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
I don’t see any self parody in the film. Terence Young largely keeps the serious tone with some dry humour. I thinks it’s really faithful to Fleming’s novel, bar Fiona Volpe, Who isn’t in the novel. The only change in Thunderball when compared to the previous 3 is that TB has an epic scale and more expensive/ exotic feel.
Yeah the brother imposter stuff is clunky, likely only done to make the brother not be a traitor. I dunno why that was such a concern.
Somebody mentioned in that thread about how the DB5 reveal is great. I know a lot of fans agree, the audiences I saw the film with liked it and a friend of mine highlighted that in what he liked about it. I think it's an overrated moment.
When the DB5 showed up in GE, yeah, that was fun and fresh. We got cameos from it the next two films that didn't overdo it. The scene where Bond wins the DB5 in CR could've been a disaster but turned out fun.
By the time we get to SF, any freshness had worn off and while still a surprise, the edge wasn't there the way it was in GE or CR. I just thought, oh it's the DB5 again, although on an upside, it was one of the very few times Newman's score makes any impression.
And to think Bond had it converted from left to right-hand drive and had all the gadgets installed just makes it even more of a messy idea.
Which turned out not to be the case, as it was revealed in SP that the DB5 in SF was actually given to Bond by Q. One could suppose it used to be driven by 00 agents in the past well before Bond drove it, and by the end of SP he took it as part of a severance package, all fully repaired (and updated) for Bond to drive off with Madeleine.
Thunderball is my second favourite Bond film behind OHMSS and it's deserved of it's place for the reasons you've mentioned, IMO. Connery is at the height of his powers in this film and oozes cool, his relationship with Largo trumps that of Bond and Goldfinger. The underwater scenes are breathtaking and were groundbreaking for the time. The cinematography is arguably the best in the series. Tom Jones. John Barry. Terence Young. The list of elements that make this film a top tier Bond film are endless.
TB is an odd one. i never watch it and end up punching the air, or feeling that here is one great Bond film. It seems muddled and poorly edited and too often ponderous. Yet I can't stop going back to it, because the positives are so damned wonderful.
My first viewing of SF was memorable due to the audience reaction to the appearance of the DB5. Much clapping and whooping. I thought it odd as the car had appeared so many times during the series.
TB to me is the epitomy of Bond, and I don't think it can be surpassed. It's incredibly cool, classy, tense and it thrills in almost any way possible. It's larger than life, in a more sensible way than GF. The story is as impossible as it is possible. The soundtrack is stunning, the title track as bombastic and fitting as can be. The women as sexy and sensual as any man could dream of. All in all, the epitomy of Bond.
You missed off Terence Young....the greatest Bond Director of all time!
I get your point. But I think YOLT was the first signs of a reduction in quality (despite still being a great/ classic Bond film). OHMSS was near perfect mind.
+1.
Without a doubt!!!
That is a match yet to come on my ranking tournament thread. Discussions welcome when it is due.
At the Premier the laughter was such, when Bond flips the gear knob, that I didn’t even hear the ‘Go on then, eject me’ line, and as a sight gag it was awesome. It was only when I watched it again on release that I heard the line and it really ruined it for me. It doesn’t need the line to work.
Interesting. I think I'll mute it the next time I watch that scene. Likewise, it's hard for me to imagine the line not being there, but I'm intrigued by the idea of it.
It's really just part of that nostalgic let's-revive-the-GF-DB5 thing. No worse than many others, but nothing really outstanding either.
It takes away any moral ambiguity from the whole Derval family. I think that's why they went for it anyway. Also it gets Bond involved earlier on at Shrubland and makes him more proactive.
It's the sole reason why he's not send to Canada, but to the Bahamas.
Yes, that's part of what I was getting at when I said TB was true to the letter of the book but missed much of its heart and characterization. The Shrublands sequence loses some of its purpose and interest when you take away the most human elements (and replace them with stuff like the double plot or Bond blackmailing a nurse into sex).
That line is there for those who haven t seen GF or cannot connect the imagery with anything. For us who did and could, hammering home the comedic point like that, lessens its impact.
I heard the line on my first view and had a similar reaction.
I think M should have just said "Go ahead, see if i care." and that would have worked way better, even for people who didn't know what it was. At least they would understand Bond is about to do something unpleasant to her lol.
Honestly I think the ejector seat is a pretty lame idea with a lacklustre pay off. I have never understood why people rave about it.