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

1525355575863

Comments

  • Posts: 7,510
    BT3366 wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Already told this to @thedove through PM.

    Let's move on from another What If.....

    It's an interesting trivia of how the Union Jack Ski Parachute in TSWLM was actually originated from Lazenby himself, having it as his meant for a scene in OHMSS, but lack of materials prevented them from doing so, it's not until after 7 years that they could've used it in another Bond film, TSWLM, the tragedy was, he's not credited for this scene when it's should be.
    The famous parachute ski jump stunt during the film's pre-title sequence was originally suggested by one-time Bond George Lazenby for On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but the necessary equipment to film it was not available then. It was something the Bond producers thought would've been a great idea, and had earmarked to use at the first possible opportunity. The Union Jack added in at Lewis Gilbert's request, to really signify the Britishness of Bond from right out the gate.

    So here's my what if, What If the Union Jack Ski Parachute was used in OHMSS as Lazenby originally intended?

    Is this right? The story I'd read was that Cubby saw an ad with skier Rick Sylvester that was somewhat faked for the ad but Cubby was inspired to try the stunt for real for TSWLM.

    I heard that version too! Though I believe it was Michael Wilson, not Cubby, who saw it!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,312
    I'm pretty sure Lazenby's stories need to be taken with a grain of salt.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,791
    echo wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Lazenby's stories need to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Actually, it's been there years ago, it's even in IMDB

    The Rick Sylvester thing is something I couldn't see anywhere.

    But in all of the TSWLM trivias everywhere, they're all consistent: that stunt came from Lazenby.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,435
    I think I've only ever heard the MGW-seeing-it-in-a-Playboy-ad version too: never seen it acknowledged to Lazenby.

    18182_217291841739162_1901099114_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=86hZ4ye-lSMAX_hVEQS&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr8-2.xx&oh=00_AfDX1PHlDvuT58rjoiofkMyLfZyvyILknaQ47TiQcWJQ-A&oe=64A7FB12
  • Posts: 4,181
    The panels from that ad do look uncannily like the ski jump from TSWLM, granted.

    To be honest though, I suspect it's not a case where Lazenby 'came up with the stunt' but more a gradual process that resulted in the stunt we know today. During the OHMSS shoot Lazenby says something like 'wouldn't it be cool if Bond managed to get a parachute and jump off a cliff in this scene?' but they don't have the budget. Cubby keeps it in the back of his mind and maybe sees an ad or something that inspires him to incorporate it into a bigger budget Bond film. Gilbert during a pre-production meeting says 'wouldn't it be cool if Bond's parachute was a Union Jack?' and this gets further included.

    So in that sense it can't necessarily be attributed to one individual. That's rarely how these things work.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,435
    I guess it's possible, Wilson does seem fairly sure it was his thought though (7.56 in):



  • Posts: 4,181
    Ah, so it was Christopher Wood who came up with the Union Jack idea, not Gilbert. Interesting stuff.

    Who knows at the end of the day. It's perfectly possible Lazenby might have proposed a similar idea. Like I said though it wouldn't have been the stunt we know here if it had been included in OHMSS and there's more than one single influence at play.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,143
    echo wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Lazenby's stories need to be taken with a grain of salt.

    I've seen George speak several times, and more than twice, his stories have been different from the last. He's got some good stories, and he's a bit of a showman. But not all that he says is true.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,435
    The weird thing is they say he didn't do it for real for the ad, but Sylvester himself seems to say that the fake thing about it is the background, which had Baffin Island substituted in (I guess because it was an ad for Canadian whisky), but he was jumping off El Capitan, and says it was a skiBASE jump.

    https://www.facebook.com/RickSylvesterJamesBondStuntman/photos/once-upon-a-timerick-will-fill-in-the-rest-of-all-the-details/217291841739162/?paipv=0&eav=AfZNWb3gUaXigMYWpmx-SKKxwXIAuKKbDRgdxqHsuVLRGvvcIhyjFG2sniPaNYX-W6Y&_rdr

    I think the stories all get a bit muddled.

    Quite a fun article about Sylvester making the very first ski-BASE jump at El Capitan in '72.



    Might be fun for a new Bond to do it in reverse next time: jump out of a plane with a parachute and land on skis to infiltrate somewhere or other. This is pretty exciting:


  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    True, with Lazenby, the magic is in the telling not the precision of what he's saying. We've all probably met a bullsh*tter who we know is indulging in tall tales but we listen anyway because they're funny as, right? George is that guy.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,024
    If Roger Moore had not been available to play Bond in 1973, we might have had season two of The Persuaders! That would have been fun.

