Well, not really. You made a comment about the film 'stopping,' I responded regarding the events, you noted that events does not equal pace, I noted that (IMO) pace does not equal quality. I still think that regardless of whether or not the film is fast, slow, medium paced etc... it is still a masterpiece.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Well, not really. You made a comment about the film 'stopping,' I responded regarding the events, you noted that events does not equal pace, I noted that (IMO) pace does not equal quality.
Because you agree it slows down, surely? Which is what you said it didn't, regardless of whether you think that's a good or bad thing.
Because you agree it slows down, surely? Which is what you said it didn't, regardless of whether you think that's a good or bad thing.
So I changed my mind, what's the big deal? Is it not possible for someone to change their mind? I hate to tell you but the pacing of GF is not a major concern of mine, so when I change my view on something important that's when you can pounce on it. Until then, I would like to stop having these silly arguments with you, if that is alright.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Personally, I've always thought FYEO was a little overrated. Lots of people seem to view it as another of those "back to basics" Bond movies where Roger Moore finally got serious. But to me, other than the scene when he kicks the car off the cliff, he was pretty much the same Bond as in his previous outings and nowhere near as tough or menacing as in TSWLM. He was also really starting to show his age and the cuts from him to his stunt doubles were starting to become painfully obvious.
Kristatos was one of the most forgettable villains in the Bond series. No presence and no menace at all IMHO. The way in which he's dispatched is also disappointing. Bond turns his back to him (very uncharacteristic) and Colombo is actually the one who delivers the killing blow (I know that fits better within the story line but Bond is supposed to be the star here). His henchmen were equally nondistinct and making them all silent came across as cheesy rather than menacing.
I never really understood the importance of Bibi's character to the story; she just seemed to be there for comedy relief and came across as a whiny and annoying brat ("I wanna win the gold medal!!").
Bill Conti's score was also one of the most disappointing; his use of synthesizers and electronic instruments seemed out of place in a Bond score to me.
The movie still is very watchable; I love the PTS and it has plenty of amazing stuntwork and action scenes. But I think the whole is a little less than the sum of its parts.
I agree. It started EON's trend of correcting the flaws of the previous film while not retaining its good points ie MR did have some genuinely witty dialogue and plausible love interest, as well as a lovely score... FYEO had none of that...
Does this mean that FYEO should now be considered one of the most underrated films?
I think that FYEO is terrific. Moore (IMO) was great and was still at the peak of his powers, Topol was really good, I loved the low-key nature of the plot after MR, I liked the ruthlessness that Moore exhibited, I liked that FYEO was gritty but never to the point that the Dalton films were and I really liked the action scenes. I also enjoyed Sheena Easton's song.
FYEO is 9th on my all-time list. I think it's a great film.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I consider FYEO an UNDERRATED film. Not overrated, it is one of my top 5 bond films, and is my favorite Moore film!
I think it brought Moore's bond to another level. (a much better level )
A better level than TSWLM (my favourite Moore film)?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
On Her Majesty's Secret Service, as far as this forum is concerned.
I have to agree with you on that. I think that OHMSS was a brilliant film but I don't think it was the greatest, which many people on this forum consider it to be. For me, Lazenby (apart from his physicallity and the his handling of the final scene) and a few problems with the script prevented OHMSS from being one of the three or four greatest films of all time. It's seventh on my list, but if Connery had replaced Lazenby and the script was slightly altered, it could have been much higher.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
True, though we must remember that of course the film would have somehow made less sense, with Blofeld and Bond not recognising each other - you can see why the plastic surgery idea must have appealed to the writers at the early stage. And Tracy would have most likely have been different, with Brigitte Bardot in the lead most likely.
True, though we must remember that of course the film would have somehow made less sense, with Blofeld and Bond not recognising each other - you can see why the plastic surgery idea must have appealed to the writers at the early stage.
That's why I would have changed the script. IMO the film's screenplay had three problems:
1)The romance with Tracey wasn't developed well enough for my liking.
2)The Code-Name Theory was obviously not far from the filmmakers' minds, as represented by the "That never happened to the other fellow" line, Moneypenny's "Just the same old James" "only more so" and Blofeld not recognising Bond.
