It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Obviously, I needed to reframe my argument. I did a lot of research on TB for a review, and found out the minor details about the breather and camera that slipped my mind. I still count the grounded nature of TB in high order, as all the underwater vehicles, the giant yacht with detachable deck, and the other operational items like that were designed from the ground up for the film and worked as we see them. I made the mistake of counting the aforementioned two gadgets in with them, and because so much of the equipment in the film was real, I forgot about them when I made my post.
To my mind TB has the same problem as MR and SP. Namely focusing on everything that made the predecessor a success and putting extra topping on everything, until the teeth crumble.
I am always quite surprised when I read that people rave about Connery's performance in Thunderball as the perfect one. To me Bond is quite a bully in it.
It's the one movie in the franchise in which he either screws them, kills them or both.
No exceptions allowed. Period! He also lacks charm if you consider how raunchy he makes his passes at all three girls in the movie
Actually Fiona does describe it very well when she calls him for being too confident and full of himself.
A bully would be a man who comes upon a woman in a barn and forces himself upon her despite her protestations and struggles to get him off. ;)
We can talk about this next week, but I don't find anything wrong with Bond's behavior in TB. Pat is clearly hungry for him, and they have a playful repartee together. If she didn't consent to what he did, she wouldn't be breathlessly begging for him to call her "anytime" and "anyplace" from that day on. Fiona is the one that comes on to Bond and uses sex to distract him, one of the most clever flips on the script in the series, so I don't know what point you're trying to make there.
And when it comes to Domino and Bond, the spy is seldom so heroic and compassionate as he is around the woman. He is enraged quite visibly by how bad she is treated by Largo, and takes every opportunity to give her a reason to smile because he knows she deserves it. He's constantly acting with her in mind, and only extends their relationship when she wants it to go there too. Even when Bond has to tell Domino about her brother, you can see how much he hates having to break the news. The scene where they're dancing and holding each other says it all; she feels utterly safe with him, and he's happy to be her protector.
Really? I thought Linder had more charm than any other Leiter, and he shows some real cameraderie with Bond, like in the books.
I'm a Rik Van Nutter man myself.
Indeed. And that someone was Lee Van Cleef.
I thought he was okay, but nobody, not even Wright, has equaled Jack Lord. In point of fact, the casting of Leiter has been a weakness in the series.
Bit of a milquetoast, but he at least looked the part and his acting was perfectly competent.
I like Linder too. All the Felixes of the 60s have issues, but I found Linder charming and he and Bond actually came off as great pals through his chemistry with Sean, whereas Lord and Nutter could be too cold and lifeless. For just that alone, I'd keep him. I would've loved to see Felix pick up a gun and fight during the Knox raid too, as he never gets to do anything in the movies. In that finale and TB's they had a chance to involve him and show him in the thick of it actually supporting Bond, but wasted it. I think that's a shame.
The series has never been a strong acting showcase, but GF seems particularly weak, especially the gangsters with their "Whatcha' tryin' to pull, Goldfinga?" accents that wouldn't have been out of place 30 years prior in George Raft or Edward G. Robinson movies.
I also agree with whoever mentioned the Bond-Oddjob fight as being underwhelming. It's not a fight, it's literally Oddjob wiping the floor with Bond. It's cool the way he's defeated, but there's just not that much there. I get amused when some count it in their top fights in the series.
But then we wouldn't have one of the movies that kicked off the swinging 60s and the movie that made James Bond immortal.
Doesn't really matter what Young would have done, Hamilton did do it, and that's all that really matters.
They did very fine and I watch them much more often then GF, but they weren't bound to make Bond part of our cultural heritage. When you watch Youngs movies nothing in them suggests that he would have excelled with an easy and Lightfooted Bond.
Of all the actors to have played the part, RVN, to me, looked the most as I had imagined him while reading the books. Just wish there could have been some consistency with the actors playing Felix in the 60s. Just can't see Linder's Felix as anything other than a kindly uncle to 007.
True, but I wanted to contribute my thoughts on the thread about what you'd do differently with GF.
Exactly...he is spot on as in the novels and they could have developed him into a long term Felix.
TBH RVN was young enough to be Felix in DAF and a good few more films,as I showed when posted stages of his life re photos on a Felix thread I think, so I don't know why they didn't bring him back - no consistency with Felix.
Another annoying scenario as nothing happened !!
Young wouldn't have settled for that kind of Bond film. I think that's why @BT3366 is saying he missed the man's touch, because he took it more seriously. Personally I'm fine with how it went, as we wouldn't have TB if Young did GF. I think he had three in him and wouldn't do any more, so how the cards fell is something I've made perfect peace with.
What do you mean by this?
I don't think anyone outside a select few know DN. I say this as one of its more passionate fans the world over, depressed by the idea. I've said it before, but I don't think the public really remember things like this. They are told what's great, rather than feeling themselves that something is, and follow that word of mouth on automatic. They might be able to say, "Hey, a gun barrel," but they won't know its true origin. I would also be fascinated to know how many in the public truly know GF and what it's about, because I feel it's another example of being told what to like as opposed to experiencing it oneself.
These films had iconic moments that resonated beyond the film.
They know the car (everyone knows the Aston, it's like the batmobile) and maybe some moments, but I feel like most don't know their true origin. That's what I'm saying. Like remembering a face of someone at a family reunion, but being unable to place the side of the relation or if they're an uncle, cousin, etc. In short, the important stuff.
I believe that's why Brosnan was quite popular and Dalton wasn't. It's because his era focused primarily on all those things that the general public subconsciously associate with Bond. 'Bond James Bond', 'Martini shaken not stirred', 'gadgets', fancy cars etc. etc.
The sexual nature of it helps, no doubt. I think it's fair to say that Ursula guided more boys into manhood than puberty itself.
Absolutely, @bondjames. The damn public, why can't they be as obsessed as we are? Whenever I overhear anyone having Bond discussions and they get something wrong, I feel a reverberation inside of me that makes me desire to speak out, but I keep it piped.
That's an interesting theory on Brosnan vs. Dalton, and the former's past flirtation with the role before the latter got it certainly helped I'm sure. There may've been many who felt Brosnan got cheated out of a good deal and so, when he finally got his chance, they were ecstatic. His films were certainly more slavish to the Bond iconography, so I agree there.