Things i would have changed in...... Thunderball

2456

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,021
    Birdleson wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    DR. NO -
    1. Lose most of the rear projection. This goes for most all of the '60s entries. The stunts are fine. The audience understands it's supposed to be Bond driving the car in the chase scene. What little enhancement the audience's experience may get by jump cutting to a close-up of Bond behind the wheel is more than outweighed by the jarring inclusion of the rear projection shots.

    Was it jarring back in the 60's? Was rear projection the norm back then, or a cost cutting measure?


    I was too young to notice in the early '60s, but by the early '70s it was definitely jarring. I don't think it was ever a technique that was able fool anyone aside form the young, but you accept the technology of the time as "normal". Ray Harryhausen's stop animation was never convincing, but there was a normalcy and comfort to it at the time. This generation that grew up with massive CGI use will certainly be surprised when they realize how bad much of it looks a couple of decades hence.

    It wasn't always a cost-cutting measure. Iy was a way to keep your star safe but still appear to be in the action. Hitchcock preferred to use it (all the way through to the late '70s, when he died) because he enjoyed the control working in the studio gave him.

    Tarantino loves the rear projection technique. He's used it quite a few times in his films.

    As for Ray Harryhausen, I think some of his stuff looks better than a lot of the CGI around today!
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    From Russia With Love

    The film is perfect as far as I'm concerned. I can't really think of anything that should be changed.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I'd change the final scene on the Gondola. The rear projection is as bad as the Dr. No car chase and Bond waving goodbye at the reel of film is so corny. I'd remove that whole bit.
  • saunderssaunders Living in a world of avarice and deceit
    Posts: 987
    I love FRWL but I would change the scenes when Bond and Tatiana leave the train, the helicopter and boat scenes fail on multiple levels, they don't have the tension and drama of earlier scenes, as action they are too clumsy and slow and the Scottish locations lack the authentic sense of place that Istanbul so richly provided the earlier scenes.
    If I was to change this film I would remove the above action scenes altogether (Dr No has very little action so in 1963 there was no precedent that required it). Instead I would of extended the scenes set in Venice using a location shoot in the city to bookend the train scenes with Istanbul, maybe introduce Mathis (or an Italian counterpart maybe more appropriate) and yes I would even want to keep the novel's end and have a poisoned Bond collapse to the floor (surely less distressing to audiences than seeing Connery do that stupid wave to the sinking film spool).
  • Posts: 16,169
    Some prints of FRWL put the " THE END" title in the same shot as Bond's hand waving. I prefer the version where that card comes on that final shot of Venice. So I'd fix those prints. Other than that I'd change nothing on this film.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Apart from the hand wave at the end of the movie, I wouldn't change a damn thing.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited September 2016 Posts: 2,722
    Damn - this is my favourite Bond film and structurally one of the most sound of the series. I can't think of anything I'd change. Klebb, Grant and Kerim Bey are all perfect and have good, affecting demises. I'd agree that the boat chase could be a little better (I actually think the helicopter stunts hold up really well - and for some reason I like the reuse of the musical cue from Dr No's swirling soundtrack in this sequence). Overall this is one of the few Bond films I'd say 'don't change anything' (along with Casino Royale - no surprise that they're my two favourites!)

    One thing I will say story wise is that I don't understand why they blow up the Russian consulate to nab the Lektor - it seems like a far too easy and disruptive thing to do - especially seeing as it's a British agent doing it. The year after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the height of the cold war - executing that plan is almost an act of war. And if that kind of visible, violent espionage is considered ok in order to get the lektor - why haven't they done it before?
  • Posts: 16,169
    Damn- I wish I had been alive in 1963 to see FRWL in it's original release. Instead I got to see SPECTRE in it's original release.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I would change : NOTHING...
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited September 2016 Posts: 1,130
    I knew From Russia with love would be the most difficult to find stuff to change since its one of the big favorites but i will go on this thread with all the Bond flicks.

    It will be interesting to see how some of the films will ask for more changes than others.

    With Dr No seems like the only real complaint was the car chase where Bond was driving to Miss Taro's home and many wanted more time at Dr No's lair.

    Here it seems like the only change could be the waving at the end, which i thought it was a nice touch.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I would also include the ending from the novel, as I feel that such a great opportunity to do something different was wasted here. Still, I enjoy the film very much as is.
  • Posts: 533
    The ending for FRWL could have been edited better. Adding two action sequences in a row - both the helicopter and boat chases were a bit too much. The actual train journey from Istanbul to the Yugoslavia-Italy border WAS TOO SHORT. The journey should have been stretched out a bit more. Either improve Bond's one-liners or cut down on them. There were too many and not particularly funny.
  • Posts: 1,296
    Maybe do away with the boat chase, and the stuntman's waving hand at the end, that's sit.
  • You want to change From Russia With Love. Are you bloody mad? Nothing in this film needs or warrants change. It's an insult to director Terence Young if you want to change anything in this film. It's one of the favourites of the series for good reason. Why does everyone want to change things nowadays. Black Bond, Gay Bond, Female Bond. Piss off and find a character of your own to do that with. Use some imagination, a coloured female, bisexual secret agent who saves the world. Wow that was freaking hard to do. You're off an running, now fill in the rest.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    It's not to be taken seriously.
  • Posts: 1,296
    Have you not heard of fan-editing @Cubby_and_Harry ?
  • Posts: 1,296
    Nobody's suggesting Bond be gay......
  • Only been back for an hour and already I have the feeling it was a mistake.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 1,296
    Please don't go, we like you , it's nice for a new face, just remember it's fun for some of us to take a keen editor's eye to the old films and try to bring them closer to perfection. We don't mean insult to the directors or antyhing.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,434
    The repeating shot of Klebb at Spectre Island. Her and the guy walk through the same training area twice or that's how it's edited. I would do away with the cheesy music when Bond shoots the pilot with the rifle. Oh and I would change the agent who dies at the mosque so that the other scene that couldn't be used could be restored to the film.

