"Don't worry, I'll tell the chef ": Thunderball Appreciation & Discussion

1356715

Comments

  • Posts: 11,189
    Connery's last great Bond performance to me.

    "What's going on?"
    "I don't know. Could it have been the front doorbell?"
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    I wish Young had made more films. I'd be curious to know the reasons (real reasons) why he never returned. Read that he was offered both FYEO and NSNA and turned them down.

    I respect him for not doing more. He clearly felt he added all he could-and he's one of the only reasons there were films after DN and FRWL-and wanted to leave before he staled creatively with the character. He was smart, because the next film went back on his style of Bond film completely.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    Yes, he never made a bad one and set the standard for sure. Still, to dream. A Young directed, Connery starring, OHMSS would have topped off the decade (and the series, until CR).
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    I wish Young had made more films. I'd be curious to know the reasons (real reasons) why he never returned. Read that he was offered both FYEO and NSNA and turned them down.
    +1

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Yes, he never made a bad one and set the standard for sure. Still, to dream. A Young directed, Connery starring, OHMSS would have topped off the decade (and the series, until CR).

    Hunt did a great job though.....near perfect.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Yes, he never made a bad one and set the standard for sure. Still, to dream. A Young directed, Connery starring, OHMSS would have topped off the decade (and the series, until CR).

    I actually wouldn't have anyone but Hunt directing OHMSS. There's days where I'd like to see Sean in it, but most when I don't. It wouldn't be the Connery of DN, FRWL, GF and TB we'd see after all, it'd be post-YOLT Connery. I think by that point he was through with Bond and only a massive paycheck enticed him back one last time. I just don't think he wouldn't been in the mindset to give it his best.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Yes, he never made a bad one and set the standard for sure. Still, to dream. A Young directed, Connery starring, OHMSS would have topped off the decade (and the series, until CR).

    I actually wouldn't have anyone but Hunt directing OHMSS. There's days where I'd like to see Sean in it, but most when I don't. It wouldn't be the Connery of DN, FRWL, GF and TB we'd see after all, it'd be post-YOLT Connery. I think by that point he was through with Bond and only a massive paycheck enticed him back one last time. I just don't think he wouldn't been in the mindset to give it his best.

    Bang on. Unless they gave him the producer role he demanded. But even then that doesn't mean good choices in that role. Peter Hunt made a near perfect OHMSS.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    suavejmf wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Yes, he never made a bad one and set the standard for sure. Still, to dream. A Young directed, Connery starring, OHMSS would have topped off the decade (and the series, until CR).

    I actually wouldn't have anyone but Hunt directing OHMSS. There's days where I'd like to see Sean in it, but most when I don't. It wouldn't be the Connery of DN, FRWL, GF and TB we'd see after all, it'd be post-YOLT Connery. I think by that point he was through with Bond and only a massive paycheck enticed him back one last time. I just don't think he wouldn't been in the mindset to give it his best.

    Bang on. Unless they gave him the producer role he demanded. But even then that doesn't mean good choices in that role. Peter Hunt made a near perfect OHMSS.

    I also can't imagine OHMSS without George's great physicality. Contrary to popular opinion, he added a helluva lot to the film that Sean wouldn't have been able to at the time, and his performance at the end brings me to tears every time.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Yes, he never made a bad one and set the standard for sure. Still, to dream. A Young directed, Connery starring, OHMSS would have topped off the decade (and the series, until CR).

    I actually wouldn't have anyone but Hunt directing OHMSS. There's days where I'd like to see Sean in it, but most when I don't. It wouldn't be the Connery of DN, FRWL, GF and TB we'd see after all, it'd be post-YOLT Connery. I think by that point he was through with Bond and only a massive paycheck enticed him back one last time. I just don't think he wouldn't been in the mindset to give it his best.

    Bang on. Unless they gave him the producer role he demanded. But even then that doesn't mean good choices in that role. Peter Hunt made a near perfect OHMSS.

    I also can't imagine OHMSS without George's great physicality. Contrary to popular opinion, he added a helluva lot to the film that Sean wouldn't have been able to at the time, and his performance at the end brings me to tears every time.

    Agreed.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    I think Connery would have been fine right after YOLT. Young could have drawn the performance out of him beyond a paycheck (Hunt too probably), plus he was never bad. His 'walking' through YOLT is the script more than his attitude. Connery would elevate OHMSS while Lazenby (though good in it) doesn't. Yes, Hunt did a great job, I don't disagree there. Though the film needs trimming in the beginning.
  • Posts: 19,339
    The problem with Connery in OHMSS is could he play the emotion needed throughout the film ?
    I think if Connery was in it,we wouldnt have got the OHMSS we did.

    But as for TB,that was Connery in his element...and i dont find Connery that bad in YOLT,i agree ,its the script,and maybe having a childrens author ,Roald Dahl,involved wouldnt have helped,and took away the tension that previous Connery Bond films had.

