Does ANYBODY FORGIVE Cubby Broccoli for ruining the Blofeld Trilogy?
GothamKnight1902
Posts: 37MI6 Agent
Because I don't. I know the man is dead but what the HELL was he thinking, when he decided to Absolutely Destroy, the third act of the Blofeld trilogy?!?!?!?! Thunderball was a decent book-to-film adaptation and so was On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but the cinematic Blofeld trilogy DOESN'T HAVE AN ENDING!!! It was supposed to end with Bond strangling Blofeld to death but we didn't get that, in the Bond movie franchise, now did we!?!?!?! X-( What Cubby Broccoli did to Ian Fleming's Blofeld trilogy was most illogical. What he did to the Bond/Blofeld story arc is a prime example of a movie producer's piss-poor lack of loyality to the source material!!!! X-(
Comments
In fact, any newbie who has never seen the Blofeld trilogy or read about it before, should steer clear of You Only Live Twice: The Movie...And four out of the seven Roger Moore films for that matter.
If you wanna watch the Blofeld trilogy, watch Thunderball and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. But stay away from You Only Live Twice. Stay far away from it. Avoid it like the Black Plague.
There are so many around and so little time! 8-)
Jimmybondi
Well, if you can't understand what kind of damage, Broccoli has done to the Blofeld trilogy then you must not have read those books. Am I right about that?
I am always prepared to learn...
Jimmybondi
Jimmybondi
Are you always dismissive? Because I can picture you running the American Government. The American Government is full of dismissive ass
holes.
In the books, Spectre really only exist in the pure sense in Thunderball, then in the two follow ups it's just Blofeld with some low calibre henchmen, plus a wife in tow.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well, you can't really blame Cubby Broccoli and Terence Young for side-stepping any political issues with their Dr No and From Russia with Love movies. Because if they had made Dr No and From Russia, with a reference to the USSR in one film and a reference to SMERSH in the other, the first two Bond films would've been A LOT MORE controversial than they were originally...So I can't fault Cubby for that.
Whats with all the hostility I think you are gettin worked up over the something that happened 40 years ago and the movies are what they are and the books are what they are, myself I prefer the story line of the books over most of the movies but I dont think this is the place to be using profanity to the other members. if you cant put your point across wihtout it or in a civil matter you need to rethink your reason for being here batman.
DAF isn't one of Fleming's best novels, though there's enough material in it for a better film than resulted. At the time it was released, though, it was very popular owing to Connery's presence and some great lines. As a send-off to Blofeld it stinks.
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for this one---but no denying it wasted a great story arc opportunity...but with YOLT going waaayy OTT, and being shot out of sequence with OHMSS, there never really was much of an arc
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yup, that's pretty much how I see it as well. The arc was set up then didn't pay off. Sadly....
First of all my name is GothamKnight. Get it right "Mister Greene." And second of all, I know what I wrote was wrong but when I read JimmyBondi's original post, I imagined the dude was talking to me in a condescending tone and I get enough of that from my younger brother who happens to be the biggest ass
hole I've ever met in my life, so I don't need to get that from somebody who possibly lives half-way around the world. And thirdly why are you sticking up for him? If this guy has a problem with me than why I am hearing this from you? I never stick my nose into somebody else's business so why do other people do it? This is between me and JimmyBondi...Who in my opinion happened to insult me first. I know two wrongs don't make a right, and an eye for an eye and we all go blind, but I don't care. Those two sayings don't hold any water with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6PqNyOTQoc
Also if this guy named "Blowshimselfupdude" can complain about Bob Kane taking credit for Bill Finger's work after oh, I don't know...Seventy-something years after the fact then why I can't complain about that time Cubby Broccoli destroyed the Blofeld trilogy Fourty-something years after the fact? Because I'd like to do that with getting mocked by a couple people named "JimmyBondi" and "Mister Greene."
I like the idea of Auric Goldfinger having an identical twin brother but it would've been like watching Goldfinger all over again but with a different setting and a different plot.
Let's gear down a little, and take a breath. GothamKnight1902, the form and tone of your initial post in this thread rather invites the sort of reaction you received, in my own opinion. And then you 'bump' your own thread a few hours later...because you didn't get an immediate reaction?
