What's this "movie goers found the plot hard to buy" nonsense? Back in 1966 there was a plane crash over the Mediterrean, a hydrogen bomb was lost at sea, and it needed to be recovered. The news media pointed out the obvious similarity to Thunderball, which was enjoying the swell of popularity at the same time. Doesn't sound too fantastic to me.
And while I will admit that the role of Felix Leiter in TB is primarily a yes man for Bond. But I fail to see how that makes him less than bright. Bond is the hero of the movie, anyone else is not supposed to show him up.
And I will take a sexist 1960s James Bond theme any day over the sappy romatic wailing tunes that started in the 70s.
Full agreement.I'm old enough to have seen Thunderball during it's first week in release in 1965.I was a teenager at the time and clearly remember the newspaper and television coverage of the plane that went down in the Mediterranian carrying a live bomb.This was an important event and was watched closely by the media.References to Thunderball frequently appeared in the coverage of this incident.The bomb was located and retrieved from the plane by trained divers using equipment very much like that used in the motion picture by those SPECTRE divers when they steal the two nuclear devices.And in today's world,the idea of a terrorist cartel downing a bomber and taking the devices it carries is all too credible.Thunderball was ahead of it's time...
I guess age does have privileges. I remember that very well myself. In fact, I happened to be in Spain at the time.
But that wasn't the first time a nuke had been lost at sea: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/13/lost.bomb/
A character aside from Judi Dench, as M. Why not his next leading lady, as Vesper did in CR?
If there is one piece of dialogue in CR that I really hated, it was the 'you treat women as disposable objects' line which IMO crossed the line. I found it be non-creative, as subtle as a sledgehammer, overly-PC and quite wearisome. (It wasn't the first time Campbell had commented on Bond's 'sexism.') The worst thing was that the train scene, up to that point, had IMO been terrific.
I don't agree with you that if Bond is sexist, another character should 'counter' it (which basically means commenting on it.) Bond is who he is, and I don't like the idea of pointing out his weaknesses (and strengths) as if he is a construct rather than a fully-fledged character.
"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
We're veering off again, but I agree with DS, I just cannot see how Bond is sexist really. I mean, yeah, he likes sex. And is in no hurry to settle down.. and so? Take a guy like Russell Brand over here, bit lewd maybe, like his sex - is he sexist? Sure, he slaps Dink's bum in Florida (Bond, not Brand) but in the scheme of things... btw as Dink actually a spy? When Leiter says "Letting the opposition get to you 007?" does that mean the opposite sex or enemy agent...?
Then again, Bond does seem a nastier guy in CR, see his unmoved response to Solange's death. Oddly, many seem to fetishise this new, cruel, lean, killer Bond.
Imagine, if you will, a scene where a male boss says to a young lady subordinate, "Oh, you enjoy your sex don't you! You're a bit of a sleeparound! Who did you shag at the weekend?" Maybe Dame Judi's M is as embittered as her character in Notes On A Scandal!
Quick aside:As for those underwater action sequences?I think they're great--absolutely fantastic, but then again,I like underwater photography.Car chases and big explosions are now so commonplace as to become boring,while conversely,Thunderball's underwater action was both unique and history making.New equipment was devised especially for this film.TV series like "Sea Hunt" had featured underwater sequences and Cousteau's wonderful documentaries broke new ground in this regard,but it was Thunderball that set an extremely high standard for all of the motion pictures shot underwater thereafter.
Personally, I really do appreciate the technical expertise that wen't into the shooting of those underwater sequences in TB. Those were the days when the Bond films were "leaders" not "followers".
I too like underwater photography, but only in moderation when it relates to a film and not a documentary. Ultimately, the underwater sequences in TB drag the film for me.
If there is one piece of dialogue in CR that I really hated, it was the 'you treat women as disposable objects' line which IMO crossed the line.
Aside from the few with whom he has become emotionally attached to, Bond does treat women as disposable objects. It has been part of the franchise's history since the beginning. So what?
No doubt Dan can speak in his own defense, but I think his point was not to deny that Bond treats women as disposable objects -- which Bond obviously does, as you say -- but rather that he objects to being told that by another character.
If indeed that's Dan's point, then I wholeheartedly agree with him. Everyone who watches Bond films realizes that Bond is sexist or at least chauvinistic. Some may like that aspect of his character, others may not, but that's a separate point. What annoys me is when the filmmakers feel the need to say "we know Bond's a sexist pig" as if they're apologizing for him. This has really happened a lot since 1995, starting with GE (M's infamous "misogynist" lecture and Moneypenny's "you've never had me" nonsense) through to DAD (Miranda's "certainly not a man like James Bond" tripe) and CR (the Vesper comment mentioned by Dan). At least in the CR scene, there was some cat-and-mouse going on, so it didn't bother me much, but the others are really blatant. Enough already.
Which brings me back on topic (Thunderball)...if Bond's going to be lectured about his manners with the ladies, it should be done the way Fiona did it -- a sarcastic slashing by someone equally, if not more, adept at using her assets to overcome the opposite sex. There are very few times when I've felt Bond was truly put in his place, and this one may be the best.
No doubt Dan can speak in his own defense, but I think his point was not to deny that Bond treats women as disposable objects -- which Bond obviously does, as you say -- but rather that he objects to being told that by another character.
If indeed that's Dan's point, then I wholeheartedly agree with him. Everyone who watches Bond films realizes that Bond is sexist or at least chauvinistic. Some may like that aspect of his character, others may not, but that's a separate point. What annoys me is when the filmmakers feel the need to say "we know Bond's a sexist pig" as if they're apologizing for him. This has really happened a lot since 1995, starting with GE (M's infamous "misogynist" lecture and Moneypenny's "you've never had me" nonsense) through to DAD (Miranda's "certainly not a man like James Bond" tripe) and CR (the Vesper comment mentioned by Dan). At least in the CR scene, there was some cat-and-mouse going on, so it didn't bother me much, but the others are really blatant. Enough already.
