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
The oil platform is also another instance of the lower-budget feel of the early 70s Bonds.
The rented setting isn't a bad location, but nothing very interesting is done with it.
The planned climax had been for Blofeld to escape in his Bathosub--Bond would tie the long rope of a weather balloon to the conning tower of the sub and catch a perilous ride by holding onto the balloon. The sub would surface on a beach in Mexico, with Blofeld emerging to find Bond hanging from the balloon. Blofeld quips "Mary Poppins, I presume" and shoots the balloon, sending Bond into the sea. Bond swims out and chases Blofeld into a salt mine. A fight ensues, with Blofeld falling to his death in a salt granulator. Felix arrives with the authorities and asks "Where's that bastard Blofeld?" Bond replies, "Bastard? He's the salt of the Earth." Red-colored salt gushes from the granulator...
Alas, the owners of the salt mine chosen by Guy Hamilton refused permission for their industrial plant to be filmed. Hamilton was already under tight budgetary and time constraints and decided to scrap the sequence.
One could argue that filmed version of DAF's climax at least kept the door open for Blofeld to return (even if it was badly filmed and unsatisfying). But since Bond already killed two of Blofeld's doubles, a future film could have just argued that the Blofeld who died in the salt mine was another duplicate.
Thanks for the info about the salt mine though, that sounds not a bad sequence.
With all the flaws the demise of Blofeld has I'm FYEO, it's better than the one we would have had in DAF. I keep thinking Blofeld was the wrong villain for the film and its American setting.
Or even better he should've died in YOLT if they'd filmed the Bond novels in the proper order (TB-OHMSS-YOLT). Then we could've had the Spangs or more likely some substitute villain in DAF instead.
Given the DAF we got, I would have hated for him to die then.
He doesn't really appear afterwards though! By the time he pops up again properly the whole thing has been rebooted.
No "You've made your point" in TSWLM. (-1)
No PTS for FYEO (+1).
No "He was married once, but it was a long time ago." (-1)
No "Have you ever lost a loved one, Mr. Bond?" (+1)
No SP (+1)
The plusses have it!
I'm purposely leaving out a few vaguer pseudo-references like "Mrs. Bond?" and Trevelyan's taunt because Bond barely reacts.
Blofeld's strongest (only?) characteristic is that he recurs! And possibly the cat. At any rate, he's no Moriarty.
Blofeld and/or Tracy only had a history with Connery, Lazenby, and Moore. I would even argue that Moore feels Tibbett's death more strongly than Tracy's.
Yes, but they kind of get excised together.
And it wouldn't stop them using Blofeld again once the series got rebooted and they got the rights to the character.
I don't think he is. He's been overused in the past, yes, but a recurring, resilient villain is a strength for any series if used properly.
Also given the radical and frankly baffling switch of tone in DAF, I don't think there was any true closure done with the character.
And until 2015 (after the reboot, where anything goes) it is! He doesn't appear.
Wheelchair guy in FYEO doesn't exactly make a massive impact on the film (and Blofeld was never in a wheelchair! :D Yes, I know that's a bit of a cheat, but it's true!).
I can see what you mean about the volcano set.
It has some additional problems too, rather major ones IMO. Firstly the forced perspective is overdone, it just looks like it’s got a tilted roof. Secondly they only built three sides, they never built the fourth side (or even just part of the fourth wall), the side behind the camera. So it looks really obvious that it’s a set, like we’re in a theatre.
I know the Liparus set doesn’t get very much love here, but I think it’s magnificent. Its layout is really clear architecturally as soon as you see it. You see the subs and the docks and the gantries and the wall at the end, and within seconds you are fully orientated as to where things are. I think the fact that it has bilateral symmetry helps.
Also, it is a proper 360 set with all four walls built. So you feel inside it, rather than just looking at it.
As a final thought I find it the most threatening set too, because of all the nuclear missile submarines in there. The place contains something like 30 to 40 fully armed nuclear missiles for much of the time. YOLT’s volcano doesn’t contain within it the same threat.
Can't entirely disagree there. I do love the volcano set, it's an incredible achievement, but it is one of Adam's proscenium arch sets, which he did do a fair bit, whereas the Liparus is, as you say, a 360 set which we as the audience actually enter. But it also looks absolutely awesome from that viewpoint which he designed it from: directly from in front of the middle Sub.
I really love that set with the magnet and the sharks: it's almost too lovely and intricate for the relatively short scene it contains- it looks like it was really hard to build!
To match with the original Fleming Bond novels? Certainly!
Generally more lifestyle porn. Once Nicholas Hoult takes over the role, I want the aesthetic of the films to go full Instagram influencer.
The Food Programme on Radio 4 tomorrow will actually be all about the food of Bond :)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tm9f
We don’t often see James Bond eating in the films, but in the novel food is almost as important as espionage, cocktails, sex, villains and travel. As many await the release of the new Bond film, we want to take your taste buds on a journey, to the flavours that were so unimaginably exotic when these books were written in the 1950s and 60s.
Tom Jaine, former restaurateur and editor of The Good Food Guide, came of age when the Bond books were written. He remembers sneaking a copy of Casino Royale from his parents’ book group and being transported by it’s exoticism. The food was completely beyond the imagination for a post-war generation who were newly out of rationing.
We meet Edward Biddulph, archaeologist by day, Bond enthusiast by night who has written Licence to Cook, in which he recreates the meals in the Bond books. Edward teaches Sheila how to make Bond’s most iconic dish - scrambled eggs.
Biographer Andrew Lycett explains how the appetites of Ian Fleming made it into James Bond’s own tastes. And food journalist Clare Finney connect with the desire to be transported on a culinary adventure when the world around you is rather drab.
Kind of amazing Mr Biddulph didn't call his book 'Licence To Grill', but maybe that's a bit too on the nose :D
The only thing I don't like about Craig's portrayal of Bond is the lack of sophistication.
There might be a technical reason for seeing less food in the movies. Isn't it difficult to keep food looming good and piping hot after multiple takes?
Difficult, but not impossible. I think the bigger problem is keeping the shots consistent, when you have multiple angles and the plate is at various stages of being eaten in the different takes. I think filmmakers are more apprehensive of stuff like that now than they were 20 years ago because there will immediately be entries in the IMDb "goofs" section and YouTube videos and all of that stuff. But it's something a top crew should be able to navigate.
I also remember hearing that many actors hate having to eat on screen, because depending on the director you might do dozens of takes and then maybe even the pick-up from the other side and you have to shovel food into you face every single time. That is why you will often see people gesticulating with food on their fork without actually putting it in their mouths.
A more egregious one that I find fun to track after hearing about it is whether there actually is any liquid in cups actors are carrying around. Especially on TV you can see quite clearly that they are empty most of the time.
Probably, but is there less food in the Bond movies? They’re adventure films, he can’t be sitting down for dinner all the time :)