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
When it comes to gadgets, the questions one would have to ask would be: are they at least somewhat plausible and are they suitable for the characters? I wouldn't want Q branch to design portable torture devices for Bond to use when interrogating an enemy, for instance. I think villains having suitable gadgetry for their work makes perfect sense: poisoned blades hidden in shoes, garrot in a watch explosive milk bottles, the lot.
For the jetpack I think you're nitpicking. Surely Bond puts it in the boot so he can use it again! These things don't come cheap. Besides, you wouldn't want SPECTRE to do reverse engineering on it. (Now reverse engineering would be an interesting plot device. I'm surprised SPECTRE never thought about it.)
I'm not sure why you're raising this here though; I don't see the relevance. Surely when people on this board describe Bond as being cool you don't have to specify that as potentially being vulgar to some other people?
Yeah I like all that; I like the gadgets that the baddies have in TB. The problem is that Bond gets all the boring ones. A camera that works underwater. A geiger counter in a watch. A pill. Yawn.
When does Bond ever care about that though? It's not a big issue or anything, but it's more him to just drop it and not care. Or, y'know, blow it up.
As for the coolness factor of gadgets, I find it irrelevant and extremely difficult to apply to them anyway, hence my comment about the vagueness of the term. Is the gadget somewhat plausible, is it practical? That's what matters. Bond has to say the best lines, wear the best clothes (although his elegance should never be outlandish, that's the villain's prerogative), eat the beat food, drink the best wines. That's what makes him cool. It's in the intangible qualities of the "mundane". The car he drives is cool, not the gadgets in it. The Disco Volante is a yacht for rich jerks and I don't want Bond to own it, gadgets or no gadgets.
It's kind of a running gag between Q and him in the films that he doesn't treat the stuff with respect. It's sort of the fun of Bond that he's so deep into the world of luxury that he happily discards what we'd all cherish.
I can't really get where you're coming from on this. I've never watched a Bond film and hoped he gets 'practical' gadgets - this is entertainment. I want to be impressed, amused. And I'd be amazed if no kid thought the Lotus was cool because it went underwater rather than just because it's a Lotus.
As for the practicality of gadgets, I think it should be essential. That's part of the entertainment: using them in clever and original ways, not having something gratuitous. The Lotus didn't go underwater for the sake of it: its functionality served a purpose. It went a bit too far into sci-fi territory for my taste, but that's another debate entirely.
Whether the villain's gadgets are cooler than Bonds is not important to me. For the record I think the scuba jetpack and rocket bike are pretty equal on that front.
The thing about the jetpack was it's too big and hot to fit in the boot, and the boot was already full of mechanisms for the shield and water cannon feature. It's not about whether he tosses the gadget aside, but the believability of him just popping it in there like luggage. It's a tongue-in-cheek moment.
I love the SPECTRE room and the contrast with the Mi6 briefing. Ken Adams did great work here even though there was no liar for the villain.
I recall an interview with Richard Maibaum where he mentioned that Largo was given an eye patch to just make him appear more villainous. Largo is a sadistic man, as evidenced with his relationship with Domino, but there is no colour there. Think of GF where Auric flinches on the putt when Bond throws down the gold bar.
One area where I think there were no missed opportunities was in the female actresses. I think this is one film with the most beautiful women in a variety of key roles.
1. Underwater scenes
2. The background music messing up with some scenes and it doesn't helped that it's repetitive throughout the film.
3. The Cloning Thing regarding Domino's brother.
4. Not much action when it's supposed to have it more.
5. Dubbing of some casts (Domino almost have the same recognizable voice as Honey Ryder and Jill Masterton?), Good job on Nikki, but it's getting noticeable, really.
6. Largo was an underwhelming villain, he's not menacing, let alone threatening, he's just a proto-Stromberg from TSWLM 2.0, the only standout thing he did was when he tortured Domino but it's not also given focus, and mostly off screen.
