For a film of the mid 80's it felt pretty 70's - Octopussy (1983) Discussion

[–] wwestar 16 years ago

In what way?

reply

[–] Slainmonkey 15 years ago

well it's kinda hard to say...the production valuses has a destictly 70's look, I'm not sure how else to put it...and everyone looks very sweaty like they nearly always are in films from the 70's....never been sure what that is though.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 15 years ago

It is very likely becasue the same guys did bond movies from the 70's and this one aswell so thier imagination of bond movies might have been a little conservative.

------------------------------------------
I have a feeling that you're way off on this.

reply

[–] jamesdrax 15 years ago

To me, this one feels embedded in the smoother and slicker style of the 80's. Plus, the backdrop is deeply influenced by the height of the latter part of the Cold War of the 1980's.

"Your views are as narrow as your tie."
- Bernard Herrmann

reply

[–] jump237 15 years ago

it was released in '83, meaning it was probably shot in '82, which wasn't that far removed from the '70s yet. it wasn't until '84 or so that you really got that "'80s look" in movies firmly established.

reply

[–] Slainmonkey 14 years ago

True but it's odd as "For Your Eyes Only" felt rather early 80's (which it was) and "Octopussy" on the other hand couldn't have felt much more 70's.

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 14 years ago

It does feel very late '70s, and I kept checking the date because I thought 1983 was wrong. But decades don't seem to "arrive" for a few years, and I tend to think of the "Flashdance" look as being the real start of the '80s, just as the grunge look was the start of the '90s. But even though this was released the same year as "Flashdance," it looks older.

reply

[–] Wadsy 14 years ago

Well, although Octopussy feels 80's to me, For Your Eyes Only actually feels a lot newer than Octopussy, and like the author of this discussion, I don't know why. Just the look, visuals etc.

Everytime I watch the Bond movies in order, I feel that the distance between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only was massive in terms of technology and the direction. The first eleven Bond movies up until Moonraker feel old, you know, you watch them and they feel very modern. However, when the 80's decade arrived, which eventually led to the release of 1981's For Your Eyes Only, it felt like a massive change, and since then every Bond film including and after FYEO feels normal, not old like Moonraker and before. The new Bond movies however are the two Daniel Craig releases. But even now as I look back to the Bond movies, I consider Dr No right through to Moonraker to be the modern ones, and FYEO don't even match modernness.

reply

[–] skiop 14 years ago

I can't say you're making a lot of sense here. Did you proofread?

reply

[–] ringfire211 14 years ago

True but it's odd as "For Your Eyes Only" felt rather early 80's (which it was) and "Octopussy" on the other hand couldn't have felt much more 70's.

I think what you mean to say is that OCTOPUSSY feels more like a traditional Bond film (like a Bond film from the 60s & 70s) when compared to FYEO. FYEO was a drastic change after MR and was fairly low-key when compared to everything that came before - no world-domination villains or outrageous gadgets! It was more of a straight-forward spy story. And when you throw in Bill Conti's disco music it definitely feels very 80s.

With OCTOPUSSY they went back to the larger-than-life world domination schemes/villains of the 60s and 70s while still trying to retain that Cold War spy angle of the 80s. And then of course John Barry's music was a complete 180-degree turn from what Bill Conti did with his FYEO score. Barry gave us the usual traditional, classic Bond music that we've been hearing since the 60s. No disco to be heard here, that's for sure. So whereas FYEO sounds/feels very 80s, OP sounds/feels very Bondian. So while I don't agree that OP feels very 70s I will agree that it feels very "classic Bond" which is why I personally prefer it to FYEO. OP just doesn't scream "80sssss!!!!!!" at you the way FYEO does. Which is a sign of a good Bond film - it should be very Bondian, not very 80s.

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!

reply

[–] tramsos 14 years ago

LOL!!
I agree, totally.

reply

[–] Wadsy 14 years ago

Well, although Octopussy feels 80's to me, For Your Eyes Only actually feels a lot newer than Octopussy, and like the author of this discussion, I don't know why. Just the look, visuals etc.

Everytime I watch the Bond movies in order, I feel that the distance between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only was massive in terms of technology and the direction. The first eleven Bond movies up until Moonraker feel old, you know, you watch them and they feel very modern. However, when the 80's decade arrived, which eventually led to the release of 1981's For Your Eyes Only, it felt like a massive change, and since then every Bond film including and after FYEO feels normal, not old like Moonraker and before. The new Bond movies however are the two Daniel Craig releases. But even now as I look back to the Bond movies, I consider Dr No right through to Moonraker to be the modern ones, and FYEO don't even match modernness.

reply

[–] RynoII 14 years ago

Octopussy felt much more modern than FYEO because the action scenes were much better, or so I thought.

reply

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

and what's the prob with the 70's or late 70's??!

His name...was Julio Iglesias!

