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
Agreed. I like Moore's delivery of "that's a charming tune". Would take that any day over the "other fella" line.
Yes. I'm sorry, but FYEO's Blofeld just didn't seem like Blofeld. Even Pleasance's and Grey's instantiations were better.
That is indeed a great moment. Bond is always Bond, regardless of what's going on around him.
I love the insanity of Moore's films. Saving the entire world from a space Nazi, tracking down a deadly assassin with a three nipples and a midget sidekick, fighting an insane Christopher Walken on the golden gate bridge, underwater cars, steel toothed assassins, voodoo, etc. It was mental and bizarre but that's what makes them so entertaining for me.
FYEO in comparison to the rest of the Moore films just seems a bit dull to me. Plus there are other problems I have with it; the inconsistent tone and the PTS (nice nod to Tracy but terrible send off for Blofeld imo) being the main ones. Plus I think they tried too hard to make Moore more cold blooded. I liked the warm, friendly playboy who went around raising his eyebrow and cracking one liners while all this insane stuff went on around him. Kicking cars off cliffs didn't suit Moore's Bond and I think Roger himself has said this.
I want to like FYEO but I just don't see what's so great about it. To me it's a forgettable Bond film that seems to get more praise than the other Roger Moore flicks just because it's more serious.
Yeah I love it because it's something only Bond could get away with and Brosnan as always is effortlessly cool.
Playing in a movie is a different ball game. I also think he was never quite comfortable with the medium.
I often wonder how it could have been modified to still have Blofeld dying, without naming him of course, and yet make Blofeld more like his earlier incarnations. And with a more suitable attitude for Bond.
I like to imagine that Blofeld was "asked" to leave SPECTRE after his YOLT failure, and that he used his socked-away resources to attempt his OHMSS plan only to end up partially paralysed and (relatively) broke. By the time of FYEO he WAS no longer the man that he was. Now just a bitter madman with a half-baked revenge scheme on a budget. :))
;)
He may have turned mad after the events of DAF. Or even before. All this being hit on the head, the plastic surgery, etc.
Showing up to grab Tiffany in drag?
I'd call that a big 'yes'.
What exactly did they think that would add to the story? One of the dumber moments in the movie.
Between that and Wint and Kidd, DAF seemed like a bit of a backlash against Stonewall and the start of LBGT movement.
I haven't read the novel but Wint and Kidd are (along with Jill St John) the main reason why I bother to watch Diamonds are Forever. Two great characters that provide great humor and moments, and if it wasn't for them, or indeed the said actress herself, the movie would invariably sink without trace
It was mentioned in the book but it was really brought out in the film. That pair was quite grotesque--they were gross looking, had those stupid smiles, completed each other's sentences, one of them was always spraying himself with perfume and they were quite psychotic. Bond films have always been rooted in a conservative ideology, and I wonder if Wint and Kidd would have been portrayed as they were if it hadn't have been for the backlash against Stonewall/gay rights that had just gotten underway. They were supposed to make the audience feel uncomfortable and when Bond killed them, it was a symbolic victory for heterosexual hegemony.
I don't know how well known it was, but Stonewall did help spark a new gay rights movement, something that I feel DAF responded to with Wint and Kidd.
Was the Moonwalk simulation stuff Bond ran into commenting on us not *really* landing on the Moon?
Please.
I don't think so. Bond films, at their core, are ideologically conservative and meant to reassure a nervous public that the future is in good hands, thanks to 007.
Just my opinion, of course.
:-?
It was also before my time. My point was that even if Joe Average was unaware of Stonewall, Stonewall still helped usher in a new era for the LBGT movement. With Stonewall gay people started to fight back and demand equality. So even if people were unaware of Stonewall, people were aware of the societal changes that were occurring because of it. There was of course a conservative backlash, and DAF was part of it with its portrayal of the homosexual couple Wint and Kidd.
I also see the portrayal of Bambi and Thumper to be a conservative backlash against women's liberation. With Doctor Metz, the film shows a condemnation of the anti-war/peace movement. Metz is a pacifist, and shown to be extremely naive. Metz, seeking world peace, very nearly destroys the world. It takes Bond, an instrument of institution, to save it.
And in film, Bond has always been depicted as slightly outside of the 'institution'.
Bond is fiction. *Real* agents do as they are instructed, and their intel is disseminated according to protocol and political interpretation.
@LegateDamar, if you do not agree with the heroic fantasy of Bond, might I ask why you are on this site?
Bond is part of the institution. He's a rebel, but still part of the system.
I am a huge James Bond fan, that doesn't mean I can't try to deconstruct the messages that the films try to convey--and you are free to disagree with my interpretations. I am also a liberal/progressive, but I still enjoy the movies. I merely accept the conservative ideology of the films when I watch them.
The only other recourse would be sheep-like acceptance or outright revolution. And both make for excellent drama in a socially relevant film, or stressful/violent life in reality, but no place for a proper James Bond movie.
With Bond, audiences can have their cake and eat it too. Bond is a rebel, but still part of the institution. He ticks off M and the Minister of Defense (don't muck it up again 007!) yet he always saves the day in the end. Even if he goes off the rails (LTK and QOS) and is expelled or resigns, he is still working for the best interests of the West and in the end is welcomed back with open arms.
:)>-
With a small edit.
I always figured it was. Of course they landed on the moon. The problem was that the nitrate film in the Hasselblad cameras of that era could not work in those temperatures, so they recreated it in a studio because of the prestige connected to the whole project. ;)