007: What would you have done differently?

1505152535456»

Comments

  • edited May 2020 Posts: 578
    Denbigh wrote: »
    How people would do Die Another Day differently?

    I guess it depends on how different. Is this a page-one rewrite, to use Hollywood jargon, or to modify only a few details? With hindsight, I would have preferred that this installment was not made and that Brosnan concluded his run with another fourth movie. But, at the same time, without the excesses of Die Another Day, we would not have had Casino Royale.

    If DAD had to happen, but that some modifications could be made, I would remove the character of Jinx from the story. In addition to being poorly written, she simply seems useless to the plot. From Cuba to Iceland, the movie would be the same without her. So, no Jinx, which would make Miranda Frost the main and only Bond Girl of the film. I think the story would also benefit from ending at the Ice Palace, without relocating the conclusion to the Korean peninsula.

    As in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond would be stuck in the villain's lair and would have to act alone. One of the elements put forward through promotional materials and which seemed to me ultimately rather misused was the idea that Bond was facing a traitor and that he could trust no one. If Frost becomes the predominant female character and Bond has to stay with her longer in the same closed place, I think this narrative element would be better handle.

    However, I don't think these points would have change much for the overall quality of the film. In addition to a complete rewrite of the script (a page-one rewrite), another director would have been needed - and another title, but this a more secondary issue. These are all the elements that allow me to think that another movie should have been made instead. This would have been necessary to better respond to the laudable intentions that initially guided DAD: the desire to deliver an anniversary installment for the saga that would question the fears of our time, following the premise of a rogue agent trying to undercover a mole within the MI6 after being captive in North Korea.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 578
    So here we go... OCTOPUSSY.

    007_octopussy_UKquad.jpg

    Again, this is your chance to say whatever you would have done differently with the film, so things like; plot changes, character additions or subtractions. Anything you like.

    Having recently rewatch the movie, I started to think about some changes. My two main problems with this movie are on the one hand the overly convoluted plot, something that can be explained by the unnecessary mixing of two separate stories (the smuggling ring in India and the Cold War thriller), and on the other hand the regression of female characters (Octopussy and Magda) from criminals to dupes. It seems to me that the best way to solve these issues is to start from two assumptions: firstly forget about General Orlov and focus solely on the smuggling ring, secondly Octopussy becomes the antagonist, removing Kamal Khan, in order to flesh out the female characters. In addition to a more serious tone, I imagine that the cast would have been different.
    • The PTS serves as an adaptation of Fleming’s short story with Bond visiting Dexter Smythe and confronting him with his past activities. Smyth could initially attempt to escape, prompting a boat chase, in order to add some action. As in the story, Bond leaves Smythe to commit suicide, with the major being ultimately dragged underwater by his pet octopus.
    • The murder of 009 still happens. What follows however is different. If the Fabergé egg remains a fake, the real one had been sold months before in Switzerland and it is another that is being auctioned in London. Bond does not swap any eggs and engages in a bidding war with Magda. As MI6 learns that she was the one who acquired the egg in Switzerland, she’s suspected of buying the eggs to then produce copies and smuggle them.
    • In India, Bond locates Magda. After introduces himself, he offers the fake egg as a stake for a game of backgammon that he ultimately wins. As in the movie, Gobinda, here Magda's bodyguard, pursues Bond and Vijay, initially only to steal the egg without hurting them, but quickly becomes much more violent. After this failure, Magda goes to Bond. What follows is similar to the movie, from the octopus tattoo to Bond permitting her to steal the egg, fitted with tracking devices, before being knocked out by Gobinda. Magda is the one who visits Octopussy and who is instructed to not kill Bond.
    • The dinner remains most of the same with Magda being the one threatening Bond, asking him what he knows about the smuggling ring. Held prisoner, Bond manages to escape at dawn. Warned, Magda phones Octopussy to inform her, indicating that a tiger hunt is taking place in the morning. She replies that if Bond lives up to his reputation, he will manage to make it out alive. The hunt is a far more intense sequence. Thanks to the tracking devices, Bond locates the egg in the floating palate belonging to the Octopus Cult.
    • The introduction of Octopussy remains the same, except that the character appears as more manipulative and with a grudge against England for attempting to condemn her father. She offers Bond, whom she holds in high regard, to defect to join her organization. He leaves his decision in doubt, as a way to stay longer at the palace in order to learn more after discovering a flier for her circus. The assassination attempt on Bond is carried out by the Cult on Octopussy’s orders after learning about Vijay's presence on the opposite bank and understanding that her guest has no desire to defect. As in the film, Bond is believed to be dead.
    • With Octopussy's circus being scheduled to perform in West Germany, Bond infiltrates the circus as it travels by train. He learns that the performance will take place on an English military base where Octopussy plans to detonate a bomb, as a way to avenge her father. This plan also appears to fuel divisions within the organization with Magda opposing it on the pretext that it is against the principles of the Cult. Bond is spotted by Mishka and Grishka, he tries to escape and ends up killing them before going to the base. Octopussy and those who support her have already left, leaving the hesitant ones behind, including Magda. Bond manages to defuse the bomb, assisted by Magda.
    • The finale takes place at the floating palace, with Magda leading the betrayed fraction of the Cult against the one faithful to Octopussy. She tries to escape by plane with Gobinda. After getting rid of the latter, Bond tries to convince her to surrender, but she refuses and as her father sees death as an honorable alternative. Bond only has time to jump before the plane crashes. Magda becomes the new leader of the Octopus Cult, and the movie ends with Bond recuperating with her aboard her boat.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Unlike Gilbert, Spottiswoode didn't have a clue how to combine this kind of larger than life concept with Fleming DNA


