Reunion with Death - early third Dalton treatment?

12345679»

Comments

  • Posts: 587
    I think you might be confusing Bond 17 and 18. Dalton's potential third Bond film would have been Bond 17. Donald E. Westlake submitted a script for Bond 18 (which turned out to be Tomorrow Never Dies) while Brosnan was Bond. Unless I'm misreading your post.
    Dalton's potential fourth film ("Reunion With Death") would have been Bond 18, a script written at the same time as Goldeneye (Michael France's original draft thought for Dalton). Revelator was noting that "Reunion With Death" was somehow lacking commercial potential, this is why I mentioned Donald E. Westlake since I think his ideas, even if written with Brosnan in mind, would have better fit Dalton than "Reunion With Death".

    "Reunion with Death" is more of a personal mission for Bond and ends tragically, so I think it might have been more interesting for Dalton. But neither Smith's nor Westlake's treatments are fully developed and would have needed a lot of work.

    Oddly enough, the idea of having the villain's wife sleep with Bond and betray her husband originated in "Reunion with Death," carried over to Westlake's treatments, and finally landed in TND.
  • Posts: 13,744
    JamesStock wrote: »
    To me, most unforgivable, egregious "technology" in the Bond series are ones involving the human body: OHMSS's hypnosis, NTTD's nano bots and bionic eyeball, and the worst of all (and I can't imagine no one has mentioned it here yet) DAD's gene therepy. I would argue a humanized robot, depending on how it's done, could be on that level. Personally, I can digest invisible cars and spaceships/boats that eats others better than the aforementioned kahooky.

    The one benefit I am reading here, is unlike the three Bond movies I mentioned, the plot doesn't hinge around it.

    I think gene therapy has been mentioned in this very thread. Regarding the hypnotherapy in OHMSS, it never bothered me: it may look dated now, but not implausible at the time it was written. Let's not forget that The Manchurian Candidate was released in 1962, where hypnotic treatment taken up to eleven is used in a relatively similar fashion. A Clockwork Orange had been published in the early 60s and, while it was sci-fi, the Ludovico treatment used mental manipulation in a very grounded way. (Come to think of it, quite interesting to think that at least three works of fiction published at about the same time used evil behavioral methods in their plot. I might start a thread about it.)
  • I guess we all have our own lines where we feel the series crosses one step too far into fantasy territory. Even while reading Fleming chronologically for the first time, I recall the giant squid in Dr. No being simply too much for what I had come to expect from literary Bond. Suddenly I was reading Jules Verne, not Fleming. I like the pulpy outrageousness of it now, but it did feel like a leap for Fleming. Similarly, I've never been able to get fully behind the complete brainwashing of Bond between YOLT and TMWTGG. That too felt like taking something that exists in our own world and teasing the thread of the concept to a degree it no longer holds up alongside the relative realism of the books.
  • Posts: 493
    Since62 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    To me, most unforgivable, egregious "technology" in the Bond series are ones involving the human body: OHMSS's hypnosis, NTTD's nano bots and bionic eyeball, and the worst of all (and I can't imagine no one has mentioned it here yet) DAD's gene therapy. I would argue a humanized robot, depending on how it's done, could be on that level. Personally, I can digest invisible cars and spaceships/boats that eats others better than the aforementioned kahooky.

    The one benefit I am reading here, is unlike the three Bond movies I mentioned, the plot doesn't hinge around it.

    It's certainly subjective, and different folks find the absurdity line located in different places. I think the OHMSS hypnosis was ok, and I understood it was the result of many more unseen - but referenced - hours spent with each individual lady, setting them up for the windup results the audience witnesses. Nano-tech already is here, so suggesting a more advanced form of it is not, for me, beyond the realm of feasibility. Same with the eyeball, though certainly a pair of glasses or a strap-on device on the user's head would be easier and would not require loss of an eye. But - a henchman required to lose his eye ? Hey, part of the job, and he's clearly whacko. For Blofeld ? Not unless he got it AFTER he already lost his eye. (Not to wander, but I'm fuzzy on the timeline on that point. Did he get his AFTER losing his eye ? He already was in custody ! So - is SP supposed to have managed to corrupt his keepers, or have corrupt keepers already in place, as with Quantum in QOS, already in place as of the very beginning of the film ? Or was Blofeld supposed to have been using it BEFORE Bond captured him ?) Yeah - the change your face bit in DAD was far-fetched for me, too, even in terms of "not yet but soon." And I follow your body-oriented vs. other tech distinction, quite so.

