Peter Hunt - An Appreciation (the former Peter Hunt Auteur thread)

delfloria

Revelator wrote: »

Hunt is probably the director who exerted the most personal control over the major aspects of a Bond film, because after Connery's departure the producers were willing to let him take control and take risks. They trusted Hunt because he was one of the secret saviors of the series. Every Bond film after DN had required extensive editing: Hunt restructured FRWL in the editing room, finessed GF to resemble Young's style, sorted through the mess of TB's footage after Young walked off the production, and was called in to rescue and re-edit YOLT after directing its second unit. Hunt's editing is literally the glue that holds the first Bond films together as a stylistic unit, and OHMSS is the culmination of that style.

Hunt's history with the Bond series and knowledge of the books meant he approached OHMSS with greater interest, investment and vision than any other director on a Bond film, before and since. And OHMSS probably has a greater sense of directorial style than any other Bond. Every aspect of the production--from cinematography to editing-- feels like a conscious stylistic decision and functions as a stamp of individualized creativity.

Helfenstein's book on OHMSS also makes the point that Hunt was an uncredited co-writer of the script. For all the talk about how faithful OHMSS is to the novel, it deviates significantly from Fleming, and almost always for the better. This was not simply a case of filming the book. As with GF, the filmmakers improved on their source.

I think a word like auteur is almost meaningless--nowadays it signifies little more than treating a director like a brand-name. Originally it was used to suggest that Hollywood studio directors were capable of making films with the same level of individuality and style as more independent European director-artists like Renoir and Bergman. This was occasionally true in cases where a director had enough clout to get his way, but the theory overlooked the collaborative nature of filmmaking and the conditions of the studio system and the roadblocks it presented to individual expression.

The same problems occur when applying auteur theory to the Bond films, which almost always have been producer's films rather than expressions of directorial vision. OHMSS is unique in that the director was given an almost free hand--in that sense, Hunt was working somewhat as an "auteur" and able to take his style further than he was allowed to before or since. The editing in OHMSS remains far more elliptical and daring than anything in the succeeding Bonds or in John Glen and Peter Hunt's later films. We know from Hunt and Shout at the Devil that Hunt retained his gifts as an adventure/action director, but afterward he was never given equal opportunities as a filmmaker. For anyone unfamiliar with it, this interview with Hunt is good reading.

Also much of what we see in contemporary action pictures in regards to pacing and editing can be attributed to Hunt's work on OHMSS. The list of directors inspired by OHMSS is impressive.

GeneralGogol

This is a fascinating discussion - makes me appreciate OHMSS even more given that there are now more know reasons why it's a unicorn in the series!

007ClassicBondFan

Revelator wrote: »

Hunt is probably the director who exerted the most personal control over the major aspects of a Bond film, because after Connery's departure the producers were willing to let him take control and take risks. They trusted Hunt because he was one of the secret saviors of the series. Every Bond film after DN had required extensive editing: Hunt restructured FRWL in the editing room, finessed GF to resemble Young's style, sorted through the mess of TB's footage after Young walked off the production, and was called in to rescue and re-edit YOLT after directing its second unit. Hunt's editing is literally the glue that holds the first Bond films together as a stylistic unit, and OHMSS is the culmination of that style.

Hunt's history with the Bond series and knowledge of the books meant he approached OHMSS with greater interest, investment and vision than any other director on a Bond film, before and since. And OHMSS probably has a greater sense of directorial style than any other Bond. Every aspect of the production--from cinematography to editing-- feels like a conscious stylistic decision and functions as a stamp of individualized creativity.

Helfenstein's book on OHMSS also makes the point that Hunt was an uncredited co-writer of the script. For all the talk about how faithful OHMSS is to the novel, it deviates significantly from Fleming, and almost always for the better. This was not simply a case of filming the book. As with GF, the filmmakers improved on their source.

I think a word like auteur is almost meaningless--nowadays it signifies little more than treating a director like a brand-name. Originally it was used to suggest that Hollywood studio directors were capable of making films with the same level of individuality and style as more independent European director-artists like Renoir and Bergman. This was occasionally true in cases where a director had enough clout to get his way, but the theory overlooked the collaborative nature of filmmaking and the conditions of the studio system and the roadblocks it presented to individual expression.

The same problems occur when applying auteur theory to the Bond films, which almost always have been producer's films rather than expressions of directorial vision. OHMSS is unique in that the director was given an almost free hand--in that sense, Hunt was working somewhat as an "auteur" and able to take his style further than he was allowed to before or since. The editing in OHMSS remains far more elliptical and daring than anything in the succeeding Bonds or in John Glen and Peter Hunt's later films. We know from Hunt and Shout at the Devil that Hunt retained his gifts as an adventure/action director, but afterward he was never given equal opportunities as a filmmaker. For anyone unfamiliar with it, this interview with Hunt is good reading.

Excellent interview. I’m always amazed that Hunt essentially had to do a lot of the hard work on the earlier Bond films. I wonder if his loss was the reason some of the following entries felt a bit slow, and jaded compared to what had come before.

hegottheboot_

It started as a true team effort. DN was a no money enterprise and everything moved quickly upwards. Hunt basically says that he had become the point man for EON in addition to being in my opinion the best damn editor in history. I’ve made this point many times to rooms of shocked film scholars (of which I am one but without the stuffiness) that not only was the editing style of the first three Bonds revolutionary but it goes far and beyond past anything done on Breathless (which I still adore). It even extends to the carefully constructed sound design with Norman Wanstall.

I still need to get Helfenstein’s books but I’ve never heard of Hunt being a co-writer merely like Young and Hamilton he had great and heavy script involvement in the shaping process. (Gilbert did later but I don’t know what he brought to YOLT’s actual script.) On DN it went furthest with directorial involvement because as a number of sources indicate it was the film with the most on set revisions and improvisations.

The alternating producers was the biggest revelation for me in Some Kind of Hero which is the first time I had seen it detailed officially anywhere. The partnership had started to fray sometime around TB and got to the point where they started taking turns on each film as to who was the on set driving producer and who stayed behind in the office. Cubby: YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG. Harry: OHMSS, LALD.

Revelator

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

I wonder if his loss was the reason some of the following entries felt a bit slow, and jaded compared to what had come before.

I think so. Hunt mentions that some critics also thought so. He points to Pauline Kael's review of Diamonds Are Forever as an example. Here's the relevant passage, where she mentions Hunt:

"The Ken Adam sets just sit there, and the film doesn't have anything like those flamboyant sequences in the snow--the ski chase and the bobsled run--that were quite literally dazzling in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. What's missing may be linked to the absence of Peter Hunt, who worked on the action sequences of all the earlier Bonds, and who directed the last one; perhaps it was he who gave the series its distinctive quality of aestheticized thrills. The daring seemed beautiful in the earlier films--precariously glorified. This time, even when a sequence works (that is, both daring and funny) such as the car chase, and the battle between Connery and the black and white Amazons, it lacks elegance and visual opulence; it looks like sequences of the same kind in Bond imitations."

007ClassicBondFan

Revelator wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

I wonder if his loss was the reason some of the following entries felt a bit slow, and jaded compared to what had come before.

I think so. Hunt mentions that some critics also thought so. He points to Pauline Kael's review of Diamonds Are Forever as an example. Here's the relevant passage, where she mentions Hunt:

"The Ken Adam sets just sit there, and the film doesn't have anything like those flamboyant sequences in the snow--the ski chase and the bobsled run--that were quite literally dazzling in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. What's missing may be linked to the absence of Peter Hunt, who worked on the action sequences of all the earlier Bonds, and who directed the last one; perhaps it was he who gave the series its distinctive quality of aestheticized thrills. The daring seemed beautiful in the earlier films--precariously glorified. This time, even when a sequence works (that is, both daring and funny) such as the car chase, and the battle between Connery and the black and white Amazons, it lacks elegance and visual opulence; it looks like sequences of the same kind in Bond imitations."

