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
That is not the point. Slow pace with suspense and build up, is great, and I agree modern Bond films should try and emulate that. Slow pace without any underlying tension is just empty.
FRWL, Dr No are slowly paced. Incredibly slow at times. But they build towards something and have an underlying suspense, a threat looming. That simply lacks in TB, at least for me. Others might disagree. I just have to point out that it is not the slow pace itself but how it is paced that is the issue for me.
Too many uninformed people. Re TB I find the pace fine.
What's wrong with the Q scene in TB? And Q was only featured as we came to know him ONE movie earlier so he was barely established and so was his relationship with Bond.
I'm aware that it was early on, but it doesn't get a free pass. They were building up to the sort playful banter that we would come to know, but TB got it wrong, so wrong. It's painful to sit through.
+3
Just has all the right ingredients in the right proportions.
As for the TB Q-Bond scene, it builds off what seems like a rather awkward beginning to the relationship in GF where Q seems downright unlikeable. I can understand why Bond isn't his biggest fan.
In TB they both one-up each other and it's a welcome bit of comic relief among henchmen being fed to sharks and speared and Bond's allies committing suicide.
It seemed that way.
Agreed again. It's a poignant scene.
Agreed. I often wonder what might have been if Connery had been in OHMSS. Laz was a decent Bond, but Connery levels of greatness he was not.
Both are what keeps this thread alive.
No. It's what keeps this thread alone. [SCNR]
I'd agree with that as well, though it would be a tie for me between his DR NO and FRWL performances. In my controversial opinion, his Bond in those two films are the truest to Fleming's character, even though I love both Tim and Daniel's takes on the role.
I would probably disagree, but it is difficult to find this controversial today.
I wouldn't call it disco, just a little bit more upbeat. Anyhow, I also much prefer it to the opening theme.
"James, take me around the world one more time."
It's definitely disco. Embrace it.
Even if you would call it techno I still would love it. It does have a quite uplifting effect on me.
Disagree, as I disagree about the pacing of the film, Connery is best in Thunderball, an extremely exiting, suspensefull film from beginning to end. From the hopelessness of the start, where M even jokes about Bond's hunch but protects his agent when called out by the Airforce officer, to the strong belief without evidence when he's running around Largo and his ship, while beeing chased himself by Fiona, to the underwater battles which have no equal. Thunderball is the best of them all, and Connery shines as Bond. The way he connects with Domino, the way he plays with Fiona, the way he pokes Largo's hornets' nest in the hope he slips up, he does it with style and panache.
And he strikes, like Thunderball!