› ›

Would you rather thread...a Blofeld question to consider!

1…170171172173174176»

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 27 Posts: 17,862
    thedove wrote: »

    That being said he was obviously hitting the notes given to him in the script and with Glen's direction.

    I think that's the important thing: the actor doesn't decide how a scene is played- the director does. No one should blame Hedison for that.
    Venutius wrote: »
    LTK. I can still hear the almighty clang that dropped the first time I saw it. Leiter's lost his leg and his new wife's been raped and murdered after the wedding, but instead of grim satisfaction at the villain's demise, he's laughing and joshing. Couldn't've been much more inappropriate and wrong note. IMO, obvs.

    Funny thing is he's actually had it worse than Bond did at the end of OHMSS, but silly old Jimmy was moping about crying at that point whereas Felix is having a great time. Maybe we should have been watching him instead all this time? :D
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,745
    The ending of LTK awful, like much of the entire film. A TV movie-of-the-week back then, with rogue law enforcement agent going against drug gangster. They were common at the time. The whole bit with Pam acting like a teenage girl was just pathetic. Great actors wasted on a lousy story and script.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited April 28 Posts: 200
    Since62 wrote: »
    The ending of LTK awful, like much of the entire film. A TV movie-of-the-week back then, with rogue law enforcement agent going against drug gangster. They were common at the time. The whole bit with Pam acting like a teenage girl was just pathetic. Great actors wasted on a lousy story and script.

    Berating LtK for being contemporaneous is berating Moonraker for being like Star Wars, or Skyfall for being like The Dark Knight (i could go on).

    Fact is agent 007's greatest enemy is, was and forever shall be the box-office. LTK is and was no different save for one crucial regard: It's Bond.

    Nobody does it better.
  • SeanoSeano Minnesota. No, it's not always cold.
    Posts: 53
    LTK. So tonally off. Should have been Bond and Pam reuniting with Felix in person.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,458
    Since62 wrote: »
    The ending of LTK awful, like much of the entire film. A TV movie-of-the-week back then, with rogue law enforcement agent going against drug gangster. They were common at the time. The whole bit with Pam acting like a teenage girl was just pathetic. Great actors wasted on a lousy story and script.

    I'm sorry for you that you cannot find any joy in a Bond film that has an excellent story, has superb action and has our 007 cleverly infiltrating the villain's organisation to make his opponent suspicious of his own crew. Not to mention the several Fleming elements used here.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 8,139
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    The ending of LTK awful, like much of the entire film. A TV movie-of-the-week back then, with rogue law enforcement agent going against drug gangster. They were common at the time. The whole bit with Pam acting like a teenage girl was just pathetic. Great actors wasted on a lousy story and script.

    I'm sorry for you that you cannot find any joy in a Bond film that has an excellent story, has superb action and has our 007 cleverly infiltrating the villain's organisation to make his opponent suspicious of his own crew. Not to mention the several Fleming elements used here.

    Yep, couldn't agree more!
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,896
    I think of FYEO as more of a low key European Soap Opera TV series.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,752
    Interesting takes presented by both sides. I do think these endings stand out as not matching the tone that the film makers were going for in the main film.

    Okay, time to move on. Another fantasy one!

    Would you prefer the same actor portrays Blofeld all the films, or that the films featuring Blofeld are released in the chronological order of the books?

    This is one to ponder. You can keep the films as is in terms of continuity. But you get to have the same actor play Blofeld. So YOTL, OHMSS and DAF all keep Blofeld but now played by the same actor, you decide who that is.

    OR

    We get the films in the order of the books, TB, OHMSS, YOLT. In this case DAF would get a different villain. Bond would be played by Connery in TB and OHMSS and Lazenby would take over for YOLT.

    This nearly happened, as OHMSS was set to go after GF until McClory came forward to offer up TB. Then EON considered OHMSS as the follow up to TB but it was felt to be too similar in story beats and so they went with YOLT.