    There was little Fleming in the Gilbert films. But they at least had more class and felt distinctly more British.
    Bond felt like Fleming's Bond in the Gilbert films to me, despite the plots not following the novels. That's my point. He wasn't just a slick, well dressed caricature even though the premises were distinctly OTT. Even some of the supporting characters, dialogue & overall aesthetic give me that feeling. A lot of that is missing from TND I feel.

    I’d agree. The Brosnan era was the low point of the series. Despite being too overtly comedic in parts, the Moore era was highly entertaining and still contained Fleming elements.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 9,100
    I like the idea of having Octopussy as the main villain: she would have been strong enough to do that. Equally I'd be sad on losing Bond and Octopussy as a couple because she was probably Roger's best co-star.

    I really love the bomb plot too: I think it's a really smart bit of plotting. Where the film falls down massively for me is Kamal Khan: we have no idea why he's doing what he's doing.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 979
    mtm wrote: »
    I like the idea of having Octopussy as the main villain: she would have been strong enough to do that. Equally I'd be sad on losing Bond and Octopussy as a couple because she was probably Roger's best co-star.

    I really love the bomb plot too: I think it's a really smart bit of plotting. Where the film falls down massively for me is Kamal Khan: we have no idea why he's doing what he's doing.

    I like the idea of Octopussy as the villain, too. As long as she had Bond fooled for the majority of the film..
  • Posts: 578
    mtm wrote: »
    I really love the bomb plot too: I think it's a really smart bit of plotting. Where the film falls down massively for me is Kamal Khan: we have no idea why he's doing what he's doing.

    Apparently, early versions of the script written by George MacDonald Fraser suggested that Kamal had political ambitions. I may be over-analyzing, but I guess the idea was for him, in addition to enriching himself considerably, to be supported by Orlov if the later succeeded and came to power in the USSR.

    Regarding Octopussy herself, although I agree that the couple she forms with Bond is the best of the Moore era, I ultimately think she would have benefited from another development, as the character is impoverished in the second part of the story and never regains the mystery that surrounded her before her introduction. Between her underused background and the fact that the movie is named after her, making her the main antagonist seemed natural to me and would have improved the movie.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 9,100
    mtm wrote: »
    I really love the bomb plot too: I think it's a really smart bit of plotting. Where the film falls down massively for me is Kamal Khan: we have no idea why he's doing what he's doing.

    Apparently, early versions of the script written by George MacDonald Fraser suggested that Kamal had political ambitions. I may be over-analyzing, but I guess the idea was for him, in addition to enriching himself considerably, to be supported by Orlov if the later succeeded and came to power in the USSR.

    Oh he'd be the new puppet Tzar or something? That would be rather cool, shame that didn't make it.
    Regarding Octopussy herself, although I agree that the couple she forms with Bond is the best of the Moore era, I ultimately think she would have benefited from another development, as the character is impoverished in the second part of the story and never regains the mystery that surrounded her before her introduction. Between her underused background and the fact that the movie is named after her, making her the main antagonist seemed natural to me and would have improved the movie.

