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
Going from the door closing on Mr. Angelo's suite to Bond opening the door late for his appointment.
From the air bubbles of the bomb sled sub to the Disco underwater hatch as the sub is winched in.
Sometimes the wipes are brought in to this like the beautiful moment where Largo draws the chart line and the Disco returns to Nassau. Or the closing of the office door to underwater coral.
The echoing trail of Domino's voice telling Bond about the sea steps laid over Bond swimming stealthily during daylight to lie in wait is another brilliant moment.
A few thoughts on this:
-Even back in those days, studios dictated things. They had a sure moneymaker and wanted it for the largest available audience, and back then Christmas was it. Summer wasn't the blockbuster season it is now. They apparently approved it in its state and weren't concerned about the continuity and back projection issues.
-These things obviously didn't bother the millions who went to see it numerous times and made this the top-grossing Bond film of all time for several years and saw it rereleased numerous times.
-You're looking at it through a modern view. The people back then likely caught a few things, but they weren't watching these on high-definition video where these things become more and more evident over repeated viewings.
All of this doesn't bother me. I love TB. I get set off by the mess that is YOLT, which so many seem to be okay with as it's a good ride.
What’s funny is that Goldfinger and Thunderball have to be amongst the first blockbusters released in theaters.
People also didn’t have Home Video to notice the issues and flaws with Thunderball.
For me, both Thunderball and YOLT are about on equal footing, both have flaws, but both are incredibly fun to watch. I may prefer YOLT slightly, but that’s not a dig against Thunderball. It’s certainly the most stylish effort in the series (OHMSS may rival it for the title).
TB and GF, absolutely came from a different era because, like TV shows of the same time, you watched them once or twice and then they were gone with no ability for repeat viewings(video recorders were not available to the general public as well). Also, it made searching them out and viewing them an imperative which demanded your commitment as a fan to keep up with the film/TV series that you liked. Because of the "one or two time viewing window" films and TV shows could be a lot more rough in their presentations. The BIG also, was that there was no social media to tear things down or apart. Fandom was a very personal and singular experience at that time.
When Bond started to go bigger than the previous film, those earlier films actually hold up much better today, IMO. They now have a classic feel to them, whereas the naffness of back projection and special effects date the likes of TB, YOLT and DAF far more than those first 3 films.
The low points when Bond went BIG with back projection and special effects are the crazy speeded up boat in TB, the `drop in the ocean' car magnet which Bond is watching from the car, Bond escaping the pilotless plane, and Little Nellie scenes from YOLT, and then that ridiculous laser satellite and mushroom cloud exploding scene towards the end of DAF.
The more down-to-earth Bond films don't suffer nearly as much, and I include OHMSS in that category too. The back projection ski chases are nowhere near as noticeable, which is why Dr. No, FRWL, GF and OHMSS have aged much better.
If you would like to get a sense of Hunt's post-Bond work, do watch Gold and Shout at the Devil. Both are easily available on Blu-Ray (links enclosed--despite what Amazon says, the Blu-Ray of Devil is all-region) and represent not only Hunt's best films outside OHMSS but also two of Roger Moore's best films (and performances) away from Bond.
As Hunt said, "If Lazenby had done Diamonds, then I may have done it, as well as the next two, and I wouldn't have done anything else--and whilst I've often been disappointed about things I wanted to do that never came off, I've done some films that I'm awfully proud of which are out of the Bond idiom, away from the protected society of Broccoli and Saltzman and all that. It was very protective for me, and very nice and good, but I was able to go off and make my own films, like Gold and Shout at the Devil, both starring Roger Moore, which I'm proud of and which were very different from Bond."
I felt it was appropriate to change the title after we’ve divulged a little too much from the initial topic of the thread.
As far as Hunt’s other films, I’ve seen Gold, which I throughly enjoyed, and I’ve seen the fight between Lee Marvin and Roger Moore in Shout At The Devil. I’ve always wondered what Hunt would’ve done with Roger as Bond. I think he would’ve done something similar to Glen did, perhaps a bit more refined.
Quite possibly. Early 70's films like Straw Dogs, Dirty Harry or A Clockwork Orange were pushing the boundaries of violence at that time. It would have been good to have seen Bond gone in this direction too, although I'm not sure whether the longevity of the series would have been as successful.
I'm just not sure if Hunt had stayed he'd have had the pull with Broccoli and Saltzman to prevent the films from becoming what they did, especially after the reception of OHMSS.
Had DAF gone as originally planned pre-Sean we would have gotten the John Gavin Bond shot on the Universal lot in Hollywood which of course would have been dire as it would have stripped away the identity and style of Bond.
Hunt could have stayed and directed DAF to give it more of an edge but it would have contrasted with the inherent satire of the film as conceived. Had he stayed and Sean returned the result would have likely played out tonally more in line with the original novel in terms of danger.
The series never quite recovered after Hunt left the cutting room just as it didn’t after Maibaum’s death. The loss of these key players meant that in order to survive major deviations and changes had to be made.
You can never get away from the original three films. They are the immortal titles where everything fell into place perfectly and the entire team did not yet have to deal with the pressures of being a giant success and phenomenon. DN was a small film where everyone struggled to do their best and persevered. Then in FRWL and GF there is an increase in confidence without having ego. The sky was the limit creatively and the films were still modestly budgeted which ensured everyone still gave their best effort. Starting with TB the cart began to be put before the horse.
Yes I agree with this, although I would also put OHMSS firmly in the category of the first 3 movies. It is very similar in tone to those 3, and completely ignores all the work done in TB and YOLT to take Bond into more OTT outlandish territory. I guess that film was always earmarked to be one of the first few, so the template and script was already set in motion.
