56 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

Ironically, the 2CV sequence is a good example of them not playing it safe.

[Safari Suit]

Let's look on the bright side:

Bond film No. 15 after 25 years: The Living Daylights

John McClane film No. 5 after 25 years: A Good Day to Die Hard

 

Doesn't look so bad now does it?

 

OK so, maybe that's not fair because Living Daylights is generally recognised as one of the goodens, but replace Living Daylights up there with A View To A Kill and Bond still comes up smelling of roses.

[glidrose]

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.

I agree with much you say here. Glen was wrong for Dalton. Never liked Spielberg and didn't want him anywhere near the series, tho' he would haved certainly upped the box-office. 
 
 

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.

Don't know whether you mean '80s Bond films or '80s action films in general, but the '80s Bonds do have fantastic action sequences of the like the series rarely had before - or after. Someone on these for a said that Bond fans got spoiled by the quality of climaxes in John Glen's Bond output. I certainly agree!

 

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.

It was a combination of things. Glen's workmanlike direction. Roger Moore's advancing years and waist-line. Diminishing budgets. The 1980's was a decade of major inflation. And yet the Bond budgets remained stagnant. LTK (1989) and MR (1979) had the same budget!

I agree with you that LALD and much of TMWTGG are horrible looking films. Very badly shot.

 

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.

Remember tho' that AVTAK had the biggest opening weekend of any 80's Bond film.

I can understand the argument that the Brosnan era was safe. Certainly the producers were trying to fit in with 90's action flicks. They also had to find their way with new cast and crew, jettisoning the tried (and tired) and true formula that hadn't really gotten them anywhere.

 

They tired with Dalton, but it was half measures, with much of the tone at odds with itself.
 
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.

 
Yes, the audiences certainly *tired* of Dalton.

I don't think this was a decade of safe choices. There was more of an attempt in four of the five films to inject more Fleming into Bond. And the films in this decade are in no way a repeat of the 70s. And whether one likes Dalton or LTK or no, these were certainly risky choices!

Of course if NSNA hadn't happened - and if the British film industry hadn't collapsed during the 70's and so younger British leading men were better known worldwide - would the producers have kept Moore on? Unlikely.

 

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. <snip> 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?

As I said in another thread or two, the problem for me is that too many of the Bond films are badly shot. The first two-thirds of OHMSS, most of TSWLM and all of LALD are horrible looking.

FYEO has wonderful outdoor locations and has a fresh outdoors feel. It's second only to DN in that respect. No other Bond film comes close. AVTAK is often beautiful. But for me TLD and LTK are visual misfires. A wise man once said much of what we call direction is really cinematography.

I do wonder how much different and better the two Dalton Bonds would have been if Alan Hume (DOP) had stayed on. Despite some moments of beauty I think both Alec Mills Bond films are visually misguided. A harder, darked-edged Bond and what do we get? Pretty pastel colors. Soft images. Yuck.

John Glen was a genius at action but a workmanlike director with a dodgy ability to direct actors, handle tone or create any sense of true style. Compare him to Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert, for example.

[DamnCoffee]

 

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.

 

 

I merely chose the Raiders chase scene as a quick example, just name any action scene from the first 3 Indy films and you're guaranteed to be entertained. In retrospect though, I do agree that the Citroen CV was a bit of a bad example to choose from. As far as chases go, it wasn't as bad as I made it out to be. However, that doesn't mean I can't name many examples of 80's Bond that do seem to pale in comparison to other scenes in action films of the time. (Ski Chase, Warehouse Fight, Atop of St Cyrils from For Your Eyes Only; The PTS, Paris Chase, Firetruck Chase in A View To A Kill etc) It doesn't necessarily mean the action is terrible, merely unriveting. Whether that be poor direction, or camera work etc, is open to interpretation, but Rogers last 3 are a bit of a snooze fest (Although, thinking about it I don't mind Octopussys action sequences - the train fight is a classic.) and when it comes to Dalton, someone other than John Glen would've been nice. Like I've said I don't mind Daltons portrayal one bit, but this whole new direction is completely lost if they keep the same director on as the previous 3. 