    Perhaps they could've had some longer stories for that season-- Danny and Brett fighting a crime syndicate or something, over the course of several episodes. And of course, an episode in which they visited Danny's old stomping grounds-- the neighborhood where he grew up, etc. We got a sense of that in the episode Angie...Angie. But they didn't go to the US, which would have been nice, at least in the sense of getting a more visual feel for the world Danny inhabited.

    They could have even visited other places. Asia, Africa, South America, whatever. This was an expensive show to make, though, and that would have made it even more expensive, and less appealing to continue to produce.

    Sorry, for a moment, I forgot this isn't the message board for The Persuaders!
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,791
    mattjoes wrote: »
    If Roger Moore had not been available to play Bond in 1973, we might have had season two of The Persuaders! That would have been fun.

    Perhaps they could've had some longer stories for that season-- Danny and Brett fighting a crime syndicate or something, over the course of several episodes. And of course, an episode in which they visited Danny's old stomping grounds-- the neighborhood where he grew up, etc. We got a sense of that in the episode Angie...Angie. But they didn't go to the US, which would have been nice, at least in the sense of getting a more visual feel for the world Danny inhabited.

    They could have even visited other places. Asia, Africa, South America, whatever. This was an expensive show to make, though, and that would have made it even more expensive, and less appealing to continue to produce.

    Sorry, for a moment, I forgot this isn't the message board for The Persuaders!

    No, no that's fine, that's actually the response I'm also waiting for! 😊

    It's an interesting show and I fell in love with it since the first watch, and of course exploring Danny's world would also be great, like having Brett be a fish out of the water in America, exploring their culture, imagine Brett Sinclair coming to New York and get lost in it? That would have been fun!

    I really liked to see the Season 2 of the Persuaders, what would have been it looked like, how it would've played out, it's an interesting show.

    And Angie Angie is also one of my favorite episodes because it explored Danny's world in a more deeper way moreso than any other.

    And not just that, imagine having a villain who within Danny Wilde's business? I mean he owned an Oil Business, if there were episodes threatening the Aristocracy of Brett Sinclair (Death In The Family, and Greensleeves), perhaps we could have the same with Danny Wilde? Maybe a villain who's greed and wants to take over Danny Wilde's business? So Sinclair must help Danny Wilde save his company from that greedy villain? Man that would have been cool!

    I really want to see some elaboration regarding Danny Wilde's Oil Business, I think that aspect was a lot more dangerous, since he spent most of his lifetime in Europe, leaving his business behind, so it's not impossible for a greed man (maybe a member of the board) to have the opportunity to take over.

    And seeing Danny Wilde's house in America? Even bringing Judge Fulton in America? It would have been cool to see!

    I think with America getting a recognition in the series would make it successful in America, since The Persuaders failed in America at the time, it did well in Europe, Asia and Australia, but it never did well in America, so seeing America got involved in some episodes would give the show strength in the US.

    Then if it's happened, the budget for the show's production would have been bigger and that means, more wider film locations.

    It's a shame.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,024
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    And not just that, imagine having a villain who within Danny Wilde's business? I mean he owned an Oil Business, if there were episodes threatening the Aristocracy of Brett Sinclair (Death In The Family, and Greensleeves), perhaps we could have the same with Danny Wilde? Maybe a villain who's greed and wants to take over Danny Wilde's business? So Sinclair must help Danny Wilde save his company from that greedy villain? Man that would have been cool!

    I really want to see some elaboration regarding Danny Wilde's Oil Business, I think that aspect was a lot more dangerous, since he spent most of his lifetime in Europe, leaving his business behind, so it's not impossible for a greed man (maybe a member of the board) to have the opportunity to take over.
    Sounds great!

    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    And seeing Danny Wilde's house in America? Even bringing Judge Fulton in America? It would have been cool to see!
    Speaking of Fulton, I would have loved to know more about his past.

    And it would've been nice to get a new arrangement of the theme music, to distinguish the second season from the previous one.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,791
    mattjoes wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    And not just that, imagine having a villain who within Danny Wilde's business? I mean he owned an Oil Business, if there were episodes threatening the Aristocracy of Brett Sinclair (Death In The Family, and Greensleeves), perhaps we could have the same with Danny Wilde? Maybe a villain who's greed and wants to take over Danny Wilde's business? So Sinclair must help Danny Wilde save his company from that greedy villain? Man that would have been cool!

    I really want to see some elaboration regarding Danny Wilde's Oil Business, I think that aspect was a lot more dangerous, since he spent most of his lifetime in Europe, leaving his business behind, so it's not impossible for a greed man (maybe a member of the board) to have the opportunity to take over.
    Sounds great!

    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    And seeing Danny Wilde's house in America? Even bringing Judge Fulton in America? It would have been cool to see!
    Speaking of Fulton, I would have loved to know more about his past.

