You Only Live Twice VS. Diamonds are Forever

Both Connery swan songs are mixed bags for me. On the hand DAF has more memorable characters. Wint and Kidd are more memorable henchpeople, then Brandt and Osato, and Case is much more memorable than Aki and Kissy combined.

Pleasance's Blofeld is better than Charles Grey's Blofeld. Bond seemed tired and bored in YOLT but looks like he's having more fun in DAF.

And finally, YOLT feels like it has sections in it that are too random and don't add up to much such as the wedding ceremony scene, and the Japanese disguise. Where as DAF may be tighter, there are also parts that may not fit such as Plenty O'Toole, or the circus scene.

But YOLT has much better action and spectacle, where as DAF looks surprisingly low budget for the series.

What do you think?

DAF by a country mile. Benign bizarre in spades, the deliciously camp Grayfeld, forward-looking inclusion of LGBTIQ characters, Lana Wood's delightful knock knocks.

YOLT for me... More of story with greater stakes, 60s charm, gorgeous photography, Helga, lots of James Bond iconography. And it's home to my favourite production design of the series. 

DAF might edge out YOLT on the music front, however. Both excellent soundtracks. And I will concede flippant Connery is amusing to watch, whereas Connery in YOLT is at his most bored.

DAF. Though I like YOLT's score and scenery, much of what CJB says chimes for me. Connery at least has a bit more oompf. The one downside is, as said before, it's not quite what should've followed OHMSS.

YOLT is a classic for its parts: the cinematography and the score, the locations, the larger than life spectacle etc.
DAF is a wild knowing ride all the way through that is diabolically hysterical when you stop to really consider it.
Both are essential and indispensable.

Well after watching both again, they still both have different pros and cons.

YOLT has better action scenes and bigger spectacle, but it dives too much into the Japanese culture stuff, instead of just getting on with the mission I find.

Where as DAF, I actually like some of the camp, some of it may go to far here and there, but it's main problem is the villain is not as good, and the action scenes are very low budget feeling surprisingly, compared to other movies in the series. This one may have slightly better Bond girls. The Bond girls here are silly, and I think are suppose to be, where as in YOLT they are bland, so I guess it depends on which is better, silly or bland...

ironpony wrote:

YOLT has better action scenes and bigger spectacle, but it dives too much into the Japanese culture stuff, instead of just getting on with the mission I find.

Have you read the book?

No, but the books are hardly similar to the movies anyway, so I never used the books as templates to judge the movies.

But if there is a lot of culture devoted in the book, then perhaps I would judge the book the same way, and I would probably want it to be just get on with the mission more, if other books do by comparison.

Fleming had a journalist's eye for detail. If I recall correctly much is made in the YOLT novel of the idea that in Japanese culture, suicide is an honourable death and Dr Shatterhand/Blofeld's 'Garden Of Death', set up to facilitate same (a bit of Fleming still unadapted for the movies, more's the pity).

well it sounds like the suicide honor was probably used as part of the plot I am guessing.

The Jaoanese culture in the movie, I felt had nothing to do with anything. They show Bond getting married, even though it makes no sense for the plot for him to do so, and I think the only reason why they had this sequence, is just so they could show a Japanese wedding.

But it puts the plot on hold, and kills the pacing of the movie I thought.

A lot of the cultural elements were taken from the book however it wasn't integrated as well which indeed feels inconsequential. However, the travelogue component is part of the James Bond genetic makeup, so I'd much rather see local colour and customs than visiting a country for the sake of it (i.e. Montenegro in CR).

But is the travelogue component really part of the genetic make up in other movies? When he India in Octopussy, they don't spend all this time on him learning Indian culture, with his contact there. When he goes to Egypt in The Spy Who Loved Me, he does not take breaks to learn all this culture stuff, and they just spend time on the mission.

I would say that YOLT really overdoes it compared to other movies, not just with the wedding, but also in the bathing and massage scenes, and when he gets a Japanese disguise.

The clue was when I said 'it wasn't integrated well'.

