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
@DEKE_RIVERS … not an accurate statement: (a quick wiki search):
The film topped the United States box office when it opened with a gross of $1.2 million for the week.[63] It was the highest-grossing film in January 1970.[64] The film closed its box-office run with £750,000 in the United Kingdom (the highest-grossing film of the year),[65] $64.6 million worldwide,[66] half of You Only Live Twice's total gross,[65] but still one of the highest-grossing films of 1969.[67] It was one of the most popular movies in France in 1969, with admissions of 1,958,172.[68] Nonetheless, this was a considerable drop from You Only Live Twice.[69] After re-releases, the total box office was $82,000,000 worldwide.[70]
There was a drop off, from YOLT, but I still believe it was within the top ten films from that year…. And didn’t Lazenby get some recognition from the Golden Globes?
Yes, many people didn't watch OHMSS.
I don't feel it that way though, sure there needs for Bond to be in danger and it makes the tension, but to just have him captured all the time and doing nothing is a different territory.
If I want tension scenes, the later films have that where Bond is in near death experiences or needs to save something or someone, but not to watch him be passive for a long portion of time in the film.
It's not tension, it's a problem for me, Bond was sent to this mission, so he should do the work too, one (including me) might expect him to do the work too and help the Americans solve the problem.
If anything, he shouldn't be in this mission because he never did anything useful to them, if the CIA could just do it by themselves then why to include Bond? He made more trouble than help.
If not for him, the Masterson sisters would've still be alive, and the CIA could've easily finish the job by themselves, Pussy Galore, for sure they could've done something to convince her to come to their side maybe by arresting her and interrogating her.
Back then, people just wanted Bond to be fun, that's all, now, people are realizing things and reassessing Bond films and Bond being an incompetent spy in this film really stick like sore thumb nowadays.
Bond being Goldfinger's assistant is one of the most ingenious move that Fleming had done, really, it's almost realistic.
The film may improve on Goldfinger's plot from the book, or Bond witnessing Jill's death, but the rest was better in the book, it worked in the book.
Without running the film through in my head, would the CIA even know about Goldfinger if it wasn't for Bond and MI6? Felix picks up Bond's homer signal- without that the CIA would have no idea to even suspect GF of being up to anything on American soil. Without Bond's presence, Fort Knox would be toast.
And Bond's main move in the film is to turn Pussy to the good side (so to speak) - that is something he actively does and ultimately saves the day by doing it.
I know you'll keep arguing by just saying the same thing again as you always do, but for a change actually consider what I pointed out there.
There's a difference between "making less money" and "many people didn't watch the movie". OHMSS wasn't as successful as YOLT or DAF, the public apparently didn't accept the lead, it doesn't mean it was a flop. A sequel might have been accepted with Connery as the lead. I'd argue that only Connery could sell DAF.
I don't think Connery wanted to use Lazenby's backstory. If Connery's Bond had actually romanced Tracy, then it would have been a different story.
There's no difference. OK? Less money means less people.
There were no VHS or DVDs. A lot of people didn't see the movie, literally.
And they had Connery for the last time.
Many people don't like DAF, I know, but come on!
Well that another missed opportunity.
Calm down. There's actually a difference: you're confusing comparison with intrinsic popularity. Many bands were less popular than the Beatles, it doesn't mean they were not popular bands in their own right.
But they had The Beatles!
Hmm, not too sure about it being one of Fleming’s most realistic ideas. Even in the context of the book Goldfinger at first refuses to bring Bond in, and it’s only afterwards when Bond wakes up that he essentially says he’s changed his mind (for no real reason). I’d argue it’s one of his weirdest and certainly most contrived moments of the novels, haha! I’ve not heard anyone use this film as an example of Bond being an incompetent spy if I’m honest….
Anyway, like I said to each their own. I just prioritise how I feel when watching the film and it works for me on that level. I’m not sure if it’s a case where I’ve not thought about it much, or you’ve thought about it a bit too much long after watching the film. But yeah, that’s what it comes down to for me :)
However, working as Goldinger's "secretary" wouldn't be better, imo. I didn't like that part in the novel. It didn't make any sense to me that the super villain would let Bond work for him.
And the transition from the title song to Barry's first cue with those visuals has never been bettered, perhaps never will.
No notes on GF.
That's all Bond films!
People and fans invariably insist it's one of the very best of the entire franchise but could never concur. Pity is FRWL was arguably Connery's best and finest hour as 007 and the
immediate successor was lame and devoid of excitement or something to keep the viewer content for the majority of it's duration. It's just one fans opinion, many wouldn't agree or find fault but been with the series long enough and taken in enough views to allow opportunity on the title/s in question.
Lets turn our attention to the biggest Bond of them all...Thunderball!
We have Connery at the top of his game as Bond. We have a great female antagonist as Fiona Volpe. Ken Adams created some wonderful sea vehicles and we have an Oscar win for Special Effects. But do we have some missed opportunities with this film?
What say you mi6 community? What are the missed opportunities of Thunderball?
The Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang song with lyrics. I like it better than Tom Jones' song. And the Dionne Warwick version has her singing at the peak of her career.
An additional scene with Paula, so we feel her death more keenly.
Much, much, much shorter underwater scenes.
It's a bit unfair because if I recall correctly underwater action had not really been seen onscreen before, so they gave audiences a *lot* of it. Way too much.
A better, and younger, actor playing Largo. NSNA did improve on TB in this respect.
The final confrontation scene on the Disco doesn't quite work either (not enough footage shot?) but I do think this plays out better above water than underwater a la NSNA. And "Well, too late to learn" is a good line.
