The What if thread...What if Dalton had starred in GE instead of Brosnan?

1246719

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger regnifrednuhT
    Posts: 34,614
    We would probably have gotten a more faithful adaptation of YOLT next, and McClory might have gone on producing his own TB, with another actor.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,954
    I thought the Goldfinger twin with Forbe returning was proposed for DAF?

    Yes I thought the same way too. I hadn't heard of the Blofeld brother angle.

    I think it would have been very interesting to see Connery in 1965 playing Bond in OHMSS. To me he's in the best shape in TB. I think he could have nailed it in 1965. I wonder if Young directing would have had the same grandeur at Hunt. OHMSS is a beautifully shot movie and I think a lot of that credit goes to Hunt.

    I would have loved to have seen Connery on skis.
  • Posts: 697
    Terence Young directing TB is intriguing to me. However, the way the OHMSS we got was crafted I don't think a '65 version would've turned out as well. TB was somewhat rushed to make the Xmas deadline and a lot of mistakes in it.

    I also really think Eon would've altered the story. I don't think an audience who were thrilled with GF and it's lighter touch would've responded well to the Tracy character and her ultimate fate.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Crab Key
    Posts: 1,183
    thedove wrote: »
    I thought the Goldfinger twin with Forbe returning was proposed for DAF?

    Yes I thought the same way too. I hadn't heard of the Blofeld brother angle.

    I think it would have been very interesting to see Connery in 1965 playing Bond in OHMSS. To me he's in the best shape in TB. I think he could have nailed it in 1965. I wonder if Young directing would have had the same grandeur at Hunt. OHMSS is a beautifully shot movie and I think a lot of that credit goes to Hunt.

    I would have loved to have seen Connery on skis.

    It probably would have remained in the 1:66 aspect ratio too, as the only reason TB went with the wider 2:39 was because that’s what McClory demanded. Might have been better, because I don’t think Ted Moore was ever that comfortable with the wider AR. The taller frame of the first three films felt more suited to Ted Moore’s style, which I assume is why LALD and TMWTGG went back to the taller frame.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,954
    Good point @BT3366 I know at some point Young just kind of left the project and Hunt had to make sense of some of the footage. I wonder with OHMSS if the producers would have gone with a 1966 release date to help out with the logistics of shooting. Much harder to be dependant on ice and snow then the water scenes of TB.

    OHMSS would have fit nicely after GF in my opinion. To me it was different in tone and would have brought Spectre back to the fold. I wonder if they would have cast the same Czech actor to play Blofeld? Or maybe gone a different way? Who would play Tracy? A good likelihood they wouldn't have cast Rigg. I think she was cast as an experienced actor to play against Lazenby. Plus if my memory serves Tracy was a blonde in the book?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Crab Key
    Posts: 1,183
    Come to think of it, didn’t Young only return because of McClory willing to pay up unlike Cubby and Harry? So without McClory, you wouldn’t get Young returning. Hamilton didn’t want to come back, so that would have meant a new director. Perhaps Hunt would have gotten his shot in 1965?
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,954
    I didn't know that we have McClory to thank for Young directing TB. I assumed Cubby and Harry wanted someone they could trust.

    Hunt directing Connery in 1965! When Connery is still engaged in the role and enjoying the experience...yes please!
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,236
    All of this is intriguing and made me wonder that if OHMSS followed TB as a more grounded effort, that Connery wouldn't have gotten so pissed and did more films.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 5,600
    Of course I agree, @Last_Rat_Standing, and that timestream would potentially overcome or redirect the negative Japan experience Connery had.

    Then filming You Only Live Twice in book order would be the train put on the tracks. Beyond that, there is still the reality that the producers did not make Connery a partner in the franchise. It's an important element in the path he took.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Crab Key
    Posts: 1,183
    Of course I agree, @Last_Rat_Standing, and that timestream would potentially overcome or redirect the negative Japan experience Connery had.

    Then filming You Only Live Twice in book order would be the train put on the tracks. Beyond that, there is still the reality that the producers did not make Connery a partner in the franchise. It's an important element in the path he took.