It's less about taking a break from the mission and more about integrating culture into the narrative. In OP, we get a chase sequence on a Tuk Tuk, which continues as a footchase through an Indian market - which differs to the lifestyle of the West. Same as the scenes in Egypt (i.e. Bond meeting a contact at the pyramids, getting stranded in an Egyptian desert, meeting a contact at an Egyptian nightclub). In Fleming's YOLT, Bond's (impossible) mission was to get intelligence on Magic 44, which came of a developed friendship with Tiger. So Bond accompanies him and spends, for a lack of a better phrase, 'a day in the life of' which helps Bond get to the next part of his mission. As it is a basis for the film, the filmmakers still used much of the Japanese local flavour however it wasn't integrated to into the story as a means of developing characters or plot (as it did in the novel).

That's true. Perhaps it not being intergrated as well in YOLT made it stick out more for me. But I want to watch YOLT and see what I think of it an another viewing as well, cause I have mixed feelings all the time about that one.

When it comes to the travelogue aspect of Bond, YOLT is more of an anomaly. The book is heavy on travelogue because Bond's learning of Japanese culture is a therapeutic experience as it helps him cope after the loss of Tracy. But since they had to excise his grief in the film as they hadn't done OHMSS, the heavy travelogue just seems to be there only because it was in the book, not to serve anything else. Before YOLT, the most you'd get out of the previous movies was Bond enjoying a mint julep in GF or hanging out at a gypsy camp in FRWL.

[quote="FieldsMan"...the travelogue component is part of the James Bond genetic makeup, so I'd much rather see local colour and customs than visiting a country for the sake of it (i.e. Montenegro in CR). [/quote]

Perzackly.

Why go on location in exotic foreign countries if you're not going to highlight the exotic foreign culture?

Since modern viewers seem to be in a hurry for plot and action, they must prefer Skyfall for showing a couple of motorcycles tearing through the Grand Bazaar as a way of featuring local scenery. I like my Bond movies fleshed out, me, so QoS's filming in Panama and Chile for Haiti and Bolivia was kind of disappointing, since they couldn't show anything unique to any of those locations.

YOLT was a fast-paced actioner in 1967. What are some of the other posters saying, that the production team should have anticipated what home viewers would want forty years later, and stepped up the pace?

And another thing: without those bursts of local colour, YOLT would only have as long as QoS. Would that really be an Improvement?

Well it seems like an odd request cause even other Bond movies for the time, do not highlight the culture that much.  When they do, it's always plot related.  You seem some Swiss culture in OHMSS for example, but they don't spend so much time on it, like they do in YOLT.

In YOLT, it has nothing to do with the plot.  Bond has no reason to get married whatsoever, and it's thrown in there out of complete randomness it felt like.  Plus him having to wear a Japanese disguise seems really strange, since he's not fooling anybody, and it was all a moot point.

So I guess the cultural aspects in YOLT just felt forced on, where as in other movies, it's brought into the story naturally. I also think that QOS is the least best Bond movie, and would still pick YOLT over that one by a long shot.

Makeshift Python wrote:

When it comes to the travelogue aspect of Bond, YOLT is more of an anomaly. The book is heavy on travelogue because Bond's learning of Japanese culture is a therapeutic experience as it helps him cope after the loss of Tracy. But since they had to excise his grief in the film as they hadn't done OHMSS, the heavy travelogue just seems to be there only because it was in the book, not to serve anything else. Before YOLT, the most you'd get out of the previous movies was Bond enjoying a mint julep in GF or hanging out at a gypsy camp in FRWL.

You don't count Bond visiting Hagia Sophia's, using the Orient Express or the Bulgarian presence as indicators of culture and society in Istanbul?

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

When it comes to the travelogue aspect of Bond, YOLT is more of an anomaly. The book is heavy on travelogue because Bond's learning of Japanese culture is a therapeutic experience as it helps him cope after the loss of Tracy. But since they had to excise his grief in the film as they hadn't done OHMSS, the heavy travelogue just seems to be there only because it was in the book, not to serve anything else. Before YOLT, the most you'd get out of the previous movies was Bond enjoying a mint julep in GF or hanging out at a gypsy camp in FRWL.