3)There were a few other small details which I didn't like such as the terror of Bond when he was running through the village and the OTT interplay between him and Moneypenny.
As well as casting Connery, I would most certainly have altered the screenplay as well.
And Tracy would have most likely have been different, with Brigitte Bardot in the lead most likely.
That is not what I can not accept! Replacing Diana Rigg? Ugh! X-( I don't know why they would have needed to replace Rigg. They could have still filmed OHMSS in 1969 (after YOLT), just with Connery in the lead.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
That's why I would have changed the script. IMO the film's screenplay had three problems:
1)The romance with Tracey wasn't developed well enough for my liking.
Absolutely agree- it's not really there and just alluded to in a rubbish montage rather than actually presented to the audience as a real relationship which develops over the film. Leaping from 'they don't like each other' to 'they love each other' by way of a montage which just tells us they fall in love rather than any believable how or why is pretty cack-handed if you ask me.
2)The Code-Name Theory was obviously not far from the filmmakers' minds, as represented by the "That never happened to the other fellow" line, Moneypenny's "Just the same old James" "only more so" and Blofeld not recognising Bond.
Hmm... no; don't think so. It's just a joke- they know the audience have noticed it's a new guy so it's a bit of a postmodern gag; that's all. They know it's not real. Considering they even gave thought to explaining it via plastic surgery (although thankfully just ignored it) I think we can safely say they never considered anything to do with codenames.
Leaping from 'they don't like each other' to 'they love each other' by way of a montage which just tells us they fall in love rather than any believable how or why is pretty cack-handed if you ask me.
I wouldn't go that far. I think it was well-developed (certainly enough for me to feel Bond's pain during the final scene) but nowhere near as well-developed as I would have liked. I would have liked at least one or two more intimate scenes. That said, I'm more upset over the casting of Lazenby than I am over the handling of the relationship.
Hmm... no; don't think so. It's just a joke- they know the audience have noticed it's a new guy so it's a bit of a postmodern gag; that's all. They know it's not real. Considering they even gave thought to explaining it via plastic surgery (although thankfully just ignored it) I think we can safely say they never considered anything to do with codenames.
Whether or not the producers debated about explaining away the new Bond through plastic surgery is irrelevant *, the implication that I (at least) got from the first line was very much the Code-Name Theory. Saying "That never happened to the other fellow" implies that Connery's Bond and Lazenby's Bond were different people when IMO they were the same individual. I loved OHMSS's PTS; until that line. I consider it to be perhaps the worst line in the entire series; not in terms of quality (that honour probably goes to any of the lines in DAD) but in terms of its meaning.
* I don't think that the producers needed to have thought up the Code-Name Theory in order for it to exist. It's a matter of interpretation. One can look upon the Bond films using that theory (regardless of what the producers might intend) or one might not. When I look at OHMSS I see a film that IMO does not know whether it believes in the theory or not. Thankfully however DAF erased any doubts that I had in the filmmakers' belief in the theory when it was quite obvious that Connery's Bond was the same Bond as in OHMSS.
Furthermore, I don't believe that simply because an artist has a theory or belief about their creation, it is automatically true. Therefore, considering that plastic surgery never featured in OHMSS, it does not matter to me whether or not EON thought of using it. The film still gave me the implication that the filmmakers half-believed in the Code-name Theory and that is one of the reasons why I do not believe that OHMSS was as good as it could have been.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Leaping from 'they don't like each other' to 'they love each other' by way of a montage which just tells us they fall in love rather than any believable how or why is pretty cack-handed if you ask me.
I wouldn't go that far. I think it was well-developed (certainly enough for me to feel Bond's pain during the final scene) but nowhere near as well-developed as I would have liked. I would have liked at least one or two more intimate scenes. That said, I'm more upset over the casting of Lazenby than I am over the handling of the relationship.
Hmm... no; don't think so. It's just a joke- they know the audience have noticed it's a new guy so it's a bit of a postmodern gag; that's all. They know it's not real. Considering they even gave thought to explaining it via plastic surgery (although thankfully just ignored it) I think we can safely say they never considered anything to do with codenames.
