73 replies to this topic

[tim partridge]

I'll add my two cents in later but the general consensus seems to be that Glen isn't a favourite around here. TLD is commonly acknowledged as one of the great 007 movies, as is FYEO. Octopussy is a nostalgiac favourite that has a huge thread in the Rog section. LTK was ambitious, back to grit, BBFC 15 rated seriousness, though criticised often for being a cheap looking Miami Vice wannabe. Yet somehow AVTAK seems to be regarded as fatal staleness that killed off Bond in the 80s (even though TLD came out two years later and again is considered by most to be prime 007).

John Glen knows how to pace a film, but he's not much of a visual stylist like Gilbert or Hunt, although the former's sense of humour slightly rubbed off on him (animal sight gags, double taking drunks). I see Glen more in the pure storyteller mode of Bond director, like Terence Young and Martin Campbell.

Glen did a great job cutting OHMSS (although I have read on forums elsewhere that it's very much Hunt's baby) and also the two later Gilbert 007s. He could hold one of Gilbert's unbroken all-in-one shots or jack up an action scene with jump cuts, fast cutting and precision timing. Glen was a master of pacing not just as an editor but also as a director.

The SWLM ski jump is often considered Glen's finest moment as 2nd unit director. The Bob Sleigh chase from OHMSS too. Indeed most fans seem to consider Glen to be one of the finest 007 second unit directors, even though most forget that many of the big sequences (like the car chase from TSWLM) on those Gilbert films were overseen by Ernest Day.

I would love to hear some for and against rants on Glen, John Glen, as director (and 2nd unit/editor).

[Col. Sun]

I'll add my two cents in later but the general consensus seems to be that Glen isn't a favourite around here. TLD is commonly acknowledged as one of the great 007 movies, as is FYEO. Octopussy is a nostalgiac favourite that has a huge thread in the Rog section. LTK was ambitious, back to grit, BBFC 15 rated seriousness, though criticised often for being a cheap looking Miami Vice wannabe. Yet somehow AVTAK seems to be regarded as fatal staleness that killed off Bond in the 80s (even though TLD came out two years later and again is considered by most to be prime 007).

John Glen knows how to pace a film, but he's not much of a visual stylist like Gilbert or Hunt, although the former's sense of humour slightly rubbed off on him (animal sight gags, double taking drunks). I see Glen more in the pure storyteller mode of Bond director, like Terence Young and Martin Campbell.

Glen did a great job cutting OHMSS (although I have read on forums elsewhere that it's very much Hunt's baby) and also the two later Gilbert 007s. He could hold one of Gilbert's unbroken all-in-one shots or jack up an action scene with jump cuts, fast cutting and precision timing. Glen was a master of pacing not just as an editor but also as a director.

The SWLM ski jump is often considered Glen's finest moment as 2nd unit director. The Bob Sleigh chase from OHMSS too. Indeed most fans seem to consider Glen to be one of the finest 007 second unit directors, even though most forget that many of the big sequences (like the car chase from TSWLM) on those Gilbert films were overseen by Ernest Day.

I would love to hear some for and against rants on Glen, John Glen, as director (and 2nd unit/editor).

When I used to work in the cutting rooms as a young chap, I had the pleasure of assisting on License To Kill. John Glen was (and is) a terrific person. Lots of humour. Relaxed. Respectful of his crew. A good leader. He certainly had a strong grasp of pacing and, of course, editing. There's little doubt that he was not really an actors director and, it's no secret, that he and Dalton didn't click too well, although Glen is far too professional to ever say a bad word about anyone he's worked with.

As much as I respected him - and still greatly respect him - I don't think he had a strong visual sense or an artistic eye for visuals and so his work does feel rather TV in terms of the images, blocking of scenes and structure of scenes etc. His smaller drama scenes are not his strong point. (Campbell, Young, Gilbert, Hunt, Forster all direct the actors better and have a better eye and sense for good casting, especially the smaller character roles.) However, Glen was superb at designing and organizing the action scenes and making them dramatically clear as well as fast and exciting (the tanker chase in LTK is excellent -- and BTW, the original, longer cut was better than the final cut in the film; it also had a punchier end with Bond/Dalton snarling at Sanchez "Compliments of Leiter" before setting him on fire with the "lighter") . Glen, coming from an editing and 2nd Unit background, valued and understood the need for the audience to always be able to follow the action, however fast and wild it was - something Forster on QOS should take onboard.

