Does anyone know if there is a specific reason the James Bond movies got so silly in the 70s?

2»

Comments

  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited December 2016 Posts: 2,722
    Gumbold wrote: »
    I disagree - I think AVTAK has a dark beating heart in May Day and Zorin and Bond being a little out of his depth in the cruel insanity surrounding him. Really the comedy moments are surface - the California girls, Tibbet and Bond's banter, cop car smash ups - none of them impact on the dark storyline and sinister atmosphere which is provided by the villains. Tibbet's death in the car wash, bond being pushed into a lake with his friend's corpse, the creepy nazi baby backstory of Zorin, the serious KGB standoff between Zorin and Gogol, dropping the investor from the blimp, chuck lee's death, throwing the KGB agent into the pump fan, the cold blooded shooting of Howe at City hall, the drama of saving Stacey from a burning building, the massacre of the miners and the sacrifice of May Day. These are all brutal, cold or serious moments driving the narrative and accompanied by Barry's most serious score.

    Still, the point is that the tone of FYEO is serious where as AVTAK is not. Emphasis on tone

    I'm disagreeing with the post above my one that stated AVTAK has one or two serious moments that interrupt its comedic flow. I've laid out ten significant moments in the plot of the film that aren't comedic - they drive the narrative forward, all are played without laughs, and virtually everyone is a death scene and some are downright sadistic. I'm not saying FYEO isn't a predominantly serious film - I'm just refuting that AVTAK is a predominantly light hearted or comedic film. DAF is mainly a comedic film in tone not AVTAK.

    I believe that from FYEO onwards there was a conscious decision to elevate the intensity and darkness in the series - certainly from a script writers point of view. Like Brosnan's era - Glen's era was uneven in tone - but they were generally played as spy films that had generous sprinklings of humour. For example OP's silliest scenes are arbitrary throw away moments - that aren't built in to the narrative of the film. Tarzan yell and telling the tiger to sit seem like after thoughts. By contrast the clown chase and death at the beginning, Vijay's grisly death or countdown to the bomb going off or Orlov being gunned down and clawing along the tracks are serious narrative drives built in to the story.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    Moore rarely played it for laughs (maybe the last 2 a little bit), the comic mayhem tended to go on around him.

    Case in point, the mass destruction of Pepper's squad cars, Moore was never a part of that.

    Why the 70s got silly?

    Well, if any of us had sat in the audience for Goldfinger in 1964 and witnessed the moment the ejector seat was dispatched, we would have roared and clapped. It was outrageous.
    That was never lost on Harry and Cubby. And in a way they saw the future, right there, right then.

    With hindsight there are too many fans who talk about lost opportunities, and lost Fleming stories. But Eon were in the business of making money, and putting bums on seats. Give the audience what they want, and they wanted to laugh at the crazy antics of 007.

    That's how it was back then, let's get over it.
  • Posts: 7,537
    Moore rarely played it for laughs?? Not sure about that! Moore always mainrained he never took Bond seriously, citing as an example, that no matter how hot and how worked up Bond got, that his shirts always remained pristine! Bond wasn't a hero to him, Moore is quoted as saying, and that people like policemen and Firemen were heroes etc! I think the films catered for Moores lighter approach! I remember the story of Director Guy Hamilton encouraging Christopher Lee to lighten up a bit, because he was taking it too seriously in TMWTGG, to fit in with Moores lighthearted approach!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I think there are a number of factors here. Firstly, while OHMSS did quite well financially, that success failed to meet the astronomical hits of the past when Sean was Bond, making the producers and UA think they had to course correct. The 70s has been interpreted as an appeal by EON to really sink their teeth into American audiences to pull the greatest numbers they could and get the nation into Bond, and that could be a big part of why DAF ended up being one of the most American Bond films of the entire lot. And thirdly, Roger plays to the comedic and campy side of the 70s films very well, making the tone of the era perfect for him as the lead actor. DAF set the precedent for more light-hearted adventures that relished the frivolity, and the Moore films just took that and ran with it, stumbling over the hurdles many times, unfortunately.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I think the films catered for Moores lighter approach! I remember the story of Director Guy Hamilton encouraging Christopher Lee to lighten up a bit, because he was taking it too seriously in TMWTGG, to fit in with Moores lighthearted approach!

