Controversial opinions about Bond films

1473474476478479705

Comments

  • edited November 2018 Posts: 684
    Not so much a choice to overlook, @bondsum, as just plain overlooked, because
    I wrote: »
    I don't know enough about the production history on this one to say
    But yes at least I see that
    Also I wrote: »
    the timing for this film never would've worked out
    And so my gist was not actually that Connery ever had the chance to play the role admirably and would've but that,
    And I wrote: »
    assuming of course that Connery was in top form
    -- which is to say in an idealized situation (i.e. before the issues of shooting schedules, salary, fame, focus on the tech) -- a happy Connery working with Hunt would've pulled off the film very well.

    Thank you for the information on the shooting schedule. That it was 11 months is probably something I've heard but never committed to memory. Good shout on the particular quality which that length produced.
    bondsum wrote: »
    The question one should really be asking is how DAF might have looked had Lazenby starred in it, even if they'd followed the same identical Connery script. With more time to shoot the climax on the oil rig and the subsequent Blofeld chase, without the worry of going over-schedule and paying Connery a huge daily bonus for every day that it did, Hamilton (or Hunt for that matter) would've had the extra days needed to make it ten times better than it was. But I guess some people just can't mentally drop themselves into such a concept.
    You and I have broached Laz doing DAF -- and the likelihood of its being a lighter film -- before, in this very thread actually. It's a related question we could ask, if we're talking about which possibility (Sean in Laz's OHMSS or Laz in Sean's DAF) had less complexities standing in front of it, and I think that was the latter, all things considered. Insightful point on how having Laz instead of Connery could've inherently boosted the quality due to the shooting schedule. Hadn't thought of that before.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 3,333
    A good, intelligent response @Strog. I'm very much like yourself, I absolutely love Connery as Bond (even in DAF) and if ever there was a chance to see the great man play the role in his prime again, I'd take it. As a matter of fact I really wished that ‎Charles K. Feldman hadn't balked at paying Connery his $1m asking fee for doing Casino Royale back in '67 and had just gone with making a serious 007 movie instead. Even ‎Charles K. Feldman admitted his mistake afterwards, saying it would've been cheaper and wiser to have paid Connery his asking fee.

    The other problem I have with Connery in the OHMSS role is how he would've approached the Sir Hilary Bray role. We all know that Connery is lousy at doing accents, so the thought of him attempting to do a posh Etonian one as Sir Hilary Bray could've been a car crash waiting to happen. Unless, of course, they completely abandoned that part of the script and simply allowed Connery to not try and emulate Sir Hilary Bray.

    The talk of Connery making OHMSS after GF, or even TB, is also an interesting one. Reading Charles Helfenstein's excellent book on the making of OHMSS, it's quite apparent that had OHMSS been made after GF, it would not have bared much of a similarity to Fleming's original novel as did the '68 production. For one thing, there was the inclusion of a submersible Aston Martin DB5 in the original script. Just how that would've worked out I shudder to think. Fortunately, Peter Hunt tossed that idea out when he took over the reigns and the idea was held over for TSWLM. All in all, we got the stripped-back but sumptuous-looking OHMSS film that we all love to this day as a result of Connery leaving.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited November 2018 Posts: 7,948
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    It is an interesting thought what would have happened if Tim har taken the role back then. How different would the films have been?

    I think FYEO would have been mostly the same. OP and AVTAK would be very different.

    My controversial opinion : all three movies would have suffered at the BO replacing Moore with Dalton but AVTAK would have improved in intrinsic quality.



    My controversial opinion : all three movies would have suffered at the BO replacing Moore with Dalton but AVTAK would have improved in intrinsic quality.

    I would take it even one step further: as I think Dalton worked best with the 'lighter' for-Moore-meant script of TLD then the Dalton-oriented LTK. His darkness worked well with a lighter script, wth a darker one it just became a bit too much. So he'd vé worked wonders with AVTAK, landing all the sillyness in a realistic sauce.
  • jobo wrote: »
    Here is another one that might cause controversy:

    LTK has the best plot and story in the series.

