It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Fair enough on your first point, I simply chose the wrong words in my response to you.
When did I say Moore “had it as bad as Craig has?” I simply stated Moore did 7 films back to back without making comments like that. He was exhausted considering he was getting long in the tooth and was uncomfortable continuing on with the role, but he was still a good sport about it. I simply replied to you’re statement that Moore “didn’t work out for the role”, which you seemed to have contradicted yourself saying “he had to lose weight because Cubby said so.”
I’m not painting a picture with any words, that’s yourself painting that picture. My original statement wasn’t meant to provoke an image of “evil Barbara and evil Michael”, it was meant to portray what had happened. I agree they were just doing business, but none of my comments have said otherwise, nor have they painted EON as being evil and malicious. I simply stated “they did it behind his back”, which is true, even you admitted it.
Also Brosnan never said “he grew bored” in his tenure, he said that if he had done more than 5 films, if presented the opportunity, then he’d grown uninterested, and older. That’s why he wanted to stop after 5. That’s not being petty, that’s being honest and upfront. Where was his enthusiasm? In the interviews after DAD where he says he’s looking forward to doing another one, that’s where.
And the Dalton comments weren’t “a polite company line”, that’s from the mouth of the man himself. Fair enough there are conflicting stories, and I know what your talking about with UA not wanting him back, but there are just as many conflicting stories about Lazenby not doing another. David Picker outright said they fired him, and we all know Lazenby chose to walk away.
There have also been loads of sequels which have little relation to the first film (Die Hard 2, Batman Returns). I agree the Craig era was mounded after Bourne, only the Bourne films did a better job of presenting the overarching story on a film, by film basis than the Craig era has.
I wouldn’t be accusing you of stuff you weren't doing, if you actually weren’t doing it. You’ve taken my words out of context so much to try and confuse what my intent is behind those words, and I’ve simply called you out on it. You’ve even said it yourself above that my “Brosnan” comments painted that image in your head, which kind of backs up what I’m saying about you taking my words out of context. Also how can I take issue with “Craig working out more than Roger”, when I’ve simply stated Roger didn’t sit around lazily, and did some working out of his own. I also have even admitted to Craig being more physical. Again, more of my words taken out of context. I’m not trying to be rude, but please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not taking anything personally by replying to every little thing you say, just as I imagine you aren’t. It’s called debating. I’m simply stating that I’m not okay with what you’re obviously doing. I’m not trying to argue, but I’m also not going to allow you to continue rephrasing my words to fit your own meaning without saying something. Also at the same time, you can’t criticize me as taking this “personally” when on another thread, you yourself stated you felt to “insulted” by my opinions, and dismissed them as coming from “a guy sitting on his arse typing on a computer.” I didn’t want it to go this far, I really didn’t, and I don’t want to keep having these types of interactions with you. You seem like a nice guy whose well informed in his opinions, but I just ask for you to have some respect and to not misconstrue my opinions when I’m perfectly clear on how I feel on such subjects. I apologize if I came across as rude, but I’m afraid you have also. Let’s leave it at that.
The Bond series has missed out on opportunities for continued stories on a couple of occasions. For example, DAF would have been a much better film had Lazenby and Savalas returned in their respective roles. While I agree that every actor should have standalone movies, I don't see any issue with occasional continuity if done well. There is something to be said for the epic-nature of story and character progression over several movies. While I definitely understand the reservations behind bringing back characters from a forgettable Bond film, Fukunaga is vastly different from Mendes. Since NTTD is a sequel to all four Craig films, it can easily be one of the most memorable Bond films to date if executed properly. But it will be a tough movie to get behind for some fans if they aren't willing to let go of its connections to SP.
But the script itself needed a lot of work, hence the suggestion a script doctor come on board to fix it up.
What’s also forgotten about this is that Universal also had a big say on the script not being up to snuff. They’re distributing and these guys know what a “big tent pole “ film is. They didn’t think Hodge’s script was close to that. So the idea that EoN pulled the rug from under Boyle isn’t true (although they released the official announcement); this was a creative decision from the main partners in this film.