Whether or not the producers debated about explaining away the new Bond through plastic surgery is irrelevant *, the implication that I (at least) got from the first line was very much the Code-Name Theory. Saying "That never happened to the other fellow" implies that Connery's Bond and Lazenby's Bond were different people when IMO they were the same individual. I loved OHMSS's PTS; until that line. I consider it to be perhaps the worst line in the entire series; not in terms of quality (that honour probably goes to any of the lines in DAD) but in terms of its meaning.
* I don't think that the producers needed to have thought up the Code-Name Theory in order for it to exist. It's a matter of interpretation. One can look upon the Bond films using that theory (regardless of what the producers might intend) or one might not. When I look at OHMSS I see a film that IMO does not know whether it believes in the theory or not. Thankfully however DAF erased any doubts that I had in the filmmakers' belief in the theory when it was quite obvious that Connery's Bond was the same Bond as in OHMSS.
Furthermore, I don't believe that simply because an artist has a theory or belief about their creation, it is automatically true. Therefore, considering that plastic surgery never featured in OHMSS, it does not matter to me whether or not EON thought of using it. The film still gave me the implication that the filmmakers half-believed in the Code-name Theory and that is one of the reasons why I do not believe that OHMSS was as good as it could have been.
I'm not sure the code-name theory jibes with Bond's reminscences of past adventures when cleaning out his desk, the notion that he's been chasing Blofeld for two years (a "must" with him, which makes sense for the two years since "You Only Live Twice"), or even the tossing of the hat on the rack. M's, Q's, and Moneypenny's interactions with Bond are pretty much the same, too. Nothing entirely rules out the code-name theory, but there seems less evidence than more that he is literally a different man.
The "breaking the fourth wall" moment where he give the "other fellow" line is a problem if one takes it literally, though I agree that it wasn't meant to be more than a joke and sense it was left over from the "plastic surgery" script, where it actually would have been rather clever. If I had my way, he wouldn't have said anything at all; the right look in the camera would have been enough to make the point, if the point was even necessary.
For me, Lazenby was fine as Bond. I like the fact that he isn't superhuman (though Connery, too, was allowed to be scared and a range of other emotions in his earlier Bond films), and despite his sometimes rough delivery of the lines, there's a sincerity to Lazenby's performance that makes it work. He's also handsome and confident in a sporty way that makes him closer to Connery's Bond than Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan. I entirely bought into the romance, though the subtext to me in the film was that Tracy was pretty much attracted from the beginning -- but the same cynical worldliness that led to her attempted suicide combined with a bit of spoiledness kept her from acknowledging it until the proper moment. I adore Diana Rigg, so that helps, too, I suppose.
I'm not sure the code-name theory jibes with Bond's reminscences of past adventures when cleaning out his desk, the notion that he's been chasing Blofeld for two years (a "must" with him, which makes sense for the two years since "You Only Live Twice"), or even the tossing of the hat on the rack.
My point was that I got the impression that the filmmakers half-believed in the Code-Name Theory. Yes, those things stated above did not suggest the theory but IMO there were other things in the film did. I have always thought of OHMSS as an arm-wrestle between 'Lazenby's Bond is the same as Connery's Bond' and the Code-Name Theory, with the former just triumphing.
M's, Q's, and Moneypenny's interactions with Bond are pretty much the same, too.
I don't agree. Firstly I have always felt that the interplay between Bond and Moneypenny was OTT, but that aside, Moneypenny made the following comment: "Still the same old James." "Only more so." IMO (and I may be the only person here who has this particular interpretation) the second sentence has always struck me as an attempt to distance Lazenby's Bond from Connery's. Lazenby is even more "same old James" than Connery. (I know it sounds weird, and thinking about it now, it was probably more of an over-compensation on the producers' part to prove that Lazenby was the same Bond as Connery. Nonetheless, I don't like it.)
The "breaking the fourth wall" moment where he give the "other fellow" line is a problem if one takes it literally, though I agree that it wasn't meant to be more than a joke and sense it was left over from the "plastic surgery" script, where it actually would have been rather clever.