    And it would've been nice to get a new arrangement of the theme music, to distinguish the second season from the previous one.

    Yes, yes! I agree! I'd also liked to see an episode about Fulton's past too, like did he have a wife or maybe a child? Perhaps his daughter whom Danny and Brett would court or woo? But Fulton would threaten them to keep their hands off his daughter 😅

    And of course, new title sequence too!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,435
    The Persuaders in NYC would have been great. I think it was a thought to do a series 2 in the US, I'm not sure where exactly though.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,791
    mtm wrote: »
    The Persuaders in NYC would have been great. I think it was a thought to do a series 2 in the US, I'm not sure where exactly though.

    Agreed!
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,143
    And who doesn't love The Persuaders?

    Of course, there is a dedicated thread for such things...
    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/3097/together-theyre-dynamite-the-persuaders-appreciation-thread/p3

    Please continue any further Wilde and Sinclair discussion in the link above.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,441
    Great discussion and a new appreciation for The Persuaders!

    Okay folks lets dive into another great casting choice, or almost a great casting choice. Seems that Sir Anthony Hopkins was approached about playing 006 in GE. The part eventually went to Sean Bean. I think it works better that 006 is similliar in age to Bond and that fight at the end is a cracker!

    Seems the producers weren't finished with trying to get Hopkins to assume the role of a Bond baddie and went about tailoring the script of TND to him. Elliot Carver was a role written for Hopkins and nearly succeeded in getting him to agree to star. The legend I have heard is Dame Judi Dench made an off hand comment about the lack of a finished script to Hopkins at a party. He called the producers and told them he was out. Not sure if it's true but it is well documented that TND was being written on the fly as the film was being shot.

    So dear Mi6 community members. What if Anthony Hopkins had been cast as Elliot Carver in TND? Would it improve the film or character? Would he brought more to the role than Jonathan Pryce?

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,829
    Jonathan Pryce as Carver is a favorite. No pursuit of improvement required.

    Hopkins would make a grand Bond villain. What comes to mind for me is that his 1997 TND casting would trigger a change to the Bondstream for content of 2012 SF.


    image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F6%2F2021%2F09%2F24%2FSKYFALL-03.jpg
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 4,181
    I might be in the minority with this, but I actually don't think Hopkins would have done the Carver character as much justice as Pryce did.

    Hopkins is a magnificent actor, and it's a shame he never got to play a Bond villain, but one of the interesting things about Pryce's Carver is that he's actually a rather benevolent looking figure. One can even imagine him being viewed as trustworthy by the general public. Scratch beneath the surface, however, and you find that he's a complete megalomaniac, obsessed with becoming a 'great man' even if it means destroying the world in the process. I've always felt it's a pretty cool comment on how some of the most powerful (and even dangerous) people in the media or in politics aren't sinister men with eye scars and cats, but actually rather ordinary looking people with selfish ambitions and a lack of empathy, striving towards a twisted definition of greatness. In its own way it's actually kind of frightening.

    The issue with Hopkins is that he's a very intense actor and wouldn't have projected that same superficial benevolence. We wouldn't have gotten the image of a small man with a dangerous God Complex, but a Nero-like figure obsessed with creating a phoney war. Given how outlandish Carver's plan is, it may even have backfired and made the character come off as unintentionally hammy (again, Hopkins is a great actor, but he has phoned in performances on such films before). I'm sure Hopkins could have (and I suppose still could) have played a great Bond villain, but this wouldn't have been the right role for him.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,024
    I'll join the growing sentiment and say that a) Hopkins wouldn't have necessarily been an improvement over my main man Jonathan Pryce, and b) Hopkins could have played, and still could play, a great Bond villain. Get on it, EON Productions, especially now that he's a recent Oscar winner!
  • Posts: 15,137
    007HallY wrote: »
    I might be in the minority with this, but I actually don't think Hopkins would have done the Carver character as much justice as Pryce did.

    Hopkins is a magnificent actor, and it's a shame he never got to play a Bond villain, but one of the interesting things about Pryce's Carver is that he's actually a rather benevolent looking figure. One can even imagine him being viewed as trustworthy by the general public. Scratch beneath the surface, however, and you find that he's a complete megalomaniac, obsessed with becoming a 'great man' even if it means destroying the world in the process. I've always felt it's a pretty cool comment on how some of the most powerful (and even dangerous) people in the media or in politics aren't sinister men with eye scars and cats, but actually rather ordinary looking people with selfish ambitions and a lack of empathy, striving towards a twisted definition of greatness. In its own way it's actually kind of frightening.

