Last Bond Movie You Watched

1241242244246247332

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Blushed face-- thank you @bondjames ... shit-- sorry to all, and moving over there now
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,134
    Thunderball one of my eternally rotating top three Bond films, I love this film so much class Sean at his peak.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Thunderball is a classic. First one I ever saw; #11 right now on my list.

    I really should start watching some more Bond films - especially since we are still pretty far off from Bond 25. TMWTGG was nice; I think I'll be watching a few here and there in the next few weeks.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Definitely too much time without watching them between now and November 2019. Have to have the Bond fix. I feel like a couple Connerys at least for sure.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    peter wrote: »
    I don't like DC's delivery: does it do anything? I don't. I really, really don't...

    Yeah, admittedly, his delivery of this line is weak. Reminds me of him trying to get the woman to open the train door in Skyfall. Bad stuff. Fortunately, in Spectre, he fares much, much better with the cheeky lines in the rest of the movie.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited August 2017 Posts: 25,134
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Thunderball is a classic. First one I ever saw; #11 right now on my list.

    I really should start watching some more Bond films - especially since we are still pretty far off from Bond 25. TMWTGG was nice; I think I'll be watching a few here and there in the next few weeks.

    I have given the films a break up until yesterday, a Bondathon is definitely on the cards including another TB rewatch. I think I may watch the films from SP backwards this time...
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I find his delivery weak throughout SP. Snarky like a teenager.

    Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Craig's delivery of "open the door" in the train scene in Skyfall?
  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    I was extremely bored and feeling a bit sick over the last few days so I decided to put on a Bond film. I ended up deciding on one of my most frequent watches but one I always enjoy, TSWLM. This is actually the first Moore Bond I've sat and watched since his passing and it was quite emotional, but I found myself appreciating and enjoying every moment he was on screen even more than I ever did before. The man might be gone, but he will live on forever through his work. RIP.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    YOLT. Definitely found more to appreciate about it than before (it used to rank at the very bottom of my list), but the plot still feels like a smorgasbord of disconnected ideas loosely strung together by the whimsical thread of Roald Dahl. I find the second half of the movie much stronger, Romulan Connery and all, just because by that point the movie has become so preposterous it completely overwhelms me; it nails that cheeky sweet spot where it is bizarre to the point of fascination.
  • Posts: 684
    @Minion Used to rank YOLT bottom at one point as well, but now it's a favorite. It simply cannot be watched the way any of the earlier films are, lest it distracts from some truly marvelous and ambitious filmmaking
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 12,473
    Opposite for me unfortunately; YOLT has become a little less enjoyable for me over time. I still like the film, but of the golden age first six, it's got to be the weakest for me. I think it's #16 right now in my ranking, which is decent but not great. I think the beginning and ending parts of the film are pretty good, but the stuff in between can be shaky.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Minion wrote: »
    YOLT. Definitely found more to appreciate about it than before (it used to rank at the very bottom of my list), but the plot still feels like a smorgasbord of disconnected ideas loosely strung together by the whimsical thread of Roald Dahl. I find the second half of the movie much stronger, Romulan Connery and all, just because by that point the movie has become so preposterous it completely overwhelms me; it nails that cheeky sweet spot where it is bizarre to the point of fascination.

    @Minion, in my experience You Only Live Twice is best experienced at random and out of sequence. If I make the mistake of watching it after all the other early Connery, as I did when I reviewed all the 60s films, it really hurts it almost to an unfair degree because it just can't be that good. Which is why I haven't made a full blog post of my review for it yet as I have for Dr. No to Thunderball, and am instead waiting to go back and watch it again so that I can get an impression of how it feels while watching it in sequence, but also how it feels when you watch it outside of the chronology. It's one of those Bond films that can feel drastically different depending on how you watch it, which is interesting.

    It's very much a "smorgasbord" of things, and doesn't really know what it is; a space based thriller, a Cold War spy film, an over the top action spectacle, a bizarre comedy, etc. I think the tone is helped by it being a 60s film, which almost justifies it because of the period, but at times it doesn't come off and by the time a Scotsman is turned Japanese you wonder how we got there.

