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
This is a really important point, often overlooked in the forums. We simply didn't get the Bardems, Waltzs, Maleks--Oscar winners all--in the previous era.
Just Telly Savalas, Christopher Lee and Christopher Walken were really the only big names who played villains in that era, in their times as a Bond villain.
Robert Shaw, Donald Pleasance, Michael Lonsdale, Julian Glover, Louis Jourdan, Steven Berkoff and Grace Jones aren't exactly nobodies.
On Bond's side we also got names like Gabriele Ferzetti, Topol, Patrick Macnee and John Rhys-Davies.
I think he means household names specifically. Those you name listed are notable and respected characters actors, but they're not really the kind of prolific actors that your average person can name. We all know our beloved Bernard Lee of course, but he was not as big of a name as Judi Dench or Ralph Fiennes.
And don't forget Lotte Lenya (namechecked in "Mack the Knife"!). Barbara and Michael might have cast more Oscar winners, but their predecessors cast just as many terrific and well-respected actors.
That's true, although I'll argue that Robert Shaw is probably the greatest actor who ever played in a Bond movie. He has nothing to envy from Bardem, Waltz or Malek.
At least Tee Hee is not a poor man's Grant or Oddjob. I quite like him myself: he's menacing and he has attitude and intelligence, he's not merely a grunting brute. I find him far better than Jaws.
I'm with you, @Ludovico ... Tee-Hee has withstood the test of time as being quite a unique henchman.
All the blond knockoffs since Grant have paled in comparison to the original (Necros perhaps coming the closest). The same applies to the overgrown men who are Oddjob re-dos...
Tee-Hee is far better than Jaws, IMO, and should be on the top tier list with Grant and Oddjob (he must be my number 3)...
The '80s had decent, non-knockoff henchmen: Gonzalez, Gobinda, May Day, Dario.
LTK in particular had interesting and diverse casting, including a Latina actress (unlike, say, QoS). And of course Sharkey (one of the better allies, for the warmth and vulnerability he brings to the role).
The main reason behind this is that most of the directors who are chosen are art house directors. They aren’t Bond fans on average. More action directors (not just second unit)! Please use action directors EON!
I'd argue that that's one of the reasons why Bond is still around. Arthouse directors are sort of limited in their possibilities and have to work in a smaller creative area, still finding new angles to keep bond interesting. Action directors just focus on that, and that would've killed off bond years ago. Don't forget the latest entries have been the most successful too...
I agree with that assessment. With a franchise so characterized with tradition, sterotypes, unwritten rules and perceived expectations, we need individuals in charge with unique visions and freedom to be creative.
The '80s had lots of good stuff. I completely agree about the henchmen and allies. But also the villains. They weren't Blofeld level, but they were more "of the world" and I've always appreciated that. Glen's films were more "grounded in reality" in many ways. And they still had that fantastical, glamorous Bond thing going.
I quite like Gobinda, who like Tee Hee is underrated. But of the two I think I prefer Tee Hee.
I don't have much of an issue with your ranking overall, except that I find that OP belongs in the penultimate position, being only very slightly more attractive than AVTAK, if at all. With the order of the then-top 4 (MR, FYEO, TSWLM, LALD) I don't have a real problem and keep switching my preference between those. I just keep failing to see what people see in OP. I even prefer its contemporary rival, NSNA. And by the way, I have indeed a special fondness for LALD, but was 17 when it came out, so it's not really a case of growing up with it.
But I may have mentioned that before in my 3 years and 4 months on this board.
You been here that long, @j_w_pepper?
Gosh. Tempus fugit.
Among us Latin lovers, @RichardTheBruce, yes I have. The need for a substitute of being on the IMDb board arose in February, 2017. If you haven't been aware, errare humanum est.
Hoping it works out.
You've got a French château, Venice and Rio all in one film. Add to that Ken Adam's fabulous production design, Jean Tournier's gorgeous cinematography and the epic dreaminess of John Barry's space orchestra's and I think this might be the most beautiful Bond film to experience.
+1.
For me, there are two reasons to believe this. One is that we know that at some point they started trading production duties from film to film. We know Saltzman was the boss on OHMSS and LALD, and Cubby was on DAF and TMWTGG. Now, I truly love all four of these films, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of fans would say Harry's movies were much better. If the swapping goes as far back as YOLT, that doesn't really help Cubby's track record either, in my opinion.
The other reason is a weird, contradictory one for me, as most of my favorite Bonds are from the post-Harry era, but something seems to have been lost after TMWTGG. Those first nine movies all seemed to have such a clear and distinct image about them. No two movies felt similar. The scope and vision of the films were clear, and the posters could be perfectly evocative of the films. TSWLM was the first proper globe-trotting Bond, wandering around to whatever was interesting-looking. The poster, to me, isn't a great representation of the aesthetic of the film, which is so scattered as to be unpresentable in a concise way.
I don't know what Harry would have to do with any of that second point, but the change happened with TSWLM for me. There are other little things too, like how we went from slightly crazy characters like Tee-Hee and Nick Nack to rather more absurd characters like Jaws. And when I hear Cubby talk about Moonraker (a film I also do love) as "science fact" in promotional material, or the stainless steel delicatessen in FYEO, I have to wonder if he knew what he was doing all the time.
Anyway, love both men, and am grateful they met and gave us this series, but I strongly feel Harry has been overlooked over the years, and as I said above, I feel he may have been the true genius on the production side.
Not to mention the Iguazo waterfalls, one of the most spectacular natural sights in the world.
Very interesting points. I'd like to know more about Saltzman's contributions--I believe he was also the instrumental creative force in the Harry Palmer series.
We mostly hear about the Broccoli-Saltzman fallout from the Broccoli perspective, because he triumphed, the victor gets to write the history, etc.
I also wonder if Cubby, because MGW is a lawyer and was presumably close to him, was more burdened on a daily level by the many legal challenges Bond faced (both McClory and, eventually, Saltzman himself).
Saltzman may have been more artistic/creative/inclined to take risks, which led to his own financial downfall.
Some very interesting points indeed. My interpretation (based on various documentaries and interviews), is that Salzman and Cubby were the perfect partnership as their individual qualities complimented each other: Salzman was the slightly eccentric and energetic hot head with the bold, crazy ideas (- "Lets kill Bond off in the PTS!"), while Cubby was the more cool and collected father figure who was a master at creating a positive atmosphere on set and a family feeling amongst the people involved with the production.
I think you are correct to say that a lot of the creative "boldness" was lost when Salzman left the series. However, my impression (and I am admittedly speculating here) is that the key individuals who helped shape Bond up until the nineties, would probably not have remained with the series or worked so well together if it wasn't for Cubby's influence.
How do we know Saltzman was the boss on OHMSS and LALD, and Cubby was on DAF and TMWTGG??
Various Bond books and journalism.
Goes back to what I said earlier this week. The Cubby alone era (before MGW took over fully) is my least watched part of the series. Just people having fun making movies, let Adam Sandler and his friends. The blame for DAF and TMWTGG can be more blamed on Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz being goofy or too tapped out on Bond.
Can you point me to one of the books please? I have most of the production and film memorabilia books. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just never knew this......and want to read about it.
The 80s is actually my favorite era by far, despite what I said about missing Harry! But do you dislike LALD? That's a Hamilton/Mankiewicz joint too.
Unless someone else jumps in, I'll have to look around. Pretty sure I'm thinking of Roger's LALD diary and Helfenstein's making of OHMSS among others. Some Kind of Hero would likely touch on it too but I'll have to check.
Roger Moore’s Dairies on Live and Let Die is one. From Sir Roger himself!