007: What would you have done differently?

1246760

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    The Hood's Convention is pretty terrible. Poorly written, and the acting, if anything, is even worse than the script. A complete overhaul of this sequence would be necessary.

    I agree largely, @Perilagu_Khan. It just doesn't make much sense for Auric to waste so much time telling the gangsters his plan just to kill all of them for whatever reason. People could say, "He's nuts, that's why he does that," but we all know it's far more likely it's a padding move to both lengthen the movie (like Solo's character and his death) and the only reason why that scene is in there is so that Bond can escape to find out what Operation Grand Slam is before we rush to the finale.
  • Posts: 2,469
    When in doubt, hew to Fleming; that's my motto.
  • Posts: 2,469
    The Hood's Convention is pretty terrible. Poorly written, and the acting, if anything, is even worse than the script. A complete overhaul of this sequence would be necessary.

    I agree largely, @Perilagu_Khan. It just doesn't make much sense for Auric to waste so much time telling the gangsters his plan just to kill all of them for whatever reason. People could say, "He's nuts, that's why he does that," but we all know it's far more likely it's a padding move to both lengthen the movie (like Solo's character and his death) and the only reason why that scene is in there is so that Bond can escape to find out what Operation Grand Slam is before we rush to the finale.

    It could be that, like Elliott Carver, he likes an audience. At any rate, I don't mind the presence of this sequence in the film, and particularly Auric's lines in it--"I'm in love with gold's divine heaviness"--but the gangsters themselves were just terrible.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger The out of control room.
    Posts: 33,933
    The gangsters behaved like little kids, that is the problem.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,612
    The score is a step down from FRWL imho. So that could be improved.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger The out of control room.
    Posts: 33,933
    I have to disagree. I find the GF score sublime.
  • Posts: 1,162
    The Hood's Convention is pretty terrible. Poorly written, and the acting, if anything, is even worse than the script. A complete overhaul of this sequence would be necessary.

    I agree largely, @Perilagu_Khan. It just doesn't make much sense for Auric to waste so much time telling the gangsters his plan just to kill all of them for whatever reason. People could say, "He's nuts, that's why he does that," but we all know it's far more likely it's a padding move to both lengthen the movie (like Solo's character and his death) and the only reason why that scene is in there is so that Bond can escape to find out what Operation Grand Slam is before we rush to the finale.

    First of all he is a megalomaniac and he loves the chance to finally tell his plan to some audience.
    Secondly all they supposedly hoped to achieve, the script does quite handsomely.
    And most of all, one probably shouldn't question Maibaum's approach in general since he never lessened Fleming, but always made him better. Probably not many would know about James Bond if he hadn't done it.
  • Posts: 12,121
    I wouldn't mess about with this one too much. Even stuff like the barn scene is just a product of the time. There's a lot in the book I would like to see on screen, like the psychological effect Bond killing has on him. But Connery's Bond is not Fleming's Bond, it would have been out of character for him imo and if we got that in this one we wouldn't have had "positively shocking" so I think that was a good call, they can always use that airport scene in the future anyway.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love that fight in the vault. I find it very atmospheric in a bizarre way.

    Me too.

    Same. What it lacks in coreography it more then makes up for in atmosphere imo. The bomb ticking away, the sound of Oddjob's feet getting closer as he heads down towards Bond. It's so tense.

    I understand why there's been a backlash against GF but I think it's now swung too far the other way, and people forget how good it actually is. TB isn't better, it's a big bloated attempt at recapturing the same magic and it never quite manages to do that. In fact I think TB is much more overrated. It's good (used to be my favourite Connery film) but there's been a lot of revisionism lately of GF being a disappointment between the two Young classics, which I think is far from the truth. I think this review

    http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/thunderball/34271/james-bond-007-revisiting-thunderball

    Is spot on. TB is the first time the franchise decided to play it safe and tread water (btw those reviews as a whole are a fantastic read), and it's that film that's sandwiched between two classics (YOLT, for all its faults, is a lot more fun, energetic and high concept).
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,612
    I have to disagree. I find the GF score sublime.

    It is sublime, but FRWL's score is simply better.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    edited June 2017 Posts: 28,232
    The Hood's Convention is pretty terrible. Poorly written, and the acting, if anything, is even worse than the script. A complete overhaul of this sequence would be necessary.

    I agree largely, @Perilagu_Khan. It just doesn't make much sense for Auric to waste so much time telling the gangsters his plan just to kill all of them for whatever reason. People could say, "He's nuts, that's why he does that," but we all know it's far more likely it's a padding move to both lengthen the movie (like Solo's character and his death) and the only reason why that scene is in there is so that Bond can escape to find out what Operation Grand Slam is before we rush to the finale.

    First of all he is a megalomaniac and he loves the chance to finally tell his plan to some audience.
    Secondly all they supposedly hoped to achieve, the script does quite handsomely.
    And most of all, one probably shouldn't question Maibaum's approach in general since he never lessened Fleming, but always made him better. Probably not many would know about James Bond if he hadn't done it.