Kael has a point there. The films from Diamonds Are Forever to perhaps A View To A Kill lacked the dynamic editing style that Hunt brought to the series. I always think of Roger Moore’s fight scenes, where they’re so slow pace, and lack the dynamic, harder edged element of the fight scenes of Connery’s Era, and it’s not Roger’s fault at all because the fight scene between Roger and Lee Marvin in “Shout of the Devil” recalls that dynamic, fast paced nature of the fight scenes in OHMSS. That doesn’t mean that the post Hunt films aren’t any good; I really enjoy LALD, TSWLM, FYEO, and OP, but they lack fast paced style of the 60’s Bond era.

Revelator

Parts of Moonraker (edited by OHMSS editor John Glen) do exhibit that sort of fast, dynamic cutting--I'm thinking of the centrifuge scene and Corinne's death. I get the feeling Glen used the subject matter of those scenes to excuse the faster-than-usual cuts.

007ClassicBondFan

Revelator wrote: »

Parts of Moonraker (edited by OHMSS editor John Glen) do exhibit that sort of fast, dynamic cutting--I'm thinking of the centrifuge scene and Corinne's death. I get the feeling Glen used the subject matter of those scenes to excuse the faster-than-usual cuts.

Good point, the fight with Chang is probably the best fight scene from the Moore era, editing wise that is. The Octopussy Palace fight is quite good too.

NickTwentyTwo

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

I’m biased towards Hunt as well. His task was far tougher than Mendes’ was. The man had to prove himself as a first time director, while also handling the task of replacing Connery, and handling what was, at that time, probably the most difficult subject matter within the entire series. He also handled the love scenes incredibly well. I do not buy for a single second that Craig’s Bond fell in love with Madeleine. The romance element of SPECTRE is a large reason why that film doesn’t work on the level that OHMSS does. There’s also the issue of SPECTRE connecting the previous films, which came off as a lazy and desperate attempt to tie everything neatly, and also lessened the impact that Skyfall has. That’s why I’m inclined to say that Hunt’s success with OHMSS is far greater than Mendes’ success with his two films.

As an audience member, I really feel the relief that Bond feels when he looks up at Tracy at the skating rink as he's being pursued by Bunt. That's great filmmaking.

I really need to read up more on the making of the Bond films at large. I sort of get lost when discussing directors. OHMSS is one of my favourite entries as well, and had everything going against it as you mentioned in your post. Incredible Bond film.

007ClassicBondFan

NickTwentyTwo wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

I’m biased towards Hunt as well. His task was far tougher than Mendes’ was. The man had to prove himself as a first time director, while also handling the task of replacing Connery, and handling what was, at that time, probably the most difficult subject matter within the entire series. He also handled the love scenes incredibly well. I do not buy for a single second that Craig’s Bond fell in love with Madeleine. The romance element of SPECTRE is a large reason why that film doesn’t work on the level that OHMSS does. There’s also the issue of SPECTRE connecting the previous films, which came off as a lazy and desperate attempt to tie everything neatly, and also lessened the impact that Skyfall has. That’s why I’m inclined to say that Hunt’s success with OHMSS is far greater than Mendes’ success with his two films.

As an audience member, I really feel the relief that Bond feels when he looks up at Tracy at the skating rink as he's being pursued by Bunt. That's great filmmaking.

I really need to read up more on the making of the Bond films at large. I sort of get lost when discussing directors. OHMSS is one of my favourite entries as well, and had everything going against it as you mentioned in your post. Incredible Bond film.

I love that scene. The multiple cuts between Bunt and her thugs, the fireworks, the guy in the bear costume, and a worried looking Bond, one of the best scenes in the entire franchise.

I highly recommend buying “The Making of OHMSS” book by Charles Helfenstein. It’s not cheap, but well worth the money. It goes into details about the original novel, the previously written drafts, the casting, the filmmaking, the early plans for DAF, and the overall legacy of OHMSS. Great book!

NickTwentyTwo

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

NickTwentyTwo wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

I’m biased towards Hunt as well. His task was far tougher than Mendes’ was. The man had to prove himself as a first time director, while also handling the task of replacing Connery, and handling what was, at that time, probably the most difficult subject matter within the entire series. He also handled the love scenes incredibly well. I do not buy for a single second that Craig’s Bond fell in love with Madeleine. The romance element of SPECTRE is a large reason why that film doesn’t work on the level that OHMSS does. There’s also the issue of SPECTRE connecting the previous films, which came off as a lazy and desperate attempt to tie everything neatly, and also lessened the impact that Skyfall has. That’s why I’m inclined to say that Hunt’s success with OHMSS is far greater than Mendes’ success with his two films.

As an audience member, I really feel the relief that Bond feels when he looks up at Tracy at the skating rink as he's being pursued by Bunt. That's great filmmaking.

I really need to read up more on the making of the Bond films at large. I sort of get lost when discussing directors. OHMSS is one of my favourite entries as well, and had everything going against it as you mentioned in your post. Incredible Bond film.

I love that scene. The multiple cuts between Bunt and her thugs, the fireworks, the guy in the bear costume, and a worried looking Bond, one of the best scenes in the entire franchise.

I highly recommend buying “The Making of OHMSS” book by Charles Helfenstein. It’s not cheap, but well worth the money. It goes into details about the original novel, the previously written drafts, the casting, the filmmaking, the early plans for DAF, and the overall legacy of OHMSS. Great book!

Will do, thanks for the suggestion! I also haven't read Some Kind of Hero yet which could be seen as blasphemous around here. Lots of reading to do!

hegottheboot_

The Helfenstein books have long been on my wishlist. They're about the only books I haven't yet read outside of Archives and the new books from Edlitz (Lost Adventures is on its way to me!) and Sellers (His new Cubby and Harry book I finally ordered as well)

SKOH is the best catch all book. I wish I had had it years ago just to collect everything in one place! It has many details that had long been rumored plus plenty of anecdotes and recollections not put through the official machine which like the legendary Criterion Laserdisc commentaries is a godsend. I'm often afraid to buy new Bond books as I generally find no new information in them and am as disappointed as a nasty turn in a booth...

Young's influence on Hunt is as big as Hunt's influence on Glen. OHMSS is a return to the Young style consciously but with a hard realism edge not present before. If you look closely enough there's actually quite a bit of TB influence which for example is why Peter re-stages the scared Bond running from the Junkanoo into a person bit for maximized effect with the polar bear suit guy.
You can see his influence in the pace Glen tries to inject into both Spy and (to a slightly lesser extent) MR. It took me ages to notice but there are a handful of blink and you miss it Hunt-esque quick frame cuts in there. His second unit and editing was the Peter Hunt path to the director's chair and in many ways you could label his work on FYEO as being from the Hunt finishing school to make the film focused on the nuts and bolts to get everything back down to earth.
Glen writes pages and pages in his autobiography about how he looked up to and worked for Hunt.

That above quote aside few ever acknowledge hunt's work or how vital it was. There's a passage in SKOH from a letter Maibaum wrote Cubby after OHMSS saying that Cubby absolutely had to get someone to live up to Peter's standards because it was so vital to do so. (You can't tell that it still kills me that I never got to meet the key team...Then again I'd probably have had a stack of question cards so voluminous even James Lipton would have said are you mad?)

