John Glen, why did he do so many?

heartbroken_mr_drax

Something I've always wondered is why did John Glen, who to me, probably has the least obvious style out of any of the Bond directors - do 5 in a row?

FYEO, OP were successful and TLD was great but based on the poor success and quality of AVTAK, they'd considered giving someone else the gig??

Absolutely_Cart

John Glen a 3rd time was a safer bet than risking it on a new director.

As for Glen's directing itself, he's probably had the most consistent bunch of films although I don't think he ever did anything groundbreaking for the series either.

Firemass

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Something I've always wondered is why did John Glen, who to me, probably has the least obvious style out of any of the Bond directors - do 5 in a row?

Long gone are the days when Bond films would come out like clockwork every 2 years! Bring back Glen!

Matt S

I think Glen's lack of a unique style (like with most other Bond directors before him) was one of his strong points. His basic style brought Bond back to the basics the series needed. Even though AVTAK didn't do as well as the films before it, Cubby was old-fashioned and loyal. AVTAK still did well, and Cubby didn't hold John Glen responsible for it not doing as well as the previous two films. Cubby was very involved in his films and wasn't just the money man, like it is for many producers. Cubby probably didn't place the blame as much on his directors because he didn't give his directors as much responsibility as they usually have on a film. They were more like television directors, with Cubby as the showrunner. I think more recently the directors have had more control. Sam Mendes clearly had more control over Skyfall than any director had over any previous Bond film. He's also a kind of director the Bond series never had before.

Gassy Man

John Glen had little style or imagination, directing the Bond films with all the panache of a so-so TV program of the period. He probably worked cheap, took orders with little question from those in charge, and sauntered off at the end of the day for a drink, thankful that anyone would employ him. To put it in perspective, he's hardly directed anything else outside of the Bond series and then little of merit. He got the job done in a time when the Bond films were largely surviving simply because of the brand and because, especially in the 1980s, people had little idea about what they were doing in film.

blame_thatcher

Glen was essentially a hack, but it's clear that he upped his game when he had good material to work with - his two best Bond films, FYEO and TLD, also feature his best direction.

Hardyboy

Back in the Cubby Broccoli days, Bond films were very much family affairs--he tried to keep the same crew in every film. Once a director was replaced and had proved himself, Cubby would usually invite him back for the next film. If the director said no, he'd go for a proven commodity in the Bond franchise (Guy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert); if he said yes, the director would be set. (And, yes, I do know there were exceptions--this is a generalization.)

HatThrowingHenchman

unlike most people here, I'm really glad about his run. starting with OP, all his films were easy to watch and more important very entertaining

CoolHandBond

I think some people are too dismissive of how difficult it is to bring a blockbuster movie to the screen. Glen obviously had talent in handling a large crew and both TLD and LTK show that he could direct with style when he had a decent script.

Wadsy

I am so glad John Glen stayed on as long as he did. While some of his work was better than others, he brought the James Bond character back down to earth and kept the comedy to a minimum. Roger Moore's last three films were more realistic and serious while Timothy Dalton's two were extremely serious and just as the character from the novels.

Ranking Glen's direction in his films:

1. For Your Eyes Only - I don't know why, but his first was the best. It seemed highly fresh, and he kept us in suspense for so long before we knew who Bond was actually up against. The locations are at it's best, the action is top quality and the plot is flawless.

2. Licence To Kill - While I prefer most 80's Bond flicks over this, you can tell that Glen was really invested. He even mentioned somewhere that this was his favourite of the films he directed. Whilst the locations were disappointing and cheap, everything was at the best. This was like a perfect Daniel Craig Bond film before Craig started his tenure.

3. The Living Daylights - It was close between this and AVTAK. Glen seemed to take on Dalton's character with much more effort, and it shows. The locations and everything, plot, villain, suspense were at an all time high. I loved Slovakia and Austria, very diverse and different. This was his fourth, and the action was terrific. The only downside was near the end in Afghanistan, when Bond is in pursuit of the plane. Drags on a bit to be honest, which is why AVTAK nearly beat it because that never dragged for me.
4. A View To A Kill - People seem to think that this is Glen's worst and that the director should have been changed for the fifteenth Bond movie. I couldn't disagree more, because Moore was 57, obviously a lot had to be done to avoid issues. Stunt doubles should not have been visible, but the action and plot are still superb for what they had to work with. The locations, particularly San Francisco and the fire truck chase were beautifully filmed.
5. Octopussy - Glen's worst Bond movie. I love OP but it's the one film that drags once it gets to Germany, and it feels tired in comparison to all his other work. The action scenes were like a down version of what we had in FYEO. When in India, it feels incredibly fresh and he doing what he does, but Berlin and the whole train sequences seemed low key.