I don't think that one can take it anything but literally. To me, that line is the perfect example of why the Code-Name Theory at the very least threatened to rear its ugly head in OHMSS. As I explained to Emtiem, in my above reply, I believe that interpretation of art lies with the viewer, and in this case (regardless of the producers' intentions) my mind yells 'Code-name Theory!' I hate that line. X-(
If I had my way, he wouldn't have said anything at all; the right look in the camera would have been enough to make the point, if the point was even necessary.
I completely agree. I have always felt that if that line was eliminated OHMSS's PTS could have been one of the absolute greatest of all time.
For me, Lazenby was fine as Bond. I like the fact that he isn't superhuman (though Connery, too, was allowed to be scared and a range of other emotions in his earlier Bond films), and despite his sometimes rough delivery of the lines, there's a sincerity to Lazenby's performance that makes it work. He's also handsome and confident in a sporty way that makes him closer to Connery's Bond than Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan.
We really have different tastes. I didn't like Lazenby at all. I loved his handling of the final scene, as well as his physicality, but I felt that he was completely un-suave (where you saw confident, I saw a wimp ), I hated his seemingly inability to deliver one-liners, I felt that at times he was too vulnerable and I also felt that he was often unable to find the right tone and produced a (IMO) really inconsistent performance which, apart from the final scene and the physicality, was IMO one of the three worst performances in the entire series. (I'm not sayin to provoke certain members but the other two performances were the Daltons.)
I entirely bought into the romance, though the subtext to me in the film was that Tracy was pretty much attracted from the beginning -- but the same cynical worldliness that led to her attempted suicide combined with a bit of spoiledness kept her from acknowledging it until the proper moment. I adore Diana Rigg, so that helps, too, I suppose.
Interisting analysis. I also adore Diana Rigg. In fact, I consider her Emma Peel to be the sexiest female character in the history of television.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Oh come on- he says it to the camera: it's pretty plainy a gag delivered straight to the audience and isn't supposed to have any bearing on the actual character. We know he's a only character in a film and for a brief moment he does too. That's all it is; no codename theory etc. This isn't a serious documentary about a real spy- it's a big silly adventure film that knows what it is. This Bond's winking at the camera is only slightly more adventurous than all the other Bonds' one liners: 'They'll print anything these days' says PierceBond. Who's he talking to? Us of course- he knows it's a film just like we do.
Leaping from 'they don't like each other' to 'they love each other' by way of a montage which just tells us they fall in love rather than any believable how or why is pretty cack-handed if you ask me.
I wouldn't go that far. I think it was well-developed (certainly enough for me to feel Bond's pain during the final scene) but nowhere near as well-developed as I would have liked. I would have liked at least one or two more intimate scenes. That said, I'm more upset over the casting of Lazenby than I am over the handling of the relationship.
But by the end of the film have you been persuaded that they have fallen in love or have you just been told and had to accept it? Have you actually seen it happen? The end is great and emotional, but it's not something that we've seen happen thanks to the sudden steps taken in the relationship. If we'd joined the film at the Piz Gloria climax we'd probably have exactly the same emotional response to the ending: it's very sad because we know James Bond and, oh look- he's just married; he must like this gal- but the build-up in Portugal doesn't work.
Furthermore, I don't believe that simply because an artist has a theory or belief about their creation, it is automatically true. Therefore, considering that plastic surgery never featured in OHMSS, it does not matter to me whether or not EON thought of using it. The film still gave me the implication that the filmmakers half-believed in the Code-name Theory and that is one of the reasons why I do not believe that OHMSS was as good as it could have been.
So why were you worried whether they believed it or not if you're not going to pay attention to their intentions?
Here's an easy way to look at it. That other fella is not Sean Connery. It's Prince Charming from the Cinderella tale who also picked up a shoe after the girl run away or something like that.
Here's an easy way to look at it. That other fella is not Sean Connery. It's Prince Charming from the Cinderella tale who also picked up a shoe after the girl run away or something like that.
