Spectre: Reappraised, Reassessed

17810121315

Comments

  • Posts: 1,927
    What makes TB compelling?
    Well...

    -A realistic threat

    -Connery on top of his game

    -One of the series' most beautiful leading ladies

    -One of the great henchmen and the best female henchman, Fiona Volpe

    -A great location that provides plenty of eye candy

    -Despite complaints, the underwater sequences present almost a different world, much like Japan in YOLT, becoming almost a character in itself

    -A script that has some of the very best one-liners and dialogue

    -A sense of what's at stake with the powers that be scrambling to combat the threat, missing from many of the later films

    -An extra dimension in the personal feud between Bond and Largo about Domino

    -A real sense of romance between Bond and Domino

    -A great John Barry score

    Those are just among the main things I find compelling about TB. I have many other things that add to my enjoyment of it.


  • Posts: 1,927
    BT3366 wrote: »

    Its really sad when you take into account McClory was, in a way, screwed out of his legacy. I dislike his attempts to derail the franchise as much as anyone, but still, I can't help but feel somewhat bad for the guy.
    .

    The more I read about McClory, the more I dislike him. He put Fleming through the wringer when he wanted to release his TB novel (suffering a stroke during the court case I believe). Fleming was more at fault in how he dealt with the release of TB, but it felt like McClory got lucky once with his legal battle, and from then on for the rest of his life he would hang on the coat tails of Bond, pursuing legal battles wherever he could.

    Remember, McClory rejected all the Fleming novels and focused on his own script, which shows how much vision he lacked as a filmmaker. He didn't see the potential in the likes of FRWL or GF until they were released by EON, and from then on he wanted to hang on to the franchise for dear life, and have a piece of the action.

    Both TB and NSNA are not very strong scripts, and this is the only claim he had to Bond. I also think TB is the weakest of all the Bond novels, which again is quite telling of what a filmmaking genius McClory was. Fleming made the best of a crappy plot.

    Completely disagree about the TB script. It features some of the best one-liners and makes up for some of the novel's problems. The film's problems are more technical than anything in the script, although the Derval double thing is a stretch, I'll give you that.

    How is the hijacking of bombs by a terrorist organization not a strong plot, particularly back then? The theft of all the gold in Fort Knox in the GF novel is so much more of a stretch.

    The hijacking of the bombs is not really the issue. To me its lost by too much focus on SPECTRE and how it carries out the threat, Bond aimlessly on holiday in the Bahamas, and way too much underwater sequences.

    Are we talking about the script here? If so, do you also feel there's too much focus on the planning of SPECTRE's plot in FRWL as well? Bond is hardly aimlessly on holiday in the Bahamas in the film. What he does relates to his investigation and it all pays off.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    BT3366 wrote: »
    What makes TB compelling?
    Well...

    -A realistic threat

    -Connery on top of his game

    -One of the series' most beautiful leading ladies

    -One of the great henchmen and the best female henchman, Fiona Volpe

    -A great location that provides plenty of eye candy

    -Despite complaints, the underwater sequences present almost a different world, much like Japan in YOLT, becoming almost a character in itself

    -A script that has some of the very best one-liners and dialogue

    -A sense of what's at stake with the powers that be scrambling to combat the threat, missing from many of the later films

    -An extra dimension in the personal feud between Bond and Largo about Domino

    -A real sense of romance between Bond and Domino

    -A great John Barry score

    Those are just among the main things I find compelling about TB. I have many other things that add to my enjoyment of it.


    I love your list @BT3366 ...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,236
    Me too, @BT3366

    I've never really understood the Thunderball critiques. I've always found it a wonderfully stylish, exciting and elegant film. But I also love the underwater scenes, so...
  • I appreciate and respect the Thunderball love here. It’s not one that I’m too engaged with as an audience member, but also is nowhere near the bottom of my rankings. I think of it as a 7/10 Bond film for me, like some elements, dislike other elements. I won’t deny the style of the film however, it has to be the most stylish of all the Bond films, maybe OHMSS rivals it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    I used to feel all those things for TB. It was such a cool film to me when I was younger, but now it just feels so flat, lifeless and overly plot driven with minimal character stuff compared to the previous three films (with the exception of Domino). It feels like two different Bond films at conflict with each other, the Terence Young film with the emphasis in hanging out with the characters, and the Guy Hamilton film which emphasized the spectacle elements. GF was such a huge hit that Young was told to make TB more like that and what comes out is scattershot. Contrast that to YOLT, which seems to know what kind of film it is and put an even stronger emphasis on the spectacle. I don’t know who the hell Kissy Suzuki is beyond the surface, but it’s clear the film doesn’t care because it’s got a volcano lair Bond needs to infiltrate.


