The 80s Bond Films Have All Aged Well

Revolver66

I am currently watching Octopussy, and I have also recently seen the 4 other Bond films of the decade. (Never Say Never Again I don't include in this for obvious reasons).

What strikes me the most is how well they have aged. Sure, they feel very '80s' and the humour can be corny, but they now possess a great retro factor and it's very cool to see the classic Bond formula on display before what I consider to be the more self aware films of the 90s and 21st century.

The Cold War tinged plots that run through all them (Licence To Kill excluded) with villians that have Russian sympathies, and the adventure and exuberance and flippancy of the films make them stand out even more now. This type of film making has largely gone and it's always a pleasure to revisit the 80s films. Even though they have their obvious flaws, I appreciate them more and more -{

heartbroken_mr_drax

100% agree. I think what helps the 80s films (FYEO-TLD in particular) is the consistency of the writing and production, the style and as you say the more intricate, cooling cold-war plots.

I've always felt that the consistency in personnel who made and released them, the 80s films appear to have the least disruption during their course of release. The 60s films are influenced by intense fandom (growing pains?) and the departure of Connery, the 70s have inconsistencies as to Bond's style and also Cubby/Saltzman split, the 90s have only 3 films in the latter half of the decade and the 00s have a strong change in direction. Seems to me that the 80s (despite a change in lead actor) has "let's go about our work" feel to it. Even then, this did have a flip side because the American market began losing interest - majorly represented by LTK.

It's my favourite decade -{

Diabolik

Licence to Kill remains one of the greatest action pictures ever made, the only thing that doesn't hold up are Dalton's clothes. Also while it doesn't involve the cold war, it does deal with themes that were very much in the public consciousness. It's Bond vs Pablo Escobar, and still pretty relevant today with what has been going on in Mexico

Revolver66

Yes the consistency of the film making team definitely gives the 80s films a workmanlike quality to each of them. (this is not a criticism) 3 of the 5 films, ( excluding Octopussy and A View To A Kill) subvert the genre in some way yet the the structure remains the same so they are still very much Bond films and are consistent in tone.

Licence To Kill is obviously the odd one out here as it is more darker and has Bond go rogue but its still very much a Bond film in the classic sense.

Matt S

Overall, I think that the 80s Bond films have aged the best of the series. It helps that the first four of the 80s, despite the change in actor, are very consistent in quality and in tone.

MilleniumForce

I think the five films of the decade do hold up very well. Anything 80s is much more popular now than the 60s and 70s, and the films were not caught up in short lived trends like blaxploitation or Kung fu or sci fi movie crazes. In fact, what's interesting to note is that some impressive stunts of recent action films, that are praised for originality, had already been done by these films; hanging off a plane (M:I 5) and a car out the back of a flying plane (Furious 7). Obviously you can tell they're from the 80s due to the aesthetics and costumes and such, but all are still impressive today.

hehadlotsofguts

Diabolik wrote:

Licence to Kill remains one of the greatest action pictures ever made, the only thing that doesn't hold up are Dalton's clothes. Also while it doesn't involve the cold war, it does deal with themes that were very much in the public consciousness. It's Bond vs Pablo Escobar, and still pretty relevant today with what has been going on in Mexico

Regarding Dalton's clothes in LTK, they fit his status as an MI6 agent. Bond's gone rogue and his casual clothes reflect that.

His hair in the casino scene is terrible, however.

Matt S

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

Diabolik wrote:

Licence to Kill remains one of the greatest action pictures ever made, the only thing that doesn't hold up are Dalton's clothes. Also while it doesn't involve the cold war, it does deal with themes that were very much in the public consciousness. It's Bond vs Pablo Escobar, and still pretty relevant today with what has been going on in Mexico

Regarding Dalton's clothes in LTK, they fit his status as an MI6 agent. Bond's gone rogue and his casual clothes reflect that.

What about the expensive Italian suits? They're not appropriate for the character in any sense, unless they were the only thing he could get in Isthmus. But then they shouldn't have matched the suit he wears in Key West.

Barbel

Diabolik wrote:

Licence to Kill remains one of the greatest action pictures ever made, the only thing that doesn't hold up are Dalton's clothes.

I'd add the score to that.

heartbroken_mr_drax

Diabolik wrote:

Licence to Kill remains one of the greatest action pictures ever made

Hmmm I'm not sure about that. While Bond films have great stunts and action sequences I don't see any of them competing with the likes of Terminator 2, Die Hard, Heat etc...