Oh come on- he says it to the camera: it's pretty plainy a gag delivered straight to the audience and isn't supposed to have any bearing on the actual character. We know he's a only character in a film and for a brief moment he does too. That's all it is; no codename theory etc. This isn't a serious documentary about a real spy- it's a big silly adventure film that knows what it is. This Bond's winking at the camera is only slightly more adventurous than all the other Bonds' one liners: 'They'll print anything these days' says PierceBond. Who's he talking to? Us of course- he knows it's a film just like we do.
I don't agree at all. 'They'll print anything these days' wasn't breaking the 4th wall. To me, the line in OHMSS is not 'pretty plainy a gag delivered straight to the audience and isn't supposed to have any bearing on the actual character.' I consider it to be evidence of the filmmakers' half-hearted belief in the Code-Name Theory. You consider it to be just a joke, fine, but keep in mind that Code-Name Theories and the like all come down to the audience's interpretation. I interpreted it as a half-hearted belief in the Code-Name Theory, you didn't, that's your prerogative.
However, even if I were to agree with you that it was just a joke, I still wouldn't like it as I do not want Bond to break the 'fourth wall' under any circumstance. To me, he's NOT just a character in a film, he's a character whom I consider to be real for the two hours that I watch OHMSS. I do not want OHMSS to be 'a big silly adventure film that knows what it is' (partly because I don't think it's silly anyway but mostly because I don't think that a film needs to be 'a serious documentary about a real spy' in order for the filmmakers to take it seriously.) I certainly do not want Bond to wink at the audience. Brosnan didn't wink at the audience when he made that line in TND and I certainly do not want Lazenby to. I hate that line. X-(
Anyway, as I said, the major reason why I hate that line is that I consider it to be evidence of the filmmakers' half-hearted belief in the Code-Name Theory.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
But by the end of the film have you been persuaded that they have fallen in love or have you just been told and had to accept it? Have you actually seen it happen? The end is great and emotional, but it's not something that we've seen happen thanks to the sudden steps taken in the relationship. If we'd joined the film at the Piz Gloria climax we'd probably have exactly the same emotional response to the ending: it's very sad because we know James Bond and, oh look- he's just married; he must like this gal- but the build-up in Portugal doesn't work.
By the end of the film I was pretty persuaded that they had fallen in love. The scene in the barn is a major reason why I was persuaded that they had fallen in love. My emotional response at the end was not solely because of the scene itself (although great) but also because I had already gotten a sense that they had fallen in love. I don't think their relationship was nearly as developed as I would have liked but I don't agree that 'If we'd joined the film at the Piz Gloria climax we'd probably have exactly the same emotional response to the ending.' You might have, but not me. I loved the scene in the barn (I do not believe that Bond fell in love with Tracey until after the scene in the barn); I just would have liked more of it.
So why were you worried whether they believed it or not if you're not going to pay attention to their intentions?
My concern is regarding their intention as represented by the film. I don't care what the producers think privately. I only care what theire intentions are, as shown by the film.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
An overrated one is LTK. So what if it is what the real Bond is like, this is movie Bond. Not book Bond. Nothing against him but I like movie Bond better and everyone praises it for being risky. Risky = Cheap. Cheap annoying LTK.
Also overrated is TB, Largo stinks, Fiona is boring and is THE most overrated henchwoman ever, Sean is a bit annoying by blackmailing the nurse to have sex w/ him, the jetpack is uselessly in one scene, it's BORING, the list goes ON and ON.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Also overrated is TB, Largo stinks, Fiona is boring and is THE most overrated henchwoman ever, Sean is a bit annoying by blackmailing the nurse to have sex w/ him, the jetpack is uselessly in one scene, it's BORING, the list goes ON and ON.
Man, if you didn't come back in rare fashion...
Thunderball...and overrated in the same breath? ?:)
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Never heard me talk about TB being overrated? I did that in my later era and I believe 0064 remembers me calling Largo the "fat man" but I think that was when you were a bit scarce in form yourself.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Never heard me talk about TB being overrated? I did that in my later era and I believe 0064 remembers me calling Largo the "fat man" but I think that was when you were a bit scarce in form yourself.
JFF, to you,pockets are overrated as long as it's not AVTAK being slandered by someone stating concrete facts and not opinions...