  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited December 2020 Posts: 13,941
    Regarding McClory, it's true he was a boorish character and shameless self-promoter over the years.

    But if you look up his experiences in World War II, he becomes a lot more sympathetic. And knowing the details for his business dealings with Ivar Bryce and Ian Fleming (who mid-stream started redirecting to other players), there are reasons the court awarded him the rights to Thunderball as they did.

    I still don't like him or his actions, still he can be generally understood.

    matt_u wrote: »
    I loved both SP and DAD since the first viewing.

    The problem is I was 12 when I first saw DAD...
    Me too, @matt_u, there's much to enjoy in both films and I've been doing that since they were in theaters. No apologies. Specific to Die Another Day, at the time of its release I gave my positive assessment to a friend and he came back with what about the CGI, the dialog. I could only respond well. that's what they're doing these days. I've seen wildly different content over the years, history also says even so there are always moments to key in on and relish. That's never stopped.

    Spectre I have pretty much no reservations for, it's a smooth ride with a lot to enjoy from the first viewing. That assessment hasn't changed for me, very easy to revisit.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Regarding McClory, it's true he was a boorish character and shameless self-promoter over the years.

    But if you look up his experiences in World War II, he becomes a lot more sympathetic. And knowing the details for his business dealings with Ivar Bryce and Ian Fleming (who mid-stream started redirecting to other players), there are reasons the court awarded him the rights to Thunderball as they did.

    I still don't like him or his actions, still he can be generally understood.

    matt_u wrote: »
    I loved both SP and DAD since the first viewing.

    The problem is I was 12 when I first saw DAD...
    Me too, @matt_u, there's much to enjoy in both films and I've been doing that since they were in theaters. No apologies. Specific to Die Another Day, at the time of its release I gave my positive assessment to a friend and he came back with what about the CGI, the dialog. I could only respond well. that's what they're doing these days. I've seen wildly different content over the years, history also says even so there always moments to key in on and relish. That's never stopped.

    Spectre I have pretty much no reservations for, it's a smooth ride with a lot to enjoy from the first viewing. That assessment hasn't changed for me, very easy to revisit.

    I totally concur!
  • Posts: 3,327
    I used to feel all those things for TB. It was such a cool film to me when I was younger, but now it just feels so flat, lifeless and overly plot driven with minimal character stuff compared to the previous three films (with the exception of Domino). It feels like two different Bond films at conflict with each other, the Terence Young film with the emphasis in hanging out with the characters, and the Guy Hamilton film which emphasized the spectacle elements. GF was such a huge hit that Young was told to make TB more like that and what comes out is scattershot. Contrast that to YOLT, which seems to know what kind of film it is and put an even stronger emphasis on the spectacle. I don’t know who the hell Kissy Suzuki is beyond the surface, but it’s clear the film doesn’t care because it’s got a volcano lair Bond needs to infiltrate.


    Exactly!
  • Posts: 3,327
    BT3366 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »

    Its really sad when you take into account McClory was, in a way, screwed out of his legacy. I dislike his attempts to derail the franchise as much as anyone, but still, I can't help but feel somewhat bad for the guy.
    .

    The more I read about McClory, the more I dislike him. He put Fleming through the wringer when he wanted to release his TB novel (suffering a stroke during the court case I believe). Fleming was more at fault in how he dealt with the release of TB, but it felt like McClory got lucky once with his legal battle, and from then on for the rest of his life he would hang on the coat tails of Bond, pursuing legal battles wherever he could.

    Remember, McClory rejected all the Fleming novels and focused on his own script, which shows how much vision he lacked as a filmmaker. He didn't see the potential in the likes of FRWL or GF until they were released by EON, and from then on he wanted to hang on to the franchise for dear life, and have a piece of the action.

    Both TB and NSNA are not very strong scripts, and this is the only claim he had to Bond. I also think TB is the weakest of all the Bond novels, which again is quite telling of what a filmmaking genius McClory was. Fleming made the best of a crappy plot.

    Completely disagree about the TB script. It features some of the best one-liners and makes up for some of the novel's problems. The film's problems are more technical than anything in the script, although the Derval double thing is a stretch, I'll give you that.

