Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The James Bond All-Encompassing "What-If" Thread
chrisisall
Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
Here I propose we discuss all of our imaginings on what would have or will happen concerning the James Bond movies, their influence on popular culture, possible outcomes of change in cast, directors, future direction of the franchise, etc. We don't need a multitude of threads for every particular member's musings- that just clogs up the works.
So, to kick this off, WHAT IF...
...Ian Fleming came back from the war and didn't decide to write a book featuring a fictitious character based loosely on himself & his comrades during his espionage escapades? Without OO7, what path would the movie & television spy world have taken, & where would it be today?
So, to kick this off, WHAT IF...
...Ian Fleming came back from the war and didn't decide to write a book featuring a fictitious character based loosely on himself & his comrades during his espionage escapades? Without OO7, what path would the movie & television spy world have taken, & where would it be today?
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I remember reading somewhere that LeCarré wrote his novels as a response to Fleming's, intending to show the "real spy world" opposed to the adventurous one in Bond novels. I don't know if he would have written them anyway.
Rare wouldn't have made GoldenEye 007, Perfect Dark wouldn't exist, and FPS games would be radically different.
Spielberg and Lucas wouldn't have made Indiana Jones, and The Librarian, The Mummy, Tomb Raider, Uncharted and so on wouldn't have been made either.
I think the fact that all of this happened in the 50's/60's is also important, because that was a post-war era which was very imaginative, so it allowed interesting rival stories/tv shows/films with long lasting appeal to be created. Note how there are so many tv shows/films today that are based on concepts/stories from that time (Uncle, MI, Marvel, Bourne etc. etc.), which is a testament to the strength of characters developed then. TV was exploding as a medium, and content was needed to fill it, creating an outlet for creativity just like the internet is doing today.
Having said all that, I believe even if Fleming had not written Bond, someone would have eventually come along with a similar idea somewhere along the way......the premise of a smart, hard drinking, womanizing spy is too obvious to not have been conceived at some time. Sure it wouldn't have been quite the same, and maybe we wouldn't have had a definitive English hero, which is so much of the Bond charm, but it would have happened and there would have been an English version sometime....as mentioned, I think the chances are it would have happened in the 60's due to the creativity of that period.
Another questions is, what would Bond be like today without Sean Connery.....it could have survived if Roger Moore got it (he was rumoured to have been in contention during his Saint days) but probably not if Niven got it. It's possible EON could have made it a success without Connery, but he is undoubtedly one of, if not the major reason Bond is still around today in films, due to the impact he had (a Brit who was more macho than all the Americans of that age put together and probably the most manly since John Wayne).
Without Connery DN might have still had some solid success IMO, but it was really Connery's charm that put it over the top. Only Patrick McGoohan could have equaled it at the time, and he was having none of it due to his strict personal moral code. So Moore? Yes, it would have worked I think. Bond films would then have enjoyed the success level of the Saint TV series, at least. More modestly budgeted than they would become... Moore would have tired of them sooner, opening it up for Dalton, who might have had a good run... all in all similar but not as wildly successful in the mid to later 60's, less event & set-piece driven affairs... yet I see the post 9-11 popularity as being the same as it is presently. That's my take on it.
It's really interesting to read some of the ideas members have come up with. They range from the largest of things, to the smallest.
In my view, we would have gotten a five/six film series, but without all the success that Goldfinger or Thunderball et al.
Fleming's books, or should that say, Fleming himself infused Bond with his own views and opinions; Bond was his mouthpiece, thus Bond seemed rather snobbish, an upper-class man, born into wealth.
Whilst Connery had none of this. Connery was a blue collar man, and he had earned his opinions, something crucial to Bond appealing to the masses; the man on the street could identify with Connery's 007.
Say Moore got the role. He's too similar to Fleming, too posh and erudite. It needed a man to connect with the man on the streets.
Young later commented that three things made Dr No so memorable; “Connery, Connery, Connery”. And indeed Connery commands the screen with his presence and charm. It was the right film, the right actor, and probably the right decade for Mr Bond to explode the way he did.
Well I certainly think so.
I feel that it only would have worked with Connery. Still, if anyone could do it, Sir Rog most certainly can! :)
Suppose he still did seven, and made his last film in 1971. Who could have followed him?
Having said that, no one could have done quite what Connery did. There was something about his look (quite anti-establishment and somewhat anti-British in terms of British portrayal in cinema at the time in a way) and build that was a contradiction, and I think that's what really made Bond stick in the public's mind (and particularly in the US market). He was like a British version of an American hero (the British John Wayne if you will). Blue collar look in way but English refined in other ways...
I'm a hardcore Dalton:Bond fan, but I am glad that Dalton wasn't cast at that stage. He was far too wet behind the years looking for anything other than a new recruit Bond (something which I am not a fan of, no matter who plays him). I feel that when Dalton eventually took the part on, it was the right time for him.
I daresay that Richard Johnson could have got the ball rolling in 1962. The thought of Johnson working with Terrance Young (Johnson was Young's choice for Bond), is a feast for the imagination. While Johnson lacked that rough diamond quality that Connery had, Johnson had that natural polish that Connery lacked. Not only that, but Johnson could have matched Connery's edge (any doubters should watch 'Danger Route').
@MayDayDiVicenzo,
I'm glad you brought it up. :-) This gives me a chance to explain something.
This thread was created to channel all "what if" threads. Many speculative threads are created, few last longer than a page or so. There's a reason for that. Speculation, in the end, remains just that. People get bored with it pretty soon because apart from a few interesting ideas, it has little to offer. Will the next Bond film make more money than the previous one? Who knows? Who will take over after Craig leaves? No-one knows. Would Fleming have kept writing Bond novels if his health had allowed it? Who can possibly know the answer to this? I mean, it's nice to think about these things for five minutes, but after five minutes, it's lost its appeal, which explains the lack of success of so many of these "what if" threads. Centralizing them here works cleaner and more economical. I am very confident that @chrisisall will host this thread expertly and cool ideas can be passed on to him. Thanks to all for giving this thread a chance and for thinking twice before kicking off yet another thread that's not based on something tangible but on mere speculation.
Yes, your quite correct. He would have worked out well come to think of it.
Point being, no, Connery was not the only one for the job, just probably the best. Bond as a concept is simply too good to be ignored, even with a slower start & slightly smaller productions.
And thanks @DarthDimi! B-)
One things for sure: If Connery hadn't have got Bond, Bond wouldn't be half Scottish...
* "No need to run down the little people." - DAF :))
Next: What If Brosnan had not been restrained by his NBC contract & been able to do TLD... would he have been able to give us a Dalton-level performance given the script & the director?
But, I think he had more big screen charisma than Dalton, so he would have been more successful than Dalton. For me a Dalton-level performance is pretty low, but that's just me ;-)
While I love TLD it wasn't written with Dalton's interpretation in mind, it fitted Brosnan's persona better. Glen or Brosnan didn't take the movies as seriously as Dalts so I could see them working well together and still have a good movie
No Sir! It would have been a disaster and a flop.
Moreover, I think the films would have been more successful had it been Brosnan (as the public would have more readily accepted him as Moore's replacement) and therefore we may have had a more conventional follow up movie and perhaps not as long a wait for the third (I realize this is pure speculation).
I truly believe Brosnan hit his peak before 1995 (that's just me). He looked best to me then and was very confident in those years before he got Bond (especially in and around 1988 when he got the Noble House and when he did the Fourth Protocol) so I think a Brosnan run starting in 1987 could have been excellent and he could have taken it all the way up to the mid/late 90's.