That's exactly right. {[] Bond is who he is, but it seems to me that Campbell and co feel that they have to keep apologising for him.
"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
No doubt Dan can speak in his own defense, but I think his point was not to deny that Bond treats women as disposable objects -- which Bond obviously does, as you say -- but rather that he objects to being told that by another character.
If indeed that's Dan's point, then I wholeheartedly agree with him. Everyone who watches Bond films realizes that Bond is sexist or at least chauvinistic. Some may like that aspect of his character, others may not, but that's a separate point. What annoys me is when the filmmakers feel the need to say "we know Bond's a sexist pig" as if they're apologizing for him. This has really happened a lot since 1995, starting with GE (M's infamous "misogynist" lecture and Moneypenny's "you've never had me" nonsense) through to DAD (Miranda's "certainly not a man like James Bond" tripe) and CR (the Vesper comment mentioned by Dan). At least in the CR scene, there was some cat-and-mouse going on, so it didn't bother me much, but the others are really blatant. Enough already.
That's exactly right. {[] Bond is who he is, but it seems to me that Campbell and co feel that they have to keep apologising for him.
I dunno, guys. I still don't get what the problem is with female characters within the movie commenting on Bond's acknowledged sexism. Is it because we already know how he treats women and to point it out is redundant? If so, let's never mention his martini preference again, since we're all already well aware of his drink order. Is is because it's insulting to James Bond? Then let's not have the filmmakers have any characters shooting at him, either. After all, that's not only disrespectful, but dangerous to boot. Those "lectures" are just movie dialogue that underscore a well-known facet of Bond's character.
Now if you said, let's get ride of 'em because they're turning into a cliche, like flirting with Moneypenney or squabbling with Q, you might have something there. But you guys talk about it as if there were some kind moral principle involved. I'm not criticizing, I just don't understand. I kind of like it when Bond get chewed out for his lifestyle, whether it be women, drinking, smoking, gambling, whatever.
I dunno, guys. I still don't get what the problem is with female characters within the movie commenting on Bond's acknowledged sexism. Is it because we already know how he treats women and to point it out is redundant? If so, let's never mention his martini preference again, since we're all already well aware of his drink order. Is is because it's insulting to James Bond? Then let's not have the filmmakers have any characters shooting at him, either. After all, that's not only disrespectful, but dangerous to boot. Those "lectures" are just movie dialogue that underscore a well-known facet of Bond's character.
Now if you said, let's get ride of 'em because they're turning into a cliche, like flirting with Moneypenney or squabbling with Q, you might have something there. But you guys talk about it as if there were some kind moral principle involved. I'm not criticizing, I just don't understand. I kind of like it when Bond get chewed out for his lifestyle, whether it be women, drinking, smoking, gambling, whatever.
Fair enough, HH, but for me it's all about how seamlessly (vs. clumsily) these moments are pulled off. As I said earlier, Fiona ripping on Bond was her way of stabbing her stiletto heels in his family jewels, and it works brilliantly. Similarly, the "jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors" is also great because (A) Bond asked for it with his wiseass question of who would want to kill him, and (B) it fits the tone of the scene -- a frustrated M dealing with his smarmy subordinate.
I guess maybe it's just the recent instances that irritate. The "misogynist dinosaur" comment is absurd mostly because it doesn't fit the scene and is not something a credible M would say in response to what Bond had just said to her. The "you've never had me" comment is totally out of character for Moneypenny, who had playfully fawned over, and flirted with, Bond in 14 previous films. The conversation between M and Miranda is laughable -- what the hell does fraternization among MI6 personnel have to do with the mission she has been sent on?
These are clumsy scenes. It's as if the filmmakers equated Bond's status as a relic of the Cold War with being a relic of outdated personal manners toward women, and they needed ever so much to tell us this. Maybe I'm over-reading the filmmakers' intent, but I feel lectured to.
It's all the sillier when we later find out that Moneypenny still fantasizes about Bond in the VR scene, and that Miranda quite willingly submits to him (although as Moon's ally she had reason). Their proclamations about Bond make them look like weak characters IMO. In an age where, for better or for worse, women's sexuality is more open than ever before, why must these women act like prigs, only to swoon -- like Caroline -- at the first sniff of fois gras? Why can't they just flirt and enjoy it?
OK, now I'm clearly rambling -- waaaaay off topic. Believe it or not, HH, this ain't that big a deal for me.
I dunno, guys. I still don't get what the problem is with female characters within the movie commenting on Bond's acknowledged sexism. Is it because we already know how he treats women and to point it out is redundant? If so, let's never mention his martini preference again, since we're all already well aware of his drink order. Is is because it's insulting to James Bond? Then let's not have the filmmakers have any characters shooting at him, either. After all, that's not only disrespectful, but dangerous to boot. Those "lectures" are just movie dialogue that underscore a well-known facet of Bond's character.
Now if you said, let's get ride of 'em because they're turning into a cliche, like flirting with Moneypenney or squabbling with Q, you might have something there. But you guys talk about it as if there were some kind moral principle involved. I'm not criticizing, I just don't understand. I kind of like it when Bond get chewed out for his lifestyle, whether it be women, drinking, smoking, gambling, whatever.
Fair enough, HH, but for me it's all about how seamlessly (vs. clumsily) these moments are pulled off. As I said earlier, Fiona ripping on Bond was her way of stabbing her stiletto heels in his family jewels, and it works brilliantly. Similarly, the "jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors" is also great because (A) Bond asked for it with his wiseass question of who would want to kill him, and (B) it fits the tone of the scene -- a frustrated M dealing with his smarmy subordinate.
I guess maybe it's just the recent instances that irritate. The "misogynist dinosaur" comment is absurd mostly because it doesn't fit the scene and is not something a credible M would say in response to what Bond had just said to her. The "you've never had me" comment is totally out of character for Moneypenny, who had playfully fawned over, and flirted with, Bond in 14 previous films. The conversation between M and Miranda is laughable -- what the hell does fraternization among MI6 personnel have to do with the mission she has been sent on?