    These are just some minor tweaks, otherwise it stands as is!
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Birdleson wrote: »

    I know it will be when we reach the '80s that I have a lot to say. So many of them (FYEO, OP and TLD) would be among my absolute top Bond films if they were pared down to a tight, acceptable (for me) 100 minutes, with a little bit of rewrite to smooth over the omissions.

    The main thing I'd change about the 80's is the direction and cinematography. And the tone of the films should be more consistent (thank goodness they didn't do the flying carpet)

  • Birdleson wrote: »
    Some people don't seem to get the point of the thread.

    Well the opening post doesn't say anything other than not being able to change the lead actor. I am after all only stating MY opinion. Is that not one of the things people see differently on a discussion forum.


    Birdleson wrote: »
    One never knows until it's too late.

    It's never too late matey. No need for us to start off on the wrong foot. I mean you no ill feeling.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Cut out bond turning on the bathwater or have him turn it off first :))
  • Posts: 676
    saunders wrote: »
    Instead I would of extended the scenes set in Venice using a location shoot in the city to bookend the train scenes with Istanbul, maybe introduce Mathis (or an Italian counterpart maybe more appropriate) and yes I would even want to keep the novel's end and have a poisoned Bond collapse to the floor (surely less distressing to audiences than seeing Connery do that stupid wave to the sinking film spool).
    It wasn't even Connery's hand. That was a studio insert using someone else's hand. If I recall correctly, Connery hated the insert.
  • saunderssaunders Living in a world of avarice and deceit
    Posts: 987
    That's pleasing to hear, it never seemed to tally with Sean's performance in those early films when he took the role seriously.
  • Very little I would change with FRWL, since whilst it is not my favourite nor the one I would call the best, it is probably the most 'faultless' in the entire canon.

    -Remove the Bond theme when it inappropriately plays during the part in Bond's hotel room. (I don't know if this is controversial)

    And... that's it honestly. People have raised issue with the last scene, but to me (awful back projection aside) it was fine, satisfying even to end the film on a light note. The part where Bond brutally interrogates Tatiana and slaps her is difficult to watch nowadays (modern audiences would wonder why it is Tatiana who must atone as opposed to Bond during the confrontation with Klebb). But I don't think I would change it, given it that it is rather defining of Bond's character in the 60s. Klebb's exit I sometimes find anticlimactic, but it's functional, and there is no real problem with it.
  • Posts: 676
    -Remove the Bond theme when it inappropriately plays during the part in Bond's hotel room. (I don't know if this is controversial)
    Good call.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    The part where Bond brutally interrogates Tatiana and slaps her is difficult to watch nowadays (modern audiences would wonder why it is Tatiana who must atone as opposed to Bond during the confrontation with Klebb). But I don't think I would change it, given it that it is rather defining of Bond's character in the 60s. Klebb's exit I sometimes find anticlimactic, but it's functional, and there is no real problem with it.

    Good points.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 533
    I'm curious. SPECTRE wanted to use Bond to steal the Soviets' Lektor machine from their consulate in Istanbul. Okay. But Blofeld was planning on selling it back to the Soviets? Why? He could not find another client?
    And that the producers weren't putting up too much of a fight. To the point that LTK seemed, at the time, like a television production and Dalton was casually saying that he thought this would probably be the last Bond film.

    I saw nothing wrong with the production quality of "LICENSE TO KILL". The problem was that the plot seemed straight out of a two-part episode of "MIAMI VICE". Heck, they even had a Key West cop who looked like Don Johnson.

    If there is one scene from "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE" I really had a problem with, it was the final confrontation between Bond and Donovan Grant. From a dramatic viewpoint, it proved a great moment for Sean Connery and Robert Shaw to exercise their acting chops. From a storytelling viewpoint, it made no sense to me. It just did not make any sense to me that Grant would take his sweet time preparing to kill Bond, once he got the drop on the British agent. While Grant was busy searching through the unconscious Bond’s jacket and putting on his gloves, I found myself screaming at my TV screen – "What in the hell are you waiting for? Kill him!" I see now that it was an excuse for Grant to reveal SPECTRE's plans to Bond. I really wish this could have been done in another way.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I imagine the Soviets would pay well over the odds to get one of their machines back,rather than anyone else having it.They would outbid anyone else.

    Plus it makes SPECTRE look good in the eyes of the Soviets,for favours etc...
Sign In or Register to comment.