The biggest shift in DAF is not the tone but the pacing. You know instantly that Peter is gone. Instantly. And it takes getting used to. But the series did have to grow sometime and it finds its way. I think it's unfair to label the following films as not being dynamic-just that they aren't in the style Hunt developed over the first six. Certainly the series grows more languid and the runtimes creep up but they are also different kinds of films. LALD in particular is edited perfectly excepting "the darnedest boat chase you ever saw" going on far too long because Guy and Tom kept building and building and it exists right at the magic 2 hour runtime. Glen's cutting on Spy is (excepting the start of his insistence on jump scares) very well done and he tries to keep MR running at a good clip succeeding rather well actually.

jetsetwilly

Hunt was definitely ahead of his time the way OHMSS was shot and edited. When Hunt was on form he was brilliant. If you look at the way the FRWL train fight is edited together, it stands up today against modern filmmaking.

When Hunt was bad, or sloppy, the editing and direction showed itself up. TB has quite a few errors. Connery face flipped over in a helicopter scene, the shocking speeded up boat scene ending. The beach fight in OHMSS is speeded up in parts and looks slightly silly now. The overdubbed Hilary Bray voice for me is the biggest error in OHMSS. I don't think it was necessary.

Other than that OHMSS still resides in my top 5 film, and is still my favourite Fleming novel that the film is accurately based on. I would have loved to see Hunt direct a few more Fleming adapted movies. No doubt Glen learned a lot from him, which is why the majority of his films adapt Fleming material.

007ClassicBondFan

hegottheboot_ wrote: »

The Helfenstein books have long been on my wishlist. They're about the only books I haven't yet read outside of Archives and the new books from Edlitz (Lost Adventures is on its way to me!) and Sellers (His new Cubby and Harry book I finally ordered as well)

SKOH is the best catch all book. I wish I had had it years ago just to collect everything in one place! It has many details that had long been rumored plus plenty of anecdotes and recollections not put through the official machine which like the legendary Criterion Laserdisc commentaries is a godsend. I'm often afraid to buy new Bond books as I generally find no new information in them and am as disappointed as a nasty turn in a booth...

Young's influence on Hunt is as big as Hunt's influence on Glen. OHMSS is a return to the Young style consciously but with a hard realism edge not present before. If you look closely enough there's actually quite a bit of TB influence which for example is why Peter re-stages the scared Bond running from the Junkanoo into a person bit for maximized effect with the polar bear suit guy.
You can see his influence in the pace Glen tries to inject into both Spy and (to a slightly lesser extent) MR. It took me ages to notice but there are a handful of blink and you miss it Hunt-esque quick frame cuts in there. His second unit and editing was the Peter Hunt path to the director's chair and in many ways you could label his work on FYEO as being from the Hunt finishing school to make the film focused on the nuts and bolts to get everything back down to earth.
Glen writes pages and pages in his autobiography about how he looked up to and worked for Hunt.

That above quote aside few ever acknowledge hunt's work or how vital it was. There's a passage in SKOH from a letter Maibaum wrote Cubby after OHMSS saying that Cubby absolutely had to get someone to live up to Peter's standards because it was so vital to do so. (You can't tell that it still kills me that I never got to meet the key team...Then again I'd probably have had a stack of question cards so voluminous even James Lipton would have said are you mad?)

The biggest shift in DAF is not the tone but the pacing. You know instantly that Peter is gone. Instantly. And it takes getting used to. But the series did have to grow sometime and it finds its way. I think it's unfair to label the following films as not being dynamic-just that they aren't in the style Hunt developed over the first six. Certainly the series grows more languid and the runtimes creep up but they are also different kinds of films. LALD in particular is edited perfectly excepting "the darnedest boat chase you ever saw" going on far too long because Guy and Tom kept building and building and it exists right at the magic 2 hour runtime. Glen's cutting on Spy is (excepting the start of his insistence on jump scares) very well done and he tries to keep MR running at a good clip succeeding rather well actually.

I still have yet to order Helfenstein’s book on TLD, but I’ve really enjoyed both of his appearances on the James Bond Radio podcast. I also still have to listen to the Criterion Laserdisc commentaries as well, I know that I’m bound for a good treat when I finally do get around to it. Regarding the Maibaum letter, that’s in Helfenstein’s book on OHMSS as well. My understanding was that Maibaum wasn’t happy with the direction the films were going in, he defended Peter Hunt, but also referred to Hunt’s control over OHMSS as being “Monsterous”, he also called Lazenby an idiot, which I found quite amusing haha.

I’ve always found LALD to be a bit slow and jaded when it came to the action scenes, particularly the scenes where Bond is fighting anyone. Maybe it’s the way Roger throws his punches, maybe it’s the cheap sound effects they use, or maybe it’s just the way it’s filmed, but other than the alley fight, which could’ve been sped up just a tad bit, I’ve found the action in LALD to be a bit slow compared to previous entries, the rest of the film I agree is perfectly edited, but that one aspect sticks out like a sore thumb. The fight scene in TMWTGG I think is perfectly shot and executed however. But some of the editing in the final duel between Bond and Scaramanga is poor at times imo.

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Hunt was definitely ahead of his time the way OHMSS was shot and edited. When Hunt was on form he was brilliant. If you look at the way the FRWL train fight is edited together, it stands up today against modern filmmaking.

When Hunt was bad, or sloppy, the editing and direction showed itself up. TB has quite a few errors. Connery face flipped over in a helicopter scene, the shocking speeded up boat scene ending. The beach fight in OHMSS is speeded up in parts and looks slightly silly now. The overdubbed Hilary Bray voice for me is the biggest error in OHMSS. I don't think it was necessary.

Other than that OHMSS still resides in my top 5 film, and is still my favourite Fleming novel that the film is accurately based on. I would have loved to see Hunt direct a few more Fleming adapted movies. No doubt Glen learned a lot from him, which is why the majority of his films adapt Fleming material.

I have to say that the one criticism I have of Hunt is the sped up scenes/jump cuts. They don’t really age well. The sped up Disco Volante scenes are pretty ridiculous looking, as is the fight inside the boat itself. Where I think the sped up editing could’ve worked was for the underwater scenes, because I think those are the weakest elements of Thunderball. The dubbing of George Lazenby is also an issue I have, it doesn’t seem as flawless as the dubbing of Gert Frobe in Goldfinger, and it’s even more jarring seeing as how it’s the lead actor being dubbed. Although if I was being completely honest, it’s an issue that I find less and less apparent each time I watch OHMSS.

ringfire211

I’m surprised that DAF was a Cubby film whereas OHMSS was a Harry picture. Wasn’t Harry always the one with the crazy ideas and Cubby the one who always had to reign him in? DAF seems like it’s got Harry written all over it. Also John Barry said that Harry could be infuriating because he was stubborn but had no ear for music whatsoever yet would argue with Barry constantly. He hated the GF song which of course is iconic. He had an issue with the LALD song too. And others. Of course Cubby was the one who wanted Burt Reynolds for 007 which is absolutely bizarre but other than that he was mostly on point. Harry was the crazy one which is also why he drifted away from a successful franchise to pursue other ventures which ended up being failures leading to his bankruptcy.

TripAces

It's difficult to compare Hunt and Mendes or really, any two directors from the 60s and the past decade or two. The budgets and the expectations have changed. I can't imagine what Hunt might have created with CGI and what Mendes would without it. And Mendes had Craig, while Hunt had...eh.

For better or worse, every Bond film from this point forward (at least for the foreseeable future) will be more art house. That is the influence of SF. Had Forster not been handcuffed by the writers strike, we may even look at QoS as starting this trend, rather than SF. Be so as it may, Mendes' work in SF is now the standard.

