"You missed Mister Bond!"..."Did I?"...The Missed Opportunities of Never Say Never Again

1356733

Comments

  • Posts: 15,086
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I would not change a thing about the first four movies. For me they are the core Bond films, the pillars of the franchise. Very close to the source material as well.

    Not perfect films, but oh so entertaining. YOLT was my first real disappointment. I think for the first time a Bond film felt silly, as in SPECTRE's Jaws-like space ship and a Blofeld who never quite posed the threat of earlier villains. The history of the series has been uneven, some Bonds more engaging than others.

    For me the missed opportunities were too often abandoning Fleming's material for stories that barely resembled the novels. Sometimes those very loosely adapted screenplays improved things. For example, I thought LALD presented a better developed Solitaire, even though some scenes from the novel were abandoned and show up later in FYEO and LTK.


    For me YOLT is the first proper mistep of the franchise. They could have toned down the sci-fi elements quite a bit, have something at least marginally closer to the source material, have a more menacing Blofeld closer to earlier incarnations (although I love Donald Pleasence as an actor)...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,291
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I have never seen or read of any disrespectful comments from Maibaum. I only recall a few Starlog interviews and he didn't speak highly of LALD and thought James Bond didn't belong in the world of drugs and voodoo. Just his opinion.

    Maibaum was a talented writer and responsible for hits and misses. I believe he understood the character of James Bond. He wrote for 3 different Bond actors and seemed to be somewhat able to hit the right notes for the actor. He wasn't perfect.

    You have some great thoughts on that list. May I ask why you thought Gert Frobe coming back to play GF in OP was a missed opportunity or was that a mistype? I know they looked at bringing him back for DAF. Never heard of him returning for OP.

    I’ve seen an interview where he’s highly critical of Roger Moore’s Bond, and saying that a film like “For Your Eyes Only” didn’t work because they didn’t have someone like Connery playing the part. It may have been the Starlog interview but I may be mistaken.

    Yes I do recall that bit. It was in a Starlog interview, he also said that lines were put into the film that neither him or Wilson wrote. The fact that Moore didn't wish to do the kick of the car and suggested that instead the dove pin be the cause of the car tumble tells me he may have been right. Moore was not a "blunt instrument", though I do give me credit for doing the scene as written!

    I do think the pin thing is a bit cinematic and ironic than just the kick though; I like it!

    Maibaum actually wrote for 4 Bond actors, actually. Three of them twice! I think he was a bit hypocritical to call out LALD for drugs when he used the same thing (using LALD the book as a reference, to boot), for LTK.

    Yes good point. It's funny that he did kind of recycle the FYEO car/pin situation into Killifer's death then!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2023 Posts: 6,264
    Ludovico wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I would not change a thing about the first four movies. For me they are the core Bond films, the pillars of the franchise. Very close to the source material as well.

    Not perfect films, but oh so entertaining. YOLT was my first real disappointment. I think for the first time a Bond film felt silly, as in SPECTRE's Jaws-like space ship and a Blofeld who never quite posed the threat of earlier villains. The history of the series has been uneven, some Bonds more engaging than others.

    For me the missed opportunities were too often abandoning Fleming's material for stories that barely resembled the novels. Sometimes those very loosely adapted screenplays improved things. For example, I thought LALD presented a better developed Solitaire, even though some scenes from the novel were abandoned and show up later in FYEO and LTK.


    For me YOLT is the first proper mistep of the franchise. They could have toned down the sci-fi elements quite a bit, have something at least marginally closer to the source material, have a more menacing Blofeld closer to earlier incarnations (although I love Donald Pleasence as an actor)...

    To be fair, once they decided to film YOLT, there wasn't much left for them to do than to go back to the TB well.

    TB is the first real misstep in the series for me. The gadgets and runtime both get out of control...then you have YOLT with Q in the field which is "highly irregular."

    I don't think you can take DN, FRWL, GF, or OHMSS out of the series. After that, the only essential one is CR and, arguably, TSWLM.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,291
    I would say YOLT is more of a Goldfinger follow-up: it's trying to do the things that did. Where TB actually loses some of the fantastical edge that GF had, if you ask me.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,381
    I believe Roald Dahl who said Cubby and Harry told him to write something more formulaic. We can't forget that YOLT was only chosen because Bondmania was huge in Japan and they saw a cash cow. The book would be near impossible to bring to the screen thanks to the continuation of OHMSS. One wonders if Fleming had been alive if they would have had the balls to basically throw out the novel except for character names. I doubt Fleming would have approved of what YOLT became.

