The What if EON choses to "re-boot" with the next film and we get another Bond begins? page 63

17810121363

Comments

  • Posts: 2,918
    The fact he thought he could just continue making the same film over and over gave me the impression that he not only had nothing else to offer but that he was somewhat delusional.

    He indeed was. McClory reminds me of that character from Bleak House who spends his entire adult life engaged in an endless boondoggle of lawsuit. A filmmaker who was even slightly an artist wouldn't have spent the majority of his career chasing after the film rights to another man's character. He would have made films of his own.
    I can understand that he felt robbed because he participated in what was supposed to be the very first Bond film and he got screwed over in various ways.

    Even there he ultimately screwed himself--the reason Fleming and Bryce parted ways with him is because they felt McClory was incapable of getting the project off the ground. It took Broccoli and Saltzman, experienced film producers, to make Bond a reality. They did the hard work and McClory turned into a parasite.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I believe McClory s lawyer team were co-scriptwriters.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,441
    I'd only add that a little competition never hurt anyone. The battle of the Bonds in 1983 I think caused both films to be top flight. I know many on here don't like NSNA but I do like that it deals with an older Bond and doesn't try to pretend or make him out to be anything but an aging agent. We never saw that with EON.

    A parasite sounds like he was merely milking profits. I see him in a different light. I agree he should have moved on but something tells me he liked being a disturber.
  • Posts: 4,044
    Didn't McClory at some point say he felt he could do his own series of Bond movies?
  • Posts: 2,918
    thedove wrote: »
    A parasite sounds like he was merely milking profits. I see him in a different light. I agree he should have moved on but something tells me he liked being a disturber.

    He wasn't milking profits, but he was trying to muscle in on the success of a film series other people had started and had made a success. And in the end he tried to seize the series through the courts, in a classic case of overreach and hubris. I like NSNA too, but its merits have something to do with the fact that McClory didn't have much creative input.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,189
    thedove wrote: »
    I know many on here don't like NSNA but I do like that it deals with an older Bond and doesn't try to pretend or make him out to be anything but an aging agent. We never saw that with EON.

    I'm not even sure I see that in NSNA. Aside from an acknowledgement of the passage of time, I never get the sense they're treating Bond any differently than Moore's was.
    vzok wrote: »
    Didn't McClory at some point say he felt he could do his own series of Bond movies?

    When didn't he?
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    Posts: 373
    Say what you want about McClory... but he managed to get us one more Connery Bond.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,830
    I do enjoy reading about Bond history related to Kevin McClory. Plus I enjoy Never Say Never Again.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    I do enjoy reading about Bond history related to Kevin McClory. Plus I enjoy Never Say Never Again.

    As do I, and Robert Sellers' 'The Battle For Bond' is an engaging read.
  • Posts: 16,170
    I really need to get that BATTLE FOR BOND book.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,441
    thedove wrote: »
    I know many on here don't like NSNA but I do like that it deals with an older Bond and doesn't try to pretend or make him out to be anything but an aging agent. We never saw that with EON.

    I'm not even sure I see that in NSNA. Aside from an acknowledgement of the passage of time, I never get the sense they're treating Bond any differently than Moore's was.

    I don't recall Moore's Bond being told he's only been facilitating field agent training. Or that he's got too many "free radicals" and needs to go to a health clinic. I never saw them acknowledge that Bond was losing a step. I thought it was a novel way to tackle the character. Edward Fox played M with more vinegar then the EON M ever did. Though Hamilton seemed to always enjoy M being grumpy. LOL!
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    The production value of NSNA was weak(er) than Bond movies tended to be. The music was horrible. But Connery (and most of the other actors) were awesome and the script a nice variant of TB. But the way it looks and sounds turns me mostly off and makes me stopping it in-between.
  • Posts: 1,919
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    The production value of NSNA was weak(er) than Bond movies tended to be. The music was horrible. But Connery (and most of the other actors) were awesome and the script a nice variant of TB. But the way it looks and sounds turns me mostly off and makes me stopping it in-between.

    A lot of that money went into Sir Sean's pocket. You're right. Nothing in either area you mention improves upon or is anywhere close to what TB did. TB made you want to take a holiday to the Bahamas (at least prior to the recent Hurricane Dorian) and seemed exotic. I don't get that feel with the way the islands are photographed in NSNA or anywhere else for that matter.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,830
    The commentary track for Never Say Never Again is really worth listening to.