    It definitely has great stuff there to make it nothing close to an unwatchable film, however. Freddie Young's photography is simply next level, capturing Japan unlike I've ever seen it, the first half has some great sequences with a "dead" Bond finding his feet in Asia on his first trip there and of course the finale at the volcano set is just one of those iconic moments that made the Bond series a technical and logistical giant that was doing big blockbuster action ahead of its time. Very few flawed films have so many exceptional or interesting elements to offset those negatives.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    I had a very positive experience with YOLT recently. What I found was that no matter how "holiday vignette" the film got, everything is held together by the inevitability of that Volcano climax. It's the one film where we see that lair way in advance of Bond arrival, (Well, apart from Scaramanga's fun house and the TND sleath ship but we never get a clear view of that) and it really helps to give the surrounding material greater context. For instance, once Bond reaches the ninja island, we know he is closer to his objective inspite of what looks like a detour. For all the craziness, we never lose a sense of that progression, whereas in something like DAF things are left to truly go off the rails.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 12,473
    The climax is definitely the best part of YOLT. It's up there in best Bond film climaxes too.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I had a very positive experience with YOLT recently. What I found was that no matter how "holiday vignette" the film got, everything is held together by the inevitability of that Volcano climax. It's the one film where we see that lair way in advance of Bond arrival, (Well, apart from Scaramanga's fun house and the TND sleath ship but we never get a clear view of that) and it really helps to give the surrounding material greater context. For instance, once Bond reaches the ninja island, we know he is closer to his objective inspite of what looks like a detour. For all the craziness, we never lose a sense of that progression, whereas in something like DAF things are left to truly go off the rails.

    A definite point in You Only Live Twice's favor is that Bond has Blofeld right under his nose for the end of the second half. Of course this same thing happens in Diamonds Are Forever, where for an even longer period of time Bond is not only unaware that Blofeld really isn't dead after the PTS, but in Vegas he still doesn't know that Whyte isn't really in control of the Whyte empire until he reaches the tower; those two simultaneous moments of trickery and the theme of doubles or duplicity in the film really adds something to it all. I find that kind of content, and Bond's face-off with Blofeld in the tower, to be a wondrous contrast to the very lifeless interactions the pair have in the previous film. It doesn't help that Sean and Pleasence had little interaction on set and most of the former's lines with the villain were said to camera when another man was cast as Blofeld.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    I had a very positive experience with YOLT recently. What I found was that no matter how "holiday vignette" the film got, everything is held together by the inevitability of that Volcano climax. It's the one film where we see that lair way in advance of Bond arrival, (Well, apart from Scaramanga's fun house and the TND sleath ship but we never get a clear view of that) and it really helps to give the surrounding material greater context. For instance, once Bond reaches the ninja island, we know he is closer to his objective inspite of what looks like a detour. For all the craziness, we never lose a sense of that progression, whereas in something like DAF things are left to truly go off the rails.

    A definite point in You Only Live Twice's favor is that Bond has Blofeld right under his nose for the end of the second half. Of course this same thing happens in Diamonds Are Forever, where for an even longer period of time Bond is not only unaware that Blofeld really isn't dead after the PTS, but in Vegas he still doesn't know that Whyte isn't really in control of the Whyte empire until he reaches the tower; those two simultaneous moments of trickery and the theme of doubles or duplicity in the film really adds something to it all. I find that kind of content, and Bond's face-off with Blofeld in the tower, to be a wondrous contrast to the very lifeless interactions the pair have in the previous film. It doesn't help that Sean and Pleasence had little interaction on set and most of the former's lines with the villain were said to camera when another man was cast as Blofeld.

    I was referring specifically to the setting of the showdown, but your point stands regardless. It's a cheap and easy (and effective) way to drum up some dramatic tension by placing your villain and hero in close proximity with one or both unaware of that fact.

    In YOLT in particular, it helps to rein in some of the wackier and more elaborate sequences. The training, for example, would be extremely boring were it not for the fact that we know the scale of what awaits. That knowledge gives context to what would otherwise seem meandering minutiae.
  • Posts: 17,756
    YOLT is like a gigantic budget eurospy film to me. Over-the-top and silly in so many ways, but still looks good in all it's glorious 60's style. Hope to see YOLT sometime this summer. Will be interesting to see how the experience will be.
    It doesn't help that Sean and Pleasence had little interaction on set and most of the former's lines with the villain were said to camera when another man was cast as Blofeld.

