"You missed Mister Bond!"..."Did I?"...The Missed Opportunities of Never Say Never Again

1101113151633

Comments

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited December 2023 Posts: 3,401
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I am not convinced by Hamilton’s 70s efforts, but then I look at Hunt’s (quite boring) non-Bond 70s films and I’m not sure he would have been quite right either.

    Perhaps it would have been similar to Martin Campbell in which something about that particular director working on a Bond film would have resulted in better work? His career outside of Bond is very hit or miss too.

    I think it's more on his handling of a scene or the performances of the cast really.

    And he remained consistent in those films (OHMSS included and yes, his non-Bond films, in Gold, his handling of Moore in there didn't fit the character, who was supposed to be a bit hard, to say).

    The thing with Campbell is (for how he's such an overrated Bond director for me), still managed to make an appropriate mood or tone for a scene or the acting of the characters for such a particular scene, this is most obvious in Casino Royale.

    Hunt, often comes sometimes as a bit uncertain with some tones of the scenes (the Piz Gloria scenes for example), and there's Blofeld romancing of Tracy in the previous film where it kinda goes off the rails for the character (it comes out of nowhere, and this likely came from Hunt).

    The tone of OHMSS is fine. It was a Bond movie after all. But this movie is not as realistic as you want it to be.

    It's faithfully adapted from the book, again, it's one of my favorites, and I applaud Hunt for adhering to the book, but I think as a director (I know he'd worked as an editor before, but being a director is a different job), this was Hunt's first film, his debut, so his inexperience when it comes to handling more wider parts is obvious, he's still a rookie in this film, after all.

    When it comes to his non-Bond films (Gold and Shout At The Devil for example), I think he just kind of failed, really, his main mantra was editing, it's like authors cannot be scriptwriters, look at Hemingway, he's a great author but when he wrote a script (forgot the name of that film), it turned out to be terrible.

    Just like Hunt, I applaud the guy, he saved OHMSS from Hamilton directing the film (please, no), and made the film closer to the source material, but when it comes to the more deeper responsibilities of a director, that's when his flaws are coming.

    Oh yes, I wished he directed DAF as a revenge sequel, I'd liked to, but if that means of him handling Lazenby, to which he failed before, I doubt it would've been successful, I'd rather have Lazenby return with a different director who understands him and knows how to manage and guide him.

    And what makes OHMSS worked aside from Hunt were Michael Reed, Syd Cain, and other staffs, they're the ones who made OHMSS, and without them, it wouldn't worked.

    Michael Reed is the cinematographer
    Syd Cain is the set designer
    Richard Maibaum is the scriptwriter, along with Simon Raven.

    So, really, it's not just Peter Hunt who worked in it to be great as it is, so Hunt returning for DAF would've been the same, because it's still the same staff like Mankiewicz, Ted Moore, and etc.
  • SIS_HQ wrote: »
    So, really, it's not just Peter Hunt who worked in it to be great as it is, so Hunt returning for DAF would've been the same, because it's still the same staff like Mankiewicz, Ted Moore, and etc.
    Not sure Hunt returning for DAF means that Mankiewicz and Ted Moore would join the project. It seems logical that Moore was brought back because of Hamilton who worked with him on Goldfinger. Regarding Mankiewicz, he seemed to have been hired because Broccoli wanted an American writer for the Las Vegas location. The earlier drafts, written by Maibaum during OHMSS filming and with Lazenby in mind, relocated the story in the Far-East. So, again, with Hunt returning for DAF, maybe this plot would have been preferred.

    In any cases, Hunt's directorial vision was translated to the screen thanks to Michael Reed and John Glen (editing was the major part of Hunt's directorial vision). With Hunt returning, both men would probably have been back and I would have easily preferred to see this trio over Hamilton & Moore. With or without a script written by Mankiewicz.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,802
    @SIS_HQ :
    Authors turned screenwriters... A few who won awards screenwriting...


