The What if thread...What if Danny Boyle had directed Bond 25 with Daniel Craig?

1373839404143»

Comments

  • edited December 2020 Posts: 754
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    As I said I think the film looks beautiful, but I just get the sense that this era of Bond has dragged on too long now. For all my issues with SPECTRE, I thought it had a perfect ending; sending Craig’s Bond into the sunset, after all the crap he’s endured since CR. So as an audience member, I find myself wondering why continue this story? I’m reserving my judgments however.

    Totally agree with this statement. While far from satisfying, Spectre wrapped up the Craig era story arc and no continuation was needed at all. To wait more than five years for a sequel that reopens an ended story is particularly annoying. I'm not even sure audiences are particularly waiting for a continuation after such hiatus. All the more so when this continuation will not even breathe new life into the series and that it will experience a new hiatus.

    As far as we know, Boyle wasn't planning to bring Seydoux nor Waltz back, adding to that the earlier release date, this version of Bond 25 would have had this quality on the one hand of ending the Craig era earlier, allowing Eon to think about the future from 2020, and on the other hand of not forcing the continuation of a concluded story. It would have been, in my eyes, certainly more pleasant than what we know about the NTTD story. If it was really that necessary to give an additional conclusion to Spectre that did not ask for it, to not wait five years would have been more consistent.

    For me, I just get the impression that EON is having such a hard time letting the Craig era come to a close. It’s as if they’re scared to move on to their next era. It’s very similar to what happened with Roger Moore back in the mid 80’s. This wasn’t an issue when it came to moving on past Brosnan, they just kind of did behind his back. I just feel like they try their hardest to appease to Craig on so many levels, even going so far as to making him an executive producer, and at the end of the day, I just ask myself “Is it even worth it?” I don’t get any sense of enthusiasm from Craig in the role, and admittedly, his “wrist slitting” comments play a huge factor in that. Those were poor choices of words, and I find it ridiculous he’d say such a thing considering Roger Moore did 7 films back to back without making petty comments like that.

    I always worry when people don't get that joke. It's just something he said in half jest, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. He'd just spent a year or so getting in top shape and staying there (which Roger never did), with a creative role on a film, and filming long days, doing action scenes etc. - it's clearly a tiring process. And then there's the promo process. Yes he gets paid well and he clearly likes doing it otherwise he wouldn't, but I think we'd all fancy a bit of time off right after that.
    You're doing a lot of projecting onto him and his acting based on that one joke.

    And yes, the producers are keen to keep the guy who's been a massive hit in the role. I don't see that as being 'scared' of anything, they're just making the films for the people who like them.
    And the idea of moving on from Brosnan 'behind his back' and 'appeasing' Craig is just silly and overly emotive. Poor Pierce and horrid nasty Dan: it's all very simplistic characterisation of these people we don't know.

    I understand they’ve had a lot of successes with Craig in the role, and good on them, but people trash Moore for sticking around too long in the role, whereas I feel Craig gets an easy pass.

    Personally I don't mind either of them hanging on. I think I'd certainly say Craig is looking fitter than Roger did though.
    I imagine we as the hardcore fans don’t share this opinion, but mainstream audiences aren’t interested in connected storytelling unless it’s Marvel or Star Wars

    What are you basing that on?


    If it meant to be a joke, then it was a poorly made joke.

    Yes, it clearly was because of all the silly backlash. Do you really doubt it was a joke? You think he would literally have killed himself? I think surely you know it was a joke.
    There’s no projecting onto him, if the guy truly felt that way, then he should’ve walked away. End of story. This role made him what he is today, and comments like that just come across as being made in poor taste, and ungrateful for the opportunities this role had presented to him. Doesn’t matter if he “had to be in top shape”, or “had creative duties”, a job is a job. He should’ve been more professional with his comments.