    Maibaum wasn't a one man army though, and his successes are shared with others. With GF there were two other writers called in to fix his script, not in a way I think works, including the addition of the very random and pointless Solo section where we see his entire tailing by the CIA and his death, just to show us another moment where Bond fails for the umpteenth time. Maibaum was brought back into the fold after Sean Connery didn't like the draft produced by the other writers, but we still see remnants of what weren't the man's original ideas in the movie. As in YOLT, we see what happens when Maibaum was replaced by another writer, and in GF it feels like he wasn't given proper control or had to be at the mercy of other ideas.

    Maibaum was instrumental in changing the ending, which doesn't work in the novel, and for that I thank him, even though his replacement scheme for Auric's radiation of the gold doesn't actually make sense either.

    I wouldn't mess about with this one too much. Even stuff like the barn scene is just a product of the time. There's a lot in the book I would like to see on screen, like the psychological effect Bond killing has on him. But Connery's Bond is not Fleming's Bond, it would have been out of character for him imo and if we got that in this one we wouldn't have had "positively shocking" so I think that was a good call, they can always use that airport scene in the future anyway.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love that fight in the vault. I find it very atmospheric in a bizarre way.

    Me too.

    Same. What it lacks in coreography it more then makes up for in atmosphere imo. The bomb ticking away, the sound of Oddjob's feet getting closer as he heads down towards Bond. It's so tense.

    I understand why there's been a backlash against GF but I think it's now swung too far the other way, and people forget how good it actually is. TB isn't better, it's a big bloated attempt at recapturing the same magic and it never quite manages to do that. In fact I think TB is much more overrated. It's good (used to be my favourite Connery film) but there's been a lot of revisionism lately of GF being a disappointment between the two Young classics, which I think is far from the truth. I think this review

    http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/thunderball/34271/james-bond-007-revisiting-thunderball

    Is spot on. TB is the first time the franchise decided to play it safe and tread water (btw those reviews as a whole are a fantastic read), and it's that film that's sandwiched between two classics (YOLT, for all its faults, is a lot more fun, energetic and high concept).

    I'm sorry, but TB is nothing like GF. There's a reason I love it so much.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 12,121
    Couldn't disagree more. It opens with Bond flying a jetpack to his Aston Martin. They didn't get that from FRWL did they? To me it's clear that after how well GF did they doubled down on the fantasy/spectacle side of things, but trying to recapture the same magic never works well.

    It isn't a shameless rip off as MR is to TSWLM and it's still a good film but I think the same principle applies: a big bloated follow up that tries to recapture the magic of the last one, not realising that what made the last one so special was how fresh and new it was.

    GF is the original cinematic Bond in all its glory; the first two laid the groundwork but this is where the Bond formula really emerged. YOLT is the first properly OTT Bond film. TB just sits somewhere in the middle. It's the only 60s film that lacks a strong identity of its own imo (outside of being "the underwater one"), it's all too content to just capitalise on Bond mania by chucking in everything we'd seen before.

    This would be fine if it did it well. TSWLM for example isn't original but makes up for it because it has a great script and everyone firing on all cylinders to make it great, so it still feels fresh. Same principle applies to GE and SP. But TB just doesn't feel as exciting and energetic. It's a fairly slow film and the underwater scenes make it seem even slower. The plot just doesn't have the same stakes because once the bombs are located there's no danger of them going off. And this isn't helped by the fact that we find out where the bombs are ages before Bond does. He's playing catchup the whole film. I know people will say FRWL had this issue too, the audience being ahead of Bond, but in that film it isn't a problem because there's a whole elaborate scheme to watch play out. In TB once SPECTRE have hidden the bombs and given the ransom demand, the scheme is done and we're just watching Bond slowly snorkell his way to the same point we're at. I also think the action and villain are fairly medicore and the PTS is one of the weakest.

    I read a comment on here once wondering if the lower box office of YOLT was because people went to TB and were disappointed that it didn't live up to GF. Which I think is an interesting theory.
  • RC7RC7
    edited June 2017 Posts: 10,159
    I have to disagree. I find the GF score sublime.

    It is sublime, but FRWL's score is simply better.

    I'm with @Thunderfinger on this. GF is the first time, for me, that Barry really nails it. The score still sounds fresh and exiting today, where FRWL is very atmospheric but can feel a little dated. There are moments where I can envisage parts of the score featuring in similar pictures of the era, where GF to me is 100% distinctly Bond. Like the movie itself, it's dripping with style and energy.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    edited June 2017 Posts: 28,232
    Couldn't disagree more. It opens with Bond flying a jetpack to his Aston Martin. They didn't get that from FRWL did they? To me it's clear that after how well GF did they doubled down on the fantasy/spectacle side of things, but trying to recapture the same magic never works well.

    It isn't a shameless rip off as MR is to TSWLM and it's still a good film but I think the same principle applies: a big bloated follow up that tries to recapture the magic of the last one, not realising that what made the last one so special was how fresh and new it was.

    GF is the original cinematic Bond in all its glory; the first two laid the groundwork but this is where the Bond formula really emerged. YOLT is the first properly OTT Bond film. TB just sits somewhere in the middle. It's the only 60s film that lacks a strong identity of its own imo (outside of being "the underwater one"), it's all too content to just capitalise on Bond mania by chucking in everything we'd seen before.

