007: What would you have done differently?

1235760

Comments

  • Posts: 667
    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.
    Well, okay, but you said this:
    @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.
    So...? lol

    I think it's time for me to close MI6Community and find something else to do...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    Milovy wrote: »
    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.
    Well, okay, but you said this:
    @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.
    So...? lol

    I think it's time for me to close MI6Community and find something else to do...

    Obviously, I needed to reframe my argument. I did a lot of research on TB for a review, and found out the minor details about the breather and camera that slipped my mind. I still count the grounded nature of TB in high order, as all the underwater vehicles, the giant yacht with detachable deck, and the other operational items like that were designed from the ground up for the film and worked as we see them. I made the mistake of counting the aforementioned two gadgets in with them, and because so much of the equipment in the film was real, I forgot about them when I made my post.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Milovy wrote: »
    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.

    To my mind TB has the same problem as MR and SP. Namely focusing on everything that made the predecessor a success and putting extra topping on everything, until the teeth crumble.
    I am always quite surprised when I read that people rave about Connery's performance in Thunderball as the perfect one. To me Bond is quite a bully in it.
    It's the one movie in the franchise in which he either screws them, kills them or both.
    No exceptions allowed. Period! He also lacks charm if you consider how raunchy he makes his passes at all three girls in the movie
    Actually Fiona does describe it very well when she calls him for being too confident and full of himself.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 2,225
    It seems that every subject posted regarding Goldfinger gets turned into a GF versus TB slugfest..
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    Milovy wrote: »
    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.

    To my mind TB has the same problem as MR and SP. Namely focusing on everything that made the predecessor a success and putting extra topping on everything, until the teeth crumble.
    I am always quite surprised when I read that people rave about Connery's performance in Thunderball as the perfect one. To me Bond is quite a bully in it.
    It's the one movie in the franchise in which he either screws them, kills them or both.
    No exceptions allowed. Period! He also lacks charm if you consider how raunchy he makes his passes at all three girls in the movie
    Actually Fiona does describe it very well when she calls him for being too confident and full of himself.

    A bully would be a man who comes upon a woman in a barn and forces himself upon her despite her protestations and struggles to get him off. ;)

    We can talk about this next week, but I don't find anything wrong with Bond's behavior in TB. Pat is clearly hungry for him, and they have a playful repartee together. If she didn't consent to what he did, she wouldn't be breathlessly begging for him to call her "anytime" and "anyplace" from that day on. Fiona is the one that comes on to Bond and uses sex to distract him, one of the most clever flips on the script in the series, so I don't know what point you're trying to make there.

    And when it comes to Domino and Bond, the spy is seldom so heroic and compassionate as he is around the woman. He is enraged quite visibly by how bad she is treated by Largo, and takes every opportunity to give her a reason to smile because he knows she deserves it. He's constantly acting with her in mind, and only extends their relationship when she wants it to go there too. Even when Bond has to tell Domino about her brother, you can see how much he hates having to break the news. The scene where they're dancing and holding each other says it all; she feels utterly safe with him, and he's happy to be her protector.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Area 52
    Posts: 32,560
    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!

    Really? I thought Linder had more charm than any other Leiter, and he shows some real cameraderie with Bond, like in the books.
  • barryt007barryt007 Getting counselling by Sir Roger over Kara Milovy
    Posts: 17,993
    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!

    Really? I thought Linder had more charm than any other Leiter, and he shows some real cameraderie with Bond, like in the books.

    I'm a Rik Van Nutter man myself.

  • Posts: 2,469
    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!

    Indeed. And that someone was Lee Van Cleef.
  • Posts: 2,469
    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!

    Really? I thought Linder had more charm than any other Leiter, and he shows some real cameraderie with Bond, like in the books.

    I thought he was okay, but nobody, not even Wright, has equaled Jack Lord. In point of fact, the casting of Leiter has been a weakness in the series.

  • Posts: 2,469
    barryt007 wrote: »
    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!

    Really? I thought Linder had more charm than any other Leiter, and he shows some real cameraderie with Bond, like in the books.

    I'm a Rik Van Nutter man myself.

    Bit of a milquetoast, but he at least looked the part and his acting was perfectly competent.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    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!

    Really? I thought Linder had more charm than any other Leiter, and he shows some real cameraderie with Bond, like in the books.

    I like Linder too. All the Felixes of the 60s have issues, but I found Linder charming and he and Bond actually came off as great pals through his chemistry with Sean, whereas Lord and Nutter could be too cold and lifeless. For just that alone, I'd keep him. I would've loved to see Felix pick up a gun and fight during the Knox raid too, as he never gets to do anything in the movies. In that finale and TB's they had a chance to involve him and show him in the thick of it actually supporting Bond, but wasted it. I think that's a shame.
  • Posts: 599
    What would I do differently? Keep Terence Young as director for starters. That's one of my great what ifs of the series.

    The series has never been a strong acting showcase, but GF seems particularly weak, especially the gangsters with their "Whatcha' tryin' to pull, Goldfinga?" accents that wouldn't have been out of place 30 years prior in George Raft or Edward G. Robinson movies.

    I also agree with whoever mentioned the Bond-Oddjob fight as being underwhelming. It's not a fight, it's literally Oddjob wiping the floor with Bond. It's cool the way he's defeated, but there's just not that much there. I get amused when some count it in their top fights in the series.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 1,162
    BT3366 wrote: »
    What would I do differently? Keep Terence Young as director for starters.
    .

    But then we wouldn't have one of the movies that kicked off the swinging 60s and the movie that made James Bond immortal.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 599
    I think the predecessors did fine with that beforehand. And who's to say Young's version wouldn't have furthered interest in Bond, which was reaching a peak in '64?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,859
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I think the predecessors did fine with that beforehand. And who's to say Young's version wouldn't have furthered interest in Bond, which was reaching a peak in '64?

    Doesn't really matter what Young would have done, Hamilton did do it, and that's all that really matters.
  • Posts: 1,162
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I think the predecessors did fine with that beforehand. And who's to say Young's version wouldn't have furthered interest in Bond, which was reaching a peak in '64?

    They did very fine and I watch them much more often then GF, but they weren't bound to make Bond part of our cultural heritage. When you watch Youngs movies nothing in them suggests that he would have excelled with an easy and Lightfooted Bond.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Area 52
    Posts: 32,560
    I think the only Bond films that can be said to be a part of our common cultural heritage are DN, GF and TSWLM.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,865
    barryt007 wrote: »
    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!

    Really? I thought Linder had more charm than any other Leiter, and he shows some real cameraderie with Bond, like in the books.

    I'm a Rik Van Nutter man myself.

    Bit of a milquetoast, but he at least looked the part and his acting was perfectly competent.

    Of all the actors to have played the part, RVN, to me, looked the most as I had imagined him while reading the books. Just wish there could have been some consistency with the actors playing Felix in the 60s. Just can't see Linder's Felix as anything other than a kindly uncle to 007.
  • Posts: 599
    RC7 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I think the predecessors did fine with that beforehand. And who's to say Young's version wouldn't have furthered interest in Bond, which was reaching a peak in '64?

    Doesn't really matter what Young would have done, Hamilton did do it, and that's all that really matters.

    True, but I wanted to contribute my thoughts on the thread about what you'd do differently with GF.
  • barryt007barryt007 Getting counselling by Sir Roger over Kara Milovy
    edited June 2017 Posts: 17,993
    barryt007 wrote: »
    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!

    Really? I thought Linder had more charm than any other Leiter, and he shows some real cameraderie with Bond, like in the books.

    I'm a Rik Van Nutter man myself.

    Bit of a milquetoast, but he at least looked the part and his acting was perfectly competent.

    Of all the actors to have played the part, RVN, to me, looked the most as I had imagined him while reading the books. Just wish there could have been some consistency with the actors playing Felix in the 60s. Just can't see Linder's Felix as anything other than a kindly uncle to 007.

    Exactly...he is spot on as in the novels and they could have developed him into a long term Felix.

    TBH RVN was young enough to be Felix in DAF and a good few more films,as I showed when posted stages of his life re photos on a Felix thread I think, so I don't know why they didn't bring him back - no consistency with Felix.

    Another annoying scenario as nothing happened !!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I think the predecessors did fine with that beforehand. And who's to say Young's version wouldn't have furthered interest in Bond, which was reaching a peak in '64?

    They did very fine and I watch them much more often then GF, but they weren't bound to make Bond part of our cultural heritage. When you watch Youngs movies nothing in them suggests that he would have excelled with an easy and Lightfooted Bond.

    Young wouldn't have settled for that kind of Bond film. I think that's why @BT3366 is saying he missed the man's touch, because he took it more seriously. Personally I'm fine with how it went, as we wouldn't have TB if Young did GF. I think he had three in him and wouldn't do any more, so how the cards fell is something I've made perfect peace with.
  • Posts: 2,469
    I think the only Bond films that can be said to be a part of our common cultural heritage are DN, GF and TSWLM.

    What do you mean by this?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Area 52
    Posts: 32,560
    The ones that are universally recognized, also by title, for their cultural impact and iconography.
  • barryt007barryt007 Getting counselling by Sir Roger over Kara Milovy
    Posts: 17,993
    You wouldn't include MR in that ?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I think the only Bond films that can be said to be a part of our common cultural heritage are DN, GF and TSWLM.
    Agreed, although with DN I'd say it's more because it was the first, and due to Connery's memorable introduction as opposed to anything else in the film that resonated culturally.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    The ones that are universally recognized, also by title, for their cultural impact and iconography.

    I don't think anyone outside a select few know DN. I say this as one of its more passionate fans the world over, depressed by the idea. I've said it before, but I don't think the public really remember things like this. They are told what's great, rather than feeling themselves that something is, and follow that word of mouth on automatic. They might be able to say, "Hey, a gun barrel," but they won't know its true origin. I would also be fascinated to know how many in the public truly know GF and what it's about, because I feel it's another example of being told what to like as opposed to experiencing it oneself.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    They may not know what DN is about, but they certainly know that intro scene, just like they know that Connery first drove the gadet laden ejector seat Aston and Moore drove the underwater Lotus. The cheers in the theatre during SF were because people knew that car from Connery's time, rather than Craig's.

    These films had iconic moments that resonated beyond the film.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    edited June 2017 Posts: 28,232
    bondjames wrote: »
    They may not know what DN is about, but they certainly know that intro scene, just like they know that Connery first drove the gadet laden ejector seat Aston and Moore drove the underwater Lotus. The cheers in the theatre during SF were because people knew that car from Connery's time, rather than Craig's.

    These films had iconic moments that resonated beyond the film.

    They know the car (everyone knows the Aston, it's like the batmobile) and maybe some moments, but I feel like most don't know their true origin. That's what I'm saying. Like remembering a face of someone at a family reunion, but being unable to place the side of the relation or if they're an uncle, cousin, etc. In short, the important stuff.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Area 52
    Posts: 32,560
    Honey in that bikini is also well known, but yes. It probably has that celebrity status due to being the first.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    They may not know what DN is about, but they certainly know that intro scene, just like they know that Connery first drove the gadet laden ejector seat Aston and Moore drove the underwater Lotus. The cheers in the theatre during SF were because people knew that car from Connery's time, rather than Craig's.

    These films had iconic moments that resonated beyond the film.

    They know the car (everyone knows the Aston, it's like the batmobile) and maybe some moments, but I feel like most don't know their true origin. That's what I'm saying. Like remembering a face of someone at a family reunion, but being unable to place the side of the relation or if they're an uncle, cousin, etc. In short, the important stuff.
    You're definitely right on that. Most wouldn't know that the car originated in the film GF, but they still know the car. The general audience doesn't get the details or linkages certainly. That's something left only for folks like us.

    I believe that's why Brosnan was quite popular and Dalton wasn't. It's because his era focused primarily on all those things that the general public subconsciously associate with Bond. 'Bond James Bond', 'Martini shaken not stirred', 'gadgets', fancy cars etc. etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.