The What if thread...M had been re-cast for CR 2006? page 60

1202123252661

Comments

  • edited January 2020 Posts: 9,731
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Great post, @Risico007.
    I always loved those particular chapter titles: The Silver Phantom and Fork Left for Hell.
    My Enemy's Enemy is great as well.
    I'd substitute 007 in New York for the main title of the travelogue in which it appeared: Thrilling Cities. For some reason I always liked the title: Thrilling Cities.
    A couple more chapter titles I think would make great Bond film titles: The Elegant Venus and Seascape With Figures.

    I am not the best with titles so I tried to just use Fleming and thanks... Like I said multiple time (and so did Cubby back in the day) if you ever wonder what to do with James bond in the next film ALWAYS GO BACK TO FLEMING.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Eon really should be thinking about the next Bond actor. For all we know, they are.

    Say, worst case scenario, they pick an actor for B26 and the public doesn't like him (unlikely). Eon could woo Craig back for one more for B27 two years later, just like OHMSS-DAF. But they couldn't wait too long, given Craig's age...or maybe Craig, if they reboot, could be the new M?

    Still, I think Lazenby will always be a one-off in terms of casting "missteps." As Moore et al proved, the brand is now stronger than any one actor. That wasn't necessarily the case in 1969.

    Would Lazenby have been a casting misstep, had he not been so petulant? I think most would agree OHMSS is one of the shining lights of the series, and Lazenby played his part in that.

    Admittedly he wasn't a great actor, but he may have grown if he had continued.

    Anyway apologies for going off topic.

    My issue with Lazenby is I did watch his second performance as 007 in Diamonds Aren't Forever (the 1989 episode of Hitchcock presents) and man if you thought Moore was the king of eyebrow raises and comedy... hell Lazenby plays it so broad he makes Peter Sellers look like freaking Sean Connery!!!

    Like I said one is good enough from him Moore in my opinion was the saving grace and why 007 is still around today.
  • It is amazing how quickly they got them out in the 60s. I know film making was different in those days but I mean, they didn't do them on the cheap or anything did they. Churn them out seems accurate but also sort of dismissive given how much artistic merit there is there. Nobody involved half arsed it to get the next one out on time, everything about them is so brilliant that they're still generally regarded as the best ones, they've aged brilliantly, and they came out only a year apart from eachother until YOLT. It's insane how they managed to keep that level of quality with that intense a production schedule.
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    Posts: 156
    I think the only way we will ever see a return to 2-year intervals (and really, 3-year intervals is more realistic) is if they have an over-arching plan to produce a specific arc--such as for example, "The Blofeld Trilogy." Hire a singular creative mastermind (Christopher Nolan, I guess) to bang out back-to-back installments.

    Personally, I would like to see the full reboot, with young Commander Bond being recruited out of the navy by Admiral M of MI-6.

    But on the other hand, a melange of creatives (Danny Boyle/Edgar Wright/Guy Ritchie) each working on their own idiosyncratic visions--with absolutely no continuity between them (including different lead actors)--would also be a thing of beauty. And I like the idea of an animated series: "Into the Bondverse" should become a reality!
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    Could we ever see a time where they might shoot 2 movies at once. Like Back to the Future 2 and 3, or Avengers IW or EG. That might be something we see to help with the gap?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited January 2020 Posts: 12,914
    That's a good concept for a story arc to play out, if they have one.

    My idea is they commit to stand-alone IMAX short features released between their full-length missions. Lends to a different kind of storytelling for ideas that won't fit into big movies. Manageable productions. Keeps public interest in the franchise, potentially lures more into anticipation for the next film. Serves as a training ground for young talent potentially, or keeps their established team working.

    Then they roll it up into DVD/Blu-ray releases.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    Well we seem to have exhausted that what if for now. Great chat and discussion as always guys and gals! I think this was one of our more spirited discussions and once again I come away richer for the experience.

    Lets try another what if from the past! As it's been well documented that Sean Connery grew to resent James Bond and the role as he approached YOLT. He decided to leave the series. Many have said this was due to money for the role and for the lack of creative input in the series. In a James Bond and Friends podcast it was stated that Connery had talked to Dean Martin about the Matt Helm series and Dean shared his salary and his creative input and this sent Connery down the path of leaving the series.

