›

What if the movies had been filmed in the order of the books?

Smirnoff_PurpleSmirnoff_Purple
edited February 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 110
As we are all aware, the first Bond film was Dr. No, and the rest did not follow the same order as Fleming's novels. This thread (http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/194/your-ultimate-bond-timeline/p1), however, has made me wonder: What if the Bond films had been produced in the "literary order" (with or without consideration to the short stories/Casino Royale)? Further, what if the books had been followed much more closely plot/character/etc.-wise? What classic elements would we lose? What impact would it have had on the series?

I have certain ideas about it, but I'd like to hear yours (first, at least).

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I would have loved to see Sean in CR, but his opening four golden films are much more worth it. What we'd lose:

    *The one-liners
    *Some over-the-top stunts
    *Felix would be chewed off almost right out of the gate
    *We'd exchange DN's opening for Bond walking out of the casino(could've been something)
    *We'd lose some of the charm in Bond
    *No office romance with Moneypenny
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 13,350
    If they had been filmed in that order, the series may well have been better to end after the final novel as having a much better consistency throughout.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Samuel001 wrote:
    If they had been filmed in that order, the series may well have been better to end after the final novel. The series would have a much better consistency.

    I'm afraid the series' end will be with one of the Bond actor's last films, but we won't know its the final one :/

    But yes, if they had followed the books I doubt we'd still have films. There would have been a much solider ending to the franchise.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 13,350
    As has been said before, if done for TV, seeing the books filmed in order would be great but given the choice, the random order has only helped us get where we are today, so I'm thankful. It's better that way it is - I think.
  • jolearonjolearon
    Posts: 645
    @JWESTBROOK Series END? How dare you speak such words!
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    jolearon wrote:
    @JWESTBROOK Series END? How dare you speak such words!

    Call me a pessimist. Its not like its come close half a dozen times in history :P
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Only three things are certain in life: death, taxes and a new James Bond film. :)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited February 2012 Posts: 28,694
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Only three things are certain in life: death, taxes and a new James Bond film. :)
    I think Benjamin Franklin left that bit out... ;)
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Only three things are certain in life: death, taxes and a new James Bond film. :)
    I think Benjamin Franklin left that bit out... ;)

    What would a 1770's Bond be like? Hahahahahah super anti-American.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited February 2012 Posts: 4,440
    Live and Let Die in 1962 or 1963 be a shock for some White people. For some people in 1954 it mabey already be.

    From my fan art i also did some re-search and take a element from The Spy Who Loved Me in to Bond 24. (in the hope there wil yuse it.) For 2014 standards it feels double shocking, but what if The Spy Who Loved novel who is written in 1962 have been made in to a movie in 1963.

    From some discussion on this forum earlier i have understand that mabey some elements of the Yolt and TMWTGG novel mabey wil be seen in Skyfall or/and Bond 24. Eon/Broccoli & Saltzman wait 6 years (TMWTGG novel is from 1966) before there consider for the first time to make elements of TMWTGG in to a movie. I can imagene TB, OHMSS and Yolt mabey been made in 1962 1963 and 1964 because that's what the producers whant first. (OHMSS whas re-consider again after Goldfinger) But those novels who made in the 60's include TMWTGG and TSWLM all 5 have problems, as you can see/heard in the inside documentry's and why there go for Dr No.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Only three things are certain in life: death, taxes and a new James Bond film. :)

    I can live with that! :D
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Only three things are certain in life: death, taxes and a new James Bond film. :)

    In probably 20 years, that'll be down to two things.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Agent007391 wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Only three things are certain in life: death, taxes and a new James Bond film. :)

    In probably 20 years, that'll be down to two things.

    And which one gets the chop? ;)
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    That's up to you. (I'd emote, but I can't find an emoticon for "sshh")
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    In 20 years, I think all three will still be around.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Agent007391 wrote:
    That's up to you. (I'd emote, but I can't find an emoticon for "sshh")

    Like this one: :-$
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    Out of News and in to Bond Movies
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    M_Balje wrote:
    I can imagene TB, OHMSS and Yolt mabey been made in 1962 1963 and 1964 because that's what the producers whant first.

    Yes, the Blofeld Trilogy would have been great!
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    I've always wondered why this never happened, but I'm certainly fine with the Bond series as is, no question to that. The success speaks for itself! If they had done this, and assuming that the Bond actors past and present kept their numbers, and the years were the same, here's what it might have looked like:

    Sean Connery

    (1) Casino Royale (1962)
    (2) Live and Let Die (1963)
    (3) Moonraker (1964)
    (4) Diamonds Are Forever (1965)
    (5) From Russia with Love (1967)
    (7) Goldfinger (1969)

    George Lazenby

    (6) Dr. No (1971)

    Roger Moore

    (8) A View to a Kill (1973)
    (9) For Your Eyes Only (1974)
    (10) Quantum of Solace (1977)
    (11) Risico (1979)
    (12) The Hildebrand Rarity (1981)
    (13) Thunderball (1983)
    (14) The Spy Who Loved Me (1985)

    Timothy Dalton

    (15) On her Majesty's Secret Service (1987)
    (16) You Only Live Twice (1989)