    The joke was about making another film straight away: he was always happy to make more but it must be such an exhausting process for the individual whose everyone's attention is focused on for an entire year that they would understandably baulk at the idea of not having a break and doing another year straight of that. Surely that makes sense? The line was taken out of context and repeated as if he wasn't joking and was deadly serious: surely you've seen him in interviews? He has a very dry and quite blunt wit. Yes, that means he's not great at after-dinner speaking and isn't a natural raconteur like Roger was, but then neither was Connery.
    It’s also inaccurate to say Roger never “got into shape” for any of his Bond films considering there is actual footage of Moore swimming, and lifting weights every morning to prepare for Live and Let Die.

    Yes, definitely not for the cameras at all! :))
    Come on, are you really comparing the two?
    You don’t think Brosnan wasn’t a huge hit for EON at the time?

    I didn't say he wasn't.
    If you don’t think they didn’t plan Brosnan’s departure behind his back, then I’ve got news for you, that’s literally what they did. Brosnan was expected to do a 5th film before they pulled the brakes on his tenure. I’m not “over emoting” anything; you’re just taking everything I say out of context because you don’t agree.

    No, you're overemoting it. Characterising everything as if you know these people. Yes, Brosnan didn't know about it, that's a matter of record. That they were sneaking around 'behind his back' being awful and horrible to him because they secretly hated him and Babs had a poster of Daniel on her wall or whatever is silly: it was a business arrangement. Their relationship is professional: if they'd have decided to drop Craig too they'd have done it in exactly the same way. Thanks but no thanks, we've decided to move on. It's how movies work. It's how they moved on from Dalton too. And the next person through the door was Brosnan.
    And what do I base my comments off of? Simple Logic perhaps? Knowledge of critical, audience, and box office reception? Every other Hollywood franchise that has jumped on the “Connected Storytelling” bandwagon has failed in that regard, it doesn’t take glasses to see that.

    So no sequels have ever succeeded? I would have to say that's not really true.

    I’m quite aware he was joking; I understand sarcasm.

    Oh okay: you said "If he was joking" which suggests you didn't know.
    That doesn’t mean it wasn’t made in poor taste. You don’t joke about serious issues like that, it’s insensitive (and I hate using that term) to people who actually have those struggles in real life, especially coming from a guy getting paid millions to do this job. I don’t care if that’s how his “wit” is, it was a crappy statement. I’d say the same thing if Brosnan, Connery, or Moore stated that. Can I understand not wanting to do another immediately? Yes, but as I said, he should’ve been more professional, and put those feelings in a way that’s a more refined manner, otherwise the press wouldn’t have run with it the way they did, and those comments wouldn’t have come off as ungrateful and in bad taste.

    I'm not going to argue there: it was crass (he's always a bit crass and sweary in interviews) and you can bet that EON's PR gave him a real whipping because his words caused a big issue by people taking it out of context, as you have here. But the meaning behind the words was just 'I'm tired and can't even think about doing another one right now'. That's the meaning, judging a man because of the way he says something rather than the meaning behind it isn't very reasonable I think.
    And yeah, I’d say Moore wasn’t doing it for the cameras. He’s said himself he had to lose weight and get into shape to prepare for Bond. He wasn’t lazily sitting around on his arse not taking anything seriously. Obviously Moore wasn’t as fit for the role as Craig is now, but to say that he didn’t to whip himself into shape for the films is absurd. I can buy that maybe towards the end of his tenure he didn’t do any kind of workout training, because the man was pushing 60, but his earlier films do show him in good shape.

    This is silly. Yes he lost a bit of weight because Cubby told him to, but trying to argue that he had it as bad as Craig has, with his little muffin top over the top of his trousers, is absurd.
    I’ve never said they were “being awful and horrible to Brosnan because they secretly hated him”, that’s yet another ridiculous and absurd statement that you’ve completely pulled out of thin air (I admire your creativity in misinterpreting my statements BTW), I simply stated they planned their move behind his back. You can say I’m “over emoting” my statements on Brosnan all you want, just as I can say your “overreacting” to what I’m saying and not accurately reflecting my comments.