For me it just doesn't learn the lessons of the success of GF enough. People loved Bond having the cool gadgets in GF, so in TB they give all the cool gadgets to the baddies for some reason. A motorbike with rockets, a yacht that splits in two etc. He gets boring stuff like a pill. Yes, he gets a jetpack, but he doesn't use it for anything useful- he could have used a ladder instead.
In GF we have 007 actually handcuffed to a nuclear bomb! But in TB.. the bombs are... somewhere else. We never really see them and Bond is nowhere near them; there's not much immediate threat.
In GF we have larger-than-life baddies who jump off the screen like Oddjob and Goldfinger himself, in TB we have Vargas whose thing is that he, er, "doesn't do" anything, and Largo himself who is vaguely menacing but not really much of a presence. Fiona is amazing and the scenes between her and Bond sparkle: and maybe the biggest missed opportunity is not having her as the main baddie instead of Largo.
There's good stuff in there; the locations look stunning and Connery is at the height of his powers, but it almost needs a ground-up reworking to make the most of the opportunities that GF gave the series. It's too close to the book and feels slightly pedestrian after GF had pointed the way to success on the big screen; it needs to be madder but it's slightly half-hearted.
The part that drags for me is the downing of the Vulcan. The water landing, the men coming to plane, the bombs, the net all of that feels like an eternity and causes me to drift off, surely there was a way to trim it back.
In TB I believe SPECTRE gives the NATO powers a week to come up with the ransom. There never seems to be urgency expect for the Home Secretary shouting at M.
I agree with you @mtm Bond never feels to be in much danger, save for the Junk-A_Noo sequence when he gets grazed in the leg and is evading Fiona and her goons.
The energy wanes when Fiona is disposed of. Largo doesn't have a larger than life persona like GF did.
Also, on the jet pack thing, a simple fix: have the chateau that Bond confronts Bouvar in have a moat. That way the baddies lock it down and he has no way of escaping across the moat, so the jetpack actually comes in useful. Instead of the Aston, have his french agent ladyfriend drive some convertible car which he then lands in whilst she's driving away from pursuing baddies- more exciting. Bond unclips the jetpack and it lands on the road behind them, he turns and fires as the baddies drive towards it and it explodes, forcing them off the road. Cut to titles.
Just a really quick back-of-a-fag-packet idea: how about Largo reveals that although they've asked for a ransom the plan is to actually let the London bomb off anyway, as cover for some big theft from the Bank of England or something. Meanwhile the second bomb is still in the Bahamas, and they intend to set that one off in order to spark a mega tidal wave, which will take out most of Miami and the coast of Florida (no idea if that makes sense, it doesn't matter!). Spectre have massive interests in construction companies, so they'll swoop in and rebuild, as well as buying up as much land as possible at bargain rates, earning a hundred times what they're asking for in ransom- something they can repeat in Cuba too when Havana is destroyed similarly - they have no allegiances to East or West. And they'll blame the 'accidental' detonation of the bomb on the interference of British agent James Bond, who they had lured there with Domino- thus getting revenge on 007 for stopping their schemes in Jamaica and Turkey, as well as ruining the international reputation of the UK and increasing British tensions with the US.
So, probably too complex, but it makes their plan a bit more dastardly, and it brings the threat right to 007's doorstep, makes it a little personal even, and increases the stakes for the end of the film, as he and everyone else on the island faces imminent death. Maybe Largo even plans to make his getaway in the Vulcan? Have Bond blow it up with his jetpack or something, I don't know :D Maybe he drives the hydrofoil at full speed at Palmyra, hops off, and it jumps into the air and blows up the Vulcan.
Or maybe: Largo thinks the plan is to ransom Washington as they say, but Fiona is actually closer to Number One and reveals the real plan to blow up Nassau and blame Bond for it to 007 and an aghast Largo. She kills Largo when he tries to get to the bomb to disarm it, and makes for a getaway in the Vulcan (instead of a water landing they've actually got a proper runway complete with airtight dome at the end which rises out of the sea)- Bond gives chase and destroys the Vulcan with Fiona in it.
In fact, it's a missed opportunity after FRWL and to a lesser extend TB: have villains with gadgets to make Bond's life more difficult. Imagine a Q branch for SPECTRE or the Janus Syndicate. That could make for really interesting scenes.
"Cool" is a vague term. What one finds cool another might find vulgar or silly. I think the gadgets have to reflect the nature of the people using them, somewhat: the garrot, the poisoned tip shoe for SPECTRE operatives, the briefcase for MI6 agents. Nasty sneaky weapons used to murder versus something used for espionage in hostile environment. Goldfinger has a gadgets car of sorts: his golden Rolls Royce, used for smuggling gold. In TB, the villains have overall fitting gadgets: the Disco Volante is a battleship hiding as a yacht like Largo is a criminal hiding as a wealthy legitimate businessman, for instance.
On a side note, that is the single one thing that I liked about DAD, albeit the execution had lots of problems: but two gadgets laden cars fighting was an inspired idea.
And do you find those to be vulgar or silly?
I don’t know, there’s probably a number of films after this where the baddies have the better gadgets, but right after GF it seems an odd choice.
Bond has the jetpack which is impressive, and yet it’s not very impressive onscreen somehow. And it also promises a wilder ride than the rest of the film really delivers.
One thing about the jetpack too: why do they awkwardly try to put it in the boot? It’s not very Bond- usually he’d just dump something like that once he’s used it and drive off.