    The director lays out a lot about the production, budget limitations affecting later filming, being stuck with a score he actually was compelled to swap tracks for other than the scenes that they were composed for.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,441
    BondStu wrote: »
    Say what you want about McClory... but he managed to get us one more Connery Bond.
    An engaged Connery to boot.

    Taking us back to the what if. I think Connery in 1977 would be a good match for Moore and Spy. Broccoli was pulling out all the stops in his, maybe he was afraid of Warhead and the possibility of a rival production? The research I conducted, admittedly not very deep said Paramount was willing to finance the movie with a budget of $22 million. I don't know if that's a decent sized budget for a film at this time.

    Although we did get a battle of the bonds in the 80's. I think its fascinating for us to think about what might have been in 1977.

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    That's an interesting thought. I personally think that a rival Bond film would have fared even worse in 77, than in 83. I, mean it's one thing going against OP, but going against TSWLM would have been a whole different ball game. Spy is one of the defining moments of the series history. I think Mcclorys Bond would have been blown out of the water quicker than the Liparus.
  • Posts: 1,919
    As far as budget goes, I think Spy was $13 million, so $22 for the McClory film in '77 would've been huge.

    Roadphill, you're discounting the fact that even still in '77 people still wanted Connery back as Bond and Moore was coming off the underwhelming TMWTGG. So that project would've likely gotten a lot more attention just on that basis. It just would've depended on what they came up with if it had the epic feel with the Statue of Liberty finale or if it was the TB remake NSNA ended up.

    Either way, Star Wars would've still dominated them both.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,441
    Great discussion guys and gals. As always I learn more about Bond with this thread.

    Lets get creative with the next "what if". Back in 1962 Harry and Albert were looking for the first actor to play James Bond on the silver screen. They cast a wide net and many auditioned. We all know they selected Connery for his physicality and ability to be dangerous. But lets pretend that instead of Connery the producers selected Roger Moore as the first James Bond. It's not too far out there as Roger did audition and was given some serious consideration.

    What say you Mi6? What if Roger Moore was selected to play James Bond in 1962 in the film DN? What impact would this have on the series? Do you think the producers would have chose different book adaptions based on the different leading man? Would Roger stay in the role longer then Connery? Would Bond still explode and become a cultural phenom?
  • Posts: 16,170
    Had Roger played Bond in 1962, much like Sean he'd have had the advantage of getting to know Fleming personally. No doubt they would have discussed the character, the tone and style. Sir Roger wouldn't have needed Terence Young to school him in the art of suaveness the way Connery had.
    As charming as Roger was, on THE SAINT he played a tougher character. His fight sequences were more physical with a dynamic energy. Templar's hair was constantly tousled and out of place after an action sequence.
    Roger's 1962 Bond might have been based more on Fleming, with the edge he gave Simon Templar, yet laced with Sir Roger charm.
    In addition, he'd have had the advantage of those early films following the novels more closely and may have avoided some of the later more fantastical elements altogether.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 2,918
    thedove wrote: »
    But lets pretend that instead of Connery the producers selected Roger Moore as the first James Bond. It's not too far out there as Roger did audition and was given some serious consideration.

    Moore did not audition at that time. He said "I was, apparently, on the shortlist of would-be 007 actors back in 1962, when they were casting for Dr. No. I certainly wasn't aware of that, nor was I approached." And even the "short-list" part may not have been entirely accurate, because it was probably what Broccoli told Moore after he'd been cast. The trouble is that Broccoli was not a reliable or even truthful witness. In his autobiography he claimed Ian Fleming had wanted Roger Moore as Bond after seeing him in The Saint. But that show did not air until the day before the release of Dr. No.

    Moore's chances of being cast in 1962 were therefore not so high. But if he had been, I think the Bond films might have enjoyed success but not as much as they did with Connery. I like Roger a lot, but ultimately he was a throwback to the David Niven type of hero, even when he displayed occasional flashes of darkness. For audiences in the 1960s, Connery's Bond was new and exciting kind of screen hero: sophisticated and dashing but also brutal and animalistic. To Americans this combination was even more surprising in a British hero. And no one portrayed that combination better than Connery.
  • Posts: 4,044
    American audiences were keen on Roger as Templar, so I think they'd have enjoyed him as Bond.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    BT3366 wrote: »
    As far as budget goes, I think Spy was $13 million, so $22 for the McClory film in '77 would've been huge.

    Roadphill, you're discounting the fact that even still in '77 people still wanted Connery back as Bond and Moore was coming off the underwhelming TMWTGG. So that project would've likely gotten a lot more attention just on that basis. It just would've depended on what they came up with if it had the epic feel with the Statue of Liberty finale or if it was the TB remake NSNA ended up.

