Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Goldfinger vs Thunderball
Junglist_1985
Los Angeles
Alright, let’s fire this one up again: Goldfinger vs Thunderball.
Despite having a clunky first act and some pacing issues at the end, I find myself enjoying TB more these days. Goldfinger established the formula, but TB feels more like a Bondian spy “adventure” within that formula - I prefer the locations, the score, the villain, the girls, Bond’s performance, and just the general tone.
In GF, the long slog in Kentucky brings the whole thing down for me - not only is it incredibly dull looking, but Bond does very little while a prisoner, and the whole raid on Fort Knox is increasingly boring on subsequent rewatches over time. I’ll take the (admittedly slow) underwater scenes over the Kentucky sequence any day of the week, and I’ll take the TB Spectre meeting over almost any part of Goldfinger’s plotting.
They remain close in my rankings, but I will now easily place TB above GF.
Anyone else with similar feelings?
Despite having a clunky first act and some pacing issues at the end, I find myself enjoying TB more these days. Goldfinger established the formula, but TB feels more like a Bondian spy “adventure” within that formula - I prefer the locations, the score, the villain, the girls, Bond’s performance, and just the general tone.
In GF, the long slog in Kentucky brings the whole thing down for me - not only is it incredibly dull looking, but Bond does very little while a prisoner, and the whole raid on Fort Knox is increasingly boring on subsequent rewatches over time. I’ll take the (admittedly slow) underwater scenes over the Kentucky sequence any day of the week, and I’ll take the TB Spectre meeting over almost any part of Goldfinger’s plotting.
They remain close in my rankings, but I will now easily place TB above GF.
Anyone else with similar feelings?
^ 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
the soldiers pretending to drop dead during the flying circus flyover happens too quickly. I really despise the speeded up action of the Disco Volante in TB before it crashes. But I am also critical of aspects of CR, one of my top two Bond films. The Miami airport scene with all its action drags the film down in my opinion.
GF and TB mark the high point of the series for me. It's when all the Bond elements fell into place, never to be duplicated again in that way. I don't rank one over the other. But they are a point in time. Unique, and really never surpassed in one sense. Bigger and splashier Bond films have never impressed like GF & TB. That the RM films made giant profits and saved the series doesn't make those films better.
How we feel about any Bond film and Bond actor is always a matter of opinion. When I consider the entirety of the Bond series, Connery's first four, OHMSS, TLD, and CR are the epitome of the Bond experience.
I can understand why some people would have criticisms with the Kentucky scenes in GF, but I do think it adapts the source material very well all things considered. While it's never been my favourite Bond film per say I've come to appreciate it more in recent years.
Connery was at the height of his powers, his suits were impeccable, the music was sexy, the stories were both over the top, yet still felt grounded (generally speaking)….
But Fiona pushes Thunderball ahead of GF, for me…. She is a perfect femme fatale, and no one has come close to her lethal sexiness…
I don't think I can decide.
I really love them both, and I love the elements that get a lot of criticism. I love TB's slower pace and underwater sequences, and I also love the Kentucky section of GF. I don't mind Bond imprisoned during the 2nd half of the film. Never bothered me in the least.
In GF, it’s massively exciting because Bond is literally handcuffed to an atomic bomb! In TB, there’s another bomb, but it’s thousands of miles away and we never see it. That’s…less exciting. Truth is, we care more for Bond than thousands of unseen fictional people. If a bomb had blown up at the end of NTTD instead of Bond dying do you think we’d be getting as many complaints?
I don’t quite get how you can do a direct sequel and yet make it less exciting.
The real sequel to GF is YOLT. It learns everything that people liked about GF and tries to build on it. Is it scrappier? Sure, but it know it’s the sequel to GF, where I’m not sure TB does.
I love Tom Jone though this track would have enhanced the film even further...