    Yes that's true, once we find out who she is she doesn't really have a huge amount to do.

    I'd have liked to have seen her show her might a bit more in the ending, a bit like how Draco comes in useful at the end of OHMSS by helping Bond to attack Piz Gloria. We get the circus girl raid on whichever-of-the-half-dozen-big-white-palaces-that-is at the end, but it's a bit weak and she ends up getting kidnapped for no apparent reason at the end.
    Seriously: why does Kamal take her? Nothing he does makes sense! :)
  • Posts: 578
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh he'd be the new puppet Tzar or something? That would be rather cool, shame that didn't make it.
    When I spoke of an accession to power in the USSR, I was referring to Orlov, not Kamal. As for the latter, I suppose his political ambitions only concerned his home country, Afghanistan. It is logical, in the context of the 1980s, that he seeks the support of the Soviet government to return to his country and take power there.

    Come to think of it, it's an ingenious masterplan, both realistic in terms of geopolitics, but very Bondian if the characters use high-tech to achieve it. It's a shame that he was not treated better and especially separated from the Octopussy movie, unless you give the role of Kamal to her. It could also have been an alternative take to TLD.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 9,100
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh he'd be the new puppet Tzar or something? That would be rather cool, shame that didn't make it.
    When I spoke of an accession to power in the USSR, I was referring to Orlov, not Kamal. As for the latter, I suppose his political ambitions only concerned his home country, Afghanistan. It is logical, in the context of the 1980s, that he seeks the support of the Soviet government to return to his country and take power there.

    Ah I see. Yes it needed something more for Khan.
    Come to think of it, it's an ingenious masterplan, both realistic in terms of geopolitics, but very Bondian if the characters use high-tech to achieve it. It's a shame that he was not treated better and especially separated from the Octopussy movie, unless you give the role of Kamal to her. It could also have been an alternative take to TLD.

    I love the plan to explode a bomb on an American airbase: it's so good (and scary) that Frederick Forsyth nicked it for The Fourth Protocol! :)
  • Posts: 1,693
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I really love the bomb plot too: I think it's a really smart bit of plotting. Where the film falls down massively for me is Kamal Khan: we have no idea why he's doing what he's doing.

    Apparently, early versions of the script written by George MacDonald Fraser suggested that Kamal had political ambitions. I may be over-analyzing, but I guess the idea was for him, in addition to enriching himself considerably, to be supported by Orlov if the later succeeded and came to power in the USSR.

    Oh he'd be the new puppet Tzar or something? That would be rather cool, shame that didn't make it.
    Regarding Octopussy herself, although I agree that the couple she forms with Bond is the best of the Moore era, I ultimately think she would have benefited from another development, as the character is impoverished in the second part of the story and never regains the mystery that surrounded her before her introduction. Between her underused background and the fact that the movie is named after her, making her the main antagonist seemed natural to me and would have improved the movie.

    Yes that's true, once we find out who she is she doesn't really have a huge amount to do.

    I'd have liked to have seen her show her might a bit more in the ending, a bit like how Draco comes in useful at the end of OHMSS by helping Bond to attack Piz Gloria. We get the circus girl raid on whichever-of-the-half-dozen-big-white-palaces-that-is at the end, but it's a bit weak and she ends up getting kidnapped for no apparent reason at the end.
    Seriously: why does Kamal take her? Nothing he does makes sense! :)

    It actually makes sense to take her. Given Octopussy's vast network of associates, they'd come after her and it gives him the upper hand and to possibly force her hand to take some of these contacts to reestablish his power. Not sure she had any type of successor who was due to inherit what she had. This is where a good film novelization would've clarified this.
  • wintandkiddfaroutwintandkiddfarout Australia
    edited January 2021 Posts: 32
    The major change I would make to a Bond film I have already mentioned in a thread specifically devoted to what differences you'd suggest for that film exclusively.

