Where does Bond go after Craig?

1706707708709710712»

Comments

  • Posts: 2,089
    LTK opened July 14, 1989, three weeks after the final episode of Miami Vice aired. The eighties had a distinctive look and sound. Regardless, a good Bond film.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited January 26 Posts: 724
    They probably shot LTK on low-quality film stock to save money. The exterior scenes look good but the interiors often look flat, like they just lit everything equally. Glen also tended to frame everyone from the outside looking in, with everyone centered and in the middle ground, which isn't very cinematic. Compare what Hunt did with OHMSS's casino scene with the one in LTK and the difference is night and day.

    On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service-0153.jpg
    On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service-0154.jpg
    Licence-to-Kill-0530.jpg
    Licence-to-Kill-0547.jpg

    Lots of depth and movement in OHMSS whereas LTK looks very static.
    On the other hand, Glen always did well with the pacing, tone, storytelling, and action scenes, which is probably why they kept him on for so long.
  • edited January 26 Posts: 1,549
    Glen loved wide shots, that's for sure, but I think there is another reason: VHS.

    Video tapes were full screen so you had to cut from the sides.
  • edited January 26 Posts: 4,470
    It looks more like the cinematography than anything to do with the film stock. And yes, OHMSS's cinematography is superior, and those are good examples. You can see there's much better framing and the lighting isn't as flat as in LTK.

    Like I said, LTK isn't the best Bond film in terms of filmmaking. But it has its moments, and I don't think any of Glen's films are exceptional in that area anyway.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited January 26 Posts: 8,544
    Isn't it crazy, that a film from 1969 can be technically more proficient than one made 20 years later?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 26 Posts: 16,844
    I would say OHMSS is full of some pretty ropey stuff: sped-up shots, bad dubbing, ADR, dodgy montages, shots which have been flipped, poor optical effects... it can look lovely but it can also look pretty bad, and LTK would have been laughed at if it had pulled any of those tricks. I've known people who have given up with OHMSS because of the slightly cheesy sped-up fight scenes: you have to be in the right, mildly forgiving, mindset for it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,370
    "James. How do we get out?" No lip movement.
    Yeah, even some of the best Bonds have minor issues. Fortunately, they are far from unbearable.

    Also, we are commonly used to hi-res, big screen experiences with perfect color schemes and whatnot these days. It could be thought of as unfair to look back to older films and single out certain imperfections as bad things.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 7:48am Posts: 16,844
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    "James. How do we get out?" No lip movement.

    Then she says it again, in a suspiciously identical way! :D
    It’s a great film, but some of the editing tricks are rather conspicuous, even compared with its contemporaries, and haven’t aged superbly!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,370
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    "James. How do we get out?" No lip movement.

    Then she says it again, in a suspiciously identical way! :D
    It’s a great film, but some of the editing tricks are rather conspicuous, even compared with its contemporaries, and haven’t aged superbly!

    It's this film's "Cai -- Cai -- Cairo!" ;-)
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,775
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    "James. How do we get out?" No lip movement.

    Then she says it again, in a suspiciously identical way! :D
    It’s a great film, but some of the editing tricks are rather conspicuous, even compared with its contemporaries, and haven’t aged superbly!
    On last viewing of OHMSS I noticed the helicopters arriving at Piz Gloria - how the one on the right faded out and the one on the left fades in. One shot overlayed on the other. Don't know if that was intentional but just seemed odd.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,241
    OHMSS edited by John Glen
    LTK directed by John Glen

    How can this be?
  • edited 12:20pm Posts: 4,470
    Glen and Hunt are the only directors who were hired after making their way up the ladder at EON, going from editor to helming the 2nd Unit team, to eventually directing. It sounds like an odd pathway nowadays, but it was more common back in the earlier days of the British Studio System (David Lean had a similar background, as did Terrence Fisher).

    I'm a bit more sympathetic to the post-production 'issues' of OHMSS and the earlier Bond films, although. they're there. Hunt's editing on the early films contain some pretty egregious cuts - reusing shots quite overtly, sped up shots and that sort of stuff. It's worth saying though that the reason for this would often come down to the amount of footage he was given. It was certainly the case with DN where between Young's general directing style - namely calling 'cut' too early - and things like the weather in Jamaica, he would often have to speed up the pace of certain scenes to make the best use of what he had. It's also why the first two Bond films have the Bond theme blaring when he's doing something mundane like walking through an airport or inspecting his hotel room. It's a way of putting a bit of 'oomph' behind what usable footage he had. He had similar issues with Hamilton and GF, and even claimed the chase scene was so badly filmed he had to work extensively to salvage it.

