in the 80s just don't inspire like the previous films. Had these same films been handled by a more interesting director than Glen (somebody like a Terence Young or a Lewis Gilbert), I imagine I would like these films much more and consider them more distinctive.

And Tarl, a movie feeling like the 80s is never a good thing. It just makes it dated, where the older films in the series feel almost timeless. Furthermore, the 80s was by far the worst era the modern world has seen - it just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Awful fashions, awful music... it's an era I can have no nostalgia for.

[TheSaint]

Second-lowest grossing Bond film.

Of course, that's all relative to the others. Same goes for the other "flops" of the series. I should think that goes without saying.

But if it's 1986 and your job is to be concerned about box office revenue, you'll still be worried. They were in those days, if I'm not mistaken.

It made more money than LTK, which was a true flop.

[Mr_Wint]

I'm not a fan of the 80s Bond film, namely because of John Glen's positively lackluster direction on the Bond films. The visual flair and cinematic feel that had characterized most of the series to that point just went out to the window, and with it went a lot of the appeal.

No, the visual flair is still there. FYEO and OP have an amazing cinematography. Even AVTAK and TLD looks really good. Just because there's no hollow volcanos or flying cars doesn't make the films less 'cinematic'. It is easy to see that John Glen is inspired by Terence Young and Peter Hunt, and that is why he is so successful.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm torn between FYEO and TLD

[Harmsway]

No, the visual flair is still there. FYEO and OP have an amazing cinematography.

Nah. The cinematography is fairly dull - nowhere near the work of Claude Renoir or Freddie Young. If anything, it's serviceable cinematography, but nothing stand-out.

Even AVTAK and TLD looks really good.

Nah. They look dull too - they both have many "tv movie" sections.

Just because there's no hollow volcanos or flying cars doesn't make the films less 'cinematic'.

Hollow volcanoes or flying cars has nothing to do with it, and if you think that's what I'm suggesting, you've entirely missed my point. It's about atmosphere and flair (which even more grounded films like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE or THUNDERBALL had), and the 80s Bond films miss the boat on it.

[Mr_Wint]

Nah. The cinematography is fairly dull - nowhere near the work of Claude Renoir or Freddie Young. If anything, it's serviceable cinematography, but nothing stand-out.

It sounds like you still have and old VHS copy of FYEO. I just inserted my UE version of FYEO and I'm still impressed of how dam good this films looks. Nothing stand-out?

- The PTS
- The scene in Corfu with Melina.
- Night scene with Lisl.
- With Lisl at the beach.
- Bond climbing the mountain.
- All underwater scenes.

If that isn't good cinematography, then what is good cinematography? Young and Renoir are good yes, but Alan Hume is no beginner (he was director of photography on 'Return Of the Jedi'...).

My point is that FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD all looks better and far more professional than any movie made during the 90's. Your are welcomed to give me any examples of tv-movie-sections so I can check it out.

[DamnCoffee]

agreed

[Harmsway]

It sounds like you still have and old VHS copy of FYEO.

I don't.

I'll give you that FOR YOUR EYES ONLY looks pretty good as far as the 80s Bond films are concerned (it's Glen's best job), but it still has a relatively drab feel about it. OCTOPUSSY is more vibrant, but it doesn't have the visual class of something like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE or MOONRAKER.

And going any further below the level established by FYEO or OP is unacceptable, and the rest of the 80s Bond flicks do.

- The PTS

Awful. And on a side note, it's probably the worst pre-title sequence in the entire series.

If that isn't good cinematography, then what is good cinematography? Young and Renoir are good yes, but Alan Hume is no beginner (he was director of photography on 'Return Of the Jedi'...).

Hume's work on RETURN OF THE JEDI was mediocre. I've always thought that RETURN OF THE JEDI wasn't shot all that well, especially incomparison to THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK's stunning cinematography.

My point is that FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD all looks better and far more professional than any movie made during the 90's.

You mean any Bond movie? Or any movie period? Or is that a typo and did you mean the 80s?

Because if you meant 90s films in general, you're looney. The 90s produced some of the most beautifully shot films of all time. Even if it's just 90s Bond films we're talking about, I think you're off.

But if you meant 80s films in general, I think you're off-target. 1980's THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK looks far more stunning and polished than any of the 80s Bond films. Or if that example doesn't suit your fancy, how about the Indiana Jones flicks? Or ALIENS? Or AMADEUS? Or BLADE RUNNER?

Your are welcomed to give me any examples of tv-movie-sections so I can check it out.

Easy. A VIEW TO A KILL's hot tub scene or its pre-title sequence. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS with the fight in the jail. Heck, even the a lot of the pre-title sequence of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS looks positively pedestrian. I don't even think I have to mention LICENCE TO KILL (though some moments of that are quite good - I love Bond escaping the wavecrest).