Diabolik

Barbel wrote:

I'd add the score to that.

fair enough

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Hmmm I'm not sure about that. While Bond films have great stunts and action sequences I don't see any of them competing with the likes of Terminator 2, Die Hard, Heat etc...

I'm not a particularly big fan of any of those movies, and I'd take LTK over all of them in a heart beat. Now if we're talking Raiders of the Lost Ark, Fist of Legend, Escape From New York, Hard Boiled, that's some stiff competition. Nevertheless I wouldn't hesitate to include LTK in their ranks.

Goodnight007

I agree completely. The 60's Bond films show very visible age in my opinion. And the 90's films feel so trapped in the decade. The 80's films are the only ones I feel don't completely reflect their decade and can stand above it.

Gassy Man

None of the 80s Bonds have aged particularly well, with the possible exception of TLD, and then only because they tried to go back to old-fashioned storytelling. They reek of the decade in which they were produced. The 60s Bonds are classic, like fine antiques; the 80s Bonds are the plastic giveaways in a Happy Meal.

Kucherov

I must agree with the above; nothing dated about the 60s Bonds. They're fine vintages that only improve with age. The atmosphere alone generated by say, Dr No or From Russia With Love is that of bonafide classics and has never been replicated.

The 80s Bonds are somewhat marred by bad scores (FYEO), flat direction (AVTAK, LTK) and bad fashion (let's face it - all of them).

Napoleon Plural

They hold up alright as films. A solid bunch. CF the variable 70s films really, and the synthetic feel of the Brosnan years.

I'd argue you get more variety in terms of spectacle than you do in the four Craig films, which he spends mostly trying to find himself.

But towards the end, the 80s spectacle was starting to dim. I mean, the stunts seemed to have been done before, while Lethal Weapon 2 had a young atheltic hero running around the freeway. The Bond films, all had a parachute in at some point, it seemed. They'd done that better in TSWLM pts.

heartbroken_mr_drax

Napoleon Plural wrote:

But towards the end, the 80s spectacle was starting to dim. I mean, the stunts seemed to have been done before, while Lethal Weapon 2 had a young atheltic hero running around the freeway. The Bond films, all had a parachute in at some point, it seemed. They'd done that better in TSWLM pts.

The workman like quality of the 80s films started to tire with audiences too - especially in the US - the pinnacle being LTK.

Blackleiter

Gassy Man wrote:

None of the 80s Bonds have aged particularly well, with the possible exception of TLD, and then only because they tried to go back to old-fashioned storytelling. They reek of the decade in which they were produced. The 60s Bonds are classic, like fine antiques; the 80s Bonds are the plastic giveaways in a Happy Meal.

Yep!

James Suzuki

Blackleiter wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

None of the 80s Bonds have aged particularly well, with the possible exception of TLD, and then only because they tried to go back to old-fashioned storytelling. They reek of the decade in which they were produced. The 60s Bonds are classic, like fine antiques; the 80s Bonds are the plastic giveaways in a Happy Meal.

Yep!

I can't help but disagree here.
Perhaps if you grew up with the Connery movies first, or they 'clicked' with you in particular, doesn't make them instant classics, like fine antiques. Connery grew tired of the role, Moore always looked like he was enjoying himself, his role strengthened in the 80's.
I think what the 80's movies did well was that they knew that the spy genre was becoming a little old hat.
So they either tried to go a different route- like LTK, or the Indiana Jones feel of OP, while sticking close to the Bondian elements.
Or they focused on doing the formula well, embracing what makes Bond films Bond films.
It's so easy to lift a decade up into the stars, and say that it 'can do no wrong'.
I feel like Connery and the 60's have become like that.
Yes they were good films, fantastic films, some of the best films.
But they had problems.
Just like the 80's.
To some extent all Bond films are like takeaways, trustworthy, popular and you know what you're gonna get.
The 80's was that, trustworthy and for all people.
But maybe the 60's is like antique wine, the snobs love it, the average joe doesn't care.

Blackleiter

James Suzuki wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

None of the 80s Bonds have aged particularly well, with the possible exception of TLD, and then only because they tried to go back to old-fashioned storytelling. They reek of the decade in which they were produced. The 60s Bonds are classic, like fine antiques; the 80s Bonds are the plastic giveaways in a Happy Meal.

