Jump to content


Photo

Revisiting Thunderball


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 quantumofsolace

quantumofsolace

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1563 posts

Posted 03 March 2015 - 02:07 AM

http://www.denofgeek...ing-thunderball



#2 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:03 AM

Surprise, the reviewer finds the underwater scenes boring. Nothing new or especially insightful in the review.

 

Disagree with his take that YOLT is the first Bond epic as that's usually afforded TB since it goes Panavision widescreen and is the first to go on a really large budget. Touting YOLT for having a spaceship that swallows spaceships is his cup of tea, well and good. I'll take the plot of TB that still has a timeless feel about it and still represents a terrifying possibility in real life.  



#3 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:12 AM

He does have a good point about the underwater scenes and the accompanying score putting you to sleep... happens to me every time.



#4 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:30 AM

I'll defer to the master, John Barry, who said speeding up the music wasn't necessary to what was on the screen.

 

I've never had a problem with the underwater scenes as this represents a world of its own in the film. I realize I am somewhat alone in that position, but it works for me.



#5 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 04 March 2015 - 01:55 AM

It's one of my only criticisms of the movie. I enjoy Thunderball - I just wish I could finish it in one sitting for a change!



#6 RedsBaron

RedsBaron

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 37 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 02:31 AM

 Thunderball is one of the best Bond films ever, with a plot that at least makes some sense, a good villain, a very good femme fatale, and one of the most beautiful ever "Bond Girls." Meanwhile the reviewer sings the praises of YOLT, one of the very worst movies in the series, a movie which makes absolutely no sense.

 I found it particularly inconsistent for the reviewer to note those aspects of Thunderball which were later mocked by the Austin Powers movies while ignoring how much of YOLT was even more fully mocked by Austin Powers.


Edited by RedsBaron, 04 March 2015 - 02:32 AM.


#7 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 04 March 2015 - 03:10 AM

 Thunderball is one of the best Bond films ever, with a plot that at least makes some sense, a good villain, a very good femme fatale, and one of the most beautiful ever "Bond Girls." Meanwhile the reviewer sings the praises of YOLT, one of the very worst movies in the series, a movie which makes absolutely no sense.

 I found it particularly inconsistent for the reviewer to note those aspects of Thunderball which were later mocked by the Austin Powers movies while ignoring how much of YOLT was even more fully mocked by Austin Powers.

I prefer YOLT to Thunderball myself, but your point is spot on.



#8 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 04 March 2015 - 09:22 AM

No new ground broken with this review. If you love TB you'll disagree with much of it, if you loathe TB you'll agree with much of it. I'm a TB fan, flaws and all - but then I love all the 1960s Bonds as they introduced me to the series.

 

Mention has been made here about John Barry's score, which is one of my all time favourites. It's true he slowed the music for scenes such as the bomb unloading, but in the climactic underwater battle scene he did the very opposite and produced probably my favourite version of the "007" theme.

 

If GF was the first Bond "hit", and YOLT the first Bond "epic", then let's not forget that TB was the first Bond blockbuster in a financial if not critical sense, coming as it did at the height of 1960s "Bondmania". And unlike some Bond movies it has a basic plot - theft of nuclear weapons - which is as worrying now as it was then. The methods the villains used may not seem as realistic, but the threat is still real.



#9 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2106 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:23 PM

The credibility of the SPECTRE plot got an extra boost when, shortly after the film's release, a USAF B-52 armed with nuclear weapons crashed off Palomares, Spain, and an underwater salvage operation had to be conducted.  Several media at the time commented on the coincidence between this unsettling event and the plot of "Thunderball."



#10 New Digs

New Digs

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 92 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 03:32 PM

He is right in a sense to say TB is trapped between two landmarks. I think it is a film that escapes the public consciousness a bit. I think people are more likely to mention GF or YOLT if asked to highlight a Connery/Sixties Bond.

#11 RedsBaron

RedsBaron

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 37 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 07:30 PM

I know I am getting off topic but I have never understood why YOLT gets ranked higher than Thunderball. Yes, I realize it is supposed to be "epic," the Japanese setting is nice, and the title song is one of the better ones in the series, but there are so many things I do not like in the film.

 1.Connery seems bored throughout the movie, giving probably his worst performance as 007.

 2. I never cared for "Little Nellie." I didn't find it credible that Little Nellie could out maneuver several Spectre helicopters, which were always conveniently stationary when struck by one of Little Nellie's projectiles.