    It felt easy to accept A View To A Kill the way it is when I first saw it released as a 14 year old. However in later years as an adult, it has crossed my mind how May Day changing sides comes rather too easily. She was a villainess through and through assisting Zorin's plans and murdering a couple of people along the way. Seriously would Bond really forgive her killing of Tibbet and Chuck Lee as quick and easy as that? Furthermore in the end, she basically turns on Zorin and helps Bond remove the bomb at the cost of her own life just because she's angry about being betrayed. In hindsight, this makes her sacrifice seem hardly noble and redeeming to my mind. If Zorin had shown true care for her, she would have fought tooth and nail to ensure his scheme was a success.

    So my basic idea was this. Suppose Max's creator and father figure, Dr. Mortner was already long dead and Max wanted to concoct his crazy scheme against Silicon Valley because he wanted to accomplish something the old doc would be deeply proud of?

    So what if it was May Day who assisted her boss and lover in the mass murder of everybody else and Scarpine was allowed to live for some reason and had the blimp ready and waiting for them? This would be sprung as a surprise on everybody, including Bond and Stacy while they are searching for where the bomb is. Perhaps neither Zorin or May Day are even aware of their presence assuming they've successfully fooled them of the mine's whereabouts. After the pair have finished machine gunning all the workers who have the misfortune not to drown in the flooded shafts, they high-five saying what an awesome team they are, hug and kiss briefly and make their way to join Scarpine.

    Of course Bond and Tracy survive the flooding (it always happens in these movies) and the script-writers find a way for them to get the bomb safely out before it explodes. Zorin and May Day are furious and they somehow kidnap Stacey dragging her into the blimp with Bond grabbing the dangling rope. Then things progress the same way as the actual film with the exception of the further twist of Max being the one knocked out, May Day commands Scarpine to get out and get Bond. Then when Stacey knocks him out May Day grabs the axe in rage and chases her.

    So the dangerous climactic fight actually takes place between Bond and May Day. Finally Zorin wakes up at the crucial moment as May Day is desperately trying to grab hold of Bond's leg to save herself. In the role played canonically by Dr. Mortner, he calls out to her. "MAY DAY! MAY DAY!" Upon hearing him, she gives out a mad laugh as she falls to her death. Max is grief-stricken and vows to kill Bond for killing his beloved henchwoman. Just like the film, he first empties his gun, then things play out the same way with the dynamite and Bond using the axe to free the blimp resulting in Max falling and the dynamite blowing him up along with Scarpine

    This would certainly make the movie very different.
  • Posts: 1,693
    The major change I would make to a Bond film I have already mentioned in a thread specifically devoted to what differences you'd suggest for that film exclusively.

    It felt easy to accept A View To A Kill the way it is when I first saw it released as a 14 year old. However in later years as an adult, it has crossed my mind how May Day changing sides comes rather too easily. She was a villainess through and through assisting Zorin's plans and murdering a couple of people along the way. Seriously would Bond really forgive her killing of Tibbet and Chuck Lee as quick and easy as that? Furthermore in the end, she basically turns on Zorin and helps Bond remove the bomb at the cost of her own life just because she's angry about being betrayed. In hindsight, this makes her sacrifice seem hardly noble and redeeming to my mind. If Zorin had shown true care for her, she would have fought tooth and nail to ensure his scheme was a success.

    So my basic idea was this. Suppose Max's creator and father figure, Dr. Mortner was already long dead and Max wanted to concoct his crazy scheme against Silicon Valley because he wanted to accomplish something the old doc would be deeply proud of?

    So what if it was May Day who assisted her boss and lover in the mass murder of everybody else and Scarpine was allowed to live for some reason and had the blimp ready and waiting for them? This would be sprung as a surprise on everybody, including Bond and Stacy while they are searching for where the bomb is. Perhaps neither Zorin or May Day are even aware of their presence assuming they've successfully fooled them of the mine's whereabouts. After the pair have finished machine gunning all the workers who have the misfortune not to drown in the flooded shafts, they high-five saying what an awesome team they are, hug and kiss briefly and make their way to join Scarpine.

    Of course Bond and Tracy survive the flooding (it always happens in these movies) and the script-writers find a way for them to get the bomb safely out before it explodes. Zorin and May Day are furious and they somehow kidnap Stacey dragging her into the blimp with Bond grabbing the dangling rope. Then things progress the same way as the actual film with the exception of the further twist of Max being the one knocked out, May Day commands Scarpine to get out and get Bond. Then when Stacey knocks him out May Day grabs the axe in rage and chases her.