    This would be fine if it did it well. TSWLM for example isn't original but makes up for it because it has a great script and everyone firing on all cylinders to make it great, so it still feels fresh. Same principle applies to GE and SP. But TB just doesn't feel as exciting and energetic. It's a fairly slow film and the underwater scenes make it seem even slower. The plot just doesn't have the same stakes because once the bombs are located there's no danger of them going off. And this isn't helped by the fact that we find out where the bombs are ages before Bond does. He's playing catchup the whole film. I know people will say FRWL had this issue too, the audience being ahead of Bond, but in that film it isn't a problem because there's a whole elaborate scheme to watch play out. In TB once SPECTRE have hidden the bombs and given the ransom demand, the scheme is done and we're just watching Bond slowly snorkell his way to the same point we're at. I also think the action and villain are fairly medicore and the PTS is one of the weakest.

    I read a comment on here once wondering if the lower box office of YOLT was because people went to TB and were disappointed that it didn't live up to GF. Which I think is an interesting theory.

    TB and GF are different from the ground up, from approach to presentation on every level. A lot of this is down to Terence Young having a through-line creatively and always doing something new, whereas Guy Hamilton just remade his films over time with slightly different paint jobs. An argument that tries to make the case that TB is a rehash of GF needs to have more to it than, "The DB5 is there."

    In TB we've got a Bond that actually cares, and who actually represents an active instead of passive force, already winning more favor than GF from me where he seems so complacent to sit around all the time. He's an actual detective like Fleming's own character, something Young understood, and the film is the sum total of all his own work on Bond, not Hamilton's lesser artistic and filmic contribution. The grounded and realistic gadgets, Bond as a spy and detective, the action that is well shot and choreographed in comparison to the very weak sequences of GF, the real location shooting versus the set bound and artificial GF, a superior script that doesn't pad itself with a bunch of extraneous things that don't work, a PTS that is it's own thing, but that cleverly feeds into the direction of the story and the battle between Bond and SPECTRE. I could spend days going on.

    Young just got it and knew what Bond needed, and I would love to see Hamilton try to balance the extras, millions of dollars of equipment in the tons and all the various shooting that went down in the Bahamas above and below the sea. It still remains a monolith Bond production because it took risks and did things a Bond film never had before. It was the first time Bond films had a widescreen presentation, making them feel like true blockbusters, and what Young and his team did to recreate some of the action and spectacle is just second to none, quite frankly. The heavy lifting they did for just the finale and the Junaknoo chase alone are far more strenuous and exhilarating than anything produced for GF, which was claustrophobically chained to Pinewood and had to use rear projection for actual dramatic scenes. It comes off as very shoddy, and very TV, not like a big exciting movie. And it's a shame when the first Bond film with a shoestring budget feels more like a movie than the one that so many call the Bond to end them all.

    On the whole I feel the stakes far more with TB, whereas GF is far too drowsy a film that relies too much on its little "iconic" images that people use to justify its mounting flaws. An ejector seat, golden girl and a thrown hat aren't motivators for me to give GF an easy pass just because people look fondly on its impact in the series. I don't, and that's why I prefer the way that Young and Hunt handled their films, presenting a world to escape to while taking itself seriously and presenting a spy who had all the layers you could hope for that was grounded by a lot of the real issues of his world. The camp and over the top nature of Bond isn't anything I connect to, nor prefer in comparison to the epic nature and complex artistry of the likes of FRWL and OHMSS.

    And I think it's quite clear to see that TB feeds more directly from DN and FRWL in style and presentation than GF, as Young would never want to make a film like Hamilton did. Hamilton didn't really have that strong connection to the material and it shows, because he took Bond's vivacity away and really swiped the movie clean of the kind of intense reality mixed with the fantastical that Young had. TB has what you expect from a Young film, where Bond runs investigations and bugs his room, where we got inside the villain's lair to know them, where drama and camerawork mix to create magic, where the action and suspense is something you feel punch through you, etc. Those three films are artful, shot in fascinating ways that mix blockbuster presentation with a sense of theatre, and have endless visual layers to them. GF has some nice shots, but we're not looking at a finely put together film that blows my mind, on the whole. It lacks too much of what made the 60s films special, and its lack of actual locating shooting, a good Bond and a strong story really hurt it for me. There's even a character in TB-Fiona-who was partially conceived to make fun of how stupid the random turn of Pussy was in GF. That movie delivered an uncompromising female character that was interesting for how she refused to bend to Bond's charms, and played him like he was used to playing everyone else.


    I don't want this to turn into a hate match that gets nasty with these two films, as happens a lot here, because I love the 60s films and appreciate all of them in their own ways, even YOLT. My criticisms for GF don't come from that place, so I don't want that to get twisted. I just see a film that failed to do what literally every other 60s film did, and that hollowness has affected my view of it over time once the hype of others and a few experiences with it wipe away. That is the main reason why I suggested so many changes, because it could be so easily improved.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 2,573
    I love both GF and TB. But Goldfinger did it first and nailed it. It really was the film that made James Bond a household name and did it in style.