007ClassicBondFan

ringfire211 wrote: »

I’m surprised that DAF was a Cubby film whereas OHMSS was a Harry picture. Wasn’t Harry always the one with the crazy ideas and Cubby the one who always had to reign him in? DAF seems like it’s got Harry written all over it. Also John Barry said that Harry could be infuriating because he was stubborn but had no ear for music whatsoever yet would argue with Barry constantly. He hated the GF song which of course is iconic. He had an issue with the LALD song too. And others. Of course Cubby was the one who wanted Burt Reynolds for 007 which is absolutely bizarre but other than that he was mostly on point. Harry was the crazy one which is also why he drifted away from a successful franchise to pursue other ventures which ended up being failures leading to his bankruptcy.

I always felt DAF was an overreaction to OHMSS. The decision to make it lighthearted was more of a UA decision. While I’m not completely dismissing the idea that maybe Broccoli and Saltzmen did alternate between films, I’m sure that input from one or the other for the films wasn’t completely dismissed.

TripAces wrote: »

It's difficult to compare Hunt and Mendes or really, any two directors from the 60s and the past decade or two. The budgets and the expectations have changed. I can't imagine what Hunt might have created with CGI and what Mendes would without it. And Mendes had Craig, while Hunt had...eh.

For better or worse, every Bond film from this point forward (at least for the foreseeable future) will be more art house. That is the influence of SF. Had Forster not been handcuffed by the writers strike, we may even look at QoS as starting this trend, rather than SF. Be so as it may, Mendes' work in SF is now the standard.

Oh come come now. Lazenby isn’t bad. He’s good imo. He still sits at the bottom of the Bond actors list, but I’m sure he would’ve shot up if he’d done more. As far as his skills as an actor, well he isn’t Marlon Brando, but he also isn’t Tommy Wiseau either.

I’d be fine with the future standard being Skyfall. It’s a great film. I’d prefer Casino Royale being the new standard, because I think it’s superior to Skyfall in many ways, but Skyfall is a good one too. I just hope they don’t feel the need to connect everything like the Craig Era has done. I’d like to go back to standalone adventures.

CraigMooreOHMSS

I actually think it makes a great deal of sense for OHMSS to be more a Harry-picture. It was the first great departure for the series and it is a bit surreal in places! There are a lot of crazy (but great) ideas in it, even if most of them came from the book.

TripAces

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

ringfire211 wrote: »

I’m surprised that DAF was a Cubby film whereas OHMSS was a Harry picture. Wasn’t Harry always the one with the crazy ideas and Cubby the one who always had to reign him in? DAF seems like it’s got Harry written all over it. Also John Barry said that Harry could be infuriating because he was stubborn but had no ear for music whatsoever yet would argue with Barry constantly. He hated the GF song which of course is iconic. He had an issue with the LALD song too. And others. Of course Cubby was the one who wanted Burt Reynolds for 007 which is absolutely bizarre but other than that he was mostly on point. Harry was the crazy one which is also why he drifted away from a successful franchise to pursue other ventures which ended up being failures leading to his bankruptcy.

I always felt DAF was an overreaction to OHMSS. The decision to make it lighthearted was more of a UA decision. While I’m not completely dismissing the idea that maybe Broccoli and Saltzmen did alternate between films, I’m sure that input from one or the other for the films wasn’t completely dismissed.

TripAces wrote: »

It's difficult to compare Hunt and Mendes or really, any two directors from the 60s and the past decade or two. The budgets and the expectations have changed. I can't imagine what Hunt might have created with CGI and what Mendes would without it. And Mendes had Craig, while Hunt had...eh.

For better or worse, every Bond film from this point forward (at least for the foreseeable future) will be more art house. That is the influence of SF. Had Forster not been handcuffed by the writers strike, we may even look at QoS as starting this trend, rather than SF. Be so as it may, Mendes' work in SF is now the standard.

Oh come come now. Lazenby isn’t bad. He’s good imo. He still sits at the bottom of the Bond actors list, but I’m sure he would’ve shot up if he’d done more. As far as his skills as an actor, well he isn’t Marlon Brando, but he also isn’t Tommy Wiseau either.

I’d be fine with the future standard being Skyfall. It’s a great film. I’d prefer Casino Royale being the new standard, because I think it’s superior to Skyfall in many ways, but Skyfall is a good one too. I just hope they don’t feel the need to connect everything like the Craig Era has done. I’d like to go back to standalone adventures.

No, he's not bad. He's just not Craig. ;)

007ClassicBondFan

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

ringfire211 wrote: »

I’m surprised that DAF was a Cubby film whereas OHMSS was a Harry picture. Wasn’t Harry always the one with the crazy ideas and Cubby the one who always had to reign him in? DAF seems like it’s got Harry written all over it. Also John Barry said that Harry could be infuriating because he was stubborn but had no ear for music whatsoever yet would argue with Barry constantly. He hated the GF song which of course is iconic. He had an issue with the LALD song too. And others. Of course Cubby was the one who wanted Burt Reynolds for 007 which is absolutely bizarre but other than that he was mostly on point. Harry was the crazy one which is also why he drifted away from a successful franchise to pursue other ventures which ended up being failures leading to his bankruptcy.

I always felt DAF was an overreaction to OHMSS. The decision to make it lighthearted was more of a UA decision. While I’m not completely dismissing the idea that maybe Broccoli and Saltzmen did alternate between films, I’m sure that input from one or the other for the films wasn’t completely dismissed.

TripAces wrote: »

It's difficult to compare Hunt and Mendes or really, any two directors from the 60s and the past decade or two. The budgets and the expectations have changed. I can't imagine what Hunt might have created with CGI and what Mendes would without it. And Mendes had Craig, while Hunt had...eh.

For better or worse, every Bond film from this point forward (at least for the foreseeable future) will be more art house. That is the influence of SF. Had Forster not been handcuffed by the writers strike, we may even look at QoS as starting this trend, rather than SF. Be so as it may, Mendes' work in SF is now the standard.

Oh come come now. Lazenby isn’t bad. He’s good imo. He still sits at the bottom of the Bond actors list, but I’m sure he would’ve shot up if he’d done more. As far as his skills as an actor, well he isn’t Marlon Brando, but he also isn’t Tommy Wiseau either.

I’d be fine with the future standard being Skyfall. It’s a great film. I’d prefer Casino Royale being the new standard, because I think it’s superior to Skyfall in many ways, but Skyfall is a good one too. I just hope they don’t feel the need to connect everything like the Craig Era has done. I’d like to go back to standalone adventures.

No, he's not bad. He's just not Craig. ;)

No I’m afraid he isn’t :)), still I like what he brings to the table. That’s kind of how I feel about all the Bond actors, I can’t say I dislike any of them.

TripAces

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

ringfire211 wrote: »

I’m surprised that DAF was a Cubby film whereas OHMSS was a Harry picture. Wasn’t Harry always the one with the crazy ideas and Cubby the one who always had to reign him in? DAF seems like it’s got Harry written all over it. Also John Barry said that Harry could be infuriating because he was stubborn but had no ear for music whatsoever yet would argue with Barry constantly. He hated the GF song which of course is iconic. He had an issue with the LALD song too. And others. Of course Cubby was the one who wanted Burt Reynolds for 007 which is absolutely bizarre but other than that he was mostly on point. Harry was the crazy one which is also why he drifted away from a successful franchise to pursue other ventures which ended up being failures leading to his bankruptcy.

I always felt DAF was an overreaction to OHMSS. The decision to make it lighthearted was more of a UA decision. While I’m not completely dismissing the idea that maybe Broccoli and Saltzmen did alternate between films, I’m sure that input from one or the other for the films wasn’t completely dismissed.

