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
Put me down for this.
You know the production built the helicoptor pad on Pitz Gloria, right? And the entire crew on location for that stretch of time is just an enormous expenditure. OHMSS is a massive production, and if you don't like the picture that's fine, but it's now regarded as one of the best Bond films ever made.
Your "rear projection" example doesn't register. The Dr. No car chase, both Goldfinger car chases and the entire Thunderball finale aboard the Disco Volante all use rear projection- and lest us not forget the rear projection fest known as YOLT (I mean, nearly all the action set pieces use rear projection- the car chase that ends with a drop in the ocean, Little Nellie dogfight etc.) All a much bigger offenders.
OHMSS is one of the best looking films in the series. The production is on par and even exceeds the films before it. The casino, the wedding venue, all the Swiss locations; all superb. Not to mention the beautiful cinematography that gives a colourful hue to each shot.
Goldfingers budget £3M multiple single unit filming on location cross atlantic, and impressive pinewood reproduction of fort knox vault, an air display team scene props like the kitted out DB5. The aerial scenes involving thousands of actors laying down shows the scale.
OHMSS budget £7M and none of the above so I think I am quife right to point out how £3M was spent making Goldfinger so I cant see £7M on screen in OHMSS.
What?
The Bobsled chase alone is better than enything done in the 1970's.
I personally like the movie and Lazenby and think it's beautifully filmed, but I have not heard a valid counterargument against these points......yet.
I'm not denying Goldfinger's rather extravagant finale, but I think it's unfair to compare GF's production to that of OHMSS; they are both of different ilks when it comes to Bond films.
But you must also remember that Goldfinger had some pretty cheap looking sets- take for example,the "Miami" hotel, where the background looks as if a child has painted it; the rather lacklustre Goldfinger's stud.
With OHMSS, every scene is photographed exceptionally well; the cinematography blows Goldfinger out of the water.
I can easily see where that $7 million was spent; the Casino production, the car rally sequence (again, beautifully shot), exterior and interior shots of Piz Gloria, the ending wedding scene, the assault on Piz Gloria etc.
If you are who I think you might be from AJB you got banned there for being a bit past rude. But sorry, I have no 'wee admin pals' that do my bidding over there. I also have no white Persian cat to stroke as I plan my site domination. :))
My apologies others, said what I wanted too. Im done, he post his poison, not interested.
In the end, he delivered an astonishing performance when one takes into account his lack of theatrical training. Still, as much as I enjoy the overall film, I can't totally get over his blasé attitude through most of it. Like he was at a pretty good but not excellent party. He surely would have improved in time.... too bad. :-?
Agree 100%
Actually Lazenby's voice was dubbed to resemble the character Bond was impersonating in the film.
(shrug) your argument was not that the other films were lavish, but that OHMSS was not, and counting the amount of sets built as well as the 20-some costume changes for Lazenby alone, this was a very large production.