MilleniumForce

Glen is easily my favourite Bond director, purely because his films were basic. He didn't try editing tricks or new techniques, he delivered quality films that were all good. He probably had the strongest run of Bond films of any director who has done multiple films.

heartbroken_mr_drax

MilleniumForce wrote:

Glen is easily my favourite Bond director, purely because his films were basic. He didn't try editing tricks or new techniques, he delivered quality films that were all good. He probably had the strongest run of Bond films of any director who has done multiple films.

I agree. Four of his five films appear in my top 10. I think he also got strong writing and performances backing him up - plus consistency from the studio, producers and the teams around him.

chrisisall

MilleniumForce wrote:

Glen is easily my favourite Bond director, purely because his films were basic. He didn't try editing tricks or new techniques, he delivered quality films that were all good. He probably had the strongest run of Bond films of any director who has done multiple films.

Agreed. Basic is the way to go with a Bond movie as Young proved.

Wadsy

Agreed. Basic is the way to go with a Bond movie as Young proved.

A lot of people seemed to find Glen's direction particularly boring, which I could not disagree with more.
All five of his films were very well made in my opinion, particularly For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights. However, from seeing the commentaries from all of the 80's Bond films, he seemed most invested in The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill, establishing Timothy Dalton as Bond and improving on where he felt might have gone wrong with the predecessors. It is certainly interesting, as both Terrance Young and Peter Hunt are a close second and third to me.

blame_thatcher

Wadsy wrote:

2. Licence To Kill - While I prefer most 80's Bond flicks over this, you can tell that Glen was really invested. He even mentioned somewhere that this was his favourite of the films he directed. Whilst the locations were disappointing and cheap, everything was at the best. This was like a perfect Daniel Craig Bond film before Craig started his tenure.

That really needs to be challenged. Out of his five films, LTK is the one that most looks like a cheap made-for-TV movie.

Silhouette Man

Maybe John Glen was the only man that was willing at that particular time in the British film industry. It certainly could be that, too. -{

Thunderpussy

The budget for LTK was really small at the time ( hadn't increased
Since MR ) so to be fair, I wouldn't put all the blame on J Glen. Even if I regard him as only a workman like director.

Solaris

Tbh I think a more workman like Director can be a benefit to a Bond film, particularly in the era John Glen was working, with Cubby having a larger share of the control Glen's main role during his tenure was to ensure the film was shot on time and on budget, this is why we could get Bond films on a regular basis.

An issue for the 21st Century Bond franchise is they have a such a strong desire to be taken seriously by the industry they want a more auteur sensibility from their director, something that not only takes longer, but can also be hit and miss in its results.

superado

I'm not a high falutin film connoisseur, though I think I've watched my share of important movies, but I'm a bit more generous in my assessment with Glen (or any other Bond director) because Bond films are, what they are, if that makes sense...they're not David Lean epics.

Because this time of the year I'm usually obsessing over OHMSS, I never paused to think that FYEO was John Glen's debut at the helm and in many ways FYEO was his OHMSS, for which he was 2nd Unit Director. Like Hunt, it's obvious how Glen poured in his passion and surely was similarly under pressure to make his mark in "his movie"...and it shows. Sure, he didn't have his own Lazenby, i.e., the new, idealized Bond; he had a past-his-prime Roger Moore, but he got a lot out of what was given to him! It's no surprise that Moore complained a bit about FYEO not being as easy or fun as his earlier movies, which we can guess was the result of John Glen making him honest.

I guess that OP and AVTAK were done on auto-pilot at the significant behest of Cubby since they were evidently paler in comparison, but Timothy Dalton came along and finally became the Lazenby he wanted for FYEO and again, despite the restraints placed on him, IMO he still eked out two extremely inspired films out of Dalton.

chrisisall

superado wrote:

I'm not a high falutin film connoisseur, though I think I've watched my share of important movies, but I'm a bit more generous in my assessment with Glen (or any other Bond director) because Bond films are, what they are, if that makes sense...they're not David Lean epics.

Because this time of the year I'm usually obsessing over OHMSS, I never paused to think that FYEO was John Glen's debut at the helm and in many ways FYEO was his OHMSS, for which he was 2nd Unit Director. Like Hunt, it's obvious how Glen poured in his passion and surely was similarly under pressure to make his mark in "his movie"...and it shows. Sure, he didn't have his own Lazenby, i.e., the new, idealized Bond; he had a past-his-prime Roger Moore, but he got a lot out of what was given to him! It's no surprise that Moore complained a bit about FYEO not being as easy or fun as his earlier movies, which we can guess was the result of John Glen making him honest.

I guess that OP and AVTAK were done on auto-pilot at the significant behest of Cubby since they were evidently paler in comparison, but Timothy Dalton came along and finally became the Lazenby he wanted for FYEO and again, despite the restraints placed on him, IMO he still eked out two extremely inspired films out of Dalton.

