Whatever Happened to the 1980's?
M 'n' M
Posts: 105MI6 Agent
Whoever your favourite Bond may be it's fairly safe to say that for4 out of 5 decades James Bond was right at the forefront of cinema success. Sean Connery WAS 60's Bond and Roger Moore then became 70s Bond (even if you don't like him, he won the Golden Globe in 1979 as the World's Most Popular Actor). Pierce Brosnan then made the 90's his own with spectacular success and despite the initial doubts Craig is clearly Noughties Bond.
so what happened to the 80's? Roger was clearly too long in the tooth and Tim Dalton didn't have the big success that many thought he would.
So why didn't Bond make his mark on the 1980's? Was it that the character was out of sync with the 80's popularity for mavericks (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon), that the series couldn't quite decide on which direction to go in, or perhaps that the director of all 5 80's films was a little uninspiring?
Thoughts?
so what happened to the 80's? Roger was clearly too long in the tooth and Tim Dalton didn't have the big success that many thought he would.
So why didn't Bond make his mark on the 1980's? Was it that the character was out of sync with the 80's popularity for mavericks (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon), that the series couldn't quite decide on which direction to go in, or perhaps that the director of all 5 80's films was a little uninspiring?
Thoughts?
Comments
I also think you overstate Brosnan's Bond as being a bigger cultural phenomenon in the 90s than Bond was in the 80s. Yes, Goldeneye satisfied the public who had waited six long years, but after that...not as much.
I do agree that John Glen was not the most inspired director!
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I see what you mean because there wasnt a huge hit like Goldfinger or TSWLM or Goldeneye
but John Glen still cranked out 5 solid Bond films.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
As Dalton said in the EON documentary - it wasn't meant for 6 and 7 year olds. Clearly LTK was ahead of its time, as today's interpretation of Bond is far meaner!
It didn't help that Roger Moore seemed both old and silly, especially to younger audiences. I ran with a bunch of different sorts of people, and not a lot of folks got excited by a Bond film except the hardcore fans. If people did go to see on in the theater, it was mostly because they'd exhausted the other possibilities or were taking someone who wanted to see it. Mind you, the films did good business, but it always seemed to be from more of an older crowd.
It also didn't help that the 80s were a strange decade in their own way. There was the plasticness of pop music, videogames, home computers, and microwave meals combined with the Brylcreem, khakis, and flag-waving of Reagan's America. It felt futuristic at the same time it was like the worst of the 1950s. Bond didn't fit in neatly and was anachronistic -- he wasn't quite hip enough, but at the same time, he wasn't quite like your dad's hero anymore either. Even Timothy Dalton, with his blow-dried looks and contemporary qualities, was no match for the meaner and tougher heroes of the era.
Bond's gadgets no longer seemed sleek and futuristic, and the plots of the films were predictable and stale. The two better films, For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights, never captured the full fancy of general audiences, though they were admirable efforts. But bond soldiered on, and that was good. To me, though, it wouldn't be until Craig joined that the Bond films finally go their second wind.
The 80s was the time of the high body count and brutal action. There was no way Bond could compete with the likes of Stallone and Arnie on that score. LTK tried it and ended up with a certificate that meant a lot of the traditional Bond audience couldn't get to see it.
Compared to heroes such as John McClane (Die Hard) and Martin Riggs (Lethal Weapon), with Rog in the lead Bond looked old and tired.
Bond was being out-quipped. When Connery dispatched his enemies with an amusing one-liner he started a trend. By the 80s the likes of Sly and Arnie had taken this over. Instead in the Bond films we got Tarzan yells as Bond swung from vines.
The coolest man in the world in the 80s was Sonny Crockett (Miami Vice). For the teenage audience Bond must have looked conservative and boring. The producers tried to do a Miami Vice with LTK but ended up with a movie without the pastels or the style. John Glenn could not compete with Michael Mann. When you look back now the Miami Vice style looks ludicrious and Bond looks classic but not at the time.
I remember reading that the budgets for the Bonds were being cut back at that time and less and less money was being spent on marketing. This was one of the reasons LTK didn't do as well. The studios spent a fortune promoting Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 but very little on LTK.
But no matter what any decade's trends are Terminators are terminated, Lethal Weapons become less lethal but Bond goes on and on.