John Glen was good for the time, but stylistically he was rather old fashioned even by the mid-80's and he did have to be replaced -- but do not think he was not good, because he was VERY, VERY GOOD indeed, but limited in some ways - more an excellent technician than a visionary or strongly individual director.

I am very grateful to have had the chance to work alongside him in the editing rooms - and EVERYONE on the crew had huge respect for him. I think "Cubby" (who was wonderful) really liked him, hence the loyalty and the long run Glen had directing for Eon.

[plankattack]

I happen to feel that John Glen's two best Bonds were the two that bookended his tenure - I felt that he really told the story that he wanted to tell, without the "formula" overly intruding (something both OP and AVTAK are guilty of). Both FYEO and LTK's action-thriller tone are dominant and set the pace of the story-telling.

As 2nd unit dir. Glen is responsible for some of best action-moments in the series and working with Hunt on OHMSS is as good a collaboration as Campbell/Baird/Wint on CR. So it's not a suprise that my personal taste for action is met in both FYEO and LTK and by extension both films move well, with the action blending well with the story itself, unlike OP and AVTAK where the everything seems to grind to a halt for the obligatory action "bump." It's almost a case of "hold that thought, big action sequence coming up."

The pacing of FYEO and LTK are very good, with LTK really building towards it's climax, and the former taking the time to tell let it's characters tell the story. Regardless of what one thinks of Bouquet's acting, but Melina is a strong character, and both Sir Rog and TD are very good as the lead in both films (I actually think Sir Rog is brilliant in FYEO - perhaps the second or third best performance by the lead in the series).

I've been guilty of putting the boot into Glen at times, and I feel that OP (which is one of my least favourite in the series) is a glaring example; whereas FYEO thrives by feeling like a smaller, almost less-ambitious film, OP falls down due it's desire to pack everythin in, and Glen fails with the juggling act. Is it a an action film with some humour, or a comedy caper with some action?



Fascinating post Col. Sun. Hopefully you'll tell us even more some day. Hearing the inside workings helps put my viewer's opinions into proper perspective.

[dogmanstar]

I am a Glen fan. Primarily for the turn from MR to FYEO. Moore's newfound performance that carried him through to the end of his tenure is quite good and the two Dalton outings are outstanding. I think because Glen had such a long tenure and two different Bonds to work with--one can overpraise him and underpraise him. I try to appreciate him.

[Col. Sun]

I've been guilty of putting the boot into Glen at times, and I feel that OP (which is one of my least favourite in the series) is a glaring example; whereas FYEO thrives by feeling like a smaller, almost less-ambitious film, OP falls down due it's desire to pack everythin in, and Glen fails with the juggling act. Is it a an action film with some humour, or a comedy caper with some action?



Fascinating post Col. Sun. Hopefully you'll tell us even more some day. Hearing the inside workings helps put my viewer's opinions into proper perspective.

I know what u mean about OP. I never felt John Glen had the most creative grasp of a script or the overall tone of a film. There were a few ill-judged "cuts" made in LTK which favoured humour instead of trusting the drama. Example; the final scene at the party, Bond is on the phone to Leiter; who's recovering in hospital from his torture. Originally the scene was longer and much more sombre. Leiter is clearly grateful to Bond but still greatly hurt by the death of his wife, and Bond's tone is darker, less satisfied with what he's done; only it the last few seconds of the conversation did things lighten up a bit- but not too much - it was still a serious scene.

John Glen felt the scene was too downbeat for the end, so the darker tone of the first two thirds were cut and the last third was made more upbeat by changing the takes and thus the actors readings and performances to make them appear as cheerful as possible. I remember being bitterly disappointed at the time as I stood at the back of the dark cutting room watching a strong and dramatically appropriate scene, sliced and reduced to a "happy little chat." It didn't work and stands out like a sore thumb, especially these days. I think that was a misjudgment of tone and of trusting the drama and the audience.

[tim partridge]

I wonder if he got that tendency from his time with Lewis Gilbert?

Col. Sun,

Thankyou so much for your recollections. You wouldn't happen to be the director of a British horror film from a few years ago, would you?