 3. Why was Little Nellie even attacked? Bond had not yet discovered anything. Attacking him merely confirmed that he had found something.

 4. Helga Brandt has Bond at her absolute mercy but instead of simply killing him she decides to take him up in an airplane, trap him in the plane, then jump out of the plane herself, with the assumption Bond will die in a crash--what kind of plan is that???

 5. Blofeld has numerous chances to simply kill Bond but for no reason keeps him alive even though there is no reason to do so.

 6. Donald Pleasence had his talents but he was terribly miscast as Blofeld. Shoot, Michael Myers would make a more menacing Blofeld.

 7. The American military brass act like absolute idiots throughout the film, with a basic attitude of "we know the Russkies are behind this, we don't need evidence, so let's blow up the world."

 8. How does Spectre build a huge base in Japan inside a volcano with no one noticing?

 9. How does Spectre sent spacecraft up into space with no one noticing their launches?

 10 How does Spectre recover spacecraft when they land in Japan with no one noticing?

 11. In the otherwise good scene of Bond running across the warehouse why does one thug fall onto the roof when Bond swings a punch even though it is clear the punch missed him by several feet?

 12. How does Blofeld see real time footage of the spacecraft in space?

 13. For that matter, how do the Americans see the same thing?

 14. How can Bond watch the bad guys car taken aloft and then dumped into the sea?

 15. How does anyone mistake Bond as being Japanese?



#12 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 04 March 2015 - 07:34 PM

I know I am getting off topic but I have never understood why YOLT gets ranked higher than Thunderball. Yes, I realize it is supposed to be "epic," the Japanese setting is nice, and the title song is one of the better ones in the series, but there are so many things I do not like in the film.

 1.Connery seems bored throughout the movie, giving probably his worst performance as 007.

 2. I never cared for "Little Nellie." I didn't find it credible that Little Nellie could out maneuver several Spectre helicopters, which were always conveniently stationary when struck by one of Little Nellie's projectiles.

 3. Why was Little Nellie even attacked? Bond had not yet discovered anything. Attacking him merely confirmed that he had found something.

 4. Helga Brandt has Bond at her absolute mercy but instead of simply killing him she decides to take him up in an airplane, trap him in the plane, then jump out of the plane herself, with the assumption Bond will die in a crash--what kind of plan is that???

 5. Blofeld has numerous chances to simply kill Bond but for no reason keeps him alive even though there is no reason to do so.

 6. Donald Pleasence had his talents but he was terribly miscast as Blofeld. Shoot, Michael Myers would make a more menacing Blofeld.

 7. The American military brass act like absolute idiots throughout the film, with a basic attitude of "we know the Russkies are behind this, we don't need evidence, so let's blow up the world."

 8. How does Spectre build a huge base in Japan inside a volcano with no one noticing?

 9. How does Spectre sent spacecraft up into space with no one noticing their launches?

 10 How does Spectre recover spacecraft when they land in Japan with no one noticing?

 11. In the otherwise good scene of Bond running across the warehouse why does one thug fall onto the roof when Bond swings a punch even though it is clear the punch missed him by several feet?

 12. How does Blofeld see real time footage of the spacecraft in space?

 13. For that matter, how do the Americans see the same thing?

 14. How can Bond watch the bad guys car taken aloft and then dumped into the sea?

 15. How does anyone mistake Bond as being Japanese?

I guess to answer your question, I find YOLT to be a lot more fun and "Bondian" than TB. But, it's an opinion thing - I have no problem with Thunderball and people who prefer it to YOLT. I enjoy Thunderball as well, just not as much as others do.



#13 RedsBaron

RedsBaron

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 37 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 11:54 PM

Thanks. I should add that I still watch and can enjoy YOLT. Even my least favorite 007 films are enjoyable.



#14 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11673 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 03:00 AM

 

 Thunderball is one of the best Bond films ever, with a plot that at least makes some sense, a good villain, a very good femme fatale, and one of the most beautiful ever "Bond Girls." Meanwhile the reviewer sings the praises of YOLT, one of the very worst movies in the series, a movie which makes absolutely no sense.

 I found it particularly inconsistent for the reviewer to note those aspects of Thunderball which were later mocked by the Austin Powers movies while ignoring how much of YOLT was even more fully mocked by Austin Powers.

I prefer YOLT to Thunderball myself, but your point is spot on.