    For my what if, lets try this scenario. What if when Connery approached Saltzman and Broccoli for more creative control and salary they said yes to both requests. Connery stays on and continues to play Bond. Lets not get into the Connery in OHMSS. Lets take a more high level approach. How long do you think Connery could have played Bond believably? Do you think by getting more money and creative control he would have stayed? Or would he have found another reason to leave the series? What impact positive or negative does Connery staying have on the series?

    What say you Mi6? What if Connery received more money and creative control and stayed on as James Bond for more films. What would the impact be?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I think Connery's believability in the part would possibly have suffered regardless (or possibly even more) of the size of the sum of money being thrown at him. There's a noticeable decline in his physical appearance between TB and DAF, and if he was only there for the money I don't think he'd have turned it around. (Though, yes, admittedly it would have been interesting to have a Connery led OHMSS. It's an unavoidable comment to make, sorry!) Connery, like Pierce, was always destined to physically get worse before they got better.

    But, believability aside, I think Connery was done. I think he would have come up with an excuse. He wasn't keen on the media attention the part brought and in particular didn't enjoy making YOLT because of it. What that could have been, I'm not sure.

    The long term impact? Well, I guess we possibly wouldn't have twenty five films now. Audiences loved Connery and keeping him longer would likely have made it even more difficult for his image to be separated from Bond's, considering he was the first one in the part. Any successor's attempt would have been even harder to accept.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited January 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Solitaire should have been black. Not arsed about Dianna Ross specifically playing her and certainly wouldn't want anyone other than Mccartney doing the theme song, but Solitaire should have been a black San Monique native.

    LALD is an annoying film for me because it's so, so, so close to being a classic top ten Bond film, but there's two big issues I can't get over. The first is the overlong boat chase. The second is the uncomfortable, colonial imperialist undertones it has on San Monique. The white English agent is killed at the start by the scary dark angry natives, and the pretty white English rose is about to meet the same fate until Bond, who in many ways is the ultimate symbol of old school British conservatism, comes in to save her from the nasty black people. I don't like it. Making Solitaire black would go a long way towards amending that.

    I'm also not a huge fan of the drive through Harlem scene where it seems like every black guy in the neighbourhood is in Mr Big's pocket (if he was ruling through fear that'd be one thing but they all seem happily on board, unless I'm misremembering), but that's not really a big deal. There is that black CIA agent to give some positive representation on the African American side of things. But the stuff in San Monique really puts me off.

    I'd also cut the plane chase because as fun as "same time tomorrow Mrs Bell" is, it is completely pointless (Solitaire didn't need to leave San Monique only to be immediately captured, she shouldn't have made it off the island with Bond) and the film could do with a slightly brisker pace at that point.

    I regard as Moore's best Bond film. Solitaire was done correctly and mirrored Fleming's novel. The undersea diving finale and keel hauling scene should have taken from Fleming's book though. Basically a more faithful adaption would have improved the plot.
  • Posts: 15,785
    I think Connery would have looked better in subsequent films. He's in pretty good shape in ZARDOZ, and looked great in CUBA.

    The films might have stuck closer to the books to a degree and lost some of the "hardware".

    However, we would have missed out on the Roger Nod, and the iconic, legendary Roger OOOOORRRHHHHHHH!!!!!
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    Very true @ToTheRight ;) Another excellent point by @CraigMooreOHMSS for Connery longer in the role surely would have made a successor more of a challenge. I think if he was motivated Connery could have physically looked the part to 1983. I only wish EON would do the older Bond angle to me that interesting.

    I don't know whose theory it is but someone has a theory about Bond's age with AVTAK and it has heightened my enjoyment of the film and added a layer. ;)

    I honestly think Connery would have still walked at some point. I think he'd have another reason for leaving the role. But it's kind of a cool what if scenario if only to see a Bond from 1962 to 1983 in the same continuity.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    thedove wrote: »
    Very true @ToTheRight ;) Another excellent point by @CraigMooreOHMSS for Connery longer in the role surely would have made a successor more of a challenge. I think if he was motivated Connery could have physically looked the part to 1983. I only wish EON would do the older Bond angle to me that interesting.

    I don't know whose theory it is but someone has a theory about Bond's age with AVTAK and it has heightened my enjoyment of the film and added a layer. ;)

    I honestly think Connery would have still walked at some point. I think he'd have another reason for leaving the role. But it's kind of a cool what if scenario if only to see a Bond from 1962 to 1983 in the same continuity.