You don't count Bond visiting Hagia Sophia's, using the Orient Express or the Bulgarian presence as indicators of culture and society in Istanbul?

The difference is that a lot of that is in the background and things are still moving fast. The movie doesn't stop itself to explain what the Orient Express is, it's just a means of Bond trying to smuggle the Lektor. I highlighted the gypsy camp because even when Bond was being explained of gypsy culture, we keep cutting back to the Bulgarians setting things up for an attack as a way of building up the suspense. Contrast to YOLT, which takes its sweet time to explain and show you things that don't really have much relevance to the story or plot. ironpony's pointing out of the marriage sequence is a good example. This is what I mean when saying YOLT is an anomaly because of how it indulges heavily on travelogue. Some fans love that about it, sure, but I wish it were better integrated into the story of the film. YOLT is my least favorite of Connery's run because it feels all surface. There aren't any rich characters with interesting dynamics like in the previous films. I know who Honey Ryder is and what's her story. I know Kerim Bey. I know Domino. Who is Tiger, besides just a figure head for the Japanese secret service that gives Bond access to places, information, and equipment? Who is Kissy? This is a big part of why Connery felt frustrated with YOLT, as it didn't have any rich characters as the film seemed more focused on set pieces and gimmicks. DAF in a lot of ways feels cheaper, but I get more memorable characters out of that than I do from YOLT.

Well as far as Bond girls go, Tiffany Case may be more memorable than Aki and Kissy but Plenty O'Toole, is considerably worse than Aki and Kissy.

For YOLT you must consider: Dahl wrote the screenplay and wasn't able to use Fleming's book AND had to follow the established formula without knowing the films and so the structure is roughly done around THUNDERBALL.
Lewis Gilbert was coming off ALFIE and hadn't done a big budget large scale production of this nature before.
Peter Hunt was on the second unit before coming back in much later to take over on the editing, so the pacing of the film is affected compared to even TB.
All of these considered, along with the extenuation of the "and the kitchen sink" mentality combined with the fading of the spy craze and Sean's lack of enthusiasm and it's a wonder YOLT works at all.

It works in the same way that the crane pull back shot of Sean on the Kobe Docks rooftop does-grand in scale yet totally removed from the immediacy of the action. In ways it actually has a staleness to it that was more often found in the spy spoofs done on low budgets such as IN LIKE FLINT. Barry's score I think ties everything together moreso than most anything and many scenes would drag without it.


DAF can feel cheap on video but should play better on the big screen or when projected. Agreed on some things because the PTS fight with Blofeld and guards is easily the worst staged fight in the original series. Which in itself is odd because you have the excellent elevator fight later. I think DAF suffers most from being the first Bond without Peter Hunt in any capacity. But this is traded for the fresh blood of Mankiewicz which gives the film its knowing quality and thus freshness. However there is an undeniable lowering of both scale and stakes from previous entries despite OHMSS being a very narrowly focused story.

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

When it comes to the travelogue aspect of Bond, YOLT is more of an anomaly. The book is heavy on travelogue because Bond's learning of Japanese culture is a therapeutic experience as it helps him cope after the loss of Tracy. But since they had to excise his grief in the film as they hadn't done OHMSS, the heavy travelogue just seems to be there only because it was in the book, not to serve anything else. Before YOLT, the most you'd get out of the previous movies was Bond enjoying a mint julep in GF or hanging out at a gypsy camp in FRWL.

You don't count Bond visiting Hagia Sophia's, using the Orient Express or the Bulgarian presence as indicators of culture and society in Istanbul?