    Agatha Christie
    George RR Martin
    Joan Didion
    Mario Pizzo
    Michael Christin
    Nic Pileggi
    Gillian Flynn
    F Scott Fitzgerald
    Margaret Atwood
    William Faulkner
    John Steinbeck
    Comac McCarthy
    Truman Capote
    Ray Bradbury
    William Goldman
    Roald Dahl
    Nick Hornby
    ....
  • Posts: 3,161
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I am not convinced by Hamilton’s 70s efforts, but then I look at Hunt’s (quite boring) non-Bond 70s films and I’m not sure he would have been quite right either.

    Perhaps it would have been similar to Martin Campbell in which something about that particular director working on a Bond film would have resulted in better work? His career outside of Bond is very hit or miss too.

    I think it's more on his handling of a scene or the performances of the cast really.

    And he remained consistent in those films (OHMSS included and yes, his non-Bond films, in Gold, his handling of Moore in there didn't fit the character, who was supposed to be a bit hard, to say).

    The thing with Campbell is (for how he's such an overrated Bond director for me), still managed to make an appropriate mood or tone for a scene or the acting of the characters for such a particular scene, this is most obvious in Casino Royale.

    Hunt, often comes sometimes as a bit uncertain with some tones of the scenes (the Piz Gloria scenes for example), and there's Blofeld romancing of Tracy in the previous film where it kinda goes off the rails for the character (it comes out of nowhere, and this likely came from Hunt).

    The tone of OHMSS is fine. It was a Bond movie after all. But this movie is not as realistic as you want it to be.

    It's faithfully adapted from the book, again, it's one of my favorites, and I applaud Hunt for adhering to the book, but I think as a director (I know he'd worked as an editor before, but being a director is a different job), this was Hunt's first film, his debut, so his inexperience when it comes to handling more wider parts is obvious, he's still a rookie in this film, after all.

    When it comes to his non-Bond films (Gold and Shout At The Devil for example), I think he just kind of failed, really, his main mantra was editing, it's like authors cannot be scriptwriters, look at Hemingway, he's a great author but when he wrote a script (forgot the name of that film), it turned out to be terrible.

    Just like Hunt, I applaud the guy, he saved OHMSS from Hamilton directing the film (please, no), and made the film closer to the source material, but when it comes to the more deeper responsibilities of a director, that's when his flaws are coming.

    Oh yes, I wished he directed DAF as a revenge sequel, I'd liked to, but if that means of him handling Lazenby, to which he failed before, I doubt it would've been successful, I'd rather have Lazenby return with a different director who understands him and knows how to manage and guide him.

    And what makes OHMSS worked aside from Hunt were Michael Reed, Syd Cain, and other staffs, they're the ones who made OHMSS, and without them, it wouldn't worked.

    Michael Reed is the cinematographer
    Syd Cain is the set designer
    Richard Maibaum is the scriptwriter, along with Simon Raven.

    So, really, it's not just Peter Hunt who worked in it to be great as it is, so Hunt returning for DAF would've been the same, because it's still the same staff like Mankiewicz, Ted Moore, and etc.

    As @Herr_Stockmann wrote it may well have been the case that those individuals (or some of them) would have returned with Hunt at the helm. Also a director’s method of working with all the individual departments (editing, cinematography etc) is what allows that coherent creative ‘vision’ of a film. Without Hunt the film may well have been different even with those other members of the crew. We know Raven likely wouldn’t have been hired as it was Hunt’s idea to bring him in.

    Also being an editor was and still is one of the most common pathways to being a director. You get a good sense of how different actors work seeing all the raw footage of the performance as well as knowing what to look for in each take. So I don’t think that’s a fair criticism of Hunt. Some of the best directors of all time started as editors.
  • SIS_HQ wrote: »
    So, really, it's not just Peter Hunt who worked in it to be great as it is, so Hunt returning for DAF would've been the same, because it's still the same staff like Mankiewicz, Ted Moore, and etc.
    Not sure Hunt returning for DAF means that Mankiewicz and Ted Moore would join the project. It seems logical that Moore was brought back because of Hamilton who worked with him on Goldfinger. Regarding Mankiewicz, he seemed to have been hired because Broccoli wanted an American writer for the Las Vegas location. The earlier drafts, written by Maibaum during OHMSS filming and with Lazenby in mind, relocated the story in the Far-East. So, again, with Hunt returning for DAF, maybe this plot would have been preferred.

