None of the Bond directors has been incompetent. They are all skilled in their own way setting up shots, blocking actors, and getting varying degrees of performances from actors. A lot of what is blamed on directors is really the result of the scripts and editing rather than the directors, though they also influence those issues.
In this respect, the worst of them has been John Glen. Of his Bonds, two are very good -- For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights -- two are middling -- Octopussy and Licence to Kill -- and one awful -- A View to a Kill. His problem is that he is so pedestrian. There is not much imagination shown in his technique. He also gets mundane performances from too many actors. Taliso Soto and Tanya Roberts were not just awful, they were painfully so. Other actors are uneven, too. Guy Hamilton, for instance, was smart enough to imitate Blake Edwards with his 1960s films, but by the 1970s, he had lost a lot of his sense of imagination. But he still managed to pull good performances out of his actors, and there is still more creativity to his films than Glen's. Some films -- Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace, for instance -- may pale in comparison to better Bond films, but their parts are still greater than the whole, whereas in Glen's films that's often not the case.
Sorry but Lee Tanahori is the worse especially for that "cgi surfing" scene. The worse Bond scene in history. And easily avoided or jettisoned. It should never have been allowed.
John Glen gave us human interaction not to mention good performances from Carole Bouquet, John Rhys Davies, Stephen Berkoff and Robert Davi
If scenes like that are the criteria, then Martin Campbell easily gets the same dubious honor for his embarrassingly awful use of modelwork and the bluescreen in Goldeneye.
But Tamahori's set ups and so forth are more interesting than Glen's, who is the most workmanlike director of the Bond series. The only one where he seemed to try to break out of the pedestrian mold was The Living Daylights, and even then, he couldn't quite make up his mind as to whether was making an epic, old-fashioned Bond in the vein of Connery's early efforts or something else.
It's important to note that a film director doesn't typically control as much as everyone thinks. They choose camera set ups, coach the actors, block the actors, make some alterations to scripts, and so forth. But usually someone else handles cinematography and special effects. The director may get choice in who that person is and if a good working relationship exists, work collaboratively to produce a coherent vision. But all sorts of factors can interfere, from overbearing producers to budget limitations to actors going through any number of problems and giving a lousy performance. Some directors, like Hitchcock, maintained an auteur's control over almost everything, but he's the rarity. Most have to, at best, coordinate what the rest of the team does. In Glen's case, his choices over what he had all but absolutely control over -- camera set ups and the blocking of actors -- is almost always very dull.
None of the Bond directors has been incompetent. They are all skilled in their own way setting up shots, blocking actors, and getting varying degrees of performances from actors. A lot of what is blamed on directors is really the result of the scripts and editing rather than the directors, though they also influence those issues.
In this respect, the worst of them has been John Glen. Of his Bonds, two are very good -- For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights -- two are middling -- Octopussy and Licence to Kill -- and one awful -- A View to a Kill. His problem is that he is so pedestrian. There is not much imagination shown in his technique. He also gets mundane performances from too many actors. Taliso Soto and Tanya Roberts were not just awful, they were painfully so. Other actors are uneven, too. Guy Hamilton, for instance, was smart enough to imitate Blake Edwards with his 1960s films, but by the 1970s, he had lost a lot of his sense of imagination. But he still managed to pull good performances out of his actors, and there is still more creativity to his films than Glen's. Some films -- Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace, for instance -- may pale in comparison to better Bond films, but their parts are still greater than the whole, whereas in Glen's films that's often not the case.
Sorry but Lee Tanahori is the worse especially for that "cgi surfing" scene. The worse Bond scene in history. And easily avoided or jettisoned. It should never have been allowed.
John Glen gave us human interaction not to mention good performances from Carole Bouquet, John Rhys Davies, Stephen Berkoff and Robert Davi
If scenes like that are the criteria, then Martin Campbell easily gets the same dubious honor for his embarrassingly awful use of modelwork and the bluescreen in Goldeneye.