Thunderball - Rejected Title Music - Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
IMO, Goldfinger is the transitional movie solidly bringing Bond into the 60's from the previous two that had 50's vibes clinging hard to them. The soldiers falling so fast as the Flying Circus gas was being sprayed seemed so fake the first time I saw the movie as a kid in the theatre, until I realized they WERE faking it. And faking it badly. And it was actually realistic that they were faking it badly! The skin suffocation thing was the only dumb part... I imagine they suffocated her first, then painted her.
Thunderball had Fiona & Domino, and a great line "She's just dead", but the movie suffered from editing issues (Hunt? I think he was rushed), a so-so villain, and a poor last 15 minutes (NSNA had all the same problems for me, coincidentally).
So, Goldfinger for the win for me!
And yeah @mtm, YOLT is the better sequel! =D>
In terms of fun, I think GF has this in spades. The golf game is always a highlight for me. I enjoy the interplay with Connery and Jill Masterson in Miami. I love some of the dialogue and Gert Frobe was laying down the template for future villains to follow.
In terms of romance I think that is where TB is ahead. The relationship between Bond, Domino is given some time to breath. We have a few scenes with them together and the scene where Bond delivers the bad news is a subtle heart wrenching scene.
I think Connery is the king of cool in both films. Who else could pull off a terry cloth onesie and still look cool? The man was oozing confidence and charisma and I think it's safe to say that both films are picked up because of it. He would never hit these hits again while playing the character.
There is so much about these two films I love. The opening notes of both title songs knock you back in your seat. Barry's underwater riffs are evocative and forbidding.
Certainly neither film has the polish of the latest films, but there's a quality about both that has never been recaptured.
As for YOLT, just not in the same league. But that's my opinion. As for painting Jill, my sense is she was knocked unconscious and then painted thereby causing suffocation.
Every scene in it feels like a classic film unfolding, rather like watching something like The Godfather, Jaws or the original Star Wars.
TB on the other hand is one mess of a movie. Too many boring underwater sequences plague the film, most of the movie is Connery aimlessly on holiday, and the ridiculous spectacle of the badly speeded up screen projection of the boat going ultra fast at the end sends the movie into Naked Gun/Airplane! comedy territory.
There is no comparison between the 2 films at all.
Very different films. Both great.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that ending!
Another thing about GF I'd argue is it's an example of a film that improves on the source material. The third act of that story is especially ironed out compared to the rather outlandish scenario of the novel (for the record I do like it, but it becomes a bit ridiculous past a certain point). Goldfinger's plan makes more sense in the film, there's less of the contrived 'cat and mouse' stuff of Bond and Goldfinger politely running into each other and the villain rarely taking any direction action (he even recruits him as his private assistant which even in the context of the novel makes little sense), and there's a general sense much is made much more 'cinematic' (simply having Bond in the room when Jill is killed/painted gold is a much more striking image than what we get in the novel).
Out of all the Bond films, I think FRWL and GF improved the most on their novels, and I'd argue are actually better.
Yes, while Tatiana killing Klebb was a great move in the film, I don't think FRWL as a film improved upon the book.
For me, there are so many things in the book than in the film, especially when it comes to the villains, they're fleshed out more in the book than in the film.
Just like Dr. No (while the ending surely makes sense more in the film), the book of it is actually better as a whole.
For me, FRWL is one of Fleming's best novels along with Moonraker and Casino Royale.
I agree about Goldfinger being improved upon the book, but not FRWL.
For me, out of all the Bond novels, it's only Goldfinger that's really improved upon the book (maybe OHMSS too).
I think it depends on your preference. I will say that having SPECTRE act as a sort of puppet master throughout FRWL gives it an extra dynamic and more of a 'cat and mouse' tension that enhances what the original novel was going for. But it's a relatively faithful adaptation, and there's a sense that the cast managed to bring the characters from the novel to life.