There's a further irony that whilst the Bond team tried to toughen things up with LICENCE TO KILL, the likes of LETHAL WEAPON 2 and INDIANA JONES & THE LAST CRUSADE upped the comedy element, thus proving more successful with the general public.
And now we have a 007 who far exceeds Dalton for casual brutality, but is proving a big hit.
It really can't be much fun being a movie producer trying to identify successful trends.
being a good actor and being a movie star, isn't always the same thing.
the public didn't warm to him as they did with Pierce or Sir Roger. Having said that he did have a
hard job, to replace Roger Moore who to a generation was Bond and to try and make Bond dangerous
again.
I think there is a lot to what you write. Perhaps Bond and Dalton would have gained by not just upping the voilence and realism, but also keeping more humor in LTK? Not the silly and childish humor of Moonraker, but the drier, more mature humor of Die Hard and Lethal Weapon.
..... by evilly popping an innocent balloon
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Though a very fine actor, his theatre training denied him the star power I think someone like Pierce Brosnan brought to the role. It's difficult to analyse but Brosnan is to my mind a much better film actor & Bond is a hard character to act. Perhaps Dalton's earnest approach was a turn-off for some. Brosnan seemed able, like Connery & Moore to stand away from the character & tip a sly nod to the audience. That's just my rationale for a lot of people not giving Dalton his due.
Now interestingly Craig seems to be taking the same route as Dalton, but he's helped in his duties by a production team that positively encourages backstory, etc. Dalton was never really afforded this luxury.
I don't agree that Brosnan is a better actor than Dalton. You have to remember star power isn't the same as acting skill. Few would argue Arnold Swartzenegger is a good actor, but he has tons of star power.
Another problem as actor Robert Davi pointed out during his interview for the documentary Everything or Nothing was the fact that many cinemagoers were so used to the lighter tone of Roger Moore's movies( and not as familiar with Ian Fleming's novels) that the darker more violent tone of LTK was too much for them to understand or enjoy.
I have always felt that if Timothy Dalton had come onboard sooner, or if the behind the scene situation had been different LTK would have done better both money wise and with cinema goers.
One of the things that might have been an issue actually started in the 70's. Bond used to be a trendsetter but became more and more a trend follower. Blaxploitation, Kung Fu, Star Wars, Indiana Jones were all incorporated into Bond movies during that time
Things haven't changed much. CR and QOS were Bourne and SF was The Dark Knight Rises.
I've seen this comparison cited before and I don't get it. How is Casino Royale Bourne? Bond isn't a former tool of the government suffering from amnesia and seeking revenge on those who turned against him. Is it because this Bond is brutal and adept at hand-to-hand combat? I'm curious, what is it about Casino Royale that makes it a "Bourne" film? The same goes for Quantum or Solace. Other than some similarities in the editing style, how is it similar to Bourne?
I thought SF was more The Dark Knight than the one after it. Silva was basically a lower-rent Joker clone.
Not to belabor the point, but I'm not sure Bond is portrayed as an "anti-hero" in CR. He is on a mission for HMSS, pretty much following orders, although some of his methods were a bit sloppy and questionable. And I don't recall him being hunted by his own people, either.
"Sloppy and questionable" is putting it mildly. Bond was practically all-out insubordinate and I'm surprised that M tolerated him the way she did. In my eyes, the extent that Bond was allowed to go (all done by the scriptwriters, of course) and M's reaction, or lack of, seriously weakened her authority as MI6 chief.
As far as the Bourne influence, the evidence is just too overwhelming and too much to repeat here at the spur of the moment, but here's something I borrowed from a post on the MI6 forum...the Bourne references in this 2005 New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/movies/MoviesFeatures/15bond.html
"For both Ms. Broccoli and Sony, executives said, the model was Jason Bourne, the character Matt Damon successfully incarnated in two gritty spy movies for Universal Pictures, "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremacy.""
And on the influence of the Dark Knight Rises:
http://metro.co.uk/2012/10/25/skyfall-director-sam-mendes-i-wasnt-directly-influenced-by-dark-knight-608485/
I never really saw anything other than superficial similarities, mostly related to their fighting styles, but I stand corrected. If the producers acknowledged that Bourne was the model for Craig's Bond, then that's it. But I insist that it be acknowledged that Bourne also stole from 007 - his initials!