The only bit of dodgy model work in GE was the MiG hitting the dish and the backwards water in Cuba. This was still back in 95 remember. Ok so 2 years previous Jurassic Park had wowed us with CGI Dino's running amock, at $63m budget, it had $5m more in the pot than goldeneye did.
Considering GE's budget not only had to pay for a film but also a studio to be built in which to film it, I'd say with all the other SFX stuff going on, from building St Petersburg, converting a train, mechanically tweeking a T-55 MBT plus building a Z3, AND all those funky gadgets, I'd say the team did a pretty good job. Remember, it's the film that also brought bond back from the brink.
You can't blame the use of models on anyone when budget is so tight.
As for surfing bond in DAD, anyone could have seen those rushes and pulled the plug, I'm suprised Babs and Mike didn't tbh.
CGI isn't the holy grail. It has it's limits and if not done perfectly, stands out like Minty's sack*.
On the flipside, model work can, has, and continues to be a strong part of film making. Remember the bridge scene in TLD's, involving live action C130 and scenery with model bridge in foreground? Or the sinking house in Venice in CR?
It might have more history than CGI, but innovation is better than imitation in my opinion.
^
|
|
ie, model use in films has more past, is an older method of special effects and can be seen by some as 'old school' and outdated, but CGI is simply the same method, virtually, and the tricks, techniques and ideas of using CGI are built on the past century of experience gained from real physical model making. Model making innovated, CGI imitates that.
You guys are getting way left of field. My point is that if you want to hold a director responsible for a special effects shot, then Martin Campbell is at least as guilty as Lee Tamahori. People laughed in the theater when Brosnan chased after the plane in front of what was obviously a bluescreen . . . the only other reaction I'd ever known similar was Kirk's tumble off a mountain in that awful Star Trek movie. I don't think Campbell is the worst -- nor do I think Tamahori is. Although Goldeneye underwhelms me, Casino Royale is a much better film, so much so that it seems to have been directed by a different person.
Die Another Day was awful for lots of reasons, but I wouldn't say it was the directing. The concept was bad, the script was silly, and the special effects were unconvincing, especially given that CGI had been around since 1982. It tried to bring Bond into the 21st century with a techno-neon palette, which was exactly wrong, as Casino Royale would a show a few years later what people wanted was less tech and more retro (though some of us had wanted that for years). But Tamahori gets fine performances out the actors, manages some good set pieces, does action well, and has some creative set ups. By comparison, Glen is pedestrian.
You guys are getting way left of field. My point is that if you want to hold a director responsible for a special effects shot, then Martin Campbell is at least as guilty as Lee Tamahori. People laughed in the theater when Brosnan chased after the plane in front of what was obviously a bluescreen . . .
If you're talking about the PTS sequence in GE, I don't believe bluescreen was used in any of those shots.
Of course. It's every bit as bad as the surfing scene, just shorter, right down to the look of seriousness on Brosnan's face as, obviously not really there, he strategizes what he's going to do to catch the plane.
Now that we're off on this tangential subject, it's odd that two of the worst special effects sequences in the entire Bond series occur during Brosnan's tenure.
indeed, if anyone's to blame, it's not the director, producers, sfx crew, technicians, it's gotta be the actor's fault... right?
For what? The special effects sequence? No, I'd blame the special effects people for that.
As I've said now several times, though, my point is if one is going blame the director for a bad special effects shot, then both Lee Tamahori and Martin Campbell are equally guilty.
indeed, if anyone's to blame, it's not the director, producers, sfx crew, technicians, it's gotta be the actor's fault... right?
For what? The special effects sequence? No, I'd blame the special effects people for that.
As I've said now several times, though, my point is if one is going blame the director for a bad special effects shot, then both Lee Tamahori and Martin Campbell are equally guilty.
In all honesty of course it's very difficult to say which directors are 'good' and 'bad'.We mostly base these assumptions on (I assume) which Bond movies we think are good and which we think aren't. Die Another Day is one of the least liked Bond films so obviously Lee Tamahori gets mentioned a lot (me included.) But say if Guy Hamilton had only directed Diamonds are Forever and not his other ones, then I might have even named him for example! But he did the masterpiece which is Goldfinger too...