TripAces wrote: »

It's difficult to compare Hunt and Mendes or really, any two directors from the 60s and the past decade or two. The budgets and the expectations have changed. I can't imagine what Hunt might have created with CGI and what Mendes would without it. And Mendes had Craig, while Hunt had...eh.

For better or worse, every Bond film from this point forward (at least for the foreseeable future) will be more art house. That is the influence of SF. Had Forster not been handcuffed by the writers strike, we may even look at QoS as starting this trend, rather than SF. Be so as it may, Mendes' work in SF is now the standard.

Oh come come now. Lazenby isn’t bad. He’s good imo. He still sits at the bottom of the Bond actors list, but I’m sure he would’ve shot up if he’d done more. As far as his skills as an actor, well he isn’t Marlon Brando, but he also isn’t Tommy Wiseau either.

I’d be fine with the future standard being Skyfall. It’s a great film. I’d prefer Casino Royale being the new standard, because I think it’s superior to Skyfall in many ways, but Skyfall is a good one too. I just hope they don’t feel the need to connect everything like the Craig Era has done. I’d like to go back to standalone adventures.

No, he's not bad. He's just not Craig. ;)

No I’m afraid he isn’t :)), still I like what he brings to the table. That’s kind of how I feel about all the Bond actors, I can’t say I dislike any of them.

Me neither.

To the point about the connections. I don't think we'll see that again. It is unique to the Craig era. I can take it or leave it; what's interesting is that the Craig films were already linked thematically, as far as I am concerned. EON didn't need to go the extra mile to connect them plot-wise. While previous Bond films exhibited qualities of the Joseph Campbell idea of the archetypcal hero, Craig's were more Jungian, and I have found that approach to be particularly engaging, given that Fleming had more than a passing interest in Jung's writings.

007ClassicBondFan

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

ringfire211 wrote: »

I’m surprised that DAF was a Cubby film whereas OHMSS was a Harry picture. Wasn’t Harry always the one with the crazy ideas and Cubby the one who always had to reign him in? DAF seems like it’s got Harry written all over it. Also John Barry said that Harry could be infuriating because he was stubborn but had no ear for music whatsoever yet would argue with Barry constantly. He hated the GF song which of course is iconic. He had an issue with the LALD song too. And others. Of course Cubby was the one who wanted Burt Reynolds for 007 which is absolutely bizarre but other than that he was mostly on point. Harry was the crazy one which is also why he drifted away from a successful franchise to pursue other ventures which ended up being failures leading to his bankruptcy.

I always felt DAF was an overreaction to OHMSS. The decision to make it lighthearted was more of a UA decision. While I’m not completely dismissing the idea that maybe Broccoli and Saltzmen did alternate between films, I’m sure that input from one or the other for the films wasn’t completely dismissed.

TripAces wrote: »

It's difficult to compare Hunt and Mendes or really, any two directors from the 60s and the past decade or two. The budgets and the expectations have changed. I can't imagine what Hunt might have created with CGI and what Mendes would without it. And Mendes had Craig, while Hunt had...eh.

For better or worse, every Bond film from this point forward (at least for the foreseeable future) will be more art house. That is the influence of SF. Had Forster not been handcuffed by the writers strike, we may even look at QoS as starting this trend, rather than SF. Be so as it may, Mendes' work in SF is now the standard.

Oh come come now. Lazenby isn’t bad. He’s good imo. He still sits at the bottom of the Bond actors list, but I’m sure he would’ve shot up if he’d done more. As far as his skills as an actor, well he isn’t Marlon Brando, but he also isn’t Tommy Wiseau either.

I’d be fine with the future standard being Skyfall. It’s a great film. I’d prefer Casino Royale being the new standard, because I think it’s superior to Skyfall in many ways, but Skyfall is a good one too. I just hope they don’t feel the need to connect everything like the Craig Era has done. I’d like to go back to standalone adventures.

No, he's not bad. He's just not Craig. ;)

No I’m afraid he isn’t :)), still I like what he brings to the table. That’s kind of how I feel about all the Bond actors, I can’t say I dislike any of them.

Me neither.

To the point about the connections. I don't think we'll see that again. It is unique to the Craig era. I can take it or leave it; what's interesting is that the Craig films were already linked thematically, as far as I am concerned. EON didn't need to go the extra mile to connect them plot-wise. While previous Bond films exhibited qualities of the Joseph Campbell idea of the archetypcal hero, Craig's were more Jungian, and I have found that approach to be particularly engaging, given that Fleming had more than a passing interest in Jung's writings.

I don’t really see the Joseph Campbell myth in the previous Bonds. They all seem to be already fully formed as characters, where as the Campbell myth would require the hero to come from nothing, then undergo the journey to become something. I’m not to familiar on Carl Jung, but I find Craig in Casino Royale to be in that traditional Campbell style of hero.

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »

I actually think it makes a great deal of sense for OHMSS to be more a Harry-picture. It was the first great departure for the series and it is a bit surreal in places! There are a lot of crazy (but great) ideas in it, even if most of them came from the book.

I wonder if it was Harry’s idea for the avalanche. That sounds like something that’d come from his brain.

TripAces

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

ringfire211 wrote: »

I’m surprised that DAF was a Cubby film whereas OHMSS was a Harry picture. Wasn’t Harry always the one with the crazy ideas and Cubby the one who always had to reign him in? DAF seems like it’s got Harry written all over it. Also John Barry said that Harry could be infuriating because he was stubborn but had no ear for music whatsoever yet would argue with Barry constantly. He hated the GF song which of course is iconic. He had an issue with the LALD song too. And others. Of course Cubby was the one who wanted Burt Reynolds for 007 which is absolutely bizarre but other than that he was mostly on point. Harry was the crazy one which is also why he drifted away from a successful franchise to pursue other ventures which ended up being failures leading to his bankruptcy.

I always felt DAF was an overreaction to OHMSS. The decision to make it lighthearted was more of a UA decision. While I’m not completely dismissing the idea that maybe Broccoli and Saltzmen did alternate between films, I’m sure that input from one or the other for the films wasn’t completely dismissed.

TripAces wrote: »

It's difficult to compare Hunt and Mendes or really, any two directors from the 60s and the past decade or two. The budgets and the expectations have changed. I can't imagine what Hunt might have created with CGI and what Mendes would without it. And Mendes had Craig, while Hunt had...eh.

For better or worse, every Bond film from this point forward (at least for the foreseeable future) will be more art house. That is the influence of SF. Had Forster not been handcuffed by the writers strike, we may even look at QoS as starting this trend, rather than SF. Be so as it may, Mendes' work in SF is now the standard.

Oh come come now. Lazenby isn’t bad. He’s good imo. He still sits at the bottom of the Bond actors list, but I’m sure he would’ve shot up if he’d done more. As far as his skills as an actor, well he isn’t Marlon Brando, but he also isn’t Tommy Wiseau either.

I’d be fine with the future standard being Skyfall. It’s a great film. I’d prefer Casino Royale being the new standard, because I think it’s superior to Skyfall in many ways, but Skyfall is a good one too. I just hope they don’t feel the need to connect everything like the Craig Era has done. I’d like to go back to standalone adventures.

No, he's not bad. He's just not Craig. ;)

No I’m afraid he isn’t :)), still I like what he brings to the table. That’s kind of how I feel about all the Bond actors, I can’t say I dislike any of them.

Me neither.