    I definitely agree with your take generally speaking. I may have to add in that my hatred for the biotech may also be from other factors such as all of them being a key component to the plot and not doing enough selling to get us there to believe the tech in the first place. That is why perhaps I can painfully swallow some of the bad tech ideas and not these particular ones... It does show the value in keeping Q around.

    So specifically, OHMSS does allow for off-screen manipulation efforts over time to occur, but I just despise what they do show - undergoing hypnosis uncontrollably. That said, it is the least offensive of the ones I mentioned.

    Yes, the bionic eye is tech is something being worked towards in theory, but man, the physical hurdles required to make it work - on top of the questions you brought up on how Blofeld got his just feel too far from reality. Like how do the eyes transmit info to/from the brain? Then, on top of that, how do they transmit info between them, particularly when one is in a super security jail cell. Perhaps if it weren't so central to the storyline, it could be overlooked. Likewise, the nano bots is explained in an extremely vague manner and are somehow indestructible and can reproduce themselves to spread everywhere and be effective through one little moment of touch...and on top of that is once again central to the plot. I think the general concepts aren't horrible per se, but they took them way too far out of plausibility.

    Lastly I dont feel like I should have to do any explaining with gene therepy and how what is shown will never work. And again, it is used as a cheap "gotcha" plot device central to the overall story.

    Compare those to worst non-biotech gadgetry - the invisible car. The tech was based on an existing technology. Had they shown it as something working from a distance and not directly in front of Bond's face, it'd be much more closer to plausibility. But even as is, I can accept the stretch. The part that grinds me is that how exactly does it work on the tires and not metallic parts of the car. While it remains one of my most hated Bond gadgets, it is at least used in a playful manner that can't be said with the others (and it isn't central to the plot).

    I'm all for taking technology and stretching limits, but I wish they did a better job keeping it in the realm of plausibility instead of sheer impossibility.
  • JamesStock wrote: »
    I definitely agree with your take generally speaking. I may have to add in that my hatred for the biotech may also be from other factors such as all of them being a key component to the plot and not doing enough selling to get us there to believe the tech in the first place. That is why perhaps I can painfully swallow some of the bad tech ideas and not these particular ones... It does show the value in keeping Q around.

    So specifically, OHMSS does allow for off-screen manipulation efforts over time to occur, but I just despise what they do show - undergoing hypnosis uncontrollably. That said, it is the least offensive of the ones I mentioned.

    I agree, a film like Bond, if it's one that's meant to be taken seriously as opposed to a more frivolous affair like Moonraker, has the task of "selling" its outlandish concepts to the audience.

    I'm not certain the hypnotism in OHMSS is portrayed as absolutely uncontrollable, however. Ruby pushes Bond away from her of her own volition and says it's time for her treatment. Or at least it can be seen that way. Then I suppose it might be viewed as a combination of brainwashing and hypnotism.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 10,466
    I guess we all have our own lines where we feel the series crosses one step too far into fantasy territory. Even while reading Fleming chronologically for the first time, I recall the giant squid in Dr. No being simply too much for what I had come to expect from literary Bond. Suddenly I was reading Jules Verne, not Fleming. I like the pulpy outrageousness of it now, but it did feel like a leap for Fleming. Similarly, I've never been able to get fully behind the complete brainwashing of Bond between YOLT and TMWTGG. That too felt like taking something that exists in our own world and teasing the thread of the concept to a degree it no longer holds up alongside the relative realism of the books.

    Yes, honestly I think if the brainwashing of Bond storyline popped up in a film I'd really struggle with it: it's a lot to swallow and really belongs in a Man From Uncle episode. An invisible car I'm fine with because it's just a fleeting novelty, but if Bond were brainwashed for a chunk of a film it'd be putting something impossible just a bit too front and centre and affecting our main character for my liking. It's probably over my 'too silly' threshold.