    If Connery had been EONs Bond in 1983, I wonder who McClory would get for the part. Roger Moore, perhaps?
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Great question.

    I think the impact on the series would have been significant. First off, I am pretty sure we wouldn't have got 25 films. Connery was hugely difficult to replace as it was, in the eyes of the casual viewer even more so.
    Had Sean done, say 10 Bond films, It truly would have been 'his' role. I think it would have been almost impossible to recast the part for several years.

    As much as he is beloved, and rightly so, he had declined physically by DAF, and essentially looked like a lounge lizard in that. The animal magnetism was slipping into a disinterested swagger. If he had known he was continuing in the role, he may have made more effort, but that's up for debate.

    I can't actually believe I'm saying this, but all things considered, I think it would have hurt the series had Sean continued, and he bowed out at the right time.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    I think Connery's believability in the part would possibly have suffered regardless (or possibly even more) of the size of the sum of money being thrown at him. There's a noticeable decline in his physical appearance between TB and DAF, and if he was only there for the money I don't think he'd have turned it around. (Though, yes, admittedly it would have been interesting to have a Connery led OHMSS. It's an unavoidable comment to make, sorry!) Connery, like Pierce, was always destined to physically get worse before they got better.

    But, believability aside, I think Connery was done. I think he would have come up with an excuse. He wasn't keen on the media attention the part brought and in particular didn't enjoy making YOLT because of it. What that could have been, I'm not sure.

    The long term impact? Well, I guess we possibly wouldn't have twenty five films now. Audiences loved Connery and keeping him longer would likely have made it even more difficult for his image to be separated from Bond's, considering he was the first one in the part. Any successor's attempt would have been even harder to accept.

    Great post. Connery also hated being typecast as Bond, and the paparazzi.

    As great, as defining, as he was as Bond, Connery was a complainer and a bit of a drama queen. He left at the right time.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Great question.

    I think the impact on the series would have been significant. First off, I am pretty sure we wouldn't have got 25 films. Connery was hugely difficult to replace as it was, in the eyes of the casual viewer even more so.
    Had Sean done, say 10 Bond films, It truly would have been 'his' role. I think it would have been almost impossible to recast the part for several years.

    As much as he is beloved, and rightly so, he had declined physically by DAF, and essentially looked like a lounge lizard in that. The animal magnetism was slipping into a disinterested swagger. If he had known he was continuing in the role, he may have made more effort, but that's up for debate.

    I can't actually believe I'm saying this, but all things considered, I think it would have hurt the series had Sean continued, and he bowed out at the right time.

    Absolutely. I think Connery's departure was a necessary pill to swallow. Had he stayed, though, I wonder how many more films we would have gotten in theory before it became a less viable property without him? 3? 4?
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited January 2020 Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Great question.

    I think the impact on the series would have been significant. First off, I am pretty sure we wouldn't have got 25 films. Connery was hugely difficult to replace as it was, in the eyes of the casual viewer even more so.
    Had Sean done, say 10 Bond films, It truly would have been 'his' role. I think it would have been almost impossible to recast the part for several years.

    As much as he is beloved, and rightly so, he had declined physically by DAF, and essentially looked like a lounge lizard in that. The animal magnetism was slipping into a disinterested swagger. If he had known he was continuing in the role, he may have made more effort, but that's up for debate.

    I can't actually believe I'm saying this, but all things considered, I think it would have hurt the series had Sean continued, and he bowed out at the right time.

    Absolutely. I think Connery's departure was a necessary pill to swallow. Had he stayed, though, I wonder how many more films we would have gotten in theory before it became a less viable property without him? 3? 4?

    Absolutely, 3 at the most. I must offer my apologies, too. I see you covered a lot of the same things as me in an earlier post.