    With a fraction of Thunderball's budget too.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger The out of control room.
    Posts: 33,933
    Isn t it a bit condescending to surmise that people love Goldfinger just because a girl gets painted golden and Oddjob throws a hat?
  • Posts: 2,183
    Couldn't disagree more. It opens with Bond flying a jetpack to his Aston Martin. They didn't get that from FRWL did they? To me it's clear that after how well GF did they doubled down on the fantasy/spectacle side of things, but trying to recapture the same magic never works well.

    It isn't a shameless rip off as MR is to TSWLM and it's still a good film but I think the same principle applies: a big bloated follow up that tries to recapture the magic of the last one, not realising that what made the last one so special was how fresh and new it was.

    GF is the original cinematic Bond in all its glory; the first two laid the groundwork but this is where the Bond formula really emerged. YOLT is the first properly OTT Bond film. TB just sits somewhere in the middle. It's the only 60s film that lacks a strong identity of its own imo (outside of being "the underwater one"), it's all too content to just capitalise on Bond mania by chucking in everything we'd seen before.

    This would be fine if it did it well. TSWLM for example isn't original but makes up for it because it has a great script and everyone firing on all cylinders to make it great, so it still feels fresh. Same principle applies to GE and SP. But TB just doesn't feel as exciting and energetic. It's a fairly slow film and the underwater scenes make it seem even slower. The plot just doesn't have the same stakes because once the bombs are located there's no danger of them going off. And this isn't helped by the fact that we find out where the bombs are ages before Bond does. He's playing catchup the whole film. I know people will say FRWL had this issue too, the audience being ahead of Bond, but in that film it isn't a problem because there's a whole elaborate scheme to watch play out. In TB once SPECTRE have hidden the bombs and given the ransom demand, the scheme is done and we're just watching Bond slowly snorkell his way to the same point we're at. I also think the action and villain are fairly medicore and the PTS is one of the weakest.

    I read a comment on here once wondering if the lower box office of YOLT was because people went to TB and were disappointed that it didn't live up to GF. Which I think is an interesting theory.

    TB and GF are different from the ground up, from approach to presentation on every level. A lot of this is down to Terence Young having a through-line creatively and always doing something new, whereas Guy Hamilton just remade his films over time with slightly different paint jobs. An argument that tries to make the case that TB is a rehash of GF needs to have more to it than, "The DB5 is there."

    In TB we've got a Bond that actually cares, and who actually represents an active instead of passive force, already winning more favor than GF from me where he seems so complacent to sit around all the time. He's an actual detective like Fleming's own character, something Young understood, and the film is the sum total of all his own work on Bond, not Hamilton's lesser artistic and filmic contribution. The grounded and realistic gadgets, Bond as a spy and detective, the action that is well shot and choreographed in comparison to the very weak sequences of GF, the real location shooting versus the set bound and artificial GF, a superior script that doesn't pad itself with a bunch of extraneous things that don't work, a PTS that is it's own thing, but that cleverly feeds into the direction of the story and the battle between Bond and SPECTRE. I could spend days going on.

    Young just got it and knew what Bond needed, and I would love to see Hamilton try to balance the extras, millions of dollars of equipment in the tons and all the various shooting that went down in the Bahamas above and below the sea. It still remains a monolith Bond production because it took risks and did things a Bond film never had before. It was the first time Bond films had a widescreen presentation, making them feel like true blockbusters, and what Young and his team did to recreate some of the action and spectacle is just second to none, quite frankly. The heavy lifting they did for just the finale and the Junaknoo chase alone are far more strenuous and exhilarating than anything produced for GF, which was claustrophobically chained to Pinewood and had to use rear projection for actual dramatic scenes. It comes off as very shoddy, and very TV, not like a big exciting movie. And it's a shame when the first Bond film with a shoestring budget feels more like a movie than the one that so many call the Bond to end them all.

    On the whole I feel the stakes far more with TB, whereas GF is far too drowsy a film that relies too much on its little "iconic" images that people use to justify its mounting flaws. An ejector seat, golden girl and a thrown hat aren't motivators for me to give GF an easy pass just because people look fondly on its impact in the series. I don't, and that's why I prefer the way that Young and Hunt handled their films, presenting a world to escape to while taking itself seriously and presenting a spy who had all the layers you could hope for that was grounded by a lot of the real issues of his world. The camp and over the top nature of Bond isn't anything I connect to, nor prefer in comparison to the epic nature and complex artistry of the likes of FRWL and OHMSS.

    And I think it's quite clear to see that TB feeds more directly from DN and FRWL in style and presentation than GF, as Young would never want to make a film like Hamilton did. Hamilton didn't really have that strong connection to the material and it shows, because he took Bond's vivacity away and really swiped the movie clean of the kind of intense reality mixed with the fantastical that Young had. TB has what you expect from a Young film, where Bond runs investigations and bugs his room, where we got inside the villain's lair to know them, where drama and camerawork mix to create magic, where the action and suspense is something you feel punch through you, etc. Those three films are artful, shot in fascinating ways that mix blockbuster presentation with a sense of theatre, and have endless visual layers to them. GF has some nice shots, but we're not looking at a finely put together film that blows my mind, on the whole. It lacks too much of what made the 60s films special, and its lack of actual locating shooting, a good Bond and a strong story really hurt it for me. There's even a character in TB-Fiona-who was partially conceived to make fun of how stupid the random turn of Pussy was in GF. That movie delivered an uncompromising female character that was interesting for how she refused to bend to Bond's charms, and played him like he was used to playing everyone else.