The difference is that a lot of that is in the background and things are still moving fast. The movie doesn't stop itself to explain what the Orient Express is, it's just a means of Bond trying to smuggle the Lektor. I highlighted the gypsy camp because even when Bond was being explained of gypsy culture, we keep cutting back to the Bulgarians setting things up for an attack as a way of building up the suspense. Contrast to YOLT, which takes its sweet time to explain and show you things that don't really have much relevance to the story or plot. ironpony's pointing out of the marriage sequence is a good example. This is what I mean when saying YOLT is an anomaly because of how it indulges heavily on travelogue. Some fans love that about it, sure, but I wish it were better integrated into the story of the film. YOLT is my least favorite of Connery's run because it feels all surface. There aren't any rich characters with interesting dynamics like in the previous films. I know who Honey Ryder is and what's her story. I know Kerim Bey. I know Domino. Who is Tiger, besides just a figure head for the Japanese secret service that gives Bond access to places, information, and equipment? Who is Kissy? This is a big part of why Connery felt frustrated with YOLT, as it didn't have any rich characters as the film seemed more focused on set pieces and gimmicks. DAF in a lot of ways feels cheaper, but I get more memorable characters out of that than I do from YOLT.

... Which is my point. As I said, the cultural elements in YOLT are mostly inconsequential, or surface as you put it, and ironpony is right about the Japanese wedding for that reason. That's not synonymous with saying travelogue aspect of Bond was muted in earlier Bond films (or, for example relegated to a drink in GF).

Had YOLT successfully married the cultural and narrative elements together, it would have been something more along the lines of FRWL (at least in terms of balance, if not quality).

Yeah that makes sense. And YOLT is certainly not one of the worst Bond movies, I just have mixed feelings about it, and it's one of the hardest for me to decide on. I think I like it better than DAF though cause of the bigger budget, and better action and spectacle.

One thing I don't get is, is that fans often complain about Blofeld being disguised as a woman to slip out of the building. But why do fans complain about this, yet they do not complain near as much about Bond being disguised as a Japanese man?

Doesn't Blofeld's disguise have more of a reason for Blofeld to escape in the plot, compared to Bond's disguise not making much of a difference?

hegottheboot wrote:

It works in the same way that the crane pull back shot of Sean on the Kobe Docks rooftop does-grand in scale yet totally removed from the immediacy of the action.

I never really understood why that crane pull back gets so much praise by Bondphiles. It's just Connery hilariously throwing his arms around at extras that are unconvincingly acting as if they got the wind knocked out of them. The best compliment I can give is Barry's score.

FieldsMan wrote:

... Which is my point. As I said, the cultural elements in YOLT are mostly inconsequential, or surface as you put it, and ironpony is right about the Japanese wedding for that reason. That's not synonymous with saying travelogue aspect of Bond was muted in earlier Bond films (or, for example relegated to a drink in GF).

Had YOLT successfully married the cultural and narrative elements together, it would have been something more along the lines of FRWL (at least in terms of balance, if not quality).

Something more along the lines of FRWL would cut out a lot of the travelogue stuff, which I'd be in favor of. There's way too much of it as it is, again likely due to how heavy it is in the novel, which was always an unusual installment in Fleming's series. Fleming's novel was so strangely heavier in travelogue and introspection that nothing of real suspense ever kicks in until Bond travels to the Castle of Death, which is two thirds into the novel. Hell there's a page or two dedicated to a catalogue of poisonous plants. Even if the filmmakers had done a more faithful adaptation involving Bond's grief and personal vendetta, they'd have to add a bunch of set pieces just to make it exciting. I can imagine how audiences would just be confused watching Bond and Tiger just getting drunk for an hour and a half, writing haikus and talking about US/UK/Japanese politics before any notable suspense takes place. I love the book as it is, but I don't blame many for thinking it's just Fleming indulging in his ode to Japanese culture.

ironpony wrote:

One thing I don't get is, is that fans often complain about Blofeld being disguised as a woman to slip out of the building. But why do fans complain about this, yet they do not complain near as much about Bond being disguised as a Japanese man?

Doesn't Blofeld's disguise have more of a reason for Blofeld to escape in the plot, compared to Bond's disguise not making much of a difference?

It's the same reason Bond fans scratch their heads over Bond wearing clown make up. No matter how practical it may be from a logistics point, it still comes off as a little too ridiculous for many peoples' tastes. Also up to that point, it just feels unusually bizarre for the series, especially Connery's run. Had it happened in Moore's run, it would probably be less cited as a detriment.

Blofeld's DAF disguise comes across to me as another bit of camp in a movie that's already got its fair share of same.