›

Removing YOLT from the Bond timeline

Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
edited December 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 403
For me, YOLT always represented the point of no return where the series really went OTT to satisfy mainstream tastes and this impacted what the producers thought the audiences wanted, especially after OHMSS was not as successful as YOLT. It seemed that after YOLT, Cubby and Harry just relented by saying "well the sky's the limit so we can go as absurd as possible if it'll make money".

GF was the first to show the "cinematic Bond", but it's still a classic and enjoyable film despite the changes I would to it (darker tone, Young instead of Hamilton, don't present Bond as a bumbling fool half the time, etc.) But YOLT still remains the weakest '60's film and is unbelievable in every respect. I like entertaining alternate reality scenarios, but doing a faithful OHMSS followed by a faithful YOLT has alway been my favourite. Sure, we would lose Pleasance and the volcano, but whose to say you can't do that later, so that it becomes the exception and not the norm?

Comments

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    There are several films I'd rather remove from the timeline than YOLT. GF, DAF, OP, TWINE. These are the films that need to go. At least YOLT entertains me.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,529
    I don't think there's much of a consistent 'Bond timeline', neither in the sense of story, nor in style and execution, no matter how many films one removes from the list. Perhaps the first couple of Connery Bonds and maybe the current Craigs (though I'm not even sure there) display something of an appreciable timeline, but overall - mèh.

    Also, I agree that YOLT is the first one to really lift things to the absurd, but one might ask if that wasn't unavoidable. Demanding 23 films to remain more or less consistent with one another, while several cinematic conventions are constantly altered and new generations of fans drop by, seems like asking the impossible.

    While YOLT troubles me in certain scenes as well, I've nevertheless come to accept and even somehow appreciate the changes it introduced. More such changes have, ultimately, followed in the many years since, sometimes to the benefit of the franchise, and sometimes -arguably- to its detriment. ;-)
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Good thoughts. Not really arguing for a clean timeline so much as they do another film instead of YOLT, like maybe 1967 OHMSS. Then bring on volcanos and Little Nellie and such. But yes, after 50 years, countless writers and directors, it's nearly impossible to create a consistent timeline. So I've come to accept Bond has always and will always be a string of one off production. It seems they have a hard enough time retaining consistency film to film, even in direct sequels.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    And it doesn't help that the YOLT film destroys the story arc of Fleming, which is made no better when they throw SPECTRE into DAF.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2012 Posts: 17,687
    Aziz_Fekkesh wrote:
    And it doesn't help that the YOLT film destroys the story arc of Fleming, which is made no better when they throw SPECTRE into DAF.
    You can go from TB to OHMSS to FYEO for a more direct Blofeld arc.....
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,457
    I still don't understand how someone who is as big a Bond fan as we are would want to remove any of the films from the timeline, no matter what they are. They're all a part of the Bond canon, and no matter how terrible some of the films are, they still have their moments that should be appreciated.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I still don't understand how someone who is as big a Bond fan as we are would want to remove any of the films from the timeline, no matter what they are. They're all a part of the Bond canon, and no matter how terrible some of the films are, they still have their moments that should be appreciated.

    And some stinkers are lessons to later Bond films or signify a major shift in tone as well as being time capsules of their eras.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,457
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, indeed. In the end, we need some of these 'bad' films to show the Bond films later down the road how to improve. Case in point: DAD to CR.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    While YOLT doesn't do it for me (bottom of ranking), it did at least give us the grand volcano set which is for better or worse THE set that everyone remembers.

    I wouldn't remove any from the canon, they all have their moments
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    chrisisall wrote:
    Aziz_Fekkesh wrote:
    And it doesn't help that the YOLT film destroys the story arc of Fleming, which is made no better when they throw SPECTRE into DAF.
    You can go from TB to OHMSS to FYEO for a more direct Blofeld arc.....

    Whilst I love YOLT for what it is this is quite an interesting way to approach things which kind of works if you ignore the 10 year jump from Tracy's death to Bond at the grave. Maybe he was really depressed.

    The real tragedy is we haven't had a proper version covering the events of Tracy's death, Bonds depression, revenge against Blofeld, Bonds amnesia, brainwashing and assination attempt on M.

    There's a lot of juicy material there which Craig could work wonders with (Bond in the Lubyanka being interrogated by the KGB would be epic) but short of an OHMSS reboot which I don't think can be seriously considered, I just don't see we can get any of that in the next 2/3 films. Particularly as Craig really needs just a straightforward mission above anything else next - no emotional stuff, no M hogging the story (which is why Colonel Sun is not a possibility at this stage).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,961
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    The real tragedy is we haven't had a proper version covering the events of Tracy's death, Bonds depression, revenge against Blofeld, Bonds amnesia, brainwashing and assination attempt on M.

    There's a lot of juicy material there which Craig could work wonders with (Bond in the Lubyanka being interrogated by the KGB would be epic) but short of an OHMSS reboot which I don't think can be seriously considered, I just don't see we can get any of that in the next 2/3 films. Particularly as Craig really needs just a straightforward mission above anything else next - no emotional stuff, no M hogging the story (which is why Colonel Sun is not a possibility at this stage).

    Quite. I think that the OHMSS-YOLT-TMWTGG arc should be left for Craig's successor (ideally, later in the successor's run, as opposed to starting with an OHMSS equivalent).

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    We must leave something potential to our posterity...
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    This was the last Bond movie I watched, so what better time to give an opinion, even though I did speak at length about this recently

    If they removed it, so to speak, would it really be such a bad thing ? A few months ago, I couldn't have cared less for it's omission, but now I see things in a new light, in that it's actually a decent film and overall watch, even if the last half hour does drag a bit, as the volcano scenes just get a bit banal towards the end and you feel you're going nowhere fast

    I think after a recent viewing, this should stay. Take away Connery's final effort that is Diamonds are Forever, if we really want to throw something in the trash
Sign In or Register to comment.