    But it is: you're painting a picture with words. That phrase 'behind his back' carries an awful lot of connotations, and I would suggest that there was a reason you chose that particular phrase instead of something like 'they decided they needed a new lead actor' for a particular reason, as if he was being hard done by.
    What do you call that? Letting him in on their plans the entire time? Or planning their next move behind his back? Barbara obviously felt bad for doing so, Brosnan said she cried on the phone, but that doesn’t sugarcoat the fact they were planning their next step without letting him know.

    Why do they have to let him know? They let him know when they were ready to. It's not a cosy club, it's a business.
    And look how, in that quote you chose, Brosnan said he was "getting bored"!! The bastard! :))
    Why make a petty comment like that? Where's his enthusiasm? ;)
    That also wasn’t how they moved on from Dalton. Cubby approached Dalton to do Goldeneye, but expected Dalton to sign on for an additional 4 films afterwards, to which Dalton declined.

    That's the polite company line, but many people including the chiefs at the studio have said they didn't want Dalton and he was basically removed. Not Cubby's choice, but not Dalton's choice either. I'll dig out the name of the guy who said that's how it happened later.
    I’m not talking about singular sequels, I’m talking about planned connected storytelling that spans multiple films (I.E Marvel and Star Wars), perhaps I should’ve made myself more clear.

    There have been loads of sequels which span multiple films. The Craig Bond films took their lead from the Bourne series, for one.
    I can understand you not agreeing with what I say. Hell I can understand you not liking what I say, but at least have the common courtesy to not take everything I say out of context, and rearrange what I’m saying to fit your own views and opinions. That shouldn’t be an issue.

    Please have the courtesy not to accuse me of things I'm not doing.

    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.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,424
    For the sake of curiosity, I would love to know more about Boyle's B25 as it had been pretty well developed up until it was scrapped. However, knowing Fukunaga's frame of work I can't help but think that his style suits Craig's iteration of Bond far more than Boyle. It would have definitely been innovative, but knowing what Fukunaga is doing with Bond (and I'm talking about aspects of the story not seen in any of the trailers), it's fair to say that this movie will be one of the most ambitious films in the entire franchise.

    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.
  • Posts: 5,750
    @jake24 , I’m not sure how developed the script was. My memory could be wrong, but I know there was enough work on the script that they started to build “some” sets and of course they were ready to cast the big bad.

    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 6,994
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    As I said I think the film looks beautiful, but I just get the sense that this era of Bond has dragged on too long now. For all my issues with SPECTRE, I thought it had a perfect ending; sending Craig’s Bond into the sunset, after all the crap he’s endured since CR. So as an audience member, I find myself wondering why continue this story? I’m reserving my judgments however.

    Totally agree with this statement. While far from satisfying, Spectre wrapped up the Craig era story arc and no continuation was needed at all. To wait more than five years for a sequel that reopens an ended story is particularly annoying. I'm not even sure audiences are particularly waiting for a continuation after such hiatus. All the more so when this continuation will not even breathe new life into the series and that it will experience a new hiatus.

    As far as we know, Boyle wasn't planning to bring Seydoux nor Waltz back, adding to that the earlier release date, this version of Bond 25 would have had this quality on the one hand of ending the Craig era earlier, allowing Eon to think about the future from 2020, and on the other hand of not forcing the continuation of a concluded story. It would have been, in my eyes, certainly more pleasant than what we know about the NTTD story. If it was really that necessary to give an additional conclusion to Spectre that did not ask for it, to not wait five years would have been more consistent.