These are clumsy scenes. It's as if the filmmakers equated Bond's status as a relic of the Cold War with being a relic of outdated personal manners toward women, and they needed ever so much to tell us this. Maybe I'm over-reading the filmmakers' intent, but I feel lectured to.
It's all the sillier when we later find out that Moneypenny still fantasizes about Bond in the VR scene, and that Miranda quite willingly submits to him (although as Moon's ally she had reason). Their proclamations about Bond make them look like weak characters IMO. In an age where, for better or for worse, women's sexuality is more open than ever before, why must these women act like prigs, only to swoon -- like Caroline -- at the first sniff of fois gras? Why can't they just flirt and enjoy it?
OK, now I'm clearly rambling -- waaaaay off topic. Believe it or not, HH, this ain't that big a deal for me.
That makes more sense to me. It's not so much the idea of referencing Bond's sexism that bugs you, but the way it's done. A bit heavy-handed. I guess for me, with M at least, I've always like it when Bond gets chewed out a little, both in the films and in the books. So the sexism thing is just another thing for him to catch hell for. I thought the Goldeneye scene worked because I got the distinct impression that Bond didn't like his new boss being a woman. He didn't argue with her when she suggested as much, as I recall. But those kinds of things can turn out to become formulaic, too.
HH, we've discussed this before but my problem with this is two-fold; it sounds too much like a lecture to me (I do not go to see Bond films to get a lecture on what a sexist person he is) but also it often seems out of place and completely unnecessary to me. An example being the 'disposable objects' line in CR; it was a terrific scene in which Vesper more than proved that she was Bond's equal. Yet, she had to go one step further and utter that line, which I don't think added anything, and which IMO sounded as if was coming out of the mouth of Campbell who is seems to me has an obsession with psychoanalyzing Bond/apologising for his sexism. (It wasn't the only time in CR that I winced at what I perceived to be psychoanalyzing. )
I guess maybe it's just the recent instances that irritate. The "misogynist dinosaur" comment is absurd mostly because it doesn't fit the scene and is not something a credible M would say in response to what Bond had just said to her. The "you've never had me" comment is totally out of character for Moneypenny, who had playfully fawned over, and flirted with, Bond in 14 previous films. The conversation between M and Miranda is laughable -- what the hell does fraternization among MI6 personnel have to do with the mission she has been sent on?
These are clumsy scenes. It's as if the filmmakers equated Bond's status as a relic of the Cold War with being a relic of outdated personal manners toward women, and they needed ever so much to tell us this. Maybe I'm over-reading the filmmakers' intent, but I feel lectured to.
It's all the sillier when we later find out that Moneypenny still fantasizes about Bond in the VR scene, and that Miranda quite willingly submits to him (although as Moon's ally she had reason). Their proclamations about Bond make them look like weak characters IMO. In an age where, for better or for worse, women's sexuality is more open than ever before, why must these women act like prigs, only to swoon -- like Caroline -- at the first sniff of fois gras? Why can't they just flirt and enjoy it?
"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
HH, we've discussed this before but my problem with this is two-fold; it sounds too much like a lecture to me (I do not go to see Bond films to get a lecture on what a sexist person he is) but also it often seems out of place and completely unnecessary to me. An example being the 'disposable objects' line in CR; it was a terrific scene in which Vesper more than proved that she was Bond's equal. Yet, she had to go one step further and utter that line, which I don't think added anything, and which IMO sounded as if was coming out of the mouth of Campbell who is seems to me has an obsession with psychoanalyzing Bond/apologising for his sexism. (It wasn't the only time in CR that I winced at what I perceived to be psychoanalyzing. )
I guess maybe it's just the recent instances that irritate. The "misogynist dinosaur" comment is absurd mostly because it doesn't fit the scene and is not something a credible M would say in response to what Bond had just said to her.
We have had this discussion before Dan, and your two-fold objection seems more visceral than Hillary's (although I disagree with his assessment in this case that what M said didn't fit the scene), who seems to object more on the grounds of how it's handled rather than the sentiment itself: you don't seem to like women in the films making reference to Bond's sexism, which you deride as "psychoanalyzing." You also use these snippets of movie banter to indulge in a little psychoanalysis of your own, using them to paint Campbell as obsessed with "apologizing" for Bond.
I just don't see it. Now if Campbell were to present Bond as a sensitive, nurturing modern male, you might have a point (And I would be screaming bloody murder right along with you). But he doesn't. On the contrary. Bond's sexism is present and accounted for in GE and in CR -- highlighted in all its prehistoric glory.
In GE (and this is where I disagree with Hillary), Bond does seem put off by M being a woman. I would ask you guys to consider the possibility that M's telling him she's not going to take any s*** from him is a point well-taken -- and perfectly plausible. I don't think Campbell was being "politically correct" at all, or "apologizing" for Bond. The conversation was meant to illuminate M's character, not Bond's. We already know his, as you correctly point out. We don't know hers at that point. The scene demonstrates that M is a tough old bird. What she says, moreover, is perfectly plausible. In the military, it's sometimes called an "off-the-record" conversation, when you dispense with the formalities of rank and talk "man-to-man," or in this case woman-to-man. M was simply telling an underling with a questionable attitude that she wasn't going to take any crap from him. I liked her for it. You didn't, Dan. But Campbell, or more properly the scriptwriters or Eon, did what they set out to do: illuminate M's character.