    Though Connery wouldn’t have been made a partner, he’d at least have been more engaged with what OHMSS would offer dramatically. Part of his displeasure with YOLT was that it became much more reliant on gimmicks and formula, and Bond was becoming more superhuman, so all that factored into him becoming burnt out. It’s a far cry from the early years where you had richer characters like Kerim Bey for Bond to interact with. OHMSS was a return to that form, and it’s too bad Connery missed out, but I can’t blame him for feeling tired coming off of YOLT.
  • Posts: 9,676
    Of course I agree, @Last_Rat_Standing, and that timestream would potentially overcome or redirect the negative Japan experience Connery had.

    Then filming You Only Live Twice in book order would be the train put on the tracks. Beyond that, there is still the reality that the producers did not make Connery a partner in the franchise. It's an important element in the path he took.

    Though Connery wouldn’t have been made a partner, he’d at least have been more engaged with what OHMSS would offer dramatically. Part of his displeasure with YOLT was that it became much more reliant on gimmicks and formula, and Bond was becoming more superhuman, so all that factored into him becoming burnt out. It’s a far cry from the early years where you had richer characters like Kerim Bey for Bond to interact with. OHMSS was a return to that form, and it’s too bad Connery missed out, but I can’t blame him for feeling tired coming off of YOLT.

    I really need to get that MAKING OF OHMSS book. One of the greatest films in the series and had a fascinating history.
    I love Lazenby, and for a novice actor I feel he did an excellent job under the circumstances. But the truth is, he wasn't an actor.

    Although it's become popular opinion that Sean might have been sub standard in the film (an opinion I don't share), I think he missed out on the opportunity to go out on a high note with OHMSS.

    A 1965 OHMSS could have been amazing, but I think he'd have been just as great in '69. His slightly out of shape physique and burnt out demeanor would have suited the novel's narrative that Bond is sick of Operation Bedlam. That plot point I think would have been better left alone as in the novel had Connery stayed.

    Had YOLT been filmed afterwards in '71 perhaps Connery would have found a new appreciation for the series and stuck it out for a 7th outing. In the novel he's pretty worn out and out of sorts. The Connery of DIAMONDS would have fit that story beautifully looking as rough as he did. Fun to speculate.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,236
    I believe they were scouting Switzerland while filming TB but couldn't do to snow issues
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,954
    They scouted during the filming of GF as they were in Switzerland. Snow was going to be an issue for sure.

    I like your thinking @ToTheRight the slightly out of shape Sean may have portrayed the character more closer to the books.

    Course the other side of this what if is...what if McClory did an independent Bond film? Without Cubby and Harry? Maybe we should pose that for a future what if.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 148
    Another great “What If?” topic thedove.

    While there isn’t much that I can add to TotheRight, MakeShiftPython, etc. al posts. One issue that no one has addressed yet: “Tracy.”

    Since (IMO), Diana Rigg is at much of OHMSS’s emotional heart, who would play “Tracy” in 1965? A European actress of ability (and at around 25-30 years of age) would seem to be a requirement for the role, and Ms. Rigg, herself, wouldn’t have been available (she started filming on “The Avengers” in December 1964). Where there any candidates available at that time? I know that – at various points in time – discussions were held with Catherine Deneuve and Bridget Bardot, but they came later.

    For the record (IMO), if OHMSS had been made in 1965:
    It would probably have been lighter in tone and more gadget driven. Charles Helfenstein’s “The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” has a relevant Richard Maibaum quote (p26):
    “. we’ve given the stories one thing that they lacked: humor…but part of the problem is that we haven’t earned the right to be serious…
    McClory goes off (w/o EON) and does a “watered down” version of TB. Thereby, inflicting damage to the official series.

    BTW: Helfenstein’s book has a nice tabular summary of the different OHMSS treatments and scripts that Richard Maibaum developed between 1964 and 1968 (see page38-39).
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 2,674
    Actually, it was mentioned by thedove
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,954
    I really need to find the book as a few of you have mentioned it. I would love to see and look into the various screen drafts for OHMSS. I recall at one point they toyed with Bond needing a facelift to change his appearance. Thank goodness that was scrapped.