    For me, I just get the impression that EON is having such a hard time letting the Craig era come to a close. It’s as if they’re scared to move on to their next era. It’s very similar to what happened with Roger Moore back in the mid 80’s. This wasn’t an issue when it came to moving on past Brosnan, they just kind of did behind his back. I just feel like they try their hardest to appease to Craig on so many levels, even going so far as to making him an executive producer, and at the end of the day, I just ask myself “Is it even worth it?” I don’t get any sense of enthusiasm from Craig in the role, and admittedly, his “wrist slitting” comments play a huge factor in that. Those were poor choices of words, and I find it ridiculous he’d say such a thing considering Roger Moore did 7 films back to back without making petty comments like that.

    I always worry when people don't get that joke. It's just something he said in half jest, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. He'd just spent a year or so getting in top shape and staying there (which Roger never did), with a creative role on a film, and filming long days, doing action scenes etc. - it's clearly a tiring process. And then there's the promo process. Yes he gets paid well and he clearly likes doing it otherwise he wouldn't, but I think we'd all fancy a bit of time off right after that.
    You're doing a lot of projecting onto him and his acting based on that one joke.

    And yes, the producers are keen to keep the guy who's been a massive hit in the role. I don't see that as being 'scared' of anything, they're just making the films for the people who like them.
    And the idea of moving on from Brosnan 'behind his back' and 'appeasing' Craig is just silly and overly emotive. Poor Pierce and horrid nasty Dan: it's all very simplistic characterisation of these people we don't know.

    I understand they’ve had a lot of successes with Craig in the role, and good on them, but people trash Moore for sticking around too long in the role, whereas I feel Craig gets an easy pass.

    Personally I don't mind either of them hanging on. I think I'd certainly say Craig is looking fitter than Roger did though.
    I imagine we as the hardcore fans don’t share this opinion, but mainstream audiences aren’t interested in connected storytelling unless it’s Marvel or Star Wars

    What are you basing that on?


    If it meant to be a joke, then it was a poorly made joke.

    Yes, it clearly was because of all the silly backlash. Do you really doubt it was a joke? You think he would literally have killed himself? I think surely you know it was a joke.
    There’s no projecting onto him, if the guy truly felt that way, then he should’ve walked away. End of story. This role made him what he is today, and comments like that just come across as being made in poor taste, and ungrateful for the opportunities this role had presented to him. Doesn’t matter if he “had to be in top shape”, or “had creative duties”, a job is a job. He should’ve been more professional with his comments.

    The joke was about making another film straight away: he was always happy to make more but it must be such an exhausting process for the individual whose everyone's attention is focused on for an entire year that they would understandably baulk at the idea of not having a break and doing another year straight of that. Surely that makes sense? The line was taken out of context and repeated as if he wasn't joking and was deadly serious: surely you've seen him in interviews? He has a very dry and quite blunt wit. Yes, that means he's not great at after-dinner speaking and isn't a natural raconteur like Roger was, but then neither was Connery.
    It’s also inaccurate to say Roger never “got into shape” for any of his Bond films considering there is actual footage of Moore swimming, and lifting weights every morning to prepare for Live and Let Die.

    Yes, definitely not for the cameras at all! :))
    Come on, are you really comparing the two?
    You don’t think Brosnan wasn’t a huge hit for EON at the time?

    I didn't say he wasn't.
    If you don’t think they didn’t plan Brosnan’s departure behind his back, then I’ve got news for you, that’s literally what they did. Brosnan was expected to do a 5th film before they pulled the brakes on his tenure. I’m not “over emoting” anything; you’re just taking everything I say out of context because you don’t agree.

    No, you're overemoting it. Characterising everything as if you know these people. Yes, Brosnan didn't know about it, that's a matter of record. That they were sneaking around 'behind his back' being awful and horrible to him because they secretly hated him and Babs had a poster of Daniel on her wall or whatever is silly: it was a business arrangement. Their relationship is professional: if they'd have decided to drop Craig too they'd have done it in exactly the same way. Thanks but no thanks, we've decided to move on. It's how movies work. It's how they moved on from Dalton too. And the next person through the door was Brosnan.
    And what do I base my comments off of? Simple Logic perhaps? Knowledge of critical, audience, and box office reception? Every other Hollywood franchise that has jumped on the “Connected Storytelling” bandwagon has failed in that regard, it doesn’t take glasses to see that.