You'll find this to be a friendly and quite knowledgable Bond fansite...but many of us have already formed our own opinions about matters with as much age on them as Eon's admittedly fumbled handling of the Blofeld 'through-line.' And for what it's worth, Eon did not 'damage' the Blofeld trilogy. It still exists---and always will---in all its literary glory :007) They merely mishandled the movie adaptation. Quite a different thing. Cheers! {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well, to make a long story short the title that you see right now IS NOT the original title to my thread. Originally it was a bit longer. At first, I wrote a rather lengthy sentence for the title but I didn't have enough room so, I had to end the sentence abruptly with a dot, dot, dot, dot, (.....) Originally this thread called, "Hey does anybody forgive Cubby Broccoli for ruining the...." but since people couldn't see the full title with a glance, my thread was relatively ignored until I changed the title and bumped it up to the top of the list.
Anyway I'm well aware that Cubby Broccoli didn't ruin the literary Blofeld Trilogy but his botched movie Blofeld Trilogy was a very horrible miss-step. Because the James Bond movie franchise has basically overshadowed the Bond books in every way possible in terms of recognition in pop culture. When most people think of James Bond they think of the movie Bond. And whenever they think of Bond's battle with Blofeld, they think of how silly it got near the end. Bond's affiliation with gadgetry has forever clouded the mainstream audience's perception of Bond.
That's why Craig Ferguson complained about lack of gadgetry in Casino Royale as opposed to commending the film for going back to that time when Bond used his wits to get out of a harry situation.
Okay I get it. It's okay for people like JimmyBondi to mock me but as soon I say something profane back to him I'm crossing the line. Hmph. I understand that but I don't like it. Goodbye Mr. Greene.
Dear GothamKnight1902 - You have to admit your first post just sounded too arrogant to be ignored, hence my ironic comment. That's all - nothing to get personal or political about.
If you feel insulted - that's not what I wanted - here are my apologies. -{
Film business, especially for such a long living franchise like the James-Bond-Films, does not work the way Fleming has created the story in his books.
No film producer of a Film or TV series, who is worth the money, would have his arch villain killed...forever - They made the mistake with Bobby Ewing in Dallas (well he is not the villain, but a main character got killed) - and as Barbel mentionend the producers were thinking about 'Auric's Twinbrother' !! which is an absolute silly idea!
That's why JAWS wasn't killed in TSWLM, so he could re-appear in MR due to public demand.
Also, due to some legal issues EON productions were not able to use the Blofeld character and SPECTRE organisation in the latter films. That is why the bald guy in the wheelchair in FYEO was never called by his name. Hence my reference "We can do a deal! I'll buy you a delicatessen in stainless steel." (hint, hint)
The literary Bond and the Bond in the movies are two completely different universes - Fleming on on side and Salzman & Broccoli on the other side. You may not like YOLT for any reason, but telling others to avoid it like black plague is a bit...too provocative.
My 2ct.
Jimmybondi
They also wanted to capitalise on the success of Bond in the Far East.
Had the trilogy been less 'botched' then it might still not have worked, with Connery's last Bond being OHMSS and ending either with a happy marriage for our hero, or the terrible tragic death of Tracey, making it very hard for a new actor to step in and take over after that. It may have led to the end of the Bond series. The films successfully circumvented the downward spiral of doom that Fleming conjured up for this finite literary endeavours.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well, I think they could've adapted the real Moonraker story by Ian Fleming, and they should've filmed it back in 1966/1967 as opposed to the fake You Only Live Twice story, and it would've been like another Dr. No movie because the whole film would've taken place in England. They would've shot some scenes on the streets of London and the rest in Pinewood Studios. But apparently Cubby Broccoli wasn't smart enough to think of such a thing.
...well, at least he was smart enough to create the longest living franchise in film business... 8-)
Jimmybondi
Did you even read my whole post? Or are you like the mainstream movie goers of today? The kind of people who just nitpick every little thing rather than judging something as a whole. 8-)
In the first three movies involving SPECTRE, he is constantly built up as the Big Bad, the unseen, faceless mastermind that demands nothing but absolute success from his underlings as they carry out his diabolical schemes. This starts off with only a mention of SPECTRE in "Dr No", then we see Blofeld shifting into the role of Big Bad in "From Russia With Love" and "Thunderball", and he is clearly someone whom SPECTRE's agents utterly fear.
We get into the second half of the arc when he first meets Bond in "You Only Live Twice" the increasing dramatic buildup around Blofeld boils over in what was maybe one of the biggest movies of the Bond series at the time - an elaborate hollowed out volcano layer, making the USA and USSR out to be complete idiots and jacking the stakes up a huge notch. It's what you'd expect when the hero meets the real villain of the story, and it certainly drives the SPECTRE era into what should be a thunderous conclusion.
