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
I think iconic films like GF & TSWLM did as much harm as good to the Bond franchise. Their massive global success may have solidified and firmly imprinted the brand in the public's consciousness, but I also feel that this success was a double edged sword because the public still associates Bond with all of that fancy iconic imagery, rather than the stories. The character got lost in it all. The Craig era was an attempt to cleanse that mindset and take it back to basics, as it were.
Again, this is your chance to say whatever you would have differently wit the film, so things like; plot change, character additions or subtractions. Anything you like. People will be given the chance to give their responses within 7 DAYS from today (this may change so let me know if you want me to extend the time for longer) until the discussion moves on to the next James Bond film. This will run until we reach SKYFALL as a discussion for SPECTRE already exists.
Looking forward to hearing what you guys think.
I think we have to include FRWL as a quintessential Bond title. It seems that not a week goes by without some play on this title in the media. JFK of course had a lot to do with it.
The Shrublands sequence is a confusing mess, including the doubles. See NSNA for a more exciting take on this.
Bond punches Leiter. Again, why? He's such a lackey in this film: "What now, James?"
Palluzzi is of course great but Auger's performance borders on the catatonic.
PS--Just thought of something. Fiona needs to lose that Mustang with which she picks up Bond. I understand they were all the rage in '65 and for some people, still are today. Personally, I think they look like toy cars. A '65 Corvette would have been much cooler.
Other than that, maybe they should've invested more of their budget into those background projection screens.
TB is also the first Bond flick to experience severe pacing issues. Part of that is due to the construction of the plot; Bond is discovering things throughout the narrative that the viewer already knows. And the underwater scenes are excessive in length and frequency - the final battle shows you practically every possible way to kill someone underwater.
Apart from these flaws, TB is a solid entry overall, with some good performances, so there is not much else I would change.
Yes! Someone earlier brought up the endless scene of them camouflaging the fighter jet...I mean, it looks cool and the score is good but really it puts the viewer way ahead of Bond, and that should rarely happen, if ever.
I'm trying to think of another example where the viewer is way ahead of Bond. Maybe Necros' kitchen fight in TLD?
I would certainly trim the underwater battle down, and give those extra minutes to make Largo a stronger character. He was visually striking, but felt fairly weak in comparison to a Goldfinger or even Dr.No.
Maybe a bit less Shrublands and get the action to the Bahamas quicker too.
Peter Hunt trimmed down the underwater footage, but Harry and Cubby made him put it back in. Why spent all that money on underwater photography, if one doesn't show the audience, I can imagine the producers saying. (I think that piece of info is in the mighty tome, The James Bond Archives)
As dear @Thunderfinger alluded to a couple of pages back, the usual high production values are starting to get swamped in the spectacle, with regards to continuity - a'la Leiter's magical trousers.
Other than that Thunderball is an epic feast - "top flight entertainment filled with eye popping locales, exotic women and exceptional photography, music and special effects" The Essential James Bond, Pfeiffer and Worrall.
That does make sense, especially for Cubby. Plus, we are looking at the film in hindsight. In 1965, all that underwater footage might have been novel and exciting.
Still, almost all of the Bond films could stand to lose at least 5-10 minutes, and often entire sequences (the Mujahidden in TLD) could be cut for story purposes.
Then you'd also need to cut the early films like Bond's treatment of women, fetch my shoes, an American playing an Asian, etc. and other things today's PC standards.
-the underwater scenes drag, as has been mentioned
-Fiona Volpe wears far too much clothing throughout
-Bond comes across as a sleazy quasi-rapist with that woman at the spa. I'm not reading that with 'PC' 2017 lenses, as I understand times have changed. I just mean that Bond shouldn't have to take his women by force or by blackmail, his looks and charm should suffice.
-The projection is terrible.
-I absolutely bloody hate the water cannon on the Aston. To me, it's where the Moore-esque bloat starts to creep into the series. Having the bullet screen on the window is fine - a cool, useful addition to a spy car. But twin water guns? That the attackers could avoid by literally moving 6 inches either side? And why not just drive away? They're on foot. Here the action gets pressed into the service of 'gadget' (or the 'gag') and it feels cheesy.
-The jetpack is fine, but as with YOLT, any time Connery puts on a helmet, he looks foolish.
Lastly, this video is a bit tongue in cheek but I think it gets some things right:
Though maybe it's verboten here?
With TB we know who has the bombs and how they did it. Bond doesnt and watching him flounce around in a snorkel doesnt scream high stakes like it should. Added to that we have the Shrublands sequence which, whilst admittedly fun, goes on for ages and is only linked to the plot via a contrived coincidence. Could easily axe all this (tragic to lose it as it has some hilarious lines) and just use the reason from the book to send Bond to Nassau rather than him stumbling across Mr Angelo and it all plays out the same. Once the action moves to Nassau I find myself getting bored every time Fiona is off screen. In the book (which is far from my favourite) this problem is somewhat lessened by the relationship with Domino. The film concentrates on gadget and spectacle over this relationship and, worse, casts an actress with absolutely zero charisma in the role. She's gorgeous to look at and all but has the personality of a mannequin.
Cant help feeling the film would be a lot better if we trimmed (or binned altogether) the Shrublands scene and put back scenes like Bond and Leiter visiting the Disco (which was filmed) and Domino's story about the cigarette packet (but obviously you'd need a much better actress). Build up the Bond/Domino/Largo love triangle because thats the real story given we already know everything about SPECTRE's plan.
Or the other option if you want to keep it as a thriller; give us some thrills. On paper a criminal gang hijacking nuclear warheads and holding the world to ransom sounds incredibly exciting and its difficult to understand how dull TB manages to make it.
Basic rule of filmmaking number 74: If youre going to have a nuclear bomb as the main threat in your film then at some point it has to start counting down.
The Peacemaker and Broken Arrow for example are pretty average films but by not flouting this rule they at least manage to generate some moderate thrills. With TB its embarrassing just so how far away SPECTRE come from detonating either of the bombs. The world being held to ransom? Err not that we see on screen. One bomb easily defused off screen (that was thrilling wasnt it folks) and the other never even gets armed because the detonator has been lobbed in the sea.
If you want to watch a Bond film on the edge of your seat as a nuclear bomb counts down put OP on instead.
I didn't mind the plot being known to us already. We still feel like it's a race against time. The atmosphere doesn't feel as desperate as, say, Octopussy, but that owes more do the overall pacing of the film (TB's one of the slower ones). I do think Octopussy is a superior film, but only slightly (two places above for me), and at least we're spared the cliche of the villain listing out his plan to Bond in TB.
Again, this is your chance to say whatever you would have done differently with the film, so things like; plot changes, character additions or subtractions. Anything you like. People will be given the chance to give their responses within 7 DAYS from today (this may change so let me know if you want me to extend the time for longer) until the discussion moves on to the next James Bond film. This will run until we reach SKYFALL as a discussion for SPECTRE already exists.
Looking forward to hearing what you guys think.
Two Blofelds in the same film?? Are you mad?!
That being said, I would remove the sequence in which Connery is made up to look like a Japanese man. It's ridiculous and ultimately serves no purpose.
In YOLT, I'd rewrite Kissy's character, get Sean to give a better performance, and make the turning Japanese scenes less cringeworthy.