[Safari Suit]

I'd certainly say that no one would disbelieve you if you told them all of Glen's films were from different directors, whereas Gilbert's three (for example) are quite distinct (leaving aside that they all have the same bloody story!). I'm not sure if that's damning or commendable. As with so many things, probably a bit of both. Mind you, Casino Royale and Goldeneye don't really feel like the work of the same director, and LALD and TMWTGG feel quite a bit like each other, but not a whole lot like Goldfinger. 

[Hansen]

In regards of action film, LTK is highly watchable 25 years after.

It may not match Die Hard, but smashed 90% of the production back then : Tango & Cash, Set-Up, Running man, Robocop (2), remember ?

[DaveBond21]

 

 

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.

 

 

I merely chose the Raiders chase scene as a quick example, just name any action scene from the first 3 Indy films and you're guaranteed to be entertained. In retrospect though, I do agree that the Citroen CV was a bit of a bad example to choose from. As far as chases go, it wasn't as bad as I made it out to be. However, that doesn't mean I can't name many examples of 80's Bond that do seem to pale in comparison to other scenes in action films of the time. (Ski Chase, Warehouse Fight, Atop of St Cyrils from For Your Eyes Only; The PTS, Paris Chase, Firetruck Chase in A View To A Kill etc) It doesn't necessarily mean the action is terrible, merely unriveting. Whether that be poor direction, or camera work etc, is open to interpretation, but Rogers last 3 are a bit of a snooze fest (Although, thinking about it I don't mind Octopussys action sequences - the train fight is a classic.) and when it comes to Dalton, someone other than John Glen would've been nice. Like I've said I don't mind Daltons portrayal one bit, but this whole new direction is completely lost if they keep the same director on as the previous 3. 

 

 

I still think you're comparing the 80's Bonds to the very best 80's action movies, whereas if you were comparing them to typical 80's movies, you might come up with a different diagnosis. The Indiana Jones movies compare to the 007 films; but the average 80's movie doesn't come anywhere near Bond.

 

Typical 80's action movies include:-

 

Top Gun

Superman III

High Road to China

Delta Force

Big Trouble in Little China

War Games

Robocop

Tango & Cash

 

The focus on these movies was what happened, rather than how they looked. It was the same with TV.

 

The most popular TV shows in the 1980's were The A-Team, Miami Vice, Dynasty, The Dukes of Hazard, Charlie's Angels, Baywatch. They all looked like 80's TV shows. Compare them with the most popular TV shows in 2015 - there is no comparison as to how they look. 2015 television looks like a movie, often with beautiful cinematography. 80's TV didn't care about scenery and getting the perfect shot and neither did the 80's TV audience.

[Safari Suit]

Not entirely fair, certainly not on Miami Vice, which was very innovative and influential visually, and often quite cinematic.

[AMC Hornet]

At least 007 didn't go back to 'Nam to git our boys (like in Uncommon Valour, Missing in Action, Rambo and absolutely every TV action hero in 1984-5).

[plankattack]

I don't think this was a decade of safe choices. There was more of an attempt in four of the five films to inject more Fleming into Bond. And the films in this decade are in no way a repeat of the 70s. And whether one likes Dalton or LTK or no, these were certainly risky choices!


John Glen was a genius at action but a workmanlike director with a dodgy ability to direct actors, handle tone or create any sense of true style. Compare him to Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert, for example.

Glid - I get your point that MGW and Maibaum made every effort to "Fleming-ize the series" - and in hindsight, that was brave. It would have been too easy and understandable after the massive box office of TSWLM and MR to just keep going back to the spectacular caper/throwaway gag well.

But to me the stasis was caused by the inability to go the whole way, instead always keeping one foot in the "safe" product that had, to be fair, served EON well (TMWTGG excepted). The template of success had become more of a straight-jacket, scenes and moments arriving almost on schedule. Every action scene leavened with unnecessary humour, Q, Moneypenny, girl with groaning-pun name, all elements that pop up with the belief that the audience wouldn't stand for their exclusion.

LTK the ultimate example of EON wanting, trying, but unable, to shed some of the things that end up weighing it down. I don't find flat lighting and Miami Vice overtones the big problem when I watch LTK. The bigger problem is not fully supporting the lead and the script's ideas and origins. Wayne Newton? WTF! Whacky Races henchmen in one of the series' greatest action climaxes (kudos John Glen)? WTF!