    So the dangerous climactic fight actually takes place between Bond and May Day. Finally Zorin wakes up at the crucial moment as May Day is desperately trying to grab hold of Bond's leg to save herself. In the role played canonically by Dr. Mortner, he calls out to her. "MAY DAY! MAY DAY!" Upon hearing him, she gives out a mad laugh as she falls to her death. Max is grief-stricken and vows to kill Bond for killing his beloved henchwoman. Just like the film, he first empties his gun, then things play out the same way with the dynamite and Bond using the axe to free the blimp resulting in Max falling and the dynamite blowing him up along with Scarpine

    This would certainly make the movie very different.
    I like it. AVTAK is near the bottom of my list and one of the many reasons was the simple switching sides for May Day, especially since the marketing put such an emphasis on the character only to have her come to that end. It's why I don't count her up with the series' really great henchwomen.
  • wintandkiddfaroutwintandkiddfarout Australia
    Posts: 32
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The major change I would make to a Bond film I have already mentioned in a thread specifically devoted to what differences you'd suggest for that film exclusively.

    It felt easy to accept A View To A Kill the way it is when I first saw it released as a 14 year old. However in later years as an adult, it has crossed my mind how May Day changing sides comes rather too easily. She was a villainess through and through assisting Zorin's plans and murdering a couple of people along the way. Seriously would Bond really forgive her killing of Tibbet and Chuck Lee as quick and easy as that? Furthermore in the end, she basically turns on Zorin and helps Bond remove the bomb at the cost of her own life just because she's angry about being betrayed. In hindsight, this makes her sacrifice seem hardly noble and redeeming to my mind. If Zorin had shown true care for her, she would have fought tooth and nail to ensure his scheme was a success.

    So my basic idea was this. Suppose Max's creator and father figure, Dr. Mortner was already long dead and Max wanted to concoct his crazy scheme against Silicon Valley because he wanted to accomplish something the old doc would be deeply proud of?

    So what if it was May Day who assisted her boss and lover in the mass murder of everybody else and Scarpine was allowed to live for some reason and had the blimp ready and waiting for them? This would be sprung as a surprise on everybody, including Bond and Stacy while they are searching for where the bomb is. Perhaps neither Zorin or May Day are even aware of their presence assuming they've successfully fooled them of the mine's whereabouts. After the pair have finished machine gunning all the workers who have the misfortune not to drown in the flooded shafts, they high-five saying what an awesome team they are, hug and kiss briefly and make their way to join Scarpine.

    Of course Bond and Tracy survive the flooding (it always happens in these movies) and the script-writers find a way for them to get the bomb safely out before it explodes. Zorin and May Day are furious and they somehow kidnap Stacey dragging her into the blimp with Bond grabbing the dangling rope. Then things progress the same way as the actual film with the exception of the further twist of Max being the one knocked out, May Day commands Scarpine to get out and get Bond. Then when Stacey knocks him out May Day grabs the axe in rage and chases her.

    So the dangerous climactic fight actually takes place between Bond and May Day. Finally Zorin wakes up at the crucial moment as May Day is desperately trying to grab hold of Bond's leg to save herself. In the role played canonically by Dr. Mortner, he calls out to her. "MAY DAY! MAY DAY!" Upon hearing him, she gives out a mad laugh as she falls to her death. Max is grief-stricken and vows to kill Bond for killing his beloved henchwoman. Just like the film, he first empties his gun, then things play out the same way with the dynamite and Bond using the axe to free the blimp resulting in Max falling and the dynamite blowing him up along with Scarpine

    This would certainly make the movie very different.
    I like it. AVTAK is near the bottom of my list and one of the many reasons was the simple switching sides for May Day, especially since the marketing put such an emphasis on the character only to have her come to that end. It's why I don't count her up with the series' really great henchwomen.

    Thank you. :)
    As a side note, this outcome would also make the scene in the blimp when the evil couple are looking out at the Golden Gate Bridge and say their exchange even more highlightly significant.

    May Day: Wow. What a view.
    Zorin: To a kill.

    It doesn't really make much sense in a grammatical context, but after the first viewing, everybody would always think about the foreshadowing of the fate of the two villains in the end.
  • wintandkiddfaroutwintandkiddfarout Australia
    Posts: 32
    Please excuse me. I know a lot of forums don't encourage double posting, but I thought of something else I'd change.