    Either way, Star Wars would've still dominated them both.

    Agree with you on the last comment. I see what your saying about fans wanting Connery back too. I just think once fans had seen a trailer of Spy, and heard/ read some of the contemporary reviews it would have still owned a Connery/Mclory effort. We will never know, though!
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Very interesting question, re Moore in 1962. I'm guessing the film's we got would have been virtually the same. The question would be, whether the characterisation of Bond would have shifted slightly to suit Moore's suaver demeanor.

    I think the film's still would have been a huge hit, as the above poster said, American audience's tended to be big fans of Moore. I do wonder, if Sir Rog had stayed all the way through to the end of his actual tenure, in 1985, would there have been some serious 'franchise fatigue'?
  • Posts: 1,919
    Revelator wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    But lets pretend that instead of Connery the producers selected Roger Moore as the first James Bond. It's not too far out there as Roger did audition and was given some serious consideration.

    Moore did not audition at that time. He said "I was, apparently, on the shortlist of would-be 007 actors back in 1962, when they were casting for Dr. No. I certainly wasn't aware of that, nor was I approached." And even the "short-list" part may not have been entirely accurate, because it was probably what Broccoli told Moore after he'd been cast. The trouble is that Broccoli was not a reliable or even truthful witness. In his autobiography he claimed Ian Fleming had wanted Roger Moore as Bond after seeing him in The Saint. But that show did not air until the day before the release of Dr. No.

    Moore's chances of being cast in 1962 were therefore not so high. But if he had been, I think the Bond films might have enjoyed success but not as much as they did with Connery. I like Roger a lot, but ultimately he was a throwback to the David Niven type of hero, even when he displayed occasional flashes of darkness. For audiences in the 1960s, Connery's Bond was new and exciting kind of screen hero: sophisticated and dashing but also brutal and animalistic. To Americans this combination was even more surprising in a British hero. And no one portrayed that combination better than Connery.

    This captures my thoughts almost exactly. One can never underestimate the casting of Connery as a big part of the success the series became.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,189
    What really intrigues me more is the idea of Moore taking the role with OHMSS as his debut.
  • Posts: 17,767
    What really intrigues me more is the idea of Moore taking the role with OHMSS as his debut.

    This is something I've thought about too. It would have been really interesting, and would have given more weight to the start of the FYEO PTS.

    Also, Moore undercover as Sir Hilary Bray would have been great!

    As far as Moore being cast in 1962, I'm sure the films would have been successful, but maybe slightly different; perhaps a bit closer to the Connery films in style rather than the lighthearted entries of the Moore era. I mentioned FYEO above, and I think that's closer to what we might have got – only with a younger Moore of course:

  • edited September 2019 Posts: 2,918
    What really intrigues me more is the idea of Moore taking the role with OHMSS as his debut.

    That might have turned out quite well if Peter Hunt had remained the director. Hunt directed Moore in Gold and Shout at the Devil and he managed to get better performances out of him than Hamilton did. The public also might have accepted Moore more easily than Lazenby, since the former already had a familiar and well-liked personality.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,189
    Funnily, Rigg remarked that she regretted not having either Connery or Moore as her opppsite in OHMSS. Yeah, a lot of shade on Laz, but I can’t blame her as I think she would have especially had stronger chemistry with Moore, a fellow RADA.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,441
    Great posts and thoughts! I can see Roger in DN and GF. I have a hard time believing him and Shaw would have a convincing fight in FRWL. I could see Moore in TB and YOLT with some tweaks. Now OHMSS is an interesting one. I think the producers only cast Rigg to counterbalance Laz being a rookie. If Rigg stayed as Tracy and Moore was Bond I think that has some serious potential.

    The other question I think this what if poses is would Roger be Bond from 62 all the way to 85? He seemed to relish the role and embrace all the trappings that came with it. Could he and Broccoli co-exist for that length of time? Or does the series get freshened up with each new actor? What about audiences?

    Okay @MakeshiftPython I will mark down the OHMSS what if for a future what if scenario.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited September 2019 Posts: 984
    What really intrigues me more is the idea of Moore taking the role with OHMSS as his debut.

    That would have been very interesting. A lot of people shout for Connery in this film, but I feel Sir Rog had a bit more vulnerability about him than Sean, which would have worked wonders in this.

    With Peter Hunts kinetic editing of the fight scenes , we may have got a tougher first impression of Moore too, which would have stood him in great stead as his run progressed.
Sign In or Register to comment.