I do have to add though that Tamahori was a man that actually was all for the 'codename Bond theory'. I'm sure you know about that theory. He even wanted to bring in Sean Connery as a past James Bond into DAD at one point. That would have ruined so much more than just one movie. (It's not for nothing that Lazenby is seen with the past memories in his office in OHMSS, Roger Moore puts flowers on Tracy's grave, Brosnan mentions the family motto in TWINE, and it gets mentioned that Timothy's Bond was married once..) Thank god they didn't let Tamahori have his way with the codename thing...
Of course. It's every bit as bad as the surfing scene, just shorter, right down to the look of seriousness on Brosnan's face as, obviously not really there, he strategizes what he's going to do to catch the plane.
Now that we're off on this tangential subject, it's odd that two of the worst special effects sequences in the entire Bond series occur during Brosnan's tenure.
The free falling Scene is brilliant -{
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
I too remember most people laughing (haven't heard that much unintentional laughter since TLD).
It seemed so stupid that in freefall one could catch a motorized plane. It was not until the youtube video a few months ago that I considered it possible that with all flaps deployed during the start, that a plane could actually have more drag and fall slower than a man.
I'm a huge fan of GE, and think the PTS is fantastic.
Brossa's letterbox lit peek round the corner, a world record bungee jump, gadgets, the seemingly untimely death of 006, shoot-outs, the barrel scenes, and the brilliant intro of the main characters all under one roof.
Bond. Is. Back!
Oh but hang on, there's a blue screen shot so Campbell is relegated to the worst director in the world ever and everyone else on the crew deserves to be shot.
I'd nominate John Glen too. Much of his work just seems a bit pedestrian, and while none of it is bad, none of it hits the high watermark of other multi-film Directors.
If you take out the exceptional performances, which are more likely to have been due to the actors' talent than the Directors' coaching, there is little to distinguish in the later Roger Moore films or indeed in TLD, which still seems like a RM film in the way it's directed, IMO. Glen's best film is FYEO, which has great actors, a well executed script and some tremendous set-pieces.
Don't get me wrong, I love and will defend all the Bond films, it's just that more of Glen's work leaves me underwhelmed than any other multi-film director.
Comments
" Yes the whole Bally lot, they're an absolute shower !"
But Tamahori's set ups and so forth are more interesting than Glen's, who is the most workmanlike director of the Bond series. The only one where he seemed to try to break out of the pedestrian mold was The Living Daylights, and even then, he couldn't quite make up his mind as to whether was making an epic, old-fashioned Bond in the vein of Connery's early efforts or something else.
It's important to note that a film director doesn't typically control as much as everyone thinks. They choose camera set ups, coach the actors, block the actors, make some alterations to scripts, and so forth. But usually someone else handles cinematography and special effects. The director may get choice in who that person is and if a good working relationship exists, work collaboratively to produce a coherent vision. But all sorts of factors can interfere, from overbearing producers to budget limitations to actors going through any number of problems and giving a lousy performance. Some directors, like Hitchcock, maintained an auteur's control over almost everything, but he's the rarity. Most have to, at best, coordinate what the rest of the team does. In Glen's case, his choices over what he had all but absolutely control over -- camera set ups and the blocking of actors -- is almost always very dull.
It was him was who was responsible for the cgi surf scene. One which made a bury my head in my hands and wished for me that the Bonds were finished.
If there is a directors hell - he's burning nicely.
I agree, the CGI Surfing Scene was rather unnecessary
The only bit of dodgy model work in GE was the MiG hitting the dish and the backwards water in Cuba. This was still back in 95 remember. Ok so 2 years previous Jurassic Park had wowed us with CGI Dino's running amock, at $63m budget, it had $5m more in the pot than goldeneye did.