Yep!

I can't help but disagree here.
Perhaps if you grew up with the Connery movies first, or they 'clicked' with you in particular, doesn't make them instant classics, like fine antiques. Connery grew tired of the role, Moore always looked like he was enjoying himself, his role strengthened in the 80's.
I think what the 80's movies did well was that they knew that the spy genre was becoming a little old hat.
So they either tried to go a different route- like LTK, or the Indiana Jones feel of OP, while sticking close to the Bondian elements.
Or they focused on doing the formula well, embracing what makes Bond films Bond films.
It's so easy to lift a decade up into the stars, and say that it 'can do no wrong'.
I feel like Connery and the 60's have become like that.
Yes they were good films, fantastic films, some of the best films.
But they had problems.
Just like the 80's.
To some extent all Bond films are like takeaways, trustworthy, popular and you know what you're gonna get.
The 80's was that, trustworthy and for all people.
But maybe the 60's is like antique wine, the snobs love it, the average joe doesn't care.

Wow! I never thought of myself as a "snob", but I'll bite. I don't think I or anyone else suggested that the 60s films are perfect and without problems. I thought this whole discussion centered around whether the 80s films have aged well. I happen to think they don't hold up as well as the 60s films because I think the 60s films are generally more well-crafted and entertaining. Moreover, I think I'm a pretty "average Joe", and I know a lot of average Joe fans of the Bond films who feel the same way.

Revolver66

The war commences ) l I will say that I love all of the 60s films and as a whole it is the strongest decade. However, when I say that the 80s Bonds have aged well, I don't mean to say that I don't think they look or feel 80s, obviously they do. Naturally, with that comes outdated fashion and technologies. I guess what I mean by that is that they are Bond films in the purest sense. They are not self-aware, post cold-war, post modern feminist, post Jason Bourne, post- Nolan pieces. They are action adventure films in a rather uncomplicated, non self-concious way. They are fun, frivolous films, good humored and well paced. All of them, even Licence To Kill, have a warm and familiar feel to them. Obviously, the 60s and 70s films are the same, but they feel and look much older and the 80s films feel more recent and relatable to the present day. They are also devoid of over the top technological baggage (something which the Brosnan era is not), and computer generated effects, which gives them a great organic look. I know Bond has for the most part done stunts for real, but some of the stunt work in the 80s Bonds is just spectacular

Revolver66

-{

Gassy Man

I saw all the 80s Bonds in the theater as a teenager and young man. Each time one came out, we assumed it was the last one because the films were so tired. Intellectualizing them because of their ideas or whatever is not enough. The films were just tired, even to audiences back then. The difference was there were far fewer films released back then, far fewer cable TV channels, far fewer outlets for video rental, and no Internet to speak of. So, they coasted along as a brand. When TLD came out, there was some renewed interest that quickly waned, especially by the time LTK was released. I was a major Bond fan, as were my friends, and we thought the films were lame.

Though it's often not credited, home video is probably what saved the Bond films. People could buy or rent the classic Bond films, and then did. Even at my hometown library, the videotapes of the classic Bonds were always checked out.

It's not an issue of fashions or whatever. The 80s Moore Bonds just failed to capture the panache and imagination of the classic Bonds. FYEO was a decent enough entry because it tried to take things in a different direction, and had it starred Dalton, probably would have jumpstarted a stronger series in that decades.

The 80s Bond films are very much self-aware and self-referential. You could often predict where they'd go next or what joke Roger Moore would slide in. In fact, they very much trafficked in a winking familiarity -- you didn't go to a Bond film in those days to see something fresh and challenging but to see something that went through the motions of the better films before it. This is the reason they're not classics. They represent the nadir of the series, before it tried to return to its roots with TLD and, in clumsier form, the Brosnan era. It wasn't until CR that they started to get what made the classics work so well, but then they lost sight once more after.

Diabolik

I think I'll just come out and say that no film "ages," every movie is a product of its time and must be viewed as such. If you cannot watch a film in the context of the time and place in which it was produced, you should not be watching films in the first place. Judging a movie from the 60s/70s/80s/90s by the standards or trends of today is foolishness of the highest order.

Take a moment and mentally transport yourself to the when and where of that particular motion picture and you'll be surprised by how non-existent the idea of movies being "dated" or not having "aged well" is. The more films from that period and region you watch, the easier it becomes.