In defence of the visuals:

Glen only used Peter Lamont as designer, and FYEO through to LTK were all handled in that very referential, real world approach that Lamont did very well. Even on the stylishly glamourised Octopussy the look was as real as possible as oppose to say the Ken Adam/Syd Cain/Peter Murton visual stylist approach of all the previous Bond movies. I wonder what a Cain/Adam/Murton designed Octopussy would have looked like? Octopussy generally to me feels like a Gilbert Bond done light.

As far as photography goes I must ay that Glen's movies were very well shot (the abilities of Alan Hume and Alec Mills are far beyond say the flatness of Ted Moore, and even NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN wasn't as much of a looker as a Glen Bond). Again though, no real visual stylisation, but more of a competent, uniform look. Aside from the "chocolate box" desert moment from TLD, the boldest visual moments I can think of in the Glen movies were usually shot by another unit, usually by Arthur Wooster -the bulk of the gibraltar footage in TLD for example, even the fairground scene in TLD, shot on prime lenses in high contrast light are more defined than the majority of the movie. I'd even say that Wooster and Binder's title sequence girl photography of LTK, with deep shadows and contrast, is more interesting to look at than anything in the actual movie.

Edited by tim partridge, 07 January 2009 - 03:23 PM.

[plankattack]

John Glen felt the scene was too downbeat for the end, so the darker tone of the first two thirds were cut and the last third was made more upbeat by changing the takes and thus the actors readings and performances to make them appear as cheerful as possible. I remember being bitterly disappointed at the time as I stood at the back of the dark cutting room watching a strong and dramatically appropriate scene, sliced and reduced to a "happy little chat." It didn't work and stands out like a sore thumb, especially these days. I think that was a misjudgment of tone and of trusting the drama and the audience.

I don't want you to talk out of school, but in your experience were these decisions director or producer decisions? I'm fascinated to learn where the line is on films in general, and on Bonds in particular. Fast forward to QoS - there were many quotes from Babs that Forster was left alone to make the film he wanted to make, and I read in Sight and Sound that Forster brought far more of his own people that is usual on an EON production. But creatively, how much of a Bond is the director's vision?

[Col. Sun]

John Glen felt the scene was too downbeat for the end, so the darker tone of the first two thirds were cut and the last third was made more upbeat by changing the takes and thus the actors readings and performances to make them appear as cheerful as possible. I remember being bitterly disappointed at the time as I stood at the back of the dark cutting room watching a strong and dramatically appropriate scene, sliced and reduced to a "happy little chat." It didn't work and stands out like a sore thumb, especially these days. I think that was a misjudgment of tone and of trusting the drama and the audience.

I don't want you to talk out of school, but in your experience were these decisions director or producer decisions? I'm fascinated to learn where the line is on films in general, and on Bonds in particular. Fast forward to QoS - there were many quotes from Babs that Forster was left alone to make the film he wanted to make, and I read in Sight and Sound that Forster brought far more of his own people that is usual on an EON production. But creatively, how much of a Bond is the director's vision?

Eon respect their directors a great deal, and I believe they always have, and do want them to bring their own mark to the films and have the room to do their job's well. Certainly on LTK, John Glen had a lot of freedom cutting/editing the film. For example, those cuts to the final scene were not dictated by the producers, I remember that clearly.

Working directly for a big US studio is much harder than working for Eon, in fact Eon protect their directors from much of the studio pressure and take a lot of the pressure upon themselves. They understand the huge pressure a director has delivering a Bond film. It's a BIG GIG and was (for the time) just as big back when Glen did them.

Eon are also very loyal and look to bring back crew they like if and when they can.

[Judo chop]

Uninspiring. Workmanlike. Serviceable. These perfectly describe John Glen as a director. If mediocre direction exists anywhere in this world, John Glen’s Bond work meets the criteria as well as anyone’s.

John Glen is perfectly capable of telling a story without losing his audience, but any sense of flair, panache or elegance is completely absent. If movies were books, John Glen is Cliff. The point is made, but all style has been stripped from the source.

The Great Leveler™. Proficient only in consistency. Satisfactory is his ceiling.