    IMO of course.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    barryt007 wrote: »
    The problem with Connery in OHMSS is could he play the emotion needed throughout the film ?
    I think if Connery was in it,we wouldnt have got the OHMSS we did.

    But as for TB,that was Connery in his element...and i dont find Connery that bad in YOLT,i agree ,its the script,and maybe having a childrens author ,Roald Dahl,involved wouldnt have helped,and took away the tension that previous Connery Bond films had.

    IMO of course.

    Sean had the talent to perform the way he needed to, but his exhaustion and frustration with the series would've impacted his ability to deliver. He'd also let himself go, and no longer looked like the lean and athletic image he was at the start. It'd be great to see the Sean of DN and FRWL in OHMSS, but we'd have gotten post-YOLT Connery and that I wouldn't want. George was needed to add energy back into it, and he was surprisingly vulnerable for a novice.

    I don't view Sean's performance in YOLT as bad, as I think the problem is down to the script. Sean is masterful when the scripts give him a chance to really get into character and bring Bond to life as events impact him, but in YOLT the ambitious plot loses itself and Bond's journey in the narrative. We get no quiet moments of him doing spying for the most part, and all the "loud" events of the film overwhelm his attempts at adding anything to it. I can't imagine what Sean was thinking when he found out he was going to have make-up put on him so that he could appear Japanese.

    It makes sense why he high-tailed it out of there immediately after, and made it known he was out during production. The films he wanted to make, EON clearly didn't, and with OHMSS the end of pure Bond was over. A damn shame, too, as OHMSS was a kind of film he would've liked to make. I've read that he turned down the role for that film, though, likely because the burns of YOLT were too fresh.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I think Connery would have done a superb job in OHMSS. Laz was decent enough & of course there was a vulnerability to his characterization, but honestly I don't think it's anything to write home about.

    He had the privilege of the best score, wonderful cinematography and direction, an extraordinary supporting cast etc. etc. to back him up.

    I think Connery would have played OHMSS like Craig played CR, which is to say perfectly. That's just my view on it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think Connery would have done a superb job in OHMSS. Laz was decent enough & of course there was a vulnerability to his characterization, but honestly I don't think it's anything to write home about.

    He had the privilege of the best score, wonderful cinematography and direction, an extraordinary supporting cast etc. etc. to back him up.

    I think Connery would have played OHMSS like Craig played CR, which is to say perfectly. That's just my view on it.

    I think that's part of why OHMSS hits so many highs. The departments knew they had to do their damnedest to distract from the fact that Sean wasn't Bond anymore.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I still think,the way Connery was at that time,we would have had a totally different film...i will keep the one we have ,its #1 at the moment on my rankings.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think Connery would have done a superb job in OHMSS. Laz was decent enough & of course there was a vulnerability to his characterization, but honestly I don't think it's anything to write home about.

    He had the privilege of the best score, wonderful cinematography and direction, an extraordinary supporting cast etc. etc. to back him up.

    I think Connery would have played OHMSS like Craig played CR, which is to say perfectly. That's just my view on it.

    I think that's part of why OHMSS hits so many highs. The departments knew they had to do their damnedest to distract from the fact that Sean wasn't Bond anymore.
    That's true, and they did a wonderful job, as they seem to do whenever there is a recast. That one was special though, as the first switchover.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I still think,the way Connery was at that time,we would have had a totally different film...i will keep the one we have ,its #1 at the moment on my rankings.
    I agree. It would probably have been quite different.
  • Love Connery and love Laz, but DAF kinda proved to me that Sean had passed his prime, though I enjoy that movie enough. Would have loved to have seen Laz in DAF.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    A revenge filled DAF with Laz's Bond teaming up with Draco to hunt and kill Blofeld and Bunt haunts my dreams.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 19,339
    A revenge filled DAF with Laz's Bond teaming up with Draco to hunt and kill Blofeld and Bunt haunts my dreams.
    And mine ,with Savalas (priced himself out of it ) and Steppat (so unfortunately died,she was BRILLIANT) involved...wow what a film...but DAF ,even with that premise,should be about Bond vs the mob/Spangs.

    That's why we need CraigBond taken totally away from SPECTRE and Quantum and let him take on the mob and the Spangs...that will be brilliant for BOND25....reading this EON ??????

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I'm not exactly aching to see the Spangs, ever really.
  • Posts: 19,339
    They can and should be used,but not in a spoofy way...brought to a 2017 level....
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited March 2017 Posts: 5,131
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I still think,the way Connery was at that time,we would have had a totally different film...i will keep the one we have ,its #1 at the moment on my rankings.

    Peter Hunt stuck to Fleming, hence, a classic and brilliant Bond film. All the better films adhere more closely to Fleming.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 19,339
    I must admit as well,that I have a soft spot for Rik Van Nutter's Felix Leiter .
    He is the closest looking to Fleming's felix and is the right age alongside ConneryBond.
    He didn't die until 2005,so he could have been used a lot more.

