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'm just glad TM never got his Batman made.
You only have to watch SUPERMAN III to get a sense of what the first film would have been like if Donner and Mankiewicz were never involved.
As for his Batman script, even though it wasn't ultimately used it's often credited for setting the tone of the project, which eventually lead to Burton's film.
If memory serves, Mankiewicz was told to follow the structure of the first Donner Superman film (hence the lengthy origin sequence) and also write a Batman in line with the excellent late 70s comics by Steve Englehart (hence the presence of Rupert Thorne and Silver St. Cloud). The script (which can be read here) is neither super dark nor super-campy. It's an early 80s attempt to encapsulate the character and has some of the awkwardness one would expect.
For all the flaws AVTAK might have, this is not one of them IMO. I quite liked seeing Bond showing his cooking skills.
" Real men don't eat Quiche !" ;)
As a Mankiewicz diehard and champion I have to chime in-yes the 1983 Batman script was patterned after the Superman scenario since the 1978 film was viewed as the first and only successful film in the genre to that point in time. When read it honestly still hits all the right elements and if produced properly would have been a solid first Batman film in 1985 or so.-maybe not 100% full on comic accuracy but it works as a good Batman tale and a good film narrative.
Since I just finished recording a commentary for the film I have to say one of mine is:
DAF is a masterpiece. Its inherent wickedly funny satirizing of the Bond formula by Mankiewicz brings in a fresh energy and along with Sean's return helped to resell Bond not just as a film series to the public of 1971 but entice them in to have two hours of entertainment where the film knows what they expect and has fun in making it new whilst letting the audience know it's in on the joke.
That is a controversial opinion. I think it's pretty dismal, by far the weakest of what I would call the Golden Era of Bond (DN-TSWLM) even in comparison to Guy Hamilton's other fairly tepid effort, TMWTGG. It's in my bottom 5 for the series.
Glad you like it, though. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything!
I wouldn't say I love LALD, but it's a unique entry, in its own way. DAF is just uninspired.
Direction, locations, villain, finale, all are weak. Pretty much the only thing it has going for it is the John Barry score, and iconic theme song. Wint and Kidd are an amusing take on henchman, but they are played for laughs. I know it was a different time, but even in the early 70's it must have been eye rolling to see Wint seemingly enjoy having a bomb inserted in him.
It's disappointing on every level.
I almost agree. However, I like Wint & Kidd a lot. They are part of my favourite henchmen. I suppose this is controversial.
There are so many parts of it that either bore me, frustrate me or both.
I think the action is weak in general. The fight with Franks in the lift is well done but other than that, nah.
Tiffany Case, having started as a fairly strong character, decends into I don't know what, culminating in being vibrated off an oil rig by her gun's recoil!
The ' centrepiece' car chase around the Vegas car park is a weak entry into the whizz, bang,wallop vehicular action seen in films of that era (not just Bond films). It finishes in an unforgivable blooper. Unforgivable because they knew it was there and tried to fob the audience off with an insert of the car tipping the other way!
Wint and Kidd are evil murderers who having successfully killed everyone in the link then just place Bond in a pipe to "probably die".
The plot hole surrounding Plenty O'Toole's death is unnecessary. Having filmed the scenes needed to allow it to make sense they were then cut out.
The climax on the oil rig is incredibly boring.
Bambi and Thumper are worthy adversaries with one fatal weakness, they lose their powers when dunked underwater.
I realise continuity is a loose concept, especially between OHMSS and DAF but, BUT we start the film with Bond hunting Blofeld down and finish it with Bond swinging him around on a crane arm for shits and giggles.
Any film that features a circus often looks tacky, DAF succeeds in this regard.
I've always felt the whole film was made on the basis that " we have Connery back, nothing else matters"
I really dislike this film.
The only two scenes I like are M's briefing and Bond scaling the building on top of the lift. I can't sit through the whole film just for that.
You pretty much sum it up for me. Regarding Bambi and Thumper, I think they were there as a joke: "hey, let's have Bond kicked around and badly lose a fight against two women, until he gets the upper hand in the most comical way possible!" Bond is in this fight and other moments of the film baffingly incompetent.
I think DAF represents a point in the timeline where the creative team didn't really know what to do with the series. Certainly which tone to go with.
The result is that this film just has a strange feel to it. It hardly matters now because we have 23 others to enjoy but in 1971 when this was the new offering I wonder what the general consensus was amongst the audience. I don't mean box office takings because well Connery was back, the audience was there chomping at the bit I imagine. They would have watched anything offered.
What I'd be interested to understand is was this the type of Bond film that the fans really wanted at that time? Whatever, I'm just glad this was a blip. (In my opinion of course)
LALD was Moore's first entry, so for a lot of fans that's a special film as it ushered in their generation's Bond, whereas DAF was Connery on the out, and it wasn't as beloved as his earlier films.
But yes, I vastly prefer DAF. It's one of those Bond films I can just pop in any time and never not enjoy it.
I might be wrong, but I think at that time all they wanted was Sean Connery, who could do no wrong in their eyes. I used to think DAF was a necessary evil, now I wonder if they could have made a straight vengeance movie as a follow-up to OHMSS and people would have accepted it, as long as Connery was in it.
I agree 100% here, there are parts of your post that I don't know as much about as you (ie Plenty's death plot hole), simply because I have maybe seen this film two times; I'll agree with you on those points as well.
The one thing I will say is that, in my recent viewing of it (my expectations going in were absolutely bottomed out), I enjoyed the scene where Bond encountered the two Blofelds.
I put DAF and YOLT as my bottom two, simply because of how they both contributed to bungling a proper follow up to OHMSS and what I currently put as my favourite Bond novel (YOLT).