    Pierce Brosnan

    (17) The Man with the Golden Gun (1995)
    (18) Octopussy (1997)
    (19) The Living Daylights (1999)
    (20) The Property of a Lady (2002)

    Daniel Craig

    (21) 007 in New York (2006)
    (22) Out of novels by this point, so new ideas would have to be made
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2012 Posts: 5,969
    00Beast wrote:
    I've always wondered why this never happened, but I'm certainly fine with the Bond series as is, no question to that. The success speaks for itself! If they had done this, and assuming that the Bond actors past and present kept their numbers, and the years were the same, here's what it might have looked like:

    Sean Connery

    (1) Casino Royale (1962)
    (2) Live and Let Die (1963)
    (3) Moonraker (1964)
    (4) Diamonds Are Forever (1965)
    (5) From Russia with Love (1967)
    (7) Goldfinger (1969)

    George Lazenby

    (6) Dr. No (1971)

    Roger Moore

    (8) A View to a Kill (1973)
    (9) For Your Eyes Only (1974)
    (10) Quantum of Solace (1977)
    (11) Risico (1979)
    (12) The Hildebrand Rarity (1981)
    (13) Thunderball (1983)
    (14) The Spy Who Loved Me (1985)

    Timothy Dalton

    (15) On her Majesty's Secret Service (1987)
    (16) You Only Live Twice (1989)

    Pierce Brosnan

    (17) The Man with the Golden Gun (1995)
    (18) Octopussy (1997)
    (19) The Living Daylights (1999)
    (20) The Property of a Lady (2002)

    Daniel Craig

    (21) 007 in New York (2006)
    (22) Out of novels by this point, so new ideas would have to be made

    DN and GF should be reversed. FRWL ends with Bond being kicked by Klebb and DN opens with M chastising Bond for his Beretta jamming on the last job.

    Lazenby would get GF!

    If they were filmed in order, some of the good cliffhangers (FRWL/DN and YOLT/TMWTGG) would have made it to the screen.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 13,350
    00Beast wrote:
    I've always wondered why this never happened.

    EON didn't own the rights to Casino Royale, so they couldn't start at the beginning. I thought this was common knowledge.
  • Smirnoff_PurpleSmirnoff_Purple
    Posts: 110
    Very interesting ideas. I've wondered about making the films like this but allowing for things like gadgets, Moneypenny, action scenes, etc., to play their parts. Of course, even then, we'd lose a lot of the ridiculous elements that both see us laugh at them and helped to define (parts of) the series. Still (and taking into account no rights to Casino Royale until later), it's worth considering:

    Sean Connery:
    Live and Let Die (1962)
    Moonraker (1963)
    Diamonds Are Forever (1964)
    From Russia with Love (1965)
    Dr. No (1967)

    Roger Moore:
    Goldfinger (1969)
    Thunderball (1971)
    The Spy Who Loved Me (1973)
    On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1975)
    You Only Live Twice (1977)
    The Man with the Golden Gun (1979)

    Timothy Dalton:
    For Your Eyes Only (1981)
    Octopussy (1983)
    From a View to a Kill (1985)
    The Living Daylights (1987)
    Licence to Kill (1989)

    Pierce Brosnan:
    GoldenEye (1995)
    Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
    The World Is Not Enough (1999)
    Die Another Day (2002)

    Daniel Craig:
    Casino Royale (2006)
    Quantum of Solace (2008)
    Skyfall (2012)

    Even still, the films as they are work sort of too well for anything else to have happened. Connery's films offered such variety in atmosphere, Lazenby's was a stark stand-out, Moore's were so grand-scale...well, you get it. Point is, the series has survived the way it's developed, and I don't think most people would want to change it.
  • connerybondconnerybond
    Posts: 163
    Some one like me who read a few Bond novels before they were filmed, I am happy that it started with DN , then to FRWL , GF etc.. I was simply thrilled to see the Bond on the screen, and particularly Sean Connery playing the character and Josph Wiseman as Dr No..
  • Goldeneye95Goldeneye95
    edited March 2013 Posts: 546
    Sean Connery-

    DN
    FRWL
    YOLT
    DAF

    Sir Roger Moore-

    MR
    FYEO
    OP
    TMWGG

    Sir Timothy Dalton-

    LALD
    TB
    OHMSS

    Pirece Brosnan-

    TSWLM
    TLD
    GF
    POAL (Property of A Lady)

    For the question that pertains to the thread. If Cubby & Saltzman decided to start with CR & go in order of Fleming's Bond novels, the Bond films would be tone down in sense of humor & more serious.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    edited March 2013 Posts: 2,341
    Might have been interesting to have seen it done that way.

    The only time an inconsitency showed up was with DN and FRWL...since FRWL had been written before DN, the scene when M gives him his new PPK and reminds him of an injury from his last mission. Bond had been injured at the end of the book FRWL when his Beretta jammed and Klebb got him with her poison shoe knife. M does mention in the film (like he does in the book) that the license to kill is no good if he gets killed.

    The most glaring flaw in "out of sequence" shows up in OHMSS and filming this film out of sequence with YOLT. When Bond and Blofeld meet at Piz Gloria. In the book it was the first time they had met but as we all well know the two met in the previous film, YOLT. A plot flaw/hole but we generally ignore it.

    apologize for the double post, my computer has a mind of its own.
Sign In or Register to comment.