    I think we take for granted just how unique that tighter editing style was for the early Bond movies, and how much it brought to those films. Of course certain things are always to appear dated in hindsight as we can now more easily watch these films and scrutinise them. Things like questionable dubbing where people don't move their lips was likely more acceptable at the time too (I think a lot of it comes down to audiences being more used to seeing things like dubbed foreign films or foreign actors who had to be dubbed. But even then NTTD has some pretty overt ADR - 'it's working, only SPECTRE are dying etc'). But the truth is when it comes to editing you're making a story out of several different bits and pieces. It's always going to be a case where telling that story most effectively with what you have will come at the expense of things like continuity or even reused or sped up shots (famously the great Thelma Schoonmaker has edited films which contain pretty appalling continuity. It doesn't matter as the editing prioritises the actor's best takes, the pace of the overall scene, and engaging the audience).
  • Posts: 1,549
    It's funny because that "dated" editing was modern in the 90s and 2000s.

    I mean it was almost a proto Michael Bay and Paul Greengrass.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited 12:33pm Posts: 6,428
    Of course there are continuity errors and questionable choices in OHMSS. Directing is tough and directors have to make spur of the moment decisions while the clock, and the budget, are ticking.

    In some ways, I wish that Hunt had directed more Bond films. Tonally, OHMSS strikes me as just right. Yes, even the "you love chickens" and the sexually-tinged meals.

    OHMSS captures lighting in a bottle, and is easily the best of all the Bond films for me. I don't expect to see a better Bond film in my lifetime.

    Perhaps it's better to have one near-perfect film.
  • Posts: 1,549
    Lazenby's dubbing was a biiiig mistake. Give me FRWL anytime.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,180
    echo wrote: »
    Of course there are continuity errors and questionable choices in OHMSS. Directing is tough and directors have to make spur of the moment decisions while the clock, and the budget, are ticking.

    In some ways, I wish that Hunt had directed more Bond films. Tonally, OHMSS strikes me as just right. Yes, even the "you love chickens" and the sexually-tinged meals.

    OHMSS captures lighting in a bottle, and is easily the best of all the Bond films for me. I don't expect to see a better Bond film in my lifetime.

    Perhaps it's better to have one near-perfect film.

    Agreed. For all it's dated editing tricks, it's still the best looking Bond film in my book. Some of the shots are simply breathtaking.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,844
    007HallY wrote: »
    Glen and Hunt are the only directors who were hired after making their way up the ladder at EON, going from editor to helming the 2nd Unit team, to eventually directing. It sounds like an odd pathway nowadays, but it was more common back in the earlier days of the British Studio System (David Lean had a similar background, as did Terrence Fisher).

    I'm a bit more sympathetic to the post-production 'issues' of OHMSS and the earlier Bond films, although. they're there. Hunt's editing on the early films contain some pretty egregious cuts - reusing shots quite overtly, sped up shots and that sort of stuff. It's worth saying though that the reason for this would often come down to the amount of footage he was given. It was certainly the case with DN where between Young's general directing style - namely calling 'cut' too early - and things like the weather in Jamaica, he would often have to speed up the pace of certain scenes to make the best use of what he had. It's also why the first two Bond films have the Bond theme blaring when he's doing something mundane like walking through an airport or inspecting his hotel room. It's a way of putting a bit of 'oomph' behind what usable footage he had. He had similar issues with Hamilton and GF, and even claimed the chase scene was so badly filmed he had to work extensively to salvage it.

    I think we take for granted just how unique that tighter editing style was for the early Bond movies, and how much it brought to those films. Of course certain things are always to appear dated in hindsight as we can now more easily watch these films and scrutinise them. Things like questionable dubbing where people don't move their lips was likely more acceptable at the time too (I think a lot of it comes down to audiences being more used to seeing things like dubbed foreign films or foreign actors who had to be dubbed. But even then NTTD has some pretty overt ADR - 'it's working, only SPECTRE are dying etc'). But the truth is when it comes to editing you're making a story out of several different bits and pieces. It's always going to be a case where telling that story most effectively with what you have will come at the expense of things like continuity or even reused or sped up shots (famously the great Thelma Schoonmaker has edited films which contain pretty appalling continuity. It doesn't matter as the editing prioritises the actor's best takes, the pace of the overall scene, and engaging the audience).

    What's that bit in the end assault in OHMSS where he pastes in one of Sir Hilary's lines from earlier over a shot of Bond and tries to make it into a callback joke? It feels very cut and shut in places.
    I like clever editing tricks and the Bonds do show what you can get away with (I think that opening taxi ride that Bond takes in Dr No has the car dashboard change colour and shots of Bond get reversed etc. and you don't really notice) but by the end of the 60s/ early 70s it's almost like they felt they could get away with anything and in places it's a bit tatty.
  • edited 1:24pm Posts: 4,470
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Glen and Hunt are the only directors who were hired after making their way up the ladder at EON, going from editor to helming the 2nd Unit team, to eventually directing. It sounds like an odd pathway nowadays, but it was more common back in the earlier days of the British Studio System (David Lean had a similar background, as did Terrence Fisher).

