› ›

Did the sudden death of Ilse Steppat (Irma Bunt) after OHMSS stop DAF from being a 'serious' film ?

barryt007barryt007
in Actors Posts: 19,339
Literally after OHMSS hit the screens,Ilse Steppat unfortunately died.
She is one of the best henchmen/henchwomen in the series to me,and she was defintately scheduled to return in the next Bond film,DAF.
If she was still alive ,this would probably have meant Telly Savalas would have been chased more,despite his high salary demand,and the whole film would have been completely different to how it turned out,with Bond once more up against Blofeld and Bunt along with Grunther.

Do you think this very sad event could have been pivotal in the direction DAF and the whole series took,compared to how it could have been (better IMO ) ?
«1

Comments

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Was she scheduled to return? I haven't heard anything, but I imagine of GL had signed his contract there is a good chance that DAF would have featured her and who knows Savalas as well?

    Funny how it turns out. Ilse died, George quit, Telly found fame as Kojak. All change
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited September 2016 Posts: 19,339
    Yes I know its WIKI but im looking for the source I had as well Nackers : While On Her Majesty's Secret Service was within its post-production stages, Richard Maibaum wrote initial treatments and a script for Diamonds Are Forever as a revenge-themed sequel with Irma Bunt and Marc-Ange Draco returning, and Bond mourning his deceased wife Tracy while Louis Armstrong's "We Have All the Time in the World" played in the background

    (Apparantly the source for this is on the Commentary on DAF Special Edition DVD ).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'd love to read that treatment.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited September 2016 Posts: 11,189
    I wouldn't have thought Steppat dying would have stopped DAF from being a tougher film. There must have been another actress somewhere who could have filled her shoes in the part (wasn't hammer horror popular around that time?).

    Surely George did that when he quit the series. The new star of Bond had suddenly gone after only one film.

    Where's @Bondsum when you need him?
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    I doubt that's the reason. They had no problem recasting Bond and Blofeld, so why not recast Irma Bunt as well?

    Also, it's not like they needed Bunt to make DAF a revenge movie. Blofeld would have been enough.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I guess hind sight is one thing, but in 1970 with OHMSS takings down on YOLT and all the bad publicity surrounding GL and his quitting/sacking it was important for Cubby and Harry to get back on a sure footing.
    So they put OHMSS behind them, brought Sean on board and went for the safety of a more light hearted Bond film.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    Considering they recast Blofeld and Felix Leiter every film I don't think they'd have a problem recasting Irma Bunt. Surely it's just down to getting Connery back and fleeing in the opposite direction of OHMSS as quickly as possible. They were trying to get to the spirit of Goldfinger initially I believe but also they were stepping toward a new Bond (John Gavin an American Bond! before Connery returned) so to me Diamonds are Forever is the first time EON really felt like they didn't quite know what they were doing other than not doing a 'serious' Bond.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    That's true Major. In those early days they probably panicked more than they do now, especially as they weren't confident that another actor could take on the role successfully from Sean.
    So Guy Hamilton seemed a safe bet especially with Sean on board.

    No wonder they clung to Sir Rog as long as they did, unsure of the future and needing to stick with a successful format.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Nope.

    DAF just a response to performance of OHMSS.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,167
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Nope.

    DAF just a response to performance of OHMSS.

    Yes. OHMSS was no where near the hits GF and TB were, so it was deliberately decided to take the GF approach: get Guy Hamilton back, bring in Auric's twin brother, and set the film in America.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    She's the one who killed Tracy too...
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,431
    This talk is always bittersweet for me. We have to remember that in the time frame we are talking about I doubt the revenge movie would have been made. However it's always great to think about what might have been.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    The revenge movie came into vogue right around then. But I think Eon just wanted to run away from OHMSS (and I'm not sure how good Connery would have been with an avenging Bond, despite his speech in The Untouchables).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Had he maintained his serious and dedicated attitude like he had before 1965, per se, he would have been terrific. But, Connery really started fading out his abilities in acting and interest since You Only Live Twice.

    To tell you the truth, I haven't seen him act good in anything up until the mid-to-late '90s. Save for A Bridge Too Far. He was too generic himself in The Untouchables. Not that I don't love his character in it, oh no... Just it seemed too erm... post-1970 Sean Connery.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Craig is a better actor. And Moore.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Birdleson wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Had he maintained his serious and dedicated attitude like he had before 1965, per se, he would have been terrific. But, Connery really started fading out his abilities in acting and interest since You Only Live Twice.

    To tell you the truth, I haven't seen him act good in anything up until the mid-to-late '90s. Save for A Bridge Too Far. He was too generic himself in The Untouchables. Not that I don't love his character in it, oh no... Just it seemed too erm... post-1970 Sean Connery.