[Orion]

http://www.japander....lips/dalton.mov

would have been good to see a third, cause he really was brilliant

[Harmsway]

http://www.japander....lips/dalton.mov

would have been good to see a third, cause he really was brilliant

I really would have liked a third.

[DamnCoffee]

me too, Dalton was a fantastic Bond and i would have loved a third and a fouth

[Publius]

It made more money than LTK, which was a true flop.

Only marginally (and only adjusted).

Anyway, although I don't think the cinematography of the 80s films were terrible, I do think some of them could have been better. LTK for one could have given us a better feel for the immense beauty of "Isthmus" City, the Florida Keys, and the Caribbean (which hadn't been seen since 1973, or really 1962). The score could have also been better (less generic, at least).

TLD, though showcasing a fantastic score, could have done a stronger job of immersing us in Afghanistan, or not gone there at all. Perhaps avoiding it altogether could have given us more time in North Africa, which though decently represented, still left something to the imagination.

Basically, the Dalton movies had "epic" potential that was insufficiently realized and wouldn't have conflicted at all with their otherwise superb darkness and relative realism.

[Loomis]

My point is that FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD all looks better and far more professional than any movie made during the 90's.

You mean any Bond movie? Or any movie period? Or is that a typo and did you mean the 80s?

Because if you meant 90s films in general, you're looney. The 90s produced some of the most beautifully shot films of all time. Even if it's just 90s Bond films we're talking about, I think you're off.

The '90s Bond films may look a lot better than the '80s ones, which I'd agree tend to be indifferently-shot in muddy colours, but (and this is surely The Important Thing ) the content of the '80s Bonds easily beats the Brosnan outings.

For what its worth, there were many terrific films made in the '80s, just as many as in the '90s, probably.

[Harmsway]

The '90s Bond films may look a lot better than the '80s ones, which I'd agree tend to be indifferently-shot in muddy colours, but (and this is surely The Important Thing ) the content of the '80s Bonds easily beats the Brosnan outings.

I wholeheartedly agree - and that's why I'd take the 80s over the 90s in a heartbeat.

For what its worth, there were many terrific films made in the '80s, just as many as in the '90s, probably.

Without a doubt.

[Loomis]

For what its worth, there were many terrific films made in the '80s, just as many as in the '90s, probably.

Without a doubt.

Yeah. It's stating the obvious, I know. It's just that I'm not a believer in the "golden age" theory (e.g. "The 1970s was the best decade ever for films"), or in the, erm, "crap age" theory (e.g. "Film in the '80s? Pah!"). I expect you'd find the same ratio of good to bad in every decade.

But I'll tell you one thing the cinema of the '80s has over '90s films: no annoying Michael Bay-style "speed ramping" (or whatever it's called) editing. And they didn't go in for that faffing around with colour filters and film stock, either.* There weren't, as far as I know, any films like DOMINO, which is a very, very good thing indeed. This means that just about all '80s films, however good or bad, are at least - quite literally - watchable.

*I know that's a little rich coming from one of this site's biggest DIE ANOTHER DAY fans.

[Mr_Wint]

Harmsway, I compared the Bondmovies made during the 80's with the Bondmovies made during the 90's and nothing else.

If you dont think the PTS to TLD looks good then there's no point of going any deeper in this topic as we have so totally different opinions on what makes good filmmaking and good cinematography.

[Harmsway]

Harmsway, I compared the Bondmovies made during the 80's with the Bondmovies made during the 90's and nothing else.

Well, I still think the cinematography of GOLDENEYE and TOMORROW NEVER DIES is more polished than the stuff of the 80s.

If you dont think the PTS to TLD looks good then there's no point of going any deeper in this topic as we have so totally different opinions on what makes good filmmaking and good cinematography.

I don't think it looks bad, necessarily. And the pre-title sequence for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is among my favorites. I think up until the whole car part starts, the TLD PTS is filmed pretty well (hardly exceptional, but definitely capable). Still, there isn't much that's vibrant about it - compare the striking blues and reds and golds of the Connery/Moore films to the hues of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS - things just feel a little washed out. And it's not the angles or framing are exceptional either, since there's nothing really interesting done with either of those.

The point is the cinematography isn't something really remarkable - there's no "Oh, that's a fantastic shot" reaction. It's just all capable filmwork, nothing outstanding, nothing innovative. That's certainly good and fine, but I think these sequences would be much better if there was some better talent directing where that camera was pointed.

[darthbond]

Refer to my thread of New Idea. I think my story could fit Timothy Dalton well enough.

darthbond

[TheSaint]

Only marginally (and only adjusted).

Marginally? Adjusted? I'm going by the actual figures. AVTAK made $50 million US, LTK made $40 million. $10 million more is not marginal.