John Glen for five-in-a-row personifies EON's 80s problem, and again, like the films themselves, an example of the production at it's best and it's worst at the same time. I happen to admire EON's notion of family - looking to hire so many who have served the series so well over an extended run of time. From Peter Hunt to Chris Corbould, EON has always appeared to reward loyalty and been rewarded by outstanding work. And Glen (a prime example of a company man) was given a shot with FYEO and delivered. But to go back to the same director for five in a row - well, I'm not even sure a Spielberg could pull that off!!!

Glen was never known as an actor's director, and so to hand him the reins of a new Bond was one of the biggest missed opportunities of the series. And even if it had been Brozza in '87, EON should still have shaken things up just a little by looking to a new director. But again, the safety net at work.

Don't get me wrong, I love all the films (well, maybe not OP!) for what they are, but it's hard not to concede that there was a sagginess in 80s Bond.

[Call Billy Bob]

John McClane film No. 5 after 25 years: A Good Day to Die Hard

I liked that film...

[Mr_Wint]

Glen was never known as an actor's director, and so to hand him the reins of a new Bond was one of the biggest missed opportunities of the series.

It looks like Glen was popular with the cast, and not just a 'technical' director.

[DamnCoffee]

Yeah, interesting that. Would be nice to hear the official reason for his long stay. 

[plankattack]

 

Glen was never known as an actor's director, and so to hand him the reins of a new Bond was one of the biggest missed opportunities of the series.

It looks like Glen was popular with the cast, and not just a 'technical' director.

 

Mr Wint - I don't disagree that Glen was popular with the cast and crew. I just not convinced that he was an "actors" director in terms of getting a specific performance out of them. From reading anecdotes, the sense was he left them with what they wanted to go with. For example, the current guy in the chair, Mendes, is a theatre-background director with a reputation for being very involved with how the actors interpret their part.

 

But I definitely didn't want to suggest that he wasn't popular on a personal level - and I also don't mean to downplay that aspect in terms of how the whole crew operated. Along with Cubby, I think Glen definitely created a work environment that people wanted to be a part of and he should get credit for that.

[Tiin007]

plankattack writes: "But to me the stasis was caused by the inability to go the whole way, instead always keeping one foot in the "safe" product that had, to be fair, served EON well (TMWTGG excepted). The template of success had become more of a straight-jacket, scenes and moments arriving almost on schedule. Every action scene leavened with unnecessary humour, Q, Moneypenny, girl with groaning-pun name, all elements that pop up with the belief that the audience wouldn't stand for their exclusion."

(Sorry, my quote function does not really work on internet explorer)

 

I've heard this argument numerous times before, and so I will ask the following. Why are so many Bond fans convinced that taking a risk would have been the better option? Isn't it at all possible that such a bold move would have alienated audiences at the time? Doesn't the fact that Dalton's take was not fully embraced by the general public (hence, the cliché statement that his interpretation was "twenty years too soon") perhaps imply that, had EON "gone the whole way," it could have been disastrous for the series?

 

Fans at the time, I presume, wanted classic Bond. Not gritty, ruthless, emotional, character-study Bond.

 

A part of me feels like it is the massive success of the Craig era which fools fans into believing that a bold reimagining of the character should have happened decades ago.

 

As much as I love the Craig outings, I also love the 80's entries, and the only serious change I would make would be to get at least another film or two out of Dalton-- perhaps then (early 90's) would have been a time to see how far they could take Dalton's interpretation. Remember, the first outing of every new Bond (Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig) often reeks of elements of the previous actor's tenure, before allowing the new Bond to fully develop his own interpretation and style.

[plankattack]

plankattack writes: "But to me the stasis was caused by the inability to go the whole way, instead always keeping one foot in the "safe" product that had, to be fair, served EON well (TMWTGG excepted). The template of success had become more of a straight-jacket, scenes and moments arriving almost on schedule. Every action scene leavened with unnecessary humour, Q, Moneypenny, girl with groaning-pun name, all elements that pop up with the belief that the audience wouldn't stand for their exclusion."

(Sorry, my quote function does not really work on internet explorer)

 

I've heard this argument numerous times before, and so I will ask the following. Why are so many Bond fans convinced that taking a risk would have been the better option? Isn't it at all possible that such a bold move would have alienated audiences at the time? Doesn't the fact that Dalton's take was not fully embraced by the general public (hence, the cliché statement that his interpretation was "twenty years too soon") perhaps imply that, had EON "gone the whole way," it could have been disastrous for the series?