    In my opinion after Live And Let Die, Felix Leiter is absent for too long. It makes Licence To Kill a little anti-climactic. Bond has barely had any contact with his old friend for more than ten years. His rogue mission to avenge his best friend's wife and the injury inflicted on him would be far more poignant with more interaction semi-regularly, just like the earlier series.

    Hong Kong Police Lieuteant Hip is basically a Felix Leiter clone in The Man With The Golden Gun. I would re-write the script for Leiter instead. Perhaps have one of Felix's men who is Hong Kong arrest Bond when Gibson is shot by Scaramanga and in a unique twist have Felix present with M and company on the boat he is taken to.

    Then re-write Chuck Lee as Felix for A View To A Kill, but don't have May Day kill him of course. Then he'd only be absent for four films inbetween and present in 9 out of 16 outings. This would make a far better balance.

    Oh and one more thing by the way. Give him something deeply significant to do in The Living Daylights. Seriously Felix may as well have not even been in that movie with only two very brief casual cameos. Even when it first came out I remember thinking after so long he suddenly shows up in Bond's life again only so very fleetingly. That did not help the impact of Licence To Kill for me.
  • edited March 2021 Posts: 578
    Oh and one more thing by the way. Give him something deeply significant to do in The Living Daylights. Seriously Felix may as well have not even been in that movie with only two very brief casual cameos. Even when it first came out I remember thinking after so long he suddenly shows up in Bond's life again only so very fleetingly. That did not help the impact of Licence To Kill for me.

    Indeed, I concur with everything you have said, but more particularly on this point. While I very much regret that David Hedison was not semi-regular during Moore's tenure, especially since as you have shown, it was not difficult to set up narratively speaking, not using Leiter in TLD either, when the character had been missing for a decade, is a big missed opportunity. It is also unfortunate that in two consecutive movies, Dalton had two different Leiters. Even though I much prefer Hedison to Terry and consider him a better actor, the obviousness would have been to call Terry back for TLK, at least to establish the relationship between Dalton's Bond and Leiter on something. Ideally, Hedison would have played Leiter in TLD.
  • Hedison was too old for the part in LTK imo. Leiter and Bond should be around the same age. He is probably a better actor than the one who was briefly in TLD though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2021 Posts: 9,100
    Although weirdly imagining Terry in LTK (as lacking in presence as he was) feels somehow slightly more tragic because of his comparative youth and athleticism.

    Not that it needs to feel any more tragic of course, as Della's fate is horrible; but weirdly the film kind of encourages you to forget and concentrate on Felix instead. By the end he's chuckling away on the phone, presumably Bond and him get to have a good laugh about how they've both lost wives on their wedding day.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,578
    As someone might say, "The things that bring us together. Out of horror, beauty."
  • wintandkiddfaroutwintandkiddfarout Australia
    Posts: 32

    Indeed, I concur with everything you have said, but more particularly on this point. While I very much regret that David Hedison was not semi-regular during Moore's tenure, especially since as you have shown, it was not difficult to set up narratively speaking, not using Leiter in TLD either, when the character had been missing for a decade, is a big missed opportunity. It is also unfortunate that in two consecutive movies, Dalton had two different Leiters. Even though I much prefer Hedison to Terry and consider him a better actor, the obviousness would have been to call Terry back for TLK, at least to establish the relationship between Dalton's Leap and Leiter on something. Ideally, Hedison would have played Leiter in TLD.

    Whether they kept Hedison full time or stuck with the tradition of a new Leiter every time, I would not have minded. I was pretty used to the constant change of actor. I wonder why they chose to re-use Hedison in Licence To Kill though?

    An interesting point is that the attack on Felix in Timothy Dalton's second Bond film is actually taken from the novel Live And Let Die. Ironically it seems as if fate was against Hedison'e portrayal of Leiter, after it looked like he fortunately dodged the traumatic experience. But destiny caught up with him.

  • So I'm sorry to everyone to have let this discussion go on a hiatus, but been quite busy, but I'm glad to say we can now carry on and now it's time to move onto YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

    1967-You-Only-Live-Twice.jpg

    Again, this is your chance to say whatever you would have done differently with the film, so things like; plot changes, character additions or subtractions. Anything you like. People will be given the chance to give their responses within 7 DAYS from today (this may change so let me know if you want me to extend the time for longer) until the discussion moves on to the next James Bond film. This will run until we reach SKYFALL as a discussion for SPECTRE already exists.

