Why is the end of DAF so poor ?

Projectorman

It's a great film ,Connery looks more assured if chunky ,some great M vs bond banter ,great Bond girls,Jill St.john! (Wow)nice car chase apart from the trikes chasing a film prop all is good-until the oil rig battle then it seem to be a real let down ending (until the final QE 11 scenes)I've read there were a couple of re writes and some of the planned battle sequences were not shot, but the oil rig set itself looks like it was done on the cheap especially the machine guns inside the steel boxes wth drop down sides ,they really look like an after thought,loads of explosions but not much seems to get damaged ,compared to the volcano set in yolt it's like a TV movie also the sfx ( space laser and explosions of warheads and rockets) don't seem to have moved on between yolt 1967 and this film 4 years on. Can anyone explain ?

Thunderpussy

In my opinion, they just ran out of money, after paying
Connery's massive fee. Hence, not much budget left
For locations, Special Effects or big explosions !

Projectorman

Apparently Sammy Davis Junior did a cameo appearance and acted in a scene or two and these ended up on the cutting room floor - ?

Number24

The plan was to film a chase on foot betweeen Bond and Blofeld in a stark white salt mine in the desert. In the end Bond would throw Blofeld into a shredder and quip: "Salt of the earth ..."

As it turned out they didn't get the permits and we were cheated for this better ending.

Thunderpussy

You can see the Sammy Davis Jr scene on the DVD/ bluray
Special features.

welshboy78

Watched it on ITV yesterday - I find the whole Vegas thing a bit dreary and the film indeed felt TV cheap!

Its the start of real cheesy Bond in my opinion that set the mould for Moore. Hard to believe the film before it was OHMSS, the two couldn't be so far apart in all ways

Funnily enough the end was the most enjoyable part!!!

Its up there with NSNA!

Best thing about it? Jill St John without a doubt!

broadshoulder

Projectorman wrote:

It's a great film ,Connery looks more assured if chunky ,some great M vs bond banter ,great Bond girls,Jill St.john! (Wow)nice car chase apart from the trikes chasing a film prop all is good-until the oil rig battle then it seem to be a real let down ending (until the final QE 11 scenes)I've read there were a couple of re writes and some of the planned battle sequences were not shot, but the oil rig set itself looks like it was done on the cheap especially the machine guns inside the steel boxes wth drop down sides ,they really look like an after thought,loads of explosions but not much seems to get damaged ,compared to the volcano set in yolt it's like a TV movie also the sfx ( space laser and explosions of warheads and rockets) don't seem to have moved on between yolt 1967 and this film 4 years on. Can anyone explain ?

The final scenes in the book take place Queen Elizabeth II where Tiffany has to be rescued from Wint and Kidd.In the book Bond shimmies down the side of the ship to get to her.

Thunderpussy

In Bonds mind the dead Bond, tells him " only, Death is Forever"
Later used by J Gardner.

Blackleiter

welshboy78 wrote:

Best thing about it? Jill St John without a doubt!

I enjoyed DAF, but I couldn't stand Jill St. John in it. Eeeekkk!

Thunderpussy

I didn't find her very attractive either.

broadshoulder

If you watch Bond girls are forever DVD then Jill St John fights her corner for being a Bond girl

She's very endearing.

Virgil37

The movie suffered because they had to pay Connery a load of money.

Gassy Man

Films throughout the early to mid 1970s generally looked cheap and awful. It wasn't just the budget but also a new aesthetic. The studio system, which had influenced film for 75 years, was going away, and with it the big budget, cast of a thousands spectacle that was once the norm. Away went the "movie star," too, to be replaced by the "actor." Small, so-called "personalized" films like Easy Rider and "auteur" films by the likes of Francis Ford Coppola became vogue rather than the lavish spectacles of the 50s and 60s. Lesser films benefited from the studio system, too, which could swap props, talent, and production teams.

When George Lazenby said he and his agent thought that the Bond films were passe, he wasn't far off from the general sentiment of the day. Quite a few actors who had built their careers on being matinee idols or movie stars -- Rock Hudson, George Peppard, Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum, Sidney Poitier, Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole -- found themselves struggling for relevance, many turning to television. This was the period when comparatively ordinary looking people -- Al Pacino, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Harrison Ford -- became the stars.

But when Star Wars came along, all that changed. Star Wars, essentially a B movie story with more money and attention paid to the production, reinvigorated Hollywood. It wasn't the same as the studio system, but it was the birth of the blockbuster. Even if films were made more like TV shows -- relying a lot on closeups -- suddenly it became fashionable to spend a lot of money on them.