    I don't want this to turn into a hate match that gets nasty with these two films, as happens a lot here, because I love the 60s films and appreciate all of them in their own ways, even YOLT. My criticisms for GF don't come from that place, so I don't want that to get twisted. I just see a film that failed to do what literally every other 60s film did, and that hollowness has affected my view of it over time once the hype of others and a few experiences with it wipe away. That is the main reason why I suggested so many changes, because it could be so easily improved.

    I find a lot of what you have to say interesting here and I want to talk more in depth about it later but for a quick response, here goes:

    I love Goldfinger, but I've come to the realization over time that its not really a Bond movie. In GF, the main character is Goldfinger, and he is the most interesting person who pushes the plot on the most. In GF youre along for the ride, to watch this mad man trie to break into Fort Knox! What a fantasy!
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 26,971
    Certain people here love to omnisciently tell other members why they love the films that they love.
  • Posts: 1,162
    The Hood's Convention is pretty terrible. Poorly written, and the acting, if anything, is even worse than the script. A complete overhaul of this sequence would be necessary.

    I agree largely, @Perilagu_Khan. It just doesn't make much sense for Auric to waste so much time telling the gangsters his plan just to kill all of them for whatever reason. People could say, "He's nuts, that's why he does that," but we all know it's far more likely it's a padding move to both lengthen the movie (like Solo's character and his death) and the only reason why that scene is in there is so that Bond can escape to find out what Operation Grand Slam is before we rush to the finale.

    First of all he is a megalomaniac and he loves the chance to finally tell his plan to some audience.
    Secondly all they supposedly hoped to achieve, the script does quite handsomely.
    And most of all, one probably shouldn't question Maibaum's approach in general since he never lessened Fleming, but always made him better. Probably not many would know about James Bond if he hadn't done it.

    Maibaum wasn't a one man army though, and his successes are shared with others. With GF there were two other writers called in to fix his script, not in a way I think works, including the addition of the very random and pointless Solo section where we see his entire tailing by the CIA and his death, just to show us another moment where Bond fails for the umpteenth time. Maibaum was brought back into the fold after Sean Connery didn't like the draft produced by the other writers, but we still see remnants of what weren't the man's original ideas in the movie. As in YOLT, we see what happens when Maibaum was replaced by another writer, and in GF it feels like he wasn't given proper control or had to be at the mercy of other ideas.

    Maibaum was instrumental in changing the ending, which doesn't work in the novel, and for that I thank him, even though his replacement scheme for Auric's radiation of the gold doesn't actually make sense either.


    Remember the "seducing of Ms Tao, the killing of Dent, the "Sergeant keep an eye on him" line?
    That and much more if Mr. Maibaum's contribution to the James Bond we all love. Need I say more? Oh and in Goldfinger his major contribution is giving Goldfinger a somehow believable reason to let bond live. Something that for some reasons Fleming didn't manage in the novel.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    Isn t it a bit condescending to surmise that people love Goldfinger just because a girl gets painted golden and Oddjob throws a hat?

    How'd you get that from your post? My point was that a film must be taken out of the context of its cultural impact to also be looked at as a film. Yes, GF has all these elements that some view to be Bondian, but what else does it do beyond the surface layer of iconography? In that way, I find reason to believe that GF can be criticized. I know it's not a popular opinion to have around here because it's so passionately defended, but it does have flaws, some major, some minor. Still often great, but very imperfect.
    The Hood's Convention is pretty terrible. Poorly written, and the acting, if anything, is even worse than the script. A complete overhaul of this sequence would be necessary.

    I agree largely, @Perilagu_Khan. It just doesn't make much sense for Auric to waste so much time telling the gangsters his plan just to kill all of them for whatever reason. People could say, "He's nuts, that's why he does that," but we all know it's far more likely it's a padding move to both lengthen the movie (like Solo's character and his death) and the only reason why that scene is in there is so that Bond can escape to find out what Operation Grand Slam is before we rush to the finale.

    First of all he is a megalomaniac and he loves the chance to finally tell his plan to some audience.
    Secondly all they supposedly hoped to achieve, the script does quite handsomely.
    And most of all, one probably shouldn't question Maibaum's approach in general since he never lessened Fleming, but always made him better. Probably not many would know about James Bond if he hadn't done it.

    Maibaum wasn't a one man army though, and his successes are shared with others. With GF there were two other writers called in to fix his script, not in a way I think works, including the addition of the very random and pointless Solo section where we see his entire tailing by the CIA and his death, just to show us another moment where Bond fails for the umpteenth time. Maibaum was brought back into the fold after Sean Connery didn't like the draft produced by the other writers, but we still see remnants of what weren't the man's original ideas in the movie. As in YOLT, we see what happens when Maibaum was replaced by another writer, and in GF it feels like he wasn't given proper control or had to be at the mercy of other ideas.