To the point about the connections. I don't think we'll see that again. It is unique to the Craig era. I can take it or leave it; what's interesting is that the Craig films were already linked thematically, as far as I am concerned. EON didn't need to go the extra mile to connect them plot-wise. While previous Bond films exhibited qualities of the Joseph Campbell idea of the archetypcal hero, Craig's were more Jungian, and I have found that approach to be particularly engaging, given that Fleming had more than a passing interest in Jung's writings.

I don’t really see the Joseph Campbell myth in the previous Bonds. They all seem to be already fully formed as characters, where as the Campbell myth would require the hero to come from nothing, then undergo the journey to become something. I’m not to familiar on Carl Jung, but I find Craig in Casino Royale to be in that traditional Campbell style of hero.

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »

I actually think it makes a great deal of sense for OHMSS to be more a Harry-picture. It was the first great departure for the series and it is a bit surreal in places! There are a lot of crazy (but great) ideas in it, even if most of them came from the book.

I wonder if it was Harry’s idea for the avalanche. That sounds like something that’d come from his brain.

Traditionally, Bond is called to action (by M), encounters obstacles in his travels (around the world), defeats the villain, and then symbolically returns triumphant (usually in the arms of the damsel in distress). It isn't at the scale of the mythic hero, but the basic structure is there.

ringfire211

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

ringfire211 wrote: »

I’m surprised that DAF was a Cubby film whereas OHMSS was a Harry picture. Wasn’t Harry always the one with the crazy ideas and Cubby the one who always had to reign him in? DAF seems like it’s got Harry written all over it. Also John Barry said that Harry could be infuriating because he was stubborn but had no ear for music whatsoever yet would argue with Barry constantly. He hated the GF song which of course is iconic. He had an issue with the LALD song too. And others. Of course Cubby was the one who wanted Burt Reynolds for 007 which is absolutely bizarre but other than that he was mostly on point. Harry was the crazy one which is also why he drifted away from a successful franchise to pursue other ventures which ended up being failures leading to his bankruptcy.

I always felt DAF was an overreaction to OHMSS. The decision to make it lighthearted was more of a UA decision. While I’m not completely dismissing the idea that maybe Broccoli and Saltzmen did alternate between films, I’m sure that input from one or the other for the films wasn’t completely dismissed.

TripAces wrote: »

It's difficult to compare Hunt and Mendes or really, any two directors from the 60s and the past decade or two. The budgets and the expectations have changed. I can't imagine what Hunt might have created with CGI and what Mendes would without it. And Mendes had Craig, while Hunt had...eh.

For better or worse, every Bond film from this point forward (at least for the foreseeable future) will be more art house. That is the influence of SF. Had Forster not been handcuffed by the writers strike, we may even look at QoS as starting this trend, rather than SF. Be so as it may, Mendes' work in SF is now the standard.

Oh come come now. Lazenby isn’t bad. He’s good imo. He still sits at the bottom of the Bond actors list, but I’m sure he would’ve shot up if he’d done more. As far as his skills as an actor, well he isn’t Marlon Brando, but he also isn’t Tommy Wiseau either.

I’d be fine with the future standard being Skyfall. It’s a great film. I’d prefer Casino Royale being the new standard, because I think it’s superior to Skyfall in many ways, but Skyfall is a good one too. I just hope they don’t feel the need to connect everything like the Craig Era has done. I’d like to go back to standalone adventures.

No, he's not bad. He's just not Craig. ;)

No I’m afraid he isn’t :)), still I like what he brings to the table. That’s kind of how I feel about all the Bond actors, I can’t say I dislike any of them.

Me neither.

To the point about the connections. I don't think we'll see that again. It is unique to the Craig era. I can take it or leave it; what's interesting is that the Craig films were already linked thematically, as far as I am concerned. EON didn't need to go the extra mile to connect them plot-wise. While previous Bond films exhibited qualities of the Joseph Campbell idea of the archetypcal hero, Craig's were more Jungian, and I have found that approach to be particularly engaging, given that Fleming had more than a passing interest in Jung's writings.

I don’t really see the Joseph Campbell myth in the previous Bonds. They all seem to be already fully formed as characters, where as the Campbell myth would require the hero to come from nothing, then undergo the journey to become something. I’m not to familiar on Carl Jung, but I find Craig in Casino Royale to be in that traditional Campbell style of hero.

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »

I actually think it makes a great deal of sense for OHMSS to be more a Harry-picture. It was the first great departure for the series and it is a bit surreal in places! There are a lot of crazy (but great) ideas in it, even if most of them came from the book.

I wonder if it was Harry’s idea for the avalanche. That sounds like something that’d come from his brain.

An avalanche during a ski chase is nothing crazy or out of the ordinary so I don’t see why it would be a Harry idea. Something that would come from Harry’s brain is Bond in a monkey cage fighting a giant dodo bird with a laser beam on its head while Diana Ross is singing a ballad while fighting a chimp with deadly gold teeth and a sharp sword-like tail. All while suspended over an alligator swamp where sharks are doing backflips.

007ClassicBondFan

ringfire211 wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

ringfire211 wrote: »

I’m surprised that DAF was a Cubby film whereas OHMSS was a Harry picture. Wasn’t Harry always the one with the crazy ideas and Cubby the one who always had to reign him in? DAF seems like it’s got Harry written all over it. Also John Barry said that Harry could be infuriating because he was stubborn but had no ear for music whatsoever yet would argue with Barry constantly. He hated the GF song which of course is iconic. He had an issue with the LALD song too. And others. Of course Cubby was the one who wanted Burt Reynolds for 007 which is absolutely bizarre but other than that he was mostly on point. Harry was the crazy one which is also why he drifted away from a successful franchise to pursue other ventures which ended up being failures leading to his bankruptcy.

I always felt DAF was an overreaction to OHMSS. The decision to make it lighthearted was more of a UA decision. While I’m not completely dismissing the idea that maybe Broccoli and Saltzmen did alternate between films, I’m sure that input from one or the other for the films wasn’t completely dismissed.

TripAces wrote: »

It's difficult to compare Hunt and Mendes or really, any two directors from the 60s and the past decade or two. The budgets and the expectations have changed. I can't imagine what Hunt might have created with CGI and what Mendes would without it. And Mendes had Craig, while Hunt had...eh.

For better or worse, every Bond film from this point forward (at least for the foreseeable future) will be more art house. That is the influence of SF. Had Forster not been handcuffed by the writers strike, we may even look at QoS as starting this trend, rather than SF. Be so as it may, Mendes' work in SF is now the standard.

Oh come come now. Lazenby isn’t bad. He’s good imo. He still sits at the bottom of the Bond actors list, but I’m sure he would’ve shot up if he’d done more. As far as his skills as an actor, well he isn’t Marlon Brando, but he also isn’t Tommy Wiseau either.

I’d be fine with the future standard being Skyfall. It’s a great film. I’d prefer Casino Royale being the new standard, because I think it’s superior to Skyfall in many ways, but Skyfall is a good one too. I just hope they don’t feel the need to connect everything like the Craig Era has done. I’d like to go back to standalone adventures.

No, he's not bad. He's just not Craig. ;)

No I’m afraid he isn’t :)), still I like what he brings to the table. That’s kind of how I feel about all the Bond actors, I can’t say I dislike any of them.

Me neither.

To the point about the connections. I don't think we'll see that again. It is unique to the Craig era. I can take it or leave it; what's interesting is that the Craig films were already linked thematically, as far as I am concerned. EON didn't need to go the extra mile to connect them plot-wise. While previous Bond films exhibited qualities of the Joseph Campbell idea of the archetypcal hero, Craig's were more Jungian, and I have found that approach to be particularly engaging, given that Fleming had more than a passing interest in Jung's writings.

