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
Goldeneye People talking
In LTK you have wider shots, you feel the space, the characters.
Oh, they are. When the screen is very large, you don't need so many close-ups. It's true that there are trends and styles and it is not a rule set in stone but neither is it that it is more cinematic for having more shadows.
Hmm... I think we'll have to agree to disagree on most of this then. I don't get the sense you know much about film language :)
Don't worry, I think the same about you too. ;)
I think we just disagree on which we prefer, which is fine and that's the nature of a discussion :) But the only reason I'm saying I don't think you know much about film language is what you wrote about 'the screen being very large' (which is a strange way of describing a wide angle anyway and inaccurate) and how that means you don't 'need close ups' (close ups are simply a shot choice like any other, and how they're used and edited into the film is a more often a creative choice rather than a practical one).
It's not me trying to be too snarky - not everyone works in filmmaking or thinks about this stuff often even if they're film fans. But like I said agree to disagree.
Sure, close ups exist and people use them. It's a choice as much as "flat lighting".
Well yes, everything's a choice, even if the flat lighting or close ups are for more practical than creative reasons. Or indeed vice versa. What we're discussing is which one sets the tone and tells the story visually more effectively, and to some extent which is more visually appealing (not necessarily which is prettier). Personally I find GE much more atmospheric in that way and better shot.
Yeah, that's my point too. We see the space and we see the characters. The scene breathes.
Well then, I suppose we'll see how many people prefer the GE or LTK scene if they want to continue the conversation.
If that's how you feel about the scene that's fine. Ultimately we can only go from how we feel watching films, and we all have our preferences. Again, I like the LTK one, but for me personally it can feel a bit stagey, which doesn't quite accentuate the tension of the scene, even if we see more of the space and it 'breathes'. I don't think it tells the story as effectively as it could. I'm more engrossed in the GE scene in large part due to the atmospheric visuals and the fact that it feels more real to me (the fact that's it's darker/has tighter shots is, in my opinion, much better for the mood). But we're all different.
sense to be. Valentin exists in a dirty dive bar dealing with dodgy crackpot arms-dealers whereas Sanchez's office is part of an opulent casino, and is later shown to host events.
It makes zero sense to darken the atmos at Che Franz but perfect sense at Val's.
GE's scene gets the nod for me, but for a more superficial reason: Bond's hair.
Gel is not your friend, Timbo, and the party has gone on too long at the back.
Yep.
-TB deserves more consideration as Connery's best Bond film, and it is to date the single best amalgamation of novel Bond + movie Bond styles
-Shirley Bassey's MR title song is better than DAF's
-QOS is awesome
Bassey's DAF is one of the best Bond themes period IMO.
TB is a close second favourite Connery outing after FRWL. One thing I love about TB is that no matter how many viewings, it's a film that I can't memorize every scene in order, thanks to all the cutting back to Pinder's shop and his radio communicator assistants. I'm forever unfamiliar with it in this sense, and therefore it always feels somewhat fresh to me.
Yeah, FRWL and TB are neck-and-neck as my favorite Connery films. I also agree about QOS aging well. One thing I also have to mention on this thread is that I like Safin as a villain a lot, even though he is consistently rated as one of the weakest in the series. He's uniquely creepy to me, and struck a great balance of background and mystery.
TB is great. It just needs a tighter edit to be the best Bond film ever made.
I would say
TB contains Connery's most assured performance
MR title, though not better, is equally good as DAF!
QoS is indeed awesome, am planning another watch over Easter! Can't wait 😁
I have to say that on my last viewing of Thunderball, I found myself enjoying more than per usual.
QOS still ranks towards the bottom for me but I always find something new to enjoy about it with each viewing. I’m compelled to say it’s Craig’s best performance as Bond (though Skyfall rivals it.)
I know it has its flaws and detractors, but TB is my personal favorite for a variety of reasons.
-DAF has long been underrated and has risen to be one of the better-loved themes but MR has never resonated with me and I can understand why it hasn't with fanbase. It's not bad, just rather unmemorable.
-I've enjoyed QoS since I first saw it and like it better than the three that followed it. Something about it draws me in.
OHMSS is bettered only by FRWL, in my book.
The theme is good, not great, but the pre and post credit sequences are neither. Charles Gray is a great actor but he possessed zero menace. He says please to a subordinate ffs. Wint and Kidd were good villains but dangerously close, like Klebb, to portraying homosexuality as a deformity. Love the Grant-esque lift scrap but it introduces Tiffany Case, who is perhaps the worst female in the series. Also, the finale is, christ, it is just atrocious.
Think its lukewarm reception inspired the producers to mimic athwart box-office trends in future, so it's possibly the most influential entry in the series!
I agree with you here, it's in my bottom 3 of my rankings, it's tied along with TMWTGG, but at least TMWTGG has Christopher Lee (even though his motivation for killing Bond doesn't makes sense), this film is just utterly terrible.
It's not even funny, I do get that Bond has sense of humor, but this one, it played on stupidity.
They've butchered the great parts of the book: Tiffany Case and Wint and Kidd and played them for laughs (the actors did played their parts really well).
The effects, the cinematography, the plot, everything about it were bad, especially coming after OHMSS, it's disappointing and horrible.
OHMSS has the same poor effects and it has Lazenby too. Or a dubbed Lazenby...
The dubbed Lazenby killed the movie IMO. This is not a gritty thriller. I can't pretend it is any longer.
And the purple casino is horrible. Even movies from the 70s have better taste :D
I mean, I like the movie but it is not perfect. I think it's a bit overrated nowadays.
It's a good one for this thread. I think OHMSS can be overrated in some ways: Lazenby is very poor, and for me having a film where the female lead falls in love with Bond and for that to be a cornerstone of the film, but to show her falling in love with him in a montage, where before she storms off away from him and after she's making doe eyes at him, is a bit of a shocking bit of 'tell, I can't be bothered to show' storytelling.
There's plenty of good in the film but it has problems.
Also yeah, some of the effects and editing tricks are certainly of their time, but pretty scrappy.