BTW, AVTAK is overrated....
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Comments
Because you agree it slows down, surely? Which is what you said it didn't, regardless of whether you think that's a good or bad thing.
Kristatos was one of the most forgettable villains in the Bond series. No presence and no menace at all IMHO. The way in which he's dispatched is also disappointing. Bond turns his back to him (very uncharacteristic) and Colombo is actually the one who delivers the killing blow (I know that fits better within the story line but Bond is supposed to be the star here). His henchmen were equally nondistinct and making them all silent came across as cheesy rather than menacing.
I never really understood the importance of Bibi's character to the story; she just seemed to be there for comedy relief and came across as a whiny and annoying brat ("I wanna win the gold medal!!").
Bill Conti's score was also one of the most disappointing; his use of synthesizers and electronic instruments seemed out of place in a Bond score to me.
The movie still is very watchable; I love the PTS and it has plenty of amazing stuntwork and action scenes. But I think the whole is a little less than the sum of its parts.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think that FYEO is terrific. Moore (IMO) was great and was still at the peak of his powers, Topol was really good, I loved the low-key nature of the plot after MR, I liked the ruthlessness that Moore exhibited, I liked that FYEO was gritty but never to the point that the Dalton films were and I really liked the action scenes. I also enjoyed Sheena Easton's song.
FYEO is 9th on my all-time list. I think it's a great film.
I think it brought Moore's bond to another level. (a much better level
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
1)The romance with Tracey wasn't developed well enough for my liking.
2)The Code-Name Theory was obviously not far from the filmmakers' minds, as represented by the "That never happened to the other fellow" line, Moneypenny's "Just the same old James" "only more so" and Blofeld not recognising Bond.
3)There were a few other small details which I didn't like such as the terror of Bond when he was running through the village and the OTT interplay between him and Moneypenny.
As well as casting Connery, I would most certainly have altered the screenplay as well. That is not what I can not accept! Replacing Diana Rigg? Ugh! X-( I don't know why they would have needed to replace Rigg. They could have still filmed OHMSS in 1969 (after YOLT), just with Connery in the lead.
Absolutely agree- it's not really there and just alluded to in a rubbish montage rather than actually presented to the audience as a real relationship which develops over the film. Leaping from 'they don't like each other' to 'they love each other' by way of a montage which just tells us they fall in love rather than any believable how or why is pretty cack-handed if you ask me.
Hmm... no; don't think so. It's just a joke- they know the audience have noticed it's a new guy so it's a bit of a postmodern gag; that's all. They know it's not real. Considering they even gave thought to explaining it via plastic surgery (although thankfully just ignored it) I think we can safely say they never considered anything to do with codenames.
Whether or not the producers debated about explaining away the new Bond through plastic surgery is irrelevant *, the implication that I (at least) got from the first line was very much the Code-Name Theory. Saying "That never happened to the other fellow" implies that Connery's Bond and Lazenby's Bond were different people when IMO they were the same individual. I loved OHMSS's PTS; until that line. I consider it to be perhaps the worst line in the entire series; not in terms of quality (that honour probably goes to any of the lines in DAD) but in terms of its meaning.
* I don't think that the producers needed to have thought up the Code-Name Theory in order for it to exist. It's a matter of interpretation. One can look upon the Bond films using that theory (regardless of what the producers might intend) or one might not. When I look at OHMSS I see a film that IMO does not know whether it believes in the theory or not. Thankfully however DAF erased any doubts that I had in the filmmakers' belief in the theory when it was quite obvious that Connery's Bond was the same Bond as in OHMSS.
Furthermore, I don't believe that simply because an artist has a theory or belief about their creation, it is automatically true. Therefore, considering that plastic surgery never featured in OHMSS, it does not matter to me whether or not EON thought of using it. The film still gave me the implication that the filmmakers half-believed in the Code-name Theory and that is one of the reasons why I do not believe that OHMSS was as good as it could have been.
The "breaking the fourth wall" moment where he give the "other fellow" line is a problem if one takes it literally, though I agree that it wasn't meant to be more than a joke and sense it was left over from the "plastic surgery" script, where it actually would have been rather clever. If I had my way, he wouldn't have said anything at all; the right look in the camera would have been enough to make the point, if the point was even necessary.