    The issue with Hopkins is that he's a very intense actor and wouldn't have projected that same superficial benevolence. We wouldn't have gotten the image of a small man with a dangerous God Complex, but a Nero-like figure obsessed with creating a phoney war. Given how outlandish Carver's plan is, it may even have backfired and made the character come off as unintentionally hammy (again, Hopkins is a great actor, but he has phoned in performances on such films before). I'm sure Hopkins could have (and I suppose still could) have played a great Bond villain, but this wouldn't have been the right role for him.

    I agree. Hopkins as a Trevelyan written as Bond's former mentor in GE? Great idea. Hopkins as Carver? Not so much. The character had its flaws, but it was due to the writing. I always thought he lacked menace but was entertaining. Pryce's voice gives him a slimy, malevolent edge I don't think Hopkins could have pulled.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,791
    If there's a character I see that Hopkins could've played, it's Le Chiffre, I think he would've made it closer to Fleming's version.

    More like that of Peter Lorre's version.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,435
    007HallY wrote: »
    I might be in the minority with this, but I actually don't think Hopkins would have done the Carver character as much justice as Pryce did.

    Hopkins is a magnificent actor, and it's a shame he never got to play a Bond villain, but one of the interesting things about Pryce's Carver is that he's actually a rather benevolent looking figure. One can even imagine him being viewed as trustworthy by the general public. Scratch beneath the surface, however, and you find that he's a complete megalomaniac, obsessed with becoming a 'great man' even if it means destroying the world in the process. I've always felt it's a pretty cool comment on how some of the most powerful (and even dangerous) people in the media or in politics aren't sinister men with eye scars and cats, but actually rather ordinary looking people with selfish ambitions and a lack of empathy, striving towards a twisted definition of greatness. In its own way it's actually kind of frightening.

    The issue with Hopkins is that he's a very intense actor and wouldn't have projected that same superficial benevolence. We wouldn't have gotten the image of a small man with a dangerous God Complex, but a Nero-like figure obsessed with creating a phoney war. Given how outlandish Carver's plan is, it may even have backfired and made the character come off as unintentionally hammy (again, Hopkins is a great actor, but he has phoned in performances on such films before). I'm sure Hopkins could have (and I suppose still could) have played a great Bond villain, but this wouldn't have been the right role for him.

    Really interesting thoughts. I love Pryce generally but I don't think he quite lands the villain side of it in this, but it's an interesting thought that Hopkins may not have done Carver's public face as well, or have projected the same small man pettiness.
    I don't know to be honest. I tend to come down on the side of the fence that Hopkins is always watchable and probably would have been pretty enjoyable and probably a touch better than Pryce. I guess potentially he could have dragged eyes away from Brosnan himself, as he was starring in big movies at this point, not just playing supporting roles.
    I guess there's also a danger he might have chosen to play it with an Aussie accent to make the connection even more obvious, and then it really would have been ruined! :D
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,641
    I think we did this question awhile ago, honestly. But great to visit it again! I think in some ways Elliot Carver was the public version of Blofeld for the 90s. As for Hopkins playing Carver, I think he could have played the same as Pryce in more ways than more. Calm and charming in public, deliciously evil and vengeful behind the scenes. Another person that I could see playing Carver well is Malcolm McDowell. It's a shame that he also never played a Bond villain.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,435
    Yeah McDowell would have been a cracking villain.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,222
    Hopkins would have been an improvement; Price is fine but his take is a bit too campy at times. Also, as has been mentioned by others, Monica Bellucci would have been outstanding as Paris.
  • Posts: 15,137
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think we did this question awhile ago, honestly. But great to visit it again! I think in some ways Elliot Carver was the public version of Blofeld for the 90s. As for Hopkins playing Carver, I think he could have played the same as Pryce in more ways than more. Calm and charming in public, deliciously evil and vengeful behind the scenes. Another person that I could see playing Carver well is Malcolm McDowell. It's a shame that he also never played a Bond villain.

    I love McDowell as I'm a big Clockwork Orange fan. That said I'm not sure he'd have worked as a Bond villain. By his own admission he looks at the salary before he looks at the quality of a project. So he could have phoned it in, unless of course he thought the script was great.
  • Posts: 4,181
    If we're suggesting 'old grey haired men who could have played a good Bond villain but didn't' I'd also throw in Terrence Stamp or Frank Langella.

    It's interesting that we've not had such an actor play a Bond villain. As others have said perhaps it requires the right role (a sort of Travelyan-esque mentor figure or an older mirror image of Bond perhaps).
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,791
    Now, I really see Hopkins as Le Chiffre, he's the one from the novel, not to knock it against Mads Mikkelsen, but Hopkins could've made Le Chiffre more of a commanding villain, more threatening in my opinion.

    More badass and and a bit of a snob, more like Fleming's version.
Sign In or Register to comment.