    Can you imagine how difficult things would have been had Sean gone to the mid 70's as Bond, then bowed out. We may not have had another Bond film, until, say GE. I don't think Moore, Lazenby, Dalton or any of the others would have been accepted as Bond by then. It all worked out for the best.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Connery leaving when he did, especially with the transition to Roger Moore, was extremely essential in order to have the role be seen as bigger than one actor. Many say TSWLM is where Moore finally solidified his place in the Bond legacy and that it was no longer just Connery’s gig (though few contemporary critics like Gene Siskel insisted otherwise). Had he remained so long in the role it not only would have been more difficult to recast after holding it for so long, but who could it be? Not Roger Moore, as he’d be to old by the late 70s or 80s. I don’t think Brosnan would have been seen as tough enough for the role to follow Connery, whereas he seemed fitting to follow Sir Rog. Dalton, I’m not sure would have wanted to try to follow Connery. So I agree with others that it may have stagnated for awhile. Maybe there would be an attempt to revive it with a new actor in the 2000s (Daniel Craig???) but it’s hard to tell just how much of a ripple effect Connery sticking around and having a creative say would impact the franchise.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Great question.

    I think the impact on the series would have been significant. First off, I am pretty sure we wouldn't have got 25 films. Connery was hugely difficult to replace as it was, in the eyes of the casual viewer even more so.
    Had Sean done, say 10 Bond films, It truly would have been 'his' role. I think it would have been almost impossible to recast the part for several years.

    As much as he is beloved, and rightly so, he had declined physically by DAF, and essentially looked like a lounge lizard in that. The animal magnetism was slipping into a disinterested swagger. If he had known he was continuing in the role, he may have made more effort, but that's up for debate.

    I can't actually believe I'm saying this, but all things considered, I think it would have hurt the series had Sean continued, and he bowed out at the right time.

    Absolutely. I think Connery's departure was a necessary pill to swallow. Had he stayed, though, I wonder how many more films we would have gotten in theory before it became a less viable property without him? 3? 4?

    Absolutely, 3 at the most. I must offer my apologies, too. I see you covered a lot of the same things as me in an earlier post.

    Can you imagine how difficult things would have been had Sean gone to the mid 70's as Bond, then bowed out. We may not have had another Bond film, until, say GE. I don't think Moore, Lazenby, Dalton or any of the others would have been accepted as Bond by then. It all worked out for the best.

    No apologies needed, @Roadphill. Your post was far more eloquent than mine.

    As for the rest, I think you're right. It certainly would have hurt the series creatively had he stayed. The full blown reboot-era would have dawned on Bond a lot earlier, possibly.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Great question.

    I think the impact on the series would have been significant. First off, I am pretty sure we wouldn't have got 25 films. Connery was hugely difficult to replace as it was, in the eyes of the casual viewer even more so.
    Had Sean done, say 10 Bond films, It truly would have been 'his' role. I think it would have been almost impossible to recast the part for several years.

    As much as he is beloved, and rightly so, he had declined physically by DAF, and essentially looked like a lounge lizard in that. The animal magnetism was slipping into a disinterested swagger. If he had known he was continuing in the role, he may have made more effort, but that's up for debate.

    I can't actually believe I'm saying this, but all things considered, I think it would have hurt the series had Sean continued, and he bowed out at the right time.

    Absolutely. I think Connery's departure was a necessary pill to swallow. Had he stayed, though, I wonder how many more films we would have gotten in theory before it became a less viable property without him? 3? 4?

    Absolutely, 3 at the most. I must offer my apologies, too. I see you covered a lot of the same things as me in an earlier post.

    Can you imagine how difficult things would have been had Sean gone to the mid 70's as Bond, then bowed out. We may not have had another Bond film, until, say GE. I don't think Moore, Lazenby, Dalton or any of the others would have been accepted as Bond by then. It all worked out for the best.

    No apologies needed, @Roadphill. Your post was far more eloquent than mine.

    As for the rest, I think you're right. It certainly would have hurt the series creatively had he stayed. The full blown reboot-era would have dawned on Bond a lot earlier, possibly.

    I think so, and as much as Connery is beloved, there are a whole legion of Bond fans who grew up in an era of the lead actor changing, and it being easy to accept.

    @thedove this is one of your most interesting 'what if's', yet.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Great question.

    I think the impact on the series would have been significant. First off, I am pretty sure we wouldn't have got 25 films. Connery was hugely difficult to replace as it was, in the eyes of the casual viewer even more so.
    Had Sean done, say 10 Bond films, It truly would have been 'his' role. I think it would have been almost impossible to recast the part for several years.

    As much as he is beloved, and rightly so, he had declined physically by DAF, and essentially looked like a lounge lizard in that. The animal magnetism was slipping into a disinterested swagger. If he had known he was continuing in the role, he may have made more effort, but that's up for debate.

    I can't actually believe I'm saying this, but all things considered, I think it would have hurt the series had Sean continued, and he bowed out at the right time.