Considering GE's budget not only had to pay for a film but also a studio to be built in which to film it, I'd say with all the other SFX stuff going on, from building St Petersburg, converting a train, mechanically tweeking a T-55 MBT plus building a Z3, AND all those funky gadgets, I'd say the team did a pretty good job. Remember, it's the film that also brought bond back from the brink.
You can't blame the use of models on anyone when budget is so tight.
As for surfing bond in DAD, anyone could have seen those rushes and pulled the plug, I'm suprised Babs and Mike didn't tbh.
CGI isn't the holy grail. It has it's limits and if not done perfectly, stands out like Minty's sack*.
On the flipside, model work can, has, and continues to be a strong part of film making. Remember the bridge scene in TLD's, involving live action C130 and scenery with model bridge in foreground? Or the sinking house in Venice in CR?
It might have more history than CGI, but innovation is better than imitation in my opinion.
^
|
|
ie, model use in films has more past, is an older method of special effects and can be seen by some as 'old school' and outdated, but CGI is simply the same method, virtually, and the tricks, techniques and ideas of using CGI are built on the past century of experience gained from real physical model making. Model making innovated, CGI imitates that.
*minty is Pete's dog
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
He saved the franchise twice - we all should be gratefully on our knees for doing that! X-(
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Die Another Day was awful for lots of reasons, but I wouldn't say it was the directing. The concept was bad, the script was silly, and the special effects were unconvincing, especially given that CGI had been around since 1982. It tried to bring Bond into the 21st century with a techno-neon palette, which was exactly wrong, as Casino Royale would a show a few years later what people wanted was less tech and more retro (though some of us had wanted that for years). But Tamahori gets fine performances out the actors, manages some good set pieces, does action well, and has some creative set ups. By comparison, Glen is pedestrian.
If you're talking about the PTS sequence in GE, I don't believe bluescreen was used in any of those shots.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Now that we're off on this tangential subject, it's odd that two of the worst special effects sequences in the entire Bond series occur during Brosnan's tenure.
Different director, but throw Alan Cumming in there, too.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
As I've said now several times, though, my point is if one is going blame the director for a bad special effects shot, then both Lee Tamahori and Martin Campbell are equally guilty.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I was being sarcastic.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I do have to add though that Tamahori was a man that actually was all for the 'codename Bond theory'. I'm sure you know about that theory. He even wanted to bring in Sean Connery as a past James Bond into DAD at one point. That would have ruined so much more than just one movie. (It's not for nothing that Lazenby is seen with the past memories in his office in OHMSS, Roger Moore puts flowers on Tracy's grave, Brosnan mentions the family motto in TWINE, and it gets mentioned that Timothy's Bond was married once..) Thank god they didn't let Tamahori have his way with the codename thing...
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
...the Devil is needing a blanky...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The free falling Scene is brilliant -{
I remember people cheering of excitement - but it may have something to do with the fact that germans tend to hide their enjoyment :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
It seemed so stupid that in freefall one could catch a motorized plane. It was not until the youtube video a few months ago that I considered it possible that with all flaps deployed during the start, that a plane could actually have more drag and fall slower than a man.
Although as I'm the Bond fan, my view carries more weight !
Brossa's letterbox lit peek round the corner, a world record bungee jump, gadgets, the seemingly untimely death of 006, shoot-outs, the barrel scenes, and the brilliant intro of the main characters all under one roof.
Bond. Is. Back!
Oh but hang on, there's a blue screen shot so Campbell is relegated to the worst director in the world ever and everyone else on the crew deserves to be shot.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Hamilton? I love GF, DAF and LALD so one duff movie I can forgive.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
If you take out the exceptional performances, which are more likely to have been due to the actors' talent than the Directors' coaching, there is little to distinguish in the later Roger Moore films or indeed in TLD, which still seems like a RM film in the way it's directed, IMO. Glen's best film is FYEO, which has great actors, a well executed script and some tremendous set-pieces.
Don't get me wrong, I love and will defend all the Bond films, it's just that more of Glen's work leaves me underwhelmed than any other multi-film director.