IMO.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I'm for. I like Glen's work. I don't think he stands out as particularly inferior against the other directors that came before him. He understood Bond, and did a much better job than some of those who followed. I do think he reached his creative peak with LTD, and should have ended his tenure there. He certainly cared for the series, and gave it his best.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 07 January 2009 - 06:37 PM.

[Judo chop]

He certainly cared for the series, and gave it his best.

Agreed.

[plankattack]

He certainly cared for the series, and gave it his best.

Agreed.

I concur with these sentiments but.......

It's not reason enough to keep employing someone. As much as I like LTK, surely EON might have been better served by going with a new director for TD's tenure, especially as AVTAK isn't on many people's top five list. Too often the creative positions seemed to be sinecures (not sure if that is really the right word!?) with possession being 9/10ths of the employment offer. For a variety of reasons, Barry, Maibaum, Young, Hunt, were off the production team at one time or another. And in general, I don't think it's hurt the franchise (whether one likes YOLT or not, it can't be argued that Gilbert delivered a visually stunning film, for example). Hamilton was the first-choice for TSWLM, and this is after being at the helm of TMWTGG, again, rarely a top-5 lister? I don't think it's a coincidence that Maibaum's best work (OHMSS) came after a break from the series.

Babs and Mike have made six films with 5 directors, and I for one was glad (and this is before QoS was made) that Campbell wasn't at the helm for the simple reason that a new vision helps keep a franchise fresh. We're always debating Arnold - I think he's got better as he's gone along, but businesses of any magnitude, shouldn't be about people getting better the more chances they get.

[Judo chop]

He certainly cared for the series, and gave it his best.

Agreed.

I concur with these sentiments but.......

Again, agreed. My 'but' was intended to be STRONGLY implied.

Any one of us on here would care greatly for the series and would give it our all were we selected to direct the next Bond film.

We'd give it our most heroic efforts. And fail.

[plankattack]

Any one of us on here would care greatly for the series and would give it our all were we selected to direct the next Bond film.

We'd give it our most heroic efforts. And fail.

Succinctly put as always!!

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

He certainly cared for the series, and gave it his best.

Agreed.

I concur with these sentiments but.......

It's not reason enough to keep employing someone. As much as I like LTK, surely EON might have been better served by going with a new director for TD's tenure, especially as AVTAK isn't on many people's top five list. Too often the creative positions seemed to be sinecures (not sure if that is really the right word!?) with possession being 9/10ths of the employment offer. For a variety of reasons, Barry, Maibaum, Young, Hunt, were off the production team at one time or another. And in general, I don't think it's hurt the franchise (whether one likes YOLT or not, it can't be argued that Gilbert delivered a visually stunning film, for example). Hamilton was the first-choice for TSWLM, and this is after being at the helm of TMWTGG, again, rarely a top-5 lister? I don't think it's a coincidence that Maibaum's best work (OHMSS) came after a break from the series.

Babs and Mike have made six films with 5 directors, and I for one was glad (and this is before QoS was made) that Campbell wasn't at the helm for the simple reason that a new vision helps keep a franchise fresh. We're always debating Arnold - I think he's got better as he's gone along, but businesses of any magnitude, shouldn't be about people getting better the more chances they get.

I agree with you really, thats why I think Glen should have left after establishing Dalton in TLD (although that thought may be because of hindsight). However I don't think security of tenure is bad per se, it just depends on who it is that has the tenure!!!

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 07 January 2009 - 09:29 PM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I agree he may have "cared for the series, and gave it his best", but he owed Eon a lot for giving him the chance, and considering the less than stellar efforts after Licence to Kill it can be argued that what ended up on the screen in his Bond movies only represents a very small percentage of what he contributed.

[Loomis]

Well, I won't join in the Glen-bashing. I enjoy most of his Bond films, and he never made one as bad as THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

And any man who can direct both OCTOPUSSY and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, both A VIEW TO A KILL and LICENCE TO KILL (films that don't even seem to belong together in the same series, let alone in the CV of the same director).... well, such a man is certainly versatile. Well, that or he totally lacks any kind of signature style whatsoever and his films just end up wherever the breeze makes them drift.

In any case, the guy did five Bond outings, all of which have great moments, and a couple of which are near-masterpieces. None is a total turkey (well, not in my book, anyway). What's not to like about Sir John of Glen?