 

 

I do as well.  Thunderball, for me, probably sits alongside Goldfinger and Skyfall in terms of the most overrated films in the franchise.  It is, however, far superior to Never Say Never Again, but that's not really saying much.  The underwater sequences were probably exciting back then, as it was cutting edge for the time, but now they're fairly dull and the whole thing lacks the kind of sense of urgency it should have considering it's a ticking clock plot.



#15 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5837 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 03:01 AM

I don't care how long Thunderball is - in fact, when it comes to Bond films, I say the longer the better.

 

I don't care how long the underwater scenes are - in fact, when it comes to underwater scenes, I say the longer the better.

 

I don't care how lilting Barry's soundtrack is - in fact, when it comes to Barry soundtracks, I say the more lilting the better.

 

I could go on, but I think you get the drift...



#16 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9013 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 27 April 2015 - 11:11 AM

THUNDERBALL (re-watch)

 

One of my least watched Bond films.  This time I wanted to enjoy it with an open mind - and I did manage that.  The film has a good pace, constantly offers exciting setpieces and has a great caper idea.  Connery is in fine form, and the sunny beach/water-setting reminds me of all the vacations I did not take.  Yes, the underwater scenes slow things down, and some of them could have been shortened, especially the final battle - I mean, how many times can you watch the air being cut off or the mask being teared off in order to incapacitate a villain?

 

Still, the main problem I had was the lack of true suspense and tension.  Sure, there´s always action, Bond is investigating, escaping, fighting.  But it all felt to me as if this film was too busy being busy instead of creating an interesting and captivating story.  And that, I think, is the result of a villain who just isn´t that charismatic.  Especially after Auric Goldfinger Largo is, well, just one of those guys.  And he has got too many subvillains who aren´t that threatening either.  Bond always seems to be superior to all of them.  And that´s a problem.  I only felt Bond was afraid during the Junkanoo-sequence (my favorite of the film).  

 

By the way: when Vargas accidentally shoots Fiona... how does he manage it so that the bullet hits her back but not Bond´s hand ON her back.  We see that she is hit after he moves his hand.  So... the bullet hit her between Bond´s fingers?

 

Oh, well - still an entertaining film.  But for me, so far, Connery´s first three films are much better.



#17 winstoninabox

winstoninabox

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 63 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 27 April 2015 - 11:38 PM

Without doubt Thunderball is my favorite Bond. There's no way to convince someone that the underwater scenes aren't boring, but for me they fit the pace of the film perfectly. The final underwater battle is one most modern directors should watch and learn from. It has a large scale fight in a difficult medium, but the audience is never lost as to what is happening, who is who, who is Bond, and how he turns the tide of the fight. In our (thankfully passing) era of fight scenes that are broken up into 1 second cuts to hide the fact that the actors can't fight and the director can't film action, Thunderball reminds us that at one time films were seen in the cinema, and most people would watch them only once or at most twice. While I think the editing in QoS hovers on the edge of brilliance and madness, it's brilliance only shines through because home media allows us repeated viewings. Thunderball had no such luxury, yet in one viewing the chaos of the underwater battle is fathomable.

 

What else is there to say? Connery at his most assured, the one-liners deliver, the plot has a scary versimilitude, Domino is gorgeous, the kinky elements of her and Largo's relationship, the locations, Fiona is the best female henchman ever...

 

Thunderball is the culmination of the previous 3 films. Sadly, YoLT has none of its restraint. That Thunderball was put together only a year after Goldfinger is astounding. For me, those first four films have never been equaled in the franchise.



#18 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11673 posts

Posted 28 April 2015 - 12:47 AM

THUNDERBALL (re-watch)

 

One of my least watched Bond films.  This time I wanted to enjoy it with an open mind - and I did manage that.  The film has a good pace, constantly offers exciting setpieces and has a great caper idea.  Connery is in fine form, and the sunny beach/water-setting reminds me of all the vacations I did not take.  Yes, the underwater scenes slow things down, and some of them could have been shortened, especially the final battle - I mean, how many times can you watch the air being cut off or the mask being teared off in order to incapacitate a villain?

 

Still, the main problem I had was the lack of true suspense and tension.  Sure, there´s always action, Bond is investigating, escaping, fighting.  But it all felt to me as if this film was too busy being busy instead of creating an interesting and captivating story.  And that, I think, is the result of a villain who just isn´t that charismatic.  Especially after Auric Goldfinger Largo is, well, just one of those guys.  And he has got too many subvillains who aren´t that threatening either.  Bond always seems to be superior to all of them.  And that´s a problem.  I only felt Bond was afraid during the Junkanoo-sequence (my favorite of the film).  

