›

Dr No: The shortest screentime of any Bond villain!

Arsenal02071Arsenal02071
edited January 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 162
Watched Dr No again today for the first time in a very long time and I cannot get over how little Dr No actually appeared in the film. I did some quick math after and the only time that he is seen prior to the last 20 minutes of the 110 minute long film was when he was talking to Professor Dent and even then we don't actually see him. I think its done to build tension but its a massive contrast when you consider that Red Grant and Goldfinger are basically on screen for the same amount of time as Bond in the next two films.
«1

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Kind of the same issue with Greene, but I'm sure some on hear are proud of his minimal screentime. It aids in letting them believe he never existed.
  • licensetoforumlicensetoforum
    Posts: 371
    Dr.No to me was not a great villian. He was the first so he's special but looking at all the films he's pretty average.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    I noticed this when I first saw the film on a double bill with GF back in the 60's. When GF came on and then to see him so early in the film I thought like, "Wow, quite a difference from DN".
  • Arsenal02071Arsenal02071
    Posts: 162
    licensetoforum wrote:
    Dr.No to me was not a great villian. He was the first so he's special but looking at all the films he's pretty average.

    Yes he is a bit dull, he doesn't have a real stand out characteristic like others such as Red Grant or Goldfinger.

  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Arsenal02071 wrote:
    Watched Dr No again today for the first time in a very long time and I cannot get over how little Dr No actually appeared in the film. I did some quick math after and the only time that he is seen prior to the last 20 minutes of the 110 minute long film was when he was talking to Professor Dent and even then we don't actually see him. I think its done to build tension but its a massive contrast when you consider that Red Grant and Goldfinger are basically on screen for the same amount of time as Bond in the next two films.

    YOLT later followed a similar storytelling formula with Blofeld not being introduced until about an hour in and his face not being revealed until Bond actually meets him.
  • Arsenal02071Arsenal02071
    Posts: 162
    PrinceKamalKhan wrote:
    Arsenal02071 wrote:
    Watched Dr No again today for the first time in a very long time and I cannot get over how little Dr No actually appeared in the film. I did some quick math after and the only time that he is seen prior to the last 20 minutes of the 110 minute long film was when he was talking to Professor Dent and even then we don't actually see him. I think its done to build tension but its a massive contrast when you consider that Red Grant and Goldfinger are basically on screen for the same amount of time as Bond in the next two films.

    YOLT later followed a similar storytelling formula with Blofeld not being introduced until about an hour in and his face not being revealed until Bond actually meets him.

    Only difference is that Blofield appears in multiple films whereas Dr No is seen for only 20 minutes in the entire 22 movie series. I just found it strange,
  • Hank_ScorpioHank_Scorpio
    Posts: 68
    I think its actually interesting that Dr. No is not seen on the screen during the movie. His presence is certainly felt through out the movie, and its kind of like we the viewers and Bond are hunting someone we don't know. It makes it feel much more like a mystery IMO.
  • Arsenal02071Arsenal02071
    Posts: 162
    Yep good point, its a very big moment when you finally meet him as well.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Hank_Scorpio wrote:
    I think its actually interesting that Dr. No is not seen on the screen during the movie. His presence is certainly felt through out the movie, and its kind of like we the viewers and Bond are hunting someone we don't know. It makes it feel much more like a mystery IMO.

    I agree. I think Dr. No is one of best villains of the series personally.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Arsenal02071 wrote:
    Watched Dr No again today for the first time in a very long time and I cannot get over how little Dr No actually appeared in the film. I did some quick math after and the only time that he is seen prior to the last 20 minutes of the 110 minute long film was when he was talking to Professor Dent and even then we don't actually see him. I think its done to build tension but its a massive contrast when you consider that Red Grant and Goldfinger are basically on screen for the same amount of time as Bond in the next two films.

    Is Red Grant really on screen as much as Bond in FRWL? I'm not doubting you, just registering surprise at this fact!
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    It's safe to say Robert Shaw is nowhere near on screen for the same duration as Connery in From Russia With Love, not even close in fact. Gert Frobe's Goldfinger does have more of a case though, probably spends more time on his feet too as Connery just seems to sit around looking bored most of the time for his third outing

    Joseph Wiseman did very well in the first film, one of the most memorable villains of the first decade without question
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    its true Joseph Wiseman doesnt get much screen time...

    ...but his sinister presence permeates the entire film. From the stealing of a docket with his name on it by the Three Blind Mice to his reveal - he is there in the background controlling events. The key to Dr No is the fear he generates with everyone from the chaffeur to Prof Dent absolutely terrified of him. The comment "he runs the place like a concentration camp" must have stirred unpleasant memories in 1962.

    My favourite villain and the literary versions background is fascinating.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Exactly. Plus the title is his name so obviously he casts a shadow over the whole film. The only thing that's regretful is that he didn't get buried under bird crap like in the book.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2012 Posts: 15,692
    Does Carlyle have a big screentime in TWINE ? Even Pryce in TND has a very small screentime...

    It'd be very interesting if someone rewatched the 22 films and calculated the screentime of every main villains...
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,422
    actonsteve wrote:
    its true Joseph Wiseman doesnt get much screen time...

    ...but his sinister presence permeates the entire film. From the stealing of a docket with his name on it by the Three Blind Mice to his reveal - he is there in the background controlling events. The key to Dr No is the fear he generates with everyone from the chaffeur to Prof Dent absolutely terrified of him. The comment "he runs the place like a concentration camp" must have stirred unpleasant memories in 1962.

    My favourite villain and the literary versions background is fascinating.