    Mind you, I guess I just about buy Jason Bourne's amnesia -and indeed brainwashing- perhaps because it's entirely what his story about, and his amnesia is slightly easier to swallow and less of a cliche because he has supposedly been subject to huge psychological torture effectively.
  • Posts: 603
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    I think you might be confusing Bond 17 and 18. Dalton's potential third Bond film would have been Bond 17. Donald E. Westlake submitted a script for Bond 18 (which turned out to be Tomorrow Never Dies) while Brosnan was Bond. Unless I'm misreading your post.
    Dalton's potential fourth film ("Reunion With Death") would have been Bond 18, a script written at the same time as Goldeneye (Michael France's original draft thought for Dalton). Revelator was noting that "Reunion With Death" was somehow lacking commercial potential, this is why I mentioned Donald E. Westlake since I think his ideas, even if written with Brosnan in mind, would have better fit Dalton than "Reunion With Death".

    "Reunion with Death" is more of a personal mission for Bond and ends tragically, so I think it might have been more interesting for Dalton. But neither Smith's nor Westlake's treatments are fully developed and would have needed a lot of work.

    Oddly enough, the idea of having the villain's wife sleep with Bond and betray her husband originated in "Reunion with Death," carried over to Westlake's treatments, and finally landed in TND.

    Yeah, I do agree: "Reunion with Death" was more interesting in its portrayal of Bond, who was more in line with, let's say, Licence to Kill, than any of the Bond 17 scripts (except France's Goldeneye). They never seemed that focused on the character of Bond himself, as opposed to "Reunion" that better evoked Dalton's previous movies.

    The problem I have with this script however concerns more the story as a whole: it's not very exciting, it's very standard and, all in all, not very creative, more notably regarding its bad guy. The only redeemable parts are, in my opinion, the London attack against M, the Japanese setting, the Tiger Tanaka and the bittersweet ending. Maybe these ideas would have been highlighted by a more interesting story, maybe by taking inspiration from the unmade B17 scripts.
  • Posts: 1,070
    Yes, with Bourne it was the result of a massive, deep, Looooong-term project working him over, and that was made clear to the audience - once the background was explained to the audience, that is. I never read the books, so I might have tracked along better, but - did anyone else find the Bourne films were re-telling the same story over and over ? As if he figured out OH ! NOW I recall that terribly traumatic assignment that messed me up ! Next filme - OH ! No -it was THIS terribly traumatic assignment that messed me up ! Frankly, I felt as if the film-makers were trying to "Bourne" me
    Sorry to have wandered off-course, but, well, see, my brain was affected by watching those films
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited March 1 Posts: 1,136
    Since62 wrote: »
    did anyone else find the Bourne films were re-telling the same story over and over ?
    Bourne movies only count if they're directed by Doug Liman. The Bourne Identity is a standalone in my house, man!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 10,466
    I must say I preferred the Greengrass ones, but they were indeed a masterclass in extending a plot that had ended. I think Supremacy is actually quite a good sequel premise, but the third one had pretty much no story at all and yet was still fantastic!
  • Posts: 13,744
    I guess we all have our own lines where we feel the series crosses one step too far into fantasy territory. Even while reading Fleming chronologically for the first time, I recall the giant squid in Dr. No being simply too much for what I had come to expect from literary Bond. Suddenly I was reading Jules Verne, not Fleming. I like the pulpy outrageousness of it now, but it did feel like a leap for Fleming. Similarly, I've never been able to get fully behind the complete brainwashing of Bond between YOLT and TMWTGG. That too felt like taking something that exists in our own world and teasing the thread of the concept to a degree it no longer holds up alongside the relative realism of the books.

    The giant squid is the one thing I'm really glad they left out of the DN film. It would have dated the film terribly, even if they'd managed to have good fx for it. Imagine Ray Harryhausen doing them for instance. Then we'd have a Ray Harryhausen movie, not a Bond movie. Interesting what if: maybe we'd expect a monster every film, instead of gadgets.
    JamesStock wrote: »
    I definitely agree with your take generally speaking. I may have to add in that my hatred for the biotech may also be from other factors such as all of them being a key component to the plot and not doing enough selling to get us there to believe the tech in the first place. That is why perhaps I can painfully swallow some of the bad tech ideas and not these particular ones... It does show the value in keeping Q around.

