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

thedove

That's true @mtm I suppose there is a slight difference in the character. Dalton's Bond seemed to share many traits with previous incarnations.

I think Bond 17 was very intriguing and would have been a refresh from LTK. It seems to have some fantasy weaved in to a grounded plot. Although the robotics looks fantastical and very sci-fi I think it would age well. A shame we will never know.

thedove

Lets talk about a scene that cemented Bond as a different action hero. The film was DN and it was different from anything that had occurred before. One scene in that movie is fondly recalled.

Bond has laid the trap and Professor Dent has walked right in. Thinking he's pulled one over on Bond he foolishly attempts to retrieve his gun. Bond calmly explains that he's had his six. He proceeds to shoot Dent twice. Once in front and then one into the back. However that scene was edited down. As it was shot Bond emptied his six into Dent. Not sure if it was Young, Hunt or EON who decided to edit it to just one shot into the back.

Lets surmise this Mi6. What if the scene was not edited and the version of Bond emptying his rounds into Dent was in the film. Was the right choice made? How would it change the perception of Bond as a hero? Do you think the right choice was made?

What say you Mi6? What if Bond had emptied his rounds into Dent in DN?

MakeshiftPython

I wish I could see that version. My understanding it was British censorship that did it, which is too bad. That kind of dark humor probably would have worked in 1962 as well, with audiences initially being shocked by Bond shooting an unarmed man, but then after six shots it becomes funny not only because it's over the top but that it mirrors the bit with Dent shooting the pillow six times. More poetic that way.


One of the reasons Paul Verhoeven upped the ultra violence in ROBOCOP was because he knew after the violence got so over the top that it becomes less horrific and more absurdly funny.

mtm

I don't think it would change anyone's perception of Bond; it wouldn't really be remembered how many times he shot it. But to be honest it sounds like rather a drag! It would just take longer, and the scene is much snappier with 'THUD! THUD!' and done. Sitting though six of those thuds would be just a bit... tiresome?

MakeshiftPython

I think it would have been humorous. It's pretty obvious from the way the scene is edited that they cut out the additional four shots given how it cuts so quickly from the second. Ever since I've learned that I've never been able to watch the scene without thinking of the edits.

Thunderfinger

It would have made Bond seem less professional.

GadgetMan

I think having Bond shoot less was stylish....maybe this scene even inspired Bond & Dryden's ultra-stylish scene in CR. If Bond had shot Dent multiple times, then it turns into a Sam Peckinpah or John Woo film....maybe that's why John Woo turned down GE, as he knew having Bond in a trench coat, wielding two PPKs & firing multiple times at a Baddie wouldn't seem Bondian. Although, this is stylish in other movies of Peckinpah & Woo....added with their usual slow-motion technique, but the operatic violence doesn't suit Bond.

patb

My take was that this was Bond showing his superiority over Dent. Dent uses 6 bullets when 2/3 would have done, leaving him defenceless. As a trained killer, Bond not only knows the capacity of Dent's gun but uses the correct amount of bullets himself (there could be further bad guys outside) but the dialogue reminds Dent (needlessly) and, therefore, the viewer (pure exposition) of why/how he has gained the upper hand.

The line "You've had your six" would seem strange IMHO, if Bond then used his six on Dent, leaving him in the same exposed position.

thedove

Great points. I think it was a wise decision to have Bond only shoot twice. Great point about making Bond appear to be less professional. I think that is exactly how it would look. Or extra sadistic on a level of lets say Grant who in the very next film is telling Bond the first, second or third shot won't kill him.

Does anyone know who was responsible for making it 2 instead of the full barrage?

MakeshiftPython

Peter Hunt said on commentary tracks that it was the British censors that objected to it, and bringing it to two shots was ultimately a compromise. The whole point of the scene was to hammer in how Bond could be ruthless.

Bond films in the 60s were known for pushing the limits when it came to depictions of sex and violence.

