What was the most disappointing aspect of YOLT, in your opinion?
Johnny
Posts: 7MI6 Agent
I thought YOLT was the most disappointing Bond film ever made, because it was by no means Ian Fleming's James Bond, no, it was Cubby Broccoli's James Bond. But I can't sit here and honestly say, that I did not see it coming because I did. There are flashes of Cubby's YOLT in Thunderball during the pre-title sequence when Bond was flying around in a jet pack like Ultra-Man...Which was a far cry from the more down to Earth, James Bond in Dr No.
Of course, there are some people who said that Cubby Broccoli never truly captured the spirit, of Fleming's Bond. But I think Broccoli at least captured the down to Earth aspect of the character and the first four Bond films sort of adapted the stories from the respective books while remaining fresh and interesting.
Of course, there are some people who said that Cubby Broccoli never truly captured the spirit, of Fleming's Bond. But I think Broccoli at least captured the down to Earth aspect of the character and the first four Bond films sort of adapted the stories from the respective books while remaining fresh and interesting.
Comments
I wouldn't call YOLT disappointing, but it's not among my favourites.
I'm not saying you can't like YOLT, but what I am saying is that YOLT was not James Bond. Well, at the very least, it wasn't Ian Fleming's James Bond. No, Fleming's Bond was the down to Earth fellow, who appeared in Casino Royale the novel and Dr. No the movie.
Yes that is the biggest problem for DP. His Blofeld as been the one that has been subject to much lampooning you can't take it seriously anymore. It's like watching a great actor play Simon Legree.
One thing that's easy to overlook is Cubby Broccoli's piss-poor lack of loyality to the source material. Dr No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball were all decent film adaptations of the source material that they were trying to bring to life. I think they wanted to do OHMSS after TB, but OHMSS's plot was too similar to TB and so they went off and did their own thing, instead of adapting one of the other novels from Ian Fleming's proverbial liberary...But creating adaptation decay with YOLT, was completely wrong in hindsight 20-20.
The thing is the producers "doing their own thing" was probably the very reason the character of JB has lasted so long. The much greater use of gadgets and humour has been what's kept the character going. It all started in GF with the Aston Martin. True the story was similar to the novel but the gadgets were very much an invention of Cubby and Harry. It made the films more "kid-friendly" and the character reached a much wider audience. In turn retailers could exploit this and the "Bond boom" started.
I don't care if they have gadgetry in James Bond films or not, but when you're making a Bond film and it's supposed to be based off of one of the Bond novels by Ian Fleming, I WANT YOU to tell that story on the silverscreen. No if's, and's or but's about it. And that's why I hate Chubby Broccoli so much. I wanted him to tell Fleming's definitive take on James Bond until Cubby ran out of Bond novels to adapt, but Broccoli never did that and that's why I dislike the man. After TB and OHMSS, most of EON's films were James Bond in name only. And that's pretty sad.
Many of us watched the films before we even read the books, and those are what got us into Bond in the first place. Its only as we have grown up that we have discovered the literary material, which gives us a more in-depth perspective on the character.
Plus, Ian Fleming wasn't always happy with the books he did himself. If I'm right, he only permitted the title of TSWLM to be used in the film version as he was so unhappy with his finished story.
Yes he did. There was no way anyone would want to still a James Bond film with Bond being absent for the majority of tme. Also it wasn't a good book. I guess Vivienne Michel was a well developed character and all that but it's like "Who the hell cares ?". I don't want to read a story about some whiny ho who wants an abortion.
You can stick your tongue out at me all you want but it doesn't change the fact that when you adapt something you're supposed to tell that story. You're not supposed to say, "That's a nice story, but we're gonna do something completely different," no, just no, it doesn't work that way....And name calling doesn't change that. Why do you think Batman fans were so divided when Tim Burton released Batman in the Summer of '89? You had one side who was intrigued by the darker, more serious take on Batman and you had another side who was shocked and appalled by the fact that Batman's body count was bigger than The Joker's. That side thought that Michael Keaton wasn't Batman, they thought he was The Punisher in tights. And then you had yet another side who was shocked and disgusted by how un-kid-friendly, Batman's world could actually be. Bottom line, when you adapt something, adapt the core elements of the story while jazzing it up at the same time or don't adapt it at all.