    Never heard that before!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    I'm watching TB (on pause right now) and I'm thinking how gorgeous the film looks. It's the feeling I get whenever I watch MR and YOLT also. There's just an expansive nature to the wide angle they used to shoot this epic Bond films. I think every Bond film should be shot this way. STAR WARS has it's own unique aesthetic with the wacky wipes and such. Why not Bond? Then I realised that Bond films are shot this way today (although not on film in the case of SF). It's just that the cameras aren't utilized as much. Almost every scene now follows the same pattern. Massive landscape establishing shot, followed by one wide shot of the principle characters, straight into static "over the shoulder", cutting back and forth while the dialogue is exchanged. It doesn't matter what aspect ratio they're running with, it's not getting taken advantage of most of the time. Bond films are all about soaking in atmosphere and the richness of the world, and in the old days they understood this. Scenes consisted of less, but more gentle camera movement within the shot. They would film everything in wide virtually, and use close ups for variety to stop a scene getting stale. I don't know why they don't embrace this style more often with modern Bond films, like how the latest STAR WARS films have embraced the style of the 70/80's SW films to some extent. I realise that there is a limit now how slow a film can be paced nowadays, but I think there is a happy midpoint to by found between what we have now and what we had for YOLT, MR and TB.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 684
    YOLT is like a gigantic budget eurospy film to me.

    @Torgeirtrap Yes! Precisely. YOLT is very much 'Bond goes Eurospy.'

    Whether this is an intentional stylistic choice or the franchise's first competitive bid at adapting to then-current trends in cinema, I'm not sure. I suspect the latter. Regardless of the intent, however, that YOLT does evoke Eurospy points to one certainty: this is the first Bond film in which the franchise is aware of its own success (and what that success wrought).

    It's interesting to note in this regard the various points during YOLT in which on-screen characters themselves observe through in-world video screens parts of the film the viewer previously saw as the film — in Tanaka's office, Bond watching himself chase Aki; Aki and Bond driving, watching the car dangling from the helicopter.

    Not saying it's intentional, but a nice illustration nevertheless of the self-aware state the franchise was in at the time.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'm watching TB (on pause right now) and I'm thinking how gorgeous the film looks. It's the feeling I get whenever I watch MR and YOLT also. There's just an expansive nature to the wide angle they used to shoot this epic Bond films. I think every Bond film should be shot this way. STAR WARS has it's own unique aesthetic with the wacky wipes and such. Why not Bond? Then I realised that Bond films are shot this way today (although not on film in the case of SF). It's just that the cameras aren't utilized as much. Almost every scene now follows the same pattern. Massive landscape establishing shot, followed by one wide shot of the principle characters, straight into static "over the shoulder", cutting back and forth while the dialogue is exchanged. It doesn't matter what aspect ratio they're running with, it's not getting taken advantage of most of the time. Bond films are all about soaking in atmosphere and the richness of the world, and in the old days they understood this. Scenes consisted of less, but more gentle camera movement within the shot. They would film everything in wide virtually, and use close ups for variety to stop a scene getting stale. I don't know why they don't embrace this style more often with modern Bond films, like how the latest STAR WARS films have embraced the style of the 70/80's SW films to some extent. I realise that there is a limit now how slow a film can be paced nowadays, but I think there is a happy midpoint to by found between what we have now and what we had for YOLT, MR and TB.
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I agree, and it's been a big gripe of mine for years. I think it may have begun with the Glen era. That man had no clue how to film a location, and wasted so many fantastic locales without properly setting the context. He was notorious for the quick cuts and close macro photography. In too much of a rush I say. Great for action, but not so great in setting the mood.

    I think they brought some of the old school style back with the last two Mendes films (at least in terms of the wide angle) but then went and spoiled it in SP with the mood filter. The last film also wasted so many beautiful locations. Case in point, when Bond is on his way to Altausee. There were a few establishing shots (which were also used in the trailer) and that's it. What a waste. At least in SF Bond and M got out of the Aston and soaked in the atmosphere in Scotland for a few minutes.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 684
    @Mendes4Lyfe @bondjames Agreed as well. I was just on here yesterday waxing somewhat off topic in the black-and-white Bond thread about how well TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TSWLM, and MR used their wide lensing. If they're not going to use the landscape, like in DAF, the films are much better off being shot flat, like LALD and TMWTGG. Sometimes I wonder if Glen's films would look less pedestrian if he would've just nixed the scope since he wasn't taking advantage of it anyway.