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 12 years ago

Nothing at all, though I prefer the mid-'70s myself.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jt-hix2112 12 years ago

"Almost all of the 80s Bond films look and feel ten years older than they are; I chalk this up to the direction by John Glen and the cinematography by Alan Hume (FYEO-AVTAK) and Alec Mills (TLD and LKT). The 80s Bond films all have a flat, dull look. The camerawork and editing are very routine and archaic, much more 60s in style than 80s."

I would generally agree, but I think that Octopussy, unlike the other Glen directed Bonds from the 80's, really does look good. It has simple direction and photography, but since the story feels like a classic Bond story that is very much rooted in the Cold War, I feel that it ages very nicely. Also the Ken Adam inspired set (I don't think he was involved with this movie, but I could be wrong) of the big Soviet war room, with its size and the stylized slanted ceiling, helps this movie appear more of a classic Bond and ages it much better than other 80's Bond films. The music as well is classic Bond and doesn't feel very 80's.

It's only a movie, and, after all, we're all grossly overpaid - Alfred Hitchcock

reply

[–] TheGraveLittleToaster 11 years ago

I know exactly what you're talking about, and it's hard to put it into words. It is something about the production value, but it's hard to actually pinpoint what it is.

__
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKll-tbwAxQ

reply

[–] bizarromail 11 years ago

Yes, I agree.

I think the time when it seems most "70's", is in the Maud Adams scenes. Those parts are straight out of 1975-1979 when they play the instrumental string version of All Time High a few times briefly to convey romance and THAT feel. It is glossy, romantic in style, tropical, and quite frankly IMO one of the coolest parts of any of the Bond series overall. And maybe my favorite of any part of the series.
Once they get to the train, circus, etc. , that is when it gets firmly into '82-'83 and IMO the movie start to suffer, despite some cool action parts.
But the stuff at the Octopussy palace is just straight '70's and absolutely golden.

reply

[–] pking-2 11 years ago

All the Glen Bond films feel similar. If not 70s, certainly old school compared to what followed LTK.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

reply

[–] wwestar 11 years ago

You would need a good understanding of film making and cinematography to understand why. Needlessto saythat the Bond films (evenin the 80's) were considered technicallyto be someof the best.

reply

[–] pking-2 11 years ago

Even Diamonds are Forever?

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

reply

[–] wwestar 11 years ago

I was referring to the late 70's early 80's.

reply

[–] FinnurE 11 years ago

As I've recently been getting re-acquainted with the Bonds on Blu-Ray I must say that I also thought Octopussy looked somewhat older than it really is. Maybe I wouldn't go so far as to say it looked like it was made in the 70s but I probably would have guessed 1980-81. For Your Eyes Only looked more modern to me as well.

But the thing is, this is also the case with The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill: Of the two, I've always felt that Licence to Kill is the one the looks older. After giving it some thought I have come to the conclusion that it comes down to the films' settings and look.

For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights are both set predominantly in Europe and have a rather cold color-scheme. Octopussy and Licence to Kill are on the other hand set in tropical, less developed countries with a lot warmer color-scheme. I suspect that we sub-consciously connect warmer colors and tropical settings with older movies, while cool colors and technologically advanced countries recall more recent films.

reply

[–] pawtrax67 10 years ago

It might have to do with the the studio, United Artists. By the 80's the Bond films were pretty much all they had going for it.
It would not surprise me that the cameras, etc. were not updated. Heaven's Gate nearly killed United Artists. And in 1990 the studio, library, tv was fragmented and the studio declared bankruptcy.

reply

[–] Wadsy 10 years ago

In my opinion, Glen films never really aged between each one. For Your Eyes Only always felt ahead of it's time.

When Octopussy was released it felt like a step in reverse before 1983.

A View To A Kill felt very 80's, in fact probably the most 80's of the Glen films to be honest, followed by FYEO and LTK. For me, AVTAK did not feel ahead or behind it's time, but right on track.

The Living Daylights felt 80's, without any obvious signs, if any.

Licence To Kill, definitely. The night/bar scene and the computer in Leiter's house gave it away.

However, I always felt that For Your Eyes Only was John Glen's best work, and felt more polished than the following two, with great action sequences, a lot of top work and a very 80's esq movie. The Living Daylights would be a close runner up.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

In what way was For Your Eyes Only ahead of its time?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] wwestar 10 years ago

Action sequences. The car chase at the beginning won several awards for being very innovative. The score. Like it or loathe it, was way ahead of it's time. The editing. Quite fast and very pacey. The film was also very brutal in places. These were family films and the death of the Countess and Locke was quite shocking in 1981 along with the armed hood being blown up next to the lotus. For me Octopussy was a step back. But they had competition that year and played it a little safer.

reply

[–] super-joey 10 years ago

the production values felt 70s

Production values have nothing to do with how a film feels. The phrase refers to the amount of milage the filmmakers were able to get out of each dollar. And Octopussy had AMAZING production value.

Anyway, as somebody else pointed out, the film was shot in '82 for an '83 release. This was a transition period. And Octopussy fits right in to this time period. It was not dated at the time of its release.

reply