    What about John Huston's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING (1975)? I think that is one of his best performance.
    Oh yes. Forgot about that. He was good in that one, too. But, not and never on par with his early sixties self.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,588
    I have a hard time seeing Connery coming back under the terms that it needed to be a direct revenge follow up to OHMSS. I don't think he would have. Thats why we got the DAF that we did because they paid him a shit ton of money to do nothing. Just coast from scene to scene, not having to fire a gun, no insane stunts. He literally got paid to pose as a diamond smuggler for half the film and I don't see him coming back under any other film terms.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Just watch DAF after YOLT and OHMSS after DAF. Suddenly DAF becomes the Operation Bedlam mission and OHMSS is the followup with FYEO closing the book on it.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,588
    If only the snow cooperated back in 1966 when OHMSS was supposed to be the follow up. I did read that somewhere that it was supposed to follow TB, until scouting went bad and it was ditched for YOLT
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Apparently OHMSS was slated several times, before TB, after TB...it's a minor miracle that we got it when we did (a YOLT-era OHMSS with Connery would have been...not great).
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,588
    Not bashing George in any way. I've always liked him in OHMSS. But I've always dreamed of the film with Connery in which he cared. I'm glad we got it with George instead of a phone it in Connery
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    I'd have to look it up but I recall reading that they wanted to make OHMSS several times early in the series (perhaps because the book was so current?).

    The rights issues are fascinating. If Fleming hadn't sold CR to CBS, we might not have gotten the film when we did, which was perfect timing. OHMSS, despite having a weaker lead, works because of its fidelity to the novel (and the director, the script, the rest of the cast, and the score).

    I really believe that, for these reasons, EON will film a faithful adaptation of MR one day.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,431
    The public voted with their wallets and stayed away. It was still a modest hit but not in the league of TB or YOLT. EON decided to play it safe and go back to a formula that worked well in GF. To the chap who said Connery didn't shoot his gun and played a diamond smuggler for half the movie. Look at GF no shooting to speak of and Bond is captured for a good chunk of the movie.

    I don't think Ilse's death had anything to do with DAF changing tone.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Bond does shoot a gun in Goldfinger. But, not with his PPK. A P38 he keeps in the compartment of his car... Which I'm guessing replaces the 'Longbarrel' Colt.

    This might really come off as a blasphemy to some but... I never fancied Guy Hamilton as a Bond film director. He just... Drifted away from everything what made the Terence Young films great.

    Goldfinger is a beautiful film mainly because of its setting (1964, you can't get more beautiful than that), colourful characters and brilliant cast, a young and fit Sean Connery, luxurious places and upper class aristocratic locales, as well as a great script.

    Other than that, I fail to see why Hamilton is too appreciated as a Bond film director.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Bond does shoot a gun in Goldfinger. But, not with his PPK. A P38 he keeps in the compartment of his car... Which I'm guessing replaces the 'Longbarrel' Colt.

    This might really come off as a blasphemy to some but... I never fancied Guy Hamilton as a Bond film director. He just... Drifted away from everything what made the Terence Young films great.

    Goldfinger is a beautiful film mainly because of its setting (1964, you can't get more beautiful than that), colourful characters and brilliant cast, a young and fit Sean Connery, luxurious places and upper class aristocratic locales, as well as a great script.

    Other than that, I fail to see why Hamilton is too appreciated as a Bond film director.

    Something I've wondered for a long time myself. Apart from the iconic scenes there is nothing particularly engaging in GF - the score and Adam sets ups the glamour factor but the rest is boring really, no attention to detail like the Young films. That's why the Hamilton films all rank towards the bottom. DAF is the highest
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2016 Posts: 15,423
    w2bond wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Bond does shoot a gun in Goldfinger. But, not with his PPK. A P38 he keeps in the compartment of his car... Which I'm guessing replaces the 'Longbarrel' Colt.

    This might really come off as a blasphemy to some but... I never fancied Guy Hamilton as a Bond film director. He just... Drifted away from everything what made the Terence Young films great.

    Goldfinger is a beautiful film mainly because of its setting (1964, you can't get more beautiful than that), colourful characters and brilliant cast, a young and fit Sean Connery, luxurious places and upper class aristocratic locales, as well as a great script.

    Other than that, I fail to see why Hamilton is too appreciated as a Bond film director.

    Something I've wondered for a long time myself. Apart from the iconic scenes there is nothing particularly engaging in GF - the score and Adam sets ups the glamour factor but the rest is boring really, no attention to detail like the Young films. That's why the Hamilton films all rank towards the bottom. DAF is the highest
    That's precisely the same case with my own. Other than DAF ranking higher than GF, that is.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    @ClarkDevlin

    Can you put your ranking here please?
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/78/bond-movie-ranking-simple-list-no-details#latest
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I believe I have.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Good to finally notice members see GF for the over-rated film it is...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Bond does shoot a gun in Goldfinger. But, not with his PPK. A P38 he keeps in the compartment of his car... Which I'm guessing replaces the 'Longbarrel' Colt.

    This might really come off as a blasphemy to some but... I never fancied Guy Hamilton as a Bond film director. He just... Drifted away from everything what made the Terence Young films great.

    Goldfinger is a beautiful film mainly because of its setting (1964, you can't get more beautiful than that), colourful characters and brilliant cast, a young and fit Sean Connery, luxurious places and upper class aristocratic locales, as well as a great script.

    Other than that, I fail to see why Hamilton is too appreciated as a Bond film director.

    What is great about GF is the PTS and the Miami sequence. In a way, GF follows the same template as MR the novel--start off with a bang with a gambling scene (Fleming was never better than when describing a game).

    Back on topic, Steppat was perfectly cast and truly excellent in the role. She's underrated in the Bond canon, perhaps because of Lenya and because OHMSS faded from the public eye.
Sign In or Register to comment.