    Casting Tracy might have been a tall task. I would think they wouldn't be looking for someone has seasoned as Diana Rigg. It would have been a juicy role for sure.

    Great thoughts guys and gals! Almost time for another what if this one will be one suggested by @MaxCasino but I will post it later today so if you still want to provide your thoughts on this what if please do so!
  • edited August 20 Posts: 19,339
    vzok wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    If you read some of the reports from back then, Eon was heavily testing and considering American actors. Everybody from a pre-superstar Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood to Adam West.

    Were any of those actors actually tested though? Or were their names just mentioned to draw attention to Bond? Who actually was tested after Lazenby's departure, aside from Gavin?

    I’ve never seen that before!

    I haven't either,just watched it on my mobile.

    Great find @vzok !!!

    UPDATE : He is from NZ and used to play for the All-Blacks.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,954
    Lets turn the "what if" scenario towards casting again. This what if comes to us from @MaxCasino who wanted to have a discussion about the casting of a Bond villain.

    When the producers were looking for a person to play Scaramanga the famous hitman that Bond faces in TMWTGG they gave serious consideration to Jack Palance. Course Jack was known for his cowboy gunslinger roles most notably in Shane. They eventually decided on Christopher Lee. But what if we had a Jack Palance had been cast as the famous hitman? Would the sophistication and menace come out? Or would we see another angle to this villain?

    What say you Mi6? What if Jack Palance was cast as Francisco Scaramanga?
  • Posts: 697
    If he'd been written as the crude Scaramanga of the novel, yes, Palance could've pulled it off. I can't see him as successful in the final screenplay as written by Maibaum and Mankiewicz, though, that portrayed him as a counter Bond.

    That said, Palance was rather versatile and wasn't just a straight-ahead tough guy. He played a very nervous THRUSH villain, hamming it up in the 2-part Concrete Overcoat Affair of The Man from UNCLE in 1966 that was also released as a film, The Spy in the Green Hat. It's just really hard to imagine anybody besides Christopher Lee in the part.

    What's more intriguing to me is was anybody else aside from Christopher Lee and Jack Palance considered for Scaramanga?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 1,028
    BT3366 wrote: »
    If he'd been written as the crude Scaramanga of the novel, yes, Palance could've pulled it off. I can't see him as successful in the final screenplay as written by Maibaum and Mankiewicz, though, that portrayed him as a counter Bond.

    That said, Palance was rather versatile and wasn't just a straight-ahead tough guy. He played a very nervous THRUSH villain, hamming it up in the 2-part Concrete Overcoat Affair of The Man from UNCLE in 1966 that was also released as a film, The Spy in the Green Hat. It's just really hard to imagine anybody besides Christopher Lee in the part.

    What's more intriguing to me is was anybody else aside from Christopher Lee and Jack Palance considered for Scaramanga?

    Marlon Brando or Jack Nicholson.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,954
    Yes as the movie was written I have trouble seeing him in the role. Make it less refined. Maybe even give him less dialogue like Red Grant and it would make him even more mysterious and menacing. I can see Palance pulling that off. I am not sure I can see him wearing the suit and doing the whole dinner scene as it is written in the current movie.

    There is no chance that Brando or Nicholson were considered for the role. Much too big stars to be the villain of a Bond movie.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,954
    Speaking of villains the series biggest villain has to be Blofeld. Looking with today's cinematic lens most people find it jarring that in three films he's played by three different actors. Today, audiences would want the same actor to play the role in the three movies.

    So lets jump back to 1966 and the casting of Ernst Stravo Blofeld and become Cubby or Harry. Who would you cast to play Blofeld in this trilogy of movies. Would you cast one of the three who played the part? Or would you look for someone else to play Blofeld? The other nagging question is how would you handle OHMSS and the fact that Bond and Blofeld act like they haven't met before. Film the series in different order? Or keep the same order of films and come up with another creative solution?