    I feel much the same about the Brosnan films, even CR. QOS and SF justified their use in my opinion. SP was a weird one. Certain parts (Mexico, Rome) justified it but other parts (the Alps, as you said bondjames) didn't. The filter indeed ruined it all the way through, anyway.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm watching TB (on pause right now) and I'm thinking how gorgeous the film looks. It's the feeling I get whenever I watch MR and YOLT also. There's just an expansive nature to the wide angle they used to shoot this epic Bond films. I think every Bond film should be shot this way. STAR WARS has it's own unique aesthetic with the wacky wipes and such. Why not Bond? Then I realised that Bond films are shot this way today (although not on film in the case of SF). It's just that the cameras aren't utilized as much. Almost every scene now follows the same pattern. Massive landscape establishing shot, followed by one wide shot of the principle characters, straight into static "over the shoulder", cutting back and forth while the dialogue is exchanged. It doesn't matter what aspect ratio they're running with, it's not getting taken advantage of most of the time. Bond films are all about soaking in atmosphere and the richness of the world, and in the old days they understood this. Scenes consisted of less, but more gentle camera movement within the shot. They would film everything in wide virtually, and use close ups for variety to stop a scene getting stale. I don't know why they don't embrace this style more often with modern Bond films, like how the latest STAR WARS films have embraced the style of the 70/80's SW films to some extent. I realise that there is a limit now how slow a film can be paced nowadays, but I think there is a happy midpoint to by found between what we have now and what we had for YOLT, MR and TB.
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I agree, and it's been a big gripe of mine for years. I think it may have begun with the Glen era. That man had no clue how to film a location, and wasted so many fantastic locales that the crew visited. He was notorious for the quick cuts and close macro photography. In too much of a rush I say.

    I think they brought some of the old school style back with the last two Mendes films (at least in terms of the wide angle) but then went and spoiled it in SP with the mood filter. The last film also wasted so many beautiful locations. Case in point, when Bond is on his way to Altausee. There were a few establishing shots (which were also used in the trailer) and that's it. What a waste. At least in SF Bond and M got out of the Aston and soaked in the atmosphere in Scotland for a few minutes.

    Yes, atmosphere should definitely be a much bigger part of Bond than it is currently. I think currently they are preoccupied with rushing to the next action scene, or the next indoor sit down. There's no time for, say, the pyramid sequence from TSWLM in the modern landscape. It's one of the reasons I think Nolan would be perfect - he movies seem to operate on a highened sense of mood. That mood was very foreboding for the Bat films, because it fit those films. If he were to approach Bond, I'm sure it could be adapted to fit also.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 17,756
    Strog wrote: »
    YOLT is like a gigantic budget eurospy film to me.

    @Torgeirtrap Yes! Precisely. YOLT is very much 'Bond goes Eurospy.'

    Whether this is an intentional stylistic choice or the franchise's first competitive bid at adapting to then-current trends in cinema, I'm not sure. I suspect the latter. Regardless of the intent, however, that YOLT does evoke Eurospy points to one certainty: this is the first Bond film in which the franchise is aware of its own success (and what that success wrought).

    It's interesting to note in this regard the various points during YOLT in which on-screen characters themselves observe through in-world video screens parts of the film the viewer previously saw as the film — in Tanaka's office, Bond watching himself chase Aki; Aki and Bond driving, watching the car dangling from the helicopter.

    Not saying it's intentional, but a nice illustration nevertheless of the self-aware state the franchise was in at the time.

    Agree! Do feel like there is quite of self-awareness with YOLT, and it's like they weren't trying to tone it down either, just riding along with the superspy craze of the mid to late 60's. And who could judge them? After all, they had the most bankable movie franchise to play with, and the result - even though it's not as good as the previous films, it is still very, very entertaining.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I had a very positive experience with YOLT recently. What I found was that no matter how "holiday vignette" the film got, everything is held together by the inevitability of that Volcano climax. It's the one film where we see that lair way in advance of Bond arrival, (Well, apart from Scaramanga's fun house and the TND sleath ship but we never get a clear view of that) and it really helps to give the surrounding material greater context. For instance, once Bond reaches the ninja island, we know he is closer to his objective inspite of what looks like a detour. For all the craziness, we never lose a sense of that progression, whereas in something like DAF things are left to truly go off the rails.