    How is the hijacking of bombs by a terrorist organization not a strong plot, particularly back then? The theft of all the gold in Fort Knox in the GF novel is so much more of a stretch.

    The hijacking of the bombs is not really the issue. To me its lost by too much focus on SPECTRE and how it carries out the threat, Bond aimlessly on holiday in the Bahamas, and way too much underwater sequences.

    Are we talking about the script here? If so, do you also feel there's too much focus on the planning of SPECTRE's plot in FRWL as well? Bond is hardly aimlessly on holiday in the Bahamas in the film. What he does relates to his investigation and it all pays off.

    FRWL is a very different film to TB, in terms of its tone, which is done realistically in an espionage thriller style. The story/script itself I'm really taking issue with is the TB novel, but this is adapted fairly accurately to the film too. The SPECTRE plot drags on far longer than it does in FRWL (or feels like it does), particularly the entire scene of the plane hijacking the bombs and taking them under water to hide. That is one scene I skip entirely every time I watch TB.

    Having said all this, I don't hate TB. Plus points for me are Connery's performance. Most of the time he is ultra cool, and also the sequences at the health farm and the Bahamas I actually do mostly like, even if it does feel like Connery is just swaggering around in the Bahamas on holiday for most of the time.

    Where it drags are the underwater sequences. There are way too many, and are mostly dull and lifeless. And the less said of the catastrophic speeded up boat end scene, the better.
  • Posts: 2,922
    ...it felt like McClory got lucky once with his legal battle, and from then on for the rest of his life he would hang on the coat tails of Bond, pursuing legal battles wherever he could.

    McClory reminds me of one of the characters in Dickens' Bleak House who spend their lives engaged in endless lawsuits. If he was a filmmaker with genuine creativity he would have enjoyed his profits from Thunderball and then gone on to film his own projects, instead of trying to make endless Bonds.
    Both TB and NSNA are not very strong scripts, and this is the only claim he had to Bond.

    The novel and script of TB deviate a great deal from the Whittingham scripts, and the film is a direct adaptation of the novel, not the Whittingham material.

    For more details, I encourage everyone to read John Cork's superb article "Inside Thunderball":
    Part One
    Part Two
    Part Three
    I also think TB is the weakest of all the Bond novels, which again is quite telling of what a filmmaking genius McClory was. Fleming made the best of a crappy plot.

    There I have to disagree. I think TB is one of Fleming's best books, partly because he wasn't making up the plot as he went along and was free to concentrate on characterization--which is where the film falters.

    The movie is a superficially faithful adaptation but lacks the book's heart. Because it was cursed to follow Goldfinger, Thunderball succumbed to excessive gadgetry and story-bloat. As Raymond Benson pointed out in The James Bond Bedside Companion, the script needlessly over-complicated the book's plot by throwing in plastic surgery shenanigans, a pointless reconnaissance of Largo's estate, excessive underwater scenes, and so on.

    The result is a rather impersonal film, especially since it lacks the book's strength in characterization. In Fleming's TB Bond is a much more human and vulnerable--in the movie he's a bored superman and you have no idea why he's at Shrublands. In the book, Largo was a dark mirror image of Bond--a suave, handsome ladykiller and mankiller--in the movie he's a fat old man with no personality. Movie Domino is equally dull because they gave most of her personality to Fiona Volpe. But the Domino of the book was equally fiery and sensitive, one of Fleming's best heroines.

    The success of Goldfinger was the greatest and worst thing to ever happen to the Bond series. It gave Bond immortality but trapped the films in an ever-tightening formula and set of audience expectations. Thunderball was the first victim.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    peter wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    What makes TB compelling?
    Well...

    -A realistic threat

    -Connery on top of his game

    -One of the series' most beautiful leading ladies

    -One of the great henchmen and the best female henchman, Fiona Volpe

    -A great location that provides plenty of eye candy

    -Despite complaints, the underwater sequences present almost a different world, much like Japan in YOLT, becoming almost a character in itself

    -A script that has some of the very best one-liners and dialogue

    -A sense of what's at stake with the powers that be scrambling to combat the threat, missing from many of the later films

    -An extra dimension in the personal feud between Bond and Largo about Domino

    -A real sense of romance between Bond and Domino

    -A great John Barry score

    Those are just among the main things I find compelling about TB. I have many other things that add to my enjoyment of it.


    I love your list @BT3366 ...