 

Fans at the time, I presume, wanted classic Bond. Not gritty, ruthless, emotional, character-study Bond.

 

A part of me feels like it is the massive success of the Craig era which fools fans into believing that a bold reimagining of the character should have happened decades ago.

 

As much as I love the Craig outings, I also love the 80's entries, and the only serious change I would make would be to get at least another film or two out of Dalton-- perhaps then (early 90's) would have been a time to see how far they could take Dalton's interpretation. Remember, the first outing of every new Bond (Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig) often reeks of elements of the previous actor's tenure, before allowing the new Bond to fully develop his own interpretation and style.

 

Good point Tiin. I am guilty of wishing for more from 80s Bond, but as someone who wanted Lewis Collins (yes, my forty year old Bond crush), I can only say I've been consistent with my position!!!

 

You're are right - going all the way might have killed the series and that TD's interpretation never caught on with the general public. The assertion is that LTK proves that point. But in a strange way, the series was strong enough to have ridden through if that had occurred. Again, LTK, followed by the smash of GE 6 years later, and Brozza's tenure as a whole, proves that point too.

[Tiin007]

Yeah, I hear that, although by that point MGW (and BB) were the clear successors to Cubby's reign. Had Cubby experimented boldly in the early 80's (say, after MR), then after a large gap to reassess, who knows what would have happened? Would MGW have ascended to producer regardless? Because by that point, Cubby would have been too old, so I am wondering exactly how the series would have weathered the storm.

[glidrose]

The template of success had become more of a straight-jacket, scenes and moments arriving almost on schedule. Every action scene leavened with unnecessary humour, Q, Moneypenny, girl with groaning-pun name, all elements that pop up with the belief that the audience wouldn't stand for their exclusion.

LTK the ultimate example of EON wanting, trying, but unable, to shed some of the things that end up weighing it down. I don't find flat lighting and Miami Vice overtones the big problem when I watch LTK. The bigger problem is not fully supporting the lead and the script's ideas and origins. Wayne Newton? WTF! Whacky Races henchmen in one of the series' greatest action climaxes (kudos John Glen)? WTF!

John Glen for five-in-a-row personifies EON's 80s problem, and again, like the films themselves, an example of the production at it's best and it's worst at the same time. And Glen (a prime example of a company man) was given a shot with FYEO and delivered. But to go back to the same director for five in a row - well, I'm not even sure a Spielberg could pull that off!!!

Glen was never known as an actor's director, and so to hand him the reins of a new Bond was one of the biggest missed opportunities of the series. And even if it had been Brozza in '87, EON should still have shaken things up just a little by looking to a new director. But again, the safety net at work.

Don't get me wrong, I love all the films (well, maybe not OP!) for what they are, but it's hard not to concede that there was a sagginess in 80s Bond.

You misread and misunderstood my post. Of course there was a sagginess in 80s Bond. I never said otherwise. You had an aging star and a journeyman director and a co-writer with a law degree who had no real writing experience. Never before in the series had there been this continuation of key behind-the-scenes people from film to film. CB was getting old and so probably felt safe bringing the old team back. But that isn't necessary the same thing as "safe".

Your points about John Glen I am and was completely in agreement with.

And how the hell could anyone not love OP?

It looks like Glen was popular with the cast, and not just a 'technical' director.

 
Not all the cast. Timothy Dalton, Steven Berkoff and Talisa Soto weren't impressed.

Yeah, interesting that. Would be nice to hear the official reason for his long stay.

Because CB liked and trusted him. JG could do wonders with a limited budget and was a highly competent technician on a big-budget production. JG had a fertile mind for action sequences. And JG wanted to direct these films. He had no aspirations beyond them. In an interview done immediately before AVTAK was released, he said he wanted to direct five Bonds and that he was certain he would never get bored doing these films.

[glidrose]

I'd certainly say that no one would disbelieve you if you told them all of Glen's films were from different directors, whereas Gilbert's three (for example) are quite distinct (leaving aside that they all have the same bloody story!). I'm not sure if that's damning or commendable. As with so many things, probably a bit of both. Mind you, Casino Royale and Goldeneye don't really feel like the work of the same director, and LALD and TMWTGG feel quite a bit like each other, but not a whole lot like Goldfinger.