Gassy Man

Diabolik wrote:

I think I'll just come out and say that no film "ages," every movie is a product of its time and must be viewed as such. If you cannot watch a film in the context of the time and place in which it was produced, you should not be watching films in the first place. Judging a movie from the 60s/70s/80s/90s by the standards or trends of today is foolishness of the highest order.

Take a moment and mentally transport yourself to the when and where of that particular motion picture and you'll be surprised by how non-existent the idea of movies being "dated" or not having "aged well" is. The more films from that period and region you watch, the easier it becomes.

Were that true, there would be no such thing as classics, which transcend the period in which they were created and continue to entertain audiences. It's not a question of their aesthetic or their being judged by the standards of the today but of being universal in their appeal. That's why we still celebrate The Wizard of Oz but not The Old Maid. In much the same way, Goldfinger is a classic. Octopussy is not.

James Suzuki

Diabolik wrote:

I think I'll just come out and say that no film "ages," every movie is a product of its time and must be viewed as such. If you cannot watch a film in the context of the time and place in which it was produced, you should not be watching films in the first place. Judging a movie from the 60s/70s/80s/90s by the standards or trends of today is foolishness of the highest order.

Take a moment and mentally transport yourself to the when and where of that particular motion picture and you'll be surprised by how non-existent the idea of movies being "dated" or not having "aged well" is. The more films from that period and region you watch, the easier it becomes.

-{

James Suzuki

I agree with you as well Gassy Man. Well said. I guess Classics are the films which are able to transcend era's and fashions with a universal appeal and quality. Such like Star Wars, Sound of Music etc.

Diabolik

Gassy Man wrote:

Were that true, there would be no such thing as classics, which transcend the period in which they were created and continue to entertain audiences. It's not a question of their aesthetic or their being judged by the standards of the today but of being universal in their appeal. That's why we still celebrate The Wizard of Oz but not The Old Maid. In much the same way, Goldfinger is a classic. Octopussy is not.

A poor example, even contemporary critics weren't too fond of The Old Maid. it's hardly a fair comparison. I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make by this.

Sure some films have more lasting appeal than others, but that's more of a commentary on audiences than the films themselves. Quality is subjective, and pointing out that one film is still well-beloved while another isn't proves absolutely nothing. There are many great pictures that have since been forgotten, the fact that most people think nothing of them means zilch as far as I'm concerned.

Revolver66

Diabolik wrote:

I think I'll just come out and say that no film "ages," every movie is a product of its time and must be viewed as such. If you cannot watch a film in the context of the time and place in which it was produced, you should not be watching films in the first place. Judging a movie from the 60s/70s/80s/90s by the standards or trends of today is foolishness of the highest order.

Take a moment and mentally transport yourself to the when and where of that particular motion picture and you'll be surprised by how non-existent the idea of movies being "dated" or not having "aged well" is. The more films from that period and region you watch, the easier it becomes.

Of course films age. Some of them are superbly made and are still watched today and are viewed as classics. Those films have aged well. Don't get lost in semantics

Gassy Man

James Suzuki wrote:

I agree with you as well Gassy Man. Well said. I guess Classics are the films which are able to transcend era's and fashions with a universal appeal and quality. Such like Star Wars, Sound of Music etc.

{[]

Diabolik

Revolver66 wrote:

Of course films age. Some of them are superbly made and are still watched today and are viewed as classics. Those films have aged well. Don't get lost in semantics

It's bizarre how you state that as if it is self-evident. As far as I know, movies are not biological creatures. How exactly are commonly held opinions proof that a film has "aged"? Maybe right now the film is not well thought of, but 20 years from now may be seen as a classic. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened

Revolver66

Gassy Man wrote:

The 80s Bond films are very much self-aware and self-referential. You could often predict where they'd go next or what joke Roger Moore would slide in. In fact, they very much trafficked in a winking familiarity -- you didn't go to a Bond film in those days to see something fresh and challenging but to see something that went through the motions of the better films before it. This is the reason they're not classics. They represent the nadir of the series, before it tried to return to its roots with TLD and, in clumsier form, the Brosnan era. It wasn't until CR that they started to get what made the classics work so well, but then they lost sight once more after.

I suppose I meant self aware in the sense that they are not attempting to be apologetic about their sexism or flippancy like they are in latter eras. For example, Goldeneye is an incredibly self aware James Bond film. As is Skyfall.