As for Vesper's remark, it's also legitimate. And your objection to it is really ironic, given that it in effect celebrates Bond's sexism by highlighting it. Vesper sizes Bond up as the love-'em-and-leave-'em type and puts him on notice that she doesn't intend to be another notch on his bedpost. Which is a signal -- and has been a signal in the movies since light first flickered on a silver screen -- that she will not only become just that, but fall madly in love with him to boot. Anyone who's been to the movies knows that rule by heart. The same explanation goes for the Moneypenney fantasy sequence. She snaps at Bond? You gotta know she secretly lusts for him. In the movies, the more she says "no," the more she means "yes." Which may be where some guys get the idea that it's that way in real life, too. (And I hope we all know that it isn't )
This isn't "apologizing" for Bond's sexism, Dan --this is wallowing in it for all it's worth.
Amazing how we can have such a detailed conversation about dialogue of recent movies...in a Thunderball thread! I LOVE BOND!!!
My last word on the M-Bond exchange from GoldenEye: M says that Bond views her as an accountant, a bean- counter, over-reliant on analysis vs, Bond's preference for gut feel. Bond agrees with her. Never is her gender made reference to, and I personally see no evidence up to then that Bond dislikes her because she's a woman. She could have been a nerdy man and said the same things. That's why, for me, her retort of sexism and misogyny is so jarring and awkward. If she had said something along the lines of "You disapprove of me, because you think I got this job because I'm a woman" and he agreed with that, then her comments would be more valid IMO.
Actually, I like when Bond gets the mickey taken out of him, humorously or seriously. I just think this instance is really ham-fisted.
OK, I've invested way too much keyboard time on this topic. I like debating you, HH -- you have the tenacity of a pit bull, the logic of a scholar, and the conviction of a true believer. {[]
HH, to ensure that this discussion doesn't become endless , I'll just make five more comments:
1)I believe that you have implied that I am hyppocritical. ) HH, it does appear that I am criticising Campbell and co for engaging in psychoanalyzing, when I'm doing the same thing myself. To be fair, everyone does it. For example, your favourite drink may be raspberry lemonade, but you can't really expect Bond to drink it, can you? :v Anyway, the sense that I got (and I know that other people disagree with me on this) was that Campbell was apologising for Bond's sexism. Unfortunately I didn't have to search too hard to get that sense.
2)You mentioned about how the point is to highlight Bond's sexism, rather than apologise for it. The truth is that my problem with it is related to just as much how it is done rather than merely the fact it is done at all. In GF, Pussy told Bond that she was "immune to his charms." Yes, she was gay, but it was still done in a way which IMO was much more convincing and more effective than alot of the dialogue in recent films.
3)In regards to the scene in GE, you noted that the goal was to illuminate M's character. I accept that, but I wish that it was done in a more effective way. As to why I don't think it was so effective the way it was done; well, Sir Hillary says it much better than me. (I will note though that the film was full of psychoanalyzing; from the beach scene to Alec's comment about the reasons why Bond drinks. It seems that IMO the filmmakers were treating him more as a construct or psych-case than as a proper character.)
4)I recently looked over the script. I realised that in this case, I am blaming the wrong person. Although I do blame Campbell and co for the beach scene, Alec's 'Vodka Martini' line and M's speech in GE as well as the scene in M's apartment in CR (a scene which has given me more nightmares than any other scene in the entire film ), in regards to the 'disposable objects' line, I should blame Miss Green.
Here's why: Both times, that I saw CR, it appeared to me that the line was separate from the rest of the conversation. It didn't flow naturally and so it seemed to me that the writers had just inserted it in yet another attempt to apologise for Bond's sexism/psychoanalyze him. Yet, after looking at the script, it appears that it was indeed naturally part of the conversation. ) Therefore, while I don't love the line (in no small part due to Campbell whom I'm quite wary about), I think that it would have been less unbearable if Green had IMO executed it more skillfully. Watching that scene, it really seemed to me that (based on Green's performance) the line was entirely separate from the rest of the conversation.
In the movies, the more she says "no," the more she means "yes." Which may be where some guys get the idea that it's that way in real life, too. (And I hope we all know that it isn't )
Trust me, if I thought that, my GF would be on me in an instant. )
"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 believe that you have implied that I am hyppocritical. ) HH, it does appear that I am criticising Campbell and co for engaging in psychoanalyzing, when I'm doing the same thing myself. To be fair, everyone does it.
And that was my only point, Dan. It can't really be helped, if you're going to explore a character. (Charges of "hypocrisy" would be a little overwrought for a friendly James Bond discussion).
OK, I've invested way too much keyboard time on this topic. I like debating you, HH -- you have the tenacity of a pit bull, the logic of a scholar, and the conviction of a true believer. {[]
Even if you're all wet. )
I take comfort in the fact that genius often goes unrecognized until after the person is gone.
{[] Thanks, Hill.
I enjoy debating with you guys (and everyone at AJB for that matter), too. And anytime you guys get the sense I should be seeing a doctor, don't hesitate to let me know. When I think that a year ago, I barely remembered there even was a James Bond, I have to wonder myself.
{[] Thanks, Hill.
I enjoy debating with you guys (and everyone at AJB for that matter), too.
To me, that is just so much the spirit of what this is about. It's not about agreeing but about loving this enduring character. Highhopes, my friend, you are aptly named.{[]
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Indeed it does, until the last 20 minutes or so, when the producers step back from the Bond they've created with Fleming, and embrace their own Bond fully. Other than token nods in this or that Bond film, only OHMSS and now CR get up on the Fleming horse and manage to stay on for any appreciable amount of time. TB was in many ways the best of Bond, and yet signaled the worst that was to come. After the underwater battle, there just seemed to be--OHMSS aside--no turning back. Glad DAD put the knife in the heart of that uberBond, and opened the door for oldschoolBond again.
Other than token nods in this or that Bond film, only OHMSS and now CR get up on the Fleming horse and manage to stay on for any appreciable amount of time.
FYEO features fairly faithful Fleming.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Other than token nods in this or that Bond film, only OHMSS and now CR get up on the Fleming horse and manage to stay on for any appreciable amount of time.
Really? I've never read any Fleming books, but I always thought that FRWL was supposed to be fairly faithful to him.