    So no sequels have ever succeeded? I would have to say that's not really true.

    I’m quite aware he was joking; I understand sarcasm.

    Oh okay: you said "If he was joking" which suggests you didn't know.
    That doesn’t mean it wasn’t made in poor taste. You don’t joke about serious issues like that, it’s insensitive (and I hate using that term) to people who actually have those struggles in real life, especially coming from a guy getting paid millions to do this job. I don’t care if that’s how his “wit” is, it was a crappy statement. I’d say the same thing if Brosnan, Connery, or Moore stated that. Can I understand not wanting to do another immediately? Yes, but as I said, he should’ve been more professional, and put those feelings in a way that’s a more refined manner, otherwise the press wouldn’t have run with it the way they did, and those comments wouldn’t have come off as ungrateful and in bad taste.

    I'm not going to argue there: it was crass (he's always a bit crass and sweary in interviews) and you can bet that EON's PR gave him a real whipping because his words caused a big issue by people taking it out of context, as you have here. But the meaning behind the words was just 'I'm tired and can't even think about doing another one right now'. That's the meaning, judging a man because of the way he says something rather than the meaning behind it isn't very reasonable I think.
    And yeah, I’d say Moore wasn’t doing it for the cameras. He’s said himself he had to lose weight and get into shape to prepare for Bond. He wasn’t lazily sitting around on his arse not taking anything seriously. Obviously Moore wasn’t as fit for the role as Craig is now, but to say that he didn’t to whip himself into shape for the films is absurd. I can buy that maybe towards the end of his tenure he didn’t do any kind of workout training, because the man was pushing 60, but his earlier films do show him in good shape.

    This is silly. Yes he lost a bit of weight because Cubby told him to, but trying to argue that he had it as bad as Craig has, with his little muffin top over the top of his trousers, is absurd.
    I’ve never said they were “being awful and horrible to Brosnan because they secretly hated him”, that’s yet another ridiculous and absurd statement that you’ve completely pulled out of thin air (I admire your creativity in misinterpreting my statements BTW), I simply stated they planned their move behind his back. You can say I’m “over emoting” my statements on Brosnan all you want, just as I can say your “overreacting” to what I’m saying and not accurately reflecting my comments.

    But it is: you're painting a picture with words. That phrase 'behind his back' carries an awful lot of connotations, and I would suggest that there was a reason you chose that particular phrase instead of something like 'they decided they needed a new lead actor' for a particular reason, as if he was being hard done by.
    What do you call that? Letting him in on their plans the entire time? Or planning their next move behind his back? Barbara obviously felt bad for doing so, Brosnan said she cried on the phone, but that doesn’t sugarcoat the fact they were planning their next step without letting him know.

    Why do they have to let him know? They let him know when they were ready to. It's not a cosy club, it's a business.
    And look how, in that quote you chose, Brosnan said he was "getting bored"!! The bastard! :))
    Why make a petty comment like that? Where's his enthusiasm? ;)
    That also wasn’t how they moved on from Dalton. Cubby approached Dalton to do Goldeneye, but expected Dalton to sign on for an additional 4 films afterwards, to which Dalton declined.

    That's the polite company line, but many people including the chiefs at the studio have said they didn't want Dalton and he was basically removed. Not Cubby's choice, but not Dalton's choice either. I'll dig out the name of the guy who said that's how it happened later.
    I’m not talking about singular sequels, I’m talking about planned connected storytelling that spans multiple films (I.E Marvel and Star Wars), perhaps I should’ve made myself more clear.

