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
Thanks! It would have been a cool thing to see happen!
Connery not in YOLT is heresay. Off with your head. THATS HIS MOVIE. You can't take it.
:P
Definitely. There has been a lot reported lately about a very long term contract that Lazenby didn't want to sign because he was told the spy craze was a thing of the past and wouldn't abide. What i wonder is, did Lazenby ever have a choice signing for less than that long contract, was that maybe everything or nothing? A commitment for a very long time or no deal at all?
Not like to say it but Yes. When i saw the movie in the cinema my opnion be difrent. I always thaught there only choose him because fans whant him back a lot & it be a save option. After 2 more views, QOS and time i think mabey Eon hired him indeed as save option in the meaning that audince forgive give him easier. Casino Royale playing with classic elements and also at some very agression.
002a: The cinematic James Bond cannot keep modernizing.
No. I think on a couple of things there not modernizing enough. Other things to much. Some movies in the past or for example season 1 of MacGyver are steps forward more then the Bond movies after Twine. QOS is freshing on a couple of things. One thing i think modernizing to much is the age of the actres. I like to see more older woman in the movies as well from other sides of the world.
002b: They need to go back to Bond’s roots – explore the ‘50s and ‘60s once more.
Yes and No. If you mean the spying and more people/more bond girls then i say yes.
003: The second half of almost every Bond film introduces a steep decline in quality.
I disagree. Goldeneye. Some other movies need more views before i like them. But CR be first of the 6 Bond movies i saw in the cinema i ask my self i can stil like Bond movies.
004: A different director each Bond film is better than the same director working on several Bond films.
John Glen proofs he did very well. Also iam happy Terence young made FRWL. I think Guy Hamilton should have done Thunderball. I am happy he returns for DAF. I have like to see Michael Apted directed Bond 20. First i whas also happy with the return of Campbell.
005: George Lazenby should have done at least one more Bond film after OHMSS.
Agree. Whyle DAF is my second Sean Connery favorite Bond movie.
I think he gets a lot of unfair criticism because he did just one movie. Looking at his performance, he brought a down to earth charm to the role, had great chemistry with series regulars and was way more physical than the ageing Connery. You genuinely believe he could defeat those guys on the beach in the PTS, there was no unrealistic superhero stupidity about his performance. He came across as a real man. Yes, he was new to the acting game but thats even more reason why I think he would have got stronger with each film.
002 I´d pay to see that, just don´t abandon the modernization line altogether
003 True, with some exceptions, like CR
004 Probably true
005 Yes, many more
Well, I'd agree with you on TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, and AVTAK on the campy train. I don't really think that LALD, FYEO, and OP qualify as camp as much as the others do.
Exactly! Lazenby could have had a small Bond career but not to cut into Roger's time.
Well the "original" Blofeld trilogy from the books consisted of "TB, OHMSS and then YOLT". The whole fact to "turn japanese" was to conceal Bond's identity so that he wouldn't be recognized when he went to kill Blofeld in revenge.
The producers kept the series linear and towards the books by starting the whole SPECTRE plot with DN, FRWL and TB. To keep the continuity, they would've done OHMSS next (which was predicted at the end titles of TB).
However, they opted to do YOLT instead, because of two things: 1) a more exotic and dramatic setting and 2) more action!. Remember that by 1967 Bondmania was at its peak and YOLT had the largest budget to date, so of course they would rather do YOLT rather than OHMSS in terms of budget and audience reasons.
Naturally, this would have its opposite effect, as people complained about its weaker story and loss of who "James Bond" is, which caused Sean to eventually give up the role as Bond. So when OHMSS really did came out, Peter Hunt followed the story as closely as possible, and unintentionally messing up all the continuity that follows it ever since.
Read more here: http://www.hmss.com/films/ohmss67/
Strange they turned to YOLT for more action, the book has a good deal less action than OHMSS. And the Swiss mountains would have been exotic enough for me. I once read the Eon team was afraid OHMSS would come out like a TB on skis. Though I really don't know why that would have been a bad thing.
<font color=blue size=7> <b>John Barry deserves more recognition for The Bond Theme than Monty Norman.</b></font>
Had Lazer stuck around for DAF, it would have been a completely different movie, because you would then have Peter Hunt directing, and no need to go back to a Goldfinger style of film. However, DAF as it was made with Connery, is one of those uncanny miracles of film-making, where everything veers on the verge of disaster, but somehow the whole thing is held together just enough, that the end result is kitsch and camp of the highest order.
I'm torn, OHMSS and DAF are my two favorite Bond films, yet they couldn't be any more polar opposites. OHMSS Part 2 starring Lazers is the great lost opportunity of the series that never was. Yet Connery DAF was this unlikely magical creation where everything came together at the right time. With all the off-camera pressure with Laz and Hunt, I'm not sure what kind of movie they would have ended up making. And besides, the producers already screwed up the Blofeld trilogy by making YOLT first. So either way DAF would require a vast re-working of the script to fully divulge into the revenge angle. So in conclusion, Connery DAF 1971 for the win!
Perhaps a co-writing credit for Barry?
Anyway Dose it really matter? All that we have is a killer theme tune
I'm not closing it off, just asserting myself. It is @Dimi's decision as to when this topic is closed.
I agree with DarthDemi
most of the films have strong 2nd halves. the weak first halves can be seen in most of the Brosnan period as well as MR after the PTS. These films that take a nose dive in the second act are in the minority,.