I don’t really see the Joseph Campbell myth in the previous Bonds. They all seem to be already fully formed as characters, where as the Campbell myth would require the hero to come from nothing, then undergo the journey to become something. I’m not to familiar on Carl Jung, but I find Craig in Casino Royale to be in that traditional Campbell style of hero.

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »

I actually think it makes a great deal of sense for OHMSS to be more a Harry-picture. It was the first great departure for the series and it is a bit surreal in places! There are a lot of crazy (but great) ideas in it, even if most of them came from the book.

I wonder if it was Harry’s idea for the avalanche. That sounds like something that’d come from his brain.

An avalanche during a ski chase is nothing crazy or out of the ordinary so I don’t see why it would be a Harry idea. Something that would come from Harry’s brain is Bond in a monkey cage fighting a giant dodo bird with a laser beam on its head while Diana Ross is singing a ballad while fighting a chimp with deadly gold teeth and a sharp sword-like tail. All while suspended over an alligator swamp where sharks are doing backflips.

That is an unabashed, Harry sounding idea. But I’m struggling to find any ideas of his in the final film of OHMSS.

hegottheboot_

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Hunt was definitely ahead of his time the way OHMSS was shot and edited. When Hunt was on form he was brilliant. If you look at the way the FRWL train fight is edited together, it stands up today against modern filmmaking.
When Hunt was bad, or sloppy, the editing and direction showed itself up. TB has quite a few errors. Connery face flipped over in a helicopter scene, the shocking speeded up boat scene ending. The beach fight in OHMSS is speeded up in parts and looks slightly silly now. The overdubbed Hilary Bray voice for me is the biggest error in OHMSS. I don't think it was necessary.

It's not fair to call TB sloppy since TB was such a rushed post production that Hunt had to ask UA to give him barely long enough to finish editing. The release date got pushed back to Christmas '65 and they still barely made it. The rough cut was reputedly four hours and he had to hack away to get it down with most things being lost from the second act. Young left the post process to do The Poppy is Also a Flower and the often derided length of the final underwater battle was not Hunt's choice. The image flopping was a technique Hunt liked to use to fix problems or create a more dynamic image. It's a common trick for most editors back then to use.
The one thing I don't like is the reversal of scenes for seemingly no reason in the second act. Bond and Domino lunch with Bond in the pink shirt and shorts-then the scene with the hotel receptionist and Quist in the room plus Felix's introduction are moved until after the casino scene. Why I have no idea other than to cover a big chunk or removed material. I later realized the scene with Bond and Leiter on the small boat observing the Disco Volante is likely meant to come before the scene in the public area where Felix is introduced to Pinder and Paula because Bond is in the blue clothes and straw hat from the other scene.

This is the reason why you have all the continuity errors and gaffes. Everything was barely finished. Barry's scoring process came late as it had on GF so that the soundtrack LP was prepared in November and only had music from the first half of the film as a consequence.

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

I also still have to listen to the Criterion Laserdisc commentaries as well, I know that I’m bound for a good treat when I finally do get around to it. Regarding the Maibaum letter, that’s in Helfenstein’s book on OHMSS as well. My understanding was that Maibaum wasn’t happy with the direction the films were going in, he defended Peter Hunt, but also referred to Hunt’s control over OHMSS as being “Monsterous”, he also called Lazenby an idiot, which I found quite amusing haha.
I’ve always found LALD to be a bit slow and jaded when it came to the action scenes, particularly the scenes where Bond is fighting anyone. Maybe it’s the way Roger throws his punches, maybe it’s the cheap sound effects they use, or maybe it’s just the way it’s filmed, but other than the alley fight, which could’ve been sped up just a tad bit, I’ve found the action in LALD to be a bit slow compared to previous entries, the rest of the film I agree is perfectly edited, but that one aspect sticks out like a sore thumb. The fight scene in TMWTGG I think is perfectly shot and executed however. But some of the editing in the final duel between Bond and Scaramanga is poor at times imo.
I have to say that the one criticism I have of Hunt is the sped up scenes/jump cuts. They don’t really age well. The sped up Disco Volante scenes are pretty ridiculous looking, as is the fight inside the boat itself. Where I think the sped up editing could’ve worked was for the underwater scenes, because I think those are the weakest elements of Thunderball. The dubbing of George Lazenby is also an issue I have, it doesn’t seem as flawless as the dubbing of Gert Frobe in Goldfinger, and it’s even more jarring seeing as how it’s the lead actor being dubbed. Although if I was being completely honest, it’s an issue that I find less and less apparent each time I watch OHMSS.

The Criterion commentaries are golden. Very much off the cuff and honest. There's not really anything bad in them but since they're forthcoming and blunt I suppose that's what was deemed objectionable especially since it was a new idea to most at the time.
I've wondered what Maibaum meant by Hunt being a "monsterous" at that time. The only thing I could figure was that somehow people felt the power of finally being director had gone a bit to his head perhaps? His referring to Laz as an idiot I think comes with a touch of bemusement as it's impossible not to like him but must have been a bit of a shock for the writer to be confronted with a complete non-actor for the lead.

Action-wise the worst fight in the original films is the PTS fight in the DAF mudroom. It makes me wince every time with how cartoony and dull it is. LALD goes for a realism vibe and does it quite well but this means that the buildups are not in the editing but in the scene itself. Where the editing comes in are during the snakepit death trap scenes in which I think the film is unsurpassed. The crocodile farm is the best snakepit in the series. Hamilton seemed to enjoy tight area fights and this goes into TMWTGG as well-but of course that film really needed an editing build up for the astro spiral jump which despite the amazing stunt comes off as less effective than the bus roof crash because the latter is exquisitely built up in action, editing and scoring-then capped off by the demolished bus making it to the boat.


Harry being the more grounded and realistic in terms of film stories is preceded by his involvement on classic kitchen sink British dramas like Look Back in Anger and of course his other films like Battle of Britain and most especially the Harry Palmer series.

The key line about their relationship IIRC in SKOH ran to effect of: Harry would say Bond should do this because why not? and Cubby would say James Bond would never do that. Ironically when examining YOLT-TMWTGG Harry produced the darker realistic entries and Cubby the more lavish spectacles in tone.


My question now is after seeing it referenced here and a few other places: Did Terence actually walk off of TB? I know he was dissatisfied, tired of the multiple units and team distancing due to the series success-but he did have another project to do for the UN so it seems there was prestige attached there as an impetus.

007ClassicBondFan

hegottheboot_ wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Hunt was definitely ahead of his time the way OHMSS was shot and edited. When Hunt was on form he was brilliant. If you look at the way the FRWL train fight is edited together, it stands up today against modern filmmaking.
When Hunt was bad, or sloppy, the editing and direction showed itself up. TB has quite a few errors. Connery face flipped over in a helicopter scene, the shocking speeded up boat scene ending. The beach fight in OHMSS is speeded up in parts and looks slightly silly now. The overdubbed Hilary Bray voice for me is the biggest error in OHMSS. I don't think it was necessary.

It's not fair to call TB sloppy since TB was such a rushed post production that Hunt had to ask UA to give him barely long enough to finish editing. The release date got pushed back to Christmas '65 and they still barely made it. The rough cut was reputedly four hours and he had to hack away to get it down with most things being lost from the second act. Young left the post process to do The Poppy is Also a Flower and the often derided length of the final underwater battle was not Hunt's choice. The image flopping was a technique Hunt liked to use to fix problems or create a more dynamic image. It's a common trick for most editors back then to use.
The one thing I don't like is the reversal of scenes for seemingly no reason in the second act. Bond and Domino lunch with Bond in the pink shirt and shorts-then the scene with the hotel receptionist and Quist in the room plus Felix's introduction are moved until after the casino scene. Why I have no idea other than to cover a big chunk or removed material. I later realized the scene with Bond and Leiter on the small boat observing the Disco Volante is likely meant to come before the scene in the public area where Felix is introduced to Pinder and Paula because Bond is in the blue clothes and straw hat from the other scene.