    A definite point in You Only Live Twice's favor is that Bond has Blofeld right under his nose for the end of the second half. Of course this same thing happens in Diamonds Are Forever, where for an even longer period of time Bond is not only unaware that Blofeld really isn't dead after the PTS, but in Vegas he still doesn't know that Whyte isn't really in control of the Whyte empire until he reaches the tower; those two simultaneous moments of trickery and the theme of doubles or duplicity in the film really adds something to it all. I find that kind of content, and Bond's face-off with Blofeld in the tower, to be a wondrous contrast to the very lifeless interactions the pair have in the previous film. It doesn't help that Sean and Pleasence had little interaction on set and most of the former's lines with the villain were said to camera when another man was cast as Blofeld.

    I was referring specifically to the setting of the showdown, but your point stands regardless. It's a cheap and easy (and effective) way to drum up some dramatic tension by placing your villain and hero in close proximity with one or both unaware of that fact.

    In YOLT in particular, it helps to rein in some of the wackier and more elaborate sequences. The training, for example, would be extremely boring were it not for the fact that we know the scale of what awaits. That knowledge gives context to what would otherwise seem meandering minutiae.

    Can't say I agree at all there. That element can be magic, as it is in all of From Russia with Love with Bond and Grant just missing each other. It's a prime element on the Orient Express too, and why that sequence is so dramatic. You know what Bond is walking into, but he doesn't.

    It's far more effective to me than hiding the villain to the last second, as that gives little time to develop them or give context to what Bond is facing/fighting all movie.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    Strog wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe @bondjames Agreed as well. I was just on here yesterday waxing somewhat off topic in the black-and-white Bond thread about how well TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TSWLM, and MR used their wide lensing. If they're not going to use the landscape, like in DAF, the films are much better off being shot flat, like LALD and TMWTGG. Sometimes I wonder if Glen's films would look less pedestrian if he would've just nixed the scope since he wasn't taking advantage of it anyway.

    I feel much the same about the Brosnan films, even CR. QOS and SF justified their use in my opinion. SP was a weird one. Certain parts (Mexico, Rome) justified it but other parts (the Alps, as you said bondjames) didn't. The filter indeed ruined it all the way through, anyway.

    Yes, if they're going to use a wide angle set up, actually shoot with that in mind. Approach the scenes with the view to limit the cuts and film as much as possible within the same shot. That includes dialogue, action, movement etc.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    I had a very positive experience with YOLT recently. What I found was that no matter how "holiday vignette" the film got, everything is held together by the inevitability of that Volcano climax. It's the one film where we see that lair way in advance of Bond arrival, (Well, apart from Scaramanga's fun house and the TND sleath ship but we never get a clear view of that) and it really helps to give the surrounding material greater context. For instance, once Bond reaches the ninja island, we know he is closer to his objective inspite of what looks like a detour. For all the craziness, we never lose a sense of that progression, whereas in something like DAF things are left to truly go off the rails.

    A definite point in You Only Live Twice's favor is that Bond has Blofeld right under his nose for the end of the second half. Of course this same thing happens in Diamonds Are Forever, where for an even longer period of time Bond is not only unaware that Blofeld really isn't dead after the PTS, but in Vegas he still doesn't know that Whyte isn't really in control of the Whyte empire until he reaches the tower; those two simultaneous moments of trickery and the theme of doubles or duplicity in the film really adds something to it all. I find that kind of content, and Bond's face-off with Blofeld in the tower, to be a wondrous contrast to the very lifeless interactions the pair have in the previous film. It doesn't help that Sean and Pleasence had little interaction on set and most of the former's lines with the villain were said to camera when another man was cast as Blofeld.

    I was referring specifically to the setting of the showdown, but your point stands regardless. It's a cheap and easy (and effective) way to drum up some dramatic tension by placing your villain and hero in close proximity with one or both unaware of that fact.

    In YOLT in particular, it helps to rein in some of the wackier and more elaborate sequences. The training, for example, would be extremely boring were it not for the fact that we know the scale of what awaits. That knowledge gives context to what would otherwise seem meandering minutiae.