[DR76]

John Glen directed at least three of my favorite Bond films - FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, OCTOPUSSY, and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. He directed one film that I liked a lot - LICENSE TO KILL - and one that seemed like a minor improvement of GOLDFINGER to me - namely A VIEW TO A KILL.

He directed some of Roger Moore's best moments on film. He also easily adapted to Dalton's acting style. He handled location atmosphere beautifully and he sure as hell knew how to direct action.

I have never disliked him as a Bond director. In fact, I never understood the hostility toward him. But, everyone has his or her preferences.

Edited by DR76, 07 January 2009 - 11:35 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I never felt John Glen had the most creative grasp of a script or the overall tone of a film. There were a few ill-judged "cuts" made in LTK which favoured humour instead of trusting the drama. Example; the final scene at the party, Bond is on the phone to Leiter; who's recovering in hospital from his torture. Originally the scene was longer and much more sombre. Leiter is clearly grateful to Bond but still greatly hurt by the death of his wife, and Bond's tone is darker, less satisfied with what he's done; only it the last few seconds of the conversation did things lighten up a bit- but not too much - it was still a serious scene.

John Glen felt the scene was too downbeat for the end, so the darker tone of the first two thirds were cut and the last third was made more upbeat by changing the takes and thus the actors readings and performances to make them appear as cheerful as possible. I remember being bitterly disappointed at the time as I stood at the back of the dark cutting room watching a strong and dramatically appropriate scene, sliced and reduced to a "happy little chat." It didn't work and stands out like a sore thumb, especially these days. I think that was a misjudgment of tone and of trusting the drama and the audience.

Really? Can you remember any other things he might have fiddled with in the editing room? It seems to me someone should have seized the film from him during post-production.

[eddychaput]

This has already been mentioned by several members but I think it is the pace of the Glen Bonds that make them work. They're paced just right to be enormous fun. The action is well set up and, maybe more importantly given the QOS debacle, well filmed. There is usually enough room for the plot development scenes to breath as well. Nothing feels too slow or too rushed in the Glen films. No panache from Glen? You might have a point there. But when a Bond film paced like LTD, FYEO or LTD, I'm a happy camper.

[Mr. Blofeld]

The action is well set up and, maybe more importantly given the QOS debacle, well filmed.

It was right there, eddychaput, that your post went kaput.

[eddychaput]

The action is well set up and, maybe more importantly given the QOS debacle, well filmed.

It was right there, eddychaput, that your post went kaput.

Dang. I should watch my tongue more carefully. It seems there are those ready to come to the defense of QOS more quickly than I thought. You caught me.

[Bondian]

I'm definitely in the Loomis camp (he makes some great fresh ground coffee). John Glen made five most memorable films (all I view on a regular basis).

I would love a return of John Glen.

Very interesting read, Col. Sun.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I'm most definitely in the pro-John Glen camp. He directed four of my top five Bond films: Licence To Kill (#1), Octopussy (#2), For Your Eyes Only (#3), and The Living Daylights (#5). As has been mentioned, he does action scenes very well and knows how to pace a film. His films may not be as stylish as others such as Lewis Gilbert, but they are entertaining, fun, and solid efforts.

I feel I must also point out that he made at least one great directing decision, which came in For Your Eyes Only where Bond approaches Emile Leopold Locque's car perched precariously on the edge of a cliff. Roger Moore didn't want to push the car over the edge, feeling it was too nasty. Instead, he preferred to toss the dove pin into the car and have its extra weight send the car over the edge. Fortunately, Glen stood firm and insisted on Moore kicking the car over. Glen's preference was filmed and Bond history was made with an absolutely classic Bond scene--and one that is arguably Moore's best.

[Professor Pi]

I like John Glen because each of his movies mimics/pays tribute to each of the previous Bond directors:

For Your Eyes Only--very much like Peter Hunt's OHMSS, lots of skiing, beach and casino scenes

Octopussy--a big production ala Lewis Gilbert's YOLT, TSWLM, and MR with lots of (too much?) humor

A View to A Kill--similar to Guy Hamilton's lesser efforts like DAF, TMWTGG, LALD, and steals plot directly from Goldfinger

The Living Daylights--probably his best effort, gets the balance of action and humor finally right

Licence to Kill--a throwback to Terence Young's early Bonds, which up until then had been the most violent 007 films

There's a little bit for everybody here.