EoN did try and move ahead with Boyle, but Boyle didn’t want a script doctor(s) to touch Hodge’s script.
That seemed to be the final straw.
'Losing weight' ≠
You're just arguing for the sake of it. Show me a picture where Roger looks like that and then I'll accept that I contradicted myself.
My point, as you well know, is that he took a lot of pain and effort to get looking like that, and maintain it throughout shooting, and that's not really the same as Roger eating a bit less jelly and doing few lengths in his pool in the morning. I love Roger, but I don't think he'd ever claim to going to that much effort.
Okay, then say all they did was replace an actor with another one and that there's nothing wrong with that.
Here's the meaning of the phrase:https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/to-do-something-behind-someones-back#:~:text=If you say that something,an unfair or dishonest way.
If you say that something was done behind someone's back, you disapprove of it because it was done without them knowing about it, in an unfair or dishonest way.
I didn't say at all that they did it 'behind his back' because I don't think there was anything dishonest or unfair about it at all. If you didn't know that's the meaning of that phrase then fair enough, but that's what I was reacting to.
If the point you were trying to make wasn't that Brosnan was hard done by and Craig isn't a bad guy, then there's not much left of your points.
So he was planning to get bored?! That's even worse!!
I'm playing with you of course: I'm trying to show how easy it is to twist these statements if you've decided that the person making them is bad. Honestly: if Craig said tomorrow that he can imagine getting bored if he made another one, you wouldn't be saying how awful he is?
Well, of course it is. No offence to the guy, but he would say that. And he may even believe it to be true, I don't know. Maybe they both had the same idea at the same time. But when you look at what's most likely given his lack of success in the role and that they wanted to relaunch the series after six years away, it's not likely that he had the choice to make himself. Maybe he even managed to jump before they pushed him.
Yes I know, but that's irrelevant. You're just being argumentative for the sake of it again. No one has denied these exist. You're just trying to find any reason to contradict me, even if it's nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Again, argumentative and off the point. Your original point was that audiences aren't interested in continuing stories.
The fact that some unrelated sequels exist neither proves nor disproves your assertion: it's irrelevant. I just have to show that it's not true that audiences can like linked narratives through a series a films, and they do.
Nope, read my point above about the meaning of the phrase you used.
If you don't understand, I can't explain it to you.
Look, I've explained why I think you're wrong, you decided to have a pop at me, which suggests to me you don't have faith in your own points. I would never say I'm insulted by someone else's opinions about Bond films: how can you accuse me of taking your comments out of context when I've quoted them so carefully and then make up something like that? I'm tired of it now.
That rings true bearing in mind some of Boyle's recent stuff which I don't think has had strong enough stories. And I've no idea what happened with Yesterday: he seemed to have gone mad making that.
What if TB the novel never existed? What would the huge film of 1965 be? Would Connery ever have come back after DAF? And the big one...would Fleming have lived longer and written more novels?
You are forgetting that Danny Boyle & John Hodge also pursued Barbara. They had an unusual idea and went to EON with their idea.
Considering Fleming was a heavy smoker and drinker for most of his life, I guess he would have suffered a heart attack with or without McClory. Maybe he would have died a few years later but I doubt he would have lived much longer. The main question seems to me to be whether SPECTRE would have been introduced into the novels or not. Regardless of McClory, I think Fleming would sooner or later have created an international crime syndicate, as it is consistent with the geopolitical context of the time and Fleming's interest for gangsters (didn't Umberto Eco suggested that the Spangs were a forerunner of SPECTRE?).
Perhaps in this context we would have had OHMSS earlier in the timeline, with Blofeld introduced for the occasion, or maybe another novel would have been written. Assuming OHMSS would have been written regardless of Thunderball, I think it would have been adapted as soon as 1965.
Without TB, we very well could have seen an OHMSS that was the Bond blockbuster in 1965.
