I'm always defending this film trying to persuade Bond fans to watch these movies in context with the times and not compare them by today's standard. At least go into it appreciating the technical challenges of the 60s for bloody sake. It confounds me to hear the reviewer say the underwater scene was "behind its time."

Why do so many modern movie goers - conditioned to quick-paced CGI action scenes - find it difficult to watch an older classic film from that audience's point of view? Thunderball is actually very telling in how audiences were influenced by visual story telling of the day. It's actually a great film in that respect.

Yes, watching Thunderball in retrospect, the epec underwater battle scene seems cumbersome and weighted. However, in the early 1960s, the average movie goer was fascinated by scuba diving scenes. Take Jacque Cousteau. Why was he so popular? Because, he brought the underwater world into family TV living rooms! It amazed audiences - and that was nearly 10 years after Thunderball was filmed. Cameras weren't even being designed for live underwater takes - particularly in open seas. Before Thunderball, scenes were shot at Silver Springs, Florida, in fresh water springs no more the 20-30 feet deep. Perfect conditions. No one was sure how much Thunderball would cost. There were endless questions about the effects of salt water on gear, how to build lighting and set pieces, and directing the extended combat scene. Shooting in open sea was perceived as extremely risky to stunt men and little was known about shark behavior. The term "shark wrangler" never existed until Thunderball. Financially, "Cubby" dropped more cash into this production than any other Bond film and was the longest and most popular Bond film at that time! When a search was made for underwater filming, only two experienced photographers were known - and neither had done a full-length movie. Lamar Boren won an academy award for underwater cinematography and special effects (the first Bond film to win an Oscar).

Is Thunderball outdated visually now. Perhaps in some eyes, but not mine. I beg you. When will Bond fans stop beating this horse dead! We know... lots of Bond fans think its slow and funky with the underwater fight and "blue screen" fight scene (they used blue, not a green screen in those days). Try putting yourself in the mindset of a 60s audiences and never mind how Bond knew to mysteriously have a flying back pack awaiting (but hilariously stopped to throw flowers on the dead guy), all to laughter from the audience! Or my favorite in You Only Live Twice where Bond cleverly changes into a ninja wardrobe in a volcano and produces suction cups to scurry down a crater wall! What satisfied audiences was seeing how Bond stayed one step ahead of the bad guy. The major difference between audiences of the 60s and the now popular Bond, was that audiences weren't interested in a dark and serious Bond. They wanted to be amused, and they laughed along and delighted in the surprises of the grand super spy. Today, we want our Bond dark, serious and convincing. It would do us well to place a bit more effort in identifying with the audiences of the Connery era. I think we'd walk away feeling far more entertained in the end.