7. The film where Connery phoning in his performance starts to come out.
8. The Blackmailing of the Nurse in Shrublands, no purpose on the plot or whatsoever, the film would've still been the same even that scene wasn't included.
9. Dark palette, the night scenes really felt dark to the point where I can't see anything but darkness, and I don't understand what's happening either.
For me, say what you guys want about Never Say Never Again, but that film did a better version of retelling the same story but adding and changing some plot points to which really helped.
So in that way, the underwater scenes were always going to be boring in this film. But it’s not a missed opportunity. They’re certainly modern for their time and even innovative from a technical standpoint.
Missed opportunities in this film would be not creating a bigger/more elaborate set piece with the jet pack in the PTS. From what I gather a moat was involved originally. As it is the ‘stunt’ is a bit underwhelming. That’s more a missed opportunity.
It became a running gag because it was in character for Bond as we’ve seen him; his general insouciance and casual attitude to things like that. Discarding his scuba gear at the opening of GF etc. As you say, it’s mentioned in these two films: it is a running gag from the start.
I’m puzzled why you think I’d be advocating gadgets which aren’t useful. Of course they should have a use, but I’m talking about an entertainment value beyond that: of invention, of wit, style and extravagance. Surely you can see how the Lotus and an underwater camera are at different ends of that scale, despite both being useful? No one likes the Lotus because it’s practical, because it’s not. It doesn’t even make sense (a light, fast sportscar which is heavy enough to sink when filled with air?); they like it because it’s fun and witty and new, and they like it and remember it because it turns into a submarine, not just because it’s a nice car.
I just find the Lotus a bit silly to be honest. Sci-fi and deus ex machina. I guess that's what I've been trying to say: too "big" and outlandish gadgetry takes away the fun. If you're not careful you end up with a middle aged man pushing the buttons of a car. I'd rather have FRWL's briefcase or even TB's camera.
Yes I think people confuse missed opportunity with flaw. I'd say as well that a movie can introduce a promising concept or element that will be ignored in subsequent films. The gadgetry of the villains in FRWL and TB, as I mentioned: great idea, but never followed up. I'd also say that following up TB with OHMSS is also a potential missed opportunity.
If my memory serves, OHMSS not following TB is kinda reasonable:
* The Producers thought it would be similar to TB that it would be like TB in skis.
* The Snow was not available back then
* Guy Hamilton was supposed to direct the film bringing in more outlandish elements.
With TB, there are many missed opportunities in that film that could've been fixed, yes, even the underwater scenes or the dubbing, or anything regarding the technical aspects of the film.
Another missed opportunity would be maybe not doing more with Paula’s character, perhaps even just mixing her with Pinder and giving Bond one less ally. Neither seem to do much anyway and Paula’s more interesting.
I really don't think that's it. The moment where Bond puts it in the boot (out of character) is there to delay Bond a bit so that the villains can start to catch up, and then the car can use the water cannon, which goes into the credits.
The transition from gadget A to gadget B (itself an indication of the excess that is about to follow) is just not well thought-out beyond the coolness of the jet pack, and I guess, the water cannons.
It is meant to be a discussion about a missed opportunity. A character not getting more screen time, a story thread that never goes anywhere, a less than satisfying character development, etc.
There are things wrong with TB, and of course any movie. But what were the missed opportunities of the film.
I think that @007HallY has hit on one. Paula's death should hit hard, but somehow it doesn't. Though Sean does give some brief emotions to it. I feel her character is quite fun and competent. One does wonder why Pinder would be needed with Felix. Martine Beswick was a beauty too. I would say her under-developed character is a missed opportunity.
I would also suggest the villain of Largo was a missed opportunity. He is not the most interesting villain. We see peeks of the sadism but for the most part he's a bit character-less. I would have liked to have seen a little more of a character like in NSNA. Give him some scenes to show some villainy, or jealousy, etc. We never see that in this film.