    What if the same actor played Blofeld in YOLT, OHMSS, and DAF?
  • Posts: 19,339
    Telly Savalas for me.
    He was mentally and physically a match for Bond and would have been excellent in all three films.

    This is also why I am glad that,if Blofeld is in NTTD,they have brought Waltz back to at least add consistency to Blofeld for the very first time.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 2,674
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Telly Savalas for me.
    He was mentally and physically a match for Bond and would have been excellent in all three films.

    This is also why I am glad that,if Blofeld is in NTTD,they have brought Waltz back to at least add consistency to Blofeld for the very first time.

    +1 to both sentences
  • Posts: 12,217
    thedove wrote: »
    Speaking of villains the series biggest villain has to be Blofeld. Looking with today's cinematic lens most people find it jarring that in three films he's played by three different actors. Today, audiences would want the same actor to play the role in the three movies.

    So lets jump back to 1966 and the casting of Ernst Stravo Blofeld and become Cubby or Harry. Who would you cast to play Blofeld in this trilogy of movies. Would you cast one of the three who played the part? Or would you look for someone else to play Blofeld? The other nagging question is how would you handle OHMSS and the fact that Bond and Blofeld act like they haven't met before. Film the series in different order? Or keep the same order of films and come up with another creative solution?

    What if the same actor played Blofeld in YOLT, OHMSS, and DAF?

    I think Bond and Blofeld not recognising each other can be easily solved by going back to Fleming: in the novel YOLT Bond is disguised as a Japanese and his nemesis is unsure about his identity. This could easily be reversed in the movies : Bond had met Blofeld previously but disguised and Blofeld had plastic surgery. Fir the casting, I've always wanted Blofeld to keep his voice. So maybe the original voice actor or Christopher Lee.
  • Posts: 9,399
    Having the same actor play Blofeld in YOLT, OHMSS, and DAF could have helped create the "Blofeld trilogy" so many fans wanted, even it wasn't chronological with the books. I'm 100% with @barryt007 on choosing Telly Savalas too, who by a substantial margin is my favorite Blofeld (at least to have a face on camera, because the FRWL/TB one is pretty great too). However, it still would have been jarring to have Connery be in YOLT and DAF and then Lazenby in OHMSS with the same Blofeld throughout all the films. Still, having a recurring Blofeld actor like that would have made for some interesting continuity that I think could have heightened the drama and at least made DAF more interesting (sorry to the fans; I don't care for Gray's Blofeld or the film's silly tone).
  • Posts: 697
    You could give the films a pass given that Fleming changed Blofeld's appearance, at least between OHMSS and YOLT. I'm guessing the decision not to bring back previous Blofeld actors was a director choice. I'm sure Peter Hunt immediately dismissed the idea of bringing back Donald Pleasance as he was going for more realism, as well as trying to distance the memory of OHMSS as a reason for not bringing back Savalas in DAF.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,954
    Interesting thoughts on this one! I share the sentiment of Telly as the ultimate Blofeld. I can't see either Pleasance or Gray fighting Lazenby on the bobsleigh with any form of menace. To me Telly would hold his own on screen with Connery too.

    To me Pleasance is the weakest Blofeld. To me he's played small and not the larger then life figure he should be. I know the producers had to scramble last minute when Gilbert wasn't happy with the choice of the original choice (whose name escapes me) just wasn't cutting it.

    I would reverse the order of filming as the easy fix for Blofeld and Bond not recognizing each other. So it would be Connery in 1967 with OHMSS, Lazenby in YOLT in 1969 and then Connery in DAF in 1971. Might still be a great series of three films and there is a chance that DAF would be more serious in tone.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 2,674
    Does Bond not recognize Blofeld, though? Bond's very plan is based on the fact that he knows Bond is hiding in Piz Gloria and is claiming to be the Conte de Bleuchamp.
  • Posts: 3,807
    The problem with OHMSS is not that Bond doesn't recognize Blofeld, it's that Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.