The What if thread...What if Brosnan had starred in a remake of TB with Sony and Mclory in 1991?

13334363839

Comments

  • Posts: 12,490
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Sylvia doesn't really interest me. Bond having a f*** buddy at home doesn't really add much of anything for me. The FRWL scene is fun and everything but I wouldn't need a repeat of that.
    Is her surname supposed to be sexy filthy? Because it's kind of horrible! :D
    Agent_One wrote: »
    That would have been cool.
    It definitely would've made Kaufman killing the character more impactful if it was a past Bond girl (recast or not).

    Yes and given Brosnan a bit more history and context with the character to play off of perhaps. A lot of that drama would have landed better with the fans, and it would have made no difference to those who didn't know her from Dr. No.

    Damn, why didn't they do this. :(

    TND suggesting the idea that Sylvia "got too close" would seem rather ridiculous though, considering we only ever really saw them using each other for casual sex and then he'd run off to another country, shag someone else, and not contact Sylvia for six months.

    That's what I wanted to say regarding Sylvia Trench @mtm. She's meant to be a woman for casual sex between missions and she seems to consider Bond merely as a lover, not husband material.

    Yeah she is fairly insistent that he gives her a seeing-to in Dr No, despite only having met him seconds before! :D
    It's funny, she's actually almost the dominant one in the relationship to some extent: she's kind of like the female James Bond, much moreso than most of the girls Connery's Bond encountered. If they had developed it as PrinceKamal suggested, I think it would have been plausible that they could have married after a few films as they do seem on the same level and have an understanding. Maybe not falling in love exactly, but just being the same.

    She's one of the few Bond girls who actively go after him rather than be seduced by him. She was quite predatory in DN, come to think of it.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 3,239
    That's an interesting take @mtm and when I think about it I do see what you mean. In DN she goes to his house and waits for him. Then in FRWL she doesn't take his leaving with grace. :)

    It's too bad they haven't played with this aspect in future films. It does do a nice job to bring continuity and also you can explore some aspects of the character. In DN she shows us how Bond likes the ladies. In FRWL it foreshadows Bond letting his libido being his undoing as we know SPECTRE is using a female to lure him.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 3,789
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Sylvia doesn't really interest me. Bond having a f*** buddy at home doesn't really add much of anything for me. The FRWL scene is fun and everything but I wouldn't need a repeat of that.
    Is her surname supposed to be sexy filthy? Because it's kind of horrible! :D
    Agent_One wrote: »
    That would have been cool.
    It definitely would've made Kaufman killing the character more impactful if it was a past Bond girl (recast or not).

    Yes and given Brosnan a bit more history and context with the character to play off of perhaps. A lot of that drama would have landed better with the fans, and it would have made no difference to those who didn't know her from Dr. No.

    Damn, why didn't they do this. :(

    TND suggesting the idea that Sylvia "got too close" would seem rather ridiculous though, considering we only ever really saw them using each other for casual sex and then he'd run off to another country, shag someone else, and not contact Sylvia for six months.

    That's what I wanted to say regarding Sylvia Trench @mtm. She's meant to be a woman for casual sex between missions and she seems to consider Bond merely as a lover, not husband material.

    Yeah she is fairly insistent that he gives her a seeing-to in Dr No, despite only having met him seconds before! :D
    It's funny, she's actually almost the dominant one in the relationship to some extent: she's kind of like the female James Bond, much moreso than most of the girls Connery's Bond encountered. If they had developed it as PrinceKamal suggested, I think it would have been plausible that they could have married after a few films as they do seem on the same level and have an understanding. Maybe not falling in love exactly, but just being the same.

    She's one of the few Bond girls who actively go after him rather than be seduced by him. She was quite predatory in DN, come to think of it.

    DN was surely part of the sexual revolution.
  • mtmmtm
    Posts: 3,017
    thedove wrote: »
    That's an interesting take @mtm and when I think about it I do see what you mean. In DN she goes to his house and waits for him. Then in FRWL she doesn't take his leaving with grace. :)

    And it's her whole angle in the casino scene in Dr No too: she's very much out to get him.
  • Posts: 252
    echo wrote: »
    DN was surely part of the sexual revolution.

    Yes. The film depicted a woman who knew what she wanted sexually, and she acted purposefully to get it. And the film makes no moral comment on that. DN must have been thrilling to audiences brought up on fifties films, a real breath of fresh air

  • Posts: 12,490
    echo wrote: »
    DN was surely part of the sexual revolution.

    Yes. The film depicted a woman who knew what she wanted sexually, and she acted purposefully to get it. And the film makes no moral comment on that. DN must have been thrilling to audiences brought up on fifties films, a real breath of fresh air

    It must have shocked many as well. Come to think of it, Sylvia Trench is one of the best defined and most interesting "minor" Bond girls. Had they used her more than they did, the character would have suffered. I can only dread the massacre Tom Mackiewicz would have made of her in DAF.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 3,239
    echo wrote: »
    DN was surely part of the sexual revolution.