Even what’s-her-name in NSNA does more than Paula, even if it’s the rather silly ‘YeS, hE wAs HeR bRoThEr’ line (how Felix and Bond do not know this and she does is pretty weird).
Which is fine, but 'silly' is a vague term. What one person may find silly, many others will find cool and fun. Indeed, 'silly' is part of the fun.
Yes I agree, that's why I find TB so frustrating, as the previous Bond films were all pointing in a direction, finding their feet, and suddenly we've got this old 50s script which doesn't really fit with the direction those films had been going in, just with a couple of jetpacks, one liners and casino scenes thrown on top. They just sort of polished what was already there with a surface scattering of elements from DN-GF, but didn't overhaul the essential story or seed in the elements which had those films hits into the fabric of the film more integrally.
Paula and Pinder feel like they were left over from a previous version of the script too- they just don't need to be there. And weirdly Connery kind of acts in a meta way like Bond is embarrassed that the script hasn't been updated to excise them! He barely as much as looks Paula in the eye- it's weird. We have Bond in this strange Mission Impossible-style team setup, but he's the only one who ever does anything.
I actually don't think Paula or Pinder are missed opportunities: I just think they shouldn't be there.
Fiona, even though she gets a decent bit of screentime, feels more of a missed opportunity to me as she's so good she deserves to be there for longer.
The underwater scenes are too long. This movie just needs a tighter cut.
You know, kill your darlings.
I haven't read any of the various TB books but I wonder if it was more difficult to get a tighter cut of the underwater scenes because of McClory's love of diving. Hunt was a very adept editor so something else had to be going on here, aside from Young leaving the production.
Or in the underwater battle, which I do love, I don't think for a moment that Largo will get to set off that bomb, whether he kills Bond and the anonymous frrogmen or not.
The lack of tension doesn't hurt it too much for me though. It's just like a relaxed Bond where the cast is having fun in the sun. Like the Ocean's 12 of Bond movies or something.
For many this film marked the highwater point of the series. A fantastical plot at world domination, an exotic location, a wonderful lair, a villain years in the making. The producers threw everything into this film. Bond will die, Bond will live, Bond will marry.
Yet, are there missed opportunities within this film? For a point of clarification, a missed opportunity is a story point that could have been developed more, a character that gets too little screen time, or gets too much. It might be a plot point that gets lost in the film, or maybe it's a casting choice that wasn't made.
This is not the thread to point out plot holes, or things we don't like with the film. This is a discussion about a missed opportunity to make the film an even better one than we got. Or an opportunity that would have changed the tone or story arc of the film.
For this film I would say that a missed opportunity was the casting of Blofeld. While Donald Pleasance is a fine actor. The character of Blofeld has been portrayed as a BIG presence. To see a diminutive Pleasance be towered over by Connery seems almost laughable. I think the producers should have gone with a larger man, someone who might match Bond physically. I might go so far to have Eric Pohlmann dub whoever was cast. They came closer in the next film of getting a Blofeld that was more to my liking.
Aki and Kissy should be the same character.
That doesn't make it a great film on its own of course, but I think they took the right approach.
I bet there were lots of kids who thought that the opportunity of Bond going to space was missed! Also Aki is a shame- she got killed off way too early.
I don't know. It's like a Flint movie.
Thunderball was big enough for me.
Also maybe having Connery be a bit more enthusiastic as well.
Dahl famously said that he was told Bond must have at least 3 female dalliances, must do this, that and the other thing. In other words the series was developing some tropes.
When you think of this movie one does wonder why they just did have Kissy for the whole film, but I think it was this formula approach that caused Dahl to create Aki.
In any case, the missed opportunities are many here, for the movie and even more so the franchise. It verges too far into sci-fi territory. I know YOLT is the most difficult novel to adapt, NTTD is maybe the closest they could get to and even then... I can't help feeling it was adapted too early in the franchise history.
But yeah, as much as I love Pleasence, the dwarfish Blofeld doesn’t work. Pohlmann's voice was sorely needed and the film would have improved.
I like this idea.