On second thought, I thought to myself that it would have been possible for Eon to negotiate with Charles Feldman at this time to adapt Casino Royale. It was shortly before the release of Goldfinger that discussions took place between Broccoli and Feldman and, without McClory, it would arguably been the prospect of a rival Casino Royale that would have been judged as something more harmful to the official series.
In this context, we could have had an adaptation of Fleming's first novel, based on Ben Hecht's drafts, staying true to the heart of the plot while adding action scenes to make it a blockbuster.
Fleming definitely did not do Eon any favors by selling off the various rights piecemeal! CR, MR, in addition to the TB lawsuit. Otherwise, we might have gotten a more faithful MR in the '60s.
According to an old IGN article (https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/10/04/featured-filmmaker-john-hough), director John Hough (Twins of Evil, Watcher in the Woods, Biggles) on a DVD commentary track, explains that he came close to direct a Bond film with David Warbeck as the lead. Here is the quote reported by IGN:
While it's unclear which installment Hough is referring to, it's likely to be FYEO since, for Octopussy, James Brolin was the favorite to take up the mantle and Glen was more or less guaranteed to direct the film.
So, what if John Hough directed For Your Eyes Only with David Warbeck as Bond?
I've never heard of Hough or Warbeck so this got me really curious and I looked up Warbeck. I wouldn't be surprised if he was on Cubby and Harry's radar following Lazenby's departure and later Connery's. He had a long career but kind of reminds me of the Rick Dalton character in Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood with all the exploitation films he did.
Here's what his profile on Wikipedia said about his Bond association: Thanks to his appearances in several high-profile action and horror films, Warbeck was being seriously considered as the next James Bond, but the role was taken by Roger Moore. Warbeck claimed that for many years he was paid an amount to be a substitute or back-up Bond on the conditions that he not tell anyone and that he be ready for filming at a moment's notice in the case of Moore leaving or threatening to leave the role. One day he read about Timothy Dalton being chosen and was told by the producers that he was now "too old for the role".
That's an interesting claim and I'm surprised Eon never took action on such a statement. Would they really pay a guy not to play? While I don't doubt he was considered, Hough's claims seem to be a stretch also. Wasn't Glen always considered the heir to the director's chair after MR? Besides that, I don't think they'd have considered filming anything back-to-back as the writers only seemed to do one script at a time.
I guess nothing was ever set in stone, all the more so when we know that even for LTK Cubby proposed to another filmmaker (in this case John Landis) to direct the film when he already had Glen. And I agree with you about the back-to-back shooting concept which is really strange for the time. Still, I don't see what interest Hough would have in inventing such ideas.
It's on page 24, where he goes into more detail.
"But it's ironic that I was actually contracted to be the new Bond and my director was to be Johnny Hough, because I had chats with Broccoli amd said no, I didn't want to work with John Glen, because I have this problem with Directors."
He goes on to liken the younger Campbel to Glen, in that they didn't see his sense of humour. I can certainly picture Warbeck as Bond, he had a fair ammount of experience behind him, but wasn't a mainstream star. He could have been Bond up until TLD, LTK at a push. Which would rule out any chance of Dalton being cast.
They did exactly that with Gavin and DAF.
True, but a major difference. In this case it was worth the cost of getting the man who was the face of their franchise. It just seems really far-fetched to pay an actor whose services are pretty unlikely to be used to be used at a moment's notice. If so, then why test other actors at all if you have the perfect alternative.
Or perhaps even as Ernst Stavro Blofeld in YOLT. Morley was a wonderful actor who I believe could've made a wonderful Bond villain.
Can't seem to find the right thread for this, but this one appeared the closest.
When producer Gregory Ratoff was alive and planned to do a Casino Royale adaptation between the end of the 50s and the beginning of the 60s, Robert Morley was apparently considered to play Le Chiffre. Or at least that's what an article from The Times ("Big American Film Plan For England", June 28 1960) suggests:
I suppose the idea was to have Morley as Le Chiffre and Finch as Bond. This could have been a great cast and Morley would have been a great Chiffre!