    Maibaum was instrumental in changing the ending, which doesn't work in the novel, and for that I thank him, even though his replacement scheme for Auric's radiation of the gold doesn't actually make sense either.


    Remember the "seducing of Ms Tao, the killing of Dent, the "Sergeant keep an eye on him" line?
    That and much more if Mr. Maibaum's contribution to the James Bond we all love. Need I say more? Oh and in Goldfinger his major contribution is giving Goldfinger a somehow believable reason to let bond live. Something that for some reasons Fleming didn't manage in the novel.

    I'm one of Maibaum's most ardent supporters-not that he needs defense-I just pointed out that GF could've been better realized with more control on his side. From what I've read, that wasn't as true and he wasn't with his usual collaborators from the first two films on GF, which could have something to do with it. It just has mistakes that I feel Maibaum wouldn't make, that's all.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger The out of control room.
    Posts: 33,933
    Isn t it a bit condescending to surmise that people love Goldfinger just because a girl gets painted golden and Oddjob throws a hat?

    How'd you get that from your post?
    An ejector seat, golden girl and a thrown hat aren't motivators for me to give GF an easy pass just because people look fondly on its impact in the series.


    .

    Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by this.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 674
    I love the Bond vs. Oddjob fight. Sure, it's not the Grant fight, but it's not meant to be. This is a fight in a wide open space, against a heavy who Bond just can't beat. It's different and it's perfect, IMO.
    An argument that tries to make the case that TB is a rehash of GF needs to have more to it than, "The DB5 is there."
    Uh, didn't @thelivingroyale specifically mention the jetpack? You didn't address that. Also, TB's bold, brassy score (what people call the "Bond sound" but is actually the Goldfinger sound), overabundance of gadgets and Bond/Largo dynamic are clearly influenced by GF.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    This would be news to me. As far as I know, Monty Norman did the score for Dr. No and John Barry was brought in to punch it up through his work on the Bond theme. I always assumed that, Bond theme aside, Dr. No's music was generic and dull simply because it was by... Monty Norman.

    It does sound like stock music!

    Walecs cleared this one up for me:
    Walecs wrote: »
    The music played during the helicopter and the boat chases is called "Death of Dr. No" and was composed by Monty Norman for Bond and Dr. No fight at the end of the movie. It is clearly based on the Bond theme and a couple of motifs Norman wrote for Dr. No, so I see no mysteries here.
  • Posts: 3,618
    Walecs wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    Is that Monty Norman music, or the John Barry additions to the DR. NO score? I ask because I don't think Norman was credited for anything more than the specific James Bond Theme. And likely over-credited. So to me it's a clue to how much Barry contributed in the first film. But yeah, it is garish in comparison.
    I am pretty sure the music used at the end of the boat chase (also used in Dr. No) is some stock music taken from a library. Not composed by Norman or Barry. Although... parts of it do sound a lot like the Bond theme. So I might be wrong. I don't have a source on hand at the moment for this. Does anyone know about this?

    The music played during the helicopter and the boat chases is called "Death of Dr. No" and was composed by Monty Norman for Bond and Dr. No fight at the end of the movie. It is clearly based on the Bond theme and a couple of motifs Norman wrote for Dr. No, so I see no mysteries here.

    When they use "Death Of Dr No" in FRWL, it sounds like they re-recorded it rather than just a straight cut and paste. It seems to have a slightly faster pace to it.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited June 2017 Posts: 5,409
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    Is that Monty Norman music, or the John Barry additions to the DR. NO score? I ask because I don't think Norman was credited for anything more than the specific James Bond Theme. And likely over-credited. So to me it's a clue to how much Barry contributed in the first film. But yeah, it is garish in comparison.
    I am pretty sure the music used at the end of the boat chase (also used in Dr. No) is some stock music taken from a library. Not composed by Norman or Barry. Although... parts of it do sound a lot like the Bond theme. So I might be wrong. I don't have a source on hand at the moment for this. Does anyone know about this?
    This would be news to me. As far as I know, Monty Norman did the score for Dr. No and John Barry was brought in to punch it up through his work on the Bond theme. I always assumed that, Bond theme aside, Dr. No's music was generic and dull simply because it was by... Monty Norman.

    It does sound like stock music!
    And above my meaning is--Norman is only credited in the FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE soundtrack for the "James Bond Theme". Not the reused incidental music for action.

    My feelings on this topic are tempered by reports like these over the years. Even by MI6 itself.
    Music - Dr. No
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movies/dn_music

    Norman accompanied the producers and film crew to Jamaica, but midway through the production, the producers hired composer John Barry to rearrange the main theme and write the rest of the music for the film. The change in composer introduced inconsistencies between the film and the soundtrack. The music in film was almost entirely John Barry's, while the soundtrack is mostly Monty Normans work, most of which was unused in the film.