    Looking forward to hearing what you guys think.

    The surest way to improving YOLT would have been for Lewis Gilbert to crack the bleedin' whip on the catatonic Seanery. But maybe Gilbert wasn't up to the job at that point in his career. If that was the case, a more experienced and demanding director would have been just the thing. Who that may have been in 1967, I haven't a clue.

  • So I'm sorry to everyone to have let this discussion go on a hiatus, but been quite busy, but I'm glad to say we can now carry on and now it's time to move onto ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

    OHMSS-poster-large-landscape.jpg

    Again, this is your chance to say whatever you would have done differently with the film, so things like; plot changes, character additions or subtractions. Anything you like. People will be given the chance to give their responses within 7 DAYS from today (this may change so let me know if you want me to extend the time for longer) until the discussion moves on to the next James Bond film. This will run until we reach SKYFALL as a discussion for SPECTRE already exists.

    Looking forward to hearing what you guys think.

    The king of Bond films can scarcely be improved upon. However, there is one significant flaw: following Tracy's death and Bond's tearful final words we get a black screen with suitably mournful violin music. However, almost no sooner does the screen turn black than the viewer is jolted from grief by a jaunty blast of the Bond theme. Too soon. Way too soon. The violin music should have continued at least another 10 seconds to allow the viewer to process the film's heartrending conclusion. This musical error diminishes OHMSS' impact.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 542
    Agreed, totally. I always mute it before the Bond theme plays, but just doing that pulls you out of the film when you should still be absorbing the punch from the ending.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
    Ok, so this thread takes on one film at a time? I shall give my bit and bid adieu for the rest of this one.

    OHMSS - In a nutshell, I am one of the few who really dislike the film and cannot watch it with full pleasure.
    I enjoy much about it - especially Diana Rigg, the cinematography, and I do find Telly to be a menacing enough Blofeld.
    What bugs me somewhat is the ditzy plot of hypnotizing the women ("I like chicken") etc.

    But - the huge jumbo elephant in the room, the one thing that means I will never like this movie as much as the rest of it deserves fond appreciation - is Lazenby as Bond.

    I never, for one moment, bought him as James Bond. And for whatever reason, I actually disliked him from first time on the screen throughout the entire movie. I do not enjoy watching him as Bond at all. I find him fake, smug (not in a good way) and just plain irritating. So when I have the main character be someone I cannot tolerate (and there is no halfway point in this for me; I have tried) it does ruin the movie for me. OHMSS is dated in ways, but some things were just so good - especially Diana's Tracey. And the wonderful music. I wish I could enjoy it, but I dislike Laz deeply in this role, so I rarely ever watch this movie. So very thankful he never made another Bond film.

    What would I change? Give me almost any other actor as Bond and I could really sit through and watch this movie over and over again. Who would I choose? Sean would be first choice; Roger 2nd. Third, as an outlier, would probably be Terence Stamp (I know he would not have done it; just saying, I could see him in the role).

    So here is the one negative review with that huge change.
    Everybody else here, carry on and enjoy OHMSS and make your smaller changes.
    Cheers! B-)
  • Posts: 578
    What would I change? Give me almost any other actor as Bond and I could really sit through and watch this movie over and over again. Who would I choose? Sean would be first choice; Roger 2nd. Third, as an outlier, would probably be Terence Stamp (I know he would not have done it; just saying, I could see him in the role).
    I really can't imagine Connery in 1969 in OHMSS. I think he would have been quite good if it was released in 67 rather than YOLT as, I suppose, that the story would have satisfied him more as an actor, but, in 69, he was washed out and not in condition for the role. Regarding Stamp, I think he would have been, like Dalton, too young at the time for the part. Contrariwise, Moore could have been brilliant. All the more since he could have bring the series to a new direction avec OHMSS, leading to a more serious and sober era than what ultimately was the Moore era.

    However, no Lazenby means no Diana Rigg as she was cast to counterbalance the inexperience of the lead. As a fan of Lazenby, I would have been very disappointed to see someone else in the role for this movie, but it would have been a shame to not have Rigg as Tracy. So, even if Moore could have nailed the part, it's for the better I think he wasn't cast so soon.
  • On that note I think we can safely move onto DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.