    Can't say I agree at all there. That element can be magic, as it is in all of From Russia with Love with Bond and Grant just missing each other. It's a prime element on the Orient Express too, and why that sequence is so dramatic. You know what Bond is walking into, but he doesn't.

    It's far more effective to me than hiding the villain to the last second, as that gives little time to develop them or give context to what Bond is facing/fighting all movie.

    You seem to have misunderstood me. By cheap, I'm meaning from a production standpoint. I don't mean narritively lazy, if that's how you are reading it. I mean thifty.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I had a very positive experience with YOLT recently. What I found was that no matter how "holiday vignette" the film got, everything is held together by the inevitability of that Volcano climax. It's the one film where we see that lair way in advance of Bond arrival, (Well, apart from Scaramanga's fun house and the TND sleath ship but we never get a clear view of that) and it really helps to give the surrounding material greater context. For instance, once Bond reaches the ninja island, we know he is closer to his objective inspite of what looks like a detour. For all the craziness, we never lose a sense of that progression, whereas in something like DAF things are left to truly go off the rails.

    A definite point in You Only Live Twice's favor is that Bond has Blofeld right under his nose for the end of the second half. Of course this same thing happens in Diamonds Are Forever, where for an even longer period of time Bond is not only unaware that Blofeld really isn't dead after the PTS, but in Vegas he still doesn't know that Whyte isn't really in control of the Whyte empire until he reaches the tower; those two simultaneous moments of trickery and the theme of doubles or duplicity in the film really adds something to it all. I find that kind of content, and Bond's face-off with Blofeld in the tower, to be a wondrous contrast to the very lifeless interactions the pair have in the previous film. It doesn't help that Sean and Pleasence had little interaction on set and most of the former's lines with the villain were said to camera when another man was cast as Blofeld.

    I was referring specifically to the setting of the showdown, but your point stands regardless. It's a cheap and easy (and effective) way to drum up some dramatic tension by placing your villain and hero in close proximity with one or both unaware of that fact.

    In YOLT in particular, it helps to rein in some of the wackier and more elaborate sequences. The training, for example, would be extremely boring were it not for the fact that we know the scale of what awaits. That knowledge gives context to what would otherwise seem meandering minutiae.

    Can't say I agree at all there. That element can be magic, as it is in all of From Russia with Love with Bond and Grant just missing each other. It's a prime element on the Orient Express too, and why that sequence is so dramatic. You know what Bond is walking into, but he doesn't.

    It's far more effective to me than hiding the villain to the last second, as that gives little time to develop them or give context to what Bond is facing/fighting all movie.

    You seem to have misunderstood me. By cheap, I'm meaning from a production standpoint. I don't mean narritively lazy, if that's how you are reading it. I mean thifty.

    Your comment referred to that approach creating "dramatic tension" cheap and easy, and that seems to be a narrative issue that has nothing to do with the logistics of a production to me.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    I had a very positive experience with YOLT recently. What I found was that no matter how "holiday vignette" the film got, everything is held together by the inevitability of that Volcano climax. It's the one film where we see that lair way in advance of Bond arrival, (Well, apart from Scaramanga's fun house and the TND sleath ship but we never get a clear view of that) and it really helps to give the surrounding material greater context. For instance, once Bond reaches the ninja island, we know he is closer to his objective inspite of what looks like a detour. For all the craziness, we never lose a sense of that progression, whereas in something like DAF things are left to truly go off the rails.

    A definite point in You Only Live Twice's favor is that Bond has Blofeld right under his nose for the end of the second half. Of course this same thing happens in Diamonds Are Forever, where for an even longer period of time Bond is not only unaware that Blofeld really isn't dead after the PTS, but in Vegas he still doesn't know that Whyte isn't really in control of the Whyte empire until he reaches the tower; those two simultaneous moments of trickery and the theme of doubles or duplicity in the film really adds something to it all. I find that kind of content, and Bond's face-off with Blofeld in the tower, to be a wondrous contrast to the very lifeless interactions the pair have in the previous film. It doesn't help that Sean and Pleasence had little interaction on set and most of the former's lines with the villain were said to camera when another man was cast as Blofeld.