It's more that he was unhappy with the reaction to his story- slated by critics, derided by his circle, etc. Wanting to let the book be forgotten about, he also asked that no paperback edition be allowed (one didn't appear till about 3 years after he died).
http://apbateman.com
However, while not as overtly racist as Dr. No (book and novel) its depiction of Japan was dated and simplistic, making the movie sometimes feel like Simpsons episodes set in foreign countries, although it was produced 43 years ago.
? I don't see anything wrong with it. Or were you referring to the double post, which has been a common problem of late? You can't delete a double post, but, using my magical mod powers, I did it for you.
YOLT is a truly bonkers 007 movie, whether you love it or loathe it, it has plot holes all over the place and some dreadful performances (IMO) from the likes of Pleasance, Dor, Shimada, to name 3. That the project succeeds is all to do with with the production values, which are very high, the excellent music and the stunning locations - IMO one of the best & most beautifully photographed Bond's ever.
The problem is, Connery is clearly disinterested in the movie. He's treats much of it like a big joke (well, I guess he wasn't far wrong, as it has a very bizarre plot) and at other times he seems completely switched off. I don't blame him totally, after all when the dialogue is as poor as Roald Dahl's, I'd defy any actor to muster interest, but Connery is the lead actor, the central focus for the audience, and if he isn't going to take it with a moment of seriousness, professionalism if you like, then how is the project going to triumph?
Sean Connery IS James Bond, was what the posters had been telling people, but if James Bond doesn't seem to care, why should the audience?
But George Lucas's idea to keep Han Solo in the entire movie, really hurt Return of the Jedi in the long run because then it just became a cheesy story where EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY has a happy ending. (Anakin didn't count because the audience didn't even know the guy back then!)
This has just been reported as offensive, and it is. Any more slurs like this, and you're gone.
*Sigh.* I wasn't even saying that about somebody who ferquently visits this site but *sigh* I guess that was offensive even though I was trying to prove a point....*Sigh.*
I think what you said is true. I also think the following
1) I think Sean Connery's lack of interest and obvious boredom and hatred of the Bond role cleary showed and ruined the film. The only time Connery showed any life was when he was in bed with Ling and when he hit Osaka's wet bar.
2) Donald Pleasence role as Blofeld is highly overrated and the bases of every joke in Bond spoofs.
I think Pleasance did a good job but what counts against him is his ridiculous scar and disposing of his enemies merely by pushing buttons, sans shooting Osato.
Yep. Especially since some of us happen to be Jewish (well, Jewish father and I was Bar-Mitzvah'ed before converting to Roman Catholicism, though culturally, I still identify as a German Jew)...
But anyway, what disappointed me about the film, as both an NRA Life Member/gun collector and amateur firearms historian, was the huge explosions we saw when the 13mm Gyrojet cartridge impacted against anything. Bob Mainhardt realized very early on that the only type of ammo capable of functioning in a gyrojet was a full-metal-jacketed slug. Mainhardt only claimed that his gun was capable of producing knock-down power (on the Taylor Knockdown Scale) twice that of a .45 ACP pistol cartridge. And even those claims proved rather dubious when tested by The American Rifleman and Guns & Ammo when the gun first came out; it just barely beat out the .45 ACP.
Coming in a VERY close second was turning Connery into a Japanese guy. The end result looked more like Connery trying to do Spock minus the ears. Whilst I found many of the vehicles ("pre-import era" Japanese cars have always fascinated me with their odd mix of British, American, and German design features) interesting and found both Akiko Wakabayashi and Mie Hama gorgeous (I find East Asian women very attractive on the whole...), plus the awesome Little Nellie scene, I was let down by a lot in YOLT.
Yeah...that sure got my goat too !
Just kidding.
I've never found it disappointing save when I saw it at the National Film Theatre and it just seemed flat on the big screen. I agree Connery as a Jap just doesn't work at all, that's an area where you adapt Fleming true to book and they shouldn't have bothered.
Anyway, if you tell the story of YOLT the novel you don't have much! There isn't any action until the final scene and confrontation with Blofeld.
Roger Moore 1927-2017