Other than token nods in this or that Bond film, only OHMSS and now CR get up on the Fleming horse and manage to stay on for any appreciable amount of time.
Really? I've never read any Fleming books, but I always thought that FRWL was supposed to be fairly faithful to him.
The plot in FRWL was tweeked a little bit to replace SMERSH with SPECTRE, but for the most part it was a pretty faithful adaption (minus the cliffhanger ending). Every Bond film that primarily relies on a source novel deviates to some degree. The early films were pretty close, including TB. OHMSS, too. Later films deviate widly. Honestly, I feel TLD is a closer adaptation than CR was.
Other than token nods in this or that Bond film, only OHMSS and now CR get up on the Fleming horse and manage to stay on for any appreciable amount of time.
Really? I've never read any Fleming books, but I always thought that FRWL was supposed to be fairly faithful to him.
The plot in FRWL was tweeked a little bit to replace SMERSH with SPECTRE, but for the most part it was a pretty faithful adaption (minus the cliffhanger ending). Every Bond film that primarily relies on a source novel deviates to some degree. The early films were pretty close, including TB. OHMSS, too. Later films deviate widly. Honestly, I feel TLD is a closer adaptation than CR was.
I'll agree with this.For Your Eyes Only's plot comes from the Ian Fleming short story of that title,and it qualifies as being fairly faithful to Fleming--making it quite a departure from Roger Moore's other considerably more outlandish 007 movies.
Additionally,the storyline of Licence to Kill comes from the subplot of the Fleming novel Live and Let Die--with a villain whose style and personality is very closely modeled on Ian Fleming's literary version of Francisco Scaramanga(minus the golden gun).
I'll go with the 60s Bonds (sans YOLT). And still think CR follows Fleming better than other post '69 Bond films, the silly stuntwork (TLD very much so) in the 80s Bonds preclude them IMHO, and all the non-Fleming stuff in FYEO especially knock it out of the running, for me at least. It was so superficially used, the focus seemed to be...I dunno what, TV Movie of the Week? Liked Sanchez, very Fleming; hated LTK, very not-Fleming IMO. In an odd way, both LALD and TMWTGG seemed more "whole" as Bond films--they may not have aspired to be all that Flemingesque, but they also didn't try to be and fail. Points for solid B-movie aim and follow-through.
I thought Thunderball was really good, it is my 2nd favorite on my list. It goes slow at some moments but it is a great film. I thought Largo was one of the best villains of the whole series and Domino was one of the hottest bond girls.
Only films it beats, for me, are MR and maybe DAD.
Say what you want about MR, but amongst the double taking pidgeons, parachuteless free falls, cable car fights and space laser battles - the film was never boring.
I have a bit of a soft spot for Thunderball. A few years ago I vacationed in the Bahamas and had the opportunity to visit a few of the locations used in TB. An Atlantis Submarine tour to the location of the sunken ship used in the underwater battle was the highlight of the trip for me. We also visited the stretch of waterfront where Connery preps for his dive. Very cool. I also enjoy the movie itself for a number of reasons, not the least of which was Luciana Paluzzi as Fiona Volpe and a fine performance by Sean Connery. While the jet pack
escape at the start and the Aston with water cannons were both groaners the movie retained enough Fleming elements to keep the film in my good graces. It remains one of my favorites and I prefer it over Goldfinger. The film is enjoyable. For me, it's as simple as that.-{
I think what you described I would more call backstory. The plot would more be the going-ons of the film. All the stuff like the gypsy fight, the sniper bit, the train are all in there. Course the movie did beef up the story considerably, and I always found the movie to be much better story wise - the book was riddled with plot holes, drastic coincidences and missed opportunities.
I cant read all the posts here (sorry guys I havn't got all the time in the world) but a few years ago the British Film Institute were doing a Bond Celebration and a friend and I watched all the first 8 Bond movies on the big screen. I had only ever seen on TV and the film which surprised us both the most was Thunderball. On the cinema screen the audience is just whistled from one high point to another with barely a moment to catch their breath.
Lets not forget, Thunderball was big. It had a budget of £5.5m, which was an astronomical sum for 1965, and it returned its investment ten times over. At today’s prices, Thunderball would probably take about $900m world wide. It is that big! It is still the most successful Bond film of all time.
When you watch it on television, it comes across as a very standard Bond film, the colours are muddy, the characters are poorly etched, the story is paper thin and even the action sequences seem laboured. However in the cinema there is a real sense of scale and excitement. The sound and visual effects are superb (especially for 1965) and the camera work and editing is slick and colourful.
Let me take a few paragraphs to explain what I feel works and what doesn't:
John Barry came of age as a film composer with Thunderball. He created a beautiful lush score to complement the underwater sequences and then interspersed that with variations of his own 007 Theme which thumps along to some of the fight and chase sequences. If the theme song seems like a slightly over the top Goldfinger then at least it matches the film.
The villainess of the piece, Fiona Volpe, is a wicked creation. Lucianna Paluzzi doesn’t really have enough to do in this film, which is a pity as her scenes with Connery are some of the best in the entire film, particularly when she taunts Bond for presuming that once he has made love to her she will return to the side of the good.
The dry humour associated with Connery’s Bond is prevalent here, none more so than in Q’s workshop. But throughout the film there are subtle one-liners, visual asides and little surprises which make you laugh and chuckle.It foretells the more obvious gags of the 1970s and 1980s.
The Junkanoo sequence is a standout chase. Although Bond's escape is fortunate, the resulting chase through the carnival crowds is tense and believable. Peter Hunt’s editing is fast and slightly confused here, adding to the suspense. It is one of the few times in the film where Bond is really using his wits and not relying on gadgets or luck to escape his foes. The fact that he never quite escapes Fiona until she is killed makes her a much more dangerous foe than some other villainess.
Despite the fantasy overtones, the writers were still basing their plots in the real world. Any indications that Thunderball was all fiction was dispelled when, weeks before the premiere, a real US jet went missing, fully armed over the Atlantic.