    (And the film as a whole is far more than just "solid", mind you...)

    Reposted for truth. I don't know if it has the best plot in the series, but certainly one of the best: Bond playing a morally righteous Iago to Sanchez's villainous Othello, driving him to tear his own organization apart from within.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    jobo wrote: »
    Here is another one that might cause controversy:

    LTK has the best plot and story in the series.

    (And the film as a whole is far more than just "solid", mind you...)

    Reposted for truth. I don't know if it has the best plot in the series, but certainly one of the best: Bond playing a morally righteous Iago to Sanchez's villainous Othello, driving him to tear his own organization apart from within.

    Agreed with you both. And yet, the film sadly remains one of the tragic underdogs of the series.
  • Posts: 684
    bondsum wrote: »
    A good, intelligent response @Strog. I'm very much like yourself, I absolutely love Connery as Bond (even in DAF) and if ever there was a chance to see the great man play the role in his prime again, I'd take it. As a matter of fact I really wished that ‎Charles K. Feldman hadn't balked at paying Connery his $1m asking fee for doing Casino Royale back in '67 and had just gone with making a serious 007 movie instead. Even ‎Charles K. Feldman admitted his mistake afterwards, saying it would've been cheaper and wiser to have paid Connery his asking fee.
    @bondsum Didn't know Feldman admitted that afterwards. Man, what could have been.
    bondsum wrote: »
    The talk of Connery making OHMSS after GF, or even TB, is also an interesting one. Reading Charles Helfenstein's excellent book on the making of OHMSS, it's quite apparent that had OHMSS been made after GF, it would not have bared much of a similarity to Fleming's original novel as did the '68 production. For one thing, there was the inclusion of a submersible Aston Martin DB5 in the original script. Just how that would've worked out I shudder to think. Fortunately, Peter Hunt tossed that idea out when he took over the reigns and the idea was held over for TSWLM. All in all, we got the stripped-back but sumptuous-looking OHMSS film that we all love to this day as a result of Connery leaving.
    Helfenstein's book is one I've yet to pick up but have long meant to. I know it's very well regarded and a 'classic' in Bond study circles. I only recently read about the extravagance in those early Maibaum drafts. 3D television, Blofeld being Goldfinger's brother. I'm assuming Maibaum was asked to incorporate this sort of stuff, based on the direction the films took? Did Hunt work on the script himself at all?
  • Good lord, these old chaps lived lives, didn't they?
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 6,682
    Controversial opinions about Bond films

    Perhaps this: I don't care that much for the wah-wah trumpets in the OHMSS theme. A bit too flamboyant for me.

    Edit: Now I'm curious about how the melody would sound with regular trumpets.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Controversial opinions about Bond films

    Perhaps this: I don't care that much for the wah-wah trumpets in the OHMSS theme. A bit too flamboyant for me.

    Edit: Now I'm curious about how the melody would sound with regular trumpets.

    If you do, you will be shot! ;)
  • Posts: 19,339
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Controversial opinions about Bond films

    Perhaps this: I don't care that much for the wah-wah trumpets in the OHMSS theme. A bit too flamboyant for me.

    Edit: Now I'm curious about how the melody would sound with regular trumpets.

    Wow really ?