    The original "James Bond Theme" was written by Monty Norman. Barry, who would later go on to compose the music for eleven Bond films, arranged the Bond theme, but was uncredited - except for the credit of his orchestra playing the final piece. It has occasionally been suggested that Barry, not Norman, composed the "James Bond Theme". This argument has been the subject of two court cases, the most recent in 2001, which Norman won. Some portions of the theme actually originated from a song, "Good Sign, Bad Sign" composed by Norman from an aborted musical, "The House of Mr. Biswas", several years previously. In its original form, the music is almost unrecognisable to the Bond theme. Many fans consider Barry's arrangement the most important element in crafting what is now one of the most recognisable themes in the world. Barry has rarely spoken about the dispute over the song's credit, except to question why Norman was not brought back on subsequent Bond movies...

    Plus the descriptions of the court case that focus on the "James Bond Theme" which Barry at least contributed to (and different from "The James Bond Theme", both credited solely to Norman).
    Monty Norman v. The Sunday Times
    The "James Bond Theme" Lawsuit

    http://www.jollinger.com/barry/lawsuit.htm
    th?id=OIP.gVyH77PCRvqHxRigtpLjNADwED
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,873
    For me it would have to be someone else playing Felix - totally miscast IMO. Don't know who they could have got, but there had to be someone with a bit more charisma out there!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    Milovy wrote: »
    I love the Bond vs. Oddjob fight. Sure, it's not the Grant fight, but it's not meant to be. This is a fight in a wide open space, against a heavy who Bond just can't beat. It's different and it's perfect, IMO.
    An argument that tries to make the case that TB is a rehash of GF needs to have more to it than, "The DB5 is there."
    Uh, didn't @thelivingroyale specifically mention the jetpack? You didn't address that. Also, TB's bold, brassy score (what people call the "Bond sound" but is actually the Goldfinger sound), overabundance of gadgets and Bond/Largo dynamic are clearly influenced by GF.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    This would be news to me. As far as I know, Monty Norman did the score for Dr. No and John Barry was brought in to punch it up through his work on the Bond theme. I always assumed that, Bond theme aside, Dr. No's music was generic and dull simply because it was by... Monty Norman.

    It does sound like stock music!

    Walecs cleared this one up for me:
    Walecs wrote: »
    The music played during the helicopter and the boat chases is called "Death of Dr. No" and was composed by Monty Norman for Bond and Dr. No fight at the end of the movie. It is clearly based on the Bond theme and a couple of motifs Norman wrote for Dr. No, so I see no mysteries here.

    What does the jet pack have to do with TB ripping off GF? The unit they used was a real model that really worked as shown on the big screen. It wasn't a crazy, impossible thing like a sports car with guns shooting from it. The device was something that was intended for combat situations to get soldiers to areas fast on the battlefield, but various issues with its capabilities saw its cancellation in that field. How Bond uses it in the movie, however, is exactly how it would've been implemented in the field: sneak to an enemy encampment a few meters away, attack, then get out of dodge.

    Just because a film has gadgets doesn't mean it's a GF tribute. DN and FRWL had gadgets in them before GF was ever a thought in filmgoers minds, thanks to Young, not Hamilton. Young's gadgets were also always true to life and not the impossible toys of the DB5 in GF, or many of Hamilton's other films. The Geiger watch and camera, breathing device, the surveillance devices and more were real in the field things that grounded the film in reality, and they fit Bond's purpose on his mission as they would a real spec ops. fellow. That's because Young wanted to show Bond acting as a real man of action would, instead of giving him a bunch of fantastical things. Hunt followed this same viewpoint, bless him.

    You also can't relegate every soundtrack after 64 to being the GF sound. It's the John Barry sound. Each of his films were so different, and implemented music in different ways that blanket comparisons don't work. The films feed from the same source, like the Bond theme and 007 theme, but Barry always went to work honing things to make each score have its own identity. He's not Newman, he did reinvent.

    The dynamic between Largo and Bond also isn't a GF rip-off. Have we forgotten the film that really kicked off the now iconic verbal battles between Bond and his villains? DN, 1962, Bond and Dr. No at dinner? It was that scene that set the tone for everything after, even the almighty GF, by how Bond burrowed insults subtly at his villains while wearing a soft grin. The condescension and anger always visible from below the surface, the flair of his nostrils. DN was the original blueprint that everything else played from. I'm sorry, but GF can't get credit for literally anything its fans want. ;)
  • barryt007barryt007 With Bond and M in Tokyo,having an interesting experience.
    Posts: 19,128
    GF was a 'cheques in the post' film.
    Connery sits on his arse for most of it.

    TB is dynamic with brilliant cinematography,locations,sexy girls,great action etc etc.