I've never understood that argument. In fact I find the three Lewis Gilbert films have a considerably different feel to them. Perhaps because they each employed a different cinematographer. Whereas the first three Glens and the final two Glens are all of a piece, again perhaps because each set used a different cinematographer.

I do however entirely agree that CR and GE do not feel at all like the work of the same director. I think TMWTGG feels different than LALD, probably due to the visual differences.

[Mr_Wint]

It looks like Glen was popular with the cast, and not just a 'technical' director.

 
Not all the cast. Timothy Dalton, Steven Berkoff and Talisa Soto weren't impressed.

Where do you get this from? From what we know it seems like Dalton and Glen had a disagreement at end of the LTK production. But Dalton often praised Glen in interviews, even when he wasn't asked specific questions about the director. So it is not that black and white.

Dalton did B-movies and cheap TV-movies in the eighties. To go from that crap to the extremely professional Bond team must have been a minor shock for him. Just look at this guy's career. He is the leading man in three watchable films - two of them directed by John Glen.

[plankattack]

 

 

But to be fair, while TD had a ho-hum cinematic career - he was an RSC-trained professional, used to the specific demands of stage work.

 

 

It looks like Glen was popular with the cast, and not just a 'technical' director.

 
Not all the cast. Timothy Dalton, Steven Berkoff and Talisa Soto weren't impressed.

 

Where do you get this from? From what we know it seems like Dalton and Glen had a disagreement at end of the LTK production. But Dalton often praised Glen in interviews, even when he wasn't asked specific questions about the director. So it is not that black and white.

Dalton did B-movies and cheap TV-movies in the eighties. To go from that crap to the extremely professional Bond team must have been a minor shock for him. Just look at this guy's career. He is the leading man in three watchable films - two of them directed by John Glen.

 

 

But to be fair, while TD had a ho-hum cinematic career - he was an RSC-trained professional, used to the specific demands of stage work.

 

[New Digs]

This is a great thread. Here is a short essay in defence of all things 1980’s!

This was the decade that was all about the VHS and home rentals. The novelty of the VCR could mean a pan and scan version in the comfort of your home was often preferred over going to the cinema and seeing it on the big screen. So much so Maurice Binder did two versions of his main titles. Perhaps technical excellence in cinematography wasn’t necessarily demanded as cheaper often straight to video titles filed the rental shelves. As DaveBond21 said often the focus was what happened not how things looked. Then there was AIDS, a public health crisis not hitherto seen for decades and ultimately affected Bond’s on screen sex life when Dalton took the part. This in itself was inevitably a subtle change of emphasis in contradiction to the previous films.

I grew up seeing Bond in the cinema. As a kid I can still remember being struck by the look of A View To A Kill, in particular the glorious Chantilly sequences with Roger Moore and Tanya Roberts on the bridge drinking champagne before Grace Jones interrupts the proceedings. I also recall the darker, grittier, look of the pre title sequence in 1987’s excellent The Living Daylights.

To me the creative team ensured the eighties films continued to look and feel like a series of movies in their own right. The Bonds did what they do best by providing an intriguing story set against great locations with spectacular and textbook action and stunts. Bigger names behind the camera where not required. Glen delivered in spades crafting inventive all in the camera stunts, never going over schedule during production, putting the budget on the screen and ensuring the audience were in the driving seat. The pace never slackened. Bond continued through Star Wars, Indiana Jones and others leaving films that are still enjoyed today (perhaps, in the case of LTK, more so now than then). We saw Roger Moore take full command of the role against Connery in the 1983 ‘battle of the Bonds’ with his glorious adventure laden and colourful Octopussy. Given this outcome, it was only to be expected that an actor who owned the part he had played since 1973 would return once again. This wasn’t comparable to when the phenomenally successful Pierce Brosnan departed: Before Dalton it was all about Sean Connery and Roger Moore, outside of which there had been only one change of actor, who was deemed a commercial (and back then an artistic) failure. The tail in grosses for A View To A Kill sensibly prompted that Bond was recast. It maybe childhood whimsy, but as I remember the public were sorry to see Moore depart a role that he was by 1986 (or sooner depending on your point of view) very evidently too old to play.