    Is that the film where he threatens to shoot Lazaars nuts off? Or where he slapped Andrea around her bedroom and threatened to break her arm?

    I get what you are saying, I do. And he was lighter than others before and after. But often the humour was in spite of him, not because of him. The times he was most clearly involved full on were when he hangs from the fire truck in AVTAK and the 'sit' moment and Tarzan yell in OP.

    Other jokes in the early years (the double decker bus stunt in LALD and the exploits of Sheriff Pepper for example) Moore plays it all quite straight.
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    NicNac wrote: »

    That's how it was back then, let's get over it.
    You are free to get over it. I want to talk about it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Make no mistake, Moore's Bond was quite the bastard. Playing with Solitaire's deck to get with her, slapping information out of women, kicking cars off cliffs, etc. He could go there, and did.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    Gumbold wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »

    That's how it was back then, let's get over it.
    You are free to get over it. I want to talk about it.

    Fine, go ahead.
    it's been discussed on here in a thousand threads already.

    I gave you my take on it but you chose to highlight my last sentence rather than comment on my answer to your question.

    That makes me think that there really isn't any one answer to that. It's the way the series went in the 70s to satisfy the audience of the day. Had they kept remaking From Russia With Love then Bond would have been dead in the water by 1970.

    They kept moving the goalposts as it were. It was the only way to keep the series fresh and the audience attentive.

    Eon didn't make Bond movies for hardcore fans, or Fleming purists. they made them for every 14 year old kid who wanted to be entertained for two hours.

    There, that's my answer.

  • Gumbold wrote: »
    I disagree - I think AVTAK has a dark beating heart in May Day and Zorin and Bond being a little out of his depth in the cruel insanity surrounding him. Really the comedy moments are surface - the California girls, Tibbet and Bond's banter, cop car smash ups - none of them impact on the dark storyline and sinister atmosphere which is provided by the villains. Tibbet's death in the car wash, bond being pushed into a lake with his friend's corpse, the creepy nazi baby backstory of Zorin, the serious KGB standoff between Zorin and Gogol, dropping the investor from the blimp, chuck lee's death, throwing the KGB agent into the pump fan, the cold blooded shooting of Howe at City hall, the drama of saving Stacey from a burning building, the massacre of the miners and the sacrifice of May Day. These are all brutal, cold or serious moments driving the narrative and accompanied by Barry's most serious score.

    Still, the point is that the tone of FYEO is serious where as AVTAK is not. Emphasis on tone

    I'm disagreeing with the post above my one that stated AVTAK has one or two serious moments that interrupt its comedic flow. I've laid out ten significant moments in the plot of the film that aren't comedic - they drive the narrative forward, all are played without laughs, and virtually everyone is a death scene and some are downright sadistic. I'm not saying FYEO isn't a predominantly serious film - I'm just refuting that AVTAK is a predominantly light hearted or comedic film. DAF is mainly a comedic film in tone not AVTAK.

    I believe that from FYEO onwards there was a conscious decision to elevate the intensity and darkness in the series - certainly from a script writers point of view. Like Brosnan's era - Glen's era was uneven in tone - but they were generally played as spy films that had generous sprinklings of humour. For example OP's silliest scenes are arbitrary throw away moments - that aren't built in to the narrative of the film. Tarzan yell and telling the tiger to sit seem like after thoughts. By contrast the clown chase and death at the beginning, Vijay's grisly death or countdown to the bomb going off or Orlov being gunned down and clawing along the tracks are serious narrative drives built in to the story.

    I sort of agree but I still have a different viewpoint. In AVTAK there is the feeling that they were going for a comedic film, and the dark and gruesome moments, which are indeed quite sadistic, seem to come out of nowhere. You could probably argue AVTAK either way because the campy moments are so campy and the dark moments are very dark, which is why it has the most uneven tone in the series.
Sign In or Register to comment.