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
For me, the underwater becomes a character central to the film. Just as I've always felt YOLT presented Japan as almost a world apart or the snow in OHMSS becomes a part of its environment or gold becomes a recurrent in GF. It's what makes those early films special.
For me, TB works because it blends this special environment in with what some called great scenes above the waves but not as a whole and I see it differently as being the right blend of underwater and above water action.
Another post above mentioned they'd rather see Bond fighting or in ski or car chases. Okay, but haven't those been done to death? The TWINE ski scenes are the worst and the snow action in SP was lame. Let's look again at SP for the latest in Bond car chase action. Give me something that stands out, not just another.
How many interesting underwater scenes have we had that have topped TB? Some in LTK are fine, but beyond that not much. That's why the film works for me underwater, it stands out.
As you said, the underwater scenes in LTK work well (far better than TB, IMO). The issue I have with them in TB is that they are too lengthy, and far too many. And also underwater scenes in general are not that interesting, unless its something exciting like the shark cage attack in Jaws.
I never mentioned the ski scenes in TWINE or SP, as I agree with you - they are both lame. Not all action scenes work well - they have to be done properly.
And like you also said, we are going off topic here from the original thread. Back on topic...
If I want slow, drawn out beautiful scenes with atmosphere, nice music, and not a great deal more, than I'd stick on Kubrick's 2001 space opera sequences. Now there you can appreciate the artistic measures that's gone into it.
With TB, it feels more like Kevin McClory just getting his own way, pushing and sabotaging the production so he gets to show off his skills as an underwater photographer, and then exhausting it to death at the expense of the film.
It was his one, pathetic cheap shot at hanging on the tails of the Bond legacy, until he managed to do it again nearly 20 years later in NSNA.
I like the way they're shot and the atmosphere. I never grow tired of watching them.
And I absolutely love the score. One of Barry's best, IMO.
Sue me but I prefer TB to GF as well.
Skyfall is not the best Bond film but one of the best in my book.
Over and out.
Now you've hit on something with the NSNA underwater scenes. Those are unexciting and uninvolving. Even 18 years later they didn't improve on TB.
2001 often gets slammed as too slow, but I'm one who appreciates it and any Kubrick. Nobody would ever accuse him of being on a pace but he makes it work to his advantage.
+1.
Although OHMSS is my favourite Bond score and favourite score of all time and then it would be YOLT, TB wouldn't definitely be 3rd.
Much prefer on the whole to GF, it has an epic lushness that Barry built on even more with YOLT, Mountains & Sunsets (just sublime) before truly excelling with the masterpiece that is his OHMSS score.
The thing about TB that always strikes me is Barry's ability to evoke a setting, the way he gives the sound that feeling of being underwater.
Barry's Bond scores when it come to seeing appreciation appear to get short shrift (apart from us fans of course) over his more serious output but really why?
He literally invented a genre itself with his Bond sound and those films he provides the music to would be seriously lacking without his sound, in a number instances he sprinkles gold over visuals that don't really deserve it.
His best Bond work for me can stand alongside the likes of Lion in The Winter, Out of Africa & Dances With Wolves, I think due to Bond's being more commercial offering it doesn't get the respect those do, yet if anything the sound is much more adventurous and inventive.
TB is my second favourite Connery film and that score is probably the primary reason that and Connery just at his most suave and assured.
I agree whole heartedly with your comments on Barry. He is a genius.
My rating of the Connery films are:
1. FRWL
2. TB
3. DN
4. GF
5. YOLT
6. NSNA
7. DAF
Actually, @Getafix , I find the two films similar in that they're both a slow burn. There is little action in both films, between the PTS and the finale. I like watching Bond "at work," not necessarily "at battle." This doesn't mean I don't like action sequences, just that I don't want them to become the big draw,
In TB, Largo's plot is preposterous. I admit this, but for some reason, it doesn't detract from my enjoyment. I find that TB has the wittiest dialogue in the series.
I would imagine that back then, those scenes played very well.
Regardless, who doesn't find Bond's orange swimgear to be one of the most badass things ever? LOL
And my Connery ranking is:
1. TB
2. FRWL
3. DN
4. GF
5. YOLT
6. DAF
I never count NSNA, it's not an EON entry, it's not all that good and worst of all, it's a clumsy remake of a far, far, far superior film.
It is, but it adds values in some areas. I think the script is probably better, on the whole.
The cast is excellent too: I prefer their version of Largo. And Fatima Blush is up with Fiona, I'd say.
Much better than SF, IMHO.
I think Terence Young found TB really hard going. I believe he struggled to inject excitement into the underwater scenes. They're definitely beautifully shot but TB just doesn't hang together as a whole for me. It's miles away from the taut efficient story telling in DN and FRWL. The first fail of the series.
It’s also better than DAF.
I think it’s the first epic Bond, without a drop in quality. Near perfect IMO.
I actually think the parallel with SF is quite appropriate. Both hugely commercially successful films, nicely made with some good individual sequences but that overall don't quite hit the spot.
Yes. And I'd say GF and YOLT both do epic big Bond better.
Yeah he might not have been the best director for a really big one. Turns out Hamilton or Gilbert were the guys you wanted.
Did you see this from last week though? :D
LOL...some can't get past the ridiculous effects in TB. My, YOLT has the awful painted screen backdrop during the space craft landing at the volcano. And SC's funny little "pith helmet" in the mini-copter isn't far behind the jet pack, actually.
Regardless, I still have YOLT ranked pretty high. GF is #3 for me.
It's funny that GF would be viewed as an epic Bond. Just like TB, it's a slow burn. That film contains very little action, until the very end.
I totally agree. In fact, I’d say DN, FRWL, GF and TB both have long stretches without big action scenes and are, as you said, slow burners, which by the way, is how Ian Fleming’s novels are (so far. I’m reading my fifth Fleming book so far right now). And by the way, someone said the action scenes in TB pale in comparison to the Madagascar action scene in CR. That’s totally unfair, action films have changed considerably in the four decades that span TB and CR. Audiences expect much more thrilling, high octane action today than audiences did back in the ‘60s. And not only that, but the length of shots in CR are way shorter than TB’s. They are pretty different beasts. CR and TB are my actually two very favorite Bond films and the Madagascar sequence in the former is possibly my favorite action sequence of the entire Bond series. But the latter’s underwater battle I have always thought was cool as hell ever since my first viewing when I was 16.
As far as the obvious and bad rear projection jet pack shots in TB’s PTS, I’m not wild about it either. No matter my rather extreme adoration for the film and ranking it over GF and OHMSS, I’d still say that those two have the best PTS of the ‘60s and TB’s the weakest. Still though, we have to remember the abundance of rear projection shots during DN’s car chase or the skiing scenes in OHMSS. That was just how it was done back then.
Agreed. It isn’t even top 10 material. The number one is FRWL.
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/118/dont-worry-ill-tell-the-chef-thunderball-appreciation-discussion#latest
Yeah, it's certainly one of the best so there's not much more to say! :D I did enjoy rewatching TB a couple of weeks ago but it's not perfect at all.
I'm bored of everyone bashing SP, making it look like it's the worst film ever made.