YES!!! Well said sir!!! -{ {[]

superado

chrisisall wrote:

YES!!! Well said sir!!! -{ {[]

Well, thank you, my friend!!! {[]

ToTheRight

Solaris wrote:

Tbh I think a more workman like Director can be a benefit to a Bond film, particularly in the era John Glen was working, with Cubby having a larger share of the control Glen's main role during his tenure was to ensure the film was shot on time and on budget, this is why we could get Bond films on a regular basis.

An issue for the 21st Century Bond franchise is they have a such a strong desire to be taken seriously by the industry they want a more auteur sensibility from their director, something that not only takes longer, but can also be hit and miss in its results.

I certainly miss the era of having a new Bond film out every two years. Glen was a great Bond director in that regard, as well as the fact that each of his films felt like Bond films, even when attempting new territory as with LTK. I always appreciated the fact Cubby hired him based off of his previous work in the series: the ski jump, OHMSS bobsled, not to mention his editing skills. The fact that Glen had been a member of the team for so long and pretty much knew Bond inside and out helped. I prefer that approach then the current trend of hiring a currently popular and prestigious director to tackle Bond.

heartbroken_mr_drax

I too appreciate the consistency of Glen's films, but I also think (as Superado brought up) there's consistency (depending on your feelings) coming from Cubby too - 80s Bonds represent the Cubby/EON family in full swing.

Firemass

superado wrote:

I guess that OP and AVTAK were done on auto-pilot at the significant behest of Cubby since they were evidently paler in comparison,

FYEO is boring, but OP and AVTAK are two of the most colorful entries in the series. Octopussy in particular is one of the wildest, most fun and most entertaining Bond films of them all. Hardly a run-of-the-mill type IMO.

chrisisall

Firemass wrote:

FYEO is boring

I disagree because of the last half hour. Yeah, some of it is slow (and I HATE the fake underwater bubbles shots), but the finale is pretty terrific IMO! -{

heartbroken_mr_drax

Firemass wrote:

superado wrote:

I guess that OP and AVTAK were done on auto-pilot at the significant behest of Cubby since they were evidently paler in comparison,

FYEO is boring, but OP and AVTAK are two of the most colorful entries in the series. Octopussy in particular is one of the wildest, most fun and most entertaining Bond films of them all. Hardly a run-of-the-mill type IMO.

Comparing Hunt or Young etc. it's difficult to identify what Glen's style is, or if he really has any, but I'd say FYEO and LTK are the greatest possible demonstration of it.

As great as OP is, it could've been directed by anyone. I know what Suparado means by "auto-pilot".

Matt S

chrisisall wrote:

Firemass wrote:

FYEO is boring

I disagree because of the last half hour. Yeah, some of it is slow (and I HATE the fake underwater bubbles shots), but the finale is pretty terrific IMO! -{

There's varied action throughout the movie, not just the amazing last half hour. But yes, the finale is exciting without gimmicks (no silly space station or hot-air balloon, as much as I enjoy those things too). As far as fake underwater scenes go, they did an excellent job. It's not so different from the Star Trek transporter effect, and I know you believe that looks real!

chrisisall

Matt S wrote:

It's not so different from the Star Trek transporter effect, and I know you believe that looks real!

Only in the original series. -{

Grindelwald

"why did he make so many"

Broccoli made a deal with the devil and he came to collect , that's why......muhahahahahah )

superado

Other Bond movies show they are capable of shooting close-ups underwater, including the Bond actors themselves, but we do know from the various "behind-the-scenes" accounts that Carole Bouquet unfortunately had severe sinus reactions to being underwater. Therefore, considering this, the workaround was an okay alternative to using long-shots of doubles like what they did with Claudine Auger in TB.

Commenting on what I earlier posted about FYEO being Glen's OHMSS, no, there are no direct technical or qualitative similarities between the two movies, except that they were very inspired and sincere in their execution, particularly when contrasted with the immediate films that preceded them.

The most obvious difference of course was the relative absence of gadgets in those 2 movies, of which FYEO was the grittier one, lacking some of the Bond glam that was retained in OHMSS. I remember as a kid watching on tv with my dad what I think was a Harry Palmer movie and the realism of FYEO reminds me of the same grit and feel.

Matt S

superado wrote:

The most obvious difference of course was the relative absence of gadgets in those 2 movies, of which FYEO was the grittier one, lacking some of the Bond glam that was retained in OHMSS. I remember as a kid watching on tv with my dad what I think was a Harry Palmer movie and the realism of FYEO reminds me of the same grit and feel.

Interesting how you call FYEO the grittier one. I would say OHMSS is, due to the FYEO's lighter score, silly PTS and silly ski chase, but I can see your side of it too. I think both films are some of the best-balanced of the series between grit, levity and just about all other aspects.