  • Posts: 674
    What does the jet pack have to do with TB ripping off GF?
    Well, you certainly don't see anything that cartoonish in DN or FRWL. To me, it feels like a toy, just like the Aston with gadgets.
    You also can't relegate every soundtrack after 64 to being the GF sound.
    Uh, I didn't, and I wouldn't. The bold, brassy sound shows up prominently in TB and only a few times after that (e.g. DAF, "Necros Attacks" in TLD).
    The dynamic between Largo and Bond also isn't a GF rip-off. Have we forgotten the film that really kicked off the now iconic verbal battles between Bond and his villains? DN, 1962, Bond and Dr. No at dinner? It was that scene that set the tone for everything after, even the almighty GF, by how Bond burrowed insults subtly at his villains while wearing a soft grin. The condescension and anger always visible from below the surface, the flair of his nostrils. DN was the original blueprint that everything else played from. I'm sorry, but GF can't get credit for literally anything its fans want. ;)
    I'm not referring simply to Bond and villain sparring through conversation - you can see that with Dr. No or Red Grant - but the idea that Bond and villain would meet socially, and their hostility would be veiled rather than openly acknowledged. That was a key feature of the Bond/Goldfinger relationship and it was repeated with the Bond/Largo relationship (their relationship wasn't social in the novel IIRC), to not very good effect. It doesn't suit the story.

    Anyway, I can understand preferring TB to GF, but the latter's influence on the former has always seemed clear to me.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    edited June 2017 Posts: 28,232
    @Milovy, the jet pack was an actual piece of military hardware. If you want to call it a toy, fair play, but it was a fully operational device and worked just as we see it, like everything in TB.

    As for Bond and his villains, you see the same things in DN and FRWL. Bond was kept alive in DN so that he could be hired by SPECTRE, and his hostility at seeing Dr. No rises over time as dinner is shared. With Grant, Bond gets red flags but keeps his composure, hiding his suspicions until he strikes. Bond and his villains meeting socially is something that happens all the time, and for my money it's TB that is more interesting. There's the implied drama with Domino and Largo that adds a special something to it, and Bond truly slips his way into Largo's life and burrows out everything he values. In GF Bond and Auric golf together, and that's it. It doesn't do much with the concept, but TB really takes it and runs with it, showing Bond gradually decimating the ego and livelihood of his villain like we'd never seen before. There's not much veiled between them either, as Bond calls out Largo for being a SPECTRE agent literally the first minute they meet. It's never a mystery who either party is working for, and that's what makes it so tense. Bond very boldly makes his territory known, and gives Largo and all his goons notice to watch their backs.

    As for the music, I always see TB as percussive, whereas GF is brassy. Both very much their own scores, though, and TB has that great reprisal of the 007 theme in my favorite form.
  • Posts: 674
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Not quite every gadget in TB was a fully operational device. You might find this (from Wikipedia) amusing:
    At Thunderball's release, there was confusion as to whether a rebreather such as the one that appears in the film existed; most Bond gadgets, while implausible, often are based upon real technology. In the real world, a rebreather could not be so small, as it has no room for the breathing bag, while the alternative open-circuit scuba releases exhalation bubbles, which the film device does not. It was made with two CO2 bottles glued together and painted, with a small mouthpiece attached. For this reason, when the Royal Corps of Engineers asked Peter Lamont how long a man could use the device underwater, the answer was "As long as you can hold your breath."
    There's not much veiled between them either, as Bond calls out Largo for being a SPECTRE agent literally the first minute they meet.
    Which is why I find it strange that Bond meets Largo socially at all after this first meeting. Fair enough that Largo wouldn't just kill Bond, because that would confirm for Bond's superiors that Bond is on to something. But why does Largo invite Bond over for lunch or whatever? Just giving Bond a chance to snoop around with his Geiger counter.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    Milovy wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Not quite every gadget in TB was a fully operational device. You might find this (from Wikipedia) amusing:
    At Thunderball's release, there was confusion as to whether a rebreather such as the one that appears in the film existed; most Bond gadgets, while implausible, often are based upon real technology. In the real world, a rebreather could not be so small, as it has no room for the breathing bag, while the alternative open-circuit scuba releases exhalation bubbles, which the film device does not. It was made with two CO2 bottles glued together and painted, with a small mouthpiece attached. For this reason, when the Royal Corps of Engineers asked Peter Lamont how long a man could use the device underwater, the answer was "As long as you can hold your breath."
    There's not much veiled between them either, as Bond calls out Largo for being a SPECTRE agent literally the first minute they meet.
    Which is why I find it strange that Bond meets Largo socially at all after this first meeting. Fair enough that Largo wouldn't just kill Bond, because that would confirm for Bond's superiors that Bond is on to something. But why does Largo invite Bond over for lunch or whatever? Just giving Bond a chance to snoop around with his Geiger counter.

    I knew that about the rebreather, but I don't split hairs on it. One of Bond's cameras also wouldn't be able to shoot such clear pictures underwater as described, but again, the movie makes it believable as Fleming would often do.

    As for Bond and Largo, Largo was playing his own game, getting to know Bond and his weaknesses. By getting him around the house he was giving Bond more chances to be stunned by Domino, and Largo used their connection against the agent. He purposefully gives Bond the opportunity to take Domino out for a night of fun, and it's at that moment that Largo has Fiona and her boys get all the stuff Bond has in his hotel room as well as Paula, to torture information out of her.

    I don't think Largo is being any more of a dolt than Auric, who lets Bond walk around his property free as a bird even after he heard his entire plan and how he was going to implement it. Bond could've easily hopped the fence and brought all his plans down in seconds, but by the magic of the movies he never sees Felix there at all. Auric had it coming for being that thick. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.