NickTwentyTwo

I know film Bond isn't necessarily always supposed to be Fleming Bond, but it's always nice when the two versions of the character intersect, and... it's very difficult to imagine Fleming Bond emptying a clip into a lifeless body. I'm glad it was just two, and personally, might have preferred just one.

mtm

Although John Gardner was always at pains to tell us how two shots was the most professional way to kill! Just like his thing about shoes when you’re being followed: I swear he put it in every book :D

thedove

I do recall @mtm Gardner did have that in most of his books. :)

I recall someone saying it was a big deal for a hero to be seen shooting someone in the back. Which is what Bond does here. Thanks for the info @MakeshiftPython I had forgotten that those pesky censors were always asking for a trim. Funny how DN is tame today and back in the day I imagine the sex and violence would be high.

MakeshiftPython

Yeah. The idea of heroic stars like Cary Grant, James Stewart, Gary Cooper murdering in cold blood with a one-liner would have been unthinkable. That’s why only an unknown like Connery could pull it off as he wasn’t conscious of his “good guy” image. This paved the way for more anti-heroes like Clint Eastwood as the Man with No Name killing bad guys with no remorse.

thedove

I miss the days of Bond being the trend setter and innovating. (sigh)

This scene is a perfect example of doing something a bit different then what came before. DN really did have long lasting effects.

patb

@MakeshiftPython Actually, Harry was also an expert at counting the bullets

thedove

Wonderful stuff folks! Amazing that firing bullets was censored back in the day.

Lets move on to another scene from another movie. This one is more controversial and may lead to some healthy debate.

Mr. White was last seen in QOS attending an opera with the rest of Quantum. Marc Forrester shot a scene where Bond hunted down White at the end of the movie and he was killed. For whatever reason (maybe someone here knows) the scene was deleted from the movie and White lived to fight another day. He was brought back in SP and was used to bridge Quantum to Spectre. But what if the scene had been left in QOS. White was killed. Would this little change impact SP and make it so Mendes and EON couldn't shoe horn all the films together? Or would they have still found a way to make Quantum part of Spectre? Would the movie of QOS been more fulfilling? Or is it better with White surviving?

What say you Mi6? What if Mr. White had died at the end of QOS?

MakeshiftPython

There's more ramifications to it than just White dying. My understanding is that the original ending functioned as a segue/cliffhanger for Bond 23 with Bond introducing himself to Guy Haines after killing White, but the filmmakers decided it didn't feel right ending the film that way. They decided they wanted to end the film on a note that had more closure with Bond's conflicted feelings over Vesper. Without the cliffhanger, SKYFALL wasn't obligated to follow up on that.

So if they kept the original ending, there might have been an obligation to have Bond 23 pick up where QOS left off, otherwise it would look like EON had just abandoned a dangling cliffhanger. Bond 23 would then be a very different kind of film, and who knows what that would have meant for Bond 24.

Jordo007

Even though I do love Mr White's scene in Spectre, I always wish QOS would have ended with an intense showdown were Bond caught up to Mr White and killed him. It would have been satisfying to see Bond close that chapter, rather than it feel open ended. I remember leaving the theatre after Quantum and just feeling a bit lost and empty like there was a lot we weren't shown. For a sequel it felt too open ended.

Also it would have been great if we would have gotten that scene with Mr White, to have Bond interrogate him and then we the audience learn with Bond how Quantum has been operating in the shadows. Plus it would have been a great bookend to Casino to have the film end with Bond murdering a villain in cold blood. Would have been a real Daniel Craig is now James Bond we know and love moment.

Plus it would have been a better ending for a really interesting, smart villain like Mr White, instead of the lacklustre death in Spectre. The scene was great but I felt bad for him and we shouldn't, it felt like he was plot device to make Blofeld seem more evil, rather than the closing of the Mr White chapter in the Daniel run as Bond.

BT3366

While I can understand the closure on Mr. White at the end of QoS would be satisfying for some, it would make a nice bookend with CR's ending, I can understand his being the elusive nemesis like Blofeld when Quantum was being set up as the modern version of SPECTRE. We all know how it turned out, unfortunately.

