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 resign as proofreader.
I still have the covers (and inside stories) for the original showings of Dr No, FRWL, Goldfinger and Thunderball. Nice to see the art director had no idea and used a still from DAF for the Thunderball cover.
Let me guess - it's the one of Sean firing the piton gun with the carnation in his buttonhole?
TV Times used that for every Sean film for years.
Iconic image for a chap of my age
That's right Wiz, you'd have thought that they could have actually found an image from Thunderball, or as they did for FRWL commission a painted cover.
http://www.filmweb.no/filmnytt/article1289814.ece
It was mentioned in another thread how OHMSS was almost shot in a few different years. I had heard that it was to go after GF but then Mclory made EON an offer they couldn't refuse and TB came instead. Then it was going to go after TB but it was decided that there was too many similarities. I believe someone at EON called OHMSS TB on skis. They do have a similar vibe to them. Anyway interesting to think about Connery in OHMSS right after GF. Would YOLT been next? What would have happened if TB hadn't been made by EON?
Ok getting a bit off track.
But would OHMSS (directed by Young?) right after GF have been too soon for the Tracy story? I'm not sure.
It was crucial for Bond to meet Blofeld face to face in YOLT before he ever met him again for OHMSS, at least in my opinion. The tension at their reunion could have only been heightened more if one actor had consistently been cast as ESB, but as with Felix, this was always impossible to pull off for whatever reason.
If there's one thing that stains the 60s era, as perfect as it is, it's that crucial characters always change faces, in the literal sense. It's hard to connect to Felix when in every film he's played by a different person, just as it's incredibly hard to rally against Blofeld when the actors change every film for him too.
Just as we went from the dapper and lean Lord Leiter of DN to the old and gluttonous Cec Linder Leiter of GF, we got a fluctuating portrait of Blofeld that saw him change drastically in height and weight, and all the features in between. Granted, the changing of actors gives Blofeld an almost metamorphic, intangible feeling, like he shape shifts and immerses himself into different "characters" to remain hidden as SPECTRE's leader, but that's not good enough and doesn't adequately allow me to suspect my disbelief.
Savalas is probably my favorite ESB simply because he feels the most evocative of who I expect Blofeld to be (and he matches the Blofeld we see parts of in DN, FRWL and TB too). I expect him to be tall, with a booming voice and well built enough to be quite capable, a good doppelganger for Bond that are almost mirrors of each other in prevalent ways. If we got that consistent image of Blofeld in the 60s, instead of a fluctuating shuffle of vastly different actors, I'd be very satisfied, because at least I could look at the actor, whether I liked them in the role or not, and say yes, that is Blofeld! But as we have it, Bond's Moriarty has always been mishandled greatly, for whatever reason. If the dream team of the 60s couldn't pull it off well, how can we expect others to manage it?
That would have been incredible, as well as the rest of the 70's 007 films with GL, a truly great Bond.
True. He would probably have balked at a homosexual directing OHMSS too. But Hunt was brilliant.
Does anybody know when that started to change with some retrospective article or so?
I think it's comparable with Blade Runner or Vertigo - films that became classics much later.
Well,im not sure it has been received much more nowadays than then by the general public.
Its more that the fans and people with an interest in Bond have accepted it and know how good it is.
People still look at the film in the TV guide and say "Oh im not bothered with that film,its the one with the other fella in it,the bloke who only made one film."
I think the film is possibly better regarded than a lot of people think.
Eighth top grossing film of the year.
If EON themselves are doing that,then the public will think OHMSS is a mistake as well.
The only thing missing in the movie is Bond saying, "This is for Tracy," while he is trying to kill Blofeld on the oil rig. We don't get a shot of Tracy on the wedding day, or Bond visiting her grave, but what the film gives us is more than enough to point to the fact that this is the same Bond of the previous film, going after Blofeld with all he has and devoting all his time and energy to making the man feel his pain.
Is this some failed attempt at manifesting clever sarcasm or something? As I said, the film doesn't come out and say it's a sequel to OHMSS, but there is a lot in there that makes it a tangible follow-up to that movie if you study Bond and his actions in it. It's quite plain to see, really, but my apologies for having the audacity to even suggest it's there.
Christ.
I think you've taken my comment a little too personally. Relax, I see the point you're making.