I would say the spirit of the first 3 films was rediscovered briefly during Dalton's reign in the late 80's, which was ahead of its time. Those 2 Dalton films would set the template for the Craig era 16 years later.
I agree with all you say, bar the reference to TB as outlandish.
To me the tone remains very faithful to the novel and with Terence still at the helm the cinematic tone remains unaltered.
For me, YOLT is when Fleming was largely ignored and Gilbert brought in the ‘outlandish’. Albeit it still worked. It was with DAF that the camp, overly comic tone was introduced by Hamilton.
For me, Terence Young never put a foot wrong.
True. I accept TB is a very faithful adaptation of a novel which I think was Fleming's weakest in terms of plot, and the only novel that I am not very keen on.
Overall Young did very little wrong in his direction, except for the underwater scenes that I find very long and dull, and that tragic speeded up boat messy nonsense at the end.
Really. It’s one of my favourite novels, due to the lavish settings and glamorous epic plot.
It's the only one I really struggle with every time I read it. Probably the best part of the novel is the beginning at Shrublands, which I do like. Once SPECTRE comes into it I find it rather dull from then on.
The original FOUR films. They are all wreathed in greatness. I find nothing about TB that pales in comparison to DN, FRWL and GF. Connery was at his best and everything was still firing on all cylinders.
Hence the user name.... ;)
I see GF almost as a standalone movie, standing separate from the rest of the series. It is a classic in its own right, and has a different feel to the first 2 movies, and different to what would follow, even though it set the template for all future Bond movies.
It's basically where EON hit the jackpot and found the perfect formula. Connery at his ultimate prime, 2 films under his belt, not yet bored of playing Bond, and now defining the character forever.
The script would rely heavily on a Fleming novel, yet also managed to bring the cinematic qualities to the fore, mainly because Fleming himself discovered the cinematic formula with this novel.
Barry suddenly discovered his best work, both in terms of the song and the score, as did Ken Adam. GF is the greatest hits Bond, and EON wouldn't stumble on another successful formula like this again until TSWLM, which set a new template for a different era.
After that you would probably have to go as far as CR before EON really hit the jackpot again with their third megahits album, which defined Bond once again for a different era.
+1 with everything you said. The great thing about Goldfinger is that it also improves on Fleming’s novel as well.
It’s also one of the best of the Tongue-in-cheek Bond films IMO. It was one of the very first Bond films that I ever saw as a kid growing up in the post Brosnan era of Bond and I loved everything about it, and I still do to an extent, but as I grew older, I found myself preferring the more down to earth adventures, with few exceptions. I’m probably one of the rare people who prefers the likes of TSWLM, and Goldeneye to Goldfinger.
I think it comes down to Guy Hamilton’s directorial style, I much prefer Terence Young, and the style he brought to the series. It’s not that I find Hamilton to be a bad director, not by any means, but I find that Hamilton lacks the edge and grit of Young, or Peter Hunt’s style of direction.
But to contrast that, Hamilton’s choice of the actors/actresses, his bombastic approach to the filmmaking, and the directorial flare that he brings are highlights of Goldfinger for me. It’s truly unique film on its own merits, and I credit a lot of the uniqueness of that film down to Hamilton.
+1.
I think Hamilton was good at bringing the cinematic elements to the fore, like Q revealing the gadgets before Bond gets to use them, and also Q's impatience with Bond.
Hamilton was also good at building up tension when he needed to, particularly with the now infamous laser sequence. Its a shame he didn't do more of these scenes to make his films feel a bit more harder edged and gritty.
As Hunt said:
"I got a little angry with Goldfinger, because I didn't think it was being made properly. In fact, I did quite a lot of work on that insofar as second unit shooting
... I just didn't feel that it was coming out the way it should have been coming out. We changed the theme a bit, there was a different director...I just felt it wasn't quite right. I must say that from the producers' point of view, they must have thought the same thing too. They really let me have a much freer hand on that in every way, and I was able to bang and boost that about. The whole car chase was actually a good lesson in editing. It was cut and edited and made to be entirely different from the way it was shot. It was very interesting, actually, but you wouldn't know, of course. Again, one of my favorite sayings is 'Thank goodness the audience hasn't seen the script.'
"...I had to pummel it into the same sort of style that the other two films were; taking what I was given and shaping it like the other two. It was not coming out like them, and my confidence was based on what I had already done. I must say, because it's definitely true, that those two producers always stood behind me very well. They were extremely cooperative and extremely appreciative of all the hard work I did. It is hard work, especially when you consider that the films are ninety percent hard work and ten percent cleverness. They were extremely hard work, and some were more difficult than others. Goldfinger was one of them. But as it worked out, it became one of the better ones."
Obviously it never would have happened, but I suspect a Hunt-edited DAF would have been better than what we got.
I wonder if there is an element of sour grapes there towards Guy Hamilton, as he got the gig again after Hunt's one-off stint on OHMSS...?
A couple of astute reviewers also made this point. Hunt mentioned Pauline Kael's review of Diamonds Are Forever as an example:
"The Ken Adam sets just sit there, and the film doesn't have anything like those flamboyant sequences in the snow--the ski chase and the bobsled run--that were quite literally dazzling in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. What's missing may be linked to the absence of Peter Hunt, who worked on the action sequences of all the earlier Bonds, and who directed the last one; perhaps it was he who gave the series its distinctive quality of aestheticized thrills. The daring seemed beautiful in the earlier films--precariously glorified. This time, even when a sequence works (that is, both daring and funny) such as the car chase, and the battle between Connery and the black and white Amazons, it lacks elegance and visual opulence; it looks like sequences of the same kind in Bond imitations."