All of the Bonds in the early to mid 70s look cheaper than their earlier counterparts, not just in terms of the scale of the productions but also in the cinematography. That would change with The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, which were the plastic version of the 60s films.

The end of Diamonds are Forever doesn't look any less drab than the rest of the film. The special effects are unsophisticated, but even high concept films of the same period tend to have rather poor special effects. One could see better special effects on a TV show like Space: 1999, which mimicked 2001: A Space Odyssey, than in even high profile films like The Andromeda Strain or Logan's Run. What is probably more of an issue with the end is the languid pacing, which even John Barry's score couldn't quite salvage. The film just feels tired by the time it's wrapping up.

Jarvio

Blackleiter wrote:

welshboy78 wrote:

Best thing about it? Jill St John without a doubt!

I enjoyed DAF, but I couldn't stand Jill St. John in it. Eeeekkk!

I'm suprised you enjoy DAF because of the level of jokey-ness in it.... but then again, it IS Connery.

I enjoy DAF, it's not exactly high on my list but it's not low either. Wint and Kidd are some of the best henchmen, and I didn't think the oil rig climax was that bad.

Blackleiter

Jarvio wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

welshboy78 wrote:

Best thing about it? Jill St John without a doubt!

I enjoyed DAF, but I couldn't stand Jill St. John in it. Eeeekkk!

I'm suprised you enjoy DAF because of the level of jokey-ness in it.... but then again, it IS Connery.

I enjoy DAF, it's not exactly high on my list but it's not low either. Wint and Kidd are some of the best henchmen, and I didn't think the oil rig climax was that bad.

I can understand why you're puzzled. But I enjoy DAF primarily because Connery is back. And although I'm not particularly fond of the overly jokey Bond films, I think Connery does well with what he's given. DAF is without a doubt my least favorite Connery Bond movie, though.

Virgil37

Gassy Man wrote:

Films throughout the early to mid 1970s generally looked cheap and awful. It wasn't just the budget but also a new aesthetic. The studio system, which had influenced film for 75 years, was going away, and with it the big budget, cast of a thousands spectacle that was once the norm. Away went the "movie star," too, to be replaced by the "actor." Small, so-called "personalized" films like Easy Rider and "auteur" films by the likes of Francis Ford Coppola became vogue rather than the lavish spectacles of the 50s and 60s. Lesser films benefited from the studio system, too, which could swap props, talent, and production teams.

When George Lazenby said he and his agent thought that the Bond films were passe, he wasn't far off from the general sentiment of the day. Quite a few actors who had built their careers on being matinee idols or movie stars -- Rock Hudson, George Peppard, Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum, Sidney Poitier, Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole -- found themselves struggling for relevance, many turning to television. This was the period when comparatively ordinary looking people -- Al Pacino, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Harrison Ford -- became the stars.

But when Star Wars came along, all that changed. Star Wars, essentially a B movie story with more money and attention paid to the production, reinvigorated Hollywood. It wasn't the same as the studio system, but it was the birth of the blockbuster. Even if films were made more like TV shows -- relying a lot on closeups -- suddenly it became fashionable to spend a lot of money on them.

All of the Bonds in the early to mid 70s look cheaper than their earlier counterparts, not just in terms of the scale of the productions but also in the cinematography. That would change with The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, which were the plastic version of the 60s films.

The end of Diamonds are Forever doesn't look any less drab than the rest of the film. The special effects are unsophisticated, but even high concept films of the same period tend to have rather poor special effects. One could see better special effects on a TV show like Space: 1999, which mimicked 2001: A Space Odyssey, than in even high profile films like The Andromeda Strain or Logan's Run. What is probably more of an issue with the end is the languid pacing, which even John Barry's score couldn't quite salvage. The film just feels tired by the time it's wrapping up.

So you're saying thay even if they got Connery for free the DAF would look pretty much the same? I'm not sure about that. It's true that in LALD they definitely went for a more TV film look, but DAF still has that Panavision, 60s Bond feel to it, only cheaper, I think, due to budget constraints.

70s films were indeed a departure from the Hollywood-esque 50s and 60s as you point out, but the Bond franchise from the 70s onwards was never trend-setter. LALD, obviously borrows from French Connection and Shaft, TMWTGG, from the kung fu movies. DAF is the movie in the limbo. They couldn't go the Easy Rider or Midnight Cowboy route, they didn't know whether to cast Connery, Moore, Lazenby or Gavin, they didn't know whether to go for an american Bond or a british one, for laughs or seriousness,...a complicated period.