    So specifically, OHMSS does allow for off-screen manipulation efforts over time to occur, but I just despise what they do show - undergoing hypnosis uncontrollably. That said, it is the least offensive of the ones I mentioned.

    I agree, a film like Bond, if it's one that's meant to be taken seriously as opposed to a more frivolous affair like Moonraker, has the task of "selling" its outlandish concepts to the audience.

    I'm not certain the hypnotism in OHMSS is portrayed as absolutely uncontrollable, however. Ruby pushes Bond away from her of her own volition and says it's time for her treatment. Or at least it can be seen that way. Then I suppose it might be viewed as a combination of brainwashing and hypnotism.

    I have no problem accepting hypnotherapy in OHMSS, as it was a common trope at the time and they managed to keep in grounded, I think. An invisible car or azself sustainable space station, however, I can't buy it. And as much as I like NTTD, the bionic eye doesn't make one bit of sense.
  • Posts: 9,187
    The more I think of trends EON can jump on the more I wonder if they would do Dalton's third film as Bond 26 set in the early 90's and use the deaging technology it could work.


    We right now think that would be crazy and would never happen but did anyone see the curve balls thrown our way from No time to Die?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited March 1 Posts: 1,136
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    "Reunion with Death" is more of a personal mission for Bond and ends tragically, so I think it might have been more interesting for Dalton.

    Would've loved to have seen Dalton tackle something like this.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 1 Posts: 10,466
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And as much as I like NTTD, the bionic eye doesn't make one bit of sense.

    How do you mean? It's outlandish, but it makes sense.
    Venutius wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    "Reunion with Death" is more of a personal mission for Bond and ends tragically, so I think it might have been more interesting for Dalton.

    Would've loved to have seen Dalton tackle something like this.

    Shh! Around here you're supposed to hate personal missions! ;) :D
  • Posts: 1,070
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And as much as I like NTTD, the bionic eye doesn't make one bit of sense.

    How do you mean? It's outlandish, but it makes sense.
    Venutius wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    "Reunion with Death" is more of a personal mission for Bond and ends tragically, so I think it might have been more interesting for Dalton.

    Would've loved to have seen Dalton tackle something like this.

    Shh! Around here you're supposed to hate personal missions! ;) :D

    Agreed. Prosthetics and other tech to assist persons are quite advanced these days. Please see ScienceDaily.com for June 10, 2020 article on "World's first spherical artificial eye has 3D retina" with this Summary: Scientists have developed the world's first 3D artificial eye with capabilities better than existing bionic eyes and in some cases, even exceed those of the human eyes, bringing vision to humanoid robots and new hope to patients with visual impairment.

    Oh, boy, I didn't mean to bring up the robot thing again...
  • edited March 1 Posts: 13,744
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And as much as I like NTTD, the bionic eye doesn't make one bit of sense.

    How do you mean? It's outlandish, but it makes sense.
    Venutius wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    "Reunion with Death" is more of a personal mission for Bond and ends tragically, so I think it might have been more interesting for Dalton.

    Would've loved to have seen Dalton tackle something like this.

    Shh! Around here you're supposed to hate personal missions! ;) :D

    Oh im ready to accept that someone has a prostectic eye, thats not the issue. Thats the whole logistic. How did Blofeld got the eye? He didn't have it in Spectre, he then had a wounded eye. Then how did Blofeld give it to Primo? How is he communicating with his staff during the birthday party? How did he managed to get it to work, be connected to them, all this pretty much undetected from MI6 and the people in charge to guard him? I love the scene, it's deliciously creepy, surreal, nightmarish even. But like a nightmare, it doesn't make much sense if you stop to think about it.
  • Posts: 1,070
    Agreed, that's why I wrote earlier that I was fuzzy on the timeline. Did Blofeld have it while in prison ? Only if some corrupt keepers were in there, like the corrupt Quantum member who was present when Bond brought in Mr. White in the beginning of QOS. Once again - something which the simplest line of dialogue could have cleared up and made credible. Don't the - here it comes - scriptwriters see such things ? And those who read and review ?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 1 Posts: 10,466
    He had a wounded eye before he met Bond at the old MI6 building in Spectre, for all we know it was bionic then. Or yes, alternatively when he was undergoing medical treatment after the copter crash maybe one of his agents managed to put it in then, knowing he'd be imprisoned.
    That a signal got out of his prison is just spy stuff, really: I can swallow that. Would Belmarsh be monitoring signals? I don't know.
  • Posts: 13,744
    mtm wrote: »
    He had a wounded eye before he met Bond at the old MI6 building in Spectre, for all we know it was bionic then. Or yes, alternatively when he was undergoing medical treatment after the copter crash maybe one of his agents managed to put it in then, knowing he'd be imprisoned.
    That a signal got out of his prison is just spy stuff, really: I can swallow that. Would Belmarsh be monitoring signals? I don't know.

