The What if thread...What if Danny Boyle had directed Bond 25 with Daniel Craig?

1212224262742

Comments

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 902
    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: 5,641
    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: 902
    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: 43
    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 Robotswana
    Posts: 38,632
    Perhaps John Barry would have been replaced with Michel Legrand, and perhaps Bond would have worn dungarees in the gunbarrel sequence.
  • Posts: 10,975
    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: 3,561
    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: 902
    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.
  • 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: 3,561
    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: 3,561
    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: 1,336
    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.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 29,644
    It would have made up for about half of the film’s deficiencies. If he had scored FYEO it would probably make my Top Ten.
  • Posts: 10,975
    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.
  • edited February 3 Posts: 3,875
    I think John Barry would have created a strong action theme to replace the missing Bond theme. Something like “He’s Dangerous” from AVTAK.

    Legrand used the NSNA theme as a cool or romantic theme, and it was ok. But the action themes are tuneless. His best was the cue as Bond rescues Domino on horseback.

    Barry was offered NSNA wasn’t he?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Robotswana
    Posts: 38,632
    There is an EONized fan edit of NSNA featuring a Barry score. Even though it is an amateur putting Barry music not written for the film over it, it is still an improvement.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 7,381
    The Never Say McClory Again fan edit was a big improvement. Even added a gunbarrel and proper pretitles action. Then a proper titles sequence (from Thunderball) and title song ("History Repeating", Propellerheads, vocals by Shirley Bassey). Very fun to experience.

    And yes, an appropriate score would greatly improve Never Say Never Again. If you listen to the commentary on the DVD, director Irvin Kirschner describes some of the tracks Michel Legrand provided as unuseable. Forcing him to decide to use tracks written for specific scenes to be matched with others. That's unbelievable and it probably affected some editing of the film. This and the dwindling funds toward the end of the production explain the state of the film.

  • Posts: 1,336
    You have to wonder how a proficient composer like Legrand wouldn't seem to have any clue as to how to score a James Bond picture. He'd had to have known of Barry's reputation and at least some of his Bond work since it was everywhere in the '60s. It's almost like he used Monty Norman's DN score minus the Bond theme as his template.
  • I disagree with the sentiment that a good score elevates a film, because that's NOT always the case. I own several soundtracks to films I've only seen once. THE SPECIALIST has a great score that showed Barry still had it in him to score for Bond. There's so many tracks in it that would fit well for Bond, I even made a video using the cue "Explosive Trent" in GE.





    But with that said, I saw THE SPECIALIST once and I'll probably never see it again. Not even a great John Barry score would want me to endure the utter boredom that is the 1994 Stallone film. This is the same for other known turkeys like SUPERGIRL. I own the soundtrack for that and listen to that multiple times, but I never feel any urge to revisit it just because of the music. I imagine that would have been the same case with NSNA even if Barry delivered the best Bond score ever.

    A good score only truly elevates a film when the film itself is already that good. They need to compliment each other. If it's terrible, I only want the soundtrack.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    I disagree with the sentiment that a good score elevates a film, because that's NOT always the case.
    A good score only truly elevates a film when the film itself is already that good. They need to compliment each other. If it's terrible, I only want the soundtrack.

    Agree with these sentiments. I don't think The World Is Not Enough or Die Another Day would've been deemed as better films had they hypothetically been scored by Barry. The same too can be said NSNA.
  • I think Michel Legrand's work outside of Bond speaks for itself and he really needs no defending as one of the great musicians and film composers of the 20th Century.

    However, out of a musical career that spanned over 300 albums of film scores, pop music, and original orchestral work, this has to rank pretty near the bottom.

    From what I can tell, he and the producers had disagreements about the way the score should go, Legrand favouring his typical lush and whimsy-heavy style while the producers wanted a more typical action sound for the score, and a "modern" synth sound for the title track.

    At the very least, huge parts of it sound noticeably different to Legrand's scores that came both before and after. Much like NSNA itself, the end result feels like a somewhat unsatisfying mess made by a group of overqualified people.

    I would almost have prefered it if Legrand hadn't compromised his own style and simply walked away and been replaced. His previous work suggests he could have made a really great Bond score, just not for the kind of movie NSNA turned out to be.
  • Indeed, and if Barry had scored those films I imagine there would be plenty of comments like "great score, a shame it's wasted on that film!". It's something I heard too often in regards to John Williams' prequel scores.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    edited February 4 Posts: 1,081
    Indeed, and if Barry had scored those films I imagine there would be plenty of comments like "great score, a shame it's wasted on that film!". It's something I heard too often in regards to John Williams' prequel scores.

    The best contribution of the SW films outside of A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of The Jedi are John William's scores.
  • edited February 4 Posts: 3,268
    The OT is a good case of genuinely great scores elevating an already pretty good set of movies!
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    100% but no one gives a toss about it in the other films because they're garbage.
  • I enjoy TFA and TLJ about as much as the OT. It’s everything else that ranges from adequate (TROS) to utterly horrifying (AOTC).

    But enough of Star Wars!
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,029
    I'm not sure if Barry scoring NSNA would have improved the film but it would probably have made it a more watchable and even rewatchable film.
  • SatoriousSatorious Brushing up on a little Danish
    Posts: 183
    Would a John Barry score improve NSNA?
    For me, simply put - yes. I've nothing against Legrand, but this would make it feel a lot more like a traditional Bond film (Sean Connery and Thunderball plot rehashing aside), even without the use of the main theme and gunbarrel.
  • edited February 6 Posts: 973
    Yes it did. I saw McClory's print of NSNA while visiting him in the Bahamas, in which he had replaced the soundtrack with "Thunderball"s music. It improved it but it was still what it was.
  • Posts: 1,336
    I don't think anybody would say a Barry score would've made NSNA a classic or made it anywhere near GF, OHMSS or FRWL, just that it would improve the experience or at least make it possibly more memorable.

    I'll compare that with AVTAK having a Barry score. Still a pretty awful Bond film in my opinion and it's my least favorite Barry score, so that part of it doesn't lift it any for me, so it kind of varies by case.
Sign In or Register to comment.