Francois and Angelo

I give Bond films a lot of leeway, the old special effects don't bother me and I can suspend disbelief with the rest of them. It's necessary when you're a big fan of the Moore era. But Thunderball isn't a Bond film I watch much (I watch the first 3 Connery films a lot but not the other ones as much), so I was a little caught off guard by whatever effect they used to create two of Paul Stassino. It was pretty weird looking, but after a little chuckle just moved on, because it's probably the best they could do with the technology of the time. But then I wondered, did they even need to use technology there? Couldn't they have just shot one guy from behind or gotten some twins for the roles of Fancois and Angelo? He plays an important part in the story, but it's not a very important part, so it's not one of those things where they really needed the best actor possible and let special effects take care of the rest. That shot of Francois turning around so you can see both of their faces doesn't really seem like that much payoff to justify such an obvious effect, or even using one. Seems like they preferred an obvious effect to a more subtle/realistic way of achieving the same shot. I know Thunderball is often considered the first of the "spectacle movies", even by those involved, because it was the first time they set out to make a follow-up to a hugely successful Bond movie and they were trying to make everything bigger and better. Was it just a case of using an effect to show off, show off some of that budget because a simpler solution was too simple for Thunderball?

"Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie son?"