Gassy Man

Virgil37 wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Films throughout the early to mid 1970s generally looked cheap and awful. It wasn't just the budget but also a new aesthetic. The studio system, which had influenced film for 75 years, was going away, and with it the big budget, cast of a thousands spectacle that was once the norm. Away went the "movie star," too, to be replaced by the "actor." Small, so-called "personalized" films like Easy Rider and "auteur" films by the likes of Francis Ford Coppola became vogue rather than the lavish spectacles of the 50s and 60s. Lesser films benefited from the studio system, too, which could swap props, talent, and production teams.

When George Lazenby said he and his agent thought that the Bond films were passe, he wasn't far off from the general sentiment of the day. Quite a few actors who had built their careers on being matinee idols or movie stars -- Rock Hudson, George Peppard, Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum, Sidney Poitier, Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole -- found themselves struggling for relevance, many turning to television. This was the period when comparatively ordinary looking people -- Al Pacino, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Harrison Ford -- became the stars.

But when Star Wars came along, all that changed. Star Wars, essentially a B movie story with more money and attention paid to the production, reinvigorated Hollywood. It wasn't the same as the studio system, but it was the birth of the blockbuster. Even if films were made more like TV shows -- relying a lot on closeups -- suddenly it became fashionable to spend a lot of money on them.

All of the Bonds in the early to mid 70s look cheaper than their earlier counterparts, not just in terms of the scale of the productions but also in the cinematography. That would change with The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, which were the plastic version of the 60s films.

The end of Diamonds are Forever doesn't look any less drab than the rest of the film. The special effects are unsophisticated, but even high concept films of the same period tend to have rather poor special effects. One could see better special effects on a TV show like Space: 1999, which mimicked 2001: A Space Odyssey, than in even high profile films like The Andromeda Strain or Logan's Run. What is probably more of an issue with the end is the languid pacing, which even John Barry's score couldn't quite salvage. The film just feels tired by the time it's wrapping up.

So you're saying thay even if they got Connery for free the DAF would look pretty much the same? I'm not sure about that. It's true that in LALD they definitely went for a more TV film look, but DAF still has that Panavision, 60s Bond feel to it, only cheaper, I think, due to budget constraints.

70s films were indeed a departure from the Hollywood-esque 50s and 60s as you point out, but the Bond franchise from the 70s onwards was never trend-setter. LALD, obviously borrows from French Connection and Shaft, TMWTGG, from the kung fu movies. DAF is the movie in the limbo. They couldn't go the Easy Rider or Midnight Cowboy route, they didn't know whether to cast Connery, Moore, Lazenby or Gavin, they didn't know whether to go for an american Bond or a british one, for laughs or seriousness,...a complicated period.

I don't know if it would have looked AS cheap, but I do think the production would have had a less "60s" quality to it. It was the early 1970s. Even the fashions and decor had a more monochrome quality. The cinematography of Diamonds are Forever is very much like that of a contemporary, The Andromeda Strain, which was made by Robert Wise, who only a few years earlier had made such colorful-looking films as West Side Story, The Sound of Music, and The Sand Pebbles. The styles had changed as Hollywood struggled to adapt.

Think about it this way: Look at how most films in the 1990s look much more warm and colorful than the most in the 2000s, which seem to have a kind of cold, washed out, gray-green quality to the cinemtography. This first starts to show up in movies like Minority Report and has been the basic "look" of movies since -- The Dark Knight, for instance, uses the same basic quality. So does Quantum of Solace, though the superior Casino Royale is more like a 1990s film in this regard. The cinematography of Diamonds are Forever, Live and Let Die, and The Man with the Golden Gun is much the same.

Thunderpussy

I can agree with that, Diamonds looks very different to the 60s Bonds
But matches LALD &TMWTGG.

Thunderpussy

I hate the exploding helicopters,

AlphaOmegaSin

The Explosions on the Rig were set off prematurely whilst Filming -{

MilleniumForce

What I find most disappointing is the effects, and the oil rig scenes aren't as good as I remembered when I watched it on ITV the other night. Whilst it may not have worked in 1971, my idea of a good ending would have been to have Blofeld and Bond fighting and trying to kill each other back at the White House in Vegas.

Absolutely_Cart

It had to be poor to accomodate the rest of the movie