For me, Lazenby was fine as Bond. I like the fact that he isn't superhuman (though Connery, too, was allowed to be scared and a range of other emotions in his earlier Bond films), and despite his sometimes rough delivery of the lines, there's a sincerity to Lazenby's performance that makes it work. He's also handsome and confident in a sporty way that makes him closer to Connery's Bond than Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan. I entirely bought into the romance, though the subtext to me in the film was that Tracy was pretty much attracted from the beginning -- but the same cynical worldliness that led to her attempted suicide combined with a bit of spoiledness kept her from acknowledging it until the proper moment. I adore Diana Rigg, so that helps, too, I suppose.
I don't agree. Firstly I have always felt that the interplay between Bond and Moneypenny was OTT, but that aside, Moneypenny made the following comment: "Still the same old James." "Only more so." IMO (and I may be the only person here who has this particular interpretation) the second sentence has always struck me as an attempt to distance Lazenby's Bond from Connery's. Lazenby is even more "same old James" than Connery. (I know it sounds weird, and thinking about it now, it was probably more of an over-compensation on the producers' part to prove that Lazenby was the same Bond as Connery. Nonetheless, I don't like it.)
I don't think that one can take it anything but literally. To me, that line is the perfect example of why the Code-Name Theory at the very least threatened to rear its ugly head in OHMSS. As I explained to Emtiem, in my above reply, I believe that interpretation of art lies with the viewer, and in this case (regardless of the producers' intentions) my mind yells 'Code-name Theory!' I hate that line. X-(
I completely agree. I have always felt that if that line was eliminated OHMSS's PTS could have been one of the absolute greatest of all time.
We really have different tastes.
Interisting analysis. I also adore Diana Rigg. In fact, I consider her Emma Peel to be the sexiest female character in the history of television.
But by the end of the film have you been persuaded that they have fallen in love or have you just been told and had to accept it? Have you actually seen it happen? The end is great and emotional, but it's not something that we've seen happen thanks to the sudden steps taken in the relationship. If we'd joined the film at the Piz Gloria climax we'd probably have exactly the same emotional response to the ending: it's very sad because we know James Bond and, oh look- he's just married; he must like this gal- but the build-up in Portugal doesn't work.
So why were you worried whether they believed it or not if you're not going to pay attention to their intentions?
Haha! Yes- funny and actually quite plausible!
However, even if I were to agree with you that it was just a joke, I still wouldn't like it as I do not want Bond to break the 'fourth wall' under any circumstance. To me, he's NOT just a character in a film, he's a character whom I consider to be real for the two hours that I watch OHMSS. I do not want OHMSS to be 'a big silly adventure film that knows what it is' (partly because I don't think it's silly anyway but mostly because I don't think that a film needs to be 'a serious documentary about a real spy' in order for the filmmakers to take it seriously.) I certainly do not want Bond to wink at the audience. Brosnan didn't wink at the audience when he made that line in TND and I certainly do not want Lazenby to. I hate that line. X-(
Anyway, as I said, the major reason why I hate that line is that I consider it to be evidence of the filmmakers' half-hearted belief in the Code-Name Theory.
My concern is regarding their intention as represented by the film. I don't care what the producers think privately. I only care what theire intentions are, as shown by the film.
An overrated one is LTK. So what if it is what the real Bond is like, this is movie Bond. Not book Bond. Nothing against him but I like movie Bond better and everyone praises it for being risky. Risky = Cheap. Cheap annoying LTK.
Also overrated is TB, Largo stinks, Fiona is boring and is THE most overrated henchwoman ever, Sean is a bit annoying by blackmailing the nurse to have sex w/ him, the jetpack is uselessly in one scene, it's BORING, the list goes ON and ON.
Man, if you didn't come back in rare fashion...
Thunderball...and overrated in the same breath? ?:)
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
JFF, to you,pockets are overrated as long as it's not AVTAK being slandered by someone stating concrete facts and not opinions...
BTW, AVTAK is overrated....
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -