›

John Glen Should have directed The Brosnan Bonds

002002
edited December 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 581
i always felt that if John Glen was asked to direct Goldeneye (or any of Bronsans films), Brosnan would have been
far more respected by fans today. whats your opinion on this

or maybe starting with Tommorow Never Dies as Martin Campbell did an excellent job on Goldeneye

Mod edit: double post edited by mod. Please use edit button in the future.

Comments

  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,171
    Glen was very much a "director for hire" for me, especially in his latter films. They work, there's nothing technically wrong with them, but they lack any directorial flair, or visual fidelity. He steered the series forward, and whilst FYEO is one of my top Bonds, don't think Goldeneye would have benefited from his direction.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    No. Glen got five films, more than anybody, it was time to give somebody else a chance.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    I would have been fascinated to see Glen's directorial take on TWINE.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    I thought Campbell did a fantastic job with GE, and he also probably helped Brosnan start to cement his portrayal. I suspect that Glen, who wasn't overly interested in the actors, would have left Brosnan to his own devices and we would have gotten a lighter, more Remington Steele-ish performance.

    While Glen showed a *little* visual flair with FYEO I found that his style was pretty tired by LTK and he didn't really add anything to it that another director couldn't. I thought that his direction of LTK was breath-takingly adequate. He had his run, it was time for new blood and a new energy by Brosnan's era.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    I'm sure this is worthy of a place in the Bond Movies thread. Moved out of General Discussions (which is for non-Bond topics).

    And for my money Glen would have added nothing to the Brosnan films. I don't think he had a particular style of his own. He thought that adding a personal touch to a film was putting in a scene where a pigeon spooks Bond.
    Afraid it takes more than that.
  • LotusEspritLotusEsprit
    Posts: 160
    I am never too sure about Glen.

    It's odd that Octopussy and AVTAK are from the same director as FYEO, TLD and LTK.

    Even though I have a big love for OP...it's just so brought down by partly horrible humor. Could have been one of the best, and I mean that!

    That said, Goldeneye was Campbells baby and it worked. And who knows if Campbell had made CR if he hadn't done GE? And that would have really been a loss imo.

    No, Glen got his share and did a good job. Though I agree with Mallory, he never really had a particular style or flair. They are technically fine and work well, but with Goldeneye, there was time for a change.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    I have nothing against Glen, the man did afterall direct my 2 most favourite Bonds. But whether Dalton would have made a 3rd or not, I think 5 Bond films in a row is enough. A new director would have been needed for Bond#17.
  • wildboonjivewildboonjive
    Posts: 299
    I don't agree with this. I think Brosnan was better serviced by someone like Campbell for his debut. If you think about it, Glen was the perfect director for the franchise during the time that he held the reigns. Cubby wanted to stay with the tried and true, and not veer from the formula. It literally was an assembly line era, and Glen was the perfect man for that being that he was brought up "in house" and was very much a helmer-for-hire with no real personal vision or flair. I don't say that to discredit him, it's just a fact. It serviced those films and that time well. But when GoldenEye came around, it was clearly a time for change on a lot of levels, and I don't think Glen would have been the right person to do it.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Cannot see any director get to do 5 in a row like Glen did ever again?
  • ThepastykidThepastykid
    Posts: 553
    Mallory wrote:
    Glen was very much a "director for hire" for me, especially in his latter films. They work, there's nothing technically wrong with them, but they lack any directorial flair, or visual fidelity. He steered the series forward, and whilst FYEO is one of my top Bonds, don't think Goldeneye would have benefited from his direction.

    I agree with this. I enjoyed a couple of his films, but they did lack flair or any kind of vision

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    RogueAgent wrote:
    Cannot see any director get to do 5 in a row like Glen did ever again?

    I don't want to see another director do 5 in a row. Step aside and let somebody else show off their style.
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited December 2012 Posts: 3,333
    I'm not sure I agree with some of the points made here. Firstly, Glen wasn't so much a "director for hire" but more of a promotion from within after handling editing and second unit directing on some of the biggest Bond films in much the same way as Peter Hunt was promoted after all his good work as an editor. Personally, I think the Brosnan movies could have done with a bit of stability after Campbell declined TND. I can see why Campbell was approached but I can't quite see why Michael Apted, Roger Spottiswoode and Lee Tamahori were handed the reins? Not that it makes any difference now but I'd rather have seen John Glen return for TND and TWINE. I think double taking pigeons might have improved those two movies.
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533


    I never had any problems with John Glen as a director for the Bond films. At least three of his films - "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY", "OCTOPUSSY" and "THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS" are big favorites of mine. And I cannot think of any other Bond director who has worked on so many favorites of mine.

