Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Licence to Kill Screening with John Glen
It's bank holiday weekend this weekend and the Starburst International Film Festival is happening in Manchester, which includes a screening of Licence to Kill with John Glen and a screening of Aliens with Peter Lamont.
Anyone got any ideas for questions I could ask them?
Bond girls Caroline Munro, Virginia Hey and and Martine Beswick will also be at the festival.
Anyone got any ideas for questions I could ask them?
Bond girls Caroline Munro, Virginia Hey and and Martine Beswick will also be at the festival.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Does John Glen believe United Artists didn't market LTK correctly in America?
Does John Glen regret making LTK more violent than the previous Bond films?
What would he do differently if he was making the film today?
Good, I was thinking of asking him a question about the American-ness of LTK too - many on here claim it's very Miami Vice - I wouldn't know, not see it - but it does seem to be influenced by American action films of the time.
Yes, I was thinking about that first question - how to ask it diplomatically? Tht second question is excellent.
He definitely was disappointed with the promotion of the film, and he also states that out of the 5 films he directed its the one he was most proud of, and says it holds up well today, so he hardly would do anything differently! He and Dalton clashed in the beginning when Dalton wanted Bond to be a lot more casual, but Glen insisted Bond was an ex Naval Commander and would be more disciplined! Glen claims they had a final tetchy day of filming, but put it down to fatigue on both their sides!
Bond in the books (from what I remember) does seem to shrug his shoulders and put his hands in his pockets a lot.
Ive not read Glen's book to be fair although I have heard that he referred to DC as "a cheap Timothy Dalton impression.
Not sure I agree there.
My question to Glen, if he hasn't answered it in some form: If the series had continued, would he have been open to directing a 6th Bond film?
I think Craig started as being a more modern version of the literary character - at least in his tougher demeanour (downing drinks, taking risks, killing people particularly brutally) but by SP it was more film-Bond.
I would have to disgree there. Early on, the depiction of Bond was a mess, alternating between the cinematic Bond and Jack Bauer/Jason Bourne. On top of that, finishing each film with the now supposedly fully rounded Bond, only to revert back at the start of the next.
I can't say that I would have objected to that. As much as I think that Glen was a perfectly fine directir for Dalton's two films, 5 films taking up a whole decade of Bond is enough. Bond #17 would have been a suitable time to bring in some new talent behind the camera.
As for Maibaum, that would have been a shame (though he died in 1991, so how much involvement in Bond #17 could he have had), he had been with the series since the beginning.
-an "anonymous" agent working for the government.
-the same initials
-highly trained
-dragged out of the sea with amnesia (YOLT novel)
I will agree that Craig isn't the closest we have had (that's probably early Sean, George or Tim) but I think that indulgent, "blunt instrument" aspect comes through well with him.
I wonder how much pressure the studio put on Cubby to change the guard as it were?
I haven't read the Bourne books, but going off of the films, their initials are the only resemblance.
Maybe Licence To Kill's "failure" was used as a tool by the studio to clear house. It's anyone's guess what was or wasn't going on behind the scenes in 1989/90.
Can we dare to dream that after SP's lacklustre box office stateside the studio will demand a similar changing of the guard?
i.e. - bin P&W, Mendes and Newman (and if we're having a cull it would be a shame if Rory were to escape so let's add him to the list too).
I think it'd be cool to ask him about what he thinks of the production design of the last few films, in particular QoS (I'm mainly interested in what he thought of the white high tech MI6). I'd also be interested to know how working on other films compared to Bond and what his favourite of the films he worked on is, Bond or otherwise (I bet that's something I could find through google though so maybe don't use your questions on that). It'd also be interesting to see if he had any stories about James Cameron and what it was like working with him, since he's a great director but also a really interesting man and there have been some entertaining stories about him in the past (nearly drowning Ed Harris is the one that springs to mind).
I think it'd be cool to ask Glenn if there were any ideas he had (action sequences, etc) that couldn't be used, and how working on the Dalton films compared to the Moore era (I remember the EON doc talked about how refreshed and enthusiastic Cubby felt during production of TLD, I'm wondering if it was the same for Glenn).
Great questions. LTK isn't like Miami Vice (I have the box set), the only similarity is Bond's more relaxed wardrobe for tropical climates.
I would ask him what he had to cut out of the film? And if he felt that this 'watered down' the vision for a grittier more adult Fleming Bond?
I saw this image this morning from an episode of Charlie's Angels. Initially I thought it was a still from LTK as Dalton seems to be wearing very similar clothes to those he wore in the scene when he found Felix and Della.
Glen was wrong. No reason why an ex navy Commander wouldn't put his hands in his pockets in civilian dress. Connery's Bond did it all the time.
Absolutely.
When you look at the lacklustre action of the last 3 films Glen's era has some staggering action sequences.
Was he a journeyman? Yes. Is that better than being a poncey auteur who thinks 10 minute tracking shots, pointlessly expensive explosions, the MI6 crew tagging a long all the time, everything having to be personal and the villain being Bond's foster brother are the way to go? Indubitably.
John knew his onions. Just got on with telling an action packed story without recourse to constantly using the emergency get out of jail system labelled 'In case of not having a clue what to do next break glass and press this big red button to bring on the DB5'.
Connery's hands practically lived in his pockets in Goldfinger.
To be honest I think Dalton's more fun in other films I've seen him in. I like him and I admire his dedication to the role, but I do get the sense he was quite self-conscious himself at times.
Connery nearly always seemed at ease with what he was doing. Didn't quite buy that with Dalton.
Quite.
It was said Glen's major confrontation with Dalton was over the hands in pockets thing. He argued that an ex Navy Commander wouldn't do that. And he was wrong to suggest that unless he knew some ex Navy Commanders and because the series itself had already established that Bond would effect a relaxed attitude (Connery).
He had some really good scenes, but there were others that just felt like he was using all his acting chops as opposed to being genuine (the scene with Lupe in the casino, finding Della and even the scene with M where Brown easily gives the better performance).
He was acting tough rather than actually being tough - especially in LTK.
A good example is the beginning of this scene. Notice his dramatic stares, the double take when the waitress comes and the way he stares at Pam waiting for her to deliver her line.
It's ultimately all opinion though,
To be honest I've always thought that scene was meant to be humourous.