This trend carries on through "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" with another epic-in-scale plot for world domination, and the build up to the conclusion gets hammered into fifth gear with the murder of Tracy. People can say what they like about OHMSS and Lazenby, but it's a powerful scene that gives us an ever-so-brief glance at Bond's humanity, and Blofeld crosses that line into complete monster territory who needs to pay.
Being perhaps the most powerful ending to any movie in the series, you'd expect Bond's humanity and vulnerability to have turned into merciless, vengeance-obsessed rage towards Blofeld for what should be a dramatic, emotional and satisfying conclusion to the six-movie SPECTRE story arc. But "Diamonds are Forever"... fails, really. It really doesn't even attempt that, and for me it makes it one of the most disappointing movies in the franchise. Instead we get Charles Grey (who must have a record for the most deaths in a single film series or something) in drag and a definate predecessor the Roger Moore-era approach. Any hint of a reference to the emotional events of the previous movie are washed over after the pre-title sequence, and Irma Bunt (who, remember, fired the gun that killed Tracy) is completley forgotten about.
It's like they saw an emotionally intuitive climax to a long-running arc that can explore the inner humanity of the main character who has so far almost been the definition of the stoic, manly batchelor, only to knock that on the head in favour of more space buggies. I really don't understand that.
The shift in tone and the apparent abandonment of the established concluding act is just so very jarring, and it makes for such a disappointing conclusion. In fact, it isn't even a conclusion - we had to wait eleven years ("For Your Eyes Only") for the pre-title sequence of that film for any kind of to reference to Tracy and kill Blofeld by turning him into a gag (delicassen in stainless steel... I mean really) and throwing him down a giant chimney (to a Wille E Coyote sound effect).
I've always felt that whatever came after OHMSS should have been a revenge plot with George Lazenby as Bond (I always felt that he could pull off Bond's human traits better than Connery ever could and would therefore have made a better job of it. I present the pre-title sequence of DAF as exhibit A). Let the title "Diamonds are Forever" draw on the image of a wedding ring or whatever. Again, something like that would have made such a more satisfying conclusion to the arc than DAF/Blofeld's cameo in FYEO.
In my opinion Thunderball, Majesty and the pre-title of For Your Eyes is the TRUE cinematic Blofeld Trilogy. But here's the thing, the Blofeld Trilogy was played by three different actors and I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I guess for the sake of visual continuity it's a bad thing. But then again not many people complained about the time when Val Kilmer replaced Michael Keaton in Batman Forever and hardly anybody complained the about time when Maggie Gyllenhaal replaced Katie Holmes in The Dark Knight, so maybe this messed up visual continuity thing only bothers me.
Anyway, I think they could've gone with the Auric Goldfinger, identical twin brother, who's obsessed with Diamonds, thing, if Bond had just gotten his revenge in a pre-title sequence similar to For Your Eyes.
Interesting take. I've just caught this thread....
Napoleon's point re: OHMSS being similar to TB ("on skis") only rings true when you read the novels. I think the films are dramatically very different. McClory's TB has action all the way through. In fact 007 stumbles over the SPECTRE plot; it's rather telegraphed for him. OHMSS meanwhile is definately a detective story for the first hour or so.
As I understand it, one of the real issues with filming OHMSS in 1966/67 (and let's remember Cubby & Harry were planning the next Bond film while filming the current one!) was there was no suitable location for Piz Gloria. Fleming literally made it up! The producers considered using the remnants of the Maginot Line as early as 1963, but rejected it. I have no idea what the plans were in 1965, but clearly the logistis were rejected.
The idea of MR replacing YOLT has some merit. The format of the films could be very similar. The threat wouldn't necessarily have to be set in England (the 1979 movie wasn't either) and it would still have left the way clear for a continuation of the trilogy proper in 1969-71.
For me the real issue has always been that SPECTRE is behind Dr No's plot and Klebb's plot. It just feels so wrong to me. The Russians would have been worthy adversaries. It's a very early example of politically correct writing if you ask me. It didn't help that reference to the KGB/SMERSH was removed, the USSR still denounced the films anyway.
I tried to watch OHMSS after TB to keep the trilogy feel and it did seem a bit samey to me in the first half, action going from drawing room to corridors to hotel rooms, feels a bit similiar, with water/snow action kicking in later.
I'd like to see a youtube clip of FYEO with clips of the copter in OHMSS as a Tracey flashback and different, more ominous music over the end, it turns a bit silly otherwise.
Roger Moore 1927-2017