    Shame they didn't get him back for DAF..

    (And he was married to Anita Ekberg,the lucky devil :

    s-l300.jpg

    nqws.jpg

    "She has a lovely mouth,that Anita" - Kerim Bey,FRWL.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I'm mixed on Nutter. As with every Felix, you can't blame the actor for the script, but I'd have liked to see him have an actual role in the film beyond the usual. I know in the book Felix is posing as an associate of Bond while meeting Largo, and that would've been a good opportunity to add a bigger role for the character in the movie.

    But all we get is shots of Leiter lurking like a stalker behind Bond as he goes everywhere (why didn't he just say hello?) or boating/flying Bond places after which Bond is the one that does all the cool stuff. Nutter also sounds very wooden to me, like he did the ADR work for his lines and read them while sleepy or upset. It sounds "off."

    This is the same issue I have with all the Connery Bond films, and every Leiter beyond Hedison in LTK and Wright in Craig's films. In DN, Felix could've maybe been written to go to Crab Key with Bond, in GF it would've been awesome to see Leiter actually get to fight with the soldiers against Goldfinger's men in armed conflict instead of being glued to binoculars the entire movie, and in TB it would've been nice to see Felix in the final battle underwater helping Bond. But every opportunity they had to make Felix cool and/or useful, they never do.

    I seem to be in the minority about liking Norman Burton's Felix, as I think he was well characterized at the very least. By that time in the films Felix was the leader of a group of big time agents, meaning he was up the rung and shouldering a lot of responsibility in his agency. You can see the exhaustion and weariness in Leiter's demeanor throughout as you can tell he's been put through it and finds the work harder to do, balancing so many assets on operations. Because Bond looks and feels older in the movie, he and Leiter both seem like old horses running with ponies; sticking out and tired but still trying to keep up, which adds a little something to the story. Felix also has the best reason to be in the plot of DAF than any Felix for two decades and is written far better than any other incarnation of Felix at the time. Lord's Leiter is barely in the movie, Linder's is only there to stare at Bond (a role which could've been filled by a random agent) and in TB Nutter doesn't get much more to do outside the others.

    I just feel sad that Felix has barely ever been properly used in these films, even in that golden 60s decade.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 19,339
    I totally agree with your final line there,Brady,very very annoying.

    I also don't mind Burton's interpretation,at least he is contributing to the film more.
    Hedison in LALD I thought was ok and I like Van Nutter,but the rest don't do it for me at all.

    Felix is a character that has been 'abused' ,for a better word ,in the cinematic Bonds generally,which is why it was a nice surprise to see Hedison back in LTK .

    Why didn't they bring him back for TLD as well,instead of Terry (the worst interpretation of Felix) ?!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @barryt007, one of my favorite (sarcasm) things about the Dalton era is that we get a super young surfer Felix in the first movie and a very old, super serious DEA agent Felix in the next, as if fifteen to twenty years have passed!

    That's like the move from the young, tall and fit Lord to the pudgy, short and old Linder in the Connery era. Gotta love those weird casting decisions.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Linder was an awful Felix. Rick Can Nutter was the best incarnation. Lord was too cool and too much like Bond.....not likes Flemings character.
  • Posts: 19,339
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Linder was an awful Felix. Rick Can Nutter was the best incarnation. Lord was too cool and too much like Bond.....not likes Flemings character.

    Totally agree @suavejmf as you can tell by my Rik Van Nutter appreciation throughout this thread.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Linder was an awful Felix. Rick Can Nutter was the best incarnation. Lord was too cool and too much like Bond.....not likes Flemings character.

    I don't look for a Fleming-like Felix in the films, probably because I don't like literary Felix and I know that the movies don't care enough to go that route anyway. All I ask for is a Felix that has actual chemistry with the lead, and to have at least an acceptable role in the films. Most of the actors don't have the latter, but Linder had the best dynamic with Sean, in that he made it seem like he and Bond would actually be friends. Lord and Nutter were blank slates in this regard, with the former barely there and the latter wooden as can be. It again helps them none that Felix is also the most useless in DN and TB. Felix in GF at least turns Bond onto Goldfinger and is there to stage the counter maneuver to stop the Fort Knox raid, helping save Bond. Lord's Leiter barely has any lines and Nutter's just boats or flies Bond places while adding nothing to the operation. They didn't even let Felix take part in the TB finale!

    I think Nutter got the role of Felix for being Anita Ekberg's husband, who had recently worked with EON, and boy does it show. He was clearly just thrown on in there, like tossing a cake at a wall and hoping it sticks.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Not sure i agree on that Brady,and Burton in DAF we both agreed was very good and involved,if you dont approve Van Nutter..Linder just stood around with binoculars and then faking his death for a cheap attempt at 'dramatic effect'.
Sign In or Register to comment.