    Yes. The film depicted a woman who knew what she wanted sexually, and she acted purposefully to get it. And the film makes no moral comment on that. DN must have been thrilling to audiences brought up on fifties films, a real breath of fresh air

    Yes even the ending of the film. Even though it's Bond untying the rope, he only does it cause Honey motions for him to come down off the seat.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 2,837
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ryan wrote: »
    I don't find Stromberg particularly memorable either. It's hard to be threatened by a guy who looks like he's missed his afternoon nap. Due to the similarities between Spy and Moonraker, I've always considered that Drax was a better version of Stromberg. He's far more interesting to me.

    +1

    +2
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 1,225
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ryan wrote: »
    I don't find Stromberg particularly memorable either. It's hard to be threatened by a guy who looks like he's missed his afternoon nap. Due to the similarities between Spy and Moonraker, I've always considered that Drax was a better version of Stromberg. He's far more interesting to me.

    +1

    +2

    +3
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 3,789
    Stromberg would have been better as Blofeld. If he had stayed Blofeld, would he have escaped in the pod?
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 3,239
    Thanks for the gentle bump and reminder of this thread. Sorry I've been engaged with giving our awards! LOL!

    Lets transport back to 1968 and find ourselves with the casting of a new James Bond! 100's of actors were considered and a few were screen tested. Famously Life Magazine had pictures of the screen tests. As we know EON chose Lazenby but what if they had made a choice from one of the others? Would this had been a one and done actor too? Or do you think a different actor would have signed up for the 7 year contract that Lazenby famously rejected.

    A multiple choice what if! You can talk about a general what if and tell us what you think might have been the result is some other actor had been cast. Or you can zero in on one of those who got snapped by Life Magazine. (they were obviously front runners)

    The list of actors is John Richardson, Anthony Rogers, Robert Campbell, or Hans De Vries. An article on Mi6 can be found here if you wish to see each candidate

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/history_ohmss_auditions.php3

    So say you Mi6? What if another actor had been cast in OHMSS? What impact on that film but also the future of the series?
  • Posts: 132
    Regardless of the one ultimately chosen, I think that the difference with Lazenby would have been played on the decision or not of the actor to sign a contract for more films. The cold reception of the public towards Lazenby, it seems to me, owes a lot to the fact that even before the release of OHMSS, its star already resigned from the role, creating a bleak expectation for the audience.

    If the actor was announced before the release to star in several other installments, this could have created a more encouraging dynamic. This leads to the same status if Lazenby continued for more movies: I think he could have been accepted by the audiences, but never as much as Moore was ultimately.

    Even if it is only pure supposition, I assume that after three or four additional films, the series could have needed a new youth and that in any case, no unknown actor would have been fully accepted in this context. Moore was able to breathe a new life that none of these actors would ever have been able to give.

    However, among these contenders, Lazenby clearly seemed to me the best one. Robert Campbell has an interesting physique, and makes me think of Henry Cavill in Man from UNCLE, but his American nationality would have been a big handicap for the role. John Richardson would certainly have brought something different and would have been suitable for the romantic part, but not so much for the action part. Physically, at least, Lazenby was the most appropriate for the role.
  • edited June 13 Posts: 10,513
    John Richardson's haircut in the screen test photos reminds me a bit of Jack Nicholson in FIVE EASY PIECES.
    Still he might have been interesting. I do like the other contender's looks as well. Robert Campbell and Anthony Rogers look alright to me. Anthony Rogers reminds me a bit of Terence Cooper in CR '67.
    I actually think all five contenders look more Bondian than, dare I say, ANY of the names mentioned in the media as Craig replacements.
  • mtmmtm
    Posts: 3,017
    I've said it before, but they looked at Roger Moore for OHMSS but couldn't get him, and I think it would have been a much better film if they could have done. Bond drifting around the resorts of Portugal being a playboy and visiting casinos and being suave? That was pretty much what Roger had been doing for years in the Saint and he'd do it again in the Persuaders: the opening of that film is made for him, and arguably Lazenby looks a little shifty and cocky in those scenes compared to how at home you can picture Roger being there. Roger could easily have held the screen next to Rigg and Savalas, which George couldn't, and the more sensitive and romantic sides Bond had to show in the film were something that you'd get plenty of glimpses of in his Bond films. Connery never did any of that. Plus he'd have brought something, some charm and glimmer and a comedy angle to the Hilary Bray scenes where Lazenby did nothing with them.
    The fight scenes would have been worse, but I can't help thinking on the whole Roger would really have improved OHMSS. It needed a star playing Bond and it didn't get that. It might well have steered his subsequent films in a different direction too, for better or worse.
  • Posts: 132
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I actually think all five contenders look more Bondian than, dare I say, ANY of the names mentioned in the media as Craig replacements.
    I would not be as categorical as that, but I understand what you mean. However, Hans de Vries isn't English I believe, and that is a certainty for Robert Campbell. Thus, if European or American actors were to take into account, I think it would become easier to find more Bondian candidates, at least physically; if nationality isn't taken into account, Hans de Vries seems to have the profile of the role.