    Absolutely. I think Connery's departure was a necessary pill to swallow. Had he stayed, though, I wonder how many more films we would have gotten in theory before it became a less viable property without him? 3? 4?

    Absolutely, 3 at the most. I must offer my apologies, too. I see you covered a lot of the same things as me in an earlier post.

    Can you imagine how difficult things would have been had Sean gone to the mid 70's as Bond, then bowed out. We may not have had another Bond film, until, say GE. I don't think Moore, Lazenby, Dalton or any of the others would have been accepted as Bond by then. It all worked out for the best.

    No apologies needed, @Roadphill. Your post was far more eloquent than mine.

    As for the rest, I think you're right. It certainly would have hurt the series creatively had he stayed. The full blown reboot-era would have dawned on Bond a lot earlier, possibly.

    I think so, and as much as Connery is beloved, there are a whole legion of Bond fans who grew up in an era of the lead actor changing, and it being easy to accept.

    @thedove this is one of your most interesting 'what if's', yet.

    Absolutely. One of the most enduring things about the series, and its fanbase, is that a huge chunk of them have "their Bond" - the very concept of that invites creative discussion, agreements and disagreements, and that always helps keep the series alive.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Great question.

    I think the impact on the series would have been significant. First off, I am pretty sure we wouldn't have got 25 films. Connery was hugely difficult to replace as it was, in the eyes of the casual viewer even more so.
    Had Sean done, say 10 Bond films, It truly would have been 'his' role. I think it would have been almost impossible to recast the part for several years.

    As much as he is beloved, and rightly so, he had declined physically by DAF, and essentially looked like a lounge lizard in that. The animal magnetism was slipping into a disinterested swagger. If he had known he was continuing in the role, he may have made more effort, but that's up for debate.

    I can't actually believe I'm saying this, but all things considered, I think it would have hurt the series had Sean continued, and he bowed out at the right time.

    Absolutely. I think Connery's departure was a necessary pill to swallow. Had he stayed, though, I wonder how many more films we would have gotten in theory before it became a less viable property without him? 3? 4?

    Absolutely, 3 at the most. I must offer my apologies, too. I see you covered a lot of the same things as me in an earlier post.

    Can you imagine how difficult things would have been had Sean gone to the mid 70's as Bond, then bowed out. We may not have had another Bond film, until, say GE. I don't think Moore, Lazenby, Dalton or any of the others would have been accepted as Bond by then. It all worked out for the best.

    No apologies needed, @Roadphill. Your post was far more eloquent than mine.

    As for the rest, I think you're right. It certainly would have hurt the series creatively had he stayed. The full blown reboot-era would have dawned on Bond a lot earlier, possibly.

    I think so, and as much as Connery is beloved, there are a whole legion of Bond fans who grew up in an era of the lead actor changing, and it being easy to accept.

    @thedove this is one of your most interesting 'what if's', yet.

    Absolutely. One of the most enduring things about the series, and its fanbase, is that a huge chunk of them have "their Bond" - the very concept of that invites creative discussion, agreements and disagreements, and that always helps keep the series alive.

    Indeed. While I think if most where being objective, it would be hard to argue against Sean being the best Bond, it doesn't mean he is everyone's favourite.

    Roger Moore was 'my' Bond, and to have lost his contribution, as well as others would be intolerable.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 65
    If Connery had more creative control and was paid more I believe we would see the tone of the Bond films to stay in line with FRWL instead of branching out to the over the top villains and gadgets.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Perhaps John Barry would have been replaced with Michel Legrand, and perhaps Bond would have worn dungarees in the gunbarrel sequence.
  • Posts: 15,785
    Perhaps John Barry would have been replaced with Michel Legrand, and perhaps Bond would have worn dungarees in the gunbarrel sequence.

    Good one!
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    As always the varied viewpoints and well thought out positions of many have enlightened me. I must admit that I enjoy how one small decision or change could effect the whole time line.

    Thanks @Roadphill I enjoy providing the scenarios and appreciate the help that some have offered over the last few months. In fact a while back @MaxCasino sent me a few and I have neglected to use them all.