 

By the way: when Vargas accidentally shoots Fiona... how does he manage it so that the bullet hits her back but not Bond´s hand ON her back.  We see that she is hit after he moves his hand.  So... the bullet hit her between Bond´s fingers?

 

Oh, well - still an entertaining film.  But for me, so far, Connery´s first three films are much better.

 

I would tend to agree with your criticisms. 

 

For me, the lack of any sense of urgency in Thunderball is its greatest downfall, and everything else emanates out from that.  It's about a countdown to a potential nuclear armageddon, but it never feels like it.

 

I'd also say that Connery still doesn't top his first two performances.  His turns in Dr. No and From Russia With Love are without question his best performances as Bond.

 

All-in-all, I guess I'd have to say that Domino is really the only thing about Thunderball that is truly exceptional. 



#19 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 17998 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:26 AM

These early Bonds also remind me that while the villains' plans were outlandish, and the gadgets were ingenious, Bond himself didn't really have any big stunts until the 1970's. The most amazing thing he does in Thunderball is fly with the aid of the jetpack during the PTS. This is more of a spy thriller and detective story, like Dr No and FRWL, although 007 almost messes the whole thing up by annoying the villain and borrowing his girlfriend again!

 

I love the use of Nassau as the location and I still love the entrance to the casino. There is a lot of going back and forth to the hotel, Pinder's place, the Disco Volante and Largo's house - we sometimes switch between all 4, and the Junakanoo in the space of a few minutes - this is something i hadn't realised before - there is possibly too much switching back and forth.

 

I thought Fiona Volpe was excellent; Felix Leiter less so.

 

Great fun as always and a little too much underwater action, but maybe not as high up my list as I initially thought. It's interesting how opinions can change. 



#20 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5837 posts

Posted 06 May 2015 - 03:11 PM

While everyone disses on Lee Tamahori for having had the temerity to include slo-mo and ramping zooms in DAD - thereby placing his directorial 'stamp' on the film - did no one ever notice how many 'wipes' Terence Young used to transition from one scene/location to another?

 

The nerve of the man! TB looks like a Star Wars movie! John Glen (you remember: the 'workman' director with no style) never did anything like that. I think I'll do a fan edit and eliminate all the wipes, thereby giving the film a more urgent pacing, sort of like - I don't know - QoS?



#21 0072

0072

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 14 posts

Posted 08 May 2015 - 09:22 AM

I've always loved Thunderball so I can excuse almost anything in it.  As others have said, it does have one of the most intelligent plot lines and gathers momentum and urgency because of it.

 

However... yeah, I'd have agree with those underwater sequences.  Nothing wrong with them, and the do contain plenty of drama, but... they're a bit long, aren't they?

 

Still, it's a 1960s Bond film so I'll continue to rate it above most of the rest of the series.



#22 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 12 January 2016 - 11:57 AM

I recently joined Facebook, and as well as the usual groups about Bond - which I'm contributing to, of course - there are other groups concerned with aircraft, another interest of mine.

The groups about the RAF's "V-Bomber" force came up with some interesting nuggets about the use of the Vulcan in Thunderball. The serial numbers of the two planes used were identified, and one of the models used was shown in someone's back garden! A former WRAF member said she remembered being on duty at her base when the scenes there were being filmed -and according to more than one contributor it was, as I suspected, RAF Waddington, just outside the city of Lincoln, where this took place.

Interestingly, the cockpit scenes were, at least according to the stuff I've read on FB, not filmed inside a Vulcan or Vulcan simulator, for security reasons. Used instead was either an old Vickers Valiant cockpit or a set based on one - the Valiant being the first of the three RAF V-Bombers, and which was being phased out of service by the time Thunderball was filmed.

Yes, I know I should get out more often but I found these little bits of information interesting. The security aspects reminded me of an interview with Cubby Broccoli on a children's TV show "Clapperboard" in the late 1970s. He was interviewed in the one of the submarine interiors on the set of TSWLM, and the interviewer asked if the set was based on a real submarine. Cubby said it was, and the Royal Navy had been co-operative, but there were certain things aboard a (then) Polaris missile submarine that they were not allowed to replicate, of course. Goes to show one of the aspects that always impressed me about the Bond films - like the Fleming novels - attention to detail. Admittedly, like the Fleming books, they don't always get it right, but they try!