    Absolutely agree 100%
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    Yeah, I wish that Dr. No had been in the movie for longer than 20 minutes. Wiseman is awesome in the role, and in my opinion, got cheated out of an even better performance. Sure, it may be to add tension and mystery, but come on! Villains like Gustav Graves get more screen time when they shouldn't have been in the movie at all!
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    I missed Mr Kill's contribution in DAD! He should have been in it far more? ;) lol
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    RogueAgent wrote:
    I missed Mr Kill's contribution in DAD! He should have been in it far more? ;) lol

    Good god Mr Kil 8-X 8-X 8-X
  • Arsenal02071Arsenal02071
    Posts: 162
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    It's safe to say Robert Shaw is nowhere near on screen for the same duration as Connery in From Russia With Love, not even close in fact. Gert Frobe's Goldfinger does have more of a case though, probably spends more time on his feet too as Connery just seems to sit around looking bored most of the time for his third outing

    Joseph Wiseman did very well in the first film, one of the most memorable villains of the first decade without question

    Obviously Grant isn't in the film as much but it feels like it because we see him a lot, unlike Dr No.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Arsenal02071 wrote:
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    It's safe to say Robert Shaw is nowhere near on screen for the same duration as Connery in From Russia With Love, not even close in fact. Gert Frobe's Goldfinger does have more of a case though, probably spends more time on his feet too as Connery just seems to sit around looking bored most of the time for his third outing

    Joseph Wiseman did very well in the first film, one of the most memorable villains of the first decade without question

    Obviously Grant isn't in the film as much but it feels like it because we see him a lot, unlike Dr No.

    He is also prominently in the FRWL novel I hear. Is this true?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Grant has a large backstory in the novel. We hear about his early life, his urges to kill and his time in Russia. He's portrayed as mad rather than bad IMO. In fact Bond doesn't even make an appearance until the second half.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited January 2012 Posts: 28,694
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Grant has a large backstory in the novel. We hear about his early life, his urges to kill and his time in Russia. He's portrayed as mad rather than bad IMO. In fact Bond doesn't even make an appearance until the second half.

    I've heard the last bit. I can't wait to read it.
  • Arsenal02071Arsenal02071
    Posts: 162
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Grant has a large backstory in the novel. We hear about his early life, his urges to kill and his time in Russia. He's portrayed as mad rather than bad IMO. In fact Bond doesn't even make an appearance until the second half.

    It takes a while for Bond to appear in the film as well, we have the maze seen, the chess match, Blofield with Klebb and Kronsteen, and Klebb talking to Romonova before we see Bond at all.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Grant has a large backstory in the novel. We hear about his early life, his urges to kill and his time in Russia. He's portrayed as mad rather than bad IMO. In fact Bond doesn't even make an appearance until the second half.

    I've heard the last bit. I can't wait to read it.

    Its one of Fleming's best novels. The ending's a cracker too.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited January 2012 Posts: 28,694
    BAIN123 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Grant has a large backstory in the novel. We hear about his early life, his urges to kill and his time in Russia. He's portrayed as mad rather than bad IMO. In fact Bond doesn't even make an appearance until the second half.

    I've heard the last bit. I can't wait to read it.

    Its one of Fleming's best novels. The ending's a cracker too.

    Yes,
    left open to the reader to guess if Bond is alive, right?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Yep ;) Its interesting when you find out Fleming's intentions at the time and how they changed.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ^
    Similar to Conan Doyle "killing off" Holmes before all the threats came his way.
  • Whitaker1987Whitaker1987
    Posts: 172
    Dr No & YOLT Blofeld could have had a few more scenes but I think the build up was made perfectly.

    We all like a good villain & really if the villain is not on screen for say more than 4 scenes in entire movie does that make them feel less menacing?

    My fav villain of the series as you guessed it has always been Brad Whitaker.

    His time on TLD was far too short but he did have to share duties with both Koskov & Necros.

    Whitaker out of the 3 needed a couple of more scenes but where or how could the scenes have taken place? I still would have preferred a scene or two with only Whitaker & Necros perhaps taking place before the raid on Blayden. I was at a christmas 007 night & the intro scene for Whitaker seemed to amuse the 10 or so viewing the film. I mean the scene with him blending in with statues is good & for the good eyed 1st time viewers they see with Hitler, Ghengis Khan etc that this character is mad from the start.

    The writters & John Glen should have given more thought on this & improved the scene where Whitaker & co celebrate the news about Pushkin's death.

    Similar to Klebb in FRWL Whitaker is the chief villain & only meets & challenges 007 at the end of the story. She is much loved classic character over the years & I think the same for Whitaker.

    Over & Out
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    @Whitaker1987: Yeah, Brad Whitaker was very under-used, which is probably why so many people dislike him. You're right, that intro scene for him with Pushkin was a good scene, with him blending in among the statues of the military leaders. Also I agree with his death, as it was disappointing. The fight is good, but loses points because of his ridiculous death. I think it would have been cool if the fight went outside, and after a little while, Pushkin comes and saves the day by shooting Whitaker in the back. Just an idea!
  • Whitaker1987Whitaker1987
    Posts: 172
    Well I still think that Koskov was sort of hiding away upstairs from Whitaker. I mean surely on his return he would have told Whitaker about 007 destroying the plane & plus as Whitaker said during the meeting with Bond he seems not to care for Koskov at all.

    A good ending could have seen Koskov enter during gun battle & Whitaker shoots him but not killing him & Koskov still has enough life in him once Whitaker is busted to still use same excuse to try & fool Pushkin. Pushkin would reply with diplomatic bag line & we see Koskov finally die. simple or not?
This discussion has been closed.