    Me too. TB is near perfect IMO.
  • @MakeshiftPython Those are valid criticisms. This comes down to subjective interpretation, but although we agree about the combination of Hamilton + Young being at work in the film, I think that actually elevates the picture whereas you dislike it. So we do at least see the film similarly in terms of what's going on directorially and stylistically.
  • Posts: 1,927
    @MakeshiftPython Those are valid criticisms. This comes down to subjective interpretation, but although we agree about the combination of Hamilton + Young being at work in the film, I think that actually elevates the picture whereas you dislike it. So we do at least see the film similarly in terms of what's going on directorially and stylistically.

    And I think that's a key to my enjoyment of TB. We have the inevitable creep into bigger scope and all that comes with it, but the character focus and grit are still there and that imbalance becomes alarming with YOLT. The characters work for me in TB where they just exist to get to another action scene or in another vehicle in YOLT.
  • So after a marvelous dinner date last night I decided to tune into the MI6 crowd. Well why not, it’s been a delightful if albeit too short a holiday, and what do I find on the site but a discussion on two of my favorite Bond films. TB and SP. Actually I thought that I was tuning into a discussion simply on Spectre, and of course there was more of the usual bashing of poor old Bloefeld in his current incantation of Bond’s adopted brother. That particular representation is such a minor twist in the plot that I’m surprised it is still on the aganda, after all Bloefeld has been killed off (OHMSS) or assumed to have been killed off (YOLT) etc, and so that the “adopted brother” vehicle seems totally passe. Except that it seems to generate a wellspring of emotional angst. He is truly psychopathic and a sycophant, reminding me of a recently “deposed Monarch” or perhaps better stated as a soon to be “former” president and, certainly evil enough to represent yet another reinventing of Bloefeld. I’ve even come to appreciate Lea Seydoux’s nearly invisible flights of coquettish playfulness in the film, and I initially was bored with her performance.

    Likewise I’ve always enjoyed Adolfo Celi’s character in TB. He was a terrific actor and his roles in other films from the extravagant wealthy building contractor in That Man from Rio, or wife cheating vacationer in Slalom, or the fawning uncle in that awful Stewart Granger thriller Target For Killing, which also starred Karin Dor, are great fun.
    TB has always been among my favorite Bond films, but became even more so after doing a night dive on the remaining super structure of the Vulcan aircraft, which rest at 50 feet underwater just off Paradise Island in the Bahamas. It has become a kind of reef and is home to multitudes of sea life. I also had an opportunity to meet and talk with several people who had been extras as divers during the filming. Their stories of course, adding great background to the movie.
    SP and TB remain as two of my favorite Bond movies, and are even part of my “goto” collection when I just want something on as background, while I’m doing paperwork.




  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2020 Posts: 7,593
    Blofeld wasn't killed off in OHMSS. He's only killed in YOLT (in the novel, anyways, can't speak for the film of the same name).
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,036
    What about FYEO? Did he survive that helicopter dump?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2020 Posts: 7,593
    What about FYEO? Did he survive that helicopter dump?

    lol good point, I guess he didn’t! The argument could be made that that wasn’t really even Blofeld, as they’d lost the rights at that point hadn’t they?
    Clearly for all intents and purposes he was, but still... ;)
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    What about FYEO? Did he survive that helicopter dump?

    lol good point, I guess he didn’t! The argument could be made that that wasn’t really even Blofeld, as they’d lost the rights at that point hadn’t they?
    Clearly for all intents and purposes he was, but still... ;)
    No no no, that was a completely different and 100% EON owned antagonist, Unidentified Bald Man Stroking A Cat In A Wheelchair. Sadly, it does appear Unidentified met his end in FYEO (Bond not even pausing to think about taking him up on his offer of a delicatessen in stainless steel...).
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    What about FYEO? Did he survive that helicopter dump?

    lol good point, I guess he didn’t! The argument could be made that that wasn’t really even Blofeld, as they’d lost the rights at that point hadn’t they?
    Clearly for all intents and purposes he was, but still... ;)
    No no no, that was a completely different and 100% EON owned antagonist, Unidentified Bald Man Stroking A Cat In A Wheelchair. Sadly, it does appear Unidentified met his end in FYEO (Bond not even pausing to think about taking him up on his offer of a delicatessen in stainless steel...).