    That's what makes It for me.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 3,333
    Strog wrote: »
    Helfenstein's book is one I've yet to pick up but have long meant to. I know it's very well regarded and a 'classic' in Bond study circles. I only recently read about the extravagance in those early Maibaum drafts. 3D television, Blofeld being Goldfinger's brother. I'm assuming Maibaum was asked to incorporate this sort of stuff, based on the direction the films took? Did Hunt work on the script himself at all?
    Man, you've got to get hold of it before it comes with a De Beers price tag. It's a fabulous book. As far as I know, Hunt didn't write anything but did insist on staying faithful to Fleming, even bringing in Simon Raven to give it a final polish and spruce up Maibaum's umpteenth draft. The work that Raven is mostly attributed to is the conversations between Blofeld and Tracy and having Tracy quote James Elroy Flecker. Something that would be repeated again with M quoting Tennyson's Ulysses in SF. The OHMSS movie is most definitely Hunt's vision. If Hamilton had directed it instead, then I'm almost positive it would've been more hokey and far less sumptuous-looking. One only has to look at DAF to see how tonally and visually that movie was a step backwards from OHMSS to imagine what a Hamilton OHMSS would've looked like. Nor am I convinced a Lewis Gilbert production would've fared any better. Having read some of the stuff that was to be included in the earlier version of OHMSS, I'm quite relieved that the movie was delayed due to the rights for TB becoming available and then with a warm Swiss winter and inadequate snow cover that followed afterwards. Let's not also forget that the spectacular Piz Gloria in Schilthorn wasn't built until '68 so it would have been an entirely different location for Blofeld's mountain-top hideout had the movie been shot instead of TB or YOLT. For me, the movie works because the planets aligned to give us what we got.
  • Posts: 6,682
    barryt007 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Controversial opinions about Bond films

    Perhaps this: I don't care that much for the wah-wah trumpets in the OHMSS theme. A bit too flamboyant for me.

    Edit: Now I'm curious about how the melody would sound with regular trumpets.

    Wow really ?

    That's what makes It for me.

    So it is controversial, ha!

    But I don't know, for some reason I prefer the beginning of the song, when the horns are playing the tune. And in fact I even prefer the '72 orchestral arrangement to the original recording.
  • Posts: 14,800
    Not sure it's controversial but I'd rather have fairly unknown veteran actors cast as villains.
  • Posts: 15,785
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Not sure it's controversial but I'd rather have fairly unknown veteran actors cast as villains.

    Me, too with a few exceptions. Unless it's someone like Christopher Lee, I also prefer experienced actors, who, though respected aren't exactly household names: Gert Frobe, Adolfo Celi, etc. Same with the Bond girls.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    How about reserving the spots for the best man for the job?
  • Posts: 14,800
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Not sure it's controversial but I'd rather have fairly unknown veteran actors cast as villains.

    I would also like to see a fairly unknown actor take up the role of Bond.

    That's generally what happens. Except to a degree for Roger Moore.

    @ToTheRight it could be argued that Lee was a "lesser" celebrity.
  • Posts: 12,243
    So long as the actors do well, that’s all that really matters in the end. I think getting big names just for the sake of having big names is definitely the wrong way to go - for any movie.
  • Posts: 14,800
    FoxRox wrote: »
    So long as the actors do well, that’s all that really matters in the end. I think getting big names just for the sake of having big names is definitely the wrong way to go - for any movie.

    And often they get a big name because he's a big name and no other reason. That's how you get Kevin Costner to play Robin Hood or Benedict Cumberbatch to play a whitewashed Khan.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2018 Posts: 15,423
    There's always a flip side to that coin. Say they hired a relatively unknown actor/actress for a specific lead/recurring role without knowing in advance about their behaviours, their motives, the way they operate, their professional relationship with their colleagues, etc. I mean, that didn't do Lazenby a lot of good, for instance, did it? He appeared to be on board, then sometime in the middle of the production, he turned against his employers.

    When I said the best man for the job, I meant a whole perfect casting choice that wouldn't pose trouble to the production and marketing of the franchise. Not just being good at the job the person's given like acting for the main part. They need someone they (producers) can control, regardless of their celebrity status. Someone who wouldn't go rogue and act like a prima donna. That applies to every key member to the production team, from the cast to the crew, from the actor to the director.
  • Posts: 12,243
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    So long as the actors do well, that’s all that really matters in the end. I think getting big names just for the sake of having big names is definitely the wrong way to go - for any movie.