    I'm a bit more sympathetic to the post-production 'issues' of OHMSS and the earlier Bond films, although. they're there. Hunt's editing on the early films contain some pretty egregious cuts - reusing shots quite overtly, sped up shots and that sort of stuff. It's worth saying though that the reason for this would often come down to the amount of footage he was given. It was certainly the case with DN where between Young's general directing style - namely calling 'cut' too early - and things like the weather in Jamaica, he would often have to speed up the pace of certain scenes to make the best use of what he had. It's also why the first two Bond films have the Bond theme blaring when he's doing something mundane like walking through an airport or inspecting his hotel room. It's a way of putting a bit of 'oomph' behind what usable footage he had. He had similar issues with Hamilton and GF, and even claimed the chase scene was so badly filmed he had to work extensively to salvage it.

    I think we take for granted just how unique that tighter editing style was for the early Bond movies, and how much it brought to those films. Of course certain things are always to appear dated in hindsight as we can now more easily watch these films and scrutinise them. Things like questionable dubbing where people don't move their lips was likely more acceptable at the time too (I think a lot of it comes down to audiences being more used to seeing things like dubbed foreign films or foreign actors who had to be dubbed. But even then NTTD has some pretty overt ADR - 'it's working, only SPECTRE are dying etc'). But the truth is when it comes to editing you're making a story out of several different bits and pieces. It's always going to be a case where telling that story most effectively with what you have will come at the expense of things like continuity or even reused or sped up shots (famously the great Thelma Schoonmaker has edited films which contain pretty appalling continuity. It doesn't matter as the editing prioritises the actor's best takes, the pace of the overall scene, and engaging the audience).

    What's that bit in the end assault in OHMSS where he pastes in one of Sir Hilary's lines from earlier over a shot of Bond and tries to make it into a callback joke? It feels very cut and shut in places.
    I like clever editing tricks and the Bonds do show what you can get away with (I think that opening taxi ride that Bond takes in Dr No has the car dashboard change colour and shots of Bond get reversed etc. and you don't really notice) but by the end of the 60s/ early 70s it's almost like they felt they could get away with anything and in places it's a bit tatty.

    Yeah, the dashboard example is a great instance where you don't notice that change. It just shows how continuity is often one of the least important parts of editing. The 'guns make me nervous' moment I can forgive. I don't personally like the dubbing of Bray's voice onto Bond anyway, but it's a little gag that gives a minor bit of release before getting back into the action, which is very Bondian.

    I think when we get to Hamilton's little tenure in the early 70s, the filmmaking in general feels a bit subpar and outright lazy at times unfortunately. DAF's PTS alone contains some pretty strange moments that can only really come from how it was filmed - ie. the 'Cairo' line where, for whatever reason, the actor hasn't been told to even pretend to say the line and they've had to dub it in with that being the only usable shot. Heck, compare the questionable fight choreography in that PTS to that of the fight scenes in OHMSS, or anything that Hunt or Glen edited. DAF's is so ponderous and slow with all its wider shots, and I suspect they didn't have enough (or indeed any) tighter shots to cut up in that punchier 'comic strip' style that Hunt managed to come up with. By the time we get to TSWLM the filmmaking - especially the editing - feels much more sophisticated (the editing is actually pretty superb at times - Jaws killing Kalba with all the intercutting to the dancers is very evocative. Love the punchy pace to the PTS too and the 'tell him to pull out' gag). So I'd say a lot of it comes down to Hamilton, and perhaps to a lesser extent the lower budgets and alternative editors during that period.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,844
    Yeah you're right, TSWLM does feel so much slicker in many ways in terms of the filmmaking.
  • edited 2:15pm Posts: 4,470
    I'd say one thing we take for granted nowadays is the calibre of director/direction we got after a point with the Bond series, and how much it's improved over time. I know Terrence Young and Guy Hamilton have their highs and are rightfully praised for their contributions to Bond, but some of the stuff they got away with in the early days I don't think would fly today, and I doubt it would have done even as early as the late 70s. Apart from the situation with Marc Forster (and even then I think he brought a lot of positive stuff to QOS that probably salvaged it under the circumstances), I can't imagine a director working today who constantly called 'cut' too early and often didn't get sufficient coverage lasting on a project like Bond, if they'd even be hired. Different times and all that.

    It just shows how sophisticated Hunt and Gilbert were as directors for the time, and it certainly makes me appreciate how good Campbell, Mendes and even Fukunaga were. Hell, it makes me appreciate Glen looking at how dodgy some of the filmmaking in Hamilton's films was.
  • edited 3:13pm Posts: 1,549
    They are all trends. It is possible that there will be more visceral films in the future.
  • Posts: 1,662
    CrabKey wrote: »
    No, I am not addressing your comment.

    Thanks...continuing in the vein of amusing myself (and, hopefully, others) with the absurd while we await the return of Bond films --- I understand EON is not interested in a Bond-universe set of films with varying characters, so I suppose a bumbling, succeed only sheer luck and unaware of it Double-O-"Clouseau" would not be on the horizon, or even beyond it.
  • Posts: 1,662
    As for "Where does Bond go after Craig ?", well, after seeing his residence in Craig-Bond, he goes to the furniture store...more likely, invites a lovely decorator over...
Sign In or Register to comment.