    As for the Brosnan films, one is pretty damn good - "GOLDENEYE"; one is pretty decent - "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH"; I have mixed feelings for one - "DIE ANOTHER DAY"; and I find one to be generic and lacking in any originality - "TOMORROW NEVER DIES". If there is a problem with any of the Brosnan films, I would have to blame the screenwriters.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Not a chance, and what, have him in place over Campbell for Goldeneye. Glen's time was the 1980s, OK, it didn't work all of the time for him, but he did give us some fine adventures especially with Tim Dalton's tenure. But into the 1990s, and say if Dalton had stayed on despite the legal disputes, then Glen may well have come back for a sixth time, but there was a six year wait for new material, and we got a new James Bond and with it, a new Bond director. He was a decent director in retrospect, but had his time, and by the end of the 1980s, it was time for someone else to have a go. I maybe would of had him back for Tomorrow Never Dies as I think Spottiswoode did a poor job, but maybe by then, it was too past his previous work ?
  • rightsmartdanrightsmartdan
    Posts: 38
    John Glen was a terrific editor and he would have been aware of the pacing of the films he shot as he storyboarded them so THAT element, I think, he did very well on his films. I guess he left the overall look up to Alex Mills and co (The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill both have very nice lighting and colours).
    It is the tone of the films I think most people attribute to the director and, though it is odd to think both A View to a Kill and Licence To Kill were helmed by the same writers and director, it is usually the script that's to blame for something coming across as a bit weak, though weak direction doesn't help, admittedly!

    This is why I'm unsure about what was going on in Octopussy, for the most part, a hard edged Cold War drama/thriller with espionage, car chases, military secrets, deception and politics mixed with lavish locations, beautiful women, amazing stunts and a lot of tension plus more violence than a lot of Bonds at the time (multiple head shots, stabbings and a face crashed through a fish tank). Quite why the film (or, I hate to admit, John Glen) sometimes stoops to using the Tarzan yell, lines like "Get off my bed!" or Bond zooming in to a woman's cleavage with a video camera is anyone's guess - they can't have been in the script. I can only imagine they were improvised as Glen thought "this needs lightening up a bit!"

    When I think of Glen's films I remember the best bits, not the worst, so my opinion of him is very high. As I dislike G*ld*nEye with a burning passion, I can only say even Glen couldn't make it work as the fault was with the rancid dialogue and lousy logic of the script...plus the rubbish continuity, highly inappropriate music score and the wooden acting of the two lead males. Overall I prefer the fairly straight tone of the John Glen films with occasional missteps into unnecessary humour than the constantly weak, almost amateur feel to the whole of Martin Campbell's first Bond.

    Thank God his second was so much better.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Octopussy had a bit of everything, you name it, it was in there, actually makes for a quite a decent watch (I saw some recently), but the nonsense humor is it's biggest detractor

    I myself can't see sometimes all the adulation and plaudits for Goldeneye. Some make out it's the equivalent of Gone With The Wind, and I think it's simply not as great a movie as some insist, but it's all about opinions. Campbells second was arguably his greatest work as mentioned
  • Goldeneye95Goldeneye95
    Posts: 546
    John Glen would have been a good choice to direct The World is Not Enough.
  • SJK91SJK91
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,310
    The majority of Glen's films are lacking a personality. A View to a Kill and Licence to Kill (from a technical standpoint) look like they rolled right off of an assembly line.

    I think most of the strengths of Glen's better films were from the actors and writers, not necessarily from Glen. (Although he was pretty good at directing action.)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    SJK91 wrote:
    The majority of Glen's films are lacking a personality. A View to a Kill and Licence to Kill (from a technical standpoint) look like they rolled right off of an assembly line.

    I think most of the strengths of Glen's better films were from the actors and writers, not necessarily from Glen. (Although he was pretty good at directing action.)

    I agree.

    Regarding Glenn directing Brosnan's films. Personally no - and I'm not a basher of Glenn. True I would rather have had him than someone like Lee Tamahori but, by that point, I think new blood was needed. Surely there were other directors out there who weren't John Glenn but better than Spottiswode, Apted and Tamahori.

    I'd have rather had more Martin Campbell films. True there were some dodgy moments direction-wise in GE (Desmond looking off camera) but there were also some great ones (the mimes outside the casino in Monte Carlo, Bond walking through the statue park).
  • GeorgeLazenbyGeorgeLazenby
    edited December 2012 Posts: 295
    Hell no. John Glen shouldn't have even directed the John Glen films. He was a great second unit, but lacked the artistry, vision and panache to handle the whole thing.

  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    John glen did a great job except for ltk.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    Glen maybe wasn't a director who went for visual flair but his films were decent and the action and story were handled well. Maybe in this particular era pure and simple was favoured over visual style.
Sign In or Register to comment.