    In any cases, Hunt's directorial vision was translated to the screen thanks to Michael Reed and John Glen (editing was the major part of Hunt's directorial vision). With Hunt returning, both men would probably have been back and I would have easily preferred to see this trio over Hamilton & Moore. With or without a script written by Mankiewicz.

    why? I mean... why? They just made YOLT and Las vegas was in the DAF novel.


  • edited December 2023 Posts: 901
    why? I mean... why? They just made YOLT and Las vegas was in the DAF novel.

    Broccoli and Saltzman didn't seem to be bother since they even considered to follow YOLT with an adaptation of TMWTGG set in Cambodia (or at least according to Alan Barnes and Marcus Hearn, the authors of Kiss Kiss Bang! Bang!: the Unofficial James Bond Film Companion).

    Regarding DAF,if you want to learn about the early drafts. A draft was mainly set in Bangkok, another in India. I guess, at the time, Broccoli and Saltzman thought that Las Vegas wasn't exotic enough for the audience.
  • why? I mean... why? They just made YOLT and Las vegas was in the DAF novel.

    Broccoli and Saltzman didn't seem to be bother since they even considered to follow YOLT with an adaptation of TMWTGG set in Cambodia (or at least according to Alan Barnes and Marcus Hearn, the authors of Kiss Kiss Bang! Bang!: the Unofficial James Bond Film Companion).

    Regarding DAF,if you want to learn about the early drafts. A draft was mainly set in Bangkok, another in India. I guess, at the time, Broccoli and Saltzman thought that Las Vegas wasn't exotic enough for the audience.

    OMG! Now I know why they hired Mankiewicz.
  • Posts: 14,885
    why? I mean... why? They just made YOLT and Las vegas was in the DAF novel.

    Broccoli and Saltzman didn't seem to be bother since they even considered to follow YOLT with an adaptation of TMWTGG set in Cambodia (or at least according to Alan Barnes and Marcus Hearn, the authors of Kiss Kiss Bang! Bang!: the Unofficial James Bond Film Companion).

    Regarding DAF,if you want to learn about the early drafts. A draft was mainly set in Bangkok, another in India. I guess, at the time, Broccoli and Saltzman thought that Las Vegas wasn't exotic enough for the audience.

    I agree with their initial assessment.
  • Posts: 5,865
    And I actually don't get him romancing Tracy in the third act, is he in love with her when he kidnapped her? I think it's unnecessary, it made him a bit flimsy, just out of place.

    I think Blofeld might have had ulterior motives in romancing Tracy. Remember that her father is a Corsican mafioso, and that she stands to inherit quite a hefty sum. So, if Blofeld manages to seduce her, he stands to gain quite a lot in contacts and money.
  • Posts: 14,885
    Gerard wrote: »
    And I actually don't get him romancing Tracy in the third act, is he in love with her when he kidnapped her? I think it's unnecessary, it made him a bit flimsy, just out of place.

    I think Blofeld might have had ulterior motives in romancing Tracy. Remember that her father is a Corsican mafioso, and that she stands to inherit quite a hefty sum. So, if Blofeld manages to seduce her, he stands to gain quite a lot in contacts and money.
    I understand it's because she's a contessa. Snobbery again, although it's not really developed.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,042
    It's reverse snobbery.

    Tracy doesn't care about Blofeld's aspirations because she's already a countess.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,050
    Great glittery stuff there! It was 24 karat discussion about Diamonds Are Forever.

    Lets move on to the first of the Roger Moore era. Celebrating 50 years, lets discuss Live and Let Die.

    41f4ea9874e1ee71e4ea50193990b982.jpg

    The screen adaption of this book was always going to be tricky given the tone of the book and the subject matter. The producers decided to take the film in the vein of blaxploitation films of the time. We got some voodoo, some heroin, a whole lot of chases and a new Bond.

    Were there missed opportunities? Did the film miss a chance to do something different?