    There have been loads of sequels which span multiple films. The Craig Bond films took their lead from the Bourne series, for one.
    I can understand you not agreeing with what I say. Hell I can understand you not liking what I say, but at least have the common courtesy to not take everything I say out of context, and rearrange what I’m saying to fit your own views and opinions. That shouldn’t be an issue.

    Please have the courtesy not to accuse me of things I'm not doing.

    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.”

    'Losing weight' ≠ maxresdefault.jpg

    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.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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?
    And the Dalton comments weren’t “a polite company line”, that’s from the mouth of the man himself.

    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.
    There have also been loads of sequels which have little relation to the first film (Die Hard 2, Batman Returns).

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    Nope, read my point above about the meaning of the phrase you used.
    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.

    If you don't understand, I can't explain it to you.
    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.

    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.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 30,465
    I'm getting flags on this thread and I can't even get to the bottom of what the issue is. And there its no way I'm reading through this mess. I'll give the standard "knock it off and grow up" to whoever is pissing each other off. Let it end there.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 6,994
    peter wrote: »
    @jake24 , I’m not sure how developed the script was. My memory could be wrong, but I know there was enough work on the script that they started to build “some” sets and of course they were ready to cast the big bad.

    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.

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,297
    I thought of a "What if"?:

    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?
  • Posts: 109
    peter wrote: »
    Cary pursued Barbara. He wanted this job... On the flipside, Danny Boyle was quoted around Skyfall's release as saying something to the effect that he liked to watch Bond films, but he didn't want to make one....

    You are forgetting that Danny Boyle & John Hodge also pursued Barbara. They had an unusual idea and went to EON with their idea.
  • edited March 12 Posts: 437
    echo wrote: »
    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?

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,297
    I kind of think we still would have gotten an OHMSS novel, with a different villain. Fleming seemed keen to reimagine the Vesper story. And perhaps also a YOLT since that seems to have been "inspired" by his decline in health.

    Without TB, we very well could have seen an OHMSS that was the Bond blockbuster in 1965.
  • Posts: 437
    echo wrote: »
    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 15 Posts: 4,297
    Interesting, and possible. I wonder if Eon would have had the foresight to "open up" CR to multiple travelogue locations in 1965 like they did in 2006.

    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.
  • Posts: 437
    An idea of what if occurred to me after I came across the following bit of trivia:

    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:
    What happened was that Roger Moore had entered into dispute with Cubby Broccoli over salary and this was something that was documented in Variety and the trade papers and Roger was looking for a hike in pay, and so, had decided that he wouldn't play Bond again unless he was paid an increase in salary.
    At this point the Bond company had decided they wouldn't do that and they would go with a new James Bond and a new director. They choose an actor called David Warbeck who was secretly tested. I had directed David Warbeck in a film called Wolfshead (aka Wolfshead: The Legend of Robin Hood), which is a very highly regarded little film. Cubby Broccoli had seen this and had decided that if David Warbeck got to play James Bond then I would get to direct Bond. In fact, they did a two picture deal with me because they were going to do two James Bonds, back-to-back. The idea was, at that particular point, they wouldn't do just one James Bond at time but we were going to do two at a time.

    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?
  • Posts: 1,530
    An idea of what if occurred to me after I came across the following bit of trivia:

    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:
    What happened was that Roger Moore had entered into dispute with Cubby Broccoli over salary and this was something that was documented in Variety and the trade papers and Roger was looking for a hike in pay, and so, had decided that he wouldn't play Bond again unless he was paid an increase in salary.
    At this point the Bond company had decided they wouldn't do that and they would go with a new James Bond and a new director. They choose an actor called David Warbeck who was secretly tested. I had directed David Warbeck in a film called Wolfshead (aka Wolfshead: The Legend of Robin Hood), which is a very highly regarded little film. Cubby Broccoli had seen this and had decided that if David Warbeck got to play James Bond then I would get to direct Bond. In fact, they did a two picture deal with me because they were going to do two James Bonds, back-to-back. The idea was, at that particular point, they wouldn't do just one James Bond at time but we were going to do two at a time.