    Over the years we have had a rather spotty history of a gaming double-o7. We have seen some great editions with GE for Nintendo 64 to name the one most sighted as the best Bond video game. Then we have the bizarre of 007 Legends where Daniel Craig is suddenly in OHMSS, MR and other Bond films. I say bizarre cause EON would have us believe his 007 is removed from the Connery, Moore and others. Max proposed a what if where we talked about a scenario where the gaming licence was more consistent and tied into the series in terms of continuity.

    So Mi6 what say you? What if James Bond video games were more aligned with the movie 007? What would a gaming Bond do for the movie series? What would the movie series gain from having a consistent quality gaming Bond? Is there untapped potential with the video game Bond?

    What if James Bond had a consistent and quality video game presence? What would you like to see games based on the movie series? (GE and QOS) Games that respected what was occurring in the movies but not tied as tightly (Nightfire, Agent Underfire, etc.) or novelty Bond video games? (FRWL the video game, Legends, etc.)
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I think doing FRWL was a marvelous idea. I would love to see a game company do a film tie in for each actor.

    Other than that, I prefer 007 games to be an original idea(Goldeneye 64 not withstanding).

    The problem with trying to tie a game into a new film, is invariably they get rushed out to tie in with film marketing, and generally have a 'straight off the production line' feel, and lack any flair. QOS as a game was a prime example of this.

    Things like Nightcore, EON and Blood Stone, while far than being perfect, are preferable to me. Or doing a game based on a classic film, as I stated at the start.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I never played FRWL, but I like the idea of doing adaptations of older films. My understanding is that it was done because Brosnan was no longer Bond and Metal Gear Solid 3 being a 60s period Cold War game was a huge hit factored in. It's too bad that didn't carry on with other films. Plenty of Moore's entries would have made fantastic games.

    Funny thing is that both GE and TND came out two years after their film counterparts. TWINE would come one whole year later. When EA was ready to begin work on their CR, apparently it wouldn't have come in on time like EON wanted which is why their contract was terminated and then when Activision got the gig they actually got to meet the deadline of having the game available right when the film was out. Of course, it felt rushed, and turned out all they did was make a CALL OF DUTY game but with Bond.

    I do feel GE as great as it was in its day was inadvertently the worst thing to happen to Bond games. Bond shouldn't be a first person shooter, but that game's shadow loomed so large. Bond would dabble with third person shooters but they always seemed to be exceptions before reverting back to making FPS games. I do think the hiatus may be a good thing for Bond games, because when the time comes hopefully chasing GE is less of a thing. I remember when a promotional video showed a focus group asking if they would be excited about "a new GoldenEye game", as if that was the brand name rather than James Bond. That's how absurd it got. I never played the Wii remake, because it just seemed so bizarre.

    It's too bad. I remember when Activision first got the license and Daniel Craig was enthusiastic in participating in the development because he's a big gamer. Seemed like a lot of promise. Then the games weren't really above average, and Craig's enthusiasm shot down the further they churned out less than stellar games. Not that they were bad games, just unremarkable.

    Maybe when the new actor takes over EON will give the license again to a developer and hopefully they do something refreshing with he brand.

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    Yes not as easy to match up a game release with a movie release. Might be a good idea to just look at the older films and build a game on that. I wasn't a fan of Craig being shoehorned into GE for Wii. I would like to see them just use which ever Bond happened to be in that adventure.

    I remember Nightfall with some fondness and would like to see stand-alone adventures. Who knows it might provide EON with some story material for a future film? LOL!

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    Happy Super Bowl Sunday mi6!

    NSNA is not part of the official canon. It was done without any of the "Bond family" at eon. Most of the call outs with this film centre on the score of the film. Michel Legrand while an accomplished musician and scorer of films was perhaps a misstep in this film. What if McClory had paid Barry enough to coax him to score this film? Would it had improved the film? Or does the fact that this Bond film couldn't use the "James Bond theme" handicap it enough that it would make no difference who scored the film? How would a Barry score impact NSNA?

    What if John Barry had scored NSNA? What say you Mi6?
  • Posts: 1,879
    Absolutely. I really think a score can enhance a film and this one could've used something besides just having Connery back to enhance it and not having a memorable score works against it. Connery with one last run at the Bond theme would've made a nice lasting impression rather than Rowan Atkinson.
  • Posts: 15,785
    Had Barry scored NSNA, Cubby might have felt betrayed and thus we might not have gotten the wonderful score for TLD.
    Bill Conti may have returned for OP, AVTAK and TLD.
Sign In or Register to comment.