    At one point Diana Ross was considered for the role of Solitaire. We have a score by George Martin as John Barry was unavailable to score this film. Does it hit the mark? For the first time since FRWL we have no Q appearance. Lots of meat on this bone for discussion.

    What are the missed opportunities of Live and Let Die?
  • FYEO and LTK were the missed opportunities.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,117
    Dunno, pretty happy with LALD - blow-up doll and all. 😅 It's kind of a personal favourite. Struggling to think of something - I do wonder about that heavy machine gun turret used by Roger - seen in behind-the-scene photos and, curiously, on the poster. I imagine after stumbling across this thing while scouting, a short discussion about how it could figure into the story concluded with, "Well it's too cool to not be featured, so we'll put it on the poster, front and centre!"

    31b808_f558006bcbfe4b1b83c11ec42b97d7e5~mv2.jpg
  • Maybe take away Bond using that magnum? I’ve seen the argument that it’s too much of a reference to Dirty Harry to where to could be considered riffing on that film. Other than that, there’s very little I can think of.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,042
    Not casting Diana Ross as Solitaire.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,050
    @QBranch you may not believe this, but that is the first time I am seeing the picture of Roger. Always wondered why that huge gun was on the poster and figured it was a chopped scene. LOL!

    The film is one that seems to capture the 70's vibe quite well. The crazy fashion in this film firmly places it in the early 70's.

    I would say they missed an opportunity to trim down the boat chase. To my mind it goes on a bit too long and loses the tension about mid way through. The large jump, which set a record for a boat jump is shot in a way that it doesn't have the feel of a world record jump. That is where I think they could have trimmed some time and increased the tension of the chase.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,189
    thedove wrote: »
    @QBranch you may not believe this, but that is the first time I am seeing the picture of Roger. Always wondered why that huge gun was on the poster and figured it was a chopped scene. LOL!

    The film is one that seems to capture the 70's vibe quite well. The crazy fashion in this film firmly places it in the early 70's.

    I would say they missed an opportunity to trim down the boat chase. To my mind it goes on a bit too long and loses the tension about mid way through. The large jump, which set a record for a boat jump is shot in a way that it doesn't have the feel of a world record jump. That is where I think they could have trimmed some time and increased the tension of the chase.

    I agree with you on the boat chase. There's WAY TOO MUCH screen time focused on Sheriff JW Pepper. I'd switch Pepper with Felix Leiter, as the leader of the boat chase. It could show how much their friendship means to each other.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,117
    Hang on, a missed opportunity is coming to me...

    Oyster chicken coop driver stops at the patrol car pile-up and produces his very real and very valid driver's licence to one disgruntled (and upside-down) sheriff. Words are said and chicken coop driver finds himself making his way back to the jalopy rather swiftly, stepping faster with each consecutive profanity.
  • Posts: 6,949
    QBranch wrote: »
    Dunno, pretty happy with LALD - blow-up doll and all. 😅 It's kind of a personal favourite. Struggling to think of something - I do wonder about that heavy machine gun turret used by Roger - seen in behind-the-scene photos and, curiously, on the poster. I imagine after stumbling across this thing while scouting, a short discussion about how it could figure into the story concluded with, "Well it's too cool to not be featured, so we'll put it on the poster, front and centre!"

    31b808_f558006bcbfe4b1b83c11ec42b97d7e5~mv2.jpg

    So if you read the latest issue of MI6 Confidential magazine (no. 69) it details the background to this photo! It seems when the crew were filming the boat chase, the local Coast Guard were on duty and invited Moore on board their 'mini battleship' for a tour! Moore was encouraged to pose behind this gun for fun, by the many photographers who were following the shoot! Apparently one of these photos made its way to the desk of artist Robert McGinnis who thought it would look cool in one of his poster designs, obviously unaware it was unrelated to the film!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,042
    I think the barracuda swim finale is a missed opportunity. Perhaps we'll see it someday.
  • The novel was better.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,117
    @Mathis1 That's great info mate, cheers.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,189
    echo wrote: »
    I think the barracuda swim finale is a missed opportunity. Perhaps we'll see it someday.

    I agree, it would be an interesting addition for an action scene. Just don't use ThunderBall as an influence!
    The novel was better.