However Thunderball has plot holes are so big you can drive a bus through them. Bond seems to stumble on the SPECTRE plan rather than uncover it. In fairness this reflects on the novel, where Bond is remarkably lucky to discover Largo and his henchmen. When he is in the Bahamas, Bond offers no cover story for being there, yet everyone accepts him without suspicion.
Bond sees Fiona’s and Largo’s SPECTRE rings, but he shows no particular indication of their significance. Paula Vacker, Bond’s aid in the Bahamas, is kidnapped and tortured, but for no apparent reason. Her whole character is actually surplus to requirements, both to Bond and the action of the film.
Largo and Domino’s characters are so thinly drawn as to be almost transparent. Her love for Bond seems based solely on the fact that he is less cruel than Largo. Her torture at the hands of Largo is pointless as, by the time it happens, Largo already knows Bond is his adversary, given he has killed Fiona and would be well known to SPECTRE from previous adventures. He would surely be anticipating an attack. Yet he seems to make no plans for it.
Although initially displaying a flair for the role, interpreting Largo as a sophisticated playboy, Adolfo Celi soon becomes no more than a muscular bully, lacking the humour and intelligence of Goldfinger, Klebb or Doctor No.
This is partly the responsibility of the screenwriters who seem so intent on reaching the next action set piece they forgot to fill in the story and the personalities. Domino’s character suffers too and Claudine Auger is unable to bring any life to her role, though she is one of the more beautiful Bond girls.
Bond rarely discusses his actions with anyone; every decision he makes appears to be taken spur of the moment and with almost some prior knowledge of the potential outcome. In the novel Bond is always one step behind Largo and it is only with Domino’s help he manages to trace the warheads to the Disco; in the film it is just taken for granted, so the writers seem not to care how he gets under Largo’s skin.
At times the editing gets carried away with itself. Peter Hunt has commented that sometimes it is better to let the story run on than worry too much about whether the visual details are correct. However, when the back projection runs at a faster pace than the fore-action (as witnessed in the climatic fight aboard the Disco Volante) or when cast member’s clothes change mid-scene (witness Leither on the helicopter) this becomes laughable.
The final battle is repetitive and dull. As an action set piece this sequence concentrates too much on Bond and his underwater gadgets and not enough on the pursuit of an escaping Largo. It also fails to make much sense as all the indications are that there are about twelve SPECTRE agents, yet at least two dozen are killed in this sequence.
Ultimately the film is a little too long and would have benefited from having ten to fifteen minutes cut out of it. However I always find something to enjoy in Thunderball, whether it is the costumes, the gadgets, Connery’s laid back performance, the fights, the chases or the music. And when I saw it on a big glorious cinema screen I was almost transported back to 1966 and imagined how fantastic this movie must have been. To audiences then it must have been similar to the excitement i felt watching Star Wars. Yes, Thunderball isnt the best Bond film, but it is huge in its significance to the franchise and for pure entertainment, I would put it in the top handful.
Cheers ChrisNo1, a good read. Not the same as my experience watching TB on the big screen last year though. Still, I got a bad print which didn't help.
Comments
I guess age does have privileges. I remember that very well myself. In fact, I happened to be in Spain at the time.
But that wasn't the first time a nuke had been lost at sea:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/13/lost.bomb/
I don't agree with you that if Bond is sexist, another character should 'counter' it (which basically means commenting on it.) Bond is who he is, and I don't like the idea of pointing out his weaknesses (and strengths) as if he is a construct rather than a fully-fledged character.
Then again, Bond does seem a nastier guy in CR, see his unmoved response to Solange's death. Oddly, many seem to fetishise this new, cruel, lean, killer Bond.
Imagine, if you will, a scene where a male boss says to a young lady subordinate, "Oh, you enjoy your sex don't you! You're a bit of a sleeparound! Who did you shag at the weekend?" Maybe Dame Judi's M is as embittered as her character in Notes On A Scandal!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Personally, I really do appreciate the technical expertise that wen't into the shooting of those underwater sequences in TB. Those were the days when the Bond films were "leaders" not "followers".
I too like underwater photography, but only in moderation when it relates to a film and not a documentary. Ultimately, the underwater sequences in TB drag the film for me.
No doubt Dan can speak in his own defense, but I think his point was not to deny that Bond treats women as disposable objects -- which Bond obviously does, as you say -- but rather that he objects to being told that by another character.
If indeed that's Dan's point, then I wholeheartedly agree with him. Everyone who watches Bond films realizes that Bond is sexist or at least chauvinistic. Some may like that aspect of his character, others may not, but that's a separate point. What annoys me is when the filmmakers feel the need to say "we know Bond's a sexist pig" as if they're apologizing for him. This has really happened a lot since 1995, starting with GE (M's infamous "misogynist" lecture and Moneypenny's "you've never had me" nonsense) through to DAD (Miranda's "certainly not a man like James Bond" tripe) and CR (the Vesper comment mentioned by Dan). At least in the CR scene, there was some cat-and-mouse going on, so it didn't bother me much, but the others are really blatant. Enough already.
Which brings me back on topic (Thunderball)...if Bond's going to be lectured about his manners with the ladies, it should be done the way Fiona did it -- a sarcastic slashing by someone equally, if not more, adept at using her assets to overcome the opposite sex. There are very few times when I've felt Bond was truly put in his place, and this one may be the best.
I dunno, guys. I still don't get what the problem is with female characters within the movie commenting on Bond's acknowledged sexism. Is it because we already know how he treats women and to point it out is redundant? If so, let's never mention his martini preference again, since we're all already well aware of his drink order. Is is because it's insulting to James Bond? Then let's not have the filmmakers have any characters shooting at him, either. After all, that's not only disrespectful, but dangerous to boot. Those "lectures" are just movie dialogue that underscore a well-known facet of Bond's character.
