Thunderball vs. You Only Live Twice- which do you prefer?

13

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,392
    mtm wrote: »
    I've never been much of a fan of the cavalry endings, watching lots of stuntmen do flips as 'grenades' explode nearly but not entirely nowhere near them just leaves me a bit cold really.

    It s boring as hell, usually. It works in OHMSS.
  • Posts: 1,407
    Agreed. I can see that Bond needed help in TB - in fact, they arrive before he can, and with good reason. But in YOLT Bond was trained before he became a double-O, and then again by the folks in Japan, so he and a small, surreptitious crew would have made more sense and could have gotten it done. In fact - it could have been entertaining to have one them - perhaps a large Sumo wrester ! (I know, harder to sneak in through the volcano opening and climb upside down, down the walls but somehow...) Have that guy show up, wave Bond off, and say "go save the world while I handle this Nordic bif guy", and have him bump Blondie into the Piranha Pool. I agree that it makes sense in OHMSS, too, since Bond has befriended Tracy's father and her father has a large number of capable employees. Unnecessary in DAF and in most occasions when it is used.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 28 Posts: 11,629
    I'd actually forgotten it happens in DAF: and even now I can't actually picture any of Bond's allies in that one. It's probably one of my least favourite 007 climaxes.
    mtm wrote: »
    I've never been much of a fan of the cavalry endings, watching lots of stuntmen do flips as 'grenades' explode nearly but not entirely nowhere near them just leaves me a bit cold really.

    It s boring as hell, usually. It works in OHMSS.

    Yes, OHMSS does it fairly well- perhaps because we barely see the fighting between the stuntmen and the film focuses on the lead characters.
  • Posts: 2,636
    TB and YOLT are both flawed films and represent the decline of the series from the heights of the films that established it. With TB imperial bloat sets in, with YOLT the series falls into self-pastiche. That said, both films have great merits.

    YOLT is an incredible spectacle, looks gorgeous, and features one of Barry's best scores. It has moments of visual poetry, like the opening death in space and Bond's marriage. If only the film had an actual story and a couple more moments of characters behaving like human beings to anchor the spectacle. Roald Dahl was told to script the film according to the formula established by the earlier films, so YOLT marks the point when the series truly begins feeding on itself.

    TB is a flawed halfway house between Terence Young's previous Bond films and the post-GF excess that overtook the series. It's overlong and, as Raymond Benson noted in his James Bond Bedside Companion (one of the best Bond reference books of the 80s), the screenplay is a needlessly complicated adaptation of the book. I would also say that the film's characterization is much weaker than the book's--cinematic Largo and Domino are much blander than the originals. Despite all these flaws, within the bloat there is an effective thriller struggling to get out, and it does during the best moments: the brutal fight and jetpack in the pre-credits, the Spectre meeting (which remains the organization's finest moment on film), the methodical plane highjack, pretty much every scene with Fiona, the frogmen parachuting from the sky into the mother of all aquatic battles, etc. So I prefer Thunderball.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 28 Posts: 11,629
    Revelator wrote: »
    Roald Dahl was told to script the film according to the formula established by the earlier films, so YOLT marks the point when the series truly begins feeding on itself.

    That's not exactly a bad thing: that's recognising what worked about previous entries and giving people more of it. It's how Goldfinger turned out so good too: they took the bits people really liked of the previous two and turned them up to 11. Thunderball curiously learns very few lessons from Goldfinger and makes everything just that bit less larger-than-life, when it should have been going bigger and crazier. "Your watch contains a geiger counter" Oh... wow.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Despite all these flaws, within the bloat there is an effective thriller struggling to get out, and it does during the best moments: the brutal fight and jetpack in the pre-credits, the Spectre meeting (which remains the organization's finest moment on film), the methodical plane highjack, pretty much every scene with Fiona, the frogmen parachuting from the sky into the mother of all aquatic battles, etc. So I prefer Thunderball.

    I certainly agree with you about the Spectre meeting and Fiona's scenes- they're tremendous and have real fizzle, but I tend to think everything else there is a bit weak or even dull. The opening fight is just a sped-up fight in an ordinary room, there's nothing particularly innovative or imaginative about it, the jet pack is somehow rendered quite dull (maybe because he doesn't do anything interesting with it: he could have just used a ladder to the same effect), the plane hijack drags, the aquatic battle is famously regarded as pretty slow and (ironically!) dry. It's not terribly thrilling.
    Give me Sean hitting a massive Japanese wrestler with a sofa in a stunningly design penthouse office any day of the week. It's got zip and energy and feels fresher.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 28 Posts: 5,148
    This may be controversial, but I think Aki (even dubbed) adds as much if not more to YOLT than Fiona does to TB.

    And I think YOLT (along with GF and NTTD) is one of the best-paced Bond films.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    mtm wrote: »
    Give me Sean hitting a massive Japanese wrestler with a sofa in a stunningly design penthouse office any day of the week. It's got zip and energy and feels fresher.
    Ah yep! No part of YOLT feels like it drags. Even the stupidest part (Bond for real in the body bag???) is still entertaining.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,629
    Yeah it's all dumb and it's not much more than a collection of cartoonish ideas stuck together, but that means that it's full of ideas; every scene is something crazy and new and it's hard not to be entertained by it.
  • edited February 28 Posts: 2,636
    mtm wrote: »
    That's not exactly a bad thing: that's recognising what worked about previous entries and giving people more of it. It's how Goldfinger turned out so good too: they took the bits people really liked of the previous two and turned them up to 11.

    Perhaps, but I think it's more that they turned an already over-the-top novel to 11--as Maibaum said when he turned the buzzsaw into a laser, he wanted to "out Fleming Fleming." With YOLT the series started cannibalizing itself--instead of a Bond film you get a Frankenstein's monster made from parts of other Bond films. When done well, as in YOLT and TSWLM, this approach was very enjoyable, but it's too derivative for me to respect or love as much as the foundational films.
    The opening fight is just a sped-up fight in an ordinary room, there's nothing particularly innovative or imaginative about it, the jet pack is somehow rendered quite dull (maybe because he doesn't do anything interesting with it: he could have just used a ladder to the same effect), the plane hijack drags, the aquatic battle is famously regarded as pretty slow and (ironically!) dry.

    I think the cutting and staging in the pre-credits fight is superb--it would work well without the sped-up bits, but those are also well done and an example of how sped-up action can aid a scene. The jet pack is a memorable visual even if it's simple one. I get why people feel the hijack and aquatic battle drag, but sometimes quick pacing isn't everything. A slow, methodical sequence can give plausibility to a fantastical plot, and sometimes the nature of a sequence--underwater combat--means it can't zip along and has to be accepted for what it is. I ultimately agree that there is too much underwater ballet in TB, but it's pretty good ballet, and the film as a whole feels more human and organic than YOLT, which is a string of set-pieces.
  • Posts: 1,407
    As a fan of the films from the start, YOLT was the time when they just took OFF and went way out. Looking at the story it is hard to find the line being crossed, but overall it sure felt it. Whereas in the other 1967 Bond film, CR-67, you can spot it well before the casino scene with every cinematic genre represented, when the Flying Saucer shows up. By the way - was any Bond heroine as lovely as the superfine Joanna Pettet ? Some right up there, yes, but beyond ? I think not. As for anyone getting their own spin-off films, SHE should have gotten that !
    Anyways, back on track here: YOLT was the first one to really deliver what was promised in the advertising tagline years later for TSWLM: It's Bond, and B-E-Y-O-N-D (the ad campaigns for Austin Powers in Goldmember missed the opportunity to use: It's Powers, and B-E-Y-O-N-C-E !!! SOME of us would have gotten it !)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 28 Posts: 11,629
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    That's not exactly a bad thing: that's recognising what worked about previous entries and giving people more of it. It's how Goldfinger turned out so good too: they took the bits people really liked of the previous two and turned them up to 11.

    Perhaps, but I think it's more that they turned an already over-the-top novel to 11--as Maibaum said when he turned the buzzsaw into a laser, he wanted to "out Fleming Fleming." With YOLT the series started cannibalizing itself--instead of a Bond film you get a Frankenstein's monster made from parts of other Bond films. When done well, as in YOLT and TSWLM, this approach was very enjoyable, but it's too derivative for me to respect or love as much as the foundational films.

    I think if you're a Bond fan you have to embrace the derivative! :)
    And I don't think GF is purely just Fleming derived; it's using the tone and gags that worked in the last couple of films- they've understood what it is about Bond's crazy world that folks respond to. And in TB, for some reason, they back off that and take it back to the slightly less sexy and crazy level of the books again, whereas they'd just taken it beyond the books in the previous one to wild success. It's an odd response. Maybe it was McClory's influence? I don't know.
    Revelator wrote: »
    The opening fight is just a sped-up fight in an ordinary room, there's nothing particularly innovative or imaginative about it, the jet pack is somehow rendered quite dull (maybe because he doesn't do anything interesting with it: he could have just used a ladder to the same effect), the plane hijack drags, the aquatic battle is famously regarded as pretty slow and (ironically!) dry.

    I think the cutting and staging in the pre-credits fight is superb--it would work well without the sped-up bits, but those are also well done and an example of how sped-up action can aid a scene.

    The accelerating chair is a bit of a low point for me. It's an alright fight but there's no hook to it, beyond one of them wearing a skirt. In the one before he had a fight with a silent assassin dressed as a manservant in Fort Knox, or he fought another guy who he electrocuted in the bath with a brilliant quip (I'd not noticed before that he electrocutes both of them!); this just ends with him strangling the guy and we have to make do with some flowers being the closest thing to a punchline. It's all on a lower gasmark.
    Likewise the jetpack is the beginning of an idea they do nothing with, and it's filmed in such a way to make it seem pretty uninteresting. If they'd picked a chateau with a moat that he actually got across, or he landed it in the back of a moving car (which would actually make sense of why he's brought the French agent lady with him) it'd be something. I get that it's supposed to be excess and crazy on its own, but it doesn't feel that way the way the scene is actually shot.
    Revelator wrote: »
    A slow, methodical sequence can give plausibility to a fantastical plot, and sometimes the nature of a sequence--underwater combat--means it can't zip along and has to be accepted for what it is. I ultimately agree that there is too much underwater ballet in TB, but it's pretty good ballet, and the film as a whole feels more human and organic than YOLT, which is a string of set-pieces.

    And sometimes slow pacing can give you time to think "oh wow, this is going on a bit". TSWLM has a short underwater battle and keeps it tight and exciting.
    YOLT is indeed a string of set pieces, but that's why it's not boring and TB, sadly, is.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    Revelator wrote: »
    I think the cutting and staging in the pre-credits fight is superb--it would work well without the sped-up bits, but those are also well done and an example of how sped-up action can aid a scene.
    That sped-up nonsense looks terrible. It mostly always has. The only time it looked okay was when Goldfinger was sucked out the window, but that's because most of us have no frame of reference as to what that would actually look like. The entire climax of TB suffers for it (to me), whereas the climax of YOLT only has a couple of bad mattes.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 28 Posts: 11,629
    Oh yes, the stuff on the bridge of the Disco Volante is just terrible, what were they thinking. I think the only time that speeding up the footage worked and didn't look naff in a Bond was maybe the car chase in Goldfinger.
    And then the whole bomb threat of the film (a slightly reduced threat considering that no-one we actually see onscreen is actually in danger from the bomb: in the last one Bond was handcuffed to it: that's more exciting) is ended by a character deciding to switch sides; someone we barely get to meet and Bond seems entirely indifferent to(!). It's odd.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 28 Posts: 17,283
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh yes, the stuff on the bridge of the Disco Volante is just terrible, what were they thinking. I think the only time that speeding up the footage worked and didn't look naff in a Bond was maybe the car chase in Goldfinger.
    And then the whole bomb threat of the film (a slightly reduced threat considering that no-one we actually see onscreen is actually in danger from the bomb: in the last one Bond was handcuffed to it: that's more exciting) is ended by a character deciding to switch sides; someone we barely get to meet and Bond seems entirely indifferent to(!). It's odd.
    I dunno... he seemed attracted to her. Until the airplane snagged their line & the quick tug snapped her neck. Kidding, but hey- that's how Gwen Stacey died. Actually, being wet they both just froze to death. Kidding again, but you see my problems with that ending...
  • Posts: 2,636
    chrisisall wrote: »
    That sped-up nonsense looks terrible. It mostly always has.