    I was referring specifically to the setting of the showdown, but your point stands regardless. It's a cheap and easy (and effective) way to drum up some dramatic tension by placing your villain and hero in close proximity with one or both unaware of that fact.

    In YOLT in particular, it helps to rein in some of the wackier and more elaborate sequences. The training, for example, would be extremely boring were it not for the fact that we know the scale of what awaits. That knowledge gives context to what would otherwise seem meandering minutiae.

    Can't say I agree at all there. That element can be magic, as it is in all of From Russia with Love with Bond and Grant just missing each other. It's a prime element on the Orient Express too, and why that sequence is so dramatic. You know what Bond is walking into, but he doesn't.

    It's far more effective to me than hiding the villain to the last second, as that gives little time to develop them or give context to what Bond is facing/fighting all movie.

    You seem to have misunderstood me. By cheap, I'm meaning from a production standpoint. I don't mean narritively lazy, if that's how you are reading it. I mean thifty.

    Your comment referred to that approach creating "dramatic tension" cheap and easy, and that seems to be a narrative issue that has nothing to do with the logistics of a production to me.

    It does create dramatic tension cheap and easy, but there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps "efficient" is a better way to put it?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I had a very positive experience with YOLT recently. What I found was that no matter how "holiday vignette" the film got, everything is held together by the inevitability of that Volcano climax. It's the one film where we see that lair way in advance of Bond arrival, (Well, apart from Scaramanga's fun house and the TND sleath ship but we never get a clear view of that) and it really helps to give the surrounding material greater context. For instance, once Bond reaches the ninja island, we know he is closer to his objective inspite of what looks like a detour. For all the craziness, we never lose a sense of that progression, whereas in something like DAF things are left to truly go off the rails.

    A definite point in You Only Live Twice's favor is that Bond has Blofeld right under his nose for the end of the second half. Of course this same thing happens in Diamonds Are Forever, where for an even longer period of time Bond is not only unaware that Blofeld really isn't dead after the PTS, but in Vegas he still doesn't know that Whyte isn't really in control of the Whyte empire until he reaches the tower; those two simultaneous moments of trickery and the theme of doubles or duplicity in the film really adds something to it all. I find that kind of content, and Bond's face-off with Blofeld in the tower, to be a wondrous contrast to the very lifeless interactions the pair have in the previous film. It doesn't help that Sean and Pleasence had little interaction on set and most of the former's lines with the villain were said to camera when another man was cast as Blofeld.

    I was referring specifically to the setting of the showdown, but your point stands regardless. It's a cheap and easy (and effective) way to drum up some dramatic tension by placing your villain and hero in close proximity with one or both unaware of that fact.

    In YOLT in particular, it helps to rein in some of the wackier and more elaborate sequences. The training, for example, would be extremely boring were it not for the fact that we know the scale of what awaits. That knowledge gives context to what would otherwise seem meandering minutiae.

    Can't say I agree at all there. That element can be magic, as it is in all of From Russia with Love with Bond and Grant just missing each other. It's a prime element on the Orient Express too, and why that sequence is so dramatic. You know what Bond is walking into, but he doesn't.

    It's far more effective to me than hiding the villain to the last second, as that gives little time to develop them or give context to what Bond is facing/fighting all movie.

    You seem to have misunderstood me. By cheap, I'm meaning from a production standpoint. I don't mean narritively lazy, if that's how you are reading it. I mean thifty.

    Your comment referred to that approach creating "dramatic tension" cheap and easy, and that seems to be a narrative issue that has nothing to do with the logistics of a production to me.

    It does create dramatic tension cheap and easy, but there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps "efficient" is a better way to put it?

    I don't even know what we're discussing at this point. I pointed out what I didn't agree with that you said, then you said you meant the production issue and not a narrative one, and when I replied you agreed with what I said originally and didn't address what you found to be the problem with that approach when it comes to the production of the film.

    Maybe I need a nap.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    I watched AVTAK a couple of days ago. A film that has almost always been on the bottom for me. But this time around I really enjoyed it. A good old fashioned Bondfilm. In many aspects it is the last of the classics, and it feels like it too.
    It could of course use it elements far better. In fact, this is perhaps the film with the best premise but is let down by everything else.
    For what it is it's enjoyable. Moore was such a class act. I can't do anything but adore that man and his presentation of the character.
Sign In or Register to comment.