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
I completely 100% utterly agree with you. Glen is massively massively under rated. He brought a very distinctive and unique feel to his films. It was in an sense the essence of Bondness. His absence was felt immediately with GE, which is such an inferior, drab film. It certainly would have been interesting to see what Glen might have done had he been given GE. That film is terminally awful for me, but I think Glen just might have been able to get something of quality out of it. He'd have needed to whip Brosnan into shape though and I don't know if that was his thing. I get the impression he left TIm and Rog to do their own thing to an extent and because they were so good that worked. But Brozza needed to be taken in hand and told what to do.[/quote]
Campbell was kind of dismissive of Glen when he did GE.
What I dislike about the newer post 80's franchise is that newcomers disparage what has gone before. Up until that point, no one in the Bond crew would say anything bad about a predecessor because Cubby was strict and did not stand for bad mouthing.
When the individual Blu Rays come out next year in the UK, apart from FYEO which I own on Blu, I shall be ordering Glen's other four 100 and 10%.
I think Glen would have done a fine job with Brozza and I mean that sincerely. He is the one who made his screen tests in '86 get Cubby's approval. Glen was a master of making his actors look good.
And I think Brozza would have been more comfortable with Glen to get the job done. If you see the EON documentary when Broz repeats what Campbell said to him : " You better be f'ing good Brosnan!."
Glen would never talk like that to anyone and must have been great to be around.
Broz would have benefited from having a director that stayed on with him for his tenure as Bond.
You can thank studio politics as to why Glen had to move on. Bond needed a huge makeover as directed by the financiers yet we were always told nothing changed. Yeah right! :)
And that makeover is evident with each film moving further and further away from the classic style.
I thought the train sequence in OP was better than SF. It was super dangerous and Martin Grace the stunt double got badly injured. No wires back in those days that could be CGI'd out like today.
[/quote]
Campbell had a few iffy moments in GE but overall I think he is the better director. I like Glenn and think he had some great moments (how can I not respect the man who shot the ski jump scene in TSWLM) but Campbell's direction of the torture scene in CR is inspired and, for me, outdoes pretty much all of Glenn's work as a director. There is also the scene when Bond is healing his wounds after the stairwell fight. These are critical scenes and under lesser hands I don't think they would have worked as well.
While I don't think GE is AS well directed there are some brilliant moments like the Serveneya sequence and the stuff when Bond is walking through the statue park.
As for TWINE, a lot of it was quite poorly directed I have to admit. A few good scenes here and there (Bond's first meeting with Electra, the PTS, the Scottish castle) but Apted is not on Glenn or Campbell's level when it comes to Bond.
Incidently, have any of you seen the interview with all three of them?
Disagree with you. the tube train chase is one of my favourite action scenes of the franchise. Up there with the keelhauling in FYEO and the cargo net in TLD.
Maybe its because I use the tube every day but I loved the action and humour.
I live in Surrey so am on London's doorstep. I got a kick out of seeing Bond on the tube.
I use the tube everyday too so yes, it was nice to see. However, if you're comparing comparing it to those two sequences above I think you're stark raving mad. I'm sorry they shit all over the tube scene. They are genuine set-pieces. The chase is fine, apart from the several escalator shots where they are clearly sliding down too slow. However, the tube coming through the roof is just bizarre. How the hell could you plan that? Also, no one is on it. Attention to detail diminishes it for me. I didn't ever feel like there was any jeopardy. All in all it's fun if you take it with a pinch of salt but nothing more.
If you use the tube every day then surely you know that empty tubes go through regularly to regulate the service. So they can get tube trains to where they need to be to start their journey. Did you really want the trains full of screaming soon-to-be-dead people?
As a matter of fact, yes. It would have been authentic and escalated the film to a different level. An attack on MI6, bad. An attack on actual citizens of the UK, catastrophic - and would have really upped the ante when 'M' finally admits she's responsible for the deaths of so many.
I thought the PTS was the best action scene.