    Regarding the question asked, I suppose that he and the others would have agreed to sign a multi-picture, maybe not as much as was proposed to Lazenby, and would have continuity for some additional films.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 3,789
    I think anyone other than Connery would have failed. It took Connery coming back one last time (before the other "one last time")--and the '60s ending--for audiences to accept a true replacement.
  • mtmmtm
    Posts: 3,017
    echo wrote: »
    I think anyone other than Connery would have failed. It took Connery coming back one last time (before the other "one last time")--and the '60s ending--for audiences to accept a true replacement.

    I don't think that's necessarily true, it just needed to be someone good.
    I think there's also an argument that OHMSS was perhaps not the best film to make with a new Bond though: staying a bit more trad might have been better. But then LALD worked and that's fairly out there.
  • Posts: 10,513
    mtm wrote: »
    I've said it before, but they looked at Roger Moore for OHMSS but couldn't get him, and I think it would have been a much better film if they could have done. Bond drifting around the resorts of Portugal being a playboy and visiting casinos and being suave? That was pretty much what Roger had been doing for years in the Saint and he'd do it again in the Persuaders: the opening of that film is made for him, and arguably Lazenby looks a little shifty and cocky in those scenes compared to how at home you can picture Roger being there. Roger could easily have held the screen next to Rigg and Savalas, which George couldn't, and the more sensitive and romantic sides Bond had to show in the film were something that you'd get plenty of glimpses of in his Bond films. Connery never did any of that. Plus he'd have brought something, some charm and glimmer and a comedy angle to the Hilary Bray scenes where Lazenby did nothing with them.
    The fight scenes would have been worse, but I can't help thinking on the whole Roger would really have improved OHMSS. It needed a star playing Bond and it didn't get that. It might well have steered his subsequent films in a different direction too, for better or worse.

    I'm with you on Sir Roger.
  • Posts: 12,490
    I think any other actor would have struggled to be accepted after Connery. Even today he remains the benchmark for Bond for the general public. Sure, Lazenby did not help his cause with his attitude but he was doomed to fail. Maybe Moore could have been accepted somewhat for OHMSS as he had his own fanbase before Bond, but even then I think Lazenby needed to "fail" so the public could eventually come round to the fact that there would be a series without Connery. So as much as I hate to admit it DAF would have probably happened the way it was done.
  • jamesbond0007jamesbond0007 mississippi
    Posts: 2
    Lazenby was one of the best Bonds and OHMSS is one of the top 3 films....Wish he would of done DAF .....
  • Posts: 132
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think Lazenby needed to "fail" so the public could eventually come round to the fact that there would be a series without Connery. So as much as I hate to admit it DAF would have probably happened the way it was done.
    While I agree about the necessity of an initial failure, I think DAF could have been very different, without Connery having to come back. The actor who would have succeeded Connery (Lazenby or another) could have star in some additional installments, never being fully accepted, despite a greater enthusiasm than if he had an one-off, Roger Moore would have been a necessity, and the idea of a series without Connery would have been rooted.

    But assuming that this actor (Campbell, de Vries or even Lazenby) played the role until maybe 1974, before being replaced, would Eon have turned to Moore at that time? To the extent that he would have almost already turned fifty, perhaps he would no longer have been their favorite. It wouldn't seem impossible to me, but maybe not the most likely thing. Anyway, it would have required an actor recognized and appreciated by the audience, as opposed to the unknown who would just conclude his term.
  • Posts: 12,490
    I think at that point, in the public eyes, Connery was James Bond, period. Him and no one else. And I don't think anyone else, not Lazenby and not Moore, could have sold DAF. Even if not done as a self parody.
  • Posts: 3,863
    I think Roger was about the only actor who could have succeeded straight after Connery. He was very popular in the US, UK and Europe then. Missed opportunity.
  • edited June 14 Posts: 132
    Interestingly, in an article from August 1969, published in The Australian Women's Weekly, it is said that Lazenby is expected to sign for The Man With the Golden Gun, set to be the next installment. One's can suppose that this novel would also have been considered if another actor had been selected for the role in the first place. However, I don't really see how this novel could have become a revenge-themed sequel to OHMSS.