Eon turned out a product every two years for which the public enjoyed and knew what they were going to get. Perhaps, somewhat ironically, the box office takings only significantly strayed for Licence to Kill, a film that saw a very dramatic shake up of established formula by going much darker in tone.

I wouldn’t say the eighties films were too safe. As all Bond films do they reflected the cultural nuances of the time. Perhaps being out of pace at the end of the decade, but after nearly thirty years of almost continual output that ain’t bad! The producers seemed to recognise as much and used their time off during the legal wrangling of early nineties to rethink: ‘We agreed that in making Bond an altogether tougher character we had lost some of the original sophistication and wry humour’, (Cubby Broccoli, When the Snow Melts, p 295). ‘Licence to kill in particular was too dark’. (Barbara Broccoli, Everything or Nothing, 2012). The change in direction for GoldenEye helped rejuvenate Bond, and ironically on a budget not much bigger than what was available for Licence to Kill. I for one would take an eighties Bond over some of the films turned out later in the series. As has been mentioned in this thread, there is nothing like a John Glen climax!


‘Praise must go to Glen for his marvellous direction [on LTK]. As both Davi and Dalton point out, he is woefully underrated, particularly in terms of his ability to marry the action with the human aspects of the film’. (The Incredible World of 007, Pfeiffer and Lisa, 1992).

‘John Glen is very inventive as far as stunts go. He’s amazing. He used to be a great cutter, and he sees things visually in his mind in terms of film. When he gets an idea for something, he’ll discuss it with us and we’ll work on it, but actually he is very influential in that department’.
(Interview with Richard Maibaum, by Edward Gross).

Edited by New Digs, 06 March 2015 - 12:53 PM.

[stromberg]

This was the decade that was all about  ....  John Glen climax!

Amen to that. 

 

A lot of interesting and true things have been said in this thread, but many of it was with a good portion of hindsight. I kept thinking "but those were great films at their time" while at the same time agreeing to many posts that pointed out their flaws. It's all a bit like discussing old football matches: it sometimes looks a bit strange compared to what we are used today, but that was the way the game was played in those days, and people loved it. (Strangely enough, it doesn't work when you make the same comparison with F1 races instead of football. The only thing that has improved in F1 is the fact that less people die).

[glidrose]

With all due respect to the original poster, the more I contemplate his argument, the less I understand it. If anything, the 80s was a decade of great Bond variety. It was also the first decade to consistently address world politics.* The only "safe" thing about it was the decision to maintain the same journeymen team behind the scenes. Okay, so some of the tropes were getting a bit tired. But that's what happens when a film series is in its third decade.

 

In case you don't already know, here's an intriguing book on the subject. "The James Bond Movies of the 1980s" by Thomas A. Christie. His website is www.tomchristiebooks.co.uk/

 

* Let's see... the 60's was about Connery, the girls, the gadgets, and the great locations! The 70's was about copying trends and injecting more humor. The 90's was about ramping up the action spectacle. The current era of course is about peeling back the layers.

[New Digs]

Thanks for the book reference. Looks an interesting read.

[Mr_Wint]

There's an amusing review of OP back then from the Siskel&Ebert duo. Siskel liked it, but Ebert wasn't impressed. Still, interesting to see what Siskel said about the action...

Siskel: "I don't think you can name an action picture that had such good action scenes as this one".
Siskel: "I've never seen some of these stunt work done before, this is really special".

@8:15

[sharpshooter]

I don't watch the 80s Bond films as much as the others, admittedly. I think my least favourite would be FYEO, which I find rather flat and un-engaging at times. I've become a big fan of Octopussy, and think it's one of Moore's best. I've grown to like AVTAK, but definitely think it could've been better.

 

I think the casting of Dalton shook things up, even if Moore era traits were still present in TLD. Elements of Dalton are now back in vogue with Craig, and that's why I think the series is rejuvenated. Craig is tough but probably also the most vulnerable. We've seen him poisoned and close to death, close to castration, losing his lover in Vesper, shot at by Eve on M's orders and subsequently living off the grid. I feel the Bond team are more willing to shake things up these days. Even if it's just by placing the gunbarrel at the end instead of the start, or filming a sequence in black and white. 

 

I think the 87/89 films were an indicator of what was possible. And it's being realised now with Craig's run, mixed in with 60s flair.