@appocola I think Glen was the best Bond director.
Anyway, on topic, I'm one of the few fans of TWINE on here I think. I've always really liked it. It tries something different, has some great action, Elektra is brilliant, Brosnan is great (but not his best performance), the theme and score are really good and it mixes traditional Bond with different, series Bond.
That would have been too grisely for a Bond film. Silvas grievance was with MI6 not the British public.
Well his vendetta wasn't with the coppers he shot either, or the tube driver who was killed. He wanted M but he didn't care what he did to get her. I agree with @RC7, it would've made the stakes higher, she would've felt really guilty if she had the blood of innocent people on her hands.
I don't think it would've been too grisley. Plenty of innocent people died in the film anyway.
To send people screaming to their deaths, to have blood splattered all over the tube. It would have worked against the film.
This is where some of my problems lie and this is not directed specifically at you. I keep hearing how SF is this film that smashes the Bond 'model' to bits and all manner of similar hyperbole, yet when it comes to things that don't make sense or could have been objectively better, the argument is 'that can't happen in a Bond film'. But surely this is supposed to be a new type of Bond film, unlike any other. So, why not pull out all the stops and have something completely unexpected?
Oh and your comment about blood splatter, deaths etc. You can see a driver on the tube. You don't have to show gore, just chaos.
What doesn't ,make sense about a tube with no passengers? I have explained to you the reason why...
I wasn't referring to the tube scene specifically, I was talking in general about the film. Re. Your explanation, I still think it's weak. If I see an action scene featuring the tube, the metro etc I expect passengers or my assumption is - they couldn't be arsed with the logistics and costs involved in staging the scene with passengers and/or the inevitable high end CGI work.
EDIT - The tube crashing through the roof makes no sense. Theoretically - if Bond gets hit by the first train he encounters. What a waste of planning and planting of explosives. Are we really expected to believe this is the moment he kills Bond with pin point accuracy? It's insanely far fetched in the world it pitches itself within.
They could've just shown the tube running along as usual, then a shot of the inside, then cut back to Silva as he detonates, maybe?
I'm not sure how but I don't think it's impossible to show that there were passengers onboard without showing their terrified faces or blood splattered all over the tube.
To be honest what struck me is that Silva probably waited until an empty tube came along for minimal casaulties. Remember it was all set up before.The driver was expendable (he should have picked the DLR) but his mission was to kill or put Bond out of business.
And then the whole film comes to a stop as the maimed and bloody passengers climb out the wreckage wailing and screaming.
Or would you like it as a cartoon where the action carries on regardless?
No it is not flexible. It was perfectly timed.
Like I said, they wouldn't have had to show anything like that. Just have Bond sadly tell Q to send some medical help down, then he goes after Silva.
I think the scene is fine the way it is but I think passengers being killed would've upped the stakes and they could've done it without it being too grisley, that's all.
Come on, I know you're more intelligent than that, I've read your posts. I can't believe you buy that.
Flattery will get you everywhere..
:P
Remember this is a man who had been plotting his revenge aganst M for years. He hacked into the MI6 computer, put explosives in MI6, as he was an agent he knew "every move and counter move". He had London sown up. The explosives were already in place. He was just waiting for his pursuers who he guessed would be Bond.
That was why Silva was so dangerous. He had everything planned.
So we don't drag this out and get bollocked by the mods. Basically I can only see the mechanics of his scheme working in a Moore film. I just don't buy it in the Craig era that pitches itself very differently.
CR and SF piss over Dalton's films. Dalton was the only good thing about the films. Getafix Craig has mad themost successful andmost critical acclaimed bonds ever. Come on admit it i know you want to. Craig is awesome .
I watched TLD again yesterday on Blu-Ray and I have to say, I think the PTS is better than CR and SF.
It's a fantastic piece of work. I actually bought it for a colleague on DVD today. He's never seen a Dalton. I await his verdict on Monday.
You only think that because it's true.