    The other missed opportunity in YOLT is the casting of Blofeld. Miscasting and shooting some of the film with the miscast actor cost them any chance of getting someone for the role that would be able to continue into future adventures. To me Pleasance and his scar are a let down for the film and for the build up for the character. They really nailed setting him as the big baddie and then we get this short, skinny and rather non-threatening actor.
  • Posts: 1,959
    On paper Telly Savalas would hardly seem a candidate for Blofeld, yet he was great, far better than DP and did it without the ridiculous scar. DP was too amped up, neither threatening nor particularly engaging. If the idea was to present a villain different from what we'd seen so far, fine, but for me it didn't work. Bond's best villains come across as smooth and smug. I liked DP as an actor, but Blofeld was not for him.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2023 Posts: 3,787
    thedove wrote: »
    I believe Roald Dahl who said Cubby and Harry told him to write something more formulaic. We can't forget that YOLT was only chosen because Bondmania was huge in Japan and they saw a cash cow. The book would be near impossible to bring to the screen thanks to the continuation of OHMSS. One wonders if Fleming had been alive if they would have had the balls to basically throw out the novel except for character names. I doubt Fleming would have approved of what YOLT became.

    The other missed opportunity in YOLT is the casting of Blofeld. Miscasting and shooting some of the film with the miscast actor cost them any chance of getting someone for the role that would be able to continue into future adventures. To me Pleasance and his scar are a let down for the film and for the build up for the character. They really nailed setting him as the big baddie and then we get this short, skinny and rather non-threatening actor.

    If my memory serves, based on reading several sources, the Producers gave Roald Dahl a chance to pick a Bond book for him to film, and he'd picked YOLT because he thought it's Fleming's worst Bond book, and so, he'd created a different story from the book, and the Producers also agreed since Bond was also growing more and more in terms of popularity in Japan.

    And I don't know why Dahl thought of that.

    Yes, I agree about Pleasance, he's not threatening nor menacing, he's iconic, but that's all, and it resulted in a negative way that his version of Blofeld was the most parodied of the lot, I wonder what Jan Werich could've done with the role.

    Yes, Telly Savalas, Max Von Sydow are for me far better than Pleasance, while they're not the most iconic Blofeld (preferably so), but they've got the menace and the threatening factor of the character right.

    I actually rank Pleasance right at the middle, he's far better than both Waltz and Grey (and the FYEO Blofeld, which I consider the worst Blofeld), but not as great as Savalas and Sydow, or if I'm including the hidden faced Blofelds of the early Bond films, then right up there as one of the greats too (although that incarnation reminds me of Dr. Claw from Inspector Gadget).
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,381
    mtm wrote: »
    I would say YOLT is more of a Goldfinger follow-up: it's trying to do the things that did. Where TB actually loses some of the fantastical edge that GF had, if you ask me.

    Agreed! You could watch DN, FRWL and TB in succession and it works. Yes TB is OTT but not to a crazy degree. GF is a bit of an outlier. I give some props to McClory because it would have been real easy to make TB more fantastical and OTT but he tried to strike a balance.

    By the time of YOLT all restraint was thrown out the window.

    You might be right @SIS_HQ I know there was plans for OHMSS to go after TB but the producers considered it TB on skis. I get what Dahl saw and why he picked YOTL. It is the least cinematic of any of the novels and wouldn't work as a direct adaptation, not that the producers were interested in that.
  • edited August 2023 Posts: 2,263
    mtm wrote: »
    I would say YOLT is more of a Goldfinger follow-up: it's trying to do the things that did. Where TB actually loses some of the fantastical edge that GF had, if you ask me.

    Thunderball was a huge let down to me, especially coming after the first three films. YOLT has its issues, but it also has this “magic” that TB sorely lacks.
    thedove wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I would say YOLT is more of a Goldfinger follow-up: it's trying to do the things that did. Where TB actually loses some of the fantastical edge that GF had, if you ask me.

    Agreed! You could watch DN, FRWL and TB in succession and it works. Yes TB is OTT but not to a crazy degree. GF is a bit of an outlier. I give some props to McClory because it would have been real easy to make TB more fantastical and OTT but he tried to strike a balance.

    By the time of YOLT all restraint was thrown out the window.

    You might be right @SIS_HQ I know there was plans for OHMSS to go after TB but the producers considered it TB on skis. I get what Dahl saw and why he picked YOTL. It is the least cinematic of any of the novels and wouldn't work as a direct adaptation, not that the producers were interested in that.

    Have you read any of the earlier drafts for Majesty’s? There was a few dated between 1964 and 1968, all of which had varying tones and ideas.
  • Posts: 1,959
    At no point have I ever considered OHMSS as TB on skis. Its positioning with respect to OHMSS aside, I feel an opportunity was missed with YOLT to make an exciting and dark film. It seemed to have opened the door to more stories about spaceships, satellites, and solar and diamond arrays.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,574
    I feel that EON should have adapted another novel in the place of YOLT. Maybe DAF, I don't know if the rights to MR were available yet. I don't think EON would want to adapt LALD at that point, considering real life events.