For me, DN works better as a novel than the film does, but it's also worth noting that the film is less faithful to the source material and added much. This is due to a) the novel being a sequel to FRWL and containing themes for Bond's character that carried over from that story, and b) the novel having much less that happens that would fill out a film before Bond goes to Crab Key. I think that particular film had budget constraints as well which meant that the dark, fantastical world that Fleming described wasn't fully evoked on film.
All of the early Bond films I'd say have quite solid scripts and knew where to deviate from the novels. Most of the time it's just to keep the pace needed for a film, as well as for practicality (so for instance TB makes the whole Derval subplot more streamlined by setting the action in Shrublands when Bond is there. Instead of Domino's brother having been paid off by SPECTRE he comes off as more an innocent bystander since he's killed/someone gets plastic surgery to look like him. Bond has much more agency in the plot because he discovers this, and it gives him a much more solid reason to investigate in the Bahamas).
Pushing this back on topic slightly, I'd say TB is a better novel but I find it one of Fleming's weaker ones. The problems with the film (ie. there being very surprisingly little tension once Bond arrives in the Bahamas) are very similar to the problems in the novel. What makes the novel better for me are the very interesting (and surprisingly introspective and even funny) opening chapter, Fleming's description of the underwater scenes being much more evocative and compelling than what we get on film and the characters (Largo and Domino are much more interesting than they are in the film).
NSNA is the only version which makes this work for me, as there’s a clue to the Flying Saucer left at Shrublands. It’s a bit of a lame one, but it is at least actually there.
The book gives Bond a good enough reason for going to the Bahamas--M has studied the radar plots and decided to act on a daring hunch ("I have committed a breach of faith with the PM in telling you all this, 007...I decided to do what I have done because I have an idea, a hunch, and I wish this idea to be pursued by a’—he hesitated—‘by a reliable man"). This would have given M one of those sorely needed-character moments he rarely received during the 60s films, when he was mostly around to be one-upped by Bond.
I'm not terribly concerned by Bond having less agency in these matters, because he still has agency where it counts, and in a thriller it's important to keep things moving and avoid excess complications. That's where TB fails next to GF--it's too long, has too many subplots and sub-characters, and lacks the book's sweep, though it does amp up the climax.
Interesting. I suppose for me I've always felt it makes sense having Domino's brother be more an innocent victim than someone who is bribed and is, in essence, a criminal. Just on a gut level it makes Domino's heartbreak/revenge over the whole thing a bit more palatable in the context of a film. As for the reason Bond goes to the Bahamas, it's perhaps less a logical thing than just a feeling I get when reading the book vs watching the film. M's hunch/the way it's explained in the book feels a bit artificial and comes out of nowhere for me, whereas in the film because we've spent so much of it with Bond and seen him essentially investigate some of what's happened it just feels like it makes more sense. Which really is all you can ask for in storytelling. But these things are subjective obviously.
What did you think about how they handled the Pettachi subplot in NSNA? I felt it worked better having SPECTRE getting him hooked on drugs (silly as it is on paper) as it still made him out to be more of a victim but streamlined the plot in the ways I found effective about TB.
To me it feels more plausible for him to commit the crime for venal, everyday motives. And since he's not an important character, being there only to advance the plot, he's best dealt with economically. There's also something poignant in Domino saying she knows her brother's a rascal but not knowing just how much.
For me M's hunch is a good character moment and also a plausible way and direct way of getting Bond to the Bahamas. Taking a chance on a radar reading feels like something a spy agency would do in reality. The film instead relies on the drawn-out complications of the plastic surgery double and having Bond ask to go to the Bahamas because the pilot's sister is there.
I agree. It helped that NSNA's Petacchi came off as a more pathetic, desperate character, and even more under the thumb of the femme fatale than in TB. I tend to like NSNA more than most folks on this board, and my major issue with the film is its limp climax.
I can understand why it was changed for the film. While I think Domino is a more evocative character in the novel, I do think it hits harder emotionally if she has a closer relationship with her brother and there's a sense that SPECTRE have killed him for something he doesn't deserve.