    It's overused in the final scenes on the Disco Volante but was used more sparingly and carefully in the pre-credits, and arguably enhanced an already fast fight. I'm open to non-naturalistic editing choices when they're done well, whether Peckinpah's slow-motion or Hunt's fast-motion.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    Revelator wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    That sped-up nonsense looks terrible. It mostly always has.

    It's overused in the final scenes on the Disco Volante but was used more sparingly and carefully in the pre-credits, and arguably enhanced an already fast fight. I'm open to non-naturalistic editing choices when they're done well, whether Peckinpah's slow-motion or Hunt's fast-motion.

    Okay, hold it right there spinach chin, slow motion is understood visually as not real time motion. When we have a accident we speed up our cognitive intake & that slows down the visual 'action', so we can understand that. Speeding up stuff makes it look cartoony because we have no times in real life where junk just speeds up for no reason. In combat explosions can be like that, but fighting & driving or speed-boating look like undercranked 20's silent movies.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,108
    Thunderball is the better film, but I enjoy YOLT a heck of a lot more. There are parts that definitely lag in the middle portion of YOLT but so much more to enjoy.
  • Posts: 2,636
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Speeding up stuff makes it look cartoony because we have no times in real life where junk just speeds up for no reason.

    There are plenty of times in real life where our impression of an event, viewed from the perspective of a spectator, is that of a blur or of action too fast to fully take in. Hence the use of slow-motion in sports broadcasting. I have seen this when witnessing fights in real life--part of what made them unsettling was how sudden the action was. Fast-motion is impressionistic--used with fast cutting it can create disorientation and the impression of lightning speed. Slow motion can replicate the impression of participating in a sudden event; fast-motion can replicate the impressions of witnessing it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    Thunderball is the better film, but I enjoy YOLT a heck of a lot more. There are parts that definitely lag in the middle portion of YOLT but so much more to enjoy.

    I concur. Overall TB is a better movie. But I end up putting YOLT more frequently.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    Revelator wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Speeding up stuff makes it look cartoony because we have no times in real life where junk just speeds up for no reason.

    There are plenty of times in real life where our impression of an event, viewed from the perspective of a spectator, is that of a blur or of action too fast to fully take in. Hence the use of slow-motion in sports broadcasting. I have seen this when witnessing fights in real life--part of what made them unsettling was how sudden the action was. Fast-motion is impressionistic--used with fast cutting it can create disorientation and the impression of lightning speed. Slow motion can replicate the impression of participating in a sudden event; fast-motion can replicate the impressions of witnessing it.

    Sorry, I was training in martial arts & making movies from age 13. My sense of lightning speed is probably different than a lot of other folk. You point is taken.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 1,981
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Thunderball is the better film, but I enjoy YOLT a heck of a lot more. There are parts that definitely lag in the middle portion of YOLT but so much more to enjoy.

    I concur. Overall TB is a better movie. But I end up putting YOLT more frequently.

    Same +1
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,148
    mtm wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    That's not exactly a bad thing: that's recognising what worked about previous entries and giving people more of it. It's how Goldfinger turned out so good too: they took the bits people really liked of the previous two and turned them up to 11.

    Perhaps, but I think it's more that they turned an already over-the-top novel to 11--as Maibaum said when he turned the buzzsaw into a laser, he wanted to "out Fleming Fleming." With YOLT the series started cannibalizing itself--instead of a Bond film you get a Frankenstein's monster made from parts of other Bond films. When done well, as in YOLT and TSWLM, this approach was very enjoyable, but it's too derivative for me to respect or love as much as the foundational films.

    I think if you're a Bond fan you have to embrace the derivative! :)
    And I don't think GF is purely just Fleming derived; it's using the tone and gags that worked in the last couple of films- they've understood what it is about Bond's crazy world that folks respond to. And in TB, for some reason, they back off that and take it back to the slightly less sexy and crazy level of the books again, whereas they'd just taken it beyond the books in the previous one to wild success. It's an odd response. Maybe it was McClory's influence? I don't know.
    Revelator wrote: »
    The opening fight is just a sped-up fight in an ordinary room, there's nothing particularly innovative or imaginative about it, the jet pack is somehow rendered quite dull (maybe because he doesn't do anything interesting with it: he could have just used a ladder to the same effect), the plane hijack drags, the aquatic battle is famously regarded as pretty slow and (ironically!) dry.