    And often they get a big name because he's a big name and no other reason. That's how you get Kevin Costner to play Robin Hood or Benedict Cumberbatch to play a whitewashed Khan.

    Ugh Kevin Costner was such a bad Robin Hood. And Khan in Into Darkness was so embarrassing - to me, worse than Waltz Blofeld.
  • Posts: 7,500
    It is always hard to know how a casting works out in the end. The problem with hiring top names is that it creates a level of expectation. I was sure EON had hit jackpot with Waltz. Although I don't think it turned out as horrible as others have, it sure was a let down considering how much I looked forward to see him as a Bond villain.
  • Posts: 14,800
    At least Waltz had the right cultural background-ish (not Polish but a lot closer to the original Blofeld than a Caucasian with a British accent to play an Indian metahuman). The brothergate notwithstanding I'm fairly happy with his portrayal of Blofeld and the way the character was written.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Except for his physicality. They'll have to improve upon that, as Blofeld knew how to handle himself in combat quite well. One thing I always hated about Pleasance's and Gray's (as well as Max Von Sydow's) Blofeld portrayls was that they were just armchair megalomaniacs behind control panels. Blofeld is supposed to be more than that. The anti-Bond in full, if you will.
  • Posts: 14,800
    That's why I always advocated an actor like Ciaran Hinds, Gary Lewis or Brendan Gleeson as Blofeld. Actors who are physically close to the novels Blofeld, can look brutish, but also cunning. Although ideally I'd rather have someone not Anglo-Saxon to play him.
  • How about reserving the spots for the best man for the job?

    This is really what it comes down to.

    We've had big names play enormously successful villains: Christopher Lee, Christopher Walken, Javier Bardem.

    And relative unknowns play excellent villains: Sean Bean, Sophie Marceau, Mads Mikkelson.

    I will say I find it more exciting though when an actor I don't know from anywhere else comes along and delivers an outstanding performance. In a sense, it makes the villain that much more real, that much more effective. The actor truly becomes the villain for me, as opposed to my thinking, "Well, Javier Bardem certainly looks different with bleached hair and false teeth."
  • Posts: 14,800
    I was never a fan of Zorin to be honest and found Walken to be playing a caricature of a Bond villain more often than none. And that it was Walken made it distracting. A less famous actor would have been more convincing I think. AVTAK had other problems, but that was one of them.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was never a fan of Zorin to be honest and found Walken to be playing a caricature of a Bond villain more often than none. And that it was Walken made it distracting. A less famous actor would have been more convincing I think. AVTAK had other problems, but that was one of them.

    Walken saves the movie for me. Of course I'm biased, because he is arguably my favorite actor.
  • Posts: 7,653
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    So long as the actors do well, that’s all that really matters in the end. I think getting big names just for the sake of having big names is definitely the wrong way to go - for any movie.

    And often they get a big name because he's a big name and no other reason. That's how you get Kevin Costner to play Robin Hood or Benedict Cumberbatch to play a whitewashed Khan.

    Ugh Kevin Costner was such a bad Robin Hood. And Khan in Into Darkness was so embarrassing - to me, worse than Waltz Blofeld.

    But both movies were better made and more fun than Spectre.

    For me a good baddie should not be a big name but a really fleshed out and believable written part. Waltz was written as a character he had played before and he played it as such, so it felt that QT's characters came over for a Bond visit only written by a far more mediocre writer.

    Drax form the MR movie was a better written and conceived character than Waltz Blofeld in Spectre.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Controversial opinion....

    I think Guy Hamilton was the weakest director that did multiple Bonds. He didn't have much of a distinct visual style, didn't photograph the locations particularly well(Phuket aside). Goldfinger is the only particularly good Bond film he oversaw. And I find even that overrated.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I feel that way about John Glen, despite FYEO being one of my favorite Bond films.
Sign In or Register to comment.