But again, it's subjective. I do think it's interesting that the scriptwriters made that conscious decision though.
Oh, it's certainly more logical and more along the lines of something that a real spy agency would do. Like I said, I don't think that's the point. From a viewer's perspective we've seen Bond get entangled with SPECTRE's plans in this film. He's seen Deval's body, nearly been killed by Count Lippe. I think the fact that he's more involved gives his hunch much more weight.
It's rather daft on paper, but I think there's a reason why the vast majority of people don't pick up on this contrivance on a first time viewing. M's hunch about radar points in the novel just seems to come out of nowhere because in essence it has come out of nowhere for the reader. It's a bit contrived, albeit logical, however I think there's a sense that we see that contrivance a bit more because it sticks out in the context of the novel. I personally don't find it as good storytelling.
Yes, I agree about Pettachi and the climax is rather limp. There's some good stuff about NSNA and arguably stuff that even improves on TB though.
I don't think extending Bond's involvement justifies itself though. The end result of the all the plastic surgery double stuff is to have Bond say he's seen Derval's body and therefore give him a reason (one of two) to want to go to the Bahamas. That added plot point isn't worth the screentime it consumes in an over-long movie and it feels like a needless complication. Bond becoming involved with Lippe was enough to tie the Shrublands scenes to the Spectre plot. But extending Shrublands with the double subplot slows the film's transition to the Bahamas and further hobbles the pacing, which is just as important as the plot.
I didn't get that impression. Bond arrives to find that M has been up late working on something, and in the time honored arbitrary tradition of the books M gives Bond his assignment and tells him where to go. I don't think there's any need to complicate that further; doing so is partly why TB has its pacing issues and comes off so bloated in comparison with GF.
I suppose there's an issue of adaptation too. Much of the novel's Shrublands sections are about a rather unfit Bond becoming (in a rather comedic way) 'healthy' which, while wonderful to read, can be rather introspective and I don't think would have worked for the type of movie they were trying to make at that time. It certainly bulks up these chapters in the novel though. I think there's a sense that without Bond finding Deval's body this section of the movie would feel a bit rushed and even pointless.
Again, these things are subjective, but I think much of the pacing issues come later in the film. And I'd argue Fleming's novel doesn't have his strongest second and third half.
I think there's also a distinction between storytelling in film and in novels. Sometimes what works in a novel won't necessarily work in a film and vice versa, especially with film being a visual medium. I do think it's more evocative seeing Bond get more entangled in SPECTRE's scheme, and it makes the hunch Bond vocalises more believable.
For what it's worth as well, I've heard more complaints about how Bond is led to the Bahamas in the novel than in the film, even though the novel's version is more logical.
And in TB him being there also means we get the scene of Bond witnessing Lippe getting blown up on the road: thus you get the maddening bit where you show a load of little boys (who have just got a Corgi DB5 for Christmas) Bond in his famous car, and he doesn’t get to use it! In fact, again the baddies have the best gadget in the form of a rocket-firing motorcycle. Bond films aren’t about not giving the audience what they want. Again it feels like lessons haven’t been learned from GF.
Regardless, the Derval plot is okay, but why Bond thinks his sister is involved is unclear. If he’d just tied it in with a possible last location of the Vulcan being similar, or perhaps a clue that Derval was playing along because she was being threatened or something, then you’d have a solid link.
Yes, I do think there's an interesting stream of adaptation/retelling going on. Not that NSNA is perfect. Fatima being in charge/Pettachi being drugged out is great, but there's much less suspense with Bond viewing Lippe's tattoo and becoming suspicious earlier on. The rack sequence, while ridiculous in the film, is also rather tense in the novel.
Like I said, from experience I don't find people have these criticisms immediately when they watch the film. It tends to be a thing that comes off as a contrivance in hindsight once one thinks about it.