    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.
  • Posts: 437
    BT3366 wrote: »
    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.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Still waiting for the Jena Malone Batwoman movie that's never going to be made.Moderator
    Posts: 11,849
    As a fan of Warbeck, this What If, is of particular interest to me. I don't know where the suggestion that he was paid by EON to be on standby should Moore quit, come from. He doesn't mention it in his Bond. Though he does talk about his brush with Bond. First on page 22, when asked about The Sex Thief, which was directed by Martin Campbell, who 'went on to direct the latest Bond film, GoldenEye'. he says that he had mixed feelings on it (his brush with Bond), before going on to talk about The Sex Theif.
    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,297
    BT3366 wrote: »
    An idea of what if occurred to me after I came across the following bit of trivia:

    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:
    What happened was that Roger Moore had entered into dispute with Cubby Broccoli over salary and this was something that was documented in Variety and the trade papers and Roger was looking for a hike in pay, and so, had decided that he wouldn't play Bond again unless he was paid an increase in salary.
    At this point the Bond company had decided they wouldn't do that and they would go with a new James Bond and a new director. They choose an actor called David Warbeck who was secretly tested. I had directed David Warbeck in a film called Wolfshead (aka Wolfshead: The Legend of Robin Hood), which is a very highly regarded little film. Cubby Broccoli had seen this and had decided that if David Warbeck got to play James Bond then I would get to direct Bond. In fact, they did a two picture deal with me because they were going to do two James Bonds, back-to-back. The idea was, at that particular point, they wouldn't do just one James Bond at time but we were going to do two at a time.

    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.

    They did exactly that with Gavin and DAF.
  • Posts: 1,530
    echo wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    An idea of what if occurred to me after I came across the following bit of trivia:

    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:
    What happened was that Roger Moore had entered into dispute with Cubby Broccoli over salary and this was something that was documented in Variety and the trade papers and Roger was looking for a hike in pay, and so, had decided that he wouldn't play Bond again unless he was paid an increase in salary.
    At this point the Bond company had decided they wouldn't do that and they would go with a new James Bond and a new director. They choose an actor called David Warbeck who was secretly tested. I had directed David Warbeck in a film called Wolfshead (aka Wolfshead: The Legend of Robin Hood), which is a very highly regarded little film. Cubby Broccoli had seen this and had decided that if David Warbeck got to play James Bond then I would get to direct Bond. In fact, they did a two picture deal with me because they were going to do two James Bonds, back-to-back. The idea was, at that particular point, they wouldn't do just one James Bond at time but we were going to do two at a time.

    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 382
    It was for pressure in contract negotiations.
  • BennyBenny ...OctobennyAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 11,697
    Can't think of a thread to put this idea in. But after seeing Calvin Dyson's comments on who could've been Goldfinger I was thinking, character actor Robert Morley could've been a good Bond villain in the sixties. A Goldfinger (though Gert Frobe will always be impossible to replace or even imagine someone else in the part)
    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.
  • edited June 7 Posts: 437
    Benny wrote: »
    Can't think of a thread to put this idea in. But after seeing Calvin Dyson's comments on who could've been Goldfinger I was thinking, character actor Robert Morley could've been a good Bond villain in the sixties. A Goldfinger (though Gert Frobe will always be impossible to replace or even imagine someone else in the part)
    Or perhaps even as Ernst Stavro Blofeld in YOLT. Morley was a wonderful actor who I believe could've made a wonderful Bond villain.

    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:
    Of the British films to be released by 20th Century-Fox, Casino Royal [sic], based on a novel by Mr. Ian Fleming, will have a cast including both the recent interpreters of the character of Oscar Wilde—Mr. Robert Morley and Mr. Peter Finch.

    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!
Sign In or Register to comment.