Now if you said, let's get ride of 'em because they're turning into a cliche, like flirting with Moneypenney or squabbling with Q, you might have something there. But you guys talk about it as if there were some kind moral principle involved. I'm not criticizing, I just don't understand. I kind of like it when Bond get chewed out for his lifestyle, whether it be women, drinking, smoking, gambling, whatever.
Fair enough, HH, but for me it's all about how seamlessly (vs. clumsily) these moments are pulled off. As I said earlier, Fiona ripping on Bond was her way of stabbing her stiletto heels in his family jewels, and it works brilliantly. Similarly, the "jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors" is also great because (A) Bond asked for it with his wiseass question of who would want to kill him, and (B) it fits the tone of the scene -- a frustrated M dealing with his smarmy subordinate.
I guess maybe it's just the recent instances that irritate. The "misogynist dinosaur" comment is absurd mostly because it doesn't fit the scene and is not something a credible M would say in response to what Bond had just said to her. The "you've never had me" comment is totally out of character for Moneypenny, who had playfully fawned over, and flirted with, Bond in 14 previous films. The conversation between M and Miranda is laughable -- what the hell does fraternization among MI6 personnel have to do with the mission she has been sent on?
These are clumsy scenes. It's as if the filmmakers equated Bond's status as a relic of the Cold War with being a relic of outdated personal manners toward women, and they needed ever so much to tell us this. Maybe I'm over-reading the filmmakers' intent, but I feel lectured to.
It's all the sillier when we later find out that Moneypenny still fantasizes about Bond in the VR scene, and that Miranda quite willingly submits to him (although as Moon's ally she had reason). Their proclamations about Bond make them look like weak characters IMO. In an age where, for better or for worse, women's sexuality is more open than ever before, why must these women act like prigs, only to swoon -- like Caroline -- at the first sniff of fois gras? Why can't they just flirt and enjoy it?
OK, now I'm clearly rambling -- waaaaay off topic.
That makes more sense to me. It's not so much the idea of referencing Bond's sexism that bugs you, but the way it's done. A bit heavy-handed. I guess for me, with M at least, I've always like it when Bond gets chewed out a little, both in the films and in the books. So the sexism thing is just another thing for him to catch hell for. I thought the Goldeneye scene worked because I got the distinct impression that Bond didn't like his new boss being a woman. He didn't argue with her when she suggested as much, as I recall. But those kinds of things can turn out to become formulaic, too.
Sir Hillary sums it up best IMO:
My last word on the M-Bond exchange from GoldenEye: M says that Bond views her as an accountant, a bean- counter, over-reliant on analysis vs, Bond's preference for gut feel. Bond agrees with her. Never is her gender made reference to, and I personally see no evidence up to then that Bond dislikes her because she's a woman. She could have been a nerdy man and said the same things. That's why, for me, her retort of sexism and misogyny is so jarring and awkward. If she had said something along the lines of "You disapprove of me, because you think I got this job because I'm a woman" and he agreed with that, then her comments would be more valid IMO.
Actually, I like when Bond gets the mickey taken out of him, humorously or seriously. I just think this instance is really ham-fisted.
OK, I've invested way too much keyboard time on this topic. I like debating you, HH -- you have the tenacity of a pit bull, the logic of a scholar, and the conviction of a true believer. {[]
Even if you're all wet.
1)I believe that you have implied that I am hyppocritical.
2)You mentioned about how the point is to highlight Bond's sexism, rather than apologise for it. The truth is that my problem with it is related to just as much how it is done rather than merely the fact it is done at all. In GF, Pussy told Bond that she was "immune to his charms." Yes, she was gay, but it was still done in a way which IMO was much more convincing and more effective than alot of the dialogue in recent films.
3)In regards to the scene in GE, you noted that the goal was to illuminate M's character. I accept that, but I wish that it was done in a more effective way. As to why I don't think it was so effective the way it was done; well, Sir Hillary says it much better than me.
4)I recently looked over the script. I realised that in this case, I am blaming the wrong person.
Here's why: Both times, that I saw CR, it appeared to me that the line was separate from the rest of the conversation. It didn't flow naturally and so it seemed to me that the writers had just inserted it in yet another attempt to apologise for Bond's sexism/psychoanalyze him. Yet, after looking at the script, it appears that it was indeed naturally part of the conversation.
5) Trust me, if I thought that, my GF would be on me in an instant.
And that was my only point, Dan. It can't really be helped, if you're going to explore a character. (Charges of "hypocrisy" would be a little overwrought for a friendly James Bond discussion).
I take comfort in the fact that genius often goes unrecognized until after the person is gone.
{[] Thanks, Hill.
I enjoy debating with you guys (and everyone at AJB for that matter), too. And anytime you guys get the sense I should be seeing a doctor, don't hesitate to let me know. When I think that a year ago, I barely remembered there even was a James Bond, I have to wonder myself.
To me, that is just so much the spirit of what this is about. It's not about agreeing but about loving this enduring character. Highhopes, my friend, you are aptly named.{[]
Well said! Thunderball rules.
FYEO features fairly faithful Fleming.
Really? I've never read any Fleming books, but I always thought that FRWL was supposed to be fairly faithful to him.
I'm working my way through the Bond films again, TB is about the 13th I've watched in the space of a month.
It's bloody boring!!!
Honestly, why is it considered one of the best? I was bored to tears. Only films it beats, for me, are MR and maybe DAD.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
The plot in FRWL was tweeked a little bit to replace SMERSH with SPECTRE, but for the most part it was a pretty faithful adaption (minus the cliffhanger ending). Every Bond film that primarily relies on a source novel deviates to some degree. The early films were pretty close, including TB. OHMSS, too. Later films deviate widly. Honestly, I feel TLD is a closer adaptation than CR was.
I'll agree with this.For Your Eyes Only's plot comes from the Ian Fleming short story of that title,and it qualifies as being fairly faithful to Fleming--making it quite a departure from Roger Moore's other considerably more outlandish 007 movies.