    A future missed opportunity for EON arguably could be not adapting a continuation novel. Just for the sake of trying. Forever and a Day for an origin story, Carte Blanche for setting up supporting characters and possible futures. Towards the end of the run, Nobody Lives Forever and Solo could be a good finale.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,381
    I have not, but I have heard that some were far out and OTT. I believe there was mention of a flying car? One draft where Bond didn't marry Tracy? I had heard that they did consider it to have the same beats as TB and therefore decided against it going next.

    I don't share the same view as TB but understand its a film that has generated quite a bit of discussion and dissension. I rather like it, sure it's a bloated film with much that a good edit would help. When you think of the effort to film DN, FRWL, GF and TB all in the span of 4 years it boggles the mind that they were able to sustain the quality.
  • Posts: 1,959
    TB bloated and in need of a good edit? Could the same be said of NTTD?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2023 Posts: 16,291
    mtm wrote: »
    I would say YOLT is more of a Goldfinger follow-up: it's trying to do the things that did. Where TB actually loses some of the fantastical edge that GF had, if you ask me.

    Thunderball was a huge let down to me, especially coming after the first three films. YOLT has its issues, but it also has this “magic” that TB sorely lacks.

    Yes I agree; GF was a huge hit for a reason, and TB doesn’t try to hit the same notes, I’m not sure why. It’s odd. Maybe it was made too quickly.
  • Posts: 4,067
    thedove wrote: »
    I believe Roald Dahl who said Cubby and Harry told him to write something more formulaic. We can't forget that YOLT was only chosen because Bondmania was huge in Japan and they saw a cash cow. The book would be near impossible to bring to the screen thanks to the continuation of OHMSS. One wonders if Fleming had been alive if they would have had the balls to basically throw out the novel except for character names. I doubt Fleming would have approved of what YOLT became.

    The other missed opportunity in YOLT is the casting of Blofeld. Miscasting and shooting some of the film with the miscast actor cost them any chance of getting someone for the role that would be able to continue into future adventures. To me Pleasance and his scar are a let down for the film and for the build up for the character. They really nailed setting him as the big baddie and then we get this short, skinny and rather non-threatening actor.

    Most likely not, considering how much the novel has to do with mortality and overcoming personal trauma (the former of which I know Fleming was likely grappling with at the time of writing the novel). That said in some weird way I think it's for the best that it wasn't adapted faithfully. I mean this in the sense that while we didn't see the conclusion of the original 'Blofeld trilogy' from the books play out onscreen (I'm not sure if YOLT could have been faithfully adapted at that point in time anyway) it's certainly a book that EON have come back to in recent years. Obviously minor aspects of it were adapted in SF and NTTD, but it's a very rich book that could yield some interesting ideas going forward if adapted loosely.
  • Posts: 1,959
    I find it interesting that bits and pieces are left out of the original productions for whatever reasons only to find themselves stitched into another film. Bond and Solitaire dragged across the reefs in LALD shows up in FYEO. Bond in the exotic fish warehouse and Felix eaten by a shark also taken from LALD end up in LTK. The big head scratcher, Blofeld's garden of death from YOLT adding nothing to NTTD. Of the films based upon Fleming novels, the best are those that were more true to the source material. Which doesn't mean those loosely based on or barely based on weren't entertaining. For me they were too far removed from the originals.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    echo wrote: »
    I don't think you can take DN, FRWL, GF, or OHMSS out of the series. After that, the only essential one is CR and, arguably, TSWLM.

    But if you took YOLT out of the series there would be no TSWLM(at least not the one that exists as it has since 1977) as this Dan Gale Bond Mysteries video illustrates:



    Speaking of, I think a missed opportunity would've been EON's ability to use SPECTRE as the villains in TSWLM which they initially intended to do before Kevin McClory thwarted that idea. On the plus side it might've brought some proper closure to the events of OHMSS with Triple X's reference to Mrs. Bond. On the downside it probably would've made TSWLM seem more like a YOLT retread than it already is.

  • Posts: 4,067
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I find it interesting that bits and pieces are left out of the original productions for whatever reasons only to find themselves stitched into another film. Bond and Solitaire dragged across the reefs in LALD shows up in FYEO. Bond in the exotic fish warehouse and Felix eaten by a shark also taken from LALD end up in LTK. The big head scratcher, Blofeld's garden of death from YOLT adding nothing to NTTD. Of the films based upon Fleming novels, the best are those that were more true to the source material. Which doesn't mean those loosely based on or barely based on weren't entertaining. For me they were too far removed from the originals.