[Safari Suit]

LTK is a sentimental favourite, OP is for me possibly the most purely enjoyable film in the series and I think AVTAK is either the most underrated or unjustly maligned entry in the series. So I'm firmly in the pro-Glen camp

And to those who say he's a "hack", I challenge anyone to come out of The Jigsaw Man or Wild Geese II and sincerely believe the same could not be said of Terrence Young or Peter Hunt.

[Judo chop]

LTK is a sentimental favourite, OP is for me possibly the most purely enjoyable film in the series and I think AVTAK is either the most underrated or unjustly maligned entry in the series. So I'm firmly in the pro-Glen camp

And to those who say he's a "hack", I challenge anyone to come out of The Jigsaw Man or Wild Geese II and sincerely believe the same could not be said of Terrence Young or Peter Hunt.

We’ve been through this debate before, and I think we uncovered at least one serious hitch; that being that nobody knows how to define ‘hack’. Does it mean ‘bad’? Is it a root of absolute failure? Or does it mean something closer to ‘dully average’? I feel more comfortable using it to mean the latter. And, unless we’re discussing a new director with no previous experience in Bond and whether or not they should be hired to direct a future Bond film, I don’t think it’s relevant to discuss these directors’ works outside of Bond.

So, based on my definition of ‘hack’ above, and based solely on their work in Bond, I would call Glen a hack, and Young not a hack. Glen's films range from ok to ok. At their best moments they are a little better than ok, and at their worst moments they are a little less than ok. The performances he gets from his cast are average. His sense of action is average. His sense of suspense is better than fair, but to even that out his sense of comedy is paltry. He’s Mr. Consistent (quite possible the very opposite of Hamilton who is the Pong™ of Bond directors, bouncing wildly and unpredictably from one extreme to the other). I do not agree with Loomis that Glen’s works are all that varied. TLD is his best ( ), but there are oh so many moments that scream "GLEN!!!" as loudly as anything in FYEO or OP. LTK is his greatest departure, though that is not necessarily a compliment. Overall though, I find all 5 of his films to be quite Glenish at their core.

He was adequate to direct Moore, but SO! WRONG! for Timothy Dalton.

I simply cannot understand the avid pro-Glen mentality. I wouldn’t call him an outright BAD Bond director either, because the man did get Bond, and no, he never had a TWINE. But he added nothing. He has no signature style, just a signature lack of style. I do believe Glen is a primary reason for the hiatus of ‘90-‘95. His 'hack' approach was a 10-year yoke about Bond’s neck that forced 007 to tire and thus need to recoup.

[dogmanstar]

At the same time, though Judo Chop, one could also make the case that he 'rescued' the films from the silliness of MR--and took a good turn which set up Dalton's tenure. Had EON stuck with MR-style films, we wouldn't have gotten Dalton (IMHO).

[eddychaput]

I don't know about that. I wasn't born back when MR came out and can only base myself on what I've read and heard in this regard, but I think eventually the fanbase would have been fed up with Moonraker-esque stories if the franchise continued down that trend. Cubby Broccoli made no attempt to hide the fact that he was very pleased when they hired Dalton for the role, so that tells me the Moonraker style would not have lasted that long anyways, whether or not John Gen had become director or not. I think eventually they would have realized that they had strayed too far from Fleming, something they always admit every 7 or 8 years (or every 3 or 4 movies).

[Judo chop]

At the same time, though Judo Chop, one could also make the case that he 'rescued' the films from the silliness of MR--and took a good turn which set up Dalton's tenure.

I don’t see Glen as a rescuer by any stretch of my imagination. MR is an infinitely better looking film, with much higher highs than FYEO. I actually prefer the former.

Had EON stuck with MR-style films, we wouldn't have gotten Dalton (IMHO).

I don’t see how that follows. EON is in charge. If EON had continued with MR style films, EON wouldn’t have allowed EON to hire Dalton? How does that make sense?

Ironically though, what I’m saying DID happen is close to what you have suggested would have happened. No, EON didn’t stick with MR-style films (not that I think they were even tempted to do so), but they did stick with Glen-style films well beyond their welcome. And as a result, I don't think we ever did get Dalton. Not the full potential of Dalton anyway. Just a softened pastel shadow of what could have been.