Additionally,the storyline of Licence to Kill comes from the subplot of the Fleming novel Live and Let Die--with a villain whose style and personality is very closely modeled on Ian Fleming's literary version of Francisco Scaramanga(minus the golden gun).
Say what you want about MR, but amongst the double taking pidgeons, parachuteless free falls, cable car fights and space laser battles - the film was never boring.
escape at the start and the Aston with water cannons were both groaners the movie retained enough Fleming elements to keep the film in my good graces. It remains one of my favorites and I prefer it over Goldfinger. The film is enjoyable. For me, it's as simple as that.-{
I think what you described I would more call backstory. The plot would more be the going-ons of the film. All the stuff like the gypsy fight, the sniper bit, the train are all in there. Course the movie did beef up the story considerably, and I always found the movie to be much better story wise - the book was riddled with plot holes, drastic coincidences and missed opportunities.
Lets not forget, Thunderball was big. It had a budget of £5.5m, which was an astronomical sum for 1965, and it returned its investment ten times over. At today’s prices, Thunderball would probably take about $900m world wide. It is that big! It is still the most successful Bond film of all time.
When you watch it on television, it comes across as a very standard Bond film, the colours are muddy, the characters are poorly etched, the story is paper thin and even the action sequences seem laboured. However in the cinema there is a real sense of scale and excitement. The sound and visual effects are superb (especially for 1965) and the camera work and editing is slick and colourful.
Let me take a few paragraphs to explain what I feel works and what doesn't:
John Barry came of age as a film composer with Thunderball. He created a beautiful lush score to complement the underwater sequences and then interspersed that with variations of his own 007 Theme which thumps along to some of the fight and chase sequences. If the theme song seems like a slightly over the top Goldfinger then at least it matches the film.
The villainess of the piece, Fiona Volpe, is a wicked creation. Lucianna Paluzzi doesn’t really have enough to do in this film, which is a pity as her scenes with Connery are some of the best in the entire film, particularly when she taunts Bond for presuming that once he has made love to her she will return to the side of the good.
The dry humour associated with Connery’s Bond is prevalent here, none more so than in Q’s workshop. But throughout the film there are subtle one-liners, visual asides and little surprises which make you laugh and chuckle.It foretells the more obvious gags of the 1970s and 1980s.
The Junkanoo sequence is a standout chase. Although Bond's escape is fortunate, the resulting chase through the carnival crowds is tense and believable. Peter Hunt’s editing is fast and slightly confused here, adding to the suspense. It is one of the few times in the film where Bond is really using his wits and not relying on gadgets or luck to escape his foes. The fact that he never quite escapes Fiona until she is killed makes her a much more dangerous foe than some other villainess.
Despite the fantasy overtones, the writers were still basing their plots in the real world. Any indications that Thunderball was all fiction was dispelled when, weeks before the premiere, a real US jet went missing, fully armed over the Atlantic.
However Thunderball has plot holes are so big you can drive a bus through them. Bond seems to stumble on the SPECTRE plan rather than uncover it. In fairness this reflects on the novel, where Bond is remarkably lucky to discover Largo and his henchmen. When he is in the Bahamas, Bond offers no cover story for being there, yet everyone accepts him without suspicion.
Bond sees Fiona’s and Largo’s SPECTRE rings, but he shows no particular indication of their significance. Paula Vacker, Bond’s aid in the Bahamas, is kidnapped and tortured, but for no apparent reason. Her whole character is actually surplus to requirements, both to Bond and the action of the film.
Largo and Domino’s characters are so thinly drawn as to be almost transparent. Her love for Bond seems based solely on the fact that he is less cruel than Largo. Her torture at the hands of Largo is pointless as, by the time it happens, Largo already knows Bond is his adversary, given he has killed Fiona and would be well known to SPECTRE from previous adventures. He would surely be anticipating an attack. Yet he seems to make no plans for it.
Although initially displaying a flair for the role, interpreting Largo as a sophisticated playboy, Adolfo Celi soon becomes no more than a muscular bully, lacking the humour and intelligence of Goldfinger, Klebb or Doctor No.
This is partly the responsibility of the screenwriters who seem so intent on reaching the next action set piece they forgot to fill in the story and the personalities. Domino’s character suffers too and Claudine Auger is unable to bring any life to her role, though she is one of the more beautiful Bond girls.
Bond rarely discusses his actions with anyone; every decision he makes appears to be taken spur of the moment and with almost some prior knowledge of the potential outcome. In the novel Bond is always one step behind Largo and it is only with Domino’s help he manages to trace the warheads to the Disco; in the film it is just taken for granted, so the writers seem not to care how he gets under Largo’s skin.
At times the editing gets carried away with itself. Peter Hunt has commented that sometimes it is better to let the story run on than worry too much about whether the visual details are correct. However, when the back projection runs at a faster pace than the fore-action (as witnessed in the climatic fight aboard the Disco Volante) or when cast member’s clothes change mid-scene (witness Leither on the helicopter) this becomes laughable.
The final battle is repetitive and dull. As an action set piece this sequence concentrates too much on Bond and his underwater gadgets and not enough on the pursuit of an escaping Largo. It also fails to make much sense as all the indications are that there are about twelve SPECTRE agents, yet at least two dozen are killed in this sequence.
Ultimately the film is a little too long and would have benefited from having ten to fifteen minutes cut out of it. However I always find something to enjoy in Thunderball, whether it is the costumes, the gadgets, Connery’s laid back performance, the fights, the chases or the music. And when I saw it on a big glorious cinema screen I was almost transported back to 1966 and imagined how fantastic this movie must have been. To audiences then it must have been similar to the excitement i felt watching Star Wars. Yes, Thunderball isnt the best Bond film, but it is huge in its significance to the franchise and for pure entertainment, I would put it in the top handful.
Roger Moore 1927-2017