    Yes, one can argue copying and pasting sequences into other films isn't the ideal way of adapting the remaining Fleming ideas. I think they did it best with SF in which the idea of Bond going AWOL, returning, and undergoing a sort of metaphorical rebirth came from YOLT but wasn't a direct adaptation. Still, it added a lot to that story.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,264
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I find it interesting that bits and pieces are left out of the original productions for whatever reasons only to find themselves stitched into another film. Bond and Solitaire dragged across the reefs in LALD shows up in FYEO. Bond in the exotic fish warehouse and Felix eaten by a shark also taken from LALD end up in LTK. The big head scratcher, Blofeld's garden of death from YOLT adding nothing to NTTD. Of the films based upon Fleming novels, the best are those that were more true to the source material. Which doesn't mean those loosely based on or barely based on weren't entertaining. For me they were too far removed from the originals.

    I think it's fair to say that Mankiewicz (and perhaps Dahl) was fairly disinterested in Fleming, and I appreciate that later films picked up these sequences. I still think we'll see the barracuda swim someday.

    I too think the Garden of Death could have been used much more dramatically in NTTD, either when Bond and Nomi were approaching the island, or perhaps when Mathilde escapes so that Bond could rescue her?
  • Posts: 2,156
    The garden of death in NTTD is quite muddied by how the film doesnt really explain, or explains in a contradictory way, how the Heracles system actually works. I think its a result of hasty rewrites.
  • Posts: 4,067
    I suppose the garden of death can even still be adapted in a round-about way. Again, not faithfully per say, but close enough to the spirit of how twisted and nightmarish it is in YOLT. I mean, the only things that the garden in NTTD share with it is the fact that it's a garden (I guess) and contains poisonous or dangerous plants (apparently).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,291
    echo wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I find it interesting that bits and pieces are left out of the original productions for whatever reasons only to find themselves stitched into another film. Bond and Solitaire dragged across the reefs in LALD shows up in FYEO. Bond in the exotic fish warehouse and Felix eaten by a shark also taken from LALD end up in LTK. The big head scratcher, Blofeld's garden of death from YOLT adding nothing to NTTD. Of the films based upon Fleming novels, the best are those that were more true to the source material. Which doesn't mean those loosely based on or barely based on weren't entertaining. For me they were too far removed from the originals.

    I think it's fair to say that Mankiewicz (and perhaps Dahl) was fairly disinterested in Fleming, and I appreciate that later films picked up these sequences. I still think we'll see the barracuda swim someday.

    I too think the Garden of Death could have been used much more dramatically in NTTD, either when Bond and Nomi were approaching the island, or perhaps when Mathilde escapes so that Bond could rescue her?

    I think there's a decent amount of tension in seeing a child in the arms of a madman, reaching out to a plant we know would kill her. I don't know how much you could have got out of Bond & Nomi walking through it: it's not really a potential for a scene, it's more of a character reveal: it tells us something about the guy who built it and tends for it. Bond & Nomi would have just walked through it and avoided touching the plants: it's not an action scene.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,264
    There's a lot in NTTD--it's overstuffed--but the concept of "Spectre's poisoners" and Safin's revenge on White that is waylaid by his feelings for Madeleine--are fruitful. I think the petulant side of Safin, the nihilistic side of him that wants to destroy the world simply because he can't have Madeleine could have been played up.
  • Posts: 15,086
    Another missed opportunity is a third Dalton film... but between TLD and LTK. With the same Felix Leiter for all three.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,746
    Garden of Death could have used some sharks with frickin' lasers.

    Fleming's, I mean.

  • Posts: 4,067
    Garden of Death could have used some sharks with frickin' lasers.

    Fleming's, I mean.

    Maybe a giant squid or two?

    (I do look forward to the day when we get something like this in a Bond film.... although I suppose we had giant lizards in SF which I always thought took some inspiration from the squid).
  • Posts: 15,086
    007HallY wrote: »
    Garden of Death could have used some sharks with frickin' lasers.

    Fleming's, I mean.

    Maybe a giant squid or two?

    (I do look forward to the day when we get something like this in a Bond film.... although I suppose we had giant lizards in SF which I always thought took some inspiration from the squid).

    They were not giant lizards: they were Komodo dragons, and from what I understand normal sized for such creatures (a biologist corrects me if I'm wrong). There were complaints about them being too CGI looking, if I'm not mistaken. I thunk that's the issue with giant squids: the fear of looking fake and too fantastical. I always wondered how the inclusion of the squid in DN might have influenced the series on the long run.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2023 Posts: 16,291
    They were correctly-sized Komodos, but they were also CG (I expect there were some close-ups of the real thing, I can't remember off hand).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,264
    I do think we will see the squid someday.
  • Posts: 15,086
    echo wrote: »
    I do think we will see the squid someday.

    I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand it's one element of Fleming that hasn't been used, on the other hand people would probably complain of the CGI quality and giant squids are already dated as a trope.
Sign In or Register to comment.