    IMG_3156.jpg

    Again, this is your chance to say whatever you would have done differently with the film, so things like; plot changes, character additions or subtractions. Anything you like. People will be given the chance to give their responses within 7 DAYS from today (this may change so let me know if you want me to extend the time for longer) until the discussion moves on to the next James Bond film. This will run until we reach SKYFALL as a discussion for SPECTRE already exists.

    Looking forward to hearing what you guys think.

    I like DAF a great deal, but it cries out for an epic, typically Bondian action scene at the conclusion. Instead, what we get is a rather generic helicopter battle on a tiny oil rig. Now, I actually like the idea of a battle on an oil rig, but the rig is just too small to create a real sense gravitas. (Compare with the volcano battle in YOLT.) I'm not sure if an oil platform big enough to be suitable to the purpose even existed in 1971 (or now, for the matter of it), but if so, it should have been utilized.
  • So on that note I think it's time to move on. Don't get ahead of yourself @M16_Cart :D But thank you for everyone's responses, it's been really intriguing reading the debates people have been having about Diamonds are Forever. Some really interesting points have been made, but here we go... LIVE AND LET DIE.

    32a57d359ed146fadaf53994a210d14b.jpg

    Again, this is your chance to say whatever you would have done differently with the film, so things like; plot changes, character additions or subtractions. Anything you like. People will be given the chance to give their responses within 7 DAYS from today (this may change so let me know if you want me to extend the time for longer) until the discussion moves on to the next James Bond film. This will run until we reach SKYFALL as a discussion for SPECTRE already exists.

    Looking forward to hearing what you guys think.

    The McGuffin in this one isn't big enough or grand enough for Bond. So some black gangsters want to take over the heroin market from the Mob. A bit of a yawner, really, and far too parochial. The plot of a Bond film should be of global import. LALD's wasn't. But what to do about it? The obvious answer would be that Kananga and Co. want the drug money in order to fund something truly nefarious. Maybe they wanted to create a private mercenary army in order to conquer an African country that is rich in uranium so as to build a nuke for some terroristic or other evil purpose.

  • So seeing as this conversation about LALD has seemingly come to an end, I think we'll move on :D Thank you to everyone, some interesting points have been made, but here we go... THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

    CSK_11108_0014.jpg

    Again, this is your chance to say whatever you would have done differently with the film, so things like; plot changes, character additions or subtractions. Anything you like. People will be given the chance to give their responses within 7 DAYS from today (this may change so let me know if you want me to extend the time for longer) until the discussion moves on to the next James Bond film. This will run until we reach SKYFALL as a discussion for SPECTRE already exists.

    Looking forward to hearing what you guys think.

    ALSO: I'd really love to start seeing some original ideas regarding story and casting that people would add, as well what they would remove. Get as creative as you want. For example, would you have given Scaramanga a different henchman? If so, what characteristics do they have? Would you have added a different Bond girl? Go crazy :)

    Very simple. Excise the cringe-inducing bit where Lt. Hip's little nieces whip the hell out of an entire karate school and get rid of the slide whistle during the barrel roll car jump.
  • So here we go... THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

    the-spy-who-loved-me-quad-poster.jpg


    Again, this is your chance to say whatever you would have done differently with the film, so things like; plot changes, character additions or subtractions. Anything you like. People will be given the chance to give their responses within 7 DAYS from today (this may change so let me know if you want me to extend the time for longer) until the discussion moves on to the next James Bond film. This will run until we reach SKYFALL as a discussion for SPECTRE already exists.

    Looking forward to hearing what you guys think.

    The biggest weakness is doubtless Barbara Bach. In terms of beauty she's badly shown up by Caroline Munro--such lovely lines--and in terms of acting/charisma she's bested by the little mullet Bond drops from the window of the Lotus. Lesley-Anne Down would have made for a much more interesting Anya.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 469
    What I'd change about TSWLM:
    • The "when in Egypt scene" when Bond accepts sex from a sex slave that's forced to. Yikes.
    • The villain. Make him less boring, sedentary and old. And his death more satisfying.

    Not much. It's already a polished film. It heavily follow the Bond formula and it's not the most original; but it does just about every aspect of the formula very well.

Sign In or Register to comment.