    I agree. However, that's usually the case, Jaws is a rare exception for me.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 860
    Well, DAF is better than the novel.

    LALD looks like a cheap adaptation. I don't know why, the book was good.
  • I think the movie missed the opportunity to introduce Moore in a more memorable way. Not only is the pre-title sequence not very memorable, but Moore's introduction is even less so. LALD would have benefited from a memorable scene to introduce and establish Moore's Bond, and it would, ideally, be in the pre-title sequence.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,050
    I think the movie missed the opportunity to introduce Moore in a more memorable way. Not only is the pre-title sequence not very memorable, but Moore's introduction is even less so. LALD would have benefited from a memorable scene to introduce and establish Moore's Bond, and it would, ideally, be in the pre-title sequence.

    That's a good one @Herr_Stockmann I agree. I know after the issues with George and the comparisons to Connery they went out of their way to make this a different Bond. As such no grand introduction of Bond. No martini's shaken not stirred, no tuxedos, etc.

    Maybe they over-compensated, plus Roger signed up for 3 or 4 films before a single frame was shot. He was going to be Bond whether the public liked it or not, thankfully they liked it!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,042
    thedove wrote: »
    I think the movie missed the opportunity to introduce Moore in a more memorable way. Not only is the pre-title sequence not very memorable, but Moore's introduction is even less so. LALD would have benefited from a memorable scene to introduce and establish Moore's Bond, and it would, ideally, be in the pre-title sequence.

    That's a good one @Herr_Stockmann I agree. I know after the issues with George and the comparisons to Connery they went out of their way to make this a different Bond. As such no grand introduction of Bond. No martini's shaken not stirred, no tuxedos, etc.

    Maybe they over-compensated, plus Roger signed up for 3 or 4 films before a single frame was shot. He was going to be Bond whether the public liked it or not, thankfully they liked it!

    I think they did overcompensate, and not having Q and Moneypenny (and M, in LALD) in the traditional office setting when Moore started seems a mistake, in retrospect...
  • Posts: 6,949
    echo wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I think the movie missed the opportunity to introduce Moore in a more memorable way. Not only is the pre-title sequence not very memorable, but Moore's introduction is even less so. LALD would have benefited from a memorable scene to introduce and establish Moore's Bond, and it would, ideally, be in the pre-title sequence.

    That's a good one @Herr_Stockmann I agree. I know after the issues with George and the comparisons to Connery they went out of their way to make this a different Bond. As such no grand introduction of Bond. No martini's shaken not stirred, no tuxedos, etc.

    Maybe they over-compensated, plus Roger signed up for 3 or 4 films before a single frame was shot. He was going to be Bond whether the public liked it or not, thankfully they liked it!

    I think they did overcompensate, and not having Q and Moneypenny (and M, in LALD) in the traditional office setting when Moore started seems a mistake, in retrospect...

    I have to disagree. I think that opening briefing sequence is a gem, and instantly there's a good prickly relationship between M and Bond, plus the added bonus of Miss Caruso!!!
  • Mathis1 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I think the movie missed the opportunity to introduce Moore in a more memorable way. Not only is the pre-title sequence not very memorable, but Moore's introduction is even less so. LALD would have benefited from a memorable scene to introduce and establish Moore's Bond, and it would, ideally, be in the pre-title sequence.

    That's a good one @Herr_Stockmann I agree. I know after the issues with George and the comparisons to Connery they went out of their way to make this a different Bond. As such no grand introduction of Bond. No martini's shaken not stirred, no tuxedos, etc.

    Maybe they over-compensated, plus Roger signed up for 3 or 4 films before a single frame was shot. He was going to be Bond whether the public liked it or not, thankfully they liked it!

    I think they did overcompensate, and not having Q and Moneypenny (and M, in LALD) in the traditional office setting when Moore started seems a mistake, in retrospect...

    I have to disagree. I think that opening briefing sequence is a gem, and instantly there's a good prickly relationship between M and Bond, plus the added bonus of Miss Caruso!!!

    This sequence is like a Flint movie.

    LALD looks like The Saint too.
Sign In or Register to comment.