This is the reason why you have all the continuity errors and gaffes. Everything was barely finished. Barry's scoring process came late as it had on GF so that the soundtrack LP was prepared in November and only had music from the first half of the film as a consequence.

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

I also still have to listen to the Criterion Laserdisc commentaries as well, I know that I’m bound for a good treat when I finally do get around to it. Regarding the Maibaum letter, that’s in Helfenstein’s book on OHMSS as well. My understanding was that Maibaum wasn’t happy with the direction the films were going in, he defended Peter Hunt, but also referred to Hunt’s control over OHMSS as being “Monsterous”, he also called Lazenby an idiot, which I found quite amusing haha.
I’ve always found LALD to be a bit slow and jaded when it came to the action scenes, particularly the scenes where Bond is fighting anyone. Maybe it’s the way Roger throws his punches, maybe it’s the cheap sound effects they use, or maybe it’s just the way it’s filmed, but other than the alley fight, which could’ve been sped up just a tad bit, I’ve found the action in LALD to be a bit slow compared to previous entries, the rest of the film I agree is perfectly edited, but that one aspect sticks out like a sore thumb. The fight scene in TMWTGG I think is perfectly shot and executed however. But some of the editing in the final duel between Bond and Scaramanga is poor at times imo.
I have to say that the one criticism I have of Hunt is the sped up scenes/jump cuts. They don’t really age well. The sped up Disco Volante scenes are pretty ridiculous looking, as is the fight inside the boat itself. Where I think the sped up editing could’ve worked was for the underwater scenes, because I think those are the weakest elements of Thunderball. The dubbing of George Lazenby is also an issue I have, it doesn’t seem as flawless as the dubbing of Gert Frobe in Goldfinger, and it’s even more jarring seeing as how it’s the lead actor being dubbed. Although if I was being completely honest, it’s an issue that I find less and less apparent each time I watch OHMSS.

The Criterion commentaries are golden. Very much off the cuff and honest. There's not really anything bad in them but since they're forthcoming and blunt I suppose that's what was deemed objectionable especially since it was a new idea to most at the time.
I've wondered what Maibaum meant by Hunt being a "monsterous" at that time. The only thing I could figure was that somehow people felt the power of finally being director had gone a bit to his head perhaps? His referring to Laz as an idiot I think comes with a touch of bemusement as it's impossible not to like him but must have been a bit of a shock for the writer to be confronted with a complete non-actor for the lead.

Action-wise the worst fight in the original films is the PTS fight in the DAF mudroom. It makes me wince every time with how cartoony and dull it is. LALD goes for a realism vibe and does it quite well but this means that the buildups are not in the editing but in the scene itself. Where the editing comes in are during the snakepit death trap scenes in which I think the film is unsurpassed. The crocodile farm is the best snakepit in the series. Hamilton seemed to enjoy tight area fights and this goes into TMWTGG as well-but of course that film really needed an editing build up for the astro spiral jump which despite the amazing stunt comes off as less effective than the bus roof crash because the latter is exquisitely built up in action, editing and scoring-then capped off by the demolished bus making it to the boat.


Harry being the more grounded and realistic in terms of film stories is preceded by his involvement on classic kitchen sink British dramas like Look Back in Anger and of course his other films like Battle of Britain and most especially the Harry Palmer series.

The key line about their relationship IIRC in SKOH ran to effect of: Harry would say Bond should do this because why not? and Cubby would say James Bond would never do that. Ironically when examining YOLT-TMWTGG Harry produced the darker realistic entries and Cubby the more lavish spectacles in tone.


My question now is after seeing it referenced here and a few other places: Did Terence actually walk off of TB? I know he was dissatisfied, tired of the multiple units and team distancing due to the series success-but he did have another project to do for the UN so it seems there was prestige attached there as an impetus.

Perhaps I could’ve been more clear, I think the fight scenes in LALD (the few that are present), are a tad bit slow in pacing, and editing. The boat chase is wonderfully edited however, as are the other action set pieces that don’t involve H2H combat.

That’s why I find amusing about this claim of producers taking turns; everyone seems to poke fun at Saltzmen’s wacky ideas, but OHMSS (his production) seems to lack any of those, while I think the only wacky idea in LALD that seems “Saltzmen like” would be Kananga exploding like a ballon. Maybe Hunt didn’t bow down/conform to Harry’s demands/ideas the way Hamilton did.

As far as Young’s departure. According to John Cork, Cubby and Harry were angered by the excessive amount of money Young spent on the constant behind the scenes partying for Thunderball, all of which came out of the budget of the film. They confronted Young, which upset Young, causing him to prematurely leave the film. Reading that story leads me to understand why Young may not have felt the urge to come back, but I also can’t say I disagree with Cubby and Harry. The films budget is meant for just that, and it’s extremely irresponsible to be spending large portions of the budget on parties that were constantly being thrown whenever cameras weren’t filming. In that case, it’s also no wonder why Young didn’t produce the material sufficient enough to fix the films flaws, he was too busy having a good time, rather than doing his job.

ringfire211

Keep in mind that Young saw himself as James Bond (he lived that lifestyle) so lavish partying was right up his alley. I mean we have him to thank for basically turning Connery into Bond. Or should I say he basically turned Connery’s Bond into himself. Young WAS James Bond.

007ClassicBondFan

ringfire211 wrote: »

Keep in mind that Young saw himself as James Bond (he lived that lifestyle) so lavish partying was right up his alley. I mean we have him to thank for basically turning Connery into Bond. Or should I say he basically turned Connery’s Bond into himself. Young WAS James Bond.

I agree, we owe Young so much. But I think he could’ve behaved more professional on the set of Thunderball. Spending money, that wasn’t his, on lavish parties instead of not focusing on the film is a problem, and Cubby and Harry were rightfully upset.

jetsetwilly

hegottheboot_ wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Hunt was definitely ahead of his time the way OHMSS was shot and edited. When Hunt was on form he was brilliant. If you look at the way the FRWL train fight is edited together, it stands up today against modern filmmaking.
When Hunt was bad, or sloppy, the editing and direction showed itself up. TB has quite a few errors. Connery face flipped over in a helicopter scene, the shocking speeded up boat scene ending. The beach fight in OHMSS is speeded up in parts and looks slightly silly now. The overdubbed Hilary Bray voice for me is the biggest error in OHMSS. I don't think it was necessary.

It's not fair to call TB sloppy since TB was such a rushed post production that Hunt had to ask UA to give him barely long enough to finish editing. The release date got pushed back to Christmas '65 and they still barely made it. The rough cut was reputedly four hours and he had to hack away to get it down with most things being lost from the second act. Young left the post process to do The Poppy is Also a Flower and the often derided length of the final underwater battle was not Hunt's choice.

Interesting. I didn't know that about TB, and how tight the deadline was in the cutting room. Explains why it looks the way it does. And sorry, but the overall film does still feel sloppy to me, particularly that awful speeded up boat finale. We now know the reasons why, but it doesn't detract from the finished product of appearing sloppy. Very dull lengthy underwater scenes pad out a lot of the film, there is too much focus on SPECTRE and its atomic bomb plot, and that rushed hack finale ending is what really makes the film suffer.

If Hunt had more time to edit it, it would be interesting to know how different the final version would have looked.

When the film does work is whenever Connery is above sea level, strutting his stuff at health farms or in the Bahamas. This is TB's saving grace.