    I think the cutting and staging in the pre-credits fight is superb--it would work well without the sped-up bits, but those are also well done and an example of how sped-up action can aid a scene.

    The accelerating chair is a bit of a low point for me. It's an alright fight but there's no hook to it, beyond one of them wearing a skirt. In the one before he had a fight with a silent assassin dressed as a manservant in Fort Knox, or he fought another guy who he electrocuted in the bath with a brilliant quip (I'd not noticed before that he electrocutes both of them!); this just ends with him strangling the guy and we have to make do with some flowers being the closest thing to a punchline. It's all on a lower gasmark.
    Likewise the jetpack is the beginning of an idea they do nothing with, and it's filmed in such a way to make it seem pretty uninteresting. If they'd picked a chateau with a moat that he actually got across, or he landed it in the back of a moving car (which would actually make sense of why he's brought the French agent lady with him) it'd be something. I get that it's supposed to be excess and crazy on its own, but it doesn't feel that way the way the scene is actually shot.
    Revelator wrote: »
    A slow, methodical sequence can give plausibility to a fantastical plot, and sometimes the nature of a sequence--underwater combat--means it can't zip along and has to be accepted for what it is. I ultimately agree that there is too much underwater ballet in TB, but it's pretty good ballet, and the film as a whole feels more human and organic than YOLT, which is a string of set-pieces.

    And sometimes slow pacing can give you time to think "oh wow, this is going on a bit". TSWLM has a short underwater battle and keeps it tight and exciting.
    YOLT is indeed a string of set pieces, but that's why it's not boring and TB, sadly, is.

    GF to TB is like CR to QoS. A let-down that seems small in comparison to its predecessor.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,915
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    That's not exactly a bad thing: that's recognising what worked about previous entries and giving people more of it. It's how Goldfinger turned out so good too: they took the bits people really liked of the previous two and turned them up to 11.

    Perhaps, but I think it's more that they turned an already over-the-top novel to 11--as Maibaum said when he turned the buzzsaw into a laser, he wanted to "out Fleming Fleming." With YOLT the series started cannibalizing itself--instead of a Bond film you get a Frankenstein's monster made from parts of other Bond films. When done well, as in YOLT and TSWLM, this approach was very enjoyable, but it's too derivative for me to respect or love as much as the foundational films.

    I think if you're a Bond fan you have to embrace the derivative! :)
    And I don't think GF is purely just Fleming derived; it's using the tone and gags that worked in the last couple of films- they've understood what it is about Bond's crazy world that folks respond to. And in TB, for some reason, they back off that and take it back to the slightly less sexy and crazy level of the books again, whereas they'd just taken it beyond the books in the previous one to wild success. It's an odd response. Maybe it was McClory's influence? I don't know.
    Revelator wrote: »
    The opening fight is just a sped-up fight in an ordinary room, there's nothing particularly innovative or imaginative about it, the jet pack is somehow rendered quite dull (maybe because he doesn't do anything interesting with it: he could have just used a ladder to the same effect), the plane hijack drags, the aquatic battle is famously regarded as pretty slow and (ironically!) dry.

    I think the cutting and staging in the pre-credits fight is superb--it would work well without the sped-up bits, but those are also well done and an example of how sped-up action can aid a scene.

    The accelerating chair is a bit of a low point for me. It's an alright fight but there's no hook to it, beyond one of them wearing a skirt. In the one before he had a fight with a silent assassin dressed as a manservant in Fort Knox, or he fought another guy who he electrocuted in the bath with a brilliant quip (I'd not noticed before that he electrocutes both of them!); this just ends with him strangling the guy and we have to make do with some flowers being the closest thing to a punchline. It's all on a lower gasmark.
    Likewise the jetpack is the beginning of an idea they do nothing with, and it's filmed in such a way to make it seem pretty uninteresting. If they'd picked a chateau with a moat that he actually got across, or he landed it in the back of a moving car (which would actually make sense of why he's brought the French agent lady with him) it'd be something. I get that it's supposed to be excess and crazy on its own, but it doesn't feel that way the way the scene is actually shot.
    Revelator wrote: »
    A slow, methodical sequence can give plausibility to a fantastical plot, and sometimes the nature of a sequence--underwater combat--means it can't zip along and has to be accepted for what it is. I ultimately agree that there is too much underwater ballet in TB, but it's pretty good ballet, and the film as a whole feels more human and organic than YOLT, which is a string of set-pieces.

