It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
Another controversial opinion: Glen was not the ideal director for either LTK or Dalton.
It's odd since LTK is Glen's favorite. Glen is definitely not my favorite director either. The 80s are not my favorite era either with the exception of Octopussy which easily could have been a 70s era film.
I'd agree with that. I've said on here recently that the idea of someone like John McTiernan making it just instantly feels more energised.
And I think Dalton's Bond did have problems: if we'd have seen him under a different director it would have been interesting to see if he'd been a bit stronger.
Yes, Blofeld is the one Bond villain who should have been coming back periodically in the movies. I know there was the rights issues, but if EON had the rights we would seen him long before the reboot. I am happy that Christoph Waltz at least played him, and SPECTRE is free too use in EON. Blofeld should be for Bond like Lex Luthor is for Superman: always having a shadowy presence.
As for LTK I like that certain supporting characters got some true screentime, while adding to the plot: Q and Felix Leiter. It’s time for them to get that type of storyline for both again, be it movie or video game.
I took that first scene with Bond and Mallory very differently.
OO7 is obviously withholding information to avoid compromising his boss M. Where he divulged everything at that point in time and short of The Big Picture (an important point made in Casino Royale), Mallory would be undercut and obligated to report some detail through channels that C would be all over. Game over.
This is confirmed to me with the reveal that OO7 received instructions from the late M. And still later in the restaurant when Q and Moneypenny approach Mallory to assist Bond in the field. M rightly waives them off, there's no helping Bond until Bond lets them know he's ready for that. Which plays out in the final act. Mallory in the restaurant knows Bond's usefulness being beyond orders and appearances. Knowing who to trust, if I can invoke that phrase.
So events show M (as new to the position) coming up to speed and becoming the M I'd hoped for. They're on very fine terms with earned mutual respect at story's end.
But they couldn't use McTiernan, he's, gasp, an American. Seriously, I always wondered what he could've done with a Bond film and could never understand Eon's insistence on having a British director for all those years.
Pretty much. You could have Blofeld still having a grudge against Bond because of how he’s been foiling things since CR. The foster brother stuff just isn’t strong enough.
Yeah I don’t get the British director rule. Maybe it was a financial thing?
Nevertheless, I'm sure other English or Commonwealth directors were available at the time. As much as I love LTK narratively, I sincerely think the film would have benefited greatly from another director. The unusualness of the plot could have been offset by more glamorous or visually striking cinematography, especially regarding the first act in Key West (which would have greatly benefited from being located elsewhere). The audience would have had more the impression of watching a Bond film, and none of the comparisons with Miami Vice would have happened. Visually speaking, Glen was not very inspired, except IMO for the whole segment at the casino and Bond's attempted assassination of Sanchez.
Not to mention the production designer, the team of location scouts and the producers making the final choice of location and budget. If production design, locations, budget and cinematographer is subpar, there are obviously limits to how much a director can influence the film visually. Although I agree the eye for visuals was not Glen's strong point, blaming him for the production design, image quality and choice of locations is highly unfair!
First time I watched DAF I didn't know OHMSS existed. I still thought it was the weakest Bond film I had seen to date...
Although I agree with you that the conception of a movie is a team effort and therefore the responsibility, in case of either success or failure, is shared, we cannot take away from the director his role as guarantor of a vision (even if for the Bond series in particular, Cubby was at the time just as important if not more in the direct cinematographic creation, in the establishment of a clear vision for the film).
Glen was not an auteur, but as a director he had a primary role in shaping the visual identity of the film, the DP, the production designer, putting themselves at the service of his vision which they try to bring to the screen while making suggestions, something Hunt, with a more or less similar career, did.
Therefore, I think he can be held responsible for the visual direction taken by the film, whether it is the choices made for photography, lighting, sets, locations, etc. But it's in these fields (not from beginning to end of the movie luckily, I think mostly of the first act actually) that LTK weakens. However, to soften what might appear to be a pretty harsh opinion against Glen, I really like LTK (I rank it as my second favorite Bond) and I think Glen was able to show in TLD that he also had the eye for visuals.
Obviously, another DP would have been beneficial, as much if not more probably than a change of director. I've said it a few times before, but Jan de Bont (Die Hard, Black Rain) would have been a brilliant choice at the time to serve on the series. As a DP for LTK of course, but also for Ruggiero's Bond 17 script. He would arguably have done wonders with its Hong Kong by night setting.
I don't actually have too much issue with how Glen handled it, though. Any cracks in its production value are papered over by its many strengths.
You just summed up my beef with Octopussy… in an otherwise sumptuous, action-filled Bond film, Glen felt the need to insert some of the worst humor of the entire franchise for some reason.
Same can be said for Bibi and hockey match in FYEO. Quite uneven tone. Also, as a huge TLD fan, we really dodged a bullet with the “magic carpet” ride…
How godawful would that have been? John Landis the f#$%ing murderer, comedy buffoon, directing ANY Bond film, much less Licence to Kill? Him not getting that gig almost makes me wonder if there IS a God after all...
I think Diamonds Are Forever is pretty much trash across the board, just abysmally executed on almost every front, and the fact that it's an "eff you" response to Majesty's just makes it the final nail in the coffin and even more of an unpleasant experience to sit through.
If anything, I think fans focus too much on the OHMSS thing in a different way: I don't think DAF gets acknolwedged ENOUGH for how trashy and ugly of a film it is, and how bad so much of the action, dialougue, and acting is.
How am I supposed to have fun with a movie whose apparent views of "peak comedy" are an elephant playing slots and a man in drag saying "look what the cat DRAGGED in"?
Mankiewicz wrote as the filmmakers wanted. Guy Hamilton wanted macabre camp. Richard Donner wanted an ambitious superhero epic. Mankiewicz wasn’t calling the shots beyond the parameters that were set.
By accepting 70s Bond as it was in that era: camp.
The Rosetta stone of DAF is: "My God, you just killed James Bond!"