    Which would have rather happen? Be creative and think about it and give us your answer.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 200
    I'd prefer Blofeld was in no more than one, maybe two films. The latest series was correct to have him offed, though it was probably more to do with miscast Waltz more than anything else.

    A better literary character.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,862
    The Blofeld trilogy would only work if they didn't change the Bond actor.

    And if Bond can change, why not Blofeld?

    So I don't know. Neither possibility fixes the matter.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 200
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    The Blofeld trilogy would only work if they didn't change the Bond actor.

    And if Bond can change, why not Blofeld?

    So I don't know. Neither possibility fixes the matter.

    Have different actor with obvious dubbing per film.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,676
    Personally, I like the Blofeld we don't see the most. TB is the best film in tht regard, and QoS is quite a good contender. I don't unerstand why they needed to give the organisation that name though, it wasn't necessary.

    At the same time, I don't really need th films to follow Fleming's story line. I think films are all together completely different beasts. Wht makes sense in the books, doesn't per se work in films. take the opening of TMWTGG (book). It wouldn't translate very well to film at all.
    SO, can't really choose, as both are not quite necessary.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,087
    CommanderRoss wrote: »

    At the same time, I don't really need th films to follow Fleming's story line. I think films are all together completely different beasts. Wht makes sense in the books, doesn't per se work in films. take the opening of TMWTGG (book). It wouldn't translate very well to film at all.
    SO, can't really choose, as both are not quite necessary.

    Yeah, I’d agree more or less with this. Even the different Blofelds in the early films are quite different from one another, and having those changing actors play the character arguably adds something.

    I suppose if I had to go with one of the two options, it’d be the second one. It simply means the Blofeld films are released in the order of Fleming, not that we necessarily get a faithful YOLT adaptation (I love the book incidentally and think parts of it have been adapted well in Craig’s era, but I don’t think it’d make a great film in itself, at least not without significant changes).
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 200
    007HallY wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »

    At the same time, I don't really need th films to follow Fleming's story line. I think films are all together completely different beasts. Wht makes sense in the books, doesn't per se work in films. take the opening of TMWTGG (book). It wouldn't translate very well to film at all.
    SO, can't really choose, as both are not quite necessary.

    Yeah, I’d agree more or less with this. Even the different Blofelds in the early films are quite different from one another, and having those changing actors play the character arguably adds something.

    I suppose if I had to go with one of the two options, it’d be the second one. It simply means the Blofeld films are released in the order of Fleming, not that we necessarily get a faithful YOLT adaptation (I love the book incidentally and think parts of it have been adapted well in Craig’s era, but I don’t think it’d make a great film in itself, at least not without significant changes).

    Fleming's stories, prose and narrative are usually awful. I'd take the character, pay whatever royalty his estate wants and leave it there.

    If such burns, go and read the books.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 6:31pm Posts: 5,087
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »

    At the same time, I don't really need th films to follow Fleming's story line. I think films are all together completely different beasts. Wht makes sense in the books, doesn't per se work in films. take the opening of TMWTGG (book). It wouldn't translate very well to film at all.
    SO, can't really choose, as both are not quite necessary.

    Yeah, I’d agree more or less with this. Even the different Blofelds in the early films are quite different from one another, and having those changing actors play the character arguably adds something.

    I suppose if I had to go with one of the two options, it’d be the second one. It simply means the Blofeld films are released in the order of Fleming, not that we necessarily get a faithful YOLT adaptation (I love the book incidentally and think parts of it have been adapted well in Craig’s era, but I don’t think it’d make a great film in itself, at least not without significant changes).

    Fleming's stories, prose and narrative are usually awful. I'd take the character, pay whatever royalty his estate wants and leave it there.

    If such burns, go and read the books.

    I think Fleming's prose is pretty great, as is his creativity for stories. Plotting's very hit or miss (but honestly, that's the same for the films). I certainly don't agree with you, but to each their own.
Sign In or Register to comment.