    It's a lot to accept, even taking into account that SPECTRE seems extremely efficient at covert activities. It's a beautiful scene and I accepted it without giving a second thought at first, but it's one of these things that is extremely far fetched if you look into it a bit. And don't get me wtong: I loved the film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 1 Posts: 10,466
    Honestly my first thought was that it was replaced with a bionic one after the explosion at the crater base. I guess that probably doesn't work as they look different (I think?) but it didn't cause enough of an issue to make me not accept it.
    Quite how he keeps it charged, on the other hand... :D

    Here are some photos I took of the prop on display a couple of weeks ago, just for fun:

    H0QB734B50JY.jpg
  • Posts: 1,070
    Bottom line - if Blofeld was supposed to be getting info from the outside, and perhaps giving directions from inside prison, by using his bionic eye, even if he had help from a corrupt keeper or few at prison - it STILL seems odd that the single most monitored and carefully imprisoned person in England - perhaps the world - was not checked, scanned, probed (oof !), etc. with some regularity and sometimes randomly to avoid any expectations of schedule. In fact - and especially after realizing they'd been infiltrated in QOS, they should have anticipated the possibilities of corrupt prison guards and changed them up sometimes, again - randomly and without regularity or notice. Not to mention the questions of signals somehow getting in, and getting out. OK, ok, I know I'm going on and on, and I do like the film very much, but, again, it is the sort of thing one could address rather directly and with relative ease by a line of dialogue or showing us something about how it got done. It also is part of why I say I am fuzzy on the timeline, since I think perhaps all I wrote above was moot, and that Blofeld used a Bionic eye BEFORE prison...??? But then, why bother ? Could just use a computer device and not have one's eye removed. So...asking...has anyone else figured out the timeline on it ? Perhaps Blofeld did not use one at all ?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 10,466
    Well his eye got smashed in Bond's watch explosion; he could have had it replaced purely so he could see again, and they took the opportunity for an upgrade.
    As for signals going in and out of prisons, well I don't know if they're monitored for that or not. I suspect there's no real reason to. Although this is the Bond world of course and everything is a bit more sci-fi there, so perhaps they would.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited March 3 Posts: 1,136
    Someone said if you look carefully, you can actually see Blofeld's eyeball go flying as a result of the watch explosion in SP! Haven't been quick enough to spot it myself, so I dunno if it's true.
  • Posts: 1,070
    Venutius wrote: »
    Someone said if you look carefully, can actually see Blofeld's eyeball go flying as a result of the watch explosion in SP! Haven't been quick enough to spot it myself, so I dunno if it's true.

    His natural eyeball, or a device eyeball ? It might take bionic vision to catch the glimpse...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 10,466
    Venutius wrote: »
    Someone said if you look carefully, can actually see Blofeld's eyeball go flying as a result of the watch explosion in SP! Haven't been quick enough to spot it myself, so I dunno if it's true.

    That rings a bell; I think you can see his face get injured, yes.
  • edited March 3 Posts: 147
    mtm wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Someone said if you look carefully, can actually see Blofeld's eyeball go flying as a result of the watch explosion in SP! Haven't been quick enough to spot it myself, so I dunno if it's true.

    That rings a bell; I think you can see his face get injured, yes.

    When he's blown back and his head hits the floor, you see a splat of blood. No eyeballs though, not as far as I can see (wink).
  • Posts: 1,070
    Hmmm...had the watch exploded near Blofeld's waist might he have been equipped with other bionic orbs by the time of NTTD ? oy...awful, right ?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,828
    Here we go...Blofeld's eyeball in SP is the new Dolly's braces.
  • Posts: 1,070
    ...what ? are you going to say Dolly does not have braces ?
Sign In or Register to comment.