#23 bribond

bribond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 104 posts

Posted 08 April 2016 - 05:57 PM

Thunderball has its strong points but its place as the most number of tickets sold to a Bond film has a lot to do with the popularity of Goldfinger.  I am prepping a blog post on it but in short what it has going for it are:

 

Connery's peak performance, combining the humor he added more of to the role in Goldfinger with the edge and humanity he always had in the Terrence Young Bonds.

 

The location

 

Domino and Fiona

 

The underwater photography is impressive, there's just too much of it.  There are four underwater sequences in the third act and several others spread throughout the film.

 

Barry's score

 

SPECTRE briefing scene

 

Pre title sequence

 

The weak points are the aforementioned excess of underwater scenes, the bad rear projection in the final fight, and Largo is not a memorable villain.



#24 chrisno1

chrisno1

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 909 posts

Posted 09 May 2017 - 12:27 AM

I recently revisited Thunderball - the first time for some years as I prefer not to over indulge in Bond for fear familiarity will breed contempt. 

I have always enjoyed TB and did so again. I could indulge you all for many sentences about what I consider good, very good and outstanding and also what I consider fairly dreadful.

In short, excellent: score, PTS, credits, costumes, Connery, Claudine Auger, Luciana Paluzzi, photography, special effects, plot.

Very good: sense of fun, Adolfo Celi, sound, introduction to SPECTRE, climatic fight

Good: scenes at Airforce HQ and the Ops Room, the stuff at Shrublands, most of the underwater stuff, death of Vargas, junkano chase

Poor: back projection (and not just the final fight, there's a lot of generally poor backgrounds), too many characters surrounding the main players, the two henchmen  

Dreadful: the underwater battle from the point 007 enters the fray, script editing, film editing 

 

Its the final two points I'm interested in. While the general cut and thrust is fine, particularly so during the fights and the witty dialogue-orientated scenes, and the overall pace of the piece feels good, for the first time ever I noticed that editor and director (Peter Hunt and Terence Young) seem to have deliberately shuffled the early scenes in Nassau to create a day for Bond to do his investigations.

 

At the Ops Room briefing, I was sure Big Ben was meant to strike an extra note THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. Bond has about 48 hours to go before things get tetchy.

Given he must have flown out the next morning, or at best the night of the briefing, he arrives in Nassau and on his first day meets Domino. It is assumed by the writers (and therefore the audience) he knows where to find her - ie, with Largo, as Bond has a dossier on her.

This isn't a surprise, but what is is: despite clearly being followed by a stooge and a man in sunglasses, both of whom are distinctly suspicious, the next scene is set at the casino the same night. What's BOnd been doing since lunch? Why is he at the casino? We know he likes a gamble, but how did he know Largo and Domino would be there? This is poor screenwriting. There should have been an invite or a hint somewhere in Bond / Domino's lunch meet.

During that casino scene, Bond learns Largo is staying aboard that night, but he does nothing about it.

The next scene, set the next day, has 007 wearing the exact same clothes he wore during his lunch meet, going to his hotel room and assaulting the stooge who followed him - who is also wearing the same outfit as before. Felix Leiter turns up - also decked in yesterday's threads.

Then there is a scene where the stooge is fed to the sharks which seems to imply Largo is aware who Bond is, but at this point I'm not sure he is. It makes no sense to kill the guy, especially as all he's meant to be doing is keeping his binoculars pinned on Domino.

Put that aside; when Bond enters Pinder's place, the news that Big Ben has struck an extra note is on the radio. So we now know, given international time zones, that the 48 hours have passed. But what exactly has Bond been doing in Nassau except swimming and gambling? At this point he decides to look over the Disco Volante, but how did he reach this conclusion? Simply because Largo's thug was in his bathroom? 

His logic is more guess work than instinct.

A little more script guidance could have smoothed this section out completely.

The editing, including the costume duplication, suggest the events were initially supposed to follow in a logical and condensed one day time frame. The attempt to stretch is really doesn't work because they clearly cocked up somewhere in the script editing stage. Easier surely to change the time that Big Ben strikes 'seven'.

The lack of narrative direction doesn't really improve. The character of Paula should have been script edited out as she is superfluous to requirements. Bond doesn't need her kidnap to entice him to visit Largo's villa, he ought to have his suspicions roused during his lunch with Largo, a brief few scenes which do nothing to develop the plot at all. There's also no reason for Domino to mention the little inlet - but a tweak to her line, to perhaps mention that Largo has been training his divers there for the last two weeks might make it seem more acceptable. 