    Also, off topic, I wanted to return to an older question from this thread:
    thedove wrote: »
    Would FYEO be a back to basics Bond though? Or with that somewhat generic title could they have made it big in scale and scope like MR?
    According to Some Kind of Hero, what became of Moonraker was originally planned for FYEO. A treatment written by Tom Mankiewicz from May 1978, involved a space shuttle taskforce, known as the Enterprise fleet, and a bow-and-arrow wielding heroine called the Archer. And it was titled "For Your Eyes Only". The plan has therefore always been to propose a big scale adventure. It is interesting to think that if the Moonraker titled remained unused for the rest of the Moore era, the novel could have have been adapted during Dalton's tenure.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,550
    FoxRox wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Wasn't there also talk of Connery being Bond's dad in one of the Brosnan era films as well?

    Yeah for DAD. Tamahori came up with the idea that during the interrogation General Moon holds up a photo of Connery telling Brosnan "you can return to your father if you tell us", a photo which was confiscated from Bond when captured. The real kicker is that it would reveal that Connery is not only Bond's father but was the very same man we saw in the 1960s Bond films, because Tamahori was pretty big on the code name theory. Obviously that was rejected by EON.

    Thank goodness that didn't happen.

    Tamahori was clearly insane. Probably one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard from a Director.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,550
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would have been greatly disturbed. Complete gimmick. I never want to see a Bond portray anyone but Bond in any Bond film.


    +1.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 936
    suavejmf wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Wasn't there also talk of Connery being Bond's dad in one of the Brosnan era films as well?

    Yeah for DAD. Tamahori came up with the idea that during the interrogation General Moon holds up a photo of Connery telling Brosnan "you can return to your father if you tell us", a photo which was confiscated from Bond when captured. The real kicker is that it would reveal that Connery is not only Bond's father but was the very same man we saw in the 1960s Bond films, because Tamahori was pretty big on the code name theory. Obviously that was rejected by EON.

    Thank goodness that didn't happen.

    Tamahori was clearly insane. Probably one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard from a Director.

    Our asylums are full of people who think they're Naploeon.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited June 14 Posts: 4,550
    Octopussy wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Wasn't there also talk of Connery being Bond's dad in one of the Brosnan era films as well?

    Yeah for DAD. Tamahori came up with the idea that during the interrogation General Moon holds up a photo of Connery telling Brosnan "you can return to your father if you tell us", a photo which was confiscated from Bond when captured. The real kicker is that it would reveal that Connery is not only Bond's father but was the very same man we saw in the 1960s Bond films, because Tamahori was pretty big on the code name theory. Obviously that was rejected by EON.

    Thank goodness that didn't happen.

    Tamahori was clearly insane. Probably one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard from a Director.

    Our asylums are full of people who think they're Naploeon.

    Ha ha ha. Well said!
  • Posts: 1,144
    I agree that anyone not named Connery would've gotten the same reception as Lazenby.
    As far as other candidates, judging just by the photos, I like Campbell, he had the look. Richardson not so much. In the full article there are photos of him that he looks skeletal, quite the opposite of Connery. I am not sure Campbell's being American would've necessarily worked against him considering Eon hired another American, John Gavin. before Connery was lured back.
    Regardless of the one ultimately chosen, I think that the difference with Lazenby would have been played on the decision or not of the actor to sign a contract for more films. The cold reception of the public towards Lazenby, it seems to me, owes a lot to the fact that even before the release of OHMSS, its star already resigned from the role, creating a bleak expectation for the audience.

    If the actor was announced before the release to star in several other installments, this could have created a more encouraging dynamic. This leads to the same status if Lazenby continued for more movies: I think he could have been accepted by the audiences, but never as much as Moore was ultimately.

    I will disagree here. Consider the times. Given I was only about 2 when OHMSS was in production, there is no way I could've had any knowledge of the situation, but how well communicated was the fact Lazenby would not return as Bond? Opposed to the communication-driven world we are in today, those in the entertainment industry would've known, but the general public was likely less informed. Perhaps some of our members around at the time may have some insight, I just think a majority of moviegoers were not necessarily into entertainment news, especially here in the U.S. where there weren't the Entertainment Weekly magazines or anything similar. Not even an official fan club back then.

    Audiences heard there was a new James Bond movie. There was likely enough goodwill that those who liked Connery would take a chance on the new guy. Then it was likely word-of-mouth that said the new guy sucked, the longer running time and it was bleak as far as the tone and ending. Knowing he would be back for more wouldn't have created any type of better acceptance, I wouldn't think if they didn't like the initial offering.



  • mtmmtm
    edited June 14 Posts: 3,017
    I wonder how many people thought Golden Gun would star a different Bond? Bear in mind that each of the previous four films had a different actor in the lead! :D
Sign In or Register to comment.