No, the closure was Bond getting Kabira and his peace of mind for Vesper. If no Mr. White in SP, then we may have had to get more goofy stepbrother story.

thedove

Oh God @BT3366 that is indeed a scary thought. I'm really torn on this what if. I love Mr. White in SP. "You are a kite in a hurricane Mr. Bond." "I always knew death would come to my door." Great stuff.

However seeing him get what was coming would have been satisfying as well. I remember leaving Quantum and going "so Bond doesn't get the girl, doesn't get to kill any of the villains in the film." hmmm weird. Whereas leaving with Mr. White dead would have at least made Bond feel like he finished things.

I really wish EON hadn't suddenly decided to shoe horn and retrofit all the movies together and to me that's what White's character represents.

echo

My understanding is that the original "kill Mr. White and Guy Haines" ending was a stylistic one, specifically designed to end on the gunbarrel. I'm not sure why they cut it, unless it was to leave a "Mr. White is still out there" vibe. And to be fair, his last line at the opera is a great one.

Had they killed him, SF could still be as is. That's good.

SP would have looked very different without the Whites, obviously. I'm not sure it would have been better, though, as to my mind the problems with SP are more Blofeld-centric (White's scene, and the scenes at L'Americain, and the Madeleine backstory--frankly these are highlights of the film).

I do think a version of SP would have happened, because they got the rights back.

On balance, I come down as: a White-less SP would be even worse. So killing him off in QoS would have been a bad move.

thedove

In many ways EON lucked in to having him available to come back. Not sure whose idea it was to bring CR, QOS and SF all into some connected interwoven Spectre connection. Without White I don't think you could have connected CR or QOS to Spectre.

Does the scene exist? Was it even shot? Or was it simply in a draft that never made it to film?

MakeshiftPython

*double*

MakeshiftPython

Here's an excerpt from Some Kind of Hero with Marc Forster explaining its deletion.

"Ultimately, it wasn't necessary to the story. I didn't feel it served the story to bookend it with Mr. White in the car trunk and then again being assassinated. Also keeping Mr. White alive, not having Bond shoot him, keeps the mystery of the organization alive and I felt that was more interesting than tying up every loose end."

And here are production stills from the scene.






In fact, the video game adaptation actually retains the deleted ending with White ready to kill Guy Haines before Bond comes to rescue him.

AKillToAView

thedove wrote: »

In many ways EON lucked in to having him available to come back. Not sure whose idea it was to bring CR, QOS and SF all into some connected interwoven Spectre connection. Without White I don't think you could have connected CR or QOS to Spectre.

Does the scene exist? Was it even shot? Or was it simply in a draft that never made it to film?

Not only was the scene in the draft that made it to filming, but it was actually shot with a number of alternative outcomes in order to give EON different options. In the end they just decided to cut it altogether.

IGotABrudder

Mr White reminds me, ever so slightly, of the original movie Blofeld: a mystery figure, hardly ever on screen, but who helps to tie together the films.

The casting people made an excellent choice when they cast Jesper Christensen. Nearly every line he says is perfectly delivered and very quotable. Am I right?

Remington

It would've saved my favorite villain of the Craig era from being wasted in SP. As long as they wouldn't have gone with a cliffhanger, I think it would've been a great ending.

thedove

Wow! Very cool. I think @IGotABrudder you are correct he was perfectly cast. I loved the delivery of his lines. Even though his screen time in all three films is extremely limited you can clearly remember his scenes and quote dialogue quite easily.

@Remington I don't mind him in SP. I don't think he was wasted. To me he was just used as a device to bring CR and QOS into the SP plot line. Guess it was strengthened by giving him a daughter.

thedove

Lets discuss something that seems to be more topical now. There has been chatter that EON might be looking to exit Bond and cash out while the franchise has high worth. Apple and even Disney have been linked and interested in buying the property and content and welcoming Bond to streaming.

What if Michael and Barbra decide NTTD is the last Bond film they will have a hand in. They sell to a streaming service. What would this do to the franchise? Would you enjoy seeing a Felix Leiter movie or series? Maybe a Moneypenny diaries? What say you Mi6? What if Bond went to exclusively streaming with no more theatrical releases?