 

While I appreciate Peter Hunt's belief that it's better to leave some mistakes in and trust that the audience won't notice them so wrapped up are they in the action and humour, these little and large errors irk me now, where in the past I wouldn't have batted an eye.

 

Familiarity? Contempt? Maybe simply brassed off by the laziness. Despite my general apathy towards modern Bond movies, they certainly aren't as brazen as this in leaving their errors for all to see. I still enjoy TB tremendously, but seriously Mr Hunt and Mr Young (and I guess, given his massive creative input, Mr McClory) what were you thinking?



#25 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2452 posts

Posted 09 May 2017 - 05:45 PM

I can't remember if it was Peter Hunt, Terence Young or Richard Maibaum who addressed the need to shuffle the Bahamas scenes around. FWIW I noticed this "error" myself years ago. The shuffling doesn't bother me, in fact I prefer this arrangement. Ultimately I wouldn't be surprised if a few scenes did get cut to keep the running time down thereby creating some plot confusion.

 

Ultimately though it's nowhere near as bad as how the makers of CR'67 shuffled the Peter Sellers sequences creating major plot holes.



#26 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5875 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 10 May 2017 - 09:22 AM

Or the contrivances involved in getting Silva to a specific briefing room at a specific time so he could specifically escape again in time for a train to drop in.

 

Plus ca change...



#27 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1556 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 10 May 2017 - 10:00 AM

Or the contrivances involved in getting Silva to a specific briefing room at a specific time so he could specifically escape again in time for a train to drop in.

 

Plus ca change...

Indeed! As wonderful as this movie is, the plot contrivance here truly brakes the suspension of disbelief. It's so damn obvious that the viewer (in my experience) is questioning how the hell all of this is possible instead of watching the rest of movie.

 

For me the second viewing was more enjoyable because i'd accepted that i wasn't at fault - it was simply lazy, crappy plotting - and so i wasn't frustrated and distracted by the sheer ineptitude of this writing at this crucial convergence point in the narrative.

 

When writing a script you'll always come across plot holes on a re-read that you hadn't previously noticed, or hoped to fix and didn't. The right thing to do is take it by the horns and re-think, re-write as much as is necessary to fix it. This is a crushing feeling and a daunting task and it's incredibly tempting to bury your head in the sand and tell yourself that the audience won't notice, or won't mind...

 

Of course the writer will always come to regret that choice - or perhaps the writer was not allowed to do this; the producers deciding time was money and it will all be fine and make a profit...

 

It's even more regrettable when with hindsight it's clear that the work would've been near perfect if not for this howling great hole at the centre. Oh well, maybe they'll learn from it... Or maybe they'll then make Spectre - a movie with a finale so poorly doctored it makes SF look like the masterwork that it isn't.



#28 chrisno1

chrisno1

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 909 posts

Posted 10 May 2017 - 10:17 AM

Or the contrivances involved in getting Silva to a specific briefing room at a specific time so he could specifically escape again in time for a train to drop in.

 

Plus ca change...

 

I don't think that's anything to do with the editing - I expect that was in the SF scenario from the start because they wanted to include the stuff left out from a prospective unused chase in OHMSS. My point is in TB there is already a reasonable time frame which runs:

meet Domino, Quist follows Bond to hotel, Bond assaults him, meets Leiter, Quist is killed by Largo, Bond meets Paula and Pinder and Q (Big Ben strikes 7), casino scene, underwater scene beneath the Disco.

 

But because they (Maibaum, Hopkins, Young, McClory) hadn't done the appropriate script revision to leave pointers in the dialogue (ie: when Big Ben needs to strike 7, why Bond visits the casino, why he's interested in the Disco Volante), they reversed the scenes so now Bond visits the casino before everything else. You can tell there was originally more to this whole sequence because at the casino, if your quick, you'll notice in the background a point when 007 is talking to Leiter before the audience even knows they've met !

 

I also understand that when Bond infiltrates Largo's villa there was meant to be a scene where he sees a set of wheeled tracks leading from the basement exit doors down a pathway to the inlet. This is the sort of detail which wouldn't slip past most modern writers / directors, although I think its fair to say they all make mistakes in most films somewhere.


Edited by chrisno1, 10 May 2017 - 10:24 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users