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
I read numerous times, I recall, muddled accounts of Spielberg being approached about overseeing a Bond release at the time in question, but he either declined the invitation or they went after someone else. I'm in two minds whether I would of wanted to see him chair a Bond movie. Disagree with thesis
IMAX on the other hand.. I could see IMAX expanding, and would embrace it with open arms. Supposedly the new Batman has over ONE HOUR of IMAX footage. WOW.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Bond's staged death in YOLT didn't serve the story in any way.</b></font>
Hmmm I never considered this before! Now that it's brought to my attention, you're right--- they sure could have ran with the idea-- but as it is in YOLT, it didn't really add much.
Perhaps they could have maybe used such an idea for OHMSS instead! Not just because of the new actor (as a wink to the audience), but because Bond just destroyed Blofeld's Volcano Lair-- and made a critical strike to S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
But since they did use this plot in YOLT, they should have definitely ran with it-- at the very least have Bond use the disguise way earlier in the film. I mean, they had his freaking photograph in the obituaries, yet he shows up at Osato looking like he always does-- any moron who happened to look at the paper would have known it was BOND.
Come to think of it.... why have his photograph in the paper anyway? I mean yeah, I know as far as the public is concerned, James Bond was just a Naval Commander- but still why advertize his face all over?
*edit-- damn I just realized if they used that plot device in OHMSS, there would be no reason to call the last movie 'You Only Live Twice'. lol nevermind :-?
And really, DAF.
ofcourse! I was just thinking in terms of consecutive movies.
<font color=blue size=7><b>QoS's theatrical cut is too short.</b></font>
Ditto
The QoS theatrical cut is not too short, it problem is its frantic editing and lazy storytelling hidden by said telling.
As short as the movie is, it still does nothing to cover up its many flaws.
The plot had more potential than most of the Bond films we've seen the last couple of decades. It was the writer's strike that hurt QOS. In a perfect world EON would've postponed it to maybe the summer of 2009 but when you've got a 200 million dollar film in the longest running film franchise in the history of cinema I'd imagine schedules are pretty important to keep.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Orlov posed the biggest global threat of all the 80s villains.</b></font>
Having said that, knowing what we do now and seeing how the world has played out in terms of technology, I'd say Zorin was a bigger threat in the long run.
Therefore, imo, THESIS INCORRECT
Agree. That's why I consider OP not necessarily the best(I give that title to TLD) but certainly the most general audience pleasing of the 1980s Bond films. Orlov's WWIII plot sits solidly in the tradition of Goldfinger's Fort Knox plot, SPECTRE's TB nuclear weapons hijacking scheme, and the larger-than-life threats in the Lewis Gilbert Bond films of "the world is in trouble and only Bond can save us!" variety.