    As my great grandmother always used to say, "When one encounters an UFDD (unidentified flying delicatessen dealer), one must make sure he delves deeply into the nearest factory smokestack."
  • Posts: 2,922
    Your great grandmother sounds like a very wise and very lethal woman.
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 581
    Just listened to Chris Corbould on the Roger Deakins podcast. The more I hear about the behind the scenes of Spectre the happier I am with the film we received. He made mention that Blofelds HQ was meant to be mostly CGI in the early drafts
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited July 2021 Posts: 4,343
    Yeah there are concept arts of it. It was a massive underground structure that nested a copy of Blofeld’s family house where James stayed as well as a kid.

    Really massive:

  • edited July 2021 Posts: 440
    matt_u wrote: »
    Yeah there are concept arts of it. It was a massive underground structure that nested a copy of Blofeld’s family house where James stayed as well as a kid.

    Really massive:

    Probably too bonkers of an idea for the tone Spectre was going for, but I'd love to see a version of this pop up in one of the post-Craig Bond films.

  • I always though these concept art were based on Logan's early drafts where Blofeld was set to be an African warlord plotting his schemes from an abandoned diamond mine. Never knew there was a script with an artificial replication of the Oberhauser house. To be honest I prefer the former concept that could easily be reused in a future installment.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 2021 Posts: 6,393
    BT3366 wrote: »

    Its really sad when you take into account McClory was, in a way, screwed out of his legacy. I dislike his attempts to derail the franchise as much as anyone, but still, I can't help but feel somewhat bad for the guy.
    .

    The more I read about McClory, the more I dislike him. He put Fleming through the wringer when he wanted to release his TB novel (suffering a stroke during the court case I believe). Fleming was more at fault in how he dealt with the release of TB, but it felt like McClory got lucky once with his legal battle, and from then on for the rest of his life he would hang on the coat tails of Bond, pursuing legal battles wherever he could.

    Remember, McClory rejected all the Fleming novels and focused on his own script, which shows how much vision he lacked as a filmmaker. He didn't see the potential in the likes of FRWL or GF until they were released by EON, and from then on he wanted to hang on to the franchise for dear life, and have a piece of the action.

    Both TB and NSNA are not very strong scripts, and this is the only claim he had to Bond. I also think TB is the weakest of all the Bond novels, which again is quite telling of what a filmmaking genius McClory was. Fleming made the best of a crappy plot.

    Completely disagree about the TB script. It features some of the best one-liners and makes up for some of the novel's problems. The film's problems are more technical than anything in the script, although the Derval double thing is a stretch, I'll give you that.

    How is the hijacking of bombs by a terrorist organization not a strong plot, particularly back then? The theft of all the gold in Fort Knox in the GF novel is so much more of a stretch.

    The hijacking of the bombs is not really the issue. To me its lost by too much focus on SPECTRE and how it carries out the threat, Bond aimlessly on holiday in the Bahamas, and way too much underwater sequences.

    Agree with everything you just said.
    Mallory wrote: »
    Watching it now, and whilst it is a very watchable film, the moment your brain engages with anything that is going on, it all falls apart.

    I hope Lea Seydoux has more to do in NTTD, a great actress with a very thinly written character here,

    I don’t find Lea Seydoux that great, she just uninteresting as a presence, but that’s my opinion. The “love” story between Bond and Madeline is poorly done as well.

    To the extent that Madeleine is trying to be Tracy 2.0, Seydoux got the pout right but forgot to pivot to romance (or perhaps Mendes cut those scenes out--and if so, why?).

    The emotion in the film should have been firmly centered on Madeleine, but they put it on Blofeld instead. And that's why Logan should not be let near a Bond film again.

    There is a hint of Madeleine could have been when she was drunk at L'Americain.

    Nobody did it better than Rigg.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    I'd like to see a fan version of SP which cuts out the long long scenes, cuts down the Moneypenny part in the Rome chase, and of course, removes any references to Brofeld.

    I might feel differently about the film then.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    For me one of the biggest flaws is the whole scene in the hotel room with Madeleine and Q in the alps. Needs to be gone, or dramatically changed.

    But yes, Spectre could do with a good fan edit. If only I knew how to edit film!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    Agreed about that scene. I know Q was supposed to be kidnapped at one point but that whole sequence could be a lot shorter. I guess it sets up the "ring that unites all of Spectre" but that concept is all kinds of stupid.

    Better just to have Madeleine guess who it is because she's been on the fringes of Spectre forever?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    They should have somehow illustrated more clearly how Reidite (rare material found in meteorites, material found in ring) was found in the toxicology reports if they wanted to go that way. How the ring proves Oberhauser is still alive to Q is beyond me.

    You're right, some essence of this scene should exist, but not at all in it's current form.
Sign In or Register to comment.