    And sometimes slow pacing can give you time to think "oh wow, this is going on a bit". TSWLM has a short underwater battle and keeps it tight and exciting.
    YOLT is indeed a string of set pieces, but that's why it's not boring and TB, sadly, is.

    GF to TB is like CR to QoS. A let-down that seems small in comparison to its predecessor.

    I never thought of it like that. A good comparison! Ironically, one pair went from really short to really long, and the pair from really long to really short.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited March 1 Posts: 799
    .
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 759
    Lemme think here, Thunderball vs You Only Live Twice...

    5ef50e1792098fa4857e088bf80ad32a.jpg

    The choice is obvious.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 1 Posts: 11,629
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh yes, the stuff on the bridge of the Disco Volante is just terrible, what were they thinking. I think the only time that speeding up the footage worked and didn't look naff in a Bond was maybe the car chase in Goldfinger.
    And then the whole bomb threat of the film (a slightly reduced threat considering that no-one we actually see onscreen is actually in danger from the bomb: in the last one Bond was handcuffed to it: that's more exciting) is ended by a character deciding to switch sides; someone we barely get to meet and Bond seems entirely indifferent to(!). It's odd.
    I dunno... he seemed attracted to her. Until the airplane snagged their line & the quick tug snapped her neck. Kidding, but hey- that's how Gwen Stacey died. Actually, being wet they both just froze to death. Kidding again, but you see my problems with that ending...

    No, I’m talking Kutze: the little guy with the glasses :)
    He basically saves the whole film!
    Revelator wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Speeding up stuff makes it look cartoony because we have no times in real life where junk just speeds up for no reason.

    There are plenty of times in real life where our impression of an event, viewed from the perspective of a spectator, is that of a blur or of action too fast to fully take in. Hence the use of slow-motion in sports broadcasting. I have seen this when witnessing fights in real life--part of what made them unsettling was how sudden the action was. Fast-motion is impressionistic--used with fast cutting it can create disorientation and the impression of lightning speed. Slow motion can replicate the impression of participating in a sudden event; fast-motion can replicate the impressions of witnessing it.

    It’s not really a style which has persisted though whereas slo-mo has: I think it’s generally seen as something which doesn’t really work. I also don’t get the sense it was being used impressionistically in these films but rather they wanted us to think these things were actually happening that quickly.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 1,981
    Lemme think here, Thunderball vs You Only Live Twice...

    5ef50e1792098fa4857e088bf80ad32a.jpg

    The choice is obvious.

    With a userid like @Thunderball you’re not exactly objective 😊.
    In any case, I’ll see your “Domino” and raise my “Aki”.
    DlsAEo8X0AA4KJT.jpg

    Interestingly, when I first started to get into Bond fandom, one of the criticisms of YOLT that I read was that Tiger, Aki and Kissy come across in the film as being more interesting than Bond himself. I don’t really agree with that, but that opinion is out there.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 1,981
    @Since62 Completely agree about Joanna Pettet. She actually would have made a great Bond girl (for real).
    Joanna-Pettet-Harvey-Night-Gallery-Caterpillar-1972.jpg
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,629
    She's probably one of the more interesting allies of the 60s, it's true. Along with Pussy maybe.

    In fact, when people speak of spinoffs you often hear Felix mentioned as a potential lead of his own series; but really it would be loads more fun to see Aki and Tiger going about their spy business in Tokyo- Tiger with his hi-tech lairs and underground trains all around the city. It'd make a great fun comic book.
  • Posts: 1,407
    mtm wrote: »
    She's probably one of the more interesting allies of the 60s, it's true. Along with Pussy maybe.

    In fact, when people speak of spinoffs you often hear Felix mentioned as a potential lead of his own series; but really it would be loads more fun to see Aki and Tiger going about their spy business in Tokyo- Tiger with his hi-tech lairs and underground trains all around the city. It'd make a great fun comic book.

    Brilliant !
Sign In or Register to comment.